Devaaram - Respondent

THE STATE LEVEL ENGLISH MOOT COURT COMPETITION – 2023 BY GLC TRICHY
TC: DEVAARAM
STATE LEVEL ENGLISH MOOT COURT COMPETITION – 2023
BY Government Law College, Tiruchirappalli – 620023
Before
THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF VARUSA NADU
Crl. Appl. No._____________ of 2023

Against
S.C. No. 39/2011
In
Crime No. 59/2019 on the file of the Thinnam Police Station – Thathur (Dt.)
U/S 374 (2) OF Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC)
IN THE MATTER OF
VIRUTHAN
THURITHAN
ARUVAN
………. APPELLANTS/ACCUSED
VS
THE STATE
REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE
THINNAM POLICE STATION
THATHUR DISTRICT ……...RESPONDENTS
HUMBLY SUBMITTED BEFORE THE BENCH OF THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE COUNSEL OF RESPONDENTS
1|Page MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE COUNSEL OF RESPONDENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS.....................................................................................04
2. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES..........................................................................................06
3. TABLE OF CASES.……………………………………………………………………07
4. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION…………………..……………………………...12
5. STATEMENT OF FACTS ............................................................................................13
6. STATEMENT OF CHARGES ……………………………………………………….14
7. GROUNDS RAISED……..............................................................................................15
8. ISSUES RAISED ………………………………………………………………………16
7. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS...................................................................................17
8. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED..............................................................................................16
I. WHETHER THE DEATH OF THE DECEASED IS A CULPABLE
HOMICIDE AMOUNTING TO MURDER OR NOT?
[1.1.] Essential ingredients of murder

[1.2.] actus reus and [1.3.] the mens rea of the crime are established in the instant
case [1.3.] negating the claim of culpable homicide not amounting to murder
[1.4.] conviction under S.302 and not in S. 304 of IPC.
II. WHETHER THE PROSECUTION HAS ESTABLISHED THE GUILT OF THE
ACCUSED HEREIN BEYOND ALL THE REASONABLE DOUBTS?
[2.1] Investigation and gathering evidence

[2.2] Onus of proof – reverse onus proof
[2.3] reliance or direct evidence
[2.4] Regularity in chain of events

III. WHETHER THE PUNISHMENT IMPOSED BY THE TRIAL COURT IS
APPROPRIATE, LEGAL AND VALID?
9. PRAYER…………………………………………………...………………………………………40

TABLE OF ABBRIVIATIONS
& And
AIR All India Reports
Art. Article
CJI Chief Justice of India
Const. Constitution
Ed. Edition
Cr.P.C The Code of Criminal Procedure
Crl Criminal
DW Deposition of Witness
FIR First Information Report
FR Final Report
HC High Court
Hon’ble Honorable
I.P.C Indian Penal Code
IO Investigation Officer
IEA Indian Evidence Act
i.e That is
J. Justice
LW List of Witness
Ltd. Limited
No. Number
Or. Order
ORS Others
PW Prosecution Witness
PIL Public Interest Litigation
R/W Red with
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases

SEC. Section
SOC Scene Of Occurrence
UOI Union of India
v. Versus
VOL. Volume

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
LIST OF BOOKS REFERRED
1. The Code of Criminal Procedure by Ratanlal & Dhirajlal (20th Ed, LexisNexis).
2. Indian Penal Code by P.S.A.Pillai (14th Ed, LexisNexis) and Prof.S.N.Misra 22nd Ed.
3. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 by Dr.V.Nageswara Rao 3rd Ed
LIST OF LEXICONS REFERRED
1. Bryan A. Garner, Black’s Law Dictionary, (10th Ed., Thomas Reuters West, 2014).
2. Aiyarramanatha, P., Concise Law Dictionary, (LexisNexis Butterworths Wadhwa
Nagpur, 2009).
LIST OF STATUTES REFERRED
1. Bare Act - Indian Penal Code,1860 (Universal Law Publishing)

