Você está na página 1de 33

TEAM CODE:

TC-60
5th INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2016
Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. XXX / 2016

BEFORE THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

APPELLANT JURISDICTION

STATE (NCT OF DELHI)....Appellant


Versus.
TASHI & Ors.......Respondent

FOROFFENCESCHARGEDUNDER:
SECTION302READALONGWITHSECTION34AND201OFTHE
INDIANPENALCODE,1860
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

5th INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT


COMPETITION, 2016
TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS............................................................................................................
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES..............................................................................................................
BOOKS REFERRED:..........................................................................................................................
LEGISLATIONS:...................................................................................................................................
LEGAL DATABASES:..........................................................................................................................
CASES:..................................................................................................................................................
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION.................................................................................................
STATEMENT OF FACTS.................................................................................................................
STATEMENT OF ISSUES..............................................................................................................
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS......................................................................................................12
I. WHETHER THE GIVEN APPEAL AGAINST THE HIGH COURT JUDGMENT IS
MAINTAINABLE................................................................................................................................
II.
WHETHER THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS WRONGLY ACQUITTED THE
RESPONDENTS..................................................................................................................................
III.
WHETHER THE RESPONDENTS IN THIS GIVEN CASE MUST BE AWARDED
DEATH PENALTY..............................................................................................................................
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED...........................................................................................................14
I.

THE GIVEN APPEAL AGAINST THE HIGH COURT JUDGMENT IS MAINTAINABLE.


14
A. THAT THE PRESENT PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE IN THIS COURT.......................................14
II.

THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS WRONGLY ACQUITTED THE RESPONDENTS.


18
A. THAT THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD IS SUFFICIENT TO PROVE THE OFFENCES OF
WHICH THE RESPONDENTS HAVE BEEN ALLEGED OF:.............................................................18
B. THAT THE CHAIN OF EVENTS IS COMPLETE TO CONVICT THE RESPONDENTS................26
III.
THE RESPONDENTS IN THE GIVEN CASE MUST BE AWARDED DEATH
PENALTY..........................................................................................................................................
PRAYER...........................................................................................................................................34

2
Written Submission on behalf of the Appellant

5th INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT


COMPETITION, 2016
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

EXPANSION

ABBREVIATION/SYMBOL

Supreme Court

SC

High Court

HC

All India Reporter

AIR

Supreme Court Case

SCC

Others

Ors.

Paragraph

/Para

And

&

Criminal Procedure Code

Crpc.

Indian Penal Code

IPC

The Constitution of India

Constitution

Indian Evidence Act

Evidence

Special Leave Petition

SLP

I/O

Investigating Officer

Article

Art.

Cr.P.C.

Code of Criminal Procedure

Crl.

Criminal

CrLJ

Criminal Law Journal

Honble

Honorable

J.

Justice

No.

Number

Ors.

Others

Pg.

Page
3

Written Submission on behalf of the Appellant

5th INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT


COMPETITION, 2016
PW

Prosecution witness

Cri LJ/ Cr LJ

Criminal Law Journal

Assistant Sub-Inspector

A.S.I

Station House Officer

S.H.O

Son of

s/o

Section

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

BOOKS REFERRED:
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.

An Analytical And Exhaustive Commentary On The Indian Penal Code, 1860, by Justice
M.L.Singhal & Sabiha
Commentary on the Code of Criminal Procedure Act, 1973 by Ratanlal & Dhirajlal
Commentary on the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 by Ratanlal & Dhirajlal
Commentary on the Indian Penal Code, 1860 by Ratanlal & Dhirajlal
Commentary on The Indian Penal Code, by K.D. Gaur
4
Written Submission on behalf of the Appellant

5th INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT


COMPETITION, 2016
VI.
VII.
VIII.

Criminal Law by P S A Pillai


Murder Trial by P. S. Verma
The Indian Penal Code by B.M. Gandhi

LEGISLATIONS:
I.
II.
III.
IV.

The Constitution of India, 1950


Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Indian Penal Code, 1860
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872

LEGAL DATABASES:
I.
II.
III.

Manupatra
SCC Online
Westlaw

CASES:
1.

State of Madras v. K.M. Rajagopalan, AIR 1955 SC 817

2.
3.
4.

Mahendra Saree Emporium II v. G.V. Srinivasa Murthy 2005 1 SCC 481


Engineering Mazdoor Sabha v. Hind Cycles Ltd., AIR 1963 SC 874
Delhi Judicial Service Association v. State of Gujarat 1991 AIR 2176, 1991 SCR (3)

5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.

936
Esher Singh v. State of AP (2004) 11 SCC 585
Ashok Nagar Welfare Assn. V. R.K. Sharma 2002 1 SCC 749
CCE v. Standard Motor Products, AIR 1989 SC 1298
Chandra Bansi Singh v. State of Bihar AIR 1984 SC 1767
Ganga Kumar Srivastava v. State of Bihar, AIR 2005 SC 3123
Arunachalam v. P. S. R. Sadhanantham 1979 AIR 1284
Durga Shanker Mehta v. Raghuraj Singh, AIR 1954 SC 520
Pritam Singh v State, AIR 1950 SC 169
Mohd. Hussain Umar Kochra Etc v. K. S. Dalip Singhji & Anr, AIR 1970 SC 45
Indira Kaur & Ors. vs Sheo Lal Kapoor 1988 2 SCC 488
Mano Dutt & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2012 4 SCC 79
Commissioner of Income Tax v. Patram Dass Raja Ram Beri, AIR 1982 P&H 1
State of Maharashtra v. Meyer Hans George, AIR 1965 SC 722.
Chahat Khan v. State of Haryana, 1973 CriLJ 36 SC
Bhaskar Pandit v. State of Maharashtra, 1984 2 Bom CR 769
Raju v. State of Kerala, AIR 1994 Ker 179.
Naseem @ Bhatey v. State, 2000 CriLJ 3043 (All)
Son Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 1142;
Chhotka v. State of W.B., AIR 1958 Cal 482.
Shyamal Ghosh v. State of West Bengal, 2012 Cri.L.J. 3825 SC
State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, AIR 1992 SC 840;
V.C. Shukla and Ors. v. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1980 SC 1382;
Bodh Raj @ Bodha and Ors. v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, AIR 2002 SC 3164.
5
Written Submission on behalf of the Appellant

5th INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT


COMPETITION, 2016
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.

