Before The High Court of Capital Island: Team Code L64Z

2ND NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021.
TEAM CODE L64Z
BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF CAPITAL ISLAND
IN APPEAL NO. _____ OF 2021.
FRED ROCKWELL
(Appellant)
versus.
STATE
(Respondent)
2nd NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETITON, 2021
Memorial for the Appellant

(Counsel on behalf of the Appellant)
i|Page
-Memorial on behalf of Appellant--
INDEX OF CONTENTS
Index of Contents .......................................................................................................................ii

List of Abbreviations ................................................................................................................ iv
Index of Authorities ................................................................................................................... v
Index of Case Laws ..................................................................................................................vii
SUPREME COURT CASES ...............................................................................................vii
HIGH COURT CASES ......................................................................................................... ix
PRIVY COUNCIL CASES ................................................................................................... ix
FOREIGN CASES ................................................................................................................. x
Statement of Jurisdiction........................................................................................................... xi
Statement of Facts ....................................................................................................................xii
Statement of Issues ................................................................................................................. xiv
Summary of Arguments ........................................................................................................... xv
Arguments Advanced................................................................................................................. 1
Issue – I: Whether the Accused is Liable for the Offence of Kidnapping u/§ 364 of The
Delta Penal Code, 1860. ......................................................................................................... 1
1.1. The Essential Ingredients of §364 are not Met in the Present Matter ..................... 1
1.2. That Kidnapping was not done in order to commit Murder .................................... 2
1.1.1. Burden of Proof on Prosecution ....................................................................... 2
1.1.2. Relationship of Accused with The Deceased ................................................... 3
Issue – II: Whether the Accused is Liable for the Offence of Rape u/§ 376 of The Delta
Penal Code, 1860.................................................................................................................... 5
2.1. Necessary Determinants of Rape are Absent in the Instant Case ............................ 5
2.1.1. The Accused did not have the mens rea to commit the act of Rape .................... 5
2.1.2. Absence of Consent is Not Established in the Present Matter ......................... 5
2.2 There is Absence of Direct Evidence of Circumstantial Evidence .............................. 5
2.2.1. No Presence of Sperm or Other Forensic Material of the Appellant is Found 5
2.3. Omissions and Discrepancies in the Post Mortem Report .......................................... 5
2.4. Medical Evidence is Inadmissible in The Present Case .............................................. 6
Issue – III: Whether the Accused is Liable for the Offence of Murder u/§ 302 of The Delta
Penal Code, 1860.................................................................................................................... 8
3.1. The accused shall be presumed to be innocent. ....................................................... 8
ii | P a g e
3.2 The Burden of Proof lies on the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused
beyond Reasonable Doubt……………………………………………………….....................9
3.3. Lack of Intention of the accused to commit the said offence ................................ 10
3.4. The Rights of the Accused u/§ 167(2) of Criminal Procedural Code, 1973. ........ 10
3.5. Punishment of Death Penalty not apt in the instant case. ...................................... 11
3.5.1. Guidelines laid down by Landmark Judgements ........................................... 11
Prayer ....................................................................................................................................... xv
iii | P a g e
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
& and
§ Section
§§ Sections
A.C. Appellate Cases
A.P. Andhra Pradesh
AIR All India Reporter
Anr. Another
Art. Article
Bom. Bombay
Cal. Calcutta
CrPC Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Del. Delhi
DPC Delta Penal Code
FIR First Information Report
HC High Court
Hon’ble Honourable
Ors. Others
para. Paragraph
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
U.P. Uttar Pradesh
v. Versus
Vol. Volume
iv | P a g e
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
STATUTES REFERRED
1. Constitution of India
2. Indian Penal Code, 1860.
3. Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
4. Code of Criminal Procedure Act, 1973.
BOOKS REFERRED
1. An Analytical And Exhaustive Commentary On The Indian Penal Code, 1860, by

Justice M.L.Singhal & Sabiha
2. Commentary on the Code of Criminal Procedure Act, 1973 by Ratanlal & Dhirajlal
3. Commentary on the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 by Ratanlal & Dhirajlal
4. Commentary on the Indian Penal Code, 1860 by Ratanlal & Dhirajlal
5. Commentary on The Indian Penal Code, by K.D. Gaur
6. Criminal Law by P S A Pillai
7. Murder Trial by P. S. Verma
8. The Indian Penal Code by B.M. Gandhi
9. Gaur, Kd, Criminal Law: Cases and Materials, (6th Ed. 2009) 2.
10. P.S.A. Pillai, Criminal Law, Lexis Nexis, India, 2015, 12th Edition
11. I, Kathuria, R.P. Supreme Court on Criminal Law, 1950-2002, (6th Ed. 2002)
12. III, Sarvaria, Sk, Indian Penal Code, (10th Ed. 2008)
13. Lal, Batuk, The Law of Evidence, (18th Ed. 2010)
14. Sarkar, Law of Evidence, (13th Ed,1990)
15. Ganguly, Criminal Court Practice and Procedure, 9th Ed. (1996)
16. Modi, Medical Jurispprudence And Toxicology, 23rd Ed., (2006)
JOURNALS REFERRED
1. Supreme Court Cases (SCC)

2. All India Reporter (AIR)
v|Page
3. Supreme Court Reporter (SCR)
LEGAL DATABASES
1. www.lexisnexis.co.in
2. www.manupatra.com
3. www.westlawindia.com
4. www.heinonline.org
vi | P a g e
INDEX OF CASE LAWs
SUPREME COURT CASES
Akram v. State of WB, (2012) 1 SCC 406. ............................................................................... 2

