Memprial On Behalf of The Prosecution

KLEF COLLEGE OF LAW, MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024
BEFORE THE COURT OF SESSIONS OF LIBERTY LAND
S.C. No. of 2023
STATE
(PROSECUTION)
V.
TAGORE
(DEFENCE)
FOR OFFENCES CHARGED UNDER:
SECTION 302 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860
UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE SESSIONS JUDGE
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1|Page
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES………………………………………………………….…………..3
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION………………………………………………………………6
STATEMENT OF FACTS……………………………………………………………………….7
STATEMENT OF ISSUES……………………………………………………………...………..8
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS…………………………………………………………..………9
ADVANCED ARGUMENTS……………………………………………………………………10
ISSUE 1: WHETHER THE ACCUSED CAN BE CONVICTED FOR MURDER OF TIM UNDER
SECTION 302 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 BASED ON CIRCUMSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE?..................................................................................................10
ISSUE 2: WHETHER THE VOICE NOTE SENT BY MR. KARTHIK ON 13TH OCTOBER, CAN
BE TREATED AS DYING DECLARATION UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE
INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872?...................................................................17
ISSUE 3: WHETHER THE ACCUSED CAN BE CONVICTED FOR MURDER OF MR.

KARTHIK UNDER SECTION 302 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860?.............20
PRAYER………………………………………………………………………………………25
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
2|Page
STATUTES REFERRED
S. No. NAME OF THE STATUTE

1. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
2. The Indian Penal Code, 1860
3. The Evidence Act, 1872
BOOKS REFERRED
S. No. NAME OF THE BOOK

1. Gaur, KD, Criminal Law: Cases and Materials, (6th Ed. 2009)
2. Kelkar, R.V. Criminal Procedure, (5th Ed. 2011)
3. Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code, 33rd Ed. (2011)
4. Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The Law of Evidence, 22nd Ed. (2006)
5. Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, Law of Crimes, 25th Ed. (2006)
6. Black’s Law Dictionary, Bryan A. Garner, 8 th edition
7. Indian Constitutional Law, M.P. Jain.
CASE LAWS CITED
S. No. NAME OF THE CASE CITATION

1. Prakash V. State of Rajasthan AIR 2013 SC 1474
2. Sukhram V. State of Maharashtra (2007) 7 SCC 502
3. State of Madhya Pradesh V. Bhim Mohd. 2002 CR LJ 1906
4. Bhamara V. State of M.P. AIR 1953 Bhopal 1
5. Nathu Garam V. State of U.P. AIR 1979 SC 716
6. P.V.Ramakrishnan V. State of Karnataka (2003) 6 SCC 443
7. Sharda V. State of Maharashtra AIR 2010 SC 408
8. Bakhshish Singh V. State of Punjab AIR 1957 SC 904
9. Kushal Rao V. State of Bombay AIR 1958 SC 22
10. Pakala Narayanswami V. Emperor AIR 1939 PC 47
11. Sharad Birdhichand Sarada V. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116
12. Rajwant Singh V. State of Kerala AIR 1966 SC 1874
13. Commissioner of Income Tax V. Patranu Dass Raju AIR 1982 PH 14
3|Page
Ram Bheri
14. Ghasi Ram V. State of Punjab AIR 1952 BHOPAL 25
15. Sakharam V. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1992 SC 758
16. Hukam Singh V. State of Rajasthan AIR 1977 SC 1063
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ABBREVIATION DEFINITION
AIR All India Reporter
All Allahabad High Court
Cal Calcutta High Court
Cri LJ / Cr LJ Criminal Law Journal
Cr.P.C. Code of Criminal Procedure
Del Delhi High Court
DW Defence Witness
Ed. Edition
Guj Gujarat High Court
IPC Indian Penal Code
IC Indian Cases
Mad Madras High Court
n. Foot Note no.
Ori Orissa High Court
p. Page No.
P&H Punjab and Haryana High Court
Pat Patna High Court
PW Prosecution Witness
Raj Rajasthan High Court
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
SCJ Supreme Court Journal
SCR Supreme Court Reporter
Sec. Section
4|Page
v. Versus
WEBSITES REFERRED
S. NO. NAME OF THE WEBSITE

