The court considered the age of the accused and the absence of reformatory provisions in the district to justify a reduced sentence for a juvenile offender.

1. - This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sikar dated 20-12-1976, whereby the accused-appellant has been convicted under Section 376, IPC and sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment.

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the prosecutrix Smt. Shanli, aged 12 years had gone with the cattle-heads for grazing them. Accused-appellant Dharma, who is 16 years of age, caught hold of Smt. Slianti in his arms and took her to a nearby place and forcibly committed rape on her. As a result of the rape blood ozed out from her private parts, and her clothes were smeared with blood. The Medical Officer, Dr. J.S. Dhaka, 1, has opened that the hymen was ruptured and that rape was committed over this girl. On medical examination the presence of spermatozoa was also found in the vagina.

3. The learned counsel for the accused-appellant has only restricted his submission on the quantum of sentence. He has strenuously argued that the boy is only 16 years of age and that no useful purpose would be served by turning him into a hardened criminal. It was also contended that it was an immature act by a young boy, who did not very much realise the consequences of his deed. It was also contended that being of an immature mind the boy was moved by physical and biological urge. It was also contended that the girl is 51/2' 11/2 in hight, though her breasts were not developed and public and auxiliary heir were absent. It was also contended that the boy and the girl are neighbours and that they had their fields close-by. Under these circumstances, the learned counsel for the accused-appellant has strenuously argued that a lenient view may be taken and looking to the latest trend in the penology this boy may not be turned into a hardened criminal. It was also contended that the Child Act does not apply to the District of Sikar, as it applies to other districts of Rajasthan. If this Act had applied the appellant would have been entitled to the benefits of the reformatory provisions contained in the Children's Act. The learned counsel for the accused-appellant has relied on Kakoo v. State of H. P., AIR 1976 SC 1991 In this case a boy of 13 years committed rape over a girl of two years. The lower Court sentenced him to four years rigorous imprisonment. The Supreme Court reduced the sentence to one year's rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2000/-. It was further directed that if the tine is realised it shall be paid as compensation to the mother of the girl.

4. The learned Public Prosecutor contended that the conviction of the accused-appellant sis justified. He, however did not seriously challenge the leniency in the quantum of sentence. In Kakoo v. State of H.P.,(1) AIR 1976 SC 1991 , The Supreme Court has observed as under:-

"While the sordid features of the case, including the sadistic manner in which the crime was committed by their instinctics reaction tend to steal the heart of law for a sterner sentence, we cannot overlook the stark fact that at the time of commission of the offence, the appellant was 13 years of age. An inordinately long prison term is sure to turn him into an obdurate criminal. In the case of child offenders, current penological trends command a more humanitarian approach.

Under the Penal Code, and infant under seven is conclusively presumed to be incapable of committing crime. At this age he is not endowed with any discretion to distinguish right from wrong (Sec. 82).

5. Even a child between seven and twelve who may not have attained sufficient maturity of understanding to entertain a criminal intent (doli incapax), is presumed -to be incapable of committing an offence (Section 83) In several states of India enactments have been passed to treat juvenile offenders or child delinquents differently in the matter of crime and punishment. We are told that there is no such enactment in force in Himachal Pradesh."

6. To the accused-appellant is only 16 years of ag