Smt.K.Bhargavi

1

BEFORE THE JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD, KADAPA.

Present :Smt. K. Bhargavi,

II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kadapa.

FAC Principal Magistrate of Juvenile Justice Board, - cum -

I Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class Judge, Kadapa.

Member: 1. Smt. D.Varamma,

Member: 2. Smt. J.Sumitra,

Tuesday, this the 4th day of February, 2025.

J.C.C.No.5 of 2021

Between:

State Rep. by the Child Welfare Officer, Peddamudiam P.S … Complainant.

Vs.

XXXXXXXXXX

…Child in Conflict with Law

This case is coming on 21.1.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned Senior Assistant Senior Public Prosecutor for the State and Smt M.Devi Priya, advocate for CICL and after hearing and upon perusing the record, this Board delivered the following:-

: : F I N A L O R D E R : :

1.This is a case filed by the Child Welfare Police Officer,

Peddamudiam Police Station in Crime No.84/2019 against the CICL for the offence punishable u/Sec.324 r/w 34 of IPC.

2.The brief facts of the case of the State as per the contents of the final report are that, PW.1 is the defacto complainant and injured person. PW.2 is husband of PW.1. PW.3 and PW.4 are neighbors of PW.1 who are the eye witnesses to the occurrence of the offence. PW.6 is Medical Officer,

Jammalamadugu, PW.5 is C.W.O of Peddamudiam Police Station, who registered and investigated in Crime No.84/2019.

2

(i).PW.1 and adult offender No.1 are the co-sisters to each other they have so many family misunderstandings between them and they are living separately for the last 15 years. They have some rumps on the down side of their houses, first the rump of the accused followed by the rump of the complainant. On 15.5.2019 in the morning hours PW.1 has stepped up her rump with mud due to which the dung water of the buffaloes of the adult offender No.1 stayed on the way the CICL who is the son of adult offender

No.1 made a ditch in the laid mud and the same was objected by PW.1. Then altercation took place between them, in that altercation adult offender No.1 beat PW.1 with stick over her head and caused bleeding injury and CICL beat

PW.1 with the same stick on the right thigh and caused swelling injury. PW.3 and PW.4 who are the neighbors interfered and separated them. After the arrival of PW.2, PW.1 went to the police station and lodged a complaint against the adult offender No.1 and CICL. Basing on the complaint of PW.1. PW.5 registered a case in Crime No.84/2019 for the offence punishable u/Sec.324 r/w 34 of IPC. During the course of investigation PW.5 examined the PW.1 to

PW.4 and recorded their statements and visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch of scene of offence. On 18.5.2019 at 5.30 pm., PW.5 served notice to CICL and instructed him to appear before the Hon’ble Board.

During the course of investigation PW.6 Medical Officer, Government Hospital,

Jammalamadugu issued wound certificate of PW.1 and opined that the injuries caused to her are simple in nature. After completion of investigation PW.5/

S.K.M.Hussain, C.W.O of Peddamudiam, filed the Final Report against the

CICL before Board against the CICL for the offence punishable u/Sec.324 r/w 34 of IPC.

3.Cognizance has been taken against the CICL for the offence punishable u/Sec.324 r/w 34 of IPC and issued notice to him.

3

4.On appearance of the CICL, copies of relevant documents were furnished to him as contemplated u/Sec.207 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘the Cr.P.C’). When the CICL was examined u/Sec.251 of Cr.P.C, explaining the substance of accusation appearing against him for the offence punishable u/Sec.324 r/w 34 of IPC he denied, pleaded that he did not commit the offence and claimed to be tried.

5. During the inquiry, the State has examined PWs.1 to PW.6 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.7.

6.The CICL was examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating material appearing against him, for which he denied the evidence and reported no defence evidence.

7. Heard arguments of both sides. Perused the record.

8. Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the State is able to prove offence levelled against the CICL beyond all reasonable doubt for offence u/Sec.324 r/w 34 of IPC ”?

9. Point:

It is the specific case of prosecution that on 15.5.2019 in the morning hours PW.1 has stepped up her rump with mud due to which the dung water of the buffaloes of the adult offender No.1 stayed on the way the CICL who is the son of adult offender No.1 made a ditch in the laid mud and the same was objected by the PW.1. Then altercation took place between them, in the said altercation the adult offender No.1 beat PW.1 with stick over her head and caused bleeding injury and CICL beat PW.1 with the same stick on the right thigh and caused swelling injury. PW.3 and PW.4 who are the neighbors interfered and separated them. After the arrival of PW.2, PW.1 went to the 4 police station and lodged a complaint against the adult offender No.1 and

CICL.

10.The learned A.P.P submitted his arguments contending that the evidence of PW.1, 2, 5 and 6 manifestly proved the guilt of CICL beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence u/Sec.324 r/w 34 of IPC and the CICL is liable to be convicted for the offences referred supra.

11.Per contra, it the contention of learned counsel for CICL that PW.1 gave false report against the CICL and adult offender No.1 due to previous disputes between them. Further she contended that, PW.5 did not seized any incriminating material at the scene of offence which is fatal the case of the prosecution. Further she contended that the evidence of PW.1 is not corroborating with medical evidence. Further she contended that PW.3 and 4 who are the eye witnesses to the incident turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution. Therefore, she would contend that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of CICL for the offence u/Sec.324 r/w 34 of IPC, and

CICL is entitled for benefit of doubt.

12.Before adverting further, it would relevant to refer Sec.324 of IPC.

Sec.324 of I.P.C runs as follows: “Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334 , voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance or by means of any substance which it is 5 deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

13.In order to prove that CICL has committed an offence u/Sec.324 of IPC, the prosecution is required to prove that:

(i).CICL beat PW.1 with a stick on her right thigh due to which she sustained swelling injuries.

14.If the prosecution is able to prove the above ingredient then CICL is liable to be convicted for the offence reference supra.

15.In order to prove the case of prosecution, the prosecution relied upon on the evidence of PW.1, 2, 5 and 6. It is the evidence of P.W.1 that, she is the resident of Nemaladinne Village, PW.2 is her husband. She further deposed that since 20 years, they are residing separately, the house of

Venkata Subbareddy is situated opposite to their house. She further deposed that, there is a house site near to their houses, their house site and the house site of Venkata Subbareddy is situated side by side their side is situated downwards and the site of Venkata Subbareddy is situated upwards. She further deposed that, the waste water used to flow from the site of Venkata

Subbareddy towards their site. On that they poured soil in their site and raised the foundation to some high level than the level of the site of the Venkata

Subbareddy. She further deposed that, two years back on 15th of May at around 2.30 pm., she went to her site and found the CICL was removing the soil which was laid by them as foundation, on that she questioned him why he is removing the soil from their site and objected him in the meanwhile the 6 mother of CICL Lakshmi Devi came there with a stout stick and beat her on middle of her head due to which she received bleeding injury, then the CICL beat her with a stick on her right thigh then both of them beat her with hands and legs on that some persons came there and rescued her. She further deposed that, immediately she went to Jammalamadugu where she met her husband and they both went to Peddamudiam Police Station and there she gave a report/Ex.P.1. She further deposed that, the police shifted her to

Government Hospital, Jammalamadugu for treatment, where she underwent 10 sutures thereafter she was shifted to Proddatur Government Hospital, there she underwent scanning she stayed there during night and she was discharged on the next day morning.

16.It is the evidence of PW.2 that, prior to the offence 15 years himself his elder brother Venkata Subbareddy who is the father of CICL are living separately. He further deposed that, there is a vacant land in which both have title and possession, his brother family is maintaining the buffaloes on the upper side of the said land and their site is vacant. He further deposed that, on 15.5.2019 in the morning he raised the ramp with mud in the vacant site and on the same day at about 2.30 pm., the CICL ditching the laid mud for which PW.1 questioned the CICL and an altercation took place and at that time the mother

CICL beat PW.1 on over her head with one stick and the CICL also beat PW.1 with same stick over PW.1 right thigh and on her left hand and also beat PW.1 with their hands and legs due to which PW.1 sustained bleeding and swelling injuries. He further deposed that, PW.3 came and rescued PW.1 at about 4.00 pm., when he returned from his fields he came to know about the incident through PW.1. He further deposed that, on the same day he along with PW.1 went to Peddamudiam Police Station and stated about the incident.