Anant Chintaman Lagu v. State of Bombay, (1960) 2 SCR 460 ............................................... 4
Awadhesh v. State of M.P, AIR 1988 SC 1158. ........................................................................ 9
Bachan Singh vs State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 898 .............................................................. 13
Badshah v State of UP, (2008) 3 SCC 681. ............................................................................... 1
Benjamin v. State, (2008) 3 SCC 745 ...................................................................................... 12
Bhupendra Nath Prasad v. State of Bihar, (1992) 3 SCC 547 ................................................. 15
Bhupendra Nath Prasad v. State of Bihar, (1992) 3 SCC 547. ................................................ 15
Bibihshan v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 12 SCC 390 ............................................................ 5
Bikramjit Singh vs The State of Punjab, (2020) 10 SCC 616. ................................................ 13
Chanda Murmu v. State of W.B., (2012) 5 SCC 753. ............................................................... 5
Chandrappa and Ors. vs. State of Karnataka (2007) 4 SCC 415. ............................................ 11
Chhaterpati v. State of J&K, (1970) 3 SCC 201 ........................................................................ 6
Dataram v. State of UP, (2018) 3 SCC 22. ........................................................................ 10, 11
Dilip v. State of M.P (2007) I SCC 4....................................................................................... 11
Directorate of Enforcement v. M.C.T.M. Corpn. (P) Ltd., (1996) 2 SCC 471 .......................... 3
Duraipandi Thevar v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1973 SC 659. ................................................ 9
Ediga Annamma v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1974) 4 SCC 443. .......................................... 13
Gopal Reddy v. State, AIR 1979 SC 387................................................................................. 11
Gopal Reddy v. State, AIR 1979 SC 387................................................................................. 11
Hari Singh. v. Sukhbir Singh and Ors, AIR 1988 SC 2127. .................................................... 12
Hiten P. Dalal vs. Bratindranath Banerjee, AIR 2001 SC 3897 .............................................. 10
Hussainara Khatoon (1) v. State of Bihar, (1980) 1 SCC 81. .................................................. 13
K. M. Nanavati v. State, AIR 1962 SC 605. ............................................................................ 11
K.Joseph v. Narayanan, AIR 1964 SC 1552............................................................................ 11
Kanhai Mishra v. State of Bihar, (2001) 3 SCC 451 ................................................................. 7
Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, (1994) SCC (Cri) 899............................................................. 3
Keshub Mahindra v. State of M.P, 1996 SCC (Cri) 1124 ....................................................... 12
Krishna Mochi and Ors. vs. State of Bihar AIR 2002 SC 1965 .............................................. 13
vii | P a g e
Laxman Naik v. State of Orissa, 1995 CrLJ 2692 ..................................................................... 4

Liaquat Ali Khan v. State of AP, (2012) 12 SCC 707 ............................................................... 3
Machhi Singh And Others vs State of Punjab, 1983 AIR 957................................................. 13
Mayur v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1983 SC 66. ............................................................................. 9
Mohd. Zahid v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1999 Cr. LJ 3699 SC. .................................................... 9
Naseem Ahmed v. Delhi Administration, (1974) 3 SCC 668.................................................... 4
Noor Aga vs. State of Punjab and Ors. (2008) 16 SCC 417 .................................................... 10
Padala Veera Reddy vs State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, AIR 1990 SC 79 ..................... 12
Palvinder Kaur v. The State of Punjab 1953 SCR 94. ............................................................. 11
Paramasivam v. State, (2015) 13 SCC 300 ................................................................................ 2
Pedda Narayana v. State of AP, (1975) 4 SCC 153. .................................................................. 1
People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, (2004) 9 SCC 580 ................................. 4
Pratap Misra v. State of Orissa, (1977) 3 SCC 41 ..................................................................... 6
Radha v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2007) 12 SCC 57 ............................................................. 5
Radhu v. State of Madhya M.P., (2007) 12 SCC 57.................................................................. 5
Rafiq v. State Of UP, 1981 AIR 559. ........................................................................................ 5
Raju v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2008) 15 SCC 133 .............................................................. 5
Rao Harnarain Singh and others v. The State, 1957 SCC OnLine P&H 112 ............................ 6
Renuka Bai v. State of Maharashtra, (2006) 7 SCC 422. .......................................................... 1
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116. ............................. 5, 11
Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade & Anr vs State Of Maharashtra, AIR 1973 SC 2622 ............... 10, 11
Shivaji v. State, AIR 1973 SC 2622. ....................................................................................... 11
SP Kolhi (Dr.) v. High Court of P&H, (1979) 1 SCC 212 ........................................................ 6
State of Bihar v. Ramnath Prasad, (1998) 9 SCC 49. ................................................................ 2
State of MP v. Amar Singh, AIR 1994 SC 650. ........................................................................ 5
State of Punjab v. Bhajan Singh, AIR 1975 SC 258 ................................................................ 11
State of Punjab v. Bhajan Singh, AIR 1975 SC 258. ............................................................... 11
State of Punjab vs. Karnail Singh AIR 2003 SC 3609 ............................................................ 10
State Of U.P vs Chhoteylal; (2011) 2 SCC 550 ......................................................................... 6
State of U.P. vs. M.K. Anthony AIR 1985 SC 48 ................................................................... 11
State of WB v. Vindu Lachmandas Sakhrani, (1995) SCC Cri 75. ........................................... 2
State of West Bengal v. Mir Mohammad Omar & Ors, (2000) 8 SCC 382 .............................. 3
Sucha Singh v. State of Punjab, (2001) 4 SCC 375. .................................................................. 3
viii | P a g e
Sudansu Sekhar Sahu v. State of Orissa, (2002) 10 SCC 743 ................................................... 6

Sukhjit Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 10 SCC 270 ............................................................... 5
Swamy Shraddananda v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 12 SCC 288. ......................................... 12
Thaman Kumar v. State of UT Chandigarh AIR 2003 SC 3975 ............................................... 4
The Queen v. Lock, (1872) LR 2 CCR 10, 11. .......................................................................... 2
Union of India (UOI) vs. V. Sriharan and Ors, (2015) CCR 317 ............................................ 13
Vijay Kumar Arora v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2010) 2 SCC 353 ............................................ 11
Vikram Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab, (2015) 9 SCC 502 .................................................. 2
Yunis v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 2003 SC 539 ............................................................... 4
HIGH COURT CASES
Ahmad Koya v. Ameena Beebi, 1973 M.L.J. (Cri.) 129 ........................................................... 4

