The main legal point established in the judgment is that the acquittal of the juvenile accused could not be sustained under law due to the lack of opportunity given to the prosecution witnesses to adduce evidence before the Juvenile Justice Board.

ORDER :

D.K. Sinha, J.

This Criminal Revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 6.12.2008 by which O.P. No. 2 Mantu Yadav Juvenile in conflict with law, has been acquitted for the charge Under Sections 376/504/506 of the Indian Penal Code by the Juvenile Justice Board Koderma in G.R. No. 613 of 2007 corresponding to E.R. No. 28 of 2008.

2. The prosecution story in short was that while prosecutrix/complainant Sohgi Kumari was on way to attend the call of nature in the field towards northern side of her home, she was overpowered by the Juvenile Mantu Yadav who caught hold her and ravished on the point of gun after gagging her mouth with the help of towel. Again on 30.1.2007 she was ravished while she had been to her Khalihan to bring paddy straws and similar offence was repeated on 15.2.2007 by the Juvenle/O.P. No. 2, as a consequence the prosecutrix became pregnant. The Juvenile/O.P. No. 2 with the help of the other accused triad to terminate her pregnancy with the consultation of Dr. Sarla Singh who refused to do so. It was alleged that when the Doctor declined to terminate her pregnancy, all the accused including the juvenile O.P. No. 2 escaped after leaving the prosecutrix in the clinic. The prosecutrix was a minor girl and finding no way out she narrated the entire occurrence to her mother whereupon a Panchayati was convened but the accused declined to accept her. The prosecutrix then filed a complaint before the C.J.M. Koderma which was referred u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. to the concerned police station and consequently Koderma (Chandwara) P.S. Case No. 724 of 2007 was registered against the O.P. No. 2 and four order named accused who were the members of his family for the alleged offence Under Sections 376/504/506 of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation of the case, the Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet only against the O.P. No. 2 Mantu Yadav for the alleged offence under the aforesaid sections and accordingly, cognizance of the offence was taken by the C.J.M. Having been satisfied with the grounds taken by the O.P. No. 2 Mantu Yadav of his Juvenility in a preliminary enquiry, the learned C.J.M. Koderma referred the matter to the Juvenile Justice Board where again enquiry was conducted and the O.P. No. 2 was found to be a juvenile upon determination of his age on the alleged date of occurrence. After explaining him the substance of accusation enquiry was initiated by the Juvenile Justice Board, Koderma against the Juvenile Mantu Yadav but since no witness could be produced and examined on behalf of the prosecution, the juvenile alleged to be in conflict with law was acquitted from the alleged accusation. He was earlier admitted to bail by the Juvenile Justice Board after his detention in the Bal Bhawan for about four months during enquiry.

3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner-prosecutrix submitted by assailing the impugned order that at no point of time she or any of the witnesses named in the charge sheet/complaint petition received summons after substance of accusation was explained to the O.P. No. 2 Mantu Yadav to depose before the Juvenile Justice Board(in short J.J. Board). The lower court records would indicate that even the execution report of the bailable warrants of arrest non-bailable warrants of arrest that were issued against the witnesses were not brought on the record and the evidence of the prosecution was closed without considering the gravity of the accusation against the O.P. No. 2. The learned counsel further submitted that it would be evident from the enquiry report that determination of age of the O.P. No. 2 was also made in a slip shod manner and the school leaving certificate as well as the admission register of the school which was not first attended by him was considered in violation of guidelines given in Rule 22(5) of the Jharkhand Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules 2003. In that manner the petitioner was denied justice since the very begi