TC 10 D

Team Code: T-10
1ST NATIONAL TRIAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024
BEFORE THE COURT OF SESSIONS

AT BHADRAAR
S.C NO. ___ OF 2024
STATE OF ROMULUS………………………………………………PROSECUTION
V
MR. ALROND DERKSHIRE &

ORS……………………………………………………………………DEFENDANT
FOR OFFENCES CHARGED UNDER:

SECTION 120A AND SECTION 300 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860
UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE SESSIONS JUDGE
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE
Word count : 6368

1ST NATIONAL MO1st National Trial Advocacy Moot Competition, 2024
OT COURT COMPETITION, 2024
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Index of Authorities.......................................................................................................................III
Statement Of Relevant Facts.........................................................................................................VI
Statement of Jurisdiction............................................................................................................VIII
Issues Raised.................................................................................................................................IX
Summary of Arguments..................................................................................................................X
List Of Witnesses.........................................................................................................................XII
Arguments In Detail.......................................................................................................................14
ISSUE 1: IS THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED BEFORE THE COURT SUFFICIENT AND
CREDIBLE ENOUGH FOR IMPLEADING MR. ALROND AS PARTY TO THE TRIAL
UNDER S. 319 OF THE CRPC?...............................................................................................14
[1.1] Lack of Probative Evidence Establishing Mr. Alrond's Nexus to the Crime..............14
[1.2] Ambiguity Surrounding Mr. Alrond's Alleged Involvement and Legal Presumption of
Innocence................................................................................................................................16
[1.3] Failure to Establish Motive or Opportunity for Mr. Alrond's Alleged Involvement...17
ISSUE 2: IS THE EVIDENCE AGAINST MR. BRUTUS BEYOND REASONABLE
DOUBT TO CONVICT HIM ON CHARGES OF MURDER?................................................18
[2.1] Circumstantial Evidence is unreliable..........................................................................19
[2.2] Plea of Alibi...................................................................................................................20
[2.3] Absence of Independent witness...................................................................................20
[2.4] Reasonable Doubt Is Not Based On Assumptions.........................................................22
I|Page WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF DEFENSE

ISSUE III: THAT THE EVIDENCE AGAINST MR. BRUTUS, CASSIUS AND ALROND
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT TO CONVICT THEM ON CHARGES OF CRIMINAL
CONSPIRACY TO MURDER..................................................................................................22
[3.1] That the Ingredients of criminal conspiracy are not being fulfilled..............................23
[3.1.1] That there was no agreement or understanding between two or more of the
accused persons..................................................................................................................23
[3.1.2] That there was illegal act done by the accused or any act done by illegal means. 25
[3.2] That there is lack of evidence to convict the accused....................................................25
[3.3] That the guilt of the accused has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt................28
PRAYER......................................................................................................................................XXX
II | P a g e WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF DEFENSE

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Ashok Dangra Jaiswal v State of M.P., AIR 2011 SC 1335..........................................................31
Ashok Kumar Chatterjee v State of M.P., AIR 1989 SC 1890......................................................29
Baldev Singh v State of Punjab, (2009) 6 SCC 564......................................................................26
Bhagat Ram v State of Punjab, AIR 1954 SC 621........................................................................29
C. Chenga Reddy v State of A.P., AIR 1996 SC 3390...................................................................29
Chandrabhan Srivastav v State of Madhya Pradesh, 1978 MP L.J. 340.......................................28
Datar Singh v The State of Punjab, 1975 (4) SCC 272.................................................................30
Datar Singh v. The State of Punjab, 1975 (4) SCC 272.................................................................31
Gambir v State of Maharashtra, AIR 1982 SC 1157.....................................................................28
Gurucharan Singh v State of Punjab, AIR 1956 SC 460; Narendra Singh v State of MP,(2004) 10
SCC 699.....................................................................................................................................20
Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v State of MP, AIR 1952 SC 343................................................14
Janar Lal Das v State of Orissa, (1991)(3) SCC 27; A Jayaram v State of AP, AIR 1995 SC 2128.
....................................................................................................................................................19
Jayantibhai Bhenkarbhai v State of Gujarat, AIR 2002 SC 3569.................................................20
K.S. Narayan v S. Gopinathan, 1982 Cr LJ, 1611 (Mad); State of Madhya Pradesh v Sheetla
Sahai, 2009 (8) SCC 617............................................................................................................25
Kanwar Pal Singh Gill v State of Punjab, AIR 2005 SC 3104......................................................15
Kehar Singh v State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1988 SC 1883.................................................27
Keshab Deo Bhagat v Emperor, AIR 1945 Cal. 93.......................................................................27
III | P a g e WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF DEFENSE

Kusum Ankama Rao v State of A.P., AIR 2008 SC 2819..............................................................28
Lennart Schussler & Anr v Director of Enforcement & Anr, 1970 AIR 549................................26
Leonnart v Director of Enforcement, AIR 1970 SC 549...............................................................26
Megha singh v State of Haryana, AIR 1995 SC 2339..................................................................21
Mohan Lal v State of UP, AIR 1974 SC 1144...............................................................................19
Mohan v State of UP, (2020) SCC ONLINE ALL 668.................................................................18
N.C.T. of Delhi v Jaspal Singh, (2003) 10 SCC 86.......................................................................25
Paramhans Yadav v State of Bihar, 1987 (35) BLJR 127..............................................................28
Prakash Bicholkar v State, 1981 Cri LJ 440 (Goa).......................................................................28
Raghunath v State of Haryana, AIR 2003 SC 165; Main Pal v State of Haryana, 2004 SCC(Cri)
1882............................................................................................................................................31
Ram Nand v State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1981 SC 738.........................................................28
Ram Narain v State of UP, (1973) AIR 2200................................................................................15
Ramakant Rai v Madan Rai, Cr LJ 2004 Sc 36.............................................................................22
Ramesh Harijan v State of UP, (2012) SCC 5 777........................................................................17
RP Kapur v State of Punjab,AIR 1960 SC 866.............................................................................23
Santhanam v Additional Chief Secretary, W.P.No.1781 of 2023 (Madras HC 27 July 2023)......26
Sharda Birchand v State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1682.......................................................28
State of AP v Kowthalam Narasimhula, (2001) Cr LJ 722 (SC)...................................................24
State of Gujarat v Ramesh Patel, (2017) 9 SCC 1.........................................................................18
State of Haryana v Ved Prakash, AIR 1994 SC 468.....................................................................17
State of Maharashtra v Damu, (2000) 6 SCC 269.........................................................................16
State of Rajasthan v Om Prakash, AIR 2002 SC 2235..................................................................17
IV | P a g e WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF DEFENSE