7

17.It is the evidence of PW.5 that, on 15.2.2019 at about 5.30 pm., he was present in police station PW.1 came to police station along with PW.2 and gave oral report and he reduced the same into writing from 5.30 to 6.30 pm.

Basing on the Ex.P.1 he registered Ex.P.4/F.I.R. He further deposed that, then he examined PW.1 and PW.2 in police station and send PW.1 to the

Government Hospital for treatment with a requisition along with escort. He further deposed that, on 16.5.2019 he visited the scene of offence which is situated near the house of PW.1 at Nemalladinne Village, there he secured

PW.3 and PW.4 examined them and recorded their statements. He further deposed that, he also prepared rough sketch of scene of offence/Ex.P.5. He further deposed that, then he noticed one stick at scene of offence, which was used by the CICL and one adult offender No.1 at the scene of offence, then he seized the same under cover of certified copies of police proceedings/Ex.P.6, dt.16.5.2019. He further deposed that, on 18.5.2019 he issued Sec.41-A

Cr.P.C notice to the CICL and after receipt of Ex.P.7/wound certificate of PW.1 from PW.6 and after completion investigation he filed a Final Report against

CICL. Therefore from the evidence of above prosecution witnesses the learned

A.P.P contended that, the prosecution has proved this case beyond all reasonable doubt and CICL is liable to be convicted.

18.Per contra it is the specific contention of counsel for the accused that, there are serious ill feelings between family of PW.1 and the family of

CICL, keeping the same in mind PW.1 gave false report against the CICL and adult offender No.1. As per the evidence of PW.1, about 20 years back the family of her husband and his brother were separated and they are residing in houses situated opposed to each other. No suggestion was passed to PW.1 by the learned counsel for the CICL that there are ill feelings between their families. Coming to the evidence of PW.2 he denied suggestion that, due to ill 8 feelings between their families, he along with his wife foisted false case against the CICL and his mother. As per the case of prosecution the incident place when the CICL tried to remove the soil which was laid by PW.1 on the road.

Therefore the contention of counsel for CICL that due to ill feelings between family of PW.1 and family of CICL, PW.1 gave false report against them is not sustainable.

19.Further it is the contention of counsel for CICL that evidence of

PW.1 is not corroborating with the medical evidence which is fatal the case of the prosecution. As per the evidence of PW.1, CICL beat her with a stick on her right thigh and the both of them beat her with hands and legs. It is the evidence of PW.6 that on 15.5.2019 at about 2.30 pm., she examined PW.1 and found following injuries i.e., I). laceration on parietal region of at about 5 x 5 cm, II). Abrasion on left thy region and Swelling and abrasion on left elbow.

20.She further deposed that, later she referred PW.1 for C-T Scan report and basing on the report she issued wound certificate/Ex.P.7. On perusal of Ex.P.7, does not disclose any injuries on right thigh of PW.1. As per the case of prosecution and the evidence of PW.1, CICL beat her with a stick on her right thigh but Ex.P.7 does not reveal any injury on right thigh region of

PW.1. Further Ex.P.7 does not disclose about swelling injury in the right thigh region of PW.1. Therefore it is suffice to show that the evidence of PW.1 is not corroborating with medical evidence i.e., Ex.P.7 and the evidence of PW.6.

Therefore, the contention for counsel for accused is sustainable.

21.It is the specific contention of counsel for CICL that, PW.5 did not produce the stick seized by him before this Board and the same is not marked through him which is fatal to the case of the prosecution. As per the evidence of PW.5 during his visit to the scene of offence he noticed a stick at the scene 9 offence and he seized the same under Ex.P.6. The record does not reveal production of the said stick before this Board. The investigating officer did not assign any reason for non production of the said stick before this Board. At this juncture it would be relevant to refer the judgment of “Hon’ble Supreme

Court in Narayana Vs. State of A.P,” in para No.11 it was held that once deadly weapons were ruled out, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence u/Secs.324 and 326 of IPC. If the offences against the accused are established, they would become offences u/Secs.323 and 325 of IPC only.

PW.5 did not produce stick before this Board, unless and until the incriminating material is produced before this Board, this Board, cannot arrive to a conclusion that PW.5 seized stick under Ex.P.6. When the findings in the above judgment are applied to the facts of the case on hand, it clearly shows that CICL has not committed an offence u/Sec.324 of IPC. Therefore the contention of counsel for the CICL is sustainable.

22.It is the specific contention of counsel for CICL that, PW.3 and 4 who are independent eye witnesses to the incident did not support the case of the prosecution which is fatal the case of the prosecution. It is the evidence of

PW.3 and PW.4 that they do not anything about the facts of this case and they never witness the occurrence of the offence. Though the learned A.P.P cross examined them, nothing has been elicited discredit the trust worthyness of their evidence and no purpose has been served except marking their Sec.161

Cr.P.C statements as Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.3 23.Therefore, in view of aforesaid said discussion, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of CICL beyond all reasonable doubt for offence u/Sec.324 r/w 34 of IPC. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of CICL and against the prosecution.

10

24.In the result, the Child in conflict with law is found not guilty for the offence punishable u/Sec.324 r/w 34 of IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted of the same u/sec.255(1) Cr.P.C. The parental bonds and bail bonds if any of the

CICL shall stands discharged after expiry of appeal time. As no property is produced before this Board, no order passed regarding disposal of property.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer (O.S), corrected and

pronounced by me in the open board, on this the 4th day of February, 2025.

Sd/-K.Bhargavi

II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class FAC Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, -Cum-I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Kadapa.

Member: 1. Smt. D.Varamma

Member: 2. Smt. J.Sumitra

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for State/Child Welfare Officer

PW.1: L.Narayanamma

PW.2: L.Venkateswara Reddy

PW.3: G.Marthamma

PW.4: S.Chandra Kala

PW.5: S.K.M.Hussain, Sub Inspector of Police

PW.6: Dr R.Surekha, C.A.S

Exhibits marked on behalf of State/Child Welfare Officer

Ex.P1: Report of PW.1

Ex.P2: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.3

Ex.P3: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.4

Ex.P4: Certified copy of F.I.R

Ex.P5: Certified copy of rough sketch

Ex.P6: Certified copy of police proceedings, dt.16.5.2019

Ex.P7: Wound certificate 11

Witness examined on behalf of the Child in Conflict with Law

-Nil-

Exhibits marked for Child in Conflict with Law

- Nil -

Material objects marked on behalf of the State

- Nil -

Sd/-K.Bhargavi

II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class FAC Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, -Cum-I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa.

12

CALENDAR AND FINAL ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF 1 ST

CLASS, KADAPA.

FAC I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF 1 ST CLASS – CUM

PRINCIPAL MAGISTRATE JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD, KADAPA.

J.C.C No.5 of 2021

1Date of offence15.5.2019 2Date of complaint15.5.2019 3Date of apprehension of the CICL-- 4Date of release on bail-- 5Date of commencement of trial12.10.2021 6Date of close of trial21.1.2025 7Date of Final Order4.2.2025

ComplainantState represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Peddamudiam U/G Police Station.

CICLXXXX XXXXXX

OffenceVoluntarily caused hurt and Criminal intimidation

Section of law u/Sec.324 r/w 34 of IPC.

FindingChild in conflict with law is found not guilty.

Sentence or In the result, the Child in conflict with law is found order not guilty for the offence punishable u/Sec.324 r/w 34 of IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted of the same u/Sec.255(1) Cr.P.C. The parental bonds and bail bonds if any of the CICL shall stands discharged after expiry of appeal time. As no property is produced

before this Board, no order passed regarding disposal

of property.

Sd/-K.Bhargavi

II Addl.Judl.Magistrate of 1st Class, FAC of I Addl.Magistrate of 1st Class – cum

Principal Magistrate Juvenile Justice Board,

Kadapa.

Copy submitted to:

The Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class, Kadapa.

Dis.No. Dated:

1

BEFORE THE JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD, KADAPA.

Present :Smt. K. Bhargavi,

II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Kadapa.

FAC Principal Magistrate-cum-

I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class Judge, Kadapa.

Member: 1. Smt. D.Varamma,

Member: 2. Smt. J.Sumitra,

Tuesday, this the 30th day of April, 2023.

