TEAM CODE-L66Z

LEGAL ZEMS MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

BEFORE THE HON,BLE HIGH COURT OF REPUBLIC OF DELTA

IN THE MATTER OF

FRED ROCKWELL APPELLANT

VERSUS

REPUBLIC OF DELTA RESPONDENT

Cr.A.No.________/ 2021

UPON SUBMISSION BEFORE HON,BLE JUSTICE OF HIGH COURT

__________________________________________________________________________

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

Memorial on behalf of Respondent Page 1

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

• 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

Memorial on behalf of Respondent Page 2

 LIST OF ABBREVATIONS

AIR : All India Reporter

SCC : Supreme Court Cases

SC : Supreme Court

HC : High Court

DC : District Court

IEA : Indian Evidence Act

v. : versus

hon’ble : Honourable

DPC : Delta Penal Code

Art : Article

i.e : That is

Memorial on behalf of Respondent Page 3

__________________________________________________________________________

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
___________________________________________________________________________

STATUTES

➢ Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

➢ Indian Penal Code, 1860
➢ Indian Evidence Act, 1872
➢ The Constitution of India, 1950

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

Memorial on behalf of Respondent Page 4

 LEXICONS

➢ Garner Bryana, Black’s law Dictionary, 7th Edn.1981, West Group.

➢ Collin’s Gem English Thesaurus, 8th Edn. 2016. Collins.
➢ Catherine Soanes, Oxford Dictionary Thesaurus, 40th Edn. 2006, Oxford University
Press.

Memorial on behalf of Respondent Page 5

 LIST OF CASES REFERED

___________________________________________________________________________

SR.NO. CASE NAME AND CITATION PAGE NO

1 Om Prakash versus State of Haryana [2012] 1 MLJ (CRL) 372 15

2 State of U.P. Versus Chhoteylal ,[2011] 3 MLJ (CRL) 556 15
3 Prem Prakash @ Lillu & anr versus State of Haryana, LNIND 15
2011 SC 625
4 State of Mahrashtra versus Anil alias Raju Namdeo Patil, LNIND 15
2005 BOM 1166
5 The state of Maharashtra & others versus Renukabai @ Rinku 15
and others, LNIND 2004 BOM 955
6 Virsa Singh v State of Punjab AIR 1958 SC 465 18
7 Bakhatwar v State of Haryana AIR 1979 SC 1006 18
8 State of Bihar v Govind Singh & ors, (2009) 15 SCC 366 19
9 Hammu v State of MP ,AIR 1979 SC 1755 19
10 Mathai v State of Kerala , 2005 (3) SCC 260 19
11 Stae of UP v Indrajeet Alias Sukhatha , 2000 Cri, L.J 4663 20
12 Om Parkash v. The State of Punjab AIR 1961 SC 1782 21
13 Parsuram Pandey and Ors. v. The State of Bihar AIR 2004 SC 5068 21
14 Hari Mohan Mandal v. State of Jharkhand (2004)12 SCC 220 21
15 Balkar Singh v State of Utrakhand (2009) 15 SCC 366 21
16 Lilabati Basiya v State of Asaam & ors 2004 22
17 R. Prakash v. State of Karnataka, (2004) 9 SCC 27 22
18 Vasant Vithu Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra, (2004) 9 SCC31 23
19 Laxman v State of Maharashtra, AIR 1974 SC 1803 23
20 Padamati Venkata Sundara Rao v. State of A.P, 2006 CriLJ 2168 23
21 Narendran Nair alias Unni v. State of Kerala, 1989 Cr. L.R 370 24

Memorial on behalf of Respondent Page 6

22 Md. Mannan @ Abdul Mannan Versus State of Bihar, [2011] 4 MLJ 25
(CRL) 716
23 State of Maharashtra v. Baram Bama Patil and Ors, AIR I983 SC 305 26
24 Abhiram Mukhi v. State of Orissa, 1996 CLT 576 26
25 Parsuram Pandey and Ors. v. The State of Bihar, AIR 2004 SC 5068 27
26 State v. Vikas Yadav & anr, LNIND 2015 DEL 1024 28
27 Harendra Singh v State of Delhi 1968 AIR 867, 1968 SCR (2) 246 28
28 Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu Versus John David, [2011] 3 MLJ 29
(CRL) 725
29 Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 29
2011 SC 1625
30 Shatrughna Baban Meshram Versus State of Maharashtra, [2021] 1 30
MLJ (CRL) 38
31 Shantabai & Ors v State of Maharashtra , AIR 2006 SC 1447 31
32 Bantu v. State of U.P , 2008 (2) Crime 264 (SC) 33
33 Dileep Singh v. State of Bihar, (2005)1 SCC 88 33
34 Koppula Venkatrao v. State of AP,(2004)3 SCC 602 34
35 Mukesh & Anr vs State For Nct Of Delhi & Ors, AIR 2002 34
SC 1859
36 State of UP v. Chottey Lal, (2011)2 SCC 550 34
37 Shakshi Vs. Union of India, 2004 Cri.L.J. 2991 35
38 State v Bhupendra Dutt Joshi , AIR 2008 SC 1628 36
39 Dhananjoy Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal, (1994) 2 SCC 220 37
40 Md. Mannan @ Abdul Mannan Versus State of Bihar, [2011] 4 MLJ 37
(CRL) 716
41 Emperor v. Gangaram, (1920) Bom LR 1274 38
42 Amrit Lal Hazra v. Emperor, AIR 1916 Cal 188 39
43 Bhima Shaw v. State, AIR 1956 Ori 177 39
44 Nimoo Pal Majumdar v. State , AIR 1955 Cal 559 39
45 Babulal v. State , AIR 1959 Cal 693 39
46 Dudh Nath Pandey v. State of U.P – (1981) 2 SCC 166 . 40

