TEAM CODE: 17

BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN

SARA & OTHERS

……….. APPELLANTS

V.

STATE
……......RESPONDENTS

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS

INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, SCHOOL OF LAW,

RAFFLES UNIVERSITY
 [THIS MEMORANDUM HAS BEEN PREPARED ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS]

TABLE OF CONTENTS ………………………………………………………………………

II
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES…………………………………………………………………..III
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION……………………………………………………………IV
SUMMARY OF FACTS…………………………………………………………………….VII
ISSUES RAISED…………………………………………………………………………….XI
SUMMARY OF

ARGUMENTS………………………………………………………………...X
PLEADINGS………………………………………………………………………………….1
I. WHETHER THE JUDGMENT OF LOWER COURT IN CONVICTING THE APPELLANT
IS JUSTIFIED OR

NOT?....................................................................................................1
[A] PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE……………………………………………….1
[B] MENS REA WAS NOT ESTABLISHED…………………………………………..2
[C] MOTIVE WAS NOT SHOWN…………………………………………………...3
II. WHETHER THE RELIANCE ON CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE BY THE COURT OF
SESSION IS SUFFICIENT FOR THE CONVICTION OF

APPELLANTS?...........................5
[A] CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE ARE NOT CONCLUSIVE IN NATURE……………
6
[B] THERE IS A REASONABLE DOUBT…………………………………………….9

PRAYER FOR RELIEF……………………………………………………………………...XI

TABLE OF CONTENTS

2
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATUTES

1. Indian Penal Code, 1860

2. Criminal Procedural Code, 1973
3. Indian Evidence Act, 1872

CASES
(1) Kirrori mal alias Kallu; (2) Ved Prakash v. State, 1989 (3) DL 128...................................13
Abdul Sayeed & Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2010) 10 SCC 259...............................8
Bakhshish Singh v. State of Punjab,.........................................................................................11
Bimal Kumar v. State of Punjab, AIR 2010 Pun 1567.............................................................13
Budhuram v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2012) 11 SCC 588.........................................................10
C. Chenga reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh...........................................................................11
Chhotanney & Ors. v. State of UP, AIR 2009 SC 2013...........................................................14
Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1964 SC 1563...............................6
Dasari Siva Reddy v. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., AIR 2004 SC 4383.............9
Debapriya pal v. State of West Bengal, AIR 2017 SC 1246......................................................9
Dharnidhar and others v. State of U.P., (2010) 7 SCC 759........................................................7
Dr. Sunil Kumar SambhudayalGupta & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra......................................6
Emperor v. Nishi Kanta Banikya, AIR 1925 Cal 525................................................................8
G. Parashwanath v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2010 SC 2914....................................................11
Gambhir v. State of Maharashtra, 1982 SC 1157.....................................................................11
Ganeshlal v. State of Maharashtra, (1992) 3 SCC 106...............................................................9
Ghurphekan v. State of U.P., (1972) 3 SCC 361......................................................................10
Hanumant Goivind Nargundkar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1952 SC 343....................11
Harender Narain Singh and others v. State of Bihar, (1991) 3 SCC 609.................................12
Hari Krishnan & Anr. v. Sukhbir Singh & Ors, AIR 1988 SC 2127..........................................7
Hari Om v. State of U.P., (1970) 3 SCC 453............................................................................10
Jahid alias Lambu v. State, 2009 (3) JCC 1760.......................................................................13
Jasbir Singh alias Balley v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), 2007 (145) DLT 173.......13
Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (1973) 2 SCC 808......................................................6
Kansa Behera v. State of Orissa, AIR 1987 SC 1507..............................................................10
Kochi Maitheen Kannu Salim v. State of Kerala AIR 1998 SC 2852......................................13
Kuratikar Sudhakar v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2014) 13 SCC 109........................................8
Lakwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1993 SC 87..............................................................9
Madhu v. State of Kerala, (2012) 2 SCC 399...........................................................................10
Mahavir Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2016 SC 5123...............................................8
Mangleshwari Prasad v. State of Bihar, AIR 1954 SC 715......................................................10
Md. Alimuddin & Ors. v. State Of Assam, 1992 Cr.LJ 3287...................................................14

