L68Z 2nd NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, (LEGAL ZEMS), 2021

2nd NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETTION, 2021

LEGAL ZEMS

IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CAPITAL ISLAND

Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.____ OF 2020

IN THE MATTER OF:

THE ACCUSED FRED ROCKWELL …PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF CAPITAL ISLAND … RESPONDENT

ON WRITTEN SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF

CAPITAL ISLAND ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER.

Page | 1
 2nd NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, (LEGAL ZEMS), 2021

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Particulars Pg. No.

List of Abbreviations 3

Index of Authorities 4

Statement of Jurisdiction 5

Statements of Facts 6-8

Statement of Issues 9

Summary of Arguments 10

Arguments Advanced 11-17

Prayer 18

Page | 2
 2nd NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, (LEGAL ZEMS), 2021

LIST OF ABBREVIAITIONS

Hon'ble Honorable

FIR First Information Report

i.e. That is

u/s Under section

V. Versus

Sec. Section

IPC Indian Penal Code

Ors. Others

p. Page

pp. Pages

No. Number

HC High Court

CrPC Code of Criminal Procedure

Page | 3
 2nd NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, (LEGAL ZEMS), 2021

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Cases Referred:

1. Chakra Pal Singh & Another v. State of U.P., August 2019

2. Dhiren Ghata and Ors. v. State of West Bengal
3. Santosh Prasad v. The State of Bihar, Criminal Appeal No. 264 of 2020
4. Sharad Birdhihand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116
5. Sarvanand Soiru Gaonkar Purso Gaonkar v. State of Goa, 2007 ALL ME CRI 28
6. Shankarlal Gyarasilal Dixit v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1981 SC 765
7. Kadungoth Alavi v. State of Kerala, 1982 CRLJ
8. Mahadeb Ghosh v. State, 1983 CRLJ 1854

Books Referred:

1. Dr. J.N. Pandey: Constitutional Law of India, 56th Edition (2019)

2. Ratanlal & Dhirajlal: The Indian Penal Code, 36th Edition (2020)
3. Dr. S.R. Myneni: Law of Crimes, 3rd Edition

Statutes Referred:

1. The Constitution of India, 1949

2. The Indian Penal Code, 1862

Page | 4
 2nd NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, (LEGAL ZEMS), 2021

STATEMENT OF JURISIDCTION

The Hon’ble High Court of Capital Island has the jurisdiction in this matter under Art. 2261 of the
Constitution of Capital Island which reads as follows.

1
Article 226, empowers the high courts to issue, to any person or authority, including the government, orders or
writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, certiorari or any of
them.

Page | 5
 2nd NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, (LEGAL ZEMS), 2021

STATEMENT OF FACTS

For the sake of brevity and convenience of this Hon’ble Court, the facts of the
present case are summarized as follows:-

BACKGROUND

. Susan Knight (Deceased); 18 years of age 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.

. Tom Knight (Suspect No 1), He was well-known Doctor by profession in SIIMS hospital of
Capital Island. Fred Rockwell (Accused No 1), he was a compounder in the SIIMS Hospital and
belongs to Schedule Caste.

. Fred Rockwell shared a love relation with the deceased for last 1 year, which tom knight didn’t
find adequate 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”.

. On 9th January 2020 at 7.45A.M., Susan went missing. When she did not came back to her home
from school, family started searching in the school and nearby places. Tom and Olivia Knight
lodged a complaint of kidnapping 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.

Page | 6
 2nd NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, (LEGAL ZEMS), 2021

. Investigating Officer Alec Hardy found Dead Body on 12th January 2020 at 4.42 PM. The
forensic team retrieved the body of a female in her mid-fifteens. The body was sent to SIIMS
Hospital, for a post mortem which concluded that the death was a death due to strangulation with
ligature material. The female had sexual intercourse before her death. 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.

.The investigation started on 12th January 2020 with the police questioning the family members
regarding the last known whereabouts of Susan. Tom was considered a suspect but he was soon
ruled out once he established his alibi. He also 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 FIR. Investigating officer questioned Fred regarding his last meeting with Susan. Fred’s mother
told them Fred was not at his home since last 2 days and also he came home today morning.