Memorial on behalf of Respondent Page 7

 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of Republic of Delta has jurisdiction to hear the instant matter
under section 374 (2)1 of the Criminal Procedure Code , 1973 .

1
(2) 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 2 has been passed against
him or against any other person convicted at the same trial], may appeal to the High Court

Memorial on behalf of Respondent Page 8

 STATEMENT OF FACTS

For the sake of brevity and convenience of the Hon`ble Court the facts of the present case are
summarized as follows:

BACKGROUND

1. Susan Knight (Deceased); 18 years of age, a student of 12th standard of BAPS

International School, Capital Island. She resided with her mother name Olivia Knight, father
named Tom Knight, and her younger brother named Daniel Knight. She was one of the
brightest students of her class, and she was known for her gentle and soft spoken nature. She
was an ideal child for her parents as she was having an amiable nature.

2. Tom Knight (Suspect No 1), He was well-known Doctor by profession in SIIMS

hospital of Capital Island. He has been working there since 15 years. He shared an amicable
relationship with his family; he was very close to his daughter.

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”.

MURDER OF SUSAN KNIGHT

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.

Memorial on behalf of Respondent Page 9

7. During Investigation, Investigating Officer Alec Hardy found Dead Body on 12th
January 2020 at 4.42 PM. The body was blooded and dirty on an idyllic beach, a small, lively
beach on the capital Island. The forensic team dug up the area and retrieved the body of a
female in her mid-eighteen. There was jewellery worn by her which was sent for
identification. The body was sent to SIIMS Hospital, for a post mortem while preliminary
report concluded that the death was a due to strangulation with ligature material. There was
some ligature marks on neck & purplish red discoloration of the skin on her body & the
female has sexual intercourse before her death. The hair on the body was extracted and was
then sent for a DNA analysis. Upon comparison with a sample taken from Susan’s hairbrush,
it was concluded beyond doubt that the body was that of Susan Knight. A First Investigation
Report was filed on 12 January 2020 by the investigating Officer.

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

Memorial on behalf of Respondent Page 10

some blood stain on it in the hospital locker of Fred. That material was then sent for
examination to the laboratory.

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.

DECISION OF HON’BLE SESSION COURT

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.

___________________________________________________________________________

Memorial on behalf of Respondent Page 11

 STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1. WHETHER FRED SHOULD BE HELD GUILTY KIDNAPPING & ABDUCTION

2. WHETHER FRED IS LIABLE UNDER SECTION 326 OF IPC
3. WHETHER FRED SHOULD BE CONVICTED FOR MURDER
4. WHETHER FRED SHOULD BE HELD LIABLE FOR RAPE
5. WHETHER TOM SHOULD BE TREATED AS SUSPECT

Memorial on behalf of Respondent Page 12

 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE 1: WHETHER FRED SHOULD BE HELD GUILTY KIDNAPPING &

ABDUCTION

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 her body
so that nobody can identify her.

ISSUE 2: WHETHER FRED IS LIABLE UNDER SECTION 326 OF IPC

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

ISSUE 3: WHETHER FRED CAN BE CONVICTED FOR MURDER

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.

ISSUE 4: WHETHER FRED SHOULD BE HELD LIABLE FOR RAPE

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

ISSUE 5: WHETHER TOM SHOULD BE TREATED AS SUSPECT

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.

Memorial on behalf of Respondent Page 13

 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

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.

