Memorandum For The Prosecution

JURY TRIAL, BAR THE LEX FIESTA 2016
TEAM CODE: J5
BEFORE THE COURT OF SESSIONS
ZELHI
S.C. No. 11/2016
STATE OF ZELHI
(PROSECUTION)
Vs.
SHAWN MICHAELS
RIC FLAIR
& JOHN CENA
(DEFENCE)
FOR OFFENCES CHARGED UNDER

SECTIONS 302 r/w 34 & 120B of INDOMANIA PENAL CODE
Memorandum Humbly Submitted

MEMORANDUM SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION
COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Abbreviations..3
Index of Authorities4
Statement of Jurisdiction.7
Statement of Charges.8
Statement of Facts.9
Arguments Advanced.11-27
CHARGE 1
WHETHER OR NOT MR. JOHN CENA, MR.SHAWN MICHEALS AND MR. RIC
FLAIR ARE GUILTY OF MURDER UNDER SECTION 302 r/w SECTION 34 OF THE
IPC?
CHARGE 2
WHETHER ACCUSED IS GUILTY FOR THE OFFENCE OF CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY?
Prayer.. 28
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AIR
Paragraph
All India Reporter
2
Bom
Cal.
Cr LJ
Cr.
Mah LJ
p.
Punj
SC
SCC
SCW
Bombay High Court

Calcutta
Criminal Law Journal
Criminal
Maharashtra Law Journal
Page No.
Punjab High Court
Supreme Court
Supreme Court Cases
Supreme Court Weekly
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Books:
BRYAN A. GARNER, Blacks Law Dictionary, 7th Edition, West Group, USA (2002)
Dr. B.R. SHARMA, Forensic Science in Criminal Investigation & Trials, 5th Edition,
Universal Law Publishing Co. Ltd., (2014)

HALSBURYS LAWS OF INDIA, Criminal Law-I, Volume 5(1), LexisNexis Butterworths
Wadhwa, New Delhi (2012)
JUSTICE V R KRISHNA IYER & Dr. JUSTICE AR LAKSHMANAN, Whartons Law
Lexicon, 15th Edition, Universal Law Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd., (2009)
M.C. SARKAR, S.C. SARKAR & PRABHAS C. SARKAR, Sarkars Law of Evidence, 16th
Edition, Volume 1, Wadhwa and Company Nagpur, New Delhi (2008).
P. RAMANATHA AIYAR, The Major Law Lexicon, 4th Edition, Volume 1, LexisNexis
Butterworths Wadhwa Nagpur, Haryana (2010)
RATANLAL & DHIRAJLAL, The Law of Evidence, 23rd Edtion, LexisNexis Butterworths
Wadhwa Nagpur, Gurgaon (2012)
SURENDRA MALIK, SUMEET MALIK & SUDEEP MALIK, Supreme Court Yearly Digest,
2014, Eastern Book Company, New Delhi (2014)
SURENDRA MALIK & SUDEEP MALIK, Supreme Court on Penal Code, Volume 1,
Eastern Book Company, Lucknow (2012)
SHAMSUL HUDA, Principles of Law of Crimes, State Mutual Book & Periodical Services Ltd,
(1982)
D. ORMEROD, Smith and Hogans Criminal law, 9thEdition, Oxford Press Publishers, New
Delhi (2009)
Cases
Santosh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1975 Cri LJ 602 (SC)
Laxman v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1974 SC 1803

Shyama Charan Sri Ram Saran v. State, AIR 1969 All 61
Laxmi v. Om Prakash, 2001 (6) SCC 118
Kundula Bala Subrahmanyam Vs. State of A.P. 2002 SCC(Cr.) 1491

4
Ramakantmishra Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 2015(8) SCC 299
Vikas and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra, (2008 ) 2 SCC
Paniben V. State of Gujarat, AIR 1992 SC 1817

Salim and Ors v. State of Rajasthan, 1999 CrLJ 1419 (Raj) (DB)
State of Maharashtra v. Kalu Shivram Jagtap and Ors, 1980 Supp. SCC 224
Kesar Singh & Anr vs State Of Haryana, 2008(15) SCC 753
Virsa Singh vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1958 SC 465
Anant Chantman Lagu v. The State of Bombay, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 500
Bhupinder Singh vs State of Punjab, 1988 AIR 1011, 1988 SCR (3) 409
Sharda E. Chand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, SCR 88 A.I.R. 1984 S.C. 1622
Rishideo Pande V. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1955 SC 331
Mandanlal V. State of Punjab, 1967, SCR(3), 439.
K.S. Narayan V. S. Gopinathan, 1982 Cr LJ, 1611 (Mad);
State of Madhya Pradesh V. Sheetla Sahai 2009 (8) SCC 617
State (NCT of Delhi) V. Navjot Sandhu, 2005 Cr LJ 3950 SC;

