Prosecution Memorial

TEAM CODE:
TRIAL ADVOCACY
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE AT

RINCHI
Crl. C No. …. of 2017
IN THE MATTER OF:
STATE OF REALKAHND
(PROSECUTION)
V.
MR. NAKUL KHANNA & ANR.

(DEFENCE)
FOR THE OFFENCES CHARGED UNDER:
SS. 302,304B, 498A, 109, 120B R/W 34 OF THE VINDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860.
UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE PRINCIPLE SESSIONS JUDGE
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 3
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 7
STATEMENT OF FACTS 8
STATEMENT OF CHARGES 9
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 10
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED 11
I. ACCUSED IS LIABLE FOR CRIMINAL CONPIRACY

I.I AN OBJECT TO BE ACOMPLISHED
I.II PLAN & SCHEME
I.III AGREEMENT OR UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE ACCUSED
PERSONS
II. ACCUSED IS GUITY OF MURDER AND DEMAND OF DOWRY

II.I ACTUS REUS
II.II MENS REA PRESENT
II.II.I ACTS DONE WITH THE INTENT TO KILL
II.II.II KNOWLEDGE PRESENT THAT ACT WOULD LEAD TO DEATH
III. ACCUSED IS LIABLE FOR CRUELTY AGAINST THE DECEASED U/S

498A
PRAYER
25

3
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
CASES:
1. Ashok Kumar v State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1989 SC
2. Commissioner of Income Tax v Patranu Dass Raja Ram Beri, AIR 1965 SC 722
3. Dayal Singh v. State of Uttranchal, AIR 2012 SC 3046.
4. Devender v. State, 2002 (5) SCC 234
5. Dr.Laxman Balkrishna Joshi v. Dr. Trimbak Bapu Godbole, 1969(1) SCR 206.
6. Esher Singh v State of Andhra Pradesh, (2004) 11 SCC 585
7. Gade Lakshmi v State, 2001 CR LJ 3317(SC)
8. Gajanand v. State of U.P., AIR 1954 SC 595.
9. Harendra Narain Singh v State of Bihar, AIR 1991 SC 1842
10. Hariprasada Rao v State, 1951 CRI LJ 768
11. Jawaharlal Das v State of Orissa, AIR 1971 SC 1388
12. Jhinku Nai v. State of U.P., AIR 2001 SC 2815
13. Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1988 SC 1883
14. Kirpal v. State of U.P., 1954 SC 706
15. Major Bassey v. State, AIR 1961 SC 1762
16. Mirza Akbar v. Emperor, AIR 1940 PC 176.
17. Mohd. Amin v. CBI, (2008) 15 SCC 49

4
18. Mohd.Khalid v. State, 2002(7) SCC 334.
19. Narendra Nama Das v. State of Tripura, 2009 (1) GLR 856.
20. Naseem Ahmed v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1974 SC 691
21. Nathulal v State of Madhya Pradesh MANU/SC/0384/1965
22. Noor Mohammad Mohd. Yusuf Momin v State of Maharashtra, (1970) 1 SCC 696
23. Pandurang v. State of Hyderabad, AIR 1955 SC 216
24. Saju v. State of Kerela, Appeal (Crl.) 699 1998
25. Sanjeev Nanda v. State 2009 DLT775
26. Sarjoo Prasad v State of Uttar Pradesh, 1961 CRI LJ 747
27. Shariff Ahmad v. The State, AIR 1957 All 50,
28. Sheo Govind Bin v. State of Bihar, 1985 BBCJ 632
29. Srinivas Mall v King-Emperor, ILR 26 PAT 460
30. State of H.P v. Jeet Singh, (1999) 4 SCC 370
31. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Sanjay Rai, 2004 CRLJ 2006
32. State of U.P. v Ravindra Prakash Mittal, AIR 1992 SC 2045
33. Sunny Kapoor v State (UT of Chandigarh), MANU/SC/8142/2006
34. Suresh v. State of U.P., 2001 (3) SCC 673
35. Tanviben Pankaj Kumar Divetia v State of Gujarat, (1997) SCC 156
36. Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Mahrashtra, (2006) 10 SCC 681
37. V.C. Shukla v State (Delhi Admn.), (1980) 2 SCC 665

