1
IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. MAGISTRATE OF JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD
CUM-II-ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,
MOBILE COURT, ONGOLE.
Present :: Smt. B.Vani Sree, Special Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Mobile Court, Ongole. FAC:: Prl. Magistrate of juvenile justice board cum II-Addl.Judl. Magistrate of I-Class, Ongole Wednesday, this the 30 th day of October, 2019
C.C.No.1303/2014
(Cr.No.118/2012 of Tanguturu P.S ) Between:
The State: Inspector of Police
S.Konda Circle... Complainant
Vs.
Neerukonda @ Neerukunta Rajesh S/o Srinivasulu @Srinu, @ Pittala Srinu aged 17 years, Mala by caste, Alakurapadu village Tanguturu mandal ….Child conflict with law
Name of the Deceased: Badugu Srikanth S/o Rama Kotaiah, aged about 20 years caste Mala Occ:Carpenter, R/o Alakurapadu village Tanguturu mandal This case is coming on 25-10-2019 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, for the State and of Sri.Sirigiri Ranga Rao, Advocate for child conflict with law and upon perusing the material available on record, upon hearing the arguments on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-
FINAL ORDER:
1.The Inspector of Police Singarayakonda P.S/L.W20-T.Ashok Vardhan
Reddy submitted final report against the juvenile in conflict with law in Cr.NO.118/2012, for the offence, punishable U/sec.302 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:
The juvenile is the son of A1 (Neerukonda Srinivasualu) and the deceased/B.Srikanth was a carpenter and he is the son of P.W1. The father of the juvenile(N.S) suspected illegal intimacy in between his wife/N.Rajeswari and the deceased/B.Srikanth, in that connection, about two months prior to this offence father of the juvenile had a quarrel with the deceased and threatened him that he would kill him if he does not give up illegal intimacy with his wife and the same was witnessed by P.W1 to P.W6 and LW3 to 6 viz., L.W3/P.Koteswara Rao, LW4/L.Anil, LW5/L.Sridhar and LW6/L.Raju.
2
i)It is further the case of the prosecution that in order to commit the offence, since then father of the juvenile was developed grudge against the deceased, hatched up a plan to eliminate the deceased along with his son and waiting for an opportunity.
On 29-06-2012 at about 5-00 P.M while the deceased was returning home on his bicycle with water pitches and the father of juvenile and juvenile laid way for the deceased at SC colony Alakurapadu village and attacked him near the corner of the house of one Badugu Subbramaiah with deadly weapons i.e., pestle and knives and father of juvenile beat the deceased with the pestle over the head of the deceased as a result, and he fell down on the bamboo sheet which was kept as fencing to the house of said Badugu Subbaramaiah and the father of the juvenile took out a knife which was kept near his naval and hacked the deceased over his head and the juvenile stabbed the deceased with a knife over the left side of the chest.
ii)In the mean time, P.W1, P.W2 and L.W3 rushed to the scene of offence, and the same was noticed by the juvenile and his father then they fled away from the scene of incident L.ws 4 to 6 Viz., L.Anil, L.Sridhar, L.Raju also rushed to the scene of incident and P.W1, P.W3, P.W9 got the deceased into the auto rickshaw of P.w6 and shifted him to RIMS, Hospital Ongole but on the way the deceased succumbed to injuries. Then P.W1 got scribed a report through P.W5 and lodged the same in the police station under Ex.P1.
iii)P.W10 received the Ex.P1 report of P.w1 and registered a case in
Cr.No.118/12 U./sdc302 r/w 34 of IPC of Tanguturu P.S on 29-06-2012 at about 7-00
P.M and submitted the FIR to the Hon’ble Addl.Judl.Magistrate of I-Class, Mobile
Court, Ongole. P.W11 received the copy of FIR and had taken up the investigation in this case.
iv)During the course of the investigation, on 29-06-2012, PW11 inspected the scene of offence in the presence of mediators P.W7 and L.w12-D.Ramachandra
Rao and examined P.W1, P.W2 to L.W3-P.Koteswara rao, L.W5-L.Sridhar and recorded their statements U/sec.161 (3) Cr.P.C and seized stained broken pestle pieces and Hero jet green colored bicycle two Alumunum pitchers tied with a rope and 3 the blood stains lifted with cotton from the scene of offence under observation report(Ex.P3) and it is attested by P.W7 and L.w12-D.Ramachandra rao and prepared the rough sketch under Ex.P11 and he got photographed scene of offence indifferent angles through P.w4 under Ex.P9 and Ex.P10.
v)During the course of further investigation, on 30-06-2012 P.w11 held inquest over the dead body of the deceased under Ex.P4 in the presence of L.W12
D.Ramachandra Rao, L.W14-Ch.Rama rao and P.W7 and he examined L.W6-L.Raju,
P.W3, to P.W6 and P.W9 and recorded their statements. Further P.w11 drafted inquest proceedings and the same was attested by inquest mediators ie P.W7, L.W12, L.W13 and after completion of the inquest P.w11 send the dead body to RIMS, Ongole for
Post mortem examination. During the course of further investigation on 02-7-2012 at about 9-15 A,M P.W11 arrested the father of juvenile(A1) seized the bag, blood stained
Kaki colour shirt which was wored by the father of the accused at the time of offence and the knife which was used by him at the time of the commission of offence from the possession of the father of juvenile and drafted the confession mahazarnama and the same was duly attested by P.w7 and L.W12 and the father of the juvenile confessed his involvement along with his son (juvenile) and P.W11 produced the father of the juvenile before the court on the same day and send him remanded for judicial custody.
vi)During the course of further investigation, P.w11 apprehended the juvenile in conflict with law on 13-07-2012 at South bypass road Tangutur in the presence of mediators P,.W7 and L.w12-D.Ramachandra rao and the juvenile confessed his participation along with his father to the killing of the deceased. In pursuance of the confession made by the juvenile, P.w11 seized Knife(M.O1) which was used by the juvenile at the time of the commission of offence and P.w11 drafted a mahazar duly attested by P.W7 and L.w12-D.Ramachandra rao and produced the juvenile before the
Juvenile Justice Board and send him to the observation Home.
vii)After that P.w1 sent the seized material objects to RFSL, Guntur for analysis through the Sub-divisional Police officer, Ongole along with letter of advise under Ex.P12 andL.W16-B.Ramakrishna rao Who analyzed the material objects in 4
RFSL Guntur and issued analysis report under Ex.P13. P.W8 (doctor) conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued PM report under Ex.P6 and he opined that the death occurred due to the multiple injuries. After completion of investigation L.W20-T.Ashok Vardhan Reddy filed final report against the juvenile and separate charge sheet filed against father of juvenile before Spl JMFC Mobile Court,
Ongole.