State of Madhya Pradesh V. Sheetla Sahai 2009 (8) SCC 617;
Baldev Singh V. State of Punjab 2009 (6) SCC 564
R Venkatakrishnan V. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2010 AIR (SC) 1812
Baldev Singh V. State of Punjab 2009 (6) SCC 564
SushilSuri V. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2011 AIR SC 1713;
Damodar V. State of Rajasthan, 2004 (12) SCC 336;
Nazir Khan V. State of Delhi 2003 (8) SCC 461
Vimal Chand V. State of Rajasthan, 1999 Cr LJ 128 (Raj.)
Mohd. Usman Mohd. Hussain V. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1981 SC 1062
KeharSimgh V. State (Delhi Admin) (1989) Cr LJ 1
Queen Empress V. HosNak, 1941 ALJR 416

5
Adam Bhai Suleman Bhai Ajmeri Vs State of Gujrat 2014 (7) SCC 716
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Honble Court has jurisdiction to try the instant matter under Section 177 read with Section
209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Section 177:
6

177. Ordinary place of inquiry and trialEvery offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local
jurisdiction it was committed.
Read with Section 209:

209. Commitment of case to Court of Session when offence is triable exclusively by itWhen in a case instituted on a police report or otherwise, the accused appears or is brought
before the Magistrate and it appears to the Magistrate that the offence is triable exclusively by
the Court of Session, he shall(a) commit the case to the Court of Session;
(b) subject to the provisions of this Code relating to bail, remand the accused to custody
during, and until the conclusion of, the trial;
(c) send to that Court the record of the case and the documents and articles, if any, which
are to be produced in evidence;
(d) notify the Public Prosecutor of the commitment of the case to the Court of Session.
STATEMENT OF CHARGES
CHARGE 1
That John Cena, Ric Flair & Shawn Michaels have been charged for Murder under Section 302
of Indomainia Penal Code
CHARGE 2
7

That John Cena, Ric Flair & Shawn Michaels have been charged for Criminal Conspiracy under
Section 120B of Indomainia Penal Code
CHARGE 3
That John Cena, Ric Flair & Shawn Michaels have been charged for Common Intention under
Section 34 of Indomainia Penal Code
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1.) Zelhi is one of the biggest states in terms of population and area as well as richest in
terms of Uranium resources in Indomania. Also it has the biggest nuclear power plant in
the world. In the year 2000, the state experienced violent riots in which the richest
industrialist, Mr. John Cena was alleged as the chief architect of these riots, although
there was no concrete evidence against him. Also, he has been alleged in many corrupt
practices because of which CBI has been on his tail. Mr. Cena is the co-partner with Kane

Lannister (brother of Jignesh Lannister) runs a company GRM, which deals with nuclear
products.
2.) Mr. Jignesh Lannister, who has been the CM of Zelhi for past 14 years, has been in a
mouth war with Mr. Cena especially after the 2000 riots, accusing the latter for killing
thousands of people and also been involved in many corruptive practices, due to which
Mr. Lannister often had heated arguments with his brother over his involvement with Mr.
Cena.
3.) On 30th December 2015 Mr. Jignesh scheduled a meeting to discuss trade related issues
with business representatives of Mr. Cena following which he had a breakfast with Mr.
Shawn Michaels and lunch with Mr. Ric flair. He then had a dinner with his family
including his wife Mrs. Sonia Lannister, his two sons and his brother.
4.) On 31st December the CM was feeling ill and taken to mayapuri hospital. He was
vomiting and was running high fever. He started to show symptoms of skin infection and
observed alarming hairloss
5.) By 4th January Dr Bharat Bhushan was invited who concluded that mr lannister was
exposed to huge amount of radiation. Dr Bhushan was sure that the deceased was
poisoned
6.) On 7th January Mr. lannister registered gained consciousness was informed of his
situation he called for a press conference. He blamed mr john cena for perpetrating the
crime but failed to speak more as he lost conscious
7.) On 7th and 8th January mr Jignesh lannister was confirmed to have been poisoned with
very lethal dose of polonium 210 to which there was no cure
8.) On 9th January Mr. Jignesh lannister succumbed to the illness. Dr Bhushan registered an
FIR and the statement made by Mr. Lannister
9.) The central government appointed the central bureau of Investigation. CBI found that Mr.
Michaels and Mr. flair had handled polonium during those days and through their secret
informant between the three in which words accomplish if not then remove the target
were heard. Traces of polonium have been found in the room of mr kane
CBI arrested Mr. cena, Mr. Michaels and Mr. Flair for further questioning and produced
before a magistrate on 11th January whereby they were sent to policy custody for 8 days
and then they went under judicial custody
10.)
The chargesheet was filed by the CBI. The court commited this case to court of
session court of sessions franed charges against all accused
Mr. john Cena section 302 r/w 34 and 120B
Mr. Shawn Micheals - section 302 r/w 34 and 120B
9
Mr Ric Flair - section 302 r/w 34 and 120B
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
ISSUE I: WHETHER OR NOT MR. JOHN CENA, MR.SHAWN MICHEALS AND MR.
RIC FLAIR ARE GUILTY OF MURDER UNDER SECTION 302 rw SECTION 34 OF
THE IPC
To understand the charge of murder, the prosecution shall elaborate on ingredients which fall
under section 300 and link them to the case at present.
300. Murder1.Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act
by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or
1 Section 300 Indian Penal Code 1860
10