State of Rajasthan v Raja Ram, AIR 2003 SC 3601......................................................................28
State of Uttar Pradesh v Sukhbasi and Ors., AIR 1985 SC 1224..................................................29
Subhash Chand v State of Rajasthan, (2002) 1 SCC 702..............................................................20
State of Gujarat v Ramesh Patel, (2017) 9 SCC 1........................................................................15
Topandas v The State of Bombay, 1956 AIR 33; Ram Narain Popli v Central Bureau Of
Investigation, 2003 (3) SCC 641................................................................................................25
Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v State of Gujarat, AIR 2006 SC 1367................................................16
Statutes
Code of Criminal Procedure,1973, S 100(4).................................................................................21
Code of Criminal Procedure,1973, S 100(5).................................................................................21
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966, art 14(2)...........................................16
State of Kerala v P Sugathan, (2000) 8 SCC 203..........................................................................25
The Indian Penal Code, 1860, s.120A...........................................................................................25
Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948, art 11....................................................................16
Other Authorities
Arun Kumar Singh and Ameesha Singh,’ Importance of Forensic Science in Law with Reference
to Crime Scene Investigation’ [2018] 26 ALJ 307.....................................................................24
Nelson RA, Indian Penal Code, vol 4 (10th Ed. 2008) 2905.........................................................22
TGL Poshak Corp. v Commissioner of Central Excise, ( 2002) (140) ELT 187 Tri Chennai.......23
V|Page WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF DEFENSE

STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS
INTRODUCTION
Romulus, the northernmost region of Anglovia, is steeped in a history fraught with struggles for
autonomy and external pressures. Comprising two Metropolitan Cities and numerous villages,
with Bhadraar serving as its capital, Romulus stands as a point of political upheaval. The
landscape is sharply divided, with a prevailing desire for autonomy from Anglovia. This
sentiment finds expression through the Romulan Secular Society (RSS), under the leadership of
Alrond Derkshire, contrasting with opposition from the Anglovian National Congress (ANC), led
by Obstentia L’esca. The violent Romulan Raiders, seeking autonomy, met their match with
Operation White Lightning in 2000, paving the way for the RSS’s formation and its pursuit of
peaceful political engagement. Meanwhile, in the neighboring Imperial Kingdom of Lomalia,
internal discord reigns as King Sonny Regulus grapples with conflicting governance ideologies
held by his children Alan, Raymond, and Vakasati.
THE ELECTIONS
The 2023 elections in Romulus unfolded amidst escalating tensions, with the emergence of the
Crusaders Reborn, a militant group from Lomalia, adding to the volatile atmosphere. The
political arena centered around Alrond Derkshire and Obstentia L’esca, electing for the Chief
Minister position, each representing totally different visions for the region. Polls indicated a tight
race, with Alrond leading in Bhadraar while Obstentia garnered support in the border towns.
However, a joint platform speech by both candidates spiraled into a riot, resulting in casualties
VI | P a g e WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF DEFENSE

and heightened tensions. Obstentia's subsequent arrest on dubious charges only served to
intensify controversy and unrest, casting a shadow over the electoral process.
ARREST OF MS. OBSTENTIA
On January 22, 2023, Ms. Obstentia was apprehended under charges of criminal defamation.
Subsequently, she was brought before the magistrate within the legally stipulated period of 24
hours. Following this initial appearance, the magistrate extended Ms. Obstentia's arrest by
imposing house arrest for an additional 24-hour duration.
EVENTS OF 23 JANUARY 2023
Commander Sable's tweet sparked violence against Obstentia, prompting heightened security
around her residence. Brutus and Simba, police constables, were deployed for the security of Ms.
Obstentia during her house arrest. Around 9:15 PM, Babulal and Simba heard a distressing sound
from Obstentia’s house, leading to the apprehension of a cloaked stranger, Brutus, near the
premises. Brutus, who confessed to being coerced by the "Chosen One" and implicated his
accomplice, Cassius. Simba discovered Obstentia lying in a pool of blood inside her home and
immediately called an Ambulance at 9:25 PM. Obstentia’s dying declaration hinted at betrayal by
Alrond. Subsequently, Cassius was apprehended near a bus stop at 9:26 PM, providing further
corroboration of Brutus’s confession. Additionally, a blood-stained knife was seized from
Brutus’s possession, adding to the incriminating evidence against him.
THE TRIAL OF BRUTUS AND CASSIUS
Allegations surfaced regarding Alrond's involvement in Obstentia’s murder, sparking public
outrage and calls for his arrest. Despite Brutus denying involvement and alleging police
coercion, evidence of his residence near Obstentia's house was presented. Additionally, evidence
VII | P a g e WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF DEFENSE

from Obstentia’s belongings hinted at communication with an unknown individual referred to as
"Al". Consequently, the High Court directed further investigation into Alrond’s role, leading to
his inclusion as an accused under Section 319 of the CrPC. The Sessions Court framed issues
regarding Alrond’s involvement, the guilt of Brutus and Cassius, and the existence of a criminal
conspiracy, considering evidence such as the post-mortem report. The trial, conducted under pre-
2023 criminal laws of Anglovia, focuses on determining guilt and conspiracy.
VIII | P a g e WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF DEFENSE

