Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Legal Zems Moot Court Competition, 2021: Team Code-L66Z
Legal Zems Moot Court Competition, 2021: Team Code-L66Z
Legal Zems Moot Court Competition, 2021: Team Code-L66Z
IN THE MATTER OF
VERSUS
Cr.A.No.________/ 2021
__________________________________________________________________________
• TABLE OF CONTENTS 2
• LIST OF ABBREVATIONS 4
• INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 5
• LIST OF CASES REFERED 7
• STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 9
• STATEMENT OF FACTS 10
• STATEMENT OF ISSUES 13
• SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 14
• ISSUE 1: WHETHER FRED SHOULD BE HELD GUILTY KIDNAPPING
ABDUCTION 15
• ISSUE 2: WHETHER FRED IS LIABLE UNDER SECTION 326 OF IPC 18
➢ 2.1 INJURIES INFLICTED INTENTIONALLY AND SUFFICIENT IN
ORDINARY COURSE OF NATURE TO CAUSE DEATH.
• ISSUE 3: WHETHER FRED CAN BE CONVICTED FOR MURDER 22
➢ 3.1 THE ESSENTIAL REQUISITES OF MURDER. 22
➢ 3.2 THAT THE ACCUSED HAD AN INTENTION OF MURDERING
SUSAN KNIGHT 23
➢ 3.3 ACCUSED HAD MOTIVE TO KILL. 26
➢ 3.4 THAT THE OFFENCE UNDER SECTION-307 WAS COMMITTED 27
➢ 3.5 CIRCUMSTANCIAL EVIDENCES PROVING GUILT BEYOND 28
GUILT
• ISSUE 4: WHETHER FRED SHOULD BE HELD LIABLE FOR RAPE 34
• ISSUE 5: WHETHER TOM SHOULD BE TREATED AS SUSPECT 38
➢ PLEA OF ALIBI 40
• PRAYER FOR RELIEF 41
SC : Supreme Court
HC : High Court
DC : District Court
v. : versus
hon’ble : Honourable
Art : Article
i.e : That is
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
___________________________________________________________________________
STATUTES
BOOKS
➢ Ratanlal & Dhirajlal’s Law of Crimes – A Commentary on The Indian Penal Code,
Vol I, Bharat Law House, Delhi, 27th Edn. 2013.
➢ Ratanlal & Dhirajlal’s Law of Crimes – A Commentary on The Indian Penal Code,
Vol II, Bharat Law House, Delhi, 27th Edn. 2013.
➢ Justice V. V. Raghavan, Law of Crimes, India Law House, New Delhi, 5th Edn. 2001.
➢ K I Vibhute, P.S.A Pillai’s Criminal law, Lexis Nexis, 12th Edn. 2014. Dr. (Sir)
Hari Singh Gour, Penal Law of India, Law Publishers (India) Pvt. Ltd., 11th Edn.
2014.
➢ J C Smith, Smith and Hogan Criminal Law – Cases and Materials, LexisNexis
Butterworths, 8th Edn. 2002.
➢ Basu’s Indian Penal Code (Law of Crimes), Vol I., Ashoka Law House, 11th Edn.
2011. Criminal Manual, Universal Law Publishing Company, 2015.
➢ Dr. Karunakaran Mathiharan, Modi’s Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology,
LexisNexis Butterworths, 23rd Edn. 2010.
LEGAL DATABASE
➢ Indian Kanoon
➢ Manupatra
➢ SCC Online
___________________________________________________________________________
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of Republic of Delta has jurisdiction to hear the instant matter
under Article 1341 of the Constitution of Republic Of Delta.
(1) An appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgment, final order or sentence in a
criminal proceeding of a High Court in the territory of Republic of Delta if the High Court-
(a) Has on appeal reversed an order of acquittal of an accused person and sentenced him to
death; or
(b) Has withdrawn for trial before itself any case from any court subordinate to its authority
and has in such trial convicted the accused person and sentenced him to death; or
(c) 1[certifies under article 134A] that the case is a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court:
Provided that an appeal under sub-clause (c) shall lie subject to such provisions as may be
made in that behalf under clause (1) of article 145 and to such conditions as the High Court
may establish or require.
