Memorial Appellant Final

TEAM CODE: -
G. H. RAISONI LAW SCHOOL, NAGPUR

KSHAN – 14th NATIONAL TRIAL & APPELLATE MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2019
IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH
Cri. Appeal No.-------/2019
APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973
In the matter of:
RAJESH LEMAN BHENDE & ANR................................................................................................APPELLANTS
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA.................................................................................................RESPONDENT
BEFORE SUBMISSION TO HON’BLE JUSTICE & HIS COMPANION JUSTICES
OF
THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

Memorial on Behalf of Appellant pg.1
==================================================================
TABLE OF CONTENTS
==================================================================
A. Table of Contents Page. 1
B. List of Abbreviation Page. 2
C. Index of Authorities Page. 3
D. Statement of Jurisdiction Page. 5
E. Statement of Facts Page. 6
F. Statement of Charges Page. 7
G. Summary of Pleadings Page. 8
H. Arguments Advanced Page. 10
I. Prayer Page. 18
================================================================
KSHAN – 14 NATIONAL TRIAL & APPELLATE MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2019
th
==================================================================
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
==================================================================
ABBREVIATION EXPANSION
AIR All India Reporter
All MR All Maharashtra Reporter
Cri. Criminal
Cr.L.J Criminal Law Journal
DW Defence Witness
Ed. Edition
Hon’ble Honorable
i.e. That Is
No. Number
P. Page
Para Paragraph
PW Prosecution Witness
SC Supreme Court of India
SCC Supreme Court Cases
SCR Supreme Court Reporter
Sec. Section
s/o Son of
u/s Under Section
Vs. Verses
& and
@ Alias
================================================================
th
==================================================================
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
==================================================================
CASES REFERED
1. Anil Shashikant Alve Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2010(4) BCrC 489
2. Avinash Ramvhandra Bhise Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2008 (2) BCrC 498
3. Bir Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 59
4. Datar Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 1975 (4) SCC 272
5. Deoraj Daju Suvarna Vs. State of Maharashtra, 1994 CrLJ 3602
6. Hardeep Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Haryana, AIR 2008 SC 3113
7. M G Agarwal Vs. State of Maharashtra, 963 AIR 200
8. Manharbhai @ Manubhai Vs. State of Gujarat, 2004 Cr.L.J. 3242
9.
Maroti Tukaram Nagtode Vs. The State of Maharashtra, 2014 ALL MR (Cri) 943
10. Mohan Chandra Gogoi Vs. State of Assam, 1990 (2) Crimes 223 (Gau.)
11. Rajababu Bauchayya Adluri Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2000 (2) B Cri C 316
12. Raju Brijmohan Maurya Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2008 (3) BCrC 361
13. State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Madan Mohan and others, 1989 CriLJ 1485
14. Pratap Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2006 (1) BCrC 498
15. State of Maharashtra Vs. Prabhu Barku Gade, 1995 CrLJ 1432
16. State of Maharashtra Vs. Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary and Anr.,2000 (1) BCrC 482
17. Sampat Khuntaji Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2010 Mah LR (1) 268
18. Sirima Narsimha Rao Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2010 (1) BCrC 802 AP
================================================================
th
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIONS
1. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
2. Indian Evidence Act, 1872
3. Indian Penal Code, 1860
BOOKS & LEXICONS
1. Parikh’s Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology Ed. 5
2. The Law of Evidence by Batuk Lal
3. Indian Penal Code by Batuk Lal
4. Criminal Procedure Code by Ratanlal Dhirajlal
5. Criminal Major Acts by Dr. A Sabzawri
6. Medical Science helping the Process of Criminal law, by Vinod Nijhwan
7. Law of Criminal Appeals, Revisions, References by Mukharjee
8. Criminal Trial and Investigation by P C Banerjee
ONLINE DATABASE
1. www.indiakanoon.org
2. www.judis.nic.in
3. www.legalcrystal.com
4. www.livelaw.com
5. www.manupatra.com
================================================================
th
==================================================================
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
==================================================================
The present appeal has been filed before the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench
with reference to Section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Section 374 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure reads as follows,
374. Appeals from convictions.—(1) Any person convicted on a trial held by a

