TC- LZNMC - 45

LEGAL ZEMS,
3rd NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023.

IN THE HONOURABLE DELTA ISLAND HIGH COURT

THE APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) OF THE

CRIMINALPROCEDURE CODE, 1973

IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: / 2022

IN THE MATTER OF

Hari, Kari, Sibu

& Kanaiya

(APPELLANTS)
v.

STATE OF DELTA ISLAND

(RESPONDENT)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS

1|Page
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents ........................................................................................................... 2

Index of Authorities

Table of Cases .................................................................................................... 3

Books ..................................................................................................................4

Websites ............................................................................................................. 5

Statues................................................................................................................. 5

Statement of Jurisdiction ................................................................................................6

Statement of Facts .......................................................................................................... 7

Statement of Charges ...................................................................................................... 9

Statement of Issues…………………………………………………………………….10

Summary of Pleadings .................................................................................................. 11

Written Pleadings

Issue I................................................................................................................12

Issue II .............................................................................................................. 17

Prayer ............................................................................................................................ 23

2|Page
 ABBREVIATIONS

A.I.R ALL INDIAN REPORTER

HC HIGH COURT

SC SUPREME COURT

SCC SUPREME COURT CASES

U/S UNDER SECTION

UOI UNION OF INDIA

ORS. OTHERS

ANR. ANOTHER

3|Page
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

List of Cases

1. Balwant Singh Vs. State of Punjab

2. Alister Anthony Pareira vs. State of Maharashtra

3. State of Gujarat vs. Haidarali Kalubhai

4. Anil Phukan v. State of Assam

5. Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra

6. Kartik Malhar V State of Bihar

7. Pulicherla Nagaraju alias Nagaraja Reddy V State of Andhra Pradesh

3|Page
 Books

1. Halsbury‟s Laws of England, (4th edition)

2. Modi‟s Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, (23rd Edition)

3. Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code, (33rd edition)

4. Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The Law of Evidence, (26th Edition)

5. Sarkar, Law of Evidence, (17th Edition)

6. Sarkar, The Code of Criminal Procedure, (11th edition)

Lexicons

1. Aiyar, P Ramanathan, The Law Lexicon, (2nd ed 2006.)

4|Page
 Websites

1. http://www.manupatrafast.com

2. http://www.scconline.com

3. http://www.judis.nic.in

Statutes

1. The Evidence Act, 1872

2. The Indian Penal Code, 1860

3. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

5|Page
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Appellants Humbly approach the Hon‟ble High Court under S.374(2) 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 Additional
Sessions Judge or on a trial held by any other Court in which a sentence of
imprisonment fro ore 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 APPELLANTS humbly submit to the jurisdiction of this Hon‟ble Court.

6|Page
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. That Honey (Deceased) was a 23 years old girl resided with her Father
Hoshiyar Singh, Mother Ashi Singh and Younger Brother Hansram Singh.
Honey was one of the brightest students during her academics. She was known
for her gentle and soft spoken nature.

2. That on dated 31.12.2021 at 04.30 pm, Honey along with one of her friends
Kunali goes to the Hotel Pushpa to celebrate the New Year Party.
After party around 01.00 A.M. on 01.01.2022 Honey along with her
friend Kunali left for their homes from Hotel Pushpa with their own Vehicle
Scooty bearing registration no. BP-M-7898.

2. That around 01.30 A.M. Honey and Kunali met with an accident with one car.
In that accident, Kunali fell in the opposite side of the car but Honey got
trapped between the wheels of the car. Unfortunately the car didn’t stop and
dragged Honey for 12-13 km’s and because of which Honey died.

3. That on the next morning near Hansa college police patrolling team found
dead body of Honey. Then after police officials sent a dead body of deceased
to the KIIMS hospital for post-mortem.

4. That in Post-mortem report it was revealed that the cause of death was
excessive flow of blood and serious injuries in brain and other parts of the
body.