3. After careful perusal of material on record and final report this board took the cognizance for the offence punishable under section 302 of IPC against the juvenile on appearance of the juvenile.
4.After appearance of the Juvenile conflict with law before this board, the copies of the documents relied upon by the prosecution, are furnished to the juvenile as contemplated under section 207 of the Criminal procedure Code.
5.The juvenile conflict with law is examined under sections 251 of the
Criminal Procedure Code and the substance of accusation for the offences punishable under section 302 of Indian Penal Code against the juvenile conflict with law, which is read over and explained to him in Telugu language, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6.The prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of the Juvenile conflict with law has examined PW1 to P.W11 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P13 through them.
The evidence of L.W4 to L.W6, L.W15, L.W16, L.w20 viz-L.Anil, L.Sridhar, L.Raju,
Head Mistress, Z.P.High school, Pakala, B.Ramakrishna rao are closed by this court and the evidence of L.W3-P.Koteswra rao is given up by the prosecution.
7.After closure of the prosecution evidence the juvenile is examined under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and the incriminating material read over and explained to him in Telugu for which he denied, and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.
5
8.Heard arguments on both sides.
9.Points for determination:
1. “Whether the prosecution did prove the guilt of the Juvenile
conflict with law beyond reasonable doubt for the offences
punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code ?
2. “To what finding”?
Point No.1:
10.To substantiate the prosecution case, and examined P.w1/who is the father of the deceased and he has deposed before the board that the deceased-
B.Srikanth is his son and at about four years back on one day at 5-00 P.M while he was present near the bunk of P.W2, situated at Mallapalli and at that time his son/deceased was bringing water from pond(Cheruvu) on his bicycle and at that time, juvenile along with his father stopped his son and father of the juvenile beat his son with pestle and where has the juvenile stabbed his son with a knife on his left chest.
Further he has testified that in the mean time, he rushed to the scene of incident and took the deceased into his hands and proceeded to Tangutur Hospital, and there the doctor confirmed that his son was already died. Further he has testified that the motive behind of the alleged incident is that the juvenile and his father had suspected that his son has illegal intimacy with the mother of the juvenile.
11.P.W1 has deposed in his cross examination that he had given a report at about 9-30 P.M and one constable has recorded his statement in the Hospital and subsequently again he went to the Police station and gave a report and his report was drafted by circle inspector on his dictation. Further he has testified that the juvenile and his father has hide (Mattu vesuru) themselves near the house of Lakkamthoti
Venkaiah before the incident and at that time of the alleged incident, the deceased fell down on the bamboo sheet (Tadika) of the house of one Subbramaiah and the said house of Subbaramaiah is situated on the southern side of cement road of Mallpalli of
Alakurapadu village and one Kostam of Reddy to be situated on the northern side and one parvarthi’s house situated above the house of said Lakkamthoti Venkaiah and the 6 said Lakamthoti venkaiah house is situated on the western house of abating to the cement road of scene of incident. Further he has testified that P.W2 is grand son of his senior paternal uncle. Further he has testified that he is doing cultivation and there are four houses are situated between the of scene of incident and bunk (shop) of
P.w2 and there are residential houses are situated in the scene of incident.
12.Further he has testified that the alleged incident occurred when the deceased was proceeding from south to north of the scene of incident. Further he has testified that he know the L.W3-P.Koteswara Rao who is accompanied him to the scene of incident. Further he has testified that the juvenile and his father went away towards the western side of scene of incident after the alleged incident. Further he has testified that by the time they reached to the scene of incident no public was present and within 15minutes all the people gathered at the scene of incident.
13.P.W2 who is the eye witnesses has testified that he has been running bunk(shop) beside the Ramulavari temple in Alakurapadu village further he has testified that at about three years back on one day at about 5-00 P.M whenever himself and P.w1 were present in his bunk which is facing towards east and they are observed that the deceased/B.Srikanth was bringing water on his bicycle and in the mean time the juvenile and his father were running fastly on the road which is situated besides his bunk then immediately the father of juvenile beat the deceased with the pestle and after that the juvenile stabbed with his knife in the left chest of the deceased and after that they (father of the juvenile and juvenile) ran towards themselves but they did not concentrated on them due to the reason that for saving the life of the deceased they immediately shifted the Deceased to the Tanguturu
Hospital and after that they shifted the deceased to the RIMS Hospital, Ongole.
Further he has testified that the deceased was dead. Further he has testified that the motive behind of the alleged incident is that the deceased had illegal intimacy with the mother of juvenile.
7
14.P.W2 has deposed in his cross examination that he was examined by the police on the same day between 6-00 to 7-00 P.M and he along not know the exact time as he is an illiterate. Further he has deposed that after the alleged incident the juvenile and his father came in front of them with a distance of 10 to 20 feet and himself and P.W1 immediately reached to the scene of incident and after that approximately 50 members were gathered at the scene of incident. Further he has testified he do not know whether he was signed or not at the time of his examination by the police but he has stated his name to the police. Further he has testified that the alleged incident happened on the road towards from west to East and there is one
Kostam of reddy is situated after the said road and there is also another cross road laid in front of his bunk.
15.P.W3 has deposed that on 29-06-2012 at about 5-00 P.M while he was returning back to his house from agricultural land and at that time, he observed a crowd yelling near his house situated within 15 meters then he went there and observed the deceased /B.Srikanth with bleeding injuries on his head and in his chest.