C.T. Prim V; The State, A.I.R. 1961 Cal. 177 ........................................................................... 4
Danish Khan v. State, 2011 SCC Online Bom 1684. ................................................................ 2
Dhiren Mondal and Ors. vs. The State of West Bengal, 2017 SCC Online Cal 746. .............. 15
Gofur Sheikh v. State, 1984 Cr.L.J. 559 (Cal) (DB). ................................................................ 8
Harjinder Kaur vs. State of Punjab and Or, 2013 (2) RCR (Criminal) 146 ............................... 7
Jakir Hossain v. State Of Tripura And Ors, 2008 (1) GLT 921................................................. 6
Kochu Muhammad Kunju Ismail v. Kadeja Ammat A.I.R. 1959 Ker. 151 .............................. 4
Mangal Hemrum And Ors. vs State Of Orissa, 1982 Cri LJ 687 ............................................ 12
Maragatham alias Lakshmi v. State, 1960 SCC OnLine Mad 222 ............................................ 4
Noormohd vs State, ILR (1978) 2 Del 442 .............................................................................. 13
Pantam Venkayya, In Re, AIR 1930 Mad 246 .......................................................................... 4
Prabhoo v. Emperor, AIR 1941 All 402. ................................................................................. 11
Pratap v. State, 1967 All. W.R. (H.C.)....................................................................................... 8
Ramesh Durgappa Hirekerur v. State of Maharashtra, 2017 SCC OnLine Bom 9109. ........... 4
Re: Kasi Raja, Proprietor, vs Unknown, AIR 1953 Mad 156.................................................... 6
State of AP v. Bodem Sundara Rao, (1995) 6 SCC 230 ............................................................ 4
State of Assam v. Manohar Ali, (1987) 1 CriLJ 748 (Guti). ................................................... 10
State of Manipur v. Okram Jiten Singh, 2005 Cri LJ 1646 ..................................................... 12
State vs Mohd. Parvez, 2015 SCC OnLine Del 8332 ................................................................ 1
PRIVY COUNCIL CASES
Stephen Seneviratne v. Kind, AIR 1936 P.C. 289 ..................................................................... 9

ix | P a g e
FOREIGN CASES
Hyam v. DPP, [1975] AC 55 ................................................................................................... 12

Reg. v. Morgan, [1975] 1 All ER.8............................................................................................ 6
S. Varadrajan v. State of Madras; AIR 1965 SC 942 ................................................................ 2
Sheldrake v. Director of Public Prosecutions, (2005) 1 All ER 237. ...................................... 10
x|Page
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
THE COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT HAS PREFERRED THEIR APPEAL BEFORE THIS HON’BLE
HIGH COURT OF CAPITAL ISLAND U/§ 374(2)1 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURAL CODE, 1973.
1
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.
xi | P a g e
STATEMENT OF FACTS
INTRODUCTION TO THE INVOLVED PARTIES
❖ The First party being the deceased victim Susan Knight, was 18 years old, and a student
of 12th Standard of BAPS International School.
❖ The Second party being the accused Fred Rockwell, aged 23 years old. He is a compounder
in the SIIMS Hospital and belongs to Schedule Caste.
AFFINITY IN BETWEEN THE PARTIES
❖ Tom Knight was the father of the deceased victim. He is a well-known Doctor by
profession in the SIIMS hospital of Capital Island. He has been working there for the last
fifteen years.
❖ Fred Rockwell, the accused and Susan Knight, the victim had been in a relationship for
the past one year.
FACT FINDING & THE EVIDENCE
❖ On 10th January 2020, Tom and Olivia Knight lodged a complaint of kidnapping vide
Complaint No. 0220.
❖ On 12th January 2020, the body was found blooded and dirty on an idyllic beach, a small,
lively beach on the capital Island. this body was identified to be of the victim Susan Knight.
The reason for death was reported to be strangulation.
❖ Following the discovery of the body, on the very day, a First Investigation Report was filed,
with Alec Hardy being the, Investigating Officer.
❖ During the investigation it was found out that Fred Rockwell, had not reported back home
on 10th and 11th of January.
❖ Further the Security of Guard of BAPS International School stated that he saw Susan
Knight entering a black Scorpio car with tinted glass, CI03 CAW 9009, outside the school
on 9th January. This happens to be the very same day she went missing.
❖ Further Investigation led to the discovery that on 11th January both Fred Rockwell, accused
and Tom Knight, father and a fellow suspect, were marked absent in SIIMS Hospital.
xii | P a g e
❖ Police recovered the ligature material with some blood stains on it in the hospital locker of
Fred Rockwell. It was later on confirmed that this blood stain belonged to Susan Knight.
❖ On the basis of the Forensics and Circumstantial Evidence, Fred Rockwell was arrested.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
❖ On 28th August, a charge sheet was prepared under the relevant provisions. Further, on 30th
August the charge was filed by the police.
❖ On 30th October, the Hon’ble Sessions Court of Capital Island heard over the matter, and
convicted Accused Fred Rockwell. He was sentenced to Life Imprisonment u/§§ 364, 376
& Death Penalty u/§ 302 with Rs. 5, 00,000/- fine.
xiii | P a g e
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
ISSUE I
WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS LIABLE FOR THE OFFENCE OF KIDNAPPING U/§ 363 OF
DELTA PENAL CODE, 1860.
ISSUE II
WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS LIABLE FOR THE OFFENCE OF RAPE U/§ 376 OF DELTA
PENAL CODE, 1860.
ISSUE III
WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS LIABLE FOR THE OFFENCE OF MURDER U/§ 302 OF DELTA
PENAL CODE, 1860.
xiv | P a g e
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
ISSUE – I: WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS LIABLE FOR THE OFFENCE OF KIDNAPPING U/§ 364
OF THE DELTA PENAL CODE, 1860.
The counsel for the appellant humbly submits that the charges u/§ 364 of the Delta Penal Code
are unjustifiable and that the accused must be acquitted in light of the same. It is contended that
in the instant case, there is neither any offence of kidnapping that is committed, nor is there
sufficient evidence to prove that the accused is responsible for the commission of the said act.
Additionally, the essentials of mens rea are not met in the instant case and therefore, he is not
liable for commission of the act. The circumstantial and forensic evidences fail to establish the
guilt of the appellant in a conclusive manner. Further, it has been established that kidnapping
has not been committed in order to murder the victim.
ISSUE – II: WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS LIABLE FOR THE OFFENCE OF RAPE U/§376 OF THE
The counsel for the appellant humbly submits that the charges u/§ 376 of the Delta Penal Code
are not adduced by acceptable evidence. The element of mens rea of the accused to possibly
commit this offence has not been proven by means of firm evidence.
It is also established that the essentials for the commission of rape have not been met. The
forensic evidences clearly point towards the failure in deduction of sperm. Further it is also
established that in the instant case, there is a lack of direct evidence and there is also no
presence of sperm or other forensic material of the appellant. Lastly, the Appellants submit that
there are omissions and discrepancies in the post mortem report and medical evidence is
inadmissible in the present case.
ISSUE – III: WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS LIABLE FOR THE OFFENCE OF MURDER U/§ 302 OF
THE DELTA PENAL CODE, 1860.
The counsel for the appellant humbly submits that the charges u/§ 302 are not justified and that
the requirements for proving the offence of murder, additional evidence as well as handing out
the death penalty have not been met in the present case. The counsels for the appellant contest
that the appellant be Presumed innocent, until there is no reasonable doubt of his guilt. The
counsels further contest the lack of mens rea of the appellant; Fred Rockwell, and the failure
xv | P a g e
of the prosecution to establish the mens rea. Furthermore, the established forensic evidence
and circumstantial evidence, stand inconclusive in nature.
Lastly, the counsels also shed light on the Rights of Accused as provided u/§ 167(2) of Criminal
Procedural Code, 1973. After analysing the various evidences, and legal prepositions, it is
pleaded by the counsel for the acquittal of the appellant from all the above charges.
xvi | P a g e
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
ISSUE – I: WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS LIABLE FOR THE OFFENCE OF KIDNAPPING U/§ 364
OF THE DELTA PENAL CODE, 1860.
The charges against the accused, as per the charge sheet and the verdict of the trial court, are
u/§§ 302, 364 and 376 of the Delta Penal Code, hereinafter referred to as the “DPC”. The
counsel for the appellant in this case would humbly seek to plead that the aforementioned
charges be dropped, and for Fred Rockwell to be acquitted, for the following cogent reasons.
§364 of the DPC provides for the punishment of kidnapping. In the present matter, it is
submitted that the essential ingredients of §364 are not met in the present matter [1.1] and that
the act was not done in order to commit murder [1.2].
1.1. The Essential Ingredients of §364 are not Met in the Present Matter
¶2. In the instant case, the accused was punished under §364.2 The essentials of the section
must be complied with to prove the guilt of the accused.3 These essential conditions are:
i. Kidnapping by the accused must be proved;

