LB: 501-MOOT COURT, MOCK TRIAL AND INTERNSHIP

MOCK TRIAL WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

WITNESS HANDELLING CASE 1

IN THE MATTER OF:-

STATE …..PROSECUTION

VERSUS

MONTEY KHANNA …..DEFENCE

SUBMITTED BY COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT

NAME: HARSHIT DAGAR

ROLL NO. 201299

SECTION: F, III YEAR.

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

S. NO. PARTICULARS PAGE NO.

I. PARTICULARS OF THE CASE 1

II. OPENING STATEMENT OF THE DEFENCE 2

CROSS EXAMINATION OF KASHISH (PW-1)

III. AND SUMMARY. 3-4

EXAMINATION OF MONTY KHANNA (DW-1)

IV. AND SUMMARY. 5-7

V. CLOSING STATEMENT OF THE DEFENCE 8

VI. PRAYER 9

ROLE PLAY

CROSS PLAYED
NAME EIC EXAMINATION (WITNESS)

HARSHIT DEFENCE PROSECUTION DEFENCE

DAGAR WITNESS 1- WITNESS 1- WITNESS 2-
(DEFENCE MONTY KASHISH SANJEEV
COUNSEL 1) KHANNA (VICTIM) BHATIA (MD)
(ACCUSED)
 LB-501 MOOT COURT, MOCK TRIAL AND INTERNSHIP

PARTICULARS OF THE CASE

1. STATEMENT OF OFFENCE:

Assault and Criminal Force with Intent to Outrage and Insult Modesty of
Woman, corresponding to Sections 354 and 509, Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2. WITNESSES OF THE PROSECTUION:

• PW-1: Kashish Singh (Victim)
• PW-2: Poornima Roshan (Receptionist in Honeymoon Travels Pvt.
Ltd.)
• PW-3: Rajiv Kapoor (Manager in Easy life Restaurant.

3. WITNESSES OF THE DEFENCE:

• DW-1: Monty Khanna (Accused)
• DW-2: Sanjiv Bhatia (MD of Honeymoon Travels Pvt. Ltd.)
• DW-3: Sanjay Singh (Driver of the Accused)

1|Page
 LB-501 MOOT COURT, MOCK TRIAL AND INTERNSHIP

OPENENING STATEMENT OF THE DEFENCE

• Your Honour, the Counsel is representing the accused in this trial.

Your Honour, you just heard the Learned Prosecution Counsel explaining
what he hopes will be proved today. Some serious charges and allegations
of sexual harassment and outraging the modesty of a woman have been
placed against my client Mr. Monty Khanna. The defence will prove that
these allegations are not only false but malevolent, malicious, malafide and
this is nothing but a feeble attempt to besmirch the character and attack the
reputation of my client.
• The defence will prove that the prosecution witnesses are unreliable
witnesses, who have nothing substantial and relevant to say about the case,
rather their statement are nothing more than heresay and based solely on
assumptions and conjectures.
• The defence will be presenting key eye witnesses to corroborate its stand to
show that allegations made by Ms. Kashish (victim) are a complete
fabrication, which she did in furtherance of her malicious intent to malign
the career and reputation of an honest, law abiding and hard-working
family man, and that the allegations are nothing more than a result of
overzealous ambition of getting my client fired from his job.
• Rather it is defence’s case that it is my client Mr. Khanna who is a victim
here as it was Ms. Kashish who made illicit advances towards my client
and on being rejected she’s trying to frame him out of personal spite and
vendetta.
• Lastly the defence most humbly requests this Hon’ble Court to keep an
open mind as gender-based laws are like a double-edged sword. 53.2% of
total cases of sexual harassment in the workplace get proven to be nothing
more than fabrication made by women, which results in the men becoming
victims. After appreciating all the evidence and testimony of the witnesses,
the court will definitely see that the present case is also just one of the
many cases of false accusations of sexual harassment.

2|Page
 LB-501 MOOT COURT, MOCK TRIAL AND INTERNSHIP

CROSS EXAMINATION OF KASHISH SINGH (PW-1)

(JUDGE: The defence may cross examine the prosecution witness)

(Defence Counsel seeks permission to proceed with the cross examination. Permission
is granted.)