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The counsels representing the prosecution have endorsed their pleadings before the Hon`ble
Principal District & Sessions Court, Bhadraar, under Section 177(1) r/w 209 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 under which the Hon`ble Court has the jurisdiction. Which reads as
follows:
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’.
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, after complying with the provisions of section 207 or section 208, as the case may
be, the case to the Court of Session, and subject to the provisions of this Code relating to bail,
remand the accused to custody until such commitment has been made;
(b) subject to the provisions of this Code relating to bail, remand the accused to custody during,
and until the conclusion of, the trial;
IX | P a g e WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF DEFENSE

(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’.
ISSUES RAISED
ISSUE 1: IS THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED BEFORE THE COURT SUFFICIENT AND CREDIBLE
ENOUGH FOR IMPLEADING MR. ALROND AS PARTY TO THE TRIAL UNDER S. 319 OF THE
CRPC?
ISSUE 2: IS THE EVIDENCE AGAINST MR. BRUTUS BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT TO

CONVICT HIM ON CHARGES OF MURDER?
ISSUE 3: IS THE EVIDENCE AGAINST MR. BRUTUS, CASSIUS, AND ALROND BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT TO CONVICT THEM ON CHARGES OF CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY TO
MURDER?
X|Page WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF DEFENSE

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
ISSUE 1: IS THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED BEFORE THE COURT SUFFICIENT AND CREDIBLE
ENOUGH FOR IMPLEADING MR. ALROND AS PARTY TO THE TRIAL UNDER S. 319 OF THE
CRPC?
The defense asserts that the evidence presented by the prosecution fails to meet the threshold
required for impleading Mr. Alrond as a party to the trial under Section 319 of the CrPC. Firstly,
the lack of probative evidence linking Mr. Alrond to the crime scene undermines the foundation
of the prosecution’s case. Direct evidence, such as eyewitness testimony or tangible proof of Mr.
Alrond’s involvement, is conspicuously absent, casting doubt on the validity of his impleadment.
Secondly, the ambiguity surrounding Mr. Alrond’s alleged involvement and the legal
presumption of innocence further weaken the prosecution’s case. Rushing to implead an
individual without concrete evidence violates the principle of presumption of innocence and risks
miscarriage of justice. Lastly, the prosecution’s failure to establish a credible motive or
opportunity for Mr. Alrond’s alleged involvement raises significant doubts about the coherence
and reliability of its case. Without substantiating motive or opportunity, impleading Mr. Alrond
under Section 319 of the CrPC would be unjustified and unwarranted.
XI | P a g e WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF DEFENSE

DOUBT TO CONVICT HIM ON CHARGES OF MURDER?
The defense contends that the evidence presented by the prosecution fails to establish the guilt of
Brutus beyond a reasonable doubt for the charges of murder. Firstly, circumstantial evidence
presented by the prosecution lacks reliability as it fails to form a conclusive chain of events
pointing to Brutus’s guilt. Secondly, the plea of alibi suggests that Brutus was not present at the
scene of the crime, further weakening the prosecution's case. Thirdly, the absence of independent
witnesses during critical moments of the investigation raises doubts about the reliability of the
evidence presented. Additionally, the prosecution's failure to eliminate reasonable doubt and
reliance on assumptions rather than concrete evidence further undermines the case. Furthermore,
the investigation itself was faulty, characterized by negligence on the part of the forensic team,
and resulted in the failure to recover crucial physical evidence from the crime scene.
Consequently, the defense argues that Brutus should be exonerated of the charges due to the
prosecution’s inability to provide substantial and reliable evidence establishing his guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt.
ISSUE 3: IS THE EVIDENCE AGAINST MR. BRUTUS, CASSIUS, AND ALROND BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT TO CONVICT THEM ON CHARGES OF CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY TO
MURDER?
The prosecution fails to establish criminal conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt against Mr.
Brutus, Cassius, and Alrond. Firstly, there is no concrete evidence of an agreement between the
accused. Secondly, no illegal acts or means are evident. Additionally, there’s insufficient
evidence to convict, as conspiracies are often clandestine, relying heavily on circumstantial
evidence, which must conclusively link the accused to the crime. The burden of proof lies with
XII | P a g e WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF DEFENSE

the prosecution, and the presumption of innocence must prevail unless guilt is proven
unequivocally. In this case, evidence is inconclusive, relying on inebriated witnesses and
speculative connections. Mere WhatsApp messages do not establish conspiracy, and Alrond’s
involvement lacks substantial evidence. Therefore, reasonable doubt exists, highlighting the
failure to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
LIST OF WITNESSES
WITNESSES WITNESS NAMES WITNESS TYPE
PW 1 BRUTUS LEGULARIUS EYE WITNESS
PW 2 CASSIUS MOSSANIS FACT WITNESS
PW 3 ALROND DERKSHIRE FACT WITNESS
XIII | P a g e WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF DEFENSE

XIV | P a g e WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF DEFENSE

ARGUMENTS IN DETAIL
ISSUE 1: IS THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED BEFORE THE COURT SUFFICIENT AND
CREDIBLE ENOUGH FOR IMPLEADING MR. ALROND AS PARTY TO THE TRIAL
UNDER S. 319 OF THE CRPC?
1. It is humbly submitted that firstly, [1.1] there is a lack of probative evidence establishing Mr.
Alrond's nexus to the crime. Secondly, [1.2] due to Ambiguity Surrounding Mr. Alrond's
Alleged Involvement and Legal Presumption of Innocence. And lastly, [1.3] failure to
establish motive or opportunity for Mr. Alrond's alleged involvement.
[1.1] Lack of Probative Evidence Establishing Mr. Alrond's Nexus to the Crime
2. It is submitted that the absence of direct evidence implicating Mr. Alrond in the commission
of the crime significantly undermines the basis for his impleadment under Section 319 of the
CrPC, since, direct evidence, such as eyewitness testimony or tangible proof of Mr. Alrond’s
involvement, is crucial for establishing his culpability a reasonable doubt.
3. The principle of corpus delicti demands that the prosecution must establish both the
occurrence of the crime and the accused's connection to it. 1 However, in the absence of direct
evidence linking Mr. Alrond to the crime scene or the criminal act, the threshold for his
impleadment under Section 319 of the CrPC remains unmet.
1
Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v State of MP, AIR 1952 SC 343.
15 | P a g e WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF DEFENSE

