NMC Tc03 Resp PDF

Shri. J.P.
GUPTA MEMORIAL TEAM

TEAM CODE:
CODE: TC TC
03 03
3rd AUMP NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019
Shri. J.P. GUPTA MEMORIAL

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
THE APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 374 OF THE CRIMINAL

PROCEDURE CODE, 1973
IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: ____/ 2019
IN THE MATTER OF
RAJENDRA JATAV
(APPELANT)
v.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
(RESPONDENT)
MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BEFORE THE HON’BLE CHIEF

JUSTICE AND OTHER JUDGES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
___________________________________________________________________________
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
MEMORENDUM ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 1 of 26

Shri. J.P. GUPTA MEMORIAL TEAM CODE: TC 03
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Sr. TITLE PAGE- No.

No.
1 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 3
2 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 4-6
3 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 7
4 STATEMENT OF FACTS 8-10

5 STATEMENT OF CHARGES 11
6 ISSUES RAISED 12
7 SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS 13
8 ARGUMENT ADVANCED 14
1. WHETHER THE INVESTIGATION WAS CARRIED OUT
EFFICIENTLY?
14
1.1 Whether the statement made by the accused in the police
14-17
custody is admissible?
1.2 Whether the statement made by the accused should be

recorded before the Executive Magistrate or the Judicial
18-20
Magistrate?
1.3 Whether the statements made by the witness is reliable or 20-21

not?
2.. WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY OF MURDER?
22-25
9 PRAYER 27

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
& And
¶ Paragraph
v. Versus
Ors. Others
Govt. Government
Hon’ble Honorable
W.B. West Bengal
T.N. Tamil Nadu
U.P. Uttar Pradesh
PAT. Patna
UOI Union of India
S. Section
All. Allahabad
Ltd. Limited
AIR All India Reporter
S.C. Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
LJ Learned Justice
Cr. LJ Criminal Law Journal

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
JUDICIAL-DECISIONS REFERRED:-
Sr. No. CASES
1 Emperor v. Narayen, (1907) 9 Bom LR 789 (FB)
2 Zwing Lee Ariel v. State of MP AIR, 1954 SC 15
3 Ram Singh v. Sonia, (2007) 3 SCC 1
4 Ramesh Govind Thakur v. State of Maharashtra,2008 CrLJ 2169,2171

(para8) (Bom)
5 Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1995 SC 1726: 1994 CrLJ 3139
6 Harnath v. State, AIR 1952 Ajmer 49.
7 Yusuf Bachakhan v. State of Karnataka,2008 CrLJ (NOC) 1292 (Kar):

2008 (5) AIR Kar R 389.
8 Muralidhar v. State of U.P., 2007 CrLJ (NOC) 599 (All): 2007 (3) ALJ 683
(DB)
9 Swaran Singh Rattam Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1957 SC 637
10 Subramania Goundan v. State of Madras, AIR 1958 SC 66
11 Pyare Lal Vs. State of Assam, AIR 1963 SC 1094
12 Lokeman Shah v. State of West Bengal, AIR 2001 SC 1760, at 1764: 2001
CrLJ 2196
13 State of Haryana v. Padamand and Pramod & ors ,Case No. 2 of 2016 &
Criminal Appeal (D) Nos. 90, 91, 99, 107, 108 & 187 of 2016
14 Veer Singh v. state of Uttar Pradesh, 2013 (15) SCALE 162: 2014(1) MLJ
(Cri) 45
15 Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras, AIR 1957 SC 614: 1957 CrLJ 1000
16 Chacko v. State of Punjab, AIR 2004 SC 2688 (Para 7).

17 Md. Kamlauddin v. State of Assam, 2008 CrLJ (NOC) 98 (Gau)
18 State of Rajasthan v. Babu Meena, (2013) 4 SCC 206 (Para 9): 2013 (2)
SCALE 479
19 Kewala Ram v. State of Rajasthan, 2002 CrLJ 3077, 3080 (Para 24) (Raj):
2002 (3) Raj CrC 1399:2002 (3) Raj LR 775: 2002 (3) WLC 684
20 Namkoo v. State of U.P., 2004 CrLJ 4536, 4538 (Para 17) (All):2004 LJ
3422: 2004 (49) All Cri C 918:2004 (3) All Cr R 2364: 2004 (2) EFR 275
21 Badri v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1976 SC 560
22 Satyavir v. State, AIR 1958 All 746
23 Kochan Velayuddham v. State of Kerala, AIR 1961 Ker 8
24 Rupa Saura v. State ILR (1969) Cut 253: 1969 CLT 175
25 Pema Dukpa v. State of Sikkim, 1981 CrLJ 276
26 Balraj Singh v. State, 1976 CrLJ 1471 (P&H)
27 Mulkraj v. State, 19169 CrLJ 94 (Punj)
28 Madhubananda v. Mohapatra Rabindranath Misra, AIR 1954 Ori 40
29 Kedar Behera v. State, 1993 CrLJ (378) (Para 8) (Ori).
30 Mohan Lal v.State of Uttar PradeshAIR 1974 SC 1144
31 Commissioner of Income Tax v. Patranu Dass Raja Ram Beri, AIR 1982
PH 1, 4.
32 State of Maharashtra v.Meyer Hans George, AIR 1965 SC 722
33 Santosh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1975 Cri LJ 602 (SC).
34 Laxman v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1974 SC 1803
35 State v. Dinakar Bandu(1969) 72 Bom LR 905
36 Nathulal AIR 1966 SC 43
37 Shamdasini P D AIR 1929 Bom 443.
38 Atley AIR 1955 SC 80

