The judgment emphasizes the importance of a thorough examination of evidence and the need for specialized knowledge in child psychology for members of the Juvenile Justice Board.

ORDER :

R.K. Gauba, J.

1. Though the petitioner has given his full description, having regard to the background facts, which would need to be elaborated to an extent little later, it being inappropriate to disclose his identity, he is being referred to in the cause title as "A.M.", and wherever necessary hereinafter as the "petitioner" or "the victim" (or as "PW-1"). For similar reasons, for sake of convenience, the second to fourth respondents would also be referred to as "A1" "A2" and "A3" respectively. The registry while uploading this order on the website shall also take similar care.

2. A1, A2 and A3 had been brought before the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) for inquiry on the basis of report (charge-sheet) under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr. PC) submitted on 22.05.2006, upon conclusion of investigation into first information report (FIR) no. 382/2005 (Ex. PW7/B) of police station Mukherjee Nagar. The FIR had been registered on 05.09.2005 on the statement (Ex. PW1/A) of the petitioner, he, at the relevant point of time being a child aged seven and half years. According to the allegations in the FIR, a case of complicity of A1, A2 and A3 who may collectively be referred to as "the respondents" or as "the juveniles in conflict with law" or "JCLs" has been made out for the offence of having indulged in carnal intercourse against the order of nature ("unnatural offence") punishable under Section 377 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). On the basis of the evidence collected during investigation, prayer was made, in the charge-sheet, for respondents to be proceeded against for offences punishable under Sections 377, 323, 506 read with Section 34 IPC and also under Section 23 (Punishment for cruelty to juvenile or child) of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as "the JJ Act of 2000").

3. The inquiry before the JJB was held on the basis of notice of accusations issued and served on 04.07.2009 for offences punishable under Sections 377, 323, 506 IPC. The inquiry culminated in judgment of JJB, rendered on 31.10.2011, whereby the JCLs were "acquitted" with the observation that the defence had "created" a probable doubt on the story of prosecution by bringing defence witnesses.

4. Section 52 of the JJ Act of 2000, which was in vogue during the relevant period, governed the subject of appeals. Though it would provide for "an appeal to the court of Session" to be brought by "any person aggrieved by an order made by a competent authority", which would include JJB, its sub-Section (2)(a) would inhibit an appeal to be entertained against "any order of acquittal" in respect of a juvenile alleged to have committed an offence. Section 53 of the JJ Act of 2000 conferred upon the High Court the power and jurisdiction of "revision".

5. The State did not prefer any remedy against the judgment dated 31.10.2011 of the JJB. The petitioner, however, claiming to be the victim of the offences approached the court of Sessions invoking its revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr. PC by filing a petition (Crl. Revision No. 57337/2016) seeking to assail the said decision of the JJB. The petition was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge to whom the matter was allocated, by his order dated 26.05.2016.

6. It is the legality of the aforesaid orders, which is challenged by the petition at hand invoking the inherent power and jurisdiction of this court under Section 482 Cr. PC read with Section 53 of the JJ Act of 2000.

7. The petition has been resisted by the respondents primarily on the contention that the decision of the JJB cannot be called in question because it is based on findings on fact as per the evidence brought on record. It is also the submission of the JCLs (the respondents) that the scrutiny of the judgment of JJB by the court of Sessions, in its revisional jurisdiction, should be treated as final and binding, there being no special case made out for this court to step in