4. In the Ram Narain case,2 the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of direct evidence in
criminal cases, stating that mere suspicion or conjecture cannot replace concrete evidence
linking the accused to the crime.
5. Moreover, the absence of direct evidence raises questions about the reliability and credibility
of the case against Mr. Alrond. Without concrete proof of his involvement, the prosecution’s
argument for his impleadment becomes speculative and lacks the necessary legal foundation.
6. It is submitted that the prosecution heavily relies on witness testimonies and circumstantial
evidence to establish Mr. Alrond’s involvement in the crime. However, these testimonies are
inherently subject to scrutiny, particularly concerning the witnesses' motives and the
consistency of their accounts.
7. Further, in Kanwar Pal case,3 the Supreme Court underscored the importance of assessing
witness credibility, emphasizing that the court must meticulously scrutinize testimonies to
ensure they are devoid of contradictions, embellishments, or ulterior motives. Failure to do so
can compromise the integrity of the trial process and the reliability of the evidence
presented.4
8. Therefore, in the absence of direct evidence linking Mr. Alrond to the crime, the
prosecution’s case for his impleadment under Section 319 of the CrPC lacks substantive legal
basis and fails to meet the requisite standard of proof demanded by law.
2
Ram Narain v State of UP, (1973) AIR 2200.
3
Kanwar Pal Singh Gill v State of Punjab, AIR 2005 SC 3104.
4
State of Gujarat v Ramesh Patel, (2017) 9 SCC 1.

[1.2] Ambiguity Surrounding Mr. Alrond's Alleged Involvement and Legal
Presumption of Innocence
9. It is submitted that a critical aspect that undermines the prosecution’s case for impleading Mr.
Alrond under Section 319 of the CrPC is the ambiguity surrounding his alleged involvement
in the crime. Despite the presentation of evidence, there exists significant uncertainty
regarding Mr. Alrond’s role in the purported offense.
10. The cornerstone of the criminal justice system is the presumption of innocence, enshrined in
Article 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 5 and Article 14(2) of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.6 This fundamental principle dictates that
every individual is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
11. In the Damu case7, the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of upholding the
presumption of innocence and cautioned against prematurely impleading individuals based
on conjecture or suspicion. The court emphasized that impleadment under Section 319 of the
CrPC must be founded on concrete evidence that unequivocally establishes the accused's
guilt.
12. Moreover, the ambiguity surrounding Mr. Alrond’s alleged involvement raises concerns
about the potential miscarriage of justice. Rushing to implead an individual without
substantiating their culpability with concrete evidence violates the principle of presumption
of innocence.
5
Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948, art 11.
6
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966, art 14(2).
7
State of Maharashtra v Damu, (2000) 6 SCC 269.

13. Furthermore, in Zahira Habibullah Sheikh case,8 the Supreme Court stressed the need for
courts to maintain a balance between the interests of the accused and the society’s interest in
the prosecution of offenders. The court also emphasized the importance of ensuring a fair
trial, when impleading additional accused.
14. It is submitted that the Court in a landmark case 9 reiterated the importance of adhering to the
principles of natural justice and the presumption of innocence. Impleading additional accused
should be based on substantial evidence and not mere assumptions.
15. Therefore, the ambiguity surrounding Mr. Alrond’s alleged involvement, coupled with the
legal presumption of innocence, presents a significant hurdle to the prosecution’s case.
Absent concrete evidence definitively establishing his guilt, the basis for his impleadment
remains fraught with uncertainty and fails to meet the stringent legal standard demanded by
law.
[1.3] Failure to Establish Motive or Opportunity for Mr. Alrond's Alleged
Involvement
16. It is submitted that motive and opportunity are critical elements in establishing guilt in
criminal proceedings. However, in the absence of any clear motive or demonstrable
opportunity for Mr. Alrond to commit the alleged offense, the prosecution's case against him
lacks a fundamental basis.
17. the significance of establishing motive and opportunity in criminal cases and on failure to
demonstrate these elements can significantly weaken the prosecution’s case. 10 Moreover, the
Supreme Court reiterated the importance of motive and opportunity in establishing guilt
8
Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v State of Gujarat, AIR 2006 SC 1367.
9
State of Haryana v Ved Prakash, AIR 1994 SC 468.
10
Ramesh Harijan v State of UP, (2012) SCC 5 777.

beyond a reasonable doubt11. The court emphasized that without a compelling motive or
demonstrable opportunity, the prosecution’s case lacks coherence and reliability.
18. Despite extensive scrutiny of the evidence presented, there has been no indication of any
motive attributable to Mr. Alrond that would logically explain his involvement in the crime.
The Supreme Court has highlighted the importance of establishing a clear motive in criminal
cases12 and has emphasized that a mere conjectural link between the accused's motive and the
alleged offense is insufficient to establish guilt13.
19. It is humbly submitted that while the political enmity between Ms. Obstentia and Mr. Alrond
may suggest a potential motive, it is imperative for the prosecution to substantiate this claim
with tangible evidence. However, the mere existence of political enmity between Ms.
Obstentia and Mr. Alrond does not automatically translate into a motive for Mr. Alrond’s
involvement in the offence without corroborating evidence.
20. Therefore it is submitted that the prosecution's inability to establish a credible motive or
opportunity for Mr. Alrond’s alleged involvement in the crime undermines the integrity and
strength of its case. Without concrete evidence supporting motive or opportunity, impleading
Mr. Alrond as a party to the trial under Section 319 of the CrPC would be unjustified and
unwarranted.
DOUBT TO CONVICT HIM ON CHARGES OF MURDER?
21. It is humbly submitted before the Court that the evidence presented before the court are not
sufficient and credible enough as Firstly, [2.1] Circumstantial evidence are unreliable in the
11
State of Rajasthan v Om Prakash, AIR 2002 SC 2235.
12
Mohan v State of UP, (2020) SCC ONLINE ALL 668.
13
State of Gujarat v Ramesh Patel, (2017) 9 SCC 1.