(Secondly) If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows
to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or
(Thirdly) If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily
injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or
(Fourthly) If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it
must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits
such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.
1.1.
That the accused had the intention to cause death

(A)MENS REA
1.1.1 Intention
When knowledge of a particular consequence is backed by will to cause such consequence,
intention is said to have been formed. It can also be called malice aforethought2. Any
voluntary act is given effect because of determination and will to cause that act. This
determination coupled with the knowledge of the consequence is the main ingredient of
intention.3
The intention to kill is not required in every case, mere knowledge that natural and probable
consequences of an act would be death will suffice for a conviction under s. 302 of IPC.4 The
intention to kill can be inferred from the murder and nature of the injuries caused to the
victim5
2 D. Ormerod, Smith and Hogans Criminal law, 9thEdition, Oxford Press Publishers, New Delhi (2009)
p. 437
3 Shamsul Huda, Principles of Law of Crimes, State Mutual Book & Periodical Services Ltd, (1982) p.
170
4 Santosh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1975 Cri LJ 602 (SC)
5 Laxman v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1974 SC 1803
11
1.1.2 Motive
It is contended that as evidence, motive is always relevant. Motive may be relevant to proof
and the prosecution may prove the motive for a crime if it helps them to establish their case,
as a matter of circumstantial evidence.6
However, it must be noted that unless the act done constitutes a murder by reason of the
intention, with which it is found to be done, the court need not consider the exceptions.7
1.1.3: Chain of events enunciating intention
In the present case, the following chain of events enunciates both intention and motive of
Accused No. 1 to commit the aforesaid offence
The accused Mr. John Cena, hereinafter referred to as DW1had access to PO-210 as he
was the sole authorized distributor of the element in the whole of Zelhi. Furthermore he
had the requisite knowledge about the effects of PO-210 as his company, GRM, handles
distribution of the 90% of the whole of the element found in the state.
All the 3 accused were suffering huge business losses due to the policy of the ban on sale
of liquor. DW1 suffered a loss of 105 Crores Profit per month due to this ban and had a
liquor shipment worth Rs.42 Crore sitting outside Zelhi due to this ban.
Mr. DW1 has been alleged to have had feuds with the deceased in the past over various
issues.
The accused DW1 had often intimated to the brother of the deceased, Mr.Kane Lannister
that he wanted to get rid of the deceased Mr. Jignesh Lannister.

DW1 pre-arranged a meeting of the accused Mr. Shawn Micheals, hereinafter referred to
as DW2 and Mr. Ric Flair, hereinafter referred to as DW3 with the deceased a day before
the deceased mysteriously fell ill and had to be hospitalized. These meetings, one for
breakfast and the other for lunch were scheduled on the pretext of business dealings as
two separate meetings at separate times were scheduled to discuss virtually the same
6 Williams (1986) 84Cr AppR 299,CA
7 Shyama Charan Sri Ram Saran v. State, AIR 1969 All 61
12

issue.
(B) DYING DECLARATION

Since actus reus on part of the defendants cannot be proven due to the extraordinary
circumstance of this case, the prosecution can rely on the dying declaration of the deceased to
draw the liability of the offence.
In Laxmi v. Om Prakash8 it was held that
Nemo moriturus praesumitur mentire - No one at the point of death is presumed to lie. A man
will not meet his Maker with a lie in his mouth is the philosophy in law underlying admittance in
evidence of dying declaration. A dying declaration made by person on the verge of his death has
a special sanctity as at that solemn moment, a person is most unlikely to make any untrue
statement. The shadow of impending death is by itself the guarantee of the truth of the statement
made by the deceased regarding the causes or circumstances leading to his death. A
dying declaration, therefore, enjoys almost a sacrosanct status, as a piece of evidence, coming as
it does from the mouth of the deceased victim.
In Kundula Bala Subrahmanyam Vs. State of A.P.9, The Court added such a statement, called
the dying declaration, is relevant and admissible in evidence provided it has been made by the
deceased while in a fit mental condition..
Ramakantmishra Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 2015(8) SCC 299
That is to say that a person might be quite willing to implicate an innocent person but would not
do so when death is knocking at his door. That is why a Dying Declaration, to conform to this
unique specie, should have been made when death was in the contemplation of the person
making the statement/declaration.
8 2001 (6) SCC 118
9 (1993) 2 SCC 684.
13