39 Rajinder Kumar AIR 1966 SC 1322
40 Gurcharan Singh AIR 1956 SC 460
41 State of Punjab v Sucha Singh, AIR 2003 SC 1471
42 Mulakh Raj v. Satish Kumar , AIR 1992 SC 1175
43 State of Madhya Pradesh v .Digvijay Singh,1981 Cri. LJ 1278 (SC).
BOOKS REFERRED:-
1. K D Gaur, Indian Criminal Law Cases & Materials, 8th Edition.

2. Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The Law of Evidence, 24th edition
3. Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The Criminal Procedure Code, 21st edition
4. Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code, 35th edition
STATUTE REFERRED: -
1. The Indian Penal Code,1860
2. The Criminal Procedure Code,1973
3. The Evidence Act,1872
WEBSITES REFERRED: -
www.IndianKanoon.com
www.Casemine.com
www.manupatra.com
www.legallyindia.com

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Appellants humbly approach the Hon’ble Supreme Court under S.374 (1) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, which reads as follows:
‘S.374. Appeals from conviction
1. Any person convicted on a trial held by a High Court in its extraordinary original criminal
jurisdiction may appeal to the Supreme Court.
2. Any person convicted on a trial held by a Sessions Judge or an AdditionalSessions Judge

or on a trial held by any other Court in which a sentence of imprisonment for more than seven
years has been passed against him or against any other person convicted at the same trial may
appeal to the High Court.
3. Save otherwise provided in sub-section (2), any person,
a.convicted on a trial held by a Metropolitan Magistrate or Assistant Sessions Judge or

Magistrate of the first class, or of the second class, or
b. sentenced under section 325, or
c. in respect of whom an order has been made or a sentence has been passed under section 300
by any Magistrate, may appeal to the court.’
The respondents humbly submit to the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.

STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. Dr. Rajesh Sharma (hereinafter “Dr. Sharma”) is a Cardiac Surgeon, residing with his
two daughters (Namely Neha and Shweta) along with his wife Mrs. Neeta Sharma in
Satkar Residency, Vivekanand Nagar, Indore (Madhya Pradesh). Dr. Rajesh has been
practicing in Indore from last 25 Years. Dr. Sharma had cordial relations within his
locality. He was known for his charity and often renders free Medical Aid to poor and
needy people whenever required.
2. Dr. Sharma’s daughters namely Neha, aged 20 years was pursuing her first year MBBS
in Government Medical College Indore and Shweta aged 18 years was pursuing her
intermediate in Dayanand College of Arts & Science, Indore.
3. Within the same locality, Mr. Ravindra Jatav (hereinafter “Mr. Jatav”) and his wife
Nilima Jatav along with his Son Rajendra aged 25 years, who was working as Assistant
Manager in Galaxy Pharmaceuticals, used to stay. Both Dr. Sharma and Mr. Jatav had
a very good family relation. These two families used to frequently visit each other’s
residence on various occasions. During these meetings, Rajendra became friendly with
Neha, the eldest daughter of Dr. Sharma, and soon this friendship transformed into love.
Both of them use to frequently meet and sit behind Ganesh Temple situated on the
outskirts of Indore. They were madly in love with each other. Mr. Ravindra Jatav and
his wife were well aware of all these facts. In January 2014, Mr. Jatav was transferred
to Bhopal, hence he, with his family shifted there. However, Rajendra used to roam
between Bhopal and Indore to meet Neha.
4. One fine morning on 4/5/2014, Mr. Jatav made a telephonic call to Dr. Sharma and told
him that his son Rajendra and Dr. Sharma’s daughter Neha are in love with each-other,
so he wishes to visit him to discuss about the marriage of Rajendra and Neha. Dr.
Sharma in a very harsh manner, not only denied the idea of marriage, but also insulted
Mr. Jatav, with remarks on his caste, as he is a Brahmin and Mr. Jatav belongs to Dalit
community. In result, Mr. Jatav replied in the same tone and warned him to repent for
the words.
5. On ill –fated morning dated 8/5/2014, Dr. Sharma and his wife left their house at about
6:15 A.M. for a morning walk and when they came back at about 7:00 to 7:15 A.M.,
the outer door was open and a newspaper was lying in the verandah and on entry into

