observed that the documents are not sufficient to determine the question of juvenility of the appellant, but she has not recorded any finding on the aforesaid question. Likewise, the learned Divisions Bench has also not decided the question of juvenility of the appellant by the order dated 10-01-2018, but has left the matter open for being decided at an appropriate stage. If the date of birth of the appellant, as projected in the school certificate, is taken to be 09-04-1992, then on the date of occurrence, i.e., on 27-07-2008, the appellant was certainly a juvenile in conflict with law. The confusion in this case appears to have arisen on account of the fact that the certificate dated 22-10-2016 also mentions, “his age is 24 years 6 months 13 days”. However, from an proper reading of the certificate, we are of the view that the aforesaid age refers to the age of the appellant on the date of issuance of the certificate and not on 09-04-1992. The above position is clear from plain reading of Ext.1, School Certificate, and, therefore, does not create any inconsistency or doubt as regards his date of birth. In other words, the School Certificate makes it amply clear that the appellant was a juvenile on the date of commission of the offence and, therefore, his conviction under Section 302 of the IPC and the sentence imposed thereupon by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Barpeta by the judgment and order dated 07-06-2017 is unsustainable in the eye of law. The conviction of the appellant is, therefore, set aside. Consequently, the sentence is also interfered with. The matter is remanded to the learned Juvenile Justice Board to proceed in accordance with law.
