The pair, who have name suppression, originally faced additional counts of assault with intent to rob but Mr Raftery withdrew those charges this afternoon.
"It's not because there wasn't an attempt at a robbery but that's not what this case is about. It's not about stealing something from the dairy, it's about Mr Kumar being killed by those young men," he said.
CCTV footage from inside the dairy has been played to the jury repeatedly from various of angles and in slow motion.
And Mr Raftery this afternoon pointed out each allegedly aggressive manoeuvre, particularly by the knife-wielding older defendant.
"One of the things you'll have learned over the course of this trial is how long or how little time it took to commit a murder; how little time it took to kill someone," he said.
"The incident lasts approximately half a minute and Mr Kumar's life didn't last for many more minutes after that."
The Crown rejected any notion that the armed robbery was impromptu or that the boys did not have an idea about what might happen in the shop.
"They were not there for bottles of pop, they were there for money," Mr Raftery said.
"He had that knife at the ready."
The defence had previously called witnesses who detailed head injuries suffered by the 14-year-old and the affect it had, but the prosecutor was sceptical about that impact.
"The details [of the robbery] weren't planned out to their logical conclusion and you wouldn't expect that of 12-year-olds, whether they've got brain damage or not," he said.
Whether the boys considered the consequences of their actions or not, Mr Raftery said it did not matter.
"That's true of so many offenders, whatever age they might be," he said.
Mr Raftery also pre-empted the argument of the defence for the teen charged with manslaughter.
He told the jury the lawyers would say their client technically withdrew from the criminal enterprise.
"That's about as much nonsense as the self-defence argument," Mr Raftery said.
"He did not withdraw, he ran away because he knew the game was up and he better scarper quick."
Various witnesses had told the court the younger defendant was the one who had come up with the plan to commit a robbery and the prosecution suggested that just because he stood in the doorway rather than use the knife it did not make him a "minor player".
There was also evidence about the 13-year-old's upbringing during which his father took him to gang pads where he witnessed things a child should not.
"He may well be a reflection of his upbringing... but as tragic as their upbringing might be, they still did what they did," Mr Raftery said.
"Both of them may have difficult, tragic backgrounds, which have made them the criminals they are."
