Appelent

1
TEAM CODE-
JUSTICA(A)
4TH INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2024
Before,
THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO._____/2024
In the Matter of:
STATE OF MANALI…………………………………………………………APPELLANT
VS.
RANA………………………………………………………………………. RESPONDENT
UPON SUBMISSION
TO THE HON’BLE JUSTICE OF THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF KIPASH
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS……………………………………………………………………2
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS……………………………………………………………… 4
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES………………………………………………………………..5
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION……………………………………………………….7
STATEMENT OF FACTS………………………………………………………………….9
ISSUES RAISED……………………………………………………………………………8
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT…………………………………………………………11-12
ARGUMENT ADVANCE……………………………………………………………… 13-31
I. WHETHER THE APPEAL IS MAINTAINABLE IN THE SUPREME
COURT?............................................................................................................13-15
1.1. SC Jurisdiction under Article 136 can always be invoked when a question of law
of general public importance arises……………………………………………..13
1.2. SC jurisdiction under Article 136 can always be invoked when there is grave
miscarriage of justice towards appellant…………………………………….13-14
1.3. Whether Criminal appeal could be maintainable under Article 136 or
not?.......................................................................................................................14
1.4. Power of Hon’ble Court to correct miscarriage of justice and promulgate the
complete justice under article 142………………………………………………14
1.5. Scope of power of this Hon’ble Court under Article 136 of
constitution………………………………………………………………….. ... 15
II. WHETHER THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AND EXPERT OPINION

IS SUFFICIENT TO CONVICT A PERSON FOR CHARGE OF
MURDER?........................................................................................................15-23
2.1.Conviction can be based on solely on circumstantial evidence………………...16
2.2. Essential for conviction through circumstantial evidence……………………..16.
2.2.1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should
be fully established……………………………………………………..17
2.2.2. The facts so established should be consistent with the hypothesis of guilt
and the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other
hypothesis except that the accused is
guilty……………………………………………………………………17
2.2.3. The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and
tendency…………………………………………………………….17-18
2.2.4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be
proved…………………………………………………………………18

3
2.2.5. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any

reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the
accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been
done by the accused………………………………………………….18-19
2.3.Whether expert opinion is sufficient to convict a person for charge of
murder?..............................................................................................................20
2.3.1. The requirements of the admissibility of the expert opinion……………21.
2.3.1.1. that the expert must be within a recognized field of
expertise…………………………………………………………….21
2.3.2. That the evidence must be based on reliable
principles………………………………………………………………22
2.3.3. That the expert must be qualified in that discipline……………………23
2.4. The acquittal of accused was not placed on solid ground and merely rely on
Hearsay evidence………………………………………………………………23
III. WHETHER OFFENCE COMMITTED BY MR. RANA COME UNDER

RAREST OF RARE CASE?.............................................................................23-31
3.1. Test 1(the Crime test):Presence of Aggravating Factor …………………….24
3.1.1. Nature of offence as an Aggravating Factor……………………… 24-25
3.1.2. Prior Criminal Record of the Offender as an Aggravating
Factor……………………………………………………………...25-26
3.2. Test 2 the criminal test (there should be no mitigating circumstance favouring the
accused)…………………………………………………………………..26-27
3.3. Test 3 (R-R test) Rarest of rare case………………………………………….27-28
3.3.1. Manner of committing murder………………………………………..28
3.3.2. Motive for Commission of Murder……………………………………29
3.3.3. Personality of the Victim of Murder…………………………………..30
3.3.4. Magnitude of Crime……………………………………………………31
THE PRAYER…………………………………………………………………………….32

4
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
¶ paragraph
AIR All India Report

SLP Special Leave Petition
FIR First Information Report
HC High Court
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
V. Versus
Art. Article
Anr. Another
Hon’ble Honourable
No. Number
& And
Ors. Others

5
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
CASE LAWS
1. A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, AIR. 2007 SC 1546
2. Anvar P V v. PK Basheer & Ors, Civil Appeal No 4226/2012
3. Bal Krishna Das Agrawal v. Radha Devi, AIR 1989 SC 1966;
4. Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684
5. B.A. Umesh v. State of Karnataka [(2011) 3 SCC 85]
6. B.A. Umesh v. Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka, (2011) 3 SCC 85
7. Birju vs State of MP (2014) 3 SCC 421
8. Bablu Alias Mubarik Hussain v. State of Rajasthan AIR 2007 SC 697.
9. C.C.E v Standard Motor Products, (1989) AIR 1298
10. Dhananjoy Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal, (1994) 2 SCC 220 (India)
11. Ganga Kumar v. State of Bihar, AIR 2005 SC 3123
12. Gurvail Singh @ Gala v. State of Punjab, 2013 (2) SCC 713
13. Hanumat's v. State of M.P. [1953] SCR 1091, 1975 AIR 1083
14. Henry West Muller v State of Assam AIR 1985 SC 823
15. Jagmohan vs State of UP [1973] 1 SCC 20
16. Janshed Hormusji Wadia v Board of Trustees, Port of Mumbai (2004)3 SCC 214
17. Jumman Khan v. State of U.P., (1991) 1 SCC 752.
18. Kalyan Kumar Gogoi v. Ashutosh Agnihotri, (1983)3 SCC 470
19. Kamta Tiwari V State of MP AIR 1996 SC 2800.
20. Kuljeet Singh alias v Union of India 1981 SCR (3) 512
21. Laxman Naik v. State of Orissa [(1994) 3 SCC
22. Lochan Shrivas vs The State of Chhattisgarh Criminal Appeal Nos. 499-500 of 2018
23. Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab, (1983) 3 SCC 470
24. Mofil Khan v. Jharkhand, (2015) 1 SCC 67
25. Munawar Harun Shah v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1983 SC 585
26. Md. Mannan v. State of Bihar, (2011) 8 S.C.C 65
27. Nathu Garfam v. State of U.P (1979) 3 SCR 832
28. Nilabati Behra v. State, AIR 1993 SC 1960: (1993) 2 SCC 746: 1993 Cr LJ 2899
29. N Suriyakala v. A Mohan Doss & Ors. (2007) 9 SCC 196