Hanumant Govind Nargundkar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1952 SC 343
Govindaraju @ Govinda v. State of Sriramapuram P.S. & Anr., 2012 4 SCC 722.
Thakaji Hiraji v. Thakore Kubersing Chamansing 2001 6 SCC 145.
State of Rajasthan v. Smt. Kalki and another, 1981 2 SCC 752
Myladimmal Surendran and others v. State of Kerala, 2010 11 SCC 129
Takdir Samsuddin Sheikh v. State of Gujarat and another, 2011 10 SCC 158.
Palichera Nagaraju v. State of AP, AIR 2006 SC 3010
State of UP. v. Jagdeo, AIR 2003 SC 660
Alamgir v. State (NCT Delhi), AIR 2003 SC 282
Chaudhari Ramjibhai Narasangbhai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2004 SC 313
Manthuri Laxmi Narsaiah v State of Andhra Pradesh, 2011 14 SCC 117,
Harishchandra Ladaku Thange v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2007 SC 2957.
Bhagat Ram v. State of Punjab AIR 1954 SC 621
Babulal Bhagwan Khandare and another vs. State of Maharashtra, 2005 10 SCC 404.
Mustkeem v State of Rajasthan, AIR 2011SC 2769
Miller v Minister of Pensions, [1947] 2 All ER 372, [373].
Sanatan Naskar and Anr. v. State of West Bengal AIR, 2010 SC 3570.
Narendra Nath Khaware v Parasnath Khaware and ors, AIR 2003 SC 2325
Narendra Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1987 SC 1337
Krishnan and anr v. State of Kerela, AIR 1997 SC 383
Surja Ram v State of Rajasthan, AIR 1997 SC 18

6
Written Submission on behalf of the Appellant

5th INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT


COMPETITION, 2016
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

In accordance with Article 136 of the Constitution of India read with Order XXII Rule 8 of
the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, the Appellants have approached the Honble Supreme
Court of India.
Article 136 of the Constitution of India, 1950.
Article 136: (1) Notwithstanding anything in this chapter, the SC may, in its discretion, grant
special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause or
matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India.

(2) Nothing in clause (1) shall apply to any judgment, determination, sentence or order
passed or made by any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to armed
forces

Order XXII Rule 8 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 provides that:
On the granting of the special leave, the petition for special leave shall be treated as a
petition of appeal and shall be registered and numbered as such.

Thus, the Appellants have approached this Honble Court for adjudicating the matter
brought forth in the court of law.

7
Written Submission on behalf of the Appellant

5th INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT


COMPETITION, 2016
STATEMENT OF FACTS

BACKGROUND OF THE PARTIES

Lallan Prasad, aged 21 years s/o Sh. Chander Prasad, Sh. Ballan Prasad (PW1) and Sh
Mallan Prasad (PW2) were involved in a property dispute case with their maternal
uncle and his sons since 2003. The decision of the case was held in the favour of the

Prasad family in August 2015.


After the decision, their cousins were not happy about it and developed inimical
relations with the Prasad family.

CAUSE OF ACTION
rd

th

On the night of 23 /24 January 2016, one of the cousins of Mr. Lallan Prasad named
Jeysha and Jeyshas friend Tashi caught Lallan Prasad in the market and started a
brawl. In the meantime, Jeyshas four brothers named Kishan, Bishaan, Disham and
Geysha also got involved in the fight after which Jeysha stabbed Lallan in a lane

where they had dragged Lallan. Lallans brother Ballan was walking behind him.
Ballan shouted looking at the condition of his brother, all of them fled away whereas

Tashi was caught by the public and handed over to the police.
Ballan admitted his brother at 3D Hospital in a critical condition with multiple stab
wounds on both arms, chest wall, scalp and right side of gluteal region and were

perpetrated using a sharp edged weapon as mentioned in the medical report .


Tashi, the accused who got arrested was also injured during the whole fighting scene
and the doctor in his medical report mentioned three superficial injuries on his back

after he was taken to 3D Hospital for treatment.


A.S.I Harpal Singh along with constable Bijender rushed to the 3D Hospital for
conducting the legal inquiry, the doctor (PW3) stating the critical condition of the

victim, Lallan and said that he was unfit for giving the statement.
After all the investigation was done, A.S.I Harpal Singh and his team gave the report

to S.H.O, Thereafter an FIR was recorded based on the statement.


On 24th January 2016, A.S.I Harpal Singh got telephonic information from constable
Dinesh that Lallan Prasad, s/o Sh. Chander Prasad who was admitted in a very critical
condition has succumbed to his injuries in the ICU ward.
8
Written Submission on behalf of the Appellant

5th INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT


COMPETITION, 2016
INVESTIGATION PROCESS

After obtaining the statement of Ballan (PW1) as the eye witness of the case, A.S.I
Harpal Singh went to investigate the crime spot where they found blood strewn on the

road.
On 30th January 2016 the police arrested the other co-accused with the help of state
police officers of Ambala but failed to recover the murder weapon. After interrogating
Jeysha, they found that he had thrown the murder weapon, which was admitted to be a
knife, in the river.

STATEMENT OF CHARGES
Initially, the Respondents/Accused were charged under 307/34 IPC after the
investigation and Tashi had got arrested. Subsequently the I.O changed the charges to

302/34 of IPC after the Victim succumbed to his injuries.


After the admittance of dislocation of weapon by Jeysha, 201 of IPC was added in
the present case and now the accused were charged under 302/201/34 of IPC.

DECISION BY THE COURTS


That Trial Court sentenced all the convicted accused persons to life
imprisonment and they were asked to pay compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/(Rupees two lakhs only) to the parents of Lallan immediately. Each of them
was awarded rigorous imprisonment for 2 years under 201 IPC. Both the

sentences were to run concurrently.


The accused persons appealed before the Honble High Court seeking
acquittal whereas the State filed an appeal demanding death sentence for the

heinous act and enhancing the compensatory amount.


The High court adjudicated in the favour of the accused by acquitting them
from all the charges and dismissed the appeal by the State reason being bereft
of any substance and rejected the testimony of Ballan considering it fabricated

statement of an interested party.


Hence, the present appeal stands before the Honble Supreme Court of India
by the state to award death sentence to all the Respondents and also to
enhance compensatory amount.

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

9
Written Submission on behalf of the Appellant

5th INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT


COMPETITION, 2016
ISSUE 1: WHETHER THE APPEAL AGAINST THE HIGH COURT JUDGMENT IS
MAINTAINABLE:
A. That the present petition is maintainable.
B. That the Appellants have approached this Bench through a Special Leave Petition
ISSUE

under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.


2: WHETHER THE HONBLE HIGH

COURT HAS

WRONGLY

ACQUITTED THE ACCUSED


A. That the evidence on record is sufficient to prove the offences of which the
respondents have been alleged of
B. That the circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction.
ISSUE 3: WHETHER THE RESPONDENTS IN THIS GIVEN CASE MUST BE
AWARDED DEATH PENALTY.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

I.

WHETHER THE GIVEN APPEAL AGAINST THE HIGH COURT JUDGMENT


IS MAINTAINABLE.

It is humbly submitted in the Honble Supreme Court that the special leave petition filed
against the judgment of the high court is maintainable under Article 136 of the Constitution of
10
Written Submission on behalf of the Appellant

5th INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT


COMPETITION, 2016
India. It is contended that the jurisdiction of Supreme Court, under Article 136 can always be
invoked when a question of law of general public importance arises and in the present case, the
issues involves a substantial question of law that the high court [Hereinafter as HC] has erred
in acquitting the Respondents of all charges and not appreciated all the evidence. Thus, the
decision given by the Honble HC was not proper and appropriate as the HC failed to give any
proper and special reasons for the order and moreover the conclusions of the HC are
manifestly perverse and unsupportable from the evidence on record. Thus, the appellant has
approached the SC for reconsidering the issues and to ensure that a just decision is reached on.
II.