1. Lexis Nexis Legal, https://www.lexisnexis.com/in/legal
2. Manupatra Online Resources, https://www.manupatra.com
3. Oxford Dictionary, https://www.oxforddictionaries.com
4. SCC Online, https://www.scconline.com
5|Page
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Hon’ble Court has jurisdiction to try the instant matter under Section 177, 193 read with
Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.1 Further the instant matter can also be
entertained under First Schedule of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
1
Section - 177: Ordinary place of inquiry and trial: - Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried
by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed.
Section - 193: Cognizance of offences by Courts of Session: - Except as otherwise expressly provided by this
Code or by any other law for the time being in force, no Court of Session shall take cognizance of any offence
as a Court of original jurisdiction unless the case has been committed to it by a Magistrate under this Code.
Section - 209: Commitment of case to Court of Session when offence is triable exclusively by it: - When in
a case instituted on a police report or otherwise, the accused appears or is brought before the Magistrate and it
appears to the Magistrate that the offence is triable exclusively by the Court of Session, he shall-
(a) commit the case to the Court of Session;
(b) subject to the provisions of this Code relating to bail, remand the accused to custody during, and until
the conclusion of, the trial;
(c) send to that Court the record of the case and the documents and articles, if any, which are to be
produced in evidence;
(d) notify the Public Prosecutor of the commitment of the case to the Court of Session
6|Page
STATEMENT OF FACTS
[¶1] Tim and Tagore are childhood friends in the country of Liberty Land. Both enrolled in
Kela University in 2010 to pursue an Engineering course. Kela University is a private
institution with approximately 20,000 students enrolled in various courses. The
architecture department has over 2,000 students, mostly girls, and CCTV facilities in all
rooms except A22.
[¶2] In June 2011, Nimizia, a 19-year-old girl, joined the B-Arch Course and befriended Tim
and Tagore. Their friendship involved discussions on personal life, family matters and
career prospects.
[¶3] On 6th October 2011, Tagore had an argument with a university security guard named
Tapri, resulting in Tapri’s suspension on October 10, 2011. While this being so Tim and
Nimizia become close friends, meeting regularly and engaging in conversations on social
media, including video calls. Tagore discovered this hidden friendship leading to tension
between him and Tim.
[¶4] On 12th October 2011, a heated argument between Tim and Tagore escalated into a
physical fight. Tagore slapped Tim twice, leaving him bruised.
[¶5] On 13th October 2011, people found Tim’s body in room A22, covered in blood, with the
words “Tim Murder” written on the wall. On the same day, Mr. Karthik, a security guard,
left a voice note on Tim’s social media account, expressing concern about Tim’s safety.
He claimed to have seen Tagore adjusting CCTV cameras around room A22, suspecting
danger to Tim’s life.
[¶6] On 14th October 2011, Mr. Karthik died under mysterious circumstances, falling from the
top of the building. Police arrested Tagore based on suspicion with evidence including
Mr.Karthik voice note and changed CCTV camera direction around A22.
[¶7] The postmortem report revealed that Mr.Karthik was heavily drugged/intoxicated before
his death. Police found similar drugs in Tagore’s possession. Fingerprints on the camera
did not match Tagore’s but matched with Tapri, the suspended security guard out of 17
samples collected.
7|Page
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
ISSUE -1: WHETHER THE ACCUSED CAN BE CONVICTED FOR MURDER OF TIM UNDER
SECTION 302 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 BASED ON CIRCUMSTANTIAL

EVIDENCE?
ISSUE -2: WHETHER THE VOICE NOTE SENT BY MR. KARTHIK ON 13TH OCTOBER, CAN BE
TREATED AS DYING DECLARATION UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE INDIAN

EVIDENCE ACT, 1872?
ISSUE -3: WHETHER THE ACCUSED CAN BE CONVICTED FOR MURDER OF MR. KARTHIK
UNDER SECTION 302 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860?
8|Page
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
SECTION 302 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 BASED ON CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE?

It is respectfully submitted before this Hon’ble Sessions Court the prosecution humbly
asserts that although direct evidence may be lacking, the circumstantial evidence strongly
points towards Tagore's culpability of murder of Tim. The altercation between Tagore and Tim,
fueled by jealousy over Nimizia's friendship, coupled with Tagore's history of aggression
towards Tim, presents a plausible motive for murder. Additionally, the discovery of Tagore
adjusting the CCTV cameras around room A22, as attested to by Mr. Karthik in his voice note,
further strengthens the circumstantial evidence against the accused. The changed direction of
the cameras coinciding with Tim's tragic demise indicates a premeditated act, warranting
consideration under Section 302.
TREATED AS DYING DECLARATION UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT,
1872?
It is respectfully submitted before this Hon’ble Sessions Court that the prosecution
argues that the content and timing of the communication made by Mr. Karthik to Tim through
a voice note met the criteria for a dying declaration under section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence
Act, 1872. Further, Mr. Karthik's statement implicating Tagore in tampering with the CCTV
cameras, made shortly before his untimely demise under suspicious circumstances, carries
significant weight as a statement made under the apprehension of death. The urgency and
gravity of Mr. Karthik's message lend credence to its authenticity and relevance to the case,
justifying its consideration as a dying declaration in accordance with legal precedent.
ISSUE -3: WHETHER THE ACCUSED CAN BE CONVICTED FOR MURDER OF MR. KARTHIK
It is respectfully submitted before this Hon’ble Sessions Court, the prosecution asserts
that while the evidence linking Tagore directly to the crime may appear circumstantial, it is
nonetheless compelling. The recovery of drug samples matching those found in Tagore's
possession presents a plausible narrative implicating Tagore in a conspiracy to silence Mr.
Karthik. The suspicious circumstances surrounding Mr. Karthik's death, including his
intoxication and the proximity of Tagore to the scene, warrant further investigation and
consideration of Tagore's culpability for this crime.
9|Page
ADVANCED ARGUMENTS
SECTION 302 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 BASED ON CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE?

