Juvenile Justice Board, Ongole. JCC.No.2 of 2021, Page 1 APPR150000352025
BEFORE THE JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD, PRAKASAM.
Present: Smt S.Komalavalli,
Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Excise Court, Ongole, FAC:Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Prakasam District.
Shaik Mashuda, Board Member
Friday, this the 17th day of April, 2026.
Juvenile Calendar Case No.2 of 2021
Between: State, Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Markapur.
.... Complainant
And
XXXX … CCL
This case is coming before me for final hearing on 06-03-2026 in the presence of learned Senior Assistant Public Prosecutor for the prosecution and of Sri K.Sankar Kumar, learned counsel for the CCL, and upon perusing the material papers on record and having stood over till this day for consideration, this board delivered the following:-
F I N A L O R D E R
1.The Child Protection Officer i.e. the Sub-Divisional Police Officer,
Markapur, has filed final report against the CCL in Cr.No.80/2020 alleging that CCL has committed offences u/sec.376, 420, 506 IPC and under
Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter, for short, referred to as “ POCSO Act).
Juvenile Justice Board, Ongole. JCC.No.2 of 2021, Page 2
2. The averments of the final report, in brief, are as follows:
(a) The victim girl PW.1 is a resident of Salakalaveedu Village. She studied up to 10th Class, and later discontinued her studies. While she was going to ZP High School, Bestavaripeta Village, the CCL used to follow her and developed friendship with her stating that he is loving her. Believing his words, the victim also started loving the CCL. After completion of 10th Class, the CCL joined in Gowthami Junior College, Cumbum, in Intermediate course, whereas the victim remained at home along with her younger brothers, since her parents went to Ongole for coolie works. In the absence of parents of victim girl, CCL often visited the house of victim PW.1 and spent with her. In the month of January, 2020, PW.1 joined in a noodles point at Cumbum, belongs to PW.6, for cleaning works. At that time, the
CCL used to come there and met with her. PW6, the owner of the noodles shop, LW.8/B.Thirupathaiah and LW.9/Ch.Venkatamma noticed the same and admonished the victim girl.
(b)In September, 2019, when the CCL was going to the house of victim in the absence of her parents, he had sexual intercourse with the victim by luring that he will marry her, as such, the victim became pregnant.
PW.2, the mother of victim observed physical changes in the body of victim and took the victim PW.1 to PW.3, who is working as a Nurse in a private hospital at Cumbum. PW.3 examined the victim and stated that the victim is carrying 7th month pregnancy. On thorough enquiry by PW.2, the victim disclosed that CCL is responsible for her pregnancy. Thereupon, PW.1 and
PW.2 went to the house of CCL. but CCL refused to marry the victim and threatened them. Therefore, PW.1 gave a report against the CCL to
Bestavaripeta Police.
Juvenile Justice Board, Ongole. JCC.No.2 of 2021, Page 3
(c)Based on the said report, PW.13, the Head Constable, registered a case in Crime No.80/2020 for the offences u/sec.376, 420, 506
IPC and u/sec.6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and issued FIR. On receipt of copy of express FIR, PW.15 took up investigation, proceeded to B.V.Peta Village and got recorded the statement of victim through PW.14 and examined
PW.2 and LW.3/T.Sampath and recorded their statements. He also examined PW.3 to PW.6 on 29-04-2020 and recorded their statements and also observed the scene in the presence of LW.8/B.Thirupathaiah and LW.9/
Ch.Venkatamma and prepared rough sketch and scene observation report.
(d)During the course of investigation, on 15-06-2020 PW.15 took the CCL into custody and sent him to this board for custody. Later, he obtained study cum date of birth certificates of CCL and victim from Z.P High
School, B.V.Peta and also sent the victim to the medical officer for examination. Pw.11 who examined the victim issued report that PW.1 is carrying 8th month pregnancy. PW.15 also got it recorded the 164 Cr.P.C statement of victim through LW.17/ Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Markapur, and got it conducted potency test to the CCL with the permission of this board and obtained report from LW.14/Dr.Srinu Naik, Assistant Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine, Government Medical College, Guntur. PW.15 also got it conducted DNA test to the victim, her baby girl and the CCL through FSL,
Mangalagiri, as per the orders of Superintendent of Police vide
C.No.170/GENL/SDPO-M/2020 dt.29-07-2020. As per the DNA report, the
CCL is biological father of baby girl of PW.1 and the victim, and PW.1 is the biological mother of the baby girl. After completion of investigation, PW.15 filed final report against the CCL before this board under the above sections of law.
Juvenile Justice Board, Ongole. JCC.No.2 of 2021, Page 4
3.Upon perusal of the final report, this board took cognizance for offences punishable u/sec.376, 420, 506 IPC and u/sec.6 of POCSO Act against the CCL.
4. On appearance of CCL, copies of case documents are furnished to him u/sec.207 of Cr.P.C.
5. Since the CCL is shown to be aged about 17 years and also since the offences alleged against him are henious offences u/s 376 IPC and u/s 6 of
POCSO Act 2012, which are punishable with imprisonment of more than 7 years, the then Presiding Officers have called for the reports of District
Probation Oficer and also the Psychologist for preliminary assessment u/s 15 of Juvenile Justice Act. However, after receipt of said reports, without recording any reasons, the then Presiding officer proceeded to examine the
CCL u/s 251 for conducting further enquiry before this Board.
6. Thereafter on 25-8-2023 CCL is examined u/sec.251 Cr.P.C and he denied the offences, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be enquired.
7.During the course of enquiry, the prosecution has examined PW.1 to
PW.15 and got marked Exs.P1 to P16 respectively. The evidence of
LW.3/T.Sampath, LW.9/Ch.Venkatamma and LW.14/Dr.Srinu Naik was closed by this board as they died. On memo filed by prosecution that whereabouts of LW.8/B.Thirupathaiah, this board closed the evidence of
LW.8. The evidence of LW.17/B.Rajesh, Principal Junior Civil Judge,
Markapur was closed by this board. Thus, prosecution evidence is closed.
Juvenile Justice Board, Ongole. JCC.No.2 of 2021, Page 5
8.After completion of prosecution evidence, the CCL is examined u/sec.
313 Cr.P.C, and he denied the incriminating against him in the evidence of
PW.1 to PW.15. He reported no defence evidence on his behalf.
9.Heard arguments of learned APP and the learned counsel for
CCL. To avoid repetition, the arguments of both the counsel shall be stated in the foregoing paragraphs of this final order, while discussing facts in issue and other relevant points.
10.Now the points that arose for the consideration are :-
1) Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of CCL for the
offence u/sec.376 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?
2) Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of CCL for the
offence u/sec.420 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?
3) Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of CCL for the
offence u/sec.506 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?
4) Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of CCL for the
offence u/sec.6 OF POCSO Act beyond all reasonable doubt?