Memorial on behalf of Respondent Page 14

 And if really tried to search for Susan then why didn’t he try to contact the police or
her family.
5. In Om Prakash v/s State of Haryana2, there was no direct evidence of abduction
before the commission of rape by the accused, but collective evidence laid down a
clear story joining all links and proving accused as guilty. Here, Supreme Court held
accused as guilty based only on circumstantial evidences.
6. In the case State of U.P. v/s Chhoteylal3, SC mentioned on flimsy grounds, the
accused convicted of a serious crime of kidnapping and rape has been acquitted.
There is no application of mind to the evidence of the prosecutrix at all. Having not
been benefited by the proper consideration of the evidence by the High Court, we
have looked into the entire evidence on record carefully.
7. In Prem Prakash @ Lillu & anr v/s State of Haryana4, It was held, evidence
essentially, must be viewed collectively, and mere reliance on non presence of direct
evidence does not serve justice. Statement of prosecutrix before Court fully supported
by other witnesses and medical evidence and hence accused was held guilty.
8. In the case The state of Mahrashtra v/s Anil alias Raju Namdeo Patil5, The
circumstantial evidence clearly and unerringly points to the accused Anil alias Raju
Patil for the commission of the offence of kidnapping and murder of Paras and the
demand of ransom amount after the murder of the child and also the offence of
destroying the evidence by trying to dispose of the dead body of Paras.

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

Memorial on behalf of Respondent Page 15

 conviction without granting pardon to Accused Held, Circumstantial evidence
collected during investigation were in themselves sufficient to secure conviction of
offenders.

11. Here now it is clearly evident through circumstantial evidences that the accused was
correctly held guilty of offence of abduction under Sec 364 .

Memorial on behalf of Respondent Page 16

____ __________________________________________________________________

ISSUE 2

WHETHER FRED IS LIABLE FOR GREVIOUS HURT U/S 326 OF IPC

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

Memorial on behalf of Respondent Page 17

 life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten
years, and shall also be liable to fine.

2.1 INJURIES INFLICTED INTENTIONALLY AND SUFFICIENT IN ORDINARY

COURSE OF NATURE TO CAUSE DEATH.

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:

(i)There must be bodily injury caused by the accused

(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 Haryana8.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

Secondly - Permanent privation of the sight of either eye.

Thirdly - Permanent privation of the hearing of either ear.

Fourthly - Privation of any member or joint.

Fifthly - Destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any members or joint.

7
Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1958 SC 465
8
Bakhtawar v. State of Haryana, AIR 1979 SC 1006

Memorial on behalf of Respondent Page 18

 Sixthly - Permanent disfiguration of the head or face.

Seventhly - Fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth.

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

Memorial on behalf of Respondent Page 19

 the hymen was not intact. It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Mathai v. State of Kerala11, that the expression “any instrument which, used as a
weapon of offence, is likely to cause death", has to be gauged taking note of heading
of section. What would constitute a "dangerous weapon" would depend upon the facts
of each case and no generalisation can be made. It is submitted that tooth is an
instrument for cutting and serves as weapon of offence and defence. Where the
petitioner bit off the tip of his wife's nose by his teeth, he can be convicted under Sec.
326 of IPC. This proves that any instrument can be dangerous and that would be
covered under Section 326 of IPC.
25. It is submitted that Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Indrajeet Alias Sukhatha 12, held
that there is no such thing as a regular or earmarked weapon for committing murder or
for that matter a hurt. Whether a particular article can per se cause any serious wound
or grievous hurt or injury has to be determined factually.
26. The evidence used in this case clearly shows that the hurt or the injury that was
caused was covered under the expression 'grievous hurt as defined under Section 320
IPC. The inevitable conclusion is that a grievous hurt was caused. Therefore it is
submitted that the injuries are caused by the use of ligature material and forceful
sexual intercourse which caused genital injuries to the victims and it has been proved
above that such act can be used as dangerous weapon as per Section 326 of IPC.
Hence the accused has committed an offence of voluntarily causing grievous hurt to
the victim and therefore should be held liable 326.

11
Mathai v. State of Kerala, 2005 (3) SCC 260
12
State of U.P. v. Indrajeet Alias Sukhatha, 2000 Cri . L.J . 4663

Memorial on behalf of Respondent Page 20

 ISSUE 3

WHETHER FRED SHOULD BE CONVICTED FOR MURDER U/S 302

3.1 THE ESSENTIAL REQUISITES OF MURDER.

27. It is submitted that for the purpose of convicting under Section 30213 of the IPC that
the burden on the prosecution is to prove that the murder has been committed by the
accused. And to prove murder it is essential for the prosecution to prove that the act
by which the death is caused -

(i)is done with the intention of causing death14, or

(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

Memorial on behalf of Respondent Page 21

 may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any
person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to
such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned."It is submitted that to constitute an
offence under Section 307 two ingredients of the offence must be present:-

(i) An intention of or knowledge relating to commission of murder; and

(ii) The doing of an act towards it."

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 .

3.2 THAT THE ACCUSED HAD AN INTENTION OF MURDERING SUSAN KNIGHT

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

Memorial on behalf of Respondent Page 22

 was some ligature marks on neck & purplish red discoloration of the skin on his body
, it cannot be said that that the appellant had no intention of causing death of the
deceased, the mens rea was present which can be clearly seen by the amount of
injuries deceased has suffered through the way her body was found which was very
difficult to identify and based on forensic and post-mortem report it is evident it is
pre-planned murder.
35. It is most respectfully submitted that it has been held in Vasant Vithu Jadhav v. State
of Maharashtra23 that “The Code uses the word intention, in the sense that something
is intentionally done if it is done deliberately or purposely, in other words is a willed
though not necessarily a desired result which is the purpose of the deed." It is a settled
law that whether a person intended to kill another would depend on the facts and
circumstances of each case.
36. In the case Laxman v State of Maharashtra24, It was mentioned moreover, the
intention to kill is not required in every case, mere knowledge that natural and
probable consequences of an act would be death will suffice for a conviction under
sec. 302 of IPC."The intention to kill can be inferred from the murder and nature of
the injuries caused to the victim.
37. In the judgment of Padamati Venkata Sundara Rao v. State of A.P.25, it was observed
by the Court that: "The intention is to be gathered from various circumstances and not
merely form the consequence that ensures. It is submitted that Section 300 of IPC
provides that" Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, if the act by which the death
is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or- Fourthly.-If the person
committing the act knows that it 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 injury as
aforesaid." severity of the blow, the part of the body where the injury is inflicted are
some of the factors that may be taken into consideration to determine the intention."
that ensure. The nature of the weapon used, manner in which it is used, motive for the
crime,
38. It is to be submitted that the lack of physical power of a women leads a general
nervousness in women. She lacks preparedness and has no faith in a force she has not

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

Memorial on behalf of Respondent Page 23

 experienced in her body; she does not dare to be enterprising, to revolt, to invent,
deemed to docility, to resignation, she can take in society only a place already made
for her. As Susan was very sweet and amicable in nature it is very easy to mold her
and to commit offense of rape with and several bodily injuries, but when she started
resisting the accused had murdered her and the ligature material which was available
with him makes the context of the intention and preparation of murder very well.
39. The Supreme Court upheld the opinion of Strait J., in the landmark judgment of Om
Prakash v. The State of Punjab26, Accused taking undue advantage of his position. It
is pertinent to mention here that the accused was armed with dangerous weapon and
caused death of deceased who was unarmed, which clearly shows that the accused
acted in cruelly manner and took undue advantage of his position and therefore
intention to kill should be attributed to the accused. For this purpose reliance can be
placed upon Narendran Nair alias Unni v. State of Kerala27" where it was held that "In
a case there is evidence that the accused acted in a cruel manner taking undue
advantage of the position that he was armed with a dangerous weapon whereas the
deceased was unarmed. When a person causes an injury on vital part of the body, the
intention to kill can be attributed to him. When serious injury has been caused on a
vital part with dangerous weapon, it must necessarily lead to the inference that the
accused intended to kill the deceased."

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

Memorial on behalf of Respondent Page 24

 focus on individual life histories, attitudes and behaviors in discourses on prevention
of violence against women that is the main reason why Susan’s father don’t want her
to be in relationship with Fred.
41. As Susan’s father warned Fred Rockwell to stay away from his daughter as a father
concern , as he is the compounder in the hospital where Tom is doctor he knows that
Fred is not a suitable boy for Susan and in the statement given by Fred to police in
F.I.R he was evasive when asked about when he has last seen Susan , which clearly
indicated that he is hiding something , and as per the F.I.R report Tom was certain
that the last person who can meet Susan must be Fred
.

3.3 ACCUSED HAD MOTIVE TO KILL

42. Under Sec 8, Evidence Act stipulates that any fact is relevant which shows or
constitutes motive or preparation for any fact in issue or relevant fact. It is further
pertinent to note that if there is motive in doing an act, then the adequacy of that
motive is not in all cases necessary. Heinous offences have been committed for very
slight motive.
In the present case, all the injuries inflicted on the victim make it clear that the
accused had clear motive to murder Susan.
43. In the case Md. Mannan @ Abdul Mannan Versus State of Bihar28, Since the rape and
murder on the victim girl has been proved by medical evidence and since such
offences were committed against the victim soon after her kidnapping by the
appellant, a presumption arises against the appellant that he committed rape and
murder of the victim and tried to conceal the evidence of such offence by hiding the
body at a lonely place concealed by standing crops.
44. In the instant case where Tom Knight and Fred Rockwell dosen’t like each other and
not in good terms and after the Tom warning to stay away from Susan this is the
reason of Susan being frustrated at home because Fred used to blackmail her to meet
him. Fred wanted to take revenge that’s why he had abducted Susan from her School
and in anger and rage he wanted to take revenge, so he murder the sweet innocent girl
Susan to fulfil his rage, anger and to fulfil his revenge

