TEAM CODE-08

5th INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT

COMPETETION, 2016

BEFORE THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

S.L.P.(Crl.) No. Of 2016

In the matter of
STATE

Vs
JEYSHA AND ORS.

FOR OFFENCES CHARGED UNDER:

SECTION 302 READ WITH SECTION 201 AND SECTION 34 OF I.P.C, 1860

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HONBLE DIVISION BENCH

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS

5th INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVATIONS. 3
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES..4
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION..7
STATEMENT OF FACTS.8
STATEMENT OF ISSUES...10
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS..11
THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED.12
CONTENTION 1: THAT THE DISMISSAL OF THE APPEAL ON THE GROUNDS OF THE
TESTIMONY BEING FABRICATED AND CONCOCTED ALONGWITH LACK OF
SUBSTANCE IN THE CASE.12
1. Testimony of Ballan Prasad is fabricated & concocted.12
1.1 Ballan Prasad is a related & interested witness...12
1.2 No credible witnesses15
1.3 No explanation for leaving Ballan unharmed..17
1.4 Problem of time gap creating suspicion in the deposition of Ballan..18
2. Lack of substance in the case..18
1.2.1 Medical Evidence.19
1.2.2 Perverse charge under Sec. 201 for disappearance of Evidence24
1.2.3 Benefit of doubt to accused due to insufficient police investigation27
1.2.4 Mere presence of Tashi at the crime scene inconclusive of guilt the of accused..28
THE PRAYER.31

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS

[2]

5th INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

LIST OF ABBREVATIONS

A.I.R
All
Anr.
AP
Bom
Cal.
Chh
Cr.L.J
Cri.
CrLR
D.B
Ed.
Gau
Honble
I.P.C
IA
ILR
J.T.R.I
LJ
M.P
Mad.
MLJ
NOC
Ori.
Ors
Raj
SC
SCALE
SCC
Sec.
SLJ
Supp
U.P
V
Vol

Paragraph
All India Reporter
Allahabad
Another
Andhra Pradesh
Bombay
Calcutta
Chhattisgarh
Criminal Law Journal
Criminal
Criminal Law Report
Division Bench
Edition
Guwahati
Honorable
Indian Penal Code
Interlocutory Application
Indian Law Reporter
Judicial Training and Research Institute
Law Journal
Madhya Pradesh
Madras
Medical Law Journal
No Objection Certificate
Orissa
Others
Rajasthan
Supreme Court
Supreme Court Almanac
Supreme Court Cases
Section
Supreme Law Journal
Supplementary
Uttar Pradesh
Versus
Volume

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS

[3]

5th INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATUARY COMPILATIONS

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950.

THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 (ACT 2 OF 1974).

THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 (ACT 45 OF 1860).

THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 (ACT 1 OF 1872).

BOOKS AND DIGESTS

B.M Prasad and Manish Mohan, Woodroffe and Amir Alis,Law of Evidence, Lexis
Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa Nagpur, Vol. 1, 2, 3 & 4, 19th Ed., 2013.

Dr. Avtar Singh, Principles of Law of Evidence, Central Law Publications, 21st Ed.,
2014.

Justice Ruma Pal and Samaraditya Pal, M.P Jains Indian Constitutional Law, Lexis
Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa Nagpur, 6th Ed., 2012.

K.D Gaur, Indian Penal Code, Lexis Nexis Universal Law Publisher, 5th Ed., 2016.

Lyon, Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, Delhi Law House, 11th Ed., 2009.

Modi, Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, Lexis Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa

Nagpur, 23rd Ed., 2010.

Ram Jethmalani, The Indian Penal Code, Thomson Reuters, Vol.1, 1st Ed., 2014.

Ratan and Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code, Lexis Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa
Nagpur, 32nd Ed., 2010.

R.C Goel & Rajiv Raheja, Hints & Tricks on Criminal Law, Capital Publishing House,
2010.

S.P Tyagi, Criminal Trial, Vinod Publications (P) Ltd., 3rd Ed., 2006.

Surendra Malik & Sudeep Malik, Supreme Court on Evidence Act, Eastern Book
Company, Vol. 1& 2, 2013.

V.P.Sarthy, Law of Evidence, Eastern Book Company,Lucknow, Ed.4 1989(12).

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS

[4]

5th INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

TABLE OF CASES
1. Amrik Singh v State of Punjab 1972 CrLJ 465 (SC)..28
2. Arjun Lal v State1953 S.C. 411.23
3. Baboo v State of M.P 1979 Cr.LJ 908 (S.C.).13
4. Badhwa v State of M.P AIR 1991 S.C. 4(6)..14
5. Bhaiyan v State of M.P (1978) 1 SCC 14927
6. Bhajan Singh v state of Punjab 1988 (3) Crimes 335 (P&H) (DB)...14
7. Bhulakiram Koiri v State 73 CWN 467, 1970 Cr.LJ 403.23
8. Brij Basi Lal Shrivastava v State of M.P AIR 1979 SC 1080....12
9. Chimanbhai Ukabhai v State of Gujarat AIR 1983 SC 484: 1983 Cr. L. 822..20
10. Himachal Pradesh Administration v Om Prakash 1972 Cr.L.J 606 at 611 (SC)......16
11. Jarnail Singh v State of Punjab (1982) 64 Punj LR 47.22
12. K.M Ravi v State of Karnataka (2009) 16 SCC 337..28
13. Kartar Singh v State AIR 1952 Pepsu 98..22
14. Koli Madha Jina v State (1985) 1 Guj LR 136 (DB).22
15. KuldipYadav v State of Bihar AIR 2011 SC 1736.14
16. Kunwar v State of U.P 1993 Cr.L.J 3421 (All.).....13
17. Lakshman Pd. v State of Bihar AIR 1981 SC 1388...12
18. Mahbub Shah (1945) 47 BomLR 94128
19. Maikoo v State 1961 (2) Cri.L.J 744......14
20. Maung Lay v emperor AIR 1924 Raj. 17324
21. Mihir Kumar Mondel v State of W.B 1987(3) Crimes 54714
22. Nagraj v State (2015) 4 SCC 739..26
23. Niranjan v State through Chief Secretary, Delhi Admn. 2001 (4) Supreme 278...14
24. Padala Veera Reddy v State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1990 SC 79...29
25. Pahalwan Singh v State of Madhya Pradesh 1983 MPLJ 449..23
26. Paramhansa v State AIR 1964 Ori. 144....24
27. Parghat Singh v State 1987(3) Crimes 566...12
28. Patamji v State of Haryana 1996 11 SCC 143, 1997 SCC (Cr) 138.18
29. Pawan Kumar v State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 2015 SC 205024
30. Pradeep Narayana v State of Maharashtra AIR 1985 SC 1390...27
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS
[5]