(2) Parliament may by law confer on the Supreme Court any further powers to entertain and
hear appeals from any judgment, final order or sentence in a criminal proceeding of a High
Court in the territory of Republic of Delta subject to such conditions and limitations as may
be specified in such law.
1
Article 134- Appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court in regard to criminal matters, The Constitution Of India
1949
For the sake of brevity and convenience of the Hon`ble Court the facts of the present case are
summarized as follows:
BACKGROUND
3. Fred Rockwell (Accused No 1), he was a compounder in the SIIMS Hospital and
belongs to Schedule Caste. He resided with his mother and the only bread earner of the
family. He and his mother was tenant of Mr. Clay Wilson at H. No. 142/11, Block No-F,
Capital Island.
4. Fred Rockwell shared a love relation with the deceased for last 1 year, which tom
knight didn’t find appropriate for his daughter. Hence, tom decided to call up Fred and made
him understand to stay away from his daughter by quoting “stay away or otherwise you’ll
face consequences”.
5. On 9th January 2020 at 7.45A.M., Susan went to her school as per daily routine;
apparently she did not attend the school that day and went missing. When she did not came
back to her home from school, family started searching in the school and nearby places where
she might go, but all in vain.
6. Tom and Olivia Knight lodged a complaint of kidnapping vide Complaint No. 0220,
P.S Capital Island on 10th January 8.25 AM. They alleged that her boyfriend, identified as
Fred Rockwell, might have kidnapped Susan Knight. A complaint has been registered and an
investigation launched into the kidnapping of Susan Knight and her kin’s allegations.
INVESTIGATIONS
8. The investigation started on 12th January 2020 with the police questioning the family
members regarding the last known whereabouts of Susan. Tom told them that the last person
to have possibly seen Susan was Fred as they had been in a relationship and they also alleged
him of her kidnapping in the Complaint.
9. When investigating officer questioned Fred regarding his last meeting with Susan, he
was evasive and told he met Susan about one month before. When officer hardy suspected
Fred tending to evade he decided to question Fred’s Mother about the whereabouts of Fred of
last 2 days. Fred’s mother told them Fred was not at his home since last 2 days and also he
came home today morning only.
10. The investigation then led to the BAPS International School, where Susan knight was
a student, Officer Hardy questioned Susan’s teachers, her friends and security guard. Security
guard told officers that he saw Susan outside the school the day she went missing; he added
that she went towards a black Scorpio car with tinted glass, CI03 CAW 9009 and car drove
off as soon as she sat in there.
12. In further Investigation, Officer Hardy went to the SIIMS hospital regarding the
whereabouts of Dr. Tom and compounder Fred. From hospital staff they found out that on
11th January Fred was not present in the hospital and they were marked absent in the
biometric fingerprint attendance system. Further, police recovered the ligature material with
13. Soon lab confirmed that the blood stain was of Susan Knight, On the basis of all these
evidences the police established that Fred was the only person who might have killed Susan
Knight.
14. Taking into consideration, the forensic evidences and the circumstances surrounding
the disappearance of Susan on the 10th January 2020 and her subsequent murder, A team of
policemen went to the hospital on 25th May 2020 and arrested Fred, A charge sheet was then
prepared on 28th August 2020 in which the accused was charged under the relevant
provisions.
15. The charge sheet was filed by the police on 30th August 2020 and the trial was
conducted by the Hon’ble Sessions Court of Capital Island. On the basis of the witness
testimonies and the evidences in the case, the Hon’ble Sessions Court convicted Accused No
1 Fred Rockwell and sentence him Life Imprisonment u/s 364, 376 & Death Penalty under
Section 302 with Rs. 5,00,000 /- fine. The Judgment was passed on 30th October 2020.
16. Aggrieved by this order, the accused approach before the Hon’ble High Court at
Capital Island.