5
BOOKS:
1. Field, C.D., Expert Evidence: Medical and Non-Medical, (4th Ed 2007)
2. Gaur, KD Firearms, Forensic Ballistics, Forensic Chemistry and Criminal
Jurisprudence, (2nd Ed 1989)
3. II, Nandi, Criminal Ready Referencer, ( 2nd Ed. 2007)
4. II, Princep’s Commentary on the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (18th ed. 2005)
5. James, Jason, Forensic Medicine: Clinical and Pathological Aspects, (1st Ed. 2003)
6. Kelkar, R.V. Criminal Procedure, (5th Ed. 2011)
7. Lal, Batuk, The Law of Evidence, (18th Ed. 2010)
8. Lyons, Medical Jurisprudence & Toxicology, (11th Ed. 2005)
9. Modi’s Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, (23rd Ed. 2010)
10. Parikh, C. K, Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence, Forensic Medicine & Toxicology,
(6th Ed. 2002)
11. Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code, 33rd Ed. (2011)
12. Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The Law of Evidence, 22nd Ed. (2006)
13. Sarkar, Law of Evidence, (13th Ed,1990)
14. Sarvaria, SK, Indian Penal Code, (10th Ed. 2008)
15. Gaur, KD, Criminal Law: Cases and Materials, (6th Ed. 2009)
16. Gupte and Dighe, Criminal Manual, (7th Ed. 2007)
17. Harris, Criminal Law, (22nd Ed. 2000)
18. Hill, McGraw, Criminal Investigation, (4th Ed. 2004)
19. I, III, IV Nelson R. A. Indian Penal Code, 10th Ed. (2008)
20. I, Kathuria, R.P. Supreme Court on Criminal Law, 1950-2002, (6th Ed. 2002)
21. II, Mitra, B.B., Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (20th ed. 2006)
22. Sharma, B.R., Forensic Science in Criminal Investigation & Trials, (4th Ed. 2003)

6
23. Tyagi, Surendra Prakash, Criminal Trial (2nd ed. 1996)
24. Varshi, H.P. Criminal Trial and Judgment, (3rd ed. 1981)
WEBSITES:
1. ww.manupatra.com
2. www.judis.nic.in
3. www.supremecourtcaselaw.com
4. www.scconline.com
5. www.indiankanoon.com
STATUTES:
1. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act 2 of 1973)
2. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Act 18 of 1872)
3. The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860)

7
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
THE HON’BLE COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO TRY THE INSTANT MATTER UNDER SEC.177 R/W
SEC.184 AND SEC.209 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973.
Sec.177: Ordinary place of inquiry and trial-
‘Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within
whose local jurisdiction it was committed.’
Sec.184: Place of trial for offences triable together.
‘Where-
(a) the offences committed by any person are such that he may be charged with
and tried at one trial for, each such offence by virtue of the provisions of
Sec.219, Sec.220 or Sec.221, or
(b) the offence of offences committed by several persons are such that they may
be charged with and tried together by virtue of the provisions of Sec.223, the
offences may be inquired into or tried by any Court competent to inquire into or
try any of the offences.’
r/w Sec.209:
Sec.209: Commitment of case to Court of Session when offence is triable

exclusively by it-
When in a case instituted on a police report or otherwise, the accused appears

or is brought before the Magistrate and it appears to the Magistrate that the
offence is triable exclusively by the Court of Session, he shall
(a) commit the case to the Court of Session;
(b) subject to the provisions of this Code relating to bail, remand the accused to
custody during, and until the conclusion of, the trial;
(c) send to that Court the record of the case and the documents and articles, if
any, which are to be produced in evidence;
(d) notify the Public Prosecutor of the commitment of the case to the Court of
Session.’

8
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. Nakul and Aashima got married in the year 2015, and it was a love marriage although,
initially the girl’s parents were reluctant but then they willfully approved for the marriage.
Their love affair started from the college and after the graduation they decided to get married
with their parents permission.
2. Nakul comes from one of the most reputed and wealthy families of Rinchi. Nakul’s
father, Mr. Baldev is one of the most rich and reputed business tycoons in the textile business
in Rinchi. He even has some political connections and possesses a robust personality in the
society. In the final year at IIM, Lehamdabad, Aashima received a pre placement offer (PPO)
from Piggy Bank Pvt. Ltd. with an annual salary of Rs. 28 Lacs. On the contrary, Nakul
decided to help his father and joined his family business.
3. Right after Aashima shifted to Nakul’s residence, whenever her father used to call her she
used to sound very depressed and troubled. Despite his repeated interrogations about the
reason for her sadness she used to change the topic and used to assure him that everything is
fine and cordial between her and Nakul. She adopted a very pale and lifeless style of living.
He could easily recall that sometimes while talking on phone she even used to cry and despite
his repeated enquires regarding the same she used to assure him that everything was fine
between her and Nakul’s family and that it was just due to some minor personal reasons. As
he knew his daughter very well. Before marriage she used to be very enthusiastic and happy
about things that came her way.
4. In the year 2016, his father got to know from her that Nakul’s family is putting pressure
on her to conceive a baby for which she was not ready as she wanted to pursue her PhD. She
further told me that Nakul’s family, particularly Ms. Rekha Khanna, her mother in law, used

