The Supreme Court reiterated that a person can raise a claim of juvenility even after the conclusion of criminal proceedings. In Mahavir @ Avnish v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the Court considered evidence concerning the appellant's age on the date of the alleged offence and found that he was below 18 years. The Court treated juvenility as a jurisdictional fact because the status of the accused at the time of the offence determines the applicability of the Juvenile Justice framework. The Court held that the passage of time or finality of earlier proceedings does not by itself prevent consideration of a genuine juvenility claim. The judgment also considered the conviction under Section 201 IPC and held that the offence of causing disappearance of evidence cannot be sustained independently when the prosecution has failed to establish the underlying offence. The decision reinforces the protective nature of juvenile justice law and the principle that children must be dealt with under the statutory framework applicable to juveniles. It is relevant to age determination, Section 7A of the Juvenile Justice Act and jurisdiction of criminal courts.