3
Mohindar Singh v. State, AIR 1960 Punj 135............................................................................6
Molu & others v. State of Haryana, (1976) 4 SCC 362.............................................................8
Mrinal Das & Others v. State of Tripura, (2011) 9 SCC 479.....................................................6
Nagarjit Ahir etc. v. State of Bihar, (2005) 10 SCC 369............................................................8
Om Prakash v. State of Uttaranchal...........................................................................................8
Omvati v. Mahendra Singh, AIR 1998 SC 249..........................................................................8
Padala veera Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others.........................................................6
Pannayar v. State of Tamil Nadu................................................................................................8
Prem Singh v. State of Government of (NCT Delhi), 2016 (235) DLT 467..............................8
Punjab v. Pritam Singh and Others............................................................................................9
Raj Kumar alias v. State of NCT Delhi......................................................................................8
Ram Kishore S/o Hadman Ram and another v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2017 Raj 17..............9
Ram Prasad v. State of U.P., (1974) 3 SCC 388.......................................................................14
Ram Singh v. Sonia, (2007) 3 SCC 1.......................................................................................11
Rishi Kesh Singh and others v. State, AIR 1970 ALL 51..........................................................6
Ronny v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1998 SC 1251................................................................10
Sampath Kumar v. Inspector of Police Krishnagiri, AIR 2012 SC 1249...................................8
Shivaji Jana Patil and Others v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2004 Mum 612.............................7
Shyamlal saha & another v. State of West Bengal, AIR 2014 SC 3701...................................14
State (Delhi Administration) v. Kuldeep Kaur and Another, 2006 (129) DLT 481.................12
State of Maharashtra v. Meyer Hans George, AIR 1965 SC 722...............................................7
State of U.P. v. Desh Raj, (2006) 9 SCC 278...........................................................................10
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Desh Raj, (2006) 9 SCC 278............................................................12
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Inderjeet alias Sukhkant....................................................................7
Tika v. State of U.P.....................................................................................................................6
Tukaram v. State of Maharashtra, (1979) 2 SCC 143..............................................................10
Tulsiram Kanu v. State, AIR 1954 SC 1..................................................................................14
Ujjagar Singh vs. State of Punjab (2007) 13 SCC 90................................................................9
Vivek Kalra v. State of Rajasthan, (2014) 12 SCC 439.............................................................9

BOOKS
10 Halsbury Laws of England, 273 (3rd ed. 1953).....................................................................7
AMERICAN JURISPRUDENCE, 322 (2nd ed., Vol. 29, Thomson Reuters) (2011).......................10
AN ESSAY ON THE PRINCIPLES OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE BY WILLIAM WILLS , (3rd
Ed. Henry Butterworth, 7, Fleet Street, Law Bookseller and Publisher).............................10
ANDREW STUMER, THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE: EVIDENTIAL & HUMAN RIGHT
PERSPECTIVE (2010)...............................................................................................................6
BEN EMMERSON et. al., HUMAN RIGHTS & CRIMINAL JUSTICE, 725(2012)..............................6
K.D. GAUR, CRIMINAL LAW & CRIMINOLOGY, 65 (2002)........................................................6
KRISHNA DEO GAUR, TEXTBOOK ON INDIAN PENAL CODE, 80 (2009).....................................8
R. Rajgopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1995 SC 264.............................................................6
R.A. DUFF, ANSWERING THE CRIME: RESPONSIBILITY & LIABILITY IN CRIMINAL LAW, 9
(2007).....................................................................................................................................6

4
SANDIE TAYLOR, CRIME & CRIMINALITY: A MULTIDISCIPLINARY APPROACH, 26 (2015)........7

5
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Appellant humbly submits this memorandum before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi.
The Appeal invokes its jurisdiction under section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C, 1973. It set forth the facts
and the laws on which the claims are based.