___________________________________________________________________________
Fred should be held be held guilty of kidnapping and abduction as two essential elements of
crime i.e. Actus reus and Mens rea, both can be seen clearly. He has kidnapped Susan as he
was planning to elope with her with bad intention that is to rape, murder and then burnt her
body so that nobody can identify her.
It is humbly submitted before your honour that the amount of injuries received by Susan
which even lead to cause her death was grievous hurt by dangerous weapons means
,According to autopsy report the accused has used ligature material and strangled the victims
neck which lead to cause her death the fracture of the hyoid bone was lethal enough to cause
death. The cause of death is asphyxia due to strangulation
It is most humbly submitted that Accused had an intention of killing Susan Knight which is
clearly reflected by the way Susan /knight body was found in the beach and bodily injury she
received, the condition in which her body was found, is clear that the accused Fred Rockwell
has pre planned the murder and had an intention to murder to her.
It is to be kept in mind that although she was in relationship with Fred for one year , it cannot
be ignored that for getting intimated a valid consent and will is required but as seen from the
evidence the was genital injuries which states that it was the use of man’s force over the body
of female
Tom cannot be held as suspect it is humbly contended before the Court that although motive
is generally not relevant in cases of Murder, but where the case is based on circumstantial
evidence, motive on part of the accused assumes importance.
ISSUE 1
___________________________________________________________________________
WHETHER FRED SHOULD BE HELD GUILTY FOR ABDUCTION UNDER SEC 364
1. In it humbly submitted before hon’ble court that in the instant case On 9th January
2020 at 7.45A.M., Susan went to her school as per daily routine, apparently she did
not attend the school that day and went missing. This is a very unusual thing as she
was a bright student and hardly misses her classes.
2. When she did not came back to her home from school, her family started searching in
the school and nearby places where she might go, but all in vain. Tom and Olivia
Knight lodged a complaint of kidnapping vide Complaint No. 0220, P.S Capital
Island on 10th January 8.25 AM i.e. the next day after she went missing They alleged
that her boyfriend, identified as Fred Rockwell, might have kidnapped Susan Knight.
A complaint has been registered and an investigation launched into the kidnapping of
Susan Knight and her kin’s allegations.
3. It is humbly contended that Fred Rockwell should be held guilty for abducting Susan
as his intention was not pure and it was not just a normal day she never skips her
classes he has kidnapped Susan as his intention was not pure and malifide intentions
for her that is to rape, murder and then to dispose of her body so that nobody can
identify her. The mens rea is easily proven by the autopsy and circumstantial evidence
and by kidnapping her it clearly proves his actus rea and is guilty of abducting an 18
year old girl.
4. It is mentioned in police report that while Fred was giving his statement to police he
was evasive while mentioning that he has not met Susan since a month, If he was so
sure that he hasn’t met her in a month then why wasn’t he confident while giving his
statement.
Also another question which arises is that if he had really went out to search for
Susan, then why wasn’t his mother aware that where was his son since last 2 days.
9. In the given case though there is no direct evidence against Fred is found but when all
the circumstantial evidences such as Susan skipping the school and going out, Fred
not being at home for 2 days, Fred neither being present at hospital during his
working hours and most importantly discovery of Susan’s blood from Fred’s locker,
are joined together clearly narrate a story proving him as guilty of kidnapping, rape,
murder and also an attempt to hide the evidences.
10. In the State of Maharashtra & ors v/s Renukabai @ Rinku and ors6, the question was
whether, material gathered in course of investigation was sufficient to secure
2
Om Prakash versus State of Haryana [2012] 1 MLJ (CRL) 372
3
State of U.P. Versus Chhoteylal ,[2011] 3 MLJ (CRL) 556
4
Prem Prakash @ Lillu & anr versus State of Haryana, LNIND 2011 SC 625
5
state of Mahrashtra versus Anil alias Raju Namdeo Patil, LNIND 2005 BOM 1166
6
The state of Maharashtra & others versus Renukabai @ Rinku and others, LNIND 2004 BOM 955
11. Here now it is clearly evident through circumstantial evidences that the accused was
correctly held guilty of offence of abduction under Sec 364 .
