1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. JUDGMENT Kala @ Dataram @ Kalu Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Appeal No.1114/2009) S.B. Criminal Appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. Date of Judgment: December 10, 2010 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.S. CHAUHAN Mr.Anurag Sharma, for the appellant. Mr.Javed Chaudhary, Public Prosecutor. BY THE COURT: The appellant has challenged the judgment dated 15.10.2009, passed by the Additional Session Judge (Fast Track) Kishangarhbas, Alwar, whereby the learned Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant for offences under Sections 147, and 307 read with Section 149 IPC. The learned Judge has sentenced him to six months of simple imprisonment for offence under Section 147 IPC, and for three years of simple imprisonment for offence under Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC, and has imposed a fine of Rs.2,000/- upon him, and to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months in default thereof. However, during the course of pendency of this appeal, an application, application 2 No.7614/2010, has been filed by the appellant, wherein he has prayed that his age should be determined as on the date of the occurrence. For, according to him, he was a juvenile on the said date. The said application was allowed by this Court vide order dated 18.8.2010. This Court had directed the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Kishangarhbas, District Alwar to determine the age of the appellant and to immediately send the report to this Court. Consequently, the learned Judge has sent his report. According to the report, on 14.09.2003, the appellant was fifteen years, two months, and eight days old when the incident had occurred. Thus, obviously, he was a juvenile on the date of the occurrence. On the basis of the report submitted by the learned Judge, the learned counsel for the appellant pleads that the case should be remanded back to the Juvenile Justice Board on the question of sentence. He further contends that although the appellant is adult by now, but, he was juvenile at the time of occurrence. The trial, in fact, should have been held by the Juvenile Justice board, and not by the regular criminal court. Although the evidence has been recorded by the learned trial court, the learned trial court could not have imposed a sentence of three years of simple 3 imprisonment for offence under Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC. Therefore, the case should be sent back to the Juvenile Justice Board on the question of sentence. The learned Public Prosecutor has frankly conceded, and in the opinion of this Court, rightly so, that during the trial the appellant was a juvenile, and sentence could only be tried by the Juvenile Justice board. Therefore, this Court quashes and sets aside the judgment dated 15.10.2009 on the point of sentence, and remands the case back to the Juvenile Justice Board to hear the appellant on the point of sentence and to pass the necessary order, in accordance with the provisions of Juvenile Justice Act. With these observations, this appeal is allowed. (R.S. CHAUHAN) J. Manoj solanki