Winning Memo For The Respondents

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
5th INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS.................................................................................................................3
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES..................................................................................................................5
BOOKS REFERRED:...........................................................................................................................................
LEGISLATIONS:..................................................................................................................................................
LEGAL DATABASES:.........................................................................................................................................
CASES REFERRED:............................................................................................................................................
STATEMENT
OF
JURISDICTION
...........................................................8
STATEMENT
OF
FACTS
...........................................9
STATEMENT
OF
ISSUES
.............................................11
SUMMARY
OF
ARGUMENTS
.....................................................12
I. THE GIVEN APPEAL AGAINST THE HIGH COURT JUDGMENT IS NOT MAINTAINABLE...........12
II. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT WAS CORRECT IN ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED............................12
III. THE RESPONDENTS HAVE NOT COMMITTED THE OFFENCE OF MURDER AND MUST BE
ACQUITTED......................................................................................................................................................12
ARGUMENTS
ADVANCED
.................................................................13
I.
THE GIVEN APPEAL AGAINST THE HIGH COURT JUDGMENT IS NOT MAINTAINABLE.
13
A. THAT THE PRESENT SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION IS NOT MAINTAINBLE...................................13
B. THAT THERE ARE NO SPECIAL REASONS FOR ENTERTAINING THE APPEAL.........................14
C. THAT QUESTION OF FACTS CANNOT BE ENTERTAINED IN AN APPEAL..................................17
II. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT WAS CORRECT IN ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED
17
A. THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO PROVE THE OFFENCES OF WHICH
THE RESPONDENTS HAS BEEN ALLEGED OF:.......................................................................................18
B. THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS NOT SUFFICIENT FOR CONVICTION............................22
C. THE EVIDENCE AGAINST THE RESPONDENTS REMAINS LARGELY INCONCLUSIVE...........24
2
Written Submission on behalf of the Respondent

III. THE RESPONDENTS HAVE NOT COMMITTED THE OFFENCE OF MURDER AND MUST
BE ACQUITTED...............................................................................................................................................26
A. THAT INNOCENCE IS TO BE PRESUMED UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.............................................26
B. THAT THE APPELLANTS HAVE BEEN UNABLE TO PROVE GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE
DOUBT............................................................................................................................................................ 28
PRAYER
.............30
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
3

CrLJ
Criminal Law Journal
Honble
Honorable
J.
Justice
No.
Number
Ors.
Others
Pg.
Page
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
4

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
BOOKS REFERRED:
1. An Analytical And Exhaustive Commentary On The Indian Penal Code, 1860, by Justice
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
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
Criminal Law by P S A Pillai
Murder Trial by P. S. Verma
The Indian Penal Code by B.M. Gandhi
LEGISLATIONS:
1.
2.
3.
4.
The Constitution of India, 1950

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Indian Penal Code, 1860
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
LEGAL DATABASES:
1. Manupatra.
2. SCC Online.
3. Westlaw.
CASES REFERRED:
1. Magan Bhai Ishwar Bhai Patel v. Union Of India and Anr., AIR 1969 SC 784
2. Mathai @ Jobbie v George, 2010 4SCC 358; UOI v. Paul Manickam, AIR 2003 SC 4622
3. P.N. Kumar v. MCD, 1987 4 SCC 609.
4. Udyami Evam Khadi Gramodyog Welfare Sanstha v. State of UP, 2008 1 S.C.C. 560
5. TND Mercantile Bank Sharehold. v. S .C .Sekar & Ors, 2008 INSC 2104
6. Sadhu Singh Harnam Singh v. The State Of Pepsu, AIR 1954 SC 271
7. State of A.P. v. P. Anjanyulu, AIR 1982 SC 1598;
8. State of Karnataka v. M. Obanna, 1989 Supp (2) SCC 199
9. Sanwant Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1961 SC 715
10. Taherkhatoon v. Salambin Mohammed, AIR 1999 SC 1104
11. Ashok Nagar Welfare Society v. R.K. Sharma, 2002 1 SCC 749
12. Chikkarange Gowda v. State of Mysore, AIR 1956 SC 731
13. P.S. Mills Ltd. V. P.S. Mills Mazdoor Union, AIR 1957 SC 95
14. State of U.P. v. Ram Manorath, AIR 1972 SC 701
5

