1
FORM-A [Rule 67(1) of Criminal Rules of Practice]
BEFORE THE JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD :: RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM
Present : Smt. RAMYA CHAVALI
Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Rajamahendravaram
Smt. CH. TABHITA,
Member, Juvenile Justice Board, Rajamahendravaram
Friday, this the 10th day of April, 2026
J.C.C. No.9 of 2021
(Crime No.156/2019 of Ramachandrapuram P.S.,)
COMPLAINANT :State : Represented by the Inspector of Police, Ramachandrapuram Circle.
: REPRESENTED BY Assistant Public Prosecutor.
CHILD IN CONFLICT WITH LAW:Balasa Vijay, S/o Srinivas, A/16 years, C/Kapu, Native of Ravulapalem, Now at Bankpeta, Rangaiah Naidu Street, Kakinada. (Separate Charge sheet was filed against the accused before the Hon'ble A.J.F.C.M. Court Ramachandrapuram)
REPRESENTED BY :Sri. T. Chakradar, Advocate for CCL.
FORM-B [Rule 67(2) of Criminal Rules of Practice]
Date of Offence :24.08.2019
Date of F.I.R :25.08.2019
JCC.No. 9 of 2021.
JJB:Rajamahendravaram. Dated: 10.04.2026
2
Date of Final Report :14.12.2020
Date of Commencement of evidence :16.12.2024
Date on which Judgment is reserved :24.09.2025
Date of the sentencing Order, if any :10.04.2026
Child In Conflict With Law Details :
Rank of the CCL :Sole CCL
Name of the CCL :Balasa Vijay, S/o Srinivas, A/16 years,C/Kapu,Nativeof Ravulapalem, Now at Bankpeta, Rangaiah Naidu Street, Kakinada.
Date of Apprehension : 29.08.2019
Date of Release on bail : 20.09.2019
Offences with : Section 302, 201 of I.P.C.
Whether punished or not : Punished
Sentence imposed : In the result, CCL is found conflict with law for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201 of I.P.C., and accordingly CCLs is punished under section 255 (2) of Cr.P.C read with section 18 of JJ Act.M.Os.1 to 11 shall be handed over to the custody of concerned police to produce the same
before Hon’ble Sessions Court where
the trial against the adult accused will be conducted.
Punishment U/s.18 JJ Act:
(1) Where a board is satisfied on inquiry that a child irrespective of age has committed a petty offence, or a
JCC.No. 9 of 2021.
JJB:Rajamahendravaram. Dated: 10.04.2026
3 serious offence, or a child below the age of 16 years has committed a heinous offence, then, notwithstanding anything contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, and based on the nature of offence, specific need for supervision or intervention, circumstances as brought out in the social investigation report and past conduct of the child, the board may, if it so thinks fit,
(a) allow the child to go home after advice or admonition by following appropriate inquiry and counselling to such child and to his parents or the guardian,
(b) direct the child to participate in group counselling and similar activities,
(c) order the child to perform communityserviceunderthe supervision of an organization or institution or a specified person, persons or group of persons identified by the board,
(d) order the child or parents or the guardian of the child to pay fine, provided that in case the child is working it may be ensured that the provisions of any labour law for the time being in force are not violated,
(e) direct the child to be released on probation of good conduct and placed under the care of any parent, guardian or fit person, on such parent, guardian or fit person executing a bond with or without surety, as the board may require for the good behaviour and
JCC.No. 9 of 2021.
JJB:Rajamahendravaram. Dated: 10.04.2026
4 child’s well being for any period not exceeding 3 years,
(f) direct the child to be released on probation of good conduct and placed under the care and supervision of any fit facility for ensuring the good behavior of the child’s well being for any period of not exceeding 3 years,
(g) direct the child to be sent to a special home, for such period, not exceeding 3 years, as it thinks fit, for providing reformative services including education,skilldevelopment, counseling, behaviour, modified therapy and Psychiatric support during the period of stay in the special home:
Provided that if the conduct and the behaviour of child has been such that, it would not be in the child’s interest or in the interest of the other children housed in a special home, the board may send such child to place of safety. (2) if an order is passed under clause
(a) to (g) of sub section(1), the board may in addition pass orders to,
(i) attend school or
(ii) attend a vocational training center or
(iii)attend a therapeutic center or
(iv)prohibit the child from visiting, frequently or appearing at a specified place or
(v) under go any addiction programme.
JCC.No. 9 of 2021.
JJB:Rajamahendravaram. Dated: 10.04.2026
5
Herein with regard to quantum of sentence:
On hearing with regard to the quantum of sentence, the CCL informed that he is staying with his father and that his father is suffering with severe ill- health and that the is the only person to look after his father and that he is working at a hotel and that he is the only bread winner of his family and that if he sent to Jail or Special Observation
Home, Visakhapatnam, his life would be spoiled and his family would starve for food and shelter and prays the Board to take lenient view.
As the offence committed by the
CCL is not petty in nature and as the
CCL is involved in heinous offence, the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act are not considered but on hearing the
CCL, lenient view can be taken.
CCL is found conflict with law for the offence under Sections 302, 201 of
I.P.C., and he is sentenced to perform communityserviceunderthe supervision of DPO, Kakinada, for a
JCC.No. 9 of 2021.
JJB:Rajamahendravaram. Dated: 10.04.2026
6 period of one (1) year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C., in default of payment of fine,
CCL shall further undergo community service for a period of three (3) months; for a period of one (1) year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) for the offence under
Section 201 of I.P.C., in default of payment of fine, CCLshall further undergo community service for a period of three (3) months and the total period of two (2) years which shall be completed within a period of three (3) years from the date of this order for the offence under Sections 302, 201 of
I.P.C., and community service shall be atleast 2 hours per day and out of the total period of two (2) years of community service, atleast one (1) year shall be at Government Hospital which is nearby to the residence of CCL. The
DPO is directed to forward quarterly report along with photo and intimation to this Board in case, he is not satisfied with regard to the conduct of the CCL for further action. The CCL is informed about their right to appeal, right of free
JCC.No. 9 of 2021.
JJB:Rajamahendravaram. Dated: 10.04.2026
7 legal aid and right to receive free copy of final order.
As per section 24 of JJ act, the above sentence shall not carry any disqualification to the CCL and concerned appeal and office is hereby directed to destroy the record after the appeal time is over.
Period of detention undergone --- during Trial for purpose of Section 468 of B.N.S.S 2023
This case has came before this board on 20.02.2026 for final hearing in the presence of learned Sri Assistant Public Prosecutor for prosecution and of
Sri. T. Chakradar, Advocate for CCL and upon hearing the arguments and after perusal of the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this board has delivered the following:-
:: FINAL ORDER ::
1.The Inspector of Police, Ramachandrapuram Circle, had filed final report in Cr.No.156/2019 for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201 of
I.P.C., of Ramachandrapuram Police Station against CCL.
2.The brief facts of the Prosecution case is as follows :
Prior to 20 years, the adult accused married one Balasa
Madhavi/Deceased no.1 and they got 2 progeny in their conjugal life, in which
Balasa Karuna/Deceased no.2 is the elder daughter and the CCL is younger son to the accused and deceased no.1 and the accused used to do catering works to nourish his family and during that time, he developed familiarity with
JCC.No. 9 of 2021.
