Before

THE HON’BLE COURT OF SESSION, LUDHIANA

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 143 OF 2006

In the matters of

STATE ................................................................................................. PROSECUTION

VS.
SOHIT ................................................................................................ DEFENDANT

SUBMITTED BY: AYUSHI

218/19
SEMESTER- 9TH
SECTION-d
B.COM LLB (HONS.)

1
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

SR.NO PARTICULARS PAGE NO.

1. List of Abbreviations 3

2. Index of Authorities 4

3. Statement of Jurisdiction 5-6

4. Statement of Facts 7

5. Statement of Charges 8

6. Issues Raised 9

7. Summary of Arguments 10

8. Arguments Advanced 11

Whether The Accused Is Guilty Of Murder Of His Brother Rohit 11

Under Section 300 Punishable Under Section 302 Of The Indian
Penal Code,1860?
Whether The Accused Can Be Solely Convicted on The Basis of 18
Circumstantial Evidence?

9. Prayer 22

2
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AIR All India Reporter

Cal Calcutta

Anr. Another

Hon’ble Honorable

i.e., That is

Ed. Edition

LJ Law Journal

Cr.P.C Code of Criminal Procedure

Ors Others

Para Paragraph

S. Section

SCC Supreme Court Cases

SC Supreme Court

& And

VS. Versus

IPC Indian Penal Code

CR LJ Criminal Law Journal

IEA Indian Evidence Act

Del Delhi High Court

3
 INDEX OFAUTHORITIES
STATUTES

➢ The Indian Penal Code, 1860

➢ The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
➢ The Indian Evidence Act,1872

4
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
It is most humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the present Hon’ble Court has the
jurisdiction to try the instant matter under Section 26(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
and Section 177 read with Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Section 26 (a):

S.26 (a) Courts by which offences are triable:

Subject to the other provisions of this Code, --

a) any offence under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) may be tried by--
(i) the High Court, or
(ii) the Court of Session, or
(iii) any other Court by which such offence is shown in the First Schedule to be
triable:

1[Provided that any 2[offence under section 376, 3[section 376A, section 376AB, section 376B,
section 376C, section 376D, section 376DA, 376DB] or section 376E of the Indian Penal Code
(45 of 1860)] shall be tried as far as practicable by a Court presided over by a woman.]

Section 177:

S.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.”

Read with Section 209:

5
S. 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
 STATEMENT OF FACTS
Rahul built an Origanzo, a public company limited by shares which was a pharmaceutical
company. He had 2 sons, Rohit, and Sohit.

Rohit studied at Harward Business School and being the elder son, he gradually took control of
his father’s business. He also had congenital heart condition since his birth.

Sohit, the younger son became a biomedical engineer. Sohit joined Origanzo as a lab-assistant and
gradually started playing a key role in product development.

Both sons started with 15% of issued and paid-up capital in Origanzo when Rahul died in 2001.
Rahul left his 40% shares in favour of Rohit. In 2005, Media was filled with the stories of growing
enmity between the two brothers where Sohit also asked Rohit to leave the Origanzo.

In 2nd February 2006, Rohit died due to leakage of the dangerous gas “mosgane” in his office at
around 12:30 AM which was being used as a raw material in the plant.

The CCTV footage recovered by police showed that Rohit and Sohit entered the office of Rohit in
the company premises around 11:30 PM where they appeared to have some heated arguments and
Sohit left from there around 12:10 AM. In this footage it was seen that Sohit carried a similar
cylinder of mosgane gas into the office. And when he left the door of the office got somehow
locked from outside only. It also showed that the mosgane filled cylinder which started leaking in
the office was carried by Sohit while entering into the office. Rohit started sniffing the air and tried
to break open the door with the help of same cylinder. He was seen suffocating and collapsed on
the floor.

The State approached the Honourable Court seeking justice.

7
 STATEMENT OF CHARGES

Accused-Defendant, Sohit has been charged with Murder of his brother Sohit under Section 300
read with Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 defines the offence of Murder and Section 302 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 provides for its punishment.

8
 ISSUES RAISED

1. WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY OF MURDER OF HIS BROTHER

ROHIT UNDER SECTION 300 PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 302 OF THE
INDIAN PENAL CODE,1860?