6
 SUMMARY OF FACTS

1. On 15th September, 1980, Sumit and Riya, both surgeons by profession, and Hindu by
religion, got married in Bombay, and ran a Hospital in Mumbai, where other reputed
doctors visited to render their professional services. 2 years after their marriage, they
adopted a girl child named Sara, on 20th September, 1982. At the age of 16, Sara was
impregnated by X (assumed to be a close family member), and Sara gave birth to a girl
child named Manvi on 17th October, 1984, to the dislike of her parents.
2. Sumit and Riya forced Sara to give away Manvi to an orphanage. Sara, once settled in her
career, made a fixed deposit in the name of Manvi, giving it to the orphanage, for her
better future, and kept observing Manvi, periodically sending more money for her
betterment.
3. In time, Manvi became a national level swimmer, and always having been curious about
the person regularly looking after her needs, insisted on knowing the identity of the
benefactor, which she expressed to the orphanage where she had spent her childhood.
4. In the meanwhile, after having given Manvi away to the orphanage, Sara married Danish,
and then, gave birth to a boy named Parth. After 10 years of Marriage, Sara divorced
Danish, on the ground of cruelty, and which was granted by the court on 20 th August,
2005.
5. Within year after her divorce, Sara met Shobhit, fell in love and within 6 months of
meeting, they got married in a temple. While conceiving a child, Shobhit made a will,
giving away all his property to the future child, and made Sara as a second nominee while
making himself as the first nominee. Within a year, Sara gave birth to a boy named
Gaurav. Five years into the marriage, things didn’t work out, and Sara became adamant
for a divorce, for which Shobhit was unwilling. Sara filed a case on 20 th July, 2015, the
result of which is still pending in the court of law.
6. During the pendency of this suit, Sara took Gaurav and fled to Delhi, without informing
Shobhit. She only left a letter, wherein she stated that she didn’t want to stay with Shobhit
anymore, and that she was taking the child with her. She did not inform Shobhit regarding
her whereabouts. All attempts to look for the two them by Shobhit were fruitless.
7. Sara, in the meanwhile, moved ton and settled in Delhi, met Sayed, and fell in love with
him. Sayed was already married to a Muslim woman, Shabina, and had a son with her
named, Farhan, who is 24 years old. Sayed and Sara got married after a period of two
years on 31st July, 2017, for which he didn’t take consent from Shabina. Sara also did not

7
 inform Sayed about her pending case of divorce with Shobhit was pending in the court at
Mumbai.
8. After their marriage, the two of them Sara and Sayed, went for their honeymoon in
Switzerland from 8th August 2017 to 18th August, 2017, for a period of 10 days. On
returning, they found Manvi in their house, who had come from Mumbai to meet Sara,
and had started living with Gaurav and Farhan. Sara and Sayed also found out that Manvi
had gotten into an illicit relation with Farhan, and the two of them wished to get married,
the same was not acceptable by Sara and Sayed.
9. Sara also came to know from some secret sources that Shobhit had been found dead, as
his neck had been cut down with the help of a surgical knife, in a room of Hotel Royal in
Delhi on 8th August, 2017, for which the police investigation was still pending.
10. Sara had been in touch with Danish for a long time now, and immediately after looking at
the circumstances, Sara contacted Danish. Meanwhile, after that, Sara, after a month of
death of Shobhit, filed a missing complaint in the police station of Manvi, on 15 th
September, 2017, four months after which, the local police of Delhi found a dead body
floating into the river of Yamuna, which was identified to be that of Manvi.
11. Post preliminary investigation, an FIR has been lodged against Sara and Danish for
murder of Shobhit and Manvi, and a case was filed against them in the lower courts, and
they were found guilty by the lower courts, an appeal against which conviction has been
filed in the High Court of Delhi, in response to which the respondent has appeared before
the court.

8
 ISSUES RAISED

I. WHETHER THE JUDGMENT OF LOWER COURT IN CONVICTING THE APPELLANT IS

JUSTIFIED OR NOT?
II. WHETHER THE RELIANCE ON CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE BY THE COURT OF

SESSION IS SUFFICIENT FOR THE CONVICTION OF APPELLANTS?

9
 SUMMARY OF ARGUEMENTS

1. JUDGMENT OF COURT OF SESSIONS SUFFERS FROM INFIRMITY OF LAW

With regards to this issue it is humbly submitted that the Judgment of Lower Court
suffers from infirmity of law as it erred in not considering the essential element of
mens rea in criminal offence.

2. CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS NOT CONCLUSIVE IN NATURE

With regards to this issue it is humbly submitted that the circumstantial evidences are
not conclusive in nature. There was a break in chain of evidences which ultimately
leads to infirmity of law.

PLEADINGS

10
 I. WHETHER THE JUDGMENT OF LOWER COURT IN CONVICTING THE APPELLANT IS

JUSTIFIED OR NOT?
1. The counsel on behalf of Appellant humbly submits before the Hon’ble High Court of
Delhi, that the judgment of lower court in convicting the appellants suffers from
serious infirmity of law, thus the same must be negated by this Hon’ble court. There is
a presumption of innocence on accused [A]. The essential element of Murder, ‘mens
rea’ was not clearly established [B], and in its absence, even the motive was not
clearly shown [C] by the respondent. Lower Court of Session failed to consider these
essential elements of criminal law resulting in infirmity of law.