9
to curse her for bringing bad luck to the family. In the month of August, 2016, Nakul’s
family business suffered a huge loss in their business for which my daughter was said to be
responsible. With the passage of time, Nakul’s family adopted a totally different attitude
towards my daughter. As what Mr. Anand used to infer from his telephonic conversations
with her, Nakul’s family had started cursing Aashima for bringing bad luck into the family
and leveled her as a bad omen. As what Aashima used to tell me over phone, her stay over
there at Nakul’s place had become very suffocating. She had no one over there with whom
she could share her problems. Ms. Rekha Khanna, also did not liked Aashima visiting our
house so she did not even have an option of coming back home.
5. On 18th November, 2016, when things became unbearable for her at Nakul’s place, Mr.
Anand called Mr. Baldev so as to request him to take care of his daughter as these times were
really hard upon her.
6. On 19th November, 2016, Aashima called his father and to his surprise she sounded
absolutely normal and told him not take things seriously regarding whatever Mr. Baldev had
told him. She further told him that Mr. Baldev was very upset yesterday because of his loss in
business and he entirely vented it out on him.
7. On 17th February, 2017, Nakul told that Aashima was all alone in the house since his
parents (Mr. Baldev and Ms. Rekha) had gone out for lunch with one of their business partner
and he was busy working in his office. He returned back from his office to his house at
around 2:30 for having lunch with Aashima. As soon as he entered the house he saw Aashima
lying at the end of the staircase with blood all over the place. He was stunned with the picture
and did not know how to react to it. He called his Dad (Mr. Baldev) to return back as soon as
possible. When Mr. Baldev and Ms. Rekha returned back, they quickly shifted Aashima to
their bedroom on the ground floor and called their family doctor. At around 3:30pm, Mr.

10
Anand received a call from Mr. Baldev Khanna. He sounded very tensed and with a very
heavy voice told him that Aashima is critically ill and id fe could come. He rushed to their
place. He saw his daughter lying on a bed and there was blood all over the pillow and on her
Saree. Immediately he went to the Udyog Vihar Police Station and informed Mr. Ranvir
Tyagi (SubInspector) about the entire incident. He along with 3 other constables and 2 more
people accompanied him to Nakul’s residence.
8. Her mother also reached at the residence and was shocked to see her daughter in such
state of mind. Police then arrived along with 2 panchas and 3 constables at 5:15 PM and
started investigating and found we found substantial blood at the end of the staircase. There
were certain stains of blood on the staircase as well. Further some of the flower pots were not
in order and were haphazardly placed. Also they found one footwear on the staircase. There
were also certain pieces of broken bangles and a burnt cigarette bud at the starting of the
staircase. Apart from this, there were sets of four parallel scratch marks on the walls of the
staircase and found one burnt cigarette bud lying at the starting of the staircase. After that he
body was sent to post mortem and as the case of cognizable nature arrested the family of the
deceased’s in-laws. In due course of the investigation, it was also seen that on 17th February,
2017, Nakul had left his office at around 12:30.

11
STATEMENT OF CHARGES
CHARGE I
SHAURYA SINGH (DW1) AND AVANTIKA RANA(DW2) HAVE BEEN
CHARGED UNDER SECTION S.302 OF THE IPC FOR THE CRIME OF
MURDER OF AASTHA SINGH (DECEASED).
CHARGE II
DW1 AND DW2 HAVE BEEN CHARGED UNDER S.120B READ WITH S.34
OF THE IPC FOR THE CRIME OF HATCHING A CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY
IN FURTHERANCE OF THE ALLEGED MURDER OF THE DECEASED.
CHARGE III
ACCUSED NO.1 HAS BEEN SEPARATELY CHARGED UNDER S.203 FOR
THE CRIME OF GIVING FALSE INFORMATION IN RESPECT TO THE
CRIME OF THE MURDER OF THE DECEASED.

12
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
The counsel on behalf of the Prosecution most respectfully submits before this Hon’ble Court
that the accused persons have been rightfully charged u/s 120B r/w 34 IPC which can be
clearly established by the evidence placed before this court which forms a chain of events.
II. ACCUSED PERSONS ARE GUILTY OF MURDER U/S 302
IPC
It is humbly presented before the court, that under Sec. 300(2), a person is guilty of
committing murder if he acts with the intention of causing such bodily injury which he
knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom such harm is caused. The
Prosecution contends that both, the actus reus [II.I] and the mens rea of the crime are
established in the instant matter [II.II].
III. ACCUSED NO.1 IS GUILTY OF FABRICATING FALSE EVIDENCE
In the present case in order to escape the criminal liability, DW1 fabricated evidence to
conceal the truth and to get away with the said offence.

13
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
CHARGES I & II: SHAURYA SINGH & AVANVTIKA RANA ARE

GUILTY OF CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT MURDER
It is humbly contended before this Hon’ble Court that the accused Shaurya Singh
and Avantika Rana (hereinafter individually to be referred to as ‘DW1’ and
‘DW2’ respectively) are guilty of the offences under Sec.302 and Sec.120B r/w
34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as the ‘IPC’). In the
instant matter DW1 and DW2 had conspired together to murder deceased [I] and
their actions lead to murder of the deceased [II].
1. The counsel on behalf of the Prosecution most respectfully submits before this
Hon’ble Court that the accused persons have been rightfully charged u/s 120B r/w
34 IPC which can be clearly established by circumstantial evidence forming a
chain of events. In order to be charged u/s 120B, formulation of conspiracy is a
must. Conspiracy has been defined as the agreement of two or more persons to do
an unlawful act or to do a lawful act by unlawful means. 1 The essence of the
offence of conspiracy is the fact of combination by agreement.2 Common
1
Esher Singh v State of Andhra Pradesh, (2004) 11 SCC 585
2
Sec 120A, Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860)

