We would again record that Satya Deo was less than 18 years of age on the date of commission of offence and this remains undisputed and unchallenged. 20. Satya Deo has undergone incarceration for more than 2 years thus far. In Mumtaz @ Muntyaz (supra), dealing with quantum and nature of punishment which should be given to a person who was a juvenile on the date of commission of offence, this court, while placing reliance upon an earlier decision in Jitendra Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh11 , had held: 22. It is thus well settled that in terms of Section 20 of the 2000 Act, in all cases where the accused was above 16 years but below 18 years of age on the date of occurrence, the proceedings pending in the court would continue and be taken to the logical end subject to an exception that upon finding the juvenile to be guilty, the court would not pass an order of sentence against him but the juvenile would be referred to the Board for appropriate orders under the 2000 Act. What kind of order could be passed in a matter where claim of juvenility came to be accepted in a situation similar to the present case, was dealt with by this Court in Jitendra Singh v. State of U.P. [Jitendra Singh v. State of U.P., (2013) 11 SCC 193 : (2013) 4 SCC (Cri) 725] in the following terms: (SCC pp. 210-11, para 32) “32. A perusal of the “punishments” provided for under the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 indicate that given the nature of the offence committed by the appellant, advising or admonishing him [clause (a)] is hardly a “punishment” that can be awarded since it is not at all commensurate with the gravity of the crime. Similarly, considering his age of about 40 years, it is completely illusory to 11 (2013) 11 SCC 193 Criminal Appeal No. 860 of 2019 Page 22 of 24 expect the appellant to be released on probation of good conduct, to be placed under the care of any parent, guardian or fit person [clause (b)]. For the same reason, the appellant cannot be released on probation of good conduct under the care of a fit institution [clause (c)] nor can he be sent to a special home under Section 10 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 which is intended to be for the rehabilitation and reformation of delinquent juveniles [clause (d)]. The only realistic punishment that can possibly be awarded to the appellant on the facts of this case is to require him to pay a fine under clause (e) of Section 21(1) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986.” 21. Following the aforesaid ratio and the legal position elucidated above, while we uphold the conviction of Satya Deo, we would set aside the sentence of life imprisonment. We would remit the matter to the jurisdiction of the Board for passing appropriate order/directions under Section 15 of the 2000 Act including the question of determination and payment of appropriate quantum of fine and the compensation to be awarded to the family of the deceased. We make no affirmative or negative comments either way on the order/direction under Section 15 of the 2000 Act. 22. We would, accordingly, direct the jail authorities to produce Satya Deo before the Board within seven days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Board shall then pass appropriate order regarding detention and custody and proceed thereafter to pass order/directions under the 2000 Act. Criminal Appeal No. 860 of 2019 Page 23 of 24 23. The appeal filed by the Satya Deo is partly allowed in the aforesaid terms and all the pending application are disposed of.