WHETHER THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS WRONGLY ACQUITTED THE


RESPONDENTS.

The appellant humbly submits to this Honble court that the decision given by HC must be set
aside and the matter at hand must be re-evaluated based on the established facts and
circumstances. In the instant matter, the Trial Court had convicted the Respondents of the
offences of murder and common intention of the Respondents was established thereof, under
302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 respectively.
An appeal had been filed under the HC who turned the conviction into acquittal. The HC has
failed to appreciate all the facts put forth by the Appellant. With the evidence presented at the
trial stage, there is sufficient and conclusive evidence to show that the Respondents are indeed
guilty of the aforementioned offences. This assertion is twofold:
Firstly, the conclusion arrived at by the HC have not considered all the circumstances at hand
(a); and Secondly, the evidence had to be evaluated properly (b).

III.

WHETHER THE RESPONDENTS IN THIS GIVEN CASE MUST BE AWARDED


DEATH PENALTY.
It is humbly submitted to this honble court that the Respondents must be awarded death
penalty for committing such a heinous crime and moreover, the Respondents had tried to
cover up their actions by throwing the murder weapon into the river. Death Penalty acts as
an active deterrent for heinous crimes such as one committed by the Respondents.

11
Written Submission on behalf of the Appellant

5th INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT


COMPETITION, 2016

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
I. THE

GIVEN

APPEAL AGAINST THE

HIGH

COURT JUDGMENT

IS

MAINTAINABLE.
A. THAT THE PRESENT PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE IN THIS COURT.
(1.) It is humbly submitted before this Honble Court that the appeal made as per Article 136
of the Constitution is maintainable under the appellate jurisdiction of SC. In this present matter
the Respondents were initially convicted by the trial court, which was later over-ruled by the
12
Written Submission on behalf of the Appellant

5th INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT


COMPETITION, 2016
Honble HC where they were acquitted. The present matter cannot be proceeded through any
other recourse as provided in the Criminal Procedure Code1 where 3722 that emphasizes that
no appeal lies if the same has not been provided anywhere in the Criminal code or any other
parliamentary act.
(2.) Moreover, the same issue cannot be presented through Article 134 of the Constitution.
Article 134 dictates that the appellate jurisdiction of SC to criminal matters shall lie from any
judgment, final order or sentence in a criminal proceeding of a HC in the territory of India
only if the HC has:
1. Reversed an order of acquittal of an accused person and sentenced him to death;
2. Withdrawn for trial before itself from any case of any court subordinate to its authority and
has in such trial convicted the accused person and sentenced him to death;
3. Certifies under Article 134A that the case is a fit one for appeal to the SC.
In the present matter, none of the conditions so provided has been fulfilled. Therefore, the state
cannot approach the apex court through it, leaving Special Leave Petition as an only recourse
to obtain justice.
B. THAT THE APPELLANTS HAVE APPROACHED THIS COURT THROUGH A
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION
OF INDIA.
(3.) The Constitution provides the SC with a special power to grant SLP to appeal against any
judgment, decree or order in any matter or cause passed or made by any court / tribunal in any
territory of India. The same can be exercised in two conditions:
1. SLP can be filed against any judgment, decree or order made by any court / tribunal in
the territory of India.
2. Or, SLP can be filed if the HC certificate of fitness for appeal to SC.
In this present matter, the first condition to file an SLP is being fulfilled. Thus, the appellant
has filed the petition under it. In ordinary circumstances, the Apex Court does not interfere
with the acquittal or conviction order of the HC or lower courts. But as has been held in Satbir
v. Surat Singh3 ordinarily this Court does not interfere with an order of acquittal recorded by
1 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act No 2 of 1974).
2 Section 372, Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (Act No 2 of 1974).
3 [1997] 4 SCC 192.

13
Written Submission on behalf of the Appellant

5th INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT


COMPETITION, 2016
the High Court; but if the High Court arrives at its findings over-looking important facts and
relying upon few circumstances which do not in any way impair the probative value of the
evidence adduced during trial, this Court would be failing in its duty to do complete justice if
it does not interfere with such order of acquittal.
DISCRETIONARY POWER OF THE COURT
(4.) It is humbly submitted to this Honble Court that the present appeal is maintainable. It is
a settled fact that if the issue raised before this Court is essentially one of considerable
importance, it can be raised before the SC for the first time with its leave. 4 The Honble Court
cannot be deterred from exercising its jurisdiction based on the Conclusiveness or finality
given by a statute to any decision of a Court or Tribunal.5 Furthermore, the entire intent and
purpose of SCs powers under this Article is that it is the duty of the SC to see that injustice is
not perpetrated or perpetuated by the decisions of the Courts and Tribunals, because these
decisions are made by the respective statutes as conclusive and final. 6 The SC under Art. 136
has wide power to interfere and correct the Judgment and orders passed by any court or
Tribunal in the country in furtherance of justice and in cases where there is clear manifestation
of injustice then the Court may look into questions of law and fact both.7 It is manifest that Art.
136 is of composite structure, is power-cum procedure where power vests in the jurisdiction of
court and procedure spells a mode of hearing. 8 It is further settled that the bar under Art. 136,
is potential but not compulsive in nature and is undoubtedly meant to advance the cause of
justice. 9The given Art. is the residuary power of the SC to do justice where the Court is
satisfied that there is injustice. These are a class apart and are sui juris.10

4 State of Madras v. K.M. Rajagopalan, AIR 1955 SC 817.


5 Mahendra Saree Emporium II v. G.V. Srinivasa Murthy, (2005) 1 SCC 481.
6 Engineering Mazdoor Sabha v. Hind Cycles Ltd., AIR 1963 SC 874.
7 Delhi Judicial Service Association v. State of Gujarat, 1991 AIR 2176, 1991 SCR (3)
936.
8 Esher Singh v. State of AP (2004) 11 SCC 585 .
9 Ashok Nagar Welfare Assn. V. R.K. Sharma, (2002) 1 SCC 749.
10 CCE v. Standard Motor Products, AIR 1989 SC 1298.

14
Written Submission on behalf of the Appellant

5th INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT


COMPETITION, 2016
(5.) The SC is not only a Court of law but is also the Court of equity and must sub serve
ultimately the cause of justice.11The courts have this well-established practice to permit the
invocation of the power under article 136 only in very exceptional circumstances 12, as when
a question of law of general public importance arises or a decision shocks the conscience of
the Court. 13
(6.) It is further submitted that in the case of Arunachalam v. P. S. R. Sadhanantham14, SC
even established the exceptional conditions in which it would have granted special leave
appeal which were:

Where grave and substantial injustice has been done by disregard to the forms of

legal process, or
Violation of the principles of natural justice or otherwise.