Further he has testified that then he came to know through P.w1 and others the juvenile along with his father has stabbed the deceased with a knife and went away and he shifted the deceased to RIMS Hospital, Ongole and on the way the deceased was died.
16.P.W4 has deposed that on 29-06-2012 at about 5-00 P.m Singarayakonda
Circle Inspector and Sub-Inspector called him to take the photographs of the scene of incident and immediately he went to the scene of incident along with police officials and took the photographs at scene of incident of Alakurapadu village.
17.P.W5 has deposed that he is working as private school teacher in
Uppalapadu village and the deceased his brother by courtesy. Further he has testified that on 29-06-2012 at about 3-00 P.M one Shiva called him stated that the juvenile 8 stabbed the deceased/B.Srikanth with a knife and immediately he reached to the
Kancherla Venkateswara Hospital at Tangutur and he came to know that the deceased was died. Then himself and P.w1 and one Siva shifted the deceased body to the
RIMS Hospital, Ongole. Further he has testified that he drafted the report at the instructions of P.W1(Ex.P1).
18.He has deposed in his cross examination that when he was present at
Kandukuru and he received the information through one Shiva and he was examined by the police on the next day of the alleged incident. Further he has testified that he was drafted report Ex.P1 at about 7-30 P.M. Further he has denied the suggestion that he did not went to RIMS Hospital, Ongole and drafted the report in the police station. Further he has testified that P.W2 who is his cousin and also present at the time of the drafting of the report at RIMS Hospital, Ongole.
19.P.W6 S.Koteswara Rao in his evidence deposed that he do not know the deceased and he do not know anything about this case particulars and he was not examined by the police as such he did not support the prosecution case of the prosecution. Though the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has examined P.W6 after obtaining permission from this court nothing incriminating material could be elicited except got marked ExP2.
20.P.W7 who is mediator deposed that on 29-06-2012 at about 8-00 P.M while he was present in the bus stand and one VRA came and informed him to act as a mediator to the scene observation report. Then he himself went to the police station.
Further he has testified that himself and one Circle Inspector of Police went to the scene of offence which is situated at SC Colony, near the house of one Subbaramaiah at Alakurapadu village of Tanguturu mandal and there he observed that one Hero bicycle was lying and the back side of the cycle contained one stand with two pot vessels and the same was empty and the pieces of the pestle and blood stained and the same was seized by the Circle Inspector of Police (P.W11) with Cotton and took 9 photographs of the scene of incident and one constable was drafted the scene observation report under Ex.P3. Further he has deposed that 30-06-2012 at about 10- 00 A.M he went to RIMS Hospital, Ongole and acted as mediator for inquest report for dead body of the deceased(B.Srikanth) and he found injuries on the head of the deceased. Further he has deposed that on 13-07-2012 while he was present in
Tanguturu M.R.O office one police came and requested him to act as apprehended of the juvenile and immediately himself along with one Ramachandraiah went to the police station and the apprehension Mahazarnama was drafted by the police in the police station and at that time the juvenile also present and he signed on it(Ex.P5) and he know the contents of it.
21.P.W7 has admits in his cross examination that there is a distance 1 ½ kilometer from his office to police station and he has resident of Butchirajupalem village further he has testified that police seized the blood stained with cotton on the cement road and there is a Subbramaiah bamboo sheet(tadika) is situated at the five feet of the distance of it.
22.P.W8 who is Medical officer/Assistant Professor at RIMS Hospital, Ongole has deposed that on 30-06-2012 at about 12-45 P.M and he received requisition from
Inspector of Police from Sigarakonda Circle Inspector to conduct the Post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased/B.Srinkath accordingly he conducted the Post mortem examination and issued post mortem certificate under Ex.P6. Further he has testified that according to his opinion the death is occurred due to multiple injuries. Further he had admitted in his cross examination that the colour of injuries may changed day to day according to the medical science and he has not mentioned the age and colour of injury sustained by it.
23.P.W9 deposed that one day he heard the cries while he was present at his house then he went to the said place and there he observed that the father of the juvenile by name Sreenu stabbed the deceased with a knife on his left chest and the 10 juvneile was not present at the scene of incident . Then immediately himself along with P.W1 and P.W3 shifted the deceased to RIMS Hospital, Ongole and he got down the Auto rickshaw at Tanguturu P.S for bringing water and he returned to the spot where the auto rickshaw was stopped but the deceased was died and at this stage the prosecution sought permission to declare the witness as hostile except Ex.P7 marked.
24.P.W10 who is Sub-Inspector of police on 29-06-2012 at about 7-00 P.M while hew as present at Tanguturu P.S P.W1 came to Police station and gave a report.
Basing on the report he registered the case in Cr.No.118/2012 for theoffence U/sec.
302 r/w 34 of IPC. He send the original copy of FIR under Ex.P8 to concern authorities and passed information to P.W11, and P.W11 visited the scene of offence and received the FIR and conduct the investigation.
25. P.W11 has deposed that on 29-06-2012 at about 7-00 P.M when he was in Circle Office and got information about the occurrence of alleged incident from
Tanguturu S.I/P.W10 then he went to Tanguturu Police station and received FIR under
EX.P8 and gone through the contents on it. Further he has testified that then he secured P.W1 at police station and examined and recorded his statement as well as he seized blood stained shirt of P.W1. Further he has deposed that he visited the scene of offence i.e., Alakurapadu S.C. Colony and secured the mediators, L.W12-
D.Ramachandra Rao, P.W7 and examined the scene and got photographs in his cell phone at the of scene of incident under Ex.P9 (5 in number) as well as P.W4 also taken the photographs at Scene of incident under Ex.P10 (11 in number). Further he has testified that two Aluminium pitches, one bicycle, and he lifted the blood stains with the help of cotton on the ground and he collected broken pieces of pistle and prepared scene observation report (Ex.P3) in the presence of said mediators, (P.W7,
L.W12-D.Ramachandra Rao and prepared rough sketch under Ex.P11.