14
intention implies that there should be a prior concert or prior meeting of minds3
and such has to happen prior to the commission of the act of crime.4
2.
3. The elements of a criminal conspiracy have been stated to be5 An object to be
accomplished [I.I.] A plan or scheme embodying means to accomplish the said
object [I.II] An agreement or understanding between two or more of the accused
persons whereby, they become definitely committed to co-operate for the
accomplishment of the object by the means embodied in the agreement, or by way
of effectual means [I.III]
I.I AN OBJECT TO BE ACOMPLISHED
4. Even person being aware of the likelihood of the commission of the offense can be
held liable for common object.6 In the present matter, it is an established fact that the
deceased was a barrier between DW1 & 2 being together as DW1 was married to the
deceased but was still carrying on his relationship with his college girlfriend i.e.
DW2. The accused persons decided to live together and in pursuance of that planned
to get rid of the deceased. Usually both the existence of the conspiracy and its objects
have to be inferred from the circumstances and the conduct of the accused.7 This has
further been held in a catena of judgments.8
3
Mohd.Farooq Abdul Gafur&Anrv. State of Maharashtra, 2010(14) SCC641.
4
ShankarlalKacharabai and Others v. State of Gujrat, AIR 1965 SC 1260
5
Devender v. State 2002 (5) SCC 234; Mohd.Khalid v. State 2002(7) SCC 334.
6
Gajanand v. State of U.P., AIR 1954 SC 595.
7
Tanviben PankajKumar Divetia v State of Gujarat (1997) SCC 156.
8
V.C. Shukla v State (Delhi Admn.) ( 1980) 2 SCC 665 , Esher Singh v State of A.P. (2004) 12 SCC 585,

15
I.II PLAN & SCHEME
5. It is submitted that in the present case the accused persons had a well thought plan
in pursuance of which they administered Epinephrine to the deceased leading to
her death. DW2 being a cardiologist, heart surgeon had knowledge about the
dosage to be administered in order to kill the deceased, DW1 on the other hand
being the husband of the deceased was ought to know about the heart condition
i.e. the heart of the deceased being weak. The evidence as to transmission of
thoughts sharing the unlawful design may be sufficient.9
I.III AGREEMENT OR UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE ACCUSED
6. The parties to a criminally conspired agreement will be guilty of criminal offence,
even if the illegal act agreed to be done has not been done. 10 It is extremely
essential to pay attention to certain events which transpired in order to satisfy the
element of crime.11 The expression 'in reference to their common intention'
impliedly means 'in furtherance of', with the result anything said, done or written
by a co-conspirator, will be evidence against the other before he entered the field
of conspiracy or after he left it.12
7. It is humbly submitted that DW1 stated that he entered into marriage with the
deceased due to parental pressure and that he did not love the deceased but was in
love with DW2 and continued his relationship with her. There existed a clear ire
9
Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Administration) AIR 1988 SC 1883
10
Major Bassey v. State, AIR 1961 SC 1762
11
Noor Mohammad Mohd. Yusuf Momin v State of Maharashtra (1970) 1 SCC 696
12
Mirza Akbar v. Emperor, AIR 1940 PC 176.

16
towards the deceased. The Supreme Court laid down the principle to be followed
in weighing intention in State of H.P v. Jeet Singh13 as:
“When the prosecution succeeded in showing the possibility of

some ire for the accused towards the victim, the inability to further
put on record the manner in which such ire would have swelled up
in the mind of the offender to such a degree as to impel him to
commit the offence cannot be construed as a fatal weakness of the
prosecution. It is almost an impossibility for the prosecution to
unravel the full dimension of the mental disposition of an offender
towards the person whom he offended.”
8. It is submitted that DW1 wanted to divorce the deceased and marry DW2,
furthermore, her parents were also pressurizing her to marry someone. It is submitted
that upon seeing no option and in order to convert the illegitimate relationship
legitimate by removing the barrier between them an evil plan took birth to commit an
offence of Murder thus showing the meeting of minds and by necessary implication, it
is proved that the conspirators had agreed impliedly to the intention of murdering the
deceased. For the purpose of establishing or proving the charge of conspiracy, the
necessary requisite is knowledge of the main object and purpose of the conspiracy.14
9. There is no doubt that the conspiracy is hatched in private and secrecy for which
direct evidence would rarely be available15 .The ordinary rule which
circumstantial evidence has to be judged by courts must be applied in judging
circumstantial evidence showing common intention.16 Common intention can be
inferred when circumstances point towards only one hypothesis i.e. the guilt of
the accused.17 In the present case, it can clearly be established from the
13
State of H.P v. Jeet Singh, (1999) 4 SCC 370
14
Mohd. Amin v. CBI, (2008) 15 SCC 49
15
Saju v. State of Kerela, Appeal (Crl.) 699 1998
16
Shariff Ahmad v. The State, AIR 1957 All 50, , Pandurang v. State of Hyderabad, AIR 1955 SC 216
17
Kirpal v. State of U.P., 1954 SC 706

