Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Prosecution Kerala N
Prosecution Kerala N
COMPETITION,2017
S.C.NO.586OF 2017
STATE OF KERALA
(PROSECUTION)
v.
(DEFENCE)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents ii
Index of Authorities iv
Table of Cases iv
Books vi
Lexicons vii
Websites vii
Statutes vii
Statement of Facts ix
Statement of Charges x
Summary of Arguments xi
Arguments Advanced 1
Issue-I 1
of Dacoity? 1
Issue-II 7
Prayer 16
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
LISTOFABBREVIATIONS
INDEXOFAUTHORITIES
TABLE OF CASES:
27. Niranjan Das and Ors. v. Giridhari Das and Anr., 68 (1989) CLT 746
38. State of Himachal Pradesh v. Lekh Raj and Anr., 1999 (9) ST 155
40. State of Madhya Pradesh v.Digvijay Singh, 1981 Cri. LJ 1278 (SC)
BOOKS:
3. Gaur, KD, Criminal Law: Cases and Materials, (6th Ed. 2009)
8. I, Kathuria, R.P. Supreme Court on Criminal Law, 1950-2002, ( 6th Ed. 2002)
9. II, Mitra, B.B., Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (20th ed. 2006)
11. II, Princep’sCommentary on the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (18th ed. 2005)
13. James, Jason, Forensic Medicine: Clinical and Pathological Aspects, (1st Ed. 2003)
19. Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code, 33rd Ed. (2011)
20. Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The Law of Evidence, 22nd Ed. (2006)
23. Sharma, B.R., Forensic Science in Criminal Investigation & Trials, (4th Ed. 2003)
25. Varshi, H.P. Criminal Trial and Judgment, (3rd ed. 1981)
LEXICONS:
WEBSITES:
1. http://www.findlaw.com
2. http://www.judis.nic.in
3. http://www.manupatra.co.in/AdvancedLegalSearch.aspx
4. http://www.scconline.com
STATUTES:
SURANA
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
STATEMENTOFJURISDICTION
The Hon’ble Court has jurisdiction to try the instant matter under Section 177 read with
Section 177:
Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local
When in a case instituted on a police report or otherwise, the accused appears or is brought
before the Magistrate and it appears to the Magistrate that the offence is triable exclusively
(b) subject to the provisions of this Code relating to bail, remand the accused to custody
(c) send to that Court the record of the case and the documents and articles, if any, which
(d) notify the Public Prosecutor of the commitment of the case to the Court of Session.’
STATEMENT OF FACTS
STATEMENTOFFACTS
1. On the night of 1st January, 2017, the Donald Hotel & Casino owned by Mr.shankar
Menon, on the ship ‘Queen’ located on the back water of Marina Drive , hosted a high stakes
poker game on the Santa floor. The chain of events that transpired that night are:
i. Post 11p.m. of that night, the Santa vault had been breached by four men dressed in
fine suits, though while making their exit the alarm got triggered.
ii. Subsequently the four men ran towards the deck to make an exit, and threw eight
waterproof bags overboard into a motorboat. Two of the men escaped by rappelling
into a motorboat, while the other two awaited their turn to rappel down.
iii. Just as the remaining two were about to make their escape, Mr. Jacob George
iv. Thereafter Mr. George fired a warning shot in the air, however when they still did not
stop, he fired at one man’s knee and subdued him, they disobeyed the order and one
Cpt.(Retd). Prasanth pillai (Head of Operations, Security) had shot dead the other
man.
v. The police reached the scene of crime at 12.15 am and Mr. Shankar menon registered
2. Praskash Raj, on 28th January, 2017 confessed to the crimes under Sec. 164 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, and further provided incriminating evidence against the accused. The
final report of the police was made on the complicity of the accused on the 27 th February,
2017.
3. On 2nd June, 2017, an interim order was passed by the Sessions Court stating that the
charges under Sec.396/302 have been read out to the accused and that the charge sheet has
been served. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The matter is listed for final
hearing before the Session’s Court, Cochin on the 26th June 2017.
STATEMENT OF CHARGES
STATEMENTOFCHARGES
CHARGE 1
Cpt. (Retd.).PRASANTH PILLAI
has been charged under Section 396 read with Section 302 the Indian
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
SUMMARYOFARGUMENTS
ISSUE I
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the accused, cpt (retd). Prasanth Pillai
( is guilty of committing dacoity as he had committed the crime with 5 other members with
full intent of robbing the Santa Vault of the 10 Crore Rupees that was being held in it on the
2nd of January 2017. The accused had access to all of the necessary instruments to carry out a
successful robbery as he was the Head of Operations (Security) aboard the Donald. And
while committing said crime the accused had committed murder, thus fulfilling all of the
ISSUE II
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the accused is guilty of murder as he
had committed an act of cold blooded murder on board the Donald with many witnesses to
the actus reus. The accused had the requisite mens rea to commit said crime, and he even had
a motive to carry out said act. The shot was fired point blank in the centre of the deceased’s
head, thus showing it was indeed an execution and not an act of self defence or an accident.
Hence it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the crime of Murder was indeed committed
ARGUMENTSADVANCED
ISSUE-I
It is humbly contended that Cpt. Pillai (hereinafter referred to as the ‘accused’) is guilty of
unlawful offences under Sec. 396/302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to
as ‘IPC’). It is to be noted that the essential elements of Sec. 396 are as follows:
• Murder must have been committed in the course of the commission of the dacoity 1.
The pre-requisite of a dacoity will be dealt with in the present issue (Issue I), while
the charge of murder will be proved in the subsequent issue (Issue II).Dacoity2 is
robbery3 committed by five or more persons, with the abettors who are present and
aiding when the crime is committed, to be counted in the number. The ingredients of
• Persons committing or attempting to commit robbery and present and aiding must not
Furthermore, the Prosecution humbly contends that the confessional statement of praskash
(All)
Sec 118, The Indian Evidence Act, 1872(hereinafter referred to as ‘Evidence Act’) mandates
that all persons shall be competent witnesses, unless they are prevented from understanding
or answering the questions put to them by virtue of tender years, extreme old age, disease,
lunacy or any other cause of same kind. Given that none of the witnesses in the instant matter
fall within the exceptions enumerated under Sec 118, it is logical to conclude that all of them
are competent witnesses. Therefore, it is the duty of the Court to scrutinise the evidence
The Prosecution concedes that prakash Raj (PW 2) is an interested witness i.e. a person who
wants to see the accused convicted because of his own animus or otherwise. 6 However, it is
well established that because a witness is an interested witness, his evidence cannot be totally
disregarded in toto.7 Eye-witnesses, being friends of the victim, cannot be discredited for that
reason alone.8
The confession of PW 2 makes it evident that the accused was an active participant in
planning the entire dacoity and also aided in their entrance in the Santa floor, by securing
7 Madhusundan Das v Narayanbai, AIR 1983 SC 114, Krishna Pillai v State of Kerala, AIR 1981 SC 1237
1) and Jacob George11 (DW 4) who state that the accused had the final call on who could be
admitted to the Santa floor of the Queen. Moreover, the accused was entrusted with
enforcing security within the Santa floor. 12Therefore, the accused was privy to the details of
13
the security arrangement security in place, which included the rotation of guards. It is also
to be noted that in the process of emptying the vault, the dacoits did not face any resistance
from the guards, who claimed that some ‘guests’ had lost their way. 14
complete as not to leave any reasonable doubt for a conclusion consistent with the innocence
of the accused15 If a false answer is offered by the accused when his attention is drawn to the
circumstance , a false answer would act as the missing link in completing the chain of
evidence makes it clear that the accused had hatched the plan and abetted the others in
commission of dacoity.
Excluding the accused, it is seen that there were four other participants to the crime on board
the Queen :
11 Ibid, para 2
12 Ibid, p. 15
13 Ibid, p.14
14Supra, n. 11, p. 15
15 Deonandan Mishra v State of Bihar (1955) 2 SCR 750; Harish Chandra Thange v State of Maharashtra,
i.Security on the intercom stated that they saw four men in suits carrying large bags
running towards the deck17 ii.DW 4 saw four men in suits throwing bags from the
ship18
iii.Mohd. Shafi (DW2) s saw four men run onto the deck19 iv.Confessional statement
of PW2 states that four men were on board the Queen while commission of dacoity
and another participant Akbar khan, was waiting on a motorboat to assist in the
v.Facts made out state that a motor boat was waiting for the accused persons 21. From
the aforementioned statements, it is evident that there were four people onboard the ship
while committing dacoity and another participant was in a motorboat assisting in the retreat
of the accused persons. Hence, apart from the accused, there were five other participants to
the crime.