[¶1] It is respectfully submitted before this Hon’ble Court that It is respectfully submitted that,
admittedly there is no direct evidence in the instant case to prove the alleged role of the
Accused in the alleged crime. However, after thorough investigation, the circumstantial
evidence collected and preserved by the investigation agency after being assessed and
scrutinized, reveals the alleged role of the accused in committing the alleged offence of
double murder of Mr. Tim & Mr. Karthik and as such it is therefore necessary to
substantiate the chain of events or circumstances to point out the role of the accused in
the alleged crime.
[¶2] It is respectfully submitted that in a criminal proceeding, the commission of the offence
of which the accused is charged can be proved either by ‘direct evidence’ alone, or by
‘circumstantial evidence’ alone, or by a combination of both. The expression
‘direct evidence’ in this context means the evidence of eyewitnesses who have
themselves seen the commission of the offence by the accused. The expression
‘circumstantial evidence’ means evidence as to the existence of all collateral facts and
circumstances from which the commission of an offence by the accused can be
reasonably inferred. It is common experience that a serious crime is often committed in
such circumstances that no one has witnessed it, or it happens that person who has seen
it are not traceable or available. In such circumstances, the prosecution is forced to rely
entirely upon circumstantial evidence for the purpose of proving its case against the
accused. But when a case rests solely upon circumstances, they must be of such a nature
that they point to the accused, and him alone, as being the offender, so that the possibility
of an innocent man being falsely held guilty of an offence which he has not committed is
entirely excluded.2
[¶3] It is further submitted that the prosecution relied upon the judgement passed by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case between “Prakash V. State of Rajasthan”3, wherein
the Hon’ble Court laid down the 5 Golden Principles, “A close analysis of this decision
would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an
2
. J K Soonavala: Supreme Court Criminal Digest (1950-2015), 6e 2016>SOONAVALA’S SUPREME COURT
CRIMINAL DIGEST (1950-2015) VOLUME I, II, III, and IV>C>CI.
3
. AIR 2013 SC 1474.
10 | P a g e
accused can be said to be fully established:
1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully
established.
2. The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of
the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis
except that the accused is guilty,
3. The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency,
4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except that one to be proved, and,
5. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable
ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must
show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused”.
[¶4] It is respectfully submitted that initially the accused and Tim had a bond of good
friendship with no reports of any previous differences in any matter. Thereafter,
admittedly the accused and Tim had developed some intimacy with Nimizia which
ultimately resulted in a conflict between the accused and Tim. It is further submitted that
Tim had greater intimacy with Nimzia and the long conversations through social media
platforms, regular video calls, chats between them would expressly reveal or suggest that
Nimzia was little close to Tim However, such a proximity was never revealed by Tim
to the Accused despite the Accused and Tim being childhood friends who used to share
every single detail of their lives.
[¶5] It is further submitted that on 1st October 2011, the Tim and Nimzia met in a restaurant,
had a long meeting with good conversation and consequently, the Accused managed to
see the notification of message from the Tim and the conservations and the video call
history on the mobile phone of Nimzia, which let the Accused to draw his own
assumptions on the relation between Nimzia and Tim resulting in a sense of anger,
jealousy, pain etc.
[¶6] It is respectfully submitted that on the immediate day of 12.10.2011, the conduct of the
Tim in avoiding the conversation over his relationship with Nimzia and the fact that he
intentionally suppressed his proximity with Nimzia, angered the Accused, which
ultimately resulted in a verbal and physical fight. The conduct of the Accused involving
in a physical fight with the Tim who is a childhood friend over the conversation of
growing intimacy with Nimzia, suggests that the Accused had already developed a sense
of anger and jealous over the Tim for suppressing his relationship with Nimzia and the
fact that Nimzia did not had such an intimacy with the Accused further added to his grief,
11 | P a g e
anger and jealous. Therefore, escalating the conversation into a physical fight is not
sudden and immediate but is because of the pre-determination of the Accused and his
mental intention to cause pain to the Tim, which is necessarily a conduct of revenge as
affirmed under jurisprudence of human psychology which is as an outcome of going
through such a pain and anger suffered by the Accused as stated supra.
[¶7] It is respectfully submitted that the on 13.10.2011, the day of alleged offence, the Mr.
Karthik, the security guard, has perceived the Accused interfering with the stationery
focus of the camera affecting the visibility of the scene around A22 and has warned the
Tim about this fact and immediately thereafter, the Tim was found dead in room A22.
Thereafter, Mr. Karthik, who is the eyewitness to one of the events in the transaction of
alleged murder of the Tim was also found dead in circumstances pointing to the guilt of
the accused. Further it is apposite to point out that the drugs by which the Mr. Karthik
was intoxicated was found in the possession of the Accused suggesting the fact, when
assessed in light of the motive of the accused and benefit with the death of the Mr.
Karthik, that Accused had committed the alleged murder of the Mr. Karthik as well to
escape from the clutches of law, significantly in absence of any contrary material
evidence in this regard.
[¶8] It is respectfully submitted that the in order to fulfill the golden rules laid down in the
judgement of Prakash V. State of Rajasthan, the chain of evidence that are arise out of
this case are to be substantiated as follows:
Event-1: On 12th October, the quarrel between the accused and Tim before the death
of the Tim. where the accused hit Tim twice and bruised his face.
Event-2: On 13th October, at the time of 8:20, Mr. Karthik witnessed the act of the
accused by changing the CCTV camera in Room A22.
Event-3: On 13th October, at the time of 1:00 P.M, Mr. Karthik sent a voice note to
Tim wherein he claimed to have seen Tagore adjusting CCTV cameras
around room A22, suspecting danger to Tim’s life.
Event-4: On 13th October at 3:00 P.M, everyone rushed towards Room A22 when they
heard a huge roar and when they went inside, they saw Tim lying in a pool
of blood and two words i.e., ‘TIM MURDER’ was written on the wall next
to the body.
Event-5: On 14th October, Mr. Karthik died under a mysterious circumstance, falling
from the top of the building.
Event-6: On 14th October, Police arrested Tagore based on suspicion with evidence
12 | P a g e
including Mr.Karthik voice note and changed CCTV camera direction
around A22.
Event-7: The postmortem report of Mr. Karthik revealed that he was heavily
drugged/intoxicated before his death. Police found similar drugs in Tagore’s
possession.
[¶9] Therefore, to put it in substance, the Accused has developed a sense of revenge and
jealousy against Tim for having greater intimacy with Nimzia and as such the further
escalation of their differences resulted in a physical fight on 12.10.2011. Thereafter, the
Accused had made out a plan to commit the murder of the Tim and in furtherance of his
intention and preparation to commit the alleged offence, the Accused who had the
knowledge of the focus of the camera, at room A22, had interfered with the stationary
focus of the camera by adjusting its focus away from Room A22 and the said act of the
Accused was perceived by Mr. Karthik who immediately has informed the conduct and
act of the Accused to the Tim and immediately thereafter the Tim was found dead in the
room A22. Further the immediate death of the Mr. Karthik who has informed the act of
the Accused was also found dead and the intoxicated drugs found in the body of the Tim,
is found in the possession of the Accused. Therefore, the chain of events and
circumstances substantiated supra, expressly reveals and points to the guilt of Accused
with no other contrary inference or material on record. Further the conduct, motive
knowledge and preparation of the Accused as is relevant to the fact in issue under Section
8 of the Evidence Act expressly points to the guilt of accused in committing the murder
of the murder of the murder of the Tim and Mr. Karthik.
1.1. CONDUCT OF THE ACCUSED IS RELEVANT TO THE FACT IN ISSUE
It is respectfully submitted that the conduct, motive, knowledge, preparation of the

