The presumption of innocence in favor of the accused and the restrictions on challenging the acquittal of a juvenile under statutory provisions were central legal principles established in the judgment.

JUDGMENT

Rajesh Bhardwaj, J. (Oral). - The State of Haryana has filed the present criminal writ petition impugning the order dated 5.2.2015 whereby the respondent-accused has been acquitted by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Kurukshetra.

2. As per facts of the case, the respondent-accused was prosecuted in case FIR No. 342 dated 28.12.2011 registered under sections 376, 365, 452, 366 and 506 IPC at Police Station, Pehowa.

3. The victim had lodged the FIR on the allegations that on the intervening night of 27/28.12.2011 she was sleeping in a room of her house and at about 10.30 PM respondent-accused Virender Singh came on the roof and entered into her room and asked her to accompany him. He threatened her not to raise the noise otherwise she and her family members would be killed. She along with the accused came in the street situated in front of her house. She was forced to sit on the motorcycle and was taken to the shop of the respondent-accused situated at Court Chowk, Pehowa, where his mother was also present who closed the shutter of the shop from outside. Thereafter, respondent-accused committed rape with her and she was threatened not to disclose anything to anyone failing which her family would be eliminated. After committing rape she was shunted out from the shop. On returning back to home she disclosed the incident to her parents and resultantly the FIR was lodged. On conclusion of the investigation the challan was presented by the investigating agency. The juvenile was sent to the observation home. Both the sides produced their respective evidence before the Juvenile Justice Board and on conclusion of the same the accused was acquitted vide order dated 5.2.2015.

4. Learned State counsel has vehemently contended that the learned Juvenile Justice Board has misread the evidence produced by the prosecution. It has been submitted that the petitioner-State had already assailed the order dated 26.3.2013 declaring the respondent-accused to be a juvenile. It has been submitted that the victim was 15 1/2 years of age at the time of occurrence and hence her evidence could not be ignored. He submits that the prosecution witnesses i.e. PW-3 Kajal, PW-5 Amarjit Singh and PW-6 Saroj have fully supported the prosecution version, whereas the learned Juvenile Justice Board has failed to appreciate the same judiciously and thus drawn a wrong conclusion in acquitting the respondent-accused. State counsel submits that the impugned order dated 5.2.2015 deserves to be set aside and the respondent-accused deserves to be convicted for the offence committed by him.

5. I have heard learned State counsel at length and have gone through the record carefully.

6. From the perusal of the record, it is apparent that the objection was taken by the respondent-accused that PW-1 to PW-12 were examined before framing of the charges and after framing of the charge only two witnesses i.e. PW-13 Dr. Charu and PW-14 SI Phool Singh were examined.

7. It was contended that as the majority of the witnesses had been examined before framing of charge, thus, their depositions could not be taken into consideration, however, the same was repelled by learned Juvenile Justice Board finding no irregularity in view of Section 251 Cr.P.C. It was further observed that no prejudice had been caused to the accused for the same.

8. Proceedings under the Act before the Juvenile Justice Board were of a summons trial. The learned State counsel argued that the victim was a minor and on the date of the occurrence i.e. 27/28.12.2011 the accused entered her home in the night and forcibly took her on motorcycle and thereafter committed rape on her. The victim was examined as PW-3. A close scrutiny of the deposition of the victim would show that at the time of occurrence she was sleeping in her home along with her family members.

9. The accused allegedly entered home and by threatening her took her out of the home and forcibly made her to sit on his motorcycle. Thereafter she