ORDER : The present revision arises out of order dated 14.06.2011 passed by Sessions Judge, Surguja, Ambikapur whereby the appeal of the juvenile has been partly allowed and the period of stay in Special Home for reform has been reduced from 3 years to 1 year. 2. The finding has been challenged on the ground that the Courts below have recorded the finding of guilt without taking into consideration that the statement of the prosecutrix and other witnesses suffered from serious contradictions and are not supported by the evidence of Dr. Smt. Sanyogita Pekra (PW3). Further ground taken in the revision is that in the absence of there being any legally admissible evidence to prove ingredients of offences under Sections 323, 325 and 342 IPC, the Courts below ought to have acquitted the applicant of the commission of those offences. Further ground raised in the application is that while passing order of sending the applicant to Special Home for a period of one year, period of detention of the applicant in the Observation Home and that the applicant has no criminal antecedent, has not been taken into consideration. 3. As far the ground of seeking acquittal against the charges under Sections 323, 325 and 342 IPC is concerned, it is found that neither the Juvenile Board nor the Appellate Court have held the applicant guilty of commission of those offences. Order dated 21.04.2011 of the Juvenile Justice Board only shows that the applicant has been held guilty of commission of offence under Section 376 of IPC and not other offences. 4. The order in respect of the applicant is based on the evidence of victim child witness aged 3 years (PW4) and the evidence of her mother Rajmaniya (PW2). 5. The evidence of the child witness (PW4) shows that she has stated that she was taken away by the applicant and made to lie down on the ground. Though thereafter, this child witness could not explain what happened to her, the mother of child witness has stated regarding her physical condition and bleeding from her private part. The medical examination carried out by Dr. Smt. Sanyogita Pekra (PW3) also supports the prosecution case of the child, aged about 3 years, ravished by the applicant. In the report, Dr. Though thereafter, this child witness could not explain what happened to her, the mother of child witness has stated regarding her physical condition and bleeding from her private part. The medical examination carried out by Dr. Smt. Sanyogita Pekra (PW3) also supports the prosecution case of the child, aged about 3 years, ravished by the applicant. In the report, Dr. Smt. Sanyogita Pekra (PW3) in her evidence has stated that :– ^^oStkbZuy ,Dtkfeus'ku&dqekjh f>Yyh QVh gqbZ Fkh vk/ks lseh- dk Nsn oktkbZuk esa fn[k jgk FkkA ekfpl dh frYyh dh lgk;rk ls nks LykbZM iqfLVfu;j QksjfuD'k ls yh xbZ vkSj jklk;fud fo'ys"k.k ds fy, mlh vkj{kd dks ns fn;k x;kA fotkbuk esa ckgjh lwtu o ykfyek ugha fn[kkbZ ns jgk FkkA ejht ds mez ds fu/kkZj.k ds fy, jsfM;ksykWftLV ds ikl fjQj fd;k x;kA** 6. If the statement of the prosecutrix (PW4) aged 3 years, her mother Rajmaniya (PW2) and Dr. Smt. Sanyogita Pekra (PW3) read conjointly, the finding recorded by the Court below is not liable to be interfered with. 7. The other issue which arises for consideration is whether the order of the Appellate Court directing the applicant to be sent to Special Home for a period of one year for reform is liable to be interfered with or not. 8. It is found that the applicant was apprehended by the police and thereafter he was produced before the Juvenile Justice Board and since 04.03.2009, till the order passed on 21.04.2011, the Juvenile remained in the Observation Home. Neither the Board nor the Appellate Authority have taken into consideration the scheme of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, provision contained thereof to come to the conclusion why the juvenile is required to be sent to Special Home, particularly, that juvenile remained in the Observation Home for more than two years and further that at present, age of the juvenile is about more than 23 years of age. Relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Dharambir Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, 2010 (5) SCC 344 , I am inclined to interfere with the impugned order only to the extent direction has been issued for sending the applicant to Special Home. It was held thus :– “19. Relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Dharambir Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, 2010 (5) SCC 344 , I am inclined to interfere with the impugned order only to the extent direction has been issued for sending the applicant to Special Home. It was held thus :– “19. In the instant case, as per the information furnished to us, the appellant has undergone an actual period of sentence of 2 years, 4 months and 4 days and is now aged about thirty five years. We feel that, keeping in view the age of the appellant, it may not be conducive to the environment in the special home and to the interest of other juveniles housed in the special home, to refer him to the Board for passing orders for sending the appellant to special home or for keeping him at some other place of safety for the remaining period of less than eight months, the maximum period for which he can now be kept in either of the two places.” 9. In the result, the revision is partly allowed. The order to the extent it directs sending of the applicant to the Special Home is set aside. The applicant has already been released on bail by this Court earlier. Therefore, there is no need of the juvenile to surrender. Bail bond stands discharged.