2. Bare Act -The Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (Universal Law Publishing)
3. Bare Act – The Indian Evidence Act,1872 (Universal Law Publishing)
LIST OF WEBSITES REFERRED
1. https://www.lexisnexis.in
2. https://www.scconline.in
3. https://manupatra.in
4. https://www.indiankanoon.org
5. https://www.livelaw.in
LIST OF ARTICLES AND REPORTS REFERRED
1. Aiyar, P Ramanatha, The Law Lexicon, p. 49 (2nd ed 2006)
TABLE OF CASES

S.N CASE LAW CITATION

o
01 Om Prakash v State of Punjab AIR 1961 SC 843.
02 State of Assam v Abinash Dutta AIR 1982 CrLJ 400.
03 State of UP v Ashok Kumar Srivastava AIR 1992 SC 840
04 Bakshish Singh v State of Punjab AIR 1971 SC 2016
05 Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Administration) AIR 1988 SC 1883.
06 Ravindra Shantaram Sawant v. State of Maharashtra AIR 2000 SC 2461.
07 Commissioner of Income Tax v Patranu Dass Raja Ram Beri AIR 1982 PH 1,4.
08 State of Maharashtra v Meyer Hans George AIR 1965 SC 722
09 State of Punjab v Sucha Singh AIR 2003 SC 1471
10 Mulakh Raj v. Satish Kumar AIR 1992 SC 1175
11 State of Madhya Pradesh v. Digvijay Singh, 1981 Cri. LJ 1278

(SC).
12 KM Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra 1962 AIR 605, 1962
SCR Supl. (1) 567.
13 santosh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1975 Cri LJ 602
(SC).
14 Laxman v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1974 SC 1803
15 Md. Idrish v. State 2004 Cr LJ 1724

(Raj)
16 Md. Sharif And Anr. v. Rex AIR 1950 All 380
17 State of Maharashtra v. Bhairu Sattu AIR 1956 Bom 609.

Berad,
18 State of West Bengal v. Mohd. Omar (2000) 8 SCC 382.
19 Ram Gulam Chaudhary and Ors. v. State of Bihar AIR 2001 SC 2842
20 Shankar Diwal Wadu v. State of Maharashtra (2007) 12 SCC 518.
21 Nathan v. State of Madras AIR 1973 SC 665,

1973 CriLJ 608,
(1973) 3 SCC 803.
22 AIR 1955 All 379,

Dakhi Singh v. State
1955 CriLJ 905
23 Manke Ram v. State of Haryana AIR 2003 SC 4147,
2003 CriLJ 2328,
2003 (3) JCR 25 SC,
JT 2003 (4) SC 23,
2003 (3) SCALE
739, (2003) 11 SCC
238.
24 Narendra v. State of Rajasthan 1997 (3) WLC 319.
25 Shivaji Sahabrao vs State 1973 AIR 2622 1974

SCR (1) 489 1973
SCC (2) 793.
26 State of UP V Satish (2005) 3 SCC 114
27 Pawan V State of Uttaranchal, (2009) 15 SCC 259
28 Ashok Kumar V State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1989 SC 1890
29 Bodh Raj V State of Jammu & Kashmir, AIR 2002 SC 316
30 Krishnan V State represented by Inspector of Police, (2008) 15 SCC 430.
31 Badri v. State of U.P., AIR 19953 All 189;
32 Dibia v. State of U.P., AIR 1953 All 373
33 Son Lal v State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 1142
34 Chhotka v State of WB AIR 1958 Cal 482
35 State v Dinakar Bandu (1969) 72 Bom LR