17
circumstances. The essential principle of criminal jurisprudence in regard to the
offences committed in closed and private spaces has been clearly established by
the Supreme Court
in Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Mahrashtra18, wherein it was observed
as follows:
“14. If an offence takes place inside the privacy of a house and in

such circumstances where the assailants have all the opportunity
to plan and commit the offence at the time and in circumstances of
their choice, it will be extremely difficult for the prosecution to
lead evidence to establish the guilt of the accused if the strict
principle of circumstantial evidence, as noticed above, is insisted
upon by the courts. A judge does not preside over a criminal trial
merely to see that no innocent man is punished. A judge also
presides to see that a guilty man does not escape. Both are public
duties.”
10. It is submitted that in the case at hand, the circumstances mentioned above when
taken on their face value clearly indicate the meeting of minds between the
conspirators DW1 and DW2 in order to realize the intended object of committing
the murder. The presumption of constructive intention, however, has to be arrived
at only when the court can, with judicial servitude, hold that the accused must
have preconceived the result that ensued in furtherance of the common
intention.19 The Supreme Court in Jhinku Nai v. State of U.P20 reiterated the
law in this regard as follows:
“We reiterate that for common intention, there could be rarely be

direct evidence. The ultimate decision, at any rate would
invariably depend upon the inference deducible from the
circumstances of each case. It is settled law that the common
intention or the intention of the individuals concerned in
furtherance of the common intention could be either proved from
direct evidence or by inference from the acts or attending
circumstances of the case and conduct of the parties.”
18
Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Mahrashtra, (2006) 10 SCC 681
19
Suresh v. State of U.P., 2001 (3) SCC 673
20
AIR 2001 SC 2815

18

19
II. ACCUSED PERSONS ARE GUILTY OF MURDER U/S 302
IPC
11. It is humbly presented before the court, that under Sec. 300(2), a person is guilty
of committing murder if he acts with the intention of causing such bodily injury
which he knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom such harm
is caused. The Prosecution contends that both, the actus reus [II.I] and the mens
rea of the crime are established in the instant matter [II.II].
[II.I] ACTUS REUS TO COMMIT MURDER IS PROVED
12. Actus Reus is any wrongful act21 The circumstantial evidence in a case where
there is a link of causation, if established, proves that the act was committed by
the person so accused.22 In the present case, the link of causation is established as
the cause of death was due to heart failure by an overdose of Epinephrine and
injuries on the head.23
13. The post-mortem report is an extremely relevant and important document, in
cases brought under Sec.302, of the Indian Penal Code24 and the forensic report
can also be relied upon to prove facts.25 In the present case, the Post Mortem
Report26 specifies the time of death to be between 1 and 2 pm furthermore, the
death was cause due to an overdose of Epinephrine. An injection was also found
near the body. It is pertinent to note that no prescription of the said drug was
21
Aiyar, P Ramanatha, The Law Lexicon, p. 49 (2nd ed 2006)
22
Naseem Ahmed v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1974 SC 691
23
Exhibit 4 – Post Mortem Report at page 19.
24
Sheo Govind Bin v. State of Bihar, 1985 BBCJ 632
25
Narendra Nama Das v. State of Tripura, 2009 (1) GLR 856.
26
Supra19

20
found.27 In the absence of any circumstances to show that injury was caused
accidentally or unintentionally, it is presumed that there was intention to cause the
inflicted injury.28 Whereas, in the present case the deceased herself showed
bruised under her ear and stated that DW1 had hit her a day prior.
14. To attract the commission of mischief under Sec.34 not only a common agreement
but also participation is necessary in the commission of the offense.29 In the case of
Shankarlal Kacharabhai v. State30 the term “furtherance” has been interpreted as an
act done in advancement or promotion.31 Any aid or assistance may be regarded as
done in furtherance of the ultimate felony if it is a step taken intentionally for the
purpose of effecting felony.32
15.
16. It is submitted that DW2 is a cardiologist and a heart surgeon by profession,
working at Synergy Hospital. It can be inferred that she had the requisite
knowledge about the dosage and administration of Epinephrine. 'Knowledge' has
been defined to mean information and skills acquired through experience or
education.33 Therefore, a person who held himself out ready to give medical
treatment impliedly undertakes that he was possessed of the skill and knowledge
for the purpose.34 Furthermore, DW1 being the husband of the deceased
27
Exhibit 2 – Seizure Report
28
Dayanand v. State of Haryana, AIR 2008 SC 1823
29
Sunny Kapoorv.State, 2006 10 SCC 182.
30
Shankarlal Kacharabai and Others v. State of Gujrat, AIR 1965 SC 1260.
31
Dani Singh v. State, 2004 (13) SCC 203.
32
Parasa Raja v. State, 2003 12 SCC 306.
33
Sanjeev Nanda v. State 2009 DLT775
34
Dr.Laxman Balkrishna Joshi v. Dr. Trimbak Bapu Godbole, 1969(1) SCR 206.