The exercise of the power of the SC is not circumscribed by any limitation as to who may
invoke it.15 Hence, it is clear from the above-mentioned facts that the SC will not grant special
leave to appeal under Art. 136 of the Constitution unless it is shown that special and
exceptional circumstances exist, that substantial and grave injustice has been done and the case
in question presents features of sufficient gravity to warrant a review of the decision appealed
against16. Further, in the exercise of its special leave appellate jurisdiction, the Supreme Court
will not interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts.
The Counsel moreover submits that the present case was dismissed by the HC on the sole
basis that the case was bereft of any substance and that the testimony of one of the Prosecution
witness was deemed as a concocted statement of an interested party, therefore, bringing the
present matter in front of this Honble Division Bench. It is submitted that in the case of

11 Chandra Bansi Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1984 SC 1767.


12 Ganga Kumar Srivastava v. State of Bihar, AIR 2005 SC 3123.
13 Arunachalam v. P. S. R. Sadhanantham, 1979 AIR 1284.
14 Id.
15 Durga Shanker Mehta v. Raghuraj Singh, AIR 1954 SC 520.
16 Pritam Singh v State, AIR 1950 SC 169.

15
Written Submission on behalf of the Appellant

5th INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT


COMPETITION, 2016
Mohd. Hussain Umar Kochra Etc v. K. S. Dalip Singhji & Anr17 held that the Court would not
be reassessing the evidence unless the findings are perverse or are vitiated by any error of law
or there is a grave miscarriage of justice that no alternative is left before it. Thus, it was held
that:
If and when the Court is satisfied that great injustice has been done it is not only the 'right'
but also the 'duty' of this Court to reverse the error and the injustice and to upset the finding
notwithstanding the fact that it has been affirmed thrice.18
(7.) It is evident to mention here that, in the case of Mano Dutt & Anr. v. State of Uttar
Pradesh19 the Court had taken a consistent view that the normal rule is that whenever the
accused sustains injury in the same occurrence in which the complainant suffered the injury,
the prosecution should explain the injury upon the accused. But before the non-explanation of
the injuries on the person of the accused the Court has to be satisfied of the existence of two
conditions:
(i)
That the injuries on the person of the accused were also of a serious nature; and
(ii)
That such injury must have been caused at the time of the occurrence in question.20
(8.) Therefore, it is humbly submitted to this Honble Court that the abrasions on the body
of the prime accused, Mr. Tashi were clearly in corroboration to the injuries sustained by the
victim. Thus, the given appeal must be heard in the court of law.
II. THE

HONBLE

HIGH

COURT

HAS

WRONGLY

ACQUITTED

THE

RESPONDENTS.
(9.) The appellant humbly submits to this Honble court that the decision given by HC must
be set aside and the matter at hand must be re-evaluated based on the established facts and
circumstances. In the instant matter, the Trial Court had convicted the Respondents of the

17 AIR 1970 SC 45, 1969 SCC (3) 429.


18 Indira Kaur And Ors. v. Sheo Lal Kapoor, (1988) 2 SCC 488, 499:AIR 1988 SC 1074.
19 (2012) 4 SCC 79
20 Id.

16
Written Submission on behalf of the Appellant

5th INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT


COMPETITION, 2016
offences of murder and common intention that was established thereof, under 302 and 34
of the Indian Penal Code, 186021 respectively.
(10.) An appeal had been filed under the HC who turned the conviction into acquittal. It is
humbly contended that the HC has failed to appreciate all the facts put forth by the Appellant.
With the evidence presented at the trial stage, there is sufficient and conclusive evidence to
show that the Respondents are indeed guilty of the aforementioned offences. This assertion is
twofold:
Firstly, the conclusion arrived at by the HC have not considered all the evidence on record is
sufficient to prove the offences for the respondents have been alleged of; and secondly, the
chain of events is complete to convict the respondents.

A.THAT

THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD IS SUFFICIENT TO PROVE THE

OFFENCES OF WHICH THE RESPONDENTS HAVE BEEN ALLEGED OF:


(11.) In the instant matter, the Trial Court had convicted the Respondents of the offences of
murder and common intention of the accused was established thereof, under 302 and 34
of the Indian Penal Code, 186022 respectively.
An appeal had been filed under the HC that turned the conviction into acquittal. The HC has
failed to appreciate all the facts put forth by the Appellant. With the evidence presented at the
trial stage, there is sufficient and conclusive evidence to show that the Respondents are
indeed guilty of the aforementioned offences.
THAT MENS REA AND ACTUS REUS IS PRESENT
(12.) It is a fundamental principle of criminal law that a person may not be convicted of a
crime unless it is proved beyond a reasonable doubt both: -

21 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act No 45 of 1860).


22 Id.

17
Written Submission on behalf of the Appellant

5th INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT


COMPETITION, 2016
(a) That responsibility is attributed to the Respondents for a certain behavior or the existence
of a certain state of affairs, in circumstances forbidden by criminal law and that the
Respondents has caused the prescribed event and
(b) That the Respondents had a defined state of mind in relation to the behavior, existence of
a state of affairs or causing of the event.23
To the effect that in every case the two elements of crime; actus reus and mens rea have to be
proved.
(13.)

It is submitted that the offences of murder, which the Respondents have been

Respondents of, are laced with mens rea. Mens Rea considered as guilty intention,

24

which is

proved or inferred from the acts of the Respondents.25 . It is the sine qua non of a criminal
act. In the present matter, the Respondents had attacked the victim due to the retribution of
not getting the property. It is based on:
1. Presence of Intention, and 2. Existence of Motive.
(14.) The intention to kill can be construed from the kind of injury caused by him on the
vital part of the body.26 In the present matter, the Respondents had not only beaten up the
victim but also inflicted injury on him by sharp weapons clearly shows the intent behind such
an act. When the doer of an act knows that his act would result in death of a person, he
should be deemed to have intent to cause death. 27 The question, so far as the intention is
concerned, is not whether he intended to kill, or to inflict an injury of a particular degree of
seriousness but whether he intended to inflict the injury in question; and once the existence
of the injury is proved the intention to cause it will be presumed unless the evidence or the
circumstances warrant an opposite conclusion.28

23David Ormerod, Smith and Hogans Criminal Law, (13th edn, Oxford University Press
2011).
24 Commissioner of Income Tax v. Patram Dass Raja Ram Beri, AIR 1982 P&H 1.
25 State of Maharashtra v. Meyer Hans George, AIR 1965 SC 722.
26 Chahat Khan v. State of Haryana, (1973) CriLJ 36 (SC); Bhaskar Pandit v. State of
Maharashtra, 1984 (2) Bom CR 769; Raju v. State of Kerala, AIR 1994 Ker 179.
27 R.A. Nelson, Indian Penal Code, 1009 (7th Ed Lexis Nexis Gurgaon, 1983)
28 Naseem @ Bhatey v. State, (2000) CriLJ 3043 (All)

