ABHINAV EDUCATION LAW SOCIETY’S COLLEGE

MOOT COURT PRESENTATION

By

1. Supriya Prakash Liman

2. Smita Ananda Mankar
L.L.B 3rd Year

Submitted To,
Principal Mr. Vinod Kewate

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELANT

ABHINAV EDUCATION LAW SOCIETY’S COLLEGE

MOOT COURT PRESENTATION

IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF VARUSA NADU

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 59/2010

VIRUTHAN & OTHERS………APPELLANT(S)

V/s

STATE OF VARUSA NADU……..RESPONDENT

UPON SUBMISSION OF TO THE HON’BLE JUDGE AND IS

COMPANION JUGDES OF HIGH COURT OF VARUSA NADU

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELANT

Sr.No. TABLE OF CONTENTS Pg. No.

1. Index of Authorities
a) Statutes
b) Table of Cases
c) Legal Databases
d) Books
e) Articles

2 Statement of Jurisdiction

3. Summary of Facts

4. Issues Raised

5. Summary of Arguments

6. Arguments Advanced
I) Whether the death of the deceased is a culpable
homicide amounting to murder or not?

II) Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of

the accused herein beyond all the reasonable doubts?

III) Whether the punishment imposed by the trial court is

appropriate, legal and valid?

7. Prayer

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELANT

 Index of Authorities

S.No STATUTES

1.
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860)

2.
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872)

3.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELANT

 TABLE OF CASES
S.No. CASE NAME & CITATION Pg.No.
1. Badri Rai and Another v. State of Bihar, 1958 AIR 953 12
2. Anter Singh v. State of Rajasthan, A.I.R. 2004 S.C. 2865 13
3. T. Subramanian v. State of Tamil Nadu (2006) 1 SCC 401 14
4. Munna Lal v. State of U.P., 2023 SCC Online SC 80 14
5. Karan singh v. State of M.P. (2003) 12 SCC 587 14

S.No LEGAL DATABASES

1. Indiankanoon.org 2. Legalserviceindia.com

BOOKS
S.No BOOK NAME AUTHOR
1. Indian Penal Code C.K. Takwani
7. Principles of The Law of Evidence Avtar Singh
8. Law of Evidence Ratanlal & Dhirajlal

ARTICLES
S.No ARTICLE NAME AUTHOR
NAME
1. An article on Vocal Technique and Acoustics Jordan Dal
(2000)
2. A School History and Geography of Northern Hunter William
India Wilson
(1891)
3. Foundation of Material Sciences and Engineering Smith, William,
(2006) Hashemi, Javad

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELANT

 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Appellant has approached this Hon’ble High Court by invoking Section
374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1972. The Appellants humbly
submits to the Jurisdiction, against the judgment and Order of the Additional
District and Sessions Judge No-I of Karambalur.

Section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure states that,

(1) Any person convicted on a trial held by a High Court in its

extraordinary original criminal jurisdiction may appeal to the Supreme Court.
(2) Any person convicted on a trial held by a Sessions Judge or an
Additional Sessions Judge or on a trial held by any other Court in which a
sentence of imprisonment for more than seven years 2[has been passed against
him or against any other person convicted at the same trial], may appeal to the
High Court.
(3) Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (2), any person, -
(a) convicted on a trial held by a Metropolitan Magistrate or
Assistant Sessions Judge or Magistrate of the first class, or of the second class,
or
(b) sentenced under section 325, or
(c) in respect of whom an order has been made or a sentence has
been passed under Section 360 by any Magistrate, may appeal to the Court of
Session.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELANT

 SUMMARY OF FACTS

1) Uthiyan, the deceased was the Union Secretary of the Kurunji Nila Party
(Right). He was a notable person in his village and was involved in
numerous problems from time to time. Many persons also held serious
grudge against him for several matters.
2) On 16.10.2010, Uthiyan went to Belathur to attend the death of his
relative Inban in car. As there was no one to drive the car, he voluntarily
asked Aruvan to drive it.
3) On the same day by 1.00pm, the Sub-Inspector of Thinnam police station
received information that Uthiyan was lying dead on the banks of river
Kodhai near the crematorium shed in Mattikulam.
4) Immediately after these incidents, intense riots were caused by Uthiyan’s
party members as they didn’t know who killed Uthiyan. Regarding this, 8
cases were filed.
5) On 17.10.2010, the police arrested Viruthan, Thurithan and Aruvan
alleging that they killed Uthiyan. Despite of inadequate material evidence
and failure to recover the murder weapon, the trial court convicted and
sentenced all the three accused u/s. 120(b) r/w 302 I.P.C and shall suffer a
life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5,000 and in default they shall suffer
further imprisonment of 6 months and sentenced further U/s.302 r/w 109
I.P.C and shall suffer a life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5,000 and in
default they shall suffer further imprisonment of 6 months.
6) Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, all the three convicted
accused filed an appeal before the Hon’ble High Court Judicature, Varusa
Nadu.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELANT

 ISSUES RAISED

ISSUE - I

WHETHER THE DEATH OF THE DECEASED IS A CULPABLE HOMICIDE

AMOUNTING TO MURDER OR NOT?

ISSUE – II

WHETHER THE PROSECUTION HAS ESTABLISHED THE GUILT OF THE

ACCUSED HEREIN BEYOND ALL THE REASONABLE DOUBTS?

ISSUE – III

WHETHER THE PUNISHMENT IMPOSED BY THE TRIAL COURT IS

APPROPRIATE, LEGAL AND VALID?

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELANT

 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
ISSUE – I
WHETHER THE DEATH OF THE DECEASED IS A CULPABLE
HOMICIDE AMOUNTING TO MURDER OR NOT?

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble High Court that the appellants did
not cause the death of the deceased. The appellants are not guilty u/Sec. 302
r/w. 109 of the IPC, 1860, because of the absence of Mens rea and Actus reus
which is proved from the unreliable witnesses and the fabricated stories of the
police. There is an apparent break in the chain of evidence. The appellants are
also not guilty u/Sec. 120B r/w. 302 of the IPC, 1860 as there is no evidence of
illegal agreement among them.
ISSUE - II
WHETHER THE PROSECUTION HAS ESTABLISHED THE GUILT
OF THE ACCUSED HEREIN BEYOND ALL THE REASONABLE
DOUBTS?

It is most modestly produced before the Hon’ble High Court that the prosecution
has not established the guilt of the accused beyond all the reasonable grounds on the
following basis of the existence of a disparate version of the case. Firstly, the chain
of circumstantial evidence which is produced by the respondent points the needle
towards the innocence of the appellants. Secondly, the credibility of Prosecution
Witnesses is suspicious and diminishes their credibility. Thirdly, there is an absence
of Test Identification Parade. Fourthly, the confession given by the appellant is
inadmissible according to the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, of 1872.
Fifthly, the last seen together theory is a weak piece of evidence to convict A-3.

ISSUE - III
WHETHER THE PUNISHMENT IMPOSED BY THE TRIAL COURT IS

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELANT

APPROPRIATE, LEGAL, AND VALID?

It is most modestly produced before the Hon’ble High Court of Varasu Nadu
that the punishment imposed by the trial court is not appropriate, legal, and
valid. Even though the facts of the case and material filed along with the charge
sheet do not disclose any ingredients for the offences so charged, the Trial Court
ought to have seen that no case is made out against the appellants from the
evidence collected by the prosecution or linking them to the crime, that the Trial
Court without properly considering the material before it, in a mechanical way
framed the charges against the appellants resulting in unreasonable and
unsustainable and not supported by any material on record.

ADVANCE ARGUMENT
ISSUE – I

WHETHER THE DEATH OF THE DECEASED IS A CULPABLE HOMICIDE

AMOUNTING TO MURDER OR NOT?

Before seeing whether the act amounts to culpable homicide amounting

to murder or not which is to be inferred from the circumstances under which
such an act has occurred, first it is necessary to clarify whether the act which
resulted in the death of the deceased was caused by the appellants or not. It is
humbly submitted before this Hon’ble High Court that the death of the deceased
was not caused by the appellants. It is challenged on the grounds that there was
no conspiracy among the appellants to eliminate Uthiyan. Let us challenge the
charges in its chronological order.
(A) WHETHER A CRIMININAL CONSPIRACY EXISTED AMONG THE
APPELLANTS OR NOT?

