The Court affirmed that age determination for juvenility relies on the 2000 Act, recognizing the applicability of juvenile protections, while maintaining that direct evidence suffices for conviction despite minor discrepancies.

1. This is an appeal by way of special leave under Art.136 of the Constitution against the judgment dated 08.06.2005 of the Gauhati High Court, Agartala Bench, in Criminal Appeal No. 22 of 2004.

2. The facts very briefly are that on 09.10.1998, Ashutosh took out his cows for grazing but did not return home till dusk and his cousin, Kripesh, along with others searched for Ashutosh but could not find him. On the next day (10.10.1998) at about 8.30 a.m., he again went out looking for Ashutosh and found his dead body with injuries lying in a jungle at Nalia Tilla. Kripesh then lodged an FIR at the Panisagar Police Station and the police registered a case and held an inquest over the dead body of the deceased. In course of the investigation, the police apprehended Pranajit, who was working as a labourer under Ashutosh and Kripesh, from District Cachar and brought him to Dharamnagar and during interrogation Pranajit disclosed that Ashutosh had been killed by the two appellants. The statement of Pranajit was also recorded under S.164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') and on completion of the investigation, the police filed charge - sheet against the appellants.

3. At the trial, the prosecution examined a total of 19 witnesses. Kripesh, the informant, was examined as PW - 1, Patal, the elder brother of Pranajit, was examined as PW - 2 and he stated that PW - 13 had disclosed to him that the appellants assaulted the deceased by an axe and a lathi. Pranajit was examined as PW - 13 and he has stated that he had gone along with the deceased to graze cows at Nalia Tilla and the appellant no.1 had dealt an axe blow on the deceased while the appellant no.2 dealt a lathi blow on him. The appellants did not produce any evidence in their defence. The trial court convicted the appellants under S.302 read with S.34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'the IPC ') and sentenced them to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.5000/- each and in default, to undergo further imprisonment for a period of one year. The appellants filed Criminal Appeal No. 22 of 2004 before the High Court, but by the impugned judgment the High Court maintained the conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeal.

4. Mr. Lalit Chauhan, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, submitted that on 09.10.1998 when the offence was alleged to have been committed, the appellant no.2, Paritosh, was less than 18 years of age and was, therefore, a juvenile within the meaning of S.2(k) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (for short 'the 2000 Act'). He relied on the copy of the primary education certificate issued by the Teacher - in - charge of West Bilthai S.B. School, Dharmanagar, Tripura (N), to show that the date of birth of the appellant no.2 was 28.05.1983. He submitted that accordingly his age was about 16 years on 09.10.1998, the date on which the offence was committed. He submitted that the trial court and the High Court, however, took the view that the provisions of the 2000 Act would not apply to the offence which was committed on 09.10.1998 and instead the provisions of Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 (for short 'the 1986 Act') would apply and under the 1986 Act only a person who is shown to be less than 16 years of age at the time of the commission of the offence is a juvenile and it was satisfactorily proved that the appellant no.2 was 16 years of age on the date of commission of the offence. He submitted that in Hari Ram v. State of Rajasthan and Another, 2009 (13) SCC 211 , this Court has taken a view that a