Ms Konduru Mamatha Reddy

Page 1 of 19 JCC No.11 of 2025

IN THE COURT OF CHILD JUSTICE BOARD-CUM-JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: MAHABUBNAGAR

On this Friday, the 28th day of November, 2025

PRESENT:- Sm. K. Mamatha Reddy,

Chairman-cum-Judl. Magistrate of First Class, for Child Cases, Mahabubnagar.

Members: 1. Smt.Esther Grace Polumuri,

J.C.C.No.11 of 2025

BETWEEN:-

State of T.S rep. by Sub Inspector of Police, PS.Devarkadra, Cr.No.57 of 2024.

.... Complainant

A N D

Erriganti Shiva @ Karthik S/o.Shankar, aged:12years, R/o.Wanaparthy, Now present residing at Devarkadra Village and mandal.

.... Child in Conflict with Law

1. Section of Law: U/sec.302, 379 r/w.34 IPC and Sec.3(2)

(v) of SC/St Act-1989.

2. Plea of CCLs: Denied the offence

3. Finding of the Court: Found conflict with law

4. Sentence or order: In the result, CCL is found guilty for the offence U/sec.302, 379 r/w.34 of IPC, accordingly, the CCL is found in c U/s.255(2) Cr.P.C. Accordingly, under provisions of Sec.18(1)(g) of Juvenile Justice(Care and protection of children)Act, 2015, the CCL is directed to sent to special home for boys for a period of three years(03). Upon perusal of the record the CCL was in Observation Home from 20.04.2024 to 06.04.2025 i.e.352 days (11 months and 17 days) and he was in Children home from 07.04.2025 to 21.11.2025 i.e., 229 days(7 months 15 days) and the detention period is set off as per Sec.90(3) of JJ Model rules, 2016. He should be given counseling and skills have to be developed. Child in conflict with law is also directed to undergo behaviour modification therapy and psychiatric support during the period of his stay at the Special Home as per Section 18(1)(g) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of

Page 2 of 19 JCC No.11 of 2025

Children) Act, 2015. The Child Welfare police officer (CWPO)/ the concerned police are directed to produce the CCL before the Superintendent, special Home,Govt., Special Home for Boys, Kaisar Nagar X-Road, Beside Ullass Restaurant,Pragathinagar Kaman, Opposite to VNR Hostel, Bachupally- Gandimaisamma, Main Road, Bowrampet-500043, Medchal, Malkajgiri District. Likewise Authorities of Special Home are hereby directed to acknowledge about their receiving Child in conflict with law to this Board immediately after Child in conflict with law is shifted to Special Home. The marked objects i.e., MO1 is Cement brick, MO2 is blood stains on the shirt of deceased, MO3 is Blood stained blanket shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period and MO4 is the amount of Rs.280/- which is recovered from accused no.1 and MO5 is the amount of Rs.200/- which is recoverd from CCL and MO4 and MO5 shall be confiscated to the government as the deceased died. Copy of Judgment is furnished to the Child in conflict with law at free of costs as contemplated under the provisions of Section 363 Cr.P.C. The Child in conflict with law is also informed with regard to right to prefer an appeal against the present Judgment and free legal aid.

-o0o-

This case is coming before me on 07.11.2025 for final hearing in the presence of the Learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for the Complainant/State, Sri.C.Rama Krishna Goud, Counsel for CCL, upon hearing their arguments and having stood over for consideration, this Court delivered the following:-

FINAL ORDER

1. The Sub Inspector of Police, Police Station Devarkadra filed

Final Report against the Child in Conflict with Law for the offences punishable U/sec.302, 379 r/w.34 IPC and Sec.3(2)(v) of SC/St Act-1989.

2.The case of the prosecution is that 18.4.2024 at 11:00 Hours the complainant Sri Seethya Naik lodged a complaint stating that, on 18.04.2024 at 1000 hours when he went to Deverkadra Panchayath office,

Page 3 of 19 JCC No.11 of 2025 by the time one Deverkadra villager namely Avula Anjaneyulu S/o Amba Bai

Chary came to him and infomed that on 17.8.2024 midnight at 0100 hrs while he was returning to Devarkadra village on his bike from Nagaram village after dropped his friend, on the way near to Devarkadra Bus stop, he heard screams of an unknown lady, so he went to the said unknown lady, where he noticed Venkatesh & Karthik both r/o Devarkadra were threatening the said unknown lady for the sake of money, on seeing him they fled away and on enqiry she revealed that she is a beggar, further she stated that the above escaped two persons quarreled with an unknown beggar aged about 60-70 years under flyover bridge for money when he refused to give money they beat him on head with a boulder and took away money from him. Later the both came to her and threatening her to give money. On knowing this immediately, he went to the said unknown male beggar and found that the said unknown beggar aged about 60-70 years was died with head injury. Due to late night hours and fear, Avusula

Anjaneyulu went to his house and on the next day i.e., on 18.04.2024 went to Panchayath office, Devarkadra and informed the same to him. As such he requested to take necessary legal action against the 1) Venkatesh & 2)

Karthik as they both have killed one unknown beggar aged about 60-70 years by hitting with a boulder over on the head and took the money from the said unknown beggar. Hence, LW1 requested to take necessary action against the CCL.

Page 4 of 19 JCC No.11 of 2025

3. Basing on the above complaint, LW20/B.Naganna, Sub

Inspector of Police, Devarkadra Police Station registered a case in

Cr.No.57/2024, U/sec.302, 379 r/w.34 IPC and Sec.3(2)(v) of SC/St Act- 1989 and taken up investigation. After completion of investigation he filed

Final Report against the Child in Conflict with Law.

4. This Board took cognizance of the offences punishable

U/sec.302, 379 r/w.34 IPC and Sec.3(2)(v) of SC/St Act-1989 against Child in Conflict with Law. The copies of documents were furnished to Child in

Conflict with Law as contemplated U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C. Child in Conflict with

Law was examined U/Sec.14 of JJ Act by explaining the contents of accusation against him for the offences U/sec.302, 379 r/w.34 IPC and

Sec.3(2)(v) of SC/St Act-1989 by the members of Board for which he denied and claimed to be enquired.

5. During the trial prosecution examined Fourteen witnesses as

PW1 to PW14 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P11 and MO’s 1 to 5 were got marked

6. After completion of prosecution evidence, the Child in Conflict with Law was examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating evidence appearing against him in the prosecution evidence, for which he denied the same and reported no defense evidence. Hence defense evidence was closed. Heard both sides and perused the record.

7. Arguments:

The learned App reported that Pw4 & Pw13 who are eye

Page 5 of 19 JCC No.11 of 2025 witnesses they corroborated the case of the prosecution and the prosecution proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt.

On the other hand the defence counsel contended that total the prosecution case is created and planted no direct witnesses. PW13 is only hearsay evidence even CCL Bonafide is not produced and planted in the case. No fringerprint was collected to prove that he was present at the crime place. Even they did not seized the clothes of CCL. And with regard to the SC and ST case, the CCL did not know that he belongs to the said caste hence the offence U/Sec SC ST does not made out. In View of the above circumstances he prayed to acquit the CCL.

8.Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution could able to establish the guilt of accused; a. For the charged offence punishable U/Sec.302 of IPC? b. For the charged offence punishable U/Sec. 379 of IPC?

c. For the charged offence Punishable U/Sec 3(2)

(v) of the SC’s and ST’s (POA) Act ?

9. Point No : (a) & (b)

It is the case of prosecution that on the intervening night of 18/04/2024, at 0100 hours, the accused along with CCL by namely Shiva @

Karthik herein had committed the murder of the deceased namely Seema

Venkataiah along with accused by attacking him with cement brick on the right side of his head, under the railway over bridge situated at

Devarakadra, Village by causing grievous head injury , resulting in his

Page 6 of 19 JCC No.11 of 2025 death, on the Spot.

10.To substantiate the case of prosecution, the Complaint/

Panchayath Secretary of Devarakadra was examined as PW1. According to him, on 18/04/2024 at l0:00AM Pw4/came to him and informed about the incident that one old man aged about 60 to 70 yrs was killed by someone under the over bridge at Devarakadra. Along with PW4 went to the scene of offence and saw the old man died, later he informed to the Police. On which

Police came to scene of offence and lodged report under Ex.P1.

And Coming to the evidence of PW4, it is seen that on 17/04/2024 when he was returning from Nagaram on his motor cycle at midnight, while he was going to bus stand road to meet his uncle, then he heard some sounds and on that, he went to that place and found one woman under the bridge and stopped his bike, went to see what happened then he saw two persons trying to take away money from that lady and on seeing him CCL and other accused persons ran away from the spot and the woman informed him that those persons also killed a man under the bridge.

And among those persons one is CCL herein. He further deposed that he went there and saw the dead body of the deceased and in fear he left the place from there and on next day morning he informed to their

Sarpanch/PW1.

11. As per the case of prosecution, PW13 is a beggar and she was sleeping under flyover bridge, Devarakadra . According to her while she was

Page 7 of 19 JCC No.11 of 2025 sleeping two persons one is about the age approximately 20years and another was a child. They both came ran to her by seeing the Police and stated to her that they both murdered one person. When she shouted, that both persons ran away from her. When the CCL is produced through V.C. by observing the CCL she identified the CCL who committed the murder.

12.PW2 one of brother of deceased he deposed that his brother/deceased had left the house long back and living his life by begging at different places, as such he is begging at Devarakadra. On 18/04/2024

Police informed him about the murder of his deceased brother and intimated to come to Government Hospital for identification of the body, on careful examination he identified he is his brother by name Venkataiah.

After completion of PME, they handed over the body to them.

PW3/another brother of deceased he deposed that the deceased is his maternal uncle. Long back he left his family and living by begging at different places, as such he was begging at Devarakadra. On 18/04/2024

Police informed him about the murder of his deceased maternal uncle and police stated him that some unknown persons got killed him with brick and informed to come to Government Hospital for identifying the dead body. On that he identified he is his maternal uncle by name Venkataiah. And even police informed that accused Venkatesh and CCL Shiva killed him for money.

13.PW5/Inquest panch deposed regarding the conducting of

Page 8 of 19 JCC No.11 of 2025

Inquest Panchanama over the dead body of the deceased. As Per which, the deceased died due to attack made on his head with cement brick. Ex.P2 is inquest Panchanama of the deceased dt.18/04/2024 from 15 to 17 hours.

The evidence of PW9/Medical officer reveals that on 19/04/2024, basing on requisition of SHO, from Devarakadra PS for conducting post mortem of deceased and after examination, issued PME report under Ex.P6, opining that the cause of death of the deceased, was due to “head injury”. And even Ex.P6 reveals that they had sent femur preserved for DNA analysis.

14.From the evidence of PW14/Investigating officer, it can be seen that on 18/04/2024, he took up the CD file from PW10, he visited the scene of offence situated at ROB, Devarakadra and found the dead body of the unknown male person aged about 60 to 70 yrs approximately, photographed the dead body of deceased, scene of offence in different angles with his own digital camera. Further conducted scene of offence panchanama under Ex.P4 in presence of PW7 and PW8 and seized one blood stained cement brick Under MO1. His evidence to that effect is corroborative with the evidence of PW8 i.e. Panch witness for the scene of offence panchanama. Further he deposed that he seized controlled earth and blood stained earth. Later he shifted body to Government General

Hospital and there he secured the mediators Pw5 and LW9 for conducting

Inquest panchanama under Ex.P2 and Seized shirt of deceased with blood

Page 9 of 19 JCC No.11 of 2025 stains under MO2 and blood stained blanket under MO3 which matches with item No.5 of FSL.

Further deposed that dead body was submitted to PME. Dead body was placed in mortuary for identification. On 19/04/2024 at 2;:0PM.

PW10 apprehended the Accused no.1 at Koilsagar X road Devarakadra, later secured the mediators LW12 and PW6 and in their presence he confessed about guilt under Ex.P3. And on confession of Accused no.1 he stated that he will show CCL Karthik. In furtherance of confession of accused lead the police party along with panch witnesses to the shop of LW7 and there show

CCL/Karthik and recorded the confession of CCL in presence of LW7 and above said witnesses. In which the CCL Erriganti Shiva @ Karthik, age 12yr confessed the same version of accused. After recording basing on

Confession recovered Rs.200/- from CCL under MO5 under cover of

Panchanama.

And PW6 who is panch witness to the confession he deposed that about one year back on request of police he acted as panch for confession along with LW12. On questioning the accused disclosed his name as Venkatesh and CCL as Karthik. And accused and CCL confessed about the commission of offence and basing on that they recovered 280 under

MO4 from A1/Venkatesh and 200/- under MO5 from CCL and after completion they affixed signatures on Ex.P3.

15.From the above evidence on record, it is the case of the

Page 10 of 19 JCC No.11 of 2025 prosecution that deceased was murdered by A1 and CCL with cement brick with intent to commit theft of money.

As seen from PW1/defacto complaint he did not witness the incident and he is not eye witness to the incident and his evidence can be considered only with regard to the lodging of the Ex.P1/report. And even

Pw2 and Pw3 who are brother and son-in-law of the deceased, even they are also not eye witness to the alleged incident and they came to know about the offence committed by A1 and CCL through police and cannot be relied on that except to the fact of identification of the dead body.

16.But the whole prosecution case is rest upon the Pw4 and Pw13 who are direct witnesses to the incident and Pw1 who are direct witnesses to the incident and Pw1 who came to know about the incident through Pw4 they deposed that A1 and CCL had murdered the deceased with cement brick and their version is corroborated with Ex.P1 and even under Ex.P2 and

Ex.P6 i.e Inquest and PME report also revealing the same and their evidence is corroborated to the fact that A1 and CCL had caused the death of deceased that night. Even during her cross examination she deposed she was slept when CCL and other accused came and informed her about the incident and even she denied the suggestion that she did not witness the incident and police shown CCL and A1. And moreover during her examination the Pw13 had clearly identified CCL in court room that is the person who came to her along with accused. From this statement it is clear

Page 11 of 19 JCC No.11 of 2025 that she was present at the time of incident and the version of Pw4 is corroborated that what information she gave is correct and evidence of Pw4 is also trustworthy.

Even it is not the case of the defence that Pw4 and Pw13 got enimity with the A1 and CCL to depose false against them nor even it revealed that they are interested witnesses. And from their evidence it clearly establishing that they are purely independent witnesses.

17. Even the defence made a suggestion during the cross- examination Pw9/Doctor who conducted PME that the injuries may occurred even if a person falls on hard surface but he denied to the same. And the other defence taken by the defence legal aid for CCL that no clothes of CCL is seized and only clothes of Accused seized under MOs. And mere non- seizing of clothes of CCL does not fatal to the prosecution case, if it is supported by other evidence. When the intention is shared by other co- accused it is not necessary to do overt act.

And even division bench of the Hon’ble SC comprising of Justice

Abhay S. Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal in Ram Naresh Vs State of

U.P has clarified that to attract Sec.34 of the IPC there must be a common intention amongst all the co-accused persons, indicating that they have a shared purpose.

The court further clarified that there is no mandate of an explicit discussions of agreements amongst the co-accused. Common intention

Page 12 of 19 JCC No.11 of 2025 amongst the accused persons may arise just prior to commission of the offence.

The division bench stated that “for applying Section 34 IPC there should be a common intention of all the co-accused persons which means community of purpose and common design”.

Section 34 of the IPC deals with common intention, the section says a Criminal Act committed by several people with a common intention makes each person liable for that act as if it was done by him alone. It noted that “the intention to kill him is discernible from the very fact that they killed the deceased with common intention for money and acts killing him they both took amount and went away and whereas the same is recovered from the possession of Accused and CCL to show their common intention.

And even during the entire cross examination of PW6 to PW8 who are panch witnesses to CDF and confession, nothing elicited to prove that they are interested witnesses to depose falsely against the accused.

Furthermore, he also failed to elicit any material fact to establish that the

CCL is not competent enough to make any confession due to his age.

18. Coming to the offence U/s 379 of IPC, it can be seen that PW4 that when he heard sounds from unknown person under bridge as such he stop his bike and went to see what happened, then saw two persons trying to take away the money from that lady/Pw13 by seeing him CCL and A1

Page 13 of 19 JCC No.11 of 2025 fled away from the spot. But even the prosecution stated that after murder they tried to take the money from Pw13 after taking money from deceased, but nothing deposed by Pw13 with regard to the same. Upon perusal of the evidence of PW6 under Ex.P3 basing on confession they recovered 280/- from A1 and 200/- from CCL. As the confession leading to recovery is admissible in evidence U/s.27 of India Evidence Act, by considering the evidence of PW6, with that of the evidence of PW14 it clearly held that the

CCL with common intention with A1 had committed theft of the amount belonging to the deceased after committing his murder on night and the offence U/sec.379 of IPC also attracts against him. Accordingly the point answered.

19. Point no.C:

According to PW14/Investigating officer from the caste certificate issued by Tahsildar/PW5 vide under Ex.P8 he came to know that deceased belongs to SC Madiga community and as per Ex.P9/Caste certificate of accused herein he belongs to BC Uppari Community and CCL belongs to BC-Mudiraj community and thereby he added the section of law

U/sec.3(2)(V) of SC’s ST’s POA act added as per Addition memo

dt:24.07.2024.

To prove this offence there must be evidence that the crime was motivated by the victims caste status. Mere knowledge of the victims caste identity is considered sufficient for liability, but the offence must be

Page 14 of 19 JCC No.11 of 2025 committed on the ground of that caste community.

(a) Merely, because the accused and CCL belonging to BC community and deceased belongs to SC Madiga the same itself is not sufficient to hold that the provisions Sec. 3(2)(V) of SC’s ST’s POA act are attracted against the CCL herein.

(b) Hence, the prosecution should place cogent material that the death of the deceased caused by CCL only on the account of the fact, the deceased belongs to such community i..e, SC madiga but not otherwise. Prosecution has failed to establish that the CCL and accused is having sufficient knowledge about the caste of the deceased and thereby intentionally caused death, especially on the ground that he belongs to SC Madiga community it can be held that the offence punishable 3(2)(V) of SC’s ST’s

POA act is not attracted against the CCL in this case and even the defence argued the same correctly. Accordingly this point is answered.

20. In view of the above discussion, this board came to the conclusion that the CCL is found guilty for the offence punishable

U/sec.302, 379 r/w.34 of IPC and accordingly, he is convicted for the said offence 255(2) Cr.p.c. The parental bonds and bail bonds of CCL shall stand cancelled after appeal time.

Sd/-

Prl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class

for Child Cases, Mahabubnagar. 1.Sd/-

Page 15 of 19 JCC No.11 of 2025

21. Quantum of Sentence:

When this board enquired the CCL regarding the quantum of sentence, he submitted nothing and his paternal aunt submitted that, now i will take care of him and send him to school regularly.

22. From the SIR report of CCL, it discloses that the CCL hails from very poor socio economic status who belongs to BC-Mudiraj community and they are living in a Railway Shed, Devarkadra. CCL father died in his childhood and hiw mother earns Rs.200/- to 300/- by doing street cart worker. CCL got one sibling who is aged about 10years and he lives with his grand mother. It further reveals that CCL is illiterate and he is accompanying with his mother. He had the habit of consuming alcohol, smoking and cigarettes. It further reveals that CCL denied the commission of offence. Except this nothing much more reveals about the CCL to consider the facts which are beyond to the board. And recently also came to know that his mother is also no more.

23. In this regard, this board is bound to follow the general principles of care and protection of children contemplated U/Sec.3 of the

Juvenile Justice (Care and protection of Children) Act 2015, and this board given utmost importance to the present case, particularly to the Sub clause(iv) best interest of child, (v) family responsibility, (xii) enshrined principle of institutionalization is a measure of last resort and (xiii)

Page 16 of 19 JCC No.11 of 2025 restoration with his family.

24. From the above discussion, this board came to the conclusion that the CCL is found guilty for theoffence punishable U/sec.302, 379 r/w.34 of IPC. Accordingly, under provisions of Sec.18(1)(g) of Juvenile

Justice(Care and protection of children)Act, 2015, the CCL is directed to sent to special home for boys for a period of three years(03). Upon perusal of the record the CCL was in Observation Home from 20.04.2024 to 06.04.2025 i.e.352 days (11 months and 17 days) and he was in Children home from 07.04.2025 to 21.11.2025 i.e., 229 days(7 months 15 days) and the detention period is set off as per Sec.90(3) of JJ Model rules, 2016. In the result, the CCL is directed to be sent to Special Home for three years.

Accordingly, CCL is directed to be sent to special home for boys (Gajularamaram, Hyderabad) for a period of three years as per Sec.18(1)

(g) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 for his reformation, counselling and behaviour modification therapy apart from providing rehabiliation skills.

