Judgment 1. By consent, the Revision itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. The juvenile accused in J.C.No.64 of 2004 on the file of the Court of Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Tirunelveli, is the revision petitioner and he is said to have rapped a three years old girl child on 25.01.2004 at 16.30 hours. The petitioner was juvenile at that point of time and therefore he was tried by the Juvenile Justice Board, who on a consideration of testimonies of witnesses P.Ws.1 to 12 and examination Exs.P1 to P13, has found him guilty and taking into consideration of the fact that he is doing his coolie work and helping his family and the recommendation made in the social investigation report that he can be released on admonition and accordingly, admonished him Under Section 15(1)(a) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection ) 2000 Act with a condition that he should do community service by doing cleaning work in the Government High School, Puthur, on week ends, for six months. The Juvenile, aggrieved by the order of admonition, came forward to file this revision praying for conversion of the said order into one honorary acquittal. 3. Mr.M.Vedasingh, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would submit that except the testimony of P.W.1 / father of the victim child, who was aged about 3 years, no other prosecution witnesses were supported the version that the juvenile / revision petitioner had rapped the child and therefore, the juvenile justice Board ought to have acquitted him honourably. It is the further submission of the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner that though the petitioner after attainment of age of majority got employment in CSF, was terminated from service on account of the said impugned order and now he is maintaining good conduct and the said fact may also be taken into consideration while converting the order of admonition into one the order of honourable acquittal. 4. Per contra, Mr.P.Kandasamy, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. 4. Per contra, Mr.P.Kandasamy, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) would vehemently contend that though P.W.2 / mother of the victim child turned hostile, the testimonies would also disclose that immediately after the occurrence, the victim child told her that the revision petitioner herein put a stick in her private part and the testimonies of P.W.1 / father of the victim child was also supported through the testimonies of P.W.3 and therefore, the order of admonition passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Tirunelveli, is perfectly in order and prayed for dismissal of this revision. 5. This Court, after carefully considering of rival submissions and on scrutiny of the impugned order as well as original records, is of the view that the revision petition is liable to be dismissed for the following reasons:- 6. P.W.1 / father of the victim girl would state that when he went behind the temple, he heard the weeping sound of his daughter and when he went there and he saw that the revision petitioner / juvenile was having physical relationship with her and immediately on seeing him, he fled away from the scene of occurrence. P.W.2, the mother of the victim child / wife of P.W.1 though turned hostile would depose that immediately after the occurrence she was enquired and the child told her that the juvenile put a stick in her private part and she developed pain. P.W.3 is the father of P.W.1 and father-in-law of P.W.2. would also corroborate the version of P.W.1 in this regard. The Juvenile Justice Board has taken into consideration of the fact that the juvenile, at the time of occurrence, was studying in a Polytechnic and he is doing coolie work and helping his family and further taken into consideration the recommendation made in the Social Investigation report, has rightly admonished him under Section 15(1) (a) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection ) 2000 Act with a direction that he should do community work by clearing the office room of Government High School, Puthur on week ends, for six months. 7. This Court, taking into consideration of the said order of admonition, is of the view that it cannot said to be perverse for considering the nature and gravity of the crime committed by the revision petitioner / juvenile on three year old girl child. I finds no merits in the revision. Therefore, the revision is dismissed.