6
30. Pritam Singh vs State, AIR 1950 SC 169

31. Pantangi Balarama Venkata Ganesh v. State of A.P., 2003 Cr LJ 4508 (AP)
32. Raja Nayakar v. State of Chattisgarh (CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 902 OF 2023)
33. Ramesh Chandra Agrawal v. Regency Hospital Ltd. and others, [(2009) 9 SCC 709]
34. Ram Singh vs Sonia & Ors AIR 2007 SC 1218
35. State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Pussu, 1983 AIR 867
36. Sadhu Saran Singh vs. State of U.P. (2016) 4 SCC 397
37. Shaikh Yusuf v. State of West Bengal, (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 620
38. Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda vs State Of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116
39. Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra (1973) 2 SCC 793
40. State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, (1992 Crl.LJ 1104)
41. State of Rajasthan v. Mahesh Kumar (2019) 7 SCC 678
42. State of H.P. v. Jailal, (1997)7 SCC 280
43. State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Jai Lal and others, AIR 1999 SC 3318
44. Sushil Murmu v. State of Jharkhand, (2004) 2 SCC 338
45. Surendra Koli V State of UP AIR 2011 SC 970
46. Ujagar Singh and Another v. State (Delhi Administration), (1979) 4 SCC 530
47. Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2004 SC 3467
CONSTITUTION
• Constitution of India
STATUTES
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
BOOKS
• Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Law of Evidence (27th edn, LexisNexis 2019)
• K N Chandrasekharan Pillai, R.V. Kelkar’s Criminal Procedure (6th edn, EBC 2014)
• PSA Pillai, Criminal Law (12th edn, LexisNexis 2014)
• K D Gaur, Criminal Law (9th edn, LexisNexis 2019)
• Batuk Lal, The Indian Evidence Act (Central Law Agency 2018) 133

7
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The appellant humbly submits this memorandum for the appeal filed before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of Kipash under Article 136 of the Constitution of Kipash.
Article 136 of the Constitution are reproduced hereunder:
(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion,
grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or
order in any cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of
India.
(2) Nothing in clause (1) shall apply to any judgment, determination, sentence or order
passed or made by any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the
Armed Forces.

8
ISSUE RAISED
1.) WHETHER THE APPEAL IS MAINTAINABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT?
2.) WHETHER THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AND EXPERT OPINION IS

SUFFICIENT TO CONVICT A PERSON FOR CHARGE OF MURDER?
3.) WHETHER OFFENCE COMMITTED BY MR. RANA COME UNDER

RAREST OF RARE CASE?

9
STATEMENT OF FACTS
[1] In January 2020, Romesh met Shinu in common friend’s birthday party. They develop good
bond which resulted in intimate relationship. On February 20,2021 Romesh share obscene
photo of Shinu with his friend Rana, without consent of Shinu. This led to breakup. Shinu also
lodged a FIR against Romesh for sharing her obscene photo and also threatening her to post it
online. The FIR was filed on February 24,2021 and in accordance inquiry was initiated.
[2] Shinu who is currently 24-year-old, reside in Mysore district of Manali state one of the
constituent states of Union of Kipash. She travels from Bangalore to Mysore on daily basis by
passenger train. On November 01,2023 she embarked on a journey from Bangalore to Mysore.
Later, at around 10:00 p.m. that same day, she was found in an unconscious state within the
woodland close to Mysore Railway Station. Shinu was then transferred quickly to the
Government Medical College Hospital in Mysore, where on November 5,2023, at around 4:00
p.m., she passed away due to her injury. The same was informed to police by Dr. Raunit on
behalf of Hospital authorities.
[3] Investigation was initiated by police, and with the assistance of CCTV footage and co-
passengers, they were able to identify a man named Rana as a suspect of crime. The accuse,
Rana, aged 30 was captured by the police on November 10. Rana is known recidivist with prior
conviction. As per the prosecution’s assertion, Rana purportedly tried to Rob Shinu while she
was in women’s compartment. Allegedly, during this illegal behaviour, he allegedly threw her
out of the moving train after banging her head against the compartment wall in response to her
resistance. Later Rana jumped out of the Moving train and travel approx. 200 meters to indicate
Sonu lying unconscious amid a pool of blood. He then purportedly transported her to an area
close to the railway track and allegedly assaulted her sexually.
[4] DNA sample taken from deceased body and the crime scene matched to ones taken from
the suspect. Additionally, A button from his shirt was discovered within the female
compartment. semen traces were found on the deceased clothing and body. Moreover, there
were traces of suspect’s blood and epidermal cells under the deceased fingernail. Additionally,
abrasion marks of fingernails on the suspect’s body were found. Also, in Rana’s phone obscene
photo of Shinu were present, with the receipt date being 20.02.2021.
[5] Some people reported seeing the accused in the passenger train, while other noted him close
to the Mysore bus stop. In addition, a number of individuals were nearby the Mysore Railway
station and the train passenger heard the women’s cries.
[6] While undergoing medical examination, the accused admitted to Dr. Bhagat Lal at
Government Medical College Hospital, Mysore, the commission of rape against the deceased.
Furthermore, Shinu’s cellular device was retrieved from an individual identified as Chotu,
hailing from Rajiv Nagar District, who purportedly acquired it from the accused, Rana.
[7] During the police investigation, it was ascertained that on 10th September 2023, the accuse
rana was engaged in showing sexual remark towards a female named Tanu, an acquaintance of
the deceased, within the vicinity of Mysore bus stop. Tanu vocally objected to the accused’s
conduct. The accused threatened her of severe loss if she will complaint to police. Despite the
threat, the girl lodged a formal complaint against him. Subsequently, the police initiated legal
proceedings by registering a FIR against the accused with charges section 354A and 506 of
K.P.C. and in accordance action was taken.

10
[8] The forensic surgeon, Dr. Tanvi, who perform the post mortem examination, testified in the
court about 20 bodily injuries, highlighting the fact that injury no.1 and 2 combined were the
main cause of death. She unequivocally asserted that the first injury, characterized by a
lacerated wound accompanied by surrounding abraded contusions on the left side of the
forehead, along with contusions on both sides of the forehead above the eyebrows and
involvement of the left temporalis muscle, exhibited features consistent with the impact
sustained from the deceased’s head striking the wall of the train compartment. Additionally, the
left orbital margin displayed evidence of a fissured fracture, while fractures were evident on
the floor of the left anterior cranial fossa. Moreover, traumatic disruption of the stem of the
pituitary gland was observed, and the left frontal lobe of the brain exhibited multiple areas of
haemorrhage. The second injury, because of a considerable amount of bleeding resulted in
anoxic brain damage, arising out of committing rape in the supine position.
[9] Two co-passengers from the compartment next to the women's compartment were among
the other witnesses; they described hearing noises that suggested a struggle as well as the
woman's agonizing cries. Additionally, a fellow traveller informed them that a woman had
"jumped" off the train.
[10] Upon conclusion of the final proceedings in the trial court, the prosecution claimed that
the evidence, both scientific and circumstantial evidence, supported the designation of this case
as “rarest of rare”. Since the accused showed explicit disregard for moral conscience by
committing both rape and murder simultaneously, the lack of eyewitnesses should not be
considered an obstacle when considering the maximum penalty. In accordance with article
354C, 376 and 302 of the Kipash Penal Code, the trial court found the defendant guilty and
sentence him to death for murder, life imprisonment for rape and one year imprisonment with
imposition of fine Rs. 2 lakhs for voyeurism. Dissatisfied with the trial court’s ruling, the
accused lodged a criminal appeal before the high court.
[11] The High court, on the basis of expert opinion, circumstantial evidence, facts, DNA
Reports etc., set aside trial’s court order, partially granted relief to the accused, absolving him
of the charge of murder, voyeurism. The court reasoned that the prosecution had failed to
substantiate the allegation that the accused forcibly throw the deceased from the train and the
obscene picture was taken by Rana or shared by him. Furthermore, the prosecution did not
establish, beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused possessed the requisite mens rea to inflict
the injury designated as no.2, which ultimately led to the deceased’s demise. Consequently, the
High Court modified the verdict by acquitting from Section 354 C and convicting the accused
under Section 325 instead of Section 302 of the Kipash Penal Code and also reduced the
punishment up to 10 years under Section 376 of the said code.
[12] Exercising its right to legal recourse, the state filed an appeal before the Supreme Court,
seeking confirmation of the charge of murder against the accused.