present case. Secondly, [2.2] Plea of Alibi would be invoked by Brutus. thirdly, [2.3]
evidences gathered by police are not reliable due to the absence of independent witness. And
lastly, [2.4] reasonable evidence was not on the basis of assumptions.
[2.1] Circumstantial Evidence is unreliable.
22. It is a well settled principle that where the case is mainly based on circumstantial evidence,
the court must satisfy itself that various circumstanced 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.14
23. When even a link breaks away, the chain of circumstances gets snapped and other
circumstances cannot in any manner establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable
doubts. When attempting to convict on circumstantial evidence alone the Court must be
firmly satisfied of the following three things:15
i. The circumstances from which the inference of guilt is to be drawn, must have fully
been established by unimpeachable evidence beyond a shadow of doubt.
ii. The circumstances are of determinative tendency, unerringly pointing towards the
guilt of the accused
iii. The circumstances taken collectively, are incapable of explanation on any
reasonable hypothesis except that of the guilt sought to be proved against him.
24. In the present case, the prosecution has failed to establish any connection between the murder
weapon and Brutus. Additionally, the forensic report does not provide any evidence linking
Brutus to the crime. Furthermore, there are no reliable witnesses to corroborate Babulal’s
statement regarding Brutus involvement with the murder. All these circumstances give a
14
Mohan Lal v State of UP, AIR 1974 SC 1144.
15
Janar Lal Das v State of Orissa, (1991)(3) SCC 27; A Jayaram v State of AP, AIR 1995 SC 2128.

space for other probable hypothesis relating to the murder of Ms. Obstentia. Therefore, it is
respectfully submitted before the court that there is lack of evidence to convict Brutus for the
murder of Ms. Obstentia.
[2.2] Plea of Alibi
25. The Latin word alibi means “elsewhere” and that word is used for convenience when an
accused takes recourse to a defense line that when the occurrence took place he was so far
away from the place of occurrence that it is extremely improbable that he would have
participated in the crime.16 It is only a rule of evidence under section 11 of Evidence Act.17
26. in the criminal cases, the burden is on the prosecution to prove that the accused was present
at the scene and has participated in the crime.18 The plea of alibi postulates the physical
impossibility of the presence of the accused at the scene of offence by reason of his presence
at another place.19
27. In the present case, Brutus is the resident of same locality, and he was just passing by the
alley as he headed for a walk around the neighborhood furthermore, prosecution has not
provided any clear evidence regarding his presence at the place of incident. Therefore, it is
humbly submitted before the court that there is no reasonable evidence to prove the presence
of Brutus at the place of incident hence, he cannot be convicted for the charges of murder.
[2.3] Absence of Independent witness
16
Binay Kumar Singh v State of Bihar, AIR 1997 SC 322.
17
Jayantibhai Bhenkarbhai v State of Gujarat, AIR 2002 SC 3569.
18
Gurucharan Singh v State of Punjab, AIR 1956 SC 460; Narendra Singh v State of MP,(2004) 10 SCC 699.
19
Subhash Chand v State of Rajasthan, (2002) 1 SCC 702.

28. Section 100(4)20 says that before conducting a search, law enforcement officers must call
upon independent or respectable inhabitants of the locality where the search will take place
and These witnesses attend the search, verify its legality, and sign a list of seized items.
29. Furthermore, Section 100(5)21 emphasizes that the search must occur in the presence of these
witnesses, and the list of seized items, along with their locations, must be prepared and
signed by them. The purpose of these provisions is to prevent abuse of power, maintain
fairness, and create an accurate record of evidence seized during searches.
30. The absence of independent witnesses to corroborate the prosecution’s case can cast doubt on
the reliability of the evidence presented. It highlights the need for corroborative evidence to
lend credence to the prosecution’s version of events, especially when discrepancies emerge
between witness testimonies. Relying solely on the testimony of interested parties without
independent corroboration, may undermine the credibility of the prosecution’s case. 22 If there
is any discrepancy in deposition and in absence of any independent corroboration such
discrepancy does not inspire confidence about reliability of case.23
31. According to the statement of Babulal, a police constable, he seized the Blood-stained knife
from the Brutus after catching him escaping from Ms. Obstentia’s balcony down onto the
pavement.24But the prosecution failed to prove the presence of an independent witness while
seizing that blood-stained knife from Brutus. Therefore, the seizing of a knife cannot be
considered reliable evidence against Brutus.

20
Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, S 100(4).
21
Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, S 100(5).
22
Megha singh v State of Haryana, AIR 1995 SC 2339.
23
ibid.
24
Moot prop, ¶18.

[2.4] Reasonable Doubt Is Not Based On Assumptions
32. It is submitted that there exists reasonable doubt and no conviction can be made under the
charges of murder. A reasonable doubt must not be imaginary, trivial or merely possible
doubt; but a fair doubt based upon reason and common sense arising out of the evidence of
the case.25
33. In the present case, though, the prosecution has a blood-stained knife and statement of
Babulal and Simba as evidence but these evidences are leading towards the fact that the
crime ‘may have been committed by the accused’, however they have failed to make the link
between ‘may have committed the crime’ and ‘must have committed the crime’ and that gap
must be filled by the prosecution by legal, reliable and unimpeachable evidence before a
conviction can be sustained.26
34. Therefore, it is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the charge under section 302
of the IPC could not been made out due to the absence of reasonable evidence.
25
Ramakant Rai v Madan Rai, Cr LJ 2004 Sc 36.
26
Nelson RA, Indian Penal Code, vol 4 (10th Ed. 2008) 2905.