[A] PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE.

2. With regards to conviction of Appellant, it is humbly contended before this Hon’ble
High Court of Delhi that one of the cardinal principles which always has to be kept in
view in our criminal jurisprudence system is that a person arraigned as an accused is
presumed to be innocent1 unless that presumption is rebutted by the prosecution 2 by
production of evidence which may show him to be guilty of the offence with which he
is charged.3 Every one charged with a penal offence has a right to be presumed
innocent,4 which is universally recognized as fundamental human right and a core
principle in the administration of criminal justice.5
3. It has been evidently provided for in S.105 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 that it is
for the prosecution to establish beyond reasonable doubt all essential ingredients 6 of
the crime especially mens rea to prove the guilt of the accused. 7 This has further been
emphasized in Tika v. State of U.P.8 the approach which a court should take in
convicting an accused who is presumed to be innocent is that unless the contrary is
clearly established the burden under the accusatory system is always on the
prosecution.9

1 Mrinal Das & Others v. State of Tripura, (2011) 9 SCC 479; see also R.A. DUFF, ANSWERING THE CRIME:
RESPONSIBILITY & LIABILITY IN CRIMINAL LAW, 9 (2007).
2 Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (1973) 2 SCC 808; see also BEN EMMERSON et. al., HUMAN RIGHTS
& CRIMINAL JUSTICE, 725(2012).
3 K.D. GAUR, CRIMINAL LAW & CRIMINOLOGY, 65 (2002).
4 R. Rajgopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1995 SC 264.
5 ANDREW STUMER, THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE: EVIDENTIAL & HUMAN RIGHT PERSPECTIVE (2010).
6 Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1964 SC 1563.
7 Rishi Kesh Singh and others v. State, AIR 1970 ALL 51.
8 AIR 1974 SC 155.
9 Section 101, Indian evidence Act, 1872

11
 4. In order to justify the inference of guilt, the inculpatory facts must be incompatible
with the innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation.10
5. In Dr. Sunil Kumar SambhudayalGupta & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra,11 it was held
that every accused is presumed to be innocent unless his guilt is proved and that his
presumption of innocence gets reinforced with his acquittal.

[B] MENS REA WAS NOT ESTABLISHED.

6. It is humbly contended that there was neither actus reus nor mens rea on part of the
Appellant. To establish the offence of ‘culpable homicide’, both, mens rea and actus
reus must be proved.12 It is a fundamental principle that every crime involves a
vicious act and vicious will13 and it must be proved by the prosecution as the part is
really one of evidence.
7. Mens rea is considered as guilty intention14 which is proved or inferred from the acts
of the accused.15 It has always been a principle of the common law that Mens rea is an
essential element in commission of any offence 16 The Supreme Court Opinioned that,
“The intention or knowledge of the accused must be as such necessary to constitute
murder”.17 mens rea is generally taken to be an essential element of crime.18
8. Similarly Hon’ble Apex court in Sudharshan and others v. State of Maharashtra 19 set
aside the judgment of High Court by giving benefit of doubt to where intention to kill
was not clearly established by through the prosecution. Thus failure to establish mens
rea on part of respondents made it clear that appellant must not be held liable for
offence of murder u/s 302 is unjustified.
9. Similarly in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Inderjeet alias Sukhkant, 20 Supreme Court held
that in absence of motive and intention to kill would results in justified acquittal. Lack
of intention for commission of criminal offence, simply clarify that accused is not
guilty of offence.21

10 Padala veera Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others.

11 (2010) 13 SCC 657.
12 Mohindar Singh v. State, AIR 1960 Punj 135
13 1 R.P. KATHURIA’S, SUPREME COURT ON CRIMINAL LAW, 1950-2002, 158 (6th ed. 2002).
14 Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, (1994) 3 SCC 569; see also SANDIE TAYLOR, CRIME & CRIMINALITY: A
MULTIDISCIPLINARY APPROACH, 26 (2015).
15 State of Maharashtra v. Meyer Hans George, AIR 1965 SC 722.
16 10 Halsbury Laws of England, 273 (3rd ed. 1953).
17 Hari Krishnan & Anr. v. Sukhbir Singh & Ors, AIR 1988 SC 2127.
18 State of Rajasthan v. Shera Ram @ Vishnu Dutt, AIR 2012 SC 1.
19 (2012) 12 SCC 312.
20 (2000) 7 SCC 249.
21 Shivaji Jana Patil and Others v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2004 Mum 612.