JJB:Rajamahendravaram. Dated: 10.04.2026
8
LW13/Gandikota Akkamma who is the member of their catering team and the familiarity between the accused and LW13 turned into love and later the accused married LW13 as his 2nd wife with the consent of CCL, since then CCL, accused and LW13 used to reside at Bankpeta, Rangaiah Naidu Street, Kakinada in a house of LW10 on rental basis, on knowing the same the deceased no.1 informed the CCL that she would file a case against the accused, the CCL who is having strong affection on his father/accused, informed the same to accused, in this connection, the CCL decided to end the lives of both the deceased with an intent to settle his father/accused with LW13 and on 24.08.2019, the CCL went to the house of deceased and stayed that night along with the deceased and with the abatement of accused, CCL picked up the hammer and beat deceased no.1 on her right side temple region indiscriminately and attempted to stab with a knife, but deceased no.1 escaped and when deceased no.1 raising alarm, the CCL gagged her mouth with a cloth, in the meantime, deceased no.2 woke up, on noticing the same, when the deceased no.2 was in drowsy, CCL gave deadly blow on the temple region of deceased no.2 with a hammer due to which she fell unconscious.
a. After committing brutal murder, he made phone call to the accused about fulfillment of his abetment and with an intent to screen away the evidence and for escaping from his offence, at the advise of accused, CCL left the deceased house by duly locking the doors by carrying the Aadhar card, his study certificate, ration card and blood stained clothes packed in a cover and while the
CCL was escaping from his house, the same was noticed by LW7/neighbour and in that anxiety the key of the deceased doors fell down from the possession of
CCL and in the middle way, the CCL thrown away the cover containing his blood stained clothes and reached the house of accused and on 26.08.2019 in the early hours, the accused and CCL with a view to escape from there, borrowed an amount of Rs.500/- from LW11/neighbour by informing that CCL fell ill-health and they are going to hospital and boarded a train at Kakinada and reached
JCC.No. 9 of 2021.
JJB:Rajamahendravaram. Dated: 10.04.2026
9
Nidadavolu Town and took a rental house portion from LW15 and while so, on 26.08.2019 in the morning, LW3 noticed flow of blood stream from the vents of deceased kitchen and opened the doors of deceased house with the key available at the main door and noticed the dead bodies of both the deceased and informed the same to LW1/VRO and on 26.08.2019 having learnt that police were causing searches for them, while they were approaching the Hon'ble Court for surrender, on knowing the same LW24/Inspector of Police apprehended them.
b. Basing on the contents of written report of LW1, LW23/ASI initially registered a case in Cr.No.156/2019 U/sec.302 of IPC and basing on the gravity of the offence, LW24/Inspector of police took up investigation, during the course of investigation, on 25.08.2019 he examined and recorded the statement of LW1 and later he visited the scene of offence along with mediators and photographer, inspected the same and got drafted scene observation report and photographed the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch and seized material objects at the scene of offence and got conducted inquest over the dead bodies of the deceased in the presence of panchayatidars and blood relatives and sent the dead bodies to Area Hospital, Ramachandrapuram for autopsy, accordingly, he received PM certificate and seized material objects from deceased no.2, thereon, he examined and recorded the statements of other witnesses and later he got call data analysis report from the mobile no's of CCL and adult accused and on 29.08.2019, on credible information about absconding of accused and
CCL, he apprehended the CCL and accused and got drafted their confession statement in the presence of mediators and he seized other material objects from the possession of CCL and basing on the confessional statement of CCL and accused, he added section 201 r/w 109 of IPC to section of law and later he seized clothes of CCL from his possession for further investigation under the cover of seizure report drafted by mediators and later he seized laminated original date of birth certificate of CCL and he obtained study certificate of CCL
JCC.No. 9 of 2021.
JJB:Rajamahendravaram. Dated: 10.04.2026
10 and produced him before the Board for protective custody and later on 30.08.2019 he seized CCTV footage from LW12 and also seized cell phones of
CCL and accused and later he obtained PM certificates of both the deceased and later he forwarded the material objects to RFSL for chemical analysis and later LW25/Inspector of Police took up further investigation on his transfer and on 06.06.2020, LW25 received chemical analysis report from RFSL and after completion of investigation, final report was filed by LW25.
3.Cognizance of case was taken on file against CCL for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201 of I.P.C.
4.On appearance of the CCL, copies of documents were furnished to him. CCL was examined under Section 251 of Cr.P.C, for the accusation under
Sections 302, 201 of I.P.C., and substance of accusation of the above said alleged offence is read over and explained to the CCL in Telugu language for which he denied and claimed to be inquiry.
5.On behalf of prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 16 were examined and Exs. P1 to P19 and M.Os.1 to 11 were marked. On behalf of CCL, none were examined and no documents were marked.
6.After completion of prosecution side evidence, CCL was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., explaining the incriminating material against the CCL from the evidence of prosecution witnesses for which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.
7.Heard both sides.
8.Now the point for determination is :
“Whether the prosecution had established its case
JCC.No. 9 of 2021.
JJB:Rajamahendravaram. Dated: 10.04.2026
11 against the CCL for the offence under Sections 302, 201 of I.P.C., beyond all reasonable doubt ?”
POINT:
9.At the outset, case of the prosecution is that, “Prior to 20 years,
the adult accused married one Balasa Madhavi/Deceased no.1 and they got
2 progeny in their conjugal life, in which Balasa Karuna/Deceased no.2 is
the elder daughter and the CCL is younger son to the accused and
deceased no.1 and the accused used to do catering works to nourish his
family and during that time, he developed familiarity with LW13/Gandikota
Akkamma who is the member of their catering team and the familiarity
between the accused and LW13 turned into love and later the accused
married LW13 as his 2 nd wife with the consent of CCL, since then CCL,
accused and LW13 used to reside at Bankpeta, Rangaiah Naidu Street,
Kakinada in a house of LW10 on rental basis, on knowing the same the
deceased no.1 informed the CCL that she would file a case against the
accused, the CCL who is having strong affection on his father/accused,
informed the same to accused, in this connection, the CCL decided to end
the lives of both the deceased with an intent to settle his father/accused
with LW13 and on 24.08.2019, the CCL went to the house of deceased and
stayed that night along with the deceased and with the abatement of
accused, CCL picked up the hammer and beat deceased no.1 on her right
side temple region indiscriminately and attempted to stab with a knife, but
deceased no.1 escaped and when deceased no.1 raising alarm, the CCL
gagged her mouth with a cloth, in the meantime, deceased no.2 woke up,
on noticing the same, when the deceased no.2 was in drowsy, CCL gave
deadly blow on the temple region of deceased no.2 with a hammer due to
which she fell unconscious and after committing brutal murder, he made
phone call to the accused about fulfillment of his abetment and with an
JCC.No. 9 of 2021.