J.C.C.No.80 of 2022

Between ;

State Rep. by the Child Welfare Officer, Chinna Chowku U/G P.S. … Complainant.

And;

XXXXXXXXXXX.

…Child in Conflict with Law.

This case is coming on 27.05.2023 for hearing before me in the presence of learned Senior Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Smt. M.Shantha, Legal Aid Deputy Counsel for the Child in

Conflict with Law and after hearing and upon perusing the record, this

Board delivered the following:-

FINAL ORDER

This is a case filed by the State represented by the Child Welfare

Police Officer, Chinna Chowku U/G Police Station in Cr.Nos.258/2022, 273/2022 and 275/2022 against the Child in Conflict with Law for the offence punishable u/Sec.379 or Sec.411 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘the IPC’).

2.The brief facts of the case of the State as per the contents of the final report are that, PW1, 2 and 3 are the defacto complainants in

Cr.No.258/2022, 273/2022, 278/2022 for offence U/sec. 379 or Sec.411

IPC of Chinna Chowk U/G Police station. In the year 2017 PW3 purchased Blue and Black color Spendor Plus motor cycle No.AP-04-

BL-9782. Every day PW3 used to park his motorcycle in front of his house. As usual he went out on his motorcycle and evening returned to home and parked his motorcycle in front of his house and went inside. On the same day night at about 9.30 PM he parked it in front of 2 his house. On the next day morning at about 6.30 AM when he woke up he found his motorcycle missing. His enquiries in surrounding areas about his motorcycles went in futile. Then he went to the Police station and filed report. Based on report of PW3, PW6 registered a case in

Cr.No.258/2022 for offence U/sec.379 of IPC of Chinna Chowk Police

Station and started investigation. During the course of Investigation he secured the presence of PW3 and LW2 to LW 4 M.Bhadraiah,

Mallepogu Raju @ Giripogu, M.Rangamma, K.Veeranna and T.Nagesh, examined them and recorded their statements. He also visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch of scene of offence. P.W1 who is defacto complainant in Cr.No.273/2022 U/sec.379 IPC gave report to PW6 that on 03.09.2022 at about 01.00 PM he parked his motorcycle at Old Tirupathi Nonstop Bus stop, APSRTC Bustand premises, Chinnachowk area, Kadapa city and went to Nandyala on his personal work by boarding bus. After completing of his work he returned to APSRTC BUS stand, Chinnachowk area, Kadapa city at about 09.00 PM, he did not find his motorcycle bearing No.AP39-GK- 9228. On the report of PW1, PW6 registered a case in Cr.No.273/2022

U/sec.379 of IPC and started investigation. During the course of investigation he secured the presence of PW1, LW5 to 9/M.Raju @

Giripogu, M.Rangamma, K.Veeranna, Thatipati Nagesh, M.Shameer, examined them and recorded their statements. He also visited scene of offence and prepared rough sketch of scene of offence.

3.PW2 is defacto complainant in Cr.No.275/2022 of offence

U/sec.379 IPC. On 02.08.2022 PW2 purchased Honda Active-5G motorcycle (scooty) bearing registration No.AP04-BZ-1839 from

LW11/Shaik Jafar Hussain under an agreement dated 22.08.2022.

When PW2 went out on his personal work and returned to his house at 4.10 PM and parked the same in front of his house and went inside, at about 04.30 PM when he came out, he found his motorcycle missing.

His enquiries about his motorcycle in surrounding areas became futile.

Later on 05.09.2022 he went to the Police Station and preferred report.

Based on report of PW2, PW6 registered a case in Cr.No.275/2022 of offence U/sec.379 IPC and started investigation. During the course of 3 investigation he secured the presence of PW2, LW11 to LW13/Shaik

Jafar Hussain, B.Sreedhar Relddy, Shak Ansar Basha, examined them and recorded their statements. He also visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch of it.

4.During the course of further investigation on 07.09.2022 at about 5.15 PM, PW5 and his staff apprehended the juvenile in conflict with law near Brahmaiah shed, Old Bypass road, Chinna Chowk area,

Kadapa city and seized (1) Black & Blue color Hero Splendor Plus company motorcycle having registration No.AP04-BL-9782, Engine

No.HA10AGHHGE1405, Chassis No.MBLHAR07HH G70418, stolen property in Cr.No.258/2022 U/sec.379 IPC of Chinna Chowk U/G Police station (2) Pantherd Black color Hero Splendor+ company motorcycle having Registration No.AP-39-GK-9228, Engine No.HA11EYL6K02744, chassis No.MBLHAW120L6K02552, stolen property in Cr.No.273/2022

U/sec.379 IPC(motorcycle theft) of Chinna Chowk U/G Police station and (3) Grey color Honda Activa-5G company Scooty, having registration No.AP-04-BZ-1839, Engine No.JF50ET7646973, Chassis

No.ME4JF50ALJT644134, stolen vehicle in Cr.No.275/2022 U/sec.379

IPC (motorcycle theft) of Chinna Chowk U/G Police Station from the possession of juvenile in conflict with law and on interrogation the juvenile in conflict with law himself voluntarily admitted the commission of offences in the above crimes in the presence of mediators i.e., LW15 and LW15/M.Ramachandrayudu, SK.Roshan under cover of panchanama Ex.P.12.

5.Later PW6 issued Sec.41(A) Cr.P.C notice to the mother of juvenile in conflict with law in Cr.No.s.258/2022, 273/2022 and 275/2022 and released him. On completion of investigation he filed final report.

6.Cognizance has been taken against the Child in Conflict with Law for the offence punishable u/Sec.379 or 411 IPC.

7.On appearance of the Child in Conflict with Law, copies of relevant documents were furnished to him as contemplated under 4 section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘the

Cr.P.C’). When the Child in Conflict with Law is examined U/Sec.251 of

Cr.P.C, explaining the substance of accusation appearing against him for the offence punishable u/Sec.379 or 411 IPC, he denied, pleaded not committed the offence and claimed to be tried.

8.During the inquiry, the State has examined PWs.1 to 6, and got marked Exs.P1 to P12 and M.O.1 to M.O.3. The learned Senior

Assistant Public Prosecutor had given up the remaining witnesses as most of the witnesses had supported the case.

9.The Child in Conflict with Law is examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating material made against him from the evidence available, got read over and explained to him in Telugu to which he denied and reported no defence evidence.

10.Heard arguments of both sides.

11.Now the point for determination is

W hether the State is able to prove offence leveled against

the child in conflict with law beyond all reasonable doubt for

offence u.sec.379 or 411 IPC?

POINT :

12.It is the specific case of prosecution that CICL has committed theft of Mo.1 to Mo.3 belonging to PW1 to PW3 on different dates at different places and the same were seized from possession of CICL.

13.Learned APP submitted his arguments contending that the evidence of PW6 has manifestly proved the case of prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt as such CCL is liable to convicted.

14.Per contra the learned counsel for CICL Vehemently contented that the identity of CICL is not established as such the prosecution has failed to the prove the guilt of CICL beyond all reasonable doubt.

Further confession made before PW6 is inadmissible in evidence as it 5 is hit under Sec.25, 26 Indian evidence Act. Therefore the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of CICL beyond all reasonable doubt for

U/Sec.Sec.379 or 411 IPC.

15.In order to prove that there was theft of motorcycles (Mos.1 to 3) of PW1 to 3 on the given dates at given places the prosecution relied upon the evidence of PW1 to 3 and PW6. On perusal of evidence of Pws.1 to 3, in their evidence they categorically deposed about missing of their motorcycles(MOs.1 to 3) on specific dates mentioned as per reports (Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.3). Further they categorically deposed that their motorcycles were recovered by the Police Station and they took the custody of MO.1 to 3 for interim custody. On perusal of cross examination of PW1 to 3, the learned counsel for CICL did not dispute about ownership of MO1 to 3. Further CICL is not claiming that

MOs 1 to 3 belongs to him. On perusal of evidence of PW6, it goes to show that Pws.1 to 3 came to him and preferred EXs.P1 to P3 reports on specific dates i.e., on 12.08.2022, 04.09.2022 and 05.09.2022. The evidence of PW6 further goes to show that based on Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.3 he registered Ex.P.6, Ex.P.8 and Ex.P.10/ FIRs. Except posing denial suggestions the learned counsel for CICL could not elict anything in the cross examintion of any of the prosecution witnesses to prove that no thefts were committed on given dates at given places. Therefore on considering the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 and PW6 cumulatively, it is manifestly proved that there was theft of Mos.1 to 3 on given dates at specific places as per the case of prosecution.