12
 10. In the present case intention on part of appellant was not established by the
respondent that they killed Shobhit & Manvi.
11. If appellant in the present case had intention to kill deceased, she would never have
left their home. And in case of Manvi, appellant’s prior act shows her love & affection
for Manvi.
12. It was well established from the series of fact that appellant had no intention to kill
deceased.
[C] MOTIVE OF CAUSING DEATH HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN.
13. Motive is a reason or ground of an action,22 it is a matter of principle that the proof of
motive is not necessary to sustain a conviction23 but when the prosecution puts
forward a specific case as to motive for the crime, the evidence regarding the same
has got to be considered in order to judge the probabilities. 24 It is well-settled that
motive for a crime is a satisfactory circumstance of corroboration when there is
convincing evidence to prove the guilt of an accused person but it cannot fill up a
lacuna in the evidence.25
14. In Pannayar v. State of Tamil Nadu,26 the Apex Court held that, “The absence of
motive in a case which depended on circumstantial evidence is more favorable to the
defence.” Thus in case based on circumstantial evidence if motive is not shown then
the accused must be acquitted.27 Absence of proof of motive would be a ground for
acquittal of accused.28 It is not necessary to search for the exact motive which
motivated the appellants to commit the offence.29 It is a settled law that motive is not a
necessary element in deciding culpability but it is an equally important missing link
which can be used to corroborate the evidences. 30 If the motive cannot be discovered,
the accused is entitled for acquittal.31
15. Similarly in case of Om Prakash v. State of Uttaranchal,32 has accordingly held that
the motive of crime is not a necessary requirement. Motive is something which
prompts a man to form an intention. 33 The question whether there is any motive or not

22 KRISHNA DEO GAUR, TEXTBOOK ON INDIAN PENAL CODE, 80 (2009).

23 Dharnidhar and others v. State of U.P., (2010) 7 SCC 759.
24 Emperor v. Nishi Kanta Banikya, AIR 1925 Cal 525;
25 Omvati v. Mahendra Singh, AIR 1998 SC 249.
26 AIR 2010 SC 85.
27 Prem Singh v. State of Government of (NCT Delhi), 2016 (235) DLT 467.
28 Supra note 18
29 Nagarjit Ahir etc. v. State of Bihar, (2005) 10 SCC 369.

30 K. A. Kotrappa Reddy and another v Rayara Manjunatha Reddy @ N. R. Manjunatha and others, JT 2015
(9) SC 310.
31 Kuratikar Sudhakar v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2014) 13 SCC 109.
32 (2003) 1 SCC 648.
33 Supra note 18

13
 becomes wholly irrelevant if it does not corroborate circumstantial evidence. 34
Presence of motive in facts and circumstances of case created a strong suspicion but
suspicion, howsoever strong, also could not be a substitute for proof of guilt of
accused beyond a reasonable doubt.35 The reversing of judgment could be seen from
various Supreme Court judgments36 were motive was not clearly shown.
16. In case of Raj Kumar alias v. State of NCT Delhi 37 it was held that cases recovery of
weapon of offence in these circumstances was of no value when motive is not clearly
established, and thus accused is entitled for benefit of doubt and consequent acquittal.
17. Thus it is conclusively evident from various judicial pronouncements 38 that if motive
is not shown, will result in creating doubt.
18. It is humbly contended before the Hon’ble High Court that if the motive was not
clearly shown in case of circumstantial evidence, benefit of doubt must be given to
the accused. The judgment of Court of Sessions had erroneously convicted the
appellant without examining the motive. Men do not act wholly without motive.39
19. In State of Punjab v. Pritam Singh and Others,40 it was held that in the absence of any
corroborative evidence and motive, accused could not be held liable for criminal
offence. Absence of motive can create a reasonable doubt and the benefit must be
given to the accused. Motive cannot be a clinching factor for deciding the complicity
of the accused but the absence of motive certainly raises a reasonable doubt.41
20. Absence of motive could give rise to circumstances which establish the existence of
reasonable doubt.42
21. Motive is a relevant fact and can be taken into consideration under Section 8 of the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872.43 In a case relating to circumstantial evidence motive does
assume great importance.44 But if there is a break in chain of circumstantial evidence
and motive is not clearly shown would results in quashing of order for conviction45
22. Therefore in the light of abovementioned reasons and authorities it is humbly
submitted that, motive is a relevant factor in case of circumstantial and trial court
erred in considering absence of motive.