ii. It must also be proved that he so kidnapped the person in question in order
a) that such person might be murdered or

b) that such person might be so disposed of as to be put in danger of being
murdered.4
¶3. Kidnapping can be defined as a crime consisting of an unlawful restraint of a person's

liberty by force or show of force so as to send the victim into another country. Under
modern law, this crime will usually be found where the victim is taken to another location
or concealed.5
¶4. U/§ 3596 of the DPC, there are two types of kidnapping, namely kidnapping from India,
and kidnapping from lawful guardianship. However, the present case falls under neither of
2
§364 of the Delta Penal Code.
3
State vs Mohd. Parvez, 2015 SCC OnLine Del 8332; Pedda Narayana v. State of AP, (1975) 4 SCC 153.
4
Badshah v State of UP, (2008) 3 SCC 681; Renuka Bai v. State of Maharashtra, (2006) 7 SCC 422.
5
Kidnapping, Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law; United States v. Rodriguez-Moreno, 526 U.S. 275 (1999).
6
S.359- Kidnapping, Delta Penal Code.
1|Page
these categories as the victim never crossed borders, nor was she a minor. Additionally, as
per the eye witness statement of the school’s security Dale, the deceased was said to have
entered the black car out of her own free will.7 It is therefore submitted that the appellant
did not compel or force the deceased to enter the car.
A. The deceased consensually Entered the Black Scorpio Car

¶5. The term consent means an active will in the mind of a person to permit the doing of the
act complained of, and knowledge of what is to be done, or of the nature of the act that is
being done, is essential to consent to an act.8 The deceased had consensually entered the
black car. As a result, the present case does not meet the requirement for kidnapping.9
B. The Accused did not Compel or Force the Deceased to Enter the Car
¶6. In order to prove the charges u/§364, it is necessary to prove that the accused compelled or
by deceitful means induced the victim to accompany them or to go away from any place
with an intention that such person might be murdered, or might be disposed of so as to be
put in danger of being murdered.10 The evidence in the present case has to be appreciated11
to see whether the victim voluntarily accompanied the accused persons, or was subjected
to force, compulsion, inducement or deceit, in accompanying the accused persons.
1.2. That Kidnapping was not done in order to commit Murder

It is submitted that, for kidnapping done, to follow up with murder, it is essential to determine
that the appellant had the motive to do so, which is not existent in the instant case. Further the
relationship shared between the appellant and the victim was such that no motive to commit
the offences can be conclusive in nature.
1.1.1. Burden of Proof on Prosecution

A. The Accused had no Motive to Kidnap the Deceased
¶6. It was held by the SC12 that in cases relating to §364, proof of motive is a material
consideration and strong circumstance. Motive is the objective that one wishes to
7
Annexure 2, Moot Preposition.
8
The Queen v. Lock, (1872) LR 2 CCR 10, 11.
9
S. Varadrajan v. State of Madras, AIR 1965 SC 942; State of WB v. Vindu Lachmandas Sakhrani, (1995) SCC
Cri 75.
10
Vikram Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab, (2015) 9 SCC 502.
11
State of Bihar v. Ramnath Prasad, (1998) 9 SCC 49; Danish Khan v. State, 2011 SCC Online Bom 1684.
12
Paramasivam v. State, (2015) 13 SCC 300; Akram v. State of WB, (2012) 1 SCC 406.
2|Page
accomplish by doing/ abstaining from doing an act. Intention, specifically an intention to