JJB:Rajamahendravaram. Dated: 10.04.2026
12
intent to screen away the evidence and for escaping from his offence, at
the advise of accused, CCL left the deceased house by duly locking the
doors by carrying the Aadhar card, his study certificate, ration shop and
blood stained clothes packed in a cover and while the CCL was escaping
from his house, the same was noticed by LW7/neighbour and in that
anxiety the key of the deceased doors fell down from the possession of
CCL and in the middle way, the CCL thrown away the cover containing his
blood stained clothes and reached the house of accused and on
26.08.2019 in the early hours, the accused and CCL with a view to escape
from there, borrowed an amount of Rs.500/- from LW11/neighbour by
informing that CCL felt ill-health and they are going to hospital and
boarded a train at Kakinada and reached Nidadavolu Town and took a
rental house portion from LW15 and while so, on 26.08.2019 in the
morning, LW3 noticed flow of blood stream from the vents of deceased
kitchen and opened the doors of deceased house with the key available at
the main door and noticed the dead bodies of both the deceased and
informed the same to his LW1/VRO and on 26.08.2019 having learnt that
police were causing searches for them, while they were approaching the
Hon'ble Court for surrender, on knowing the same LW24/Inspector of
Police apprehended them and basing on the contents of written report of
LW1, LW23/ASI initially registered a case in Cr.No.156/2019 U/sec.302 of
IPC and basing on the gravity of the offence, LW24/Inspector of police took
up investigation, during the course of investigation, on 25.08.2019 he
examined and recorded the statement of LW1 and later he visited the
scene of offence along with mediators and photographer, inspected the
same and got drafted scene observation report and photographed the
scene of offence and prepared rough sketch and seized material objects at
the scene of offence and got conducted inquest over the dead bodies of
the deceased in the presence of panchayatidars and blood relatives and
JCC.No. 9 of 2021.
JJB:Rajamahendravaram. Dated: 10.04.2026
13
sent the dead bodies to Area Hospital, Ramachandrapuram for autopsy,
accordingly, he received PM certificate and seized material objects from
deceased no.2, thereon, he examined and recorded the statements of other
witnesses and later he got call data analysis report from the mobile no's of
CCL and adult accused and on 29.08.2019, on credible information about
absconding of accused and CCL, he apprehended the CCL and accused
and got drafted their confession statement in the presence of mediators
and he seized other material objects from the possession of CCL and
basing on the confessional statement of CCL and accused, he added
section 201 r/w 109 of IPC to section of law and later he seized clothes of
CCL from his possession for further investigation under the cover of
seizure report drafted by mediators and later he seized laminated original
date of birth certificate of CCL and he obtained study certificate of CCL
and produced him before the Board for protective custody and later on
30.08.2019 he seized CCTV footage from LW12 and also seized cell phones
of CCL and accused and later he obtained PM certificates of both the
deceased and later he forwarded the material objects to RFSL for chemical
analysis and later LW25/Inspector of Police took up further investigation
on his transfer and on 06.06.2020, LW25 received chemical analysis report
from RFSL and after completion of investigation, final report was filed by
LW25” and prays to punish the CCL.
10.In order to substantiate its case, prosecution had cited 25 witnesses and examined seventeen (16) witness as P.Ws.1 to 16 who are none other than defacto complainant, circumstantial witnesses, official witnesses, medical witnesses and investigation officers of the present case.
11.For better appreciation of point on hand, let us invite our attention to the evidence of P.W.1/Gundabathula Venkanna is the brother of D1, deposed that CCL is his nephew and deceased Madhavi (D1) is his younger sister and
JCC.No. 9 of 2021.
JJB:Rajamahendravaram. Dated: 10.04.2026
14 deceased Karuna (D2) is his niece and that his deceased sister married adult accused/Balasa Srinivas 20 years ago and were they blessed with deceased
Karuna and CCL and that his brother-in-law/adult accused addicted to bad vices and used to harass both physically and mentally and he used to borrow money from the villagers for his bad vices and he used to shift entire family to another village and about 12 years ago, he shifted his family to Palinki and later shifted to Ramachandrapuram and later adult accused married another women and stayed with her at Kakinada without giving divorce to his deceased sister and that the CCL used to stay with his father at Kakinada and when D1 requested
CCL to stay with them, he used to dispute with her and she informed P.W.1 that
CCL did not heed her words and beating her and D2 and the same was informed to him by D1, on that he went to the house of D1 and gave his number to neighbor of D1 and asked her to call him if the CCL disputes with his deceased sister and niece and that on 25.08.2019 at about 8.00 to 8.30 A.M., he received phone call from neighbor of D1 that both the deceased were killed, immediately he reached the house of D1 and found right side of face of D1 with fractures and also stab injury on her stomach, D2 fell with left side face fracture from jaw to head and also nose to head and he also found a knife and hammer, on seeing that he opined that CCL would have committed the alleged offence and on enquiry, he came to know from the neighbors that they found CCL on the previous day night in a suspicious manner going away on his cycle and that previously they heard huge cries from the house of D1.
12.P.W.2/Vanapalli Karuna is Aaya in Bhasyam School, deposed that
CCL and adult accused used to come to the house of deceased on every
Saturday and used to go on Monday and they used to hear the disputes arose between them with regard to money and on one day, P.W.1 came to the house of deceased and asked her to look after the deceased and gave his phone number and asked her to inform if any dispute was heard between CCL, adult accused
JCC.No. 9 of 2021.
JJB:Rajamahendravaram. Dated: 10.04.2026
15 and deceased and that prior to 5 to 6 months of the offence, CCL alone used to come to the house of the deceased and that on 24.08.2019 at about 4.30 P.M., she found the cycle of CCL at the varanda and later on the same day at about 8.30 P.M., she heard cries from the house of deceased and later at about 1.00
A.M., when her husband was going to attend natural calls, he found CCL going away on his cycle in suspicious manner with a cover and in the next day morning at about 8.00 A.M., her husband found key of his neighbors and gave it to her and on suspicion, when she went to see from the back side, she found blood coming out of the house of the deceased and found both the deceased in pool of blood with head injuries and a knife and hammer beside them and she informed the same to her husband and they opined that CCL might have killed them as he was found going suspicious in the midnight.
13.P.W.3/Vanapalli Chandra Sekhar is the neighbor of deceased, deposed that P.W.2 is his wife and CCL and adult accused used to come to the house of deceased on every Saturday and used to go on Monday and when
CCL and adult accused came to the house of deceased, they used to quarrel with deceased with regard to money and as they were next neighbors in the same compound, they heard the dispute taken place at the house of the deceased and that on one day, P.W.1 came to the house of deceased and asked
P.W.2 to look after the deceased and gave his phone number and asked her to inform if any dispute was heard between CCL, adult accused and deceased and that prior to 5 to 6 months of the offence, CCL alone used to come to the house of the deceased and that on 24.08.2019 at about 10.30 P.M., he found the cycle of CCL at the varanda and at about 1.00 A.M., while he was going to wash room, he found CCL going away with clothes cover in his hand in suspicious manner and in the next day morning at about 8.00 A.M., he found key of his neighbors and gave it to her and on suspicion, his wife went and saw blood from the drain and found both the deceased in pool of blood with head injuries and a knife and
JCC.No. 9 of 2021.
JJB:Rajamahendravaram. Dated: 10.04.2026
16 hammer beside them, immediately, he informed P.W.1 about the same through phone.
14.P.W.4/Mutchumilli Durga Rao is the photographer, deposed that on 25.08.2019 at about 10.10 A.M., Ramachandrapuram police came to his studio and asked him to come along with them to take photos and video at
Dandugangalamma temple street, Chappidivari Savaram and he went to a tiled house and taken photos of two women died in a pool of blood, the complete room with wherever blood stains were present and the entire house and handed over the photos along with CD to the police.
15.P.W.5/M. Subbalakshmi is Aaya at Narayana School,
Ramchandrapuram, deposed that CCL and his father used to visit both the deceased on every weekend and D1 used to share her agony about the ill health of her husband and about financial crisis and later she came to know about the death of D1 and D2 and saw the dead bodies of the deceased 1 and 2 and came to know that they were killed by someone.