.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. One of the Susan’s Teachers told police that Susan
was a bright student yet she was always afraid of her father, she further added that once Susan was
hit by her father for reaching late to home from school, which made Tom a suspect once again for
the police.

. Further Investigation in SIIMS hospital they found out that on 11th January both Dr. Tom and
Fred was not present in the hospital. Further, police recovered the ligature material with some
blood stain on it in the hospital locker of Fred. That material was then sent for examination to the
laboratory. Lab confirmed that the blood stain was of Susan Knight, and hence police established
that Fred was the only person who might have killed Susan Knight. 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. Hon’ble Sessions Court convicted Accused No 1 Fred Rockwell and sentence his

Page | 7
 2nd NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, (LEGAL ZEMS), 2021

Life Imprisonment u/s 364,376 & Death Penalty under Section 302 with Rs.5,00,000/- fine.
Aggrieved by this order, the accused approach before the Hon’ble High Court at Capital Island.

Page | 8
 2nd NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, (LEGAL ZEMS), 2021

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUE 1:

Whether the provisions of S.376 are fulfilled in the present case?

ISSUE 2:

Whether the accused can be convicted under S.364?

ISSUE 3:

Whether the accused can be held liable under the provisions of S.302?

Page | 9
 2nd NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, (LEGAL ZEMS), 2021

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

Issue 1: Whether the provisions of S.376 are fulfilled in the present case?

It is humbly and respectfully submitted to the Hon’ble High Court that the case in hand the
accused/appellant was in love relation with the deceased since 1 year. The accused/appellant has
no motive to commit such offence instead has an intention to marry her. As such the prosecution
has proved the charge against the accused/appellant beyond all reasonable doubt.

Issue 2: Whether the accused can be convicted under S.364?

It is humbly and respectfully submitted to the Hon’ble High Court that the case in hand Susan,
herself went and sat in the Scorpio Car was of the accused/appellant or it was driven by the
accused/ appellant or it was driven by the accused/appellant. Thus all such evidences are the proof
that accused has not committed the alleged crime.

Issue 3: Whether the accused can be held liable under the provisions of S.302?

It is humbly and respectfully submitted to the Hon’ble High Court that the case in hand is based
upon circumstantial evidence. There is no direct evidence and or eye witness to the evidence. It is
well settled law that in cases of circumstantial evidence the chain of circumstances should be
complete or unbreakable. Hence accused is not guilty of murder.

Page | 10
 2nd NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, (LEGAL ZEMS), 2021

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

Issue 1: Whether the provisions of S.376 are fulfilled in the present case?

The counsel on behalf of accused/appellant is of the opinion that the offence punishable u/s 376 of
IPC, 1860 is not proved as against the accused/appellant.

In an article based on Supreme Court’s judgement, it was stated that, The supreme court noted that
it could not lose sight of false cases and needed to protect the accused, even though ordinarily sole
testimony of rape victim was enough.

Article stated that the Supreme Court has ruled that a rape accused cannot be convicted on the
basis of sole testimony of the victim unless it is “absolutely trustworthy, unblemished and of
sterling quality”.

A bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice MR Shah has reiterated that the sterling witness
should be of very high quality and calibre, whose version should be unassailable. The apex court’s
observation came while acquitting a man, who was accused of raping his sister-in-law in
September 2011 in Makhdumpur, Patna.

The victim had complained that her brother-in-law, the accused, had raped her on the preceding
night of September 16, 2011. Based on her complaint an FIR was registered.
A trial court had sentenced the accused to 10 years of jail, which was upheld by the High Court.
The man then moved the apex court.

The lawyer representing the man argued that “except the deposition/evidence of the prosecutrix
(victim) which has not been corroborated by the medical evidence, there is no other independent
and cogent evidence to connect the accused with the guilt”.