11
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
1. WHETHER THE APPEAL IS MAINTAINABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT?
It is humbly submitted before this honourable court, the appeal is maintainable under
Article 136 of Constitution of Kipash, which provide that any person, aggrieved by
any order or decision of any order or decision or any court in India can approach the
Supreme Court through petition for Special Leave. And this case appellant approach
the supreme court because in the given case there is miscarriage of justice arises as
the rights of victim violated as the High Court acquitted the accused besides the
presence of sufficient intention to murder, and it is duty of this court to deliver
substantial justice to victim. As there is miscarriage of justice and question of law
involved in this case therefore, appeal is maintainable under article 136.
2. WHETHER THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AND EXPERT OPINION

IS SUFFICIENT TO CONVICT A PERSON FOR CHARGE OF MURDER?
It is humbly submitted before this honourable court that the circumstantial evidence
and expert opinion is sufficient to convict a person for charge of murder, as there is
certain essentials which need to be proved for circumstantial evidence which includes
that , the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in
the first instance be fully established, and all the facts so established should be
consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, 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. In other words,
there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable
ground for a conclusion consistent 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
accused1. As per the Section 45 of Kipash Evidence Act, the expert opinion is
admissible if it drawn a reliable conclusion and there is also some essentials of
admissibility of export evidences which includes expertise of expert, that the evidence
must be based on reliable principles,, and lastly the expert must be qualified in that
discipline2. And in this case all the essentials of circumstantial evidence and expert
opinion fulfilled hence admissible in the court and accused should be charged with
murder.
3. WHETHER OFFENCE COMMITTED BY MR. RANA COME UNDER

RAREST OF RARE CASE?
1
Sharad BirdhiChand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116
2
Ramesh Chandra Agrawal v. Regency Hospital Ltd. and others[(2009) 9 SCC 709]

12
It is humbly submitted before the honourable court that the offence committed by Mr.
Rana come under the category of “rarest of rare” for two reasons. First the test for
awarding death penalty have been fulfilled. These are : the crime test, which deals
with aggravating circumstances; the criminal test which pertains to mitigating
circumstances; and the rarest of rare case test. The crime test fulfil as the nature of
crime committed by Rana is too heinous where he committed rape when deceased
already suffered from grave injury, and the accused is a prior criminal record of
offence against women. The second test i.e; the criminal test fulfil when as there is
absence of any mitigating factors such as duress, age of accused, mental defect, moral
justification of the act etc. and the last rarest of rare test which given also fulfilled as
the manner of murder, motive of commission of murder, personality of victim of
murder ( helpless woman) and Magnitude of crime established in this case, where a
heinous crime of rape with cold blooded murder occurred. Secondly the principles of
sentencing have not been violated. It is necessary for the courts to respect legislative
wisdom. Punishing Rape with Murder with death is not grossly disproportionate, in
light of how similar offences are dealt with in common law.

13
ARGUMENT ADVANCE
1. WHETHER THE APPEAL IS MAINTAINABLE IN THE SUPREME

COURT?
It is humbly submitted to this Hon’ble court that under Article 136 of the constitution of India,
any person, aggrieved by any order or decision of any order or decision or any court in India
can approach the Supreme Court through petition for Special Leave.
1.1.SC Jurisdiction under Article 136 can always be invoked when a question of
law of general public importance arises.
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that the jurisdiction of 136 can be invoked
whenever there is an injustice done to a party in a proceeding before a court or tribunal, or there
is miscarriage of justice, or when a question of law of general public importance arises, or a
decision shock the conscience of the court3. Article 136 is the residuary power of SC to do
justice where the court is satisfied that there is injustice4. The principal is that the court would
never do injustice nor allow injustice being perpetrated for the sake of upholding technicalities5
and in the given fact, the question of law arises regarding wrongly application of section 300,
where accused is being acquitted from the charge of murder even there is presence of the such
injury on deceased which likely or sufficient to cause death by accused.
1.2.SC jurisdiction under Article 136 can always be invoked when there is grave
miscarriage of justice towards appellant.
Miscarriage of justice may arise from the acquittal of the guilty no less than from conviction
of the innocent; although ordinarily SC should not interfere with the judgements of acquittal
of a mere appreciation of evidence, but if there are glaring infirmities in the judgement of HC
resulting in a gross miscarriage of justice, it is the duty of SC to interfere and correct the
judgement of the High court6.
In the impugned matter, there has been a grave miscarriage of justice towards the deceased, the
Hon’ble High Court acquitted the accused from the charges of murder in spite of the
circumstances as well as medical report discloses that the injury which was caused by accused
3
Ujagar Singh and Another v. State (Delhi Administration), (1979) 4 SCC 530
4
C.C.E v Standard Motor Products, (1989) AIR 1298.
5
Janshed Hormusji Wadia v Board of Trustees, Port of Mumbai (2004)3 SCC 214
6
State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Pussu, 1983 AIR 867

14
to victim in train coach is of severe nature and also made her a living death and which is
sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death.
1.3.Whether Criminal appeal could be maintainable under Article 136 or not?
It is humbly submitted that Article 136 does not define the nature of proceedings from which
the Supreme Court may hear appeals, and, therefore, it could hear appeals in any kind of
proceedings whether civil, criminal, or relating to income tax, revenue or labour disputes, etc.
In case of Pritam Singh vs State 7, Supreme court has stated that, “By virtue of this article we
can grant special leave in civil cases, in criminal cases, in income tax cases, in cases which
come up before different kinds of tribunals, and any variety of other cases.
1.4.Power of Hon’ble Court to correct miscarriage of justice and promulgate the

complete justice under article 142
In an appeal against acquittal where the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is
reinforced, the appellate Court would interfere with the order of acquittal only when there is
perversity of fact and law. However, we believe that the paramount consideration of the Court
is to do substantial justice and avoid miscarriage of justice which can arise by acquitting the
accused who is guilty of an offence.
A miscarriage of justice that may occur by the acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the
conviction of an innocent. Appellate Court, while enunciating the principles with regard to the
scope of powers of the appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal, has no absolute restriction
in law to review and relook the entire evidence on which the order of acquittal is founded.8
It is humbly submitted that in the instant case there is a miscarriage of justice as by high court
decisions as disregarding the rights of victims, as the present time where rape victims and a
crime against women rises day to day, it is duty of this honourable court to do substantial justice
and avoid miscarriage of justice under the article 136 and 142 of the constitution of Kipash.
7
Pritam Singh vs State, AIR 1950 SC 169
8
Sadhu Saran Singh vs. State of U.P. (2016) 4 SCC 397