5. That during the investigation police officials found from CCTV footage that
at the time of accident there were four people in the car and upon identification

police officials arrested all four accused namely Hari, Kari, Sibu and Kanaiya
and register F.I.R under Sections 279 & 304 DPC.
7|Page
 6. That in further investigation when police officials questioned Kunali, she told
that when she met with an accident she saw that there were four people sitting
in the car and they were heavily drunked. She further stated that the person
who was sitting on the driving sheet, gets out from the car and saw that honey
was stuck in the middle of car. He again sits in the car and start running the
car.

7. That when local people get to know through Media People that the F.I.R has
been registered under sections 279 & 304 of DPC started protesting and
demanding that this is brutal murder. Hence the F.I.R should be registered
under Section 302 of DPC.

8. That the Ministry of Home and Affairs also supported the public Protest and
asked police officials to register a F.I.R. under Sections 302/279 and 34 of
DPC. Then after the F.I.R has been registered under section 302 DPC and the
Police Officials filed a Charge-sheet before the Court.

9. That the trial was conducted by the Hon’ble Sessions Court of Delta Island
and on the basis of the witness testimony and the evidences in the case, the
Hon’ble Sessions Court convicted all four Accused and sentence them Life
Imprisonment u/s 302/279 and 34 of DPC and also imposed a fine of Rs.
5,00,000/- upon all four accused.

8|Page
 STATEMENT OF CHARGES

Hari, (Accused 1) has been charged with:

Murder under Section 302 read with Section 34, Rash Driving under Section
279, of the Indian Penal Code,1860.

Kari, (Accused 2) has been charged with:

Murder under Section 302 read with Section 34, Rash Driving under Section
279, of the Indian Penal Code,1860.

Sibu (Accused 3) has been charged with:

Murder under Section 302 read with Section 34, Rash Driving under Section
279, of the Indian Penal Code,1860.

Kanaiya (Accused 4) has been charged with:

Murder under Section 302 read with Section 34, Rash Driving under
Section 279, of the Indian Penal Code,1860.

9|Page
 STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUE I

WHETHER THE ACCUSED NO.1 TO 4 ARE GUILTY AS CHARGED?

ISSUE II

WHETHER THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE RESPONDENT-PROSECUTION

IN SESSIONS COURT IS ENOUGH TO UPHOLD CONVICTION?

10 | P a g e
 SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS

ISSUE I

WHETHER THE ACCUSED NO.1 TO 4 ARE GUILTY AS

CHARGED?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the evidence in the
present case not sufficiently established the guilt of the accused for the
murder of Honey(Deceased). The essential ingredients of Murder is not
fulfilled. The chain of evidences asformed by the prosecution has not been
established beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused are guilty as charged.

ISSUE II

WHETHER THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE RESPONDENT-

PROSECUTION IN SESSIONS COURT IS ENOUGH TO UPHOLD
CONVICTION?

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the accused pleads not guilty of
the offence of murder. As one of the accused driving the car and others co-accused were
sitting in car and their intention was never to kill anyone. Thereafter, the statement of
deceased’s friend Kunali is misleading and creates a reasonable doubt which lead to
miscarriage of justice and her testimony is not reliable. Also there is lack of evidences
which shows intention, motive, preparation to kill the Honey(deceased). It is submitted
that the evidence adduced by the respondent/prosecution is not enough to uphold
conviction

11 | P a g e
 WRITTEN PLEADINGS

ISSUE I

I. WHETHER THE ACCUSED NO.1 TO 4 ARE GUILTY AS CHARGED?

1. The Accused are not guilty of Murder

It is humbly contended that the Hon‟ble Sessions Court incorrectly held the Accused as guilty
of murder of Honey under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC. Section 302 read with
Section 34, IPC envisages commission of murder by two or ore people in furtherance of a
common intention. Section 300 of IPC gives the definition of murder and enumerates the
ingredients of the offence. more people in furtherance of a common intention. Section 300 of
IPC gives the definition of murder and enumerates the ingredients of the offence.

As the accused don’t have any personal grudges with Honey and Kunali which
is very much evident from the facts and they were not looking for an
opportunity to kill the deceased and Accused have driven the car over deceased
unintentionally as a part of accident . Henceforth the hon’ble trial court had not
correctly held the Accused guilty of murder of Honey under section 302 read
with section 34 of Indian penal code.

Section 34 of the Indian penal code contemplates the doing of an act by several
persons in furtherance of common intention. The constructive liability under this
section wouldarise if two conditions are fulfilled

12 | P a g e
 a) There must be common intention to commit the crime and

b) There must be participation by all the persons in doing such act in furthermore
of that intention and if these two ingredients are established all the accused
would be liable for said offence.

The leading feature of section 34 is the element of participation in action.

It is the essence of this section that the person must be physically present at the
actual commission of the crime. Criminal sharing overt or covert by active
presence or by distant direction making out certain measure of jointness in the
commission of the actis the essence of this section.

The terms Actus rea and Men’s rea come from “Actus non facet rheum nisi men’s sit

rea” which literally means” an act does not make a person guilty unless mind is guilty.

(1) Actus reus

Actus reus is any wrongful act. Thus, in a case of murder, Actus rea would be
the physical conduct of the accused that causes death of the victim. In the
instant case,it is contended that the deceased was assaulted. It is well settled
principle that the case is mainly based on circumstantial evidence. It is humble
contention of theappellant/accused that the physical act of dragging Honey
under car was done unknowlingly on part of accused . Actus reus here is the
negligent driving of accused person.

(2) Mens Rea

Mens rea is considered as guilty intention. Which we contend is not proved or

inferred from the actsof the accused. It is submitted that the intention to kill had
not been established in light of no motive of the accused to kill
Honey(deceased)

The “Burden of Proof” lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused

13 | P a g e
 beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution has fail to establish guilt of accused beyond
reasonable doubt as:

1. Actus reus is negligent act on part of accused

2. Mens rea has not been proven successfully, thus the accused are n o t guilty
of murder of Honey.

INTENTION

It is presumed that every sane person intends the result that his action normally produces
andif a person hits another person 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 offencecommitted amounts to murder.

It is humbly contended by the appellant/accused that the common intention of the

accused of murdering the deceased had not been established by chain of evidences as
there was not any intention on part of accused to kill Honey(deceased)

Our other contentions are based on the following grounds-

1. We contend that the Accused no. 1 to 4 have no liability under section 302 of DPC
And section 34 of DPC, according to para 5 of the factual matrix, it is mentioned that
Honey(deceased) and her friend Kunali met with an accident with the car and Honey
got trapped in the wheels of the car and it did not stop there. Unfortunately, Honey was
dragged to 12-13 km with Car. We accept that there was negligence on the part of the
Accused has showed but there is neither intention nor knowledge on the part of the
accused has shown to kill Honey(deceased).
According to section 300 of the IPC:
Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by
which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or—
(Secondly) —If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender
knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or—
(Thirdly) —If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and
the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature
to cause death, or—

14 | P a g e
 (Fourthly) —If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous
that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause
death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death
or such injury.1

We contended that according to Secondly,Thirdly,and Fourthly provision of section

300 (MURDER) , in order to attract this provision the intention to cause body injury
or death and knowledge are required. And according to us prosecution has not clear
reasonable doubt on proving intention and knowledge of Accused.

2. We also contend for the sake of arguments that if the accused has the intention and
knowledge to kill Honey(deceased) then why did the Accused leave the body of the
deceased openly on the road after dragging her for kilometers. Yes, because they had
neither the criminal intention nor criminal mind to kill the deceased. There was
absolute negligence on part of the Accused because they negligently drove the car over
the Deceased. The accused were not aware of the fact that Honey (deceased) was stuck
in the wheels of the car.

3. Referring to the factual matrix of this case para-9, the testimony of eye-witness Kunali
is not reliable and other evidence as shown is incomplete to prosecute accused no. 1 to
4 under section 302 of DPC.

4. We contend that when Police officials found from CCTV footage, it is mentioned in
the factual matrix that it was an accident and the Police also upon investigation have
framed the charges for section 279 and section 304 of DPC but not for murder. It was
due to the order of the ministry of home affairs and public protest which pressurized
the police to file the case under section 302 of DPC.

5. The lack of intention and knowledge on part of the accused to kill Honey ( deceased)
and incomplete evidence( as referred to in ISSUE 2 )to convict the accused for murder
does not prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore we
contend that the Accused are not Guilty as charged.

1
INDIAN PENAL CODE,1860
15 | P a g e
 6. We also contend that there were not any common intention between the accused and
also not have common object to kill Honey(deceased). Although there was not any
object of any accused to kill the deceased , all of that happened as result of unfortunate
accident .

7. That the circumstances of this case is leading this case to attract offence under Section
304-A and section 279 of DPC and not for offence under section 302 of DPC.
Section 304-A IPC applies to cases where there is no intention to cause death and
no knowledge that the act done, in all probabilities, will cause death. This provision is
directed at offences outside the range of Sections 299 and 300 IPC. Section 304-
A applies only to such acts which are rash and negligent and are directly the cause of
death of another person. Negligence and rashness are essential elements under Section
304-A.

The apex court in Balwant Singh Vs. State of Punjab2 observed that:

" Then the question would be whether an offence under Sec. 304-A, I.P.C, is made out?
The provisions of this Section apply to cases where there is no intention to cause death
and no knowledge that the act done in all probabilities will cause death. Therefore this
provision is directed at offences outside the range of Ss. 299 and 300, I.P.C. and
obviously contemplates those cases into which neither intention nor knowledge enters.
The words "not amounting to culpable homicide" in the Section are very significant
and it must therefore be understood that intentionally or knowingly inflicted violence
directly and wilfully caused is excluded. The Section applies only to such acts which
are rash or negligent and are directly the cause of death of another person. In other
words, a rash act is primarily an over hasty act as opposed to a deliberate act but done
without due care and caution. Then the question whether the conduct of the accused
amounted to culpable rashness or negligence depends on the amount of care and
circumspection which a prudent and reasonable man would consider it to be sufficient
and this depends on the circumstances in each case."

The Court in Alister Anthony Pareira vs. State of Maharashtra3 observed

2
1994 Supp (2) SCC 67
3
Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra and another, (2012) 8 SCC 648
16 | P a g e
 "Rash or negligent driving on a public road with the knowledge of the dangerous
character and the likely effect of the act and resulting in death may fall in the category
of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

the case of State of Gujarat vs. Haidarali Kalubhai,4

"Section 304-A by its own definition totally excludes the ingredients of Section 299
or Section 300 I.P.C. Doing an act with the intent to kill a person or knowledge that
doing of an act was likely to cause a person's death are ingredients of the offence of
culpable homicide.”

ISSUE II

WHETHER THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE RESPONDENT-

PROSECUTION IN SESSIONS COURT IS ENOUGH TO UPHOLD
CONVICTION?
It is humbly contended before this Hon’ble Court that the accused plead not guilty of
the offenses that they have been convicted under, namely the charges of murder, and
rash and negligent driving.Further, the Respondent-Prosecution has not sufficiently
established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

1. BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT:

Section 101 of Indian Evidence Act- Burden of proof.—Whoever desires any Court
to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts
which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist. When a person is bound to prove
the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person.5

Prosecution must prove the guilt of accused beyond every reasonable doubt and
burden of proof lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused.

4
State of Gujarat v. Haidarali Kalubhai, (1976) 1 SCC 889
5
INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT,1872
17 | P a g e
 2. NUMBER OF WITNESSES
The well-known maxim that "Evidence has to be weighed and not counted" has
been given statutory placement in section 134 of the Evidence Act which provides us under
: "134. No particular number of witness shall in any case be required for the proof of any
fact."6

It is a sound and well-established rule of law that the Court is concerned with the
quality and not with the quantity of the evidence necessary for proving or disproving
a fact, Generally speaking, oral testimony in this context may be classified into three
categories.
namely :

(1) wholly reliable :

(2) wholly unreliable:
(3) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable.

In the first category of proof, the Court should have no difficulty in coming to its
conclusion either way - it may convict or may acquit on the testimony of a single
witness, if it is found to be above approach of suspicion of interestedness,
incompetence of subordination. In the second category, the court equally has no
difficulty in coming to its conclusion. It is in the third category of cases, that the court
has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by
reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial. There is another danger in insisting on
plurality of witnesses. Irrespective of the quality of the oral evidence of a single
witness, if courts were to insist on plurality of witnesses in proof of any fact, they will
be indirectly encouraging subordination of witnesses. Situations may arise and do
arise where only a single person is available to give evidence in support of a disputed
fact. The court naturally has to weigh carefully such a testimony and if it is satisfied
that the evidence is fasiable and free from all taints which tend to render oral
testimony open to the suspicion, it becomes its duty to act upon such testimony. The
law reports contain many precedents where the court had to depend and act upon the
testimony of a single witness in support of the prosecution."7

Our contentions are based on following grounds:-

6
Kartik Malhar V State of Bihar
7
Kartik Malhar V State of Bihar
18 | P a g e
 A. THE TESTIMONY OF EYE-WITNESS KUNALI IS NOT RELIABLE.

a) That the Evidences produced by Prosecution is insufficient and doesn’t prove

the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. The reliability of Single Eye-
witness testimony of Deceased’s friend Kunali is in the question. As according
to chain of facts and circumstances , the most important and only eye witness
of the case ‘Kunali’ has alleged accused of murdering Honey (deceased) by
stepping out of car and again drove the car while seeing Honey stuck in tyres
of Car and drag her to many kilometers.

b) That the reasonable doubt arises here on stand of eye-witness is why eye-
witness Kunali who was also a victim has not reported about the incident to the
police earlier when incident aroused?
Because she gave her statement to police only when police questioned to her.
If she was concious enough to know the situation and alleged in statement that
the accused were drunk and committing murder of Honey, then she could also
report about incident to nearest police station by any means of help.

c) That the another reasonable doubt arises here on stand of eye-witness is that in
the morning ahead of incident i.e On 02.01.2022 , Hansa college police
patrolling team found dead body of Honey and send body of deceased for
Postmortem to KIIMS hospital and after that police was indulged in the
investigation also, here the doubt arises that in all Period of above Acts
happening Where was the Eye-Witness KUNALI? Why she should not got
medically examined about nature of injuries she got in the incident. She
appeared to police only when police inquired about the incident.

d) That Kunali is only eye-witness of the case and whole conviction relies on the
testimony of her and CCTV footage which just reveal there were only 4 people
in the car but not about Murder of Honey. The Trial court was not correct in
giving the accused punishment for life imprisonment in virtue of section 302 of
DPC. As the evidences adduced by the prosecution was not enough to prove
guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt.

e) It is also submitted that Honey’s (Deceased) father is also police officer for 18
19 | P a g e
 years and should have known all procedures of the Police. So, out of affection
and love for deceased , the anger has aroused in him and deceased’s friend
Kunali (eye-witness) against the accused persons and they maliciously frame
statement to be given to police as Kunali was only eye-witness. The statement
made by kunali is given out of love & affection and maliciously framed to
falsely implicate the accused for murder as she is natural witness and injured
witness to the case. It is submitted that this is the case of accident and aroused
misshapenly .

f) We contend that the eye-witness of kunali is creating reasonable doubt in

proving guilt of accused and in this case the reliability of single eye witness
should not be a base for conviction under section 302/279 of DPC,1860.

CASE LAWS:

1. In the case of Anil Phukan v. State of Assam8,

the Court observed; "Indeed, conviction can be based on the testimony of a single eye
witness and there is no rule of law or evidence which says to the contrary provided the
sole witness passes the test of reliability. So long as the single eyewitness is a wholly
reliable witness the courts have no difficulty in basing conviction on his testimony
alone. However, where the single eye witness is not found to be a wholly reliable
witness, in the sense that there are some circumstances which may show that he could
have an interest in the prosecution, then the courts generally insist upon some
independent corroboration of his testimony, in material particulars, before recording
conviction. It is only when the courts find that the single eye witness is a wholly
unreliable witness that his testimony is discarded in toto and no amount of
corroboration can cure that defect.

2. In the leading case of Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra9,

the Court held that even where a case hangs on the evidence of a single eye witness it
may be enough to sustain the conviction given sterling testimony of a competent, honest
man although as a rule of prudence courts call for corroboration. "It is a platitude to
say that witnesses have to be weighed and not counted since quality matters more than

8
(1993) 3 SCC 282 : JT 1993 (2) SC 290
9
(1973) 2 SCC 793
20 | P a g e
 quantity in human affairs.

3. In the Case of Dalip Singh & Others V State of Punjab10,

it was observed as under: - Ordinarily, a close relative would be the last to screen the
real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person. It is true, when feelings run high
and there is personal cause for enmity, that here is a tendency to drag in an innocent
person against whom a witness has a grudge along with the guilty, but foundation must
be laid for such a criticism and the mere fact of relationship far from being a
foundation is often a sure guarantee of truth.

4. In the case of Kartik Malhar V State of Bihar11,

it was opined that a close relative who is a natural witness cannot be regarded as an
interested witness, for the term 'interested' postulates that the witness must have some
interest in having the accused, somehow or the other, convicted for some animus or
some other reason.

5. In the case of Pulicherla Nagaraju alias Nagaraja Reddy V State of Andhra

Pradesh12

it was observed that while dealing with the liability of interested witnesses who are
relatives, a two-Judge Bench observed that it is well settled that evidence of a witness
cannot be discarded merely on the ground that he is either partisan or interested or close
relative to the deceased, if it is otherwise found to be trustworthy and credible. The said
evidence only requires scrutiny with more care and caution, so that neither the guilty
escapes nor the innocent is wrongly convicted. If on such careful scrutiny, the evidence is
found to be reliable and probable, then it can be acted upon. If it is found to be improbable
or suspicious, it ought to be rejected. Where the witness has a motive to falsely implicate
the accused, his testimony should have corroboration in regard to material particulars
before it is accepted.

B. CCTV FOOTAGE IS NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO PROVE GUILT UNDER

10
(1954) 1 SCR 145
11
(1996) 1 SCC 614
12
AIR 2006 SC 3010
21 | P a g e
 SECTION 302/279 OF DPC OVER REASONABLE DOUBT.

Section 65B. Admissibility of electronic records.—

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any information contained in an

electronic record which is printed on a paper, stored, recorded or copied in optical or
magnetic media produced by a computer (hereinafter referred to as the computer
output) shall be deemed to be also a document, if the conditions mentioned in this
section are satisfied in relation to the information and computer in question and shall
be admissible in any proceedings, without further proof or production of the original,
as evidence of any contents of the original or of any fact stated therein of which direct
evidence would be admissible13

Our contentions are based on the following:

a) According to facts and circumstances,police during the investigation has found

the CCTV footage of car in which 4 person are sitting , but the question which
still not clear that whether it shows a accident or was it a murder? Because the
person sitting in car doesnot prove the guilt of accused for murdering Kunali.

b) That CCTV footage in this case is a admissible evidence according to section

65B of Indian evidence act but it is not a relevant evidence to prove the Guilt
of accused under the section 302/279 of DPC.

c) That CCTV footage of incident is not in line with the statement of eye-witness
kunali, because nothing has been shown in the CCTV footage related to the
murder. So, we contend that the CCTV footage in this is incomplete and can’t
be a base for conviction of accused under Section 302/279 of DPC.

13
INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT,1872
22 | P a g e
 PRAYER

Wherefore, in light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, may

this Hon„ble Court be pleased to adjuge4 and declare that :

1. The accused is not liable as charged

2. That the evidence produced is not enough to uphold cfonviction

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 submitt

S/d

23 | P a g e