The Child Welfare police officer (CWPO)/ the concerned police are directed to produce the CCL before the Superintendent, special

Home,Govt., Special Home for Boys, Kaisar Nagar X-Road, Beside Ullass

Restaurant,Pragathinagar Kaman, Opposite to VNR Hostel, Bachupally-

Gandimaisamma, Main Road, Bowrampet-500043,Medchal, Malkajgiri

District. Likewise Authorities of Special Home are hereby directed to

Page 17 of 19 JCC No.11 of 2025 acknowledge about their receiving Child in conflict with law to this Board immediately after Child in conflict with law is shifted to Special Home.

25.The marked objects i.e., MO1 is Cement brick, MO2 is blood stains on the shirt of deceased, MO3 is Blood stained blanket shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period and MO4 is the amount of Rs.280/- which is recovered from accused no.1 and MO5 is the amount of Rs.200/- which is recoverd from CCL and MO4 and MO5 shall be confiscated to the government as the deceased died.

26.By virtue of sec.24 of the JJ act, CCL shall not suffer any disqualification attached to his conviction for the offence. Further, in view of sec.74(2) of the act, police shall not disclose any record of the CCL for the purpose of character certificate or otherwise. Copy of Judgment is furnished to the child in conflict with law at free of cost as contemplated under the provisions of Sec.363 Cr.PC. The child in conflict with law is also informed with regard to right to prefer an appeal against the present Judgment and free legal aid.

Typed to my dictation to Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 28 th day of November, 2025.

Sd/-

Prl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class for Child Cases, Mahabubnagar. 1.Sd/-

Page 18 of 19 JCC No.11 of 2025

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE:

PW1:Seethya Naik

PW2:S.Ramulu

PW3:V.enkataiah

- NONE -

PW4:Anjaneyulu

PW5:Sailu

PW6:Md. Hasnuddin

PW7:Manyam Konda

PW8:M.Thirupathaiah

PW9:Dr.Sujith Maram

PW10:B.Naganna

PW11:Sunitha

PW12:B.Ramesh Reddy

PW13:Narsamma

PW14:S.Ramakrishna

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE:

Ex.P1:Complaint of PW1

Ex.P2:Inquest panchanama

Ex.P3:Confession cum seizure panchanama

Ex.P4:Signature of PW7 on CDF

Ex.P5:Signature of PW8 on CDF

Ex.P6:PME report

- NONE -

Ex.P7:FIR

Ex.P8:Caste certificate of the deceased issued by PW11

Ex.P9:Caste certificate of CCL by PW12

Page 19 of 19 JCC No.11 of 2025

Ex.P10:FSL Analysis report

EX.P11:Material object :: Material objects marked for::

MO1: Cement brick MO2: Blood Stains on the shirt of deceased MO3: Blood stained blanket MO4: Amount of Rs.280/- recovered from Accused no.1 MO5: Seized the amount of Rs.200/- from CCL

Sd/-

Prl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class for Child Cases, Mahabubnagar.

1.Sd/-

Page 1 of 19 JCC No.11 of 2025

IN THE COURT OF CHILD JUSTICE BOARD-CUM-JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: MAHABUBNAGAR

On this Friday, the 28th day of November, 2025

PRESENT:- Sm. K. Mamatha Reddy,

Chairman-cum-Judl. Magistrate of First Class, for Child Cases, Mahabubnagar.

Members: 1. Smt.Esther Grace Polumuri,

J.C.C.No.11 of 2025

BETWEEN:-

State of T.S rep. by Sub Inspector of Police, PS.Devarkadra, Cr.No.57 of 2024.

.... Complainant

A N D

Erriganti Shiva @ Karthik S/o.Shankar, aged:12years, R/o.Wanaparthy, Now present residing at Devarkadra Village and mandal.

.... Child in Conflict with Law

1. Section of Law: U/sec.302, 379 r/w.34 IPC and Sec.3(2)

(v) of SC/St Act-1989.

2. Plea of CCLs: Denied the offence

3. Finding of the Court: Found conflict with law

4. Sentence or order: In the result, CCL is found guilty for the offence U/sec.302, 379 r/w.34 of IPC, accordingly, the CCL is found in c U/s.255(2) Cr.P.C. Accordingly, under provisions of Sec.18(1)(g) of Juvenile Justice(Care and protection of children)Act, 2015, the CCL is directed to sent to special home for boys for a period of three years(03). Upon perusal of the record the CCL was in Observation Home from 20.04.2024 to 06.04.2025 i.e.352 days (11 months and 17 days) and he was in Children home from 07.04.2025 to 21.11.2025 i.e., 229 days(7 months 15 days) and the detention period is set off as per Sec.90(3) of JJ Model rules, 2016. He should be given counseling and skills have to be developed. Child in conflict with law is also directed to undergo behaviour modification therapy and psychiatric support during the period of his stay at the Special Home as per Section 18(1)(g) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of

Page 2 of 19 JCC No.11 of 2025

Children) Act, 2015. The Child Welfare police officer (CWPO)/ the concerned police are directed to produce the CCL before the Superintendent, special Home,Govt., Special Home for Boys, Kaisar Nagar X-Road, Beside Ullass Restaurant,Pragathinagar Kaman, Opposite to VNR Hostel, Bachupally- Gandimaisamma, Main Road, Bowrampet-500043, Medchal, Malkajgiri District. Likewise Authorities of Special Home are hereby directed to acknowledge about their receiving Child in conflict with law to this Board immediately after Child in conflict with law is shifted to Special Home. The marked objects i.e., MO1 is Cement brick, MO2 is blood stains on the shirt of deceased, MO3 is Blood stained blanket shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period and MO4 is the amount of Rs.280/- which is recovered from accused no.1 and MO5 is the amount of Rs.200/- which is recoverd from CCL and MO4 and MO5 shall be confiscated to the government as the deceased died. Copy of Judgment is furnished to the Child in conflict with law at free of costs as contemplated under the provisions of Section 363 Cr.P.C. The Child in conflict with law is also informed with regard to right to prefer an appeal against the present Judgment and free legal aid.

-o0o-

This case is coming before me on 07.11.2025 for final hearing in the presence of the Learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for the Complainant/State, Sri.C.Rama Krishna Goud, Counsel for CCL, upon hearing their arguments and having stood over for consideration, this Court delivered the following:-

FINAL ORDER

1. The Sub Inspector of Police, Police Station Devarkadra filed

Final Report against the Child in Conflict with Law for the offences punishable U/sec.302, 379 r/w.34 IPC and Sec.3(2)(v) of SC/St Act-1989.

2.The case of the prosecution is that 18.4.2024 at 11:00 Hours the complainant Sri Seethya Naik lodged a complaint stating that, on 18.04.2024 at 1000 hours when he went to Deverkadra Panchayath office,

Page 3 of 19 JCC No.11 of 2025 by the time one Deverkadra villager namely Avula Anjaneyulu S/o Amba Bai

Chary came to him and infomed that on 17.8.2024 midnight at 0100 hrs while he was returning to Devarkadra village on his bike from Nagaram village after dropped his friend, on the way near to Devarkadra Bus stop, he heard screams of an unknown lady, so he went to the said unknown lady, where he noticed Venkatesh & Karthik both r/o Devarkadra were threatening the said unknown lady for the sake of money, on seeing him they fled away and on enqiry she revealed that she is a beggar, further she stated that the above escaped two persons quarreled with an unknown beggar aged about 60-70 years under flyover bridge for money when he refused to give money they beat him on head with a boulder and took away money from him. Later the both came to her and threatening her to give money. On knowing this immediately, he went to the said unknown male beggar and found that the said unknown beggar aged about 60-70 years was died with head injury. Due to late night hours and fear, Avusula

Anjaneyulu went to his house and on the next day i.e., on 18.04.2024 went to Panchayath office, Devarkadra and informed the same to him. As such he requested to take necessary legal action against the 1) Venkatesh & 2)

Karthik as they both have killed one unknown beggar aged about 60-70 years by hitting with a boulder over on the head and took the money from the said unknown beggar. Hence, LW1 requested to take necessary action against the CCL.

Page 4 of 19 JCC No.11 of 2025

3. Basing on the above complaint, LW20/B.Naganna, Sub

Inspector of Police, Devarkadra Police Station registered a case in

Cr.No.57/2024, U/sec.302, 379 r/w.34 IPC and Sec.3(2)(v) of SC/St Act- 1989 and taken up investigation. After completion of investigation he filed

Final Report against the Child in Conflict with Law.

4. This Board took cognizance of the offences punishable

U/sec.302, 379 r/w.34 IPC and Sec.3(2)(v) of SC/St Act-1989 against Child in Conflict with Law. The copies of documents were furnished to Child in

Conflict with Law as contemplated U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C. Child in Conflict with

Law was examined U/Sec.14 of JJ Act by explaining the contents of accusation against him for the offences U/sec.302, 379 r/w.34 IPC and

Sec.3(2)(v) of SC/St Act-1989 by the members of Board for which he denied and claimed to be enquired.

5. During the trial prosecution examined Fourteen witnesses as

PW1 to PW14 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P11 and MO’s 1 to 5 were got marked

6. After completion of prosecution evidence, the Child in Conflict with Law was examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating evidence appearing against him in the prosecution evidence, for which he denied the same and reported no defense evidence. Hence defense evidence was closed. Heard both sides and perused the record.

7. Arguments:

The learned App reported that Pw4 & Pw13 who are eye

Page 5 of 19 JCC No.11 of 2025 witnesses they corroborated the case of the prosecution and the prosecution proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt.

On the other hand the defence counsel contended that total the prosecution case is created and planted no direct witnesses. PW13 is only hearsay evidence even CCL Bonafide is not produced and planted in the case. No fringerprint was collected to prove that he was present at the crime place. Even they did not seized the clothes of CCL. And with regard to the SC and ST case, the CCL did not know that he belongs to the said caste hence the offence U/Sec SC ST does not made out. In View of the above circumstances he prayed to acquit the CCL.

8.Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution could able to establish the guilt of accused; a. For the charged offence punishable U/Sec.302 of IPC? b. For the charged offence punishable U/Sec. 379 of IPC?

c. For the charged offence Punishable U/Sec 3(2)

(v) of the SC’s and ST’s (POA) Act ?

9. Point No : (a) & (b)

It is the case of prosecution that on the intervening night of 18/04/2024, at 0100 hours, the accused along with CCL by namely Shiva @

Karthik herein had committed the murder of the deceased namely Seema

Venkataiah along with accused by attacking him with cement brick on the right side of his head, under the railway over bridge situated at

Devarakadra, Village by causing grievous head injury , resulting in his

Page 6 of 19 JCC No.11 of 2025 death, on the Spot.

