Professional Documents
Culture Documents
COMPETITION, 2016
BEFORE,
THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
[UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA]
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. ______ / 2016
IN THE MATTER OF
IN THE MATTER UNDER 302, 304B & 498A OF THE INDIAN PENAL
CODE, 1860.
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ABBREVIATIONS
EXPANSIONS
&
AND
SECTION
SECTIONS
PARAGRAPH
PARAGRAPHS
A.P.
ANDHRA PRADESH
APPEAL CASES
AIR
ART.
ARTICLE
BOM.
BOMBAY
CAL.
CALCUTTA
CLR
CO.
CORPORATION
CRI LJ/ CR LJ
CR LR
DEL
DELHI
DPP
DW
DEFENCE WITNESS
ED.
EDITION
FIR
GOVT.
GOVERNMENT
H.P.
HIMACHAL PRADESH
HC
HIGH COURT
HONBLE
HONOURABLE
1 | Page
6TH UFYLC RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
IEA
IPC
KANT.
KARNATAKA
KER.
KERALA
LD.
LEARNED
LTD.
LIMITED
M.P.
MADHYA PRADESH
NAG.
NAGALAND
N.C.T.
ORI.
ORISSA
ORS.
OTHERS
P&H
P./PG.
PAGE
PUNJ.
PUNJAB
PVT.
PRIVATE
PW
PROSECUTION WITNESS
RAJ.
RAJASTHAN
SC
SUPREME COURT
SCC
SLP
SUPP.
SUPPLEMENTARY
U.P.
UTTAR PRADESH
US
UNITED STATES
V.
VERSUS
W.B.
WEST BENGAL
WLR
2 | Page
6TH UFYLC RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ........................................................................................................ 5
INDIAN SUPREME COURT CASES...5
INDIAN HIGH COURT CASES....................................................................................................... 10
COURT DECISIONS AROUND THE WORLD .................................................................................. 11
BOOKS........................................................................................................................................ 12
JOURNALS .................................................................................................................................. 12
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION .................................................................................................. 13
INDIAN STATUTES ...................................................................................................................... 13
FOREIGN STATUTES & RULES ................................................................................................... 13
WEB RESOURCES ....................................................................................................................... 13
INGREDIENTS OF DOWRY DEATH HAVE BEEN PROVED BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBTS. .. 25
[3.1.1] THE DEATH OF THE DECEASED HAS OCCURRED WITHIN SEVEN YEARS OF HER MARRIAGE ........ 26
[3.1.2]
TABLE OF CONTENTS
THE DECEASED WAS SUBJECTED TO CRUELTY BY HER HUSBAND AND IN-LAWS ........................ 27
[3.1.4]
THE DECEASED WAS METED WITH CRUELTY AND HARASSMENT SOON BEFORE DEATH BY HER
HUSBAND ........................................................................................................................................ 27
[3.1.4.1] TEST OF PROXIMITY HAS BEEN SATISFIED BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT .......................... 28
[3.1.5]
THE DECEASED WAS INFLICTED WITH CRUELTY AND HARASSMENT IN FURTHERANCE OF THE
DEMAND OF DOWRY. ........................................................................................................................ 28
[4] THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD IS SUFFICIENT TO PROVE THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED
BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBTS. .......................................................................................... 29
[4.1] MR. SANJAYS TESTIMONY IS RELIABLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE. ................................................. 30
[4.1.1] THE TESTIMONY PASSES THE TEST OF RELEVANCY. ................................................................. 30
[4.1.2] THE TESTIMONY IS A CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF FACTS. .................................................. 31
[4.1.3] THE TESTIMONY PASSES THE TEST OF RES GESTAE. ................................................................ 31
[4.2] THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS CONCLUSIVE IN NATURE. .............................................. 32
[4.2.1] THERE IS AN EXISTENCE OF A HYPOTHESIS CONSISTENT WITH THE GUILT AND INCONSISTENT
WITH THE INNOCENCE OF THE ACCUSED. .......................................................................................... 33
[4.2.2] TESTIMONIES OF THE SERVANTS CANNOT BE DISPUTED BY ANY MEANS. ................................... 33
[4.2.3] TESTIMONIES OF THE RELATIVES ARE COGENT AND CREDIBLE IN NATURE. .............................. 33
[4.2.4] SPONTANEOUS UTTERANCES OF THE DECEASED IS AN IMPORTANT LINK IN THE ENTIRE CHAIN OF
EVENTS. .......................................................................................................................................... 34
[4.2.5] DYING DECLARATION OF THE DECEASED COMPLETES THE CHAIN OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE. ...................................................................................................................................... 34
[4.2.5.1] Gestures And Nods Of The Deceased. ......................................................................................... 34
[4.2.5.2] Daily Diary Of The Victim. .......................................................................................................... 35
THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL CHAIN IS COMPLETE AND PROVES THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED BEYOND
PRAYER.
4 | Page
6TH UFYLC RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
SR. NO.
PG. NO.
1)
21
2)
27
3)
20
4)
31
5)
25
6)
36
7)
22
8)
27
9)
22
10)
29
11)
21
12)
32
13)
25
14)
35
15)
35
16)
38
17)
24
18)
34
19)
19
20)
30
21)
20
22)
20
5 | Page
6TH UFYLC RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
23)
33
24)
24
25)
28
26)
19
27)
19
28)
30
29)
19
30)
38
31)
25
32)
33
33)
19
34)
21
35)
31
36)
22
37)
25
(SC)
38)
38
39)
22
40)
30
41)
28
42)
25
43)
20
44)
38
45)
33
46)
26
47)
24
6 | Page
6TH UFYLC RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
48)
23
49)
19
50)
25
51)
21
52)
21
53)
19
SCC 521
54)
30
55)
30
56)
28
57)
23
58)
36
59)
27
60)
38
61)
30-
62)
30
63)
31
64)
26
65)
19
66)
27
67)
20
68)
30
69)
29
70)
31
71)
25
72)
38
73)
30
7 | Page
6TH UFYLC RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
74)
25
75)
19
76)
19
77)
38
78)
29
79)
33
80)
29
81)
31
457
82)
19
83)
24
84)
25
85)
23
86)
28
87)
22
88)
36
89)
27
90)
30
91)
24
92)
19
93)
21
94)
38
95)
23
96)
21
97)
35
98)
30
99)
30
8 | Page
6TH UFYLC RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
100)
30
101)
34
102)
28
103)
27
104)
28
105)
25
106)
21
107)
35
108)
20
109)
21
110)
34
111)
19
112)
27
113)
24
114)
22
115)
29
116)
24
2005
117)
21
118)
24
119)
21
120)
20
121)
38
122)
26
123)
26
124)
21
125)
21
9 | Page
6TH UFYLC RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
126)
21
127)
28
128)
20
129)
25
130)
33
131)
31
132)
29
133)
31
134)
36
135)
36
136)
36
137)
26
138)
27
139)
34
140)
38
141)
19
142)
29
143)
29
144)
25
145)
35
146)
19
147)
29
148)
38
149)
29
SR. NO.
