SOHGI KUMARI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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 Under Section 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.) HEARD Mr. Rajesh Lala, learned Counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2 who submitted that in spite of summons being served upon the witnesses the prosecution did not care to produce any of them during enquiry before the Board. Mr. Lala further pointed out that it would be false to say that no opportunity was given to the prosecutrix. She had executed vakalatnma and she was represented through her lawyer in the J.J. Board, apart from prosecutor appearing for the State and therefore, it would be false to say that no opportunity was given to the prosecutrix to adduce evidence. The J.J. Board acquitted the O.P. No. 2 for want of evidence against the accusation and therefore, the revision may be dismissed.