15. Union of India v. Rajeshwari & Co., AIR 1986 SC 1748;
16. State of T.N. v. His holiness Sri Ambalavana Adheenakartha, 1997 9 SCC 313
17. Pritam Singh v. State, AIR 1950 SC 169;
18. Kapil Deo v. The King, 1950 (52) BOMLR 512;
19. Mohinder Singh v. The State, 1953 AIR 415
20. Hem Raj v. State of Ajmer, 1954 SCR 1133;
21. Taherakhatoon v. Salambin Mohammad, AIR 1999 SC 1104
22. M/S Bengal Chemicals and Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Their Workmen, 1959 Suppl. (2)
SCR 136
23. M.S. Sheriff and Anr. v. M. Govindan And Anr., AIR 1951 Mad 1060
24. Sunil Poddar & Ors. v. Union Bank of India, AIR 2008 SC 1006
25. A.V. Papayya Sastry and others v. Government of A.P. and others, AIR 2007 SC 1546
26. Mohan Lal v. Ajit Singh,1978 AIR 1183
27. Ashok Nagar Welfare Association v. R.K. Sharma, AIR 2002 SC 335
28. Sadhananthan P.S.R. v. Arunachalam, AIR 1980 SC 856;
29. A.R. Antulay v R.S. Nayak & Anr 1988 AIR 1531;
30. Om Prakash v. Lauti Ram, (1971) 3 SCC 868;
31. V.T. Khanzode & Ors v Reserve Bank Of India & Anr, 1982 AIR 917
32. Kunhaiyammed v. State of Kerela, [2000] 245 ITR 360(SC)
33. Pratap Narain Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1991) 2 SC 86;
34. Mahesh Chander v. State of Delhi, (1991) Cr LJ 1703;
35. Nain Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1991) 2 SCC 432
36. Singh v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1991 SC 1925
37. Vasant Kumar Radakisan Vora v. Board of Trustees of the Govt. Of Bombay, AIR 1991 SC 14
38. Karnataka State Road Transport Corpn. v. KSRTC Staff Workers Federation, (1999) 2 SCC
687
39. Radha Mohan Singh @ Lal Saheb v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 2006 SC 95;
40. Kshama Sahakari Avas Samiti Ltd. v. State Of U.P. Through Secretary, 2007 (1) AWC 327
41. Balakrishna v. Matha, (1991) Cr LJ 691
42. Ganesh Datt v. State of Uttarakhand AIR 2014 SC 2521
43. Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra (1973) 2 SCC 793
44. Anil Phukan v. State of Assam, (1993) 3 SCC 282
45. Hari Obula Reddy v. State of A.P, (1981) 3 SCC 675
46. Jodhan v. State of M.P, 2015 CriLJ 3291
6

47. Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1984 SC 1622
48. Eradu And Ors. v. State Of Hyderabad, AIR 1956 SC 316
49. Earabhadrappa Alias Krishnappa v. State Of Karnataka, 1983 AIR 446
50. Hanumant v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, 1975 AIR 1083
51. Birendar Poddar v. State of Bihar 2011 6 SCC 350
52. Nagesh v State of Karnataka, AIR 2012 SC 1965
53. Mahmood v State of Uttar Pradesh , AIR 1976 SC 69
54. Jaswant Gir v. State of Punjab, 2005 12 SCC 438, SC
55. Bodha and Ors v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, 2002 8 SCC 45.
56. Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1984 SC 1622
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 to question the decision of the Honble HC.
Article 136 of the Constitution of India, 1950.
(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:
7

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 Respondents have approached the Honble Supreme Court for adjudicating the matter
brought forth in the court of law.
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
8

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.
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.
9

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
ISSUE I: WHETHER THE GIVEN APPEAL AGAINST THE HIGH COURT

JUDGMENT IS MAINTAINABLE.
A. That the Present petition is not maintainable
B. That there are no special reasons for entertaining the appeal
C. That question of fact cannot be appealed in the court of Law
ISSUE II: WHETHER THE HONBLE HIGH COURT WAS CORRECT IN
ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED
A. That the evidence on record is not sufficient to prove the offences of which the respondents
have been alleged of.
B. That the circumstantial evidence is not sufficient for conviction.
ISSUE III: WHETHER THE ACCUSED IN THE GIVEN CASE NOT BE CONVICTED
10

A. That innocence is to be presumed until proven guilty.
B. That the Appellants have been unable to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
I.
THE GIVEN APPEAL AGAINST THE HIGH COURT JUDGMENT IS NOT

MAINTAINABLE.
It is respectfully submitted before this Honble Supreme Court that the appeal petition
filed by the appellants under Article 136 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable
on the grounds that there is:
(A.) No special reasons for entertaining this appeal petition and that there is no
substantial and grave injustice done.
(B.) Questions of facts cannot be ordinarily entertained in an appeal. Therefore, the
appeal cannot be subject to special leave as there is lack of special circumstances.
II.
THE HONBLE HIGH COURT WAS CORRECT IN ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED.

It is humbly submitted before this Honble court that the High court had carefully
considered the facts and circumstances of the given case and based on the lack of
11

evidence and the inability of the Appellant to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the
accused were acquitted by the HC.
III.
THE RESPONDENTS HAVE NOT COMMITTED THE OFFENCE OF MURDER

AND MUST BE ACQUITTED.
It is humbly submitted to this Honble court that the Respondents in the instant matter
have not committed the offence being charged for and cannot be held liable and be
punished or penalized for the same. These are based on the grounds that the Appellant
were:
A. That innocence is to be presumed until proven guilty.
B. That the Appellants have been unable to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
I.
THE GIVEN APPEAL AGAINST THE HIGH COURT JUDGMENT IS NOT

MAINTAINABLE.
It is respectfully submitted before this Honble Supreme Court that the appeal petition
filed by the appellants under Article 136 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable
on the grounds that there is:
(A.) No special reasons for entertaining this appeal petition and that there has been no
substantial and grave injustice done in the present matter.
(B.)
Questions of facts cannot be ordinarily entertained in an appeal.
Therefore, the appeal cannot be subject to special leave as there is lack of special
circumstances.
A. THAT THE PRESENT SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION IS NOT MAINTAINBLE
12

