JUDGMENT P.G. Agarwal, J. 1. This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 7.7.2001 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Barpeta in Criminal Appeal No. 2/2001 affirming the sentence passed by the trial Court wherein the Petitioner was convicted under Section 376 IPC and sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default, further rigorous imprisonment for one year. 2. On 31.7.95 at 4 p.m., while Golapjan Nessa a teenaged girl of 7/8 years was working in the field, the present accused Petitioner Rahijuddin caught hold of her and forcibly committed rape, whereupon the girl shouted for help. Her mother Joygan Nessa P.W.-2 who was working in the field nearby, came to the place on hearing her shout for help and she saw the accused indulging in the act. She tried to catch the accused but he pushed her and fled away. The girl was brought home and the matter was reported to informed. The victim girl was removed to the hospital and was examined by the Doctor and the police was also informed. 3. So far the incident is concerned; there is evidence of the victim P.W.-1 and her mother P.W.-2. They have categorically implicated the Petitioner who is a co-villager and the matter was immediately reported to P.W.-3 and P.W.-4. P.W.-5 is the Doctor who has examined the injured and found as follows: Under ware is torn and stained with blood and foul smelling discharge. On specular examine him hymen is reported-lacerated wound at vaginal mucosa and bleeding process. Patient is cregin due to pain. The patient is referred to Barpeta Civil Hospital for further treatment. The victim girl is aged about 10 years on the date of examination. 4. Thus, we find that the evidence of the two eyewitnesses stands fully supported and corroborated by other witnesses and also by medical evidence. Both the Courts below relied on the prosecution evidence and in view of the materials available on record, we find that conviction of the accused Petitioner needs no interference so far the merit of the case is concerned. 5. Mr. Both the Courts below relied on the prosecution evidence and in view of the materials available on record, we find that conviction of the accused Petitioner needs no interference so far the merit of the case is concerned. 5. Mr. A.S. Choudhury, learned senior Counsel has, however, challenged the order of conviction and sentence stating inter-alia that the Petitioner at the relevant time was a juvenile and as such trial by the regular Court was not in accordance with law and in support of the same, the learned Counsel has produced the school certificate issued on 1.3.96, that is long after the alleged date of incident. The learned Counsel has also placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Bhola Bhagat, Prabhunath Prasad and Chandra Sen Prasad v. State of Bihar 1998 SCC Crl 125, wherein the Apex Court has observed: We would like to re-emphasise that when a plea is raised on behalf of an accused that he was a "child" within the meaning of the definition of the expression under the Act, it becomes obligatory for the Court, in case it entertains any doubt about the age as claimed by the accused to hold an enquiry to be held and seek a report regarding the same, if necessary, by asking the parties to lead evidence in that regard. Keeping in view the beneficial nature of the socially-oriented legislation, it is an obligation of the Court where such a plea is raised to examine that plea with care and it cannot fold its hands and without returning a positive finding regarding that plea, deny the benefit of the provisions to an accused. The Court must hold an enquiry and return a finding regarding the age, one way or the other. We expect the High Courts and subordinate Courts to deal with such cases with more sensitivity, as otherwise the object of the Acts would be frustrated and the effort of the legislature to reform the delinquent child and reclaim him as a useful member of the society would be frustrated. 6. In the present case, we find that while the trial was going on before the Assistant Sessions Judge, the Petitioner raised the above question stating that he was below 15 years of age at the time of the alleged incident and as such the matter may be transferred to the Juvenile Court. 6. In the present case, we find that while the trial was going on before the Assistant Sessions Judge, the Petitioner raised the above question stating that he was below 15 years of age at the time of the alleged incident and as such the matter may be transferred to the Juvenile Court. The matter was inquired into by the learned trial Court and, thereafter, vide order dated 1.12.99 the Court held that 'I find that the accused is above 16 years of age at the time of occurrence and hence Juvenile Justice Act 1986 is not applicable." 7. In this case soon after the occurrence the accused Petitioner was examined by the doctor and the doctor gave the finding that the accused is 17 years of age. The said finding of the trial Court was not challenged by the Petitioner by way of revision. The appellate Court, however, concurred with the findings of the trial Court and held that the accused is not entitled to the protection under the Juvenile Justice Act as he was above 16 years of age at the relevant time. The learned Public Prosecutor has also submitted that in the year 1999 the Petitioner could not produce the school certificate before the trial Court, although a copy of the school certificate produced before this Court is dated 1996. 8. Considering the observation of the Apex Court in the case of Bhola Bhagat(supra), we find that in the present case the matter was inquired into by the trial Court after hearing both sides and on the basis of medical evidence on record, the specific finding was there that the Petitioner is not covered by the Juvenile Justice Act. We find no merit in the above plea. 9. The learned Counsel has further submitted that considering the age of the accused the benefit under Section 360 Code of Criminal Procedure may be extended to the Petitioner/accused. 10. This is a case of rape of a child who is about 7/8 years of age in this count we would like to recapitulate the observation of the Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Om Prakash (2002) 5 SCC 745 : Child rape cases are cases of perverse lust for sex where even innocent children are not spared in pursuit of sexual pleasure. There cannot be anything more obscene than this. There cannot be anything more obscene than this. It is a crime against humanity. Many such cases are not even brought to light because of the social stigma attached thereto. According to some surveys, there has been a steep rise in child rape cases. Children need special care and protection, In such cases, responsibility on the shoulders of the Courts is more onerous as to provide proper legal protection to these children. Their physical and mental immobility call for such protection. Children are the natural resources of our country. They a girl child is in a very vulnerable position and one of the modes of her exploitation is rape besides other modes of sexual abuse. These factors point towards a different approach required to be adopted. The overturning of a well-considered and well-analysed judgment of the trial Court on grounds like non-examination of other witnesses, when the case against the Respondent otherwise stood established beyond any reasonable doubt was not called for. The minor contradiction of recovery of one or two under-wears was wholly insignificant. Lastly, it was contended on behalf of the Respondent that the incident took place about 13 years back and by now the accused has matured and would be around 31 years of age and having already undergone there years of sentence, the same may be treated by this Court as sufficient punishment to him and, therefore, taking a sympathetic view, the sentence already undergone by him be imposed. We are unable to accept the contention. The trial Court imposed on the Respondent sentence of seven years' rigorous imprisonment besides fine, as earlier noticed. Having played with the life of a child, the Respondent does not deserve any leniency and for him sympathy on the ground sought for will be wholly uncalled for. The Respondent deserves to undergo the remaining part of the sentence awarded by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge. 11. For the aforesaid reasons, we dismiss this revision. The bail bond of the Respondent stands cancelled and the Petitioner shall be taken into custody forthwith to undergo the remaining sentence. 12. Send down the records to the District Judge, Barpeta along with a copy of the order. Petition dismissed