11.Before dwelling in to the facts of this case, it is imperative on the part of the prosecution to prove that CCL is a juvenile as on the date of offence, to apply Juvenile Justice Act. The prosecution has filed Study Certificate of
CCL, marked as Ex.P9 through PW8, the Head Master of ZP Boys High
School, Bestavaripets, who issued the said certificate. Perusal of said certificate shows that the date of birth of CCL is 28-12-2002 and he is aged about 17 years on the date of offence, alleged against him. Even though it is elicited from the evidence of PW8 that the school authorities will not issue date of birth certificate of a student and the purpose of study certificate is showing the academic year pursued by the respective student in their stool
Juvenile Justice Board, Ongole. JCC.No.2 of 2021, Page 6 but CCL did not produce any evidence contrary to Ex.P9 and the evidence of PW8 showing that he is not minor by the date of offences alleged against him in 2019. In such scenario, in the absence of any rebuttal evidence to
Ex.P9 study certificate of CCL, it can be safely concluded that CCL is a minor by the date of alleged incident in this case and that his date of birth is 28-12-2002 and that he is aged about 17 years.
12.POINTS 1 to 4 :-
To avoid repetition of facts and evidence, all these points are answered together.
The case of the prosecution is – CCL used to follow the victim girl while she was going to school when she was in 10th class and lured with her deceitful words that he is loving her and wants to marry her and later in the absence of parents of victim in the house, he used to come to the house of victim, while he was studying Intermediate in Cumbum and committed sexual assault against the victim, who is a minor by that date, due to which victim became pregnant, but later he refused to marry the victim and also threatened her and thereby the CCL is facing accusation for the offences u/s 376, 420, 506 IPC and u/s 6 of POCSO Act, 2012.
13.Coming to the offence u/sec.6 of POCSO Act, which deals with punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault provided u/s 5 of the
POCSO Act, there is a presumption under Section 29 of POCSO Act, 2012.
As per Section 29 of POCSO Act, 2012 “where a person is prosecuted for committing or abetting or attempting to commit any offence under Sections 3, 5, 7 and 9 of the Act, the Special Court shall presume that such person has committed, abetted or attempted to commit the offence, as the case may be, unless the contrary is proved. But the said presumption under Section
Juvenile Justice Board, Ongole. JCC.No.2 of 2021, Page 7 29 of POCSO Act, 2012 can be drawn, if the prosecution prima facie succeeded in establishing the fundamental facts.
14.As per Section 30 of POCSO Act, in any prosecution for any offence under this Act, which requires a culpable mental state on the part of the accused, the Special Court shall presume the existence of such mental state, but it shall be defence for the accused to prove the fact that he had no such culpable state with respect to the act charged as an offence in that prosecution. As per explanation to Section 30, “culpable mental state” includes intention, motive, knowledge of a fact and the belief in, or reason to believe, a fact. The standard of proof under this section is very high. It would not suffice for the accused to prove by virtue of preponderance of probability that he did not possess the mental state, but he has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that no mental state existed.
15. It was held by Hon’ble Delhi District Court in the case of “Veerapal @
Titu Vs. State” reported in 2024 DHC 2976 that
To draw the presumption under Section 30, the prosecution must first establish the fundamental facts showing specially the commission of offence. The burden will be shifted upon on the accused to prove that he had no culpable mental state to commit the offence, only when the fundamental facts are established by the prosecution. Even to invoke Section 30 of the Act, the prosecution has to establish the fundamental facts, connecting the accused with the commission of alleged offence.
16.To prove the foundational facts of committing aggravated penetrative sexual assault on victim by CCL and to draw the presumption u/s 29 of the
Act, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 6, P.Ws. 11 and PW12 to 15.
PW.1 is the victim and defacto complainant. P.W. 2 is the mother of victim.
PW3 is a nurse, who diagnosed that PW1 is pregnant, after checkup of
PW1. PW4 and 5 are friends of CCL, who alleged to have knowledge of
Juvenile Justice Board, Ongole. JCC.No.2 of 2021, Page 8 love affair of CCL and victim. PW6 is the owner of Noodles shop, where the victim worked for some time and CCL used to meet her in the said said shop while studying Intermediate in Cumbum. PW.11 is the medical officer who examined the victim and issued certificate that victim is pregnant of 32 weeks (8th month) as on 27-4-2020. PW.12 is the Joint Director of APFSL,
Mangalagiri, who conducted DNA test to the blood samples of CCL,victim and baby girl of victim girl and issued report that CCL is biological father and victim is biological mother of baby girl born to victim girl. P.Ws. 13 to 15 are investigating officers.
17.PW.1 has testified in her evidence before the board that she is having acquaintance with the CCL since she is studying 8th standard being her classmate in Government School, Salakalaveedu. After completion of 8th
Class, they both joined in a school at Bestavaripeta and used to go to the school in a bus together. During that time, the CCL proposed his love towards her. After a few days, while she was present in her house, CCL came to her and forced her to marry, for which she refused. She further stated that on 08-09-2019 while she was present alone in her house, CCL came to her and stated that he will marry her and committed sexual assault against her forcibly. Since then, while she was present in her house alone, the CCL again and again committed sexual assault against her. Thereafter, she used to talk with the CCL over a phone. She further stated that in the year 2020, while she was attending drought works, the nurse of their village observed her in the clinic and stated to her that she was pregnant. Then she informed the same to her mother. Thereafter, she along with her parents went to CCL and asked about the marriage and pregnancy, for which CCL stated that he is no way concerned to her pregnancy. Thereafter, they went to the police station and she gave Ex.P1/ report. Police referred her to
Markapur Hospital, where Doctors examined her. She also gave statement
before the Giddalur Court u/sec.164 Cr.P.C, marked as Ex.P2.
Juvenile Justice Board, Ongole. JCC.No.2 of 2021, Page 9
18.PW.2, the mother of victim, stated that PW.1 studied 10th Class and later stopped her studies due to their financial conditions. At about 4 years ago, PW.1 joined in a noodles shop and the said shop was closed during covid-19 lock down. After the lock down was lifted, PW.1 used to attend coolie works. On one occasion, PW3 observed the stomach of PW.1 was abnormal, and after checking informed them that PW.1 was 7th month pregnant. Thereafter, she enquired PW.1 about the person who is responsible, for which she did not reveal the name. On that, she beat PW.1.
Then PW.1 informed that the CCL is having acquaintance with PW.1 in 9th
Class; that both used to attend the school in the bus; that used to come to the house in their absence and committed sexual assault against her on several times by luring her that he will marry PW.1. PW2 further deposed that they have taken PW.1 to the CCL and enquired about the pregnancy, for which the CCL stated that he is no way responsible for the same and do whatever they can do. Thereafter, they went to police station and gave report. The police referred PW.1 to the Hospital at Markapur, from there to
GGH, Ongole. Later, PW.1 got delivered a baby girl. The baby girl was referred to DNA test along with PW.1 to APFSL, Mangalagiri, where CCL and his mother also present.
19.PW3, K. Pushpavathi stated that she is working as a nurse in Smile
Dental Clinic at Cumbum. About 4 years ago PW1 and her mother PW2 came to her house for check-up. On diagnosing PW1, she concluded that
PW1 was pregnant of 8th month. She informed the same to PW2. She further stated that she does not know who is responsible for pregnancy of
PW1. She was declared as hostile by learned Senior APP with the permission of this court stating that she is resiling for her previous statement that she stated before the police in her relevant part of 161 CrPC
Juvenile Justice Board, Ongole. JCC.No.2 of 2021, Page 10 statement, marked as Ex.P3 that on enquiry with PW1 and PW2, she came to know that CCL is responsible for pregnancy of PW1.
