Judgment B.N.P.Singh, J. 1. The facts the case are tell a tale. While Suganti Kumari had gone to the field in the company of her playmate Reena Kumari for plucking vegetable, the appellant allegedly having lifted her, took her to the nearby Rahar filed, thrashed her on the ground, got her naked and violated her person, having gagged her mouth to prevent her scream- ings being audible to any one. Since father of the victim had gone outside the village for his livelihood, the prosecution could be launched against the appellant only on his arrival after 3/4 days of the incident. The police on being moved on behest of father of the victim, came in action, instituted a regular police case against the appellant, took up investigation and in course of collection of evidence, recorded statement of witnesses, got the victims statement recorded by a Magistrate under Section 164, Cr. PC, referred her to doctor for clinical examination, seized blood stained wearing apparels of the victim from custody of her father and on conclusion of investigation, laid charge-sheet before the Court. In the eventual trial that followed, the State examined ten witnesses. Since accusation attributed to him had been resisted by the appellant, three witnesses came to be examined on his behalf, ostensibly to counter accusations attributed to him. Those who were examined at trial by the State include the victim, her parents X-ray technician, the doctor who clinically examined the victim, the Police Officer and other host of witnesses. 2. The defence of the appellant had been that of innocence, and false case having been foisted against him for some dispute but without good excuse. 3. Three fold contentions were raised on behalf of the appellant and foremost of them was non-examination of Reena Kumari, the playmate of the victim who was the sole ocular witness to the sufferings and onslaught suffered by Suganti Kumari. Though said Reena Kumari was not examined, Manti Devi, mother of the victim, who happens to be PW 3, had expressly stated at trial about information of sexual assault on Suganti Kumari by the appellant having been rendered to her by said Reena Kumari. Since there are good and unimpeachable evidence including that of the finding recorded by the doctor who clinically examined the victim eloquently suggesting sexual assault on the victim, non-examination Reena Kumari had little bearing on the case. 4. Since there are good and unimpeachable evidence including that of the finding recorded by the doctor who clinically examined the victim eloquently suggesting sexual assault on the victim, non-examination Reena Kumari had little bearing on the case. 4. Reiterating his earliest version, Bhairo Giri father of the victim, stated to have been apprised about the shameful incident shortly after he came back to his house from Gorakhpur, by other family members and also the victim almost similar narrations about receipt of information with regard to sexual assault on the victim by the appellant had been made at trial by other witnesses too, who were Bucha Giri (PW 1) Paras Nath Giri (PW 2) and Manti Devi (PW 3) also, and while Manti Devi, PW 3, and Bhairo Giri, PW 5, were parents of the victim, Bacha Giri (PW 1} was family member, and there appears to be nothing unusual about receipt of information with regard to sexual assault on Suganti Kumari by them, particularly, when Suganti Kumari herself had expressed her woes about violation of her person by the appellant. The evidence of Suganti Kumari, PW 4, too about commission of sexual assault on her by appellant Who having lifted her, took her to the field and having gagged her mouth committed sexual assault on her did not suffer major infirmity muchless any infirmity and was free from all blemishes. If finding of Dr. Shadan Usmani, PW 6, who clinically examined the victim was to be given any credence, she was 12/13 years old and though there was no evidence about presence of spermatozoa in the vaginal swab, hymen was found ruptured and also that there was laceration present around vaginal opening. She noticed tenderness also presentin the private part, and based on this finding, she was of the view that rape might have been committed on her. This is no longer res integra that even solitary testimony of the victim of sexual assault would merit consideration for recording verdict of guilt against the rapist if that was found to be free from blemishes. In the case under consideration, apart from unblemished evidence of the victim, there has been evidence of other witnesses too including that of the doctor who has lent ample corroboration and assurance to the assertion made by the victim. In the case under consideration, apart from unblemished evidence of the victim, there has been evidence of other witnesses too including that of the doctor who has lent ample corroboration and assurance to the assertion made by the victim. Suggestions given to the victim about presence of blood due to etching was extremely imaginative and devoid of probative value, there being no such finding of the doctor who examined the victim. Equally meritless is the defence about there being no marks of violence on her person for there being no evidence about external injury by the doctor, as there could not have been possibility of even violent resistance made by the minor girl when one who had committed sexual assault on her was young of 19 years old, and that apart, when she was gagged, possibility of hearing screamings being audible to any one would be extremely reduced. The evidence of defence witnesses examined by the defence was only oath against oath, as there was no good evidence about animosity between the parties suggesting possibility of false implication. The seizure of bold stained wearing apparels including that of undergarments of the victim was also another strong circumstance which would strengthen the assertion of the prosecution about sexual assault on the victim. Since appellant had been absconding for sometime shortly after the incident, there would not have been possibility of examination of the appellant by the doctor, and that too would not dig a hole in the castle of the prosecution. Equally meritless is the defence about paucity of other eye witnesses, as for such incident, in all cases there may not be possibility of other eye witnesses and the competent witness in the circumstances would be the victim who had suffered sufferings and onslaught on her person. She would be at par with the injured witness and has to be treated equally. 5. Though the prosecution was launched after about three days of the incident, that is not without any good excuse as apart from the fact that the father was not at the house, aggrieved family members did not take recourse to police authority in anticipation of matter to be sorted out on convention of panchaiti, but as panchaiti could not be convened, no recourse having been left, the father had moved the police. The possibility of delay in launching prosecution case may be also due to the fact that the family members of the victim are reluctant to take recourse to public authority in view of the social stigma which such incidents usually carry with them. 6. Contentions were raised at bar that since appellant was juvenile when the incident had allegedly taken place, even if the finding of guilt, possibly no sentence could be passed against him, and dilating his submission, argument is that since enquiry about juvenility of the appellant had started from continuance of the old Act the petitioner would be deemed to be juvenile under the new Act also which came into force on 30th December, 2000, and reliance on this score was sought to be placed on a decision of the single Judge of this Court reported in 2003 (2) PLJR 157 , Vinay Kumar alias Vinay Prasad V/s. State of Bihar, and decision of the Division Bench of this Court, of which I was a party, reported in 2003 (2) PLJR 553 , State of Bihar V/s. Arnit Das. Reliance was also placed on a decision of the Apex Court reported in 2002 (1) PCCR 378, Rajindar Chandra V/s. State of Chhatisgarh and another. However, reliance placed on the case of State of Bihar V/s. Arnit Das, (supra) appeared to be quite conceived in view of following observations made by this Bench : "On coining into force of an Act, that becomes applicable, prospectively unless by specific provision under that law its application or of some its provisions, specifically is made retrospectively effective. There is nothing in the provision of the Act of 2000, even in Section 20 of the Act of 2000 to make the same applicable retrospectively." 7. From the proceeding which was pending before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, it seems that an enquiry too had been held to determine the age of the appellant as enjoined under Section 32 of the Juvenile Justice Act when some documents too were placed on the record during enquiry including finding of the Medical Board constituted for the purpose under instruction of the Court. In opinion of the Medical Board, the appellant was found between 19-20 years on 15th May, 2000. It is not without significance to notice that occurrence took place on 13th December, 1999. In opinion of the Medical Board, the appellant was found between 19-20 years on 15th May, 2000. It is not without significance to notice that occurrence took place on 13th December, 1999. Taking the ratio of decision laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Rajinder Chandra (supra), while dealing with the question of determination of the age of the accused for the purpose of finding out whether he is juvenile or not, hypertechnical approach should not be adopted while appreciating the evidence adduced on behalf of the accused in support of the plea that he was a juvenile, and if two findings may be found on said evidence, the Court should lean in favour of holding the accused to be juvenile in borderline cases. In that case, the accused was found to be 15-16 years of age on radiological examination and ossification tests. As against that, finding of the Medical Board, in the case under consideration was that the appellant was about 19-20 years old on 15th May, 2000, a year later to the incident, and as such the case of the appellant was not on borderline for leaning on his side to find him juvenile and on this score too. I find that the appellant has not a good case to upset the finding recorded by the Court below. 8. Having critically analysed the evidences available on the record and regard being had to the attending circumstances of the case, the finding of guilt and sentence recorded by the Court below did not leave even little scope for interference. The appeal being maritless is, accordingly, dismissed.