Accused is relevant for the fact in issue under Section 84 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
and as such to assess the intention of the Accused and other necessary ingredients as
required under the charge of Section 302 of IPC, the Prosecution substantiates the conduct,
4
. Section-8. Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct: -Any fact is relevant which shows or
constitutes a motive or preparation for any fact in issue or relevant fact.
The conduct of any party, or of any agent to any party, to any suit or proceeding, in reference to such
suit or proceeding, or in reference to any fact in issue therein or relevant thereto, and the conduct of any person
an offence against whom is the subject of any proceeding, is relevant, if such conduct influences or is influenced
by any fact in issue or relevant fact, and whether it was previous or subsequent thereto.
13 | P a g e
motive and preparation of the Accused in committing the crime suggesting the guilt of the
Accused.
I). Motive of the Accused: -
It is respectfully submitted that Under the Indian Evidence Act, any fact is relevant
which shows or constitutes a Motive 5. Motive implies an emotion or desire operating on the
will and causing it to act6. It signifies the reason for the conduct7. Motive is an emotion or
desire operating on the will and causing with events tending to excite, to emotion, the outward
facts, which may be the stimulus and the causes of the emotion. Motive, in the correct sense,
is the emotion supposed to have led to the act.
A. Against Tim:
It is respectfully submitted that the motive of the Accused in committing the crime
is to take the revenge against the Tim, for suppressing the fact of his proximity with the
Nizmia and further the fact that the Nizmia was little close to Victim than the Accused did
not gave a better feel to the Accused and as such the Accused had developed a sense of
revenge against the Victim and therefore the motive of the Accused was primarily to take
a revenge against the Victim by eliminating him from the way in between the Accused
and Nimzia.
B. Against Mr. Karthik:
It is respectfully submitted that having the knowledge of the fact that the Victim –
II has perceived the act of the Accused in changing the focus of the camera at room A22
and further the immediate death of Tim has made the Victim –ii to suspect the Accused in
commission of the offence of murder against Mr. Karthik and as such the Accused
therefore had committed the murder of Mr. Karthik to prevent him from taking recourse
to the action of law.
II). Preparation and Conduct of the Accused
It is respectfully submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case between
“Sukhram V. State of Maharashtra”8, held that “In a case based on Circumstantial Evidence,
the motive assumes great significance in as much as its existence is an enlightening factor in a
process of presumptive reasoning.”.
A. Against Tim
5
The Principles of the Law in British India 1902 Edn., P.176.
6
As per Webster’s Dictionary.
7
Winfield: Law of Tort.
8
(2007) 7 SCC 502.
14 | P a g e
It is respectfully submitted that the act of the Accused in throwing the physical
blows against the Tim during the fight between the accused and Tim on 12.10.2011
suggests that the Accused is little stronger than Tim who can easily overpower him.
Further as the student the institution, the Accused has the express knowledge of the fact
of the focus, ration etc. of camera at room A22 and therefore in furtherance of his motive
and intention to murder the victim, the Accused has chosen room A22 where the camera
focus is not alike the other rooms. Therefore, the conduct of the accused in interfering with
the camera at Room A22 and immediately thereafter the Victim lying dead in the pool of
blood in Room A22 expressly establishes the conduct and preparation of the Accused in
committing the alleged offence.
B. Against Mr. Karthik:
It is respectfully submitted that the Accused has procured the drugs to intoxicate
the Victim which is admittedly found in the possession of the Accused in his room, to
which the Accused only has the access, and further the drugs were administered to the
victim and projected as if the Victim has died as result of heavy intoxication to escape
from the clutches of law.
[¶10] It is further submitted that the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh in a case between
“State of Madhya Pradesh V. Bhim Mohd.,9”, held that “By Proving the ‘Motive’ the
prosecution can rely upon the conduct of accused.”
[¶11] It is respectfully submitted that the Hon’ble High Court of Bhopal in a case between
“Bhamara V. State of M.P.”10, “In this case a person X was cultivating his land. Another
person, Y, was passing by the land. He called X to chat with him. During the interaction
some hot words were exchanged, and altercation ensued. X battered in the head to Y. Two
bystanders, namely A & B rushed to that place. Seeing other people coming to that spot X
tried to escape but was caught by C. The conduct of escaping of the accused and beating
him was held a very relevant subsequent conduct”.
[¶12] It is respectfully submitted that in the case of “Nathu Garam v. State of U.P”11, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “Circumstantial Evidence held sufficient for
Conviction of the accused”. It is therefore respectfully submitted that the aforesaid facts
establishing the fact of preparation, conduct and motive of the Accused expressly point
to the intention and guilt of the Accused without any contrary inference.
9
2002 Cr LJ 1906.
10
AIR 1953 Bhopal 1.
11
. AIR 1979 SC 716
15 | P a g e
1.2: RELEVANCY OF STATEMENT OF MR. KARTHIK:
[¶13] It is respectfully submitted that, admittedly, the Mr. Karthik, has seen the Accused
interfering with camera at room No. A22 and immediately has tried to contact Tim and
further has communicated that he has seen Accused interfering with the camera and
immediately thereafter the Tim was found dead and subsequently, the Mr. Karthik also
died.
[¶14] It is further submitted that the circumstantial evidence of the voice note sent by Mr.
Karthik to Tim thorough Social Media points towards Tagore's involvement in the
murder. The altered direction of the CCTV cameras around room A22, as noted by Mr.
Karthik in his voice note, indicates a deliberate attempt to obscure surveillance in the
vicinity where Tim was found murdered. This manipulation of evidence strongly suggests
Tagore's awareness and participation in the crime.
[¶15] It is respectfully submitted that Mr. Karthik's voice note directly relates to the
circumstances surrounding Tim's untimely demise. His observation about Tagore's
activities in altering the focus of the cameras indicates a potential threat to Tim's safety.