10.To substantiate the case of prosecution, the Complaint/

Panchayath Secretary of Devarakadra was examined as PW1. According to him, on 18/04/2024 at l0:00AM Pw4/came to him and informed about the incident that one old man aged about 60 to 70 yrs was killed by someone under the over bridge at Devarakadra. Along with PW4 went to the scene of offence and saw the old man died, later he informed to the Police. On which

Police came to scene of offence and lodged report under Ex.P1.

And Coming to the evidence of PW4, it is seen that on 17/04/2024 when he was returning from Nagaram on his motor cycle at midnight, while he was going to bus stand road to meet his uncle, then he heard some sounds and on that, he went to that place and found one woman under the bridge and stopped his bike, went to see what happened then he saw two persons trying to take away money from that lady and on seeing him CCL and other accused persons ran away from the spot and the woman informed him that those persons also killed a man under the bridge.

And among those persons one is CCL herein. He further deposed that he went there and saw the dead body of the deceased and in fear he left the place from there and on next day morning he informed to their

Sarpanch/PW1.

11. As per the case of prosecution, PW13 is a beggar and she was sleeping under flyover bridge, Devarakadra . According to her while she was

Page 7 of 19 JCC No.11 of 2025 sleeping two persons one is about the age approximately 20years and another was a child. They both came ran to her by seeing the Police and stated to her that they both murdered one person. When she shouted, that both persons ran away from her. When the CCL is produced through V.C. by observing the CCL she identified the CCL who committed the murder.

12.PW2 one of brother of deceased he deposed that his brother/deceased had left the house long back and living his life by begging at different places, as such he is begging at Devarakadra. On 18/04/2024

Police informed him about the murder of his deceased brother and intimated to come to Government Hospital for identification of the body, on careful examination he identified he is his brother by name Venkataiah.

After completion of PME, they handed over the body to them.

PW3/another brother of deceased he deposed that the deceased is his maternal uncle. Long back he left his family and living by begging at different places, as such he was begging at Devarakadra. On 18/04/2024

Police informed him about the murder of his deceased maternal uncle and police stated him that some unknown persons got killed him with brick and informed to come to Government Hospital for identifying the dead body. On that he identified he is his maternal uncle by name Venkataiah. And even police informed that accused Venkatesh and CCL Shiva killed him for money.

13.PW5/Inquest panch deposed regarding the conducting of

Page 8 of 19 JCC No.11 of 2025

Inquest Panchanama over the dead body of the deceased. As Per which, the deceased died due to attack made on his head with cement brick. Ex.P2 is inquest Panchanama of the deceased dt.18/04/2024 from 15 to 17 hours.

The evidence of PW9/Medical officer reveals that on 19/04/2024, basing on requisition of SHO, from Devarakadra PS for conducting post mortem of deceased and after examination, issued PME report under Ex.P6, opining that the cause of death of the deceased, was due to “head injury”. And even Ex.P6 reveals that they had sent femur preserved for DNA analysis.

14.From the evidence of PW14/Investigating officer, it can be seen that on 18/04/2024, he took up the CD file from PW10, he visited the scene of offence situated at ROB, Devarakadra and found the dead body of the unknown male person aged about 60 to 70 yrs approximately, photographed the dead body of deceased, scene of offence in different angles with his own digital camera. Further conducted scene of offence panchanama under Ex.P4 in presence of PW7 and PW8 and seized one blood stained cement brick Under MO1. His evidence to that effect is corroborative with the evidence of PW8 i.e. Panch witness for the scene of offence panchanama. Further he deposed that he seized controlled earth and blood stained earth. Later he shifted body to Government General

Hospital and there he secured the mediators Pw5 and LW9 for conducting

Inquest panchanama under Ex.P2 and Seized shirt of deceased with blood

Page 9 of 19 JCC No.11 of 2025 stains under MO2 and blood stained blanket under MO3 which matches with item No.5 of FSL.

Further deposed that dead body was submitted to PME. Dead body was placed in mortuary for identification. On 19/04/2024 at 2;:0PM.

PW10 apprehended the Accused no.1 at Koilsagar X road Devarakadra, later secured the mediators LW12 and PW6 and in their presence he confessed about guilt under Ex.P3. And on confession of Accused no.1 he stated that he will show CCL Karthik. In furtherance of confession of accused lead the police party along with panch witnesses to the shop of LW7 and there show

CCL/Karthik and recorded the confession of CCL in presence of LW7 and above said witnesses. In which the CCL Erriganti Shiva @ Karthik, age 12yr confessed the same version of accused. After recording basing on

Confession recovered Rs.200/- from CCL under MO5 under cover of

Panchanama.

And PW6 who is panch witness to the confession he deposed that about one year back on request of police he acted as panch for confession along with LW12. On questioning the accused disclosed his name as Venkatesh and CCL as Karthik. And accused and CCL confessed about the commission of offence and basing on that they recovered 280 under

MO4 from A1/Venkatesh and 200/- under MO5 from CCL and after completion they affixed signatures on Ex.P3.

15.From the above evidence on record, it is the case of the

Page 10 of 19 JCC No.11 of 2025 prosecution that deceased was murdered by A1 and CCL with cement brick with intent to commit theft of money.

As seen from PW1/defacto complaint he did not witness the incident and he is not eye witness to the incident and his evidence can be considered only with regard to the lodging of the Ex.P1/report. And even

Pw2 and Pw3 who are brother and son-in-law of the deceased, even they are also not eye witness to the alleged incident and they came to know about the offence committed by A1 and CCL through police and cannot be relied on that except to the fact of identification of the dead body.

16.But the whole prosecution case is rest upon the Pw4 and Pw13 who are direct witnesses to the incident and Pw1 who are direct witnesses to the incident and Pw1 who came to know about the incident through Pw4 they deposed that A1 and CCL had murdered the deceased with cement brick and their version is corroborated with Ex.P1 and even under Ex.P2 and

Ex.P6 i.e Inquest and PME report also revealing the same and their evidence is corroborated to the fact that A1 and CCL had caused the death of deceased that night. Even during her cross examination she deposed she was slept when CCL and other accused came and informed her about the incident and even she denied the suggestion that she did not witness the incident and police shown CCL and A1. And moreover during her examination the Pw13 had clearly identified CCL in court room that is the person who came to her along with accused. From this statement it is clear

Page 11 of 19 JCC No.11 of 2025 that she was present at the time of incident and the version of Pw4 is corroborated that what information she gave is correct and evidence of Pw4 is also trustworthy.

Even it is not the case of the defence that Pw4 and Pw13 got enimity with the A1 and CCL to depose false against them nor even it revealed that they are interested witnesses. And from their evidence it clearly establishing that they are purely independent witnesses.

17. Even the defence made a suggestion during the cross- examination Pw9/Doctor who conducted PME that the injuries may occurred even if a person falls on hard surface but he denied to the same. And the other defence taken by the defence legal aid for CCL that no clothes of CCL is seized and only clothes of Accused seized under MOs. And mere non- seizing of clothes of CCL does not fatal to the prosecution case, if it is supported by other evidence. When the intention is shared by other co- accused it is not necessary to do overt act.

And even division bench of the Hon’ble SC comprising of Justice

Abhay S. Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal in Ram Naresh Vs State of

U.P has clarified that to attract Sec.34 of the IPC there must be a common intention amongst all the co-accused persons, indicating that they have a shared purpose.

The court further clarified that there is no mandate of an explicit discussions of agreements amongst the co-accused. Common intention

Page 12 of 19 JCC No.11 of 2025 amongst the accused persons may arise just prior to commission of the offence.

The division bench stated that “for applying Section 34 IPC there should be a common intention of all the co-accused persons which means community of purpose and common design”.

Section 34 of the IPC deals with common intention, the section says a Criminal Act committed by several people with a common intention makes each person liable for that act as if it was done by him alone. It noted that “the intention to kill him is discernible from the very fact that they killed the deceased with common intention for money and acts killing him they both took amount and went away and whereas the same is recovered from the possession of Accused and CCL to show their common intention.

And even during the entire cross examination of PW6 to PW8 who are panch witnesses to CDF and confession, nothing elicited to prove that they are interested witnesses to depose falsely against the accused.

Furthermore, he also failed to elicit any material fact to establish that the

CCL is not competent enough to make any confession due to his age.

18. Coming to the offence U/s 379 of IPC, it can be seen that PW4 that when he heard sounds from unknown person under bridge as such he stop his bike and went to see what happened, then saw two persons trying to take away the money from that lady/Pw13 by seeing him CCL and A1

Page 13 of 19 JCC No.11 of 2025 fled away from the spot. But even the prosecution stated that after murder they tried to take the money from Pw13 after taking money from deceased, but nothing deposed by Pw13 with regard to the same. Upon perusal of the evidence of PW6 under Ex.P3 basing on confession they recovered 280/- from A1 and 200/- from CCL. As the confession leading to recovery is admissible in evidence U/s.27 of India Evidence Act, by considering the evidence of PW6, with that of the evidence of PW14 it clearly held that the

CCL with common intention with A1 had committed theft of the amount belonging to the deceased after committing his murder on night and the offence U/sec.379 of IPC also attracts against him. Accordingly the point answered.

19. Point no.C:

According to PW14/Investigating officer from the caste certificate issued by Tahsildar/PW5 vide under Ex.P8 he came to know that deceased belongs to SC Madiga community and as per Ex.P9/Caste certificate of accused herein he belongs to BC Uppari Community and CCL belongs to BC-Mudiraj community and thereby he added the section of law

U/sec.3(2)(V) of SC’s ST’s POA act added as per Addition memo

dt:24.07.2024.

To prove this offence there must be evidence that the crime was motivated by the victims caste status. Mere knowledge of the victims caste identity is considered sufficient for liability, but the offence must be

Page 14 of 19 JCC No.11 of 2025 committed on the ground of that caste community.

(a) Merely, because the accused and CCL belonging to BC community and deceased belongs to SC Madiga the same itself is not sufficient to hold that the provisions Sec. 3(2)(V) of SC’s ST’s POA act are attracted against the CCL herein.

(b) Hence, the prosecution should place cogent material that the death of the deceased caused by CCL only on the account of the fact, the deceased belongs to such community i..e, SC madiga but not otherwise. Prosecution has failed to establish that the CCL and accused is having sufficient knowledge about the caste of the deceased and thereby intentionally caused death, especially on the ground that he belongs to SC Madiga community it can be held that the offence punishable 3(2)(V) of SC’s ST’s

POA act is not attracted against the CCL in this case and even the defence argued the same correctly. Accordingly this point is answered.

20. In view of the above discussion, this board came to the conclusion that the CCL is found guilty for the offence punishable

U/sec.302, 379 r/w.34 of IPC and accordingly, he is convicted for the said offence 255(2) Cr.p.c. The parental bonds and bail bonds of CCL shall stand cancelled after appeal time.

Sd/-

Prl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class

for Child Cases, Mahabubnagar. 1.Sd/-

Page 15 of 19 JCC No.11 of 2025

21. Quantum of Sentence:

When this board enquired the CCL regarding the quantum of sentence, he submitted nothing and his paternal aunt submitted that, now i will take care of him and send him to school regularly.

22. From the SIR report of CCL, it discloses that the CCL hails from very poor socio economic status who belongs to BC-Mudiraj community and they are living in a Railway Shed, Devarkadra. CCL father died in his childhood and hiw mother earns Rs.200/- to 300/- by doing street cart worker. CCL got one sibling who is aged about 10years and he lives with his grand mother. It further reveals that CCL is illiterate and he is accompanying with his mother. He had the habit of consuming alcohol, smoking and cigarettes. It further reveals that CCL denied the commission of offence. Except this nothing much more reveals about the CCL to consider the facts which are beyond to the board. And recently also came to know that his mother is also no more.

23. In this regard, this board is bound to follow the general principles of care and protection of children contemplated U/Sec.3 of the

Juvenile Justice (Care and protection of Children) Act 2015, and this board given utmost importance to the present case, particularly to the Sub clause(iv) best interest of child, (v) family responsibility, (xii) enshrined principle of institutionalization is a measure of last resort and (xiii)

Page 16 of 19 JCC No.11 of 2025 restoration with his family.

24. From the above discussion, this board came to the conclusion that the CCL is found guilty for theoffence punishable U/sec.302, 379 r/w.34 of IPC. Accordingly, under provisions of Sec.18(1)(g) of Juvenile

Justice(Care and protection of children)Act, 2015, the CCL is directed to sent to special home for boys for a period of three years(03). Upon perusal of the record the CCL was in Observation Home from 20.04.2024 to 06.04.2025 i.e.352 days (11 months and 17 days) and he was in Children home from 07.04.2025 to 21.11.2025 i.e., 229 days(7 months 15 days) and the detention period is set off as per Sec.90(3) of JJ Model rules, 2016. In the result, the CCL is directed to be sent to Special Home for three years.

Accordingly, CCL is directed to be sent to special home for boys (Gajularamaram, Hyderabad) for a period of three years as per Sec.18(1)

(g) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 for his reformation, counselling and behaviour modification therapy apart from providing rehabiliation skills.

The Child Welfare police officer (CWPO)/ the concerned police are directed to produce the CCL before the Superintendent, special

Home,Govt., Special Home for Boys, Kaisar Nagar X-Road, Beside Ullass

Restaurant,Pragathinagar Kaman, Opposite to VNR Hostel, Bachupally-

Gandimaisamma, Main Road, Bowrampet-500043,Medchal, Malkajgiri

District. Likewise Authorities of Special Home are hereby directed to

Page 17 of 19 JCC No.11 of 2025 acknowledge about their receiving Child in conflict with law to this Board immediately after Child in conflict with law is shifted to Special Home.

25.The marked objects i.e., MO1 is Cement brick, MO2 is blood stains on the shirt of deceased, MO3 is Blood stained blanket shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period and MO4 is the amount of Rs.280/- which is recovered from accused no.1 and MO5 is the amount of Rs.200/- which is recoverd from CCL and MO4 and MO5 shall be confiscated to the government as the deceased died.

26.By virtue of sec.24 of the JJ act, CCL shall not suffer any disqualification attached to his conviction for the offence. Further, in view of sec.74(2) of the act, police shall not disclose any record of the CCL for the purpose of character certificate or otherwise. Copy of Judgment is furnished to the child in conflict with law at free of cost as contemplated under the provisions of Sec.363 Cr.PC. The child in conflict with law is also informed with regard to right to prefer an appeal against the present Judgment and free legal aid.

Typed to my dictation to Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 28 th day of November, 2025.

Sd/-

Prl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class for Child Cases, Mahabubnagar. 1.Sd/-

Page 18 of 19 JCC No.11 of 2025

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE:

PW1:Seethya Naik

PW2:S.Ramulu

PW3:V.enkataiah

- NONE -

PW4:Anjaneyulu

PW5:Sailu

PW6:Md. Hasnuddin

PW7:Manyam Konda

PW8:M.Thirupathaiah

PW9:Dr.Sujith Maram

PW10:B.Naganna

PW11:Sunitha

PW12:B.Ramesh Reddy

PW13:Narsamma

PW14:S.Ramakrishna

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE:

Ex.P1:Complaint of PW1

Ex.P2:Inquest panchanama

Ex.P3:Confession cum seizure panchanama

Ex.P4:Signature of PW7 on CDF

Ex.P5:Signature of PW8 on CDF

Ex.P6:PME report

- NONE -

Ex.P7:FIR

Ex.P8:Caste certificate of the deceased issued by PW11

Ex.P9:Caste certificate of CCL by PW12

Page 19 of 19 JCC No.11 of 2025

Ex.P10:FSL Analysis report

EX.P11:Material object :: Material objects marked for::

MO1: Cement brick MO2: Blood Stains on the shirt of deceased MO3: Blood stained blanket MO4: Amount of Rs.280/- recovered from Accused no.1 MO5: Seized the amount of Rs.200/- from CCL

Sd/-

Prl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class for Child Cases, Mahabubnagar.

1.Sd/-

Page 1 of 12 JCC No.42 of 2023

IN THE COURT OF CHILD JUSTICE BOARD-CUM-JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: MAHABUBNAGAR.

On this Friday, the 28th day of November, 2025

PRESENT:- Smt. K. Mamatha Reddy,

Chairman-cum-Judl. Magistrate of First Class, for Child Cases, Mahabubnagar.

Members: 1. Smt.Esther Grace Polumuri,

J.C.C.No.42 of 2023

BETWEEN:-

State of T.S rep. by Sub Inspector of Police, PS.C.C.Kunta, Cr.No.97 of 2023.

.... Complainant

A N D

Pichaila Shiva Kumar S/o.Buchanna, aged:15years, Occ:Coolie, R/o.Damagnapur village of Chinna Chinta Kunta Mandal.

.... Child in Conflict with Law

1. Section of Law: U/sec.376AB IPC and Sec.5(m) r/w.6 of POCSO Act-2012

2. Plea of CCLs: Denied the offence

3. Finding of the Court: Not found conflict with law

4. Sentence or order: In the result, CCL found not guilty for the offence punishable U/sec.376AB IPC and Sec.5(m) r/w.6 of POCSO Act-2012. Accordingly the CCL is acquitted U/s.255(1) of Cr.P.C for the above said offences. The parental bonds of CCL shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal period, if any. If any property deposited shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.

-o0o-

This case is coming before me on 07.11.2025 for final hearing in the presence of the Learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for the Complainant/State, Sri.Brahmaiah, Counsel for CCL, upon hearing their arguments and having stood over for consideration, this Court delivered the following:-

Page 2 of 12 JCC No.42 of 2023

FINAL ORDER

1. The Sub Inspector of Police, Police Station C.C.Kunta filed Final

Report against the Child in Conflict with Law for the offences punishable

U/sec.376AB IPC and Sec.5(m) r/w.6 of POCSO Act-2012.

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 15.08.2023 at 2000hours the complainant who is mother of victim girl lodged a report in which she stated that she has a male and a female daughter. She further stated that on 13.08.2023 at morning hours she along with her husband went to coolie works by leaving her daughter alone at her house. At around 6:00PM she returned back to house and found her daughter was crying by sleeping and she enquired about the crying by saying that as she is having pain. On 14.08.2023 while she got her daugther for bathing she found an injury on her vagina and also has blood stain marks on her underwear. On that she enquired her daughter and she narrated about the incident. Hence, LW1 requested to take necessary action against the CCL.

3.Basing on the above complaint, LW17/Raichur Shekar, Sub

Inspector of Police, CC.Kunta Police Station registered a case in

Cr.No.97/2023, U/sec.376AB IPC and Sec.5(m) r/w.6 of POCSO Act-2012 and taken up investigation. After completion of investigation

LW18/T.Mahesh filed Final Report against the Child in Conflict with Law.

4. This Board took cognizance of the offences punishable

U/sec.376-AB IPC and Sec.5(m) r/w.6 of POCSO Act-2012 against Child in

Conflict with Law. The copies of documents were furnished to Child in

Page 3 of 12 JCC No.42 of 2023

Conflict with Law as contemplated U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C. Child in Conflict with

Law was examined U/Sec.14 of JJ Act by explaining the contents of accusation against him for the offences U/sec.376-AB IPC and Sec.5(m) r/w.6 of POCSO Act-2012 by the members of Board for which he denied and claimed to be enquired.

5. During the trial prosecution examined Thirteen witnesses as

PW1 to PW13 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P12 were got marked.

6. After completion of prosecution evidence, the Child in Conflict with Law was examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating evidence appearing against him in the prosecution evidence, for which he denied the same and reported no defense evidence. Hence defense evidence was closed. Heard both sides and perused the record.

7. Arguments:

Learned APP contended that the evidence of PW1 corroborated with other witnesses. Hence the prosecution proved the guilt of the CCL for the said offences.

On the other hand, the defence counsel the scene of offence shown is different. No whisper about Sec.376 offence as alleged. In Ex.P1 stated that an offence took on 13.08.2023 i.e., sunday there will be holiday to Anganwadi School and not examined Manemma through whom they came to know about the offence. And certificate is produced by the prosecution with regard to mentally challenged of PW1. Whereas the

Page 4 of 12 JCC No.42 of 2023 complaint was based on information give by PW2 but PW2 not supported.

And even medical evidence does not reveal about the offence. And coming to the witness of confession i.e., PW7 there is no seizure of recovery hence as per Sec.27, confession is not relevant. Hence the prosecution failed to prove the offence beyond the reasonable doubt. Hence prayed to acquit the

CCL.

8.Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of

CCL against whom the allegation was made of the offence

U/sec.376AB IPC and Sec.5(m) r/w.6 of POCSO Act-2012

9.In order to prove the case, the prosecution had examined eleven witnesses. i.e., PW1 to PW13. Learned APP given up the evidence of

LW8 and LW11 and closed the evidence of LW13 to 15.

10.Burden lies on the prosecution to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt.

Point:

It is the allegation of the prosecution that JCL in the absence of her inmates he went to the house of victim an aggravated Penetrative sexual assaulted on the victim and hence he committed the offence

U/sec.376AB IPC and Sec.5(m) r/w.6 of POCSO Act-2012. Firstly we reiterate the following sections:

Section 375 IPC: A man is said to commit “rape” if he—

1. penetrates his penis, to any extent, into the vagina, mouth, urethra or anus of a woman or makes her to do so with him or any other

Page 5 of 12 JCC No.42 of 2023 person; or

2. inserts, to any extent, any object or a part of the body, not being the penis, into the vagina, the urethra or anus of a woman or makes her to do so with him or any other person; or

3. manipulates any part of the body of a woman so as to cause penetration into the vagina, urethra, anus or any part of body of such woman or makes her to do so with him or any other person; or

4. applies his mouth to the vagina, anus, urethra of a woman or makes her to do so with him or any other person, under the circumstances falling under any of the following seven descriptions:

 Against her will.

 Without her consent.

With her consent, when her consent has been obtained by putting her or any person in whom she is interested, in fear of death or of hurt.

 With her consent, when the man knows that he is not her husband and that her consent is given because she believes that he is another man to whom she is or believes herself to be lawfully married.

 With her consent when, at the time of giving such consent, by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication or the administration by him personally or through another of any stupefying or unwholesome

Substance, she is unable to understand the nature and consequences of that to which she gives consent.

Page 6 of 12 JCC No.42 of 2023  With or without her consent, when she is under eighteen years of age.

 When she is unable to communicate consent.

(a) Sec.376 AB: Punishment for rape on woman under twelve years of age:

Whoever, commits rape on a woman under twelve years of age shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than twelve years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of that person’s natural life and with fine or with death.

(b) Sec.376(2) IPC:

Commits sexual assault shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be lessthan seven years but which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine.

(c) Sec.376(f) IPC:

being a relative, guardian or teacher of, or a person in a position of trust or authority towards a woman, commits rape on such woman;

Sec.5(m) of POCSO Act:

Whoever commits penetrative sexual assault on a child below twelve years;

Sec.6 of POCSO Act: Punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual

assault:

Whoever commits aggravated penetrative sexual assault shall be punished

Page 7 of 12 JCC No.42 of 2023 with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than 20years, but which may extent to imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of natural life of that person and shall also be liable to fine, or with death.

11. Burden lies on the prosecution to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt. To prove its case, prosecution has examined as many as 13 witnesses and exhibited twelve documents and one MO. In the present case on hand, there is no dispute with regard to the minority of the CCL and victim as on the date of alleged incident. However, prosecution got exhibited Ex.P2/Bonafide Certificate of Victim and Ex.P3/Bonofide

Certificate of CCL issued by Pw4 who is secondary grade teacher in upper primary school and she was placed incharge Head Master. As per these documents, the CCL was aged about 15 years 2 months, 7 days and then the victim was aged about 7 years, lomentes, 15 days as on the date of alleged incident.

12.Admittedly, there was no eye witness to the alleged incident as such the evidence of victim/PW2 is crucial to establish the case of prosecution. At this juncture, this board is inclined to refer the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Punjab Vs. Gurmeet Singh and others, reported in (1996) 2 SCC 384, where in the Hon’ble Court has observed that:

“ No doubt”, in an offence of sexual assault

there may not be any eye witness in as

much as, such offences are usually

Page 8 of 12 JCC No.42 of 2023

committed in private. It is also settled

position that testimony of the victim in such

cases of sexual assault should not be viewed

with suspicion unless there is compelling

reason, court is not required to look for any

corroboration. If the sole testimony of the

victim is found inspiring confidence,

conviction can be based on the basis of such

sole testimony of the victim”.

13.No doubt the victim was about 7 years of age, therefore, her consent was irrelevant. Basic ingredient of section 375 is penetration.

Slightest degree of penetration is sufficient to hold the CCL guilty for offence under section 375 punishable under section 376 IPC.

Now the evidence on record is that, Pw1/mother of victim/complainant had deposed that on 15.08.2023 while she giving bath to the victim noticed swelling on the private parts of victim and on her vagina. And the victim also complaining that she was suffering from stomachache from previous day evening. She also noticed blood marks on under garment of victim. On enquiry victim informed that CCL came to their house, threatened and committed rape on her. Victim is mentally challenged person. Later she came to know that CCL also committed rape against one

Sunitha of their village. They informed about the offence committed by CCL and proposed to speak with the elders. When they approached sarpanch he advised to lodge report with police. As such she lodged report under Ex.P1.

PW3/father of victim he also deposed in same lines of PW1 as they came to know about the offence through PW2.

14.In the present case on hand, the whole case of the prosecution

Page 9 of 12 JCC No.42 of 2023 relied on the information given by PW2/victim to her mother and even the prosecution stated that the Barosa team had recorded the statement of victim and i.e., PW9 she deposed that on 16.08.2023 on request of SDPO she recorded the statement of victim at Sakhi Center and she stated that on 13.08.2023 when she was alone at the home one Shiva came to their house and he laid on her, outrage her modesty by touching her private parts and left her there on next day when her mother giving bath to the victim she observed swelling and bleeding from vagina of victim girl. On enquiry by her mother she deposed about the incident.

15.It is clear cut case of the prosecution that PW2 deposed about the incident clearly and even no where in the entire investigation it reveal that victim is a mentally challenged girl. But upon perusal of the 164Cr.P.C statement under Ex.P11 it reveals she did not respond to say anything and the officer had stated that the mental health of the victim is not good. And even when she was examined before the court. She stated the basic details of her. But he did not depose anything about incident and recorded that her mother stated she was mentally challenged person but the prosecution did not choose to produce a single piece of papers to prove that she is a mentally challenged person and when the prosecution wholly reling on harassing of PW1 and PW3 and basing on the information by PW2/victim the report has been lodged then she would have spoked something about the incident and even the victim was examined by the PW8/Dr.Pavani, issued report under Ex.P6 it reveals that hymen intact, vagina normal and

Page 10 of 12 JCC No.42 of 2023 even no injuries are found on external genitalia.

The FSL report under Ex.P2 where the under wear, nikker and other clothes along with smear slides, even it reveals that semen and spermatozoa are not detected.

16. Upon perusal of the whole evidence on record there is no material to connect the CCL, that he committed sexual assault on victim beyond the reasonable doubt and from the above discussion it certify the doubt in the minds of the board to point that CCL had committed the same.

And even there is no corroboration with that of the medical evidence to support the version of the prosecution to bring home to guilt of the CCL.

17. In the result, CCL found not guilty for the offence punishable

U/sec.376AB IPC and Sec.5(m) r/w.6 of POCSO Act-2012. Accordingly the

CCL is acquitted U/s.255(1) of Cr.P.C for the above said offences. The parental bonds of CCL shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal period, if any. If any property deposited shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.

Typed to my dictation to Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 28 th day of November, 2025.

Sd/-

Prl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class for Child Cases, Mahabubnagar. 1.Sd/-

Page 11 of 12 JCC No.42 of 2023

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE:

PW1:Chakali Venkatamma

PW2:Victim

PW3:Gopal

PW4:J.Anitha

PW5:Balraju

PW6:Krishnaiah- NONE -

PW7:M.Naveen Kumar

PW8:P.Pavani

PW9:M.Sudha Madhuri

PW10:R.Shekar

PW11:Golla Govardhan

PW12:A.Mohan Reddy

PW13:T.Mahesh

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE:

Ex.P1:Complaint given by PW1

Ex.P2:Bonafide certificate of Victim

Ex.P3:Bonafide certificate of CCL

Ex.P4:CDF, dt:16.08.2023

Ex.P5:Confession cum recovery panchanama

Ex.P6:Medical certificate of Victim girl issued by PW8- NONE -

Ex.P7:FIR

Ex.P8:Signature of PW11 on seizure panchanama

Ex.P9:Signature of PW12 on seizure panchanama

Page 12 of 12 JCC No.42 of 2023

Ex.P10:Potency report.

Ex.P11:164 Cr.P.C statement of victim Girl

Ex.P12: FSL report :: Material objects marked for:: -Nil-

Sd/-

Prl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class for Child Cases, Mahabubnagar.

1.Sd/-

Page 1 of 12 JCC No.42 of 2023

IN THE COURT OF CHILD JUSTICE BOARD-CUM-JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: MAHABUBNAGAR.

On this Friday, the 28th day of November, 2025

PRESENT:- Smt. K. Mamatha Reddy,

Chairman-cum-Judl. Magistrate of First Class, for Child Cases, Mahabubnagar.

Members: 1. Smt.Esther Grace Polumuri,

J.C.C.No.42 of 2023

BETWEEN:-

State of T.S rep. by Sub Inspector of Police, PS.C.C.Kunta, Cr.No.97 of 2023.

.... Complainant

A N D

Pichaila Shiva Kumar S/o.Buchanna, aged:15years, Occ:Coolie, R/o.Damagnapur village of Chinna Chinta Kunta Mandal.

.... Child in Conflict with Law

1. Section of Law: U/sec.376AB IPC and Sec.5(m) r/w.6 of POCSO Act-2012

2. Plea of CCLs: Denied the offence

3. Finding of the Court: Not found conflict with law

4. Sentence or order: In the result, CCL found not guilty for the offence punishable U/sec.376AB IPC and Sec.5(m) r/w.6 of POCSO Act-2012. Accordingly the CCL is acquitted U/s.255(1) of Cr.P.C for the above said offences. The parental bonds of CCL shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal period, if any. If any property deposited shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.

-o0o-

This case is coming before me on 07.11.2025 for final hearing in the presence of the Learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for the Complainant/State, Sri.Brahmaiah, Counsel for CCL, upon hearing their arguments and having stood over for consideration, this Court delivered the following:-

Page 2 of 12 JCC No.42 of 2023

FINAL ORDER

1. The Sub Inspector of Police, Police Station C.C.Kunta filed Final

Report against the Child in Conflict with Law for the offences punishable

U/sec.376AB IPC and Sec.5(m) r/w.6 of POCSO Act-2012.

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 15.08.2023 at 2000hours the complainant who is mother of victim girl lodged a report in which she stated that she has a male and a female daughter. She further stated that on 13.08.2023 at morning hours she along with her husband went to coolie works by leaving her daughter alone at her house. At around 6:00PM she returned back to house and found her daughter was crying by sleeping and she enquired about the crying by saying that as she is having pain. On 14.08.2023 while she got her daugther for bathing she found an injury on her vagina and also has blood stain marks on her underwear. On that she enquired her daughter and she narrated about the incident. Hence, LW1 requested to take necessary action against the CCL.

3.Basing on the above complaint, LW17/Raichur Shekar, Sub

Inspector of Police, CC.Kunta Police Station registered a case in

Cr.No.97/2023, U/sec.376AB IPC and Sec.5(m) r/w.6 of POCSO Act-2012 and taken up investigation. After completion of investigation

LW18/T.Mahesh filed Final Report against the Child in Conflict with Law.

4. This Board took cognizance of the offences punishable

U/sec.376-AB IPC and Sec.5(m) r/w.6 of POCSO Act-2012 against Child in

Conflict with Law. The copies of documents were furnished to Child in

Page 3 of 12 JCC No.42 of 2023

Conflict with Law as contemplated U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C. Child in Conflict with

Law was examined U/Sec.14 of JJ Act by explaining the contents of accusation against him for the offences U/sec.376-AB IPC and Sec.5(m) r/w.6 of POCSO Act-2012 by the members of Board for which he denied and claimed to be enquired.

5. During the trial prosecution examined Thirteen witnesses as

PW1 to PW13 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P12 were got marked.

6. After completion of prosecution evidence, the Child in Conflict with Law was examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating evidence appearing against him in the prosecution evidence, for which he denied the same and reported no defense evidence. Hence defense evidence was closed. Heard both sides and perused the record.

7. Arguments:

Learned APP contended that the evidence of PW1 corroborated with other witnesses. Hence the prosecution proved the guilt of the CCL for the said offences.

On the other hand, the defence counsel the scene of offence shown is different. No whisper about Sec.376 offence as alleged. In Ex.P1 stated that an offence took on 13.08.2023 i.e., sunday there will be holiday to Anganwadi School and not examined Manemma through whom they came to know about the offence. And certificate is produced by the prosecution with regard to mentally challenged of PW1. Whereas the

Page 4 of 12 JCC No.42 of 2023 complaint was based on information give by PW2 but PW2 not supported.

And even medical evidence does not reveal about the offence. And coming to the witness of confession i.e., PW7 there is no seizure of recovery hence as per Sec.27, confession is not relevant. Hence the prosecution failed to prove the offence beyond the reasonable doubt. Hence prayed to acquit the

CCL.

8.Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of

CCL against whom the allegation was made of the offence

U/sec.376AB IPC and Sec.5(m) r/w.6 of POCSO Act-2012

9.In order to prove the case, the prosecution had examined eleven witnesses. i.e., PW1 to PW13. Learned APP given up the evidence of

LW8 and LW11 and closed the evidence of LW13 to 15.

10.Burden lies on the prosecution to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt.

Point:

It is the allegation of the prosecution that JCL in the absence of her inmates he went to the house of victim an aggravated Penetrative sexual assaulted on the victim and hence he committed the offence

U/sec.376AB IPC and Sec.5(m) r/w.6 of POCSO Act-2012. Firstly we reiterate the following sections:

Section 375 IPC: A man is said to commit “rape” if he—

1. penetrates his penis, to any extent, into the vagina, mouth, urethra or anus of a woman or makes her to do so with him or any other

Page 5 of 12 JCC No.42 of 2023 person; or

2. inserts, to any extent, any object or a part of the body, not being the penis, into the vagina, the urethra or anus of a woman or makes her to do so with him or any other person; or

3. manipulates any part of the body of a woman so as to cause penetration into the vagina, urethra, anus or any part of body of such woman or makes her to do so with him or any other person; or

4. applies his mouth to the vagina, anus, urethra of a woman or makes her to do so with him or any other person, under the circumstances falling under any of the following seven descriptions:

 Against her will.

 Without her consent.

With her consent, when her consent has been obtained by putting her or any person in whom she is interested, in fear of death or of hurt.

 With her consent, when the man knows that he is not her husband and that her consent is given because she believes that he is another man to whom she is or believes herself to be lawfully married.

 With her consent when, at the time of giving such consent, by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication or the administration by him personally or through another of any stupefying or unwholesome

Substance, she is unable to understand the nature and consequences of that to which she gives consent.

Page 6 of 12 JCC No.42 of 2023  With or without her consent, when she is under eighteen years of age.

 When she is unable to communicate consent.

(a) Sec.376 AB: Punishment for rape on woman under twelve years of age:

Whoever, commits rape on a woman under twelve years of age shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than twelve years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of that person’s natural life and with fine or with death.

(b) Sec.376(2) IPC:

Commits sexual assault shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be lessthan seven years but which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine.

(c) Sec.376(f) IPC:

being a relative, guardian or teacher of, or a person in a position of trust or authority towards a woman, commits rape on such woman;

Sec.5(m) of POCSO Act:

Whoever commits penetrative sexual assault on a child below twelve years;

Sec.6 of POCSO Act: Punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual

assault:

Whoever commits aggravated penetrative sexual assault shall be punished

Page 7 of 12 JCC No.42 of 2023 with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than 20years, but which may extent to imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of natural life of that person and shall also be liable to fine, or with death.

11. Burden lies on the prosecution to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt. To prove its case, prosecution has examined as many as 13 witnesses and exhibited twelve documents and one MO. In the present case on hand, there is no dispute with regard to the minority of the CCL and victim as on the date of alleged incident. However, prosecution got exhibited Ex.P2/Bonafide Certificate of Victim and Ex.P3/Bonofide

Certificate of CCL issued by Pw4 who is secondary grade teacher in upper primary school and she was placed incharge Head Master. As per these documents, the CCL was aged about 15 years 2 months, 7 days and then the victim was aged about 7 years, lomentes, 15 days as on the date of alleged incident.

12.Admittedly, there was no eye witness to the alleged incident as such the evidence of victim/PW2 is crucial to establish the case of prosecution. At this juncture, this board is inclined to refer the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Punjab Vs. Gurmeet Singh and others, reported in (1996) 2 SCC 384, where in the Hon’ble Court has observed that:

“ No doubt”, in an offence of sexual assault

there may not be any eye witness in as

much as, such offences are usually

Page 8 of 12 JCC No.42 of 2023

committed in private. It is also settled

position that testimony of the victim in such

cases of sexual assault should not be viewed

with suspicion unless there is compelling

reason, court is not required to look for any

corroboration. If the sole testimony of the

victim is found inspiring confidence,

conviction can be based on the basis of such

sole testimony of the victim”.

13.No doubt the victim was about 7 years of age, therefore, her consent was irrelevant. Basic ingredient of section 375 is penetration.

Slightest degree of penetration is sufficient to hold the CCL guilty for offence under section 375 punishable under section 376 IPC.

Now the evidence on record is that, Pw1/mother of victim/complainant had deposed that on 15.08.2023 while she giving bath to the victim noticed swelling on the private parts of victim and on her vagina. And the victim also complaining that she was suffering from stomachache from previous day evening. She also noticed blood marks on under garment of victim. On enquiry victim informed that CCL came to their house, threatened and committed rape on her. Victim is mentally challenged person. Later she came to know that CCL also committed rape against one

Sunitha of their village. They informed about the offence committed by CCL and proposed to speak with the elders. When they approached sarpanch he advised to lodge report with police. As such she lodged report under Ex.P1.

PW3/father of victim he also deposed in same lines of PW1 as they came to know about the offence through PW2.

14.In the present case on hand, the whole case of the prosecution

Page 9 of 12 JCC No.42 of 2023 relied on the information given by PW2/victim to her mother and even the prosecution stated that the Barosa team had recorded the statement of victim and i.e., PW9 she deposed that on 16.08.2023 on request of SDPO she recorded the statement of victim at Sakhi Center and she stated that on 13.08.2023 when she was alone at the home one Shiva came to their house and he laid on her, outrage her modesty by touching her private parts and left her there on next day when her mother giving bath to the victim she observed swelling and bleeding from vagina of victim girl. On enquiry by her mother she deposed about the incident.

15.It is clear cut case of the prosecution that PW2 deposed about the incident clearly and even no where in the entire investigation it reveal that victim is a mentally challenged girl. But upon perusal of the 164Cr.P.C statement under Ex.P11 it reveals she did not respond to say anything and the officer had stated that the mental health of the victim is not good. And even when she was examined before the court. She stated the basic details of her. But he did not depose anything about incident and recorded that her mother stated she was mentally challenged person but the prosecution did not choose to produce a single piece of papers to prove that she is a mentally challenged person and when the prosecution wholly reling on harassing of PW1 and PW3 and basing on the information by PW2/victim the report has been lodged then she would have spoked something about the incident and even the victim was examined by the PW8/Dr.Pavani, issued report under Ex.P6 it reveals that hymen intact, vagina normal and

Page 10 of 12 JCC No.42 of 2023 even no injuries are found on external genitalia.

The FSL report under Ex.P2 where the under wear, nikker and other clothes along with smear slides, even it reveals that semen and spermatozoa are not detected.

16. Upon perusal of the whole evidence on record there is no material to connect the CCL, that he committed sexual assault on victim beyond the reasonable doubt and from the above discussion it certify the doubt in the minds of the board to point that CCL had committed the same.

And even there is no corroboration with that of the medical evidence to support the version of the prosecution to bring home to guilt of the CCL.

17. In the result, CCL found not guilty for the offence punishable

U/sec.376AB IPC and Sec.5(m) r/w.6 of POCSO Act-2012. Accordingly the

CCL is acquitted U/s.255(1) of Cr.P.C for the above said offences. The parental bonds of CCL shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal period, if any. If any property deposited shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.

Typed to my dictation to Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 28 th day of November, 2025.

