Armonia 2015 Winners Memorial.

Armonia 2015 the 3rd National Law Fest
Moot Court Competition

TEAM CODE
Before
The Honourable High Court of Odisha, Cuttack
Cri. Appeal No. *** / 2015
IN THE MATTER OF
[ An appeal preferred U/S 374 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, against the
conviction and sentence U/S 302 & 325 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 by the
Learned Trial Court ]
IN THE MATTER OF
Varun.......... Appellant
v.
State of Odisha
...............
Respondent
MEMORANDUM on behalf of Respondent

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Index of Abbreviations.......................................................................................... 4
Index of Authorities .............................................................................................. 6
Cases.....................................................................................................................6
Statutes.................................................................................................................6
Lexicons...............................................................................................................8
Commentaries / Digests ..8
Journals & Reports......8
Legal Database....9
Statement of Jurisdiction..................................................................................... 10
Statement of Facts ............................................................................................... 11
Statement of Issues.............................................................................................. 13
Summary of Arguments................................................................................................14
Arguments Advanced.......................................................................................... 15
1.1.
That the prosecution has proved the case beyond all reasonable doubt15
1.1.1. Conviction based upon a complete chain of circumstantial evidence16

1.1.2. Chain of circumstances so established is consistent only with the guilt of the
accused..18
1.1.3. Facts so established proved beyond reasonable doubt...19
2.1.
Accused was last seen with the deceased on his bike towards the forest......22
2.2.
Incriminating circumstances pointing to the guilt of the appellant...22
-2-

2.3.
Burden of proof on special knowledge lies on the accused..23
3.1.
Deficiency of will due to weak intellect of the accused has not been fully established.
...26
3.1.1. Plea of unsoundness of mind as a statutory defense. 27

3.1.2. Accuseds mental faculty at the time of occurrence was that of a reasonable and prudent
man. ..28
3.2.
Statutory presumption as to nonexistence of circumstances, bringing the case within an

exception...30
3.3.
Alter personalities will not be an excuse for inability to distinguish right from
wrong....31
3.4. Medical insanity vis--vis legal insanity..33
Prayer for Relief..................................................................................................35
-3-

INDEX OF ABBREVIATIONS
Section
Sections
Paragraph
Paragraphs
A.C.
Appellate Cases
AIR
All India Reporters
All ER
All England Law Report
Anr.
Another
Att. Gen.
Attorney General
All.
Allahabad
Bom.
Bombay
B.L.J.R
Bihar Law Journal Report
CJI
Chief Justice of India
CrPC
Criminal Procedure Code
Cr. L.J.
Criminal Law Journal
CLT
Cuttack Law Times
C.W.N.
Calcutta Weekly Notes
DW
Defence Witness
Edn.
Edition
GLR
Gujarat Law Report
I.C
Indian Cases
-4-

ILR
Indian Law Report
IPC
Indian Penal Code
IndLaw
Indian Law
J.
Justice
Ker.
Kerala
KB
Kings Bench
M.P.
Madhya Pradesh
Ori
Orissa
p.
Page
P. / para
Paragraph
PW
Prosecution Witness
P.L.W
Patna Law Weekly
Raj
Rajasthan
SC
Supreme Court
v.
versus
Vol.
Volume
-5-

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
STATUTES
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Indian Penal Code, 1860
India Evidence Act, 1872
TABLE OF CASES
1. Abdul Ghami v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1972) 2 S.C.W.R. 838 at p. 843..16
2. Amrit Bhushan Gupta v. Union of India and Ors 1981 SCC(Crl) 516..28
3. Avtar Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 1984 (1) Crimes 636 at p. 640...26
4. Ashiruddin Ahmed v. Emperor, A.I.R. 1949 Cal. 182 at p. 183.26
5. BaswantraoBajirao v. Emperor, A.I.R. 1949 Nag. 66 : I.L.R. (1948) Nag. 711 : 50
Cr.L.J. 181.26
6. Bater v. Bater, [1950] 2 All E.R. 458.18
7. Bhandari v. State, AIR 1967 Goa 21 at p. 56.20
8. Bhikari v. State of U.P., A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 1...27
9. Charan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1973) 75 Punj. 734 at p. 738.26
10. Dahyabhai v. State of Gujarat, A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 1563.27, 28
11. Daniel Mcnaughtens case, (1843) 8 E.R. 718 : (1843) 10 Cl. Fin. 200...26
12. Debyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat AIR 1955 SC 156328
13. Devender Pal Singh v.s. State of NCT of Delhi &anr. [(2002) 5 SCC 234] ...18
14. Digendra v. State, 74 C.W.N. 231 at p. 241..27
15. Govardhan v. Union of India, (1961) 2 Cr. L.J. 475 at p. 476...26
16. Gurbachan Singh v. Satpal Singh, (1990) 1 SCC 44518
17. Hans Raj v. State of Rajasthan reported in 1995 Cri LJ 1004 (Raj), para 18..19
18. Kalicharan v. Emperor, A.I.R. 1948 Nag. 20 (2) at p. 23..28
19. Krishnan v. State represented by Inspector of Police, (2008) 15 SCC 430.20
20. Lonimohan Das v. Union Territory of Manipur (1974) 2 Cr.L.J. 1186 at p. 1187..29
21. M.G. Agarwal v. State of Maharastra, (1963) 2 S.C.R. 405...16
22. Miller v. Minister of Pensions (1947)2 All ER 372 at p. 373.16
23. Mousam Singha Roy and Ors v. State of West Bengal, [2003] 12 SCC 37715
24. Naina Mohd. Re, AIR 1960 Mad 218....22
-6-

25. Padalaveera Reddy v. State of A.P. AIR 1990 SC 79.20

26. Prakash v. State of Rajasthan, 2013 Cr.LJ 2040 (SC): AIR 2013 SC 147418
27. Ram Krishna Mishra v. State, 29 Cut. L. T. 559 at p. 565..18
28. Ranjan v. State of Kerala, 1984 Cr. L.J. 874 at pp. 877 (Ker.) 26
29. Sarju Merandy v. State of Bihar, (1978) 26 B.L.J.R. 267 at pp. 272-7328
30. Sarka Gundusa v. State, 35 Cut. L.T 79 at p. 81: A.I.R. 1969 Orissa 102 33
31. Sharad Birdhichand Sardar v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 1984 Indlaw SC
432.20
32. Sheralli Wali Mohammed v. State of Maharashtra (1973) 4 SCC 7928
33. Shivaji v. The State of Maharashtra, AIR 2009 SC 5618
34. Slim Babamiya Sutan v. State of Maharashtra 2000 All MR (Cri) 115519
35. State v. Darnall 47 Or App 161, 614 P2d 120 (1980). 32
36. State v. Grimsley 3 Ohio App 3d 165 444 NE2d 1071 (1982). 32
37. State v. Jones, 743 P.2d 276 (Wash. Ct. App. 1987) affd, 759P.2d 1183, 1185 (Wash.
1998) .31
38. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ahmadulla, A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 99826, 29
39. State of M.P. v. Satish, 2005 Cri LJ 1428 : AIR 2005 SC 1000 (SC) 20
40. State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram 2007 (1) SCC (Cri.) 68823
41. State of U.P v. Dr. Ravindra Prakash Mittal (1992) 3 SCC 30019
42. State of UP v. Satish, AIR 2005 SC 1000: 2005 (1) Crimes 146 (SC): (2005) 3 SCC
114..19
43. State of West Bengal v. Mir Mohammad Omar, 2001 (4) East CrC 5523
44. Sudhakaran v. State of Kerala, (2010) 10 SCC 58226
45. Surya Prasad v. State of Orissa, 1982 C.L.T. 232. 20
46. T. Chettiar v. Ponnammal, 1966 Cri. L.J. 1149: AIR 1966 Mad 36330
47. T. N v. Rajendran (1999) 8 SCC 679 25
48. The State v. DurgacharanBarik Alias Duria, AIR 1963 Ori 33..26
49. Vijay Pal v. State Govt., 2015 Indlaw SC 16015
50. Vijayee Singh v. State of U.P, 1990 Cri. LJ 1519 at p.1528 (SC) 16
51. Vikas Ramdas Khairnar Patil v. State of Maharashtra, 2005 Indlaw MUM 2320
52. Vinita Singh v. State Of Chhattisgarh SLP (CRL) NO. 9858/201320
53. United States v. Denny-Shaffer, 2 F.3d 999 (10th Cir. 1993) 32
-7-

54. Yuvaraj Ambar Mohite v. State of Maharashtra, [2006 (10) SCALE] 22
COMMENTARIES, DIGESTS & BOOKS

1. Dr. Hari Singh Gours, Commentaries on Hurt & Homicide, 2nd Edn.
(2012)
2. Dr. Hari Singh Gours, Penal Law of India, 11th Edn. (2011); Vol. I
3. Dr. Hari Singh Gours, Penal Law of India, 11th Edn. (2011); Vol. III
4. Fields, Commentary on The Law of Evidence, 13th Edn. (2013)
5. Sarkars, Commentary on The Law of Evidence, 2nd Edn. (2009); Vol. I
6. KD Gaurs, Criminal Law Cases & materials, 7th Edn. (2013)
7. Glanville Williams, Text Book of Criminal Law, 2nd Edn. (2009)
8. S. N. Mishras, The Code of Procedure, 1973, 18th Edn. (2012)
9. R. V. Kelkars, Criminal Procedure, 5th Edn. (2011)
10. Tandons, the Code of Criminal Procedure, 18th Edn. (2011)
11. S. N. Mishras, Indian Penal Code, 17th Edn. (2009)
12. Tandons, The Indian Penal Code, 25th Edn. (2011)
13. Dr. V. Krishnamacharis, Law of Evidence, 7th Edn. (2014)
14. Dr. Avtar Singhs, Principles of the Law of Evidence, 20th Edn. (2013)
LEXICONS
1. Compact Oxford Reference Dictionary Ninth Edition
2. Blacks Law Dictionary Ninth Edition, 2009
3. J. L. P. Singh & P. K. Majumdars Judicial Dictionary 3rd Edition 2009
JOURNALS & REPORTS

1. History of Criminal Law of England, Vol II, 1883
2. Annual Survey of the Indian Law, 1963, Indian Law Institute
3. Harvard Law Review, no 52, 1938-39
-8-

6. American Psychiatric Press, 4th ed., 1994

7. Criminal Law Journal
8. CRIMES
9. All India Reporter
10. Supreme Court Cases
11. Cuttack Law Times
LEGAL DATABASE
1. Manupatra
2. SCC Online
3. West Law
-9-

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
THE RESPONDENT HAVE THE HONOUR TO SUBMIT BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF
ORISSA, THE MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT IN THE MATTER CRI. APPEAL PETITION
NO. ***/2015 FILED BY THE APPELLANT, UNDER SECTION 374 (2) OF THE CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE CODE, 1973.
THE PRESENT MEMORANDUM SETS FORTH THE FACTS, CONTENTIONS AND ARGUMENTS IN
THE PRESENT CASE.

-
- 10

STATEMENT OF FACTS
Himtal, is a small underdeveloped town in the north-west Odisha with very thin population,
and is one of the coldest town in the State of Odisha. It is built on highlands, but the outskirts
are mostly marshy and covered with dense forest. Apart from other places, it has a town square,
a few recreational places and one local library.
Pallavi Mishra, (hereinafter, deceased) a woman aged 26 years, was the librarian of the local
library. She was an intelligent and attractive woman, married to one Shrikant Mishra, since,
February 29th, 2008. Her husband, a dealer in pesticides and insecticides, used to go to the
neighbouring town which was 5-6 hours away, very often, for business supplies.
She was a very friendly lady and shared a cordial relationship with people visiting the library
and of the many regular visitors to the library, she had developed friendship with a person
named Varun, (hereinafter, accused / appellant) who was a writer and professional district level
cricketer. The appellant was very strong and well-built man with very jovial, mellow, humorous
and quick witted personality. They bonded over their love for literature and with passage of
time their relationship became more intimate. Although she was married, yet she responded to
his advances.
Everything went well for a few months but eventually their relationship got strained, owing to
the temporary occasional erratic and violent behaviour of the appellant, which was in sharp
contrast to his usual nature but, when things got more complicated, the deceased decided to
back out of the relationship and stopped talking to him without giving any reason. Appellant
tried talking to her and she eventually agreed to meet and settle the matter.
Deceased's husband went out of the town for few days to get supplies and on the morning of
28th December 2012, whereby, she called the appellant to meet on that very evening. At around
5 P.M., after closing the library, the appellant picked her up from the end of the town square.
En route to forest on his bike, they were seen by two local people (P.W. 2 and 3).
At around 8:30 P.M., P.W. 4, who happens to be an acquaintance of the appellant, saw him
walking towards his bike from the forest, parked beside the main road, in a hurried manner.
P.W. 4 called out the appellant, who didn't respond and rode away.

-
- 11

Shrikant, tried calling the deceased, throughout the next day and when she didn't pick up the
call, he called their neighbours to enquire about her. On not finding her whereabouts, he
returned to the town on the night of 30th December, 2012. On 31st December, 2012 he filed
an F.I.R in the local police station.
On 4th January, 2013, the dead body of the deceased was found in a damp and marshy place in
the heart of the forest. On post mortem which was conducted the next day, various injuries
were found on her body and the cause of death was determined to be intake of monocrotophos.
The date and time of death could not be conclusively determined, yet from the state of
decomposition of the body it was opined by the doctors that the death could have occurred 3-4
days ago.
During investigation, P.W. 1 came forward and stated that on the night of 28th December, 2012,
he met the appellant and being his flatmate, tried to indulge him in a friendly conversation. But
the appellant seemed very distant, cold and unresponsive. He behaved very strangely and tried
to leave the place. On being enquired further by P.W. 1, he turned uncharacteristically angry
and shouted at him, revealing in the process that he had just beaten the deceased very brutally
and left her at a certain spot, which happened to coincide with the place where the dead body
was discovered.
The appellant was arrested and during interrogation he stated that he does not remember
anything about that evening apart from picking up the deceased and having altercation with her
on the road. During his physical examination, the doctor (P.W. 5) found some scratches on the
back of the neck of the appellant. In course of trial, the court ordered for a psychiatric
evaluation of the appellant. On examination, it was found that he is suffering from Dissociative
Identity Disorder. The Psychiatrist (P.W. 6) also examined the father of the appellant (D.W. 1)
and he gave statement regarding the accused's previous occasional unpredictable behaviour.
The trial court held that the fact that the accused is suffering from Dissociative Identity Disorder
does not exempt him from criminal liability and relying on the facts, circumstances and the
evidence adduced convicted the appellant under section 302 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code
and sentenced him to life imprisonment.

-
- 12

STATEMENT OF ISSUES
The following questions are presented before the Honble Court in the instant matter:
Issue I
Whether the order of conviction passed by the learned trial court is tenable in the eyes of
law?
Issue II
Whether the doctrine of last seen theory holds good in the instant case?
Issue II
Whether the Dissociative Identity Disorder can be considered as a defense to exempt the
criminal liability?

-
- 13

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
I.
THE ORDER OF CONVICTION PASSED BY THE LEARNED COURT

BELOW IS TENABLE IN THE EYE OF LAW.
It is submitted that the Learned Trial Court has rightly passed the order of conviction and
sentenced the appellant with life imprisonment for the charges of Section 302 & 325, I.P.C. the
prosecution has ipso facto discharged its initial burden of proving the guilt of the accused beyond
all reasonable doubt.
II.
THE DOCTRINE OF LAST SEEN THEORY HOLDS GOOD IN THE INSTANT

MATTER.
It is furthermore submitted that prosecution in order to discharge its initial burden of proof has
placed reliance upon circumstantial evidence and in doing so, has taken the help of last seen
theory to conclusively prove the guilt of the accused. The instant case is a fit platform to hold
good, the doctrine of last seen together.
III.
THE PLEA OF UNSOUNDNESS OF MIND TO NEUTRALIZE THE

CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY TAKEN BY THE APPELLANT IS NOT
TENABLE IN THE EYE OF LAW.
It is humbly submitted that the appellant has prima facie failed to rebut the statutory
presumption of absence of circumstances, bringing his case u/s 84 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860. So also, he has failed to establish the fact that, at the time of commission, he was labouring
under the influence of unsoundness of mind, which has impaired his cognitive faculties to such
an extent, that he was unable to know the nature of his act.

-
- 14

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
1. Whether the order of conviction passed by the learned

trial court is tenable in the eyes of law?
It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that, the more serious the offence, the
stricter the degree of proof, since a higher degree of assurance, is required to convict the
accused.1
It is most humbly submitted before the Honble court that the order of conviction U/S 302
and 325 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, passed by the Learned Trial Court in the instant
matter, is tenable in the eye of law, as the Learned Court below has very well appreciated
the facts and evidences of the instant case and has passed a proper order taking into
consideration the fact, that the prosecution has proved the case beyond all reasonable doubt,
thereby ruling out every possible hypothesis, which stands in favour of innocence of the
accused and hence, Conviction of accused cannot be questioned when same is proved by
prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.2
1.1.
That the Prosecution Has Proved the Case beyond All

Reasonable Doubt.
It is most humbly submitted before the Honble court that in all criminal cases the
prosecution is required to give satisfactory proof of the corpus delicti , i.e., it must prove
that the deceased was murdered. The prosecution has then to prove that the appellant is the
person who murdered the deceased and no one else.3
Mousam Singha Roy and Ors v. State of West Bengal, [2003] 12 SCC 377
Vijay Pal v. State Govt., 2015 Indlaw SC 160
3
Rajnikant Kesha Bhandari v. State, AIR 1967 Goa 21 at p. 56
2

-
- 15

In Miller v. Minister of Pensions,4 while examining the degree of proof required in criminal
cases, it has been held that:
That degree is well stated. It need not reach certainty but it must reach high
degree of probability. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean proof
beyond shadow of a doubt. The law would fail to protect the community if it
admitted fanciful possibilities to deflect the course of justice. If the evidence is
so strong against a man as to leave only a remote possibility in his favour
which can be dismissed with a sentence of course, it is possible but not in the
least probable, the case is proved beyond reasonable doubt.
1.1.1. Conviction
Based
Upon
Complete
Chain
Of
Circumstantial Evidence.
It is submitted that, it is a well-established rule in criminal jurisprudence that circumstantial
evidence can be reasonably made the basis of an accused persons conviction, if it is of such
a character that it is wholly inconsistent with the innocence of the accused and is consistent
only with his guilt.5
In the light of the facts in record of the instant matter, it is humbly submitted that the chain
of circumstances when knitted together, give rise to merely only conclusion that it is the
accused who has committed the murder of the deceased and the Learned Court below has
not committed any error in convicting the accused.
It is also submitted that, when it is held that a certain fact is proved, the question arises
whether the fact leads to the inference of guilt of the accused or not, and in dealing with this
aspect of the problem, the doctrine of benefit of doubt would apply and an inference of guilt
can be drawn only if the proved fact is wholly inconsistent with the innocence of the accused
and is consistent only with the hypothesis of his guilt.6
(1947)2 All ER 372 at p. 373, quoted Vijayee Singh v. State of U.P, 1990 Cri. LJ 1519 at p.1528 (SC)
M.G. Agarwal v. State of Maharastra, (1963) 2 S.C.R. 405.
6
Abdul Ghami v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1972) 2 S.C.W.R. 838 at p. 843
5

-
- 16

Prof. Wigmore in his Classic Treatise on Evidence,7 highlights the difficulties in

ascertaining how convinced one must be to become convinced beyond a reasonable doubt.
He says that the truth is that no one has invented or discovered a mode of measurement for
the intensity of human belief. Hence, there can be as yet no successful method of
communicating intelligibly, a sound method of self-analysis for ones belief. And yet the
choice of the standard of proof makes the difference.
The standard that must be met by the prosecution's evidence in a criminal prosecution must
be of such a nature that no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts except
that the accused has committed the crime, thereby overcoming the presumption that a person
is innocent until proven guilty.
It is humbly submitted that, if after distinguishing the chaff from the grain, the essential
thread of the prosecution case is proved, conviction would definitely follow.
Pursuant to the facts in record, it is humbly submitted that the forensic reports clearly states
that the scrapes of skin tissue was found under the fingernails of the deceased, matches with
the DNA of the accused and the post mortem report of the deceased corroborates the fact
that the anti mortem injuries found in the body of the deceased have been caused by the
accused. The fingerprint of the accused on the deceaseds right cheek, and on a branch of
tree, with traces of deceaseds blood, which has been recovered from the crime scene,
indicates that the altercation between the two was of grievous nature.
Interestingly, the deposition of PW 1 to PW 4 when read together with the aforesaid
circumstances enable us to conceive a chain of circumstances so complete as not to leave
any link between the charges levelled and the act committed by the accused.
It is humbly submitted that Justice Krishna Iyer was critical of the postulate that public
accountability is one of the most important responsibilities of the judiciary and if the
Wigmore, John Henry, A treatise on the system of evidence in trials at common law [electronic resource] :
including the statutes and judicial decisions of all jurisdictions of the United, Imprint Boston : Little, Brown, and
Co., 1904
7

-
- 17

accused person is acquitted on the basic of every suspicion or doubt then the judicial system
will lose its credibility before the community.8
Also, Lord Denning observation in Bater v Bater, 9 that the reasonableness of doubt must
be commensurate with the nature of the offence to be investigated. Exaggerated devotion
to the rule of benefit of doubt must not nurture fanciful doubts Letting guilty escape
is not doing justice according to the law10, carries reasonable worthiness with respect to
the matter in hand.
Therefore, with specific reference to the facts in record, it is most humbly submitted that
the prosecution has duly discharged its duty of proving his case beyond all reasonable doubt
and there resides no room of doubt or suspicion on the duty of prosecution, which infer that
the crime has been committed by none else than the accused.
1.1.2. Chain of Circumstances So Established is Consistent
Only with the Guilt of the Accused.
It is humbly submitted that the indirect or circumstantial evidences, are evidences which
without going directly to prove the existence of a fact, gives rise to a logical interference
that such fact does exist.11 Circumstantial evidence, in its every context means, a
combination of facts creating a network from which there is no escape for the accused,
because the facts taken as a whole do not exhibit any inference, but the guilt of the accused.12
In other words, the circumstances as a whole must be thoroughly inconsistent with the
hypothesis of the innocence of the accused.13 It is therefore submitted that, circumstantial
evidence is that species of indirect evidence which the municipal law deems sufficiently
proximate to form the basis of judicial decision.
Shivaji v. The State of Maharashtra, AIR 2009 SC 56

Bater v. Bater, [1950] 2 All E.R. 458
10
Gurbachan Singh v. Satpal Singh, (1990) 1 SCC 445; Devender Pal Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi & anr.
[(2002) 5 SCC 234]
11
31 C.J.S., p. 506, Sec 6
12
Prakash v. State of Rajasthan, 2013 Cr.LJ 2040 (SC): AIR 2013 SC 1474
13
Ram Krishna Mishra v. State, 29 Cut. L. T. 559 at p. 565
9

-
- 18

It is furthermore submitted that in order for a conviction to be based solely upon the
circumstantial evidence, there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any
reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must
show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.14
From the evidence considered and scrutinized by the Learned Court below, it can be well
made out that the claim of the evidence is complete and is of such a nature that it would
definitely and unerringly points to the guilt of the accused. At the time of occurrence there
was none else than the deceased and the appellant at the scene. The deceased was last seen
with the accused and thereafter no clue of deceased was found, until her body has been
recovered from the same place by the police. Moreover, the circumstances of last seen in a
murder case must be done in proximity with the recovery of corpse of the deceased.15
It is true that the principle of innocence of an accused must be kept in view while
appreciating the circumstantial evidence, but simultaneously, it must also be kept in view
that guilty person should not be allowed to escape punishment only on a remote possibility
of innocence in his favour. In such cases the judicial conscience of the Court must be tested
on the anvil of rational thinking man, who could reasonable, honestly and conscientiously
arrive on the same conclusion. The Court cannot afford to give a long rope to the subordinate Courts to entertain untenable doubts about innocence of an accused on a fanciful
conjectures in a brutal crime committed in broad light.16 If this is permitted, the law and the
law courts will not be able to protect the society from anti-social elements from whom
society has developed the concept of law and Courts from time immemorial.17
1.1.3. Facts so Established Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt.
It is humbly submitted that it is undisputed that where the prosecution relies on
circumstantial evidence alone to prove the guilt, the facts and circumstances from which
the conclusion of guilt is sought to be drawn must be fully established beyond any
reasonable doubt.18
14
supra note 15
Slim Babamiya Sutan v. State of Maharashtra 2000 All MR (Cri) 1155
16
Hans Raj v. State of Rajasthan 1995 Cri LJ 1004 (Raj), para 18
17
ibid
18
State of UP v. Satish, AIR 2005 SC 1000: 2005 (1) Crimes 146 (SC): (2005) 3 SCC 114
15

-
- 19

So also, in a case, based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances alleged against the
accused must be conclusively established and the chain of circumstances must be so closely
knit so as to exclude all the reasonable hypothesis of the innocence of the accused.19
In Prakash v. State of Rajasthan,20Justice P. Sathasivam (former CJI) has laid down the
following five golden principles of standard of proof required in a case sought to be established
on the basis of circumstantial evidence otherwise said to constitute the panchsheel of the proof
of a cased based on circumstantial evidence:
a) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully
established.21
b) The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the
accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except
that the accused is guilty.22
c) The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency.23
d) They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved24, and
e) There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground
for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in
all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
In the instant matter, all the circumstances relied on by the prosecution is forming a
complete chain and at the same are closely connected with the principal fact i.e., death of
the deceased. The circumstances as illustrated in the facts in record, conceives a complete
chain which would ultimately lead to the inference that the accused had caused the death of
the deceased.
Those circumstances are,
(a) Strained relation between the accused and the deceased.
(b) Appellant was last seen with the deceased on the evening of 28th December 2012.
(c) Thereafter, the appellant was seen alone returning from the crime scene that too in a
hurried manner.
19
State of M.P. v. Satish, 2005 Cri LJ 1428 : AIR 2005 SC 1000 (SC)
2013 Cr.LJ 2040 (SC): AIR 2013 SC 1474
21
Vikas Ramdas Khairnar Patil v. State of Maharashtra, 2005 Indlaw MUM 23
22
Sharad Birdhichand Sardar v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 1984 Indlaw SC 432
23
Krishnan v. State represented by Inspector of Police, (2008) 15 SCC 430; Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P.
AIR 1990 SC 79
24
Vinita Singh v. State Of Chhattisgarh SLP(CRL) NO. 9858/2013
20

-
- 20

(d) Admission of the guilt by the accused before PW 1.

(e) Deceased didnt pick any call on the very next day.
(f) The corpus of the deceased was found in the same area where the appellant admitted
to have brutally beaten the deceased.
It is humbly submitted before the Honble Court that all the incidences cited by the facts in
record, gives birth to a chain of circumstances, which leads to a conclusive proof that the
death of the deceased was caused by the appellant and there lies no suspicion that appellant
was not the one who caused the death.
2. Whether the doctrine of last seen theory holds good

in the instant case?
It is most humbly submitted before the Honble Court that in the instant case the doctrine
of last seen theory holds good. With the development of the principle of Last seen
together, the investigation system and the courts have been a little bit relieved of the burden
of proof. When the principle could be invoked, the burden of proof would be shifted to the
accused to explain any intervening facts, after being last seen together with the victim of
any criminal offence.
It is also submitted that that the presence of the accused at the place of the offence or his
being seen last with the deceased are very much relevant as a part of circumstantial
evidence.25 The theory of last seen together is one where two persons are seen together
alive and after an interval of time, one of them is found alive and the other, dead. If the
period between the two transactions is not remote, presumption as to the person alive, being
the author of death of the other may be drawn. Furthermore, time gap should be such, so as
to rule out every possibility, of somebody else committing the crime.
25
Prof. V. Nageswara Rao, opinion expressed on the Last Seen Principle at www.lawyersclubofindia.org

-
- 21

In the absence of eye-witnesses and tangible evidence, it is the last resort of the prosecution
in a murder case the person last seen with the victim is presumed to be the murderer, thus,
shifting the onus onto the accused to prove otherwise or come up with an alibi.26
2.1.
Accused was last seen with the deceased on his bike

towards the forest.
Pursuant the facts in record of the instant case, it is most humbly submitted before the
Honble Court, that the accused was last seen with the deceased on his bike going towards
the forest on the dusk of 28th December 2012, thereafter there was no information as to the
where about of the deceased and ultimately the corpus of the deceased was found in the
heart of the forest on 04th January, 2013.
Thus, if a person is last seen with the deceased, he must offer an explanation as to how and
when he parted the company. He must furnish an explanation which appears to the Court to
be probable and satisfactory. It is well established that in a case resting on circumstantial
evidence if the accused fails to offer a reasonable explanation in the discharge of burden
placed on him, that itself provides an additional link in the chain of circumstances, proved
against him.
Section 106 of the evidence Act lays down the rule that when the accused does not throw
any light upon facts which are specially within his knowledge and which could not support
any theory or hypothesis compatible with his innocence the Court can consider his failure
to adduce any explanation, as an additional link which completes the chain.27.
2.2.
Incriminating Circumstances Pointing To The Guilt Of

The Appellant.
It is most humbly submitted before the Honble Court that following are the incriminating
circumstances which are clearly established against the appellant:
(a) That his relationship with the deceased got strained.
26
27
Yuvaraj Ambar Mohite v. State of Maharashtra, [2006 (10) SCALE]

Naina Mohd. Re, AIR 1960 Mad 218

-
- 22

(b) On 28th December 2012, he was seen with the deceased en route to the forest on his
bike.
(c) Accused was seen walking towards his bike alone, from the forest.
(d) On the very same day, the accused has admitted before the PW 1 that he has brutally
beaten the deceased and left her in the forest.
(e) Deceased didnt receive the call from her husband the very next day.
(f) On 4th January 2013, the dead body of the deceased was found in a damp and marshy
place in the heart of the forest.
These incriminating circumstances form a complete chain and are consistent with no other
hypothesis except the guilt of the accused. If the accused was with the deceased on the
evening of 28th December 2012, he should have explained how and when he parted
company. The appellant has not pleaded alibi, nor has he given an explanation which may
support his innocence.28
Thus, the entire incidences disclosed in the fact sheet reveals that the appellant was the only
person who was there with the deceased during her last hours and therefore burden of
proving the fact lies with the accused as being especially within the knowledge of the
accused.
2.3.
Burden of proof on special knowledge lies on the

accused.
It is most humbly submitted that Section 106 of the Evidence Act, would apply to cases
where the prosecution has succeeded in proving facts from which a reasonable inference
can be drawn regarding the existence of certain other facts, unless the accused by virtue of
his special knowledge regarding such facts failed to offer any explanation which drive the
Court to draw a different inference.29
28
29
State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram 2007 (1) SCC (Cri.) 688

State of West Bengal v. Mir Mohammad Omar, 2001 (4) East CrC 55

-
- 23

Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 states as follow

When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of
proving that fact is upon him.
In the case of, State of West Bengal v. Mir Mohd. Omar,30 the question of burden of proof
where some facts are within the personal knowledge of the accused were examined. The
Honble Apex Court took note of the provisions of Section 106 of the Evidence Act and
laid down the following principles in para 31 and 32 of the reports:31
31. The pristine rule that the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove
the guilt of the accused should not be taken as fossilized doctrine as though it
admits no process of intelligent reasoning. The doctrine of presumption is not
alien to the above rule, nor would it impair the temper of the rule. On the other
hand, if the traditional rule relating to burden of proof on the prosecution is
allowed to be wrapped in a pedantic coverage, the offender in serious offences
would be the major beneficiary and the society would be the casualty.
32. When the prosecution succeeded in establishing the narrated
circumstances, the Court has to presume the existence of certain facts.
Presumption is a course recognized by the law for the court to rely on in
conditions.
It is humbly submitted before the Court that by applying the aforesaid principle in the instant
case, it can be well inferred that taking the principle of proving the guilt of the accused by
the prosecution is being treated as a fossilized doctrine due to which the offenders in serious
offences like the one in hand is the major beneficiary and interest of society is at casualty.
Moreover, in a case based on circumstantial evidence where no eye-witness account is
available, there is another principle of law which must be taken into due consideration is
that, when an incriminating circumstance is put to the accused and the said accused either
30
31
(2000) 8 SCC 382

SCC P. 392

-
- 24

offers no explanation or offers an explanation which is found to be untrue, then the same
becomes an additional link in the chain of circumstances to make it complete.32
It is most humbly submitted before the Honble Court that where an accused is alleged to
have committed the murder and the prosecution succeeds in leading evidence to show that
shortly before the commission of crime they were seen together, it has been consistently
held that if the accused does not offer an explanation as to how the deceased died or offers
an explanation which is found out to be false, it is a strong circumstance which indicates
that he is responsible for commission of the crime.
Since in the instant case the accused failed to explain, as to how the deceased died, moreover
the accused intimated the P.W 1, that he has beaten deceased brutally and left her in the
forest, which is the conclusive proof of the fact that the accused was the only person who
caused the death of the deceased, left her in the forest and ran hurriedly from there.
3.
Whether
The
Dissociative
Identity
Disorder
Can
Be
Considered As A Defense To Exempt The Criminal Liability?
It is humbly submitted before the Honble Court that crux of the instant matter rest solely
on the determination of one prime issue by this appellate Court, i.e., whether Dissociative
Identity Disorder can be taken as a plea of insanity or unsoundness of mind as defined U/S
84 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, to neutralize the criminal liability.
Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 states as herein below cited-Nothing is an offence which is done by a person, who at the time of doing it by
reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or
that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law.
It is submitted that, since the accused committed an act which is both wrong as well as
contrary to law, and moreover he has failed to supply reliable evidence to establish the fact
that he was not capable of understanding the nature of the act at the time of its commission,
32
T. N v. Rajendran (1999) 8 SCC 679 : State of U.P v. Dr Ravindra Prakash Mittal (1992) 3 SCC 300

-
- 25

therefore it cannot be concluded that the accused would be exempted of criminal liability
availing the defense of Dissociative Identity Disorder in lieu of unsoundness of mind.
3.1.
Deficiency Of Will Due To Weak Intellect Of The Accused

Has Not Been Fully Established.
It is most humbly submitted before the Honble Court that every man is presumed to be
sane and to possess a sufficient degree of reason to be responsible for his crimes, until the
contrary be proved33, and to establish a defense on ground of unsoundness of mind, it must
be clearly proved34 that, at the time of committing the act, the party accused was laboring
under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and the
quality of the act he was doing, or, if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing
what was wrong.35
In the matter in hand, the defence has prima facie failed to rebut the presumption of absence
of circumstances that will bring the act of the accused under the ambit of general exception.
The deposition of PW 6 and DW 1 though establish the fact that the accused is suffering
from the Dissociative Identity Disorder, but ipso facto has failed to raise even a reasonable
doubt that the accused at the time of offence was labouring under such a disorder.
It is furthermore submitted that, every person, who is mentally diseased is not ipso facto
exempted from the criminal liability36, and to get the benefit of Section 84, I.P.C., the
accused must establish that at the time of committing the act, the party accused was laboring
under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and the
quality of the act he was doing, or, if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing
what was wrong.37
33
Charan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1973) 75 Punj. 734 at p. 738; Avtar Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 1984
(1) Crimes 636 at p. 640; Ranjan v. State of Kerala, 1984 Cr. L.J. 874 at pp. 877 (Ker.)
34
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ahmadulla, A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 998; The State v. Durgacharan Barik Alias Duria, AIR
1963 Ori 33; Sudhakaran v. State of Kerala, (2010) 10 SCC 582
35
Daniel Mcnaughtens case, (1843) 8 E.R. 718 : (1843) 10 Cl. Fin. 200.
36
Govardhan v. Union of India, (1961) 2 Cr. L.J. 475 at p. 476.
37
Ashiruddin Ahmed v. Emperor, A.I.R. 1949 Cal. 182 at p. 183 : 5 C.W.N. 237 : 50 Cr. L.J. 255; Baswantrao
Bajirao v. Emperor, A.I.R. 1949 Nag. 66 : I.L.R. (1948) Nag. 711 : 50 Cr.L.J. 181.

-
- 26

3.1.1
PLEA OF UNSOUNDNESS OF MIND AS A STATUTORY
DEFENSE.
Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with the acts of a person of unsound mind
and mandates interalia
Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it,
by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act,
or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law.38
It is humbly submitted that as to insanity, it has been observed in HalsburysLawsof
England,39that where it can be shown that a person at the time of his committing or
omitting an act, the commission or omission of which would otherwise be criminal, was
labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature
and quality of the act or omission or as not to know that what he was doing was wrong then
such a person is not in law responsible for his act.40
It is also submitted that accuseds duty under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, 18060
is twofold i.e., initially he must establish that at the time of committing the act, he was non
composo mentis not of sound mind.
In the second place, he must prove that the said unsoundness of mind was of a degree and
nature to fulfil one of the tests as laid down in the aforesaid provision, namely, that by
reason of such unsoundness of mind he was incapable of knowing the nature of the act or
that he was doing what is either wrong or contrary to law.41
In the light of the facts in record of the instant matter, it is submitted that the deposition of
PW 6, merely establishes the fact that the alternate personality of the accused is violent and
volatile, and which in no sense have an effect of causing, such mental disorder as will debar
the accused from knowing the consequences of his act.
38
Bhikari v. State of U.P., A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 1.

3 Ed. (Simonds), Vol. 10 at p. 287
40
Dahyabhai v. State of Gujarat, A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 1563
41
Digendra v. State, 74 C.W.N. 231 at p. 241
39 rd

-
- 27

Furthermore, Section 84, I.P.C., has received strict interpretation and is considered
governing in only those cases where the cognitive faculties of the accused are completely
impaired.42
3.1.2. Accuseds mental faculty at the time of occurrence
was that of a reasonable and prudent man.
It is humbly submitted that, in case where the accused takes the plea of unsoundness of
mind, it must be clearly proved that at the time of the committing of the act, the party
accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to
know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, or, if he did know it, that he did not
know he was doing what was wrong.43
In Sheralli Wali Mohammed v. State of Maharashtra44, it was held that it must be proved
clearly that, at the time of the commission of the acts, the appellant, by reason of
unsoundness of mind, was incapable of either knowing the nature of the act or the acts were
either morally wrong or contrary to law.
With reference to the dictum of Honble Supreme Court in Debyabhai Chhaganbhai
Thakkar v. State of Gujarat,45 it is most humbly submitted that when a plea of legal insanity
is set up, the Court has to consider whether at the time of commission of the offence, the
accused, by reason of unsoundness of mind, was incapable of knowing the nature of the act
or that he was doing that was either wrong or contrary to law. The crucial point of time for
ascertaining the state of mind of accused is the time when the offense was committed.
Whether the accused was in such a state of mind as to be entitled to the benefit of Section
84 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 can only be established from the circumstances which
preceded, attended and followed the crime.46
So also, in, Amrit Bhushan Gupta v. Union of India and Ors47, it has been held that unless
the Court comes to the conclusion that the accused was insane, at the point of time he
42
Kalicharan v. Emperor, A.I.R. 1948 Nag. 20 (2) at p. 23.

M Naughtens case, [1843] 4 St Tr [NS] 847,
44
(1973) 4 SCC 79
45
AIR 1955 SC 1563
46
Sarju Merandy v. State of Bihar, (1978) 26 B.L.J.R. 267 at pp. 272-73
47
1981 SCC(Crl) 516
43

-
- 28

committed the offence, he cannot be absolved of the responsibility of the offence, even if it
is found by the Court that he was insane either earlier or in the later point of time of the
commission of offence.
Since in the instant case the accused has prima facie failed to rebut the statutory
presumption that at the time of the commission of the act he was suffering from such a
mental disorder, due to which he was incapable of knowing the nature or consequences of
his act or that he was doing what was either wrong or contrary to the law hence, the benefit
of Section 84 must not accrue to the accused.
It is submitted that, mere abnormality of mind, partial delusion, irresistible impulse or
compulsive psychopathic behaviour, affords not protection U/S 84 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860. So also, mere eccentricity or strange behaviour or a mental set-up not
amounting to insanity as known to the law, could not absolve a person of consequences of
his act.
Evidently, the Honble Supreme Court in the case, State of M.P. v. Ahmadulla,48 held that,
to earn exemption U/S 84, I.P.C., the defence has to prove insanity of the accused at the
time of the offending act.
Pursuant to the facts in record, it is submitted that, in the instant case there is not a single
positive evidence, as to the deferred mental condition of the accused at the time of
commission of the offence.
The fact that, on former occasions he had been subject to insane delusions or had suffered
from derangement of mind and subsequently he had behaved like a mentally deficient
person, is not per se sufficient to bring his case within the exemption. So far as section 84,
I.P.C. is concerned, the court is only concerned with the state of mind of the accused at the
time of the commission of the offence.
In a very similar case of, Lonimohan Das v. Union Territory of Manipur,49 wherein the
evidence established by reference only showed that the appellant at times was of unsound
48
49
supra note 26
(1974) 2 Cr.L.J. 1186 at p. 1187.

-
- 29

mind, but he had lucid intervals. There was nothing to show that at the time of the
commission of the homicide in question, the appellant was of unsound mind, and that by
reason of that unsoundness of mind, he was incapable of knowing the nature of his act, it
was held that
..the appellant was capable of knowing the nature of his act. That being so
he failed to discharge the burden of bringing his case within the exception as
enumerated under Section 84 of the Indian Penal; Code, 1860.
In the instant case even though, the nature of the alternate personality of the accused, was
violent and erratic, the defence of legal insanity cannot be relied on his previous character
or behaviour.
3.2.
Statutory
presumption
as
to
nonexistence
of
circumstances, bringing the case within an exception.

It is humbly submitted that, Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, elucidate an
exception to the general rule whereby in a criminal trial, the burden of proving everything
necessary to establish the charge against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, rests on
the prosecution.
According to the provision, the burden of proving existence of circumstances bringing the
accused within any of the General Exceptions, enumerated in the Indian Penal Code, 1860
shall be on the accused, and the Court shall prima facie presume the absence of such
circumstances.50
Section 105, of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, states as herein below cited
When a person is accused of any offence, the burden of proving the existence
of circumstances bringing the case within any of the General Exceptions in the
Indian Penal Code, (45 of 1860), or within any special exception or proviso
50
T. Chettiar v. Ponnammal, 1966 Cri. L.J. 1149 : AIR 1966 Mad 363.

-
- 30

contained in any other part of the same Code, or in any law defining the offence,
is upon him, and the Court shall presume the absence of such circumstances.
With reference to the facts of the instant case, it is submitted that the prosecution has proved
the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the plea of the accused taken in his
defense does not even stands probabilised from the materials on record.
Neither, the deposition of PW 1 or that of PW 4 conceives a rebuttal of the aforesaid
presumption, nor that of PW 6 establishes the fact, that at the time of commission of the
offence, the accused was labouring under the influence of unsoundness of mind.
Hence, it shall be construed from the facts in record that the accused has ipso facto failed
to rebut the statutory presumption of absence of circumstances bringing his case U/S 84 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and hence, the criminal liability charged upon him must not be
under any circumstances, whatsoever, be exempted.
3.3.
Alter personalities will not be an excuse for inability

to distinguish right from wrong51.
It is submitted that, precisely, the dissociative identity disorder, can be defined as a

condition in which a person's identity dissociates, or fragments, creating additional, distinct
identities that exist independently of each other within the same person.52
Interestingly, persons suffering from Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID) adopt one or
more distinct identities which co-exist within one individual. Each personality is distinct
from the other in specific ways. For instance, tone of voice and mannerisms will be distinct,
as well as posture, vocabulary, and everything else we normally think of as marking a
personality.
Dissociation is a mental process, which produces a lack of connection in a person's thoughts,
memories, feelings, actions, or sense of identity. During the period of time when a person
State v. Jones, 743 P.2d 276 (Wash. Ct. App. 1987) affd, 759P.2d 1183, 1185 (Wash. 1998)
AM. PSYCHIATRIC ASSN, DIAGNOSTIC AND STATISTICAL MANUAL OF MENTAL DISORDERS
(American Psychiatric Press, 4th ed., 1994).
51
52

-
- 31

is dissociating, certain information is not associated with other information as it normally

would be. This type of disease cannot be distinguished from malingering.
Evidently, the facts in record has disclosed the presence of two distinct identities or
personality states which takes control of the accused identity at regular interval, but the
judicial trend has refused to accept such a disorder, to be one, within the ambit of
unsoundness of mind.
In State v. Darnall (1980),53 the defendant charged with murdering his father, pleaded
NGRI due to having multiple personalities. The Court found that the defendant, likely was
malingering his alters, and even if they did exist, having alter personalities was not
necessarily a mental disease, that would preclude responsibility for the murder.
So also, in State v. Grimsley (1982),54 the defense used NGRI due to multiple personalities,
in a drunk driving case. The court ruled that it is immaterial what state of consciousness or
personality the defendant was in, as long as the personality controlling the behavior was
conscious and aware of his or her actions.
It is submitted before the Honble Court that, from the facts and evidences in record it is
evident that the accused was very much aware of the injuries inflicted to the deceased by
him, and admission of the same before PW 1 establishes the fact, that the accused at the
time of commission of his act, was conscious and so also he was in a state of mind, as to
reasonably know the consequences of his act, or that he was doing what is contrary to the
law.
It is therefore submitted before the Honble Court, that the accused was malingering his
alters and trying to evade the criminal liability of his act, which he has committed with his
sound and sane mind.
In the Denny-Shaffer case,55 it has been opined that, a Court should assess the hosts mental
state at the time of the crime in order to determine, whether the individual should be held
53
47 Or App 161, 614 P2d 120 (1980).

3 Ohio App 3d 165 444 NE2d 1071 (1982).
55
United States v. Denny-Shaffer, 2 F.3d 999 (10th Cir. 1993)
54

-
- 32

responsible. The host personalityrather than the alter in controlis the touchstone for
criminal accountability.
3.4.
Medical Insanity vis--vis Legal Insanity.
It is humbly submitted that it is only the unsoundness of mind which naturally impairs the
cognitive faculties of the mind that can form a ground for exemption from criminal
responsibility.
Furthermore, the law recognizes nothing but incapacity to realize the nature of the act and
presumes that where a mans mind or his faculties or ratiocination are sufficiently clear to
apprehend what he is doing, he must always be presume to intend the consequences of the
action he takes.
So also, mere absences of motive for crime, howsoever, atrocious it may be, cannot, in the
absence of plea and proof of legal insanity, bring the case within Section 84 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860.
It is furthermore submitted that, there can be no legal insanity unless the cognitive faculty
of mind is destroyed as a result of unsoundness of mind to such an extent as to render the
accused incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that what he is doing is wrong or
contrary to law.56
Moreover in the instant case, the medical examination of the accused, might have
established that, he is suffering from Dissociative Identity Disorder, but the same cannot be
construed to be a legal insanity. According to the medical science, inanity is another name
for mental abnormality due to various causes and existing in various degrees. Even an
uncontrollable impulse driving a man to kill or wound comes within its scope. But a man,
whom the medical science would pronounce as an insane, might not be legally insane,
unless and until it must be clearly proved that, by reason of that unsoundness, he was
incapable of knowing the nature of his act.
56
Sarka Gundusa v. State, 35 Cut. L.T 79 at p. 81 : A.I.R. 1969 Orissa 102; Surya Prasad v. State of Orissa, 1982
C.L.T. 232.

-
- 33

It is therefore submitted that, the conviction and sentence to the accused has been unerringly
passed by the Learned Court below and that the same shall not be set aside.

-
- 34

PRAYER
Wherefore, in the lights of facts stated, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited,
it is most humbly prayed and implored before the Honble Court, that it may graciously be
pleased:
1. To allow the appeal, and

2. To overrule the order of conviction and sentence u/s 302 & 325, passed by the Learned
Court below and pass an order of acquittal in favour of the appellant, and
3. Pass any other order it deems fit in the interests of justice, equity and good conscience.
All of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted.
Place: Cuttack
s/d -
Date: __ / 03 / 2015
Moot Counsels For Appellants

-
- 35

Armonia 2015 Winners Memorial.

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Armonia 2015 Winners Memorial.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Armonia 2015 the 3rd National Law Fest

Moot Court Competition

The Honourable High Court of Odisha, Cuttack

Cri. Appeal No. *** / 2015

MEMORANDUM on behalf of Respondent

Armonia 2015 the 3rd National Law Fest

1.1.1. Conviction based upon a complete chain of circumstantial evidence16

Incriminating circumstances pointing to the guilt of the appellant...22

MEMORANDUM on behalf of Respondent

Armonia 2015 the 3rd National Law Fest

Burden of proof on special knowledge lies on the accused..23

3.1.1. Plea of unsoundness of mind as a statutory defense. 27

Statutory presumption as to nonexistence of circumstances, bringing the case within an

3.4. Medical insanity vis--vis legal insanity..33

Prayer for Relief..................................................................................................35

MEMORANDUM on behalf of Respondent

Armonia 2015 the 3rd National Law Fest

All India Reporters

All England Law Report

Bihar Law Journal Report

Chief Justice of India

Criminal Procedure Code

Criminal Law Journal

Cuttack Law Times

Calcutta Weekly Notes

Gujarat Law Report

MEMORANDUM on behalf of Respondent

Armonia 2015 the 3rd National Law Fest

Indian Law Report

Indian Penal Code

Patna Law Weekly

MEMORANDUM on behalf of Respondent

Armonia 2015 the 3rd National Law Fest

MEMORANDUM on behalf of Respondent

Armonia 2015 the 3rd National Law Fest

25. Padalaveera Reddy v. State of A.P. AIR 1990 SC 79.20

MEMORANDUM on behalf of Respondent

Armonia 2015 the 3rd National Law Fest

54. Yuvaraj Ambar Mohite v. State of Maharashtra, [2006 (10) SCALE] 22

COMMENTARIES, DIGESTS & BOOKS

JOURNALS & REPORTS

MEMORANDUM on behalf of Respondent

Armonia 2015 the 3rd National Law Fest

6. American Psychiatric Press, 4th ed., 1994

MEMORANDUM on behalf of Respondent

Armonia 2015 the 3rd National Law Fest

MEMORANDUM on behalf of Respondent

Armonia 2015 the 3rd National Law Fest

MEMORANDUM on behalf of Respondent

Armonia 2015 the 3rd National Law Fest

MEMORANDUM on behalf of Respondent

Armonia 2015 the 3rd National Law Fest

MEMORANDUM on behalf of Respondent

Armonia 2015 the 3rd National Law Fest

THE ORDER OF CONVICTION PASSED BY THE LEARNED COURT

THE DOCTRINE OF LAST SEEN THEORY HOLDS GOOD IN THE INSTANT

THE PLEA OF UNSOUNDNESS OF MIND TO NEUTRALIZE THE

MEMORANDUM on behalf of Respondent

Armonia 2015 the 3rd National Law Fest

1. Whether the order of conviction passed by the learned

That the Prosecution Has Proved the Case beyond All

MEMORANDUM on behalf of Respondent

Armonia 2015 the 3rd National Law Fest