Sec. 120A of IPC, 1860, explains the ingredients of Conspiracy 1. The

prosecution relied on the evidence of PW.5 to show that the accused persons
entered into a Conspiracy to eliminate Uthiyan. So, it is our duty to apply our
mind to the credibility of PW5.
(B) WHETHER THE APPELLANTS ARE GUILTY U/S. 302 R/W. 109 OF IPC, 1860?

The fundamental maxim of criminal law ‘actus non facit reum nisi mens
sit rea’ which means an act does not constitute guilt unless done with a guilty
intention should be considered. In order to constitute a crime u/Sec. 302 r/w.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELANT

 109 of the IPC, 1860, the intent and act must concur.12

ISSUE – II

WHETHER THE PROSECUTION HAS ESTABLISHED THE GUILT OF THE

ACCUSED HEREIN BEYOND ALL THE REASONABLE DOUBTS?

(1) It is most modestly submitted before this Hon’ble High court that in a
case based on circumstantial evidence, every circumstantial evidence proving a
fact should be closely scrutinized, and there should be no weak links, every
weak link being a ground of reasonable suspicion, always calling for an
acquittal53.
(2) Upon appraisal of evidence, if two views are possible then the benefit
of the doubt must be in favour of the accused-appellants 54. It is also submitted
that as per Munikrishna @ Krishna and others. v. State by Ulsoor PS 55, in a
case of circumstantial evidence, the Court has to scrutinize each and every
circumstantial possibility, which is placed before it in the form of evidence, and
the evidence must point towards only one conclusion, which is the guilt of the
accused. Moreover, where two views are reasonably possible from the same
evidence, the respondent cannot be said to have proved their case beyond a
reasonable doubt56. Regarding the concept of benefit of reasonable doubt in
another text Lord Du Paraq, J. observed “It is trite that accused persons are
entitled to get the benefit of doubt only when the prosecution fails to prove its
case. The proof beyond reasonable doubt is a guiding factor. The evidence in
the present case has to be scrutinized on these principles.” The onus is on the
Prosecution to establish mens rea ‘beyond all reasonable doubt, whether
generally or when particular issue arises.’57

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELANT

 ISSUE – III

WHETHER THE PUNISHMENT IMPOSED BY THE TRIAL COURT IS

APPROPRIATE, LEGAL AND VALID?
At present, the three appellants A-1, A-2, and A-3 have been convicted and
sentenced by the I Additional District Session Court, Karambalur
Kupusamy, J for charge, U/s.120(b) r/w 302
I.P.C and shall suffer a Life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in
default he shall suffer further imprisonment of 6 months and sentenced for
further charge U/s. 302 r/w 109
I.P.C and shall suffer a Life Imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in
default, he shall suffer further imprisonment for Six months. This sentence
imposed to the accused shall run concurrently the period of detention
undergone by the accused is to be set of U/s. 428 of Cr.P.C.

12
 PRAYER

Wherefore, in the light of the facts stated, issues raised, arguments advanced and
authorities cited, it is most humbly prayed and implored before the Hon’ble High
Court of Varusa Nadu that it may be benevolently pleased to

1. Declare that the essential ingredients of Sections 300, 120(A), and 107
of the Indian Penal Code have not been met in the facts and
circumstances of the instant case.
2. Declare that the judgement of the Trial Court of Karambalur had
incorrectly applied the applicable test of proving the facts ‘beyond all
reasonable doubt’ and is liable to be struck down as being contrary to
the process of law.
3. Hold the conviction of Viruthan -A1, Thurithan -A2, and Aruvan -A3
under Section 302 r/w. Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code of 1860
and 120(B)r/w. Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 as being
contrary to the process of law and must be set aside.
4. Declare acquittal of Viruthan -A1, Thurithan -A2, and Aruvan -A3
from allegations of offences under Section 302 r/w. Section 109 of the
Indian Penal Code of 1860 and 120(B)r/w. Section 302 of the Indian
Penal Code 1860 and to reverse the decision of the Trial Court.
And/or

Also pass any other order that this Honorable Court deems fit and proper in
the interests of justice, equity, and good conscience.

For this act of Kindness, the APPELLANT(S) shall be duty-bound forever to

pray.

All of which is humbly

prayed, Counsels appearing on the behalf of
APPELLANT(S)

13