PG. NO.
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
1)
20
2)
24
3)
21
4)
29
5)
21
6)
21
7)
19
8)
27
9)
29
10)
20
11)
21
12)
27
13)
30
14)
28
15)
24
SR. NO.
PG. NO.
1)
32
2)
Davidson v. Miller, 276 Md. 54, 61, 344 A.2d 422, 427 (1975)
37
3)
31
4)
5)
25
6)
22
7)
32
8)
32
11 | P a g e
6TH UFYLC RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016
33
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
9)
24
10)
32
SR. NO.
BOOKS
AMERICAN
1)
LAW
INSTITUTE,
MODEL
PENAL
CODE
AND
2)
(1995)
BUZZARD, JOHN, MAY, RICHARD, HOWARD, M.N., PHIPSON ON
3)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
SR. NO.
1)
JOURNALS
PG. NO.
37
12 | P a g e
6TH UFYLC RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016
SR. NO.
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
37
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION
PG. NO.
Article 136
passim
1)
SR. NO.
INDIAN STATUTES
SR. NO.
SR. NO.
WEB RESOURCES
13 | P a g e
6TH UFYLC RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Appellants herein have invoked the plenary Jurisdiction of this Honourable Court under
Article 136 of the Constitution of India, 1950. Article 136 read as:
136. Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court(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.
14 | P a g e
6TH UFYLC RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016
SYNOPSIS OF FACTS
SYNOPSIS OF FACTS
A. BACKGROUND: Mr. Suresh Goyal, got married to Mrs. Sharda Gupta on 17.07.2012.
However, Mrs Sharda Goyal did not receive proper treatment from her in-laws and was
subjected to continuous dowry demands for Mercedes Benz and a fixed deposit of Rs. 1 Cr. She
was subjected to mental and physical cruelty by her in-laws and in such non-congenial
atmosphere, Mrs Sharda Goyal could not conceive.
B. CIRCUMSTANCES THAT LED TO THE DEATH OF THE DECEASED: The mother-in-law in
collusion with the father-in-law and her son, forcibly administered poison to the deceased to kill
her due to non-fulfillment of dowry demand. The deceased was declared dead and the cause of
death was examined as asphyxia secondary to organo phosphorous poison.
C. EVENTS THAT UNFOLDED ON THE FATEFUL NIGHT: Om Prakash, [PW-4] informed the
police about the dilapidated condition of the deceased. The police proceeded towards the spot
and called upon Dr. O.P Choudhary in order to ensure medical attention for the deceased. On
coming to know, about the condition of his daughter, Shri Vikram Gupta, [PW-10] lodged a
police complaint stating that accused persons in collusion had caused death of the deceased. The
FIR was registered and during the investigation, the police found out and relied upon the daily
diary maintained by the deceased and subsequently charges were framed under 498A and
304-B read with 34 of IPC.
D. JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE TRIAL COURT: The trial court acquitted Smt. Shalini Goyal on
the plea that there is no direct evidence and convicted Shri Dinesh Goyal for commission of
offence under 302, IPC and awarded imprisonment for 7 years with no fine.
E. JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE RAJASTHAN HC: The Hon'ble HC acquitted the respondents
on the ground that the circumstances are not of conclusive nature.
F. APPEAL: Aggrieved by the decision of the Hon'ble High Court, the State as well as Shri
Vikram Gupta have preferred an appeal to Hon'ble Supreme Court of India to reverse the
acquittal by imposing maximum imprisonment and exemplary costs.
15 | P a g e
6TH UFYLC RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
[I.]
WHETHER THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE HIGH
COURT IS MAINTAINABLE?
[II.]
WHETHER THE ACCUSED ARE GUILTY UNDER 302, IPC R/W 34, IPC?
[III.]
WHETHER THE ACCUSED ARE GUILTY UNDER 304-B & 498-A, IPC?
[IV.]
WHETHER THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD IS SUFFICIENT TO PROVE THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED
BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBTS?
16 | P a g e
6TH UFYLC RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
[I.]
THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE HIGH COURT IS
MAINTAINABLE.
The Hon'ble SC being vested with a plenary jurisdiction should not abjure in its duty to
interfere in the impugned judgment as the Hon'ble HC has committed some serious and
flagrant violation of the law, by acquitting the accused persons, ignoring material
evidence, resulting in gross miscarriage of justice. Therefore, the leave should be granted.
[II.]
THE ACCUSED ARE GUILTY UNDER 302, IPC R/W 34, IPC.
In the instant case, the accused persons are guilty of murder of the deceased as the 'causal
relationship' between the act of the accused and the resultant harm on the person of the
deceased is established through the actus reus and the mens rea of the accused persons,
thereby attracting liability under 302, IPC r/w 34, IPC.
[III.]
The accused are guilty of the offence of dowry death. The ingredients of dowry death
have been satisfied beyond all reasonable doubts. The accused have committed the
offence in collusion with each other and there has been prior meeting of mind before the
execution of the final act of causing death. Therefore, the concerned act of causing death
has been carried out with common intention.
[IV.]
It is submitted that the evidence on record is sufficient to prove guilt of the accused as the
chain of circumstances have been satisfied beyond all reasonable doubts. It is further
submitted that there is existence of hypothesis consistent with the guilt of the accused and
inconsistent with the innocence.
17 | P a g e
6TH UFYLC RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
[1] THE APPEAL IS MAINTAINABLE UNDER ARTICLE 136
(1.) It is humbly submitted before this Hon'ble Court that the present appeal from the impugned
judgment of the Hon'ble HC of Rajasthan be allowed by the Honble SC under Art. 1361.
(2.) Under this Art., the Hon'ble SC is vested with plenary jurisdiction in entertaining all kinds
of appeals2, thus the present criminal appeal can be granted special leave. The assertion is made
on the following two grounds i.e., the appellants have the required locus standi [1.1] and that the
Hon'ble SC has the jurisdiction under Art. 136. [1.2]
[1.1] APPELLANTS HAVE LOCUS STANDI IN THE INSTANT CASE.