26.Further P.W11 has deposed that he secured P.W2, L.W3–P.Koteswara
Rao, L.W4-L.Anil, L.W5-L.Sridhar and examined and recorded their statements. On 11 30-06-2012 he visited the RIMS Hospital, Ongole secured the panchayatdars and blood relatives of the deceased-B.Srikanth and witnesses i.e. P.W7, L.W12-
D.Ramachandra Rao, L.W14-Ch.Rama Rao, P.W1, P.W2, L.W3 to 5 and he prepared inquest mahazarnama (Ex.P4), and send the deceased body for Post mortem examination. Further he has deposed that he secured P.W3, P.W5, P.W9 and L.W6-
L.Raju, examined and recorded their statements at RIMS hospital, Ongole and after that he visited the Tanguturu Police station and examined the P.w4/photographer and recorded his statement and after that he visited the Alakurapadu village and he examined and recorded the statement of P.W6. Further he has deposed that as per his investigation he came to know that father of the juvenile by name Neerukonda
Srinivasulu @ Srinu is a Rowdy sheeter.
27. Further he has deposed that On 02-07-2012 he arrested the father of juvenile at Surareddypalem junction and he recorded his confession statement before the
P.W7, L.W12-D.Ramachandra Rao and seized the material object of Knife and blood stained shirt with the help of father of juvenile (A1 )near the Surareddypalem junction and during his confession he stated that one Badugu Sriknath/deceased having illegal intimacy with his wife so that he committed the alleged offence then P.W11 send him for judicial custody. Further he has deposed that he gave a requisition to head mistress (L.W15) Z.P.High School, Pakala for about the age of the juvenile and she gave the report to that effect and he confirmed that he is a juvenile.
28.Further he has deposed that on 13-07-2012 on information he went to the south-bye pass Tanguturu along with his staff and mediators i.e.,P.W7, L.W12 and there taken the custody one boy and the said boy voluntarily confession before them that his name disclosed as Neerukonda Rajesh and his father name Neerukonda
Srinivasa Rao and they committed the alleged offence and he has stabbed the chest of the deceased with the help of knife then he seized the said knife (M.O1) with the help of juvenile which is near the railway gate of Surareddy palem under the over of mahazarnama(Ex.P5) M.O1 is the knife five inches of wooden handle and 18 inches of 12 knife metal portion with sharp edge along with blood stained and he send the juvenile for apprehension and he send the material object M.O1 along with other 8 material objects for chemical analysis to the FSL, Guntur under Ex.P12 and he received the
FSL Report under Ex.P13 and after that L.W20 P.Ashok Vardhan Reddy filed a final report against the juvenile, after receiving of Post mortem certificate Further he has admits that P.W6, P.W7 deposed in his presence under Ex.P2 and P7.
29.P.W11 admits in his cross examination that Ex.P1 was drafted by P.w5 but he did not ascertain in which place P.W5 was drafted the Ex.P1/report. Further he had admitted that the deceased was not dead in the Tanguturu Hospital and he was died in the middle while shifting from Tangutur Hospital to RIMS Hospital and he came to know about the death of the deceased through P.W1 and in Ex.P1 reveals that the deceased was died whenever the deceased was shifted to Tangutur Hospital in the auto rickshaw. Further he has deposed that at about 7-30 P.M he reached Tangutur u
P.S and he only examined P.W1 at Tanguturu Police station and at that time he visited the scene of offence at about 8-30 P.M on 29-06-2012. Further he testified that there are residential houses are situated at four corners of scene of incident but he did not examine the witnesses (four members) who were shown in the rough sketch under
Ex.P11. Further he has voluntarily admits that they are not available at the time of his visit due to the reason he did not examined them who are shown in the rough sketch(Ex.P11). Further he has deposed that the scene of incident is on the road and he shown one house of Raghava Reddy which is situated to the opposite of the scene of incident but he did not examined him.
30.The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has argued that the prosecution examined the eye witnesses who directly witnessed the incident (P.W1, P.W2) and they are corroborated with each other, which are confirmed by the evidence of P.W8 (medical officer) under Ex.P6/Postmortem certificate. Further he has argued that
P.W1, P.W2 who are direct witnesses are narrated the incident and corroboration with each other relating to the manner of occurrence of commission of offence. Further he 13 submitted that the photographs (Ex.P9, Ex.P10) also corroborated the evidence of witnesses that is P.W4, P.W11. Further he has argued that material object seized by the prosecution (M.O1) support the prosecution case and the evidence of P.W11,
Ex.P12, Ex.P13 (letter of advise of FSL Report are the chain of the proved by them.
Further he has submitted that prosecution successfully proved the motive willfulness deliberation and premeditation of the offence, the line of conduct of the investigation, and physical evidence recover of material object successfully.
31.On the other hand the learned defence counsel has argued that there is inconsistency about the time of drafting of the Ex.P1/report which was given by P.W1 and the time of registration of FIR/Ex.P8 by PW10. Further he has argued that P.W7 who is the mediator deposed that he signed at the police station on the mediatornama/
Ex.P5, but P.W11 testified that Ex.P5/arrest mahazarnama of the juvenile at
Surareddypalem junction and there is inconsistency for about the apprehension of the
Juvenile and seizure of the material object whether it is held at police station or
Surareddy palem junction. Further the learned counsel for the juvenile has argued that the death of the juvenile either happened in the Tangutur Hospital or in RIMS Hospital,
Ongole. Further he has argued that witnesses P.W1 to P.W5 are the relatives of deceased, hence their evidence is not considerable one.
32.On perusal of the evidence of P.W1 he has deposed that he had given report to the police station at about 9-30 P.M and one constable recorded his statement in the hospital and subsequently he went to the police station and had given report/Ex.P1 and his report/Ex.P1 was drafted by Circle Inspector on his dictation. On perusal of the evidence of P.W5 he deposed that he had drafted Ex.P1/report at about 7-30 P.M at RIMS Hospital, Ongole and at that time P.W2 his cousin is also present.