ISSUE III: THAT THE EVIDENCE AGAINST MR. BRUTUS, CASSIUS AND ALROND
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT TO CONVICT THEM ON CHARGES OF
CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY TO MURDER
It is submitted that the [3.1] ingredients of criminal conspiracy are not being fulfilled, [3.2] there
is lack of evidence to convict the accused and, [3.3] the guilt of the accused has not been proved
beyond reasonable doubt.
[3.1] That the Ingredients of criminal conspiracy are not being fulfilled.
35. It is submitted that the offence of Criminal conspiracy has been defined under Section 120-
A27 of the Indian Penal Code. A few bits here and a few bits there on which the prosecution
relies will not be held to be adequate for connecting the accused with the commission of
criminal conspiracy.28
36. The essential ingredient of the offence of criminal conspiracy is the agreement to commit an
offence.29 Additionally, there are two ingredients of the offence of criminal conspiracy which
are not being satisfied. They are as follows :
27
The Indian Penal Code, 1860, s 120A.
28
State of Kerala v P Sugathan, (2000) 8 SCC 203.
29
NCT of Delhi v Jaspal Singh, (2003) 10 SCC 86.

[3.1.1] That there was no agreement or understanding between two or more
of the accused persons.
37. It is submitted that the court in a catena of cases 30, has held that to convict the parties for
conspiracy under Section 120B proof of agreement between two or more to do an unlawful
act or an act by unlawful means is to be established. The factum of ‘agreement’ is the most
relevant factor constituting the offence.31
38. Further, if in the furtherance of the conspiracy certain persons are induced to do an unlawful
act without the knowledge of the conspiracy or the plot they cannot be held to be
conspirators, though they may be guilty of an offence to any specific unlawful act.32
39. The essential element of a criminal conspiracy is the meeting of minds of two or more
individuals to carry out an illegal act or an act through illegal means. 33 There is no difference
between the mode of proof of the offence of conspiracy and that of any other offence, it can
be established by direct or circumstantial evidence.34
40. Here, there exists no agreement between the accused persons. The evidence that exists does
so in bits and pieces. Certain chats were present in the device of one person who was not
found in the vicinity of the victim’s residence. 35 Further, the Madras HC has recently laid
30
Topandas v The State of Bombay, 1956 AIR 33; Ram Narain Popli v Central Bureau Of Investigation, 2003 (3)
SCC 641.
31
K S Narayan v S Gopinathan, 1982 Cr LJ, 1611 (Mad); State of Madhya Pradesh v Sheetla Sahai, 2009 (8) SCC
617
32
Lennart Schussler & Anr v Director of Enforcement & Anr, 1970 AIR 549
33
Baldev Singh v State of Punjab, (2009) 6 SCC 564.
34
Leonnart v Director of Enforcement, AIR 1970 SC 549.
35
Moot Proposition, Annexure II, p 19.

down that just because one has received such messages from other through WhatsApp, a
conspiracy cannot be presumed.36 There exists no proximate nexus between the murder of the
victim and the location of Cassius and Mr. Alrond at the time of the murder. Further, their
alleged role has also not been established.
41. It is submitted that Mr. Brutus has a residence near Ms. Obstentia’s house and hence his
presence is justified. Further, the third accused, Mr. Alrond has not even a remote
relationship with the other two accused.
42. It is further submitted that Mr. Alrond cannot be presumed to be “Al” from Ms. Obstentia’s
conversation for two reasons, firstly, “Al” from Ms. Obstentia’s conversation is in some sort
of danger and says “it’s not safe to talk here. Call me”. Mr. Alrond who is the incumbent
Chief minister cannot reasonably be in any threat by virtue of his position. Secondly, it can be
inferred from the conversation that Al was a well-wisher of Ms. Obstentia and made sure of
her well-being as can be seen from the text “…Do you think I will ever let anything happen
to you? I will give that bugger a nice piece of my mind.”37
[3.1.2] That there was illegal act done by the accused or any act done by illegal
means.
43. The word illegal is defined in Section 43 of the IPC as everything which is an offence or
which is prohibited by law, or which furnishes ground for a civil action; and a person is said
to be “legally bound to do” whatever it is illegal in him to omit. Conspiracy is generally a
36
Santhanam v Additional Chief Secretary, WP No 1781 of 2023 (Madras HC 27 July 2023).
37

matter of inference deduced from certain criminal acts of the parties accused done in
pursuance of an apparent criminal purpose in common between them. 38
44. The relative acts or conduct of parties must be conscientious and clear to mark their
concurrence as to what must be done. Such concurrence may not be inferred by a group of
irrelevant facts artfully arranged so as to give an appearance of coherence. 39
45. In the instant case, no illegal act has been committed. It has been established in the
aforementioned arguments that there is sufficient doubt with regards to the charge of murder
brought against one of the alleged co-conspirators. Hence, this requirement is also not
fulfilled.
[3.2] That there is lack of evidence to convict the accused.
46. It is submitted that conspiracies are not hatched in open, by their nature, they are secretly
planned, it is difficult to support charge of conspiracy with direct evidence in every case but
if the prosecution relies upon circumstantial evidence, a clear link has to be established
otherwise conspiracy cannot be accepted.40
47. The landmark principle as already explained in the judgment of Hanuman v State of Madhya
Pradesh41 was recently reiterated in Pawan Mandal v State of Punjab 42 along with the Raja
38
Keshab Deo Bhagat v Emperor, AIR 1945 Cal 93.
39
Kehar Singh v State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1988 SC 1883.
40
Paramhans Yadav v State of Bihar, 1987 (35) BLJR 127.
41
AIR 1952 SC 343.
42
2010 (1) RCR (Cri) 274 (P&H) (DB).