(3.) The Appeal has been preferred by the father of the deceased and the State to challenge the
legality and correctness of the judgment of the Hon'ble HC. Therefore, the Appellants possess
the required locus standi.3
[1.2]HON'BLE SC HAS THE JURISDICTION UNDER ART. 136 TO ENTERTAIN THIS PETITION.
(4.) The Hon'ble SC is not only a court of law but also a court of equity. 4 This Court may
interfere in order to prevent injustice5 and errors of law6. It is an overriding power where this
Hon'ble Court may generally step in to impart justice7. Therefore, this argument has been divided
in the following submissions, which are the sine qua non for the grant of special leave, i.e., the
judgment passed by Honble HC is an appealable judgment [1.2.1]; the impugned judgment has
1
18 | P a g e
6TH UFYLC RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
resulted in miscarriage of justice [1.2.2] and that this Hon'ble Court should interfere where
decisions are not concurrent [1.2.3].
[1.2.1] THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE HONBLE HC IS AN APPEALABLE JUDGMENT.
(5.) It is submitted that the judgment passed by the Hon'ble HC is an appealable judgment.8 For
an order to be the subject of a petition for special leave under Art. 1369, it must be an
adjudicatory order - an order that adjudicates upon the rival contentions of the parties and it must
be passed by an authority constituted by the State, by law, for the purpose in discharge of States
obligation to secure its people.10 In the present case the order challenged has been passed by the
appropriate authority of the law i.e. Hon'ble HC of Rajasthan.
[1.2.2] THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE HONBLE HC HAS RESULTED IN MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE.
(6.) The impugned judgment passed by the Hon'ble HC has resulted in miscarriage of justice,
mainly because of the reasons, that the Hon'ble HC has failed in appreciating the true effect of
the materials brought on record.11 The Hon'ble HC was apparently erroneous12 in holding the
Prosecution case to be vicious and doubting the credibility of the witnesses for unjustified and
uncredible reasons.13 The impugned judgment is thus a compelling ground for the Hon'ble SC's
interference14 as the Ld. Lower Courts allowed themselves to be deflected by the red herrings
drawn across the track. The evidence that was accepted by the Ld. Trial Court was rejected by
the Hon'ble HC after a perfunctory consideration and this baneful approach of the Hon'ble HC
has resulted in vital and crucial evidence being ignored.
[1.2.3] THE HONBLE SC SHOULD INTERFERE WHERE CONCURRENT FINDINGS DO NOT EXIST.
(7.) It is a settled principle of law that where the findings are not concurrent, the Hon'ble SC
may review the evidence and see whether the Hon'ble HC's assessment was correct.15 In the
matter at hand a reasoned decision of conviction of Sh. Dinesh Goyal by the Ld. Trial Court has
8
Shingara Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 2004 SC 124; See also Akabbai Ali v. Emperor, (1931) 59 Cal 19.
Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 136.
10
Konkan Railway v. Rani Construction Pvt. Ltd, AIR 2002 SC 778.
11
Arunchalam v. P.S.R. Setarathnam, AIR 1979 SC 1284.
12
State of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram, (2003) 8 SCC 180, 7.
13
Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1973 SC 2622; 55; See also, State of W.B. v. Orilal
Jaiswal, AIR 1994 SC 1418; Manik Datta v. State of Tripura (1999 Cri LJ 356); Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana,
(2010) 7 SCC 578; Jagdish v. State of Uttaranchal, (2015) 2 SCC 252, 9; Devender Singh & Ors. State of Punjab,
(1998) 3 SCC 309.
14
State of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram, (2003) 8 SCC 180, 7.
15
Dastagir Mohammed v. State of Madras, AIR 1960 SC 756.
9
19 | P a g e
6TH UFYLC RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
been reversed by the Hon'ble HC merely on conjectures. Furthermore, the acquittal of Sh. Suresh
Goyal and Mrs. Shalini Goyal is based on surmises and self-contradictory conclusions, therefore,
the Hon'ble SC would be unjust not to interfere.16
(8.) Hence, in the instant case the Hon'ble SC's interference is called for as the Hon'ble HC has
committed some serious and flagrant violation of the law17, by delivering a decision which is
patently erroneous18, and is obviously wrong19, and has dealt the matter fallaciously20 by
ignoring material evidence, rejecting unimpeachable evidence on surmises and conjectures,
laying undue importance on trivial and ignorable contradictions and conclusions drawn which
were self-contradictory21.
[2] THE ACCUSED ARE GUILTY OF MURDER.
(9.) The Appellants humbly contend that the accused in the instant case have committed an
offence under 'Firstly' of 300, IPC r/w 34, IPC. The Actus Reus [2.1] and the Mens Rea [2.2]
of the commission of the offence have been established beyond all reasonable doubts.
State of U.P. v. Ram Sewak, (2003) 2 SCC 161, 13 & 26, relying on Bhagwan Singh v. State of M.P. (2002) 4
SCC 85; Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC 793; Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State of
Gujarat, (1996) 9 SCC 225 and Jaswant Singh v. State of Haryana, (2000) 4 SCC 484.
17
Amarjit Kaur v. Harbhajan Singh, (2003) 10 SCC 228.
18
Jhummamal v. State of M.P., AIR 1988 SC 1973.
19
Sharif Ahmed v. RTA, AIR 1978 SC 209.
20
State of U.P. v. Samman Dass, AIR 1972 SC 677.
21
State of Karnataka v. Moin Patel, AIR 1996 SC 3041, See also, State of U.P. v. Ram Sevak, (2003) 2 SCC 161;
Gorle S. Naidu v. State of A.P., AIR 2004 SC 1169, Raj Kishore Jha v. State of Bihar, AIR 2003 SC 4664; State of
U.P. v. Nawab Singh, AIR 2004 SC 1511; State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram, AIR 2007 SC 144.
22
Gul Mohummed v. King Emperor, AIR 1947 Nag 121; See also, Chander Bahadur Suha v. State of Sikkim, 1978
Cr. LJ 942.
23
AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE, MODEL PENAL CODE AND COMMENTARIES, 2.01 ( Philadelphia:
American Law Institute, 1985).
24
Moot Proposition- 6th UFYLC Ranka National Moot Court Competition 2016, p.4, 10.
25
Eso Mathew v. State of Kerala, (1967) ILR 1 Ker 352; See also, Pyarejan v. State, (1972) Cr LJ 404 (Mysore).
20 | P a g e
6TH UFYLC RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
and the prohibited result26 that constitutes an offence under clause 'Firstly' of 300 27, IPC is
established.
[2.1.1]
THE DOUBT THAT THE DECEASED WOULD HAVE COMMITTED SUICIDE IS A PREPOSTEROUS
PRESUMPTION.
(11.) It is humbly stated by the Appellants that the evidence of the persons who gather
immediately on hearing the cries of the victim is a valuable piece of evidence to serve as a
conclusive proof to the alleged offence.28 In the instant case, Shri Surendra Kumar [PW-2], a
servant of the accused had testified that he had heard the shrieks and cries of the deceased who
was crying for salty water stating that she did want to die.29 This clearly supports the contention
of the Appellants that the deceased has not committed suicide as had she done that, she would
not have had cried for help which would have increased her chances of survival.30
(12.) Moreover, having regard to the ordinary course of human conduct and particularly of a
mother, it is difficult to believe that she would commit suicide and leave her child at the mercy
of her in-laws31, especially when the accused were contemplating for remarriage of the
deceased's husband.32
(13.) Furthermore, the medical experts were not supposed to be an arbiter on the issue whether
the victim had taken the poison herself rather their objective opinion stands writ large that
considering the nature of injuries33 which they stated it could be a case of forcible administration
of poison and in the process the accused had caused injuries while the deceased had struggled.
Thus the approach of Hon'ble HC cannot be said to be of objective assessment of evidence 34 as it
involves preposterous inferences35.
26
21 | P a g e
6TH UFYLC RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
[2.1.3]
MERE ACT OF ACCUSED PERSONS IN CARRYING THE DECEASED TO THE HOSPITAL CANNOT
IMPLY INNOCENCE.
(16.) It was deposed by Shri Om Prakash, [PW-4] that when he requested Shri Dinesh Goyal
and Sh. Suresh Goyal to take the deceased to the hospital, they ignored the same.39 This clearly
supports the contention of the Appellants that the accused feared the chances of survival of the
deceased if being taken to the hospital.40 It was only when a lot number of individuals came to
know about the detoriating health condition of the deceased along with the Police Inspector, Biru
Ahmed, [PW-7], she was finally taken to the hospital and mere presence of the accused in
carrying her along to the hospital cannot be treated as their conduct of innocence41 which the
Hon'ble HC erroneously considered in favour of the accused42.
36
Moot Proposition- 6th UFYLC Ranka National Moot Court Competition 2016, p. 4, 10.
Jaipal v. State of Haryana, AIR 2002 SC 3447.
38
Neerukonda Parabrahma Murthy v. State of A.P. (1997) 11 SCC 408, 5.
39
Moot Proposition- 6th UFYLC Ranka National Moot Court Competition 2016, p. 4, 10.
40
Ram Das v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1977 SC 1164.
41
State of Himachal Pradesh v. Rajiv Jassi; Criminal Appeal No. 771 of 2005 dated May 6, 2016; See also, Kamesh
Panjiyar v. State of Bihar, 2005 Cri LJ 1418: AIR 2005 SC 785.
42
Findings of the Hon'ble HC; Moot Proposition- 6th UFYLC Ranka National Moot Court Competition 2016, p. 8.
37
22 | P a g e
6TH UFYLC RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
[2.1.4]THE BURDEN OF EXPLAINING THE INJURIES OF DECEASED WAS UPON THE ACCUSED.
(17.) The fact that the accused were in the company of the victim in the same room brings
home the guilt of the accused and it was upon them to explain the cause of the injuries found on
the person of dece ased. Failure to explain that why the deceased was in an unconscious position
coupled with other evidence is a grave circumstance43 which militates against accused persons
vide 106 of the IEA.44
43
23 | P a g e
6TH UFYLC RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
principles of mens rea as to cause no difficulty.52 Such intention53 is proved or inferred from the
acts of the accused54 as a man is presumed to intend the natural consequences of his own act55.
(20.) The nature of the weapon used by the accused persons in the form of Organo Phosphorous
poison clearly establishes their intention56 to cause the death of the deceased57. Further, buying
of the poison in the month of May58 on pretext of killing flies clearly tends towards the accused
of their intention behind such a purchase during the summer season.
[2.2.3] THE ACCUSED HAD MOTIVE TO CAUSE THE DEATH OF THE DECEASED.
(22.) It is submitted that, the longing for the object desired which sets the volition in motion is
motive.61 It is a psychological phenomenon that impels a person to do a particular act.62 It is not
sine qua non for holding the accused liable63, though, is relevant and important on question of
intention64. It is to be adjudged from the circumstances available on record.65
52
24 | P a g e
6TH UFYLC RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
The evidence on record continuously show without any doubt that cruelty to the deceased did
exist through mental and physical torture by the in-laws.66 It is not disputed that the deceased
was being ill-treated and the non-fulfillment of the demanded dowry amounting to a Mercedes
Benz and 1,00,00,000 INR deposit money67 had raged the in-laws creating a clear-faced motive
to cause the death of the deceased68.
[2.2.4]THE CHAIN OF EVIDENCE IS COMPLETE TO BRING HOME GUILT OF THE ACCUSED.
(23.) Relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in Udaipal Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh69
where it was held that "In cases of circumstantial evidence, if it is shown that the accused having
a strong motive had the opportunity of committing the crime 70 and the established circumstances
on the record negating the possibility of anyone else being the culprit, then the chain of evidence
can be considered to be so complete so as to show that within all possible human probability, the
crime must have been committed by the accused", the accused must under these circumstances,
safely be held guilty.
Furthermore, it is noteworthy that when a circumstantial evidence is consistent with the guilt of
the accused and inconsistent with his innocence, even then there should be no difficulty in
upholding the prosecution case.71 It being a well-established fact that in cases of circumstantial
evidence, suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of legal proof.72
Moot Proposition- 6th UFYLC Ranka National Moot Court Competition 2016, p.3-4, 7, 8 & 9.
Moot Proposition- 6th UFYLC Ranka National Moot Court Competition 2016, p. 4, 7.
68
Surinder Singh v. State of Haryana, (2014) 4 SCC 129.
69
AIR 1972 SC 54.
70
Kaushal Prasad v. State of Madhya Pradesh 1996 Cr LJ 2268.
71
State of U.P. v. G.K. Ghosh, AIR 1984 SC 1453; See also, State of U.P. v Sukhbasi, AIR 1985 SC 1224.
72
Jaharlal Das v. State of Odisha, AIR 1991 SC 1388; See also, Swinder Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1992 SC
669.
67
25 | P a g e
6TH UFYLC RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
of marriage [1]; that the death of a woman should be caused by bodily injury or otherwise, than
under normal circumstances [2]; that the deceased must have been subjected to cruelty soon
before her death [3] and that the harassment or cruelty should be for or in relation to or in
connection with the demand of dowry [4]. 73
[3.1.1] THE DEATH OF THE DECEASED HAS OCCURRED WITHIN SEVEN YEARS OF HER MARRIAGE.
(26.) The marriage was performed in 17.07.2012 and the incident occurred in 25.05.2015.74
73
Keshab Chandra Pandey v. State, (1995) Cr LJ 174 (Ori); See also, Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana, (1998) 3
SCC 309; Kans Raj v. State of Punjab, AIR 2000 SC 2324; Satvir Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 2001 SC 2828;
State of Andhra Pradesh v. Raj Gopal Asawa, AIR 2004 SC 1933; Baljeet Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 2004 SC
1714; Arun Garg v.State of Punjab, (2004) 8 SCC 251; Kamesh Panjiyar v. State of Bihar, (2005) 2 SCC 388, AIR
2005 SC 785; Kishan Singh v. State of Punjab, (2007) 14 SCC 204, AIR 208 SC 233; Tasrem Singh v. State of
Punjab, (2008) 16 SCC 155 : AIR 2009 SC 1454; Rajesh Bhatnagar v. State of Uttarakhand, (2012) 5 SCALE 311 :
2012 Cri LJ 3442.
74
Moot Proposition- 6th UFYLC Ranka National Moot Court Competition 2016, p.2&4, 4&10.
75
Satvir Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 2001 SC 2828, (2001) 8 SCC 633; Nallam Veera Satyanandam v. Public
Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 2004 SC 1708.
76
Rajiv Jassi v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2004) SCC Online 112 (HP).
77
MOITRA & KAUSHAL, MEDICAL JURISPRUDENCE & TOXICOLOGY, 217,(3rd ed., 2007).
26 | P a g e
6TH UFYLC RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
had history of consumption of poison and the person of the deceased bore several injuries and
bruises on neck, cheek and face. Therefore, this leaves a big room of suspicion with respect to
the complicity and reliability of the prosecution's version.
[3.1.3] THE DECEASED WAS SUBJECTED TO CRUELTY BY HER HUSBAND AND IN-LAWS.
(30.) The Hon'ble SC has held that 304-B and 498-A cannot be held to be mutually
exclusive.78 Having regard to the common background of these offences, it can be construed that
the term cruelty occurring in 304-B has the same meaning as given in explanation of Section
498A.79 Cruelty includes both mental and physical cruelty.80 In the instant case, the deceased
was subjected to ill treatment by her in laws and it is deposed that with the mental disturbance
and non-congenial atmosphere, she could not conceive her first child. The same maybe
corroborated by the written apology tendered by Shalini Goyal.81
(31.) The factum of cruelty inflicted upon the deceased may be corroborated by the daily diary
maintained by the deceased. Moreover, the deceased was abused and beaten before the servants
of the house. In order to constitute 'harassment' it is essential to prove that (i) the woman was
tormented, i.e. tortured either physically or mentally through constant interference or
intimidation; (ii) such act was with a view to persuade or compel her to do something which she
is legally or not otherwise expected to do by using force or threats, and (iii) intention to subject
the woman was to compel or force her or her relatives to fulfill the unlawful demands for any
property or valuable security.82 In the instant case, all the conditions have been substantiated so
as to attract an offence under 498A as well.
[3.1.4] THE DECEASED WAS METED WITH CRUELTY AND HARASSMENT SOON BEFORE DEATH BY HER
HUSBAND.
(32.) The expression 'soon before her death' used in the substantive provisions of IPC83 and the
IEA84 is pregnant with the proximity test. No definite period has been indicated and the
78
Shanti v. State of Haryana, AIR 1991 SC 1226; Keshab Chander Panda v. State, (1995) Cr LJ 175 (Ori); Dinesh
Sheth v. State (NCT) of Delhi, (2008) 14 SCC 94; Noorjahan v. State, AIR 2008 SC 2113; State of Uttar Pradesh v.
Santosh Kumar, (2009) 9 SCC 626.
79
Hira Lal v. State (Govt of NCT) of Delhi, (2003) 8 SCC 80; Kaliyaperumal v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2003 SC
3828.
80
Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana, AIR 1998 SC 958; Satpal v. State of Haryana, (1998) 5 SCC 687.
81
Moot Proposition- 6th UFYLC Ranka National Moot Court Competition 2016, p.3, 7.
82
Savitri Devi v. Ramesh Chand, (2003) CrLJ 2759 (Del).
83
Indian Penal Code,(1860), 304-B.
27 | P a g e
6TH UFYLC RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
expression 'soon before' is not defined.85 The determination of the period which may come
within the term 'soon before' is left to be determined by the courts, depending upon the facts and
circumstances of each case.86
[3.1.4.1] Test Of Proximity Has Been Satisfied Beyond All Reasonable Doubt.
(33.) The test of proximity has been relied upon by the Hon'ble SC in plethora of cases 87, to
justify a charge under 304-B. There must be existence of a proximate and live link between the
effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the concerned death. The alleged incident of
cruelty should not be remote in time and stale enough not to disturb the mental equilibrium of the
women concerned.88. In the instant matter, the deceased could not conceive due to the noncongenial atmosphere that emanated because of the family disturbances pertaining to nonfulfillment of dowry demand. Therefore in the instant case, the mental and physical equilibrium
of the deceased has been disturbed to the extent that could not conceive. Henceforth, it is
submitted that the sufferings of the deceased emanated from the demands of dowry, therefore
these facts have a strong relation with the factum of demand of dowry that preceded her death
'soon before'.
[3.1.5] THE DECEASED WAS INFLICTED WITH CRUELTY AND HARASSMENT IN FURTHERANCE OF THE
DEMAND OF DOWRY.
(34.) The alleged harassment and cruelty has to be inflicted for or in relation with the demand
of dowry.89 The Hon'ble SC has emphasized that demand for dowry is made on three occasions:
(i) before marriage (ii) at the time of marriage (iii) after the marriage. 90 Greed being limitless, the
demand for dowry becomes insatiable in many cases followed by torture of the girl leading to
84
28 | P a g e
6TH UFYLC RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
either suicide in some cases or murder in some. In the instant case, the demand for dowry has
been made twice, first at the time of marriage, second after the marriage. Despite the fact that the
Goyals had a palatial house and extravagant standard of living91, but at times the lust and greed
of dowry is increased to such heights that the in laws of the deceased, think it desirable to
remove her by terminating her life and give it a colour of suicide or show it to be a natural
death.92
(35.) The same maybe deposed by Vikram Gupta, father of the deceased [PW-10], who has
been aware of the long drawn issues between the deceased and Goyals, which took different
forms over the course of time. Mr Gupta being the father, his evidence cannot be discarded for
the fact that he was interested witness93. Therefore, the same is also corroborated with the daily
diary maintained by the witness, which was instrumental in the investigation by the police, which
may be deposed by Biru Ahmed, [PW-7].
(36.) In the instant case, the Honble HC has acquitted the accused Dinesh Goyal and others on
the ground that the circumstances are not of conclusive nature. With the evidence presented at
the trial stage, there is sufficient and conclusive evidence to show that Goyal family is indeed
guilty of the offences under 34 read along with 302 & 304-B of IPC.
91
Moot Proposition- 6th UFYLC Ranka National Moot Court Competition 2016, p.2, 1.
VINAY SHARMA, DOWRY DEATHS- LEGAL PROVISIONS & JUDICIAL INTERPRETATIONS, 5 (1st ed.
2010).
93
Kartik Malhar v. State of Bihar, (1996) 1 SCC 614; S.G. Gundegowda v. State of Karnataka, 1996 Cr LJ 852
(Kant); Kailash v. State of U.P., (1997) 11 SC 525; Harpal Singh v. Devinder Singh, AIR 1997 SC 2914; Rizan v.
State of Chattisgarh, AIR 2003 SC 976; Ravishwar Manjhi v. State of Jharkhand, AIR 2009 SC 1262;
GaliVenkataiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 2008 SC 462; D. Sailu v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 2008 SC
505; Kapildeo Mandal v. State of Bihar, AIR 2008 SC 533; Ponnam Chandraiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR
2008 SC 3209; Kalegura Padma Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 2007 SC 1299; Madhusudan Das v.
Narayanbhai, AIR 1983 SC 114; Krishna Pillai v. State of Kerala, AIR 1981 SC 1237.
92
29 | P a g e
6TH UFYLC RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
94
Moot Proposition 6th UFLYC Ranka National Moot Court Competition, p.7.
JO SHOW, JO HUNT & CHLOE WALLACE, EVIDENCE RAYMOND EMSON, 15 (4th ed.,Palgrave
Macmillan) (2006).
96
[1973] 2 WLR 254 (HL), 276-277.
97
Australian Evidence Act, 1955, 55.
98
New Zealand Evidence Act, 2006, 7(3).
99
United States Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 401.
100
Kuriya v. State of Rajasthan, (2012) 10 SCC 433 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 202 : 2012 Cri LJ 4707 : AIR 2013 SC
1085 ; Kathi Bharat Vajsur v. State of Gujarat, (2012) 5 SCC 724 : (2012) 2 SCC (Cri) 740; Narayan Chetanram
Chaudhary v. State of Maharashtra, (2000) 8 SCC 457; Gura Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (2001) 2 SCC 205;
Sukhchain Singh v. State of Haryana, (2002) 5 SCC 100; Sunil Kumar v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (2003) 11
SCC 367.
101
Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2000) 8 SCC 457.
95
30 | P a g e
6TH UFYLC RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
accused in the offences committed, more probable. Hence, it is submitted that the testimony is
admissible and is relevant to the case at hand.
[4.1.2] THE TESTIMONY IS A CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF FACTS.
(41.) It the present case, the testimony of Mr. Sanjay can be taken cognisance as circumstantial
evidence of a fact. In many cases102, the Courts have admitted statements as circumstantial
evidence of facts. The purpose of adducing the evidence is to invite an inference as to a matter
thought to be implied in the statement.103 Because the purpose of evidence is to establish the
probability of the facts upon which the success of a partys case depends in law.104
(42.) It is submitted that the testimony in question plays a very pertinent role in implicating the
accused. The testimony marks the beginning of the chain of the events as it was Mr. Dinesh
Goyal who bought the poison under the pretext that he required the same to kill for flies.105
Hence, it is most humbly contended that Mr. Sanjays testimony evidences the criminal acts of
the accused, inter alia, in a circumstantial manner.
[4.1.3] THE TESTIMONY PASSES THE TEST OF RES GESTAE.
(43.) It is humbly contended that the test for applying the rule of Res gestae is that the
statement should be spontaneous and should form part of the same transaction, ruling out any
possibility on concoction.106 The expression is used in the common law to refer to the events at
issue or others contemporaneous with them.107 In Ratten v. R.108, the Privy council has held that
the expression Res Gestae may be used to cover the questions which may arise when does the
situation begin and when does it end. It basically contains the acts, declarations, and incidents,
which constitute, or accompany and explains, the fact or transaction in issue, are admissible, for
or against either party.109
102
Ratten v. R [1972] AC 378; Woodhouse v. Hall (1981) 72 Cr App R 39; cf. Roberts v. DPP [1994] Cri LR 926.
MURPHY AND GLOVER,MURPHY ON EVIDENCE, 252 (12th ed., Oxford University Press,2011).
104
Ibid, 31.
105
Moot Proposition-6th UFYLC Ranka National Moot Court Competition, 2016, p.4, 10.
106
Gentela Vijayavardhan Rao v. State of A.P, (1996) 6 SCC 241: 1996 SCC (Cri) 1920 : AIR 1996 SC 2791.
107
B. GARNER, A DICTIONARY OF MODERN LEGAL USAGE,(2nd ed., Oxford) (1995).
108
[1972] AC 378 ; R v. Andrews [1987] AC 281 (HL).
109
BUZZARD, JOHN, MAY, RICHARD, HOWARD, M.N., PHIPSON ON EVIDENCE, 63, (12th ed., Sweet &
Maxwell, London)
103
31 | P a g e
6TH UFYLC RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
(44.) The rule is, therefore, that where the making of a statement in controversy, or the doing of
an act, assists in constituting the transactions or in proving per se a relevant fact, the declaration
or act is competent.110 Not only may considering its attendant circumstances test the probability
of an occurrence111, but also these undersigned incidents are often essential to elucidate its true
character, to reveal the motives of the parties or to establish their connection with the main
fact.112 Mr. Sanjay has deposed that the accused had bought the poison under the pretext of
killing the flies.113 The testimony provides concrete evidence that the poison was bought
deliberately as per the plan, not to kill the flies but to murder the deceased.
[4.2] THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS CONCLUSIVE IN NATURE.
(45.) An item of circumstantial evidence is an evidentiary fact from which an inference may be
drawn rendering the existence of a fact in issue more probable. 114 Every evidentiary
circumstance is a probative link, strong or weak, and must be made out with certainty. Each link
taken separately may just suggest but when hooked on to the next and on again may manacle the
accused separately. Only then can a concatenation of incriminating facts suffice to convict a
man.115
(46.) In the present case, the plausibility of the hypothesis is conclusive in nature and leaves no
reasonable doubt about the existence of any other hypothesis. The proposition to be proved in the
instant matter is that the accused planned and accordingly murdered the victim and indeed
committed the offences of Murder and Dowry death. The testimony of Mr. Sanjay, servants,
relatives and the dying declaration of the deceased essentially corroborated by the circumstances
encompassing situation at hand successfully proves the factum probandum.
110
J. WIGMORE ON Evidence 1767 n.1 (Chadbourn rev.ed., 1976) citing the Ship Money Case (1637) 3 How.
St. Tr. 825, 988.
111
Dysart Peerage Case, (1881) 6 App.Case 489.
112
Supra 17, p.1.
113
Moot Proposition-6th UFYLC Ranka National Moot Court Competition, 2016, p.4, 10.
114
Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam, (2013) 12 SCC 406 : 2013 SCC OnLine SC 488 : 2013 Cri LJ 3140 : (2013) 127
AIC 25 (SC); Golakonda Venkateswara Rao v. State of A.P, (2003) 9 SCC 277 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 1904; Jagroop
Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 11 SCC 768 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 1136 : 2012 SCC OnLine SC 537; Matru v. State
of Uttar Pradesh, (1971) 2 SCC 75 : 1971 SCC (Cri) 391.
115
Dharam Das Wadhwani v. State of U.P, AIR 1975 SC 241 : 1974 CriLJ 1249 : (1974) 4 SCC 267 : 1974 SC
CNR 159.
32 | P a g e
6TH UFYLC RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
[4.2.1] THERE IS AN EXISTENCE OF A HYPOTHESIS CONSISTENT WITH THE GUILT AND INCONSISTENT
WITH THE INNOCENCE OF THE ACCUSED.
(47.) In the instant matter, the Goyals have planned and accordingly murdered the deceased.
There was motive, generation of an opportunity and it was within the capacity of the accused 116
to commit the acts in question. All the circumstances taken together corroborate the same.
[4.2.2] TESTIMONIES OF THE SERVANTS CANNOT BE DISPUTED BY ANY MEANS.
(48.) Servants are independent witnesses and there should be no reason for the Honble court to
discard their testimonies as evidences. They have expressly mentioned in their respective
testimonies about the various circumstances that unfolded on that dreadful night.117 Considering
the place of the commission of the crime, the presence of the servants at that place and at that
time is highly probable and cannot be disputed and denied by any sense and logic.
(49.) Merely because the witnesses were servants of the deceased, they cannot be interested or
partisan witnesses.118 Their version, not being shown to be tutored, should be held reliable.119
The testimonies of these witnesses have been put to strict and careful scrutiny and hence, there
should be no impediment in accepting the same by the Honble court.
[4.2.3] TESTIMONIES OF THE RELATIVES ARE COGENT AND CREDIBLE IN NATURE.
(50.) Relatives are independent witnesses and are not chance witnesses. It cannot be implied
thereby that their evidence is suspicious and their presence at the crime scene is doubtful.
Murders are not committed with previous notice to witnesses soliciting their presence.120
(51.) The evidence cannot be brushed aside or viewed with suspicion on the ground that they
are mere chance witnesses.121 The expression chance witnesses is borrowed from countries
where every mans home is considered as castle and everyone must have an explanation for his
116
Vijay Shankar v. State of Haryana, (2015) 12 SCC 644 : 2015 Cri LJ 4774 : (2015) 154 AIC 164 (SC); Mahesh
v. State of M.P, (2011) 9 SCC 626 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 783; Majendran Langeswaran v. State (NCT of Delhi),
(2013) 7 SCC 192 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 226 : AIR 2013 SC 2790.
117
Moot Proposition 6th UFLYC Ranka National Moot Court Competition, 2016, p.7.
118
Radhey Shyam Narendra v. State of Orissa, (1980) 1 SCC 585 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 293.
119
Rajaram v. State of Orissa, (1980) 1 SCC 585 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 293.
120
Chanakya Dhibar v. State of W.B, (2004) 12 SCC 398; Sachchey Lal Tiwari v. State of U.P, (2004) 11 SCC 410
: AIR 2004 SC 5039; Thangaiya v. State of T.N, (2005) 9 SCC 650 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1284 : 2005 Cri LJ 684 : AIR
2005 SC 1142; State of A.P v. K. Srinivasulu Reddy, (2003) 12 SCC 660 : AIR 2004 SC 3305.
121
Chanakya Dhibar v. State of W.B, (2004) 12 SCC 398; Thangaiya v. State of T.N, (2005) 9 SCC 650 : 2005 SCC
(Cri) 1284 : 2005 Cri LJ 684 : AIR 2005 SC 1142; Sachey Lal Tiwari v. State of U.P, (2004) 11 SCC 410 : AIR
2004 SC 5309; State of A.P v. K. Srinivasulu Reddy, (2003) 12 SCC 660 : AIR 2004 SC 3305.
33 | P a g e
6TH UFYLC RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
122
34 | P a g e
6TH UFYLC RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
gestures and nods were made130, what were the questions asked131, whether they were simple or
complicated and how effective or understandable the nods and gestures were132.
(56.) In cases of dying declaration, it has been held that the statement made by the deceased
should be voluntary133 and trustworthy134, apart from the fact that it is equally necessary to prove
that the deceased was in a fit state of mind135. In the instant case, the statement made by the
deceased satisfies all the aforementioned conditions and henceforth, it should be duly accepted as
a reliable piece of evidence by the Honble court.
[4.2.5.2] Daily Diary Of The Victim.
(57.) It is humbly submitted that all the information regarding the circumstances and acts that
led to the murder of the deceased has been minutely mentioned in the Daily Diary of the
deceased136 and henceforth, would become admissible under the second part of 32137.
(58.) Arguendo, the events mentioned in the diary are corroborated by the testimony of Shri
Dinesh Goyal [PW-10] and hence, there should be no questions in the mind of the Honble court
to accept the aforementioned evidences.
[4.2.6] OPINIONS GIVEN BY THE DOCTORS LACKS CORROBORATIVE VALUE.
(59.) The reliability of evidence derived from a scientific theory or principle depends upon
three factors: (1) the validity of underlying theory, (2) the validity of the technique applying that
theory, and (3) the proper application of the technique on a particular occasion. 138 The medical
130
Darpan Potdarin v. Emperor, AIR 1938 Pat 153 : 39 Cri LJ 384 : 1938 PWN 266.
Gajendra kar v. State of Orissa, 1973 Cri LJ 1058 : 39 Cut LT 186 : 1973 Cut LR (Cri) 109.
132
Meesala Ramakrishnan v. State of A.P, (1999) 4 SCC 182 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 838.
133
Balbir Singh v. State of Punjab, (2006) 12 SCC 283 : (2007) 1 SCC (Cri) 715 : AIR 2006 SC 3221 ; Surinder
Kumar v. State of Punjab, (2012) 12 SCC 120 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 246 ; Surinder Kumar v. State of Haryana,
(2011) 10 SCC 173 : (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 230; Kamla v. State of Punjab, (1993) 1 SCC 1 : AIR 1993 SC 374;
Paniben v. State of Gujarat, (1992) 2 SCC 474 : AIR 1992 SC 1817.
134
Chandra Narain Yadav v. Shibjee Yadav, (1999) 6 SCC 63 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 1060.
135
Kaliya v. State of M.P, (2013) 10 SCC 758 : (2013) 4 SCC (Cri) 135 : (2013) 129 AIC 255 (SC) : (2014) 1 SCC
(Civ) 142; State of Rjasthan v. Santosh Savit, (2013) 12 SCC 663 : 2013 Cri LJ 4611; Babu Ram v. State of Punjab,
(1998) 9 SCC 495 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 1043 : AIR 1998 SC 2808; P.V Radhakrishna v. State of Karnataka, (2003) 6
SCC 443 : (2003) SCC (Cri) 1679 : 2003 Cri LJ 3717 : AIR 2003 SC 2859; Laxman v. State of Maharashta, (2002)
6 SCC 710 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 1491; Rambai v. State of Chattisgarh, (2002) 8 SCC 83; Sunder Singh v. State of
Uttaranchal, (2010) 10 SCC 61, 263; Muthu kutty v. State, (2005) 9 SCC 113 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1202 : AIR 2005 SC
1473.
136
Moot Proposition 6th UFLYC Ranka National Moot Court Competition, p.4, 8.
137
Indian Evidence Act, 1872, 32(1).
138
PAUL C. GIANNELLI & EDWARD J. IMWINKELRIED, SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE, 2 (LexisNexis) (2007).
131
35 | P a g e
6TH UFYLC RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
jurisprudence is not an exact science and it is indeed difficult for any doctor to say with precision
and exactitude as to when a particular injury was caused.139 It has been observed that the
testimonies of doctor should be treated like evidence from any other witness.140 A Court is not
bound by expert's opinion which is to large extent advisory in nature.141
[4.2.7] THE STATEMENT OF OPINION EXPRESSED BY THE DOCTORS IS PREMATURE; AND HAS NOT
STATED THE BASES OF OPINION.
(60.) The orthodox, common law view is that the witness must list all the bases for the opinion
before stating the opinion.142 Under the law, where a witness testifies in the form of opinion not
based upon his personal observation, the assumed facts must be stated in order to show that the
witness has some basis for forming an intelligent opinion and to permit the trier of fact to
determine the applicability of the opinion in light of existence or nonexistence of such facts.143 In
the matter at hand, Dr O.P Chaudhary and Dr Piyush Kapila, did not mention the bases of
forming the opinion that the deceased could have consumed the poison in order to commit
suicide. Therefore their respective opinions lacks requisite corroborative force and lacks probity.
[4.2.8] THE EXPERT OPINION LACKS REQUISITE DEGREE OF CERTAINTY OR PROBABILITY.
(61.) The Courts have excluded expert opinions couched in terms of mere possibility. Indeed,
if the courts demanded reasonable certainty, even a probabilistic statement is inadmissible.144
Courts have defended the view by arguing that statements of "mere conjectures or speculation"
lack sufficient probative value to support findings.145 In the instant matter, the opinions given by
the doctors with respect to the nature of the death of the deceased are probabilistic and not
conclusive, therefore their opinions are liable to be rejected.
139
36 | P a g e
6TH UFYLC RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL CHAIN IS COMPLETE AND PROVES THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED
(62.) Sir Alfred Wills in his book146 lays down the following rules specially to be observed in
the cases of circumstantial evidence: (1) the facts alleged as the basis of any legal inference
must be clearly proved and beyond reasonable doubt with the factum probandum; (2) the burden
of proof is always on the party who asserts the existence of any fact, which infers legal
accountability; (3) in all cases, whether of direct or circumstantial evidence the best evidence
must be adduced which the nature of the case admits; (4) in order to justify the inference of guilt,
the inculpatory facts must be incompatible with the innocence of the accused and incapable of
explanation, upon any other reasonable hypothesis than that of his guilt; (5) if there be any
reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused, he is entitled as of right to be acquitted. The same
has been reiterated in a plethora of Cases147 and by Wigmore148 and Phispon149. In the present
case, the plausibility of the hypothesis is conclusive in nature and leaves no reasonable doubt
about the existence of any other hypothesis.
(63.) Following below mentioned circumstances can be relied upon by the Hon'ble court to
reach the conclusion that the prosecution has established the guilt of the appellant.
(a) The relations between the accused and the deceased after the marriage were strained and the
deceased was rebuked, harassed and cursed for dowry and various other demands, which
eventually served as a motive to murder the deceased.
146
37 | P a g e
6TH UFYLC RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
(b) The entire family planned and accordingly, Mr. Dinesh Goyal purchased on 24.5.2015
organo phosphorus sold under the trade name of "NUVAN'' from [PW-1].
(c) The post-mortem report/certificate disclosed that the deceased has died due to asphyxia
secondary to the organo phosphorous poison.
(d) The appellants had access to the poison and opportunity to administer it.
(e) The conduct and demeanour of the appellants in answering the questions of the relatives.
(f) The relatives inquired about the precarious and deteriorating condition of the deceased from
her. To which, she raised her hand towards the appellants, and
(g) The cry of the deceased - "Give me salty water. I do not want to die." was heard by [PW-2].
(64.) In the present case, the hypothesis put forth by the Prosecution gives the evidence of the
motive, a plan, the commissioning of the actual act, testimonies of the witnesses, conduct of the
accused and the dying declaration of the deceased. The cumulative effect of the circumstances
leads to the conclusion that the facts probans point towards the factum probandum, in other
words the only reasonable conclusion is that the offences can be accredited to the accused.
(65.) It is therefore most respectfully submitted that the Evidence presented is sufficient and
carries with it the Probative force to sustain a conviction.
38 | P a g e
6TH UFYLC RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016
PRAYER
PRAYER
In the light of facts stated, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, the
Appellants most humbly and respectfully pray and request the Honourable Court:
1)
TO CONVICT
2)
OFFENCES UNDER
302,
All of which is respectfully submitted and for such act of kindness the Appellants shall be duty
bound as ever pray.
39 | P a g e
6TH UFYLC RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016