16.P.W.6/Yerusu Kusuma is the neighour of deceased, deposed that
CCL and his father used to visit both the deceased on every weekend and there are no disputes between D1, D2 and CCL and his father and in the month of
August, 2019, he came to know that both the deceased were not opening the doors and later came to know that D1 and D2 died and she do not know the reason for the death of the deceased.
17.P.W.7/Saladi Seetha Rama Kiran is the hotel owner of Vijayasri hotel at Ramaraopeta, Kakinada, deposed that CCL is his worker and worked for 4 years under him and that CCL used to stay along with his father at Kakinada and he used to pay Rs.280/- to CCL for working and he used to work from
Monday to Saturday afternoon and then he used to obtain permission for not
JCC.No. 9 of 2021.
JJB:Rajamahendravaram. Dated: 10.04.2026
17 attending your work on Sunday as he used to visit his mother at
Ramachandrapuram and that on 20.08.2019, he asked for leave for one week as there were family disputes and want to settle the same with his mother and later
CCL did not attend his work and later he came to know that CCL committed murder.
18.P.W.8/Vanapalli Ramalakshmi is the circumstantial witness, deposed that deceased D1 used to reside in their street and CCL used to stay somewhere and used to visit D1 regularly and about 3 years ago at about 10
A.M., she found people coming from the house of the deceased, she went and saw and found D2 fell in pool of blood on bed and she did not know the cause of the death of the deceased.
19.P.W.9/Hithesh Jain is running Jewellery shop in the name and style of Mothi Jewellers, Main Centre, Ramchandrapuram since 25 years and his shop is installed with CC Cameras, 6 inside and 1 outside the shop, deposed that on 30.08.2019, CI of Ramachandrapuram Police Station came to his shop for CC TV footage dated 24.08.2019 and he had given the same in a CD and in the footage, they found a young person at about 12 midnight moving on his cycle in suspicious manner, he cannot identify the person seen in the CC TV footage due to lapse of time and police informed him that double murder had taken place near Dandigangamma temple.
20.P.W.10/M.V.L.S.S. Ramchandra Murthy is the Retd. VRO, deposed that on 25.08.2019 at about 3.00 P.M., while he was at his office, their Revenue
Inspector instructed him to go to the scene of offence i.e., Dandugangammavari
Street, Ramachandrapuram to act as mediator and he went to the scene of offence, Ramachandrapuram police served him notice and in his presence, inquest was conducted over the dead body of D2 who was with bleeding stab injuries and injuries hit with blunt object and they opined that the deceased/D2
JCC.No. 9 of 2021.
JJB:Rajamahendravaram. Dated: 10.04.2026
18 died due to above injuries hit and stabbed by unknown person and he drafted inquest report.
21.P.W.11/Badda Triveni is the circumstantial witness, deposed that about 5 years ago on one day, L.W.14/Nageswara Rao came to her and informed that a family came for rent of her above house for Rs.1,000/- and after four days, she went to her house and found it locked and on enquiry, she came to know that police took them.
22.P.W.12/Dr. V. Srinivas is the medical officer, deposed that on 26.08.2019 in the morning hours, he received requisition for conducting autopsy over dead body of the deceased No.1/Balasa Madhavi and at 3.30 P.M., he conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased No.1 and found external and internal injuries i.e., A horizontal laceration of size 4.5 x 2 x 1 cms with underlying fracture of right temporal bone 3 cms above the right pinna, An elliptical incised wound of size 3 x 2 x 1 cms over the right fronto temporal region above the right zygomatic arch, An elliptical incised wound of size 2.5 x 1.5 x 0.5 cms over the right zygomatic arch, An incised wound of size 2 x 1 cms over the right eye lid, A laceration of size 1 x 1 cms over the right pinna, An incised wound of size 1 x 1 cms over the right side of the face 2 cms lateral to be nose, An incised wound of size 3 x 1 cms and 2 x 1 cms over the right mandible and fracture of the right mandible and he collected viscera from the deceased No.1 and sent the same to RFSL and issued final opinion and also postmortem certificate as the cause of death of the deceased No.1 is homicidal nature with sharp edged weapon and some injuries are caused due to contact with hard and blunt surface object cause a multiple injuries leading to severe hemorrhage and shock and there is no influence of poisonous substance and on the same day,
L.W.21/Medical Officer conducted autopsy over the dead body of deceased
No.2/Balasa Karuna at about 10.00 A.M., and found both 13 injuries of external and internal and he collected viscera from deceased No.2 and sent the same to
JCC.No. 9 of 2021.
JJB:Rajamahendravaram. Dated: 10.04.2026
19
RFSL and issued final report and PM report and he opined that the death of the deceased No.2 was due to hard and blunt surface object cause a multiple injuries leading to severe hemorrhage and shock and there is no influence of poisonous substance.
23.P.W.13/Kalidindhi Krishna is the VRA, Muchimilli Sachivalayam, deposed that about 4-5 years ago at about 1.00 to 2.00 P.M., while himself and
L.W.1 were present at their office, Ramachandrapuram police called them to act as mediators in this case and that himself and L.W.1/V.R.O., went to the scene of offence and found 2 female bodies of mother and daughter with injuries and in their presence, Inspector of Police observed the scene of offence, took photos and seized blood stained earth, controlled earth floor, one bended knife, hammer, blood stain towel, blood stain bed sheet, blood stain pillow with cover under cover of scene observation report drafted by L.W.1 and that on the same day at about 4.00 P.M., inquest was conducted over the dead body of the deceased No.1 in the presence of blood relatives and they opined that deceased died due to blunt injuries by using hammer and also stab injuries and to that effect, L.W.1 drafted inquest report.
24.P.W.14/V. Sampath Kumar who is none other than the investigation officer, deposed that on 25.08.2019 at about 11.30 A.M., while he was present at the police station, he received report from L.W.1/T. Manoharam and basing on the same, he registered a case in Crime No.156/2019 under Section 302 of IPC and issued F.I.R and later the original FIR along with relevant documents submitted to concerned authorities and later he gave information about the registration of FIR to L.W.24/Inspector of Police.
25.P.W.15/Digumarthi Pedda is the VRO, RDO office,
Ramachandrapuram, deposed that about six years ago, L.W.1 called him and took him at Bypass road, Chodavaram in the afternoon hours, when they
JCC.No. 9 of 2021.
JJB:Rajamahendravaram. Dated: 10.04.2026
20 reached the said place, CCL along with Inspector of Police and his staff were present and that in their presence, Inspector of Police enquired CCL with regard to his clothes that were used at the time of committing the present offence and the CCL informed that he hidden the same in the bushes and he had shown the same and the same were seized in his presence and to that effect, Mediators report was drafted duly signed by himself, L.W.1 and P.W.10 and Inspector of
Police and he was also present at the time of inquest and he signed on inquest report and also confession mediators report at the time of apprehension of CCL and later CCL apprehended.
26.P.W.16/P.Siva Ganesh is none other than the investigation officer, deposed that on 25.08.2019, he received CD file from P.W.14, verified the investigation done by him, found it on correct lines and took up further investigation and during the course of investigation, he recorded statement of
L.W.1 and secured presence of mediators by obtaining permission from MRO by making requisition and along with mediators, photographer and his staff proceeded to the scene of offence and found dead bodies of D1 and D2, observed scene of offence and got prepared Scene observation report and also seized M.Os.1 to 7 and obtained photos at the scene of offence and later in the presence of mediators at the scene of offence, he conducted inquest over the dead body of D1 under Ex.P10 and inquest was conducted over the dead body of D2 by P.W.14 and later neighbors and relatives of deceased were examined and recorded their statements and later both the dead bodies sent to
Government hospital, Ramachandrapuram for conducting autopsy and basing on the statement of P.W.1, requisition was made to SP for call data of the CCL and adult accused and accordingly the same were obtained and came to know that there was conversation between you and adult accused between 00.03.03 to 01.50.44 on 25.08.2018 with phone numbers 93816 41554/CCL and 95157 23347/Adult accused.