ISSUE 2
12. It is humbly submitted before your honour that the amount of injuries received by
Susan which even lead to cause her death was grievous hurt by dangerous weapons
means, according to autopsy report the accused has used ligature material and
strangled the victims neck which lead to cause her death the fracture of the hyoid
bone was lethal enough to cause death. The cause of death is asphyxia due to
strangulation.
13. It is submitted that the incident took place after Susan Knight was disappeared and not
reached home on 9th January and after which Mr Tom and Oilivia, Lodged an FIR
and further when investigation was conducted Susan was found dead and her body
was not being able to identified as it was in such a condition that nobody can even
take a glance at her , it was the jewellery worn by her which was sent for
identification and from which it was identified it was the Susan Knight.
14. It is further submitted that Susan Knight was severely injured and Susan was also
found in a condition where her body was being able to identified with multiple
internal injuries can also be seen .The forensic examination conducted by the police
and autopsy report by SIMS Hospital later revealed that the blood belonged to Susan
knight . And it is important to mention here blood stain with same DNA was found in
Fred’s locker during further investigation.
15. It is submitted that Section 326 of IPC states voluntarily causing grievous hurt by
dangerous weapons or means whoever, except in the case provided for by section 335,
voluntarily causes grievous hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or
cutting, or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause
death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any
corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance, or by means of any
substance which it is deleterious to the human body inhale, to swallow, or to receive
into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with 'imprisonment for
16. In the case of Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab7, the Supreme Court established and
settled the essentials of clause 3rd of Sec. 300 of IPC as following:
(ii)The accused must have intended that particular injury and no other, and
(iii)The bodily injury must be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause
death.
17. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that in the instant case it is
undisputed fact and proved to this effect that bodily injury has been caused by the
accused intentionally. It is humbly submitted before this Hon'ble court that it is now
well settled that if it is proved that the accused had the intention to inflict the injuries
actually suffered by the victim and such injuries are found to be sufficient in the
ordinary course of nature to cause death, the ingredients of clause third of Sec.300 of
the IPC are fulfilled and the accused must be held guilty of murder punishable under
Scc.302 of the IPC.
18. Further reliance can be placed upon Bakhtawar v. State of Haryana 8.It is submitted
that Section 320 IPC defines "Grievous hurt", which read as follows: The following
kinds of hurt only are designated as "grievous"-
First - Emasculation
7
Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1958 SC 465
8
Bakhtawar v. State of Haryana, AIR 1979 SC 1006
Eighthly - Any hurt which endangers life or which causes the sufferer to be during
the space of twenty days in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary
pursuits."
19. It is submitted that in the present case as it has been stated earlier that Susan Knight
was severely injured and she was found dead in a state with multiple injuries.
Therefore it is contended that accused is liable under Section 326 of IPC.
20. It is humbly submitted before this Hon'ble court that the accused has voluntarily
caused hurt to the victim, as per the statement given by the accused mother Fred
Rockwell was missing from home from 2 day and the ligature material with blood
stain of Susan Knight which Police find from the locker of Fred Rockwell ,that the
hurt caused by the accused to the victim were grievous.
21. It is submitted that the injuries caused to Susan were brutal and heinous, serious
injuries were inflicted in the vaginal area, hyoid bone was broke. It is submitted that
Section 320 provides the definition for 'grievous hurt' which has been covered in eight
points. The eighth point clearly states that 'any hurt which endangers life or which
causes the sufferer to be during the space of twenty days in severe bodily pain, or
unable to follow his ordinary pursuits' would be considered as grievous hurt’.
22. In the case of State of Bihar v. Govind Singh & Ors.9"The victim was severely injured
by the accused and the accused was convicted under Section 326 of IPC by the court.