16.Now it is to be seen whether it is CICL who committed theft in

Cr.No.258/2022, 273/2022 and 275/2022, U/sec.379 IPC or Sec.411

IPC. on perusal of evidence of Pw4 to 6, who are panchayathdars for

Ex.P.12 panchanama i.e., PW4 and 5 did not support the case of prosecution of any material particulars. They categorically deposed that on one day when they went to the Police station they obtained their signatures on some papers the contents of which they are not aware.

Though the learned APP cross examined them nothing has been elicited to discredit the trustworthyness of their evidence. Now the only 6 evidence available on record is the evidence of PW6, PW6 in his evidence categorically deposed that on 07.09.2022 on credible information about CICL,he sent PC.No.2143 to secure Panchayatdars.

At about 2.00 pm PW.4 and 5 were brought by PC.no.2143 to act as mediators, he served summons on them and they agreed to act as mediators. Then at about 2.30 pm he along with his staff, PW.4 and 5 reached Bramhaiah Shed situated at Old Bypass road china chowk area and while they were conducting vehicle checking, one person who coming on motor cycle, on seeing them he tried to escape on that on suspicion they surrounded him and apprehended him. On enquiry in the presence of PW.4 and PW.5, the said person revealed his identity as

Shaik Jamruth aged 17 years, S/o.Allabakash R/o. Co-operative

Colony, Kadapa. He changed his Uniform into civil dress as the said person is a Juvenil. On enquiry in the presence of PW.4 and PW.5 he voluntarily confessed that after his father left to Saudi, his mother is eking her livelihood as a maid, he stopped his studies at 8th class and that he is a vagabond. With an intention to get money for his vices, he intend to commit theft of motor cycles. He further voluntarily confessed in the presence of PW.4 and PW.5 about the commission offences in the 3 crimes ie., in Cr.No.258/2022, 273/2022 and 275/2022. CICL in the presence of PW.4 and PW5 voluntarily confessed the motor cycle bearing No. AP 04 BL 9782 on which he came is stolen by him and they identified it as case property in Cr.No.258/2022. Later he seized the said motor cycle after affixing panch slips on MO.1. When he enquired about the remaining motor cycles, he voluntarily confessed that he hid them in thorny bushes on the back side of Bramhaiah shed. When he along with PW.4 and 5 went there, CICL showed two motor cycles ie.,

Honda Active 5g bearing No.AP 04 DJ 1839 which are identified as

case property in Cr.No.275/2022, Hero Splendar plus AP 39 GK 9228 and in Cr.No.273/2022. Those motor cycles were seized by affixing panch slips. The entire procedure was drafted under the cover of

Panchanama Ex.P12 is Panchanama Dt. 07.09.2022.

17.When there is no other independent witness the evidence of PW6 needs strict judicious scrutiny. Admittedly confession made before 7

Police is in admissible in evidence. Further as PW4 and 5 who are mediators of ExP.12 panchanama turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution as such the alleged seizure of Mos 1 to 3 is unbelievable and further raises serious doubts regarding seizure of

MO1 to 3. Therefore as PW4 and PW5 did not support the case of prosecution the evidence of PW6 alone is not sufficient to prove the identity of CICL as confession made before police is inadmissible in evidence as it is hit under Section 25 and 26 of Indian Evidence Act. As such the prosecution has failed to establish that it is the CICL who committed thefts.

18.Therefore in view of aforesaid discussion the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of CICL beyond all reasonable for offence

U/sec.379 or Sec.411 IPC. Accordingly this point is answered in favour of CICL and against the prosecution.

19.In the result, the Child in conflict with law is found not guilty for the offence punishable u/Sec.379 or 411 IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted of the same u/sec.255(1) Cr.P.C. The parental bonds and bail bonds if any of the CICL shall stands cancelled after expiry of six months. The interim custody of MO.1 to Mo.3 gven to PW1 to PW3 shall holds good after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in open board this day 30th day of May, 2023.

 Sd/- Smt. K. Bhargavi,

II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class FAC Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, -Cum-I Addl. Judl.

Magistrate of I Class,

KADAPA Member: 1.

Member: 2.

8

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for prosecution

PW.1: Mallepogu Raju PW.2: L.Raja Sekhar Reddy PW.3: P.Chandra Sekhar PW.4: N.SivaRam PW.5: M.Rama Chandrud PW.6: Shaik Roshan

Exhibits marked on behalf of prosecution

Ex.P1: Cr.No.273/2022 Report Ex.P2: Cr.No.275/2022 Report Ex.P3: Cr.No.278/2022 Report Ex.P4: Signature of N.Siva Ram Ex.P5: Signature of M.Chandruyudu Ex.P6: FIR in Cr.No.258/2022 of Chinna Chowk PS Ex.P7: Rough sketch Ex.P8: FIR in Cr.No.273/2022 Ex.P9: Roughsketch in Cr.No.273/2022 Ex.P10: FIR Cr.No.275/2022 Ex.P.11: Rough sketch Ex.P.12: Panchanama dt.07.09.2022 at 3.00 PM.

Witness examined on behalf of the Child in Conflict with Law

- N i l -

Exhibits marked for Defence

- N i l -

Material objects marked on behalf of the State

M.O.1 : Splender Plus M.O.2: Honda Activa 5G M.O.3: Spendor Motorcycle AP04-BL9782

 Sd/- Smt. K. Bhargavi,

II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class FAC Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, -Cum-I Addl. Judl.

Magistrate of I Class,

KADAPA 9

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

Calendar and Judgment tried by the II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Kadapa, FAC Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board-cum-I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Kadapa.

DATE OF

Offence ReportAppreheReleaseCommenceClose ofJudgme nsion of on bailment oftrial nt trial 12.08.2221.08.22 41(A)41(A) 03.09.2204.09.2228.01.202323.05.2330.05.23 NoticeNotice 22.08.2205.09.22

Calendar and Judgment in J.C.C.No.80/2022 on the file of Principal

Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board-cum-I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I

Class, Kadapa.

COMPLAINANT:Child Welfare Police Officer, Chinnachowku U/G P.S. in Cr.Nos.258/2022, 273/2022 and 275/2022

Name of the CICL Age Calling Religion Residence With father’s name

XXXXXXXXXXX,

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Offences : u/Sec.379 or 411 IPC

Finding : The child in Conflict with Laws are found not guilty.

Sentence : In the result, the Child in conflict with law is found not guilty for the offence punishable u/Sec.379 or 411 IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted u/sec.255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the CICL shall be remained in force for a period of six months as required u/Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. Parent sahll stand outsides interim custody of MO.1 to Mo.3 gven to PW1 to PW3 shall holds of expiry of appal time.

Sd/- Smt. K. Bhargavi,

II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class FAC Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, -Cum-I Addl. Judl.

Magistrate of I Class,

KADAPA Copy submitted to the Hon’ble Chief Judl. Magistrate, Kadapa.

Dis.No. dt:

1

BEFORE THE JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD, KADAPA.

Present :Smt. K. Bhargavi,

II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Kadapa.

FAC Principal Magistrate-cum-

I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class Judge, Kadapa.

Member: 1. Smt. D.Varamma,

Member: 2. Smt. J.Sumitra,

Tuesday, this the 30th day of May, 2023.

J.C.C.No. 63 of 2022

Between ;

State Rep. by the Child Welfare Officer, Kadapa I Town P.S. … Complainant. And;

XXXXXXXXXXX.

…Child in Conflict with Law.

This case is coming on 23.05.2023 for hearing before me in the presence of learned Senior Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and

Sri M.Shantha, Advocate for Child in Conflict with Law and after hearing and upon perusing the record, this Board delivered the following:-

FINAL ORDER

This is a case filed by the State represented by the Child Welfare

Police Officer, Kadapa I Town U/G P.S. in Cr.No.385/2020, against the

Child in Conflict with Law for the offence punishable U/sec.457, 380 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘the IPC’).

2.The brief facts of the case of the State as per the contents of the final report are that, PW1 is the defacto complainant. On 30.11.2020 at 8 PM to 01.12.2020 at 8.30 AM in anjaneyaswamy temple, Old Bus stand, Kadapa city where in some unknown offenders broke open the locks which were fixed to the Lord Anjaneyaswamy temple, entered inside of the temple broke open the Hundi and committed theft of cash

Rs.5,000/- available in the Hindi duly presented by the devotees at the time of Darshan and skulled away with booty. On the complaint of

Mayura Gokul Battar, 40 years S/o Madhusudan, priest of 2

Anjaneyaswamy temple, Old Bus stand, Kadapa city, on 01.12.2020 at 9

AM case is registered and investigated into by PW3. During the course of investigation, PW3 examined PW1,Lws 2 to 4 namely Sreenivasulu,

Mallikarjuna and Subramanyam, recorded their statements besides preparing rough sketch of the scene of offence.

3.During the course of investigation, on 08.12.2020 at 11 AM near

Royal theatre, Kadapa city, PW4 apprehended the above juvenile in conflict with law and interrogated him thoroughly before the presence of

LW 5/Mahaboob Basha and PW2, recorded his confession where the juvenile in conflict with law voluntarily confessed about his involvement in the above charge sheeted case, then PW4 seized an amount of

Rs.1260/- from the possession of the juvenile in conflict with law, served 41-A Crpc against the juvenile conflict with law and handed over his custody to his parents with instructions to appear before the juvenile justice board as and when receipt of summons from the juvenile justice board, Kadapa.

4.Cognizance has been taken against the Child in Conflict with Law for the offence punishable u/Secs.457, 380 IPC.

5.On appearance of the child in Conflict with Law, copies of relevant documents were furnished to him as contemplated U/sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

When the child in Conflict with Law is examined U/Sec.251 of Cr.P.C, explaining the substance of accusation appearing against him for the offence punishable u/Secs.457, 380 IPC, he denied, pleaded not committed the offence and claimed to be tried.

6.During the inquiry, the State has examined PWs.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5 and M.O.1. The learned Senior Assistant Public

Prosecutor had given up the remaining witnesses as most of the witnesses had not supported the case.

7.The Child in Conflict with Law is examined under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating the material made against him from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, got read over and explained to 3 him in Telugu for which he denied and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard arguments of both sides.

9.Now the point for determination is:

W hether the State is able to prove offence leveled against the

child in conflict with law beyond all reasonable doubt ?

POINT:

10.It is specific case of prosecution that on the intervening night of 30.11.2020 and 01.12.2020 in Anjaneyaswamy temple old bustand

Kadapa city some unknown offenders broke open the lock which were fixed to the lord Anjaneyaswamy temple, entered inside of the temple broke open the Hundi and committed theft of cash Rs.5,000/- available in the Hundi which was presented by the devotees at the time of

Darshan and skulked away with booty.

11.Learned APP submitted his arguments contending that the evidence of PW1, 3 and 4 manifestly proved the guilt of the CICL beyond all reasonable doubt for offence section 457, 380 IPC as such

CCL is liable to convicted.

12.Per contra the learned counsel for CICL Vehemently contented that there are no eye witnesses to the alleged incident, further PW2 who is panchayatdars for Ex.P.6 Panchanama did not support the case of prosecution on any material particulars. As confession made to Police officer is inadmissible in evidence as it is hit under Sec.25, 26 Indian evidence Act, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of CICL beyond all reasonable doubt as such CICL is entitled for benefit of doubt.

13.In order to prove that there was theft in Anjaneyaswamy temple old bus stand, Kadapa city in the intervening night of 30.11.2020 and 01.12.2020, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of PW1, 3. it is evidence of PW1 that on one day in December, 2021 when he went to

Vinayaka Swamy temple which is situated in Vinayaka Swamy temple

before the Anjaneya Swamy temple to open the same, he found the lock

4 of Anjaneya swamy temple was broke open, he opened the same and found no Hundi. Then on the same day morning he went to Police

Station and gave report to Police stating that tune of Rs.5,000/- was stolen in the said temple. He further deposed that after one week,

Police informed him that they caught hold the thief and recovered the cash to a tune of Rs.1260/-, the same was marked as M.O.1. He further deposed that temple trust took interim custody of stolen property.

Coming to evidence of PW3, he deposed that on 01.12.2020 at 9.00 AM while he was present in the Police station, PW1 came and gave Ex.P.1 report, basing on which he registered a case in Cr.No.385/2020 and issued Ex.P.3 FIR. He went to scene of offence i.e., Anjaneya Swamy temple and there observed the same. He prepared Ex.P.4. He further deposed that he seized one lock M.O.2 at the scene of offence under the cover of Police proceedings Ex.P.5. On perusal of cross examination of P.W1 and PW3 it reveals that except posing denial suggestions that no Hundu was lost in Anjaneya Swamy Temple and that nothing was recovered, the learned CICL could not able to extract anything in her favour to prove that no theft was committed in Anjaneya

Swamy temple in the intervening night of 30.11.2020 and 01.12.2020.

14.As per evidence of PW1 it reveals that the interim custody of

M.O.1 was taken by him and same is kept with the temple trust.

Therefore from the evidence of PW1 and 3 it is manifestly proved that there was theft of hundi containing cash of Rs.5,000/- approximately in

AnjeneyaSwamy temple old bus stand Kadapa in the intervened night of 31.11.2020 and 01.12.2020.

15.In view of findings recorded supra now it is to be seen whether it is CICL who committed the offence in Anjaneyaswamy temple old bus stand Kadapa in the intervening night of 30.11.2020 and 01.12.2020. In order to prove the same the prosecution relied on the evidence of PW1 to PW4.

16.It is evidence of PW3 that he verified the C.C.footage along with his constables. Then he identified the CICL as the person who 5 committed the offence. Thereafter he handed over the case file to PW4 for further investigation in this case.

17.PW4 deposed that on 08.12.2020 at 08.00 AM he received credible information about CICL on that he instructed his constable for securing Mediators. After securing mediators LW5/Shaik Mahaboob

Basha and P.W.2, he served summons on them and they accepted to act as mediators. Then at about 08.30 AM, he along with P.W.2,

LW.5/Shaik Mahaboob Basha and his staff left the Police station, reached Royal theatre, Kadapa and while conducting vehicle checking at 08.55 A.M, he noticed Juvenile in conflict with Law, apprehended him and on enquiry he voluntarily confessed that he committed theft of

Rs.5,000/- in Sri Anjaneya Swamy temple situated near old bus stand,

Kadapa, he also confessed about the commission of offences relating to

Chinnachowk Police station, II town Police station, Kadapa. CICL took out Rs.1,260/- from his pant packet and confessed that the said amount pertains to this crime. At about 11.00 A.M. He apprehended the CCL under the cover of panchanama under Ex.P.6. He informed about the commission of offence by CICL to his mother. On completion of investigation he filed Final Summary Report against the CICL.

18.On perusal of entire evidence it reveals that PW2 who is mediator of Ex.P.6 panchanama did not support the case of prosecution of any material particulars. Though the learned APP has cross examined him was nothing has been elicited to discredit the trust worthyness of his evidence. Now the only evidence available on record is the evidence of

PW3 and PW4 who are investigating officers and at this juncture the evidence of PW 4 needs strict judicious scrutiny as confession made to

Police officer is inadmissible in evidence as it is hit under Sec.25, 26

Indian evidence Act. The prosecution as fail to prove the guilt of CICL beyond all reasonable doubt as such CICL is entitled for benefit of doubt.

19.In the instant case though the evidence of Pw4 shows that M.O.1 was seized from the possession of CICL admittedly PW2 who is the 6 mediator for Ex.P.6 Panchanama did not support the case of prosecution as such the evidence of PW4 alone is not sufficient to prove the alleged seizure under Ex.P.6 Panchanama. Further as per evidence of PW3 he verified the C.C.footage and identified CCL as the person who committed the offence. However on perusal of entire record, it reveals that no such C.C.footage is produced before this court to prove that it is

CICL who committed the offence. Further PW3, 4 did not assign any reason for not securing the said C.C.T.V.potage and what prevented them from filing the CCTV footage before this Court. It itself is creating serious doubt about the case of prosecution and about the seizure of

M.O.1 under Ex.P.6 panchanama. Therefore on considering evidence of above prosecution witnesses cumulatively the prosecution has failed to prove that it is the CICL who committed the offence in the intervened night of 30.11.2020 and 01.12.2020 in Anjaneyaswamy temple old bus stand Kadapa.