34 Molu & others v. State of Haryana, (1976) 4 SCC 362.

35 Sampath Kumar v. Inspector of Police Krishnagiri, AIR 2012 SC 1249.
36 Mahavir Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2016 SC 5123; Abdul Sayeed & Others v. State of Madhya
Pradesh, (2010) 10 SCC 259.
37 2013 (202) DLT 370.
38 Debapriya pal v. State of West Bengal, AIR 2017 SC 1246; see
39 Ganeshlal v. State of Maharashtra, (1992) 3 SCC 106.
40 (1997) 4 SCC 56.
41 Lakwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1993 SC 87.
42 Dasari Siva Reddy v. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., AIR 2004 SC 4383.
43 Vivek Kalra v. State of Rajasthan, (2014) 12 SCC 439.
44 Ujjagar Singh vs. State of Punjab (2007) 13 SCC 90.
45 Ram Kishore S/o Hadman Ram and another v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2017 Raj 17.

14
 II. WHETHER THE RELIANCE ON CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE BY THE COURT OF

SESSION IS SUFFICIENT FOR THE CONVICTION OF APPELLANTS?

23. With regards to this issue, counsel humbly submits before the Hon’ble High Court
that the chain of circumstances was not conclusive in nature [A] ultimately resulting
in existence of a reasonable doubt [B] and thus the benefit must be given to accused
appellants. Sessions Court had erroneously relied upon the circumstantial evidence
and convicted the appellants which must be set aside by this Hon’ble High Court of
Delhi
24. As Jaffee says ‘Propositions are true or false; they are not “probable” 46 in court as
elsewhere, the data cannot ‘speak for itself’. It has to be interpreted in the light of the
competing hypotheses put forward and against a background of knowledge and
experience about the world.47 Sir Alfred Wills in his book 48 lays down the following
rules specially to be observed in the cases of circumstantial evidence: “(1) the facts
alleged as the basis of any legal inference must be clearly proved and beyond
reasonable doubt with the factum probandum; (2) the burden of proof is always on the
party who asserts the existence of any fact, which infers legal accountability; (3) in all
cases, whether of direct or circumstantial evidence the best evidence must be adduced
which the nature of the case admits; (4) in order to justify the inference of guilt, the
inculpatory facts must be incompatible with the innocence of the accused and
incapable of explanation, upon any other reasonable hypothesis than that of his guilt;
(5) if there be any reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused, he is entitled as of
right to be acquitted.” The same has been reiterated in a plethora of cases.49 Ordinarily
circumstantial evidences cannot be regarded as satisfactory as direct evidence.50
25. All the circumstances should be complete and there should be no gap left in the chain
of evidence.
26. In the present case, the plausibility of the hypothesis put forward by the Prosecution at
the trial stage is inconclusive in nature. The circumstances encompassing situation at
hand fail to prove the factum probandum.

46 AMERICAN JURISPRUDENCE, 322 (2nd ed., Vol. 29, Thomson Reuters) (2011)
47 Leonard Jaffee, Probativity and Probability, 46 UNIV. PITTSBURGH L. REV. 924, 934 (1985).
48 AN ESSAY ON THE PRINCIPLES OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE BY WILLIAM WILLS , (3rd Ed. Henry
Butterworth, 7, Fleet Street, Law Bookseller and Publisher).
49 Madhu v. State of Kerala, (2012) 2 SCC 399; see Mangleshwari Prasad v. State of Bihar, AIR 1954 SC 715;
State of U.P. v. Desh Raj, (2006) 9 SCC 278; see Thimma and Thimma Raju v. State of Mysore, (1970) 2 SCC
105; see Hari Om v. State of U.P., (1970) 3 SCC 453; see Ronny v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1998 SC 1251;
Kansa Behera v. State of Orissa, AIR 1987 SC 1507; see Budhuram v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2012) 11 SCC
588; see Tukaram v. State of Maharashtra, (1979) 2 SCC 143; see Ghurphekan v. State of U.P., (1972) 3 SCC
361.
50 Infra note 42, at 16.

15
 [A] CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE ARE NOT CONCLUSIVE IN NATURE
27. In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra,51 the five golden principles
which have been stated to constitute the panchsheel of the proof of the case based on
circumstantial evidence are:
A. the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn must or

should be and not merely ‘may be’ fully established,

B. the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the
guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other
hypothesis except that the accused is guilty,
C. the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency,
D. they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved,
and
E. 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 accused and
must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the
accused.
28. The Apex Court in the case of Bakhshish Singh v. State of Punjab,52 observed that that
in a case resting on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances put forward must be
satisfactorily proved and those circumstances should be consistent only with the
hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again those circumstances should be of a
conclusive nature53 and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every
hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. The Court also held that there is a long
mental distance between “may be true” and must be true” and the same divide
conjectures from sure conclusions.54 First of all every suspicion is not a doubt.55
29. In the case at hand chain of circumstances does not conclude into the guilt of
appellant, as they were not even present when Shobit was discovered dead in a hotel
room.
30. Similarly the Apex Court in C. Chenga reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh 56 wherein it
has been observed that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the settled law is
that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn out should be fully
proved and such circumstances must be conclusive in nature. In other words
circumstantial evidence must be both exclusive & conclusive i.e., must exclude the

51 (1984) 4 SCC 116

52 AIR 1957 SC 904.
53 Hanumant Goivind Nargundkar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1952 SC 343; see also M MONIR,
TEXTBOOK ON LAW OF EVIDENCE, 29 (2012).
54 Ram Singh v. Sonia, (2007) 3 SCC 1.
55 G. Parashwanath v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2010 SC 2914.
56 (1996) 10 SCC 193

16
 hypothesis of innocence of accused and must conclusively establish his guilt. 57 The
circumstantial evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused,
but should be inconsistent with his innocence.58
31. 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 be in the
first instance be fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent
only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused.59
32. In the instant matter, there is an absence of material hypothesis to bring home the guilt
of the accused. It is thus contended that none of the existing circumstances are
concrete enough to prove the factum probandum.

[A.1] CHAIN OF CIRCUMSTANCES.

33. In order to sustain a conviction on circumstantial evidence, prosecution must establish
that the chain of circumstances consistently pointing to the guilt of the accused and
inconsistent with his innocence.60 Another basic rule of criminal jurisprudence that if
two views are possible on the evidence adduced in a case of circumstantial evidence
ne pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the Court should
adopt the latter view favorable to the accused.61
34. In the present case at hand two view based on circumstances are possible, as appellant
are only in relation with deceased which does not give rise to the fact that they are
liable for murder.
35. Inconclusive circumstantial evidence cannot be relied if two views are possible from
the hypothesis.62
36. In Sayeed Aleem v. State of Karnataka,63 it was held that weak circumstantial evidence
without any corroborative evidence are not reliable, and order for acquittal would be
justified and suffers from no infirmity of law.
37. In A.C. Lagu v. State of Bombay,64 where the proof of charge of murder by poisoning
rest principally upon circumstantial evidence, the Supreme Court held evidences as to
the conduct of accused in respect of the property of deceased before and after death
was master link in the chain of evidence which the court could consider, along with
other evidences. But the link between deceased properties should be corroborated by
some other evidences.

57 Supra note 41, at 15

58 Gambhir v. State of Maharashtra, 1982 SC 1157.
59 Supra note 52.
60 State of Uttar Pradesh v. Desh Raj, (2006) 9 SCC 278.
61 Harender Narain Singh and others v. State of Bihar, (1991) 3 SCC 609.
62 State (Delhi Administration) v. Kuldeep Kaur and Another, 2006 (129) DLT 481.
63 AIR 1980 SC 1708.
64 1960 SCJ 779.

