object of conviction and the extent of compliance of the same with law based on whatsoever raised by the attorney who seeks justice. In pursuant to the perusal of all papers, the facts conclude that the convict had an offensive relationship with the victim. She used to go to him in his house in Azarni till she became pregnant in adultery manner. This was discovered by attempting to dispose of embryo and the state of bleeding she sustained thereby commencing these proceeding. In view of the reasons contained in the petition, the victim`s age estimation as contained in the prosecution exhibit No (2) which was issued by the Medical Commission proved to be sixteen years in words and figures. I found no scratch in such exhibit affecting the authenticity of the exhibit as mentioned by the attorney because the age is written in figures and words which are conformable. The national number has never been filed by either party in this trial as an exhibit beforethe court. I found the national number among the papers of the journal of inquiry without being flagged as an exhibit. We do not know at which stage of proceedings such exhibit has been stuffed with the journal of inquiry. Undoubtedly, it has never been raised at the trial stage. It is therefore incorrect to verify and raise it. Before us for the first time with the assumption of validity of the age which has been provided, the victim`s age has not exceeded eleven years and months of age. This of course an age to which the attorney is not seeking to uphold because it worsens the appellant`s status contrary to the attorney`s objective towards strengthen his status. It is correct that the prosecution exhibit no (2) was presented to the convict who did not challenge it in any respect or requested for listening to its writer and ordering an expert in accordance with the provision of Article (162/2) of Criminal Procedures Act for 1991. We therefore adopt the validity of the age estimation contained therein in accordance with the provision of Article (31/32) of Evidence Act for 1994 from which is the victim`s age who attained 16 years of her age and became pregnant realizing both adulthood elements defined in the interpretation Article (3) of Criminal Act. She is therefore an adult by age with the conclusive sign of adulthood by pregnancy. It is correct the adulthood in respect of the victim is realized from the Criminal Act point of view but the Child Act for 2010 is different from the Criminal Act and protected the victim as a child according to the provision of Article (4) which defined child whoever has not exceeded eighteen years of age. This legislative contradiction stems from the difference between Child and Criminal Acts stems from the difference among jurists in determining the legal age from adulthood and the conventions signed by Government of Sudan.