In Laxman Vs. State of Maharashtra10, The Apex court held that
The juristic theory regarding acceptability of a dying declaration is that such declaration is made
in extremity, when the party is at the point of death and when every hope of this world is gone,
when every motive to falsehood is silenced, and the man is induced by the most powerful
consideration to speak only the truth. The situation in which a man is on the deathbed is so
solemn and serene, is the reason in law to accept the veracity of his statement. It is for this reason
the requirements of oath and cross-examination are dispensed with.. The court, however, has
always to be on guard to see that the statement of the deceased was not as a result of either
tutoring or prompting or a product of imagination.
The court also must further decide that the deceased was in a fit state of mind and had the
opportunity to observe and identify the assailant. Normally, therefore, the court in order to satisfy
whether the deceased was in a fit mental condition to make the dying declaration looks up to the
medical opinion
. But where the eyewitnesses state that the deceased was in a fit and conscious state to make the
declaration, the medical opinion will not prevail, nor can it be said that since there is no
certification of the doctor as to the fitness of the mind of the declarant, the dying declaration is
not acceptable.
A dying declaration can be oral or in writing and any adequate method of communication
whether by words or by signs or otherwise will suffice provided the indication is positive and
definite.
In Vikas and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra11 ; Paniben V. State of Gujarat12

The court elaborated the legality of dying declaration.
10 2002 SCC(Cr.) 1491
11 (2008 ) 2 SCC
14

(i) There is neither rule of law nor of prudence that dying declaration cannot be acted upon
without corroboration.
(ii) If the court is satisfied that the dying declaration is true and voluntary it can base conviction
on it, without corroboration.
(iii) This Court has to scrutinise the dying declaration carefully and must ensure that the
declaration is not the result of tutoring, prompting or imagination. The deceased had opportunity
to observe and identify the assailants and was in a fit state to make the declaration.
(iv) Where dying declaration is suspicious it should not be acted upon without corroborative
evidence.
(v) Where the deceased was unconscious and could never make any dying declaration the
evidence with regard to it is to be rejected.
(vi) A dying declaration which suffers from infirmity cannot form the basis of conviction.
(vii) Merely because a dying declaration does not contain the details as to the occurrence, it is
not to be rejected.
(viii) Equally, merely because it is a brief statement, it is not to be discarded. On the contrary, the
shortness of the statement itself guarantees truth.
(ix) Normally the court in order to satisfy whether the deceased was in a fit mental condition to
make the dying declaration looks up to the medical opinion. But where the eyewitness has said
that the deceased was in a fit and conscious state to make this dying declaration, the medical
opinion cannot prevail.
(x) Where the prosecution version differs from the version as given in the dying declaration, the
said declaration cannot be acted upon
The prosecution humbly submits that the deceased Mr.Lannister, while being in an unfit physical
condition due to the poisoning was still in a fit mental condition to give the declaration as the
12 AIR 1992 SC 1817
15

Potassium iodide given to him by Dr. Bhushan had improved his condition.
Furthermore, he was able to identify clearly the accused Mr. John Cena as the one who was
responsible for his situation in the said dying declaration. This absolutely links Mr. Cena to the
crime beyond a reasonable doubt as all the legal grounds for dying declaration being admissible
are met and conviction on the basis of such dying declaration stands valid.
1.2.: That the accused are guilty of murder under section 300 thirdly
All four conditions enumerated under s.300 IPC may not necessarily co-exist, so as to prove an
offence of murder. It would be sufficient for the prosecution to establish any one of the
conditions enumerated under s.300, IPC against an offender, for punishing him for an offence of
murder.13
Where intention to kill the deceased is established and medical evidence shows that injuries
caused by the accused were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, the case
squarely falls under section 302, IPC14
As held in Kesar Singh & Anr vs State Of Haryana15 and In Virsa Singh vs. State of Punjab16
It was observed that the prosecution must prove the following facts before it can bring a case
under Section 300, thirdly.
13 Salim and Ors v. State of Rajasthan, 1999 CrLJ 1419 (Raj) (DB)
14 State of Maharashtra v. Kalu Shivram Jagtap and Ors, 1980 Supp. SCC 224
15 2008(15) SCC 753
16 AIR 1958 SC 465
16

(A)It must establish quite objectively, that a bodily injury is present;
(B)The nature of the injury must be proved. These are purely objective investigations.
(C)It must be proved that there was an intention to inflict that particular injury, that is to say, that
it was not accidental or unintentional or that some other kind of injury was intended.
(D)Once these three elements are proved to be present, the enquiry proceeds further, and
it must be proved that the injury of the type just described made up of the three elements set out
above was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. This part of the enquiry is
purely objective and inferential and has nothing to do with the intention of the offender.
1.2.1 : That bodily injury is present

In the present case, Mr. Lannister suffered severe tissue damage and degeneration due to
presence of Polonium-210, a highly radioactive element, which attacked the red blood cells and
eventually damaged the cell tissues all over the body by destroying the Bone Marrow. It can
objectively be concluded on the basis of the facts and the post mortem and the forensic report
that bodily injury to the deceased is present.
1.2.2 : That the nature of the injury was fatal
In the present case, the Polonium-210 found in the deceased body was 300 times more than the
amount an average human body can handle. This amount led to multiple organ failure. The
fatality rate of this quantity of Po-210 is about 99%.
1.2.3: That the accused had intention to inflict that bodily injury
Since intention of the accused is dealt with aforementioned issues, it is submitted that the
accused did not intend to cause any other injury nor was this injury caused due to accident.
Circumstantial evidence points to the fact that the PW2 & PW3 had the Po-210 with them as a
unique trail was found from the exit of the deceased house to their respective hotel rooms and
traces of this element was also found in these rooms. Furthermore, PW1 is the single supplier of
the Po-210 and the injury caused to the victim was by the element his company distributes.
17

1.2.4: That the injury caused is sufficient to cause death
The administration of 1-3GBq of Po-210 is sufficient to cause death within a few weeks and the
amount found in the body of the deceased was 6GBq.
1.3: That the murder was caused by poisoning

It is humbly submitted before the honorable court that this present case is one of a murder by
poisoning. This assertion is based on conclusion of the forensic report filed by Dr. Sherlock
Gupta on 11th January 2016. This report concluded from a study of the deceased body showcases
traces of Polonium-210 in the victims Heart, Digestive System, Liver, Blood, and Bone Marrow.
This report is admissible as evidence as
1.3.1: Poison17 as per forensic toxicology in Indomenia
A Poison is defined as any substance which when administered in living body through any route
(Inhalation, Ingestion, surface absorption etc) will produce ill-health or death by its action which
is due to its physical chemical or physiological properties. Eg: alphose, sulphuric acid, arsenic
etc.
1.3.2:Polonium-21018
Po-210 is a radioactive material that occurs in nature at very low levels. Po-210 results from the
natural radioactive decay of uranium, which is commonly found in Sierra Nevada granites. Po210 emits alpha particles, which makes it decay to form a stable isotope of lead. The alpha
particles carry high amounts of energy which can damage or destroy genetic material in cells
inside the body. Po- 210 is considered to be one of the most hazardous radioactive materials
known, but it must be breathed in or eaten to exert its toxic effects. Skin or a piece of paper is
enough to stop the radiation emitted by Po-210.
17 http://www.santoshraut.com/forensic/toxicology.htm
18 http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/radiation/fallon/Polonium_factsheet.pdf
18

It can thus be concluded that this is a case of a murder by poisoning and the said poison here is
Polonium-210
In Anant Chantman Lagu v. The State of Bombay19 and subsequently in Bhupinder Singh vs
State of Punjab20, The Supreme Court of India held that
In the cases of murder by administering poison, the Court must carefully scan the evidence and
determine the four important circumstances which alone can justify the
conviction:
(A) There is a clear motive for an accused to administer poison to the deceased;
(B) that the deceased died of poison said to have been administered;
(C) that the accused had the poison in his possession; and
(D) that he had an opportunity to administer the poison to the deceased.
In both of the cases mentioned above, SC justices observed and identified a set of circumstances
to be proven by the prosecution which alone would justify the conviction.
(A) There is a clear motive for an accused to administer poison to the deceased
The investigating officers have found that DW1 stands to lose an estimated 105 Crores of Profit
per month as 42 Crore worth of Liqour had been ordered by DW1 which was sitting outside the
border of Zelhi. The sheer amount of the profit denied to all the accused parties is enough to
denote a motive to poison the man responsible for the act which has been denying these
businessmen their share of profit. This motive was further fuelled when the supposed negotiation
talks of DW3 and DW2 with the erstwhile CM were of no use.
(B) That the deceased died of poison said to have been administered;
As per the Post Mortem Report made by Dr. Tyrion Subramanium at the Zeus Medical Hospital
on 9th January 2016, the cause of death was due to multiple organ failure triggered by poison
targeting cell tissues.
This hypothesis was further corroborated 2 days later after the forensic tests concluded that
Death has been caused due to Po-210 Poisoning. Both these reports showcase that the first
19 A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 500
20 1988 AIR 1011, 1988 SCR (3) 409
19

