SANDEEP MEHTA, - (1.) The instant revision has been preferred by the petitioner Vinod being aggrieved of the judgment dated 1.10.2015 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh in appeal whereby the Appellate Court, whilst partly accepting the appeal filed on behalf of the petitioner against the judgment dated 31.8.2015 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Hanumangarh, set aside the judgment, acquitted the petitioner and remanded the matter to the Board for fresh inquiry.
(2.) Facts in brief are that a charge -sheet was filed against the petitioner in the capacity of a delinquent juvenile before the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Hanumangarh for the offences under Sections 363, 342, 366A and 376 I.P.C. The Board after holding inquiry held the petitioner guilty of the above offences and directed that he be sent to the Special Home under Clause (6) of Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice Act for a period of three years. The petitioner filed an appeal against the said judgment. The Appellate Court, whilst considering the appeal found that the inquiry was conducted in an absolutely perfunctory fashion. As per Section 5(3) of the Rules, the presence of the Principal Magistrate and at least one Member is essential to constitute the quorum essential for recording evidence during the inquiry. However, the statements of the witnesses PW -1 Dr. Rajeev Munjal, PW -2 Parminder Singh and PW -3 Smt. Renu bore only the signatures of one Member of the Juvenile Justice Board. The statements of these witnesses were recorded in absence of the Principal Magistrate. The statements of witnesses PW -5 Kavita, PW -6 Bheem Sen, PW -7 Omprakash, PW -8 Krishna Lal, PW -9 Sheopat Ram and PW -10 Dr. Manju Kamboj were recorded by the Principal Magistrate in absence of the Members. The statements of PW -12 Krishna Lal bear no signatures of the recording officer at all. The statement of Ranveer Singh, the thirteenth witness of the prosecution was marked as PW -15. No signatures of either the Principal Magistrate or the Member of the Juvenile Justice Board were appended on the statement of this witness. The statement only bears the seal of the Member, Juvenile Justice Board. The statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded by a single Member. The Appellate Court found that the procedure adopted by the Juvenile Justice Board was totally casual and de hors the provisions of the Act. Thus, the inquiry was held to be irretrievably vitiated.
(3.) A plea was raised on behalf of the petitioner before the Appellate Court that as he had crossed the age of 18 years, no order sending him either to the Special Home or the Fit Institution could be passed. It was contended that even if the proceedings were to be remanded then also, it would result into an inconsequential and futile exercise and therefore, the matter should not be sent back to the Board for a fresh inquiry. However, the learned Appellate Court, noticing fundamental defects in the proceedings of the Juvenile Justice Board, set aside the order dated 31.8.2015 and while acquitting the petitioner, remanded the case to the Juvenile Justice Board, Hanumangarh for holding fresh inquiry and hence, this appeal.;