28
Md. Mannan @ Abdul Mannan Versus State of Bihar, [2011] 4 MLJ (CRL) 716

Memorial on behalf of Respondent Page 25

 3.4 CIRCUMSTANCIAL EVIDENCES PROVING GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE
DOUBT
45. It is most respectfully submitted that when the Police arrived Susan’s body was
blooded and dirty on an idyllic beach, a small, lively beach on the capital Island
.Susan knight was found with multiple injuries. Even though there are multiple
injuries on the body, only the fracture of the hyoid bone was lethal enough to cause
death.
46. In the recent judgment of Parsuram Pandey and Ors. v. The State of Bihar 29, It was
held that: "For the purpose of Section 307 what is material is the intention or the
knowledge and not the consequence of the actual act done for the purpose of carrying
out the intention. Section clearly contemplates an act which is done with intention of
causing death but which fails to bring about the intended consequence on account of
intervening circumstances. The intention or knowledge of the accused must be such as
is necessary to constitute murder. In the absence of intention or knowledge which is
the necessary ingredient of Section 307, there can be no offence 'of attempt to
murder'. Intent which is a state of mind cannot be proved by precise direct evidence,
as a fact it can only be detected or inferred from other factors. Some of the relevant
considerations may be the nature of the weapon used, the place where injuries were
inflicted, the nature of the injuries and the circumstances in which the incident took
place." The condition of dead body was found in badly injured condition with very
grievous hurt in the vaginal area, the hyoid bone was broken and also due to which
identification was also very difficult. Thus, in light of the prevailing circumstances
and the relevant considerations it can be clearly concluded that Accused had the
required murderous intention.
47. It is submitted that intention cannot be proved by direct evidence but is to be detected
from the facts and circumstances of case. There are various relevant considerations
like the nature of weapon used, the place where the injuries were reflected, the nature
of the injuries caused, at the opportunity available which the accused gets etc."

29
Parsuram Pandey and Ors. v. The State of Bihar, AIR 2004 SC 5068

Memorial on behalf of Respondent Page 26

 48. In State v. Vikas Yadav & anr30, it was mentioned that in most of the cases where
death sentences are awarded for rape and murder and the like, there is practically no
scope for having an eyewitness. They are not committed in the public view. But the
very nature of things in such cases, the available evidence is circumstantial evidence.
It is to be submitted that the autopsy report given by SIMS hospital narrates that this
atrocious behaviour of Fred inflicted upon where Susan has received injury. .
Wound no. 1 is caused by unnatural causes due to an external force or pressure upon
the neck with some ligature material. whereas
Wound no. 2 is natural.
Wound no. 1 is caused ,t here are genital injuries to a great extent ,and the tongue
swollen and often bruised, dark coloured and protruded. There is hemorrhage in the
base of tongue; 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. Vulval opening wide easily and witting 1 finger. Blood stained
discharge inside vagina. Hymen not intact.
31
49. Harender Singh vs State Of Delhi it was held that no. of injuries inflicted on
deceased body are irrelevant, the injury that is fatal is only the relevant one. While
investigation the police found the ligature material with the blood stain in Fred’s
locker which when matched with the Susan DNA it. The police was well versed by
doing their duty and catch holding Fred .
50. It is submitted that while Fred giving statement to police he was evasive and was
missing for two days i.e 11th and 10th and as per the FIR reports Susan was missing
from her home since 9th and as per the reports of autopsy she died on 10th or 11th
January.
51. As per the eye witness of the school guard Dale he saw Susan going in a black scorpio
, and it was very unusual because she never miss her classes and as Fred was so eager
to meet her and he blackmails Susan ,that’s the only possible reason why such a bright
student would miss the day of her school , which states that there was clear intention
of Fred to elope with her but Susan doesn’t know that he wants to murder her and he
forcefully committed sexual intercourse and killed her and abandon her dead body
near the idyllic beach .

30
State v. Vikas Yadav & anr, LNIND 2015 DEL 1024
31
Harendra Singh v/s State of Delhi 1968 AIR 867, 1968 SCR (2) 246

Memorial on behalf of Respondent Page 27

 52. As per the FIR report which was lodged by the father Tom Knight and her mother
Olivia Knight they suspected Fred as Susan father Tom doesn’t want her daughter to
be Fred as his character was not good and no father wants bad for her child and
warned Fred to stay away with Susan, incited by this warning Fred abducted Susan
and made his intention to take out Susan’s father anger on her.
53. As Fred was a compounder where Tom works as Doctor he very well knows how
Fred would be and doesn’t want her daughter to be in relationship with a boy who is
unfit for her child, which is a genuine father concern
54. The medical officers were independent persons; they have carried out post-mortem
independently as they are experts and write true and correct facts in respect of injuries
and the cause of death. Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu Versus John David32,
Supreme Court stated that, ‘There are enough circumstantial evidence, as discussed
above, to hold that it is none else but the accused who could have caused the
concealment of torso and limbs because it was the accused who had severed the head
of as found earlier and, therefore, he must have been in possession of the torso and
limbs, which were also subsequently recovered and were also proved to be that of
deceased Hence, minor loopholes and irregularities in the investigation process cannot
form the crux of the case on which the respondent can rely upon to prove his
innocence when there are strong circumstantial evidences deduced from the said
investigation which logically and rationally point towards the guilt of the accused
prosecution has established its case on the basis of strong and cogent circumstantial
evidence and that on the basis of the circumstances proved, there cannot be any other
possible or plausible view favouring the accused. The view taken by the High Court is
totally erroneous and outcome of misreading and misinterpreting the evidence on
record.’
55. In Santosh Kumar Satish bhushan Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra33, all the accused
persons including the appellant were unemployed young men in search of
employment. In execution of a plan proposed by the appellant and accepted by them,
they kidnapped their friend with the motive of procuring ransom from his family but
later murdered him and after cutting his body into pieces disposed of the same at
different places. One of the accused persons turned approver and the prosecution case
was based entirely on his evidence. The trial court awarded death sentence to the

32
Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu Versus John David, [2011] 3 MLJ (CRL) 725
33
Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2011 SC 1625

Memorial on behalf of Respondent Page 28

 appellant. The High Court confirmed the death sentence. In appeal, it observed that
punishment cannot be determined on grounds of proportionality alone.

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
56. 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.
57. Shatrughna Baban Meshram Versus State of Maharashtra34, 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
cause death and the cause of death is asphyxia due to strangulation. the injury mark
found on the neck on the deceased are possible with the ligature material shown to

34
Shatrughna Baban Meshram Versus State of Maharashtra, [2021] 1 MLJ (CRL) 38

Memorial on behalf of Respondent Page 29

 him The detection on the blood of shoe lace got recovered by the accused coupled
with the fact that DNA isolated from the blood found on the shoe lace was found
similar on the DNA of his wife.
58. It is humbly submitted that here when the police find the blood stain and ligature
material in the locker of Fred it is a direct evidence that fred has committed such
heinous act and used his force to commit murder, rape and then disposed of her body
in an idyllic beach in Capital Island , the evidence which the police has found i.e
ligature material from fred’s locker and it was matching with autopsy report and there
is no failure in finding evidence and fred has not been arrested merely on the basis of
speculation
59. The prosecution humbly submits before this Hon'ble court that in the instant case
there is no lack of circumstantial evidence to prove the guilt of the accused for the
offence of murder as given under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Supreme Court of India recently in Shantabai and Ors, v. State of Maharashtra 35"
discussed the tests relating to circumstantial evidence as follows:

(i)the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must

be cogently and firmly established;

(ii)those circumstances should be of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards

guilt of the accused;

(iii)the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that

there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime
was committed by the accused and none else; and

The circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and

incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the
accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the
accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence.

60. 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
guilty beyond any reasonable doubt The circumstantial evidence and material

35
Shantabai and Ors, v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2006 SC 1447

Memorial on behalf of Respondent Page 30

 evidence presented before this hon'ble court is enough to held the accused guilty of
the offences under section 302 , and 376

Memorial on behalf of Respondent Page 31

 ISSUE 4

WHETHER FRED SHOULD BE HELD LIABLE FOR RAPE U/S 376

61. 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.
62. The Apex Court in Bantu v. State of U.P36 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.”
63. 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.
64. The Supreme Court in Dileep Singh v. State of Bihar37, observed that “the will and
consent often interlace and an act done against the will of the person can be said to be
an act done without consent, the Indian Penal Code categorizes these two expressions
under separate heads in order to as comprehensive as possible.”

36
Bantu v. State of U.P , 2008 (2) Crime 264 (SC)
37
Dileep Singh v. State of Bihar, (2005)1 SCC 88

Memorial on behalf of Respondent Page 32

 65. The Supreme Court in Koppula Venkatrao v. State of AP38 held that “The sine qua
non of the offence of rape is penetration, and not ejaculation. Ejaculation without
penetration constitutes an attempt to commit rape and not actual rape. Definition of
rape‟ as contained in Section 375 IPC refers to sexual intercourse‟ and the
Explanation appended to the section provides that penetration is sufficient to
constitute the sexual intercourse necessary to the offence of rape. Intercourse means
sexual connection.”
66. Mukesh & Anr vs State For Nct Of Delhi & Ors39 on 5 May, 2017 The supreme court
held that we have a responsibility to set good values and guidance for posterity. In the
words of great scholar, Swami Vivekananda, “the best thermometer to the progress of
a nation is its treatment of its women.” Crime against women not only affects
women’s self esteem and dignity but also degrades the pace of societal development. I
hope that this gruesome incident in the capital and death of this young woman will be
an eye-opener for a mass movement “to end violence against women” and “respect
for women and her dignity” and sensitizing public at large on gender justice. Every
individual, irrespective of his/her gender must be willing to assume the responsibility
in fight for gender justice and also awaken public opinion on gender justice. Public at
large, in particular men, are to be sensitized on gender justice. The battle for gender
justice can be won only with strict implementation of legislative provisions,
sensitization of public, taking other pro-active steps at all levels for combating
violence against women and ensuring widespread attitudinal changes and
comprehensive change in the existing mind set. We hope that this incident will pave
the way for the same.
67. The Apex Court in State of UP v. Chottey Lal40 has held that “be that as it may, in our
view, clause Sixth of Section 375 IPC is not attracted since the prosecutrix has been
found to be above 16 years .In the facts of the case what is crucial to be considered is
whether clause First or Second of Section 375 IPC is attracted. The expressions
„against her will‟ and „without her consent‟ may overlap sometimes but surely the
two expressions in clause first and clause second has different connotation and
dimension, therefore the defence cannot bring the word consent as the will and
consent are two different things and any force of this kind clearly tells us that for the

38
Koppula Venkatrao v. State of AP,(2004)3 SCC 602
39
Mukesh & Anr vs State For Nct Of Delhi & Ors, AIR 2002 SC 1859
40
State of UP v. Chottey Lal, (2011)2 SCC 550

Memorial on behalf of Respondent Page 33

 any offence such as rape and murder actus rea also plays an important role which by
autopsy report and circumstantial evidence clearly points out that Fred has committed
such heinous offences .
68. Supreme Court of India while showing its concern over most heinous crime rape
observed “Rape is a crime not only against the women; it is a crime against the entire
society. It destroys the entire psychology of a woman and push her into deep
emotional crisis Rapes is therefore the most hated crime. It is a crime against basic
human rights and is violation of the victims most cherished rights, namely right of life
which includes right to live with human dignity contained in Article 2141. Rape for a
woman is deathless shame and must be dealt with as a gravest against human dignity;
it is violation with violence on the private person of a woman
69. Supreme Court in the case of Shakshi Vs. Union of India 42, observed that “….the
definition of rape in Section 375 cannot be enlarged so as to include all forms of
penetration such as penile/ vaginal penetration, penile/ oral penetration, penile/ anal
penetration, finger/ vaginal and finger/ anal penetration and object/ vaginal
penetration, as it may violate the guarantee enshrined in Article 20 (1) of the
Constitution of India which says that no person shall be convicted of any offence
except for violation of law in force at the time of the commission of the act charges as
an offence, nor be subjected to a penalty greater than that which might have been
inflicted under the law in force at the time of the commission of the offence…”. There
is growing demand world over for inclusion of Digital Rape/ Male Rape/ Oral Rape/
Anal & Rectal Rape within the definition of Rape and the fact that it is the cases like
the present one which sometimes reflects the Institutional helplessness in
appropriately dealing with the crime on account of the lag in law. Section 37743
Indian Penal Code to a large extent does cover case of carnal intercourse committed
by a person against the order of nature but technically its applicability is limited and
by operation it becomes difficult to include certain category of cases where the
offence has been committed by the offender on another with an object. It is only to
cover all kinds of penetrations without a person’s consent in any manner, that the
need for a re-look at the existing laws has been necessitated.

41
Article 21- Protection of life and personal liberty, The constitution of Delta, 1949
42
Shakshi Vs. Union of India, 2004 Cri.L.J. 2991
43
S. 377 – Unnatural offences, Delta Penal Code, 1860

Memorial on behalf of Respondent Page 34

 70. The present case is an eye opener and it is time that the Legislature take a serious note
of the extent of depravation which exists in the Indian Urban Society, victims of
which are usually small children and senior citizens being easy targets; the cause of
which could be the X-rated material easily available in the market and internet. This
case sounds a wakeup call for the Indian Legislators to step in and think about having
a re-look at the definition of Rape so as to specifically include the instances of Digital
Rape/ Male Rape/ Anal Rape and make the offence Gender Neutral or to formulate a
separate exhaustive legislation covering all categories cases of sexual assault.
71. The Mumbai sessions court while awarding life sentences in the Mumbai Gang Rape
case to four of the accused in the telephone operator case. Has stated that “The
manner in which the offence was committed reflects the depravity of the accused. The
crime was not an impulsive act, but the premeditated outcome of against society.
They sexually ravished the girl and left her in a pathetic state. A proper signal has to
be sent out to society. Even if in this case the accused are not reformed, others like
them will be deterred. In some cases, mercy is justified. But in this case it would be
misplaced and would be a mockery of justice”

72. 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.
73. 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
seeking corroboration of her statement in material particulars44. If for some reason