17
 38. In the present case lower court erred in considering the fact that deceased property
cannot alone could complete the chain of evidences. There was a break in chain of
evidences as if Appellant killed deceased for property she would have never left him
without informing.
39. Thus the chain of circumstantial evidence is inconclusive in nature with possibilities
of two views. Therefore in the light of abovementioned reasons and authorities cited it
was well settled principle of law that conviction cannot be based on weak
circumstantial evidences65 having two views of the hypothesis.
[A.2] RECOVERY OF KNIFE IS WITHOUT IN RELATION WITH THE APPELLANT.
40. Recovery of weapon is consider to be a reliable evidence in case of murder, but if the
link between weapon and accused is not established, it becomes unworthy. No
reliance could be placed on the recovery of weapon in the absence of corroborative
evidence which results in making the recovery doubtful.66 Even recovery of weapon at
the instance of accused could not by itself alone lead to inference that it was accused
who commit the murder.67 Without there being any other circumstance recovery of
blood stained knife and clothes could not lead to conclusion that appellant was
perpetrator of crime.68
41. Similarly in Ajay Goswami v. State,69 it was held that reasonable nexus between the
recovered weapon and accused must be shown by the prosecution to establish the
guilt. Recovery of weapon becomes unreliable if the link between accused and
recovered weapon is not established.70
42. Thus it is conclusively evident from the facts that Respondent/ prosecution is not able
to establish a reasonable nexus between Appellants and the recovered weapon.
43. Therefore in the light of abovementioned authorities it is well established principle of
law that a link must be prove between recovered weapon and accused. In the present
case there is no possibilities that appellant is guilty of murder.

[B] THERE IS A REASONABLE DOUBT

44. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the burden of proving the case
beyond reasonable doubt lies on the prosecution.71 The Supreme Court ruled out that
65 Bimal Kumar v. State of Punjab, AIR 2010 Pun 1567.
66 (1) Kirrori mal alias Kallu; (2) Ved Prakash v. State, 1989 (3) DL 128.
67 Jasbir Singh alias Balley v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), 2007 (145) DLT 173.
68 Jahid alias Lambu v. State, 2009 (3) JCC 1760.
69 2011 (179) DLT 798.
70 Kochi Maitheen Kannu Salim v. State of Kerala AIR 1998 SC 2852.
71 Sec. 101 of IEA, 1872.

18
 prosecution cannot derive any advantage from falsity or other infirmities of the
defence version, so long as it does not discharge its initial burden of proving its case
beyond all reasonable doubt.72
45. It has been elucidated by the Hon’ble Courts in plethora of cases 73 that the prosecution
must prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. It has been mentioned by numerous
authorities that an accused must not be convicted unless the court is satisfied of guilt
beyond all reasonable doubt. A reasonable doubt must not be imaginary, trivial or
merely possible doubt; but a fair doubt based upon reason and common sense arising
out of the evidence of the case.74
46. It is justified to acquit accused persons when prosecution has failed to prove guilt of
accused persons beyond reasonable doubt.75 It was emphasized that the appellate court
is not expected to merely substitute its opinion for that of the trial court and that it has
to exercise its discretion very cautiously to correct an error of law or fact, if any and
significant enough to warrant reversal of the verdict of the trial court.76
47. In Sanjay Bhera v. State of Odisha,77 it was held that if evidences are not clearly
showing the guilt of the accused and create doubt, benefit must be given to the
accused.
48. In the case at hand it is evident from the series of facts that there is a doubt as
appellant were not even present in the country at the time of offence and recovered
weapon was alos not clearly showing that appellant killed deceased. similarly in case

72 Md. Alimuddin & Ors. v. State Of Assam, 1992 Cr.LJ 3287.

73 Adambhai Sulemanbhai v. State of Gujarat, (2014) 7 SCC 716; See also, Ram Lakhan Singh v. State of U.P.,
(1977) 3 SCC 268; Tulsiram Kanu v. State, AIR 1954 SC 1; Ram Prasad v. State of U.P., (1974) 3 SCC 388.
74 Chhotanney & Ors. v. State of UP, AIR 2009 SC 2013.

75 Supra note 27
76 Shyamlal saha & another v. State of West Bengal, AIR 2014 SC 3701.
77 AIR 2017 SC 916

19
20
 PRAYER FOR RELIEF

In the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, the counsel for the
Respondent humbly prays that the Hon’ble Court be pleased to adjudge, hold and declare:
Appellants are not guilty of Murder, and the judgment of lower court in convicting the
appellant must be set aside.

MISCELLANEOUS
And pass any other order that the Hon’ble Court deems fit in the interest of equity, justice and
good conscience.
And for this act of kindness, the counsel for the respondent shall duty bound forever pray.

Sd/-
(Counsel for Respondent)
12