15
1.5. Scope of power of this Hon’ble Court under Article 136 of constitution
The power of Hon’ble court has been held to be plenary, limitless9, adjunctive and
unassailable10. The Supreme Court use the power under Article 136 to impart justice and
remedy any injustice. The supreme Court with regard held to scope held that it is a residual
power of Supreme Court to interfere with the with the judgement or order of any Court or
Tribunal in India in its discretion11.
In Ganga Kumar vs State of Bihar12, the Supreme Court has held that it is open to the Supreme
Court to interfere into with the finding fact by the High Court if the High Court has acted
perversely or otherwise improperly.
Hence, it is humbly submitted to this Hon’ble Court to hear the instant matter because the High
Court has been gravely wrong in the instant matter.
2. Whether the circumstantial evidence and expert opinion is sufficient to convict a

person for charge of murder?
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the circumstantial evidence and expert
opinion is sufficient to convict a person for charge of murder. In a case where there is scanty
direct evidence circumstantial evidence play an important role13. Circumstantial evidence is
unrelated fact which when considered together, can be used to infer about something unknown.
Most criminal obviously try their best to leave no direct and incriminating evidence, therefore
the prosecution often depend on circumstantial evidence to prove that the criminal did the act
knowingly and intentionally. The popular notion that one cannot be convicted on circumstantial
evidence is false. Most criminal convictions are based, at least in part, on circumstantial
evidence that sufficiently links criminal and crime.
9
A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, AIR. 2007 SC 1546
10
Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2004 SC 3467
11
N Suriyakala v. A Mohan Doss & ors. (2007) 9 SCC 196
12
Ganga Kumar v. State of Bihar, AIR 2005 SC 3123
13
CBI, ‘Cicumstantial Evidence can sustain conviction’, (March 28, 2017 10:07).
http://cbi.nic.in/dop/judgements/lndec1.pdf

16
2.1. Conviction can be based on solely on circumstantial evidence
Recently, Honourable Apex Court observed in Shaikh Yusuf v. State of West Bengal14, on the
aspect of circumstantial evidence, as under: "Undoubtedly, conviction can be based solely
on circumstantial evidence. However, the Court must bear in mind while deciding the case
involving the commission of serious offence based on circumstantial evidence that the
circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused
and they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty.
The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. There must be a chain of
evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with
the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability that the act must
have been done by the accused(1984) 4 SCC 11615 has reiterated the ruling of the Supreme
Court.
2.2 Essential for conviction through circumstantial evidence
It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the
circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be
fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis
of the guilt of the accused. Again, 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. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any
reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent 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.16
Before a case against an accused vesting on circumstantial evidence can be said to be fully
established the following conditions must be fulfilled as laid down in Sharad Birdhi Chand
Sarda vs State Of Maharashtra17
14
Shaikh Yusuf v. State of West Bengal, (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 620
15
Sharad birdhi chand sarda v.state of Maharashtra, 1975 AIR 1083
16
Hanumat's v. State of M.P. (1953) SCR 1091.
17
Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda vs State Of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116

17
2.2.1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be
fully established;
It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned “must or
should” and not “may be” established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction
between “may be proved” and “must be or should be proved” as was held by the Apex Court.18
Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before
a court can convict and the mental distance between ‘may be’ and ‘must be’ is long and divides
vague conjectures from sure conclusions.19 It is humbly submitted before the court that in the
instant case the circumstances is conclusive in nature which shows the guilt of accused as the
all circumstantial evidences such as CCTV photos20 proved the identification of accused, a shirt
button21 of accused was discovered within the female compartment, traces of semen were
detected on the deceased’s body and cloth etc, clearly shows the guilt of accused Rana in the
case.
2.2.2. The facts so established should be consistent with the hypothesis of guilt and the
accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except
that the accused is guilty;
It was pointed out that great care must be taken in evaluating circumstantial evidence and if the
evidence relied on is reasonably capable of two inferences, the one in favour of the accused
must be accepted. It was also pointed out that the circumstances relied upon must be found to
have been fully established and the cumulative effect of all the facts so established must be
consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt.22 And the in this case the accused is guilty of rape
with murder, and here the question of culpable homicide not amounting to murder rise hence
no contradiction regarding that the accused is guilty.
2.2.3. The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency
It is well settled that in the cases of circumstantial evidence, the circumstances from which the
conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established, and all the
facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt of the accused. The
circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and should be such as to exclude every
18
Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra (1973) 2 SCC 793
19
Raja Nayakar v. State of Chattisgarh (CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 902 OF 2023)
20
Moot proposition, ¶3.
21
Moot proposition, ¶4.
22
State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, (1992 Crl.LJ 1104)

18
hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a complete chain
of evidence as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent 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 and none else.23 And the given case all circumstantial
evidence is against the accused person which proved that the act is done solely by the accused
and not anyone else involved in the committing the crime.
2.2.4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved
It is well settled that in the cases of circumstantial evidence, the circumstances from which the
conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established, and all the
facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt of the accused. The
circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and should be such as to exclude every
hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a complete chain
of evidence as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent 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 and none else.24 And in the instant case where chain
of evidences established based on circumstantial evidences and other Forensic science reports
expressly proved the hypothesis that accused having intention to cause death.
2.2.5. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable
ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show
that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
It has been held in a catena of decisions by the apex court in a case of circumstantial
evidence, before the case can be said to be fully established against an accused, it is necessary
that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn, should be fully
established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis
of the guilt of the accused. They should exclude every hypothesis except the one to be proved.
There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground
for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all
human probabilities, the act must have been done by the accused The Court then went on to
consider the evidence provided.25
23
State of Rajasthan v. Mahesh Kumar (2019) 7 SCC 678
24
ibid
25
Lochan Shrivas vs The State of Chhattisgarh Criminal Appeal Nos. 499-500 of 2018

19
• In the instant case, where the accused of the crime was recognised by the help of CCTV
and co-passenger during the investigation26. The cries of women were heard on the day
of the incident from the passenger who were travelling on the same days in the other
compartment and resident residing in proximity to the Mysore Railway station27,
several individuals had seen the accused in the passenger train and other noted his
presence near Mysore bus stop.
• Two Co-passenger from the adjacent compartment to the women’s compartment
testified the sound indicative of struggle and distressing cries of the women.28
• Expert testimony as provided under section 45 of Indian Evidence Act,1872 hold
significant weight in the court. Court often relays on the opinion of forensic expert,
medical professional and other specialists to interact complete significance evidence
and draw a conclusion.
• Post-mortem report is prepared after the autopsy of the dead body of human being. It
identifies the cause and time of death. It provides clue to the investigators and becomes
essential if it is corroborated with the prosecution’s theory. The Doctor performing the
autopsy would be a competent witness as to the cause of death and nature of injuries.
• The expert testimony with the forensic expert Dr. Tanvi who conducted the postmortem
report, she has found approximately 20 injuries on the body of the victim out of which
injury No. 1 and 2 happen to be the main cause of death which directly attract the section
302 of Kipash penal Code. However, the according to expert opinion injury 2 is said
to be main cause of death, which was because of a considerable amount of bleeding
resulted in anoxic brain damage, arising out of committing rape in the supine position,
but the injury 1 which was sustained to the deceased’s head striking the wall of train
compartment, and according to Dr. Tanvi, that the injury 1 characterized by a lacerated
wound accompanied by surroundings abraded contusions on the left side of forehead,
along with contusions on both sides of the forehead above the eyebrows and
involvement of the left temporalis muscle, and injury 1 is caused to the vital part of
body which is in ordinary course of nature is sufficient to cause death of person, even
at the event when deceased body found at the woodlands near the Mysore Railway
station is in unconscious state or half death.29
26
Moot proposition ¶3
27
28
29

