JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 8.10.1999 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu holding the appellants, guilty of having committed rape on a minor girl and according convicting the appellants under Section 376(2) IPC and sentencing each of them to undergo ten years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10000/- each, in default thereof, each of the appellant was to undergo two years' rigorous imprisonment. 2. On 16.6.1992, the police recorded parcha Bayan, Ex.P. 4 of Kumari Munni (hereinafter to be called as "the prosecutrix") aged about 10 10-11 years in the BDK Hospital, Jhunjhunu. The prosecutrix stated that on the day of incident she left her house for the purposes of grazing the goats. While she was busy in grazing the goats, the goats went inside the flied of one Norang Ram. In order to get back her goats she went to the said field. In the mean time, the accused appellants who were already present there, caught her hand and started dragging her towards Khudi. When she tried to raise an alarm, appellant Arjun put his hand on her mouth. On reaching Khudi, the accused Pappu made her to fall on the ground, over powered her and then committed rape on her. Thereafter another accused Arjun committed rape on her after she was placed on a 'charpai' already lying in the Khuddi. According to her, when one was committing rape, another accused was holding her hands. This shameful act was repeated twice by the accused. As a result of rape, the prosecutrix started bleeding. After committing rape the accused let her go. On way to her home, the prosecutrix met her grand-mother who helped her in reaching home. 3. On the above Parcha Bayan, the police registered a case vide FIR Ex.P19 against the accused for offence under Sections 376 and 342 read with Sec 34 IPC and proceeded with the investigation. 4. In the course of investigation, site plan Ex.P1 was prepared, certain incriminating articles were lifted from the place of incident and the clothes of the prosecutrix were seized vide memo Ex.P.3. The prosecutrix was subjected to medical examination. The accused were arrested and they were also subjected to medical examination. The accused were also subjected to ossification test so as to determine their age. 5. The prosecutrix was subjected to medical examination. The accused were arrested and they were also subjected to medical examination. The accused were also subjected to ossification test so as to determine their age. 5. Having completed entire formalities as to the investigation, the police submitted a charge sheet against the appellants for offence under Sections 376, 354, 342 read with Section 34 IPC. 6. On the basis of evidence and material collected during investigation and placed before it, the learned trial Court framed charge against the appellants under section 376(2) IPC. The appellants denied the charge and claimed trial. 7. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses and got exhibited some documents. After the prosecution evidence was over, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.PC. In their explanation, the appellants stated that it was a false case and that they have been involved on account of political rivalry between Bhagirath and Manraj. However, in defence the accused did not examine any witness. 8. At the conclusion of trial, the learned trial Judge found the prosecution case, as alleged, proved and accordingly convicted and sentenced the appellants as stated hereinabove. Hence this appeal against conviction. 9. At the very out set, it may be stated that Mr. Bajwa, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has stated at the bar that he does not want to challenge the conviction of the appellants and in my opinion, rightly so. Having gone through the the judgment under appeal and the evidence on record, it appears to me that the trial court after detailed discussion of the prosecution evidence, in particular the evidence of the prosecutrix and that of the medical evidence has come to a finding that the prosecutrix, aged about 10-11 years was ravished by the appellants at about 9.00 AM on the fateful day of occurrence, not only once but twice while the girl was on way to graze the goats in the field of one Naurang Ram. On a close and careful scrutiny of the evidence of the prosecutrix, I am of the considered view that her testimony is reliable and worthy of credence and I see no reason to disbelieve or discard her testimony, which stands in complete corroboration with the medical evidence. On a close and careful scrutiny of the evidence of the prosecutrix, I am of the considered view that her testimony is reliable and worthy of credence and I see no reason to disbelieve or discard her testimony, which stands in complete corroboration with the medical evidence. The investigation carried out by PW 14 Ranveer Singh, the articles collected from the place of incident and the clothes of the prosecutrix seized and sent to chemical examination and its report further strengthen the evidence of prosecutrix. Therefore, the finding arrived at by the learned trial court based on proper appreciation of evidence, both ocular and documentary calls for no interference by this court. 10. The main thrust of the argument of learned counsel for the appellants was that at the time of commission of offence, the age of the appellants was 17 years as would be evident from the medical report. He submitted that Juvenile Justice Act has been amended by the Amending Act No 56 of 2000 and the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000 has been introduced. By this amendment the age of a juvenile has been enhanced from 16 years to 18 years. On the strength of this amendment, it has been submitted that though the amendment has been introduced subsequently, but the benefit of the same can be extended to the accused in the light of the legislative benevolence. Learned counsel argued that in view of tie provisions of Section 2(k) of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter to be referred to as "the Act") the appellants so who were juvenile on the date of incident could not have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment in view of Section 20 of the Act. Referring to the medical evidence, learned counsel submission that both the appellants were below the age of 18 years and therefore the case may be remitted to the Board for passing necessary orders in accordance with the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. 11. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the above argument. The incident occurred on 16.6.1992 and the appellants were medically examined on 19.6.1992. PW 16 Dr. P.R. Valmiki, Medical Jurist, who examined the appellants prepared the reports Exs.P.20 and P21. 11. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the above argument. The incident occurred on 16.6.1992 and the appellants were medically examined on 19.6.1992. PW 16 Dr. P.R. Valmiki, Medical Jurist, who examined the appellants prepared the reports Exs.P.20 and P21. The report Ex.P.20 indicates that the age of appellant Ranveer, on the basis of clinical and radiological examination, was 16-17 years, while the report, Ex.P21 indicates the age of appellant Arjun Singh as 17 years. Subsequently, on 6.1.93 the appellants were also examined by the Medical Board to determine their age. The reports (Exs. P22 and P25) of the Medical Board indicate their age to be below 18 years. The learned trial court in para 11 of its judgment, after considering the medical evidence has recorded a finding that the appellant of the appellants was less than 18 years. It is thus clear that undisputedly, the age of both the appellants on the day of occurrence was below 18 years. 12. The Act came into force with effect from April 1, 2001. Section 20 of the Act makes a special provision in respect of pending cases and speaks that notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, all proceedings in respect of juvenile pending in any area on the date on which this Act comes into force in that area, shall be continued in that court as if this Act had not been passed and if the court finds that the juvenile has committed an offence, it shall record such finding and instead of passing any sentence in respect of the juvenile, forward the juvenile to the Board which shall pass orders in respect of that juvenile in accordance with the provisions of this Act as if it had been satisfied on inquiry under this Act that a juvenile has committed the offence. 13. Sub Rule 2 of the Rule 62 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2001 (for short the Rules') provides that all pending cases which have not received finality shall be dealt with and disposed of in terms of the provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder. Section 20 of the Act deals with procedure in respect of Juvenile against whom proceedings were pending on the date on which the Act came into force. 14. Section 20 of the Act deals with procedure in respect of Juvenile against whom proceedings were pending on the date on which the Act came into force. 14. Section 6 of the Act provides that the Juvenile Justice Board shall deal exclusively with all proceedings under the Act relating to juvenile Sub-section (2) of Section 6 mandates that the powers conferred on the Board may also be exercised by the High Court and the court of Sessions, when the proceeding comes before them in appeal revision or otherwise. 15. Under Section 2(k) of the Act, Juvenile or child means a person who has riot completed eighteenth years of age. Juvenile in conflict with law in view of Section 2(1) means a juvenile, who is alleged to have committed an offence. The Act was enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to Juveniles In conflict with law and children in need of care and protection, by providing proper care, protection and treatment by catering to their . development needs, and by adopting a child friendly approach in the adjudication and disposition of matters in best interest of children and for their ultimate rehabilitation through various institutions established under this Act. It is true that the definition of 'juvenile' does not indicate this age is to be seen on the date of incident, but from the intention of Legislature as appearing from the preamble it must be held that the age is to be seen on the date of occurrence. Reference may be made to a decision of the Apex Court in Umesh Chandra v. State of Rajasthan, (1982) 2 SCC 202 , wherein Three Judges Bench indicated that crucial date to determinate whether the accused is a juvenile or not, is the date on which the offence was committed. 16. The case at hand comes within the definition of pending cases in s view of Rule 62(2) of the Rules. As already noticed, the age of both the appellants, on the basis of medical evidence, was less than 18 years at the time of incident and therefore, it can safely be held that the appellant was juvenile on the date of incident in terms of Section 2(k) of the Act. 17. As already noticed, the age of both the appellants, on the basis of medical evidence, was less than 18 years at the time of incident and therefore, it can safely be held that the appellant was juvenile on the date of incident in terms of Section 2(k) of the Act. 17. In this view of the matter and keeping in view the provisions of to Sections 15 and 16 of the Act, I find it just and appropriate that both the appellants who were juvenile on the date of incident, should be dealt with by the Juvenile Board in accordance with the provisions of the Act or the Rules. 18. Resultantly, this appeal is partly allowed. While maintaining conviction of appellants Pappu @ Ranveer and Argun Singh under Section 376(2) IPC, I set aside the order of sentence and remit the case to the learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu with the direction to forward the juveniles Pappu @ Ranveer and Arjun Singh to the Board which shall pass orders in view of Sections 15 and 16 of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. The judgment impugned in this appeal stands modified as indicated hereinabove. 19. A copy of this judgment be sent to the Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu along with the recorder the case, forthwith.Appeal Partly Allowed as Above. *******