The word conjointly refers to united or concerted action of five or more persons participating
established that the accused aided the accused persons by giving them integral information
about the security layout and assisted them in entering the santa floor of the donald. The
entire chain of events from getting on board the ship, to the escape was a well planned and
18 Ibid
19 Ibid, p. 16
20 Supra n. 9
21Case Details, P. 1
22 Niranjan Das and Ors. v. Giridhari Das and Anr., 68 (1989) CLT 746
concerted effort by the accused persons. Thus, it is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble
1.4CORROBORATION OF CONFESSION
Being an accomplice i.e. a guilty partner or associate in a crime,23 the evidence of PW2 is
subject to the combined reading of Sec 114 and Sec 133, Evidence Act and requires some
independent corroboration in material particulars for acceptance.24 The corroboration need not
be direct evidence but is sufficient if it is merely circumstantial evidence, 25i.e. the entrance
into the donald [A], breaking into the vault [B], timing of commission [C] and the number of
people [D].
i) Confession – The accused offered to secure entrance of all the accused persons.
ii) Witness statement–PW1 and DW4 indicate the accused made the final call on guest
list and was supposed to scrutinize the names on the list to ensure safety.
i) Confession - The accused shared information as to when the post of the guards would
ii) Witness statement - Accused himself verifies that he was entrusted with security of
the entire ship, along with DW 4 who states that security arrangements of the santa floor was
C.Time of Commission
i) Confession- Post 11:30 p.m. the accused persons started commission of dacoity.
ii)Witness statement -F.I.R. filed by PW1 states that the firing started in between 11:30-
D. Number of persons
As already established in issue 1.2, the confessional statement of PW 2 is verified with oral
testimony of other witnesses, with regard to the number of people perpetrating the offence.
Thus, the aforementioned chain of events stated in PW2’s confession is in consonance with
the oral testimony and clearly indicate the involvement of the accused.
It is contended by the defence that there exist discrepancies, between the witness statements
and the confession, with respect to the time of commission of the crime. However, in the
instant case, none of the statements contradict each other with respect to the manner in which
the crime was carried out. Neither is there any inconsistency in the chain of events which
have been narrated by the witnesses. Furthermore, since the accused persons were in the
Aurora from 11p.m. to 12a.m. there can be no other alibi for them. Thus, it is an immaterial
discrepancy.
There is bound to be some discrepancy between the narrations of different witnesses due to
errors of observation, errors of memory due to lapse of time, mental disposition and the like. 26
27
Trivial discrepancies ought not to obliterate otherwise acceptable evidence of eyewitnesses
and are not fatal for the prosecution’s case28 as they do not go to the root of the prosecution
27 Leela Ram v. State of Haryana AIR 1999 SC 3717 ; State of U.P. v. M.K. Anthony, 1985 CriLJ 493;
Appabhai v. State of Gujarat, 1988 CriLJ 848; Sajjan Kumar v. State of MP, 1999CriLJ 4561
28 State of Himachal Pradesh v. Lekh Raj and Anr., 1999 (9) ST 155
Therefore, the Prosecution humbly submits that the Trial Court would be justified in
convicting the accused if it is shown by the evidence on record that he had participated in the
dacoity.30
ISSUE-II
Sec 302, IPC. Sec 302 prescribes the punishment for committing murder. In order to bring a
successful conviction under this charge, however, it is pertinent to refer to Sec 300, IPC
A person is guilty of murder if he intentionally causes the death of a person or causes such
bodily injury as he knows, is likely to cause death of that person or causes such bodily injury,
which in the ordinary course of nature results into death or commits an act so dangerous that
it must, in all probability cause death of that person31. The Prosecution humbly contends that
both, the actusreus [2.1] and the mens rea [2.2] of the crime are established in the instant
Actus reus is any wrongful act32. Thus, in a case of murder, actus reus would be the physical
conduct of the accused that causes death of the victim. In the instant case, the actus reus is
established by way of witness statements [A], forensic report [B] and ballistic evidence [C].
A. Witness Statements
Bearing in mind that it is not for the prosecution to meet any and every hypothesis suggested
by the accused, howsoever extravagant and fanciful it might be,33 it is humbly submitted
before this Hon’ble Court that the circumstantial evidence in the instant matter shows that
within all human probability, the act must have been done by the accused.34
On the night of 1st January, 2017, 4 well dressed men breached the high-stakes santa vault of
queen’s Donald hotel and casino, post 11 p.m. According to the confessional statement of
PW 2, at around 11.30-12.00 p.m., the accused shot Anand nair (hereinafter referred to as the
‘victim’/‘deceased’) in the head with his special edition Smith and Wesson custom engraved
model 60, .38 revolver35, reaffirmed by DW 2’s statement, who heard the gunshot, alongwith
DW 3’s oral testimony, who saw the accused standing over the body.