20
2.3.Whether expert opinion is sufficient to convict a person for charge of murder?
As per Section 45 of the Kipash Evidence Act, when the court has formed an opinion
upon such a point of science, the opinion of persons especially skilled in such science
upon that point is relevant fact and such expert can be called as an expert. The
importance of that provision has been explained in State of H.P. v. Jailal30. In order to
bring the evidence of a witness as that of an expert, it has to be shown that he has made
a special study of the subject or acquired a special experience therein or in other words
that he is skilled and has adequate knowledge of the subject. The real opinion of the
expert is to put before the Court, all the materials, together with the reasoning which
induce him to come to the conclusion, so that the court, although not an expert, may
form its own judgment by its own observation on those materials.
Without examining an expert as a witness in court, no reliance can be placed on an

opinion alone. The value of the opinion of the expert rests on the facts on which it is
based and his competency for forming a reliable opinion. The evidentiary value of the
opinion of the expert depends on the facts upon which it is based and also the validity
of the process by which the conclusion is reached. It is true that the importance of an
opinion is tested on the basis of the credibility of the expert and the relevant facts
supporting the opinion so that its accuracy can be crosschecked. Emphasis should be
given to the data on the basis of which such opinion has been formed.31 On a perusal of
the data furnished by Dr Tanvi through her evidence as well as the contents of Dr Bhagat
Lal, and also the facts narrated by her in order to support her opinion, we are satisfied
that the opinion as to the cause of death furnished by Dr Tanvi can only be accepted.
The evidence clearly reveals the competency of Dr Tanvi and her credibility as an expert
in the field.
30
State of H.P. v. Jailal, (1997)7 SCC 280

21
2.3.1. The requirements of the admissibility of the expert opinion
The Apex Court in Ramesh Chandra Agrawal v. Regency Hospital Ltd. and others32held as
follows: "The law of evidence is designated to ensure that the court considers only that evidence
which will enable it to reach a reliable conclusion. The first and foremost requirement for expert
evidence to be admissible is that it is necessary to hear the expert evidence. The test is that the
matter is outside the knowledge and experience of the layperson. Thus, there is a need to hear
an expert opinion where there is a medical issue to be settled. The scientific question involved
is assumed to be not within the court's knowledge. Thus, cases where the science involved, is
highly specialized and perhaps even esoteric, the central role of an expert cannot be disputed.
The other requirements for the admissibility of expert evidence are:
2.3.1.1 . That the expert must be within a recognized field of expertise.
An expert witness, is one who has made the subject upon which he speaks a matter of particular
study, practice; or observations; and the must have a special knowledge of the subject.
Therefore, in order to bring the evidence of a witness as that of an expert it has to be shown
that he has made a special study of the subject or acquired a special experience therein or in
other words that he is skilled and has adequate knowledge of the subject. An expert is not a
witness of fact. His evidence is really of an advisory character. The duty of an expert witness
is to furnish the Judge with the necessary scientific criteria for testing the accuracy of the
conclusions so as to enable the judge to form his independent judgment by the application of
this criteria to the facts proved by the evidence of the case. The scientific opinion evidence, if
intelligible, convincing and tested becomes a factor and often an important factor for
consideration along with the other evidence of the case. The credibility of such a witness
depends on the reasons stated in support of his conclusions and the data and materials furnished
which form the basis of his conclusions.33
In the instant the expert Dr Tanvi and DNA report report Dr Bhagat Lal, both have the expertise
in their respective field and professional belonging to the reputed government hospitals.
32
[(2009) 9 SCC 709]
33
State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Jai Lal and others, AIR 1999 SC 3318

22
2.3.2. That the evidence must be based on reliable principles,
The Relevancy of Evidence, purely depends upon relevancy of facts, as the evidence is given
for proving the fact-in-issue as stated in Section 5 of the Kipash evident Act therefore every
such evidence which is given in reference and purpose of proving a fact-in-issue is relevant
evidence under law. And in the present case,
• The accused has been recognised as suspect by the help of CCTV cameras and co-
passengers34 which is admissible evidence under section 65B of Kipash Evidence Act,
electronic evidence includes sound, data, images generated or recorded and sent or
received in electronic form. The ratio of the Anvar P V v. PK Basheer & Ors 35give a
liberal interpretation for the admissibility of electronic evidence. The Apex Court of
India had put more emphasis on delivering justice rather than following the strict
procedure of law. The Apex Court of India had opined that Section 65 (B) (4) of the
Indian Evidence Act requirement is a procedural requirement and it may be interpreted
liberally if the Hon’ble Court deemed it fit that electronic evidence produced before the
court is reliable and authentic. It is the Indian Evidence Act that makes it possible for
electronic evidence to be admissible as electronic records.
• DNA sample of accused matched with the deceased,36 fingernail of deceased contains
accused epidermal cells(skin) and blood, finger nail abrasion mark on accused body37
In case of Pantangi Balarama Venkata Ganesh v. State of A.P.38 it was held that “the
evidence of DNA Expert is admissible in evidence as it is a perfect science”.
• a button of accused was found in women compartment, in case of Dhananjoy Chatterjee
v. State of West Bengal39 button of accused person at the crime scenes is considered as
the one of the circumstantial evidence.
• Dr. Tanvi, forensic surgeon who conducted the post-mortem of deceased, testimony
before the court (mentioned in moot proposition ¶8) In case of Nilabati Behra v. State
of Odisha40 that the opinion of a doctor is reliable if he held the post-mortem
examination and of Forensic Science Laboratory. If any other expert doctor gave any
34
35
Civil Appeal No 4226/2012
36
Moot proposition
37
38
Pantangi Balarama Venkata Ganesh v. State of A.P., 2003 Cr LJ 4508 (AP).
39
Dhananjoy Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal, (1994) 2 SCC 220 (India)
40
Nilabati Behra v. State, AIR 1993 SC 1960: (1993) 2 SCC 746: 1993 Cr LJ 2899

