IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT

APPEAL NO. ***/2021

IN THE MATTER OF
MR. NARAHARI DAS …Appellant
Vs.
The State … Respondent/Opposite party

Name:- Ansuman Padhi

Semester:- VI
Registration No.:- 1841801103
Batch:- 2018-2023

Upon the submission to the Hon’ble Chief Justice and his companion justice of
the High Court

0|Page
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page no.
List of Abbreviation……………………………………………...2
Index of Authorities/ Table of cases…………………………......3-4
Statement of Jurisdiction………………………………………. 5
Statement of facts………………………………………………. 5-6
Statement of issues………………………………………………7
Summary of arguments………………………………………….8
arguments advanced/Detailed arguments……………………….9-11
prayer……………………………………………………………12

1|Page
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

LIST OF ABBREVIATION

AIR -------------------------------------------------------- All India Report

b/w --------------------------------------------------------- Between
Sec --------------------------------------------------------- Section
HC --------------------------------------------------------- High court
Hon’ble ---------------------------------------------------Honorable
SC --------------------------------------------------------- Supreme Court
SCC ---------------------------------------------------- Supreme Court Case

2|Page
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATUTES:
 Indian Penal Code, 1860
 Criminal Procedural Code, 1973

TABLE OF CASES:
 Palvinder Kaur v State of Punjab
 E.D. Smith vs. Emperor
 Madala Perayya vs. Varugunti Chendrayya
 Shoba Rani vs. The King
 Souri Prasad Patniak vs. State of Orissa
 Harbans Lal vs The State

COMMENTARIES, DIGESTS AND BOOKS:

 India Penal Code, K.D. Gaur, 7th Edition
 Criminal Manual (Criminal Major Acts) Professional Book
Publisher 2016

JOURNALS AND REPORTS:

 All India Reporter
 Supreme Court Cases
 Indian Law Reporter
 Times of India

3|Page
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

LEGAL UPDATES:
 http://www.casemine.com
 http://login.westlawindia.com
 http://blog.ipleader.in
 http://indiankanoon.org
 http://www.legalbites.in
 https://www.indiacode.nic.in
 https://www.jaagore.com
 https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu

4|Page
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

1. The appellant humbly submits this appeal preferred against the order
of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge
before the Honourable High Court under the provisions of Section
374(2) Cr.P.C.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Narahari Das, a lineman serving with CESCO did not return home from
duty on 11.01.2008. He had left his office at 10.30 PM on his cycle
accompanied by his colleague, Anand, who got down in a neighbouring
hamlet at a friend’s house to stay there. The next day, a missing report
was lodged at the local police station by his son without suspecting
anyone.
Four days after Narahari went missing, his bicycle with a bent rear
wheel, muffler, torch and uniform were found lying on the riverbank
on the outskirt of the village by a cowherd boy. Extensive search of the
nearby places and the forest revealed that the putrefied dead body of
Narahari is lying nude inside a crevice in the forest with some torn
strips of nylon material found nearby.
During investigation, the police got to know that on the New Year Day,
Narahari and Ramesh, a co-villager had a quarrel with each other for
some reason on the village road, where Ramesh had threatened
Narahari with dire consequences, which the other villagers witnessed.
Another story that has also come to the knowledge of the police is that
Narahari had developed a kind of extra marital affair with a widow
staying in the neighbouring village, who happens to be the cousin of
Anand, Narahari’s colleague.
Ramesh, who owned a Bolero, which he used as a taxi, had left the
village in the morning of 10.01.2008 and had returned one day after