house, they found the younger daughter Shweta dead with injuries and eldest daughter
Neha was found dead in the toilet.
6. A FIR was lodged before Police Station Vijay Nagar, Indore, at Crime No. 112/2014
for the offences under Section 302 (2 Counts) and 449 of the I.P.C. During preliminary
investigation, Police recovered the knife and bloodstained clothes from the bushes,
behind Holkar Hospital. Jai Prakash Jain (PW-3), who lived just opposite to the house
of Dr. Sharma, alleged that he saw Rajendra Jatav (Accused) jumping from the
compound wall in the morning. In line of this, Dr. Sharma also raised the suspicion
against said Rajendra Jatav. A team was sent to Bhopal to arrest Rajendra Jatav under
Sub Inspector C.K. Verma, but he was not found there, and the Police was informed
that Rajendra (Accused) went to Mumbai to his sister’s place.
7. Accused was taken into custody from Mumbai on 10/05/2014 by Sub Inspector C.K.
Verma from the residence of his sister. He was produced before an Executive
Magistrate at Mumbai, where he allegedly confessed the offence. He was brought to
Indore, where he was formally arrested by the Investigating Officer Inspector Prithipal
Singh. At the time of his arrest, Accused Rajendra Jatav produced a sleeper class train
ticket from Bhopal to Mumbai for the night of 07th-08th May 2014. A golden chain
was also recovered from him. Memo under section 27 of Indian Evidence Act 1872 was
prepared for knife and bloodstained clothes, in which he confessed the act and disclosed
that he kept the bloodstained clothes and the weapon (knife) in bushes behind Holkar
Hospital. On this statement a fresh Seizure Memo for both the articles was also prepared
along with other documents.
8. The Accused, Rajendra Jatav, was charged under Section 302 Indian Penal Code, 1860
separately for the murder of two girls and under Section 449 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860. During the trial, Accused Rajendra Jatav denied the charges and took the plea of
alibi that he was travelling to Mumbai on the intervening night of 7th-8th May 2014
(the date of the happening of the incident). He also denied the confession before
Executive Magistrate at Mumbai. All the witnesses deposed in their testimony in line
with the record. However, the officer C.K. Verma, who brought the Accused from
Mumbai was not examined by the learned trial court. Further, the Accused filed an
application to call T.T.E. of North-Central Railway, Bhopal along with the travel record
of S-6 Coach of Punjab Mail of 7/8/2014, but his application was rejected thereon. DW-
1 the sister of Accused Smt. Mahima Kadam in her deposition confirmed that Accused

reached her place at Mumbai on 08/05/2014 at around 10 a.m. and stayed with her till
C.K. Verma (S.I.) reached her residence and took the Accused with him.
9. The learned Trial Court adverted to the chain of following circumstances said to have
been shown against the Accused to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt:
A) Intention/ motive to commit crime i.e. the Accused failed in love affair, so was the
reason committing crime.
B) He was seen by PW-3 Jai Prakash Jain, running from the scene, just after the
incident.
C) Seizure of the chain from the possession of the Accused and the identification of the
same by the mother and father of the deceased.
D) Disclosure statement given by the Accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act
and seizure of the knife and blood-stained clothes, not pursuant to the same but before
the same in the process of search of crime scene & nearby places by the investigation
team, the same was approved by the Memo prepared u/s 27 by the Accused.
E) Presence of human blood in the chemical examination of the knife and blood-stained
clothes seized from the Accused.
F) Confession of the Accused as was made before the Executive Magistrate in Mumbai
with respect to the instant matter.
The Sessions Court convicted the Accused and sentenced him to life imprisonment.
Aggrieved by the decision of trial court, appeal was preferred to the High Court. Division
Bench of Hon’ble High Court of M.P. upheld the decision of the Session Court.

STATEMENT OF CHARGES
The accused Rajendra Jatav has been charged for Murder under Section 302 and for House-
trespass in order to commit offence punishable with death under Section 449 of Indian Penal
Code.

ISSUE RAISED
I. WHETHER THE INVESTIGATION WAS CARRIED OUT

EFFICIENTLY?
II. WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY OF MURDER?

SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS
I. WHETHER THE INVESTIGATION WAS CARRIED OUT

EFFICIENTLY?
It is humbly submitted before this hon’ble court that the process of investigation in the present
case has been carried out in a proper manner. It is humbly submitted that all the evidences are
collected properly. The witnesses has been examined properly. Therefore no question can be
raised on the investigation process.
II. WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY OF MURDER?
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the accused is guilty of the offence of
murder. The statement of accused lead to the discovery of the murder weapon. The
circumstantial evidence forms a complete chain, link by link, to establish the same. Hence it is
proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the crime of Murder was indeed committed by the
accused in the case at hand.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
ISSUE I
1. WHETHER THE INVESTIGATION WAS CARRIED OUT