23
contrary opinion who gave cryptic report and based on its conjectures should not be
relied upon.
2.3.3. That the expert must be qualified in that discipline
Section 45 of Kipash Evidence Act also provides a definition of an expert witness. An expert
is one who has acquired special knowledge, skill or experience in any science, art, trade or
commerce: such knowledge, may have been acquired by practice, observation or careful
studies. In Bal Krishna Das Agrawal v. Radha Devi, 41an 'expert' was defined as "a person
who by his training and experience has acquired the ability to express an opinion" but an
ordinary witness does not possess this quality. And it is humbly submitted that here the
experts involved in this case are qualified in their respective team where Dr. Tanvi, is a
practising forensic surgeon who conducted the postmortem examination, and Dr Bhagat Lal
conducted the test of DNA sample are also professional and belonging to reputed government
medical college.
2.4.The acquittal of accused was not placed on solid ground and merely rely on
Hearsay evidence.
Section 60 of the Kipash Evidence Act specifically addresses this issue. It states that oral
evidence in the form of hearsay, i.e., a statement made by someone other than the witness
who is testifying, is not ordinarily admissible. Hearsay evidence is not admissible in court
since the statements of the witnesses are not considered reliable.42 It is humbly submitted that
in the instant case, the High Court acquitted the accused from the charge of murder based the
witness of two co passengers from the adjacent compartment to the women compartment who
received information from another co-passenger that a women had “jumped” from the train,
this is clearly a hearsay evidence and High Court acquitted the by using principle of benefit
of doubt based on the this hearsay which is inadmissible as per the law.
3. Whether offence committed by Mr. Rana come under Rarest of rare case?
To award death sentence, the aggravating circumstances (crime test) have to be fully satisfied
and there should be no mitigating circumstance (criminal test) favouring the accused. Even if
both the tests are satisfied as against the accused, even then the Court has to finally apply the
41
Bal Krishna Das Agrawal v. Radha Devi, AIR 1989 SC 1966
42
Kalyan Kumar Gogoi v. Ashutosh Agnihotri, (1983)3 SCC 470

24
Rarest of Rare Cases test (R-R Test), which depends on the perception of the society and not
“judge-centric”, that is whether the society will approve the awarding of death sentence to
certain types of crime or not. While applying this test, the Court has to look into variety of
factors like society’s abhorrence, extreme indignation and antipathy to certain types of crimes
like rape and murder of minor girls, especially intellectually challenged minor girls, minor girls
with physical disability, old and infirm women with those disabilities etc. examples are only
illustrative and not exhaustive. Courts award death sentence, because situation demands, due
to constitutional compulsion, reflected by the will of the people, and not Judge centric.43
3.1. Test 1(the Crime test); the presence of aggravating circumstances
In Bachan Singh,44 the Court recognized and emphasized that each case is unique and has to
be decided on its own facts and circumstances. For this reason, the Court refused to provide
any standardization or categorization of offences for which the death penalty would be
applicable. At the same time however, the Court held that sentencing discretion was not
untrammelled. Rather, it endorsed the holding in Jagmohan vs state of UP45 that “sentencing
discretion is to be exercised judicially on well-recognised principles…. crystallised by judicial
decisions illustrating as to what were regarded as aggravating or mitigating circumstances in
those eases.” Bachan Singh therefore directed courts to determine whether a case is rarest of
rare keeping in mind judicial principles derived from a study of precedents as to the kinds of
factors that are aggravating and those that are mitigating.46
3.1.1. Nature of offence as an Aggravating Factor
In almost a similar case in which a young lady was brutally raped, robbed and murdered, it
was held “On the question of sentence we are satisfied that the extreme depravity with which
the offences were committed and the merciless matter in which death was inflicted on the
victim, brings it within the category of the rarest of rare cases which merits the death penalty,
as awarded by the trial court and confirmed by the High Court. None of the mitigating factors
as were indicated by this court in Bachan Singh's case or in Machhi Singh's case are present in
the facts of the instant the case".47 In Jumman Khan v. State of UP,48 involving the rape and
murder of a 6 year old, the Court held that “the only punishment which the appellant deserves
43
Gurvail Singh @ Gala and Anr vs State of Punjab,2013 (2) SCC 713
44
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684
45
Jagmohan vs State of UP [1973] 1 SCC 20
46
Supra 41
47
B.A. Umesh v. State of Karnataka [(2011) 3 SCC 85],
48
Jumman Khan v. State of U.P., (1991) 1 SCC 752.

25
for having committed the reprehensible and gruesome murder of the innocent child to satisfy
his lust, is nothing but death as a measure of social necessity and also as a means of deterring
other potential offenders. Md. Mannan @ Abdul Mannan v. State of Bihar,49 the convict had
kidnapped, raped and murdered a seven-year-old. The Court awarded the death penalty since
the victim was an “innocent, helpless and defenceless child. “The Court held that the crime
“had invited extreme indignation of the community and shocked the collective conscience of
the society. Their expectation from the authority conferred with the power to adjudicate, is to
inflict the death sentence which is natural and logical.” With respect, given the contrary line of
cases above, it is not clear from this judgment why in this case, but not in the ones mentioned
above, the collective conscience of the society had been so shocked as to invite the punishment
of death. It is humbly submitted before the court the court as the nature of crime committed in
this case is highly heinous which shock the society, where a woman travelling from train
brutally harassed by accused for committing the offence of robbery and later raped in suspicion
state which ultimately led to her death. The injury inflicted upon the deceased reveals the
heinous nature of crime and hence aggravating factor of nature of crime present the instant
case.
3.1.2. Prior Criminal Record of the Offender as an Aggravating Factor
While the Court has often taken into account the prior criminal record of the offender in
determining whether the person is capable of reform. Substantial history of serious assaults and
criminal conviction is an aggravating circumstance when the court is dealing with the offences
relating to the heinous crimes like murder, rape. Armed dacoity etc.50 case was Sushil Murmu
v. State of Jharkhand,51 where the offence involved murder for the purposes of human sacrifice.
In imposing the death sentence, the Court took into account the “criminal propensities of the
accused [which] are clearly spelt out from the fact that similar accusations involving human
sacrifice existed at the time of trial.” Though the Court recognized that the result of the
accusations against him were not brought on record, and therefore it was not clear whether the
accusations resulted in a conviction, the Court held that “the fact that similar accusation was
made against the accused-appellant for which he was facing trial cannot also be lost sight of.”
On this basis, the Court imposed the death sentence on the accused. And in another case, B.A.
Umesh v. Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka,52 where the accused was convicted for
49
Md. Mannan v. State of Bihar, (2011) 8 S.C.C 65
50
Birju vs State of MP (2014) 3 SCC 421
51
Sushil Murmu v. State of Jharkhand, (2004) 2 SCC 338
52
B.A. Umesh v. Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka, (2011) 3 SCC 85

26
rape, murder and robbery, the Supreme Court imposed the death sentence on him, inter alia, on
the ground that he had engaged in similar conduct previously, and had been caught two days
after the present incident, trying to commit a similar crime. The Court held that “the antecedents
of the appellant and his subsequent conduct indicates that he is a menace to society and is
incapable of rehabilitation.
It is humbly submitted before the court that in the instant the accused who had the prior criminal
record where FIR No: 813/2023 registered on 10/09/2023 by Tanu under sections 354A and
506 of the Kipash Penal Code and FIR registered by deceased on 24.02.2023 under Section
354C against accused. These FIRs shows the prior criminal records of the offender and both of
them in sexual act that poses the offender as a criminal of sexual orientation which lead to
threat to society and also diminish the chances for rehabilition of accused in the society.
3.2. Test 2 the criminal test (there should be no mitigating circumstance favouring the
accused)
In the case of Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab,53 the Court established the principle that the
punishment for a crime should be proportionate to the crime committed, and the sentence
should not be excessively harsh or unduly lenient, in this case, the apex court refer the Dr.
Chitaley suggestion on mitigating factors that includes: -
"Mitigating circumstances: In the exercise of its discretion in the above cases, the Court shall
take into account the following circumstances:
(1) That the offence was committed under the influence of extreme mental or emotional
disturbance.
(2) The age of the accused. If the accused is young or old, he shall not be sentenced to death.
(3) The probability that the accused would not commit criminal acts of violence as would
constitute a continuing threat to society.
(4) The probability that the accused can be reformed and rehabilitated. The State shall by
evidence prove that the accused does not satisfy the conditions 3 and 4 above.
(5) That in the facts and circumstances of the case the accused believed that he was morally
justified in committing the offence.
53
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684

27
(6) That the accused acted under the duress or domination of another person.
(7) That the condition of the accused showed that he was mentally defective and that the said
defect impaired his capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct.
It is humbly submitted before the court that in this case the accused Rana commit crime in the
sound state as shown by the circumstances in this case, the age of accused is 30 years old
which is a age of major understanding where a person has the knowledge of law and
consequences of the act which he did, the criminal violence which committed by Rana in
women compartment of running train creates a threat to the society regarding security of
women while traveling, as the accused had prior criminal record of offence against women
which lead less probability of rehabilitation and reform, there is no moral justification of the
act, there was no duress or domination of another person on Rana, and there is sign or fact
present which shows that Rana is mentally defective. Hence, there is no presence of any
mitigating factors which would favour the accused in the instant case.
3.3. Test 3 (R-R test) Rarest of rare case
The rarest of rare cases test, “which depends on the perception of the society and not “judge-
centric”, that is whether the society will approve the awarding of death sentence to certain types
of crime or not. While applying this test, the Court has to look into variety of factors like
society’s abhorrence, extreme indignation and antipathy to certain types of crimes54. Explaining
this test, the Court in Mofil Khan v. State of Jharkhand,55 stated that the test is to “basically
examine whether the society abhors such crimes and whether such crimes shock the conscience
of the society and attract intense and extreme indignation of the community.”
In the case of RAM SINGH VS. SONIA AND ORS 56wherein the Apex Court has referred to
the Judgment of Machhi Singh vs. State of Punjab57 and also considered the decision of Bachan
Singh and held that in rarest of the rare cases, when collective conscience of the community is
so shocked that it will expect the holders of the judicial power centre to inflict death penalty
irrespective of their personal opinion as regards desirability or otherwise of retaining death
penalty. With these observations, the Apex Court confirmed the death sentence;
54
Gurvail Singh @ Gala v. State of Punjab, (2013) 2 SCC 713,
55
Mofil Khan v. Jharkhand, (2015) 1 SCC 67
56
Ram Singh vs Sonia & Ors AIR 2007 SC 1218
57
Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab, (1983) 3 SCC 470

28
It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that the instant case categorically falls under
the doctrine of ‘Rarest of rare case’ on the grounds that it fulfils the criteria laid down in the
case of Macchi Singh v. State of Punjab58,in this case, Apex court laid down the following
criteria to be fulfilled to come into the rarest of rare case: -
3.3.1. Manner of committing murder
When the murder is committed in an extremely brutal, grotesque, diabolical, revolting, or

dastardly manner to arouse intense and extreme indignation of the community.59
In Munawar Harun Shah v. State of Maharashtra60, popularly known as Joshi Abhyanbar

Massacre case, the accused had committed a series of murders and robberies and was sentenced
to death. While confirming death penalty in appeal, the court observed 26: Having regard to
the magnitude, the gruesome nature of the offence and the manner of perpetrating them this
case in all facts and circumstances must be regarded as falling within the rarest of rare category
and the extreme penalty of death is clearly called for.
In the case of B.A. Umesh v. State of Karnataka 61, is almost a similar case in which a young
lady was brutally raped, robbed and murdered, it was held, on the question of sentence we are
satisfied that the extreme depravity with which the offences were committed and the merciless
matter in which death was inflicted on the victim, brings it within the category of the rarest of
rare cases which merits the death penalty, as awarded by the trial court and confirmed by the
High Court. None of the mitigating factors as were indicated by apex court in Bachan Singh's
case or in Machhi Singh's case are present in the facts of the that case.
It is humbly submitted before the court that in this case where the murder is extremely brutal
here the accused continuously strike the head of deceased at the wall of train, then she escapes
or thrown out of the running train, after these severe injuries, the accused commit rape in supine
position which ultimately lead to unconscious state and ultimately lead to death of deceased
person. The manner of murder in this case extremely brutal and which made extreme
indignation to the community.
58
59
ibid
60
Munawar Harun Shah v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1983 SC 585
61
B.A. Umesh v. State of Karnataka [(2011) 3 SCC 85]

29
3.3.2. Motive for Commission of Murder
The motive behind a murder can provide insights into the depravity and meanness of the act,
influencing the sentencing decision. For instance, when a murder is committed for motives that
demonstrate extreme depravity and callousness, such as by a hired assassin, a cold-blooded
murder for financial gain, inheritance, or control over property, or a murder driven by betrayal
of the motherland, it reflects a particularly heinous nature of the crime.
The motive for the commission of murder is considered a crucial factor in assessing the
gravity of the offense and the impact on society. When the motive behind a murder reveals a
deep-seated malevolence or a callous disregard for human life, it underscores the severity of
the crime and the threat it poses to society at large. In cases where the motive is driven by
factors that are socially abhorrent or anti-social, such as crimes targeting specific communities,
castes, or individuals, the motive further highlights the egregious nature of the offense.
In Henry West Muller v State of Assam62, The accused had made a plan to kidnap the
children of rich people to extract ransom. In pursuant to the plan the accused kidnapped a boy
and murdered him. On appeal, the Supreme Court upheld the death penalty on the ground that
it is one of the rarest of rare cases in which the extreme penalty of death is called for. Pointing
out that the accused was extracting money from child's father even after child's killing Justice
Varadrajan emphasized that the offences committed by the accused were very heinous and
preplanned and it was cold blooded murder. In another case, NATHU GARFAM VS. STATE
OF U.P. 63in the said case, the deceased was aged about 14 years old, she had taken food to the
field and while returning to the village, she did not reach home. On questioning, the accused,
ran away and entered the house of the appellant and found the dead body of girl with bleeding
injuries. The Apex Court taking note of the circumstances enumerated and the cumulative effect
and the appellant who is a bachelor of 28 years living all alone must have lured the girl into his
house on some pretext or other and tried to sexually assault her but because of her resistance
his attempt failed and thereafter, he killed her. Hence, the Apex Court confirmed the death
sentence.
It is submitted before this worthy bench that in this case the accused committed a crime
purportedly as cold bolded crime as Shinu earlier lodged an FIR against him and his friend
Romesh under section 354C KPC in retaliation of that Rana planned the whole crime.
62
Henry West Muller v State of Assam AIR 1985 SC 823
63
Nathu Garfam v. State of U.P (1979) 3 SCR 832