20.PW4 and PW5, who are alleged to be friends of CCL stated that they do not know anything about the facts of this case and police never examined them and never recorded their statements. They were also declared as hostile and cross-examined by learned Senior APP stating that they are also resiling from their previous statements, but nothing useful could be elicited from their evidence except marking their 161 CPC statements as Ex.P4 and P5 respectively.
21.PW6, the owner of Noodles shop in Cumbum, where PW1 worked for some time, deposed that in the year 2020 PW1 joined in his shop and worked from 9-00 am to 5-00 pm; that due to lock down he closed his shop temporarily and subsequently he does not know what happened to PW1.
PW6 further stated that he does not know anything abut the facts of this case and police neither examined him nor recorded his statement. PW6 was also cross-examined by learned senior APP with the permission of this court after declaring him as hostile stating that he is also resiling from his previous statement, but except marking his relevant part of statement u/s 161 CrPC as Ex.P6, nothing useful could be elicited from his evidence.
22.PW.11, who is a Gynecologist deposed that while working in RIMS
Ongole, on 27-04-2020 upon receiving requisition from Station House Officer of BestavaraPeta police station, she examined PW.1 and found no injuries.
PW11 further stated that based on the clinical findings, she issued wound certificate, marked as Ex.P12, with the opinion that PW.1 was pregnant of about 32 weeks (8th month).
Juvenile Justice Board, Ongole. JCC.No.2 of 2021, Page 11
23.PW.12, who is the Joint Director, APFSL, Mangalagiri, deposed that on 29-07-2020 upon receiving requisition from Sub-Divisional Police Officer,
Markapur, for DNA finger printing examination in Crime No.80/2020 of
Bestavaripeta P.S, they had collected the blood samples from three persons i.e., PW.1, female child of PW.1 and CCL (Item Nos.1 to 3). After conducting DNA test, she gave report along with Electropherogram (5 pages) on 12-10-2020, marked as Ex.P13, with the opinion that CCL is the biological father of female child and PW.1 is the biological mother of baby girl of PW1.
24.PW.13, the Head Constable, deposed that on 27-04-2020 PW.1 came to the police station and presented a written report. Based on the said report, he registered a case in Crime No.80/2020 for the offences u/sec.376, 420, 506 IPC and section 6 of POCSO Act against CCL, issued FIR, marked as Ex.P14, and submitted original FIR to the board and copies to all the officers concerned.
25.PW.14, the Sub-Inspector of Police, deposed that on the instructions of LW.20/G.Nageswara Reddy, SDPO, on 27-04-2020 she had recorded the statement of PW.1 at B.V.Peta P.S.
26.PW.15, the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Markapur, stated that based on the express FIR lodged by the B.V.Pet Police Station, he took up investigation on 27-04-2020 and proceeded to the B.V.Peta along with
PW.14 and instructed PW14 to record the statement of PW.1. Later he examined PW.2 and LW.3/T.Sampath and recorded their statements and sent the victim girl to Area Hospital for medical examination and later shifted her to Ongole. He further stated that on 27-04-2020, he addressed a letter to Superintendent of Police, Prakasam, for furnishing the call records of
PW.1 bearing phone number 9392084855 and the phone number of CCL of
Juvenile Justice Board, Ongole. JCC.No.2 of 2021, Page 12 6309841551. On 29-04-2020 he observed the scene located at S.C Colony,
Salakalaveedu Village in the presence of PW.9 and PW.10, prepared scene observation report and rough sketch/ Ex.P15, examined PW.3 to PW.6,
LW.8/Tirupathaiah and LW.9/Venkatamma and recorded their statements.
He further stated that on 29-04-2020 he received the date of birth certificate of PW.1 and CCL, wound certificate of PW.1 and also call data records of the CCL and PW.1. Later during the course of investigation, on 15-06-2020 he produced the CCL before this board and later got it conducted potency test of CCL and received the potency certificate of CCL Ex.L16 from
LW.14/Srinu Naik that there is nothing to suggest that the CCL is not capable of performing any sexual act. He further stated that he also got it conducted DNA test to PW.1, child of PW.1 and CCL at FSL, Mangalagiri and received report that PW.1 and CCL are the biological parents of female child born to PW.1. He also got it recorded the 164 Cr.P.C statement of
PW.1, Later, he filed final report before this board.
27.Learned APP argued that from the above evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 coupled with the evidence of PWs.11 and 12, the medical officers and P.Ws.
13 to 15, the investigating officers, the prosecution could prove that CCL committed sexual assault against the victim, due to which, the victim became pregnant and delivered a baby girl and Ex.P13 DNA report further proves that CCL and PW1 are biological parents of said baby girl. Through the evidence of PWs. 7 and 8, the then Head Masters of the Z.P High
School at Bestavaripet and by marking Exs.P8 and P9, the date of birth certificates of CCL and victim girl, the prosecution also proved their age that they are minors by the date of alleged offence. Learned Senior APP further argued that since the burden on the prosecution is prima facie as per
Section 29 of POCSO Act, in this case also, through the evidence of P.Ws.
1 and 2, P.Ws. 7, 8 and P.Ws. 11 to 15, the prosecution prima facie proved the allegations against the accused.
Juvenile Justice Board, Ongole. JCC.No.2 of 2021, Page 13
28. Per contra, the learned counsel for the CCL argued that except the evidence of victim PW1 and her mother PW2, none other prosecution witnesses have corroborated their evidence and the evidence of PW2 is also hearsay with regard to the alleged offence of committing rape against the victim. The learned counsel further argued that the investigating officer
PW14 did not obtain permission from the court to conduct DNA finger printing examination, which was also admitted by PW14, the investigating officer as such, the said report and the evidence of PW12, the DNA
Fingerprinting Expert, who conducted the said test cannot be taken into consideration. The learned counsel further argued that there are many contradictions in the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 also with regard to revealing the pregnancy of PW1. The evidence of victim is also contradicting with her
Ex.P1 report, which are material in nature. P.Ws. 4 and 5, who are friends of CCL and alleged to have the knowledge of love affair of CCL and victim and PW6, the Noodles show owner, where the victim girl worked for some period and where CCL used to met with victim also did not support the prosecution case. In view of the rivallary with the family of one Pitchaih of their village, this case is foisted against the CCL and that CCL is innocent and he is falsely implicated in this case.
29.Apart from the oral testimony of P.Ws. 1 and 2, the prosecution is mainly relying on the evidence of victim PW1 and Ex.P13 DNA report to prove their case against the CCL. In view of objection raised by the CCL that without permission of this Board, the investigating officer himself conducted the said DNA test and it is against the constitutional right of
CCL under Article 21, it is apt to refer Section 53-A of CrPC, which reads as follows:
Juvenile Justice Board, Ongole. JCC.No.2 of 2021, Page 14
30.53-A Examination of person accused of of rape by medical practitioner:-
When a person is arrested on a charge of committing an offence of rape or an attempt to commit rape and there are reasonable grounds for believing that an examination of his person will afford evidence as to the commission of such offence, it shall be lawful for a registered medical practitioner employed in a hospital run by the Government or by a local authority and in the absence of such a practitioner within the radius of sixteen kilometers from the place where the offence has been committed by any other registered medical practitioner, acting at the request of a police officer not below the rank of a Sub-Inspector, and for any person acting in good faith in his aid and under his direction, to make such an examination of the arrested person and to use such force as is reasonably necessary for that purpose.