EFFICIENTLY?
It is humbly submitted to this hon’ble court that the investigation carried out, was efficient
enough to convict the accused. Through the facts and circumstances laid in the present case it
is certain that the accused was guilty for his commission of crime.
It is humbly submitted that there was no inefficiency in carrying out the investigation.
1.1 WHETHER THE CONFESSION MADE BY THE ACCUSED IN THE

POLICE CUSTODY IS ADMISSIBLE OR NOT?
It is humbly submitted to this hon’ble the substantive law of confession is contained in Section
24 to Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act and in section 164 of CrPC, 281 CrPC, 463 CrPC.
Deliberate and voluntary confessions of guilt if clearly proved, are among the most effectual
proofs in law.1
It is humbly submitted that the principle of receiving voluntary confession is on the

presumption that no person would voluntarily make a statement which is against his interest,
unless its true. The presumption of truth as to the incriminating statement is based upon the
sentiment of mankind that a person will not, as a general rule, make a statement against himself
unless they are true.
In the case of R v. Rennie, Cave J, laid down a test for the admissibility of a confession which
is as follows: “It was precede by any inducement to make a statement held out by a person in
authority. If it is proved to be free, and voluntary, and it was not made on in consequence of an
inducement, threat or promise by a person in authority, it can be taken into consideration.2
1
Emperor v. Narayen, (1907) 9 Bom LR 789 (FB)
2
(1982) WLR 64 CA

Under section 26 of the evidence Act, no confession made by a person in custody, to any person
other than a police officer, shall be admissible, unless made in the immediate presence of a
magistrate. This section excludes confessions to anyone else, while the person making it is in
a position to be influence by a police officer. The presence of the Magistrates secures the free
and voluntary nature of the confession and the confessing person has an opportunity of making
a statement uncontrolled by any fear of the police.3
It is humbly submitted that the Confession made by the accused is complied with the section
164(1) of CrPC which states that Any Metropolitan Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate may,
whether or not he has jurisdiction in the case, record any confession or statement made to him
in the course of an investigation under this Chapter or under any other law for the time being
in force, or at any time afterwards before the commencement of the inquiry or trial: Provided
that no confession shall be recorded by a police officer on whom any power of a Magistrate
has been conferred under any law for the time being in force.
It is humbly submitted that Metropolitan magistrates, Judicial Magistrates and special

Executive magistrates are empowered to record any confession under Section 164(1) CrPC 4
A confession is admissible without proof when it is made before a Magistrate following the
procedure under section 164, CrPC.5
It is humbly submitted that, the object of Section 164, Criminal Procedure Code, is to provide
a method of securing a reliable record of statements or confessions made during the course of
the Police investigation, which could be used, if necessary, during the enquiry or trial. Under
Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, a confession to a Police Officer is inadmissible in
evidence, and hence when an accused person confesses during the Police investigation, the
Police frequently get it recorded by a Magistrate under Section 164, Criminal Procedure Code,
and it can then be used to the extent to which it may be admissible under the Indian Evidence
Act.
3
Hira Miya, in the matter of (1877) 1 CLR 21., Ram Singh v. Sonia, (2007) 3 SCC 1, 12-14 (paras 15 and 17);
Ramesh Govind Thakur v. State of Maharashtra,2008 CrLJ 2169,2171 (para8) (Bom)
4
Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1995 SC 1726: 1994 CrLJ 3139
5
Harnath v. State, AIR 1952 Ajmer 49.

It is humbly submitted before this hon’ble court that in the case of Zwing Lee Ariel v. State of
MP6, it was stated that under section 26 IEA recognises a exception i.e. if the confession takes
place in police custody, but in immediate presence of a magistrate, it will be considered valid.
Therefore, it is humbly submitted that the confession made by the accused is valid under the
present circumstances of the case.
It is also submitted that the confession made by the accused was voluntary as it was made under
the supervision of the magistrate.
It Is humbly submitted that it is sufficient if on voluntary information of the accused,

incriminating article is found at the place stated by the accused constitutes a legal discovery.7
Which leads to an assumption that the crime is committed by the accused as he knows the exact
point at which the murder weapon was located or kept after the commission of the crime.
It is humbly submitted that where the where a blood-stained axe concealed behind the bushes
was recovered on the pointing of the accused, such recovery would be admissible in the
evidence.8
It is humbly submitted before this hon’ble court that for the purpose of establishing a
confessions truth, it is necessary to examine the confession and compare it with the rest of the
prosecution evidence and the probabilities of the case.9
It is humbly submitted that, the confession recorded in the instant case does not show any
specific questions were put to the accused as to whether the investigation agency had put any
physical or mental pressure on him.
There by it is humbly submitted that, the absence of details in the confession is not a reason to
treat it as untrue10
It is humbly submitted that A confessional statement made by the accused before a magistrate
if it is made voluntarily is a good evidence can be convicted and accused on the basis of it. It
is substantive piece of evidence and a conviction can be bases solely on such confession
6
AIR, 1954 SC 15
7
Yusuf Bachakhan v. State of Karnataka,2008 CrLJ (NOC) 1292 (Kar): 2008 (5) AIR Kar R 389.
8
Muralidhar v. State of U.P., 2007 CrLJ (NOC) 599 (All): 2007 (3) ALJ 683 (DB)
9
Swaran Singh Rattam Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1957 SC 637
10
Subramania Goundan v. State of Madras, AIR 1958 SC 66