2. WHETHER THE ACCUSED CAN BE SOLELY CONVICTED ON THE BASIS OF

CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE?

9
 SUMMARY OFARGUMENTS

1. WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY OF MURDER OF HIS BROTHER

ROHIT UNDER SECTION 300 PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 302 OF THE
INDIAN PENAL CODE,1860?

It is humbly submitted that the Defendant is not guilty of committing the offence of murder of his
brother, Rohit under Section 302 read with Section 300, IPC, considering that there was no actus
reus and mens rea on the part of the Defendant. Further, the essentials of murder are also not
established in this case. Moreover, the Prosecution’s case must be dismissed because of heavy
reliance on improper circumstantial evidence and false allegations, all creating the existence of a
reasonable doubt. In this case, the Defendant had no intention of inflicting any harm on the
deceased; rather, there was just an exchange of arguments that could not, under normal
circumstances, have resulted in the person's death. The prosecution cannot prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that Defendant got into an altercation with his brother with the intent to kill or
that he predicted Rohit's death as a result of the disagreement. Instead, the Deceased died because
of his own actions and his medical condition.

2. WHETHER THE ACCUSED CAN BE SOLELY CONVICTED ON THE BASIS OF

CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE?

It is submitted before the Hon’ble Court that this case is based on circumstantial evidence.
However, it has been established by various precedents that to convict a person using
circumstantial evidence, all the circumstances brought out by the Prosecution, must inevitably and
exclusively point to the guilt of the accused and there should be no circumstance which may
reasonable be considered consistent with the innocence of the accused. But herein, there is no
clear evidence of linking the Defendant as well as there is a reasonable amount of doubt in the
conviction, therefore, the Defendant should not be held guilty of this crime.

10
 ARGUMENTS RAISED
1. WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY OF MURDER OF HIS BROTHER
ROHIT UNDER SECTION 300 PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 302 OF THE
INDIAN PENAL CODE,1860?

It is humbly submitted that the Defendant is not guilty of murder of his brother Rohit under Section
300 & 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 1860. Section 302 prescribes the punishment for committing
murder. In order to bring a successful conviction under this charge, however, it is pertinent to refer
to Section 300, IPC which elucidates the essentials of murder.

A person is guilty of murder if he intentionally causes the death of a person or causes such bodily
injury as he knows, is likely to cause death of a person or causes such bodily injury which in the
ordinary course of nature results into death or commits an act so dangerous that it must, in all
probability cause death of that person. Further, Section 302 of IPC states the punishment for
murder that whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and
shall also liable for fine.

Further, the fundamental principle of criminal liability is that there must be a wrongful act- actus
reus combined with a wrongful intention-mens rea. This principle is embodied in the maxim
“Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea”, which literally means “an act does not make a person
guilty unless mind is also guilty. Besides the Burden of Proof lies on the Prosecution to prove the
guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

It is a fundamental principle of criminal law that a person may not be convicted of a crime unless
the prosecution have proved beyond reasonable doubt both (i) that responsibility is to be attributed
to the defendant for certain behaviour or the existence of a certain state of affairs (in a conduct
crime), which is forbidden by criminal law and that the defendant has caused a certain event (in a
result crime) and (ii) that the defendant had a defined state of mind in relation to the behaviour,

Herein, the Prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the Defendant beyond reasonable doubt.
Moreover, the two components of crime, i.e., the actus reus and mens rea are not present in this
case.

(1) Actus Reus

11
Actus reus is any wrongful act.1 A human being and an evil intent are not enough to constitute
crime for you cannot know the intentions of a man. The thought of a man is not triable. The
criminal intent in order to be punishable must become manifest in some voluntary act or omission.
Thus, in case of murder, actus reus would be the physical conduct of the accused that causes death
of the victim. A person can only be held guilty of murder if it is absolutely clear that he killed the
victim.

