The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI E.GANESH, ASST. PUBI-lC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V'VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 617 oF 2013 ORDER: Thepresentcrimir.ralrevisioncaseislrledbythepetitioner/ juvenile boy No 2 aggrieved by the judgment dated O5 03'2013' in criminal appeal No 20 of 201 1 on the file of the learned VIII Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC) Ranga Reddy District at LB Nagar, wherein 21d v"here under the judgment dated 2l.Ol.2O),1, in CC No' 1832 of 2OO7 on the flle of the learned il Magistrate for Juvenile Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-Principal Nagar, convicting the Justice Board, CYberabad at LB petitioner/juvenile troy No'2 and juvenile boy No l for the offences punishable under Section s 3O2 ' 379 read with Section 1O9 IPC and sending them to special Lromc for a period of three years under Section 15(1)(G) oi Juvenile Justice Act' 2OO0 for reformation and rchabilitation was cotif-rrmed'

2. Heard Sn L Harish' learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri E.Ganesh, Iearned assistant public prosecutor for the respondent / State '

3. CC No 1832 of 2OO7 on the file of the trial Cotrt was registered against the petitioner and tv"o others The facts of the CaSearethat',l,hiletraveliingfromDilsukhnagartoLBNagara betlvecn the juvenile boY No'l and quarrel had taken Piace I I i' t i Page 2 of8 deceased in the matter of taking the seat in the at:torickshaw and in that issue the deceased along u,ith his fricr-rds lrt,-rt the juvenile boy No.1 and hcnce, boring grudge against thc dcceased the juvenile boy rvaited for oppor[unity and final[1' r-r n ) I .O8.2007 he purchased a cell phone from the deceascd tor' I.ls 9OO/ and by hatching a plan with juvenile boy Nos.2 anri 3 to kill the deceased, they callcd the deceased on 22.O8.2OO7 i rder the guise of collecting the cost of the ceil phone. ''he deceased accompanied hy PW 13 went to the housc of ju,.,, nile boy No. 1 where hc asked thc dcceased to drop off PW1.i a his house as they had to go to someu.here else for colle<:i ir 3 the n-roney. Believing the said words the deceased follor.r,ed h : juvenile boy Nos.1 and 2 and lhey all went to the outskirts o1' I lrrahimpatnam where juvenile boy Nos. I and 2 murdcrr:d lhe deceascd by throttling him rvith a tie and by taking his ccll :rlrone and gold chain they flcd au,ay from the sccne.

4. Tl're dead body of the deceased Lroy i, ti ; found in the bushes near Ibrahimpatnam bypass road. The bo<h il,as identified and investigation was taken up. During tlre course of investigation, the petitione r (JCL 2) and the otbi: (JCL- 1) were found roaming on motorcycle bearing No.AP 28 A, I 9246 which was taken by the deceased to meet juvenilc lr:y No.l. The motorcycle and the boys were apprehended. //l 1 l'age 3 olE

5. The trial Court, basing on the evidence of PWs l to 14, and. documents Exs.Pi to Pl I and Mos' 1 to 3 found the juvcnile boy Nos.1 and 2 guiltv as stated supra and acquitted the juvcnile boy No.3 holding that the evidence on record unerringly points to inescapable conclusion that the juvenile boy Nos l and 2 have committcd murder ol Lhe deceascd and that there is a complete chair-r of circumstantial evidence to conclude that juvenile boy Nos.1 and 2 only were prcsent and have committed t he offence.

6. The said tinding was questioncd bcfore the Sessions Court. The Scssions Court conllrmed the dircction o[ thc Juvenile Justice Board to send the petitioner and another to Special Home for a period of three Years.

7. Aggricved by thc same, the prcsent criminal revision case is filed by the petitioner/juvenile boy No 2 mainly contending that as per thc postmortem cxamination report thc cause of death of the deceased u'as asphyxia due to strangulation but not due to injuries caused due to throwing a boulder on face or hcad' Since the tie has not been seized, which is alleged to be used to strangulate the deceased, a presumption under Section 11a(g) ol Evidence Act has to be drawn in favour of the petitioner' Both the Courts have crroneously found the petitioner guilty and hence' i l l'agc 4 of 8 t the findings of the appellate Court and aiso thi: l'ial Court are liable to be sel aside. During the course o[ argt-uttents, learned counsel for the petiLioner contended that in crimii, i revision case No.754 of 20 i3, lhis Court sets aside lhe findini;s of the trial Court in sending the juvenile No.1 to special honrt irnd same set of orders may also be passcd in favour o[ the petrr:lrrer herein

8. Learned assistant public prosecll t( r,ehemently opposed thc present criminal revision case conier;ir]ing that both the Courts have passecl reasoned judgments and rlr rc is no scope for interference of this Court and hence. the r)r: sen[ criminal revision case is liable to be dismissed.

9. Both thc Courts below found that this 1;:titioner (JCL. 1) and another (.ICL.2l were responsiblc or the basis of circumstantial cvidcncc. Thc petitioner (JCL.. .L 1 I ad called the deceased to his housc. Tl'rc deceased went to l lrc l-rouse after informing his laLher that he was meeting the pel it ir,ner herein on a motor bike bearing No.AP 28 Atr 9246. 'l'he il:::rd body of the deceased was found at Ibrahimpalnam. The deatlL ,,,as homicidal. On complain t, the police found that trvo juvirr Ie boys were roaming on the motor bike that rvas taken by thc ileceased. PWs. 12 and 13 are lhe witnesses who stated that the -tr-ir :nile boys had gone to their shop to hx the motorcycle handle, A1:rar-t lrom seizure ,/,l I ,,:!:i1-.ffi7 ,/ j-.. , Page 5 ol ll of motorcycle from the pctitioner and anolher, cell phone and gold chain of the dcceased u'crc also seized

10. With regard to circumstantial evidence, the Hon''b1e Supreme Court in Shankat u. State of Maharashtral ' held as under; ORDER CRLRC.No.6'17 of 2013 CRL.RC. IS PARTLY ALLOWED.