Therefore the injuries caused to both the victims would be covered under Section 320
and hence under Section 326 of IPC.
23. It is submitted that Supreme Court in the case of Hammu v. State of MP10 , held that,
in absence of definite finding about fatal injury accused person caused grievous hurt
can be convicted under Section 326/34 of IPC. Therefore the accused here can be
convicted under Section 326 of IPC, the grievous hurt was caused by dangerous
weapon.
24. It is submitted that in the instant case the injuries to victim was caused by
strangulation from the ligature material and genital injury which amounts to rape as
9
State of Bihar v. Govind Singh & Ors, (2009) 15 SCC 366
10
Hammu v. State of MP, AIR 1979 SC 1755
11
Mathai v. State of Kerala, 2005 (3) SCC 260
12
State of U.P. v. Indrajeet Alias Sukhatha, 2000 Cri . L.J . 4663
(ii) is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows
to be likely to cause death of the person to whom the offence is caused15, or
(iii) is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily
injury intended to be inflected is in ordinary course of nature is sufficient to cause
death16, or
The Indian Penal Code, Sec 30017 (1860) is so imminently dangerous that it must,
in all probability cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and
commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such
bodily injury18.
28. It is most humbly submitted before this Hon'ble Court that after the investigation into
the incident of Susan Knight getting abducted and her body was blooded and dirty on
an idyllic beach, a small, lively beach on the capital Island is a case of murder under
Section 30719, 32620 of the Indian Penal Code and according to evidence was
registered against accused Fred Rockwell
29. Section-307 provides "Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and
under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of
murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which
13
S.302 – Punishment for murder, Delta Penal Code, 1860
14
Om Parkash v. The State of Punjab AIR 1961 SC 1782
15
Parsuram Pandey and Ors. v. The State of Bihar AIR 2004 SC 5068
16
Hari Mohan Mandal v. State of Jharkhand (2004)12 SCC 220
17
S.300 – Murder, Delta Penal Code, 1860
18
Balkar Singh v State of Utrakhand (2009) 15 SCC 366
19
S.307 – Attempt to murder, Delta Penal Code, 1860
20
S.326 - Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means, Delta Penal Code, 1860
30. In the instant case it is evident that the accused has committed the murder according
to the essential requisites which should be present i.e mens rea and actus rea and had
also caused harmful bodily injury .
31. It is most humbly submitted that accused had an intention of killing Susan Knight
which is clearly reflected by the way Susan Knight body was found in the beach and
bodily injury she received, the condition in which her body was found, is clear that
the accused Fred Rockwell has pre planned the murder and had an intention to murder
to her.
32. Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious
offences and therefore are to be generally treated as crime against the society and not
against the individual alone.21 Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by the
victim can generally be the guiding factor. On the basis of this prima facie analysis
.The accused has an intention to murder and rape her,
Intention of the accused established.
33. It is humbly submitted 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 committed amounts to murder. This was also
pronounced in the case R. Prakash v. State of Karnataka22.
34. The above factor can be considered since the death of the deceased occurred due to
report concluded that the death was due to strangulation with ligature material. There
21
Lilabati Baisya vs State Of Assam And Ors. on 26 March, 2004
22
R. Prakash v. State of Karnataka, (2004) 9 SCC 27
23
Vasant Vithu Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra, (2004) 9 SCC31
24
Laxman v State of Maharashtra, AIR 1974 SC 1803
25
Padamati Venkata Sundara Rao v. State of A.P, 2006 CriLJ 2168
It is therefore humbly submitted that on the basis of facts stated and cases cited it can
be easily proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused have intentionally caused
the death of the deceased.
40. The partner violence in particular shows the harmful effects of cover disputes between
partners as presenting a more complex contributing relationship to violence against
women and girls, potentially exacerbating and increasing the severity of violence, as
well as the first time perpetration of sexual assault. Personal childhood exposure to, or
experience of, violence is a strong risk‟ factor for later perpetration, but this is by no
means inevitable and is affected by a number of other social, educational and
psychological factors – most notably the existence or otherwise of alternative non-
violent social norms and models for healthy relationships. There is often a tendency to
26
Om Prakash v. The State of Punjab ,AIR 1961 SC 1782
27
Narendran Nair alias Unni v. State of Kerala, 1989 Cr. L.R 370
28
Md. Mannan @ Abdul Mannan Versus State of Bihar, [2011] 4 MLJ (CRL) 716
45. It is most humbly submitted that in the landmark judgment of State of Maharashtra v.
Baram Bama Patil and Ors. 29
, it was held by the SC: “It is not necessary that the
injury actually caused to the victim of the assault should be sufficient under ordinary
circumstances to cause the death of the person assaulted. What the Court has to see is
whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge
and under circumstances mentioned in this section. An attempt in order to be criminal
need not be the penultimate act. It is sufficient in law, if there is present an intent
coupled with some overt act in execution thereof."
46. The interpretation given in Balram Bama Patil has been followed in catena of
judgments Further, in the matter of Abhiram Mukhi v. State of Orissa30, it was
observed by the Court that: "The question, however, remains as to whether it can be
said beyond all reasonable doubt that an offence under Section 307, I.P.C has been
made out. In order to bring home the charge under Section 307, the prosecution has to
establish the following:-
(ii) such act was done by the accused with intention of causing death or with
intention of causing such bodily injury as the accused knew to be likely to cause
death or was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or that by
doing such an act as the accused knew to be so imminently dangerous that it must
in all probability cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.... In a
given case offence under Section 307, I.P.C. can be said to have been committed
even without the slightest injury. It is the nature of the act and not the result thereof
that is the determinative factor."
47. The condition in which Susan’s dead body found clearly implies that the injuries that
were inflicted did not only aim to cause hurt but was also an attempt to murder her
which was successful.
29
State of Maharashtra v. Baram Bama Patil and Ors, AIR I983 SC 305
30
Abhiram Mukhi v. State of Orissa, 1996 CLT 576
31
Parsuram Pandey and Ors. v. The State of Bihar, AIR 2004 SC 5068
32
State v. Vikas Yadav & anr, LNIND 2015 DEL 1024
33
Harendra Singh v/s State of Delhi 1968 AIR 867, 1968 SCR (2) 246
34
Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu Versus John David, [2011] 3 MLJ (CRL) 725
35
Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2011 SC 1625
This Court observed that though there was nothing to show that the appellant could
not be reformed and rehabilitated and the manner and method of disposal of the dead
body of the deceased reflected most foul and despicable case of murder, mere mode
of disposal of the dead body may not by itself be made the ground for inclusion of a
case in the rarest of rare category for the purpose of imposition of death sentence.
Other factors require to be considered along with the aforesaid. This Court was of the
view that the fact that the prosecution case rested on the evidence of the approver, will
have to be kept in mind
60. Further, that where the death sentence is to be imposed on the basis of circumstantial
evidence, the circumstantial evidence must be such which leads to an exceptional
case. It was further observed that the discretion given to the court in such cases
assumes onerous importance and its exercise becomes extremely difficult because of
the irrevocable character of death penalty. Where two views ordinarily could be taken,
imposition of death sentence would not be appropriate. In the circumstances, the court
held the accused liable and punishment of life imprisonment.
61. Shatrughna Baban Meshram Versus State of Maharashtra36, in this case the appellant
confessed the police that he killed his wife by throttling her neck. The conduct of the
appellant is highly doubtful because while the opera was going on, the appellant left
the opera show on the plea that he would go to the police station and during the period
of his absence from the opera show death of the deceased occurred. The medical
evidence is very clear and cogent that the deceased died due to asphyxia and
strangulation and that the injuries found on the neck of the deceased cannot be
possible by suicidal hanging. Medical evidence tallies with the oral evidence of for all
these reasons, it cannot be said that there is infirmity or illegality in the impugned
judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court. The recovery of
ligature material i.e. string and shoe lace coupled with the opinion of the doctor who
proved the post mortem report .According to the report injury no.1 was sufficient to
36
Shatrughna Baban Meshram Versus State of Maharashtra, [2021] 1 MLJ (CRL) 38
64. In the instant case , it is well established that the crime was committed by accused
and all the and all the circumstantial evidences stated above it is easy to prove Fred
37
Shantabai and Ors, v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2006 SC 1447
65. In the instant case according to the autopsy report given by SIMS hospital based on
the internal examination of Susan body. There are genital injuries to a great extent and
the tongue swollen and often bruised, dark coloured and protruded. There is
haemorrhage in the base of tongue no visible injury to the skull but the hyoid bone in
the neck is fractured. The adjacent muscles of the neck are lacerated. The larynx,
trachea and bronchi are congested and contain frothy, bloodstained mucus. Vulva
opening wide easily and witting enough for 1 finger. Blood stained discharge inside
vagina and hymen not intact which indicates that there was rape.
66. The Apex Court in Bantu v. State of U.P38 explained the term “rape” and according to
the Court, “the offence of rape in its simplest term is the ravishment of a woman,
without her consent, by force, fear or fraud, or as the carnal knowledge of a woman
by force against her will. Rape or Raptus‟ is when a man have carnal knowledge of a
woman by force and against her will; or as expressed more fully, rape is the carnal
knowledge of any woman, above the age of particular years, against her will; or of a
woman child, under that age, with or against her will‟. The essential words in an
indictment for rape are rapuit and carnaliter cognovit, but both must be present. In the
crime of rape carnal knowledge‟ means the penetration to any the slightest degree of
the organ alleged to have been carnally known by the male organ of generation.”
67. In the instant case it is to be kept in mind that although she was in relationship with
Fred for one year , it cannot be ignored that for getting intimated a valid consent and
will is required but as seen from the evidence there were genital injuries which states
that it was the use of man’s force over the body of female.
68. The Supreme Court in Dileep Singh v. State of Bihar39, observed that “the will and
consent often interlace and an act done against the will of the person can be said to be
38
Bantu v. State of U.P , 2008 (2) Crime 264 (SC)
39
Dileep Singh v. State of Bihar, (2005)1 SCC 88
40
Koppula Venkatrao v. State of AP,(2004)3 SCC 602
41
Mukesh & Anr vs State For Nct Of Delhi & Ors, AIR 2002 SC 1859
42
State of UP v. Chottey Lal, (2011)2 SCC 550
43
Article 21- Protection of life and personal liberty, The constitution of Delta, 1949
44
Shakshi Vs. Union of India, 2004 Cri.L.J. 2991
45
S. 377 – Unnatural offences, Delta Penal Code, 1860
76. It is to be humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that in the present case it is a sad
reflection on the attitude of indifference of the society towards the violation of human
dignity of the victims of sex crimes. We must remember that a rapist not only
violates the victim’s privacy and personal integrity, but inevitably causes serious
psychological as well as physical harm in the process. Rape is not merely a physical
assault - it is often destructive of the whole personality of the victim. A murderer
destroys the physical body of his victim; a rapist degrades the very soul of the
helpless female. The Courts, therefore, shoulder a great responsibility while trying an
accused on charges of rape.
77. The court must deal with such cases of rape and murder with utmost sensitivity. The
Courts should examine the broader probabilities of a case and not get swayed by
minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix,
which are not of a fatal nature, to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. If
evidence of the prosecutrix inspirers confidence, it must be relied upon without
46
State Vs. Bhupender Dutt Joshi, AIR 2008SC 1628
47
Dhananjoy Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal, (1994) 2 SCC 220
48
Md. Mannan @ Abdul Mannan Versus State of Bihar, [2011] 4 MLJ (CRL) 716
81. The appellant had tried to prove Tom Knight as guilty based only on his previous
behaviour. Here, it is humbly submitted before the court over the course of time,
though some general principles have evolved with respect to the admissibility and
evidentiary value of character evidence. The most important of these principles is that
character evidence is weak evidence and cannot stand up to positive evidence as to the
commission of a crime. Beyond that, the question of admissibility of character
evidence is still murky and is characterized by some broad general principles with
many contextualized exceptions. Generally speaking, the good character of the
accused is relevant and admissible as evidence and can be used to give the benefit of
the doubt to the accused when, on the evidence alone, the case could go either way.