On perusal of the evidence of P.W11 he has deposed that Ex.P1/report was drafted by
P.W5 but he did not ascertain in which place P.W5 drafted Ex.P1/ report. Further on perusal of the Ex.P1/ report, it is not revealed that P.W5 was drafted the same at about 7-30 P.M at RIMS Hospital, Ongole as stated by P.W5 or it was drafted by Circle 14
Inspector of Police on the instructions of P.W1 at about 9-30 A.M it was stated by
P.W1. Further P.W10/ Sub Inspector of Tanguturu Police station registered the said report at about 7-00 P.M on 29-06-2012. Hence, the defence taken by the learned counsel for the juvenile is not considerable one even though the same was admitted by P.W1, P.W5, P.W11 and it is the minor discrepancy of it and there is no serious lacuna of the prosecution case. Hence, the plea raised by the learned counsel for the
Juvenile is not at all sustainable and can’t help to escape the alleged offence.
33.Further the learned defence counsel for the juvenile has argued that P.W5 has deposed in his evidence that on 29-06-2012 at about 3-00 P.M one Siva called him and stated about the alleged incident. But at the evidence of P.W1, P.W2, and
P.W11 and other remaining witnesses the alleged incident occurred at about 5-00 P.M on 29-06-2012. hence, how it is possible that said Siva telephoned to P.W5 at about 30-00 P.M on 29-06-2012. Hence, the prosecution failed to establish the time of the commission of offence beyond reasonable doubt.
34.On perusal of the evidence of P.W5 he deposed that on 29-06-2012 at about 3-00 P.M one Siva called him and stated that the juvenile stabbed the deceased/
B.Srikanth with a knife and immediately he rushed to the Kancharla Venkateswara
Hospital, Tangutur and he came to know that the deceased/B.Srikanth was dead and he drafted the Report/Ex.P1 on the instructions of P.W1 at RIMS Hospital, Ongole at about 7-30 P.M and tat that time P.W2/who is his cousin is also present. Further on perusal of the evidence of P.W1, P.W2 and P.W11 and other remaining witnesses and they stated that the alleged incident occurred at about 5-00 P.M on 29-06-2012 but on perusal of the entire oral and documentary evidence available on record it clearly reveals that the alleged incident occurred in the year 2012 and P.W5 deposed evidence before the court on 20-03-2017 at there is five years gap between the alleged incident and the evidence of P.W5. Hence due to lapse of time may be P.W5 deposed time at about 3-00 P.M he received the phone call from one Siva and it is not any serious issue to consider the defence by the juvenile and it is quite natural and it is 15 minor discrepancy and it is not helpful to the juvenile to escape from the alleged offence. Although there should not be any missing links in the case yet, it is not essential that each of the links missed appear on the surface of the evidence adduced and some of these links may have to be inferred from the proved facts. Hence the defence raised by the learned counsel for juvenile was not considerable and also not appreciable.
35.Further on perusal of the evidence of P.W1, P.W2, it clearly reveals that
PW1 categorically testified before the court at about 5-00 P.M while he was present near the bunk of P.W2 situated at Malapalli and his son/deceased was bringing water from Cheruvu on his bicycle and at that time the juvenile along with his father stopped his son/deceased and where as father of the juvenile beat his son with pestle and whereas the juvenile stabbed his son with a knife on his chest. Further P.W2 testified
before the court at about 5-00 P.M himself and P.W1 were present in his bunk facing
towards east and he was observed that the deceased/B.Srikanth was bringing water on his bicycle and in the mean time the juvenile and his father were running fastely on the road situated besides his bunk and immediately the father of the juvenile beat the deceased with pestle and after that the juvenile stabbed the chest of the deceased with a knife and that the juvenile and father of the juvenile ran towards themselves but they did not concentrate on them due to the reason that they want to save the life of the deceased then they immediately shifted the deceased to Tanguturu Hospital. Further
P.W1, P.W2 deposed at one voice that the motive behind the alleged incident is that the father of the juvenile has suspected that the deceased/B.Sriknath had illegal intimacy with his wife (mother of juvenile). Hence, all the witnesses corroborated with each other in narrating the facts of the incident at the scene of offence.
36.The evidence of P.W3 is here say evidence however he deposed that he came to know about the alleged incident through P.W1 and immediately he went to the hospital along with P.W1 for admission of the deceased in the hospital and also he has deposed on the same lines as eye witnesses. Hence, the prosecution succeeded in 16 establishing chain of circumstances leading to an inescapable conclusion that the juvenile had committed the alleged crime along with his father.
37.Further the learned counsel for juvenile has argued that PW7 deposed
before the court at about 8.00 a.m on 29-06-2012 while he was present at bus stand
and one VRA came to him and informed him to act as mediator but the alleged incident occurred at about 5.00 p.m on 29-06-2012. Hence, there is a discrepancy about the time of the alleged incident. On perusal of the evidence of PW7 deposed that on 29-06- 2012 at about 8.00 a.m while he was present in bus stand one VRA came and informed him to act as mediator for scene observation report. Then immediately he went to the police station and himself and P.W11 and other staff members went to the scene of offence which is situated at SC colony near the house of Subbaramaiah, Alakurapadu village of Tanguturu mandal and he has observed one Hero bicycle was lying and on the back side of the bicycle contained one stand with two pot vessels and the same were empty. Further he had deposed that pieces of the pestle with blood stained and the same was seized by the P.W11 and took the photographs at the scene of offence by P.W11 and P.W1 collected the blood stained on the ground with the help of the cotton and one constable drafted the scene observation report on 29-06-2012/Ex.P3 and he signed on the scene observation report. Further he has deposed that on 30-06- 2012 at about 10-00 A.M he went to the RIMS Hospital, Ongole and acted as inquest mediator for conducting inquest mahazarnama for the dead body of the deceasedB.Srikanth and signed on that report under/Ex.P4,. Further he has deposed that he found injuries on the head of the deceased. Further he deposed that on 13- 07-2012 while he was present in Tanguturu MRO Office and one constable came there and requested him to act as mediator for the apprehension of the juvenile then immediately himself and along with L.W12-D.Ramachandra Rao went to the police station and prepared arrested mahazarnama at the police station and at that time the juvenile was also present and he signed on the said arrest mahazarnama under Ex.P5 and he know the contents on it.