44
State Vs. Bhupender Dutt Joshi, AIR 2008SC 1628

Memorial on behalf of Respondent Page 35

 the Court finds it difficult to place implicit reliance on her testimony, it may look for
evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony, short of corroboration required
in the case of an accomplice.
74. In case of Dhananjoy Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal45, This Court dealt with a
case of rape and murder of a young girl of about 18 years. The Court opined that a
real and abiding concern for the dignity of human life is required to be kept in mind
by courts while considering the confirmation of the sentence of death but a cold-
blooded and pre-planned murder without any provocation, after committing rape on
an innocent and defenceless young girl of 18 years exists in a rarest of rare cases
which calls for no punishment other than capital punishment.
75. In the case Md. Mannan @ Abdul Mannan Versus State of Bihar46, Since the rape and
murder on the victim girl has been proved by medical evidence and since such
offences were committed against the victim soon after her kidnapping by the
appellant, a presumption arises against the appellant that he committed rape and
murder of the victim and tried to conceal the evidence of such offence by hiding the
body at a lonely place concealed by standing crops.
76. 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 and
rape under Section 302, 376, 326 of the Indian Penal Code and according to evidence
was registered against accused Fred Rockwell.

45
Dhananjoy Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal, (1994) 2 SCC 220
46
Md. Mannan @ Abdul Mannan Versus State of Bihar, [2011] 4 MLJ (CRL) 716

Memorial on behalf of Respondent Page 36

 ISSUE 5

WHETHER TOM SHOULD BE TREATED AS SUSPECT

77. 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.
78. 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 5447
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.
79. In Emperor v. Gangaram48, The Supreme Court has observed that accused is entitled
to a presumption of innocence and evidence about his bad character is not relevant

47
Section 54- Previous bad character not relevant, except in reply, Indian Evidence Act, 1872
48
Emperor v. Gangaram, (1920) Bom LR 1274

Memorial on behalf of Respondent Page 37

 unless he adduces some evidence of his good character, in which case contrary
evidence of his bad character may be advanced by way of rebuttal.
80. In Amrit Lal Hazra v. Emperor49, in the same case, the Court excluded evidence
which described the accused as a law-breaker, holding that such evidence amounted
to evidence about the bad character of the accused. The guilt of the accused has to be
established by proving the facts alleged by the prosecution and not by casting
aspersions on his character, such evidence only creates prejudice and does not lead to
any determination or substantiation of the guilt of the accused.
81. Moreover in the case Bhima Shaw v. State50, evidence of bad character cannot be
used to defeat a legitimate defence available to the accused.
It is humbly submitted before this hon’ble court that Tom Knight cannot be treated as
a suspect as there is no direct evidence which proves his guilty, also the circumstances
taken into the note while investigation are insufficient to prove him guilty beyond
reasonable doubts.
82. When the bad character of the accused is not in issue, even references as to the bad
character of the accused are not allowed. In the cases of Nimoo Pal Majumdar v.
State51 and Babulal v. State52, the accused had been constantly referred to as goondas
or thugs by the prosecution. In the latter case, the Court had pointedly drawn the
attention of the jury at one place to the fact that the accused was a goonda. The
Calcutta High Court reiterated the principle that in a criminal proceeding the fact that
the accused has a bad character is immaterial and irrelevant unless evidence has been
given that he has a good character, and even then only to rebut such evidence of good
character. The Court observed that constant references to the accused as thugs was
bound to create prejudice against them and that it was against all rules of fairness and
evidence to allow evidence which had no probative value and high prejudicial value.
83. Here , Tom’s behaviour with his daughter is not enough to show that he is guilty
because it is a father- daughter bond, and any father would scold his daughter
whenever necessary. Also when Tom’s after knowing about the relationship between
his daughter and Fred was justified as that is what a father would do for the
betterment of his daughter. Also there is no evidence to show that Tom was a man
with bad character or criminal reputation.

49
Amrit Lal Hazra v. Emperor, AIR 1916 Cal 188
50
Bhima Shaw v. State, AIR 1956 Ori 177
51
Nimoo Pal Majumdar v. State , AIR 1955 Cal 559
52
Babulal v. State , AIR 1959 Cal 693

Memorial on behalf of Respondent Page 38

 5.1 WHETHER PLEA OF ALIBI IS PROVED

84. 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
85. 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 53
86. Dudh Nath Pandey v. State of U.P 54. 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.
87. 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
88. 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.

53
Section 103 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872
54
Dudh Nath Pandey v. State of U.P – (1981) 2 SCC 166 .

Memorial on behalf of Respondent Page 39

 89. It is also submitted before the hon’ble court that mentioning the previous behaviour of
Tom is not just an attempt to put fake allegations but it also aims at tarnishing his
image in public.Therefore it humbly submitted that tom should no longer should be
treated as an suspect .

Memorial on behalf of Respondent Page 40

 PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, IN THE LIGHT OF THE ISSUES RAISED, ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

AND AUTHORITIES CITED. THE PETITIONER HUMBLY PRAYED THAT THIS
HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO OR HOLD:

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.

Declare Tom Knight as innocent.

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.

For this act of kindness, the respondent shall ever pray.

All of which is humbly prayed.

(Counsel for Respondent)

Memorial on behalf of Respondent Page 41