905
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2)1 of CrPC praying to set aside the order
passed by The Additional District and Session Judge NO-1 of Karambalur in S.C.No.39/2011
in (Cr.No. 59/2010) on the file of the Thinnam Police Station, Thathur (Dt.). Convicting the
appellant /accused No. 1-3 for the offence punishable under Section 120-B2 r/w 3023, 302 r/w
1094 of IPC.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Uthiyanand (deceased) resided at Pelathur, Siruguvadi Road, Silakanatham with his family
consisting of his wife (Angai) and children. Uthiyanand occupied the position of secretary in
1
374. Appeals from convictions.—(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 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. (3) Save as 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 360 by any Magistrate, may appeal to
the Court of Session. 1 [(4) When an appeal has been filed against a sentence passed under section 376,
section 376A, section 376AB, section 376B, section 376C, section 376D, section 376DA, section 376DB or
section 376E of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), the appeal shall be disposed of within a period of six
months from the date of filing of such appeal.]
2
120B. Punishment of criminal conspiracy.—(1) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit
an offence punishable with death, 1 [imprisonment for life] or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two
years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such a
conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence. (2) Whoever is a party to a
criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as aforesaid shall
be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine or
with both.]
3
302. Punishment for murder.—Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death or 1
[imprisonment for life], and shall also be liable to fine.
4
109. Punishment of abetment if the act abetted is committed in consequence and where no express
provision is made for its punishment.—Whoever abets any offence shall, if the act abetted is committed in
consequence of the abetment, and no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment of such
abetment, be punished with the punishment provided for the offence.
the Kurunji Nila party, Chinnapadi Union. The chain of events that transpired on 16.10.2010
are,
i. At 10 o’clock in the morning, Udhayn left his house with Aruvan (Accused No. 3) in
a car (TATA 47) for attending the condolence of his relative, Inban who was also
residing in Pelathur.
ii. Uthiyanand left the condolence house around 12.30 p.m. after attending the last rites
of Inban. And around 1 p.m. Angai received a call stating that her Husband’s corpse
was found near the river bed of Godai River and his car stood in the graveyard of
Mattikulam Village, the southern bank of Godai River.
iii. Angai along with her children went to the spot and found that her husband was
brutally murdered and the car, he traveled stood aside, whereas the driver, Aruvan
was missing from the spot.
iv. Later, Pathiravan, sub-inspector of Thinnam Police Station received a call regarding
the incident. After inspecting the crime spot and obtaining the statement from Angai,
he registered an FIR in Cr. No. 59/2010.
After conclusion of the investigation, the Police filed a final report, indicting the Viruthan
(Appellant No. 1), Thurithan (Appellant No. 2) and Aruvan (Appellant No. 3) for the
commission of offences under Section 302 IPC. The Appellant pleaded not guilty and
claimed trial. On conclusion of the Prosecution evidence, the Appellant’s statement was
recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C. wherein he claimed his innocence. The Session’s Court
convicted all the three accused for charges, U/s.120(b) r/w 302 I.P.C and sentenced them to a
Life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of which they shall suffer further
imprisonment of 6 months. The said court further convicted them U/s. 302 r/w 109 I.P.C and
Life Imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of which they shall suffer further
imprisonment for Six months. The period of detention undergone by the accused is to be set
off U/s. 428 of Cr.P.C. Accused challenging the above-mentioned convictions before Hon’ble
High Court of Judicature, Varusa Nadu.
STATEMENT OF CHARGES
10 | P a g e MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE COUNSEL OF RESPONDENTS

The FIR was registered on 16.10.2010, charges framed under Section 120(B) r/w. Section
302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 against Viruthan – A1, Thurithan – A2, Aruvn – A3 for
causing the murder of deceased Uthiyanand.
FIRST CHARGE
A1 – A3 of this case should be punished after the due investigation made in front of the
Hon’ble court under Section 120(B) r/w. Section 302 of IPC for the murder on 16.10.2010.
SECOND CHARGE
A1, Viruthan with the intention of killing the Uthiyanand (deceased), took his concealed
sickle and stabbed the left side head, the right-side cheek, near the right ear, the right side of
the neck, the middle of the chest, the right side of the chest, the left and right side of the front
hand, the right side of the knee, left leg, left thigh, right side chest back, right thighs for
which he should be punished by this Hon’ble court under Section 302 of IPC.
THIRD CHARGE
A1 planned to murder Uthiyanand (Deceased) by using a sickle. As a result, A3 drove the car
of Uthiyanand. After reaching the planned spot as decided by them, A3 stopped the car and
acted like urinating. In the meantime, A2 drove the motorcycle by following the deceased car
with A1 and stopped the car at the said planned spot, to execute the plan. Hence, A2 and A3
gave their hands to A1 for causing murder. For which A2 and A3 should be charged under
Section 302 r/w 109 of IPC.
GROUNDS RAISED

1. The Trail Court has failed to consider, to appreciate the evidence both oral and
documentary evidence in their respective.
2. The Judgment of the Court below is contrary to law, weight of evidence and
probability of the case.
3. The appellant submits that the Trial Court has failed to consider or to appreciate the
evidences both oral and documentary evidences in their respective.
4. The appellant submits that the Trail Court has failed to consider that the investigation
has not been done properly to bring the truth into lime light.
5. The appellant submits that the Trial Court has erroneously convicted the appellant on
the basis of unbelievable evidence and the related documents.
6. The appellant submits that in any view of the matter, the conviction imposed on the
appellant is not sustainable by law.
7. The appellant submits that the sentence imposed on the appellant is highly irrational
and the same is disproportionate to the nature of the crime alleged on the appellant.
8. The appellant submits that the Trail Court has failed to consider that the Prosecution
has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
9. It is submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable
doubts and pray for the acquittal of the appellant from all charges convicted against
him.
ISSUES RAISED

1. WHETHER THE DEATH OF THE DECEASED IS A CULPABLE HOMICIDE
AMOUNTING TO MURDER OR NOT?
2. WHETHER THE PROSECUTION HAS ESTABLISHED THE GUILT OF THE
3. WHETHER THE PUNISHMENT IMPOSED BY THE TRIAL COURT IS

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
1. WHETHER THE DEATH OF THE DECEASED IS A CULPABLE HOMICIDE
2. WHETHER THE PROSECUTION HAS ESTABLISHED THE GUILT OF THE
3. WHETHER THE PUNISHMENT IMPOSED BY THE TRIAL COURT IS

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
ISSUE 1
WHETHER THE DEATH OF THE DECEASED IS A CULPABLE HOMICIDE

It is humbly and respectfully submitted by the Respondent in the present case to the Hon’ble
High Court that the appellant in the present case is guilty of committing the offence under
Section 302 of IPC. Section 302 prescribes the punishment for committing murder. In order
to bring a successful conviction under this charge, however, it is pertinent to refer to Section
300 of IPC which elucidated the essentials of murder.
A person is guilty of murder if he intentionally causes the death of a person or cause such
bodily injury as he knows, is likely to cause death of that person or caused such bodily injury,
which is the ordinary course of nature results into death or commits an act so dangerous that
it must, in all probability cause death of that person 5. The respondent humbly and most
respectfully contends that [1.1.] Essential ingredients of murder, both the [1.2.] actus reus
and [1.3.] the mens rea of the crime are established in the instant case, [1.3.] negating the
claim of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, [1.4.] conviction under S.302 and not in
S. 304 of IPC.
1.1. Essential Ingredients of Murder Under Section 300 of IPC
I. Murder is a heinous crime that involves the intentional killing of another person.
The definition of murder is outlined in the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 which
lays down the essential ingredients that must be present for an act to be considered
murder.
II. The IPC defines murder in Section 300, which states that the culpable homicide is
a murder if it is committed with the intention of causing death or with the
knowledge that the act is likely to cause death. This means that for an act to be
5
Section 300, IPC.
considered murder, there are two essentials ingredients 6 must be present, intention
and knowledge; i.e, actus reus and mens rea.
III. In the case of State of Assam v Abinash Dutta 7, Court stated that a vindictive or
malicious act by a person implies that the act has been done with the motive of
taking revenge and this was happened in the case in hand.
1.2. Actus Reus Of Murder Is Proven
IV. Actus reus is any wrongful act8. 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,
the actus reus is established by way of [A] witness statements, [B] Forensic report
and [C], which are listed followingly.
Witness Statements
V. Bearing in mind that it is not for the prosecution to meet any and every hyuptheses
suggested by the accused, howsoever extravagant and fanciful it might be 9. It si
humbly submittrdn befor this Hon’ble that the circumstantial evidence in the
instant matter shows that within all human probability, the act must have been
done by the accused10.
VI. From the deposition of Angai, it is pertinent to know that the deceased had already
a quarrel with the Accussed-1. And for which A1 has threatened him and also
followed him for two times. And now the Appellant in the present case has
executed his plan of killing the deceased Uthiyanand.
VII. On 16.10.2010, the appellant in the present case has planned to kill the deceased
after the information of knowing the arrival of the deceased. Appellant 2 and 3
6
Om Prakash v State of Punjab AIR 1961 SC 843.
7
AIR 1982 CrLJ 400.
8
Aiyar, P Ramanatha, The Law Lexicon, p. 49 (2nd ed 2006)
9
State of UP v Ashok Kumar Srivastava, AIR 1992 SC 840.
10
Bakshish Singh v State of Punjab, AIR 1971 SC 2016
were instructed and the same was executed by them and murdered the deceased.
This was supported by the deposition of Aadhmani (P.W.5). he has clearly stated
that the appellant in the present case was discussing something mor seriously and
also quoted some lines which are more connected to the case.
VIII. The prime witness in the case is, Idhazha (P.W.2) and Mathanan (P.W.3) who saw
the crime. They are eyewitnesses under Section 60 of the Indian Evidence Act.
The court must rely on direct evidence. The deposition of the witnesses points out
the accused, Appellant in the present case and also included the others for criminal
conspiracy under Section 120A and punishment under Section 120B of the code.
Forensics
IX. The post mortem report becomes important in cases where the cause of death is to
be established and is a matter of controversy11. Moreover, it is not possible for the
Prosecution in to explain each and every injury suffered by the witnesses 12.
However, for the sake of convenience, the Prosecution feels obliged to assist this
Hon’ble Court in understanding the intricacies of the post mortem report.
1.3. Mens Rea of Murder is Established
X. Mens rea is considered as guilty intention 13, which is proved or inferred from the
acts of the accused14. It is submitted that the intention to kill is established [A] in
light of clear-cut motive of the accused [B]. Arguendo, absence of motive would
not be a sufficient ground to dismiss the case [C].
A. The Accused had intention to kill

XI. In the present case it is clear that the accused, the appellant in the present case had
clear intention to kill or murder the deceased. The appellant 1 had murdered the
deceased Uthiyuanand for the argument with his father and for which he
threatened the deceased.
11
Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1988 SC 1883.
12
Ravindra Shantaram Sawant v. State of Maharashtra , AIR 2000 SC 2461.
13
Commissioner of Income Tax v Patranu Dass Raja Ram Beri, AIR 1982 PH 1,4.
14
State of Maharashtra v Meyer Hans George, AIR 1965 SC 722
XII. 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 15. 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 IPC16.
XIII. The intention to kill can be inferred from the murder and nature of the injuries
caused to the victim17. Causing a serious injury on a vital part of the body of the
deceased with a dangerous weapon must necessarily lead to the inference that the
accused intended to cause death or bodily injury sufficient to cause death of the
victim, and it answers to sections 300 and is murder18.
XIV. Given that the appellant in the present case had stabbed in many places with deep
cuts in most of the vital parts and shows the clear and brutal intention of the
accused in the present case.
B. The Accused had motive to kill

XV. Section 8, Evidence Act stipulates that any fact is relevant which shows or
constitutes motive or preparation for any fact in issue or relevant fact. Thus,
previous threats or altercations between parties are admitted to show motive 19. 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 motive20.
XVI. As already stated, the accused had already given threats to the deceased and
murdered at the correct time and this shows that the accused I the present case has
15
(1951) 3 Pepsu LR 635
16
santosh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1975 Cri LJ 602 (SC).
17
Laxman v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1974 SC 1803.
18
Md. Idrish v. State, 2004 Cr LJ 1724 (Raj); Md. Sharif And Anr. v. Rex, AIR 1950 All 380; Badri v.
State of U.P., AIR 19953 All 189; Dibia v. State of U.P., AIR 1953 All 373; State of Maharashtra v. Bhairu
Sattu Berad, AIR 1956 Bom 609.
19
Son Lal v State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 1142, Chhotka v State of WB, AIR 1958 Cal 482.
20
State v Dinakar Bandu (1969) 72 Bom LR 905.
clear motive for murder.
XVII. The appellant 2 and 3 for the criminal conspiracy under section 120A of the code,
have motive to kill the deceased because in a conspiracy all will be treated as one
who did the murder. Therefore, it is pertinent that the all the three appellant has
motive.
C. Arguendo, Absence of motive is irrelevant

XVIII. 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 established 21 as the
mere existence of motive is by itself, not an incriminating circumstance and
cannot take the place of a proof22.
XIX. 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 23. When the circumstantial
evidence on record is sufficient to prove beyond any doubt to prove that it was the
accused and no one else, who intentionally caused the death of the accused then,
the motive of the crime need not be proved24, as in the current case.
1.4.The Accused Cannot Avail Right of Culpable Homicide not amounting to Murder
XX. Section 300 of IPC deals with murder and gives exceptions within the section and
state that as culpable homicide not amounting to murder 25. Which means always
killing of a person doesn’t leads to murder sometimes there may be a chance of
a. grave and sudden provocation26, or
b. in right of private defence27, or
21
Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code, 33rd Ed. (2011)
22
State of Punjab v Sucha Singh, AIR 2003 SC 1471.
23
Mulakh Raj v. Satish Kumar, AIR 1992 SC 1175.
24
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Digvijay Singh, 1981 Cri. LJ 1278 (SC).
25
KM Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra 1962 AIR 605, 1962 SCR Supl. (1) 567.
26
Shankar Diwal Wadu v. State of Maharashtra (2007) 12 SCC 518.
27
Nathan v. State of Madras AIR 1973 SC 665, 1973 CriLJ 608, (1973) 3 SCC 803.
c. in a lawful act of a public servant28, or

d. in a sudden conflict29, or
e. in a death with consent30.
XXI. With the present case, there is no action of the deceased or the appellant in the
present case leading to the situation of a sudden and grave provocation, or a
sudden conflict. There was a pre-planned murder, that is planned and executed
clearly. So, the accused cannot avail the right of private defence too.
XXII. So the offence committed by the Accused is not guilty under Section 304 of IPC
for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, but rather Accused 1-3 are guilty
under Section 302 of culpable homicide amounting to murder, and should be
punished as per the code.
ISSUE 2
WHETHER THE PROSECUTION HAS ESTABLISHED THE GUILT OF THE

ACCUSED HEREIN BEYOND ALL THE REASONABLE DOUBT?
It is humbly and respectfully submitted before the Hon’ble High Court that the prosecution,
respondent in the present case has established the guilt of all the three accused beyond all the
reasonable doubts. Which could be elaborated on the following pretexts [2.1] Investigation
and gathering evidence [2.2] Onus of proof – reverse onus proof [2.3] reliance or direct
evidence [2.4] Regularity in chain of events
2.1. Investigation and Gathering Evidence
28
Dakhi Singh v. State AIR 1955 All 379, 1955 CriLJ 905.
29
Manke Ram v. State of Haryana AIR 2003 SC 4147, 2003 CriLJ 2328, 2003 (3) JCR 25 SC, JT 2003 (4)
SC 23, 2003 (3) SCALE 739, (2003) 11 SCC 238.
30
Narendra v. State of Rajasthan 1997 (3) WLC 319.
I. In the present case, the respondent i.e. the prosecution in the previous case has
proved the case beyond all reasonable doubts and accordingly order was passed by
the Session Court. All the required information and more than sufficient investigation
were made and gathered evidence for the case.
II. The effective investigation by the police officer within the short span of the incident
and gathered information relating to the case. And arrested the accused only with the
legit investigation.
III. The witnesses related to the case are called and recorded their statements in Section
164 of CrPC in front of the Judicial Magistrate and the witnesses were chief
examined and cross examined for a better clarity of the case.
IV. Expert opinion relating to the death of the deceased was analysed and maximum
reports have been gathered with legit information. The post mortem report gives a
detailed information of the cuts in the body and the injuries in the organs or any
oother parts with the dimensions of the injury and the cause of death.
V. The Biological Department Report after their maximum efforts they stated in their
deposition that, the blood stain collected in the evidences in the crime spot was of a
human blood and in which the first two evidences, 1. Half hand shirt and 2. Veshti
had the blood stain of B group which is of he deceased. But in the other two, in 3.
Undergarments and 4. Sickle, the department could able to find that the blood stains
is of the human nature but couldn’t able to categorize further.
2.2. Onus of Proof – Reverse onus clause
VI. In a criminal trial, the burden of proof lies on the prosecution side and the same have
been dully fulfilled and the prosecution, respondent in the present case had gone
through all the intricacies of the case and analysed deeply and proved the case
beyond reasonable doubts.

VII. The presumption of innocence is a concept that means every person or an individual
is innocent until proven guilty. Justice Thomas in the case of State of West Bengal v.
Mohd. Omar31 has explained the need to change the outlook of this concept.
According to him, the traditional approach that the burden of proof will always lie
upon the prosecution would only benefit the accused of the heinous crimes and would
create casualties for the society.
VIII. In such cases where the prosecutor is successful in proving certain facts of the case,
the court must presume the existence of the facts and has to rely on such
circumstances. In other words, when the court is satisfied with the proof provided by
the prosecution, then the burden of proof shifts to the accused as it is observed that it
is only the accused who knows every incident that has been committed. This is also
known as the reverse onus clause.
IX. When any fact is within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact
is upon the person and not on the prosecution. Once the facts are proven by the
prosecutor then onus shifts to the accused to explain his part, so that court can make
appropriate judgement.
X. Hence, this provision gives another chance to the accused to defend himself by
rebutting the presumption of the fact as such facts are within the accused’s special
knowledge.
XI. The Supreme Court has clarified all the doubts arising out of this Section in the case
of Ram Gulam Chaudhary and Ors. v. State of Bihar 32. It is held that all the positive
facts must be proven by the prosecution however, it is not responsible to prove
negative facts that something which is impossible or which is not within the
knowledge of the party.
XII. Hence, shifting the burden is not a violation of any statute or the provision of law as
it helps in the establishment of truth which is important for a fair trial.
2.3. Reliance on Direct Evidence

31
(2000) 8 SCC 382.
32
AIR 2001 SC 2842.
XIII. Direct evidence is evidence which explicitly establishes a fact or proves any
assertions made by the party and does not require supplementation and interference
to form a connection between various facts33.
XIV. Since there are direct eyewitness testimonies in the present case, the rule of chain of
events34 will not be applicable in the present case. And the test for circumstantial
evidence35 is also not necessary to be proved by the prosecution36.
XV. Expert opinion of reports of the deceased and the samples collected from the crime
spot and the evidence. The detailed post-mortem report made by Doctor Kandan
(P.W.15) clearly mentioned the injuries and the cause of death.
XVI. Courts can consider the chief examination and cross-examination to enhance the facts
or to through light on the facts oof the present case. And also it is known that the
confession given to the police is not admissible in the court of law, but for the
consideration of the order, it is presented before the Hon’ble High Court.
XVII. Thus, the court in passing the order has relied mainly and majorly on the direct
evidence, Section 60 of the Indian Evidence Act, and not relied on circumstantial
evidence. And the onus has been shifted from prosecution to the accused to present
his chain of events.
2.4. Regularity in the Chain of Events
33
This Court In Shivaji Sahabrao vs State - 28 July, 2020.
34
State of UP V Satish, (2005) 3 SCC 114 and Pawan V State of Uttaranchal, (2009) 15 SCC 259. In
Ashok Kumar V State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1989 SC 1890.
35
Bodh Raj V State of Jammu & Kashmir, AIR 2002 SC 316.
36
Krishnan V State represented by Inspector of Police, (2008) 15 SCC 430.
XVIII. In a general sense, the burden of proof in criminal trials are with the prosecution but
now with the changing trends after the positive facts are proven then the burden shifts
to the Accused to prove the negative facts.
XIX. In this case the prosecution, the respondent in the present case have taken enormous
steps in proving the facts beyond reasonable doubts and to connect all the intricacies
in the chain of events.
ISSUE 3
WHETHER THE PUNISHMENT IMPOSED BY THE TRIAL COURT IS


PRAYER
WHEREFORE in light of issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is most
humbly prayed before this Hon’ble Court that it be pleased to adjudge and declare that:
1.
AND/OR pass any other order/orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the
circumstances of the given case and the interest of Justice, Equity, and Good Conscience.
And for this act of kindness and justice, the counsel of petitioners shall be duty-bound and
forever pray.
ALL OF WHICH IS MOST HUMBLY AND RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
Place:____________Diana. S/d__________
Date: October 2022 Counsel for Petitioner

Devaaram - Respondent

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

Devaaram - Respondent

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE STATE LEVEL ENGLISH MOOT COURT COMPETITION – 2023 BY GLC TRICHY

STATE LEVEL ENGLISH MOOT COURT COMPETITION – 2023

BY Government Law College, Tiruchirappalli – 620023

THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF VARUSA NADU

Crl. Appl. No._____________ of 2023

U/S 374 (2) OF Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC)

HUMBLY SUBMITTED BEFORE THE BENCH OF THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE COUNSEL OF RESPONDENTS

1|Page MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE COUNSEL OF RESPONDENTS

5. STATEMENT OF FACTS ............................................................................................13

6. STATEMENT OF CHARGES ……………………………………………………….14

8. ISSUES RAISED ………………………………………………………………………16

I. WHETHER THE DEATH OF THE DECEASED IS A CULPABLE

HOMICIDE AMOUNTING TO MURDER OR NOT?

[1.1.] Essential ingredients of murder

II. WHETHER THE PROSECUTION HAS ESTABLISHED THE GUILT OF THE

ACCUSED HEREIN BEYOND ALL THE REASONABLE DOUBTS?

[2.1] Investigation and gathering evidence

2|Page MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE COUNSEL OF RESPONDENTS

III. WHETHER THE PUNISHMENT IMPOSED BY THE TRIAL COURT IS

APPROPRIATE, LEGAL AND VALID?

3|Page MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE COUNSEL OF RESPONDENTS

4|Page MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE COUNSEL OF RESPONDENTS

5|Page MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE COUNSEL OF RESPONDENTS

LIST OF BOOKS REFERRED

LIST OF LEXICONS REFERRED

LIST OF STATUTES REFERRED

1. Bare Act - Indian Penal Code,1860 (Universal Law Publishing)

LIST OF WEBSITES REFERRED

LIST OF ARTICLES AND REPORTS REFERRED

1. Aiyar, P Ramanatha, The Law Lexicon, p. 49 (2nd ed 2006)

6|Page MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE COUNSEL OF RESPONDENTS

S.N CASE LAW CITATION

02 State of Assam v Abinash Dutta AIR 1982 CrLJ 400.

03 State of UP v Ashok Kumar Srivastava AIR 1992 SC 840

04 Bakshish Singh v State of Punjab AIR 1971 SC 2016

05 Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Administration) AIR 1988 SC 1883.

06 Ravindra Shantaram Sawant v. State of Maharashtra AIR 2000 SC 2461.

08 State of Maharashtra v Meyer Hans George AIR 1965 SC 722

09 State of Punjab v Sucha Singh AIR 2003 SC 1471

10 Mulakh Raj v. Satish Kumar AIR 1992 SC 1175

11 State of Madhya Pradesh v. Digvijay Singh, 1981 Cri. LJ 1278

14 Laxman v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1974 SC 1803

15 Md. Idrish v. State 2004 Cr LJ 1724

17 State of Maharashtra v. Bhairu Sattu AIR 1956 Bom 609.

20 Shankar Diwal Wadu v. State of Maharashtra (2007) 12 SCC 518.

21 Nathan v. State of Madras AIR 1973 SC 665,

(1973) 3 SCC 803.

22 AIR 1955 All 379,

24 Narendra v. State of Rajasthan 1997 (3) WLC 319.

25 Shivaji Sahabrao vs State 1973 AIR 2622 1974

27 Pawan V State of Uttaranchal, (2009) 15 SCC 259

28 Ashok Kumar V State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1989 SC 1890

29 Bodh Raj V State of Jammu & Kashmir, AIR 2002 SC 316

30 Krishnan V State represented by Inspector of Police, (2008) 15 SCC 430.

31 Badri v. State of U.P., AIR 19953 All 189;

32 Dibia v. State of U.P., AIR 1953 All 373

33 Son Lal v State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 1142

34 Chhotka v State of WB AIR 1958 Cal 482

35 State v Dinakar Bandu (1969) 72 Bom LR

8|Page MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE COUNSEL OF RESPONDENTS

10 | P a g e MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE COUNSEL OF RESPONDENTS