DEFENCE COUNSEL:

1. Witness, how long have you been working in this company with my client?
2. According to your allegations my client started misbehaving with you in the
office, is that correct? If yes, then why didn’t you object? Why did you
continue to go out for coffee with him and take lifts from him late at night?
3. Did you complain about the alleged misbehaviour to the senior management of
the company?
4. The accused and you work in two different departments, is that correct?
5. If both of you work under two different heads, then your work should not
overlap, then what could be the reason for spending so much time together in
and out of office, other than that you and my client had a cordial, friendly
relationship.
6. Witness, according to your statement, Mr. Monty Khanna misbehaved with you
once in his car while dropping you but you continued to ride in his car to reach
your home after working late? Could you not have refused him or sought
alternate means of transport?
7. Or were you comfortable with him in the car knowing he is a man of excellent
reputation?
8. Witness, there was a party within fifteen days of your joining, is that correct?
9. Did Mr. Khanna drop you to the party?
10. Please tell the court why would you go with a man whom you accuse of having
misbehaved with you from the beginning?

3|Page
 LB-501 MOOT COURT, MOCK TRIAL AND INTERNSHIP

SUMMARY:

• The witness has shown inconsistencies in her statement especially with respect
to her relationship with Mr. Monty Khanna. During her cross examination it
has become quite clear that she had a cordial and friendly relationship with Mr.
Monty Khanna. The fact that despite working in two different departments ,
both of them spent so much time together in and out of the office and she used
to take lifts from late at night unambiguously indicate that she was comfortable
in the company of Mr. Monty Khanna.
• Further it has been pointed out that the witness has consistently failed to make
any official statement and hence tried to avoid taking any responsibility for her
allegations against the accused as she knew that the contradictions in her story
would be found. This makes her statement unreliable as there is no proof and
no one ever saw the accused misbehaving with her.
• The witness had never made a complaint against my client in the ICC of the
company, of which she was aware upon being hired. This wouldn't be possible
if she really did feel uncomfortable in his presence and especially with his
actions. In addition to this she continued to accept his offer of dropping her to
her home.
• Most importantly, after such accusations, the victim still went to the party with
the accused in his car and even came back with him from the party after she
alleges she was assaulted at the party. This behaviour clearly defies logic and
reason and is inconsistent with her state of mind as it must be pondered upon
that why would somebody especially a woman who fears for safety let the
same who had just molested and assaulted her, drop her home after the assault?
Perhaps, she wasn’t afraid at all and she knew she was safe with him. She was
comfortable with the accused even late at night. She had no problem in being
the close proximity of him or be in enclosed spaces with him because she knew
he is an honourable family man and she is safe with him. Hence it raises a lot
of doubts in the story of prosecution. The testimony of the witness is illogical
and not at all trustworthy.

4|Page
 LB-501 MOOT COURT, MOCK TRIAL AND INTERNSHIP

EXAMINATION IN CHIEF OF MR. MONTY KHANNA (DW-1)

DEFENCE COUNSEL: Defence seeks permission to call the defence witness no. 1
Mr Monty Khanna for examination in chief.

JUDGE: Permission granted.

(Witness takes the oath)

DEFENCE COUNSEL:

1. Witness, please state your name and occupation for the sake of records.
2. Witness you’re married and have a daughter of 20 years of age, is that correct?
3. How are your relations with your family?
4. How long have you been working in this company?
5. How are your relations with your colleagues at your workplace?
6. Has anyone ever had a problem with your conduct towards them in the span of
last fifteen years?
7. How long have you known the victim?
8. And how would you define your relationship with the victim?
9. Apart from the work, was there any interaction between you two?
10. You say you were mentoring the victim. Why did you take special interest her?
Or did you take on the role of a mentor to other newcomers to the company as
well?
11. How would you describe Ms. Kashish (the victim)?
12. On Christmas Eve she broke down in your car and was clearly in emotional
distress, when she confessed that she considers you her ideal man, did you
rebuke her?
13. So you would agree that you had fatherly feelings towards Ms. Singh, as she is
close to your daughter’s age, and you always maintained a professional relation
with her at the office?
14. Has Ms. Singh shown any interest in your job, maybe because you are being
paid slightly more than her?
15. Would you say that you have great influence in the company or over the MD?

