Juveniles must be tried under juvenile laws, and prison sentences cannot exceed statutory limits for juveniles. The appeal allowed the convict's release.

1. The instant criminal appeal is filed by the appellant, challenging the judgment dated 29-6-2005 passed by learned Addl. Session Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar in Case No. ST 57 (NT / D) of 2004 and the order of sentence dated 30-6-2005 in the aforesaid Sessions Trial case wherein after considering the evidence on record the appellant was convicted under S.302, IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, i.e. to make payment of fine to suffer further RI for six months.

2. Heard Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. D. Sarkar, learned Public Prosecutor for the State - respondent.

3. When the appeal was pending a plea of juvenility was taken up by the appellant in a criminal miscellaneous case being No. Crl. Misc. Case No. 95/2012, wherein he also prayed for adducing additional evidence to prove his plea of juvenility. This Court vide order dated 5-6-2012 in the aforesaid Crl. M. Application directed the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar to submit his report after conducting a proper inquiry on the plea of juvenility of the convict appellant. In the said order it was also mentioned that at the time of inquiry, learned Addl. Sessions Judge would also examine the Head Master of the Pearacherra TE High School who had issued the certificate dated 23-12-2011. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge was also directed to examine the Admission Register of the School relating to the convict - appellant or any other document as he thinks fit and proper for deciding the issue.

4. In terms of the order dated 5-6-2012 of this Court, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge submitted his report on 25th June, 2012 along with the photocopy of the Admission Register as well as the statements of the Head Master Md. Abdul Mumin who was examined on 14-6-2012.

5. In his report the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, after considering the evidence of the Head Master of Pearacherra TE High School and the Admission Register, came to the conclusion that the date of birth of the appellant Sri Dipak Nama is 13-9-1986 and the date of commission of alleged offence is 10-5-2004. Thus, the appellant was a juvenile when the alleged offence occurred as he had not completed 18 years of age on the date of occurrence of the offence.

6. Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, in support of the plea of juvenility of the appellant would contend that the appellant although within the meaning of juvenile as contained in Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (for short, Act, 2000) but he was tried by a regular Court which is totally impermissible under law and moreso, appellant has also undergone more than 7 years of imprisonment despite maximum of 3 years in Special Home, could have been passed under sub-clause (g) of sub-section (1) of S.15 of the Act, 2000.

7. He further submits that in view of the provisions of S.7A of the Act, 2000 read with R.12 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 (for short, Rules, 2000) appellant is entitled to take the plea of juvenility of any stage and before any Court if the case is pending. He also stated that when a juvenile is in imprisonment and suffering sentence passed by a regular Court, in that case, the Court has the power to release such juvenile setting aside the order of sentence. In support of his aforesaid contention he has placed reliance on a judgment of the Apex Court in Mohan Mali v. State of M.P. , AIR 2010 SC 1790 wherein the Apex Court considered a similar situation and noted, inter alia, "Having regard to the fact that the appellant No. 2 - Dhanna Lal, was a minor on the date of c