condition under the guidelines are met by the prosecution.
(C) That the accused had the poison in his possession; and
In Sharda E. Chand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra21,the learned justice Fazal Ali observed It is
true that there is no direct evidence on these two points, because the prosecution is not able to
lead evidence that the accused had secured potassium cyanide poison from a particular source.
Similarly there is no direct evidence to prove that he had administered poison to the victim.
However, it is not necessary to prove each and every fact by a direct evidence. Circumstantial
evidence can be a basis for proving this fact
In the present case, however, the poison used is a rare radioactive substance. 90% of this rare
radioactive substance is processed by a nuclear plant owned by the State of Zelhi. All of this 90%
of PO-210 is exported to the Nation of Tesla by a single authorized supplier that is GRM. GRM
is a company owned by one of the accused, DW1.
This positively links the accused to the possession of the poisonous substance considering that
DW3 and DW2 were both employees of Mr. John DW1 who owns the sole authorized
distribution company of Polonium-210 in the State of Zelhi.
Moreover since circumstantial evidence is accepted as a basis for proving that the accused had
the poison in possession, traces of Po-210 were found on the bodies of the 2 accused, namely,
DW2 and Mr. DW3, the trail of the poisonous substance was found from the exit of the house of
the victim to the Bellagio Hotel, where DW2 and DW3 had stayed from 27th December to 31st
December as confirmed by the investigations done by the Central Burea of Investigation and this
investigation also concluded that DW2 and DW3 handled Po-210 in between the dates 27th -31st
December 2015.
(D)That he had an opportunity to administer the poison to the deceased.
It is humbly submitted before the honorable court DW2 and DW3 did indeed have the
opportunity to administer the poison to the deceased on the morning and afternoon of 30th
December 2015, a date on which both of them have admitted to have met the deceased in person
at the instance of the third person accused, i.e. DW1.
As per the depositions of all 3 accused and Mr. Sheldon Cooper, the PA of the deceased, DW2
21 SCR 88 A.I.R. 1984 S.C. 1622
20

and Mr. DW3 had breakfast and lunch respectively with Mr. Lannister on the 30th December
2016, a day before the victim had to be hospitalized due to sudden ill health, to supposedly
discuss business affairs.
It is submitted that these meetings were where the aforementioned two accused had the
opportunity to administer the poison to the deceased. The prosecution thus qualifies the third
criteria under the guidelines.
It is further submitted that while DW1s involvement does not fit the description of either of the
criteria aforementioned except for a motive to poison the accused, his involvement with the case
has been dealt with under the dying declaration22 and his liability can further be dealt with under
Section 34 of the IPC fortwith.
1.4:That there was common intention among the 3 accused as per Section 34 of the IPC
34-Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.When a criminal act
is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is
liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone
Common intention as per Sec.34, IPC presupposes that there must be a prior concert, a
prearranged plan, ie, a prior meeting of minds, does not mean that there must be a long interval
of time between the formation of common intention and doing the act.23
It is submitted that there was a prior meeting of the minds and the prearranged plan was the
meeting which DW1 had arranged for DW2 and DW3 with the deceased.
Such common intention may take place at the time of commission of criminal act and it does not
mean that the accused need to have knowledge about the consequences but should know the act
22
Supra, pn 5
23
RishideoPande V. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1955 SC 331
21

to be punishable under IPC.24
It is of importance here that it is not necessary for every person to know about the consequences
of the act provided they are aware about the act being punishable. It is submitted before the court
that the accused had prior knowledge about the act of poisoning
. Section 34 of the IPC does take into account the fact of the participation of every individual
offender in the offence which is therein described as 'a criminal act' as well as his mental state
which is therein connoted by the word 'intention.25
In other words, he must be shown to have individually participated in the commission of the
criminal act. The criminal act, therefore, contemplated in Section 34, IPC, is a joint act which is
the result of several persons individually acting in a particular manner.
Thus it is submitted to the court that every individual member of the entire group charged with
the aid of Section 34, IPC, must, therefore, be a sharer in the joint act which is the result of their
combined activity. This is a necessary inference that follows from the provisions of Section 34,
IPC itself, and, as everyone is presumed to know the law, the accused must know that when a
charge with the aid of Section 34, IPC is recorded against him, his individual role in the joint act
is brought into challenge.
Section 34, IPC, may now be looked at from the other aspect, namely, the mental aspect of the
offence contemplated by Section 34, IPC. This aspect is termed in Section 34, IPC as the
'common intention' which permeates the criminal act and in furtherance of which the said act is
done.26
24
Nazir V. Emperor, AIR 1948, All 229
25
Om Prakash vs State, AIR 1956 All 241
26
Ibid
22

It is humbly submitted before the honble court that all 3 accused shared common intention
between them
ISSUE 2: WHETHER ACCUSED ARE GUILTY FOR THE OFFENCE OF CRIMINAL