JCC.No. 9 of 2021.
JJB:Rajamahendravaram. Dated: 10.04.2026
21
27.P.W.16 further deposed that on 26.08.2019, he visited Kakinada i.e., residence of CCL and adult accused and examined P.W.7, L.Ws.10 and all and recorded their statements and on 29.08.2019, CCL apprehended and adult accused arrested on receiving credible information in the presence of mediators and their confession Mediators report was got prepared and bus ticket was seized from the possession of adult accused and date of birth certificate of CCL , identity cards i.e., Aadhar card, Ration card and on enquiry about the dresses wore by them at the time of offence, CCL lead them to Chodavaram Bypass,
Ramachandrapuram and at the bushes, full hands shirt and pant of CCL were seized in the presence of mediators and on 30.08.2019, he examined and recorded statements of P.Ws.9, 11 and L.Ws.13 and 14 and at the time of recording statement of L.W.13, she handed over two cell phones i.e., one black colour jio company keypad cell phone used by CCL and one black and red colour bordered keypad cell phone and he obtained CD of CC footage where the presence of CCL was recorded at 12.18.38 seconds on intervention night of 24/25.08.2019 and on 09.09.2019, he received PME reports of D1 and D2 and later on his transfer, CD file was handed over to L.W.25/CI and during the course of investigation, L.W.25 obtained RFSL reports of D1 and D2 and also received final opinions of D1 and D2 and after completion of investigation, final report was filed by L.W.25/CI.
28.As seen from the evidence available on record as discussed above, the prosecution is mainly based on circumstantial evidence as there is no direct evidence to prove that CCL at the abatement of adult accused murdered the both the deceased/Madhavi and Karuna. Admittedly in the present case, except
PW.1 none of the witnesses examined by prosecution are relatives and are not interested witnesses. It is well settled law that the evidence of interested witnesses or relatives cannot be discarded only on the ground of their relation or enmity.
JCC.No. 9 of 2021.
JJB:Rajamahendravaram. Dated: 10.04.2026
22
29.In a case of enmity, the evidence of interested witness and relatives witness, the Board/Court is required to scrutinize their evidence minutely excluding possibility of false implication on account of enmity. Ordinarily, a close relative would be the last to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person. Inimical witnesses have a tendency to implicate their enmity along with real culprit, but not at the cost of real culprit. The learned APP relied on the Hon’ble Apex Court judgment in,
State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Satish
In which the Hon’ble Apex Court held that “the last seen theory comes into play where the time gap between the point of time when the accused and deceased were seen last alive and when the deceased is found dead is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being author of the crime becomes impossible”
The other citation relied by the Learned APP is,
C.Chenga Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
In which the Hon'ble Apex Court held that "in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the settled law is that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such circumstances must be conclusive in nature.
The other citation is,
Padala Veera Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
In which the Hon'ble Apex Court held that "when a case rests on circumstantial evidence such evidence must satisfy the following tests, (i) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be
JCC.No. 9 of 2021.
JJB:Rajamahendravaram. Dated: 10.04.2026
23 cogently and firmly established; (ii) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused; (iii) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and (iv) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence."
30.Now let us see whether the prosecution had placed sufficient evidence against the CCL for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C.,
“Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death
or imprisonment for life and shall also be liable for fine”
31.Now let us see whether the evidence placed by the prosecution on record proved that the CCL caused the death of the deceased 1 & 2.
32.Here in general, it would be difficult in some cases to positively establish that the deceased was last seen with the accused/CCL, when there is a long gap and possibility of other persons coming in between exists. In the absence of any other positive evidence, to conclude that the accused/CCL and the deceased were last seen together, it would be hazardous to come to a conclusion of guilt in such cases.
33.Here after going through the entire evidence of prosecution, no doubt the death of both the deceased/Madhavi and Karuna is unnatural and according to the version of the prosecution, the death of both the deceased was due to grievous injuries by hitting the deceased with MO.4/hammer and stabbing the deceased them with MO.3/knife and that the CCL left the house of the
JCC.No. 9 of 2021.
JJB:Rajamahendravaram. Dated: 10.04.2026
24 deceased lastly. Here though there were no direct eye witnesses to the offence, the dead bodies of both the deceased/Madhavi and Karuna were found in pool of blood at there house and the house doors were locked, from which an inference can be drawn that both the deceased were murdered at their house and the offender locked the doors and left the scene of offence.
34.To prove who murdered the deceased, we have to look into the evidence let out by the prosecution both orally and documentary. After going through the oral evidence of neighbour of the deceased/PW.2 let out by the prosecution as discussed above, it can be clearly noticed that both the deceased are at their home/scene of offence on the date of offence, she found the cycle of the CCL at varenda and heard cries from the house of deceased at about 8.30 pm on 24-08-2019 and her husband/PW.3 saw CCL going away from the house of the deceased in suspicious manner with a cover at about 1.00 midnight and later in the morning both the deceased were found dead in a pool of blood and also hammer and bended knife beside them.
35.P.W.1 who is brother of deceased No.1, P.Ws 2 and 3 who are neighbours of the deceased, P.Ws.5 to 8 who are colleague of D1, known person of D1 and owner of CCL are said to be crucial witnesses had deposed about CCL and adult accused visiting the house of deceased in the weekends i.e
Saturdays and Sundays and they disputing with the deceased for money and
CCL going from the house of the deceased in suspicious manner in the midnight on the date of offence and CCL obtaining leave from his employer for 1 week stating that there were family disputes and later both the deceased found dead unnaturally with stab and fracture injuries. Through the evidence of P.Ws.2 & 3, it is evident that soon after seeing both the deceased dead in pool of blood at their house with injuries on their head and stab injuries, informing the same to PW.1 and police coming to the scene of offence and informing the police about finding the CCL in suspicious manner going away from the house of the deceased in the
JCC.No. 9 of 2021.
JJB:Rajamahendravaram. Dated: 10.04.2026
25 midnight with a cover.
36.The citation relied by the prosecution are apt to the present case on hand, as the neighbours and other witnesses examined by the prosecution had categorically deposed about seeing the CCL leaving the house of the deceased in suspicious manner in the midnight on the date of offence and CCL and adult accused visiting the house of the deceased and CCL and adult accused disputing with the deceased for money, so there is nothing to discard their evidence.
37.P.Ws.1, 2, 3, 5 & 8 deposed that they found the dead bodies of both the deceased in their house in a pool of blood with stab and fractures injuries and a knife and hammer beside the dead bodies. Even from the evidence of
P.W.4/Photographer and Ex.P1/Photos obtained by him, it is clearly evident that the dead bodies of both the deceased were found in their house in a pool of blood with stab and fractures injuries and a knife and hammer beside the dead bodies. After perusal of the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, 5 & 8, it is very much evident that both the deceased were murdered at their house and their dead bodies were found in pool of blood with injuries and materials objects used to kill them.