Further, the word actus connotes a ‘deed’ a physical result of human conduct. The word reus means
‘forbidden by law.’ The actus reus is made up of three constituent parts, namely: -

A. Human action (conduct) –

There must be conduct of the accused which affected the victim. In the present case, Defendant’s
conduct was said to cause his brother’s death by Prosecution. This allegation involved only
entering the office in advance, carrying a similar cylinder of mosgane gas and thereafter
engineering a situation where he his brother was found deceased. However, this conduct cannot
be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Moreover, in the case of Rishi Kesh Singh vs State2, it was said by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that
“It is fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent
and, therefore, the burden lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt. The prosecution, therefore, in a case of homicide shall prove beyond reasonable
doubt that the accused caused death with the requisite intention. This general burden never shifts
and it always rests on the prosecution”

The prosecution has failed to present evidence that shows the Defendant's (accused's) guilt beyond
a reasonable doubt. There were no circumstances in which it could be demonstrated that the
Defendant's actions caused the deceased's death. Rather, there was just a dispute between the
brothers, and the Defendant was later seen leaving the premises. Instead, the deceased was
witnessed breaking the office lock with the same cylinder packed with mosgane gas, which might
lead to the deceased's death.

1
Aiyar, P Ramanathan, The Law Lexicon, p. 49 (2nd ed 2006)
2
AIR 1970 All 51, 1970 CriLJ 132

12
B. Result of conduct: -

There must be the result of the accused’s conduct. Only the act of the accused is insufficient to
convict him if there is no harm to anyone. But herein there was no act done by the Defendant
which resulted into the direct death of the deceased. Here, the deceased was already suffering from
a congenital heart disease since his childhood, which could be the reason of his death. As when
the door of the office got locked from outside the deceased got panicked and thereby started break
opening the door with the mosgane cylinder that ultimately led to the leakage of gas cylinder and
resulted in his own death. This act of the Deceased can also be seen in the CCTV footage. But in
this Footage, there is nowhere seen that the Defendant was tampering with the gas cylinder. He
only had an argument with his deceased brother and thereby was seen leaving the premises. During
the time, he was seen in the premises no harm was seen on the deceased. The death occurred after
the leaving of the Defendant.

Moreover, in the case of R vs Huggins,3 it was established that the harm could not have occurred
but for an act or omission on the part of the defendant, but in which, he has been excused on the
ground that some other person intervened and appeared to have been the more immediate and
direct cause of the harm; in such circumstances the Defendant had been exonerated, the reason
being given that the harm was not a consequence of what the Defendant did, but was a consequence
of what the intervener did.

C. Acts prohibited by law: -

The act committed by the accused must be unlawful and unjustified. His actions should be plainly
outlawed by the country's law. The Defendant did not commit any such conduct in this case. The
brothers had just gotten into an altercation, and he was carrying a gas cylinder as part of his job as
a lab-assistant in the same company. And there is no evidence that doing one's work is illegal.

Moreover, the actus reus herein is established by way of circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial
evidence is often used to support or establish facts indirectly by showing that certain circumstances
or events are consistent with a particular conclusion. It is a well settled principle that where the
case is mainly based on circumstantial evidence, the court must satisfy itself that various

3
(1730) 1 Barn 396

13
circumstances in the chain of evidence should be established clearly and that the completed chain
must be such as to rule out a reasonable likelihood of the innocence of the accused.4

Herein, there is no complete chain of circumstances which could lead to a conclusion that the
Defendant was liable for the murder of the Deceased. In this case there was only a CCTV footage
which depicted that the Defendant and deceased were last seen together and had a heated argument
there. But it is humbly submitted that it is trite law that a conviction cannot be recorded against
the accused merely on the ground that the accused was last seen together with the deceased.5

Further, in the case of Shymal Ghosh vs State of WB.6 it was highlighted by the Supreme Court
that the circumstance of last seen together does not by itself and necessarily lead to the inference
that it was the accused who committed the crime. There must be something more establishing the
connectivity between the accused and the crime. Mere non-explanation on the part of the accused
by itself, cannot lead to proof of guilt against the appellant.

In the present case, the Prosecution has to prove whether there is a chain of circumstantial
evidence which leads to the guilt of the Defendant without any doubt. The Prosecution, till now
has failed to do that. The above-mentioned cases clearly state that we have to prove the guilt
through circumstantial evidence in such a way that there is no chance of leaving a doubt or any
other hypothesis. There was a lot of uncertainty in the Prosecution's case. Furthermore, the CCTV
footage acquired by the Police does not show the Defendant leaking the Cylinder. It was
subsequently revealed that he brought an identical cylinder into the office, which was quite regular
for him given his position as lab assistant at the company. Rather, his deceased brother, Rohit,
was witnessed breaking the lock of the door with the cylinder, which could have been the cause
of the gas leak, rather than the Defendant.