21
presumably had the information about the heart condition of the deceased, which
was kept in mind and a conspiracy was hatched in order to commit the murder of
the deceased. The accused persons acted in furtherance of the conspiracy and tried
to frame it like a suicide.
[II.II] MENS REA PRESENT
17. Mens Rea is considered as guilty intention35 which is proved or inferred from the acts
of the accused36 and is one of the essential ingredients of criminal liability.37 It has to
be derived from the actus reus. It is a realization of the consequence which one’s
conduct brings about, the malice aforethought is that one’s conduct may cause the
death of human being.38 There is no crime without a guilty mind.39 It is a technical
term, generally taken to mean some blameworthy mental condition, whether
constituted by intention or knowledge or otherwise.40
18. It is submitted that in the present case the motive can be derived from the statement of
DW1 where it is stated that on 01.11.2017 while driving to Bercos for lunch, the
accused persons entered into an argument as to the inefficiency to divorce the
deceased. In furtherance of which they rerouted to DW1’s house in order to end the
marriage with the deceased.
35
Commissioner of Income Tax v Patranu Dass Raja Ram Beri, AIR 1965 SC 722
36
State of Maharashtra v Meyer Hans George, AIR 1965 SC 722, Nathulal v State of Madhya Pradesh
MANU/SC/0384/1965, Srinivas Mall v King-Emperor, ILR 26 Pat 460, Hariprasada Rao v State, 1951 Cri LJ
768, Sarjoo Prasad v State of Uttar Pradesh, 1961 Cri LJ 747
37
Ibid.
38
Russel on Crime Edition 1, page 466
39
Russell on Crime Vol I, 12thedn (1964) pp 22-60. In the past, criminal liability was absolute. A man was
responsible for doing an act prohibited by law irrespective of the mental attitude.
40
Stephan James History of Criminal Law of England (Vol II, 1883) pp 94-95 Smith & Hogan Criminal Law
(5th edn, 1983) pp 47-48 Essays on the Indian Penal Code (ILI 1962) pp 56-62. Annual Survey of the Indian
Law, 1963 (ILI p 499), RM Perkins, ‘A Rationale of Mens Rea’ (1938-39) 52 Harv LR 905 ‘Mental Element’
(1960-61) 74 Harv LR 779, (1960-61) s 75 Harv LR 17-21

22
19. It is submitted that on 01.11.2017 at 1:45pm, PW3 saw DW1&2 drive off in their
respective cars, which raises a suspicion as to their credence as according to the
accused persons, they were at Bercos. It is pertinent to note that on the same day at
2:00 pm, Mrs. Pooja Mishra (PW1) woke up from her sleep due to loud noises of
verbal arguments coming from Shaurya’s house and took her dog for a walk where
she saw a Black Honda City (Avantika’s Car) parked outside the crime scene at 2:00
pm. PW1 further stated that the same car was still parked when she returned from the
walk at 2:15 pm which provides the requisite circumstances in order to facilitate the
commission of an offence in furtherance of the pre-planned conspiracy to murder
Aastha Singh, which was executed.
20. Circumstantial evidence in this context means a combination of facts creating of
network through which there is no escape for the accused because the facts taken as a
whole do not admit of any inference but of his guilt.41 As it has been said ‘Devil
knows not the mind of man’. Therefore, mind being inscrutable, it would be
inappropriate to call upon the prosecution to establish motive for each crime.42
21. In a case based on circumstantial evidence one circumstance by itself may not
unerringly point to the guilt of the accused. It is the cumulative result of all
circumstances which would matter. Thus, it is not proper for court to call out one
circumstance from the rest for the purpose of giving a different meaning to it.43
22. The Court has observed the essential ingredients of circumstantial evidence which
must be satisfied44 -
41
Anant Chintaman Lagu v. State of Bombay AIR 1960 SC 500
42
Tunu Purty v. State of Orissa, 1988CrLJ 1913(Ori-DB)
43
Gade Lakshmi v State 2001 Cr LJ 3317(SC)
44
Ashok Kumar v State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1989 SC 1890

23
(1) The circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought

to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established.45
(2) Those circumstances should be of a definite tendency
unerringly pointing towards the guilt of accused. 46
(3) The circumstances, taken cumulatively should from a chain so
complete47 that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all
human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none
else.
(4) The circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction
must be complete and incapable of explanation on any other hypothesis
than that of the guilt of the accused48 and such evidence should not only
be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent
with his innocence. 49
23. It is submitted that on a close study of the facts and circumstances surfacing
in the present matter, it can be strongly established that Accused No.1 & 2
together in furtherance of a common object committed the offence of murder.
45
Jawaharlal Das v State of Orissa AIR 1971 SC 1388
46
Harendra Narain Singh v State of Bihar AIR 1991 SC 1842
47
Sunny Kapoor v State (UT of Chandigarh) MANU/SC/8142/2006
48
Mahmood v. State of UP, AIR 1976 SC 69.
49
State of U.P. v Ravindra Prakash Mittal AIR 1992 SC 2045