18
Written Submission on behalf of the Appellant

5th INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT


COMPETITION, 2016
(15.) It is humbly submitted to this Honble court that 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
stipulates that any fact is considered as relevant which shows or constitutes motive or
preparation for any fact in issue or relevant fact. It is further pertinent to note that if there is
motive in doing an act, and then the adequacy of that motive is not in all cases necessary. In
many instances heinous offences have been committed for very trivial motive.29
The motive of Respondents to murder the victim was to avenge the loss of property that they
had been subjected to by the courts decision against them. It is contended as evidence;
motive is always relevant. Motive may be relevant to proof, the prosecution may prove the
motive for a crime if it helps them to establish their case, as a matter of circumstantial
evidence.30
(16.) The Basic Principle while dealing with evidence to prove a design or plan states that
whenever a persons design or plan to do an act is in issue, it may be evidenced
circumstantially based on
(a) By his conduct or utterances indicating the design or plan,
(b) Or, by the prior or subsequent existence of the design or plan.31
The Principles of Judicial Proof32 is the study of science, which determines whether one thing
is a proof of another in investigation, or not. 33 It has further been explained that while
establishing the existence of a design or plan two ingredients must be circumstantially
explained. The first ingredient is to demonstrate before the court to prove the presence of
motive or active deliberation by the Respondents. In this stage, the accused has duly
considered the consequence of his act i.e. both the good and the evil and consciously choose
or decide upon a particular course. The second essential ingredient to be proved by the
29 Son Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 1142; Chhotka v. State of W.B., AIR
1958 Cal 482.
30 Glanville Williams, Text Book of Criminal Law (2nd edn, Universal Law Publishing,
1999)
31 John H. Wigmore, Rule of Evidence in Trials at Law, 32, . 266 Rule 59
32 John H, Wigmore, The Principles of Judicial Proof: As given by Logic, Psychology and
General Experience and Illustrated in Judicial Trials, 245 (Little Brown and Company,
1913);
33 George Gordon Battle, The Science of Judicial Proof by John Henry Wigmore, VA LAW
REV Vol. 25, 120 (Nov., 1938).

19
Written Submission on behalf of the Appellant

5th INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT


COMPETITION, 2016
prosecution is determination on part of the accused towards an action, which is seen to lead
to a desired end. Resolution on its psychical side is equivalent to a complete process of
volition. It can be construed from all action, so far as this becomes complex, in the sense a
prolonged activity, or a series of combined movements.34
(17.) In the present matter the Respondents not only had a sharp weapon in their possession
and moreover, the respondents were unhappy with the verdict of the court over the dispute.
The prosecution thus establishes that the Respondents had a pre-determined motive to kill the
victim therefore; conviction under 302 IPC is sustainable. Hence, it is submitted that two
ingredients are being explained by the circumstantial hypothesis put forth by the Appellant.
THAT COMMON INTENTION CAN BE SEEN
(18.) Once criminal act and common intentions are proved, then by 34 of the IPC, each
person would be criminally liable as if they have done the act individually.35 Under 34,
every individual offender is associated with the criminal act, which constitutes the offence
both physically as well as mentally.
In the instant matter, the criminal act of Respondents was done in pursuance of common
intention & motive since they were all not content with the manner in which the property
dispute was settled. Therefore, the Respondents are guilty of murder under 302 r/w 34 of
the Indian Penal Code.
(19.) Whereas Actus reus is any wrongful act.36 Thus, in a case of murder, actus reus would
be the physical conduct of the Respondents that causes death of the victim. In the instant
case, the actus reus is established by way of Circumstantial evidence & Medical
Examination.
THAT THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS SUFFICIENT FOR CONVICTION
(20.) As Jaffee has stated, Propositions can be both true and false but they are not
probable.37 In court or elsewhere, the provided information cannot be 'speaking for itself'. It
has to be interpreted in the light of the competing propositions put forward and against a
34 Ibid, 632; Sully & James, The Human Mind, (Lomgmans, 1892) Vol. II, 255.
35 Shyamal Ghosh v. State of West Bengal, (2012) Cri.L.J. 3825 (SC)
36 Aiyar, P Ramanatha, The Law Lexicon, 49 (2nd Ed, Lexis Nexis Nagpur, 2006)
37 Leonard Jaffee, Of Probativity and Probability', 46, U. Pitt. L. Rev, 924, 934 (1985).

20
Written Submission on behalf of the Appellant

5th INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT


COMPETITION, 2016
background of knowledge and experience about the world.38 Bearing in mind that it is not for
the prosecution to meet any and every hypothesis suggested by the Respondents, howsoever
extravagant and fanciful it might be, guilt can be proved by circumstantial evidence after
justification of incriminate facts and circumstances.39
(21.) It is further submitted before this Honble Court that the circumstantial evidence in the
present matter shows that within all human probability, the act must have been done by the
Respondents. The rules as laid down by Wills and reiterated by many on Circumstantial
Evidence are as follows: 1. The circumstances alleged, as the basis of any legal inference must be strictly and
indubitably connected with the factum probandum.
2. The onus probandi is on the party who asserts the existence of any fact, which infers
legal accountability.40
(22.) Furthermore, in the case of in the famous case of Bodh Raj v. State of Jammu &
Kashmir41, Court held that circumstantial evidence can be a sole basis for conviction
provided the conditions are satisfied that the:
1. The circumstances from which guilt is established must be fully proved;
2. That all the facts must be consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused;
3. That the circumstances must be of a conclusive nature and tendency;
4. That the circumstances should, to a moral certainty, actually exclude every hypothesis
expect the one proposed to prove.
Also, in the case of Hanumant Govind Nargundkar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh42, it is stated
that:
It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the
circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance
38 American Jurisprudence (2nd ed, 2011) Vol 29, para 322.
39 State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, AIR 1992 SC 840; V.C. Shukla and Ors.
v. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1980 SC 1382; Bodh Raj @ Bodha and Ors. v.
State of Jammu & Kashmir, AIR 2002 SC 3164.
40JFB, William Wirt (1852-1891) 16 The American Law Register 705-713.
41 2002 Supp (2) SCR 67.
42 AIR 1952 SC 343.

21
Written Submission on behalf of the Appellant

5th INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT


COMPETITION, 2016
be fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the
hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive
nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one
proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as
not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the
accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have
been done by the accused.
In the present matter, the circumstances of the case are proved beyond reasonable doubt as
all the testimony, incidents and facts contribute to the guilt of the respondents.
THAT ALL FOUR TESTIMONIES ARE TO BE RELIED UPON
(23.) During the course of trial, three witnesses were examined from the side of
Prosecution. The HC then arrived at its conclusion by neglecting the testimony of the PW1,
deeming him to be an interested witness thereby undermining the concrete evidence at
hand and wrongfully acquitting the Respondents. Furthermore, it is a settled proposition of
law of evidence that it is not the number of witnesses that matters but it is the substance that
matters.43 134 of the Indian Evidence Act44 provides that no particular number of witnesses
are required for proof of any fact. It is law that it is not the number of witnesses but it is the
quality of evidence which is required to be taken note of for ascertaining the truth of the
allegations made against the accuse. Furthermore, material witness who would unfold the
genesis of the incident or an essential part of the prosecution case, not convincingly brought
to fore otherwise, or where there is a gap or infirmity in the prosecution case which could
have been supplied or made good by examining a witness who though available, is not
examined.45 In this judgement, this Honble Court criticised the HC for not examining
witnesses properly.
Hence, the testimonies of all the four witness provide a nexus and establish a link between
the happenings of the event.
43 Govindaraju @ Govinda v. State of Sriramapuram P.S. & Anr., (2012) 4 SCC 722.
44 Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Act 1 of 1872).
45 Thakaji Hiraji v. Thakore Kubersing Chamansing (2001) 6 SCC 145.

22
Written Submission on behalf of the Appellant

5th INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT


COMPETITION, 2016
THAT THE EYE WITNESS IS NOT AN INTERESTED WITNESS
(24.) Black Law dictionary defines interested witness as a witness who has a direct and
private interest in the matter at issue. 46 They must have some direct vested interest in having
the accused somehow convicted for some extraneous reason and a near relative of the victim
may not necessarily be an interested witness.47 Evidence of a witness, otherwise creditworthy
and reliable cannot be brushed aside solely on the ground that he is either partisan or
interested or closely related to the victim. 48 In the present matter PW1 i.e. the victims brother
had no personal interest in getting the Respondents punished by the said act since, the trial
court had already rendered the decision in favor of the victims family even before the given
issue at hand. Eyewitness has to be the person who has reason to be present on the scene of
occurrence because they happen either to be friends or family members. The law is long
settled that for the mere reason that an eyewitness can be said to be an interested witness, his
or her testimony cannot be rejected.

49

It is further contended that the test of creditworthiness

or acceptability ought to be the guiding factor in deciding a case. The evidence must inspire
confidence and in the event of unshaken credibility, there is no justifiable reason to reject the
same.50 Even if a witness is related to the victim there is no reason to discard the evidence
especially when it is reliable and trustworthy.51 It is further submitted in arguendo, that the
Court cannot derail the entire case on the mere ground of absence of independent witness
as long as the evidence of the eyewitness, though interested, is trustworthy.52
46 Bryan A. Garner, Blacks Law Dictionary, (9th Ed., Thomson Reuters 2009).
47 State of Rajasthan v. Smt. Kalki and another, [(1981) 2 SCC 752]; Myladimmal
Surendran and others v. State of Kerala, [(2010) 11 SCC 129]; Takdir Samsuddin Sheikh
v. State of Gujarat and another, [(2011) 10 SCC 158].
48 Palichera Nagaraju v. State of AP, AIR 2006 SC3010: 2006 CrLJ 3899: 2006 (3)
Crimes 253 (SC).
49 State of UP. v. Jagdeo, AIR 2003 Sc 660: (2003) 1 SCC 456: 2003 Cr.LJ 844: (2003) 3
Crimes 95.
50 Alamgir v. State (NCT Delhi), AIR 2003 SC 282: (2003) 1 SCC 21: 2003 CRLJ 456: JT
2002 (9) SC 347 :( 2003)| Crimes 212.
51 Chaudhari Ramjibhai Narasangbhai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2004 SC 313: (2004) 1
SCC 184; 2004 SCC (Cri) 269 (272): 2004 CrLJ 280: (2003) 4 Crimes 471.
52 Sadhu Saran Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2016) 4 SCC 357

23
Written Submission on behalf of the Appellant

5th INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT


COMPETITION, 2016
Therefore, it has been contended in the present matter that the HC has erred in not
considering the evidence of PW1 and considering it to be concocted.
REPORT OF MEDICAL EXAMINATION
(25.) As per the medical report prepared by PW3 i.e. Dr. Kamini, the injuries and their
repercussions have been listed below:

Injury 2 which runs along the outside of the skull is the Superficial Temporal Artery which
in case gets cut results in profuse bleeding and cause death.

Injury 3 has multiple abrasions present over the left chest which indicates the direct
intention of the Respondents to kill the victim and is the trapezius muscle closer to the neck,
since most fatal stab wounds are located in the left chest region. Among a number of
explanations is that most people are right handed and, when facing a victim, will tend to
stab the left chest. In addition, if the intention is to kill someone, one would stab in the left
chest where the heart is thought to be.

Injury 6 is an injury on left chest near the left nipple, with the blade parallel to the ribs. If
major thrust is applied, it will pass between the 3rd and 4th rib perforating the left lung and
the Piercing of the heart can result in instant unconsciousness and death in as little as 3
seconds. This is a risky target due to potential for the blade to bind in the ribcage.

Injury 7 is the inside of the right armpit, with the blade parallel to the ribs. This is a risky
target due to potential for the blade to bind in the ribcage as it passes between the 3rd and
4th rib perforating the right lung.

Injury 8 is a thrust up and under the right side of the ribcage, done at a 45 degree angle into
the liver. Since the damage to the liver has been severe, this can result in unconsciousness in
as fast as as 1 minute and death in as fast as 5 minutes.

Injury 10 is a penetrating slash to the inside of the forearm between the radius and ulna
bones. Penetration of more than one inch will sever a great deal of veins and result in rapid
blood loss leading to fatality.

Injury 13 is just behind the bottom of the ear. This is the only point that an average person
may be able to pierce the skull with a knife and can result in instantaneous death

Injury 16 is a thrust to either kidney, and puncturing a kidney can cause near instant
unconsciousness and death within a short span of time, as short as one minute. (The
24
Written Submission on behalf of the Appellant

5th INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT


COMPETITION, 2016
Kidneys are connected to the body by the Suprarenal veins, which are rather large, so even
if the kidney is not punctured, a thrust here may still sever one of these and result in rapid
loss of consciousness.

Injury 3 and 4 is the subclavian artery located approximately 2.5 inches below the point
shown, just behind the collar bone. Severing of the subclavian artery will result in
unconsciousness in as little as 2 seconds, and death in as little as 3.5 seconds.

THAT THERE EXISTS A NEXUS BETWEEN THE EVENTS


(26.) Evidence must be able to create an interconnection in between them so as to prove the
guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The purpose of bringing the evidence is to
invite an inference as to a matter thought to be implied in the statement. 53 The motive of
evidence is to establish the probability of the facts upon which the success of a partys case
depends in law.54 It is submitted that the testimony of PW1 as well as other witnesses play a
very pertinent role in implicating the Respondents. The testimony aided by the circumstantial
chain of events makes the role of the Respondents in murdering the victim more probable.
The facts of the given case has already established that the public had arrested the
Respondent no. 1, Mr. Tashi under 43 of the Code of Criminal Procedure code which
clearly states that only in the case that is related to a non-bailable and cognizable offence a
private person may arrest an offender.

B. THAT THE CHAIN OF EVENTS IS COMPLETE TO CONVICT THE


RESPONDENTS
(27.) Conviction is based on the circumstantial evidence. In such a scenario, a complete
chain of events has to be established pointing out the culpability of the Respondents. The
chain should be such that no other conclusion, except the guilt of the Respondents, is
discernible without any doubt.55 The circumstances relied upon must be established and the
cumulative effect of the established facts must lead to a singular hypothesis that the
53 Murphy and Glover, Murphy On Evidence, 252 (12th ed, Oxford University Press
2011).
54 Id.
55 Manthuri Laxmi Narsaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, [2011] 14 SCC 117, (SC), [2].

