JUDGMENT A K Mishra, J. - In this appeal the sole appellant has assailed his conviction and sentence of R.I. of 7 (seven) years and fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, further R.I. of 6 (six) months for offence U/s.376 I.P.C. and R.I. of 2 years and fine of Rs.2000/-, in default, further R.I. of 3 months for offence U/s.451 I.P.C., passed by learned 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Cuttack in his judgment dtd.12.09.2014 in Sessions Trial No.317 of 2012 / 98 of 2013. 2. The prosecution case in short is that on 16.5.2012 at about 12.30 A.M. (night) in village Harianta the victim (P.W.5) was sleeping in one room in her house. The accused had come to her sister's house in that village. Accused entered inside the room where the victim was sleeping and forcibly committed rape. She cried. The accused assured her to marry but subsequently left the village. On that night, the victim, a minor girl, disclosed about the occurrence before her mother (P.W.4). The father of the victim had been to outside. On being informed, he advised to contact her uncle (P.W.3). The victim lodged F.I.R. (Ext.4) on 19.5.2012. Sadar P.S. Case No.103 of 2012 was registered, investigation was ensued. In course of investigation, the Admission Register of Kalandi Naik High School was seized. Doctor (P.W.2) conducted medical examination of the victim. After completion of investigation charge-sheet was filed. The case was committed to the Court of Session. Accused faced trial for offence U/ss.376 and 451 of I.P.C. 2-A. The plea of defence was denial simplicitor and false implication. 2-B. Prosecution examined 9 witnesses in all while defence examined 2. The victim is P.W.5, P.W.3 is the paternal uncle of the victim, P.W.4 is the mother of the victim, P.W.2 is the doctor, P.W.6 is the headmaster who proved the school admission register, P.W.9 is the investigating officer and P.W.1, P.W.7 and P.W.8 are independent witnesses. The F.I.R., medical examination report, school admission register and seizure lists, etc. were marked Ext.1 to Ext.13. The father and sister of accused are examined as D.W.1 and D.W.2 in support of the plea that the victim was kidnapped by another boy, namely Manoj and the present appellant was falsely roped. The petition U/s.57 Cr.P.C. as to illegal detention of accused by police is marked as Ext.A. 3. were marked Ext.1 to Ext.13. The father and sister of accused are examined as D.W.1 and D.W.2 in support of the plea that the victim was kidnapped by another boy, namely Manoj and the present appellant was falsely roped. The petition U/s.57 Cr.P.C. as to illegal detention of accused by police is marked as Ext.A. 3. Learned trial court believed the evidence of mother (P.W.4), victim (P.W.5), School Admission Register (Ext.5) and School Leaving Certificate (Ext.7) to record a finding that the year of birth of the victim was 1997. The medical evidence of P.W.2 that the victim was aged about 17 to 19 years was not accepted as opinionative in nature. Learned trial court also found that the victim was a reliable witness and held the accused guilty for the offence U/s.376 and 451 of the I.P.C. and passed sentence as stated above. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant by placing the judgment in extenso and the evidence of victim, submitted that the victim was a major and she having consented learned trial court has committed error in appreciating the evidence to record finding of guilty. 5. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, Mr. P.K. Patnaik supported the judgment of conviction and sentence on the grounds stated therein. 6. Keeping the contentions of learned counsel for the appellant, I carefully peruse the evidence on record. The victim is P.W.5. She is found to have mentioned her age as 19 years in the F.I.R. (Ext.4) but clarified the same in her cross-examination that as police officer (Didi) advised her to do so, otherwise the report would not be accepted, she mentioned her age as 19 years. On such clarification, the evidence of Head Master (P.W.6) is required to be looked into. He proved the Admission Register (Ext.5) wherein the date of birth of the victim was entered as 1.1.1997 vide Sl. No.84/1637 dated 18.04.2009 and it is mentioned that victim discontinued the School from Class-X. The entry was made in an undisputed period which corroborates the evidence of mother (P.W.4) that the victim was born in the Odia Calendar "Pousa" 1997 and prosecuted her study up to Class-X in Kalandi NaikHigh School. Nothing material has been elicited in the cross-examination either from the mother or from the Head Master to disbelieve those testimonies in this regard. So fact remains proved that the victim was a minor at the time of incident. Nothing material has been elicited in the cross-examination either from the mother or from the Head Master to disbelieve those testimonies in this regard. So fact remains proved that the victim was a minor at the time of incident. Hence the finding of the trial court in this regard is hereby confirmed. 7. The victim has elaborately stated as to how the accused entered inside her bedroom and after undressing, committed rape, subsequently when she cried the accused gave assurance to marry her. The factum of incident gets support of her disclosure before her mother and subsequently by the mother before Grama Rakshi and her uncle (P.W.3). Most importantly, the Doctor examined the victim after 72 hours and found old tears in the hymen which corroborates the factum of rape as alleged by the victim with regard to the time of incident. There is no material available to disbelieve the testimony of the victim. Learned lower court has rightly appreciated her evidence as trustworthy and reliable. 