In a case where murder was caused by gunshot, the witnesses did not actually see the accused
shooting but saw him lowering the gun right after they heard the gun-shot, their evidence was
B. Forensics
The post mortem report becomes important in cases where the cause of death is to be
established and is a matter of controversy. 37 Moreover, it is not possible for the Prosecution in
to explain each and every injury suffered by the witnesses. 38 However, for the sake of
convenience, the Prosecution feels obliged to assist this Hon’ble Court in understanding the
i) Size of Wounds
The entry wound in this case is a 15 mm round-shaped one, while the exit wound is a highly
irregular starry shaped wound 33 mm in size. This difference in size and appearance is
because when a bullet makes an entry into the human body, it first indents and stretches into
the skin and subsequently, depending upon the energy, effects penetration into the soft tissues
and/or bones and comes out, causing an exit wound. After entry of the bullet, the skin
partially returns to its original position and therefore, the size of the entry wound may be
When a projectile transverses the skull and emerges, the aperture in the bone differs in
relation to the outer and inner tables; the defect is larger in the direction in which the bullet
travels.40 An entrance hole bevels inward and therefore, the entrance is usually clean cut and
the defect on the inner surface of the bone is larger than the outer surface. An exit hole on the
skull is bevelled outward and is larger on the outer than on the inner surface of the
bone,41consistent with the autopsy report in the instant matter, keeping in mind that the
gunshot wound perforated the frontalis of the deceased, causing instant death. 42ii) Appearance
of the Wounds
39Parikh,CK, Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence, Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, p. 4.42 (6th ed 1999)
40 Ibid, p. 4,43
41 Ibid, p. 4.50
The autopsy report by Dr johnson indicates the presence of a wide zone of powder soot and
seared blackened skin around the entrance wound.43 The blackening/smudging is due smoke
matter .Even ‘smokeless’ powder produces a small amount of smoke which may mark objects
at close range.44 Presence of blackening on wounds is thus consistent with firing from a very
close range.45
Scorching (or burning/charring) is the discolouration of skin resulting from burning of the
flame or hot gases that issue from a firearm. 46The presence of scorching/charring is a clear
indication that the fatal shots were fired at the deceased from a very close range.47
The Prosecution humbly contends that the autopsy report merely demarcates an upper limit of
the proximity of the firearm with the deceased, with a distance of not more than 15 ft 48
between the two. This should not, however in any manner, be construed to mean that the
The primary requirement of pleading the defence of accident is that the act must be done with
proper care and caution.49 Thus, at a ‘close range’ ,the chances of any ‘accident’ 50are ruled
out, given that the accused is a retired Army officer, who, by his own account, has a
43 ibid
44Gaur, KD Firearms ,Forensic Ballistics, Forensic Chemistry and Criminal Jurisprudence, p. 71 (2nd ed 1989)
46 Supra n 36, p. 70
considerable experience in handling weapons and killing men. In fact , such a short distance
C. Ballistics
As per the Forensic Report,51 and the Panchanama52 , 4 Hornady XTP .38 caliber bullets were
recovered from Aurora’s deck. The grooves on one bullet matched the Smith and Wesson
In cases where injuries are caused by fire arms, the opinion of the ballistic expert is of a
considerable importance53 and is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused. 54 When the direct
So far as the question of the 4thbullet is concerned, it is well know that in case of tandem
bullets, the first bullet fails to leave the barrel and is ejected by the subsequently fired bullet.