Referring to this article, we can say that the accusations of tom knight are not enough to charge
Fred Rockwell of rape. In current case there are no medical evidence of rape against Fred
Rockwell. Also ligature material found in Fred’s locker which is the only evidence supporting tom

Page | 11
 2nd NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, (LEGAL ZEMS), 2021

knight could be very well false fabricated by tom knight considering the amount of animosity tom
knight holds against Fred Rockwell. Tom knight has been accusing Fred Rockwell for Fred since
the beginning of the case. Animosity towards someone is also one of the major ingredient to
commit crime of false evidence and false fabrication of evidence.

Statements given by tom knight cannot be trusted. Only testimony given by someone who holds
no personal grudge against Fred Rockwell can be trusted.

Threatening sentence used by tom knight is enough to show his intent to ruin accused’s well-being.
As per facts tom knight used to physically abuse deceased on very trivial matters and also
sometimes while he was drunk. Tom knight blamed Fred for his daughter not interacting with him
during dinner, but according to the facts it’s very clear that Susan knight was always distant from
tom knight because of his drinking and physically abusing habits.

In case of Santosh Prasad V. The State of Bihar, Criminal Appeal No. 264 OF 2020, Para 6, it
was held that, “The medical report does not support the case of the prosecution. FSL report also
does not support the case of the prosecution. As admitted, there was an enmity/dispute between
both the parties with respect to land. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we find
that the solitary version of the prosecutrix – PW5 cannot be taken as a gospel truth at face value
and in the absence of any other supporting evidence, there is no scope to sustain the conviction
and sentence imposed on the appellant and accused is to be given the benefit of doubt.

Also in case of Santosh Prasad V. The State of Bihar, Criminal Appeal No. 264 OF 2020, Para
5.2, “appellant has been convicted solely relying upon the deposition of the prosecutrix (PW5).
Neither any independent witness nor even the medical evidence supports the case of the
prosecution. From the deposition of PW1, it has come on record that there was a land dispute going
on between both the parties. Even in the cross-examination even the PW5 – prosecutrix had
admitted that she had an enmity with Santosh (accused).

Medical report does not support the case of Respondent. Evidence of the Respondent is not
supported by the medical evidence since no stains of semen or blood were found on the clothes of
the deceased. Therefore that it creates serious doubt about the credibility of the Respondents.

Page | 12
 2nd NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, (LEGAL ZEMS), 2021

Issue 2: Whether the accused can be convicted under S.364?

The counsel on behalf of accused/appellant is of the opinion that the offence punishable u/s 364 of
IPC, 1860 is not proved as against the accused/appellant.

About kidnapping, Fred’s mother stated that Fred was not at home for 2 days and returned home
on 12th January morning. It’s clearly stated in the facts that Susan went missing on 9th January
whereas Fred was not at home on 10th and 11th July. That proves the alibi of Fred on 9th January
2020. Hence this proves that Fred was not involved in the kidnapping of the deceased and tom
knight baselessly accused Fred knight of kidnapping.

In case of Chakra Pal Singh & Another vs State Of U.P. on 27 August, 2019, the court stated
that accused took the deceased along with them and the deceased willfully accompanied them and
they are only apprehending that appellants might have murdered him, nothing has been stated by
any of the Prosecution witnesses. If there was no such objective or intention when the abduction
was perpetrated, but later the abductors murdered the victim, section 364 IPC would not be
attracted.

In current case, the deceased of her own free will entered the car which is confirmed by the security
guard who was a witness to this incident. For kidnapping most important ingredients are deceit,
and use of force for abducting victim. Whereas in this case according to security guard susan
voluntarily entered car without usage of any force or deceit.

Also regarding the intention of murder, its not confirmed by any means that Fred was in the car
and also if he was in the car his intention of murder was not proven. About the ligature material
found in fred’s locker does not lead to any strong proof because of open mens rea of tom towards
Fred and how the assumption of tom fabricating false evidence can be a possibility. The possibility
that only appellant/accused has access to locker is not proven or stated either.

