JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Avishek Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 2. Heard Mr. Sardhu Mahto, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State. 3. This criminal revision has been filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28th April, 2014, passed by learned Principal Sessions Judge, Latehar in Criminal Appeal No. 08/14 arising out of judgment dated 10.03.2014, passed by learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Ranchi, in G.R. No. 97/2012 (T.R. No. 434/2014) corresponding to Chandwa P.S. Case No. 12 of 2012, whereby the learned Principal Sessions Judge Latehar has been pleased to dismiss the appeal and holding the petitioner guilty of offence under Sections 363 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and the petitioner was directed to be sent to the Special Home for a period of 3 years for committing offence under sections 363/376 of the IPC. Arguments of the petitioner 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner while advancing his argument has submitted that the manner in which the alleged offence has been committed and the manner in which the petitioner was moving around with the victim itself indicates that there was love affair between them and there was also consent from the side of the victim though she has stated to be 14 years of age in her examination on 14.03.2013. He further submits that family of the victim and family of the petitioner were well known to each other. Learned counsel also submits that considering the fact that the petitioner has already suffered substantial portion of the detention order, lenient view may be taken. He submits that the petitioner has remained in Special Home for almost 2 ½ years. Arguments of the opposite party 5. Learned counsel for the opposite party has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner and submits that the offence committed by the petitioner is very serious and heinous in nature having punishment of minimum sentence of 7 years under Indian Penal Code. He submits that no lenient view may be taken in favour of the petitioner. He has also submitted that plight of the victim be also considered and the present revision petition be dismissed. Findings of this Court 6. He submits that no lenient view may be taken in favour of the petitioner. He has also submitted that plight of the victim be also considered and the present revision petition be dismissed. Findings of this Court 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties this Court finds that as per the prosecution story the daughter of the informant aged 14 years was being teased by the petitioner on her way to school and when the informant learnt about this fact about two months before, he told the fact to the parents of the petitioner and also made his daughter understand. On 11.02.2012 at about 10 PM, the informant’s daughter came out from her house to attend the call of nature but she did not return. The informant and his family members started searching her and they went to the house of the petitioner who was also not present in his house and when they asked whereabouts of the petitioner, they were told that the petitioner might have gone somewhere for sleeping and on the following morning when they again went to his house, the petitioner was not there. In this background the informant of the case gave the written information to the concerned police station believing that the petitioner must have kidnapped his daughter. On the written report of the informant, Chandwa police station case number 12 of 2012 under section 366/363 was registered and police started the investigation. The victim was recovered by the police after about 10 days along with the petitioner. After completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner under section 363/376 of Indian penal code and cognizance under said sections was taken on 21.03. 2012. The petitioner was declared juvenile vide order dated 23.03. 2012 and the case record was sent to juvenile Justice Board for enquiry. On 04.05.2012 the substance of accusation was explained to the petitioner and he claimed to be tried. Upon closure of the prosecution evidence the statement of the petitioner was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. in which the petitioner simply denied the allegation. 7. Only two prosecution witnesses were examined, PW-1, the daughter of the informant and PW-2, the mother of the informant. 8. The victim, P.W-1, was examined on 14.03.2013 and she declared herself to be 14 years of age and showed sufficient maturity in court questions. 7. Only two prosecution witnesses were examined, PW-1, the daughter of the informant and PW-2, the mother of the informant. 8. The victim, P.W-1, was examined on 14.03.2013 and she declared herself to be 14 years of age and showed sufficient maturity in court questions. According to her on 11.02.2012 she was in her house where there is toilet. At about 9 PM she came out from the house to attend the call of nature, the petitioner told her that if she did not go with him, he would kill her mother and father and he forcibly took her to the forest and committed rape upon her and thereafter he took her to the house of his maternal grandmother and therefrom he took her to Ranchi in the house of someone and he committed rape with her at both the places. There from he took her to the house of his aunt. She was studying in class IX at the time incident. The petitioner’s father and mother and women folk of the village took her to the hospital for treatment and the police arrested the petitioner. During cross examination she has stated that she did not raise any alarm when the petitioner took her. The petitioner and the victim were studying in different school and the petitioner was in class X at the time of the incident. She admitted that her father and the father of the petitioner were good friends and they used to visit each other’s house. She has also stated that initially she was taken to the forest and from there she was taken to grandmother’s house in the morning which took seven hours and her mouth was cello-taped and the petitioner used to open it only for taking meal. The learned Juvenile justice board recorded that this witness lived for several days with the petitioner and moved from one place to another either through train or bus, they met several persons on the way, the police saw them, but this witness never raised any alarm. The juvenile Justice Board recorded a finding that this petitioner and the victim–witness were with each other and the witness was consenting but she was in her minority at the time of incident so her consent has no value. The juvenile Justice Board recorded a finding that this petitioner and the victim–witness were with each other and the witness was consenting but she was in her minority at the time of incident so her consent has no value. The learned Juvenile Justice Board also recorded that the doctor who examined the victim was not examined before the juvenile Justice Board and the investigating officer of the case was also not examined. However, the learned Juvenile Justice Board was of the view that the testimony of the victim was reliable and sufficient to hold the petitioner guilty. They learned Juvenile Justice Board also considered the evidence of the mother of the victim, P.W 2. The Juvenile Justice Board was of the considered view that the victim willingly went with the petitioner and established intimate relationship. There was no cross examination of the victim on the point of her age and accordingly held that the victim was 14 years of age at the time of the incident and considering the evidence of P.W – 1 and 2 held that the petitioner was guilty of offence under section 363 and 376 of Indian penal code. The Juvenile Justice Board considered the social investigation report and found that the petitioner had left his studies and delinquency developed due to low income of his family and lack of proper guidance and hence directed the petitioner to be sent to special home for a period of three years and period undergone was directed to be set off from the period awarded. 9. So far as the learned appellate court is concerned, the evidences of the witnesses were reconsidered and the learned court considered the ratio of the various judgements of honourable Supreme Court and after considering the materials on record found that it inspired confidence that the victim girl was caught hold of by the petitioner and threatening to kill her parents was extended and the evidence of PW -1 is quite natural. She has categorically stated about the episode and atrocities faced by her for about 10 days and P.W-2 has supported and corroborated the same in her evidence that her daughter – victim was kidnapped on 11.2.12 and recovered after 10 days by police and that the petitioner had taken her to several places and committed rape on her and the victim was only 14 years of age and accordingly her consent is immaterial. The appellate court by a reasoned order upheld the judgement passed by Juvenile Justice Board and dismissed the appeal. 10. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has given stress over the point that the victim had consented and there was love affair between the two. This court finds that the P.W-2 has categorically denied the story of love affair and the victim P.W-1 has categorically stated that she was taken away forcibly by the petitioner on the pretext that if she does not go, her parents will be killed. There is consistent evidence regarding kidnapping and rape of the victim and there is consistent finding to this effect by the Juvenile Justice Board and the Appellate court. This court finds that there is consistent view of Juvenile Justice Board and the Appellate court that the victim was 14 years of age and her consent is immaterial therefore the arguments of the petitioner that there was love affair between the two and the victim was a consenting party has no bearing in the case. Considering that aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case this court finds no perversity or illegality in finding of conviction recorded by Juvenile Justice Board and upheld by the appellate court. 11. It further appears that while considering the disposition order under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 the learned Juvenile Justice Board had perused the report of the probation officer and considering the nature of offence, ordered that the petitioner, who was found to be in conflict with law, be sent to Special Home, for detention for a period of three years for committing offence under Section 363/376 of the Indian Penal Code. 12. 12. In the case of “Salil Bali v. Union of India” reported in (2013) 7 SCC 705 , para 63 it has been held that the essence of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, and the Rules framed thereunder in 2007, is restorative and not retributive, providing for rehabilitation and reintegration of children in conflict with law into mainstream society. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also corrected the misunderstanding of the law relating to the sentencing of the juveniles, and considered the general understanding of a sentence that can be awarded to a juvenile that after attaining the age of eighteen years, a juvenile who is found guilty of a heinous offence is allowed to go free. The Hon’ble supreme court considered Section 15(1)(g), as it stood before and after the amendment came which into effect from 22-8-2006, and held that amendment now makes it clear that even if a juvenile attains the age of eighteen years within a period of one year he would still have to undergo a sentence of three years, which could spill beyond the period of one year when he attained majority. The Hon’ble supreme court also observed that in the Bill brought in Parliament for enactment of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act of 2000, it has been indicated that the same was being introduced to provide for the care, protection, treatment, development and rehabilitation of neglected or delinquent juveniles and for the adjudication of certain matters relating to and disposition of delinquent juveniles. The essence of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, and the Rules framed thereunder in 2007, is restorative and not retributive, providing for rehabilitation and reintegration of children in conflict with law into mainstream society. The age of eighteen has been fixed on account of the understanding of the experts in child psychology and behavioural patterns that till such an age the children in conflict with law could still be redeemed and restored to mainstream society, instead of becoming hardened criminals in future. The age of eighteen has been fixed on account of the understanding of the experts in child psychology and behavioural patterns that till such an age the children in conflict with law could still be redeemed and restored to mainstream society, instead of becoming hardened criminals in future. There are, of course, exceptions where a child in the age group of sixteen to eighteen may have developed criminal propensities, which would make it virtually impossible for him/her to be reintegrated into mainstream society, but such examples are not of such proportions as to warrant any change in thinking, since it is probably better to try and reintegrate children with criminal propensities into mainstream society, rather than to allow them to develop into hardened criminals, which does not augur well for the future. 13. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Yakub Abdul Razak Memon (Supra) that correctional treatment with a rehabilitative orientation may be an imperative of modern penology so far as the treatment of juvenile in conflict with law is concerned under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. It has also been held that such values may find their roots under Article 19 of the Constitution which itself sanctions deprivation of freedoms provided they render a reasonable service to social defence, public order and security of the State. 14. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present case, though the petitioner is said to have remained in detention for a period of two and half years out of total detention period of three years and that the present age of the petitioner is 24 years, this Court is of the considered view that reducing the punishment to the period already served by the petitioner will not serve the ends of justice. It has also to be kept in mind that the victim in the instant case was 14 years of age at the time of occurrence. This court cannot lose sight of the manner in which the offence under section 363/376 of IPC has been committed by the petitioner with the victim belonging to a family to the petitioner and his family, and certainly the victim, apart from suffering the offence also suffered social stigma and consequences of the offence. 15. This court cannot lose sight of the manner in which the offence under section 363/376 of IPC has been committed by the petitioner with the victim belonging to a family to the petitioner and his family, and certainly the victim, apart from suffering the offence also suffered social stigma and consequences of the offence. 15. This Court is of the considered view that one of the prime concerns of the juvenile justice system is to ensure that the delinquent juvenile is also prevented from reoffending. In fact, the punishment of disposition of three years itself is a part of process of reintegration of the petitioner with the society and for that purpose, the petitioner has to take responsibility of his act being illegal. 16. This Court finds that the learned Juvenile Justice Board, while passing the order of disposition, has recorded that the Board had perused the report of the probation officer and upon consideration of the same, ordered that the petitioner in conflict with law, be sent to the special home for his detention for a period of three years for committing offence under Section 363/376 of Indian Penal Code and also directed that the period of detention already undergone by him during the course of enquiry etc. shall be set off. This Court is of the considered view that the Juvenile Justice Board has rightly exercised its jurisdiction while passing the order of disposition under the facts and circumstances of this case with particular reference to the nature of offence. 17. This Court finds that considering the nature of offence which is involved in the present case and the manner in which it has been committed, the petitioner does not deserve any modification of punishment in his favour. Although the petitioner has served a substantial portion of the punishment imposed by Juvenile Justice Board, this Court is not inclined to take any sympathetic view and modify the order of detention of the petitioner. 18. Accordingly, the present criminal revision petition is hereby dismissed. 19. Bail bond furnished by the petitioner is hereby cancelled. 20. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is dismissed as not pressed. 21. Let the Lower Court’s Records be sent back to the learned Juvenile Justice Board/court concerned. 22. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court below through “email/FAX”.