24
CHARGE III: SHAURYA SINGH IS GUILTY OF FALSE

EVIDENCE U/S 203 IPC
24. It is humbly placed before the Hon’ble Court that DW1 is guilty of offenses u/s 203
of the Indian Penal Code and would be liable for falsification of evidence.
III. ACCUSED NO.1 IS GUILTY OF FALSIFICATION OF
EVIDENCE IN ORDER TO CONCEAL THE MURDER
25. The counsel on behalf of the prosecution submits that in order to escape the criminal
liability of murder, the accused further committed acts forbidden u/Ss. 1203 IPC in an
attempt to create a false mirage of a suicide. The forbidden act is reiterated as
follows:
203. Giving false information respecting an offence committed.—

Whoever knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has
been committed, gives any information respecting that offence which
he knows or believes to be false, shall be punished with imprisonment
of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or
with fine, or with both.”
26. The counsel submits that the story of the defense lies on the footing that both the
accused persons were at Bercos during the time of death in respect of which Accused
No.1 produced a Valet Parking Ticket of his car being parked at Bercos from 1:45 pm
to 2:45pm as evidence in order to facilitate his pre-planned alibi. This was intended to
conceal that the accused were not present at the crime scene.
27. The counsel submits that a suicide letter & a personal diary of the deceased was
found & seized at the crime scene. It is pertinent to note that the said letter purports to
be a page from a diary.
28. It is humbly submitted that the Suicide letter is dated 09.05.2017, it is pertinent to
note that during this time the marital relationship already had turned sour

25
furthermore, the deceased had got to know about her husband having an extra marital
affair. It can be inferred from the personal diary that the deceased used to maintain a
personal diary to write and express her feelings. Therefore, it wouldn’t be wrong to
presume that the deceased must’ve written about the failing marriage with DW1 in
her personal diary.
29. The counsel submits that DW1 has fabricated the entry dated 09.05.2017 made by the
deceased in the personal diary to conceal his devious act by fabricating false evidence
in order to facilitate the same.
30. The counsel submits that according to the acquaintances and the friends of the
deceased, Aastha had a strong character and wouldn’t take her life. Furthermore it is
pertinent to note that, the deceased met PW2 at a General Store on 25.10.2017
wherein, upon being enquired by PW2 about her marital problems stated, “Time will
tell, I am hoping for the best” which indicates that the deceased was not
contemplating taking her life.
31. It was held in Dayal Singh v. State of Uttaranchal that
“If the evidence of the prosecution witness and evidence is

trustworthy, have credence and are consistent with the eye version
given by the eye witnesses, the Court will be well within its
jurisdiction to discard the expert opinion.”50
32. The said letter was sent for examination to the Handwriting Expert upon which an
opinion was formed that the deceased herself had written the said letter. It is pertinent
to note that, the letter expresses how depressed the deceased was feeling, but the
handwriting experts failed to take into notice the last line raises a level of suspicion.
Furthermore, the purpose of an expert opinion is primarily to assist the Court in
arriving at a conclusion. Such report is not binding upon the Court. The Supreme
50
Dayal Singh v. State of Uttranchal, AIR 2012 SC 3046.

26
Court observed in Bhagwan Kaur v. M.K. Sharma51 that
33. “the evidence of the Handwriting Expert unlike that of a fingerprint

expert is generally of a frail character and its fallibilities have been
quite often noticed. The Court should therefore be wary to give too
much weight to the evidence of a Handwriting Expert.”
34. The counsels submit that the report of the Handwriting expert cannot be considered
binding in regards to the case in hand, as there exists strong evidence supporting the
contrary view to the opinion of the handwriting expert. It has been held in a catena of
judgments that the opinions of the experts are not binding in nature.
35. In In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Sanjay Rai52, the Apex Court held as follows:
"Though opinions expressed in text books by specialist authors may

be of considerable assistance and importance for the Court in
arriving at the truth, cannot always be treated or viewed to be either
conclusive or final as to what such author says to deprive even a
Court of Law to come to an appropriate conclusion of its own on the
peculiar facts proved in a given case. In substance, though such views
may have persuasive value cannot always be considered to be
authoritatively binding, even to dispense with the actual proof
otherwise reasonably required of the guilt of the accused in a given
case. Such opinions cannot be elevated to or placed on higher
pedestal than the opinion of an expert examined in Court and the
weight ordinarily to which it may be entitled to or deserves to be
given."
36. The counsel most respectfully submits that keeping in mind the
circumstances it can clearly be established that the DW1 is guilty for
falsification and that the court may be pleased to appreciate the
circumstantial evidence adduced towards the same.
51
AIR 1973 SC 1346.
52
2004 Cri. L.J. 2006

27
PRAYER
Wherefore, in light of facts stated, issues raised, authorities cited and arguments advanced,
may this Hon’ble Court be pleased to:
1. Convict DW1 for Criminal Conspiracy, Murder and Falsification of evidence read
under Sections 120B r/w 34, 302, 203 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Convict DW2 for Criminal Conspiracy, Murder and Falsification of evidence read
under Sections 120B r/w 34, 302 & 203 of the Indian Penal Code
AND/ OR
Pass any other order it may deem fit, in the interest of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience.
All of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted.
Place: Nehradun
Date: __ February, 2018
S/d ____________
(COUNSEL ON BEHALFOF THE PROSECUTION)

Prosecution Memorial

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Prosecution Memorial

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

TEAM CODE:

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE AT

Crl. C No. …. of 2017

IN THE MATTER OF:

MR. NAKUL KHANNA & ANR.

FOR THE OFFENCES CHARGED UNDER:

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE PRINCIPLE SESSIONS JUDGE

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

I. ACCUSED IS LIABLE FOR CRIMINAL CONPIRACY

II. ACCUSED IS GUITY OF MURDER AND DEMAND OF DOWRY

III. ACCUSED IS LIABLE FOR CRUELTY AGAINST THE DECEASED U/S

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

1. Ashok Kumar v State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1989 SC

3. Dayal Singh v. State of Uttranchal, AIR 2012 SC 3046.

4. Devender v. State, 2002 (5) SCC 234

6. Esher Singh v State of Andhra Pradesh, (2004) 11 SCC 585

7. Gade Lakshmi v State, 2001 CR LJ 3317(SC)

8. Gajanand v. State of U.P., AIR 1954 SC 595.

9. Harendra Narain Singh v State of Bihar, AIR 1991 SC 1842

10. Hariprasada Rao v State, 1951 CRI LJ 768

11. Jawaharlal Das v State of Orissa, AIR 1971 SC 1388

12. Jhinku Nai v. State of U.P., AIR 2001 SC 2815

13. Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1988 SC 1883

14. Kirpal v. State of U.P., 1954 SC 706

15. Major Bassey v. State, AIR 1961 SC 1762

16. Mirza Akbar v. Emperor, AIR 1940 PC 176.

17. Mohd. Amin v. CBI, (2008) 15 SCC 49

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

18. Mohd.Khalid v. State, 2002(7) SCC 334.

20. Naseem Ahmed v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1974 SC 691

21. Nathulal v State of Madhya Pradesh MANU/SC/0384/1965

23. Pandurang v. State of Hyderabad, AIR 1955 SC 216

24. Saju v. State of Kerela, Appeal (Crl.) 699 1998

25. Sanjeev Nanda v. State 2009 DLT775

26. Sarjoo Prasad v State of Uttar Pradesh, 1961 CRI LJ 747

27. Shariff Ahmad v. The State, AIR 1957 All 50,

28. Sheo Govind Bin v. State of Bihar, 1985 BBCJ 632

29. Srinivas Mall v King-Emperor, ILR 26 PAT 460

30. State of H.P v. Jeet Singh, (1999) 4 SCC 370

31. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Sanjay Rai, 2004 CRLJ 2006

32. State of U.P. v Ravindra Prakash Mittal, AIR 1992 SC 2045

33. Sunny Kapoor v State (UT of Chandigarh), MANU/SC/8142/2006

34. Suresh v. State of U.P., 2001 (3) SCC 673

36. Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Mahrashtra, (2006) 10 SCC 681

37. V.C. Shukla v State (Delhi Admn.), (1980) 2 SCC 665

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

1. Field, C.D., Expert Evidence: Medical and Non-Medical, (4th Ed 2007)

2. Gaur, KD Firearms, Forensic Ballistics, Forensic Chemistry and Criminal

Jurisprudence, (2nd Ed 1989)

3. II, Nandi, Criminal Ready Referencer, ( 2nd Ed. 2007)

6. Kelkar, R.V. Criminal Procedure, (5th Ed. 2011)

7. Lal, Batuk, The Law of Evidence, (18th Ed. 2010)

8. Lyons, Medical Jurisprudence & Toxicology, (11th Ed. 2005)

9. Modi’s Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, (23rd Ed. 2010)

10. Parikh, C. K, Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence, Forensic Medicine & Toxicology,

(6th Ed. 2002)

13. Sarkar, Law of Evidence, (13th Ed,1990)

14. Sarvaria, SK, Indian Penal Code, (10th Ed. 2008)

16. Gupte and Dighe, Criminal Manual, (7th Ed. 2007)

17. Harris, Criminal Law, (22nd Ed. 2000)

18. Hill, McGraw, Criminal Investigation, (4th Ed. 2004)

19. I, III, IV Nelson R. A. Indian Penal Code, 10th Ed. (2008)