38.Now let us see whether the prosecution had proved that the murder of both the deceased/Madhavi and Karuna was done by the CCL. To see whether the CCL murdered the deceased, the evidence of P.W.13/VRA and
PW.15/VRA who are crucial and through their evidence, it is very much evident that they acted as mediators at the request of Ramachandrapuram Police along with L.W.1/VRO, they went to the scene of offence along with police and finding 2 female dead bodies/mother and daughter with injuries, police obtaining photos, seizing blood stains controlled earth, controlled earth, one bended knife, hammer, blood stains towel, blood stains bed sheet, blood stain pillow/MOs 1 to
JCC.No. 9 of 2021.
JJB:Rajamahendravaram. Dated: 10.04.2026
26 7 under the cover of Ex.P9/scene observation report and on the same day at 4PM being present at the time of inquest over the dead body of D1/Madhavi under the cover of Ex.P10/inquest report and seizing MOs 8 & 9 clothes of the
CCL under Ex.P13/mediators report and also recording confession statement of the CCL about the commission of murder of both the deceased under the cover of Ex.P14/confession mediators report.
39.On perusal of evidence of P.W.12/Medical Officer along with Exs.P3 to P8/final opinions of both D1 and D2,Post Mortem reports of D1 and D2 and
RFSL reports of D1 and D2, the death of the D1 and D2 is homicidal in nature with contact with sharp edged weapon and some injures are caused due to contact with hard and blunt objects leading to multiple injures over face, head and dislocation of left eye to D2 and there is no influence of poison to both the deceased. The learned defence counsel had not tried to elicit anything in favour of the CCL.
40.Through the Investigation Officer/P.W.16, the relevant documents were marked and his evidence is supporting the case of the prosecution. After going through the entire evidence established by the prosecution, no doubt the death of both the deceased is unnatural and they were murdered. The defence counsel had not tried to elicit that the CCL was not present at the scene of offence more particularly at the time of offence and he tried to elicit that the cycle alleged to be used by the CCL to escape from the scene of offence was not seized, the original hard disk of Ex.P19 obtained from PW9 was not produced
before the Board and that as per the confession statement of the CCL the dress
wore by him at the time of offence and the dress shown in Ex.P19/video are different and tried to elicit that the identity of the CCL is doubtful as the face of the person who was going on cycle in the video exhibited under Ex.P19/CD is not clear and that MOs 10 and 11/cell phones are not in the name of CCL and adult accused. Admittedly no voice test was conducted through expert to prove
JCC.No. 9 of 2021.
JJB:Rajamahendravaram. Dated: 10.04.2026
27 that conversation was taken place between CCL and adult accused at the time of alleged offence and that no local persons were examined at the time of seizure and apprehension of CCL and no finger prints were obtained at the scene of offence and they were not sent to expert.
41.Though the defence counsel tried to elicit as stated above, nothing positive could be established and though no finger prints were obtained at the scene of offence, though voice test was not sent for experts opinion and no local persons were secured at the time of apprehension and seizure of material objects from the possession of CCL, admittedly CCL was the only person who was last seen near to the scene of offence in suspicious manner with a cover and as per the confession made by the CCL, the dress wore by the CCL at the time of committing the offence was removed and it was placed in a cover, so admittedly the dress wore by the CCL and the dress wore by the person seen in
Ex.P19/CD will be definitely different and on the other hand admittedly the blood stains clothes used by the CCL at the time of committing the offence were seized from the possession of the CCL and though no voice test was sent for experts opinion, both the cell phones of CCL and adult accused were seized from the possession of LW13/Concubine of adult accused which itself shows that MOs 10 and 11/cell phones belongs to CCL and adult accused and if at all it is the case of the defence that there is no conversation between CCL and adult accused at the time of alleged offence, it is the bounden duty of the defence to prove the same and as discussed above the prosecution had successfully proved that the death of both the deceased is unnatural and they were murdered.
42.Admittedly, CCL and adult accused are son and husband of D1 and brother and father of D2 and that CCL and adult accused are living separately at
Kakinada from both the deceased and that they used to visit both the deceased in the weekends I.e., Saturdays and Sundays and that there are disputes between them on financial aspects. As per the evidence of P.Ws.2 & 3, it is
JCC.No. 9 of 2021.
JJB:Rajamahendravaram. Dated: 10.04.2026
28 further evident that the adult accused stopped coming to the house of deceased for few months and CCL alone was coming in the weekends and that they had seen CCL going away from the house of the deceased in the midnight in suspicious manner with a cover by taking his cycle on the date of offence and to prove that the CCL left the house of the deceased in the midnight the prosecution exhibited Ex.19/CD showing a person going on cycle near to the scene of offence, though the identification of the person who was seen in
Ex.P19/CD is not clear, it can be believed that the said person is the CCL as the said person who was seen in Ex.P19/CD was going at a very high speed on his cycle and generally no person will be moving in the midnight except in emergency cases, here admittedly though PWs 2 and 3 deposed that they have seen the CCL going in suspicious manner at about 1.00 PM and as per
Ex.P19/CD the person was going on cycle at about midnight 12:18:38 seconds on intervention night of 24/25.08.2019, as there was no much difference of time gap and as it is midnight, it can be treated that PWs 2 and 3 might have stated approximate time but not the exact time of seeing the CCL going away from the house of the deceased.
43.On the other hand admittedly the doors of the house of the deceased was locked and when the CCL was found in suspicious manner, it can be treated that after committing the murder of both the deceased, the CCL came out and locked the doors and while going in a rush, when seen PW3 came out for attending natural calls, the CCL might have dropped the key of the house of the deceased out of rush and would have left the place and admittedly the key of house of deceased was found at the entrance and while taking the same, PW2 heard fan sound inside the house of the deceased, went back side and found blood flowing from the house of the deceased and then opened the lock and found both the deceased in pool of blood with injures.
44.As discussed above, though the prosecution had not established
JCC.No. 9 of 2021.
JJB:Rajamahendravaram. Dated: 10.04.2026
29 any evidence proving that at the instigation of the adult accused, CCL murdered both the deceased. But, as discussed above the prosecution through oral evidence and also documentary evidence proved the presence of CCL at the scene of offence lastly with both the deceased and CCL disputing with them in the night hours at about 8.30 PM and CCL going away in suspicious manner from the scene of offence in the midnight and in the morning finding both the deceased dead in a pool of blood with injures and the prosecution had proved the last seen theory which plays a vital role and also it had successfully established the circumstances forming the chain of circumstances which conclusively proves the offence against the CCL.
45. On the other hand, the medical evidence and the evidence of official witnesses and investigation officer supports the case of the prosecution and the confession statement made by the CCL coupled with seizure of MOs 8 and 9/clothes of the CCL used at the time of offence from his possession and seizure of MOs 10 and 11/cell phones from the possession of LW13 who is the concubine of adult accused, all forms chain of circumstances and shows the intention of the CCL to kill both the deceased as they are hurdle to the relation between his father/adult accused and LW13/concubine of adult accused. In such circumstances, this Board is of opinion that the CCL hatched a plan to kill both the deceased at the influence of his father in order to eliminate both the deceased as they were hurdle to the relation of his father/adult accused with
LW13.
46.On the other hand, as the CCL had taken his clothes/MOs 8 and 9 along with him and hidden the same in the bushes and when the same were seized under the cover of mediators report, establishes that the CCL having knowledge and having reasons to believe that he committing murder of both the deceased had tried to disappear/hide the clothes wore by him in order to screen away that he was the offender. As discussed above, by placing sufficient
JCC.No. 9 of 2021.