However, evidence as to the bad character of the accused is generally not admissible
as evidence except when it is in rebuttal to evidence of good character or when the
character of the accused is itself a fact in issue.
82. Since in the present case Tom Knight has not presented any evidence of previous
good character, the evidence of previous bas character is not acceptable. Section 5449
of the Indian Evidence Act, provides that the fact that the accused has a bad character
is irrelevant unless evidence has been given that he has a good character, in which
case it becomes relevant. Evidence of bad character cannot be admitted under this
Section for raising a general inference or presumption that the accused is predisposed
or likely to have committed the crime that he is charged with any evidence of this
kind is irrelevant and cannot be raised by either party i.e. the prosecution or the
defence.
83. In Emperor v. Gangaram50, The Supreme Court has observed that accused is entitled
to a presumption of innocence and evidence about his bad character is not relevant
49
Section 54- Previous bad character not relevant, except in reply, Indian Evidence Act, 1872
50
Emperor v. Gangaram, (1920) Bom LR 1274
51
Amrit Lal Hazra v. Emperor, AIR 1916 Cal 188
52
Bhima Shaw v. State, AIR 1956 Ori 177
53
Nimoo Pal Majumdar v. State , AIR 1955 Cal 559
54
Babulal v. State , AIR 1959 Cal 693
88. In order to establish the plea of alibi the accused must lead evidence to show that he
was so far off at the moment of the crime from the place of occurrence that he could
not have committed the offence. Section 11 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is related
with the Plea of Alibi
89. It is the plea of absence of person, charged with an offence, from the place of
occurrence at the time of the commission of the offence is called the plea of alibi.
The term “Alibi “is a Latin word which means – elsewhere or somewhere else. In
criminal law this plea is used by accused against the commission of an alleged
offence. When the accused pleads the alibi in court of law he or she attempts to prove
that he or she is somewhere else at the time when the offence is committed. In other
words, it simply tells us that the accused was not physically present at the crime
scene. It is basic law that in criminal case, the burden is on the accused to prove that
the he was not present at the scene and has not participated in the crime 55
90. Dudh Nath Pandey v. State of U.P 56. The Plea of Alibi was explained by Apex court
as The plea of alibi states that the physical impossibility of the presence of the
accused at the crime scene by reason of his presence at another place. The plea can
therefore succeed only if it is shown that the accused was so far away that he could
not be present at the place where the alleged crime was committed.
91. In the instant case Tom Knight has successfully established the plea of alibi as he was
the father of Susan Knight and has loged her missing complaint with Olivia Knight
and also according to attendance report ,which can be verified from SIMS hospital he
was present on 9th January in the hospital and on 11th January as he was with his
family as there was no trace of Susan Knight . So questioning the plea of alibi of an
suspect does not prove anything as police has already verified his plea of alibi
92. The allegation which put hold the Tom as a suspect do not contain any truth as there
is no proof to prove his guilty and these allegation have been put on Tom only to
defame him as it is clearly mentioned that Tom and Fred were not in good terms since
a long period of time and also this is the only way that Fred can transfer the suspicion
on Tom for the crime which he has committed.
55
Section 103 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872
56
Dudh Nath Pandey v. State of U.P – (1981) 2 SCC 166 .
Hold Fred Rockwell guilty of the offences under section 326, 302 and 376 if the Delta Penal
Code, 1860.
Continue the punishment given to Fred Rockwell given by the Court of Session.
And/Or
THAT THE COURT MAY PASS ANY OTHER ORDER, DIRECTION, OR RELIEF
THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE,
EQUITY AND GOOD CONSCIENCE.