5th INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

31. Prahlad v State of Maharashtra AIR 1981 SC 124114

32. PunjaMava v State of Gujarat AIR 1965 Guj 5....24
33. R/t Rahman v State of U.P AIR 1972 SC 110..23
34. Rajaram v State of M.P 2002 Cr.L.J 987 (SC)......12
35. Ram Chandra Jena v State 1984 (2) Crimes 402..16
36. Ram Singh v State 1970 Cr.L.J 635 (D).....23
37. Ramchandra v Champabai AIR 1964 6SC R 814..13
38. Roop Chand v State of Haryana 1990 (1) CLR 6927
39. Rusi Behara v State 1984 2 Crimes 349 (Ori.)......13
40. Sakharam v State of Maharashtra AIR 1969 3 SCC 730..20
41. Shaikh Nabab Shaikh BabuMusalman v State of Maharashtra AIR 1998 S.C. 169.14
42. ShankarBudhaji Moundekar & Ors. v State of Maharashtra 2000 SC Online Bom 509.19
43. Shiv Bahadur Singh v State of U.P AIR 1954 SC 322..22
44. Smt. Majindra Bala Mehra v Sunil Chandra Roy AIR 1960 SC 706....21
45. State of Assam v Bhavananda Sarma 1972 Cr.L.J 1552, 1554..29
46. State of Haryana v Ram Singh A.I.R 2002 SC 620...12
47. State of Kerala v M.M Mathew AIR 1978 SC 1571..29
48. State of U.P v Krishan Gopal AIR 1988 SC 215429
49. Sukha v State of Rajasthan A.I.R 1956 SC 51315
50. Umashankara v State of U.P AIR 1979 SC 1456.12

ARTICLES REFERRED
1. M.L Slghal Medical Evidence and its use in trial of cases J.T.R.I Journal 1styear issue3, 1995.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS

[6]

5th INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

THE COUNSELFOR PROSECUTION HUMBLY REQUESTS THIS HONBLE APEX

COURT TO GRANT SPECIAL LEAVE UNDER ARTICLE 136(1) OF THE INDIAN
CONSTITUTION WHICH READS AS UNDER:

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.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS

[7]

5th INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. On night of 23rd/24th of January 2016, Assistant Sub Inspector Harpal Singh received
information that Mr. Lallan Prasad (MLC No. E-33432) had been admitted in the Deen
Dukhi Dukhiyara (3D) Hospital by his brother Mr. Mallan Prasad in a critical condition.
( 1)

2. He arrived at the hospital and found that the victim had sustained multiple stab wounds
on both of his arms, chest wall, scalp and right side of the gluteal region. The doctor
suggested that the victim was not in the condition to give a statement and the injuries
were inflicted with a sharp edged weapon.( 2)
3. The police took the statement of Mr. Ballan Prasad, the brother of the victim and the
prime and sole eyewitness to the crime scene. He stated that due to a property dispute
which was ruled in favour of the Prasads, his maternal uncle and his five sons had
developed hostile relations with them. On the night of 23rd January, around 11:30 p.m,
both Lallan and Ballan had stepped out for a walk near Budh Bazaar Road and Lallan
was about 50-60 steps away from Ballan. He saw his cousin Jeysha and his friend Tashi
engage Lallan in a fight and the other brothers joined in as well. One of the brothers,
Geysha, gave the instructions to end Lallan when he said Iska kaam khatm kar do.
Lallan was the stabbed by Jeysha until Ballan raised a hue and cry causing the assailants
to flee but luckily, Tashi was caught by the public. (3)
4. The F.I.R was lodged on 24th January 2016 at around 3:15 a.m whereby all the accused
were charged under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. (4)
5. ASI Harpal received information on 24th January 2016 that the victim, Mr. Lallan Prasad
had died in the ICU at 6:45 a.m. The murder case was registered under Section 302/34 of
the IPC. (5)

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS

[8]

5th INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

6. On 30th January 2016, ASI Harpal and his team caught the rest of the accused in Ambala
and upon interrogation, it was found that Jeysha had deliberately taken the knife and
thrown it in the Ghaggar River, near Ambala. Section 201 was also added to the charge.
(6)

7. The statements of the prime witnesses were taken whereby Ballan (PW-1) deposed the
same version of his statement. Mallan (PW-2) stated how he rushed to the hospital to find
his brother Ballan holding his injured brother in his arms and how he admitted his brother
while Ballan went to inform his parents about the incident. Dr. Kamini (PW-3), the Chief
Medical Officer deposed that the injuries sustained by the victim were sufficient to cause
the death of the victim. The Investigation Officer (PW-4) deposed that they had found the
victim in a critical condition and the doctor had prohibited him from taking the statement
of the victim. They had also successfully arrested all of the accused but had failed to
collect any witnesses from the public regarding the crime scene. ( 7)
8. All the accused gave their official statement under sec. 313 Cr.P.C, where they stated
being falsely implicated due to past enmity.( 8).

9. The learned Sessions Court convicted the accused under Section 302/201/34 and
sentenced each of them to life imprisonment along with compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/to be paid to Mr. Lallans parents immediately. They were also awarded rigorous
imprisonment for 2 years under Section 201 IPC. Both sentences were to run
concurrently. (9)

10. The accused filed an appeal in the High Court of Delhi. The learned High Court acquitted
all the accused on grounds of appeal being bereft of any substance and the testimony of
Ballan being fabricated on account of his being an interested party. The evidence
pointing towards the guilt of the accused was wrongfully set aside by the learned Court.
(10)

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS

[9]

5th INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

THE STATEMENT OF ISSUES

THE DEFENCE RESPECTFULLY ASKS THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT:

I.

WHETHER OF THE APPEAL ON THE GROUNDS OF THE TESTIMONY

BEING

FABRICATED

AND

CONCOCTED

ALONGWITH

SUBSTANCE IN THE CASE SHOULD BE DISMISSED.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS

[10]

LACK

OF

5th INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

THE SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

I.

THAT THE DISMISSAL OF THE APPEAL ON THE GROUNDS OF THE

TESTIMONY BEING FABRICATED AND CONCOCTED ALONGWITH
LACK OF SUBSTANCE IN THE CASE.

The testimony of Ballan Prasad which is the sole ground of conviction against the accused is
fallacious and unreliable. There was past enmity between the families which establishes clear
bias and motive to falsely implicate the accused. Only interested person and person hostile to
the accused person, was examined and independent persons were not examined, that certainly
casts a reflection on the fairness of the trial. Incident occurred in the night and there were
many assailants. The Apex court has already said that it is not reliable to believe in the
testimony of a witness, who is about 17 yards far, nor weapon of the crime was recovered,
the accused in such circumstances are entitled to benefit of doubt.
A murderers first instinct after committing a crime is to get rid of any witness to his act.
Ballan Prasad was standing there, witnessing each and every act which eventually caused the
death of his brother, yet none of the accused caused any harm to Ballan Prasad which is
strange given the fact that prosecution has tried to bring previous enmity as a motive for
murder. Also the distance between the victims house and Budh Bazar Road takes at least 45
minutes to be covered. All these discrepancies are major enough to give the benefit of doubt
to the accused.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS

[11]

5th INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

CONTENTION 1:1: DISMISSAL

DISMISSAL OF
OF THE
THE APPEAL
APPEAL ON
CONTENTION
ON THE
THE GROUNDS
GROUNDS OF
OF THE
THE
TESTIMONYBEING
BEING FABRICATED
FABRICATED AND
AND CONCOCTED
TESTIMONY
CONCOCTED ALONGWITH
ALONGWITH LACK
LACKOF
OF
SUBSTANCEIN
INTHE
THECASE.
CASE.
SUBSTANCE
1. Testimony of Ballan Prasad is Fabricated and Concocted
It is humbly submitted before this Honble Court that the testimony of Ballan Prasad which is the
sole ground of conviction against the accused is fallacious and unreliable. The Honble High
Court of Delhi had efficaciously observed the same and awarded acquittal. The deposition is an
outcome of the inimical relations persisting between the two families. Ballans deposition falls
through due to multiple discrepancies in the same.
1.1 Ballan Prasad is a Related and Interested Witness
When all eye-witnesses are relations to the deceased, then their evidence ought not to be
discredited on that account - Court should, however be strict in scrutinising as to acceptability of
such evidence.1 In the case of Parghat Singh v State2 it was observed that the evidence of
relation witnesses cannot be rejected unless some circumstances are shown to suggest their bias
against the accused. A witness is normally considered to be an independent witness unless he
springs from the sources which are likely to be tainted such as enmity and relationship.3
Therefore it is humbly submitted to the Honble Court that past enmity between the families
establishes clear bias and motive. It has already been rightly observed by the apex court that
when the witness is having his own axe to grind against the accused, then reliance cannot be
placed on his defense,4 and sometimes it is possible that the implication in the case may be due
to enmity.5 Therefore it is further submitted that it is justified by the court in drawing an adverse
inference against the prosecution, if no independent and disinterested witnesses were examined
1

State of Haryana v Ram Singh 2002 Cr.L.J 987 (SC).

1987(3) Crimes 566.
3
Rajaram v State of M.P 1992 (2) Crimes 786 (DB).
4
Brij Basi Lal Shrivastava v State of M.P A.I.R 1979 SC 1080.
5
Umashankara v State of U.P A.I.R 1979 S.C 1456; Lakshman Pd. v State of Bihar A.I.R 1981 SC 1388.
2

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS

[12]

5th INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

and where all the eye witnesses examined, had examined had serious animus against the accused
and were interested in implicating the accused.6 In this case examination of the only witness
established the enmity. Hence, reliance of his testimony will cast a shadow on the fairness of this
case. It has already been observed that though the prosecution is not obliged to examine as its
witnesses all the persons who may have witness an occurrence, but if only interested persons, or
persons hostile to an accused person, are examined and independent persons are not examined,
that would certainly cast a reflection on the fairness of the trial.7
In this case no murder weapon was recovered. There are no other witnesses. Jeysha, his brothers
and Tashi even deposed that they were being falsely implicated and they were completely
unaware about the demise of Mr. Lallan Prasad.8 The Honble High Court of Delhi had observed
with absolute clarity that the accused were innocent and that there is not an iota of truth in the
testimony of Ballan Prasad. Ballan took an advantage of the pre-existing hostility between the
two families to falsely implicate and entrap the innocent.
A witness can be called interested only when he/she derives some benefit from the result of
litigation, in the decree in a civil court, or in seeing an accused person punished. 9 The evidence
of partisan witness may be good foundation for conviction if his presence at the scene cannot be
doubted and more so if some assurance for it is available from the medical evidence. 10 It is
further submitted that when the eyewitnesses are highly interested and partisan and they are not
coming with the true version, then there would be likelihood of their being falsely implicated.11
It is humbly submitted to this Honble Court that there are various crucial discrepancies in
Ballans Testimony and should be taken a serious note of. Crucial doubts arise because:
(i)

He was not at the exact scene of crime as the accused had allegedly dragged the
victim into a Gali and then they assaulted him. Ballan Prasad was at a distance of
about 50 60 steps from the victim which is considerable, taking into account that it

Mihir Kumar Mondel v State of W.B 1987 (3) Crimes 547.

Rusi Behara v State 1984 2 Crimes 349 (Ori.).
8
Factsheet 8.
9
S.P. Tyagi, Criminal Trial 3rd ed. 2006 (1572).
10
Kunwar v State of U.P 1993 Cr.L.J 3421 (All).
11
Shaikh Nabab Shaikh Babu Musaluman v State of Maharashtra 1493 Cri.L.J 43 (44) SC.
7

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS

[13]

5th INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

was late at night. According to the weather forecast, on 23rd of January, the night sky
was clouded, making the visibility very low.12
It was held in the case of Baboo v State of M.P13 that it is difficult to identify a
person from a distance of about 30 to 35 paces. It was further held in the case of Ram
Chandra Jena v State14 that it is not possible to identify the accused from a long
distance in the moon-lit night in a tropical country like ours. And in Shankar Mahto
v State of Bihar,15 the apex court has already observed that even the best known
person cannot be recognized in the clearest moon light beyond a distance of
seventeen yards.
It is therefore humbly submitted before the Honble Court to take a critical note of the
observations rightly made by the Honble Court in Nirabjann v State through Chief
Secretary, Delhi Administration:16
Incident occurred in the night and there were many assailants the
informant disowned the F.I.R, nor weapon of the crime recovered, the accused will be
entitled to benefit of doubt. P.W 1 is not a witness who can be included within the
category of wholly reliable witnesses. He would not have been in a position to
grasp the entire gamut of the incident with all the details at the time when the incident
happened because of his peculiar condition then, as the visibility was affected
It has also been observed that in every case where the offence is committed during the
hours of darkness the prevailing light is a matter of crucial importance and in such
cases the stock argument is that owing to inadequate light the witnesses could not see
the faces of the culprit.17 It is submitted before this Honble Court that in the light of
the conditions of that night, it would not have been possible for any person to
recognise somebody so precisely. And the fact that Ballan Prasad accused all his
cousins and Tashi is perverse.