provided it is voluntary and proved. Now the settled law is that a conviction can be based on
confession only if it is proved to be voluntary and true. If corroboration is needed it is enough
that the general trend of the confession is substantiated by some evidence which would tally
with the contents of the confession. General corroboration is enough.
1.1.1. RETRACTED CONFESSION
Retracted confession meaning, a retracted confession is a statement made by an accused person

before the trial begins before the magistrate by which he admits to have committed the offence,
but which he repudiate at the trial.
Value of retracted confession-In 1957 in Pyare Lal Vs. State of Assam11 it was held that a
retracted confession may still be used as a basis for conviction. Its corroboration would be a
matter of prudence and not of law.
Therefore, it is humbly submitted that mere retraction of confession made in the police custody
does not entail the confession as involuntary.
It is also submitted that, there is no requirement that the magistrate should make a separate
statement of reasons for believing that the confession was made voluntarily. It was sufficient
that his statement was recorded in the memorandum.12
Therefore it is humbly submitted that the confession made by the accused in the police custody
is voluntary and retraction of confession does not invalidate the confession made in presence
of the magistrate.
11
(AIR 1963 SC 1094)
12
Lokeman Shah v. State of West Bengal, AIR 2001 SC 1760, at 1764: 2001 CrLJ 2196

1.2 WHETHER THE STATEMENT MADE BY THE ACCUSED SHOULD BE

RECORDED BEFORE THEEXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE OR THE JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE?
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that an executive magistrate can record the
confession of an accused and not only the judicial magistrate per se.
It is humbly submitted that in the case of State of Haryana v. Padamand and Pramod & ors.13
In the instant case, the High Court of Punjab & Haryana has held that the expression
‘Magistrate’ (in Section 26 of the Evidence Act includes) ‘Executive Magistrate’ and not only
the ‘Judicial Magistrate’, hence confession made by accused in immediate presence of the
Executive Magistrate is admissible in evidence.
In the instant appeal, the accused appellants have assailed Lower Court’s order convicting the
appellants for alleged heinous crime of rape and murder of the deceased. During the course of
investigation, the police arrested one of the accused who confessed their guilt before the
Executive Magistrate and other public witnesses while they were in custody of police.
In view of the aforesaid, the Appellants have challenged their conviction on the ground that the
confession made by the appellants in the immediate presence of the executive Magistrate is
unwarranted as Section 26 of the Evidence Act, 1872 creates an embargo on the proof of such
confession by the accused persons who are in the police custody. It was further contended that
Section 26 of the Evidence Act uses the expression ‘Magistrate’, which would only mean the
Judicial Magistrate and not the Executive Magistrate.
It would be relevant to mention here that Section 26 of the Evidence Act stipulates that no
confession made by an accused person shall be proved against him, unless it is made in the
immediate presence of a Magistrate.
The High Court of Punjab & Haryana after careful consideration of the precedents and law
prevailing on the subject brushed aside the Appellants contention and convicted the accused in
the case. Other observations made by the accused in the case are as under:
he High Court was of the view that the Parliament was fully aware that after the adoption of
the Constitution there was a separation of judicial power from the Executive. It was aware that
13
Case No. 2 of 2016 & Criminal Appeal (D) Nos. 90, 91, 99, 107, 108 & 187 of 2016

Section 26 of the Evidence Act uses the word ‘Magistrate’. Hence, Section 26 of the Evidence
Act makes deliberate use of the expression ‘Magistrate’ and not the expression ‘Judicial
Magistrate’.
The Court further noted that even with the best of intention, if there is no statutory expression
of the intention, the Court cannot supply words for the sake of achieving the alleged intention
of the law maker. It is entirely within the realm of the law maker to express clearly what they
intend. No doubt, there is a limited extent to which the court can interpret a provision so as to
achieve the legislative intent.
The Court also explained the statutory interpretation by stating that sub-Section (4) of Section
3 of the Criminal Procedure Code 1973 opens with words ‘where, under any law, other than
this Code’, obviously refers to the Evidence Act. Thereafter clause (a) of sub-Section (4) of
Section 3 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 in clear terms speaks about the function to be
performed by the Judicial Magistrate. Thus as per Clause (a) the Executive Magistrate is neither
involved at the stage of Section 26 of the Evidence Act in the matter of appreciation or sifting
of evidence or formulation of any decision nor would expose any person to any punishment or
penalty or detention in custody and also with no effect of sending such person for trial in Court.
That under the scheme of the Code of 1973 sending for trial in the Court is the job of the
committal Court or punishing any person or detaining in the custody is the function of a Judicial
Magistrate and not of the Executive Magistrate. Therefore, it is Clause (b) of sub-Section (4)
of Section 3, which would be relevant in respect of Executive Magistrate. The list stated in that
clause is illustrative which would mean that recording of statement of the accused under
Section 26 of the Evidence Act in his immediate presence would also fall in the Clause (b).
The function to take any decision, whether to withdraw for a prosecution or sanction a
prosecution, is always subject to the decision by the judicial courts.
Hence, the High Court opined that had there been any intention to confer the power only on
the Judicial Magistrate, the Parliament would not have forgotten to insert the word ‘Judicial’
before the word ‘Magistrate’ in Section 26 Evidence Act. That the expression ‘Magistrate’ (in
Section 26 of the Evidence Act includes) ‘Executive Magistrate’ and not only the ‘Judicial
Magistrate’.