31.The Hon'ble Supreme Court also consistently held in the cases of
Vijayan v. State of Kerala ( 2008 (3) KLJ 324), Kaini Rajan v. State of
Kerala(2013 9 SCC 113) and Krishan Kumar Malik v. State of
Haryana(AIR 2011 SC 2877) that non conducting of the DNA test to establish the paternity of the child born as a consequence to an allegation of rape along with other grounds was a material defect affecting the prosecution for an offence of rape. The Hon'bel Apex court also referred to the scope of section 53A of Cr.P.C. In the above decisions, the Hon'ble
Supreme court had considered the allegation under section 376 IPC as against the accused, after evaluating the quality of evidence let in by the prosecution. The court ultimately held that, the burden is on the prosecution to establish the paternity of the child born to a victim of rape, wherein there was a specific allegation that the child was born consequent to the rape and has imposed burden on the prosecution to prove it, by cogent evidence and also by conducting DNA test rather than shifting the burden to the accused.
Juvenile Justice Board, Ongole. JCC.No.2 of 2021, Page 15
32.The offence in this case took place in 2019 i.e. prior to introduction of
BNSS. As per Section 53-A CrPC, it is the mandatory duty of investigating officer to conduct medical examination to the accused in rape cases, which is also to be done by an expert. Further as seen from Ex.P13 report and the evidence of PW12, no where it is mentioned that accused resisted for such examination. Except giving suggestion that without following the protocol, the DNA test was conducted by PW12, it is not suggested either to
PW12 or to PW15, the investigating officer that whether there is any resistance from CCL to give samples of blood stating that there are no orders from the court etc. No suggestion was also given to PW15, the investigating officer that since DNA test was conducted without permission of the court, it is in violation of rights of CCL. Therefore, this court do not find any force in the said contention of the CCL that without permission of this Board, DNA test was conducted in this case with the blood samples of
CCL.
33.The learned counsel for CCL further argued that without following the protocol DNA test was conducted in this case, as such, Ex.P13 report cannot be taken into consideration, as it is inconclusive and further contended that without conducting PCR (Polymerase chain reaction) Test, the Autosomal STR (Short Tandum Repeat) Analysis cannot be conducted ad PCR Test report was also not attached to Ex.P13 report, which was also admitted by PW12 in his evidence. Perusal of evidence of PW12 shows that he has categorically stated in his evidence that Electropherogrm cannot be obtained without conducting PCR Test and generally they will not send
PCR Test report along with Electropherogrm. He further stated that PCR test report was present in their work sheet (in 5 pages) attached to Ex.P13 report. Therefore in view of the categorical evidence of PW12 that
Electropherogrm cannot be obtained without conducting PCR Test and that
PCR test report was present in their work sheet (in 5 pages) attached to
Juvenile Justice Board, Ongole. JCC.No.2 of 2021, Page 16
Ex.P13 report, this court do not find any force in the said contention of
CCL. CCL also did not choose to take any steps to rebut the evidence of
PW13 that PCR test was not conducted and the said report was not present in their work sheet attached to Ex.P13 report or that there is any contamination and degradation of samples, as such, Ex.P13 is not a valid document etc., as contended by him. Therefore, in the absence of any rebuttable evidence to Ex.P13 and the evidence of PW12, this court is coming to the conclusive that by following the proper protocol, DNA test was conducted by PW12 and issued Ex.P13 report, which clearly shows that
CCL is biological father of baby of victim.
34.The learned counsel for accused further argued that DNA report is also a report given by expert, who is not direct eye-witness to the incident, as such, it cannot be taken as a sole basis to conduct the CCL and the evidence of expert and his report are to be corroborated by the evidence of victim and other material on record, but in this case, P.Ws. 1 and 2 improved their version from their previous statements and there is a delay of nearly 8 to 9 months in giving report by victim. Therefore, in view of said delay in giving report by victim, the said contradiction in the evidence of Pws.
1 and 2 from their previous statements are fatal to prosecution case, for false implication of accused in this case, due to disputes between the family of CCL, PW1 and one Pitchaiah.
35.In view of the above contention of learned counsel for CCL, it is apt to refer the evidence of PW1. PW1 stated in her evidence that in 2020 while she was attending drought works, the nurse in their village observed her in the clinic and stated that she was pregnant and thereafter she informed the same to her mother and disclosed the entire incident to her mother. She stated the same in her Ex.P2 164 CrPc statement before the Magistrate.
PW2, the mother of victim also stated that after lock down was lifted when
Juvenile Justice Board, Ongole. JCC.No.2 of 2021, Page 17
PW1 used to attend cooly works, on one occasion PW3 observed that the stomach of PW1 was abnormal and after checking PW3 informed that PW1 was 7th month pregnant. However, P.Ws. 1 and 2 are not cross-examined by CCL that they did not give their statements before the investigating officer, as stated above before this court them in their evidence. PW15, the investigating officer was also not cross-examined with regard to the above said discrepancy in the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 as to revealing pregnancy of PW1, from their previous statements.
36.Even though it is suggested to Pw1 by CCL that she did not state
before the investigating officer that CCL came to her house, made proposal
for marriage and on 8-9-2019 when she was alone present in the house
CCL committed forcible sexual assault against him and thereafter also, whenever she was alone in the house, CCL committed sexual assault against her, the said suggestions were denied by PW1. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that the investigating officer PW15 was not cross- examined by CCL with regard to the said contradiction in the evidence of
PW1 from her previous statement. Therefore, this court do not find force in the contention of learned counsel for CCL that the above said contradictions in the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 from their previous statement are material for false implication of CCL in this case.
37.According to the evidence of PW1 and 2, PW3, who is a nurse in their village observed the stomach of PW1 is abnormal and after conducting medical check up she revealed the pregnancy of victim. PW3 stated that when PWs.1 and 2 came to her for medical check-up, she examined PW1 and confirmed that PW1 is pregnant. In Ex.P1 report also it is mentioned that PW1 herself went to a nurse for check-up and came to know that she became pregnant. Thus the evidence of PW3 is corroborating with the averments of Ex.P1 report that the victim herself came to her for check-up.
Juvenile Justice Board, Ongole. JCC.No.2 of 2021, Page 18
38.In this case Ex.P1 report was given on 27-4-2020. At that time, there is complete lock down in the entire country in view of pandemic COVID 19, which is known to one and all. In such a situation, while Pw1 was attending cooly works at the time of giving report, identifying her stomach by PW3, a nurse, examining PW1 and declaring that PW1 is a pregnant appears to be improbable. However, since PW1 mentioned in Ex.P1 report itself that PW1 is attending cooly works, it is the duty of the investigating officer, whether any such works are going on during Covid 19 pandemic in April, 2020 and whether PW1 is attending such works. But PW15, the investigating did not conduct any investigation in that regard and place any material before this court. Again it is pertinent to note that simply there are latches on the part of investigating officer to investigating on those lines and that the evidence of
P.Ws. 1 and 2 appears to be improbable with regard to attending cooly work by PW1 at the time of incident during COVID-19, the entire evidence of
PQW1 is to be discarded in toto is a point for consideration.
39.According to PW1, first time CCL committed sexual assault against her on 8-9-2019, which was also stated by her in Ex.P2 164 CrPC statement, but the report was given on 27-4-2020. Admittedly there is delay of nearly 7 months and odd in giving Ex.P1 compliant by PW1.