High Court in its extraordinary original criminal jurisdiction may appeal to the
Supreme Court.
(2) Any person convicted on a trial held by a Sessions Judge or an Additional
Sessions Judge or on a trial held by any other court in which a sentence of
imprisonment for more than seven years has been passed against him or against any
other person convicted at the same trial], may appeal to the High Court.
(3) Same as otherwise provided in sub-section (2), any person,—
(a) convicted on a trial held by a Metropolitan Magistrate or Assistant Sessions Judge
or Magistrate of the first class, or of the second class, or
(b) sentenced under section 325, or
(c) in respect of whom an order has been made or a sentence has been passed under
section 360 by any Magistrate, may appeal to the Court of Session.1
1
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
================================================================
th
==================================================================
SYNOPSIS OF FACTS
==================================================================
1. Complainant Babanrao Lokhande was running dhaba of accused Rajesh on rent. Rajesh
is having his house adjacent to the dhaba. In the said house, truck driver of Rajesh i.e.
deceased Jitu Borkar was residing on the rent along with his deceased wife Manju
Borkar, daughter Varsha and his son Vinod.
2. On the evening of the 10th January 2019, the incident took place at the dhaba of accused
Rajesh Bhende. At about 7:30 p.m. on the said date Rajesh came to dhaba from the side
of Congress Nagar and made enquiries about the deceased Jitu Borkar.
3. After a while Jitu came there on motorcycle, as he got down from motorcycle, he
demanded his salary for three months at that time accused Rajesh replied he should
immediately vacate the room and slapped him.
4. Accused no. 2 Parag, who is running pan shop near the said dhaba came there, he
caught hold Jitu’s hands and accused no.1 by means of knife stabbed over the stomach
of Jitu, due to it Jitu shouted hence his wife Manju came there to rescue him at that time
Fatima who is live-in partner of accused Rajesh also came running behind her and she
grabbed hairs of Manju and accused no. 1 stabbed Manju.
5. At that time informant went there and tried to save them that time accused Rajesh
assaulted on his stomach by means of knife.
6. Running away from the spot of incidence informant Babanrao called the Police and
then the police arrived at the spot.
7. After investigation accused Rajesh and Accused Parag was arrested and then the
chargesheet was filed.
8. After commencement of the trial both the accused were convicted on the charges u/s.
302 of IPC and 34 of IPC.
9. Aggrieved by the judgement passed by the learned sessions court the appellant has filed
the appeal in the High court of Bombay, bench at Nagpur.
================================================================
th
==================================================================
STATEMENT OF CHARGES
==================================================================
The charges levied on the accused are u/s. 302 of IPC read with Sec. 34 of IPC. Sec.
302 of IPC states about the charges of murder and Sec. 34 about common intention of the
accused.
================================================================
th
==================================================================
SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS
==================================================================
WHETHER THE PROSECUTION HAS PROVED THE CASE BEYOND

REASONABLE DOUBT?
In the present case, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt
which is supported with the help of following grounds.
The prosecution has deliberately concealed the statement of complainant about