1.3 WHETHER THE STATEMENT MADE BY THE WITNESS IS RELIABLE OR

NOT?
It is humbly submitted to this hon’ble court that the statement made by the PW-3 is reliable as
he is the sole witness to the crime committed, and his statement clearly completes the chain at
which the crime was committed.
It is humbly submitted that as a general rule the court can and may act on the testimony of a
single witness provided that he is wholly reliable.14
It is humbly submitted that in the case of Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras15 it is laid that a
court can and may act on the testimony of single witness. If the evidence is unblemished and
beyond all possible criticism and the court is satisfied that the witness was speaking the truth,
then on his evidence alone conviction can be maintained.16
It is humbly submitted that the conviction of the accused can be based on sole testimony of an
eye witness and the evidence of such an eye witness should not be discarded unless it suffers
from any serious infirmity.17 Court can place reliance and hold the accused guilty on the
solitary testimony of a witness provided his evidence is found to be trustworthy and above
board. 18
It is humbly submitted that, where there are no exceptional reasons, it is the duty of the court
to convict if it is satisfied that the testimony of a single witness is entirely reliable.19
Even the evidence of a single witness can sustain the conviction of an accused person if the
court which saw and heard him depose, regards him as a witness of truth.
When the evidence is convincing and consisting and consistent and unimpeachable, conviction
can be based on the solitary testimony of a witness.20
14
Veer Singh v. state of Uttar Pradesh, 2013 (15) SCALE 162: 2014(1) MLJ (Cri) 45
15
AIR 1957 SC 614: 1957 CrLJ 1000
16
Chacko v. State of Punjab, AIR 2004 SC 2688 (Para 7). Md. Kamlauddin v. State of Assam, 2008 CrLJ
(NOC) 98 (Gau); State of Rajasthan v. Babu Meena, (2013) 4 SCC 206 (Para 9): 2013 (2) SCALE 479
17
Kewala Ram v. State of Rajasthan, 2002 CrLJ 3077, 3080 (Para 24) (Raj): 2002 (3) Raj CrC 1399:2002 (3)
Raj LR 775: 2002 (3) WLC 684
18
Namkoo v. State of U.P., 2004 CrLJ 4536, 4538 (Para 17) (All):2004 LJ 3422: 2004 (49) All Cri C 918:2004
(3) All Cr R 2364: 2004 (2) EFR 275
19
Badri v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1976 SC 560; Satyavir v. State, AIR 1958 All 746; Kochan Velayuddham v.
State of Kerala, AIR 1961 Ker 8, Rupa Saura v. State ILR (1969) Cut 253: 1969 CLT 175; Pema Dukpa v. State
of Sikkim, 1981 CrLJ 276; Balraj Singh v. State, 1976 CrLJ 1471 (P&H)
20
Mulkraj v. State, 19169 CrLJ 94 (Punj)

1.3.1. NON- EXAMINATION OF THE SUB-INSPECTOR
It is humbly submitted to this hon’ble court that the non-examination of the sub inspector under
whose custody accused confessed his offence in presence of the Executive Magistrate doesn’t
require to be examined in the court of law.
It is humbly submitted that It is not necessary to prove a fact that a number of witnesses should
assert it; proof of a fact would depend on the character of the witness and the competency to
speak to that fact; it is the assurance or persuasiveness of the evidence which alone inspires a
judicial mind to put any reliance on the testimony.21
It is the acceptability of the evidence that matters and not the numerical sufficiency of
witnesses. Conviction can be based on the evidence of sole witness. Therefore, mere non
examination of some persons does not affect the credibility of the prosecution case.22
Therefore, the non-examination of the sub inspector does not invalidate the suspicion that the
accused shouldn’t be convicted as the sole eyewitness is wholly reliable to convict the accused
as he vividly saw him running from the crime scene.
21
Madhubananda v. Mohapatra Rabindranath Misra, AIR 1954 Ori 40.
22
Kedar Behera v. State, 1993 CrLJ (378) (Para 8) (Ori).