Therefore, in view of said delay, PW1 might have mentioned in Ex.P1 report while she is attending cooly works, she went to a nurse for examination and came to know that she is pregnant and later she gave a report when CCL refused to marry her.
40.Coming to the said delay of 7 months in giving Ex.P1 report by PW1, no reason was assigned by PW1 or PW15, the investigating officer either in Ex.P1 report or in Ex.P14 FIR or in their evidence, It was held by Hon'ble
Juvenile Justice Board, Ongole. JCC.No.2 of 2021, Page 19
Apex Court in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Prem Singh AIR 2009 SC 1010, that "So far as the delay in lodging the FIR is concerned, the delay in a case of sexual assault, cannot be equated with the case involving other offences. There are several factors which weigh in the mind of the prosecutrix and her family members before coming to the police station to lodge a complaint. In a tradition bound society prevalent in India, more particularly, rural areas, it would be quite unsafe to throw out the prosecution case merely on the ground that there is some delay in lodging the FIR.
41.In this case also, the offence alleged against the CCL is sexual assault. Further in this case, the evidence of the victim clearly shows that on the pretext of marriage CCL induced the victim and committed sexual assault on her. In such scenario, the victim is under the impression that
CCL may marry her, as such, there is every chance that in view of belief on CCL, lured with his promise that he may marry her, the victim did not give any report immediately after the incident. Furthermore, it is also the case of the prosecution that CCL committed sexual assault against the victim many times on the pretext of marriage, but not on one occasion. Therefore, since
CCL is continuously coming to her house, the victim may not suspect the
CCL to know that he will cheat her and refuse to marry her. In that perspective also this court is of the opinion that the improvements, if any in the evidence of PW1 and PW2 before this court from their previous version are made are not meant to falsely implicate the CCL in this case with the said delay, as argued by the learned counsel for CCL.
42.It is well settled legal principle that in rape cases the factum can solely be based on the evidence of the victim, provided such evidence inspires confidence in the mind of the Court. In this case also, Pw1 categorically stated that herself and CCL studied in same school in
Besthavaripeta and they used to go to school in a bus together and at that
Juvenile Justice Board, Ongole. JCC.No.2 of 2021, Page 20 time when CCL proposed his love, PW1 accepted for the same and in that juncture, CCL used to visit her house in the absence of her parents and on the pretext of marrying her induced her and had sexual intercourse with her first time on 8-9-2019 and several times thereafter and at that time, she also purchased a phone and used to talk with CCL.
43. In the entire episode of incidents, there is no chance for any third person to have the knowledge of love affair of PW1 and CCL, except to their friends. According to prosecution P.Ws. 4 and 5, who are friends of CCL, are having knowledge of love affair of P.W1 and CCL. The prosecution also relied on the evidence of PW6, the noodles shop owner at Cumbum, where,
PW1 worked and CCL used to met with the victim while studying
Intermediate at Cumbum. However, P.Ws. 4 to 6 turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. But P.Ws. 4 and 5 admitted their friendship with CCL and PW6 also admitted that he is Noodles shop owner in Cumbum and victim Pw1 worked in his shop for some time for cleaning utensils. It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh v. State of
Haryana ( (2017) 1 SCC 529) that there are many reasons as to why they turn hostile. It may be due to monetary consideration, political pressure, fear to depose against accused, especially when accused is a habitual offender or holding a high position in government services, threat to life, or family pressure or other sociological factors. In the present time, ethical values among people have plunged to such an extent that even in ordinary cases witness turns hostile. In this case, PW4 and 5 admitted that they are friends of CCL. Therefore with the influence of CCL, being their friend, they did not support the prosecution case. In such scenario, simply for the reason that there is no corroborative circumstantial evidence before the court, the evidence of victim, PW1 cannot be brushed aside.
Juvenile Justice Board, Ongole. JCC.No.2 of 2021, Page 21
44.The investigating officer PW15 stated in his evidence that he collected call data of mobile numbers of Pw1 and CCL in this case, but he did not produce did not file any such call data or call recordings along with mobile numbers of CCL and victim and other documents to prove that the said phone numbers are registered in the name of CCL and victim.
Therefore, it is a clear latch on the part of investigating officer. It is settled legal principle that for the deficiency in investigation, the entire evidence of victim and other witnesses cannot be thrown away. In this regard it is pertinent to note that any irregularity or deficiency in investigation by
Investigating Officer need not necessarily lead to rejection of the case of prosecution when it is otherwise proved. The only requirement is use of extra caution in evaluation of evidence. A defective investigation cannot be fatal to prosecution where ocular testimony is found credible and cogent.
(Khem Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2018) 1 SCC 202)
45.It is elicited from the evidence of PW1 and PW2 by CCL that there is no compound wall to their house; that there are 2 rooms to their house; that if anybody came to their house, it will be visible to their neighours; that they are in talking terms with their neighbours; that Pw1 did not disclose the incident to her neighbours immediately after the incident and also even after 10 days.
46.The learned counsel for the CCL argued that if any such incident of sexual assault is committed against the victim by CCL, definitely the neighbours will notice the same,but in this case, there is no evidence from the neighbours in that regard, as such, it can be said that it is a false case foisted against the CCL. Admittedly in this case, the neighbours of Pw1 and Pw2 are not examined by PW15, and he also admitted the same in his evidence stating that since nieghbours also used to attend cooly works, he
Juvenile Justice Board, Ongole. JCC.No.2 of 2021, Page 22 did not examine them. Therefore, this court do not find any force in the contention of CCL that as CCL never came to their house, PW1 did not inform the incident to her neighbours immediately after the incident or even 10 days thereafter.
47.Even if it is presumed for a moment that the neighbours are present and witnessed the same, it is a clear latch on the part of investigating officer for not examining them. Moreover, even if they are examined and gave evidence corroborating the prosecution case, their evidence is only to the effect that they witnessed CCL coming to the house of PW1 and they are not direct witnesses to the alleged sexual assault on the victim by CCL.
Their evidence will be circumstantial evidence only to the extent of CCL visiting the house of PW1.
48. It is also elicited from the evidence of PW2 that she along with her husband is attending cooly works in another village, and for every one week or 15 days she used to come home, providing basic necessities and required amount to her children. Therefore, the evidence of PW2 gives corroboration to the evidence of Pw1 that in the absence of her parents,
CCL used to visit their house and committed sexual assault on her on the pretext of marrying her.
49.The fact of sexual intercourse is the main ingredient of the offence of rape u/s 375 IPC and the offence u/s 6 of POCSO Act, i.e. the sexual assault against victim, since the victim is shown to be a minor in this case.
As per Section 375 IPC rape against a minor with or without consent is an offence.
50.To prove that victim is a minor girl, the prosecution has examined
PW7 and got marked Ex.P7 Study Certificate and Ex.P8 Date of birth
Juvenile Justice Board, Ongole. JCC.No.2 of 2021, Page 23 certificate of victim PW1. PW7, who is in-charge Head Mater of ZP Girls
High School, of Bestavaripeta stated that on 30-4-2020 when PW1 came to the school and requested for her study certificate, after verifying the records, he issued Study certificate of PW1 marked as Ex.P7 and Birth
Certificate of PW1, marked as Ex.P8. He further stated that as per the records, PW1 was born on 4-6-2003. It is elicited from the evidence of
PW7 that it is not mentioned in Ex.P8 the reason for issuing the said certificate and it does not contain the date and stamp. However, it is not specifically suggested to PW7 that he is not working in that school by the date of issuing Ex.P7 and Ex.P8 and that PW1 did not study in their school.