deceased stating about physical relationship with the live in partner of the accused no. 1 Rajesh.
The only possible reason for concealment of such important fact is that prosecution will be
failing to support its concocted story.
Statement of PW1 and PW3 are not in corroboration with each other regarding the
foster brother of the complainant. Complainant states that it was Balu Bobde who took Varsha
away from the accused. It is submitted that the testimony of the complainant is thus not reliable.
Considering the timings given in statement of facts and the timings stated by the
informant there is variation and thus there is delay of lodging of FIR of 2 hours and thus there
is huge possibility of the complainant to concoct the story.
The injury that has found on the body of the deceased persons is only single but
according to the statements of PW 1, PW 3 and the FIR lodged by the complainant, the accused
has allegedly given knife blows twice. Thus, the testimony of the witnesses is subject to doubt.
The prosecution while choosing the witnesses has chosen only interested witnesses.
Though the other witnesses were available for the testimony the prosecution has only produced
those witnesses which are dependents or related to the deceased. This contention is supported
with the ground that DW 1 Fatima has stated about complainant having grudge against the
accused.
The investigation made by the police is not reliable as it is done with many errors which
are discussed in further arguments. Also the evidence that the prosecution has put reliance on
is not in compliance with the post mortem report.
================================================================
th
WHETHER THE CHARGES LEVIED ON THE ACCUSED PERSONS ARE

JUSTIFIABLE?
The charges that the prosecution has put on the accused are not justifiable as they are
not fulfilling the requirements of the charge. The first charge of murder is not justified as the
accused has not made attack on the deceased with the intention. The charge of murder is
twofold. The first of which is the criminal mind. The accused had no criminal intention to
murder the deceased also it is stated that the knife was took out by the deceased himself.
To prove the charge of common intention the previous meeting of minds is necessary.
In the present case such meeting is not proven by the prosecution by any substantive evidence.
Thus, it is most humbly submitted that the charges levied on the accused persons are
unjustifiable.
================================================================
th
==================================================================
ARGUMENT ADVANCED
==================================================================
WHETHER THE PROSECUTION HAS PROVED THE CASE BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT?
It is most humbly submitted that, the learned sessions court while passing the judgement
dated 16th March 2019 have ignored many important aspects and passed the impugned
judgement. The aspects can be better understood with the following grounds;
1] Non- corroboration of facts with statements of witnesses: -
1.1 Concealing of fact of Jitu demanding physical relationship with Fatima by PW 1: -

In the present case the statement given by PW 1 Babanrao Lokhande does not
corroborate with the other evidences on record. In the oral report lodged by the complainant,
he stated the fact that deceased Jitu demanded physical relationship with Fatima. In all the
further made statements (Oral Report, Statement under Sec. 161 CrPC) by him he deliberately
concealed the fact. The same is confirmed by DW Fatima in her statement under Sec. 161
CrPC. The only reason behind concealing the said fact is that PW 1 Babanrao wanted to
prosecute accused persons falsely in the said crime.
1.2 Non corroboration of statement of PW1 with PW 3: -
PW 1 Babanrao states that, his foster brother Balu Bobde caught hold of accused Rajesh
and asked him to take PW 3 Varsha and run away from the spot and PW 3 Varsha states nothing
about him in her statement. Also, according to PW 1 Balu Bobde was the person who gave
kick blow to accused Rajesh and took away Varsha, this shows that Balu Bobde was very near
to accused No. 1 Rajesh, and though he is not considered as witness. Thus, it is submitted that
Balu Bobde is a concocted part of a story made by the PW 1. In case of Anil Shashikant Alve
Vs. State of Maharashtra2 Hon’ble Bombay High Court held that, though FIR is not a
substantive piece of evidence, when proved it may be used as previous statement of witness in
evidence to find out whether it corroborates with first informant’s testimony. And thus the FIR
may be considered while testifying the witness.
2
2010(4) BCrC 489
================================================================
th
1.3 Variation in Timings: -
According to the statement of facts, Dhantoli Police station received a phone call
regarding the said incident at 7:30pm on 10-09-2019. On the said phone call it was stated that,
accused no. 1 Rajesh has caused injuries to two persons by a knife. It was also informed that
the incident has occurred near Baban Dhaba. But in the FIR it is stated that the information
was received at 9:25pm also the entry was made in general reference diary at 9:30pm.
In the FIR it is mentioned that the incident had happened between 8:30pm and 9:15pm,
but considering the medical report, deceased Jitu died at 9:00pm and deceased Manju at
8:35pm. Considering these variations the FIR made by PW 1 Babanrao is subject to doubt and
it can also be concluded that the FIR was lodged with a delay of 2 hours which is unexplained.
In case of Rajababu Bauchayya Adluri Vs. State of Maharashtra3, Hon’ble High Court of
Bombay held that, evidentiary value of FIR will be reduced if it is made after such delay which
is unexplained particularly when it creates suspicion that the informant had sufficient
opportunity to concoct a story and falsely implicate the accused. Similarly, in the present case
the complainant has tried to falsely prosecute the accused persons.
1.4 Non-corroboration of statements with medical report: -
The informant Babanrao, PW 2 Pandurang and PW 3 Varsha are stating in their

