JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Aftab Alam, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State. None appears on behalf of the respondent no.2 despite service of notice.

2. Perused the record.

3. This criminal revision has been filed under section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 challenging the order dated 15.01.2022 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Azamgarh in a Criminal Appeal No.80 of 2017 by which the order of the Juvenile Justice Board dated 19.01.2017 was set-aside and the matter was remanded by the appellate court for deciding it afresh in a matter arising out of Case Crime No.17 of 2016, under sections 376, 504, 506 I.P.C. and section 3/4 POCSO Act and section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station-Mubarakpur, District-Azamgarh.

4. Relevant facts leading to this revision are as below:-

Informant-Indrawati lodged an F.I.R. alleging that her daughter, aged about 7 years, was playing in front of her house with other kids of the locality; the juvenile took away her daughter in a cabin/housing a tube-well and ravished her; she started bleeding and cried in pain; hearing her screams, other children came and apprehended him at the spot; the informant also reached at the place of occurrence; however, the accused escaped, threatening them; the victim was medically examined; blood was spotted in her private parts; after collection of the evidence a final report was submitted by the Investigating Officer; thereafter, on the protest petition moved by the informant, the matter was heard by the Juvenile Justice Board, where the final report was accepted and the protest petition was dismissed vide order dated 19.01.2017; challenging the aforesaid order, Criminal Appeal No.80 of 2017 was preferred before the Special Judge (POCSO Act)/Children Court, Azamgarh; after hearing both the sides, the order of Juvenile Justice Board was set-aside with a direction to Juvenile Justice Board to hear and decide the matter afresh, keeping in mind the observation of the appellate court. Against the above order of the appellate court dated 15.01.2022, the minor accused has come in this revision through his natural guardian/father.

5. The very first submission of learned counsel for the revisionist is that the order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board was well reasoned, speaking and was passed on appreciation of evidence available and other facts and circumstances of the case; the appellate court without any good reasons took a different view of the matter; it is a principle of law that where two views are possible, the one favouring the accused is to be preferred; but the appellate court did not adhere to the established principles of law and gave the decision in a one sided and arbitrary manner; the Juvenile Justice Board as well as the appellate court relied on doubtful evidence and also ignored the fact that the prosecution story was improbable; the appellate court ignored the material contradictions in the statements of the witnesses. The final report under section 169 Cr.P.C. was submitted by the Investigating Officer of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, on sufficient grounds; the protest petition was dismissed by the Juvenile Justice Board after considering all the aspects including statements of witnesses, medical report, statement of the Doctor and a detailed order was passed; however, the appellate court passed its order dated 15.01.2022 in a casual and routine manner; hence, the order of the appellate court is liable to be set-aside.

6. First, I perused the order of the Juvenile Justice Board. Passing a very detailed order, the Juvenile Justice Board in a sequential manner referred to each one of parcha nos. I, II, IIA, IIB, III, IIIA, IV, IVA, V, VI, VII, VIII and IX and also made certain observations about the medical reports of the accused as well as the victim and thereafter observed that the conclusion drawn by the Investigating Officer is correct and is