5|Page
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

Narahari went missing. Before reaching home, he had thoroughly

cleaned his Bolero, which was quite unusual as he returned home in the
late night. The rear sit cover was missing and to a query of one of the
neighbours he said that he has thrown out the rear seat-cover as the
same was soiled by one of the passengers.
Post-mortem report revealed that the body of Narahari was not in good
condition to examine, however the cause of death was inconclusive. An
Unnatural Death case was registered, and enquiry was started. During
investigation, it came to light from the statement of one of the
colleagues of Narahari, that Ramesh had overtaken them in his Bolero
in the night of 11.01.2008. Ramesh during interrogation broke down at
the police station and confessed to have murdered Narahari by
smothering him with his seat cover after making him unconscious on
the riverbank.
The confession was made in presence of a Gramarakhi and the
Sarapancha, who were present in the Police station. He stated that the
body was thrown out and the rear seat cover which was used in
smothering was burnt. But no clue to that effect was recovered as the
torn strips of the nylon material found near the body did not match
exactly with the seat cover of the Bolero owned by Ramesh although it
appeared to be similar.
In the trial, the Learned Session Judge convicted Ramesh of charges
u/s 342,302 and 201 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo Life
imprisonment for commission of offence u/s 302, but no separate
punishment was passed for offences under any other charges.

6|Page
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUE - I
Whether the appellant made his confession under coercion or not?
ISSUE – II
Whether the deceased was wrongfully confined or not?

ISSUE – III
Whether appellant caused disappearance of the said deceased i.e.,
Narahari Das or not?

7|Page
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
ISSUE 1: Whether the appellant made his confession under
coercion or not?
As stated in the Facts there is not a single word mentioned that
the appellant on his own volition admitted that “he killed
Ramesh”. He may under Duress or may be coerced by the
Police, Gramarakhi and the Sarapancha, As the reason why they
were present at the moment of confession by the appellant in the
Police station.
ISSUE 2: Whether the deceased was wrongfully confined or not?
 The appellant had been falsely convicted with the Section 342 of
IPC
 No wrongful confinement can be made against the appellant in
absence of any shade of either direct or circumstantial evidence

ISSUE 3: Whether appellant caused disappearance of the said

deceased i.e., Narahari Das or not?
As also mentioned in the fact in the said case above Narahari
(Deceased) was engaged in quarrel with the appellant on the New
years Day, as the matter of fact The appellant may or may not have
threatened Narahari with dire consequences. The appellant might have
said those words to Narahari on that day as hot exchange of words
between them, but it may not be attributed to be the Murder of
Narahari
And as the evidence provided by the Forensics Team the nylon
material found near the deceased body was not of Bolero that is in the
possession of the appellant, the nylon material of found near the body
is of different kind that of the Bolero’s might they look the same
though.

8|Page
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED/DETAILED ARGUMENTS

1. Whether the appellant made his confession under coercion or
not?
Ans: - As stated in the Facts there is not a single word mentioned that
the appellant on his own volition admitted that “he killed Ramesh”.
He may under Duress or may be coerced by the Police, Gramarakhi
and the Sarapancha, As the reason why they were present at the
moment of confession by the appellant in the Police station.
Considering the Precedents of E.D. Smith vs. Emperor, an appeal
was filed by Mr. Smith, against a conviction by the Chief Presidency
Magistrate for dishonest possession of stolen property under section
411 of IPC. The property consists of various material objects alleged
by the prosecution to have been stolen from the Army Clothing
factory situated close to accused’s premises. It was observed by the
court that the statements given by the accused were not within the
meaning of section 24 and hence cannot be called confession. By
framing this the appeal was dismissed.
Confession is admission but admission cannot always be called
confession. Sometimes they overlap but they are distinct. The aim of
confession is admissibility of evidence which is used against the
suspect in the court of law. Where a confession is made under threat,
promise, duress, etc, it may lack or fail in the admissibility test.
Therefore, a confession must be made freely or voluntarily by the
suspect. Hence, it’s been observed that admission has a wider scope
than confession, as the latter comes under the ambit of the former.