Page | 13
 2nd NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, (LEGAL ZEMS), 2021

Calcutta High Court in Dhiren Ghata and Ors. vs. State of West Bengal, while deliberating the
ingredients of section 364 of IPC, in a case having similar factual background opined as under:-

None of these witnesses has ever claimed that there was any force practiced against Sannyashi or
there was any deceit practiced against him. Nobody has claimed that Sannyashi did not want to go
or that he was made to go because of the false representation of the accused-persons or at least any
force shown by them. If this is the state of affairs, it cannot be said that the important ingredient
of the offence under Section 364 IPC was proved by the prosecution. Abduction by itself is not
made punishable. The abduction if done using force or deceit with a particular motive of punishing
or harming the person abducted, then alone it becomes an offence.

By considering all the facts it is very clear that Fred had no ill intention towards Susan knight.
They were in mutual love relationship. So Fred being or not being in the car does not change the
fact that this event was not murder. Since there is no deceitful method or force involved as well as
no murderous intent was present.

In Adnan’s case The Mumbai Sessions Court said the evidence, both forensic and circumstantial,
was assembled so loosely that it ended up cutting down each other rather than forming a cohesive
thread against the accused. “Key evidence submitted included exchanges between Adnan and the
four men on Orkut and most of the police case was based on the notion that Adnan was last seen
with one of the accused. There were no eyewitnesses and an identification parade of the accused
did not inspire the court's confidence.

The great gap in chain of evidence of kidnapping is that it’s not confirmed who was in the car.
Security guard could not get the look of culprit’s face or his body since the car had tilted window.
Assuming that Fred is the kidnapper solely based on the fact that he frequently visited Susan after
school is unreasonable.

Page | 14
 2nd NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, (LEGAL ZEMS), 2021

Issue 3: Whether the accused can be held liable under the provisions of S.302?

The counsel on behalf of accused/appellant/appellant is of the opinion that the offence punishable
u/s 302 of IPC, 1860 is not proved as against the accused/appellant.

Circumstantial Evidence:- The case in hand is based upon the circumstantial evidence. It is settled
law that in the respondent/state has to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt. The prosecution
has to prove and link all the chain of circumstance. The circumstances must unerringly points out
that it was the accused/appellant and accused/appellant alone is the perpetrator of the crime and
nobody else. It should unerringly negative the hypothesis of commission of offence by somebody
else. The chain of circumstances should be complete and unbreakable.

In Sharad Birdhihand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116

(1) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully
established.

(2) The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the
accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the
accused is guilty,

(3) The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency,

(4) They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and

(5) There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the
conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human
probability the act must have been done by the accused.

It is the case of prosecution that the deceased Susan, herself went and sat in the Scorpio car CI03
CAW 9009. Thus, there is no application of force for taking her away. Nobody has seen that the
driver in the car was the accused/appellant. There is no link evidence to show that the car was of
the accused/appellant or it was driven by the accused/appellant. Admittedly the accused/appellant
was a compounder and as such he could not possess Scorpio car. The chain is completely missing
to connect the accused/appellant with the Scorpio car. The evidence of the PW1 and PW3 doesn’t
connect the accused/appellant with the alleged crime. Admittedly the accused/appellant was in
relationship with the deceased for a year and as such his presence near the school is not unnatural.

Page | 15
 2nd NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, (LEGAL ZEMS), 2021

The evidence of the mother of the accused/appellant shows that the appellant was not at home for
last two days as such he was allegedly absconding from 10.01.2020. It is pertinent to note that
Susan went missing from 09.01.2020. Hence even if accept the theory of absconding it will not go
against the accused/appellant. Moreover the explanation of the accused/appellant that he went out
of house for two days in search of Susan is not inconsistent. One cannot lose sight of the fact that
even innocent people abscond due to fear of arrest and false implication.