Further, in the case of Inderjeet Singh vs State of Punjab,7 the accused was last seen together with
the victim in his company but was later on found deceased. The Supreme Court thereby held that
the only circumstance that the deceased was last seen together in the company of the accused by
itself is not sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused. In a case depending on
circumstantial

4
Mohan Lal vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1974 SC 1144
5
RamBrakash vs. State of Chattisgarh, 2016 Cr Lj 2939: 2016 (5) SCJ 600

14
6
(2012) 7 SCC 646
7
995 SCC, Supl. (3) 289 JT 1995 (5) 260

15
evidence, the prosecution must establish all the circumstances by independent evidence and the
circumstances so established must form a complete chain in proof of guilt of the accused beyond
all reasonable doubts. The circumstances so proved must also be consistent with the guilt of the
accused. Herein also, the matter was encircled with many doubts.

(2) Mens Rea

Mens Rea is considered as guilty intention, which is proved or inferred from the acts of the
accused.8 The first clause of section 300 stipulates that when an act (including legal omission) is
done with the intention of causing death, then it is culpable homicide amounting to murder. The
definition in this clause is direct and without any subtleties about it. It is the action of a person
with a clear intention of killing a person. Intention is what intention does. So, the intention of the
person can be gathered from the action of person.9 Further, the intention to cause the death may be
revealed by the whole circumstances of the story.10

The Supreme Court in the case of Singh v. State of Punjab,11said that Intention plays a vital role in
criminal jurisprudence. An offence may not be said to be committed if the prosecution fails to
prove the intention to commit that crime. Intention is pivotal to decide whether the accused has
committed culpable homicide amounting to murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Along with intention, knowledge and the degree of crime, i.e., how the deceased was killed, plays
an important role in deciding.

Further, in the case of Rajwant Singh v. State of Kerala,12 after referring to the relevant clauses
of Section 300 of the India Penal Code, the following observations have been made “The mental
attitude is thus made of two elements (a) causing an intentional injury and (b) which injury the
offender has the foresight to know would cause death. For the application of clause three it must
first be established that the injury is caused, next it must be established objectively what the nature
of that injury in the ordinary course of nature is. If the injury is found to be sufficient to cause
death, one test is satisfied. Then it must be proved that there was an intention to inflict that very

8
State of Maharashtra vs. Meyer Hans George, AIR 1965 SC 722
9
PSA Pillai’s Criminal Law (14TH ed.). (2019). LEXIS NEXIS.
10
Gungu Singh, (1873) 5 NWP 44.
11
2022 SCC OnLine SC 1443
12
AIR 1966 SC 1874

16
Injury and not some other injury and that it was not accidental or unintentional. If this is also held
against the offender the offence of murder is established.”

In this case, the Defendant had no intention of inflicting any harm on the deceased; rather, there
was just an exchange of arguments that could not, under normal circumstances, have resulted in
the person's death. The prosecution cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant got
into an altercation with his brother with the intent to kill or that he predicted Rohit's death as a
result of the disagreement. It is fairly common for a businessman to disagree with his or her
partner. It is in no way remarkable to forecast that it will result in the person's death. Defendant's
actions can inno manner be claimed to be regulated. Defendant's acts were not guided by a desire
to murder Rohit, nor was Rohit's death a foregone conclusion as a result of Defendant's actions.
As a result,it is apparent that Defendant lacked the necessary mens rea to murder his brother.

It is humbly submitted that the Supreme Court in the case of Virsa Singh vs State of Punjab13, “If
they inflict injuries of that kind, they must face the consequences; and they can only escape if it
can be shown, or reasonably deduced that the injury was accidental or otherwise unintentional.”
Herein, also the death of the deceased was unintentional. There was only an exchange of arguments
after which the defendant left the premises.

Moreover, the news in the media should not be considered as in the case of State (Delhi
Administration) vs. Laxman Kumar14, it was held that to ensure justice in a murder trial the court
should go by evidence produced before it. It should remain disassociated from the heat generated
outside court room either through new media or through flutter in public opinion.