ISSUE II
2. WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY OF MURDER?
It is humbly contended that the accused is guilty for committing the offence of murder under
Sec 302, IPC. Sec 302 prescribes the punishment for committing murder. In order to bring a
successful conviction under this charge, however, it is pertinent to refer to Sec 300, IPC which
elucidates the essentials of murder.
A person is guilty of murder if he intentionally causes the death of a person or causes such
bodily injury as he knows, is likely to cause death of that person or causes such bodily injury,
which in the ordinary course of nature results into death or commits an act so dangerous that it
must, in all probability cause death of that person23.It is humbly contended that the Hon’ble
Sessions Court and High Court correctly held the Accused as guilty of murder under Section
302.
The terms actus reus and mens rea come from “Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea”, which
literally means “an act does not make a person guilty unless mind is also guilty”. The “Burden
of Proof” lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
The Respondent-Prosecution contends that actus reus and mens rea had been proven
successfully thus the Accused is guilty of murder.
A. Actus reus
Actus reus is any wrongful act24. Thus, in a case of murder, actus reus would be the physical
conduct of the accused that causes death of the victim. In the instant case, it is contended that
the actus reus had been established by way of (i) circumstantial evidence and discovery of
(ii) crime articles .
(i) Circumstantial evidence
It is a well settled principle that where the case is mainly based on circumstantial evidence, the
court must satisfy itself that various circumstances in the chain of evidence should be
23
Sec 300, IPC
24
Aiyar, P Ramanathan, The Law Lexicon, p. 49 (2nd ed 2006.)

established clearly and that the completed chain must be such as to rule out a reasonable
likelihood of the innocence of the accused.25
(ii) Discovery of Crime Articles.
Recovery of weapons of offence i.e. knife was done by the police near Holkar Hospital thrown
in the bushes. It is contended that in the instant case, the accused confessed that he kept the
weapon and blood stained clothes in the bushes which leads to the conclusion that the physical
act of murder was done by him.
B. MENS REA
Mens rea is considered as guilty intention26, which is proved or inferred from the acts of the
accused.27 It is submitted that (i) the intention to kill had been established (ii) in light of clear-
cut motive of the accused (iii).Arguendo, absence of motive would not be a sufficient ground
to dismiss the case.
(i) Intention
It is presumed 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.28 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 s. 302 of IPC.29 The intention to kill can be inferred from the murder
and nature of the injuries caused to the victim.30 It is humbly contended by the Respondent that
the common intention of The Accused of murdering The Deceased had been established by
establishing a chain of of circumstantial evidence.
25
Mohan Lal v.State of Uttar PradeshAIR 1974 SC 1144
26
Commissioner of Income Tax v. Patranu Dass Raja Ram Beri, AIR 1982 PH 1, 4.
27
State of Maharashtra v.Meyer Hans George, AIR 1965 SC 722.
28
(1951) 3 Pepsu LR 635
29
Santosh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1975 Cri LJ 602 (SC).
30
Laxman v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1974 SC 1803

(ii) Motive
Sec 8, Indian 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.31
The Supreme Court has held that mens rea is an essential ingredient of a criminal offence32.
In a criminal court one often wants to test the alleged guilty mind by seeing what was the
motive of the alleged criminal in doing the particular act. It is not essential under IPC for
prosecution to establish motive. But as a matter of common sense, this is usually of importance,
because an average man does not commit a criminal offence unless he has a strong motive for
doing it33. The absence of proof of motive has this effect only, that the other evidence bearing
guilt of the accused has to be very closely examined34. The motive behind the crime is a very
relevant fact of which evidence can be given. The absence of motive is also a circumstance
which is relevant for assessing the evidence. The circumstances which prove the guilt of the
accused are, however, not weakened by the fact that motive has not been established35.Where
the positive evidence against the accused is clear, cogent and reliable, the question of motive
is of no importance36.
(iii).Arguendo, Absence of Motive
Assuming for the sake of argument that the accused had no motive, it is humbly contended that
absence of motive is no ground for dismissing the case. Motive is immaterial so far as the
offence is concerned, and need not be established37 as the mere existence of motive is by itself,
not an incriminating circumstance and cannot take the place of a proof.38
Therefore, absence of proof of motive, does not break the link in the chain of circumstances
connecting the accused with the crime, nor militates against the prosecution case and is not
fatal as a matter of law.39 When the circumstantial evidence on record is sufficient to prove
31
State v. Dinakar Bandu(1969) 72 Bom LR 905
32
Nathulal AIR 1966 SC 43
33
Shamdasini P D AIR 1929 Bom 443.
34
Atley AIR 1955 SC 80.
35
Rajinder Kumar AIR 1966 SC 1322
36
Gurcharan Singh AIR 1956 SC 460
37
RATANLAL AND DHIRAJLAL,The Indian Penal Code, (26th ed., 2007)
38
State of Punjab v Sucha Singh, AIR 2003 SC 1471
39
Mulakh Raj v. Satish Kumar , AIR 1992 SC 1175

beyond any doubt to prove that it was the accused and no one else, who intentionally caused
the death of the accused then, motive of the crime need not be proved.40 The mere missing link
of non-establishment of clear motive of accused is immaterial and is not a ground for
dismissing the case, in light of the well-established motive of Accused to commit the murder.
Therefore, it is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that The Accused was correctly
held guilty for the offence of murder, given that the requisite mens rea and actus reus had been
established by the Prosecution from the facts of the case, beyond a reasonable doubt
40
State of Madhya Pradesh v .Digvijay Singh,1981 Cri. LJ 1278 (SC).

PRAYER
Therefore, in the light of the legal precedents and principles cited; provisions applied and
arguments advanced; it is most humbly pleaded before the Hon’ble Court that may this Hon’ble
court be pleased to:
1. Declare and adjudge that the accused is guilty.
2. Uphold the conviction of the Hon’ble Sessions Court and High Court
AND / OR
Pass any other order, as it deems fit, in light of justice, equity and good conscience.
All of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted
S/d_____________
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

NMC Tc03 Resp PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

NMC Tc03 Resp PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Shri. J.P.

GUPTA MEMORIAL TEAM

Shri. J.P. GUPTA MEMORIAL

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

THE APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 374 OF THE CRIMINAL

MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BEFORE THE HON’BLE CHIEF

MEMORENDUM ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 1 of 26

Sr. TITLE PAGE- No.

4 STATEMENT OF FACTS 8-10

1.2 Whether the statement made by the accused should be

1.3 Whether the statements made by the witness is reliable or 20-21

MEMORENDUM ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 2 of 26

W.B. West Bengal

T.N. Tamil Nadu

U.P. Uttar Pradesh

UOI Union of India

AIR All India Reporter

S.C. Supreme Court

SCC Supreme Court Cases

Cr. LJ Criminal Law Journal

MEMORENDUM ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 3 of 26

Sr. No. CASES

1 Emperor v. Narayen, (1907) 9 Bom LR 789 (FB)

2 Zwing Lee Ariel v. State of MP AIR, 1954 SC 15

3 Ram Singh v. Sonia, (2007) 3 SCC 1

4 Ramesh Govind Thakur v. State of Maharashtra,2008 CrLJ 2169,2171

6 Harnath v. State, AIR 1952 Ajmer 49.

7 Yusuf Bachakhan v. State of Karnataka,2008 CrLJ (NOC) 1292 (Kar):

9 Swaran Singh Rattam Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1957 SC 637

10 Subramania Goundan v. State of Madras, AIR 1958 SC 66

11 Pyare Lal Vs. State of Assam, AIR 1963 SC 1094

16 Chacko v. State of Punjab, AIR 2004 SC 2688 (Para 7).

MEMORENDUM ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 4 of 26

17 Md. Kamlauddin v. State of Assam, 2008 CrLJ (NOC) 98 (Gau)

21 Badri v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1976 SC 560

22 Satyavir v. State, AIR 1958 All 746

23 Kochan Velayuddham v. State of Kerala, AIR 1961 Ker 8

25 Pema Dukpa v. State of Sikkim, 1981 CrLJ 276

26 Balraj Singh v. State, 1976 CrLJ 1471 (P&H)

27 Mulkraj v. State, 19169 CrLJ 94 (Punj)

28 Madhubananda v. Mohapatra Rabindranath Misra, AIR 1954 Ori 40

29 Kedar Behera v. State, 1993 CrLJ (378) (Para 8) (Ori).

30 Mohan Lal v.State of Uttar PradeshAIR 1974 SC 1144

33 Santosh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1975 Cri LJ 602 (SC).

34 Laxman v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1974 SC 1803

35 State v. Dinakar Bandu(1969) 72 Bom LR 905

36 Nathulal AIR 1966 SC 43

37 Shamdasini P D AIR 1929 Bom 443.

38 Atley AIR 1955 SC 80

MEMORENDUM ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 5 of 26

39 Rajinder Kumar AIR 1966 SC 1322

40 Gurcharan Singh AIR 1956 SC 460

41 State of Punjab v Sucha Singh, AIR 2003 SC 1471

42 Mulakh Raj v. Satish Kumar , AIR 1992 SC 1175

43 State of Madhya Pradesh v .Digvijay Singh,1981 Cri. LJ 1278 (SC).

1. K D Gaur, Indian Criminal Law Cases & Materials, 8th Edition.

MEMORENDUM ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 6 of 26

‘S.374. Appeals from conviction

2. Any person convicted on a trial held by a Sessions Judge or an AdditionalSessions Judge

3. Save otherwise provided in sub-section (2), any person,

a.convicted on a trial held by a Metropolitan Magistrate or Assistant Sessions Judge or

b. sentenced under section 325, or