(1.) It is humbly submitted to this Honble Court that the remedy as contemplated under
Art. 136 must be exercised in exceptional situations.
It is settled that if the SC starts
entertaining all and sundry kinds of cases it will soon be flooded with a huge amount of
backlog and will not be able to deal with important questions relating to the Constitution
or the law or where grave injustice has been done, for which it was really meant under the
Constitutional Scheme.2 Only uniform standard to avert this is that the discretion of SC
under Article 136 must be exercised judiciously in exceptional cases only and that its
power must be self-checked3.
(2.) Moreover, the SC is the final arbitrator, but only when the dispute needs to be settled
by the Apex Court so as to avoid injustice and infraction of law 4 and when there is no such
infraction, what really matters is, whether the finding is manifestly unreasonable and
unjust in the context of evidence on record.5 It is well established that this Honble court
does not by special leave convert itself into a court to review evidence for a third time.
Where, however, the court below fails in apprehending the true effect of a material change
in the versions given by the witnesses immediately after the occurrence and the narrative
at the trial with respect to the nature and character of the offence, in such a situation it
would not be right for this court to affirm such a decision when it occasions a failure of
justice.6 In the instant matter, the appellant are clearly trying to mislead the court on
unreasonable grounds when it is prima facie evident that there has been no gross injustice
while deciding upon the said matter in the Honble HC.
Normally, the SC doesnt interfere with the order of acquittal passed by HC if two views
1Magan bhai Ishwar Bhai Patel v. UOI and Anr., AIR 1969 SC 784
2Mathai @ jobbie v George, 2010 4SCC 358; UOI v. Paul Manickam, AIR 2003 SC 4622
3P.N. Kumar v. MCD, (1987) 4 SCC 609.
4Udyami Evam Khadi Gramodyog Welfare Sanstha v. State of UP, (2008) 1 S.C.C. 560
5Tnd .Mercantile Bank Sharehold. v. S .C .Sekar & Ors, (2008) INSC 2104
6 Sadhu Singh Harnam Singh v. The State Of Pepsu, AIR 1954 SC 271
13

of the evidence are possible. 7
The SC will grant special leave to appeal in exceptional casescases 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 8. The discretionary nature continues till
disposal of the appeal. In the present case none of the above-mentioned conditions have
been fulfilled.
The SC does not permit the third review of evidence in regard with cases in which
questions of fact were appreciated and assessed the evidence with regard to such
questions.9
In the exercise of its jurisdiction under Art. 136 the court may not interfere with the order
of the HC on equitable grounds even though it finds the decision indefensible.10
B. THAT THERE ARE NO SPECIAL REASONS FOR ENTERTAINING THE

APPEAL
(3.) It is humbly submitted before this Honble Bench that this Honble Court has itself
recognized the need for a uniform standard of exercising the wide discretionary powers
ordained in Article 136 and has settled that the court will not grant special leave, unless it
is shown that exceptional and special circumstances exist, that substantial and grave
injustice has been done and that the case in question presents features of sufficient gravity
to warrant a review of the decision appealed against. 11 It is settled that even after the
appeal is admitted and special leave is granted, the appellant must show that exceptional
7 State of A.P. v. P. Anjanyulu, (1984) 2 SCC 445: 1984 SCC (Cri) 269: AIR 1982 SC 1598;
State of Karnataka v. M. Obanna, 1989 Supp (2) SCC 199
8 Sanwant Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1961 SC 715; (1961) 3 SCR 120
9 Taherkhatoon v. Salambin Mohammed, (1999) 2 SCC 635: AIR 1999 SC 1104; Ashok
Nagar Welfare Society v. R.K. Sharma, (2002) 1 SCC 749
10 Chikkarange Gowda v. State of Mysore, AIR 1956 SC 731; P.S. Mills Ltd. V. P.S. Mills Mazdoor Union,
AIR 1957 SC 95; State of U.P. v. Ram Manorath, (1972) 3 SCC 215: AIR 1972 SC 701; Union of India v.
Rajeshwari & co., (1986) 3 SCC 426; AIR 1986 SC 1748; State of T.N. v. His holiness Sri Ambalavana
Adheenakartha, (1997) 9 SCC 313
14

and special circumstances exist, and that, if there is no interference by the court then it
would result in substantial and grave injustice and therefore, a case having features of
sufficient gravity to warrant a review of the decision must be considered for appeal
against, on merits, only then would this Court exercise its overriding powers under Article
136.12 Moreover, it was crucial for this Court to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction
only in cases where awards were passed in violation of principles of natural justice, and
substantial and grave injustice was caused to parties or such other exceptional or special
circumstances.13 While exercising discretionary and equitable jurisdiction under Article
136 of the Constitution, the facts and circumstances of the case should be seen in their
entirety to find out if there is miscarriage of justice. 14 The Constitution has not made the
Supreme Court a regular Court of Appeal or a Court of Error. It only intervenes where
justice, equity and good conscience require such intervention.15
(4.) It is humbly submitted that no exceptional and special circumstances can be said to
have come to pass in this instant matter as the accused were acquitted based on the lack of
evidence prosecuting them for the said crime. The same is based on the essential attribute
of fair trial i.e. presumption of innocence until proven guilty. In the given matter, the
appellants were unable to prove the same before the Honble High Court. Moreover, no
instance of substantial and grave injustice can be inferred from the impugned facts and the
matter in itself since, all the evidence had been duly considered.
It is further humbly submitted to this Honble court that the Appellants did not exhaust all
the recourses available to them before approaching this court for Justice. They have not
11 Pritam Singh v. State, AIR 1950 SC 169; See Also, Kapil Deo v. The King, 1950 (52)
BOMLR 512; Mohinder Singh v. The State, 1953 AIR 415
12 Hem Raj v. State of Ajmer, 1954 SCR 1133; See Also: Taherakhatoon v. Salambin
Mohammad, AIR 1999 SC 1104
13 M/S Bengal Chemicals and Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Their Workmen, 1959 Suppl.
(2) SCR 136; See Also: M.S. Sheriff & anr. v. M. Govindan & anr., AIR 1951 Mad 1060
14 Sunil Poddar & Ors. v. Union Bank of India, AIR 2008 SC 1006
15 A.V. Papayya Sastry and others v. Government of A.P. and others, AIR 2007 SC 1546
15

requested for grant of certificate from the HC before approaching this court and moreover,
the Appellants wish to re-evaluate the evidence through Art. 136 whereas it has been
clearly stated that art. 136 is provided in exceptional circumstances, which is absent in the
present matter.
(5.) Furthermore, it is contended that the appeals under Article 136 of the Constitution
are entertained by special leave granted by this Court, whether it is the State or a private
party that invokes the jurisdiction of this Court, and special leave is not granted as a
matter of course but only for good and sufficient reasons, on well-established practice of
this Court.16 Additionally, Article 136 does not give a right to a party to appeal to the
Supreme Court.17 It bestows a wide discretionary power on the SC to interfere in suitable
cases.18
(6.) It is further submitted that the SC normally entertains an appeal against a decree
passed in second appeal if a substantial question of law of general or public importance
arises which may not only determine the dispute between the parties but will be a
precedent for guidance for determination of similar disputes in other cases. The mere fact
that some question of law arises out of the decision of the HC will not enable a party to
claim a right to appeal to the SC.19 Furthermore, The practice of the Privy Council and that
was followed by the Federal Courts were that the SC is not to interfere on the questions of
fact except in exceptional cases, when the finding is such that it shocks the conscience of
the Court or by disregard to the forms of legal process or some violation of the principles
of natural justice or otherwise substantial and grave injustice has been done. Art. 136 is an
untrammeled reservoir of power incapable of being confined to definitional bounds; the
discretion conferred on the SC being subjected to only one limitation, that is, the wisdom
16 Mohan Lal v. Ajit Singh,1978 AIR 1183, 1978 SCR (3) 823
17 Ashok Nagar Welfare Association v. R.K. Sharma, AIR 2002 SC 335
18 Sadhananthan P.S.R. v. Arunachalam, AIR 1980 SC 856; See also: A.R. Antulay v R.S.
Nayak & Anr, 1988 AIR 1531;
19 Om Prakash v. Lauti Ram, (1971) 3 SCC 868; See also V.T. Khanzode & Ors v Reserve
Bank Of India & Anr, 1982 AIR 917
16

and good sense or sense of justice of the Judges.20
C. THAT QUESTION OF FACTS CANNOT BE ENTERTAINED IN AN APPEAL
(7.) It is an established law that the Supreme Court will not reassess the evidence at large
and come to a fresh opinion as to the innocence or guilt of the accused, so as to interfere
with a concurrent finding of fact by the court below, except where there is some serious
infirmity in the appreciation of evidence, and the finding is perverse. 21 In the absence of
perversity, concurrent finding of fact is not disturbed. 22 If the plea raised is a mixed
question of fact and law, it was not allowed to be raised even though it might go to the
root of the matter. 23Vexed questions of fact cannot be raised in the SC for the first time. 24
Re-appreciation of evidence is permissible only if an error of law or procedure and
conclusions arrived at are perverse.25 It is settled law that Leave may be granted where the
judgment is tainted with serious legal infirmities, or is founded on a legal construction,
which is wrong.26 None of the conditions are being fulfilled in the given matter as the HC
had duly considered the issue and decided the case on the basis of the incompetency of the
parties to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
20 Kunhaiyammed v. State of Kerela, [2000] 245 ITR 360(SC)
21 Pratap Narain Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1991) 2 SC 86; See Also: Mahesh
Chander v. State of Delhi, (1991) Cr LJ 1703; Nain Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1991)
2 SCC 432
22 Singh v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1991 SC 1925
23 Vasant Kumar Radakisan Vora v. Board of Trustees of the Govt. Of Bombay, AIR 1991
SC 14
24 Karnataka State Road Transport Corpn. v. KSRTC Staff Workers Federation, (1999) 2
SCC 687
25 Radha Mohan Singh @ LalSaheb v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 2006 SC 95; See also
Kshama Sahakari Avas Samiti Ltd. v. State Of U.P. Through Secretary, 2007 (1) AWC 327
26 Balakrishna v. Matha, (1991) Cr LJ 691
17

(8.) It is therefore submitted before this esteemed Bench that there is absolutely no
reasonable justification whatsoever behind this appeal and that it cannot be said to be
having the necessary requisites for the special leave of this court.
II.
THE HONBLE HIGH COURT WAS CORRECT IN ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED.