In this regard, the media is filled with news about the brothers, which should not be relied on
because it would negate the objective of justice. In one case, the defendant got into a heated
argument with his brother in the office. After this exchange, he simply left the premises. The reason
of death of the Defendant was unrelated to his acts. The prosecution cannot prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that Defendant got into an altercation with his brother with the intent to kill, or
that he predicted Rohit's death as a result of the disagreement. Defendant's acts were not guided
by a desire to murder Rohit, nor was Rohit's death a foregone conclusion as a result of Defendant's

13
AIR 1958 SC 465
14
1986 Cr LJ 155 SC

17
actions. As a result, it is apparent that Defendant lacked the necessary mens rea to murder his
brother.

Without any evidence of intent to commit murder, carrying a gas cylinder as a lab assistant by the
Respondent would not normally result in charges under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code
(IPC). Section 302 of the IPC addresses murder and requires clear evidence of the intentional and
unlawful killing of another person.

In this case.

18
 2. WHETHER THE ACCUSED CAN BE SOLELY CONVICTED ON THE BASIS OF
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE?

The facts in issue are proved in court by two ways. One using direct evidence and secondly by
circumstantial evidence. But in every few cases direct evidence is available. Circumstantial
evidence, also known as indirect evidence, is evidence that does not directly prove a fact but relies
on inference or deduction to establish that fact. Unlike direct evidence, which provides clear,
straightforward proof of a fact, circumstantial evidence involves drawing conclusions from a set
of circumstances, facts, or events.

Circumstantial evidence is often used to support or establish facts indirectly by showing that
certain circumstances or events are consistent with a particular conclusion. It can be a powerful
tool in legal proceedings, as it can provide a strong basis for making inferences about what likely
occurred in a given situation. Herein, the fights between the brothers and the CCTV footage
recovered by the Police are provided as circumstantial evidence though no direct evidence is
present to showcase that the criminal act was done by the Defendant himself. In this case death
has occurred, but the CCTV footage doesn't directly show the Defendant committing the crime of
murder, but it shows the suspect entering and leaving the vicinity of the crime scene at a specific
time.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of C. Chenga Reddy and Ors. vs. State of A.P.15 has held
that the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as
to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. It was held that, in other words,
there must be chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a
conclusion with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human
probability the act must have been done by the accused.

When proof of guilt depended solely on circumstantial evidence, it was incumbent on the courts
to properly consider and scrutinise all the material factors and circumstances for determining
whether the chain of circumstantial evidence is so complete as to lead to the only conclusion of
guilt.16

15
(1996) 10 SCC 193
16
Matru alias Girish Chandra vs State of Uttar Pradesh, 1971 AIR 1050 SC

19
In the present case, the Prosecution has to prove whether there is a chain of circumstantial evidence
which leads to the guilt of the Defendant without any doubt. The Prosecution, till now has failed
to do that. The above-mentioned cases clearly state that we have to prove the guilt through
circumstantial evidence in such a way that there is no chance of leaving a doubt or any other
hypothesis. There was a lot of doubt in the case of the Prosecution. Moreover, the CCTV footage
which was recovered by the Police does not depict that it was the Defendant who leaked the
Cylinder. It was just shown that he carried a similar cylinder into the office, which was very normal
for him to do, pertaining to his post of lab- assistant in the company and thereby he had no intention
to murder his brother. Rather, here his deceased brother, Rohit was seen breaking the lock of the
door with the cylinder which could be the reason of gas leakage and not the Defendant.

There is yet another basic rule of criminal jurisprudence which was highlighted by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Harendra Narain Singh vs. State of Bihar,17 that if two views are
possible on the evidence adduced in a case of circumstantial evidence, one pointing to the guilt of
the Accused and other to his innocence, the Court should adopt the latter view favourable to the
accused.

Herein, the deceased was already suffering from a heart disease since his childhood. There might
be chance that after the fight of both the deceased and the Defendant, the deceased was so much
panicked that as seen in the CCTV footage he started to break open the door of the office by the
Cylinder which the Defendant carried only for his job assistance as a lab-assistant in the same
company. And when the same was used to break the lock of the door, the gas in the cylinder got
leaked and resulted in the death of the deceased. The sole proof provided by CCTV is that they
had a quarrel amongst themselves, but such a fight between business partners who are brothers is
fairly common, and theirs was not a new occurrence. As the Defendant was not seen doing
anything unusual with the cylinder, it is possible that the Deceased was responsible for the gas
loss.