commit murder is one of the ingredients of §364. An act in itself is not criminal, unless it
is accompanied by a criminal mind.13 There is a lack of motive on the part of the accused
in the present case.
B. There is no Direct Evidence to Prove that the Accused Kidnapped the Deceased
¶7. The evidence of a medical man or an expert is merely an opinion which lends corroboration
to the direct evidence in the case. Where there is a glaring inconsistency between direct
evidence and the medical evidence in respect of the entire prosecution story, that is
undoubtedly a manifest, defect in the prosecution case.14
¶8. In the instant case, the Respondent failed to provide any direct evidence for proving the
guilt of the Appellant. Further, there is absence of any primary witness who could have
established that it was the Appellant that performed the alleged crime. The statements
provided for by Tom Knight and the security guard in the Sessions Court are merely indirect
evidences and the same cannot form a basis for trial without any substantial proof.15 There
has been use of circumstantial evidence to convict the Appellant which is not admissible
as it is not corroborated with substantial direct evidence.16
¶9. The SC has held that §364 says that whoever kidnaps any person in order that such person
may be murdered or disposed of as to be put in danger of being murdered, he commits the
offence punishable under the section.17 As such, it is upon the prosecution to clearly
demonstrate that the kidnapping of deceased was for the purpose of murdering her.18
1.1.2. Relationship of Accused with The Deceased
It is submitted that the accused shared a positive relationship with the deceased for a year, and
they loved each other & he was also one of the devastated parties from the death of the victim.
There is no chain of circumstances that can also established to express otherwise.
A. The Accused does not have the mens rea to Commit the Crime
13
Directorate of Enforcement v. M.C.T.M. Corpn. (P) Ltd., (1996) 2 SCC 471; Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab,
(1994) SCC (Cri) 899.
14
Piara Singh & Ors vs State Of Punjab, 1977 AIR 2274; Liaquat Ali Khan v. State of AP, (2012) 12 SCC 707.
15
Bhagwat Prasad v. The State Of Bihar Opp. Party, 2006 SCC OnLine Pat 700.
16
Mrinal Das & Ors vs State Of Tripura, (2011) 9 SCC 479.
17
State of West Bengal v. Mir Mohammad Omar & Ors, (2000) 8 SCC 382; Ash Mohammed v. Shiv Raj Singh.
18
Sucha Singh v. State of Punjab, (2001) 4 SCC 375; Narendra Bhat v. State of Karnataka, (2019) 17 SCC 785.
3|Page
¶10. Mens Rea as an element is a sine qua non for all offences under the Penal Code19. A
verdict of the SC,20 where it was stated that the burden lay upon the prosecution to clearly
indicate that the accused committed the act in furtherance of a state of mind. It is submitted
that there is no motive for the accused to kidnap the victim in order to commit murder. The
accused in the present matter, was involved in a relationship with the deceased for over a
year, before her death. The accused has also unequivocally stated that he was in love with
the deceased, and had plans of marrying her.
¶11. When the case is based on circumstantial evidence, motive becomes largely significant.21
The appellant had no motive to commit any of the alleged crimes and it is to be noted when
there is failure to prove motive, then the role of accused in commission of the offence and
the ocular motive should be, ‘clear and convincing’ to convict the accused.22
B. There is no Chain of Events in the Present Matter
¶12. For Circumstantial Evidence to be conclusive and to be acted upon to make a conviction,
it is absolutely necessary to establish chain of circumstances to the prove guilt of the
accused.23 On the basis of establishing the link of causation, the circumstantial evidence
can be used to convict an accused.24 In the present matter, there is no chain of events that
has been established. The ownership of the Black Scorpio has not been traced back to the
accused; Fred Rockwell. Also, the very fact that the accused was present at BAPS
International School on 9th January morning has not been proved, as the counsel for State
has no substantial evidence to prove the same. The Security Guard knew the Appellant and
could have easily identified him or his car, if the appellant was present. However, this is
19
People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, (2004) 9 SCC 580; Pantam Venkayya, In Re, AIR 1930
Mad 246; Ahmad Koya v. Ameena Beebi, 1973 M.L.J. (Cri.) 129; Kochu Muhammad Kunju Ismail v. Kadeja
Ammat A.I.R. 1959 Ker. 151; C.T. Prim V; The State, A.I.R. 1961 Cal. 177.
20
Maragatham alias Lakshmi v. State, 1960 SCC OnLine Mad 222; State of AP v. Bodem Sundara Rao, (1995)
6 SCC 230.
21
Ramesh Durgappa Hirekerur v. State of Maharashtra, 2017 SCC OnLine Bom 9109.
22
Yunis v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 2003 SC 539; Thaman Kumar v. State of UT Chandigarh AIR 2003 SC
3975.
23
Circumstantial evidence has been defined as the combination of facts creating a network through which there
is no escape for the accused, because the facts taken as a whole do not admit of any inference but of his guilt.
Anant Chintaman Lagu v. State of Bombay, (1960) 2 SCR 460; Laxman Naik v. State of Orissa, 1995 CrLJ 2692
(para 11).
24
Naseem Ahmed v. Delhi Administration, (1974) 3 SCC 668.
4|Page
not observed. When there is more than one possibility, the possibility that favours the
accused is the one that must be taken into consideration for the acquittal on the basis of
circumstantial evidence.25
¶13. Conviction u/§ 364 can be reversed, if the ingredients of the offence are not proved, as
was observed by the SC.26 In light of the lack of evidence27 that proves the essentials under
this section of the DPC, the counsel humbly submits that the accused by acquitted of this
charge, as the prosecution has failed to adduce evidence to prove the guilt of the accused
beyond reasonable doubt.
ISSUE – II: WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS LIABLE FOR THE OFFENCE OF RAPE U/§ 376 OF THE
§376 of the DPC provides for the punishment of rape. In the present matter, it is established
that the necessary determinants of rape are [2.1], the appellant’s absence of mens rea [2.2], and
the absence of consent [2.3] and that these are absent in the present matter. Further it also
established that in the instant case there is a lack of direct evidence [2.4], and there is also, no
presence of sperm or other forensic material of the appellant. Lastly, the Appellants submit that
there are omissions and discrepancies in the post mortem report and the medical evidence is
inadmissible in the present case.
Circumstances and facts of the case at hand need to be scanned carefully and the same exhibits
whether the deceased was raped or not.28 Whether there was rape or not would depend
ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case.29
2.1. Necessary Determinants of Rape are Absent in the Instant Case

2.2 There is Absence of Direct Evidence of Circumstantial Evidence
2.3. Omissions and Discrepancies in the Post Mortem Report
¶24. In the instant Post Mortem Report, the usual norm has not been thoroughly followed upon
and notable omissions and discrepancies are to be observed such as the injuries present on
the body have not been marked as ante mortem or post mortem, no examination conducted
25
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116.
26
Sukhjit Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 10 SCC 270; Chanda Murmu v. State of W.B., (2012) 5 SCC 753.
27
State of MP v. Amar Singh, AIR 1994 SC 650.
28
Radhu v. State of Madhya M.P., (2007) 12 SCC 57;
29
Raju v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2008) 15 SCC 133; Radha v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2007) 12 SCC 57;
Bibihshan v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 12 SCC 390; Rafiq v. State Of UP, 1981 AIR 559.
5|Page
for determining whether the ligature material is ruled out to be the actual material that
caused the strangulation and no dimensions and measurements have been produced in the
report in regards to the injuries administered on the body of victim.
¶25. These factors have not been brought forward in front of the Hon’ble Sessions Court which
of the injuries and abnormalities occurred before and after death. No elaborate mentioning
of the dimensions and measurement of the injuries that have been instilled upon the victim
and most importantly it has not been disclosed in the report whether the same material
found in the hospital locker is the actual material with which strangulation has been done.
2.4. Medical Evidence is Inadmissible in The Present Case
¶26. It is stated before the Hon’ble Court that the medical evidence herein is not admissible.
The admissibility of the same is valid if the concerned practitioner who made the report has
been examined by the court. The post-mortem report given by the doctor isn't substantive
evidence and is forbidden in evidence unless he is inspected and after inspection, the post-
mortem will be considered acceptable and relevant. In absence of that particular doctor,
another doctor or the compounder available can be examined.50 The medical evidence
cannot be considered to be substantive evidence if the medical expert concerned with the
evidence has not been examined.51 Neither was the examination done nor was there any
authority produced in front of court to provide how the post-mortem had been conducted.
The accused cannot be convicted if there is failure on the part of the ‘medical expert’52
conducting the post mortem to provide the authorities to substantiate his claims and
opinions.53 There is no irrebuttable presumption that a medical officer is always a witness
of truth. His testimony has to be evaluated and appreciated like the testimony of any other
ordinary witness.54
¶27. It has not been observed that the Hon’ble Sessions court has examined and recorded the
statements from the concerned Medical Practitioner or any representative from his side in
the concerned court. Medical Evidence acts just as an opinion evidence55 and the medical
opinion is merely of an advisory character and is not substantial enough to prove the case
50
Pratap v. State, 1967 All. W.R. (H.C.).
51
Gofur Sheikh v. State, 1984 Cr.L.J. 559 (Cal) (DB);
52
§45 of the Delta Evidence Act.
53
Mohd. Zahid v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1999 Cr. LJ 3699 SC.
54
Mayur v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1983 SC 66;
55
Duraipandi Thevar v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1973 SC 659.
6|Page
of prosecution.56 It is presented before the Hon’ble court that any opinion of a medical
expert is never final and has no actual binding value before the court.57 The Report is
inadmissible in the court and the Hon’ble Sessions Court has erred in considering the same.
¶28. The prosecution has failed to prove that the accused committed the act of rape, beyond
reasonable doubt, and have not presented reliable evidence to substantiate the charges. In
the light of the lack of the same, the Respondent establishes that an acquittal under the
alleged offence be given, as u/§ 376 of the DPC.
56
Stephen Seneviratne v. Kind, AIR 1936 P.C. 289.
57
Awadhesh v. State of M.P, AIR 1988 SC 1158.
7|Page
ISSUE – III: WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS LIABLE FOR THE OFFENCE OF MURDER U/§ 302 OF
THE DELTA PENAL CODE, 1860.
§302 of the DPC provides for the punishment of murder. In the present matter, it is established
how the accused shall be presumed to be innocent, until proven otherwise [3.1], and the burden
of proof to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt [3.2]. Further it is also
established that there is a lack of intention from the accused to commit the said offence [3.3.],
and the, rights of the accused u/§ 167(2) of Code of Criminal Procedural Code, 1973 [3.4.].
Lastly, the Appellants plead that, punishment of death penalty not apt in the instant case [3.5].
3.1.The accused shall be presumed to be innocent.

¶29. Presumption of Innocence is a human right.58 For conviction of an accused, the burden
under the accusatory system is always on the prosecution, unless the contrary is clearly
established. It is a settled law that the without any compelling evidence, the burden lies on
the prosecution to establish concrete evidence against the accused, and until such guilt is
proved, the accused is deemed to be innocent.59 There may be one thousand people
acquitted but no single innocent person shall be punished.60
¶30. In criminal cases the burden of proof lies on the prosecution and accused must be proved
beyond reasonable doubt.61Presumption of innocence of the accused must be taken into
consideration. There is a presumption of innocence against the commission of crime. This
ratio has been laid down by the SC in a catena of cases.62 The SC has upheld the view that
the accused is entitled to rely on the presumption of innocence to testimonial compulsion
to swear against himself.63
58
Hiten P. Dalal vs. Bratindranath Banerjee, AIR 2001 SC 3897; Noor Aga vs. State of Punjab and Ors. (2008)
16 SCC 417; Sheldrake v. Director of Public Prosecutions, (2005) 1 All ER 237.
59
Dataram v. State of UP, (2018) 3 SCC 22.
60
Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade & Anr vs State Of Maharashtra, AIR 1973 SC 2622; State of Punjab vs. Karnail Singh
AIR 2003 SC 3609.
61
State of Assam v. Manohar Ali, (1987) 1 CriLJ 748 (Guti).
62
Ibid 60.
63
K.Joseph v. Narayanan, AIR 1964 SC 1552; Kishwar Jahan and Ors. vs. State of West Bengal and Ors 2008 (3)
CHN 857
8|Page
3.2. The Burden of Proof lies on the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused
beyond Reasonable Doubt
¶31. In Criminal jurisprudence, it is most fundamental that a person arraigned as an accused is
presumed to be innocent unless that presumption is rebutted by the prosecution by
production of evidence as may show him to be guilty of the offences charged. 64 It is an
accepted principle of criminal jurisprudence that the burden is lies on the prosecution to
prove the guilt of the accused.65
¶32. The SC opined that the burden is thrown upon the prosecution to prove that it is a case
beyond reasonable doubt.66 Reasonable doubt does not mean light, insubstantial doubt, it
is not a doubt begotten by sympathy out of reluctance to convict, it means a real doubt
founded on reasons.67 There is a distinction between ‘may be true’ and ‘must be true’ and
the prosecution has to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt 68. If any evidence raises
reasonable doubt in the minds of the Court as regards one or more of the ingredients of the
offence including ‘mens rea’ of the accused, then the accused is entitled to the benefit of
doubt on the ground that the general burden of proof resting on the prosecution was not
discharged. Therefore, it is pleaded that Fred Rockwell must be given the benefit of doubt
in the instant case as well.
¶33. It is submitted that while allegations have been placed on the accused, these allegations
cannot be considered legal proof and graver the crime, greater must be the standard of
proof.69 No substantial evidence has been linked to the accused and there are many
possibilities as to who could have committed these heinous acts. In a case of circumstantial
evidence, there shall be no room of doubt as to whether anyone other than the accused could
have committed the crime.70 There is a reasonable doubt against the Appellant as there are
no various consistencies in the matter at hand and thus no inference of guilt can be arrived
64
Prabhoo v. Emperor, AIR 1941 All 402; Rameshwar v. State of M.P, 1992 SCC OnLine MP 207.
65
Ibid 59.
66
K. M. Nanavati v. State, AIR 1962 SC 605.
67
Gopal Reddy v. State, AIR 1979 SC 387; Chandrappa and Ors. vs. State of Karnataka (2007) 4 SCC 415.
68
State of Punjab v. Bhajan Singh, AIR 1975 SC 258; State of U.P. vs. M.K. Anthony AIR 1985 SC 48.
69
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116; Vijay Kumar Arora v. State (NCT of
Delhi), (2010) 2 SCC 353 [Para 9, Line 10]; Dilip v. State of M.P (2007) I SCC 4.
70
State of Manipur v. Okram Jiten Singh, 2005 Cri LJ 1646; Padala Veera Reddy vs State of Andhra Pradesh and
Others, AIR 1990 SC 79.
9|Page
from the same. The convictions that are provided by the circumstantial evidence should not
be presumed to be fool proof.71
¶34. Therefore, the circumstantial evidence relied upon by the State, to urge for the guilt of the
accused leaves a reasonable doubt. Hence, the counsel for the appellant submits before the
Hon’ble Court to disregard the circumstantial evidence presented before the court, as there
is no direct evidence to corroborate it.
3.3.Lack of Intention of the accused to commit the said offence

¶35. Intention to kill a person must be determined having regard to the factual scenario
involved in each case.72 Any fact is relevant which shows or constitutes a motive or
preparation for any relevant fact. Offense u/§ 300, DPC consists of both mens rea and actus
reus. The accused was involved in a relationship with the deceased for over a year, before
her death and wished to marry her. There is an absence of intention or motive to murder
the victim. This constitutes the lack of mens rea, an essential element of a criminal offence,
especially murder.73 Intention is purpose or design with which an act is done it is the fair
knowledge of the act coupled with the desire of it74. There is no presence of mala fide
intention. An act is intentional so far as it exists in idea before it exists in the fact;
knowledge is awareness of the consequences of act.75
¶36. The intention or knowledge of the accused must be as such necessary to constitute
murder.76 Instantly, the Appellant has had no intention to commit the alleged crimes.
3.4.The Rights of the Accused u/§ 167(2) of Criminal Procedural Code, 1973.
¶37. The Appellant has had the right to default bail as the number of days taken to file a charge
sheet has been 97 days from the date of filing of FIR. Hence, the time period of 90 days as
provided the CrPC §167(2) (a.) (i.), has clearly been violated and is entitled to the right to
bail.77
¶38. §167(2) provides the accused with the right to bail and any violation of the rights provided
to an individual, shall result into the violation of the rights entitled to an individual under
71
Swamy Shraddananda v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 12 SCC 288.
72
Benjamin v. State, (2008) 3 SCC 745.
73
Hyam v. DPP, [1975] AC 55; Refer Chapter IV, DPC,
74
Mangal Hemrum And Ors. vs State Of Orissa, 1982 Cri LJ 687.
75
Keshub Mahindra v. State of M.P, 1996 SCC (Cri) 1124.
76
Hari Singh. v. Sukhbir Singh and Ors, AIR 1988 SC 2127.
77
Noor Mohd vs State, ILR (1978) 2 Del 442.
10 | P a g e
Art 21.78 The appellant submits that the Hon’ble High Court must consider that these
provisions have not been followed in the instant case. Right to bail is not a mere statutory
right under the first proviso to §167(2) of the Code, but is part of the procedure established
by law under the Fundamental Right of Art. 21.79
3.5. Punishment of Death Penalty not apt in the instant case.
3.5.1. Guidelines laid down by Landmark Judgements
¶39. However, the SC has held that life imprisonment is the rule and death penalty is the
exception and must be awarded in the ‘rarest of the rare’ cases.80
¶40. SC has laid down five categories where society might mandate judges to impose the death
sentence, namely: manner of commission of murder, motive of the murder, anti-social or
abhorrent nature of the crime, magnitude of the crime and personality of the victim.81
¶41. Hence, in the instant matter, there is absence of aggravating and mitigating circumstances
to rightfully provide the Appellant the punishment of death penalty.
3.5.2. Aggravating Circumstances
¶42. Aggravating Circumstances are the circumstances which help determine the culpability
of the offence for awarding the punishment. The following are the relevant aggravating
circumstances laid down by the Supreme Court82 are if the murder has been committed
after previous planning and involves extreme brutality; or if the murder involves
exceptional depravity; or if. the murder is of a member of any of the armed forces of the
Union or of a member of any police force or of any public servant and was committed.
¶43. In the present case, it is clear that the accused has not committed the offence of murder.
It has been firmly established that the accused had no intention or motive to commit such
an offence, given that he was in a relationship with the deceased. Thus, it does not fall
78
Article 21 of the Delta Constitution.
79
Hussainara Khatoon (1) v. State of Bihar, (1980) 1 SCC 81; Bikramjit Singh vs The State of Punjab, (2020) 10
SCC 616.
80
Bachan Singh vs State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 898; Krishna Mochi and Ors. vs. State of Bihar AIR 2002 SC
1965; Union of India (UOI) vs. V. Sriharan and Ors, (2015) CCR 317.
81
Machhi Singh And Others vs State of Punjab, 1983 AIR 957; Jagmohan Singh vs The State of U. P; 1973 AIR
947.
82
Ramnaresh v. State of Chhattisgarh (2012) 4 SCC 257; Bachan Singh vs State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 898
Ediga Annamma v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1974) 4 SCC 443.
11 | P a g e
under any of the aforementioned circumstances as the accused did not commit any criminal
offence, resulting in an absence of the required aggravating circumstances.
3.5.3. Mitigating circumstances
¶44. Mitigating Circumstances are those factors mitigate the seriousness of the penalty. These
facts help reducing the sentence of the crime and make the sentence more reasonable. The
Court shall take into account the following mitigating circumstances: - the young age or
old age, the offence was committed under the influence of extreme mental or emotional
disturbance, the probability that the accused would not commit criminal acts of violence as
would constitute a continuing threat to society, probability that the accused can be reformed
and rehabilitated, that in the facts and circumstances of the case the accused believed that
he was morally justified in committing the offence, that the accused acted under the duress
or domination of another person, and presence of mental defects in the accused.
¶45. It is clear in the present case that the accused has not committed any criminal offence.
These are the guidelines for a case to meet the ‘rarest of the rare’ standard. The present case
does not meet the standard set by the SC for a rarest of the rare case.
¶46. Additionally, the Hon’ble Sessions Court failed to examine and consider the young age
of the Appellant, which is 23 and thus the probability of reformation and rehabilitation was
ignored. Further, the Appellant was threatened with strong words by the father of the
deceased to end his relationship, which could induce mental disturbance. Strong mental
disturbance is a mitigating factor as per the guidelines. Therefore, there was no real purpose
of the Appellant to receive the death penalty u/§ 302.
¶47. It is further important to note that, the Hon’ble Sessions Court of Capital Island, was
required to receive confirmation by the High Court before awarding the punishment of
Death Penalty83. The High court needs to look at both the facts and question of law involved
in awarding the death sentence by the Session Court and after the High court properly
investigated the matter awards death sentence to the person.
¶48. The counsel submits that as the prosecution has not proved the guilt of the appellant
beyond reasonable doubt, it would be against the interest of justice to uphold such
punishment. Considering the paucity of plausible evidence, the accused must be given the
benefit of the doubt.84
83
§28(2) of C.r.P.C.
84
Bhupendra Nath Prasad v. State of Bihar, (1992) 3 SCC 547; Dhiren Mondal and Ors. vs. The State of West
Bengal, 2017 SCC Online Cal 746.
12 | P a g e
¶49. Lastly, the Appellant, is a member of Scheduled Caste and there is no doubt that there are
rampant atrocities committed against Scheduled Castes. From the issues, it is not only
established that the Appellant is not guilty of the abovesaid crimes, but also that there has
been false criminal proceeding against him on the sole grounds of him belonging to
schedule caste. The other initial suspect, Mr. Tom Knight had given false information to
the police officer that the Appellant had kidnapped his daughter and this has troubled the
appellant and is barred by law.85
¶50. Mr. Tom has had the opportunity to plant and fabricate the evidence. Mr. Tom Knight
though, marked absent from the hospital on 11th of January was not marked absent on 10th
of January. There is a greater possibility that the ligature material was planted by the father
of the victim as they worked in the same public hospital. Whomsoever has planted the false
evidence against the Appellant must be punished with death as it is an atrocity against the
Scheduled Caste.86
¶51. The Hon’ble Sessions Court has not examined the statement of the mother or the brother
of the victim to establish whether the initial suspect, Mr. Tom showed any signs of abuse
to the victim. The information provided by the teachers are merely hearsay evidence, but
the Hon’ble Court has erred in not examining the family of the victim as the evidence
provided by them would have been direct evidence for knowing whether Mr. Tom was
abusive or not.
85
§3(1)(q) of The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
86
§3(2)(i) of The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
13 | P a g e
PRAYER
In the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, may this Hon’ble
High Court of Capital Island be pleased to:
1. Hold that the Accused is not guilty of Kidnapping the deceased victim as under §364
of the DPC and;
2. Hold that the Accused has not subjected the deceased Victim to the offence of Rape
as defined under §375 of DPC and;
3. Hold that the Accused is not guilty of murdering the Victim, in pursuance to §300 of
the DPC and;
4. Thereby review the judgement as passed by the Sessions Court of Capital Island,
sentencing the Accused to Death Penalty u/§§ 302, 364 and 376 of DPC;
AND/ OR
TO PASS ANY OTHER ORDER AS IT DEEMS FIT IN THE INTEREST OF EQUITY, JUSTICE AND
GOOD CONSCIENCE AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE APPELLANT SHALL DUTY
BOUND FOREVER PRAY.
Date: Sd/-
Place: (Counsel for the Appellant)
xv | P a g e