(9.) It is humbly submitted before this Honble court that the HC has carefully
considered the facts and circumstances of the given case and based on the lack of
evidence and the inability of the Appellant to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the
accused were acquitted by the HC.
A. THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO PROVE THE
OFFENCES OF WHICH THE RESPONDENTS HAS BEEN ALLEGED OF:
(10.) In the present matter, the Trial Court had convicted the Respondents who were
subsequently acquitted by the HC for the offences of murder, common intention and
displacing of evidence under 302, 34 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
respectively.
(11.) An appeal has been filed for reconsidering the circumstances de novo, however it
may be noted at the outset that, it is a very well settled principle that in a criminal appeal
the court has to consider the evidence on record and the conclusion of the trial court. The
Court should therefore not go into facts or alter the facts. The court can revaluate the
evidence but the findings of the trial court with respect to the facts are not to be set aside.
With the evidence presented at the trial stage, there is insufficient and inconclusive
evidence to show that the Respondents are indeed guilty of the aforementioned offences.
Furthermore, In the case of Ganesh Datt v. State of Uttarakhand, 27 It was stated that
there was no consistence with Medical evidence, the scene of offence was not clear and
moreover, the blood stained Earth not sent for chemical examination were not medically
tested and no weapon was recovered during the investigation. The ocular witnesses
27 AIR 2014 SC 2521, 2014 (3) AJR 522, 2014 CriLJ 3128, 2014 (3) MLJ (Crl) 370 (SC)
18

namely PWs 1 to 3 are interested and inimical witnesses and in their testimonies they
have not stated as to how the appellants/accused mentioned above sustained 12 injuries
during the occurrence and they are lying on a most material point, and therefore, their
evidence is unreliable and further their ocular testimony with respect to the assault is
inconsistent with the medical evidence and the weapons of offence were not recovered and
situs of the assault was also not fixed and so the prosecution has failed to prove the case
against appellants beyond reasonable doubt and the conviction and sentence imposed on
the appellants are liable to be set aside. Similarly, in the matter at hand the blood that
was strewn on the ground was not sent for medical examination, Tashi had superficial
injuries on his back, not grave ones which could have been due to different reasons and
furthermore, the murder weapon was not found in this given case, thus the appellants
failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubts. Hence, the Respondents must be acquitted
and therefore, it is contended that the HC stands correct in its decision.
THAT MR. BALLANS TESTIMONY CANNOT BE RELIED UPON

(12.) During the course of trial, four witnesses were examined from the side of
Appellant. The confession of PW1 cannot be relied on. The given statement by the
witness is not only biased but also influenced by a personal animosity. In the leading case
of Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra,28 the Court had held that even where
a case hangs on the evidence of a single eye witness it may be enough to sustain the
conviction given sterling testimony of a competent, honest man although as a rule of
prudence courts call for corroboration. But, in the instant matter the given testimony of
PW1 was not only biased but also concocted.
(13.) Conviction can be recorded on the basis of the testimony provided by a single eye
witness given that his credibility is not shaken by any adverse circumstance appearing on
the record against him and the court, at the same time, is convinced that he is a truthful
witness and the court will not then insist on corroboration by any other eye witness
28 (1973) 2 SCC 793
19

particularly as the incident might have occurred at a time or place when there was no
possibility of any other eye witness being present. But, in the present case, the said
incident has been claimed to have occurred in a market but they have failed to gather a
witness from the public, thus raising doubts regarding credibility of the statement made by
the witness.
Moreover even though, they had won the property dispute the appellants were unhappy
that the respondents had claimed for it and in pursuance of their continuing grudge, they
had framed the respondents for the said crime. The single eye witness is not found to be a
wholly reliable witness, in the sense that there are some circumstances which may show
that he could have an interest in the prosecution, and then the courts generally insist upon
some independent corroboration of his testimony, in material particulars, before recording
conviction.29 Therefore, in the instant matter since there was no corroborating evidence to
the testimony of PW1 so as to make the position of appellant stronger. Thus, the High
Court was right in discarding the testimony in entirety.
(14.) Furthermore, PW1 claimed that he was 50-60 steps 30 behind the victim which
means approximately 45 meters away. But, yet PW1 failed to do much about the fight
than to call for help and it has been claimed by them that the victim was stabbed multiple
times.
(15.) In the instant matter, there are major discrepancies, which make the given case
unsustainable for reconsideration of conviction of the respondents. The failure to obtain
the testimony of any public witness is a clear indication that the Respondents were not
present in the market and moreover, the non-recovery of weapon is also contributing to
the inability of the Appellants to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
(16.) The Honble High Court correctly ruled PW1 to be an interested witness. It was
held by this Honble court that all that is necessary is that the evidence of interested
29 Anil Phukan v. State of Assam, (1993) 3 SCC 282: JT 1993 (2) SC 290
30 Page 1, 3, Moot Problem.
20

witnesses should be subjected to careful scrutiny and accepted with caution. 31 A
testimony, if after careful scrutiny is found as unreliable and improbable or suspicious it
ought to be rejected.32
THAT MENS REA AND ACTUS REUS IS ABSENT
(17.) It is a fundamental principle of criminal law that a person may not be convicted of a
crime unless it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt both: (a) That responsibility is attributed to the Respondent for a certain behavior or the
existence of a certain state of affairs, in circumstances forbidden by criminal law and that
the Respondent has caused the prescribed event and
(b) That the Respondent had a defined state of mind in relation to the behavior, existence
of a state of affairs or causing of the event.33
To the effect that in every case the two elements of crime; actus reus and mens rea have to
be proven.
(18.) It is submitted before this Honble court that the offences of murder and common
intention which the respondents have been alleged of, lack mens rea. Mens Rea or guilty
intention is the sine qua non of a criminal act. In the present matter, the Appellant has
alleged that the Respondents had murdered the deceased merely because the deceased
family had won a property dispute. The Appellant however failed to prove the
requirements necessary to prove mens rea in the instant matter.
(19.) The evidentiary burden in the matter lies with the Appellant. A guilty state of mind
of the Respondents has to be established. The Respondents, in the instant matter, had no
31 Hari Obula Reddy v. State of A.P, (1981) 3 SCC 675
32 Jodhan v. State of M.P, 2015 Cri.L.J.3291
33David Ormerod, Smith and Hogans Criminal Law, (13th edn, Oxford University Press,
2011)
21

intention to commit the offences. As Glanville Williams observed that the proof of a
mans intention can be probed by determining, whether there is any reasonable
interpretation of his actions other than the hypothesis that he intended the consequence.34
It is contended that there exists no mens rea in the present case.
(20.) The physical element of a crime or behavior connected to the crime is called the
actus reus. A person must participate in all the acts necessary to constitute a particular
crime in order to be guilty thereof. In the present case, there has been no establishment that
the respondents were responsible for the alleged murder or that they intent to do the same.
(21.) It is humbly submitted that on the basis of a baseless, falsified and seamless
confession, the Respondents cannot be held liable for an act that they have not committed.
There lies no proof of the Respondents committing the murder. The Respondents are merely
being caught in a web of lies, produced by the appellant, based on personal animosity.
Furthermore, the Respondents contend it that the victim in the given case was a part of their
family. Moreover, they claim that the Respondents have not committed such a gruesome
act, as the respondents could have claimed no relief in relation to the property even by
causing death of the victim.
(22.) Furthermore, the Appellant has provided no strong evidence, which supports their
contentions. It is humbly submitted that the Appellant has not been able to prove the
presence of complete evidence and chain of events and therefore, the evidence also fails to
ascertain the same.
B. THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS NOT SUFFICIENT FOR CONVICTION
(23.) A presumption cannot arise on the strength of another presumption. It must be based
on facts and not upon inferences35. Therefore, the chain of events as being contended by
the appellant to have been completed is based on presumptions, which have, arose from
preceding presumption.
34Glanville Williams, Text Book of Criminal Law, (2nd edn, Universal Law Publishing,
1999).
35 38 Phil. L.J. 150 1963
22

Corpus delicti literally translated means "body of the crime". 36 It may be proved either by
circumstantial evidence or by direct evidence. If it is to be proven by the former, the
circumstances should constitute an unbroken chain which leads to a fair and reasonable
conclusion, which points to the defendant to the exclusion of all others as the guilty
person.37 In the given case, the appellants have failed to prove a continuous chain of events
about the said incident.
(24.) Circumstantial evidence is that which relates to a series of other facts other than the
fact in issue, which by experience have been found so associated with that fact that in the
relation of cause and effect, they lead to a satisfactory conclusion.38
There are several different relations between facts and coincidences of facts with each
other from which reasonable inferences and conclusions may be drawn. Some of these
relations are physical or mechanical, and others are of a moral nature whatever may be the
kind or force of the evidence, this is the fact to be proved. All other evidence is classed as
circumstantial evidence.39
The competency of a collateral fact to be used as the basis of legitimate argument is not to
be determined by the conclusiveness of the inferences it may afford in reference to the
litigated fact.40 In the present matter, the Appellants fail to prove beyond reasonable doubt
regarding the guilt they accused the respondents of.
(25.) As Jaffee says, Propositions are true or false; they are not probable 41 In court as
elsewhere, the data cannot be 'speaking for itself'. It has to be interpreted in the light of the
36 Id.
37 Id.
38 Id.
39 R. C. Walker, Circumstantial Evidence in Homicide Cases, Vol. 20 Va. L. Rev., 724-725
(1915)
40 Id.
41 Leonard Jaffee, Of Probativity and Probability', 46, U. Pitt. L. Rev, 924, 934 (1985).
23

competing hypothesis put forward and against a background of knowledge and experience
about the world.42
(26.) In the present case, the plausibility of the theory about the eventful nights chain of
events that has been put forth by the Appellant in the Trial court remains largely
inconclusive in nature. The circumstances encompassing situation at hand fail to prove the
factum probandum.
(27.) The rules as laid down by Wills on Circumstantial Evidence, other writers on the
subject have repeated, and 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.43
(28.) It is humbly submitted to this Honble court that the circumstances from which the
conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances
concerned `must or should' and not `may be' established. 44 It is a fundamental principle of
criminal jurisprudence that circumstantial evidence should point inevitably to the
conclusion that it was the accused and the accused only who were the perpetrators of the
offence and such evidence should be incompatible with the innocence of the accused. 45
But, in the present case, the whole evidence was being concocted and the respondents
were being framed for a wrong they had not committed. Cases in which the evidence is
purely of a circumstantial nature, the facts and circumstances from which the conclusion
of guilt is sought to be drawn must be fully established beyond any reasonable doubt and
the fact and circumstances should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but
42 Vol. 29, American Jurisprudence, 322 (2d ed, 2011).
43 J F B, William Wirt (1852-1891) 16 The American Law Register 70544 Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622,
45 Eradu & Ors. v. State Of Hyderabad, AIR 1956 SC 316, 1956 CriLJ 559
24