statements that the assault made on deceased Jitu are multiple i.e. twice and it is on his stomach.
Considering the medical report, the injury found on the deceased Jitu is a single one that too to
the left of his chest. In case of Mohan Chandra Gogoi Vs. State of Assam4 the court observed
that, in case of inconsistency between Post Mortem examination and ocular evidence, the
conviction cannot be held sustainable.
2] Erroneous investigation: -
It is most humbly submitted that, in the present case the investigation made by the
police is full of errors. It can be understood with the help of following grounds,
3
2000 (2) B Cri C 316
4
1990 (2) Crimes 223 (Gau.)
================================================================
th
2.1 Only interested persons are made witnesses: -
The Investigating officer while taking the statements of witnesses, had only taken those
persons as witnesses who are related to the deceased or are rivals of the accused. The informant
i.e. PW 1Babanrao Lokhande used to run the dhaba owned by the accused no. 1, PW 2
Pandurang Singh is a person who knew the accused as he is also a dhaba owner. PW 3 Varsha
is the daughter of both deceased persons. Considering all these aspects the witnesses taken by
the police are interested witnesses. In case of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Madan Mohan and
others5 the Apex court held that the witnesses to be examined must be witnesses who are from
locality and are of such nature that they are to be examined naturally. The witnesses to be
chosen by the investigating officer should be independent. Also in case of Pratap Singh Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh6, it was observed that, in a murder trial investigating officer even
after noticing that there were some independent eye witnesses whose evidence would be
material for the purpose of proving prosecution case, not examining those witnesses, in such
case benefit thereof must be given to the defence and not to the prosecution and the conviction
be set aside.
In the present case the witnesses chosen are all interested witnesses, and are to be
scrutinized closely. In case of Manharbhai @ Manubhai Vs. State of Gujarat,7 The Hon’ble
Court observed that, as the witness is the son of the deceased person, he is highly interested
witness. Therefore, being close relative of the deceased, his evidence is required to be closely
scrutinized. According to the PW 1 there were 2 persons eating at dhaba and some were
standing at accused no. 2 Parag’s Pan shop, also the spot of incident is across the road and the
possibility of other person present at the spot cannot be denied. And thus, the witnesses on
record by the Investigating officer are subject to doubt and are not completely reliable. In case
of Bir Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh8, the apex court observed that though the independent
witnesses are available and prosecution has only examined interested witnesses, then the court
would be justified in drawing adverse inference against prosecution. In case of Deoraj Daju
Suvarna Vs. State of Maharashtra9, the court observed that it is settled norms of appreciation
of evidence require that the evidence of interested witness is to be assessed with caution.
5
1989 CriLJ 1485
6
2006 (1) BCrC 498
7
2004 Cr.L.J. 3242
8
AIR 1978 SC 59
9
1994 CrLJ 3602
================================================================
th
2.2 Negligence during investigation: -
During investigation important report such as report of Fingerprint Expert, is not