38.Further on perusal of the evidence of P.W11 he categorically deposed that 17 he reached to the scene of offence at at about 8-30 P.M on the date of the alleged incident immediately and prepared scene observation report under/Ex.P4 and obtained photographs under Ex.P9, P10 along with P.W4. Further P.W11 deposed that on 13-07-2012 on the information, he went to the south bye pass road along with his staff and mediators P.W7, L.W12 and they taken the apprehension of one boy and he was voluntarily confessed before them that his name disclosed as Neerukonda
Rajesh and his father name is Neerukonda Srinivasa Rao and they had committed the offence and he has stabbed in the chest of the deceased with the help of knife then
P.W11 seized M.o1(knife (five inches of wooden handle and 18 inches of knife metal portion with sharp edges along with blood stained) with the help of Rajesh(juvenile) which is near the railways gate of Surareddy palem under the cover of mahazarnama /
Ex.P5.
39.Further on perusal of the evidence of doctor/PW8 and also the post mortem certificate/Ex.P6 clearly reveals that the deceased was died with multiple injuries. Hence, the defence raised by the counsel for juvenile it is a minor discrepancy abaout the mentioning of the time by P.W7 at about 8-00 A.M has already explained as stated supra that is alleged incident occurred in the year 2012 and P.W7 deposed in his evidence before the court on 07-04-2017 and there is five years gap between the alleged incident and the evidence of P.W7. Hence due to lapse of time may be P.W7 deposed time at about 8-00 P.M he received a phone call from VRA and it may not create any serious doubt to consider the defence by the juvenile and it is quite natural that it is minor discrepancy and it is not helpful to the juvenile to escape from the alleged offence. Hence, there is inconsistency or minor discrepancies are not fatal to the prosecution case and it mercy not create a serious doubt about truthfulness or credibility of the evidence of P.W1 and P.W2 who are direct eye witnesses of the alleged incident/commission of the offence.
40.The learned defence counsel for the juvenile has argued that whether the deceased was demised at Tanguturu Hospital or RIMS Hospital, Ongole. On perusal 18 of the evidence of P.W11 deposed that he came to know about the death of the deceased through P.W1 who is the father of the deceased and the deceased was died in the middle whilehe shifted from Tanguturu Hospital to RIMS Hospital. Further he has admitted that in Ex.P1 report which was given by P.W1 and it is mentioned that the deceased brought was dead whenever he shifted to Tangutur hospital in the auto rickshaw for treatment . Further on perusal of the evidence of P.W9 he deposed that when the deceased was shifted to the RIMS Hospital and he got down from the auto at Tanguturu Police station for bringing water and whom he returned to the spot the auto rickshaw was stopped but the deceased was seen dead .Hence, the defence raised by the counsel for the juvenile is not considerable one whether the deceased was died in Tangutur Hospital or RIMS Hospital or Tangutur Police station and it is the important to pertinent to note that whether the deceased was died due to the commission of offence by the juvenile and the father of the juvenile with multiple injuries. Hence, the defence raised is not at all sustainable and not considerable one.
41.After considering the entire evidence of the prosecution this board finds that entire evidence undoubtedly proves the juvenile committed the offence along with his father. It is well established from the evidence that the deceased stabbed on his chest and received injuries on his head and he was died and the brutal manner in which the deceased was attacked on the vital part of the body and the manner in which the deceased was forced to death, speak to prove that the culprits had intentionally caused such bodily injuries which are sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and also culprits new that the injuries are likely to cause the death of the person to whom the injuries are caused. When the death is caused in such a cruel manner, the arguments of the learned defence counsel for the juvenile is innocent and not appreciable wehre juvenile is aged about 17 years at the time of the alleged incident and at this age it can be presumed that though he had no intention, he definitely had the knowledge of the consequences of his act and also his father’s acts, that they are likely to cause death of the person by their acts, hence such excuse does 19 not apply to the juvenile in this case.
42.Further after perusal of the entire material evidence on record it proves that the juvenile has stabbed the deceased with a knife on his chest and the same was seized by P.W11 along with P.W7 and L.W12 under M.O1 from the possession of juvenile as strengthen to the prosecution evidence and with the possession of incriminating material is proved this board finds that preparation and participation of the juvenile in the commission of the offence is proved as well as the motive of the alleged incident which was stated by P.W1, P.W2 is proved. Hence, recovery of M.O1, based on the confession of juvenile under Ex.P5 in the presence of P.W5 is contemplated under section 27 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Hence, prosecution having successfully to establish the motive of the evidence led which does not link all the circumstances together cumulatively and can be deemed to be sufficient to allow a conclusion of beyond reasonable doubt against the juvenile. Further the prosecution produced sufficient and convincing evidence before the board in beyond reasonable doubt and the prosecution has discharge his initial burden establishing case beyond reasonable doubt and there is positive and substantive evidence on record which could link juvenile involved in the commission of offence along with his father.
43.Therefore, on perusal of the entire oral and documentary evidence, it clearly reveals that juvenile and his father with the common intention to reach the scene along with alleged material objects. Hence, this board finds that juvenile along with his father(A1) acted in furtherance of the common intention. At this juncture this board intends to look into the position of law regarding the liability under section 34 of
Indian Penal Code.
Section 34 of the Indian penal Code recognizes the principle of Vicarious liability in the criminal jurisprudence. It makes a person liable for action of an offence not committed by him but by another person with whom he shared the common intention. It is a rule of evidence and does not create a substantive office. The section gives statutory recognition to the commonsense principle that if more than two persons intentionally do a thing jointly it is just the same as if each of them had done it individually. There is no gainsaying tha a common intention presupposes prior concert, which requires a prearranged plan of the accused participating in an offence. Such a preconcert 20 preplanning may develop on the spot or during the course of commission of the offence but the crucial the test is that such plan must precede the act constituting an offence. Common intention can be formed previously or in the course of occurrence and on a spur of the moment. The existence of a common intention is a question of fact in each case to be proved mainly as a matter of inference from the circumstances of the case.