12

<http://www.timeanddate.com/weather/india/delhi/historic?month=1&year=2016> Last visited on: 29 th August,

2016.
13
1979 Cr.L.J 908 (SC).
14
1984 (2) Crimes 402.
15
2002 Cri. L.J 3775 SC.
16
2001 (4) Supreme 278.
17
Maikoo v State 1961 (2) Cri. L.J 744.
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS
[14]

5th INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

(ii)

The medical evidence does not corroborate with Ballans testimony with regards to
the number of persons involved in the crime. The medical evidence only establishes
the presence of either one or more than one person. It is an accepted proposition that
in the case of group rivalries and enmities, there is a general tendency to rope in as
many persons as possible as having participated in the assault and therefore the courts
have to be very careful, but if after a close scrutiny of the interested witness, the
reasonable doubt arises with regard to the participation of any of those who have been
roped in, the court would be obliged to give the benefit of doubt to them.18

In the case of Shaikh Nabab Shaikh Babu Musalman v State of Maharashtra,19the Honble
Court observed that when the eye-witnesses are highly interested and partisan witnesses do not
come out with irony version and when there is likelihood of false implication, then conviction for
an offence under Section 302/34 I.P.C cannot be maintained. Hence, it is humbly submitted
before this Honble Court that the deposition of Ballan Prasad should be set aside as it is riddled
with holes of fallaciousness and is replete with lies, proving unreliable.
1.2 No Credible Witnesses
It has already been observed by the Honble Court that the testimony of inimical witnesses is
seen with suspicion by the courts, as such witnesses have obvious motive to depose against the
other party. The testimony of such a witness is scrutinised with great caution and when the
testimony of such a witness is corroborated by medical evidence or other evidence on the record
and the facts and circumstances of the case, the courts do act upon the testimony of such
witnesses.20 However, if on close scrutiny of the testimony of inimical witnesses, it is not found
to be corroborated by other evidence, it is not credible.21
The credibility of the witness therefore is always a matter of confidence that it inspires
regarding its intrinsic genuineness and truthfulness of its overall dependability beyond any
manner of doubt and this doubtless dependability of the witness in turn depends upon the
answers to questions like (i) Is the prosecution story probable? (ii) Does it suffer from any patent

18

Badhwa v State of M.P AIR 1991 SC 4(6).

AIR 1998 SC 169.
20
Prahlad v State of Maharashtra AIR 1981 SC 1241.
21
Kuldip Yadav v State of Bihar AIR 2011 SC 1736.
19

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS

[15]

5th INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

infirmities like enmity between the parties? (iii) Does it suffer from any vital contradictions,
which cuts at the very root of the prosecution case? (iv) Whether the reading of the evidence of
prosecution witness as a whole inspires the confidence of the court? Ignoring the above guiding
principles, if the mechanical, general and the abstract test as suggested that witness has no
earthy reason to falsely implicate the accused, and then the court is bound to commit some
mistake which may ultimately result into serious miscarriage of justice.22
There is no evidence against Jeysha and the other accused which establishes their presence at the
scene of the crime. The very fact that there were no other witnesses apart from Ballan Prasad
puts him in the position of the driver of this case and therefore he moulded his entire deposition
to make it look like the accused were responsible for the murder of Mr. Lallan Prasad. It was
held in the case of Bhajan Singh v State of Punjab23 that in a charge of murder, conviction
cannot be recorded on the solitary and uncorroborated testimony of an eye-witness, when it
suffers from infirmities and there is a long-standing enmity between the parties.24
The PW-4 deposed that they failed to collect any witnesses.25 This creates a reasonable doubt, as
according to the deposition of Ballan Prasad. The public caught Tashi before he could flee from
the crime scene which establishes that the members of the public who were responsible for
catching Tashi must have seen something at the area of incidence, yet the police failed to collect
such material witnesses. Honble Supreme Court has already laid down that when one part of a
witnesss evidence is disbelieved, it is unsafe to act on the rest of his testimony.26
Therefore, it is submitted that the deposition of Ballan Prasad be discarded as it suffers from
crucial infirmities and discrepancies which remain unexplained by the prosecution.

22

Ibid 9 (1257).
1988 (3) Crimes 335 (P&H) (DB).
24
Mihir Kumar Mondel v State of W.B 1987(3) Crimes 547.
25
Factsheet 7.
26
Sukha v State of Rajasthan A.I.R 1956 SC 513.
23

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS

[16]

5th INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

1.3 No explanation for leaving Ballan unharmed

If the testimony of Ballan Prasad is taken to be a true representation of the facts of the case, then
it fails to explain why Ballan Prasad was left completely unharmed. The inimical relations
persisted between both the families. Therefore it can be assumed based on Ballans testimony
that all the accused had the same motive and intention for Ballan, but he was left alone. Also, if
the distance between the accused and the eyewitness are taken into consideration then it is safe to
assume that if the accused were in the line of sight of the accused, Ballan Prasad must also have
been in their line of sight, yet he was not dragged along with his brother into the Gali, nor was
he attacked even once during the entire commission of the act.
A murderers first instinct after committing a crime is to get rid of any witness to his act. Ballan
Prasad was standing there, witnessing each and every act which eventually caused the death of
his brother, yet none of the accused caused any harm to Ballan Prasad. This also creates a
discrepancy in the deposition of Ballan. The very fact that Ballan accused Jeysha, his brothers
and their friend but was spared by the assailants creates unaccountability in the very deposition
which forms that basis of the charges on which the accused are being wrongfully tried. Hence, it
is humbly submitted to the Honble Court that there are more than reasonable doubts in Ballans
testimony.
This Honble Court has already observed in Ramchandra v Champabai27 that the court should
judge the credibility of the witness, not confined only to the way in which the witness have
deposed or to the demeanour of the witness, but it is open to the court to look into the
surrounding circumstances, as well as the probabilities, so that it may form a correct idea of the
trust worthiness of the witness.

27

A.I.R 1964 6 SCR 814.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS
[17]

5th INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

1.4 Problem of time gap creating suspicion in the deposition of Ballan

It is humbly submitted to the Honble Court that in accordance to the testimony of Ballan, both
the brothers left for a walk after dinner at about 11:30 pm, near Budh Bazaar Road. Analysis of
NCR map establishes certain crucial facts. Around Sonia Vihar there are two areas known as
Budh Bazaar. It is pertinent to note that to reach any of the two Budh Bazaars, it wouldat least
take a minimum of 45 minutes for the Prasad brothers to reach from their home. Following
distances were observed:
i. Budh Bazaar Road, Shahdara, New Delhi - 5.3 kms; 1hr 5 mins.
ii. Budh Bazar, NathuPura, New Delhi 12.7 kms; 2hrs 35 mins
From the facts given, it is inferred that Prasad brothers went for a walk at about 11:30 pm and
was admitted into 3D Hospital at about 12:15 am. This establishes that the crime was committed
in the time frame of 45 minutes. This further highlights one crucial discrepancy present in
Ballans testimony and hence, raises questions as to the credibility of the chain of events. The
distance between the residence and the crime scene is large and cannot be covered on foot in 45
minutes. The fact that Ballan Prasad witnessed a fight, which further evolved into a full scale
assault on his brother only then he raised a cry for help. And there after rushed his brother to a
nearby hospital. This all does not fit within the time frame.
2. Lack of Substance in the Case
The Honble Court has already observed that in appreciating evidence against the accused, the
court should ensure that evidence is legally admissible, the witnesses are credible and have no
interest in implicating the accused, or have an ulterior motive.28
It is humbly submitted before the Honble Supreme Court that this petition is baseless and does
not have any substance to maintain it. No evidence regarding the presence of the accused was
found and there is no evidence with regard to the fact whether it was the accused, which are
responsible for the murder of Mr. Lallan Prasad. The case is entirely bereft of evidence in any
form pointing towards the guilt of the accused. It is rather evident from the facts and
circumstances of the case that the innocent have been wrongfully accused. The multiple grounds
28

Himachal Pradesh Administration v Om Prakash 1972 Cr.L.J 606 at 611 (SC).

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS
[18]

5th INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

which indicate that the case is not based on sound footing are elucidated in the arguments as
follows1.2.1 Medical Evidence
It is most humbly submitted before the Honble Court that in this case the only credible evidence
to this crime is the Medical Report. Medical expert Dr. Kamini, who is a Chief Medical Officer,
deposed her expertise and presented her report. As her report is admissible u/s 45 of the Indian
Evidence Act29, it establishes that the report is expert evidence.
Dr. Kamini explained that after examining Lallan Prasad (victim), who was brought in a critical
condition to the Hospital that the victim had several injuries inflicted on him, sufficient to cause
death. Dr. Kamini explained that there were 21 injuries which were inflicted on the victim in her
Medico Legal Report - 0230. This report establishes all the injuries in forensic traumatology31
under the scope of section 44 of the I.P.C32. There were 14 injuries produced by blunt
mechanical force, which included abrasions, contusions and lacerations. Then there were 7
injuries produced by sharp object, which included stab wounds. On closely studying the injuries
following analysis is found:
1. There are 10 contusions inflicted on the victim. Contusion is also known as bruise and is
produced by extravasations of blood into the tissues, as a result of damage to small
vessels by blunt impact, and there is no disruption in the continuity of skin, and is
preferred to describe injury in internal organs.33
Injuries 3, 5, 6, 7, 12, 13, 17, 19, 20 and 21 are contusions.34
These contusions are different in nature. Injuries 3, 5, 6, 7, 17, 19, 20 and 21 are
contusions, inflicted on victims body. The nature of these contusions based on their
location and dimensions establishes that the victim was engaged in a fight. Though these
Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Opinions of experts.-When the Court has to form an opinion
upon a point of foreign law, or of science, or art, or as to identity of handwriting 2*[or finger impressions], the
opinions upon that point of persons specially skilled..
30
Factsheet Medico Legal Report-02.
31
Lyon, Medical Jurisprudence & Toxicology, Ed.11th 2009 (832).
32
Section 44 0f I.P.C Injury.The word injury denotes any harm whatever illegally caused to any person, in
body, mind, reputation or property.
33
Ibid 31(840).
34
Ibid 30.
29

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS

[19]

5th INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

contusions are not fatal but they bring about an inference about the victims condition
during the commission of the crime.
Whereas injuries 12 and 13 are boggy contusions inflicted on victims head. Boggy
contusions are head injuries, and were inflicted on victims head by blows of blunt force.
Boggy contusions are critical and fatal in nature. The dimensions of injuries 12 and 13 are
large in nature and hence establish the great force by which they were inflicted. This
Honble court has already observed that the nature of the injury and the extent of damage
injuries caused, to the internal organs showed the force with which it was caused 35, hence
establishing the intention to cause grievous hurt. These contusions were serious enough to
render the victim unconscious.
2. There are 2 lacerations. Lacerations are tears and splits of the skin, mucous membranes,
muscles or internal organs produced by the application of blunt force, which crush or
stretches tissues beyond the limits of their elasticity. 36
Injuries 1 and 11 are lacerations.37
These lacerations are different in nature. Injury 1 is a contused laceration, inflicted on the
victims nose. The nature of a contused laceration is that it is inflicted by blunt force38, and
leaves the wound with irregular edges39. Simple blow to the nose vide the blunt side of
weapon or blow to the nose vide use of hands or arms could have inflicted this laceration.
Injury 2 is a clean cut laceration, inflicted an incised wound on the victims right palm.
Incised wound is one produced by a sharp edged weapon, which is longer on the skin than
it is deep.40 It is an established fact in medical jurisprudence that incised wounds on the
inner side of the forearms and on the hands are generally defense wounds41. Victim tried to
defend himself from the vicious knife jabs.

35

Patamji v State of Haryana 1996 11 SCC 143

Ibid 31(843).
37
Ibid 30.
38
Ibid 31(845).
39
Modi, Medical Jurisprudence & Toxicology, Ed. 23rd 2010 (696).
40
Ibid 31(845).
41
Ibid 31(847).
36

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS

[20]

5th INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

3. There are 3 abrasions. Abrasions are injuries involving loss of the superficial epithelial
layer of the skin, and they do not leave a scar on healing.42
Injuries 2, 4 and 14 are abrasions.43
These abrasions establish that there was a struggle, victim was occupied in. Injuries 2 and 4
are scratch abrasions. Scratch abrasions are linear injuries generally produced by finger
nails.44The Honble Supreme Court has correctly observed that abrasions are caused due to
application of blunt force such as being dragged across the ground, fall on rough surface,
finger nails or bites and in the manner these injuries are distributed shows known signs of
struggle and are usually seen in assaults.45
Hence, a critical inference can be drawn from these contusions, lacerations and abrasions that the
victim was made to engage in a fight and defend his life. During the commission of the crime,
victim was inflicted with various blows, disarming him and rendering him incapable to defend
himself. Blows to the head of the victim were severe enough to render the victim unconscious
and further establishes that the blows landed were with such great force, a force which would
only be possible when the inflictions were made with an intention of causing grievous hurt.
4. There are 6 stab wounds. Stab wounds are produced by a pointed instrument, in which
the depth of penetration into the body is greater than the length of the wound on the
skin46. Dr. Kamini observed that all the stab wounds are clean cut and she declared that
the injuries inflicted were from a sharp weapon47. It is necessary to establish the murder
weapon and the nature of the injuries as it proves that the injuries could have been caused
in the manner alleged48.The value of medical evidence is corroborative49 and hence holds
significant value in the process of justice.

42

Ibid 39 (694).
Ibid 30.
44
Ibid 31 (839).
45
Shankar Budhaji Moundekar & Ors. v State of Maharashtra 2000 SC Online Bom 509.
46
Ibid 31 (851)
47
Factsheet 2.
48
M.L Slghal, Medical Evidence and its use in trial of cases, J.T.R.I Journal, 1st year, issue- 3, 1995.
49
Chimanbhai Ukabhai v State of Gujarat AIR 1983 SC 484.
43

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS

[21]

5th INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

Injuries 8, 9, 10, 15, 16 and 18 are clean cut stab wounds and have been described by Dr.
Kamini in her Medico Legal Report - 0250.
All the stabs show a consistency of forming clean spindle shaped wound. The edges of the
wound have their own importance, if the injury is inflicted with a single edged weapon, the
injury is wedged shaped, and if the weapon is double edged, the wound is spindle shaped.51
From the above stated nature of the injury, it is deduced that the weapon was double edged
and sharp knife. This Honble court has already observed that where weapon could not be
discovered, its nature can be accessed from the injuries caused52.
From the assessment of the dimensions and locations of these stab wounds, it is
uncontrovertibly found that all the stab wounds have been inflicted by the same weapon, as
the dimensions of injuries are consistent with each other. It is an established fact in the
medical jurisprudence that the number of stab wounds on the body are not similar in shape
is no indication that they were caused by a different weapon53, but in this case even the
injuries are similar and in consistency with each other. The stab wounds are clean and with
this nature it is established that there was no resistance from the victim. From the
dimensions of injury 854, it is established that it was the deepest infliction. Dimension of
the injuries, especially injury 8 provides with a rough idea that the double edged weapon is
at least 13cm long, as the dimension of injury 8 is 15cm deep and in Medical Jurisprudence
it is an established fact that a penetrating wound in the abdominal cavity may measure 2 or
more inches in excess of the depth to which the weapon entered, owing to the giving of the
abdominal wall before the pressure of the hand clasping the knife55.
Stab wounds 8, 9, 15 and 16 are located on victims chest and back, and targeted vital
organs like the kidneys and large intestine, making each blow of infliction on the victim
fatal, causing hemorrhage and shock, ante-mortem.

These injuries establish that the

infliction was homicidal and the intention was to cause death, as they were sufficient in the
course of nature to cause death. Hence, injuries 8, 9, 15, and 16 essentially establishes the
50

Ibid 30.
Jhalla and Raju, Medical Jurisprudence, (315).
52
Sakharam v State of Maharashtra AIR 1969 3 SCC 730, 735.
53
Ibid 31 (854).
54
Ibid 30.
55
Ibid 39 (852).

51

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS

[22]

5th INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

nature of stabbing as homicidal, therefore further establishing that the injuries inflicted
were to cause death. This Honble court has already observed that the nature of the injury
and the extent of damage injuries caused to the internal organs showed the force with
which it was caused56, hence establishing the intention to cause death. From the nature of
all the injuries, an inference is drawn that the victim could have been murdered by a single
person or even by a group of persons. It would be wrong to establish this fact based on the
available evidence.
The Honble Supreme Court has observed, It is wrong to say that the medical evidence is only
opinion evidence because it is often that the direct evidence of the facts is found upon the
victims person.57 This Honble Court has from time to time stated the significance of medical
opinion.
In the present case the injuries inflicted on the Lallan Prasad (victim), and the medical opinion of
Dr. Kamini throws light at some uncontroverted facts, which are significant for corroboration.
These are as follows:

Intention to cause Death

Double edged sharp weapon

Homicidal stabbing

The testimony58 of Ballan Prasad as P.W-1 is not in corroboration with the Injury Report and the
Post-Mortem Report. The medical evidence does not establish that the crime was done by a
group of people. In the case of State of Haryana v Ram Singh59, it was held that while it is true
that the post-mortem report by itself is not a substantive piece of evidence, but the evidence of
the doctor conducting the post-mortem can by no means be ascribed to be insignificant.
Further it is humbly submitted in the light of the medical evidence, that the Honble court should
not put any reliance on Ballan Prasads testimony. In R/t Rahman v State of U.P60 The Honble
Court held that Enmity could be a motive on the ground for false implication. This puts the
56

Patamji v State of Haryana 1996 11 SCC 143,

Smt. Majindra Bala Mehra v Sunil Chandra Roy AIR 1960 SC 706.
58
Factsheet 3.
59
A.I.R 2002 SC 620.
60
A.I.R 1972 SC 110.
57

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS

[23]

5th INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

Court on its ground while assessing the oral evidence given by the inimical witness at the trial.
No implicit reliance be placed on the ocular testimony of such a witness, unless there is a
corroboration leading assurance to the court that the testimony is worth believing.
1.2.2 Perverse charge under Section 201 for disappearance of evidence
It is humbly submitted before the Honble Supreme Court that the accused have been arbitrarily
charged under Section 201.Arbitration entirely based on the rootless confession, which has been
reported by the police. Though this confession is not admissible, section 201 was added to the
prior charges of Section 302/34. According to Section 25 and Section 26 of the Indian Evidence
Act, 1872 confession made to police officer is not to be proved and confession by accused while
in custody of police is not to be proved, respectively.61
Confession has been defined in the case of Koli Madha Jina v State62 as any incriminating
statement of an accused, which may show the presence or complicity of the accused at the time
of the occurrence, will amount to confession and cannot be used against the accused in view of
the provisions of Section 25. Further, statements made by an accused to the police in the course
of investigation are inadmissible under Section 162, Cr.P.C, 1973.63
It has been held in the case of Kartar Singh v State64that in a First Information Report,
confession by the accused, is not admissible against him. Also it is humbly submitted that the
Honble Court has already observed that a confession made by accused before police officials
during interrogation, even before arrest is not admissible in evidence.65
Section 25, IEA, 1872, enacts that no confession made to a police officer shall be proved against
a person accused of any offence. The broad ground for declaring confessions made to a police

61

Section 25, Indian Evidence Act, 1872: No confession made to a police officer, shall be proved as against a
person accused of any offence.
Section 26, Indian Evidence Act, 1872: No confession made by any person whilst he is in the custody of a police
officer, unless it is made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate, shall be proved, as against such person.
62
(1985) 1 Guj LR 136 (DB).
63
Shiv Bahadur Singh v State of U.P AIR 1954 SC 322.
64
AIR 1952 Pepsu 98.
65
Jarnail Singh v State of Punjab (1982) 64 Punj LR 47.
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS
[24]

5th INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

officer, inadmissible, is to avoid the danger of admitting false confessional statements obtained
by coercion, torture or ill-treatment.66
The voluntariness of an accused was established in the case of Bhulakiram Koiri v State67,
whereby it was held that an extra-judicial confession made in the presence of a police officer
cannot be considered voluntary, and, is therefore, inadmissible. The reason underlying Sections
25 and 26 is that the influence of the police is presumed to affect the voluntary nature of the
confession, and, therefore, its reliability. Courts in this country have been so jealous of the
voluntary nature of the confession, that they have construed the word custody not necessarily to
mean custody after arrest, but it has been held to extend to a state of affairs in which the accused
can be said to have come into the influence of a police officer, or has been ever under some form
of police surveillance or restrictions on his movements by the police.68
The official statement, given by the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C must be given great
considerations. The accused stated that they were being falsely implicated due to previous
enmity with the complainant and his family members and they knew nothing about this event.
Their statement now is a retracted confession. A retracted confession is a statement made by an
accused person before the trial begins by which he confesses to have committed the offence, but
which he repudiates at the trial.69
It was held in the case of Arjun Lal v State70 that where the conclusion of guilt rests solely on a
retracted confession, not uncorroborated in material particulars, but untrue in many parts, such a
conviction is opposed to law and cannot be allowed to stand.
The rule enacted by Section 25 is without limitation or qualification and a confession made to a
police officer is inadmissible in evidence, except so far as is proved by Section 27. 71 The police
team arrested the rest of the co-accused, but failed to find the murder weapon. The chain of
events was such that the police first arrested the accused but failed to recover the weapon, after
which they interrogated the accused and found that Jeysha had thrown the knife. The doctrine of
66

Woodroffe and Amir Ali, Law of Evidence Ed.18 2009(1661).

1970 Cr.L.J 403.
68
Ram Singh v State 1970 Cr.L.J 635 (D).
69
Ibid 9 Ed.3rd 2006 (1213).
70
1953 S.C. 411.
71
Pahalwan Singh v State of Madhya Pradesh 1983 MPLJ 449.
67

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS

[25]

5th INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

Section 27, IEA is founded on the principle that if any fact is discovered in a search made on the
strength of any information obtained from a prisoner, such a discovery is a guarantee that the
information supplied by the prisoner is true.72 It is humbly submitted to the Honble Court that in
this case no information produced in the confession has lead the police to any credible evidence
or any witnesses. Nothing in this confession helped, supported or corroborated with any material
of the case, hence establishing that the confession is absolutely inadmissible. This leaves no
scope for credence on the confession.
This confession is even hit by the bar Sec. 26 of the IEA, 1872, places on confession. Section 26
provides that No confession made by any person whilst he is in the custody of a police officer,
unless it is made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate, shall be proved as against such
person. Police Custody for the purpose of this section, does not commence only when the
accused is formally arrested, but also commences from the moment when his movements are
restricted and he is kept in some sort of direct or indirect police surveillance.73
In Maung Lay v Emperor74 it was held, that as soon as an accused or suspected person comes
into the hands of a police officer, he is, in the absence of any clear or unmistakable evidence to
the contrary, no longer at liberty, and is therefore, in the custody within the meaning of this
section and sec. 27. The word police custody is deemed to extend even when the accused is
deemed to have submitted to the such custody of a police officer by submitting to the
interrogation and by making statement about discovery, and cannot thereafter be said to be a free
man.75
It is, thus, safe to state that the accused were in the custody of the police when the confession
was made by Jeysha, hence making this confession invalid. Thus, keeping the above mentioned
argument in view, it is humbly submitted before this Honble Court that the accused were
wrongfully charged under Section 201 as there is no evidence that proves that the accused had
caused the disappearance of the murder weapon.

72

Pawan Kumar v State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 2015 SC 2050.

Paramhansa v State AIR 1964 Ori. 144.
74
AIR 1924 Raj. 173.
75
PunjaMava v State of Gujarat AIR 1965 Guj 5.
73

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS

[26]

5th INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

1.2.3 Failed Police investigation

Blackstones Formulation is based on the principle that It is better that ten guilty persons escape
than that one innocent suffer.76 The police investigation was a farce considering the type of
evidence that was taken into consideration for charging the accused. There were multiple
grounds which the police failed to cover to establish the guilt of the accused. There was no
witness collected or fingerprints lifted from the crime scene, neither was the blood, found at the
crime scene, tested and lastly, no efforts were put by the police to locate the murder weapon.
Simply based on the confession obtained from Jeysha, Sec. 201 was added to the charges. Even
the F.I.R was recorded on the basis of the observation of the entire crime narrated by Ballan. The
testimony of Ballan Prasad has been established to be unreliable and fallacious as it suffers from
numerable infirmities and discrepancies. Therefore it is humbly submitted to the Honble Court
that the investigation of the entire crime and the crime scene was inadequate.
This case is correctly summarized by Nagraj v State77 whereby it was held that, the conviction
is predicated on circumstantial evidence alone. Fingerprints have not been lifted from the scene,
the murder weapon has not been recovered, and any credible motive is absent. It is thus,
abundantly clear that the investigation conducted by the police was less than satisfactory, nay, it
was non-existent. It is humbly submitted to the Honble Court that it is necessary to have a
specialized section of the police to investigate cases of heinous nature and the benefit of doubt is
bestowed on the accused, but in this case these critical considerations were overlooked and
ignored by the police.
There is ample reason for the accused to be granted the benefit of doubt, as there is complete and
utter lack of evidence establishing the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. It must be
considered to be inefficiency on the part of the police that they failed to collect any witnesses
from the crime scene and especially from the public, who caught Tashi.
Explanation such that the public persons refused to join the proceedings is unreliable. 78 In
Pradeep Narayana v State of Maharashtra,79 it was held that failure of police to join witness
76

Ibid 66 (3174).
(2015) 4 SCC 739.
78
Roop Chand v State of Haryana 1990 (1) CLR 69.
79
AIR 1995 SC 1930.
77

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS

[27]

5th INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

from locality during search creates doubts about fairness of the investigation, benefit of which
has to go to the accused.
Keeping in mind the above mentioned inadequacies of the police investigation, it is humbly
submitted that there is complete lack of evidence against accused.
1.2.4 Mere presence of Tashi at the crime scene, non-conclusive of guilt of accused
There was no witness collected from the scene who stated that Tashi was involved in the
commission of the murder of Lallan Prasad. There is no proof or evidence which shows that
Tashi had been there at the crime scene when the assault on the victim was taking place. It is fair
to cast a shadow of doubt on an alleged accused, if he is found to have been present at the crime
scene, but the fact that Tashi was apprehended by the public, creates unreliability on the fact that
Tashi could be absolutely innocent. This is clarified by the judgment given in Bhaiyan v State
of M.P,80 in which the court observed that mere presence at the scene of the crime and
disappearance after the crime was committed are not sufficient to establish guilt.
Further it is safe to draw the inference that only because Tashi was apprehended at the crime
scene does not establish his guilt in any manner. It has already been observed that Ballan
Prasads testimony is fallacious and perverse. Tashi was alleged to be an accused in the case at
hand. Yet, Tashi was only implicated due to his known friendship with Jeysha and his brothers.
There is no common intention that Tashi is known to have against the Prasads. He was not a
beneficiary of the property dispute and neither did Tashi have any prior enmity with the victim
and the eyewitness. His implication is entirely baseless and without any foundation.
It was rightly held in the case of K.M Ravi v State of Karnataka81that, mere presence or
association with other members alone does not per se be sufficient to hold every one of them
criminally liable for offences committed by the other unless there was sufficient evidence on
record to show that one such also intended to or knew the likelihood of commission of such an
offending act.
Ballan Prasad is the sole eyewitness, which puts him in a position to easily implicate Tashi. He
implicated Jeysha and his brothers, simply on the ground of prior enmity, but there is no
intention or motive for Tashi at all, to be held responsible for the murder of Lallan Prasad, apart
80
81

(1978) 1 SCC 149.

(2009) 16 SCC 337.
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS
[28]

5th INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

from the fact that he is known to have a friendly equation with the other accused. Though
common intention may develop in the course of the fight but there must be clear and
unimpeachable evidence to justify that inference.82
It has already been observed that it must be shown, that the criminal act, complained against, was
done by one of the accused persons in furtherance of the common intention of all; if this is
shown, then liability for the crime may be imposed on any one of the persons in the same manner
as if the act was done by him alone.83 According to the deposition of Ballan Prasad, there is no
mention of the fact whether Tashi was apprehended near the scene of crime or in the vicinity. It
is highly probable that Tashi was in the vicinity of Budh Bazaar Road as it is a highly populated
and commercial area.
There is no way in which it can be established that Jeysha and his brothers were at the crime
scene or that they actually committed the murder of Lallan Prasad. There is no evidence that
corroborates any of these incidences, as no other witness has been collected from the crime scene
who may testify to their being the accused, neither was any murder weapon recovered from the
accused upon their arrest. The medical evidence also, does not corroborate the involvement of
the accused.
Therefore, it is humbly submitted to the Honble Court that all the facts, discoveries, inferences
and conclusion establishes that there are more than reasonable doubts present in this case, against
the accused. It is important to understand that strong suspicion, strange coincidences and grave
doubts cannot take place of legal proof84 and however strong or grave a suspicion may be,
suspicion cannot take the place of proof.85 The Honble Court has already rightly observed that,
a reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely possible doubt, but a fair doubt
based upon reason and commonsense.86
Further it is submitted before the court that the accused must be presumed to be an innocent until
the prosecution establishes the charge against him beyond reasonable doubt,87 and hence it is
simple that there is no burden on the accused to prove his innocence.88

82

Amrik Singh v State of Punjab 1972 Cr.L.J 465 (SC).

Mahbub Shah (1945) 47 Bom LR 941.
84
State of Kerala v M.M Mathew A.I.R 1978 SC 1571
85
Padala Veera Reddy v State of A.P A.I.R 1990 SC 79
86
State of U.P v Krishan Gopal A.I.R 1988 SC 2154.
87
State of Assam v Bhabananda Sarma 1972 Cr.L.J 1554.
88
Ibid 85
83

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS

[29]

5th INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

It is also humbly submitted before the Honble Court that in State v Krishan Gopal,89 the apex
court has already laid down that:
Doubts would be called reasonable doubts if they are free from a zest for
abstract speculation. Law cannot afford any favourite, other than the truth. To constitute a
reasonable doubt, it must be free from an over emotional response. Doubts must be actual and
substantial, as to the guilt of the accused arising from the evidence or from the lack of it.
Hence it is established that each and every one of the accused has been falsely implicated by the
accused for the murder of Lallan Prasad. It is important to understand that in this case there are
sufficient reasonable doubts in prosecutions arguments. It is an established principle and an
important english maxim, Accusare nemo se debet nisi coram deo, which means that the
accused is not bound to accuse himself unless before God.

89

A.I.R 1988 SC 2154.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS
[30]

5th INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

PRAYER

Wherefore, in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, May this
Honble court be pleased to:

(1) Dismissal of the appeal on the grounds of the Testimony Being Fabricated And
Concocted along with Lack Of Substance in the Case.

AND/OR

Pass any other appropriate order, which this Honorable Court may deem fit in light of Justice,
Equity and Good Conscience. For this act of kindness, the Counsel for Defence as in duty bound
shall forever pray.

All of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted.

Sd/(Counsel for the Defendants)

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS

[31]