MOOT COURT AND INTERNSHIP

COURT VISIT DIARY

SUBMITTED BY: SUBMITTED TO:

JAY PRAKASH CHANDRAVANSHI SHREEMANSHU DASH

SEMESTER III, SECTION - B SR. ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR

ROLL NO. 1413 MOOT COURT AND INTERNSHIP

NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF STUDY AND RESEARCH IN LAW,

RANCHI 2023
Date – 01/09/23

IN THE COURT OF SHREE AKSHAT SRIVASTAVA, CIVIL JUDGE SR. DIV-

IX ANJALI SHARMA VS. RAHUL KAPOOR

CASE NO. – C3294/16

Advocate of the Complainant – Binod Jogi

Advocate of the Defendant – Om Pandey

FACTS OF THE CASE

Anjali Sharma and Rahul Kapoor are entangled in a private land dispute concerning a prime
residential property on the outskirts of Mumbai. Anjali claims ownership through family
inheritance, while Rahul insists he legally purchased the land from a third party. The case
involves conflicting documents, witness testimonies, and survey reports, making it a complex
matter of private property rights.

EXAMINATION

ANJALI'S CLAIM:

 Presents family records and legal documents indicating the inheritance of the land
by Anjali's ancestors.
 Calls witnesses, including neighbors and family members, who attest to the
Sharma family's long-standing presence on the property.
 Submits a survey report supporting the boundaries claimed by Anjali.

RAHUL'S CLAIM

 Presents a sales agreement and deed showing his purchase of the land from a third
party.
  Calls witnesses who testify to the legitimacy of Rahul's purchase and the absence
of any Sharma family on the property during that time.
 Submits a counter-survey report indicating different property boundaries.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

To be held later.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ANJALI'S CLAIM:

 Emphasizes the historical records and family documents as well as the long-standing
presence of the Sharma family on the property.
 Argues that the survey report aligns with the historical boundaries claimed by the
Sharma family.
 Urges the court to consider the emotional and historical connection of the Sharma
family to the land.

DEFENCE:

 Highlights the sales agreement and deed as well as the testimony of witnesses
supporting Rahul's legitimate purchase.
 Argues that Anjali's family records may be unreliable, emphasizing the concrete
evidence of Rahul's purchase.
 Stresses the importance of property rights and the legal validity of Rahul's acquisition.

JUDGEMENT DELIVERED

Yet to be delivered.
Date – 04/09/23

IN THE COURT OF SHREE KUMAR SAURABH TRIPATHI, CHIEF JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE STATE OF JHARKHAND V. KARAN MEHRA

CASE NO. – CR97480/16

Advocate of the Complainant – Anand Bajaj

Advocate of the Defendant – D. K. garag

FACTS OF THE CASE

Karan Mehra is accused of causing the death of his wife, Aishwarya, by subjecting her to
continuous harassment and demanding dowry. The prosecution alleges that Karan,
dissatisfied with the dowry provided during the marriage, inflicted physical and mental
cruelty on Aishwarya, ultimately leading to her untimely demise. The case is built on autopsy
reports, witness testimonies, and a series of Aishwarya's letters detailing the alleged abuse.

EXAMINATION

PROSECUTION

 Presents the autopsy report, indicating signs of physical abuse and trauma
on Aishwarya's body.
 Calls witnesses, including Aishwarya's family and friends, who claim to
have observed Karan's mistreatment and demands for additional dowry.
 Introduces letters written by Aishwarya, describing the abuse and the pressure
for more dowry.

DEFENCE:
  Challenges the reliability of the autopsy report, suggesting that the injuries may
have resulted from accidental causes.
 Questions the credibility of the witnesses, arguing that they may be biased or
have motives against Karan.
 Argues that the letters may not accurately represent the reality of the marriage
and could be a result of Aishwarya's emotional state.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

PROSECUTION:

 Presses the defense on providing an alternative explanation for the injuries

documented in the autopsy report.
 Questions the defense's attempts to discredit witnesses, seeking to establish the
reliability of their testimonies.
 Defends the authenticity of Aishwarya's letters, presenting expert analysis
supporting their credibility.

DEFENCE

 Grills witnesses on the details of their observations, looking for inconsistencies or

potential motives for providing false testimony.
 Seeks to establish reasonable doubt regarding the cause of Aishwarya's injuries,
exploring the possibility of an accident or pre-existing medical conditions.
 Challenges the chain of custody and verification process of Aishwarya's letters,
exploring the potential for tampering.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

PROSECUTION
  Emphasizes the autopsy report, witness testimonies, and Aishwarya's letters as a
compelling case against Karan for dowry death.
 Argues that the consistent narratives from witnesses and the written documentation
present a clear picture of Karan's mistreatment and demands for additional dowry.
 Urges the court to consider the societal impact of dowry-related violence and the need
for justice in cases of domestic abuse.

DEFENCE

 Highlights potential flaws in the autopsy report, suggesting alternative explanations

for Aishwarya's injuries.
 Points to inconsistencies in witness testimonies and potential biases, emphasizing the
lack of concrete evidence linking Karan to the alleged abuse.
 Stresses the importance of reasonable doubt, arguing that the prosecution has not
definitively proven Karan's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

JUDGEMENT DELIVERED

The court, after careful consideration, finds Karan Mehra guilty of dowry death. The
prosecution's case, supported by the autopsy report, witness testimonies, and Aishwarya's
letters, presented a compelling narrative of continuous harassment and demands for dowry
leading to her death. The defense's attempts to raise reasonable doubt were insufficient to
overcome the weight of the evidence presented. Karan Mehra is sentenced for his
involvement in Aishwarya's untimely demise, highlighting the seriousness of dowry-related
violence.
Date – 05/09/23

IN THE COURT OF SHREE KUMAR SAURABH TRIPATHI, CHIEF JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE UNION OF INDIA V. REENA KAPOOR

CASE NO. – C98765/13

Advocate of the Complainant – Tarak

Upadhyay Advocate of the Defendant –

Rajnesh Singh

FACTS OF THE CASE

Reena Kapoor stands accused of committing an aggravated robbery at a prominent jewelry

store in Chennai. The prosecution contends that Reena, armed with a weapon, forcibly
entered the store during business hours, threatened the staff and customers, and made off
with a significant amount of valuable jewelry. The case relies on surveillance footage,
eyewitness accounts, and forensic evidence linking Reena to the crime.

EXAMINATION

Already Conducted.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

PROSECUTION:

 Presses the defense on providing an alternative explanation for the surveillance

footage capturing Reena at the crime scene.
 Questions the defense's attempts to cast doubt on eyewitness accounts, seeking to
establish the reliability of their identifications.
  Defends the integrity of the fingerprint evidence, detailing the meticulous chain of
custody and forensic analysis procedures.

DEFENCE:

 Grills eyewitnesses on the specifics of their observations, looking for inconsistencies

or potential biases.
 Seeks to establish reasonable doubt regarding the surveillance footage, exploring any
technical issues or limitations.
 Challenges the forensic evidence by questioning the possibility of false matches or
contamination during the investigation.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

PROSECUTION:

 Emphasizes the combination of clear surveillance footage, eyewitness identifications,

and forensic evidence as a strong case against Reena.
 Argues that the patterns in the surveillance footage and the consistency in eyewitness
accounts provide a clear picture of Reena as the perpetrator.
 Highlights the reliability of the forensic evidence, reinforcing the link between Reena
and the crime scene.

DEFENCE:

 Stresses the potential unreliability of eyewitness identifications, pointing to the

chaotic nature of the robbery as a factor influencing perceptions.
 Questions the accuracy of the surveillance footage, suggesting that identification
based on video evidence may be prone to errors.
 Raises doubts about the forensic evidence, citing concerns about contamination and
the possibility of false matches.

JUDGEMENT DELIVERED
Yet to be delivered.

Date – 08/09/23

IN THE COURT OF SHREE AKSHAT SRIVASTAVA, CIVIL JUDGE SR. DIV-

IX MAYA MEHRA VS. ARJUN MEHRA

CASE NO. – C4587/22

Advocate of the Complainant – Divya Garg

Advocate of the Defendant – Stuti Taneja

FACTS OF THE CASE

Maya and Arjun Mehra are pursuing a divorce, with Maya alleging that Arjun engaged in
extramarital affairs, leading to the irretrievable breakdown of their marriage. The case
involves presenting evidence such as text messages, witness testimonies, and surveillance
footage to substantiate the claim of adultery.

EXAMINATION

MAYA'S CLAIM:

 Presents text messages and communication records indicating

inappropriate relationships between Arjun and other individuals.
 Calls witnesses, including friends and acquaintances, who claim to have
observed Arjun in compromising situations.
 Introduces surveillance footage from private investigators showing Arjun
entering questionable locations.
ARJUN'S DEFENCE:

Challenges the authenticity of the text messages and communication records, suggesting they
may be fabricated or misconstrued.

Questions the credibility of witnesses, arguing that their observations may be biased or
influenced by personal grievances.

Argues that the surveillance footage is inconclusive and may not accurately represent the
nature of Arjun's activities.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

MAYA'S CLAIM

 Presses Arjun on providing an alternative explanation for the content of the text
messages and communication records.
 Questions the defense's attempts to cast doubt on the credibility of witnesses, seeking
to establish the reliability of their testimonies.
 Defends the integrity of the surveillance footage, emphasizing the professionalism
and impartiality of the private investigators.

ARJUN'S DEFENSE

 Grills witnesses on the details of their observations, looking for inconsistencies or

potential motives for providing false testimony.
 Seeks to establish reasonable doubt regarding the authenticity and context of the text
messages and communication records.
 Challenges the chain of custody and verification process of the surveillance footage,
exploring the potential for tampering.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
MAYA'S CLAIM:

 Emphasizes the combination of text messages, witness testimonies, and surveillance

footage as a compelling case for adultery.
 Argues that the consistent narratives from witnesses and the content of the text
messages provide a clear picture of Arjun's extramarital relationships.
 Urges the court to consider the emotional distress caused by Arjun's alleged adultery
and its impact on the marriage.

ARJUN’S DEFENCE:

 Highlights potential flaws in the text messages and communication records,

suggesting alternative explanations for their content.
 Points to inconsistencies in witness testimonies and potential biases, emphasizing the
lack of concrete evidence linking Arjun to adultery.
 Stresses the importance of reasonable doubt, arguing that the evidence presented by
Maya does not definitively prove adultery beyond a reasonable doubt.

JUDGEMENT DELIVERED

The court, after careful consideration, grants the divorce on grounds of adultery in favor of
Maya Mehra. The evidence presented by Maya, including text messages, witness testimonies,
and surveillance footage, collectively establishes a preponderance of evidence supporting her
claim. The court acknowledges the breakdown of trust and the impact of the alleged adultery
on the marriage, leading to the decision to grant the divorce.