20.Therefore in view of aforesaid discussions the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of CICL beyond all reasonable for offence

U/sec.457, 380 IPC. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of CICL and against the prosecution.

21.In the result, the Child in conflict with law is found not guilty for the offence punishable u/Sec.357, 380 IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted of the same u/sec.255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds and parental bonds of the any of the CICL shall stands cancelled after the appeal time is over.

The interim custody of M.O.1 given to PW1 shall holds good after expiry of appeal time. M.O.2 i.e., lock shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to Personal Assistant, transcribed by

her,corrected and pronounced by me in open board this day 30th day of May, 2023.

 Sd/- Smt. K. Bhargavi,

II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class FAC Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, -Cum-I Addl. Judl.

Magistrate of I Class,KADAPA

7

Member: 1.

Member: 2.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for prosecution

PW.1: Mayuram Gokul Batkar PW.2: D.Raju PW.3: B.Rama Krishna PW.4: Satyanarayana T.V

Exhibits marked on behalf of prosecution

Ex.P1: Report of P.W.1 Ex.P2: Signature of P.W.2 Ex.P3: F.I.R. Ex.P4: Rough Sketch Ex.P5: Police proceedings Ex.P6: Panchanama

Witness examined on behalf of the Child in Conflict with Law

--Nil-

Exhibits marked for Defence

- N i l -

Material objects marked on behalf of the State

M.O.1 : Cash to a tune of Rs.1,260/- M.O.2: One lock

 Sd/- Smt. K. Bhargavi,

II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class FAC Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, -Cum-I Addl. Judl.

Magistrate of I Class,

KADAPA 8

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

Calendar and Judgment tried by the II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Kadapa, FAC Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board-cum-I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Kadapa.

DATE OF

Offence ReportApprehensRelease onCommencClose ofJudgme ion of bailement oftrial nt trial 30.11.20 to 01.12.20--13.12.2216.05.23 30.05.23 1.12.20

Calendar and Judgment in J.C.C.No.63/2022 on the file of Principal

Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board-cum-I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I

Class, Kadapa. COMPLAINANT:Child Welfare Police Officer, Kadapa I Town U/G P.S in Cr.No.385/2020

Name of the CICL Age Calling Religion Residence With father’s name

XXXXXXXXXXX

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Offences : u/Sec. 457, 380 IPC

Finding:The child in Conflict with Law is found not guilty.

Sentence : In the result, the Child in conflict with law is found not guilty for the offence punishable u/Sec.357, 380 IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted of the same u/sec.255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds and parental bonds of the any of the CICL shall stands cancelled after the appeal time is over. The interim custody of M.O.1 given to PW1 shall holds good after expiry of appeal time. M.O.2 i.e., lock shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

.  Sd/- Smt. K. Bhargavi, II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class FAC Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, -Cum-I Addl. Judl.

Magistrate of I Class,

KADAPA Copy submitted to the Hon’ble Chief Judl. Magistrate, Kadapa.

Dis.No. dt:

9

1

BEFORE THE JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD, KADAPA.

Present :Smt. K. Bhargavi,

II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Kadapa.

FAC Principal Magistrate-cum-

I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class Judge, Kadapa.

Member: 1. Smt. D.Varamma,

Member: 2. Smt. J.Sumitra,

Tuesday, this the 30th day of May, 2023.

J.C.C.No.41 of 2021

Between ;

State Rep. by the Child Welfare Officer, Proddatur Rural Circle … Complainant.

And;

XXXXXXXXXXX.

…Child in Conflict with Law.

This case is coming on 27.05.2023 for hearing before me in the presence of learned Senior Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Smt. M.Shantha, Legal Aid Deputy Counsel for the Child in

Conflict with Law and after hearing and upon perusing the record, this

Board delivered the following:-

FINAL ORDER

This is a case filed by the State represented by the Child Welfare

Police Officer, Proddatur Rural Circle in Cr.No.399/2018 against the

Child in Conflict with Law for the offence punishable u/Sec.392 of the

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘the IPC’).

2.The brief facts of the case of the State as per the contents of the final report are that, PW1 is the defacto complainant by name

P.Subbarayudu, LW2/B.Gurrappa @ Santhosh is the owner of lorry,

PW2 and PW3 are panchayathdars at the time of apprehension of juvenile in conflict with law and adult offenders No.1 and 2 and 2 recovery of stolen properties in Cr.No.593/2018 U/Sec.395 of IPC of

Jammalamadugu Urban Police station who attested their signatures in

Panchanama dt.21.12.2018. LW5 is Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Proddatur who conducted test identification parade on accused.

LW6/M.Manjunatha Reddy and LW7/K.Sreenivasulu, LW8/S.V.Bhaskar

Goud and PW4 are the investigating officers.

3.PW1 is resident of Sirigepalli village, Jammalamadugu Mandal and eking out his living as a lorry driver. By the date of offence PW1 was working as driver of Eicher lorry bearing Reg.No.AP04-TW-4573 which belongs to LW2/B.Gurrappa @ Santhosh. About 3 days prior to the incident i.e., on 16.12.2018 at about 9.00 AM PW1 loaded the compressor tractor in the lorry and unloaded the same at Puttur of

Chittoor District at about 9.00 PM on the same day for hire price of

Rs.16,500/-. After unloading the tractor, PW1 left Puttur and reached

Renigunta and waited there for hire. As he could not get any hire on 18.12.2018 at about 9.00 PM PW1 left the place and while he was proceeding towards Jammalamadugu when PW1 reached four roads

Junction near Peddasettipalli village of Proddatur Manda, at about 3.30 AM as he was getting sleeping, he stopped the lorry beside the road and slept in the lorry. Meanwhile three unknown offenders came on motorcycle, caught hold of PW1 and forcibly robbed cash of

Rs.17,200/- and fled away on motorcycle. Later PW1 went to

Jammalamadugu and informed the same to LW2 B.Gurrappa @

Santosh. During the course of investigation on 21.12.2018

LW7/K.Sreenivasulu apprehended juvenile in conflict with law along with adult offenders No.1 and 2 in the presence of PW2 & 3 and recorded their confessional statements. On interrogation the juvenile in conflict with law and adult offenders confessed about the commission of offence in Cr.No.399/2018 U/s 392 IPC of Proddatur

Rural Police Station. L.W7/K.Sreenivasulu seized stolen properties in

Cr.No.593/2018 U/sec.395 IPC of Jammalamadugu Urban Police 3 station besides cash of Rs.8,000/- in Cr.No.399/2018 of Proddatur

Rural Police station from their possession. Later LW7/K.Sreenivasulu forwarded juvenile in conflict with law before the board who forwarded juvenile in conflict with law to Government observation home, Kadapa in Cr.No.593/2018 U/s 395 IPC of Jammalamadugu Urban Police station. During the course of investigation LW6/M.Manjunatha Reddy obtained PT warrants from the Hon’ble board and executed the same against the Juvenile on 21.01.2019. Further LW8/S.sV.Bhaskar Goud filed a requisition before the Hon’ble Court for conducting test identification parade on accused by PW1. Accordingly on 03.09.2014

LW5/Sri N.Vijaya Babu Principal Junior Civil Judge, Proddatur conducted test identification parade on accusefd at Sub-Jail,

Jammalamadugu at about 11.50 AM. PW1 identified adult offender

No.1 alone but failed to identify the adult offender No.2. on completion of investigation PW4 filed final report against juvenile in conflict with law.

4.Cognizance has been taken against the Child in Conflict with

Law for the offence punishable u/Sec.392 IPC.

5.On appearance of the Child in Conflict with Law, copies of relevant documents were furnished to him as contemplated under section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘the

Cr.P.C’). When the Child in Conflict with Law is examined U/Sec.251 of

Cr.P.C, explaining the substance of accusation appearing against him for the offence punishable u/Sec.392 IPC, he denied, pleaded not committed the offence and claimed to be tried.

6.During the inquiry, the State has examined PWs.1 to 4, and got marked Exs.P1 to P4. The learned Senior Assistant Public Prosecutor had given up the remaining witnesses as most of the witnesses had supported the case.

4

7.The Child in Conflict with Law is examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating material made against him from the evidence available, got read over and explained to him in Telugu to which he denied and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard arguments of both sides.

