The female child in the proceedings of this trial despite she hasbecome pregnant from the convict, we can see her as a child and victim and not an offender because her perception is incomplete and the abuses towards her are therefore subject to trial under Child Act and not Criminal Act. So, we agree with the lower courts in respect of their approach towards application of Child Act. We also agree with such courts over the conviction as it was proved by the convict`s admission in writing in page (6) of the journal of inquiry without a requirement for supporting these statements. The convict`s retraction of his statement that he inserted part of his penis into victim`s vagina is useless because it has come in a discretionary crime and not a hadd crime as defined in the interpretation Article (3) of Criminal Act according to the amendment to Evidence Act by Law (31) for 1994 Article (22/2) which is read in accordance with the amendment as follows ((Retraction of an admission in hadd crimes is a suspicion which makes the admission inconclusive evidence)). So, the victim`s allegations that there is a love relationship between her and the convict which led her to go to his house and perform sexual intercourse with him being a child who has not yet perceived life after such consent, are not reliable as her perception is incomplete despite she attained adulthood. Article (83/a) of Child Act necessitated observation of victimized children`s weak confession and characterization of proceedings accordingly. Article (5/k) of general principles of Child Act provides that it is necessary to ensure protection of child from all forms of violence and harm or inhuman treatment or abuse in all forms thereof including sexual, negligence and exploitation. I am therefore in the opinion of upholding the conviction under Article (45/b) of Child Act and to be read in conjunction with Article (86/f) of the same Act. the penalty as contained in Article (86/f), when conviction is decided under Article (45/b),adopted two limits, a maximum limit which is death penalty and a minimum limit that is 20 years in prison with a fine as a legislative singling out the content of which cannot be overlapped or going down lower than what provided by the legislator when the judge singles out a penalty proceeding from his power provided for in Article (39) of Criminal Act for 1991. The rule is that the judge must impose death penalty from the philosophy of the Child Act. The Chief Justice issued the Circular 46/2011 dated 10/10/2011 concerning judicial singling out over such penalty and the prominent of its contents it instructed court to observe the following: Firstly: Courts are to single out the penalty on convicts of crimes contained in Article (86) of Child Act by observing the aim of the legislator to strengthen the penalties on such crimes subject to the extent of gravity of the offencewhich has been committedand proportionality