25
Written Submission on behalf of the Appellant

5th INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT


COMPETITION, 2016
Respondents is guilty.56 The guilt of the respondents can be deduced only when all the
incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the
Respondents or the guilt of any other person and further the circumstances from which an
inference as to the guilt of the Respondents is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable
doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact sought to be
inferred from those circumstances.57 In the case of Bhagat Ram v. State of Punjab58 it was
laid down that where the case depends upon the conclusion drawn from circumstances the
cumulative effect of the circumstances must be such as to negative the innocence of the
Respondents and bring home the offences beyond any reasonable doubt. In the present matter
all the facts of the case indeed prove the guilt of the Respondents and thus, the Honble court
must reconsider the decision taken by HC and hold the Respondents liable.
(28.)

It is humbly submitted by the Appellant, that the victim was harmed by the

Respondents as there were injury marks on Respondent 1 i.e Tashi as well. The counsel
contends that the non-explanation of the injuries sustained by the Respondents at about the
time of occurrence or in the course of altercation is a very important circumstance. 59
Furthermore, the presence of blood strewn in the said crime scene is a clear indication of a
fight. Thus, corroborating the said statement of PW1. Moreover, there is a clear corroboration
of evidence since, the finding of the I/O i.e. PW4. As to the disappearance of the murder
weapon and the medical report by PW3 i.e., Dr. Kamini as attached stated that a sharp object
was used to injure the victim. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave
any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the Respondents
and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the
Respondents.60 The aquittal of the Respondents in the present matter has resulted in grave
misscarriage of justice.

56 State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, AIR 1992 SCW 640: AIR 1992 SC 840.
57 Harishchandra Ladaku Thange v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2007 SC 2957.
58 AIR 1954 SC 621
59 Babulal Bhagwan Khandare and another v. State of Maharashtra, [(2005) 10 SCC
404].
60 Mustkeem v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2011SC 2769, [2011] 11 SCC 724, [26].

26
Written Submission on behalf of the Appellant

5th INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT


COMPETITION, 2016
(29.) It is contended that according to above-mentioned submissions, the required
chain of events culminating in the commission of offence is thoroughly established in
bringing home the proof of the guilt against all the Respondents. The Appellants have
accurately presented the chain of events, and hence this serves as an unquestionable
foundation for the conviction of the Respondents.
(30.) It is humbly submitted that the above chain of events, with evidence proves that:
1. All the Respondents had an intention to cause harm to the victims family because they
had lost their property to the victim and his family.
2. The Respondents have committed the murder of the victim since the victims family
had won the property dispute that had ensued between the respondent and the victims
families.
3. The Respondents had encountered the victim in the market area. Furthermore, Tashi,
Respondent no. 1 was caught in the scene of crime where the police had even found
blood spewed near the scene. 61
4. The collaboration of the finding of I/O i.e. PW4 and the Medical Officer i.e. PW3
regarding a sharp weapon being used on the victim and the event sequence as explained
by PW1 regarding the stabbing of the brother shows a clear reason for commission of
the crime.62
(31.) Halsburys Laws of England maintains that prosecution should prove to full criminal
standards any fact essential to admissibility of evidence 63. This principle is best explained in
the words of Lord Denning who in Miller v Minister of Pensions64 maintained that,
It need not reach certainty, but it must carry a high degree of probability. Proof beyond
reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond shadow of a doubt. The law would fail to
protect the community if it admitted fanciful possibilities to deflect the course of justice. The
abovementioned arguments do prove that there lies no doubt in all the charges framed against
the Respondents. Thus, they should be convicted.
61 Id.
62 Id.
63 Halsburys Laws of England (5th edn, LexisNexis Butterworths 2010) 1374.
64 Miller v. Minister of Pensions, [1947] 2 All ER 372, [373].

27
Written Submission on behalf of the Appellant

5th INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT


COMPETITION, 2016
(32.) It is humbly contended that in accordance with the aforementioned submissions, a
reference can be made to the case of Sanatan Naskar and Anr. v. State of West Bengal, where
the Court held as follows: "There cannot be any dispute to the fact that it is a case of circumstantial evidence as there
was no eyewitness to the occurrence. It is a settled principle of law that an accused can be
punished if he is found guilty even in cases of circumstantial evidence provided, the
prosecution is able to prove beyond reasonable doubt complete chain of events and
circumstances which definitely points towards the involvement and guilt of the suspect or
accused, as the case may be. The accused will not be entitled to acquittal merely because
there is no eyewitness in the case.65
(33.) It is humbly submitted by the Appellant the circumstances of the present case have
been proven beyond reasonable doubt, thereon, completing the chain of events in order to
suffice the conviction of the Respondents. The Respondents is guilty despite no recovery of
weapon based on the circumstantial evidence and the Respondents had willfully caused the
disappearance of the weapon to save themselves from the wrong that they had done. The
circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt has been drawn in the first instance and is
fully established, and all the facts so established are consistent only with the hypothesis of
the guilt of the Respondents. A fortiori, the circumstances are of a conclusive nature and
tendency and have placed all the reasons exclude every hypothesis but the guilty one
proposed to be proved.
III. THE RESPONDENTS IN THE GIVEN CASE MUST BE AWARDED DEATH
PENALTY
(34.) It is contended to this Honble Court that the victim was stabbed multiple times on
various parts of his body, including his gluteal region, arms and chest. As held in the medical
reports by PW3 and as per her deposition, the injuries were enough to cause death. The post
mortem report clearly indicates that the reason of death of the victim was multiple stab
wounds by a sharp object. It is submitted that the prime accused and Respondent No 1, Mr.
Tashi was also brought to the same 3D Hospital with superficial wounds. It can be deduced
that this would have resulted after a scuffle or a brawl. It is also submitted that as per the
65 Sanatan Naskar and Anr. v. State of West Bengal, AIR 2010 SC 3570, [2010] 8 SCC
249, [13].

28
Written Submission on behalf of the Appellant

5th INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT


COMPETITION, 2016
deposition of the Investigation officer (PW4), there was a lot of blood strewn over the road. 66
This corroborates the said statement of PW1 as submitted earlier. It is also submitted to this
Honble Court that the alleged murder weapon was thrown into a river by Jeysha, which was
admitted by Mr. Jeysha during investigation. It is further submitted that even though
confession during police interrogation is not admissible in a court of law as per 25 of
Indian Evidence Act67, the facts can be linked together to come to this conclusion. The
investigation officer reported that the alleged murder weapon is missing or has been
dislocated purposefully. As per PW3- Dr. Kaminis deposition the victim died due to injuries
by a sharp weapon.68 In addition to this, it has been clearly stated by Mr. Jeysha where he had
admitted during investigation that he threw away the weapon into river Ghaggar at Ambala 69.
It is submitted to this Court that all the above mentioned facts when added together prove the
guilt of the Respondents. The incidence of blood being found on the crime scene, the missing
murder weapon, deposition of PW3 and the admittance of facts by Mr. Jeysha indicate
towards the guilt of the Respondents.
(35.) It is further submitted to this Honble Court that Respondent no. 1 Mr. Tashi was
caught by the public and handed over to the police.70 Though the investigation team could not
corroborate the happening of the event by way of another eyewitness from the public, it is
submitted that the incident was seen by PW1. In the case of Narendra Nath Khaware v
Parasnath Khaware and ors71, it was seen:
Regarding the observation of the High Court that other witnesses were not examined, the
counsel submitted that at the time of actual occurrence only the complainant and his son
Diwakar Khaware were present. The others came on the spot after the injuries had already
been caused on the victim party. Diwakare Khaware having died at the spot, complainant

66 Page 2, 4, Moot Problem.


67 Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Act 1 of 1872).
68 Page 3, 7, Moot Problem.
69 Page 2, 6, Moot Problem.
70 Page 2, 3, Moot Problem
71 AIR 2003 SC 2325.