they must be in their effect as to be entirely incompatible with the innocence of the
accused and must exclude every reasonable hypothesis consistent with his innocence. 46
The circumstance did not determine the respondents to be the wrongdoers in this given
case. Therefore, the decision of HC was appropriate. Moreover, there was no single
concrete evidence to place the accused at the scene of crime. The Locus classicus of the
court in case of circumstantial evidence is that the given circumstances should be of a
conclusive nature and tendency so that they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis
but the one proposed to be proved. It must be such as to show that within all human
probability the act must have been done by the accused.47
(29.) It is humbly submitted to this Honble Court that an offence of this magnitude such
as murder, it would be highly risky to rely on the statement of just one witness, herein
PW1. It has been held in various judgments that for appreciating circumstantial evidences,
the court has to be cautious and find out whether the chain of circumstances led by the
prosecution is complete and the chain must be as complete and conclusive as to
unmistakably point to the guilt of the accused 48
(30.) It is further submitted that it is not safe to base a conviction on any solitary
incriminating circumstance which otherwise is too shaky, suspicious and fragile to furnish
a sound foundation for conviction. 49
C. THE EVIDENCE AGAINST THE RESPONDENTS REMAINS LARGELY
INCONCLUSIVE
46 Earabhadrappa Alias Krishnappa v. State Of Karnataka, 1983 AIR 446, 1983 SCR (2)
552
47 Hanumant v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, 1975 AIR 1083
48 Birendar Poddar v. State of Bihar [(2011) 6 SCC 350]; Nagesh v State of Karnataka,
AIR2012SC1965
49 Mahmood v State of Uttar Pradesh , AIR 1976 SC 69
25

(31.) Prima Facie, the entire case of the Appellant solely rests on the testimony of the
witness, which is clearly fabricated and influenced by personal bias of the witness. The
witness in the said case is an interested witness.
(32.) It is humbly submitted that the testimony of an interested witness cannot be taken
into consideration. It is contended that the whole incident is laced with ambiguity and
cannot be accepted as the finding of the investigation officer or the statement of interested
witness cannot be considered as concrete evidence in the court of law. The whole line of
argument put forth by the Appellant in the Trial Court is hollow being merely a story
crafted by the Appellant and cannot stand the test of law. In the absence of any other links
in the chain of circumstantial evidence, it was not possible to convict the appellant solely
on the basis of the testimony of one sole witness without any other evidence. 50
In Bodha and Ors v State of Jammu & Kashmir 51, Court held that circumstantial evidence
can be a sole basis for conviction provided the conditions as stated below is fully satisfied.
These conditions are:
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
except the one proposed to be proved.
It is submitted that given the lack of fulfillment of the preceding conditions, the case
against Respondents cannot be proved.
Taking note of the abovementioned case in light of the facts of the present case, we put
forth that due to the discrepancy and personal malice involved in relation to the witness
and other discrepancies there is a possibility of a third person committing the said murder.
50 Jaswant Gir v. State of Punjab, [2005] 12 SCC 438, (SC)
51 Bodha and Ors v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, [2002] 8 SCC 45, (SC), [13]
26

It is submitted that none of the existing circumstances are concrete enough to prove the
factum probandum.
(33.) It is also submitted that PW4, that is the I/O, has not discharged his functions
properly. Respondent No. 1- Mr. Tashi was arrested by the police when Tashi was handed
over to the police by the public. There are no public witness statements recorded with
respect to the happening of the offence. It is contended that the I/O did not discharge his
functions properly with respect to taking witness statements. The Police being a State
functionary cannot be lax with respect to carrying out its functions. The State cannot base
its arguments on the investigation of the I/O which in fact is shoddy and botched up. It is
further submitted that the Respondents cannot be convicted based on a shoddy
investigation carried out by PW4. Conviction in such a case would be deeply detrimental
and against the principle of presumed innocence which is the essence of our criminal
justice system.
III.
THE RESPONDENTS HAVE NOT COMMITTED THE OFFENCE OF MURDER

AND MUST BE ACQUITTED.
(34.) It is humbly submitted to this Honble court that the Respondents in the instant
matter have not committed the offence and cannot be held liable and be punished or
penalized for the same. These are based on the grounds that:
A. Presumption of innocence of the accused, and
B. The inability to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
A. THAT INNOCENCE IS TO BE PRESUMED UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY

(35.) The principle that the accused person is presumed to be innocent unless his guilt is
proved beyond reasonable doubt has been followed under many conventions such as article
14(2) of the ICCPR states that every person charged with a criminal offence shall have the
right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law or Article 11 of the
UDHR where it is stated that everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be
presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which they have
had all the guarantees necessary for their defence. Article 6(2) of the European Convention
27