5|Page
 LB-501 MOOT COURT, MOCK TRIAL AND INTERNSHIP

SUMMARY:-

• The witness is a family man and a well-respected citizen in the society and has
a lot to lose due to these false allegations along with his reputation.
• The witness has made it very clear that he has known the victim only for fifteen
days and has always maintained professional distance with Ms. Kashish and
took up the role of a mentor due to his experience of fifteen years, as he does
with all the newcomers in the company, especially for people employed in the

6|Page
 LB-501 MOOT COURT, MOCK TRIAL AND INTERNSHIP

Same job profile like him, i.e. as a secretary and also considering that she
was inexperienced at a job of this calibre, she had a lot of catching up to do.
• Ms. Kashish has increasingly shown unprofessional behaviour towards my
client and it has been clearly established that the only reason my client didn’t
report on this as he didn’t want to compromise her job and career and also
because he treated her like his own daughter.
• The witness has said that he only offered to drive Ms. Kashish in his car the
two or three times they had to stay late at the office. This was an act of a good
Samaritan, a gesture he extended to other employees as well. The witness has
never misbehaved with her which can be verified from the driver who was
always present.
• On several occasions Ms. Kashish had made it quite evident to my client that
she was interested in his job, as he was being paid slightly more than her, as
well as calling him an ideal man for her. However when my client rebuked her
and told her that he was a happily married man with a daughter of the same age
as Ms. Singh, her behaviour towards him and her work turned unprofessional.
• This finally led to the events of the night of the alleged incident where again
Ms. Kashish tried to approach my client in the hotel’s lift and was again
summarily rebuked by him. After exiting the lift she made threat against him.
The witness was worried she would make a scene and cause harm to only not
herself but also his reputation as well. But no further incident happen at the
party and by the time both left together, Ms. Singh had calmed down, which
made my client believe that the matter had resolved that there was no need to
stir the pot.
• All of this clearly establishes that my client could have never misbehaved with
the victim and rather on being rebuked for her unprofessional behaviour and
illicit advances towards my client, the victim threatened my client to get back
at him and made these false allegations in pursuit of that threat and in order to
get him fired from his job.

7|Page
 LB-501 MOOT COURT, MOCK TRIAL AND INTERNSHIP

CLOSING STATEMENT OF THE DEFENCE

• The Prosecution has failed to prove the intention of the accused, which is a
mandatory requirement under Sections 354A and 509 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860.
• The persecution witnesses are only operating on past assumptions and biases
against my client. Assumptions and gossip cannot be considered admissible
relevant evidence, due to their failure to fulfil the requirements under the
relevant sections of the statute.
• The Prosecution has only brought forward unreliable witnesses who haven't
themselves seen anything remotely related to the alleged incident, which
tantamount to hearsay, something which is inadmissible in court under the
Section 60 of Indian Evidence Act.
• The complainant never approached to file a complaint against my client, even
when she says she was regularly misbehaved with. In fact she has supplied us
with the feeble excuse of being worried that my client would retaliate
somehow, notwithstanding the fact that he is mere secretary at the company
and has no decision making power at the company.
• The defence has successfully proved that Ms. Kashish’s claims of feeling
uncomfortable were unfounded and in fact she was the one who showed any
interest in my client which has been corroborated by the eye witnesses.
• The prosecution has failed to discharge its burden beyond reasonable doubt.
Rather the defence has been able to show reasonable doubts on the alleged guilt
of the accused. All of this goes to show that this was nothing more than an
attempt to besmirch the hard-earned reputation of my client and eventually get
him fired from his job. Such false accusations are detrimental to the aim and
objective of not only the law created to protect women but also to movements
such as MeToo.

8|Page
 LB-501 MOOT COURT, MOCK TRIAL AND INTERNSHIP

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, IN THE LIGHT OF FACTS STATED, ISSUES RAISED,

AUTHORITIES CITED AND ARGUMENTS ADVANCED, IT IS MOST
HUMBLY AND RESPECTFULLY PRAYED BEFORE THE HON’BLE
COURT MAY GRACIOUSLY PLEASED TO:

a) Acquit the accused of the charges under Section 354 and 509 of The Indian
Penal Code, 1860.
b) Pass such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and
proper in the light of justice, equity and good conscience.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE DEFENDANT AS DUTY

BOUND AS EVER, SHALL HUMBLY PRAY.

Sd/-
Counsel for the defendant.

9|Page