PW1 was also not given any suggestion that she did not study IX and X
Classes (Verify Ex.P7) in ZP Girls High School, Bestavaripeta during the academic years 2016-17 to 2017-18.
51.The evidence of PW7 clearly shows that PW1 herself came to the school and asked for Study Certificate. In such scenario, it is not expected by any person that the victim herself will disclose to the Head Master of the
School that she was committed rape and gave a complaint against the CCL and in that connection her date of birth certificate is required to prove her age. Therefore, once again it is a latch on the part of the investigating officer and it is the duty of the investigating officer to obtain the age proof of victim by giving necessary requisition to the concerned school Head Master and as discussed above, simply for the latch on the part of investigating officer,
Ex.P7 and P8 and the evidence of PW7 cannot be brushed aside. It is also known fact to one and all that the date of births of students are obtained and entered in school records at the time of taking admissions of students.
Therefore, in view of the above discussion this court do not find any force in the contention of CCL that Ex.P7 and P8 are not believable and coming to the conclusion that the victim is a minor girl aged about 16 years by the
Juvenile Justice Board, Ongole. JCC.No.2 of 2021, Page 24 date of offence on 8-9-2019, as such, the consent of victim is immaterial to constitute an offence u/s 375 IPC.
52. In order to prove or disprove that there is sexual assault against the victim as required u/s 375 IPC, several other facts are required to be made legally relevant. A fact may be made legally relevant under Chapter II of the
Indian Evidence Act. Once it is made legally relevant, its logical relation to the offence is irrelevant. Several factors which have little probative value may be made relevant under the rules of evidence in India.
53.In this case also, due to the sexual assault committed by CCL against the victim, she became pregnant. The said fact was proved by prosecution by producing Ex.P12 wound certificated issued by PW12, the
Gynecologist in Government Medical College at RIMs, Ongole, who categorically stated that upon receiving requisition from the investigating officer in this case, she examined PW1 on 27-4-2020 at 11-35 pm and issued Ex.P12 wound certificate that she is pregnant of about 32 weeks.
PW11 was not cross-examined by CCL. Therefore, the said fact that PW1 was pregnant as on the date of giving report is not in dispute. In such scenario, the pregnancy of victim, which is not in dispute, which is relevant u/s 7 of Indian Evidence Act, as an effect of an act.
54.Admittedly in this case being pregnant, the victim delivered a baby girl, to whom, DNA test was got it conducted by the investigating officer and obtained Ex.P13 DNA report, which clearly shows that CCL and victim are biological parents of baby girl of PW1 and PW1 is contending that CCL is responsible for her pregnancy. As discussed above, Ex.P13 DNA report and the evidence of PW12, who issued the said report remained unrebutted.
Juvenile Justice Board, Ongole. JCC.No.2 of 2021, Page 25
55.According to victim, girl, the CCL is responsible for her pregnancy and
CCL is father of her baby girl delivered by her. The testimony of PW1 was not impeached by CCL during her cross-examination that CCL did not commit any sexual assault against her, except that when she was examined by the nurse and whether she mentioned the same in her report as discussed above. Admittedly in this case, except victim, there is no other eye-witness or circumstantial witness to the alleged sexual assault made against her by the CCL. No suggestion was given to PW1 that CCL and
PW1 did not study in same school and they did go to the school every day in a bus.
56. Even though it is suggested to P.ws. 1 and 2 that in view of disputes with one Pitchaiah, the family of CCL and the family of PW, this false case is foisted against the CCL, no foundation was made by CCL in corroboration of his said defence. In this regard this court is relying upon the observations of their Lordships. reported in 2 009 (1) ALD (Crl.)
45 (SC) in between Bursingh and Another Vs. State of
Pubjab wherein their Lordships observed that:
“The foundation has to be laid in respect of
false implication.”
57.In case of sexual assault and rape, the victim’s testimony is crucial and is often the most vital piece of evidence, for proving the case of the prosecution. A conviction can be made even based on solitary testimony of the victim girl without requiring corroboration from other witnesses, if her/his testimony is reliable, trustworthy and inspires confidence of the Court without any flaws. In the case of Nirmal Preml kumar Vs. State represented by
Inspector of Police, 2024 All SCR (Cri) 714, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that to contend that corroboration is necessary where the prosecutrix is not
Juvenile Justice Board, Ongole. JCC.No.2 of 2021, Page 26 a "sterling witness." The principle is not in dispute. However, its applicability depends on the factual matrix. In State of Uttar Prad esh Vs. Krishna
Master and Others(2010) 12 SCC 324, the Hon'ble Supreme Court cautioned courts against adopting a hyper-technical approach while appreciating evidence in serious offences like rape. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are produced herein below -
15. ...... Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hypertechnical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here or there from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed by the investigating officer not going to the root of the matter would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole.
16. ....... it would not be proper for the appellate court to reject the evidence on the ground of variations or infirmities in the matter of trivial details. Minor omissions in the police statements are never considered to be fatal. The statements given by the witnesses before the police are meant to be brief statements and could not take place of evidence in the court. Small/Trivial omissions would not justify a finding by court that the witnesses concerned are liars. The prosecution evidence may suffer from inconsistencies here and discrepancies there, but that is a shortcoming from which no criminal case is free. The main thing to be seen is whether those inconsistencies go to the root of the matter or pertain to insignificant aspects thereof. ........
17. In the deposition of witnesses, there are always normal discrepancies, howsoever honest and truthful they may be. These discrepancies are due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition, shock and horror at the time of occurrence and threat to the life. .........
58.In this case also, the above discussion clinchingly shows that the evidence of victim PW1 and her mother PW2 is flawless and nothing could be elicited from their evidence to impeach their testimony by CCL with regard to the sexual assault on the victim and their evidence remained trustworthy. Further, the evidence of P.W3, who is a nurse and examined
Juvenile Justice Board, Ongole. JCC.No.2 of 2021, Page 27
PW1, who is a circumstantial witness also corroborates the prosecution case to prove that victim is pregnant by the date of giving Ex.P1 report. The prosecution also established the paternity of child alleged to have born to
PW1 as a consequence of rape by the CCL by conducting DNA test and the DNA report also clearly shows that CCL and victim are biological parents of said child.
59.Coming to the offence u/s 420 IPC alleging that accused induced the victim and had sexual intercourse with her with a promise to marry the victim, admittedly in this case, the victim was committed sexual assault by the CCL several times, as per the evidence of PW1. However, it cannot be termed as consensual sex, since the victim is a minor by the time of alleged offence and as per the definition of Section 375 IPC, consent of a minor girl in the offences of rape is immaterial. Further, it is also not the case of CCL that he committed rape only one time or that he did not make any promise to marry the CCL. In fact, the case of CCL is one of total denial of the allegations made against him, but the same was disproved by Ex.P13 DNA report that he is the biological father of child of victim. The evidence of PW1 clearly shows that when CCL refused to marry her, this case came into existence upon the report given by her. This itself shows that the CCL is having guilty mind with the sole intention to seduce the prosecutrix to indulge in sexual acts and not to marry the victim, at the time of committing sexual assault itself against the victim and the evidence of PW1 and PW2 clearly shows that CCL made a false promise and failed to fulfill his promise made before committing sexual assault against the victim and committed breach of promise and thereby he is liable for punishment for the offence u/s 420 IPC.
