V.

R KRISHNAN EZHUTHACHAN LAW COLLEGE,

ELEVANCHERY
9TH SEMESTER INTRA-CLASS MOOT COURT

BEFORE THE HON’BLE

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION FILED UNDER

ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
INDIA

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.248-250 OF 2023

MANOJ & ORS………………………………………………….… PETITIONER

V.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH……………………………......RESPONDENT

COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER

Ganga Jayadeep

Roll No.27, B.B.ALL.B(Hons)

Gopika T.R

Roll No.29, B.B.ALL.B(Hons)

ARGUMENT NOTE FOR RESPONDENT

1
 LIST OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVATIONS………………………………………….........3

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES…………………………………………………4

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION…………………………………......5

STATEMENT OF FACTS…………………………………………..........6

ISSUES RAISED…………………………………………………………....7

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS………………………………………...8

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED…………………………………………....9

ISSUE 1:
WHETHER THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE
HON’BLE SUPREME COURT?
ISSUE 2:
WHETHER GRANDING OF DEATH SENTENCE WITHOUT CONSIDERING
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES IS VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 21 OF THE
CONSTITUTION?

PRAYER…………………………………………………………………………23

2
 LIST OF ABBREVATIONS

SL ABBREVATIONS FULL FORM

NO

1 S./Sec. Section
2 U/ Under
3 AIR All India Reporter
4 Ors/ores Other
5 Anr. Another
6 Art. Article
7 & And
8 Consti. Constitution
9 Hon’ble Honourable
10 Ltd Limited
11 Pvt Private
12 SC Supreme Court
13 HC High Court
14 SCC Supreme Court Cases
15 V. Versus
16 UOI Union Of India
17 Ed Edition
18 UDHR Universal Declaration of Human
Rights

3
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATUTES
• CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA,1950
• INDIAN PENAL CODE,1860
• CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1972
• INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872
• ARMS ACT, 1959

BOOKS REFERED
• M.P JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, LexisNexis, 7 ed., 2014.
• D.D BASU, (2014) COMMENTARIES ON THE CONSTITUTION OF
INDIA. Gurgaon, Haryana, India: LexisNexis.
• RANCHHODDAS, R. et al. (2021) CRIMINAL LAW AND
PROCEDURE BY RATANLAL & DHIRAJLAL. Gurgaon, Haryana,
India: LexisNexis.
• Surendranath, A. (2016) DEATH PENALTY INDIA REPORT. New
Delhi: National Law University.

WEBSITES REFERED
http://www.indiacode.nic.in
https://indiancanoon.org
https://main.sci.gov.in/
https://prsindia.org/
https://www.legallyindia.com/https://www.livelaw.in/

4
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The counsel humbly submits to the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court under Article 1361 of The
Constitution of India, 1950. This Article mentions the Appellate Jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court in regard to Criminal Matters by the way of Special Leave from the High Courts under
its jurisdiction who have reversed the judgment of a trial court in a matter. This case presents
a chance before the court to hear a man out who might be having a slight chance to get justice.

1. Article 136, Constitution of India 1950;(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the Supreme Court may,
in its discretion, grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any
cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India.

(2) Nothing in clause (1) shall apply to any judgment, determination, sentence or order passed or made by any
court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces

5
 STATEMENT OF FACTS
Mr. Niranjan, Niranjan’s wife Megha, daughter Aslesha & Mother - in - law Smt. Rohini
were residing at their flat. In an evening, Niranjan's flat was bolted from the outside &
reported seeing patches of blood on the door, the dead bodies of the deceased persons lying
near the bedroom door & blood was on the floor. The FIR alleging that some unknown
persons murdered the three deceased ladies with sharp weapons and fled the scene. On the
next day it was reported that Megha’s golden bangles and Mangal sutra, Rohini's two gold
bangles, and Ashlesha’s mobile phone, camera and ATM cards were missing. Rahul (20) ,
Sanoj (35) & Neha (22) were arrested with the possession of the robbed jewellery , knife
and a pistol was seized from their custody. Only by considering the evidence on record, the
Trial Court convicted them for offences punishable under Sections 302, 397/34, 449 of the
IPC and Section 25(1-B) (B), 27 of Arms Act. On the point of sentence, the Trial Court took
the view that the ' Magnitude & Diabolic manner ' in which the offence was committed the
case on hand fell under the category of ‘Rarest of Rare' case and warranted Death penalty.

The reports received from the Jail reflect that, the Accused have a record of overall good
conduct in prison & display inclination to reform. The H.C of Madhya Pradesh Bench at
Indore, also confirm the Trial Court order, and said that, the incident shook the collective
conscience of the community and the acts of murder committed by the appellants were so
gruesome, merciless and brutal, the aggravating circumstances far outweighed the mitigating
circumstances and hence, this case fell under the category of rarest of the rare case which
manifests society’s abhorrence of such crime. The High Court further held that the accused,
during their examination under Section 313 CrPC failed to explain their conduct and even
gave incorrect and false answers. It therefore affirmed the Trial court's conclusions and
findings.

Then the Appellants approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

6
 ISSUES RAISED

ISSUE 1: WHETHER THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT?

ISSUE 2: WHETHER GRANDING OF DEATH SENTENCE WITHOUT

CONSIDERING MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES IS VIOLATIVE OF
ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION?

7
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. WHETHER THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that, the Constitution of India under Article
136 vests special power upon the Supreme Court of India to grant leave only to appeals against
any judgment in case any substantial constitutional question of law is involved or gross
injustice has been done. In the case at hand, it is found that the High Court of Madhya Pradesh
has followed every set of guidelines that are necessary to be instituted. It is confirmed that there
wasn’t any error on the part of the Madhya Pradesh High Court causing the violation of Art.
21. The Respondent humbly submits that all the circumstances stated are against the grounds
mentioned for the Special Leave Petition.

2. WHETHER GRANDING OF DEATH SENTENCE WITHOUT

CONSIDERING MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES IS VIOLATIVE
OF ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION.
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that, the present case was already decided by
the High Court of Madhya Pradesh by affording a real opportunity to the prosecution as well
as the accused, to place on record facts and material relating to various factors on the question
of sentence and the Judgment was based on a fair trial and reasonable procedure of law and is
not violate of Article 21.The aggravating circumstances and forensic reports clearly declares
the brutality of the crime and the aggrieved was diabolic who committed the offence and is
punishable by the court of law there to.

8
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
ISSUE 1: Whether this Special Leave Petition is maintainable in the Court
of Law or not?
It is humbly submitted before this Hon'ble Supreme Court that the special leave petition filed
by the revenue is not maintainable as Special Leave cannot be granted when substantial justice
has been done and no exceptional or special circumstances exist for case to be maintainable.
Also, in the present case, no substantial question of law is involved and interference is based
on pure question of fact which is entitled to be dismissed.

[1.1] NO SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST IN THIS CASE AND

SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE HAS ALREADY BEEN DONE
It is contended by the respondent that the appellant must show that exceptional and special
circumstances exists and that if there is no interference, substantial and grave injustice will
result and the case has features of sufficient gravity to warrant review of the decision appealed
against on merits. Only then the court would exercise its overriding powers under Article 1361.
Special leave will not be granted when there is no failure of justice or when substantial justice
is done, though the decision suffers from some legal errors2.

In the case at hand, no exceptional and special circumstances have been shown by the appellant.
Substantial Justice has already been done by the High Court itself and the appellant is unable
in presenting the flaws in the present case. This shows that the law is well-settled in this regard
and the present case is not an exception.

It was also observed that, it is not possible to define the limitations on the exercise of the
discretionary jurisdiction vested in this Court under Art136. It being an exceptional and
overriding power, naturally, has to be exercised sparingly and with caution and only in special
and extraordinary situations.3

1. M.P Jain-Indian Constitutional Law: Article 136, Constitution of India 1950;(1) Notwithstanding anything in
this Chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion, grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree,
determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of
India.

(2) Nothing in clause (1) shall apply to any judgment, determination, sentence or order passed or made by any
court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces

2. Council of Scientific and Industrial Research v K. GS Bhatt (1989) AIR 1972 (SC)

3. Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v CIT West Bengal (1955) AIR 65 (SC)

9
Article 136 does not give a right to a party to appeal to the SC rather it confers a wide
discretionary power on the SC to interfere in suitable cases.4

1.1.1 No irregularity of procedure of violation of principle of natural justice

is being done

In plethora of cases, it has been held that except that where there has been an illegality or an
irregularity of procedure or a violation of principle of natural justice resulting in the absence
of a fair trial or gross miscarriage of justice, the SC does not permit a third review of evidence
with regard to question of fact in cases in which two courts of fact have appreciated and
assessed the evidence with regard to such questions.5

It is contended that this court is not bound to go into the merits and even if it were to do so, and
declare the law or point out the error, still it may not interfere if the justice of the case on facts
doesn't require interference or if it feels that the relief could be moulded in a different fashion.6

Hence, it is humbly submitted that the case should be dismissed because the principles of
natural justice are not being harmed in any way and the above grounds make it clear.

[1.2] THAT THE APPEAL IS A QUESTION OF FACT AND NOT A

QUESTION OF LAW AND HENCE IS NOT MAINTAINABLE

It is contended by the Respondent that the appeal doesn't involve any substantial question of
law rather it involves pure question of fact and hence, is not maintainable. Questions of fact
cannot be permitted to be raised unless there is material evidence which has been ignored by
the high court or the finding reached by the court is perverse.7 The SC cannot consistently with
its practice convert itself into a court of facts.8

4.Supra 1

5.State of UP. v Ram Manorath (1972) 3 SCC 215 (SC)

6. Raghunath G. Pauhale v Chagan Lal Sundarji & Co. (1999) 8 SCC 1 (SC)

7.Union of India v Rajeshwari & Co. (1986) 161 ITR 60 (SC)

8.Gurbakhsh Singh v State of Punjab (1955) AIR 320 (SC)

10
Generally, on finding of fact, no interference will be made.9 Even in cases where conclusions
are reached without proper discussion, yet if it involves finding on fact, no interference of SC
is called for.10 If the conclusion is based on some evidence on which a conclusion could be
arrived at, no question of law as such arise.11

It is now well-settled that the superior courts while exercising their jurisdiction under Article
136 may not exercise the same in appropriate cases. 12

It is submitted that the Hon'ble High Court is a court of law itself and the High Court, after a
lot of analysis only, would've passed such an appeal. Now the appellant is appealing before this
Hon'ble Court without any stable grounds for the appeal. There hasn't been any strong
substantial question of law which might allow this appeal to be heard. It is thereby humbly
submitted that this appeal should not be maintainable in this court of justice.

1.2.1. Assuming the involvement of a "question of law", there is still no

"substantial question of law" in the present case"

It has to be kept in mind that the right of appeal is neither a natural nor an inherent right attached
to the litigation.13 Being a substantive statutory right, it has to be regulated in accordance with
law in force at the relevant time.

In Sir Chunilal Mehta & Sons Ltd. v Century Spinning & Mfg. Co. Ltd.14 ,26 this Court
had laid down the following tests to determine whether a substantial question of law is
involved. The tests are: (1) whether directly or indirectly it affects substantial rights of the
parties, or (2) the question is of general-public importance, or (3) whether it is an open question
in the sense that there is no scope for interference by the High Court with a finding recorded
when such finding could be treated to be a finding of fact.

9.CIT v Maganlal Chaganial (P) Ltd (1997) 11 SCC 557 (SC)

10. Amarchand Sobhachand v CIT (1971) AIR 720 (SC)

11. CIT v Orissa Corp Id. (1986) 159 ITR 0078 (SC)

12. ONGC Ltd. v Sendhabhai Vastram Patel (2005) 6 SCC 454 (SC)

13. Hero Vinoth (minor) v Seshammal (2006) AIR 2234 (SC)

14. Sir Chunilal Mehta & Sons Ltd. v Century Spinning & Mfg. Co. Ltd. (1962) AIR 1314 (SC)

11
If the question is settled by the highest Court or the general principles to be applied in
determining the question are well settled and there is a mere question of applying those
principles the question would not be a substantial question of law.

To be 'substantial' a question of law must be debatable, not previously settled by law of the land
or a binding precedent, and must have a material bearing on the decision of the case, if
answered either way, insofar as the rights of the parties before it is concerned.

Re-appreciation of evidence and substitution of the findings by the High Court is

impermissible. Hence, it is submitted that no substantial question of law is involved in the
present case.

Hence, after examining the case, it is humbly submitted before the Hon'ble Supreme Court that
this Petition is not maintainable in the court.

ISSUE 2: Whether Granting of Death Sentence without Considering

Mitigating Circumstances are Violates Art. 21 of the Constitution of India?

Certainly, here’s a general introduction to the arguments that the respondent side might present:

“Your Honors, distinguished members of the court, it is an honour to appear before you on
behalf of the respondent in this matter. We stand here today to uphold the integrity of the trial
proceedings that have transpired and to reaffirm the validity of the judgment that has been
rendered. The trial in question was conducted meticulously, adhering to the principles of due
process and fairness, with both sides provided ample opportunity to present their case and be
heard. Our arguments seek to affirm the legitimacy of the trial process, the sufficiency of the
evidence presented, and the correctness of the verdict delivered. In the face of the accused’s
claims, we are prepared to demonstrate that the trial was free from undue influence, conducted
impartially, and that the judgment stands as a result of a thorough examination of the evidence
and legal considerations. Through our arguments, we intend to assert that the accused were
accorded their rights, and that the trial process and its outcome deserve the court’s confidence
and endorsement.

12
2.1THE CASE FALLS UNDER THE CASE OF RAREST OF RARE CASES

In the present case, the Magnitude & Diabolic manner ‘in which the offence was committed
the case on hand fell under the category “Rarest of rare cases. It is imperative to mention that
there is no straightjacket criterion of “Rarest of rare cases and special circumstances have to be
taken in consideration. However, the Apex Court has time and again enumerated certain factors
which have to be taken in consideration for putting into “Rarest of rare” cases which are:

1. Manner of the commission of crime.

2. Socially abhorrent nature of the crime.

3. Such act which shocks the collective conscience of the community.

It is the nature and the gravity of the crime which are the basic consideration for appropriate
punishment in the criminal trial. In the present case the act of the accused fulfils the criterion
of the doctrine of “Rarest of rare cases. In the case of Macchi Singh v. State of Punjab1, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court described the meaning of manner of murder and stated that when
murder is committed in an extremely brutal, grotesque, diabolical, revolting or dastardly
manner so as to arouse intense and extreme indignation of the community then such act is one
of the aspects of the doctrine of “Rarest of rare” cases in the manner of commission of crime
by accused.

In the present case, the three deceased ladies with sharp weapons were used for the murder and
it was committed in a diabolic manner and robbery was also committed. Therefore, the act of
the accused shocked the collective conscience of the community and is put under the purview
of the “Rarest of rare” cases.

¹ Macchi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983) 3 SCC 470.

13
2.2THE DEATH PENALTY IS APPROPRIATE

In Maineka Gandhi v. Union of India2, Supreme Court held that the death penalty can be
awarded only in special cases. It constitutes an exceptional punishment which will be imposed
only with special reasons and will be properly conferred by the High Court. In Rajendra
Prasad v. State of Uttar Pradesh3, the Justice Krishna Iyyer observed that “if the murderous
operation of a die-hard criminal jeopardizes social security in a persistent, planned and perilous
fashion then his enjoyment of fundamental rights may be rightly annihilated.”

In Santosh Kumar Barivar v. State of Maharashtra4, Justice S.B. Sinha imposed a duty
upon the court that “Appropriate punishment is to be determined on a case-by-case basis. The
death sentence is not to be awarded save in the “Rarest of rare case where reform is not
possible.”

Basing reliance on Bachchan Singh Case5, the following can be considered as aggravating.

• Murder committed with previous planning and extreme brutality.

• Murder involving exceptional decadence.

• Murder of any member of armed force of the union, police force or a public servant.

1. On duty,

2. Anything done or attempted to be done in lawful discharge of his duty whether or

Not at the time or murder he was such member or public servant.

• Murder of the person in the course of lawful discharge of his duty u/s 43, 37 and 129 of
CRPC.

2.Maineka Gandhi v. Union of India1978 AIR 597, 1978 SCR (2) 621
3. Rajendra Prasad v. State of Uttar Pradesh 1979 AIR 916, 1979 SCR (3) 78
4. SANTOSH KUMAR SATISBHUSHAN BARIYAR V STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Criminal Appeal no.
1478 of 2005 with Criminal Appeal no. 452 of 2006
5. Bachchan Singh Case appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 273 of 1979

14
In the present of the accused satisfies aggravating circumstances, when such crimes are
continuously increasing reformative ideas are totally ineffective. If death penalty is not given
it will only badly influence the criminals like them to commit such heinous crimes. The MP
High Court in the case of Mahindra Singh v. State of MP6 “Justice demands that the Court
should impose a punishment befitting the crime so that it reflects abhorrence of the crime.”

Humanity is more in danger in the hands of persons like the accused who have committed an
act of extreme depravity when they brutally raped and murdered Navita. The extreme
punishment may convey a message to these predators that it is not a soft state where criminals
committing such crimes may get reprieve in the guise of humanity.

2.3 ARTICLE 21 IS NOT VIOLATED

It is contended that the Judgment of the Hon’ble High Court is not violative of Art. 21 of the
constitution as it is against the right to Life and personal liberty of an individual.

Article 217 of the Constitution of India guarantees the protection of life and personal liberty.
While it ensures these rights, there are exceptions under which these rights can be limited or
restricted. Some of the circumstances where the court may not take Article 21 in to
consideration.

2.3.1Procedure Established by Law:

Article 21 states that no person shall be deprived of their life or personal liberty except
according to the procedure established by law. This implies that if there is a law that allows for
a person’s life or personal liberty to be restricted, as long as the proper legal process is followed,
it would not be considered a violation of Article 21.

6. Mahendra Singh vs State of M.P. 1996 CriLJ 894, 1995 Supp (3) SCC 731 1987 3 SCC 80

7.According to Article 21: “Protection of Life and Personal Liberty: No person shall be deprived of his life or
personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”

15
2.4THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE HAS NOT BEEN
VIOLATED

The principle of Natural Justice is important, it is essential to consider the context of the case

and the procedural aspects of the trial. Here decision maker acted with bias, asserting that the

court followed due process and considered the evidence presented during the trial. The court’s

decision was based on the evidence presented, and any pre-determined mindset is a subjective

interpretation. The court’s role is to weigh the evidence and make a determination based on

legal principles and precedents, rather than being influenced by personal bias. The principle of

Natural Justice, while crucial, should not be used as a means to challenge every unfavourable

decision.

2.4.1 Proper trial followed

The trial followed proper procedures, both parties were given the opportunity to present their

arguments, and the decision was based on a reasonable evaluation of the available evidence.

2.4.2 Already reviewed by high court

Furthermore, the High Court’s decision was reached after a thorough review of the case, and

it’s not uncommon for higher courts to uphold decisions when the lower court’s analysis is

sound. They could contend that the principle of natural justice does not automatically imply a

different outcome in this case. In summary, the trial and subsequent decisions adhered to

procedural fairness and that the principle of Natural Justice, while important, does not

necessarily invalidate the conclusions drawn by the court. Certainly, here are some case laws

that regarding the proper adherence to the principle of natural justice in the trial.

16
In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)8: This case highlighted the significance of natural
justice as a fundamental right. It emphasized that any decision taken by an authority should be
just, fair, and reasonable, and the principle of natural justice should not be violated. In State of
Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei (1967)9: In this case, the Supreme Court emphasized the
importance of adhering to the principles of natural justice, stating that the observance of these
principles is not a mere formality but a requirement of the law. In A. K. Kraipak & Ors. V.
Union of India & Ors. (1969)10: The Supreme Court held that the principle of natural justice
is of utmost importance and should not be sacrificed on the altar of administrative expediency.
Bengal Chemical & Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. V. The Workmen (1975)11:

This case underlined the principle that the right to a fair hearing is a basic requirement of natural
justice. It was held that justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done. In
Suresh Pathrella v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (2017)12: In this case, the court
emphasized that the right to be heard is a crucial aspect of natural justice, and any decision
affecting the rights of individuals must be arrived at after providing them an opportunity to
present their case. Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel (1985)13: The Supreme Court held that
even in cases of national security, the principles of natural justice must be followed, and a
person should be given an opportunity to defend themselves. These case laws collectively
emphasize the importance of adhering to the principles of natural justice, even when making
decisions in the legal context. They support your argument that the trial and subsequent
decisions followed due process and procedural fairness.

2.5 PROPER TRAIL ALREADY FOLLOWED

The trial and subsequent decisions were conducted in accordance with established legal
procedures. They might contend that the court’s actions were not arbitrary but were based on
the evidence and legal principles presented during the trial.

2.5.1 Not every decision is agreeable to all parties

To address the claim that the principles of natural justice were ignored, the opposing side might
argue that the court followed due process and allowed both parties to present their arguments.

8.Supra 2
9. State of Orissa vs Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei & Ors 1967 AIR 1269, 1967 SCR (2) 625
10. Kraipak v. Union of India (AIR 1970 SC A)
11. Bengal Chemical & Pharmaceutical ... vs Its Workmen 1969 AIR 360, 1969 SCR (2) 113
12. Suresh Pathrella v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Appeal (civil) 4573 of 2006
13. Union of India and Another vs Tulsiram Patel and Others 1985 AIR 1416, 1985 SCR Supl. (2) 131

17
They could emphasize that natural justice does not mean that every decision will be agreeable
to all parties; rather, it means that the legal procedures were followed fairly. While the right to
a fair trial is important, it’s not an absolute right that can be used to challenge every
unfavourable decision. They might stress that the court’s decision was based on the available
evidence and legal considerations, which is the essence of due process. The principles of the
rule of law and due process were upheld throughout the trial and that the court’s role is to
ensure that the law is followed and justice is served. The accused were given an opportunity to
present their case and that the court’s decision was a result of a careful consideration of the
facts and legal arguments.
In conclusion, the trial was conducted in accordance with established legal norms and that the
court’s decision was a result of a fair and reasonable evaluation of the evidence. As by the
above it can be asserted that the claim of a violation of fair trial rights is unfounded in this case.
In Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab (1994)14 the Supreme Court emphasized that the trial
should be conducted in a manner that is fair to the accused. It highlighted the importance of
adhering to legal procedures and principles while ensuring that the accused’s rights are
protected. Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat (2004)15: This case dealt with the
importance of fair trial and highlighted the duty of the court to ensure that the truth is arrived
at. The court stressed that procedural fairness is a cornerstone of a just legal system.
Mohammad Ajmal Mohammad Amir Kasab v. State of Maharashtra (2012)16: This case
pertains to the high-profile Mumbai terror attack trial. The Supreme Court discussed the
principles of natural justice and emphasized the need for a fair trial, even in cases of grave
offenses. Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.) (1988)17 As mentioned earlier, this case
highlighted the significance of a fair trial and the importance of adhering to proper legal
procedures while dispensing justice. Raj Deo Sharma v. State of Bihar (1998)18 In this case,
the Supreme Court held that the right to a fair trial is a constitutional guarantee, and it cannot
be denied even in cases involving heinous crimes. These cases underscore the importance of
adhering to proper trial procedures, ensuring fairness, and upholding the accused’s rights, even
in cases involving serious offenses. As it mentioned above the due process and was conducted
in accordance with established legal norms.
14. Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab SCC (3) 569 JT 1994 (2) 423 1994
15. Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat (2004): Appeal (crl.) 446-449 of 2004.
16. Mohammad Ajmal Amir Kasab v. State of Maharashtra (2012) 9 SCC 1. Year of the case, 2012
17. Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.) (1988) AIR 1883 SCR Supl. (2) 24 SCC (3) 609 JT 1988 (3) 191 1988
18. Raj Deo Sharma v. State of Bihar (1998) Criminal Appeal No.1045 of 1998

18
2.6 SECTION 313 AS A RELEVANT CONSIDERATION:
While it’s acknowledged that Section 31319 statements may not be treated as substantive
evidence, it’s important to recognize that they serve as a significant tool for cross-
examination. These statements offer the accused an opportunity to respond to the
prosecution’s case and provide explanations for the evidence presented. Even if not
admissible as evidence, they can be considered as relevant material for the court to assess the
accused’s defence, examine potential inconsistencies, and evaluate the overall credibility of
the case.
2.6.1. Court’s Discretion and Fair Assessment:
The court’s decision to consider Section 313 statements as special reasons for affirming the
death sentence was based on a fair and well-informed assessment. While these statements may
lack evidentiary value per se, they could still provide insights into the accused’s demeanor,
their version of events, and potential motivations, which can contribute to the court’s
understanding of the case’s gravity.
2.6.2 Not Ignoring Legal Principles:
The High Court did not disregard legal principles, but rather exercised its discretion within the
bounds of the law. The consideration of Section 313 statements could be seen as part of a
holistic approach to decision-making, ensuring that all available information is taken into
account. The court’s action might have been based on its assessment of the case’s overall
circumstances and the need for a comprehensive understanding of the matter.
2.6.3. Adjudicating Individual Cases:
It’s important to recognize that each case is unique and might involve varying degrees of
complexity. The court’s use of Section 313 statements was a specific response to the
circumstances of this case. Rather than a blanket dismissal of legal principles, it could be a
result of the court’s careful consideration of the situation at hand.
2.6.4. Balancing Rights and Justice:
While Section 313 statements may not be evidence in the traditional sense, they serve the
purpose of ensuring a balanced approach to justice. By allowing the accused to address the
prosecution’s case directly, the court can prevent any potential miscarriage of justice and
uphold the principle of fairness.In summary, the court’s consideration of Section 313 statements
was within its jurisdiction and aimed at ensuring a comprehensive evaluation of the case.

19. Section 313: The provision deals with the power to examine the accused. The Trial Court is vested with the
power to put questions to the accused at any stage of the trial to enable them to explain any circumstances
appearing in evidence against him

19
While these statements might not be considered substantive evidence, they can still be valuable
tools for assessing the accused’s perspective and ensuring a fair trial.
In Raj Kumar v. State of Haryana (2011)20 The Supreme Court emphasized that the purpose
of Section 313 examination is to give the accused an opportunity to explain the circumstances
appearing against them. Even though these statements are not substantive evidence, they serve
as a means for the accused to provide their version of events. Jai Prakash v. State of Haryana
(2014)21It was held by The Supreme Court that Section 313 of the CrPC is a salutary provision
which gives the accused an opportunity to explain circumstances against them. While not
substantive evidence, these statements can be used to evaluate the accused’s defence and
credibility. Satpal Singh v. State of Haryana (2010)22 This case highlighted that the
examination of the accused under Section 313 CrPC serves as an additional opportunity to offer
their version of events and explain any discrepancies in the prosecution’s case. The court
considered these statements as a valuable means to ensure fairness in the trial. In Santosh
Kumar Singh v. State Through C.B.I. (2010)23: the Supreme Court held that Section 313
statements can be useful to understand the accused’s defence and demeanour. Even though they
may not be evidence, they play a role in ensuring a comprehensive and balanced trial.
Ramnaresh and Ors. V. State of Chhattisgarh (2012)24The Supreme Court reiterated that the
purpose of Section 313 examination is to enable the accused to explain any incriminating
evidence and provide their version of events. This provision serves the purpose of fair trial by
allowing the accused to present their defence.

2.7 PUBLIC OPINION IS RELEVANT

Public opinion holds value as a reflection of societal norms and values. While it’s true that
public opinion can be influenced by misinformation, it still represents a collective sentiment
that the justice system cannot completely disregard. The court’s duty is not just to examine
public opinion in a vacuum, but to weigh it alongside other legal factors. The rarity of a case
can be understood not just by the nature of the crime, but also by the impact it has on society,
making public opinion relevant to the overall assessment.

20. Raj Kumar and Others vs State of Haryana and Another CRM-M-31675 of 2013
21. Jai Prakash v. State of Haryana (2014) Criminal Appeal No. 2118 of 2008
22. Satpal Singh v. State of Haryana (2010) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 763 of 2008
23. Santosh Kumar Singh v. State through CBI (2010) 9 SCC 747
24.Ramnaresh and Ors.V. State of Chhattisgarh (2012) CRIMINALAPPEALNO.166-167 OF 2010

20
Additionally, the public opinion can be a valid indicator of community standards and
expectations for justice. The court’s role includes ensuring that justice is not only done but is
seen to be done, and public opinion can contribute to this perception. While rehabilitation is
important, it might not always be applicable in the most heinous and brutal cases.
There might be situations where the nature of the crime and the offender’s history suggest that
rehabilitation is unlikely to succeed. In such instances, it’s the responsibility of the court to
consider the protection of society and the prevention of further harm.

Balancing the interests of the accused and the society, the court’s consideration of public
opinion can be seen as part of a democratic and participatory approach to justice, where the
broader community has a stake in the outcome. In conclusion, while public opinion might have
its limitations, it still has a role to play in the rarest of rare analysis. It can provide insight into
societal perceptions and expectations, contributing to a more holistic evaluation of the case and
ensuring that justice serves the interests of both the accused and the community.

In Rajendra Prasad v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1979)25: In this case, the Supreme Court
acknowledged the importance of public opinion as a factor to be considered while deciding the
death penalty. The court emphasized the need to balance individual rights with societal
interests. In Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980)26 While not directly about public
opinion, this case highlighted the importance of societal interests in the “rarest of rare” doctrine
for imposing the death penalty. It indirectly suggests that societal perceptions can play a role
in determining the gravity of a crime.

In Vikram Singh v. State of Punjab (2010)27 The Supreme Court held that public opinion, as
long as it is not solely based on hearsay or conjecture, can be a factor to consider in determining
the appropriateness of a death sentence. Sher Singh and Ors. V. State of Punjab (2009)28 In
this case, the Supreme Court recognized that public opinion can provide insights into the
societal perspective and help in making just decisions. Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab
(1983)29This case laid down the guidelines for imposing the death penalty and acknowledged
that public opinion can be considered, along with other circumstances of the case.

25. Rajendra Prasad v. State of Uttar Pradesh ('Rajendra Prasad'), (1979) 3 SCC 646
26. Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) Criminal Appeal No. 273 of 1979
27. Vikram Singh v. State of Punjab (2010) Crl appeal Nos.1396-97 of 2008
28. Sher Singh & Others vs The State of Punjab 1983 AIR 465, 1983 SCR (2) 582
29. Machhi Singh and Others vs State of Punjab 1983 AIR 957, 1983 SCR (3) 413

21
In Devidas Ramachandra Tuljapurkar v. State of Maharashtra (2015)30: The Supreme
Court acknowledged that public opinion, although not a decisive factor, can be taken into
consideration while deciding the death penalty. These cases collectively reflect the recognition
of public opinion as a factor that can be considered in the analysis of cases involving the death
penalty. They underscore the need to balance individual rights, societal interests, and the
perceptions of the broader community in determining the appropriate course of justice.

30. Devidas Ramachandra Tuljapurkar v. State of Maharashtra (2015) SCC CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1179 OF 2010

22
 PRAYER

Wherefore, in the light of facts stated, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited,
the counsel humbly pleads before your lordship to dismiss this appeal or to pass any other such
order which the court may deem fit in the light of justice, equity and in good conscience to
which the counsel shall forever be duty bound to.

Sd/-
(Humbly submitted by the
counsels appearing on behalf of the Respondent)

23