JUDGMENT :

S. K. MISHRA, J. - In this appeal the appellant having been convicted for the offence under Section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R. I. for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- in default to undergo R.I. for six months has assailed the conviction and sentence.

2. The case of the prosecution in short is that on 5.4.2010 at about 5.00 P.M. Smt. Puspanjali Sahu was sitting on the outer Varandah of her house situated in village Bandhapali under Barpali Police Station. The victim aged about three years is her minor daughter who was playing in the front ward of that house. It is alleged that accused came there and took the minor daughter to play with her. He carried her to a lonely place situated at a short distance from that house and forcibly committed rape on that minor girl under a tamarind tree. The victim started screaming and having heard it, the informant rushed to the spot and upon arrival of the informant the accused fled away.

Subsequently, the informant found that there was bleeding from the private part of the victim. She brought her to her house and narrated the incident to her husband and other villagers. Since it was night she could not proceed to police station to lodge FIR. A meeting was also held attended by villagers to settle the dispute but there was no settlement of the same. On the day i.e. 6.4.2010 she reported the matter in writing at Barpali Police Station, which led to the institution of the case. The investigation was completed and charge sheet against the present appellant was filed under Section 376(2)(f) of the IPC.

3. The plea of the defence is of complete denial and false implication.

4. In course of hearing the prosecution examined 15 witnesses out of out 20 charge sheeted witnesses. Two witnesses were examined on behalf of the defence.

5. After taking into consideration the materials available on record, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, F.T.C., Bargarh found that the prosecution has satisfactorily proved the charge against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and hence he convicted the appellant under Section 376(2)(f) of the IPC and sentenced him as described above.

6. The matter was carried in appeal to this Court. Learned counsel for the appellant filed an application before this Court raising the plea of juvenility of the accused for the first time in the appellate Court. This Court taking into consideration the ratio decided in Abuzar Hossain alias Gulam Hossain v. State of West Bengal; AIR 2013 SC 1020; wherein the Supreme Court has held that a claim of juvenility may be raised at any stage even after final disposal of the case, directed the Sessions Judge to conduct an inquiry with regard to the claim of juvenility of the appellant and submit a report before this Court.

7. Pursuant thereto, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge held an inquiry and came to the conclusion that the date of birth as per the School Admission Register of the Nodal U.P.M.E. School, Bandhapali reflects the age of the appellant to 01.5.92. Since the occurrence took place on 5.4.2010, learned Sessions Judge reported that on the date of the incident the appellant was 17 years 11 months 4 days old and hence he was a juvenile on that day. Regarding determination of age by ossification test, learned Sessions Judge relied upon the reported case of Jodhbir Singh v. State of Punjab, (2003) 54 OCR (SC) 331. The Supreme Court in that case has held that the age determination contemplated under Section 7-A of the Juvenile Justice Act (hereafter referred to as the "Act") for brevity) read with Rule 12 of the Rules enables the Court to seek evidence and in that process the Court can obtain the matriculation or equivalent certificates, if available. Only in the absence of any matriculation or equivalent certificate, the Court needs to obtain the date of birth certificate from the School first attended other than a play school. Only in the absence of matriculation or equivalent certificate or