JUDGMENT Deepak Roshan, J. - The instant application is directed against the judgment dated 21.05.2013 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Sahibganj in Criminal Appeal No. 41 of 2013, whereby the learned appellate court dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner and affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both dated 13.03.2013, passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Sahibganj in connection with G. R. No. 296 of 2011 (E. No. 34 of 2013) arising out of Rajmahal (Ranga) P. S. Case No. 33 of 2011, whereby the petitioner has been found guilty for offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for two and half years and was directed to serve the sentence in the Juvenile Special Home, Dhanbad. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that the informant-Afsana Khatoon alleged that the accused-petitioner had proposed her by saying that he would marry her in future and after that cohabited her on several occasions and further alleged that the aforesaid act of cohabitation on false assurance to marry her in future was continued for about eight months before registration of First Information Report. It has further been alleged that when the victim girl became pregnant and was carrying pregnancy of six months then pressure was put on the accused-petitioner to marry her but the petitioner had refused to marry her and pursuant to that the prosecution case has been lodged. 3. After lodging of FIR, the case was investigated and after due investigation, charge-sheet under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code was submitted and cognizance was taken. The petitioner pleaded not guilty and sent up for trial. 4. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined altogether four witnesses and exhibited certain documents. Based upon the evidences, both oral and documentary, laid before him, the learned trial court found the petitioner guilty for the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and convicted him for a period of two and half years and directed the petitioner to serve the sentence before Juvenile Special Home, Dhanbad. 5. Based upon the evidences, both oral and documentary, laid before him, the learned trial court found the petitioner guilty for the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and convicted him for a period of two and half years and directed the petitioner to serve the sentence before Juvenile Special Home, Dhanbad. 5. Being aggrieved, the petitioner challenged the order of learned trial court before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Sahibganj in Criminal Appeal No. 41 of 2013, who after concurring with the finding of the learned trial court affirmed the conviction and sentence as passed by the learned trial court. 6. Ms. Jaswinder Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently argued that it is a concocted story put by the prosecution and as a matter of fact the victim girl was adult and much mature than the petitioner, who was admittedly a juvenile and there was no force or misrepresentation committed by the petitioner and it was the girl who had given the consent to sexual intercourse with the accused-petitioner with whom she was deeply in love. The entire allegation of committing rape upon victim girl is false and fabricated story and has been cooked up. Admittedly, the petitioner is a juvenile and is quite innocent and has committed no offence. She lastly submits that this is a fit case for setting aside the