The bullets are thus ejected one after another,56 which is what occurred when DW 4 fired his
standard issue Glock .38 handgun57, considering that the .38 Live Hornady cartridges
58
recovered could have been used in the Glock as well.59
Therefore, contrary to the claims of the Defence, the presence of an extra bullet should not be
attributed to any investigational ‘lapse’ on part of the police. On the other hand, since 2
bullets were fired almost at once, DW 2’s testimony as to the ‘three shots’ also corroborates
Arguendo, any lapse on part of the investigation agency would not be fatal to the case. 60
Absence of blood at the spot where the eye-witness saw the accused attacking the deceased
and which was sufficiently explained did not create a doubt in the prosecution story. 61Slight
variation between ocular evidence and medical evidence would not be a ground for
Mens rea is considered as guilty intention 63, which is proved or inferred from the acts of the
accused64. It is submitted that the intention to kill is established [A] in light of clear-cut
motive of the accused [B]. Arguendo, absence of motive would not be a sufficient ground to
It is presumed that every sane person intends the result that his action normally produces and
if a person hits another on a vulnerable part of the body, and death occurs as a result, the
intention of the accused can be no other than to take the life of the victim and the offence
60 Amar Malla v State of Tripura, AIR 2002 SC 3052,State of UP v Jagdeo , AIR 2003 SC 660
62 Ambalal v State of Rajasthan, 2003 Cr LJ 115; Sudhin Chandra Barman v. State of WB Cr LJ 2006 Cal 4656
63 Commissioner of Income Tax v Patranu Dass Raja Ram Beri, AIR 1982 PH 1, 4
committed amounts to murder.65 Moreover, the intention to kill is not required in every case,
mere knowledge that natural and probable consequences of an act would be death will suffice
The intention to kill can be inferred from the murder and nature of the injuries caused to the
victim.67Causing a serious injury on a vital part of the body of the deceased with a dangerous
weapon must necessarily lead to the inference that the accused intended to cause death or
bodily injury sufficient to cause death of the victim, and it answers to section 300 and is
murder.68Given that the accused shot the victim on the head, a vital part of the body, it is
Sec 8, Evidence Act stipulates that any fact is relevant which shows or constitutes motive or
preparation for any fact in issue or relevant fact. Thus, previous threats or altercations
between parties are admitted to show motive.69 It is further pertinent to note that if there is
motive in doing an act, then the adequacy of that motive is not in all cases necessary. Heinous
As already established in Issue I, the accused was an active participant, or rather, the
instigator of the dacoity committed on Aurora. PW 2’s confession clearly highlight’s the
accused’s need to silence the victim in order to hide his role in the entire operation and hence,
68 Md. Idrish v. State, 2004 Cr LJ 1724 (Raj); Md. Sharif And Anr. v. Rex, AIR 1950 All 380; Badri v. State of
U.P., AIR 19953 All 189; Dibia v. State of U.P., AIR 1953 All 373, State of Maharashtra v. Bhairu Sattu
Berad, AIR 1956 Bom 609
69 Son Lal v State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 1142, Chhotka v State of WB, AIR 1958 Cal 482
Assuming for the sake of argument that the accused had no motive, it is humbly contended
that absence of motive is no ground for dismissing the case. Motive is immaterial so far as the
offence is concerned, and need not be established71as the mere existence of motive is by itself,
Therefore, absence of proof of motive, does not break the link in the chain of circumstances
connecting the accused with the crime, nor militates against the prosecution case and is not
beyond any doubt to prove that it was the accused and no one else, who intentionally caused
the death of the accused then, motive of the crime need not be proved,74 as in the current case.
In the given context, the accused claims to avail the right of private defence as per Sec 96 to
105, IPC which may extend to causing death for the purpose of defending the body or
property of another person. However, one of the foremost principles to be kept in mind is that
there must be an imminent danger giving the signal to act in exercise of the right of private
defence75 i.e. the necessity must be a present necessity, whether real or apparent76 and thus,
71Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code, 33rd Ed. (2011)
private defence does not include the right to launch an offensive attack. 77 Furthermore, the
right of private defence is available only till the apprehension to the body78 or
property79exists.
From the statements of all the witnesses, it is evident that the deceased had not actively either
assisted PW 2 in taking a hostage, nor had he presented any immediate danger to any other
person on board. It is amply clear from the statements of DW 3 and DW 4 that the accused
shot the victim after DW 4 had already apprehended PW 2 i.e. any immediate danger to DW
Furthermore, instead of shooting him on the head, the accused could have fired a warning
shot, or at the very least, fired at some other part of the body, given that in exercising the
right to private defence, one of the most important caveats is that no more harm than is
necessary should be caused.80 It is thus apparent that the accused exceeded his right of private
defence and any defence of ‘necessity’81 also cannot be claimed by him as an act of necessity
must be done with a bona fide intent and without any unnecessary force or violence82.
Therefore, it is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the accused is guilty for the
offence of murder, given that the requisite mens rea and actusreus is established from the
PRAYER
Wherefore, in light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, may this
mitting dacoity with murder under Sections 396/302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2. Declare a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten
years, and also be liable to fine under Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
AND/OR
Pass any other order it may deem fit, in the interest of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience.