JUDGMENT :

NUTAN D. SARDESSAI, J.

1. This appeal takes exception to the judgment of conviction rendered by the Children's Court, Panaji pursuant to which it held the appellants guilty of the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 8(2) and 8(9) of the Goa Children's Act, 2003 (the Act, for short). The parties would be referred as the appellants and the State for brevity's sake hereinafter.

2. The State had filed the chargesheet against the accused on the premise that about 16 months prior to 30/11/2006 the accused no.2 had introduced the two minor girls to work as maids in the house of the appellants who thereafter kept them with him, not being related to him by blood without prior written permission of the Director as per the requirements of the said Act and had wrongfully confined the victim, the second appellant assaulted the victim no.1 and thereby committed an offence under Sections 342, 323 r/w. 34 IPC and Section 8(9) of the said Act. The prosecution in support of its case examined 12 witnesses while the appellants examined the second appellant as their witness in defence and closed their case after denying the case of the prosecution as put to them in their statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC.

3. The learned Children's Court on the basis of the material on record came to hold the accused guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 342 and 323 IPC r/w. 8(2) of the Act and for the offences punishable under Section 8(9) of the Act and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for a term of three years and to pay the fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- each, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year each, for the offence punishable under Section 8(2) of the said Act and to undergo simple imprisonment for a term of three years each to pay the fine of Rs. 5,000/- each and in default to undergo one year each for the offence punishable under Section 8(9) of the Act each and which sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the fine amount ordered to be paid to both the victim girls in equal shares.

4. Heard Shri S.D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Advocate on behalf of the appellant who adverted to the FIR and submitted that in view of the clear assertion therein that the two named girls, one being a minor and the other bordering majority, were introduced to work as maids through D. Tiklo more than 16 months back and therefore the provisions of the Act as it was enacted applied to the case of the appellants and not as it stood amended subsequent to the amendment Act of 2005. On that basis alone it was his contention that both the victim girls were major in age at the time of the alleged commission of the offences and therefore the Children's Court lacked the jurisdiction to deal with the matter and as a consequence thereof the judgment of conviction was vitiated and they were entitled to a clean acquittal on that premise alone.

5. It was next the contention of Shri Lotlikar, learned Senior Advocate that the only evidence relied upon to establish the minority of the victim girls was the opinion of the Doctor and the Election Identity Card of one of the victim girls which was admittedly prepared much after the date of the alleged offence. There was no such evidence in respect of the second victim even in the nature of an Election Identity Card and apart from the testimony of the Doctor, there was no independent witness on the age of the second victim girl. The determination of the age was very crucial and in the absence thereof and consequently as the victims were not minors, the Children's Court lacked the jurisdiction, and the jurisdiction, if any, vested was with the regular Criminal Court. It was incumbent upon the prosecution to prove the age of both the victim girls beyond all reasonable doubt.

6. Shri S.D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Advocate next adverted to the testimony of Dr. Ghodkirekar Pw8 and that of the victims and submitted that their testimony did not at all inspire confidence on the a