brought on record. According to memorandum panchanama made by the police u/s. 27 of
evidence act, the alleged weapon was seized. If such material piece of evidence is found, then
the analysis of it by the expert was necessary, which was not conducted by the investigation
officer. In case of Datar Singh Vs. State of Punjab10 examination of weapon used for murder
where prosecution failed to examine the weapon of murder for fingerprints of the accused held
it would be extremely fatal to the prosecution case.
In the panchanama u/s. 27of India evidence Act, it is stated that the knife was hid by
the Accused no. 1 beneath the staircase of his house which is adjacent to the spot of incidence.
As the accused fled form the spot after the incident there is no reason for him to come back to
the spot and hide the knife. Also, it is not mentioned that the weapon i.e. the foldable knife was
sealed. The only thing that has mentioned is that the weapon was confiscated. Sealing of
weapon after seizure is emphasized in case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Prabhu Barku Gade11.
Also in case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary and another12 the
court observed that the nature or discovery even if proved, is a very weak piece of evidence.
Thus, it is submitted that the panchanama u/s. 27 is a false as it is a concocted part of story of
the prosecution.
It is stated by the complainant that, the scuffle during the incident caused him injuries
on his stomach, considering the same no evidence is brought on record to support his statement.
Also, in the FIR he stated that his clothes got dirty with blood as he took the deceased persons
to the hospital. Considering the same his clothes should have been seized, which is not done.
And thus, is subject to doubt.
The presence of Knife is subject to doubt as there is inconsistency with the facts,
according to PW 1 Babanrao Accused Rajesh took out knife from his belt, PW 2 and PW 3 are
of similar view at some extent, but according to DW Fatima deceased Jitu took out the knife
and attacked accused Rajesh, but in the Judgement passed by learned sessions court it is stated
that accused Rajesh brought the knife from the dhaba. Even if we consider it as a fact that the
10
1975 (4) SCC 272
11
1995 CrLJ 1432
12
2000 (1) BCrC 482
================================================================
th
knife was at dhaba then there is no purpose of foldable knife at dhaba. And thus, mere on the
ground of recovery of knife from Accused no. 1 Rajesh may not be made ground to convict the
accused. In case of Sampat Khuntaji Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra13 the court held that the
recovery of weapon at instance of the appellant by itself is no ground to connect the appellant
with the commission of crime.
The articles seized by police and were sent to the chemical analyzer in which the results
of blood on those articles are inconclusive. Among those articles exhibit (12) is a knife
recovered in panchanama u/s. 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, which also has inconclusive
results about the blood on the blade. And thus there is no single substantive evidence on record
that will point the guilt of accused. And thus mere recovery would not be sufficient to convict
the accused on a substantive charge of murder under section 302 of Indian penal code in
absence of substantive evidence, this was observed by the high court of Bombay in case of
Raju Brijmohan Maurya Vs. State of Maharashtra14. Also in case of Sirima Narsimha Rao
Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh15, it was observed that recovery of weapon alone is not sufficient
to connect the accused with death of the deceased. Similarly, in case of Maroti Tukaram
Nagtode Vs. The State of Maharashtra, 16 the Hon’ble Bombay High Court observed that,
Mere presence of blood on clothes of accused is not sufficient to connect accused with crime
in absence of other implicating evidence.
3] Evidence on record not in compliance with the Post Mortem Report: -
It is most humbly submitted that, in the present case the evidences that the prosecution
has brought on record are not in compliance with the medical report. The contradictions can be
understood with the help of following points,
3.1 Time of death of deceased persons: -
In the FIR it is stated that, in general diary the entry made for the said incident is of
9:30pm and the information was received at 9:25pm, but according to the Post Mortem report,
the time of death mentioned is 9:00pm, also it is stated that the deceased Jitu died after 45
minutes of treatment at the hospital. This inconsistency with the facts gives rise to doubt.
13
2010 Mah LR (1) 268
14
2008 (3) BCrC 361
15
2010 (1) BCrC 802 AP
16
2014 ALL MR (Cri) 943
================================================================
th
3.2 Injuries on the bodies: -
According to the FIR deceased Jitu allegedly received knife blows on his stomach that
too twice (Oral Report Para 3 line 8) and according to his statement u/s. 161 CrPC ‘Assault
on his stomach at two places by knife’ (Statement of PW 1 Para 2 line 8). But in the Post
mortem report the injury received by deceased Jitu is a single incised wound that too on the
left side of his body in the chest. This non-corroboration states that the PW 1 is exaggerating
the story. And thus it is submitted that the testimony of PW 1 is not reliable.
According to the weapon examination report the confiscated knife has only single edge
sharp. In the post mortem report of deceased Jitu in column 17 it is stated that the wound on
deceased Jitu is elliptical in shape. Also, in post mortem report of deceased Manju in column
17 it is stated that the injury received by deceased Manju is elliptical in shape. According to
Dr. Priikh’s Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence17 a knife with double edge sharp causes
elliptical injury and a knife with single edge sharp causes wedged shape injury. Also the
serration on the edges of the knife may cause laceration which is absent. And thus, it can be
concluded that the injuries that are present on the body of the deceased persons are not due to
the weapon seized.
Thus, it is most humbly submitted that the case of prosecution is subject to doubt and
cannot be relied on, and the same is not proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.
17
Dr. Priikh’s Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence, fifth edition, Page 250
================================================================
th
WHETHER THE CHARGES LEVIED ON THE ACCUSED PERSONS ARE