Before The High Court of Capital Island: Team Code L64Z

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

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

Before The High Court of Capital Island: Team Code L64Z

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2ND NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021.

TEAM CODE L64Z

BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF CAPITAL ISLAND

IN APPEAL NO. _____ OF 2021.

2nd NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETITON, 2021

Memorial for the Appellant

Index of Contents .......................................................................................................................ii

CrPC Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

1. An Analytical And Exhaustive Commentary On The Indian Penal Code, 1860, by

1. Supreme Court Cases (SCC)

3. Supreme Court Reporter (SCR)

INDEX OF CASE LAWs

SUPREME COURT CASES

Akram v. State of WB, (2012) 1 SCC 406. ............................................................................... 2

Laxman Naik v. State of Orissa, 1995 CrLJ 2692 ..................................................................... 4

Sudansu Sekhar Sahu v. State of Orissa, (2002) 10 SCC 743 ................................................... 6

Ahmad Koya v. Ameena Beebi, 1973 M.L.J. (Cri.) 129 ........................................................... 4

Stephen Seneviratne v. Kind, AIR 1936 P.C. 289 ..................................................................... 9

Hyam v. DPP, [1975] AC 55 ................................................................................................... 12

INTRODUCTION TO THE INVOLVED PARTIES

i. Kidnapping by the accused must be proved;

a) that such person might be murdered or

¶3. Kidnapping can be defined as a crime consisting of an unlawful restraint of a person's

A. The deceased consensually Entered the Black Scorpio Car

1.2. That Kidnapping was not done in order to commit Murder

1.1.1. Burden of Proof on Prosecution

accomplish by doing/ abstaining from doing an act. Intention, specifically an intention to

2.1. Necessary Determinants of Rape are Absent in the Instant Case

3.1.The accused shall be presumed to be innocent.

3.3.Lack of Intention of the accused to commit the said offence

BOUND FOREVER PRAY.

Place: (Counsel for the Appellant)

You might also like