30
3.3.3. Personality of the Victim of Murder
When the victim of murder is (a) an innocent child who could not have or has not provided
even an excuse, much less a provocation, for murder, (b) a helpless woman or a person rendered
helpless by old age or infirmity (c) when the victim is a person vis-a-vis whom the murderer is
in a position of domination or trust (d) when the victim is a public figure generally loved and
respected by the community for the services rendered by him and the murder is committed for
political or similar reasons other than personal reasons.64 In Kuljeet Singh alias v Union Of
India65 popularly known as the "Chopra children murder case", the court confirmed death
sentence as the murders of the two children after kidnapping them for ransom were committed
after prior planning and inhumanity shown by the accused denying all beliefs and description.
Chief Justice Chandrachud observed: “The survival of an orderly society demands the
extinction of persons like Billa and Ranga who are a menace to social order and security. They
are professional murderers and deserve no sympathy.”
In Kamta Tiwari V State of MP66 the accused committed rape on a seven years old girl and
strangulated her to death and threw her body in a well. The trial court sentenced him to death
and the sentence was maintained by the High Court. The Supreme Court also upheld the
sentence of death as the case belonged to the rarest of rare category.
In Laxman Naik v. State of Orissa67 The decision was rendered after balancing all the
aggravating and mitigating circumstances thereby considering the crime as well as the criminal.
It was also considered that the victim was a totally helpless child, there being no one to protect
her at the scene of the crime and that the accused in that case had preplanned to commit the
crime by resorting to diabolic methods and had taken the girl who had reposed complete
confidence on him being her uncle, to a lonely place to execute his dastardly act.
In the instant case where a helpless woman was injured by forcibly banging her head against
the wall of the train, and later raped by the accused hence, the personality of the victim i.e.;
helpless woman is sufficient to award the death penalty.
64
65
Kuljeet Singh alias v Union of India 1981 SCR (3) 512
66
Kamta Tiwari V State of MP AIR 1996 SC 2800
67
Laxman Naik v. State of Orissa [(1994) 3 SCC

31
3.3.4. Magnitude of Crime
When the crime is enormous in proportion. For instance, when multiple murders say of all or
almost all the members of a family or a large number of persons of a particular caste,
community, or locality, are committed.68 In Bablu Alias Mubarik Hussain v. State of
Rajasthan69, the accused killed his wife, three daughters (aged about 9 years, 6 years, and 4
years), and son Babu (aged 2 ½ years). Upholding the death penalty, Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J. said
that the brutal acts done by the accused-appellant were diabolic in conception and cruel in
execution. The acts were not only brutal but also inhuman with no remorse for the same. The
case squarely fell under the rarest of rare categories to warrant a death sentence.
Surendra Koli V State of UP70 is another example of the application of the rarest of rare cases
by Justice Katju. The accused a serial killer used to use small girls and strangulate them.
Thereafter, he tried to have sex with the body and then would off their body in parts and eat
them. The court applying the doctrine confirmed the death sentence.
It is submitted before the Hon’ble Court that in this case, the magnitude of the Crime is most
barbarous where the deceased had firstly scummed to serious injuries and after that the accused
committed rape with her in suspicion which ultimately led to her death.
68
69
Bablu Alias Mubarik Hussain v. State of Rajasthan AIR 2007 SC 697.
70
Surendra Koli V State of UP AIR 2011 SC 970

32
PRAYERS
WHEREFORE, IN LIGHT OF THE FACTS STATED, ISSUES RAISED, ARGUMENTS
ADVANCED, AUTHORITIES CITED, SUBMISSIONS MADE HERETO ABOVE AND
THOSE TO BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING,
IT IS HUMBLY PRAYED THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED
1. To declare that the appeal filed by the State in the Supreme Court is maintainable under
Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
2. To declare that the circumstantial evidence and expert opinion is sufficient to convict a
person for the charge of murder.
3. To declare that the offence committed by Mr. Rana comes under the rarest of the rare case.
AND PASS ANY OTHER ORDER, DIRECTION, OR RELIEF THAT THIS HON’BLE
COURT MAY DEEM FIT AND APPROPRIATE IN THE INTEREST OF justice, equity, and
good conscience.
All of which is humbly prayed.

TEAM CODE- JUSTICA
Counsel for the Appellant

33

Appelent

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Appelent

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

4TH INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2024

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO._____/2024

In the Matter of:

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

II. WHETHER THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AND EXPERT OPINION

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

2.2.5. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any

III. WHETHER OFFENCE COMMITTED BY MR. RANA COME UNDER

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

AIR All India Report

FIR First Information Report

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

30. Pritam Singh vs State, AIR 1950 SC 169

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

Article 136 of the Constitution are reproduced hereunder:

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

1.) WHETHER THE APPEAL IS MAINTAINABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT?

2.) WHETHER THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AND EXPERT OPINION IS

3.) WHETHER OFFENCE COMMITTED BY MR. RANA COME UNDER

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

2. WHETHER THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AND EXPERT OPINION

3. WHETHER OFFENCE COMMITTED BY MR. RANA COME UNDER

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

1. WHETHER THE APPEAL IS MAINTAINABLE IN THE SUPREME

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

1.3.Whether Criminal appeal could be maintainable under Article 136 or not?

1.4.Power of Hon’ble Court to correct miscarriage of justice and promulgate the

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

2. Whether the circumstantial evidence and expert opinion is sufficient to convict a

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

2.1. Conviction can be based on solely on circumstantial evidence

2.2 Essential for conviction through circumstantial evidence

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

2.2.3. The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

2.3.Whether expert opinion is sufficient to convict a person for charge of murder?

Without examining an expert as a witness in court, no reliance can be placed on an

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

2.3.1. The requirements of the admissibility of the expert opinion

2.3.1.1 . That the expert must be within a recognized field of expertise.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

2.3.2. That the evidence must be based on reliable principles,

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

3.1. Test 1(the Crime test); the presence of aggravating circumstances

3.1.1. Nature of offence as an Aggravating Factor

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

3.1.2. Prior Criminal Record of the Offender as an Aggravating Factor

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

3.3. Test 3 (R-R test) Rarest of rare case

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

3.3.1. Manner of committing murder

When the murder is committed in an extremely brutal, grotesque, diabolical, revolting, or

In Munawar Harun Shah v. State of Maharashtra60, popularly known as Joshi Abhyanbar

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT