Judgment S.I. Jafri, J. 1. APPELLANT Harendra has filed this appeal against his conviction under Section 376 IPC and sentence of 4 years RI recorded by Sri D. C. Srivastava, II Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar by his judgment and order dated 19-1-79 in Sessions Trial No. 332 of 1977. 2. THE appellant was charged under Section 376 IPC for committing rape on Km. Bulya PW 1 aged about 8 or 9 years on 10-8-77 at 1 P. M. in the Sugar Cane field of Khacheru Gujar in village Dakheri, Police Station Jansath, District Muzaffarnagar. A report of the occurrence was lodged by Rati Ram PW 2, the father of the victim and a case was registered against the appellant at Police Station Jansath Distt. Muzaffarnagar under Section 376 IPC on 10-8-77 at 5 P. M. Investigation followed and on completion of the investigation charge sheet Ext Ka 9 was submitted against him. 3. THE prosecution examined six witnesses in support of its case. THE accused denied the allegations against him and stated that he has been falsely implicated in the case on acconnt of enmity. 4. ON the consideration of the entire evidence on the record, the Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the prosecution has been successful in bringing home the charge against the accused and consequently the appellant was convicted and sentenced as stated above. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and al o the learned counsel for the State at a great length. 5. IT was urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant on the date of the occurrence was minor i.e. below 16 years of age. In support of his contention the learned counsel has relied upon the findings of the trial court which is as under :- "IT is now clear from the order Ext Kha 2 that on the day of occurrence the accused was less than 16 years of age. However, from the reference of medical opinion in the said order, it is obvious that now the accused is about 17 1/2 years old. The possibility of variation of six months either side cannot be ruled out and the possibility that now the accused is major cannot be ruled out altogether." 6. However, from the reference of medical opinion in the said order, it is obvious that now the accused is about 17 1/2 years old. The possibility of variation of six months either side cannot be ruled out and the possibility that now the accused is major cannot be ruled out altogether." 6. THE occurrence in this case took place on 10-8-77 and the judgment was delivered by the learned Sessions Judge on 19-1-79 i.e. after about two years of the occurrence. Therefore, even according to the estimate of the age given by the Sessions Judge on the date of the delivery of the judgment the accused was minor on the date when the 'occurrence had taken place in this case. The learned counsel for the appellant pointed out Section 2 (4) of the U. P. Children Act, 1951 (U. P. Act No. 1 of 1952) which defines a Child to mean a person under the age of 16 years. It was also submitted by him that Section 27 of the aforesaid Act lays down that notwithstanding any thing to the contrary contained in any law, no court shall sentence a child to death or transportation or imprisonment of any term or commit him to prison in default of payment of fine. 7. THE learned counsel for the appellant also placed before the Court a copy of the U. P. Gazette dated 10-12-77 page 2972 wherein all the provisions of U. P. Children Act 1 of 1952 came into force with immediate effect in the District of Muzaffarnagar on 18-1-77 vide notification No. 2692/XXXVI-SW. 77-91 (P)-76, dated 18th November, 1977. 8. IN view of the facts and circumstances of the case as stated above, I hold that the appellant Harendra was a child below 16 years of age on the date of the occurrence of the present case, and therefore, he is given the benefit of U. P. Children Act No. 1 of 1952. Raj Singh, the father of Harendra appellant is present before the Court and he undertakes to furnish his personal bonds for ensuring good behaviour of his son Harendra appellant for a period of two years. I, therefore, consider it proper to commit the appellant Harendra in the custody of his father Raj Singh for keeping good behaviour during this period. Raj Singh, the father of Harendra appellant is present before the Court and he undertakes to furnish his personal bonds for ensuring good behaviour of his son Harendra appellant for a period of two years. I, therefore, consider it proper to commit the appellant Harendra in the custody of his father Raj Singh for keeping good behaviour during this period. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed, the conviction of the appellant under Section 376 IPC recorded by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar is affirmed. The sentence of imprisonment of 4 years awarded to him by the trial court is set aside. The appellant Harendra is given benefit of U. P. Children Act, 1952 and he is committed in the custody of his father Raj Singh who will execute a personal bond of Rs. 4000/- to be responsible for the good behaviour of his son for a period of two years from the date of execution of the bond to the satisfaction of the CJM Muzaffarnagar. Raj Singh, the father of the appellant Harendra, is given one month's time to furnish his personal bond of Rs. 4000/- before the II Addl. Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar on receipt of the record from the High Court. In case of default of keeping good behaviour by the appellant Harendra during the period of two years from the date of its execution, the personal bond of Rs. 4000/- executed by Raj Singh shall stand forfeited in favour of the State. Appeal partly allowed.