29
Written Submission on behalf of the Appellant

5th INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT


COMPETITION, 2016
was the only eye witness of the murder. The evidence of the complainant is corroborated by
the medical evidence as well as by P.Ws., 2, 3 and 4.
We have been taken through the statement of the complainant - P.W.1. The statement shows
that at the time of the actual occurrence only the complainant and deceased Diwakar
Khaware were present. Diwakar Khaware having died on the spot, complainant was the only
actual eye-witness.
The SC in this matter reversed the judgement of the HC stating that the HC did not pay
proper attention to the statement of the eye witness. It held the judgement erroneous on the
grounds that it did not discharge its functions properly72.
Hence it must be noted that PW1 Mr. Ballan Prasad was the sole eye witness to depose in this
case. Hence his statements must be relied upon and given due attention.
Also, it is submitted that in the case of Narendra Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh73:
As regards the offence, the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant was that as
the evidence of eye witnesses indicate, especially the evidence of Phool Chand Sinha, P.W. 1,
that he saw when the deceased was being attacked by the assailant and on this basis it was
suggested that there might have been some hot exchange, between the parties which might
have raised the passion and it might be in the heat of passion that the appellant inflicted
injuries. Dr. Harish Chand Pant who examined the injuries on the person of the deceased
found the following injuries:
1. Penetrating incised wound, 2 cm x 1 cm. x deep in the lung, statutory, downwards and
forward, 17 cm. below the right anterior axillary fold.
2. Penetrating incised wound, 2.5 cm x 1 cm. x deep in the heart region, 1/2 cm. below the
left nipple.
3. Penetrating incised wound, 2.5 cm. x 1 cm. x abdominal cavity deep on the abdomen, right
side, 1cm. above and towards right from umbilicus .

72 Id.
73 AIR 1987 SC 1337.

30
Written Submission on behalf of the Appellant

5th INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT


COMPETITION, 2016
4. Incised wound, 2.5 cm x 1 cm. x deep to the palm on the dorsum of the left hand, 1 cm,
above the base of middle Finger.
These injuries found by the Doctor clearly discloses that the assailant went on giving blows
after blows with his Kripan, a sharp-edged weapon on part of the body where vital organs
are situated and ultimately the result is achieved i.e. the deceased is dead. It is not a case
where a blow was inflicted in the heat of passion. In the circumstances like this where there
are repeated blows on the vital parts of the body, it could not be said that the appellant
committed an offence other than 302.
Hence it is submitted that, also in the present suit, the assailant(s) gave repeated blows on the
body of the Victim with a sharp edged weapon as corroborated in the medical report. It is
clearly visible from the conduct of the respondents that they are guilty for murder u/s 302 of
Indian Penal Code74.
(36.) It is further submitted to this Honble Court that the guilt of the Respondents is
evident from the fact that the property suit was decided in favour of the Victims family. 75
Such property disputes have often led to murders of family members, such as in the case of
Krishnan and anr v. State of Kerela.76 The appellants in this case were held guilty for murder
u/s 302 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, after killing the victim due to a property dispute.
(37.) The Respondents brewing animosity and anger towards the Victims family is a clear
indication of their involvement in this heinous crime. According to the deposition of PW1,
Mr Geysha shouted Iska kaam khatam kardo, which when translated to English means
Finish him. This shows their clear intent of the respondents to kill the victim.
(38.) According to the deposition of the Investigating Officer (PW4), the prime accused-Mr
Tashi, was arrested by the public in the market and handed over to the police. As per 43 of
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, such an act is allowed for cognizable and non-bailable
offences. Murder being both cognizable and non-bailable, such arrest by private persons is
valid.
74 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act No 45 of 1860).
75 SUPRA note 70.
76 AIR 1997 SC 383.

31
Written Submission on behalf of the Appellant

5th INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT


COMPETITION, 2016
(39.) The guilt of the respondents can now be proved beyond reasonable doubt based on the
facts and depositions of the witnesses. The statement of the respondents that they do not
know anything about the event is completely false and if relied upon, will cause failure of
justice to the victim and his family. It is submitted to this Honble Court that as per the
deposition of PW1 and PW4, Respondent No 1- Tashi was caught by the public and handed
over to the police and the other respondents were later arrested by the the I/O in cooperation
with Ambala Police. Hence their statement that they were falsely implicated must be
disregarded.
(40.) It is humbly submitted to this Honble Court that the Respondents must be awarded
death penalty due to the nature of the crime. The Respondents were part of the same family
as the Victim except Respondent No. 1-Mr. Tashi. The Respondents, under the garb of
familial relations, have tried to evade liability and punishment in this matter. This is a sheer
case of swaying this Court according to the Respondents own convenience. It is further
submitted that in the case of Surja Ram v State of Rajasthan 77, this Honble Court held that
while considering punishment to be given to accused; Court should be alive not only to right
of accused to be awarded just and fair punishment, but also to rights of victims to have
assailant appropriately punished and society's reasonable expectation from Court for
appropriate deterrent punishment conforming to gravity of offence.
(41.) In the present case, the Respondents must be awarded death penalty to prove as a
further deterrent to youth and aged alike. This Honble Court must take into consideration the
fact that the provision for capital punishment has been under a very long drawn debate
between Human Rights Activists and the Indian Judiciary and Legislature. The amendment
or repealing of the statute has been often proposed in various Parliamentary sessions, but it
has never been taken into consideration given the criminal state of affairs in our country.
It is submitted to this Honble Court that awarding death penalty is an active deterrent for
heinous crimes such as one committed by the Respondents.

77 AIR 1997 SC 18.

32
Written Submission on behalf of the Appellant

5th INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT


COMPETITION, 2016

PRAYER
In the light of facts stated, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, the
Respondents humbly submit that the Honble Court may be pleased to adjudge and declare
that:
1. The impugned order of the High Court be set aside and the Respondents in the given case
be awarded death penalty.
2. The victims family be paid Rs 10,00,000/- (Rs. Ten Lakh only) as compensation.
3. Any other relief that the Honble Supreme Court be pleased to grant in the interest of
justice, equity and good conscience.

For This Act Of Kindness, The Appellant Shall Duty Bound Forever Pray.

Respectfully submitted
.
(Sd/-)
(Counsel for the Appellant)

33
Written Submission on behalf of the Appellant