Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Utkal University Vani Vihar, Bhubaneswar, Odisha
Utkal University Vani Vihar, Bhubaneswar, Odisha
DATE –22.12.2015
SIGNATURE OF THE CENTRE SUPERINTENDENT
CODE NO.
CLASSIFICATION OF MARKS
Civil Case 15
TOTAL 30
MARKS
SIGNATURE OF THE EXAMINER:
IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT, ORISSA
And
In the matter of an appeal filed by the appellants challenging their conviction for
the offence and sentence passed under section 302, IPC passed by the Hon’ble
Sessions Court.
VERSUS
1 Index of Abbreviations
2 Index of Authorities
3 Statement of Jurisdiction
4 Synopsis of Facts
5 Issues Raised
6 Summary of Arguments
7 Arguments Advanced
8 Prayer
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
INDIAN CASES
Memorial for Appellant
Rishipal Vs. State of Uttarakhand [ 2013 123 AIC 92 SC ]
Santosh Kumar Sahoo Vs. State of Orissa [ 2013 (129) AIC, 580, Orissa ]
BOOKS
2012).
INTERNET SITES
1. Indian Kanoon.com
2. Supreme Courtcaselaw.com
The appellant approach the Hon’ble High Court U/s. 374(2) of Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973 appealing his conviction U/s. 302 of Indian Penal Code,
1860.
1. Lucy, a girl, aged about 17 years left her house on 12.04.2011 at about
5.30 p.m. to their vegetable filed near the village to pick vegetables.
2. But, she did not return that day, her father searched for her and with the
help of some co-villagers found the dead body of his daughter lying with
incised homicidal injuries on her head and neck with bleeding from her
injuries.
3. The body of Lucy was found in the early morning hours of 13.04.2011 and
her father lodged a F.I.R. on 14.04.2011 alleging that his daughter has
4. ‘Shankar’ is a villager who had previous dispute with Lucy’s father. During
admitted the fact that there was prior dispute between informant and the
5. The Investigating Officer took the help of the dog squad who after taking a
bamboo stick lying near the dead body of the deceased led the police to
homicidal injuries and opined that the cause of death was due to
8. Rabindra a co-villager was also examined and he stated that on the same
day he had seen ‘Shankar’ smeared with mud coming from his filed.
is proper or not ?
2. Whether there is any criminal intention on the part of the accused to kill the
deceased or not ?
3. Whether the principle of last seen theory is applicable in this case or not ?
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
proper or not ?
deceased or not ?
3. Whether the principle of last seen theory is applicable in this case or not ?
Last seen theory will not be applicable in this case, because both the
accused and victim weren’t seen together during a proximate range of time.
The medical evidence has not been corroborated by any oral evidence of
6. Whether the conviction is proper basing upon the testimony of the sole
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
Memorial for Appellant
Whether on the basis of circumstantial evidence in this case the conviction is
proper or not ?
In this case the court has convicted the accused solely on the basis of
not only to be fully established; but also that all the circumstances so
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand
complete chain leaving no option but to hold that the accused is guilty of the
The law is well settled that, circumstantial evidence must satisfy 3 tests :
But, in this case the circumstances has not been cogently and
doubt.
In Nagina Rajbanshi
Vs.
It was held by Hon’ble Patna High Court that when the court has convicted the
Virendra Poddar
Vs.
accused and any hypothesis arising from evidence incomplete with the guilt of
There are many landmark verdict pronounced by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
Vs.
State of Maharastra
whether there is any criminal intention on the part of the accused to kill the
deceased or not ?
There was no quarrel between the accused and victim’s father on the date
of occurrence. In this case the respondent fails to prove any motive for
the accused; but the trial court wrongly convicted the accused on doubt
Vs
State of Maharastra
Vs
[ AIR 1990 SC 79 ]
There was no quarrel between the accused and victim’s father on the date
of occurrence. In this case the respondent fails to prove any motive for
the accused; but the trail court wrongly convicted the accused on doubt
But, there is a long gap between ‘may have’ and ‘must have’. There are 5
Golden principles on the basis of which ‘may have’ and ‘must have’ is to be
differentiated are :-
accused.
Whether the principle of last seen theory is applicable in this case or not ?
time when the accused and deceased were last seen together alive and
when the deceased was found dead in so small time gap that, possibility
Vs
State of Orissa
there is long gap of 24 hours between the last seen of the accused and
recovery of dead body of the deceased. So, here last seen theory not
instance of the accused, so, it is highly doubtful and the prosecution is not being
able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. So, the conviction made by
Court in
Selvi
Vs
has held forcible polygraph test as unconstitutional and violating Human Rights.
There is a guideline issued by the National Human Rights Commission for the
iv) During the hearing before the Magistrate, the person alleged to have
But, in my case, the poly-graphic test was done by the police under compelling
The medical evidence in this case has not been corroborated by any oral
asphyxia that means due to suffocation or throttling; but there was nothing
discovered either from the place of occurrence or from the accused which
Whether the conviction is proper basing upon the testimony of the sole
There is no such straight jacket formula or hard and fast rule which says
principle of law that, if the case is rested entirely on the sole evidence of
But, in my case the sole witness for respondent turns hostile in trial.
It was held in
Mangilal
Vs
that, the evidence of a hostile witness must be examined more cautiously and
In my case, the so called sole witness Rabindra deviated from his statement
given before the police which doesn’t disclose that the appellant involved in the
offence and there is no conclusive evidence in this case to hold that the offence
course of trial which creates a reasonable cloud of doubt in the judicious mind of
It is therefore prayed that Hon’ble High Court may be pleased to allow the appeal
and set-a-side the Judgment of the trial court and release the appellant from the
For this act of your kindness the appellant shall be duty bound and ever prayed.
Date : Advocate