7-A. Even if the victim would be found to be a major girl, her consent having been taken by force, the accused cannot be benefited in view of Section 114-A of the Evidence Act. The victim has unequivocally testified that accused had gagged and forcibly undressed her to have sexual intercourse, and when she cried, he threatened to kill her and then assured her that he would consult his sister to enter marriage with her and such sexual intercourse was against her wish. The victim (P.W.5) has vividly explained the occurrence in her cross-examination para -8. On the conspectus of the legal evidence adduced, it is clearly proved that accused had committed sexual intercourse with the victim on the alleged date and place. As to whether it was without the consent of the victim, the presumption against accused is available U/s.114-A of the Evidence Act because the victim has categorically stated that she had no consent for such sexual intercourse. The provision reads thus:- "Section 114 A - Presumption as to the absence of consent in certain prosecutions for rape. As to whether it was without the consent of the victim, the presumption against accused is available U/s.114-A of the Evidence Act because the victim has categorically stated that she had no consent for such sexual intercourse. The provision reads thus:- "Section 114 A - Presumption as to the absence of consent in certain prosecutions for rape. - In a prosecution for rape under Cl.(a) or Cl.(b) or Cl.(d) or Cl.(e) or Cl.(g) of sub-section (2) of Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), where sexual intercourse by the accused is proved and the question is whether it was without the consent of the woman alleged to have been raped and she states in her evidence before the court that she did not consent, the Court shall presume that she did not consent." In the decision report in Yedla Srinivasa Rao Vrs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2006) 2 SCC 615 Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows:- "If sexual intercourse has been committed by the accused and if it is proved that it was without the consent of the prosecutrix and she states in her evidence before the court that she did not consent, the court shall presume that she did not consent. Presumption has been introduced by the legislature in the Evidence Act looking to atrocities committed against women and in the instant case as per the statement of PW, she resisted and she did not give consent to the accused at the first instance and he committed the rape on her. The accused gave her assurance that he would marry her and continued to satisfy his lust till she became pregnant and it became clear that the accused did not wish to marry her." 8. On independent analysis of evidence on record as an appellate court, the defence plea is found to have not rebutted the presumption U/s.114-A of the Evidence Act and the victim, as a result is found to have been raped by the accused after committing house trespass. Thus, the prosecution is found to have proved the offence U/ss.376 and 451 I.P.C. beyond reasonable doubt. The learned Trial Court has not committed any error in convicting the accused - appellant under those sections. 9. With regards to sentence, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is a young boy and a boy of poverty stricken. Thus, the prosecution is found to have proved the offence U/ss.376 and 451 I.P.C. beyond reasonable doubt. The learned Trial Court has not committed any error in convicting the accused - appellant under those sections. 9. With regards to sentence, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is a young boy and a boy of poverty stricken. He has further submitted that accused was a student by the time of alleged incident and has already spent 6 years in jail and his poverty condition should be considered as a special ground to reduce the sentence already undergone. Learned Addl. Government Advocate submitted that the pre amended proviso to reduce the minimum sentence on adequate and specific ground is available in this case. 9-A. The incident took place on 16.5.2012. The amendment to Section 376 came into force by Act 13 of 2013 with effect from 03.02.2013. Thus, the proviso to Section 376 I.P.C. is applicable to this case which provides that "the court may, for adequate and specific reasons to be mentioned in the judgment impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term less than 7 years." Now, on facts, the accused was 24 years old. The victim had completed prosecuting her study in Class-X by the time of incident. The accused has already spent 5 years 6 months incarceration. Keeping the convict for 1 year more in jail custody would not affect the interest of victim in any manner. The accused suffers from poverty and has already lost his student career. Taking the societal condition as well as the age and factum of family background, I consider the same to be adequate and special reason to reduce the sentence to 6 years R.I. instead of 7 years R.I. So far as fine is concerned, fine of Rs.10,000/- amount imposed for offence U/s.376 I.P.C. is reduced to Rs.2000/-, in default further R.I. of 3 months. All other sentence, as stated, shall remain unaltered. Hence the appeal is allowed in part. The conviction of appellant U/s.376 and 451 I.P.C. is upheld. All other sentence, as stated, shall remain unaltered. Hence the appeal is allowed in part. The conviction of appellant U/s.376 and 451 I.P.C. is upheld. He is sentenced to undergo R.I. for 6 (six) years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-, in default R.I. for 3 months for offence U/s.376 I.P.C. and to undergo R.I. for 2 (two) years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-, in default R.I. for 3 months for offence U/s.451 I.P.C. The substantive sentence are to run concurrently with privilege to set off U/s.482 Cr.P.C. as ordered by learned Trial Court. L.C.Rs. be returned immediately.