JUSTIFIABLE?
It is most humbly contended that the charges levied on the accused persons are not
justifiable as they are not in corroboration with the facts of the case. The first charge that has
been levied on the accused persons is the charge of murder, in the present case the charge of
murder is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Considering the non-corroboration of
statements of the witnesses with the other substantive evidences of the case, it will not be
justifiable to convict the accused on concocted and exaggerated story of the prosecution.
In the statement of DW Fatima, she has clearly stated that the complainant had previous
grudge against the accused persons and thus the informant had wrongly prosecuted them. The
case here is of provocation due to which accused has slapped the deceased and due to which
the deceased took out knife and in the defending himself deceased received blow on his chest.
This contention is supported with the post mortem report as, if the accused wanted to murder
the deceased then he would have inflicted the knife blow with thrust, and if a blow is inflicted
with thrust then wound should have abrasions on its edges18, which is absent, this shows the
infliction of knife blow in self defence. And in case of deceased Manju, the injury is during the
altercations between the deceased and both accused persons she got hurt accidentally.
In the whole incident accused no. 2 Parag has no role, the only reason of his presence
is that he went to help accused Rajesh as the deceased Jitu took out knife. In order to bring
home the charge of common intention, the prosecution has to establish by evidence, weather
direct or circumstantial that there was a plan or meeting of mind of all the accused persons to
commit the offence, this was observed by Apex court in case of Hardeep Singh and Ors. Vs.
State of Haryana.19 In the present case there is no evidence on record that will show the
previous meeting of accused no. 1 Rajesh and Accused no. 2 Parag about the incident and both
of them had no intention at all. In case of Avinash Ramvhandra Bhise Vs. State of
Maharashtra20 it was held by the Hon’ble Bombay high court that the common intention is a
question of fact which needs to be inferred from the facts and circumstances of each case. In
the present case there is not a single fact or circumstance that will show the guilt of only accused
persons. In case of M G Agarwal Vs. State of Maharashtra, .21 The apex court stated that, It
18
Dr. Priikh’s Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence, fifth edition, Page 252
19
AIR 2008 SC 3113
20
2008 (2) BCrC 498
21
M G Agarwal Vs. State of Maharashtra, 963 AIR 200
================================================================
th
is a well-established rule in criminal jurisprudence that circumstantial evidence can be

reasonably made the basis of an accused person's conviction if it is of such a character that it
is wholly inconsistent with the innocence of the accused and is consistent only with his guilt.
If the circumstances proved in the case are consistent either with the innocence of the accused
or with his guilt, then the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt.
Thus, it is most humbly submitted that the charges levied on the accused persons are
not proved by prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and thus the same may not be relied on.
================================================================
th
==================================================================
PRAYER
==================================================================
Therefore, in the light of the facts of the case, issues raised, arguments advanced and
authorities cited, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:
1. The Appeal may kindly be allowed.

