JUDGMENT :

(Suresh Kumar Gupta, J.)

1. On 11.5.2023, following order was passed by this Court:

"1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This criminal revision U/s 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2015 has been against the order dated 31.7.2019 passed by the Special Judge (POCSO Act)/8th Additional District & Sessions Judge, Bahraich in Criminal Appeal No. 08/2019, U/s 101 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2015, Police Station-Dargah Sareef, District-Bahraich whereby the appeal filed by the respondent no.2 has been allowed and order dated 6.3.2019 passed by Juvenile Justice Board has been quashed in case no. 70/12/2018 vide case crime no. 48/2018, U/s 363,366,376,328,506,120B IPC and Section 3/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, Police Station-Dargah Sareef, District- Bahraich.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the revisionist conflict with law is juvenile. In this matter, the alleged date of mentioned in the FIR as 26.2.2018. The Juvenile Justice Board arrived at a conclusion that as per the educational certificate of Class V marks sheet, scholar register and transfer certificate form, the date of birth of the revisionist is 6.3.2003. Thus the age of the revisionist on the alleged date of incident was 14 years 11 months and 20 days.

4. It is further submitted that the Juvenile Justice Board during inquiry CW-1 Amita Rana who is the sister of the revisionist was examined and CW-2 Sushila Rani who is the Head Master of Nehru Shishu Mandir Vidyalaya Gulam Alipura, Bahraich and she clearly stated that on the basis of scholar register the date of birth of the revisionist is 6.3.2003.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submitted that on behalf of the first informant, PW-1 Laxman Prasad Gupta was examined who clearly stated that as per scholar register date of birth of the revisionist was mentioned as 16.7.2000. He further stated that this student has got admission in class III. At the time of admission, the father of the revisionist furnished the T.C. of Gaytri Shishu Mandir, Bahraich. On the basis of said T.C., date of birth of the revisionist was registered in the scholar register of Class IV passed by the student in his school.

6. On perusal of the judgement of the trial court as well as the revisional court, it reveals that PW-2 Usha Patak, Principal of Gaytri Shishu Mandir, Bahraich was also examined before the Juvenile Justice Board, but the statement of PW-2 Usha Patahk has not been annexed by the revisionist's counsel. However, the conclusion of the trial court as well as revisional court is totally based on the statement of PW-2 Usha Pathak but the same is not annexed with this file. Therefore, without the statement of PW-2 Usha Pathak, the instant revision could not be decided. During course of dictation, this fact came into light.

7. Since for just decision of the case, statement of PW-2 Usha Pathak is inevitable, consequently, the learned counsel for the revisionist is directed to file statement of PW-2 Usha Pathak.

8. List on 16.5.2023 for further hearing."

2. In pursuance of earlier order dated 11.5.2023, the learned counsel for the revisionist filed the statement of the PW-2 Usha Pathak by way of supplementary affidavit which is taken on record.

3. In the statement of PW-2, Usha Pathak who is the Principal of the Gaytri Shishu Mandir, Bahraich, she clearly stated that Aman Gautam (revisionist) is never the student of her school. In her cross examination, she clearly stated that although there are two branches of the school. Another branch is looked after by the Assistant Principal. She further stated that the S.R. register of both the branches is same but attendance register is separate. She further stated that all the documents are kept in main branch.

4. On the basis of above statement of PW-2, Usha Pathak, the learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that learned Juvenile Justice Board has rightl