In Suresh & Another Vs State of U.P(2001) 3 SCC 6731 this court held :
“Thus to attract Section 34 of IPC two postulates are indispensable 1) The criminal act(consisting of a series of acts) should have been done, not by one person but more then one person 2) Doing of every such individual act cumulatively resulting in the commission of criminal offence should been in furtherance of the common intention of all such persons.
Barendra Kumar Ghosh V King Emperor(AIR 1925 PC 1: 26 Crl.LJ 431)stated the true purport of Section 34 as below:(AIR P6) (T)he words of section 34 are not to be eviscerated by reading them in this exceedingly limited sense. By Section 33 a criminal act in Section 34 includes a series of acts and further ‘act’ includes omission to act for example an omission to interfere in order to prevent a murder being done before one’s very eyes. By section 37 when any offence is committed by means of several acts whoever intentionally cooperates in the commission of that offence by doing any one of those acts, either singly or jointly with any other person, commits that offence. Even if the appellant did nothing as he stood outside the door, it is to be remembered that in crimes as in other things they also serve who only stand and wait.
It was also observed that “the above discussion in fine thus culminates to the effect that the requirement of statue is sharing the common intention upon being present at the place of occurrence. Mere distancing himself from the scene cannot absolve the accused though the same however depends upon the fact situation of the matter under consideration and no rule steadfast can be laid down therefore.
Regarding the overt acts on the part of the juveniles this court intends to rely on the following citation.
In a recent Judgment in Bishna Alias Bhiswadeb Mahato and others V/s State of W.B( 2005) 12 SCC 6571 the laws has been stated in the following terms.
“For the purpose of attracting section 149 and or 34 IPC a specific overt act on the part of the accused is not necessary. He may wait and watch and the inaction on the part of an accused may some time go a long way to hold that he shared a common object with others.”
Hence, this board finds that the evidence clearly establishes the common intention of the juvenile and his father, hence the cumulative acts had led to the completion of the offence which was their common intention where with the juvenile is liable for his act regarding to the offence.
21
44.The other contention of the learned defence counsel is that only close relatives of the deceased were examined by the prosecution in this aspect this :
In Ambika Prasad V/s State(Delhi Administration), 2000 (1) ALD (Crl) 460
(SC)-2000)2 SCC 646, while rejecting such a submission took Judicial notice of the reluctance of the general public to figure as witnesses. It is held at para 12 as undersigned:
“It is next contended that despite the fact that 20 to 25 persons collected at the spot at the time of the incident as deposed by the prosecution witnesses not a single independent witness has been examined, and therefore no reliance should be placed on the evidence of P.W5, P.W7. This submission also deserves to be rejected. It is a known fact independent witnesses are reluctant to be witnesses or to assist the investigation. Reasons are not far to seek. Firstly in cases where injured witnesses or the close relative of the deceased are under constant thret and they dare not depose the truth before the court, independent witness believe that their safety is not guaranteed. That belief cannot be said to be without any substance another reason may be the delay in recording the evidence of independent witnesses and repeated adjournments in the court. In any case if independent persons are not willing to cooperate with the investigating the prosecution cannot be blamed and it cannot be a ground for rejecting the evidence of injured witnesses………………
So this board finds that the though the prosecution did not produce or examine the public who gathered at the scene of offence, it is not fatal to the prove the case.
45.In view of the fore going discussion this board finds that the evidence produced by the prosecution from all angles. Hence, this boards comes to the conclusion that the unshattered evidence of the prosecution is leaves no room for doubt to help to hold that juvenile acted with along with his father with common intention and he is liable for the offence committed in furtherance of such common intention. Hence, the juvenile is liable for the offence U/sec.302 r/w 34 of Indian penal Code.
46.This board observes that the inquiry procedure followed by this Board in this case is only summons case procedure, the substance of the offence was explained to the juvenile and as no specific charge was framed against the juvenile no prejudice is caused to him as the substance that was explained to him included the explanation about the allegation under section 34 of Indian Penal Code. Hence, there 22 is no need to conduct denovo inquiry for the allegation of that offence against the juvenile.
47.This board also conscious about the fact that the references made in the above discussion about the adult accused(father of the juvenile) is only for the purpose of appreciating the evidence relating to common intention of the juvenile and so the foregoing discussion is made and evidence is appreciated only for the offences alleged against the juvenile.
48.In the result, the juvenile-in-conflict with law is found to has committed the offence punishable under section 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, accordingly he is ordered under section 15 of Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 for the above offence.
Dictated to the Stenographer of this Court, transcribed by her, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open Court on this, the 30 th day of October, 2019.
Sd/-B.Vani Sree
SPL. JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,
MOBILE COURT-CUM-
IV-ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ONGOLE.
FAC:: Prl. Magistrate of juvenile justice board cum II-Addl.Judl.Magistrate of I-Class, Ongole
49.The juvenile in conficc wich law is explained in provisions of law secc.15 of
Juvenile Juscice Acc, 2000 as he is found co be in conficc wich law for che commissions of ofence nder seccion 302 r/w 34 of Indian Penal code.
50.The juvenile in conficc wich law submicced chac he is scudying incermediace 2nd year ac Kandukur and his facher is also Nellore Cencral Prison furcher he has submicced chac he is having cwo siscers and mocher. Hence, he pray che board co cake a lenienc view while passing order againsc him.
51.During che course of inquiry proceedings, Social invescigacion Reporc as per provisions of Juvenile Juscice Acc, 2000 was called from Discricc Probacionary officer, gngole.
i)The Social invescigacion reporc of Juvenile in conficc wich law is reveals chac his parencs having own house and chey are earning members, and cheir children are scudying. Furcher ic disclose chac che D.P.g came co know chac juvenile in conficc wich law is noc moved wich any bad friends and also he is noc involving 23 any crime previously and he suggesced chac chere is a necessary for a period of cwo years co che observacion of juvenile in conficc wich law.