JJB:Rajamahendravaram. Dated: 10.04.2026
30 evidence before the Board, the prosecution had successfully proved its case against the CCL beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence under sections 302, 201 of IPC. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the prosecution.
47.In the result, CCL is found conflict with law for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201 of I.P.C., and accordingly CCL is punished under section 255 (2) of Cr.P.C read with section 18 of JJ Act.M.Os.1 to 11 are handed over to the custody of concerned police to produce the same before
Hon’ble Sessions Court where the trial against the adult accused will be
conducted.
Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Gr-III, corrected and
pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 10 th day of April, 2026.
Digitally Signed by
RAMYARAMYA
Date: 2026.04.10 15:51:09 +0000
PRINCIPAL MAGISTRATE,
JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD,
RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.
Punishment U/s.18 JJ Act:
(1) Where a board is satisfied on inquiry that a child irrespective of age has committed a petty offence, or a serious offence, or a child below the age of 16 years has committed a heinous offence, then, notwithstanding anything contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, and based on the nature of offence, specific need for supervision or intervention, circumstances as brought out in the social investigation report and past conduct of the child, the board may, if it so thinks fit,
(a) allow the child to go home after advice or admonition by following appropriate inquiry and counselling to such child and to his parents or the guardian,
JCC.No. 9 of 2021.
JJB:Rajamahendravaram. Dated: 10.04.2026
31
(b) direct the child to participate in group counselling and similar activities,
(c) order the child to perform community service under the supervision of an organization or institution or a specified person, persons or group of persons identified by the board,
(d) order the child or parents or the guardian of the child to pay fine, provided that in case the child is working it may be ensured that the provisions of any labour law for the time being in force are not violated,
(e) direct the child to be released on probation of good conduct and placed under the care of any parent, guardian or fit person, on such parent, guardian or fit person executing a bond with or without surety, as the board may require for the good behaviour and child’s well being for any period not exceeding 3 years,
(f) direct the child to be released on probation of good conduct and placed under the care and supervision of any fit facility for ensuring the good behavior of the child’s well being for any period of not exceeding 3 years,
(g) direct the child to be sent to a special home, for such period, not exceeding 3 years, as it thinks fit, for providing reformative services including education, skill development, counselling, behaviour, modified therapy and
Psychiatric support during the period of stay in the special home:
Provided that if the conduct and the behaviour of child has been such that, it would not be in the child’s interest or in the interest of the other children housed in a special home, the board may send such child to place of safety.
(2) if an order is passed under clause (a) to (g) of sub section(1), the board may in addition pass orders to,
JCC.No. 9 of 2021.
JJB:Rajamahendravaram. Dated: 10.04.2026
32
(i) attend school or
(ii) attend a vocational training center or
(iii) attend a therapeutic center or
(iv) prohibit the child from visiting, frequently or appearing at a specified place or
(v) under go any addiction programme.
Herein with regard to quantum of sentence:
On hearing with regard to the quantum of sentence, the CCL informed that he is staying with his father and that his father is suffering with severe ill-health and that the is the only person to look after his father and that he is working at a hotel and that he is the only bread winner of his family and that if he sent to Jail or Special Observation Home, Visakhapatnam, his life would be spoiled and his family would starve for food and shelter and prays the Board to take lenient view.
As the offence committed by the CCL is not petty in nature and as the CCL is involved in heinous offence, the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act are not considered but on hearing the CCL, lenient view can be taken.
CCL is found conflict with law for the offence under Sections 302, 201 of
I.P.C., and he is sentenced to perform community service under the supervision of DPO, Kakinada, for a period of one (1) year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C., in default of payment of fine, CCL shall further undergo community service for a period of three (3) months; for a period of one (1) year and to pay a fine of
Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) for the offence under Section 201 of
I.P.C., in default of payment of fine, CCLshall further undergo community
JCC.No. 9 of 2021.
JJB:Rajamahendravaram. Dated: 10.04.2026
33 service for a period of three (3) months and the total period of two (2) years which shall be completed within a period of three (3) years from the date of this order for the offence under Sections 302, 201 of I.P.C., and community service shall be atleast 2 hours per day and out of the total period of two (2) years of community service, atleast one (1) year shall be at Government Hospital which is nearby to the residence of CCL. The DPO is directed to forward quarterly report along with photo and intimation to this Board in case, he is not satisfied with regard to the conduct of the CCL for further action. The CCL is informed about their right to appeal, right of free legal aid and right to receive free copy of final order.
As per section 24 of JJ act, the above sentence shall not carry any disqualification to the CCL and concerned appeal and office is hereby directed to destroy the record after the appeal time is over.
Mark a copy of the final order to the DPO for effective
implementation, follow up and for forwarding report.
Digitally Signed by
RAMYARAMYA
Date: 2026.04.10 15:50:34 +0000
PRINCIPAL MAGISTRATE,
JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD,
RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.
FORM – C (Rule 67 (3) of Criminal Rules of Practice)
List of Prosecution/Defence/Court witnesses
A. Prosecution:
Rank Name Nature of evidence
P.W.1Gundabathula VenkannaComplainant..
JCC.No. 9 of 2021.
JJB:Rajamahendravaram. Dated: 10.04.2026
34
P.W.2Vanapalli KarunaCircumstantial witness.
P.W.3Vanapalli Chandra SekharCircumstantial witness.
P.W.4Mutchumilli Durga RaoCircumstantial witness.
P.W.5M. Subba LakshmiCircumstantial witness.
P.W.6Yerusu KusumaCircumstantial witness.
P.W.7Saladi Seetha Rama KiranCircumstantial witness.
P.W.8Vanapalli RamalakshmiCircumstantial witness.
P.W.9Hithesh JainCircumstantial witness.
P.W.10M.V.L.S.S. RamachandraOfficial witness.
Murthy
P.W.11Badda TriveniCircumstantial witness.
P.W.12Dr.V. SrinivasMedical witness.
P.W.13Kalidindhi KrishnaOfficial witness.
P.W.14V. Sampath KumarInvestigation Officer.
P.W.15Digumarthi PeddaOfficial witness.
P.W.16P. Siva GaneshInvestigation Officer.
B. Defence Witnesses, if any:Nil.
C. Court Witnesses, if any:Nil.
LIST OF PROSECUTION/DEFENCE/COURT EXHIBITS
(Rule 67 (3))
A. PROSECUTION:
Sl.No. Exhibit Description 1Ex.P1Photos along with CD.
2 Ex.P2 Certified copy of inquest report of D2.
JCC.No. 9 of 2021.
JJB:Rajamahendravaram. Dated: 10.04.2026
35 3Ex.P3Certified copy RFSL report.
4Ex.P4Certified copy of final opinion of D1.
5Ex.P5Certified copy of PM report of D1.
6Ex.P6Certified copy of RFSL report.
7Ex.P7Certified copy of final opinion of D2.
8Ex.P8Certified copy of PM report of D2.
9Ex.P9Certified copy of scene observation report.
10Ex.P10Certified copy of inquest report of D1.
11Ex.P11Certified copy of report.
12Ex.P12Certified copy of FIR.
13Ex.P13Seizure mediators report.
14Ex.P14Confession mediators report.
15Ex.P15Ration card.
16Ex.P16Bus ticket.
17Ex.P17Date of Birth certificate of CCL.
18Ex.P18Aadhar card of CCL.
19Ex.P19CD along with section 65-B certificate.
B. DEFENCE: Nil.
C. COURT EXHIBITS: Nil.
D. MATERIAL OBJECTS:
M.O.1:Blood stained earth.