Ram case43. It was stated that firstly, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is
drawn should be fully established.44 Secondly, the facts so established should be consistent
only with hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. 45 Thirdly, the circumstances should be of a
conclusive nature and tendency.46 Fourthly, they should exclude every hypothesis except the
one to be proved47 and lastly, there must be a chain of evidence48 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 probability the act must have been done by the accused.49
48. In the instant case, the circumstances themselves are in question. The two policemen who
were deployed were in a inebriated state. 50 The events of 23rd January have no third witness.
Secondly, the facts in question are consistent with multiple hypotheses. The possibility of
multiple assailants51, the absence of any evidence pointing to the involvement of Mr. Alrond
are two such ones. Thirdly, the circumstances are not conclusive are dependent on bits and
pieces of evidence. The forensic report suggests a possibility of multiple assailants, further,
the involvement of a certain “Al” according to the dying declaration of Ms. Obstentia along
with chats points to a third accused. Lastly, the existence of multiple hypotheses along with
43
State of Rajasthan v Raja Ram, AIR 2003 SC 3601.
44
Sharda Birchand v State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1682.
45
Prakash Bicholkar v State, 1981 Cri LJ 440 (Goa).
46
Ram Nand v State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1981 SC 738.
47
Gambir v State of Maharashtra, AIR 1982 SC 1157.
48
Chandrabhan Srivastav v State of MP, 1978 MP LJ 340.
49
Kusum Ankama Rao v State of AP, AIR 2008 SC 2819.
50
Moot Proposition, ¶17.
51

very strong evidence pointing to the guilt of a certain person “Al” is inconsistent with the
guilt of the accused.
49. In Bhagat Ram v State of Punjab52 it was laid down that where the case depends upon the
conclusion drawn from circumstances the cumulative effect of the circumstances must be
such as to negate the innocence of the accused. Further, the proved circumstances must be
consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with
his innocence.53
50. The circumstances from which an inference as to the guilt of the accused is drawn have to be
shown to be closely connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred from those
circumstances.54 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.55 In the light of the above principle we proceed to ascertain
multiple chains of circumstances so as to establish that the conclusion that the allegations
brought against the accused are not proved. The circumstances highlighted to establish
innocence of the accused are as follows:
51. It is submitted that the principal fact in the immediate case is the death of Ms. Obstentia.
While Mr. Brutus was in the vicinity of Ms. Obstentia’s house, the testimony of inebriated
policemen is the sole source of evidence for this event and is not conclusive. Further, the
involvement of Mr. Alrond and Cassius has not been conclusively established. Mere
suspicion or suspicious circumstances cannot relieve the prosecution of its primary duty of
52
Bhagat Ram v State of Punjab, AIR 1954 SC 621.
53
C. Chenga Reddy v State of AP, AIR 1996 SC 3390.
54
Ashok Kumar Chatterjee v State of MP, AIR 1989 SC 1890.
55
State of UP v Sukhbasi & Ors, AIR 1985 SC 1224.

proving its case against an accused person beyond reasonable doubt 56 and therefore, the
circumstances highlighted by the prosecution are at best suspicious.
[3.3] That the guilt of the accused has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
52. It is submitted that the principle that the accused person is presumed to be innocent unless his
guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt is of cardinal importance in the administration of
criminal justice.57
53. Further, greatest possible care should be taken by the court in convicting an accused and till
the contrary is clearly established whose burden is always in the accusatory system on the
prosecution.58 The burden of proving the guilt of the accused is upon the prosecution and
unless it relieves itself of that burden, the Courts cannot record a finding of the guilt of the
accused.59
54. It is further submitted that the principle of assumption of innocence is of utmost significance
as the consequences of the conviction of an innocent person are far more serious than
wrongful acquittals and its reverberations cannot but be felt in the civilized society. 60 The
presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is the basis of every criminal trial, and the
provisions of the code are structured in such a way that a criminal trial should start with and
56
Datar Singh v The State of Punjab, 1975 (4) SCC 272
57
Babu Singh v State of Punjab, (1964) 1 Cri LJ 566; Nanavati v State of Maharashtra, AIR 1962 SC 605.
58
Himachal Pradesh Adm v Om Prakash, AIR 1972 SC 975.
59
Talab Haji Hussain v Madhukar Purshottam Mondkar, AIR 1958 SC 376: 1958 Cri LJ 701.
60
Nesson, Charles R. “Reasonable Doubt and Permissive Inferences: The Value of Complexity.” Harvard Law
Review, vol. 92, no. 6, 1979, pp. 1187–225. accessed 24 March 2024; Kali Ram v State of H.P., (1973) 2 SCC 808;
Dharam Das Wadhwani v State of UP, (1974) 4 SCC 267.

remain guided throughout by this fundamental premise. 61 Hence, the court shall not convict
the accused unless the prosecution proves its case beyond reasonable doubt. 62 In light of the
above principle, there exists reasonable doubt that :
55. In the instant case, both police officers were in a inebriated state and only one of the alleged
co-conspirators was found in the vicinity of the victim’s residence, the circumstances are at
best suspicious. Further, mere receipt of messages on WhatsApp do not constitute the
requirements of conspiracy.
56. It is submitted that if the pieces of evidence on which the prosecution chooses to rest its case
are so brittle that they crumble when subjected to close and critical examination so that the
whole superstructure build on such insecure foundation collapses, proof of some
incriminating circumstances, which might have given support to merely defective evidence
cannot avert a failure of the prosecution case.63
57. Therefore, in light of the above arguments, it can be concluded that there exist circumstances
which raise reasonable doubts about the guilt of the accused.
61
Raghunath v State of Haryana, AIR 2003 SC 165; Main Pal v State of Haryana, 2004 SCC(Cri) 1882
62
Ashok Dangra Jaiswal v State of MP, AIR 2011 SC 1335.
63
Datar Singh v The State of Punjab, 1975 (4) SCC 272