Juvenile Justice Board, Ongole. JCC.No.2 of 2021, Page 28
60.Coming to the offence u/s 506 IPC, either PW1 or PW2 or any other prosecution has stated that CCL threatened PW1 with dire consequences. P.Ws. 1 and 2 have only stated that CCL refused to marry
PW1. Therefore, it can be concluded that prosecution failed to establish the guilt of CCL for the offence u/s 506 IPC. Therefore, this Board is coming to the conclusion that prosecution could establish the guilt of accused for the offences u/s 376, 420 IPC and u/sec. 6 of POCSO Act, but failed to establish the guilt of CCL for the offence u/s 506 IPC. The point
Nos. 1, 2, and 4 are answered in favour of prosecution.
61. I deem it pertinent to mention here that as laid down by “division
bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nipun Saxena and another in
writ petition no.565 of 2012”, while disposing of a matter concerning the sexual assault against the victim covering the offences under POCSO Act, a duty is cast upon the Judge presiding over who conducted trial of the said case to pass any appropriate orders granting compensation to the victim in appropriate cases. As contemplated under Sec.33(8) of POCSO Act, only the Special Judge who tried the case covered under the POCSO Act is competent to pass any such orders granting compensation for the physical or mental trauma and agony caused to her or for the immediate rehabilitation of such child. As per Rule 7 of POCSO Rules, 2012, the Special Court may, on its own or on an application filed by or on behalf of the Victim invoking the same, grant compensation for the mental trauma and agony undergone by her with a view to provide her medical expenses in fit cases and for her rehabilitation and reintegration where the accused is convicted or where the case ends in acquittal or discharge or the accused is not traced or identified and in the opinion of the Special Court the child has suffered loss or injury as a result of that offence.
Juvenile Justice Board, Ongole. JCC.No.2 of 2021, Page 29
Further as per S.9 of Victim compensation Scheme when the
Victim is a minor, the limit of compensation to be granted shall be deemed to be 50% higher than the amount mentioned in the schedule appended to the
Victim Compensation Scheme. The said compensation granted under the
POCSO Act and Rules are independent of the compensation amount to be paid by the District Child Protection Officer as per GO.MS.No.28 Department for Women, Children, Disabled and Senior Citizens, dated 13.06.2011) or any other schemes of the Government.
62.Keeping in view the duty cast upon this Board, in light of the discussion made above, appreciating the evidence of PW.1 (Victim), she categorically revealed the offence of sexual assault against her, undoubtedly it will leave behind a bitterness in her memory which cannot be compensated in terms of money but however with a view to rehabilitate and reintegrate her in light of the provisions of S.33(8) of POCSO Act, keeping in view her social background, age, nature of offence and other attending circumstances, this Board is of considerable opinion that the victim is definitely entitled for the suitable compensation under the victim compensation scheme.
63.As per Victim compensation Scheme when offence of rape is alleged to be committed the quantum of minimum compensation that can be granted is Rs.4 Lakhs and the maximum quantum is Rs.7 Lakhs. Further, where the victim is minor, the quantum of compensation granted shall be enhanced for 50% in addition to the present scale. Though there are no grave injuries noticed on victim, it cannot be ignored that the mental trauma and agony of the victim to be taken into consideration including the object to rehabilitate and reintegrate her in the society. Thus culminating all, this Board is of considerable opinion that granting compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees
Juvenile Justice Board, Ongole. JCC.No.2 of 2021, Page 30
Five Lakhs Only) towards rehabilitation and reintegration of the Victim would meet the ends of justice.
64.In the result, the CCL is found not in conflict with law for the
offence under section 506 of IPC and is found not guilty under S.17(1)
JJ Act. Further, the CCL is found in conflict with law for the offences
U/Sec.376, 420 IPC and under section 6 of POCSO Act, and is found
guilty U/Sec.18 of JJ Act. Since no property is produced and marked
before this board, no property orders could be passed.
Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and
pronounced by me in open Board, this the 17th day of April, 2026.
Sd/- S.Komalavalli
Spl.Judl.Magistrate of I Class, Excise Court, Ongole, MemberFAC: Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board Juvenile Justice Board, Ongole. Ongole.
Hearing with regard to quantum of sentence:
On hearing with regard to the quantum of sentence, CCL informed that presently he is aged above 21 years and he is unmarried and studying graduation, that his father died and his mother is suffering from ill-health and he has to look after his mother and pleaded that he committed the offence out of peer group influence and has undertaken that he shall never repeat such offences in future and prayed to take a liberal view. He further submitted that he is a native of Salakalaveedu.
Juvenile Justice Board, Ongole. JCC.No.2 of 2021, Page 31
Since the CCL has committed the heinous offence of committing rape and aggravated penetrative sexual assault against a minor girl, releasing the CCL after due admonition or releasing the
CCL on a bond to keep peace and good behavior and kept him under the surveillance of Probation Officer will not meet the ends of justice.
At the same time, the CCL is aged above 21 years at present.
Therefore, this board is of the opinion that it will not be safe to the other juveniles in conflict with law, if the CCL is placed in safety home. On the other hand, if the CCL is ordered to do community service there will be a chance for reformation in the CCL and the community service is also described as one of the punishments u/sec.18 of JJ Act. Therefore, this board is proceeding to award community service to the CCL instead of sending him to the safety home.
In imposing community service, this board must consider that the CCL will receive no remuneration, as the service is intended as a kind of punishment in terms of section 18 of JJ Act. As such, engaging the CCL in full-day community service could deprive his family of essential income, as he is not having father and mother, who is an ill-health person is depending on him. Therefore, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, this board deems it appropriate to impose Community
Service in a feasible and workable manner. Instead of mandating continuous community service, the CCL is directed to perform community service once in a week in Area Hospital at Markapur, which is at a distance of 50 km from his native village Salakalaveedu. Through this Community Service, the
CCL will recognize the significance of this alternative instead of sending him to Safety Home. Engaging in community service, rather than putting in a safety home, will give him a real opportunity for personal reformation.
Further, if the juvenile is ordered to do community service at Ongole, it will
Juvenile Justice Board, Ongole. JCC.No.2 of 2021, Page 32 be difficult to CCL for his lodging and boarding, as he is a native of
Salakaveedu of BV Peta Mandal.
Therefore, in the opinion of this board, if the CCL is ordered to perform work in the premises of Area Hospital, Markapur, as directed by the
Superintendent of Hospital from 09:00 AM to 02:00 PM on every Sunday for a period of one year, under the supervision of the Legal Cum Probation
Officer, Ongole, District Probation Officer, Ongole, and Superintendent of
Area Hospital, Markapur, such service will contribute for cleanliness of Area
Hospital premises or to attend the in-patients of the Hospital in addition to a chance of reformation in CCL, while doing such work at his native village.