It is admitted position that Susan and the accused/appellant where in a relationship for a year and
therefore there was no reason for the accused/appellant the accused/appellant to commit her rape.
If at all there would have been any physical relation between the accused/appellant and the
deceased it would have been a consensual relation which would not have caused severe injuries to
the vagina of the deceased. Thus it is crystal clear that the culprit is someone else and not the
accused/appellant. As mentioned hereinabove the link is completely missing and the only evidence
which is available accused is that the Police recovered ligature materials which were having blood
stains of Susan from locker of the accused/appellant in the hospital. There is no link evidence to
show that except the accused/appellant nobody else has access to the locker of the
accused/appellant. The possibility cannot be ruled out that someone else has planted the ligature
material.

The prosecution has miserably failed to prove the following beyond all reasonable doubt:

i. Motive: The accused/appellant has no motive to commit the crime. Since Susan and Sarvanand
Soiru Gaonkar Purso Gaonkar vs. State of Goa accused/appellant was in relationship since 1 year.
The accused/appellant was to marry the deceased on her attaining adulthood.

ii. Last seen theory: the accused/appellant was not seen with the deceased. Nobody has seen the
accused/appellant in the company of the deceased from the time she went missing till her murder.

iii. Evasive reply is not inconsistent with the innocence of the accused/appellant.

iv. Absconding cannot be taken as a reason to prove him guilty because even innocent people go
absconding out of fear.

v. Link evidence is completely missing to complete the chain.

Page | 16
 2nd NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, (LEGAL ZEMS), 2021

In Sarvanand Soiru Gaonkar Purso Gaonkar v. State of Goa 2007 ALL MR CRI 28 the Hon’ble
High Court observed in 21. “…….all the circumstances sought to be proved must first be proved
beyond reasonable doubt and after the same are proved, they must be inevitably and exclusively
point out to the guilt of the accused and therefore shall not be any circumstance which may
reasonably considered consistent with the innocence of the accused and the Court is required to
see the cumulative effect on the circumstances proved in a given case. The circumstances proved
must also be such that they cannot be explained on any other hypothesis except the guilt of the
accused and they should be of an incriminating character. We have already concluded that the
circumstances referred to hereinabove and sough to be proved were not free from doubt to connect
the accused in a serious offence of murder. We must note that more serious is the offence, the
higher degree of proof is necessary before a person is convicted. The irresistible inference of the
above discussion is that the prosecution has lamentably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable
doubt.”

In Shankarlal Gyarasilal Dixit vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 1981 SC 765 the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has observed in 30. “Falsity of defense cannot take the place of proof of facts which the
prosecution has to establish in order to succeed. A false plea can at best be considered as an
additional circumstance, if other circumstances point unfailingly to the guilt of the accused.”

In Kadungoth Alavi vs. State of Kerala 1982 CRLJ 94 para11 The Hon’ble Court has observed in

If any of the circumstances brought out makes it probable that somebody else might have
committed the crime, then there will be an element of doubt the benefit of which, no doubt, must
go to the accused.

In Mahadeb Ghosh vs. State 1983 CRLJ 1854 para 14

The Hon’ble High Court has observed in 10. “ mere failure of the accused to offer any explanation
consistent with his innocence, in a case where the prosecution has not otherwise succeeded in
establishing a chain of events which with reasonable certainty fixes the liability on the accused,
should be considered as a circumstance against the accused by itself.”

Page | 17
 2nd NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, (LEGAL ZEMS), 2021

PRAYER

Wherefore in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities citied, the counsels
for the respondent humbly request that this Hon’ble Court be pleases to adjudge and declare:

The State has failed to prove the charges;

i. Offence punishable u/s 376 of IPC for raping Susan;

ii. Offence punishable u/s 364 of IPC for abducting Susan;
iii. Offense punishable u/s 302 of IPC for murdering Susan

AND/OR

PASS ANY OTHER ORDER THAT IT DEEMS FIT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE,
EQUALITY AND GOOD CONNSCIENCE. AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS OF
YOUR LORDSHIPS, THE PETITIONERS SHALL AS IN DUTY BOUND, EVER
PRAY.

All of which is most humbly prayed.

Sd./-
Counsel for Petitioners

Page | 18