CONSPIRACY
It is most humbly submitted that the accused are guilty for committing the crime of criminal
Conspiracy. It is pertinent to note that the punishment for committing criminal conspiracy is
mentioned in Section120 B, IPC whereas in order to show conviction under this charge, it is
important to refer to the ingredients of Sec.120A, IPC.
2.1 Acts of the Accused were to conspire against the complainant.
Section 120A in The Indian Penal Code
120A. Definition of criminal conspiracy.When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be
done,
(1)An illegal act, or
(2) An act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal
conspiracy: Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount
to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to
such agreement in pursuance thereof. Explanation.It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the
ultimate object of such agreement, or is merely incidental to that object
Thus, under Sec.120A, IPC, Criminal conspiracy is defined as when two or more persons agree
to do or cause to do;
a) There must be an agreement between the persons who are alleged to conspire; and
23

b) That agreement should be for doing; an illegal act, or an act which is not illegal by illegal
means, then such an agreement is designated to be criminal conspiracy.27
The accused dealing with the criminal conspiracy, show that there were transactions which infer
the conduct of accused for the same.28
Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code
120B. Punishment of criminal conspiracy.
(1) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death,
2[imprisonment for life] or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall,
where no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be
punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence.
(2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an
offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both.
2.1.1 There was an agreement between the accused to conspire.

The very essential ingredient of proving criminal conspiracy is to show agreement between two
or more persons who were alleged to conspire, itself amounts to offence.29
In order to convict the accused guilty circumstantial evidence must be relied upon.30
27
Section 120A, Indian Penal Code.
28
Mandanlal V. State of Punjab, 1967, SCR(3), 439.
29
K.S. Narayan V. S. Gopinathan, 1982 Cr LJ, 1611 (Mad); State of Madhya Pradesh V. Sheetla Sahai
2009 (8) SCC 617
30
State (NCT of Delhi) V. Navjot Sandhu, 2005 Cr LJ 3950 SC; State of Madhya Pradesh V. Sheetla Sahai
2009 (8) SCC 617; Baldev Singh V. State of Punjab 2009 (6) SCC 564
24

The amendment made conspiracy a substantive offence and rendered the mere agreement to
commit an offence punishable.31
Conspiracy is apart from it being a distinct offence, all conspirators are liable for acts of each
other of the crime or crimes which have been committed, as a result of the conspiracy. 32
Theory of agency applies and this rule existed even prior to the amendment of 1913, which is
reflected in the rule of evidence, under section 10 of Evidence Act.33
To bring home the charge of criminal conspiracy under the ambit of 120B, it is necessary to
establish that there was an agreement between the parties for doing an unlawful act34, howerever
it is difficult to establish conspiracy by direct evidence. Since conspiracy is hatched in secrecy, to
bring home the charge of conspiracy, it is relevant to decicide conclusively the object behind it
from the charges levied on the accused and the facts of the case, This means may even constitute
different offences by themselves, but as long as they are adopted to achieve the ultimate
objective of conspiracy, the are also acts of conspiracy.35
31
Yakub Abdul Memon v. State of Maharashtra, 2013(13) SCC 1
32
Ibid
33
Section 10, Indian Evidence Act
34
K.R Purushothaman V. State of Kerala 2005 (12) SCC 631
35
Supra 5
25

For an offence under section 120B of IPC, the prosecution, need not necessarily prove that the
conspirators expressly agreed to do or cause to be done an illegal act, the agreement may be
proved by necessary implication36
2.1.2 The agreement was for doing an illegal act.
An act is said to be illegal which amounts to an offence, prohibited by law.37
The essential ingredient of offence of criminal conspiracy is the agreement to commit an
offence38.Mere proof of such agreement is sufficient to prove criminal conspiracy.39
The mere agreement by two or more persons to do or causing any illegal act to be done
constitutes an overt act (actus reus). Actus Reus in a conspiracy is the agreement to execute the
illegal conduct, not the execution of it. It is not however necessary that each conspirator should
have been in communication with every other.40
It is thus contended before the court that, there was an agreement between the accused parties,
one of such supporting evidence in this case is the call record which was found by the CBI,
through their secret agent in which there were three words heard, which was, accomplish, if not
36
Ibid
37
Section 43, Indian Penal Code.
38
R Venkatakrishnan V. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2010 AIR (SC) 1812; Baldev Singh V. State of
Punjab 2009 (6) SCC 564
39
SushilSuri V. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2011 AIR SC 1713; Damodar V. State of Rajasthan, 2004
(12) SCC 336; Nazir Khan V. State of Delhi 2003 (8) SCC 461
40
Vimal Chand V. State of Rajasthan, 1999 Cr LJ 128 (Raj.); Ram Narain Poply V Central Bureau of
Investigation
26

then remove the target when they traced there activities from 27th to 31st December, 2015,
therefore amounting to said agreement.
2.2 Accused had Common Intention to conspire.
Common intention of the accused is a vital part in order to show that they were intending to act
in furtherance to commit a crime.41
Conspiracy is usually hatched up in utmost secrecy so it is impossible to be proved by way of
direct evidence hence circumstantial evidence has to be relied upon. This has to be shown by
way of looking at statements, conduct and acts of the accused to show them to have common
intention to conspire.42
It is a well settled principle that the evidence as to transmission of thought sharing the unlawful
design may be sufficient to prove the accused guilty,43
It is thus contended before the court, that as all the three accused has business losses in the
company due to the liquor ban in the state of Zelhi, thus amounting common intention to
conspire by them.
2.2.1 Accused actively participated to conspire against the deceased.