9.Now the point for determination is

W hether the State is able to prove offence leveled against

the child in conflict with law beyond all reasonable doubt for

offence u.sec.392 IPC?

POINT :

10.It is specific case of prosecution that on 18.12.2018 at about 3.30 AM while PW1 was sleeping in the lorry which was parked beside the road, adult offenders and juvenile in conflict with law came on motorcycle, caught hold of PW1 and forcibly robbed cash of

Rs.17,200/- from him and they fled away on their motorcycle from the spot.

11.Learned APP submitted his arguments contending that the evidence of PW2 to 4 manifestly proved the guilt of the CICL beyond all reasonable doubt as such CICL is liable to be convicted. Per contra it is the contention of learned counsel for CICL that as per the case of prosecution PW1 was robbed but PW1 did not support the case of prosecution on any material particulars. Further PW2 and 3 who are panchayathdars for Ex.P.2 panchanama, did not identify CICL in open board. There in view of aforesaid lacunas the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of CICL beyond all reasonable doubt.

12.In order to prove that on 18.12.2018 cash of Rs.17,200/- was robbed from PW1 at four roads junction near Peddasettipalli village of 5

Proddatur Mandal, the prosecution relied on evidence of PW1 and

PW4. PW1 in his evidence categorically deposed that in December 2019 while he was returning to his village, he stopped his vehicle at

Peddachitipalli took a nap, at that time some unknown offenders came and robbed him Rs.17,200/-. Then he went to the Police station and gave Ex.P.1 report. It is the evidence of PW4 that on 19.12.2018 at about 6.45 PM PW1 approached PW6/M.Manjunatha Reddy and gave

Ex.P.1 basing on which Ex.P.3/FIR was registered. He further deposed that on 21.12.2018 LW7/K.Sreenivasulu apprehended CICL, seized the property under Ex.P.2 seizure of confession panchanama in

Cr.No.593/2018 of Jammalamadugu Urban Police station. CICL was produced before the board on execution of PT warrant by

LW6/M.Manjunatha Reddy. The evidence of PW4 reveals that

LW5/N.Vijaya Babu Principal Junior Civil Judge Proddatur conducted test identification parade on 03.09.2014 in which PW1 identified the

CICL. Ex.P.4 is test identification parade proceedings. On completion of investigation he filed final report. On perusal of cross examination of PW1 and PW4, the learned counsel for CICL did not pose any suggestion challenging that PW1 was not robbed. Therefore from the evidence of PW1 and PW4 it is manifestly proved that PW1 was robbed by some unknown persons.

13.Now it is to be seen whether it is CICL who robbed PW1 along with adult offenders. On perusal of evidence of PW1, he deposed that he did not witness the person who robbed him. PW2 and 3 who are mediators for Ex.P2/Panchanama, they did not identify CICL in the board and categorically deposed that they cannot identify CICL as one of the persons from whom the Police apprehended and recorded confession panchanama under Ex.P.2. Coming to evidence of PW4, though as per his evidence PW1 has identified CICL in test identification parade on 03.09.2014 conducted by LW5/N.Vijaya babu admittedly PW1 did not identify CICL in open board. Therefore Ex.P.4 6 test identification proceedings does not hold much evidentiary value to establish the identity of CICL. Now the only evidence available on record to establish the identity of accused is the evidence of PW4.

Admittedly PW4 is the investigation officer who filed final report but he is not person who apprehended CICL and he is not the person who produced CICL before this board on execution of PT warrant. Further

Ex.P.2/seizure and confession panchanama does not hold much evidentiary value to establish the identity CICL as confession made

before Police is inadmissible in evidence as it is hit U/Sec.25, 26

Indian evidence Act. Therefore on considering the evidence of PW1 to 4 cumulatively, absolutely there is no evidence on record to prove that

CICL has committed the offence along with adult offenders.

14.Therefore in view of aforesaid discussion the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of CICL beyond all reasonable doubt for offence U/Sec.392 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly this point is answered in favour of CICL and against the prosecution.

15.In the result, the Child in conflict with law is found not guilty for the offence punishable u/Secs.392 IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted u/sec.255(1) Cr.P.C. The parental bonds of the Child in conflict with law shall stand cancelled after the appeal time is over.

The unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Dictated to Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in open board this day 30th day of May, 2023.

Sd/-Smt. K. Bhargavi

II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class FAC Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, -Cum-I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class,KADAPA Member: 1.

Member: 2.

7

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for prosecution

PW.1: P.Subbarayudu PW.2: A.Bheemanna PW.3: T.Sreenivasulu PW.4:S.Viswanatha Reddy

Exhibits marked on behalf of prosecution

Ex.P1: C.C. of report of P.W.1 Ex.P2: Panchanama Ex.P3: F.I.R. Ex.P4: Test Identification Parade Proceedings

Witness examined on behalf of the Child in Conflict with Law

-Nil-

Exhibits marked for Defence

-Nil-

Material objects marked on behalf of the State

-Nil-

Sd/-Smt. K. Bhargavi

II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class FAC Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, -Cum-I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of

I Class,KADAPA

8

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

Calendar and Judgment tried by the II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Kadapa, FAC Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board-cum-I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Kadapa.

DATE OF

Offence ReportAppreheReleaseCommenClose ofJudgme nsion of on bailcementtrial nt of trial 19.12.1819.12.1824.09.2218.04.2330.05.23

Calendar and Judgment in J.C.C.No.41/2021 on the file of Principal

Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board-cum-I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I

Class, Kadapa. COMPLAINANT:Child Welfare Police Officer, Proddatur Rural Circle P.S in Cr.No.399/2018

Name of the CICL Age Calling Religion Residence With father’s name

XXXXXXXXXXX

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Offences : u/Secs.392 IPC

Finding:The child in Conflict with Law is found not guilty.

Sentence : In the result, the Child in conflict with law is found not guilty for the offence punishable u/Secs.392 IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted u/sec.255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the Child in conflict with law shall stand cancelled after the appeal time is over u/Sec.437- A Cr.P.C. The unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Sd/-Smt. K. Bhargavi

. . II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class FAC Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, -Cum-I Addl. Judl.

Magistrate of I Class,KADAPA

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble Chief Judl. Magistrate, Kadapa.

Dis.No. dt:

9

C.C.No.702 of 20191 JMFC,PULIVENDULA

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

PULIVENDULA.

Present:­ M.CHANDRASEKHARA REDDY

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Pulivendula.

Friday, this the 31st day of January, 2025.

C.C.No.702/2019

Between: 

State through the Sub­Inspector of Police, Pulivendula U/G PS. … Complainant. 

Versus

Goddumarri Chandra Mohan, S/o Yerra Chennappa, aged about 35 years, Thalari, Tractor driver, R/o D.No. 4/32, B.Cherlopalli village, Simhadripuram Mandal, Rider of Bajaj CT 100 TATA Motor cycle bearing No. AP04 AZ 6858.

... Accused.

­oo0oo­

This case is coming before me on 07.10.2024 for hearing in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri M.Obul Reddy,

Advocate for Accused, and upon hearing the arguments of both sides, this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:­ 

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub­Inspector of Police, Pulivendula U/G Police Station, filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.298/2019 for the offences punishable under sections 304­A IPC and Sec.134(a)&(b) r/w 187 of M.V.Act and Sec.146 r/w 196 of M.V.Act.

2.The brief facts of the charge sheet are as follows:

On 12.09.2019 at around 12­00 Noon the deceased along with PW.1 went into the village for attending some work. By the time the deceased and

PW.1 were near the houses of PW.5 & PW.6 along with PW.1 went into the village for attending some work. By the time. Meanwhile, the accused came from Pulivendula side on Bajaj CT 100 motorcycle AP04 AZ 6858 in a rash and negligent manner with high speed, couldn’t control and the deceased who stood at the extreme left side of the road. As a result, the deceased strewn away on

C.C.No.702 of 20192 JMFC,PULIVENDULA the road and sustained fracture in his left leg above the ankle besides bleeding injuries on left leg toe and on ankle. Having witnesses the accident, PW.1,

Pws.4 to 6 rushed to the spot. As such, PW.1 called PW.2 over phone and informed about the accident and asked to come over the spot. After some time,

PWs.2 & 3 rushed to spot and shifted the deceased to the Government

Hospital, Pulivendula and fro there to RIM Hospital, Kadapa and the doctors suggested PWs.2 & 3 to shift the deceased to Ruia hospital, Tirupathi, due to exhaust of money, again PWs.2 & 3 brought the deceased to their village arranged some money and on 30.10.2019 again Pws.2 & 3 took the deceased to

Ruia Hospital, Tirupathi, where the doctors were advised PW.2 & PW.3 to shift the deceased to Rajeev Gandhi Government General Hospital, Chennai, where the deceased succumbed to injuries.

