Point of law: According to provisions of Section 18(1) (g) of the Act of 2015, the juvenile in conflict with law can be sent to special home for such a period not exceeding three years. In the present matter, even if it is presumed that juvenile has committed a crime, he cannot be kept in protection home for more than three years. The revisionist/juvenile already has spent about four years in judicial custody. The case of revisionist/juvenile does not fall under any of the exceptions provided under Section 12(1) of the Act of 2015.

JUDGMENT :

1. This criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionist/juvenile Takla @ Dharmeshwar through his mother Smt. Sushila Devi, under Section 102 of The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (in short the "Act of 2015") against the judgement dated 28.11.2017 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sitapur in Criminal Appeal No. 80 of 2017 as well as order dated 10.10.2017 passed by Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Sitapur in Case No. 60/2017 arising out of Crime No. 100/2017, under Section 376B Indian Penal Code (in short "I.P.C.") and Section 3/4 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in short "POCSO Act"), Police Station Manpur, District Sitapur.

2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this Criminal Revision are as follows:-

An F.I.R. bearing Case Crime No.100 of 2017 was registered against unknown persons on the basis of written complaint moved by the complainant Smt. Phoolmati narrating the facts that on 06.05.2017 at about 1 AM in the night, some dance function was going on in the marriage procession in front of house of the complainant. The grand-daughter of the complainant aged about 5 years went to watch the same. One unknown person came there and took her away near the pond situated in the village and committed rape on her. The investigation was made and during the course of investigation, the name of the revisionist and one other accused came into light. Subsequently, charge sheet was submitted in the Court. The Court concerned took cognizance of the matter. The revisionist claimed juvenility and he was declared juvenile by the Juvenile Justice Board, Sitapur vide order dated 21.09.2017. Thereafter, the revisionist/juvenile moved bail application before the Juvenile Justice Board, Sitapur. That was rejected vide order dated 10.10.2017. Against that order an appeal was preferred under Section 101 of the Act of 2015 and appeal too was dismissed by the Appellate Court vide judgment and order dated 28.11.2017. Being aggrieved with the said order/judgment, the revisionist/juvenile preferred the present revision.

3. Heard Sri Shivendra Singh Rathore, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Dhananjay Kumar, learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State respondent. None turned up on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 despite of service of notice.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist/juvenile submitted that revisionist is in jail since last four years. He was declared juvenile by the Juvenile Justice Board, Sitapur vide order dated 21.09.2017. He was not named in the first information report. During the course of investigation, police implicated him on the basis of the statement made by the complainant, wherein she stated before the Investigating Officer that one Lallu Ram and Ram Nath told her that they both saw that Daroga @ Surjeet took the victim away forcibly and Takla @ Dharmeshwar was also there. They both committed rape on the victim. He also submitted that the victim in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has mentioned that she was picked up by Surjeet and Takla and Surjeet committed rape on her but she said nothing about the commission of rape by revisionist/juvenile-Takla. He further submitted that according to provisions of Section 18(1) (g) of the Act of 2015, the juvenile in conflict with law can be sent to special home for such a period not exceeding three years. In the present matter, even if it is presumed that juvenile has committed a crime, he cannot be kept in protection home for more than three years. The revisionist/juvenile already has spent about four years in judicial custody. He further submitted that the case of revisionist/juvenile does not fall under any of the exceptions provided under Section 12(1) of the Act of 2015. Learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board and the Appellate Court both have wrongly concluded that the release of the juvenile will bring the juvenile into the contact of the unknown crim