Considering that Tim was found murdered the same day, it is evident that Mr. Karthik's
concerns were not unfounded. His statement holds significant relevance to the events
leading up to Tim's death and.
[¶16] It is therefore necessary to assess the credibility and admissibility of the communication
made by the deceased Mr. Karthik to the Tim. However, it is the opposite to state herein
that had the accused merely changed the focus of the camera, Mr. Karthik would not have
suspected the danger to the life of Tim. The conduct of the accused, his anger, his physical
movement and the other circumstances made Mr. Karthik believe as ordinary prudent
person that there is threat to the life of the Victim – I and therefore the fact that he has
tried to contact the Tim several times assumes great importance and credibility to the
statement of the Mr. Karthik.
[¶17] It is further submitted that Section 612 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, talks about the
Doctrine of ‘Res Geste’, which means “thing done, transaction or essential circumstances
surrounding the subject is complete”. Section 6 is based on this doctrine, wherein, it has
12
. Section 6. Relevancy of facts forming part of same transaction: -Facts which, though not in issue, are so
connected with a fact in issue as to form part of the same transaction, are relevant whether they occurred at the
same time and place or at different times and places.
16 | P a g e
been mentioned that, wherein, it has been mentioned that, wherever a ‘transaction’ such
as contract as crime, is a fact in issue, then evidence can be given of every fact which
forms part of the same transaction.
[¶18] It is respectfully submitted that the items of evidence are sometimes said to be part of the
Res gestae, owing to the nature and strength of the their connection with, the matter is
issue and as such are admissible, Res Gestae is an expression mainly of utility in the
criminal law concerning the contemporary of statements to residents but, insofar as
contemporaneous statements are relevant and accompany and explain mutters in issue,
they will be admissible13.
[¶19] It is further submitted that “A is accused of the murder of B by beating him. whatever
was said or done by A or B or the by-standers at the beating, or so shortly before or after
it as to form part of the transaction, is a relevant fact14. It is submitted that in the present
case as per the chain of evidence substantiated supra the statement of voice note of Mr.
Karthik sent to Tim through the Social media is relevant in fact in issue.
[¶20] It is therefore submitted that all these facts put together are a part of the same transaction
and is therefore relevant and admissible to point to the guilt of the accused and is therefore
sufficient to convict the accused for the charge under section 302 of IPC.
TREATED AS DYING DECLARATION UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT,
1872?
[¶21] It is respectfully submitted before this Hon’ble Court the prosecution contends that the
word dying declaration was not defined under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. However,
the term ‘Dying Declaration’ means the statement of a person who has died explaining
the circumstances of his death. such a statement can be proved when it is made by a
person as to the cause of his death, or as to any of the circumstances of the transaction
which resulted in death. The statement will be relevant in every case or proceeding in
which the cause of that person’s death comes into question. Section 32(1)15 of the Indian
13
Halsbury’s Laws of England, Vol. 17, 4th Edn, P. 8.
14
Illustration (a) of Section 6 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
15
. Section 32: Cases in which statement of relevant fact by person who is dead or cannot be found, etc., is
relevant: - Statements, written or verbal, of relevant facts made by a person who is dead, or who cannot be found,
or who has become incapable of giving evidence, or whose attendance cannot be procured without an amount of
delay or expense which under the circumstances of the case appears to the Court unreasonable, are themselves
relevant facts in the following cases:
17 | P a g e
Evidence Act provides for the ‘dying declaration’ which is incorporated from the English
Law Principle, which relates to what are popularly known as dying declaration 16.
[¶22] It is respectfully submitted that the principle on which the Dying Declaration are admitted
in evidence is indicated in a Legal Maxim “Nemo Moriturus Praesumitur Mentiri”,17
implies that a man who is on death bed would not tell a lie to falsely implicate innocent
person18. It is further submitted that the object of dying declaration is to get from the
person making the statement, the cause of death of circumstances of the transaction which
resulted in death19.
[¶23] It is respectfully submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Kushal Rao
V. State of Bombay”20, lay down the extensive standard for the application for dying
declaration as evidence,
a) Dying Declaration may be the sole basis of conviction, a real and voluntary
declaration need no corroboration.
b) Dying Declaration is not automatically weaker as compared to other forms of
evidence.
c) The facts of the case and the instances surrounding the Dying Declaration must
be kept in mind when deciding a case.
d) Dying Declaration has equal footing with other proofs and must be judged in
light of the surrounding situations.
[¶24] It is respectfully submitted that it is well-established under Section 32 of the Indian
Evidence Act those statements made by a person who is deceased, under the belief of
impending death, are admissible as dying declarations. Mr. Karthik's act of sending a
voice note expressing his suspicions regarding Tagore adjusting the CCTV cameras
around room A22 can reasonably be construed as made under the belief of impending
death. The urgency with which he attempted to reach out to Tim, coupled with his
subsequent demise under mysterious circumstances, lends weight to the notion that
Mr. Karthik perceived his life to be in imminent danger.
(1) When it relates to cause of death: - When the statement is made by a person as to the cause of his
death, or as to any of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death, in cases in which the cause
of that persons death comes into question. Such statements are relevant whether the person who made them was
or was not, at the time when they were made, under expectation of death, and whatever may be the nature of the
proceeding in which the cause of his death comes into question.
16
. www.manupatra.com.
17
. P.V.Radhakrishnan V. State of Karnataka, (2003) 6 SCC 443.