In the result, the CCL is found in conflict with law for the offences
U/Sec.376, 420 IPC and under section 6 of POCSO Act, and he is found guilty U/Sec.18 of JJ Act. He is sentenced to perform community service under the supervision of the Legal Cum Probation Officer, Ongole, and
Superintendent, Area Hospital, Markapur, i.e., to work in the premises of
Area Hospital, Markapur, as directed by the Superintendent of Hospital from 09:00 AM to 02:00 PM on every Sunday for a period of one year from the date of this order for the offences under Sec.376, 420 IPC and section 6 of
POCSO Act. The Superintendent, Area Hospital, Markapur, is directed to forward quarterly report to the LCPO along with photographs. The LCPO shall in turn forward them to this board. They shall also intimate to this
Board, in case he is not satisfied with regard to the conduct of the C.C.L for further necessary action.
Further a copy of the said order shall be forwarded to the Hon’ble
Secretary, DLSA for disbursal of the compensation amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to the victim under Victim Compensation Scheme and required to report to this
Board on compliance of the said order for record purpose. The compensation
Juvenile Justice Board, Ongole. JCC.No.2 of 2021, Page 33 amount of Rs.5,00,000/- shall be deposited in the savings bank account of the mother of victim and shall be utilised for the purpose of rehabilitation and integration of the victim by her mother.
Under S.24 of JJ Act, the stigma of conviction shall not be attached to the CCL.
Child in conflict with law is informed about his right of appeal, right to free legal aid and right to receive a free copy of final order.
Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and
pronounced by me in open Board, this the 17th day of April, 2026.
Sd/- S.Komalavalli
Spl.Judl.Magistrate of I Class, Excise Court, Ongole, Member FAC: Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board Juvenile Justice Board, Ongole. Ongole.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR
PROSECUTION: DEFENCE: P.W.1 : T.Mahitha -None- P.W.2 : T.Mariyamma P.W.3 : K.Pushpavathi P.W.4 : T.Joseph Kishore P.W.5 : Solman Raju P.W.6 : K.Rajesh P.W.7 : S.Bhamaramba P.W.8 : K.Tirupathi Reddy P.W.9 : K.Jaya Prakash P.W.10: K.Nageswara Rao P.W.11:Dr.Mythili P.W.12: Dr.J.Vanajakshi P.W.13: A.Abdul Salem P.W.14: K.Deepika P.W.15: G.Nageswara Reddy
Juvenile Justice Board, Ongole. JCC.No.2 of 2021, Page 34
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION
Ex.P1 : Report of PW.1 given to the police Ex.P2 : 164 Cr.P.C statement of PW.1 Ex.P3 : 161(3) Cr.P.C statement of PW.3 Ex.P4 : 161(3) Cr.P.C statement of PW.4 Ex.P5 : 161(3) Cr.P.C statement of PW.5 Ex.P6 : 161(3) Cr.P.C statement of PW.6 Ex.P7 : Study certificate of PW.1 Ex.P8 : Date of birth certificate of PW.1 Ex.P9 : Study certificate of CCL Ex.P10: Scene observation report Ex.P11: Signature of PW.10 on scene observation report Ex.P12: Wound certificate of PW.1 Ex.P13: Report along with 5 pages of Electropherogram issued by PW.12 Ex.P14: First Information Report Ex.P15: Rough sketch of the scene of offence Ex.P16: Potency test certificate
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENCE
-NIL-
MOS MARKED FOR
-Nil-
Sd/- S.Komalavalli
Spl.JFCM, Excise Court, Ongole,
FAC:Principal Magistrate, J.J.B., Prakasam.
//True copy//
Spl.JFCM, Excise Court, Ongole, FAC:Prl.JJB, Ongole.
Juvenile Justice Board, Ongole. JCC.No.2 of 2021, Page 35
BEFORE THE JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD, PRAKASAM
CALENDAR in J.C.C.No.02/2021
Complainant:The State: Sub-Divisional Police
Officer, Markapur.
Description of the :XXXXX
Juvenile
Offence:Under section 376, 420, 506 IPC and section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012.
Plea of Juvenile:Not guilty
Finding of the Court:Found guilty
Sentence or Order:In the result, the CCL is found not in conflict with law for the offence under section 506 of IPC and is found not guilty under S.17(1) JJ Act. Further, the CCL is found in conflict with law for the offences U/Sec.376, 420 IPC and under section 6 of POCSO Act, and is found guilty U/Sec.18 of JJ Act. He is sentenced to perform community service under the supervision of the Legal Cum Probation Officer, Ongole, and Superintendent, Area Hospital, Markapur, i.e., to work in the premises of Area Hospital, Markapur, as directed by the Superintendent of Hospital from 09:00 AM to 02:00 PM on every Sunday for a period of one year from the date of this order for the offences under Sec.376, 420 IPC and section 6 of POCSO Act. The Superintendent, Area Hospital, Markapur, is directed to forward quarterly report to the LCPO along with photographs. The LCPO shall in turn forward them to this board. They shall also intimate to this Board, in case he is not satisfied with regard to
Juvenile Justice Board, Ongole. JCC.No.2 of 2021, Page 36 the conduct of the C.C.L for further necessary action. Since no property is produced and marked before this board, no property orders could be passed.
Further a copy of the said order shall be forwarded to the Hon’ble Secretary, DLSA for disbursal of the compensation amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to the victim under Victim Compensation Scheme and required to report to this Board on compliance of the said order for record purpose. The compensation amount of Rs.5,00,000/- shall be deposited in the savings bank account of the mother of victim and shall be utilised for the purpose of rehabilitation and integration of the victim by her mother.
Under S.24ofJJAct,the stigma of conviction shall not be attached to the CCL. Child in conflict with law is informed about his right of appeal, right to free legal aid and right to receive a free copy of final order.
DATE OF
Offence:Prior to 27.04.2020
Complaint:27.04.2020
Apprehension of :15.06.2020 Juvenile/Accused
Released on bail:
Commencement of trial:19.04.2024
Closure of trial:09.01.2026
Final Order:17.04.2026
Juvenile Justice Board, Ongole. JCC.No.2 of 2021, Page 37
Explanation for the delay:
On 29-01-2021 this board has taken cognizance against the CCL for the offences u/sec.376, 420, 506 IPC and section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012.
On 07-10-2021 copies of documents were furnished to the CCL U/sec.207 of
Cr.P.C. On 25-08-2023 the child conflict with law was examined u/sec.251 of Cr.P.C and the substance of accusation for the offences punishable under section 376, 420, 506 IPC and section 6 of POCSO Act, had been read over and explained to him in Telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be enquired. During the course of enquiry i.e., from 19-04-2024 to 12-12- 2025 P.W1 to P.W15 were examined and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P16 were marked. On 23-01-2026 the C.C.L was examined under section 313 of
Cr.P.C and the incriminating material available against the C.C.L is read over and explained to him in Telugu for which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence and posted for arguments. On 06-02-2026 heard arguments on behalf of prosecution. On 06-03-2026 heard arguments on behalf of CCL. On 17-04-2026 Final Order pronounced (VSO). Hence, the delay.
Sd/- S.Komalavalli
Spl.JFCM, Excise Court, Ongole, FAC:Principal Magistrate, J.J.B., Prakasam. Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble 1st Addl. Dist & Sess. Judge, Ongole. Copy to: The Superintendent of Police, Prakasam District. //True copy//
Spl.JFCM, Excise Court, Ongole, FAC:Prl.JJB, Ongole.