PRAYER
WHEREOF IN THE LIGHT OF THE ISSUES RAISED, ARGUMENTS ADVANCED AND
AUTHORITIES CITED, MAY THIS HON ‘BLE COURT BE PLEASED TO ADJUDGE AND
DECLARE THAT:
1. The evidence is not sufficient, and that the accused Mr. Alrond cannot be impleaded to
the trial u/s 319 of the CrPC.
2. The evidence is not beyond reasonable doubt and the accused Mr. Brutus cannot be
convicted of the offence of murder and criminal conspiracy under section 302 and 120B
of the IPC, respectively.
3. The evidence is not beyond reasonable doubt to convict the accused Mr. Cassius of the
offence criminal conspiracy u/s 120 B of the IPC.
4. The evidence is not beyond reasonable doubt to convict the accused Mr. Alrond of the
offence criminal conspiracy u/s 120 B of the IPC.
AND/OR
Pass any other order it may deem fit, in the interest of Justice, Equity and Good
Conscience.
All of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted.
Place: Bhadraar S/d__________
Date: Counsel for
Defence
XXX | P a g e WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF DEFENSE

TC 10 D

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

TC 10 D

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Team Code: T-10

1ST NATIONAL TRIAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024

BEFORE THE COURT OF SESSIONS

S.C NO. ___ OF 2024

MR. ALROND DERKSHIRE &

FOR OFFENCES CHARGED UNDER:

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE SESSIONS JUDGE

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE

Word count : 6368

Statement Of Relevant Facts.........................................................................................................VI

ISSUE 1: IS THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED BEFORE THE COURT SUFFICIENT AND

CREDIBLE ENOUGH FOR IMPLEADING MR. ALROND AS PARTY TO THE TRIAL

UNDER S. 319 OF THE CRPC?...............................................................................................14

ISSUE 2: IS THE EVIDENCE AGAINST MR. BRUTUS BEYOND REASONABLE

DOUBT TO CONVICT HIM ON CHARGES OF MURDER?................................................18

[2.1] Circumstantial Evidence is unreliable..........................................................................19

[2.2] Plea of Alibi...................................................................................................................20

[2.3] Absence of Independent witness...................................................................................20

[2.4] Reasonable Doubt Is Not Based On Assumptions.........................................................22

I|Page WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF DEFENSE

BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT TO CONVICT THEM ON CHARGES OF CRIMINAL

[3.2] That there is lack of evidence to convict the accused....................................................25

II | P a g e WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF DEFENSE

Ashok Dangra Jaiswal v State of M.P., AIR 2011 SC 1335..........................................................31

Ashok Kumar Chatterjee v State of M.P., AIR 1989 SC 1890......................................................29

Baldev Singh v State of Punjab, (2009) 6 SCC 564......................................................................26

Bhagat Ram v State of Punjab, AIR 1954 SC 621........................................................................29

C. Chenga Reddy v State of A.P., AIR 1996 SC 3390...................................................................29

Chandrabhan Srivastav v State of Madhya Pradesh, 1978 MP L.J. 340.......................................28

Datar Singh v The State of Punjab, 1975 (4) SCC 272.................................................................30

Datar Singh v. The State of Punjab, 1975 (4) SCC 272.................................................................31

Gambir v State of Maharashtra, AIR 1982 SC 1157.....................................................................28

Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v State of MP, AIR 1952 SC 343................................................14

Jayantibhai Bhenkarbhai v State of Gujarat, AIR 2002 SC 3569.................................................20

Sahai, 2009 (8) SCC 617............................................................................................................25

Kanwar Pal Singh Gill v State of Punjab, AIR 2005 SC 3104......................................................15

Kehar Singh v State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1988 SC 1883.................................................27

Keshab Deo Bhagat v Emperor, AIR 1945 Cal. 93.......................................................................27

III | P a g e WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF DEFENSE

Kusum Ankama Rao v State of A.P., AIR 2008 SC 2819..............................................................28

Leonnart v Director of Enforcement, AIR 1970 SC 549...............................................................26

Megha singh v State of Haryana, AIR 1995 SC 2339..................................................................21

Mohan Lal v State of UP, AIR 1974 SC 1144...............................................................................19

Mohan v State of UP, (2020) SCC ONLINE ALL 668.................................................................18

N.C.T. of Delhi v Jaspal Singh, (2003) 10 SCC 86.......................................................................25

Paramhans Yadav v State of Bihar, 1987 (35) BLJR 127..............................................................28

Prakash Bicholkar v State, 1981 Cri LJ 440 (Goa).......................................................................28

Ram Nand v State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1981 SC 738.........................................................28

Ram Narain v State of UP, (1973) AIR 2200................................................................................15

Ramakant Rai v Madan Rai, Cr LJ 2004 Sc 36.............................................................................22

Ramesh Harijan v State of UP, (2012) SCC 5 777........................................................................17

RP Kapur v State of Punjab,AIR 1960 SC 866.............................................................................23

Santhanam v Additional Chief Secretary, W.P.No.1781 of 2023 (Madras HC 27 July 2023)......26

Sharda Birchand v State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1682.......................................................28

State of AP v Kowthalam Narasimhula, (2001) Cr LJ 722 (SC)...................................................24

State of Gujarat v Ramesh Patel, (2017) 9 SCC 1.........................................................................18

State of Haryana v Ved Prakash, AIR 1994 SC 468.....................................................................17

State of Maharashtra v Damu, (2000) 6 SCC 269.........................................................................16

State of Rajasthan v Om Prakash, AIR 2002 SC 2235..................................................................17

IV | P a g e WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF DEFENSE

State of Rajasthan v Raja Ram, AIR 2003 SC 3601......................................................................28

State of Uttar Pradesh v Sukhbasi and Ors., AIR 1985 SC 1224..................................................29

Subhash Chand v State of Rajasthan, (2002) 1 SCC 702..............................................................20