JUDGMENT

1. Heard.

2. Admit. Matter is taken up for final disposal by consent of the learned advocates for the parties.

3. In this revision application, filed under Sec. 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, challenge is to the order dtd. 9/12/2020, passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board at Buldana (for short "Board") in the Juvenile Case No.176/2014, whereby the Board was pleased to held that the respondents, who are the children in conflict with law (for short "CICLs") have not committed the offences punishable under Ss. 143, 452, 354, 294 and 506 read with Sec. 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

4. On 6/3/2014, the informant, who is the applicant in this revision application, lodged a written report at Mehkar Police Station. In the said report, she made allegations of the serious offences committed by 17 persons including CICLs. The motive according to the informant for commission of this crime was a civil dispute, pending between the informant and the adult accused. In the civil dispute, the injunction was granted in her favour and against one Shaikh Yunus-adult accused. The adult accused and CICLs got annoyed due to the said order. The adult offenders namely Yunus, Saeed, Shabbir and Raees on 6/3/2014 at about 6.30 to 7.00 hrs. entered into her house and manhandled her. They touched her in indecent manner. They tried to grope her. They attempted to commit sexual assault on her. She raised hue and cry, thereafter the remaining 13 persons including two CICLs came on the spot. They laughed on her and ridiculed her. They uttered obscene words and threatened to kill her. It is stated that the child namely Mudassir spitted on her face. They damaged her household articles and threatened to kill her. On the basis of such report, Crime bearing No.55 of 2014 was registered on 29/3/2014. The investigation was carried out. The Investigating Officer after nine months submitted the final report against two CICLs before the Board. The CICLs were blamed for commission of the above offences.

5. The Board took cognizance of the offences on 19/1/2018. The substance of the accusation was read over and explained to the children. Both of them pleaded the grounds of defence before the Board and opted to face the inquiry. The prosecution examined two witnesses. Witness No.1 is the informant and the witness No.2 is another witness. Witness No.2 is the panch witness to the spot panchnama. After completion of the inquiry, the Board found that the children have not committed the offences and, therefore, given the benefit to the children. Being aggrieved by this order, the informant has filed this revision application. The State has not filed any proceeding to challenge the order passed by the Board. The State is the non-applicant No.3 in this revision application.

6. I have heard the learned advocate for the applicant/informant, the learned advocate for the respondent Nos.1 and 2/children and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.3/State. Perused the record and proceedings.

7. The learned advocate for the informant submitted that the Board has not properly appreciated the evidence of the informant. The learned advocate took me to the evidence and submitted that she has specifically stated about the role played by the children in the commission of the offences. The learned advocate submitted that the specific role of spitting on her face by the child namely Mudassir and the threat given to her by both the children was specifically stated in the report as well as in her evidence. The learned advocate submitted that the Board has not properly appreciated the evidence and, as such, came to the wrong conclusion and given the benefit to the children.

8. The learned advocate for the children submitted that the perusal of the evidence clearly indicates that the informant had concocted the story. The learned advocate submitted that the report lodged was to take the revenge of the civil