52.Taking inco consideracion of che family backgrounds and ocher circumscances of juvenile in conficc wich law who is involved in chis heinous crime, chis board fnds chac juvenile in conficc wich law is required co be reformed. If, he is released on probacion, he may noc mend his ways and he may concinue co move wich bad associaces and his characcer may noc change/. So chis board fnds ic necessary co send juvenile in conficc wich law co place of safety considering his fucure. Accordingly, juvenile in confict with is law ordered Under
section 15(g) of Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, to be sent to place of safety,
Tirupathi for three years (03) for the ofence U/sec.302 r/w 34 of IPC.
53. Juvenile in confict with law is entitled for the set of U/sec.428 of
Cr.P.C for the safe custody under gone already. As per the ofce notice
juvenile in confict with law was in observation home in this case from
14-07-2012 to 18-08-2012 (Total 35 days). So, this period is set of under
section 428 of Criminal Procedure code.
54. The case property i.e., M.O1- Knife (five inches of wooden handle and 18 inches of knife metal portion with sharp edges along with blood stained) shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.
55. The juvenile in confict with law is explained about his right of
appeal to the Hon’ble Children’s Court, Ongole and free legal aid
through District Legal Service Authority, Ongole, if required.
56. The copy of fnal order is supplied to the juvenile in confict with law under acknowledgment.
Pronounced by me in open board chis che 30ch day of gccober, 2019
Sd/-B.Vani Sree
Special Judicial .Magiscrace of I-Class, Mobile Courc FAC:: Prl. Magiscrace of Juvenile Juscice Board – cum- II-Addl.Judl.Magiscrace of I-Class, gngole.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For prosecucion:For defence: P.W1: B.Rama Kocaiah-NIL- P.W2:B.Koceswara Rao P.W3:B.Balaiah 24
P.W4:Pasumarchi Dasu P.W5:Badugu Anjaneyulu P.W6:S.Koceswara Rao P.W7:B.Raghava Rao P.W8: M.Subbarao P.W9:B.Narasinga Rao P.W10: Y.v.Ramanaiah P.W11: P.Bala Murali Krishna
EXHIBITS MARKED:
FgR PRgSEC TIgN:FgR DEFENCE: Ex.P1: Police Reporc-NIL- Ex.P2:161(3) Cr.P.C scacemenc of P.W6 Ex.P3:Scene observacion Reporc Ex.P4: Inquesc reporc Ex.P5: Arresc mahazarnama Ex.P6:Posc morcem Cercifcace Ex.P7: 161 Cr.P.C scacemenc of P.W9 Ex.P8: FIR Ex.P9: Phocographs (5 in number) Ex.P10: Cercifed copy of phocographs 11 in number Ex.P11: Rough skecch Ex.P12. leccer of advise co FSL Ex.P13: FSL Reporc
MATERIAL gBJECTS: M.g1: KNIFE
Sd/-B.Vani Sree
SpL.JMFC, M.C FAC::Prl.JJB Cum- II-AMM
JJB Member No.1 B.V.N.S.R.K.Prasad
JJB Member No.2 D.Neelima Vamsi lacha // True copy //
Spl.JMFC. M.C FAC::Prl.JJB Cum II-AMM 25
Calendar and Judgmenc IN THE Cg RT gF THE II ADDL.J DL. MAGISTRATE gF I CLASS-cum-
PRINCIPAL MAGISTRATE, J VENILE J STICE BgARD, PRAKASAM DIST.,
ac gNGgLE. JC.C.No.1303/2014
Complainanc:The Scace:Inspeccor of Police S.Konda P.S
Descripcion of che :Neerukonda @ Neerukunca Rajesh S/o JuvenileSrinivasulu @Srinu, @ Piccala Srinu aged 17 years, Mala by casce, Alakurapadu village, Tangucuru mandal ... Juvenile in conficc wich law gfence:under Sec.302 r/w 34 of IPC
Plea of Juvenile:Noc guilcy
Finding of che Courc:Found guilcy
Sencence or grder:In che resulc, che juvenile-in-conficc wich law is found co has commicced che ofence punishable under seccion 302 r/w 34 of che Indian Penal Code, accordingly he is ordered under seccion 15 of Juvenile Juscice Acc, 2000 for che above ofence. DATE gF gfence29-06-2012 Complainc29-06-2012 Apprehension of Juvenile/14-07-2012 Accused Released on bail01-08-2012 Commencemenc of crial16-09-2016 Closure of crial18-10-2019 Judgmenc30-10-2019
Explanacion for che delay:
The Inspeccor of Police, S.Konda P.S fled fnal reporc againsc che juvenile for che ofence /sec.302 r/w 34 of IPC. gn 13-02-2015 copies of documencs were furnished co che juvenile /sec.207 of Cr.P.C. gn 20-03- 2015 juvenile in conficc wich law was examined u/sec.251 of Cr.P.C. and che subscance of accusacion for che ofence punishable under Sec. 302 r/w 34 26 of IPC has been read over and explained co him in Telugu for which he pleaded noc guilcy and claimed co be cried. The case is adjourned from cime co cime. During che course of crial i.e., from 16-09-2016 co 18-10-2019
Pw.1 co P.W11 were examined and goc marked Ex.P1 co Ex.P13 and M.g1 is marked. Finally on 18-10-2019 juvenile were examined /sec. 313 Cr.P.C and explained che incriminacing macerial available againsc him and he denied che same and reporced no defence evidence and posced for argumencs. gn 25-10-2019 heard boch sides of argumencs and adjourned for Final order. gn 30-10-2019 fnal order pronounced by senc che juvenile for place of safecy, Tirupachi for che ofence 302 r/w 34 of IPC. Hence, che delay.
Sd/-B.Vani Sree
Spl.Judl.Magiscrace of I-Class, Mobile Courc FAC:: Prl. Magiscrace, Juvenile Juscice Board cum- II Addl.J.F.C.M, gngole.
Copy submicced co: The Hon’ble 1sc Addl. Disc & Sess. Judge, gngole. Copy co: The Superincendenc of Police, Prakasam Disc., // True copy //
Spl.JMFC,. M.C FAC::Prl.JJB cum- II-AMM, Ongole 27 // True Copy //
Spl.JMFC M.C Fac::Prl. JJB cum II-AMM Ongole