Sd/-

Prl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class for Child Cases, Mahabubnagar. 1.Sd/-

Page 11 of 12 JCC No.42 of 2023

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE:

PW1:Chakali Venkatamma

PW2:Victim

PW3:Gopal

PW4:J.Anitha

PW5:Balraju

PW6:Krishnaiah- NONE -

PW7:M.Naveen Kumar

PW8:P.Pavani

PW9:M.Sudha Madhuri

PW10:R.Shekar

PW11:Golla Govardhan

PW12:A.Mohan Reddy

PW13:T.Mahesh

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE:

Ex.P1:Complaint given by PW1

Ex.P2:Bonafide certificate of Victim

Ex.P3:Bonafide certificate of CCL

Ex.P4:CDF, dt:16.08.2023

Ex.P5:Confession cum recovery panchanama

Ex.P6:Medical certificate of Victim girl issued by PW8- NONE -

Ex.P7:FIR

Ex.P8:Signature of PW11 on seizure panchanama

Ex.P9:Signature of PW12 on seizure panchanama

Page 12 of 12 JCC No.42 of 2023

Ex.P10:Potency report.

Ex.P11:164 Cr.P.C statement of victim Girl

Ex.P12: FSL report :: Material objects marked for:: -Nil-

Sd/-

Prl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class for Child Cases, Mahabubnagar.

1.Sd/-

IN THE COURT OF PRL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

MAHABUBNAGAR.

On Friday, this the 27th day of June, 2025.

Present: Smt K.Mamatha Reddy Prl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mahabubnagar.

STC.No.18 of 2023

Between: The State of Telangana through Assistant Director of Agriculture (R), Kothakota. …Complainant.

AND

1.M/s. Coromandel International Ltd C/o. Managromor center, D.No.9-31, 9-32, 9-97/4, 9-97/5, Gandhi Circle, Atmakur village and mandal, Wanaparthy District. Represented by JVVVS. Prasad S/o. J.Sathyanarayana, 1-3-61/26, Revenue Colony, Gadwal Post and District (Dealer)

2.M/s. Rasi Seeds Pvt.Ltd., No.174, Sathyamurthy Road, Ramnagar, Coimbathore, Represented by Sri Lankala Venkata Prasad S/o. Krishna, H.No.1-98/K/10, Karthik Layout, Hitech City, hyderabad. (Distributor and Producer)

Accused No.1 and 2.

This case coming on this day for final disposal before me on 14.05.2025 in the presence of the learned APP for the State/Complainant and Sri M.Ramesh, Counsel for Accused No.1 and 2 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Assistant Director of Agriculture (R), Kothakota filed complaint against A1 and A2 for the offences punishable U/Sec.7(b) r/w. Sec.19 of

Seeds Act, 1966 and Sub Clause (c) of the Clause 13 of Seeds (Control)

Order, 1983.

2 STC.No.18 of 2023

2.Case of complainant is that on 26.05.2022, the Mandal

Agriculture Officer and Seeds Inspector, Atmakur Mandal visited the shop of A1. On enquiry, Mandal Agriculture Officer found variety of cotton seed i.e., RCH 659 BGII. On suspicion he has secured two mediators i.e.,

LW1/K.Mallesh and LW2/D.Naveen and lifted the samples and later the samples were divided into three equal parts and kept in cotton cloth bags and affixed information slip in each sample bag as per procedure under cover of panchanama. One of the sample along with Form No.V sent to the Seed Analyst, Seed Testing Laboratory, Talangana DNA Fingerprinting & Transgenic Crops Monitoring Lab, Sameti Complex, Malakpet,

Hyderabad. One sample sent to District Agriculture Officer, Wanaparthy district for referee sample and another sample given to the dealer i.e.,A1 and conducted panchanama as per procedure and obtained acknowledgment.

3.On 27.06.2022 Mandal Agriculture officer, received analyst report from Seed Analyst, Telangana DNA Fingerprinting Sameti Complex,

Old Malakpet, Hyderabad stating that the sample of cotton RCH 659 BGII bearing lot no.2202221633-372177 is found sub standard. Vide report

No.ROC.No.165/22-23, dt:27.06.2022 stating that the sample does not confirms to the prescribed minimum seed standard of Germination 75% but as per analytical report it is found only 65%.

4.On 28.09.2022 Mandal Agriculture officer went to the shop of accused no.1 and served analysis report to dealer and secured two 3 STC.No.18 of 2023 mediators i.e.,LW3/B.Mahesh and LW4/K.Anil Kumar then the agriculture officer enquired about stock but there is no stock. MAO verified the stock but there is no seed stock available in the shop and MAO seized Stock register, bill books, invoice as per procedure and conducted panchanama.

The District Agriculture Officer, Wanaparthy issued show-cause notice to

A1 and A2. In turn A1 and A2 did not gave reply to the show cause notice. The District Agriculture Officer, Wanaparthy has instructed LW6 to prosecution proceedings proposals stating that A1 and A2 selling, distributing and producing substandard seeds against the specification prescribed as per U/Sec.7(b) r/w. Sec.19 of Seeds Act, 1966 and Sub

Clause (c) of the Clause 13 of Seeds (Control) Order, 1983 against A1 and

A2.

5.This court took cognizance for the offences punishable

U/Sec.7(b) r/w. Sec.19 of Seeds Act, 1966 and Sub Clause (c) of the

Clause 13 of Seeds (Control) Order, 1983 against A1 and A2. The copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C.

A1 and A2 were examined U/Sec.251 Cr.P.C by explaining the substance of accusation to them for the offences U/Sec.7(b) r/w. Sec.19 of Seeds

Act, 1966 and Sub Clause (c) of the Clause 13 of Seeds (Control) Order, 1983 for which they denied and claimed to be tried.

6. During trial prosecution examined Five witnesses as PW1 to

PW5 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P8 were got marked.

4 STC.No.18 of 2023

7. After completion of prosecution evidence, A1 and A2 were examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating evidence appearing against them in the prosecution evidence, for which they denied the same and reported no defence evidence. Hence defence evidence is closed. Heard both sides and perused the record.

8. Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of A1 and

A2 for the offences punishable U/Sec.7(b) r/w Sec.19 of Seeds

Act, 1966 and Clause 13 of Seeds (Control) Order,1983 beyond

reasonable doubts?

9. POINT:-

PW1 who is mandal agriculture officer stated that on 26.05.2022 in the course of his regular inspection he went to the shop of

M/s.Coromandel International Ltd., C/o.Managromor Center, along with

PW2 and PW3. Later PW1 taken three samples of cotton seed variety of

RCH-659 BG II and later packed the samples in the presence of PW2 and

PW3. Among three samples one sample given to the shop dealer and one sample was sent to seed testing lab and remaining samples were kept with her. On 27.06.2022 he received seed analysis report and opined that the germination percentage is shown as 65% which is substandard. Later he served the analysis report to the shop dealer along with show cause notice. PW1 further deposed that in the presence of PW4 and PW5 he seized bill books, stock registers, invoice and principle certificate. After completion of entire investigation he handed over the case file to 5 STC.No.18 of 2023

LW6/K.Damodar along with the documents and later after verification he filed complaint before the court.

In the cross examination PW1 admitted that he did not receive any complaint and no list of inventory was prepared by him. PW1 further denied the suggestion that he did not followed the prescribed proforma while preparing Ex.P1 and he did not file any document to show that he sent the samples for testing and also he denied that he never went to the shop of A1 and did not draw any sample and records and did not seized any records and deposing falsehood.

10. PW2 and PW3 who are cited as panch witnesses for lifting of sample deposed that about one year back when they went to purchase the seeds at mandal office, PW1 obtained their signatures and turned hostile to the case of prosecution.

11. PW4 and PW5 who are cited as panch witnesses for seizure of records deposed that about two years back when they went to purchase the seeds at Mandal Office, PW1 obtained their signatures and turned hostile to the case of prosecution.

12. The evidence of LW6/K.Damodar is closed who is Asst. Director of Agriculture as his version is deposed by PW1.

13. According to prosecution PW1 went to the shop of accused no.1 and found variety of cotton seeds. He entertained a doubt about germination standards of cotton seeds and lifted three samples and sent one sample for analyst and obtained report that they are not up to the 6 STC.No.18 of 2023 standards of germination and he lifted the sample in the presence of PW2 and PW3 and seized the records in the presence of PW4 and PW5.

14. To substantiate the above version of prosecution, prosecution examined PW1 to PW5. PW1 is a person who lifted the sample as he entertained doubt about standards of germination of cotton seeds which are being kept by A1. But the aspect of lifting of samples were not proved as PW2 and PW3 turned hostile to prosecution. Likewise, according to

PW1, he seized the records in the presence of PW4 and PW5 and even that aspect was not proved as PW4 and PW5 turned hostile for prosecution. Neither lifting of the samples nor seizure of the records were proved before this court. The evidence of PW1 is not much helpful to the case of prosecution as she only filed complaint basing on Ex.P4.

15. Surprisingly no record was filed by PW1 to connect the scene of offence with A1. There is no whisper about the role played by A2 in the evidence of PW1. PW1 stated that he visited the shop of A1 which is at

Atmakur. But no document was filed to show that A1 is running the same, even in the description which was given in the complaint pertaining to A1 is not showing that he is running the above said shop. As mentioned earlier eventhough A2 was shown as producer and Distributor but his description is so vague as per the products. It is surprising to see as why he was implicated A2 in this case when nothing was spoken by PW1 about the role played by him in committing the offence. Hence by considering lack of corroborative evidence from independent witnesses to the 7 STC.No.18 of 2023 evidence of PW1 and also by considering the lack of collecting documentary evidence to connect the accused in the presence offence. It was felt that prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubts. Hence they were acquitted.

16. In the result, Accused No.1 and 2 were found not guilty for the offences punishable U/Sec.7(b) r/w. Sec.19 of Seeds Act, 1966 and Sub

Clause (c) of the Clause 13 of Seeds (Control) Order, 1983 and they are acquitted U/Sec.255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of Accused No.1 and 2 shall stands cancelled and the sureties will be discharged after the expiry of appeal time. As there is no case property involved in this case, no property order was passed.

Typed by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 27 th day of June, 2025.

Sd/-

Prl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Mahabubnagar.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE:

PW1:O.Vinay Kumar

PW2:K.Mallesh

- NONE -

PW3:D.Naveen

PW4:B.Mahesh

PW5:K.Anil Kumar 8 STC.No.18 of 2023

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE:

Ex.P1:Form-VI

Ex.P2:Lifting of sample panchanama

Ex.P3:Analysis report

Ex.P4:Form-IV

- NONE -

Ex.P5:Signature of PW2 on lifting of sample panchanama

Ex.P6:Signature of PW3 on lifting of sample panchanama

Ex.P7:Signature of PW4 on seizure of records panchanama

Ex.P8:Signature of PW5 on seizure of records panchanama :: Material objects marked for::

--NIL--

SD/-

Prl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Mahabubnagar.