Basing of the complaint from the P.W.1, PW.10 was registered in Cr.No.

298/2019 U/sec.304­A IPC of Pulivendula U/G P.S. On 02.11.2019 PW.10 had held inquest over the dead body of the deceased Chatta Veera Bhadraiah at 7­30 A.M to 9­30 A.M at Rajeeva Gandhi Government General Hospital,

Chennai. During inquest PW.10 had examined Pws.1 to 3 & LW.4/Chatta

Shankaraiah. PW.10 arrested the accused on 23­10­2019 at 11­30 A.M, and released him bail after obtaining sufficient sureties. Thus, the accused is liable to be punished for the offence U/sec.304­A of IPC and sec. 134(a)(b) r/w 187 of

M.V.Act and sec. 146 r/w 196 of M.V.act. Hence the charge.

3. The case was taken on file for the offences under section U/sec.

304­A of IPC and sec.134(a)(b) r/w 187 of M.V.Act and sec.146 r/w 196 of

M.V.act against accused. 

4. On appearance of accused , copies of documents were furnished to him as required under section 207 Cr.P.C. He was examined under Section 251

C.C.No.702 of 20193 JMFC,PULIVENDULA of Cr.P.C and the contents of charges read over and explained to accused in

Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried

5.On behalf of the prosecution PW1 to PW10 were examined and got marked Exs.P1 to P16. The learned APP gave up the evidence of remaining prosecution witnesses.

6. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined

U/sec.313 of Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating evidence appeared in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which the accused denied and reported no defence evidence, hence defence evidence closed. 

7.Heard both sides and perused the material on record.

8.Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences under section 304­A of IPC and sec. 134(a)(b) r/w 187 of M.V.Act and sec.

146 r/w 196 of M.V.act?”

POINT:

9.It is the specific case of the prosecution that on 12.09.2019 at about 12.00 Noon ride the motor cycle bearing No.AP 04 AZ 6858 in a rash and negligent manner and caused the death of deceased, basing on the report of

PW1, PW.10­Sub­Inspector of Police registered a case in Cr.No.298/2019 U/s.

304­A of IPC and Sec.134(a)&(b) r/w 187 of MV Act. To prove the same, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 10 and got marked Exs.P1 to P16.

10. PW1 who is the defacto complainant and senior paternal uncle of deceased deposed in his evidence that on one day in the month of September, 2019 some other person informed about the accident near Cherlopalli village of

Simhadripuram mandal and he deposed that himself and PW.2 shifted the injured to the hospital for treatment. He further deposed that on 1.11.2019 the

Pulivendula police called him to the police station and obtained thumb

C.C.No.702 of 20194 JMFC,PULIVENDULA impression on some written papers, he do not know its contents. PW.2 also deposed on the same lines of PW.1. The father of deceased examined as PW.3 and he also deposed that he do not know the accused. PW.3 further deposed that in the month of September, 2019 on one day his brother­in­law informed him about the accident of his son. He further deposed that police never examined him. PWs.4 to 6 who are alleged eyewitnesses to the incident categorically deposed that he do not know anything about this case and they do not know the accused. They further deposed that police never examined them. PWs.7 to 9 who are alleged inquest panchayatdars categorically deposed in their evidence that in the year 2019 the Pulivendula police obtained their signatures on some written papers at police station, but they do not know its contents. PWs.1 to 9 did not support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile. They resailed from their previous version and they did not whisper anything against the accused.

11. Coming to the evidence of PW.10 who is investigating officer in this case. He deposed about the registration of case, examination of witnesses, visiting scene of offence, conducting inquest over the dead body of deceased and after completion of investigation filed charge sheet. Except the evidence of

PW.10 there is no corroboration from the evidence of prosecution witnesses.

PWs.1 to 9 did not support the case of the prosecution and they did not whisper anything against the accused since material witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution and no purpose would be served to examine the other list of witnesses, hence the learned APP given up the evidence of remaining list of witnesses. Therefore, it is not proved that the accused ride the motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner and caused the death of the deceased. Thus, the prosecution miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.304­A of IPC and Sec. 134(a)(b) r/w

C.C.No.702 of 20195 JMFC,PULIVENDULA 187 of M.V.Act and sec. 146 r/w 196 of M.V.act. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the accused and against the prosecution.

12.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences under sections 304­A of IPC and sec. 134(a)(b) r/w 187 of M.V.Act and sec. 146 r/w 196 of M.V.act, and he is acquitted under section 255(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused and their sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of judgment as per section 437­A of Cr.P.C and thereafter they shall stands cancelled, the Bajaj motor cycle bearing

NumberAP04 AZ 6858 shall be given to the accused after expiry of appeal period. 

Typed to my dictation, signed and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 31 st day of January, 2025. 

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS 

PULIVENDULA.

Appendix of Evidence

(Witnesses examined for) Prosecution Defence PW1: C.Eswaraiah PW2: C.Devendra­None­ PW3: C.Nirmala PW4: D.Raj Kumar PW5: B.Venkata Reddy PW6: Y.Mallaiah PW7: P.Nagaiah PW8: B.Manohar Reddy PW.9 J.Rama Chandra REddy PW10: C.Rama Govindu.

Exhibits marked for

Prosecution Defence Ex.P1: Thumb impression of P.W.1 on written report dated ­Nil­ 01.11.2019. Ex.P2: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW.1. Ex.P3: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW.2. Ex.P4: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW.3. Ex.P5: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW.4. Ex.P6: Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.5 Ex.P7: Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.6 Ex.P8: Signature of P.W.7 on inquest panchanama. Ex.P9: Signature of P.W.8 on inquest panchanama. Ex.P10: Signature of P.W.9 on inquest panchanama. Ex.P11: Report Ex.P12: F.I.R Ex.P13: Inquest panchanama Ex.P14: Rough Sketch, Ex.P15: M.V.I report.

C.C.No.702 of 20196 JMFC,PULIVENDULA

Ex.P16: Postmortem certificate.

Material Objects marked for Prosecution Defence NilNil

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS 

PULIVENDULA.

C.C.No.702 of 20197 JMFC,PULIVENDULA

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

PULIVENDULA.

CALENDAR CASE No.702/2019

1. Date of Offence: 12­09­2019

2. Date of Complaint or report: 02.11.2019

3. Date of apprehension of the accused : 05­11­2019

4. Date of release on bail : 05.11.2019

5. Date of commencement of trial: 17­10­2024

6. Date of close of trial: 24­01­2025

7. Date of Sentence or Order: 31­01­2025

8. Explanation of delay if any: ­­ COMPLAINANT: The Sub­Inspector of Police, Pulivendula PS in Cr.No.298/2019. ACCUSED:

Goddumarri Chandra Mohan, S/o Yerra Chennappa, aged about 35 years, Thalari, Tractor driver, R/o D.No. 4/32, B.Cherlopalli village, Simhadripuram Mandal, Rider of Bajaj CT 100 TATA Motor cycle bearing No. AP04 AZ 6858.

Offence : Death caused by rash or negligent act.

Section of Law : Under Section 304­A of IPC and sec. 134(a)(b) r/w 187 of M.V.Act and sec. 146 r/w 196 of M.V.ACt,

Finding of Court : Accused is found not guilty

Sentence/ Order : In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences under sections 304­A of IPC and sec. 134(a)(b) r/w 187 of M.V.Act and sec. 146 r/w 196 of M.V.act, and he is acquitted under section 255(1) of

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused and their sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of judgment as per section 437­A of

Cr.P.C and thereafter they shall stands cancelled, the Bajaj motor cycle bearing

NumberAP04 AZ 6858 shall be given to the accused after expiry of appeal period. 

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS 

PULIVENDULA.

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble I­Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kadapa. for Prohibition & Excise, Kurnool.