It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case, the delinquent was juvenile aged about 16 years, 3 months and 8 days at the time of alleged offence. Further submitted that in the F.I.R. three persons including present revisionist were named for committing rape with the victim who was aged about 17 years and medically it was more than 18 years. She was in relation with co-accused Abhimanyu prior to alleged incident. There was conversation on mobile phone between both of them and also established physical relations. There was promise of marriage on his part thereafter, a video was snapped by the accused Abhimanyu and present revisionist, later on physical relations were established by all, several times and at last video was made viral and it came into the knowledge of the brother of the victim, then present F.I.R. was lodged. In this way, story as alleged in the F.I.R. as stated by the victim herself cannot be said to be true in relation to the present revisionist. There is nothing on record to show the complicity of present delinquent. There is nothing adverse to the present delinquent in the report as submitted by the District Probation Officer. The provisions as contained under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act had not been considered by the Juvenile Justice Board as well as appellate court while rejecting the appeal which cannot be said to be in conformity with the law. The delinquent is in Juvenile Care Home since 22.6.2020 and his psychology is being affected adversely, therefore, requested to set aside the order passed by the J.J. Board as well as appellate court and allow