18
. Sharda V. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2010 SC 408.
19
. Bakhshish Singh V. State of Punjab, AIR 1957 SC 904.
20
AIR 1958 SC 22.
18 | P a g e
[¶25] It is further contending that Mr. Karthik's voice note directly relates to the
circumstances surrounding Tim's untimely demise. His observation about Tagore's
activities in altering the focus of the cameras indicates a potential threat to Tim's safety.
Considering that Tim was found murdered on the same day, it is evident that Mr.
Karthik's concerns were not unfounded. His statement holds significant relevance to
the events leading up to Tim's death and should thus be admitted as a dying declaration.
[¶26] It is further submitted that the reliability of Mr. Karthik's statement is bolstered by the
fact that it was made spontaneously and without any apparent motive to fabricate
information. As a security guard entrusted with the safety of the university premises,
Mr. Karthik had no personal vendetta against Tagore or any ulterior motive to falsely
implicate him. His primary concern was the well-being of Tim, which underscores the
sincerity and credibility of his communication.
[¶27] Furthermore, the circumstances surrounding Mr. Karthik's demise, characterized by
the discovery of drugs in Tagore's lend credence to the veracity of his statement. These
corroborating pieces of evidence suggest a plausible motive and opportunity for
Tagore to orchestrate Tim's murder, thereby lending additional weight to the
admissibility of Mr. Karthik's voice note as a dying declaration.
[¶28] It is submitted that the reliance placed by the prosecution in a case between “Pakala
Narayanaswami V. Emperor”21, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that, “It has been
suggested that the statement must be made after the transaction has taken place, that
the person making it must be at any rate near death, and that the "circumstances" can
only include the acts done when and where the death was caused. It was observed that
"the circumstances" were of the transaction which resulted in death of the declarant.
It is not necessary that there should be a known transaction other than that the death
of the declarant has ultimately been caused, for the condition for the admissibility of
the evidence is that "the cause of the declarant's death comes into question". In the
present case the cause of the deceased's death comes into question. The transaction is
one in which the deceased was murdered on March 21, or March 22, and his body was
found in a trunk proved to be bought on behalf of the accused. The statement made by
the deceased on March 20 or 21 that he was setting out to the place where the accused
lived, and to meet the wife of the accused, who lived in the accused's house, appears
clearly to be a statement as to some of the circumstances of the transaction which
21
. AIR 1939 PC 47.
19 | P a g e
resulted in his death. Hence, that statement of the deceased is to be considered as a
dying declaration”.
[¶29] It is respectfully submitted that Mr. Karthik act of sending a voice note expressing his
suspicions regarding Tagore adjusting the CCTV cameras around room A22 can
reasonably be construed as made under the belief of impending death. further after
sending the message to Tim, Mr. Karthik also died under suspicious circumstances. His
statement holds significant relevance to the events leading up to Tim's death and should
thus be admitted as a dying declaration as the circumstances of the transaction which
resulted in death under the provision of Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
[¶30] It is respectfully submitted that with respect to the above contention, the prosecution
would rely upon a Judgement by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case between “Sharad
Birdhichand Sarada V. State of Maharashtra22”, in this case, the deceased woman had
been writing letter to her family explaining how she had been unhappy in her marriage
and was facing harassment from the husband and in-laws approximately four months
before her death. Justice Faiz Ali in the case noted that a dying declaration would be
relevant provided it relates to the cause of death or exhibits those circumstances that
were existing and led to the death. The letters denoted the poor state of mind that the
deceased was in and provides evidence regarding the surrounding circumstances of her
death. Hence, the letters were allowed as dying declarations under Section 32”.
[¶31] It is therefore submitted that, the voice note sent by Mr. Karthik on 13th October meets
the criteria for admissibility as a dying declaration under the Indian Evidence Act. Its
relevance to the circumstances surrounding Tim's death, coupled with the absence of any
apparent motive for fabrication, renders it a crucial piece of evidence in establishing
Tagore's culpability in the case. Therefore, the statement of voice note sent by Mr.
Karthik to Tim on 13th October 2011 can be considered as a dying declaration.
ISSUE-3: WHETHER THE ACCUSED CAN BE CONVICTED FOR MURDER OF MR. KARTHIK
[¶32] It is respectfully submitted before this Hon’ble Sessions Court that the prosecution
contends that while the evidence linking Tagore directly to the crime may appear
circumstantial, it is nonetheless compelling. The recovery of drug samples matching
22
. (1984) 4 SCC 116.
20 | P a g e
those found in Tagore's possession presents a plausible narrative implicating Tagore in a
conspiracy to silence Mr. Karthik. The suspicious circumstances surrounding Mr.
Karthik's death, including his intoxication and the proximity of Tagore to the scene,
warrant further investigation and consideration of Tagore's culpability for this crime.
[¶33] It is respectfully submitted that the Word ‘Murder’ has been derived from the Germanic
word ‘Mortna’ which means ‘Secret killing’. In Indian context, Section 30023 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 tells when the offence is ‘murder’ and when it is ‘culpable
homicide not amounting to murder’. To be more clear, culpable homicide is murder, if
the act by which death is caused falls within any one of the four clauses mentioned under
Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, unless of course, the case comes under one
of the five exceptions stated therein, the offence will amount to ‘culpable homicide not
amounting to murder’.
[¶34] It is respectfully submitted that in order to attract the provisions of clause (1) of Section
300, I.P.C, the prosecution has to prove that very act, that was done with the intention to
cause the death of the victim. A question of intention is always a matter of fact. Once
intention of causing death is proved, culpable homicide amounts to murder unless any of