2. The Judgement and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Learned
Sessions Court may kindly be quashed and set aside.
3. The appellants may kindly be acquitted.
AND/OR
Pass any other order that it deems fit in the interest of Justice, Equity, and Good Conscience.
For this act of kindness, the Appellant shall as in duty bound, forever humbly pray,
Counsel for the Appellant
_________________________
================================================================
th

Memorial Appellant Final

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Memorial Appellant Final

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TEAM CODE: -

G. H. RAISONI LAW SCHOOL, NAGPUR

IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH

Cri. Appeal No.-------/2019

APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973

In the matter of:

RAJESH LEMAN BHENDE & ANR................................................................................................APPELLANTS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA.................................................................................................RESPONDENT

BEFORE SUBMISSION TO HON’BLE JUSTICE & HIS COMPANION JUSTICES

THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

A. Table of Contents Page. 1

B. List of Abbreviation Page. 2

C. Index of Authorities Page. 3

D. Statement of Jurisdiction Page. 5

E. Statement of Facts Page. 6

F. Statement of Charges Page. 7

G. Summary of Pleadings Page. 8

H. Arguments Advanced Page. 10

AIR All India Reporter

All MR All Maharashtra Reporter

Cr.L.J Criminal Law Journal

SC Supreme Court of India

SCC Supreme Court Cases

SCR Supreme Court Reporter

u/s Under Section

1. Anil Shashikant Alve Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2010(4) BCrC 489

3. Bir Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 59

4. Datar Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 1975 (4) SCC 272

5. Deoraj Daju Suvarna Vs. State of Maharashtra, 1994 CrLJ 3602

7. M G Agarwal Vs. State of Maharashtra, 963 AIR 200

8. Manharbhai @ Manubhai Vs. State of Gujarat, 2004 Cr.L.J. 3242

STATUTES AND LEGISLATIONS

1. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

2. Indian Evidence Act, 1872

3. Indian Penal Code, 1860

BOOKS & LEXICONS

1. Parikh’s Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology Ed. 5

2. The Law of Evidence by Batuk Lal

3. Indian Penal Code by Batuk Lal

4. Criminal Procedure Code by Ratanlal Dhirajlal

5. Criminal Major Acts by Dr. A Sabzawri

6. Medical Science helping the Process of Criminal law, by Vinod Nijhwan

7. Law of Criminal Appeals, Revisions, References by Mukharjee

8. Criminal Trial and Investigation by P C Banerjee

374. Appeals from convictions.—(1) Any person convicted on a trial held by a

WHETHER THE PROSECUTION HAS PROVED THE CASE BEYOND

The prosecution has deliberately concealed the statement of complainant about

WHETHER THE CHARGES LEVIED ON THE ACCUSED PERSONS ARE

1] Non- corroboration of facts with statements of witnesses: -

1.1 Concealing of fact of Jitu demanding physical relationship with Fatima by PW 1: -

1.2 Non corroboration of statement of PW1 with PW 3: -

1.3 Variation in Timings: -

1.4 Non-corroboration of statements with medical report: -

The informant Babanrao, PW 2 Pandurang and PW 3 Varsha are stating in their

2.1 Only interested persons are made witnesses: -

2.2 Negligence during investigation: -

During investigation important report such as report of Fingerprint Expert, is not

3] Evidence on record not in compliance with the Post Mortem Report: -

3.1 Time of death of deceased persons: -

3.2 Injuries on the bodies: -

WHETHER THE CHARGES LEVIED ON THE ACCUSED PERSONS ARE

is a well-established rule in criminal jurisprudence that circumstantial evidence can be