on Human Rights (hereinafter as ECHR) as well as the American Convention on Human
Rights (hereinafter as ACHR) reiterates the same principle. This is a basic principle of fair
trial. Similarly, in the instant matter, the Respondent cannot be seen to be guilty of the crime
until unless the appellant have clearly established their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The
principle that the accused person is presumed to be innocent unless his guilt is proved
beyond reasonable doubt is of cardinal importance in the administration of justice. 52It has
been clearly stated Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat i.e. the burden of proof
rests on who asserts, not on who denies.
(36.) It is humbly submitted to this Honble Court that the Respondents in the given matter
have proven their innocence once before the High Court. The Respondents in this matter
stick to their stand that they are being falsely implicated by the Victims family. It is also
submitted to this Honble Court that if the Respondents had any underlying motive
stemming from the property dispute, they could have also killed the Victims brother-PW1
who is supposedly the eye witness in the case. Also once the property dispute was decided
in favour of the victim and his family, there was no way that the respondents could not have
received the property in question.
(37.) It is further submitted that the statement of PW1 is fabricated and concocted because
he is an interested party to the property dispute suit as correctly held by the Honble High
Court.53
It is also submitted that the testimony of an interested witness cannot be taken into
consideration. It is contended that the whole incident is laced with ambiguity and cannot be
accepted as the finding of the investigation officer or the statement of interested witness
cannot be considered as concrete evidence in the court of law. The whole line of argument
put forth by the Appellant in the Trial Court is hollow being merely a story crafted by the
Appellant and cannot stand the test of law. In the absence of any other links in the chain of
52 Neeraj Tiwari.Fair trial vis--vis criminal justice administration: A critical study of Indian
criminal justice system, Vol. 2(4), Journal of Law and Conflict Resolution 66, 2010.
53 Page 4, 10, Moot Problem.
28

circumstantial evidence, it was not possible to convict the appellant solely on the basis of
the testimony of one sole witness without any other evidence. 54
B. THAT THE APPELLANTS HAVE BEEN UNABLE TO PROVE GUILT

BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT
(38.) It is that lack of evidence is further proven through the missing alleged murder
weapon. The respondents admittance to fact during police investigation cannot be taken
into consideration as it can be under extreme duress or sufferance. This is also given under
Section 25 of Indian Evidence Act, 187255. Due to lack of conclusive evidence, one cannot
convict the Respondents only on the statement of the so-called eyewitness to the happening
of the crime. There are a plethora of judgments by this Honble Court where the
accused/respondent was acquitted because of lack of evidence. In the case of Gian Mahtani
and anr v. State of Maharashtra and anr56, it was held that mere suspicion cannot cause
conviction and commission of offence should be found beyond any doubt or suspicion.
It is further submitted that, in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of
Maharashtra57, a list of guidelines were established to prove a case against accused(s).
These were:
1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully
established.
2. 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,
3. The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency,
4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and
54 SUPRA Note 50.
55 Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Act 1 of 1872).
56 AIR 1971 SC 1898
57 AIR 1984 SC 1622
29

5. 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.
(39.) It is submitted that the respondents cannot be held guilty because the situation does
not satisfy the above-mentioned guidelines of the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court.
It is further submitted that the onus of proving guilt of the respondents or the accused lies on
the Prosecution, herein Appellants. Guilt of the Respondents cannot be proven only on the
basis of the testimony of the eyewitness without other conclusive witness depositions. For
an offence of this magnitude, the counsel submits that there is no evidence proving the guilt
of the Respondents beyond reasonable doubt.
(40.) It is also submitted that our countrys judicial system is based on the principle of
presumed innocence. As Blackstone formulated, It is better that ten guilty persons escape
than that one innocent suffer.58
58 William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, (1765-1769).
30
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 Respondents in this matter are innocent and must be acquitted.

2. The Respondents be paid compensation for the costs of this frivolous suit and mental
harassment.
3. PW1 i.e. Ballan be tried for perjury under 193 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 for trying to
sway this Court.
4. 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 Respondent Shall Duty Bound Forever Pray.
Respectfully submitted
.
(Sd/-)
(Counsel for the Respondents)
31

Winning Memo For The Respondents

Cargado por

Información del documento

Título original

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Winning Memo For The Respondents

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

TEAM CODE:

BEFORE THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

STATE (NCT OF DELHI)..........Appellant

5th INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

5th INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

All India Reporter

Supreme Court Case

Criminal Procedure Code

Indian Penal Code

The Constitution of India

Indian Evidence Act

Special Leave Petition

Code of Criminal Procedure

Written Submission on behalf of the Respondent

5th INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

Criminal Law Journal

Criminal Law Journal

Station House Officer

5th INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

M.L.Singhal & Sabiha

The Constitution of India, 1950

5th INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

5th INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

5th INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

BACKGROUND OF THE PARTIES

Prasad family in August 2015.

5th INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

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

after he was taken to 3D Hospital for treatment.

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

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

5th INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

sentences were to run concurrently.

and enhancing the compensatory amount.

statement of an interested party.

ISSUE I: WHETHER THE GIVEN APPEAL AGAINST THE HIGH COURT

5th INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

THE GIVEN APPEAL AGAINST THE HIGH COURT JUDGMENT IS NOT

THE HONBLE HIGH COURT WAS CORRECT IN ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED.

5th INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

THE RESPONDENTS HAVE NOT COMMITTED THE OFFENCE OF MURDER

THE GIVEN APPEAL AGAINST THE HIGH COURT JUDGMENT IS NOT

Questions of facts cannot be ordinarily entertained in an appeal.

5th INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

It is settled that if the SC starts

5th INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

B. THAT THERE ARE NO SPECIAL REASONS FOR ENTERTAINING THE

5th INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

5th INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

5th INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

5th INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

THE HONBLE HIGH COURT WAS CORRECT IN ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED.

5th INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

THAT MR. BALLANS TESTIMONY CANNOT BE RELIED UPON

5th INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

5th INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

5th INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

5th INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

5th INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

5th INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

5th INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

5th INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

THE RESPONDENTS HAVE NOT COMMITTED THE OFFENCE OF MURDER