the exception is applied24.
[¶35] It is respectfully submitted that the accused, Tagore, can indeed be convicted for the
murder of Mr. Karthik under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The evidence
presented in this case, including circumstantial and direct evidence, overwhelmingly
points towards Tagore's guilt. The offence committed by the accused by killing
Mr.Karthik clearly shows the accused have both ‘Mens Rea’ and ‘Actus Reus’.
23
. Section 300. Murder: - 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-
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 as aforesaid.
24
. Rajwant Singh V. State of Kerala, AIR 1966 SC 1874.
21 | P a g e
[¶36] It is submitted that ‘Mens Rea’ is considered as guilty intention 25, which is proved or
inferred form the acts of the accused26. It is respectfully submitted that in the case of
“Sakharam V. State of Madhya Pradesh”27, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that
“Motive becomes important to corroborate the Circumstantial Evidence. It is further
submitted that with respect to ‘Mens Rea’ in the present case the accused has clear
intention to kill Tim because Tim has a greater intimacy with Nimizia and with respect
to ‘Actus Reus’ the adjustment of the CCTV camera in Room A22 and possession of
drugs from the accused which was intoxicated Mr.Karthik clearly shows that the accused
had both the ‘Mens Rea’ and ‘Actus Reus’.
3.1. TESTIMONY OF THE VICTIM I.E., MR. KARTHIK.
[¶37] It is respectfully submitted that in the present case the accused has the intention and
necessity to kill Mr. Karthik because he is the sole Eyewitness for the murder of Tim that
he watched the accused changing the direction of the CCTV Cameras in Room A22
during his preparation to kill Tim. Subsequently Mr. Karthik sent a voice note to Tim
about the act of the accused about the threat caused to him by the accused. This indicates
that Mr. Karthik fears for Tim’s safety and his belief that the accused posed a danger to
him.
[¶38] It is further submitted that the voice note sent by Mr.Karthik to the Tim can be considered
as a dying declaration under section 32 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Further the
circumstantial evidence of dying declaration points towards Tagore's involvement in the
murder. The altered direction of the CCTV cameras around room A22, as noted by Mr.
Karthik in his voice note, indicates a deliberate attempt to obscure surveillance in the
vicinity where Tim was found murdered. This manipulation of evidence strongly suggests
Tagore's awareness and participation in the crime.
[¶39] It is further contending that Mr. Karthik's voice note directly relates to the circumstances
surrounding Tim's untimely demise. His observation about Tagore's activities in altering
the focus of the cameras indicates a potential threat to Tim's safety. Considering that Tim
was found murdered on the same day, it is evident that Mr. Karthik's concerns were not
unfounded. His statement holds significant relevance to the events leading up to Tim's
25
Commissioner of Income Tax V. Patranu Dass Raju Ram Bheri, AIR 1982 PH 14.
26
Ghasi Ram V. State of Bhopal, AIR 1952 Bhopal 25.
27
. AIR 1992 SC 758.
22 | P a g e
death and should thus be admitted as a dying declaration.
[¶40] It is further submitted that the reliability of Mr. Karthik's statement is bolstered by the
fact that it was made spontaneously and without any apparent motive to fabricate
information. As a security guard entrusted with the safety of the university premises, Mr.
Karthik had no personal vendetta against Tagore or any ulterior motive to falsely
implicate him. His primary concern was the well-being of Tim, which underscores the
sincerity and credibility of his communication.
[¶41] It is therefore submitted that the timing of Mr. Karthik's death, occurring shortly after his
damning revelation implicating Tagore, raises significant suspicions regarding foul play.
It is inconceivable that Mr. Karthik's demise was merely coincidental, particularly given
the sequence of events and the mounting evidence against Tagore.
3.2. THE POSSESSION OF DRUGS FROM THE ACCUSED:
[¶42] It is respectfully submitted that the postmortem report of Mr. Karthik reveals that he was
heavily drugged or intoxicated before his death. This suggests foul play and raises
questions about the circumstances leading to his demise. The recovery of similar samples
of the drug from Tagore's possession strengthens the connection between Tagore and Mr.
Karthik's death. The presence of the drug in Mr. Karthik's body, coupled with its
discovery in Tagore's possession, suggests a motive and opportunity for Tagore to harm
Mr. Karthik.
[¶43] It is further submitted that the recovered drug samples from Tagore's possession,
matching those found in Mr. Karthik's postmortem report, form a critical link connecting
Tagore to the murder. The presence of the same drug in both instances implies a deliberate
and premeditated act aimed at incapacitating Mr. Karthik, thereby facilitating the
execution of the crime.
[¶44] It is respectfully submitted that possession of sample drugs which matches with the drugs
intoxicated in the body of Mr. Karthik clearly shows that the accused have the knowledge
of those drugs and it is sufficient to fulfill the conditions of the circumstantial evidence
with respect to the chain of evidence.
[¶45] It is further submitted that in the case of “Hukam Singh V. State of Rajasthan”28, the
28
. AIR 1977 SC 1063,
23 | P a g e
Hon’ble Supreme Court held that, “It has been consistently laid down by this court that
where a case resets squarely on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be
justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be
incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person.
[¶46] It is therefore submitted that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond
any reasonable doubt and the evidence presented unequivocally establishes Tagore's
culpability in the murder of Mr. Karthik. His motive, opportunity, and association with
individuals linked to the crime scene paint a compelling picture of his involvement in Mr.
Karthik's murder. Furthermore, His actions leading up to and following the crime,
coupled with the incriminating evidence and circumstantial factors, leave no room for
doubt regarding his guilt.
24 | P a g e
PRAYER
Wherefore, in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, may
this Hon’ble Court be pleased to:
1. Convict the accused for the offence committing murder of Tim and Mr. Karthik
under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2. Declare a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a term which may be extended