It is hereby humbly submitted before this honourable court that there is no clear evidence of linking
the Defendant as well as there is a reasonable amount of doubt in the conviction, therefore, the
Defendant should not be held guilty of this crime.

17
1991 AIR 1842 SC

20
In the famous case of Bodh Raj vs State of Jammu & Kashmir,18 the Court held that the
circumstantial evidence can be a sole basis of conviction provided that the conditions as stated
below are fully satisfied. The conditions are:
A. That the circumstances from which the guilt is established must be fully proved;
B. That all the facts must be consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused;
C. That the circumstances must be of conclusive nature and tendency;
D. That the circumstances should to a moral certainty, actually exclude every hypothesis
except the one proposed to be proved.

In the present case, the circumstances of the guilt have not been fully proven. There is no possible
chain which is completed regarding the facts which relate to the guilt of the Defendant. Plus, there
is a possibility of reasonable doubt which points towards the innocence of the Defendant.

Carrying a gas cylinder by the Defendant as a lab assistant, without any evidence of intent to
commit murder, would not typically result in charges under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code
(IPC). Section 302 of the IPC pertains to the offense of murder and requires clear evidence of the
intentional and unlawful killing of another person.

To charge someone with murder under Section 302 IPC, the prosecution must demonstrate that the
accused had the necessary intent or knowledge to cause death or grievous bodily harm to another
person. Simply carrying a gas cylinder as part of one's job duties or without any intention to harm
others would not satisfy the elements required for a murder charge.

21
There is no doubt that conviction can be solely based on circumstantial evidence but is should be
tested by the touchstone of law relating to circumstantial evidence laid down by the Court as far
back in 1952.20 But herein the case has lot of doubts involved in it so convicting a person solely
on the basis of circumstantial evidence won’t be correct when there is a reasonable doubt for
considering his guilt.

With the development of law, the theory of last seen has become a definite tool in the hands of the
prosecution to establish the guilt of the Accused. This concept is also accepted in various
judgements of this Court. The Court has taken the consistent view that where the only
circumstantial evidence taken resort to by the prosecution is that the accused and the deceased
were last seen together, it may raise suspicion but it is not independently sufficient to lead to a
finding of guilt.21

In Arjun Maril vs. State of Bihar,22 the Supreme Court took the view that where the appellant was
alleged to have gone to the house of one Sitaram in the evening of 19th July, 1985 and had stayed
in the night at the house of deceased Sitaram, the evidence was very shaky and inconclusive. Even
if it was accepted that they were there, it would, at best, amount to be the evidence of the appellants
having been last seen together with the deceased. The Court further observed that it is settled law
that the only circumstance of last seen will not complete the chain of circumstance to record a
finding that it is consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt of the accused and therefore, no
conviction, on that basis alone, can be founded.

The deceased and the Defendant were last seen together in this case, but this does not prove the
Defendant’s guilt. There is a reasonable doubt present. The siblings were only seen bickering,
which is normal among business partners, and there was no evidence in the video that the
Defendant purposefully spilled the gas. Rather, the deceased was witnessed banging the door
lockwith the gas cylinder, which could have been a contributing factor to his death.

As a result, it is most humbly submitted that the Defendant in this case cannot be convicted merely
on the basis of circumstantial evidence.

20
State of U.P. VS. Satish, 2005 (3) SCC 114
21
Sahadevan & Anr. vs State of Tamil Nadu, 2012 (2) RCR (Criminal) 899
22
1994 Supp. (2) SCC 372

22
 PRAYER
Therefore, in the light of facts stated, arguments advanced, and authorities cited, it is most humbly
prayed and implored before the Hon’ble court that it may please-

1. Acquit the accused from prosecuting under section 300 to of IPC for the offense of murder
2. Pass any other order that it may deem fit in the favour of accused in the light of equity,
justice, and good conscience

Place: Ludhiana S/d

Council for the accused

Date:

23