In the case of Palvinder Kaur v State of Punjab the Supreme Court

approved the Privy Council decision in Pakala Narayan Swami case
over two scores.
Firstly, that the definition if confession is that it must either admit the
guilt in terms or admit substantially all the facts which constitute the
offence. Secondly, that a mixed-up statement which even though
contains some confessional statement will still lead to acquittal, is no

9|Page
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

confession. Thus, a statement that contains self-exculpatory matter

which if true would negate the matter or offence, cannot amount to
confession.

2. Whether the deceased was wrongfully confined or not?

Ans: - The appellant had been falsely convicted with the Section 342
of IPC. No wrongful confinement can be made against the appellant in
absence of any shade of either direct or circumstantial evidence.
In the case of Madala Perayya vs. Varugunti Chendrayya (1954 CrLJ
283 Mad), the facts were that the accused and the complainant jointly
owner a well and so both of them were entitled to use the water for
agricultural purposes. The accused stopped the complainant from using
the water and also stopped the bullocks of the complainant from
moving. The Court held that the accused had committed eh offence of
wrongful restraint under Section 339.
In the case of Shoba Rani vs. The King (1950-51 CrLJ 668 Cal.), the
landlord was accused of preventing his tenant who was the tenant from
using the bathroom. By stopping the tenant from using something that
he had the right to use, the landlord was had committed wrongful
restraint under Section 339.
Further, in the case of Souri Prasad Patniak vs. State of Orissa (1989
CrLJ 169 Ori), the accused was a veterinary surgeon who did not
receive payments for several months. When his superior officer visited
the office and started back to go, the accused stood in front of the jeep
and raised protest for non-payment of his salary. However, after his
protest, he had given the way to jeep. The Orissa High Court held that
the accused was not guilty of the offence of wrongful restraint.

10 | P a g e
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

3. Whether appellant caused disappearance of the said deceased

i.e., Narahari Das or not?
Ans: - As also mentioned in the fact in the said case above Narahari
(Deceased) was engaged in quarrel with the appellant on the New
Year’s Day, as the matter of fact The appellant may or may not have
threatened Narahari with dire consequences. The appellant might have
said those words to Narahari on that day as hot exchange of words
between them, but it may not be attributed to was the Murder of
Narahari, and as the evidence provided by the Forensics Team the
nylon material found near the deceased body was not of Bolero that is
in the possession of the appellant, the nylon material of found near the
body is of different kind that of the Bolero’s might they look the same
though.
Harbans Lal vs The State (AIR 1967 HP 10, 1967 CriLJ 62) This
appeal is directed against an order of the learned Sessions Judge Mandi
and Chamba Sessions Division, convicting and sentencing the
appellant, under Sections 328 and 201 I. P. C. Here the conviction of
the appellant, under Section 323 I. P. C., is justified. The appellant had
admitted, in his confession, that he had given a Danda blow to Rup Lal.
The appellant had voluntarily caused hurt to Rup Lal and was rightly
convicted under Section 323 I. P. C. His conviction and sentence for
that offence are maintained. The result of the above discussion is that
the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction and sentence of the
appellant, under Section 201 I. P. C., are set aside. He is acquitted of
that offence. The conviction and sentence of the appellant, under
Section 328 I. P. C., will stand. The appellant is on bail. His bail-bond
is cancelled. He is committed to jail for undergoing the sentence of
imprisonment, imposed upon him. under Section 323, I. P. C.

11 | P a g e
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

PRAYER

The Appellant herewith submits in this Hon’ble High Court of, that,
I. All the arguments summarized and advanced in the above said
case are true to the facts, and,
II. That therewith pleads the Hon’ble High Court to allow the appeal
and set aside the orders conviction and sentence passed by the
learned Sessions Court against the appellant and acquit him
accordingly and,
III. That thereby taking necessary actions against the present
Criminal to pass an order of sufficient compensation payable by
the state for wrongful prosecution of the appellant

For this act of kindness, the respondent shall as duty bound

forever pray.

s/d- ______________________
(Counsel for the Appellant)

12 | P a g e