to death or life imprisonment and also be liable to fine under Section 302 of
Indian Penal Code, 1860.
AND/OR
And pass any order, direction, or relief that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the
interests of justice, equity, and good conscience.
AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE PROSECUTION SHALL DUTY BOUND EVER PRAY
COUNSEL FOR THE PROSECUTION
25 | P a g e

Memprial On Behalf of The Prosecution

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

Memprial On Behalf of The Prosecution

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

KLEF COLLEGE OF LAW, MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024

BEFORE THE COURT OF SESSIONS OF LIBERTY LAND

S.C. No. of 2023

FOR OFFENCES CHARGED UNDER:

SECTION 302 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE SESSIONS JUDGE

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872?...................................................................17

ISSUE 3: WHETHER THE ACCUSED CAN BE CONVICTED FOR MURDER OF MR.

S. No. NAME OF THE STATUTE

S. No. NAME OF THE BOOK

CASE LAWS CITED

S. No. NAME OF THE CASE CITATION

S. NO. NAME OF THE WEBSITE

SECTION 302 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 BASED ON CIRCUMSTANTIAL

TREATED AS DYING DECLARATION UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE INDIAN

SECTION 302 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 BASED ON CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE?

SECTION 302 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 BASED ON CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE?

1.1. CONDUCT OF THE ACCUSED IS RELEVANT TO THE FACT IN ISSUE

It is respectfully submitted that the conduct, motive, knowledge, preparation of the

3.1. TESTIMONY OF THE VICTIM I.E., MR. KARTHIK.

3.2. THE POSSESSION OF DRUGS FROM THE ACCUSED:

2. Declare a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a term which may be extended

COUNSEL FOR THE PROSECUTION

You might also like