M.O.2:Controlled earth floor.
M.O.3:One bended knife.
M.O.4:Hammer.
M.O.5:Blood stain towel.
M.O.6:Blood stain bed sheet.
M.O.7:Blood stain pillow with cover.
JCC.No. 9 of 2021.
JJB:Rajamahendravaram. Dated: 10.04.2026
36
M.O.8:White colour full hands shirt having yellow and blackish colour vertical lines.
M.O.9:Blood stained faded snuff colour pant.
M.O.10: Black colour Jio company keypad cell phone.
M.O.11:One black and red colour bordered keypad cell phone.
Digitally Signed by
RAMYARAMYA
Date: 2026.04.10 15:51:54 +0000
PRINCIPAL MAGISTRATE,
JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD,
RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.
Sd/- Smt. Ch. Tabhita
MEMBER,
JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD,
RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.
JCC.No. 9 of 2021.
JJB:Rajamahendravaram. Dated: 10.04.2026
37
CALENDAR
BEFORE THE JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD :: RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM
Present : Smt. RAMYA CHAVALI
Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Rajamahendravaram
Smt. CH. TABHITA,
Member, Juvenile Justice Board, Rajamahendravaram
Friday, this the 10th day of April, 2026
J.C.C. No.9 of 2021
(Crime No.156/2019 of Ramachandrapuram P.S.,)
COMPLAINANT :State : Represented by the Inspector of Police, Ramachandrapuram Circle.
: REPRESENTED BY Assistant Public Prosecutor.
CHILD IN CONFLICT WITH LAW:Balasa Vijay, S/o Srinivas, A/16 years, C/Kapu, Native of Ravulapalem, Now at Bankpeta, Rangaiah Naidu Street, Kakinada. (Separate Charge sheet was filed against the accused before the Hon'ble A.J.F.C.M. Court Ramachandrapuram)
REPRESENTED BY :Sri. T. Chakradar, Advocate for CCL.
Date of Arrest :29.08.2019
Date of release on bail :20.09.2019
Offences charged with :Sections 302, 201 of I.P.C.
Plea of the CCL :Not Conflict with law
Finding of the Judge :Found Conflict with law.
JCC.No. 9 of 2021.
JJB:Rajamahendravaram. Dated: 10.04.2026
38
Sentence or Order : In the result, CCL is found conflict with law for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201 of I.P.C., and accordingly CCLs is punished under section 255 (2) of Cr.P.C read with section 18 of JJ Act.M.Os.1 to 11 shall be handed over to the custody of concerned police to produce the same before Hon’ble
Sessions Court where the trial against the
adult accused will be conducted.
Punishment U/s.18 JJ Act:
(1) Where a board is satisfied on inquiry that a child irrespective of age has committed a petty offence, or a serious offence, or a child below the age of 16 years has committed a heinous offence, then, notwithstanding anything contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, and based on the nature of offence, specific need for supervision or intervention, circumstances as brought out in the social investigation report and past conduct of the child, the board may, if it so thinks fit,
(a) allow the child to go home after advice or admonition by following appropriate inquiry and counselling to such child and to his parents or the guardian,
(b) direct the child to participate in group counselling and similar activities,
(c) order the child to perform community service under the supervision of an organization or institution or a specified person, persons or group of persons identified by the board,
JCC.No. 9 of 2021.
JJB:Rajamahendravaram. Dated: 10.04.2026
39
(d) order the child or parents or the guardian of the child to pay fine, provided that in case the child is working it may be ensured that the provisions of any labour law for the time being in force are not violated,
(e) direct the child to be released on probation of good conduct and placed under the care of any parent, guardian or fit person, on such parent, guardian or fit person executing a bond with or without surety, as the board may require for the good behaviour and child’s well being for any period not exceeding 3 years,
(f) direct the child to be released on probation of good conduct and placed under the care and supervision of any fit facility for ensuring the good behavior of the child’s well being for any period of not exceeding 3 years,
(g) direct the child to be sent to a special home, for such period, not exceeding 3 years, as it thinks fit, for providing reformative services including education, skill development, counseling, behaviour, modified therapy and Psychiatric support during the period of stay in the special home:
Provided that if the conduct and the behaviour of child has been such that, it would not be in the child’s interest or in the interest of the other children housed in a special home, the board may send such child to place of safety. (2) if an order is passed under clause (a) to (g) of sub section(1), the board may in addition pass orders to,
JCC.No. 9 of 2021.
JJB:Rajamahendravaram. Dated: 10.04.2026
40
(i) attend school or
(ii) attend a vocational training center or
(iii)attend a therapeutic center or
(iv)prohibit the child from visiting, frequently or appearing at a specified place or
(v) under go any addiction programme. Herein with regard to quantum of
sentence:
On hearing with regard to the quantum of sentence, the CCL informed that he is staying with his father and that his father is suffering with severe ill-health and that the is the only person to look after his father and that he is working at a hotel and that he is the only bread winner of his family and that if he sent to Jail or
SpecialObservationHome,
Visakhapatnam, his life would be spoiled and his family would starve for food and shelter and prays the Board to take lenient view.
As the offence committed by the
CCL is not petty in nature and as the CCL is involved in heinous offence, the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act are not considered but on hearing the
CCL, lenient view can be taken.
JCC.No. 9 of 2021.
JJB:Rajamahendravaram. Dated: 10.04.2026
41
CCL is found conflict with law for the offence under Sections 302, 201 of I.P.C., and he is sentenced to perform community service under the supervision of DPO, Kakinada, for a period of one (1) year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C., in default of payment of fine, CCL shall further undergo community service for a period of three (3) months; for a period of one (1) year and to pay a fine of
Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) for the offence under Section 201 of
I.P.C., in default of payment of fine, CCL shall further undergo community service for a period of three (3) months and the total period of two (2) years which shall be completed within a period of three (3) years from the date of this order for the offence under Sections 302, 201 of I.P.C., and community service shall be atleast 2 hours per day and out of the total period of two (2) years of community service, atleast one (1) year shall be at
Government Hospital which is nearby to the residence of CCL. The DPO is directed to forward quarterly report along with photo and intimation to this Board in
JCC.No. 9 of 2021.
JJB:Rajamahendravaram. Dated: 10.04.2026
42 case, he is not satisfied with regard to the conduct of the CCL for further action. The
CCL is informed about their right to appeal, right of free legal aid and right to receive free copy of final order.
As per section 24 of JJ act, the above sentence shall not carry any disqualification to the CCL and concerned appeal and office is hereby directed to destroy the record after the appeal time is over.
Dates of: a. Offence:24.08.2019. b. Report/Complaint:25.08.2019. c. Apprehension of CCL:29.08.2019. d. Commencement of trial:16.02.2024. e. Closure of trial:24.09.2025 f.Judgment pronounced:10.04.2026
Explanation for delay :
This case was taken on file on 18.01.2021 and the CCL appeared before this Board on 28.01.2021. CCL was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C, on 20.04.2022. Trial in this case was commenced on 16.02.2024 and closed on 24.09.2025. Heard arguments on 20.02.2026 and Judgment was pronounced on 10.04.2026. Hence there is unavoidable delay in this case. Digitally Signed by
RAMYARAMYA
Date: 2026.04.10 15:52:34 +0000
PRINCIPAL MAGISTRATE,
JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD,
RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.
Copy submitted to Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, East Godavari district, Rajamahendravaram.
JCC.No. 9 of 2021.
JJB:Rajamahendravaram. Dated: 10.04.2026