JUDGMENT :

Mahendar Kumar Goyal, J. - These criminal appeals are directed against the judgement dated 26.8.1987 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karauli (Rajasthan) (for brevity-'the learned trial court') in Sessions Case No.8/1986 whereby, while convicting the accused-appellants (for short-'the appellants) under Section 376 IPC, they have been sentenced as under:

"Section 376 IPC - 10 years rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 1,000 fine; in default whereof, one year additional rigorous imprisonment."

2. The relevant facts in brief are that a written report (Ex.P4) dated 28.1.1985 was lodged by the complainant Merry Zaikab, an Auxiliary Nurse and Midwife, with the Police Station, Masalpur stating therein that on that very day at about 9.30 am when she was going to Siloti Village, she was subjected to rape by the appellants whereupon, an FIR (Ex.P5) came to be lodged under Section 376 IPC. After investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the appellants under the aforesaid provision. The learned trial court framed charge under Section 376 IPC against the appellants and after trial, convicted and sentenced them as stated hereinabove.

3. During pendency of the instant appeals, the appellants filed interim applications under Section 7 -A of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (for brevity-'the Act of 2000') stating therein that as per the school record, their date of birth is 12.7.1967 and 5.7.1967 respectively and the incident being of 28.1.1985, they were below 18 years of age on that day and were, therefore, juvenile. It was, therefore, prayed that the learned trial court be directed to conduct an enquiry as to their juvenility on the date of incident. The learned Public Prosecutor did not oppose the prayer. In view of the settled legal principle that juvenility of an accused has to be adjudicated upon as and when pleaded at any stage of case, the applications filed under Section 7 A of the act of 2000 were allowed by this Court vide order dated 17.1.2023 and the learned trial court was directed to make an enquiry to determine the age of the appellants on the date of incident.

4. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, the learned trial court, i.e., learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karauli, after conducting an enquiry, vide its report dated 1.4.2023, found both the appellants juvenile under the Act of 2000. A perusal of the report dated 1.4.2023 reveals that as per the record of Government Primary School Masalpur where the appellants have taken admission initially in Class-I, date of birth of the appellant-Brij Bhushan is 19.7.1967 and that of appellant Prahlad is 5.7.1967. It was found that both the appellants have obtained transfer certificate after passing Class-V from the school and thereafter took admission in Class-VI in the Government Higher Secondary School, Masalpur and record of that school also verified their date of birth as 19.7.1967 and 5.7.1967 respectively. It was held by the learned trial court that marks sheet of their Secondary School Examination issued by the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan also verified their date of birth as mentioned in the school record. In the light of ocular and documentary evidence recorded by the learned trial court, both the appellants were found to be juvenile under Section 2 (k) and 2(1) of the Act of 2000 not having completed 18 years of age on the date of incident, i.e., 28.1.1985.

5. A copy of the aforesaid report was made available to the learned Public Prosecutor by the office under an order of this Court dated 17.7.2023; but, he did not dispute the findings so recorded by the learned trial c