decisions simply set aside the sentence awarded to the juvenile without interfering with the conviction recorded by the court concerned and thereby complied with the mandate of Section 7-A(2) of the Act.” 24. Similar view was taken by a two-Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Mahesh vs. State of Rajasthan and others6, wherein this Court confirmed the conviction. However, the sentence imposed was modified to the period undergone. The aforesaid judgment relies upon the law laid down in the case of Jitendra (supra). After framing the issue as to whether the validity/correctness of the conviction recorded by Trial Court could be maintained, this Court proceeded to give due consideration in paragraph nos. 4, 5 and 6 of the judgment. Thereafter the Bench proceeded to consider the merits of the conviction and upheld the same in paragraph no.7. Paragraph nos. 4 to 7 of the report are reproduced hereunder: “4. In the aforesaid facts, two questions arise for determination in the present appeals before us. The 6 (2018) SCCOnline SC 3655 27