Circumstantial evidence can be instrumental to convict an accused if it shows that a chain of
evidence has been so completed that it does not leave room for any reasonable doubt for a
conclusion to prove him guilty.44
41
Section 34, Indian Penal Code.
42
Mohd. Usman Mohd. Hussain V. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1981 SC 1062
43
KeharSimgh V. State (Delhi Admin) (1989) Cr LJ 1
27

Each individual conspirator need not know the contents of the entire conspiracy or each and
every step-It is possible that the coconspirators knowledge of the conspiracy is limited to his role
in the conspiracy and he may have no knowledge about the actions of other co conspirators.45
Thus the facts in issue are those which shows that the respondents were involved in transaction
to conspire against the deceased.
2.2.2 Presence at scene of occurrence amounts to presumption of participation
The presence of Shawn Michaels and Ric Flair at the scene of occurrence amounts to the
presumption of participation and it is established by the presumption that juris et de jure
which means actual presence in furtherance to do a pre-planned act amounts to participation
in the same.
Thus it is humbly submitted before this court that the presence of Shawn Michaels at Breakfast
and Ric Flair at Lunch amounts to presence at scene of occurance thus amounting to presumption
of participation in the crime.
2.2.3Arguendo, Common intention may develop on the spot
Common intention as per Sec.34, IPC presupposes that there must be a prior concert, a prearranged plan, i.e, a prior meeting of minds, does not mean that there must be a long interval of
time between the formation of common intention and doing the act.46
44
Queen Empress V. HosNak, 1941 ALJR 416
45
Adam bhai suleman bhai ajmeri Vs State of Gujrat 2014 (7) SCC 716
46
RishideoPande V. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1955 SC 331
28

Such common intention may take place at the time of commission of criminal act and it does not
mean that the accused need to have knowledge about the consequences but should know the act
to be punishable under IPC.47
As per Sec.118, IEA, all persons shall be competent witnesses, unless they are prevented from
understanding or answering the question put to them by virtue of tender years, extreme old age,
disease or infirmity, lunacy or any other cause of same kind.48
This section thereby gives grounds for admissibility of the statements of the accused and the
direct link of circumstantial evidence.
PRAYER
Wherefore, in light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, may this
Honble Court be pleased to:
Charge John Cena, Ric Flair & Shawn Michaels from the charge of criminal conspiracy
under section 120B of IPC.
Charge John Cena, Ric Flair & Shawn Michaels from the charge of Murder under
section 302 of IPC.
Charge John Cena, Ric Flair & Shawn Michaels from the charge of Common Intention
under section 34 of IPC.
AND/OR
47
Nazir V. Emperor, AIR 1948, All 229
48
Section 118, Indian Evidence Act.
29
Pass any other order it may deem fit, in the interest of Justice, Equity and Good
Conscience.
All of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted
Place: Zelhi
Date:
S/d_____________
COUNSEL FOR THE PROSECUTION
30

Memorandum For The Prosecution

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

Memorandum For The Prosecution

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

JURY TRIAL, BAR THE LEX FIESTA 2016

FOR OFFENCES CHARGED UNDER

Memorandum Humbly Submitted

JURY TRIAL, BAR THE LEX FIESTA 2016

WHETHER ACCUSED IS GUILTY FOR THE OFFENCE OF CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY?

JURY TRIAL, BAR THE LEX FIESTA 2016

Bombay High Court

JURY TRIAL, BAR THE LEX FIESTA 2016

Santosh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1975 Cri LJ 602 (SC)

Laxman v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1974 SC 1803

Kundula Bala Subrahmanyam Vs. State of A.P. 2002 SCC(Cr.) 1491

JURY TRIAL, BAR THE LEX FIESTA 2016

Ramakantmishra Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 2015(8) SCC 299

Vikas and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra, (2008 ) 2 SCC

Paniben V. State of Gujarat, AIR 1992 SC 1817

Kesar Singh & Anr vs State Of Haryana, 2008(15) SCC 753

Virsa Singh vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1958 SC 465

Rishideo Pande V. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1955 SC 331

Mandanlal V. State of Punjab, 1967, SCR(3), 439.

K.S. Narayan V. S. Gopinathan, 1982 Cr LJ, 1611 (Mad);

State of Madhya Pradesh V. Sheetla Sahai 2009 (8) SCC 617

State (NCT of Delhi) V. Navjot Sandhu, 2005 Cr LJ 3950 SC;

R Venkatakrishnan V. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2010 AIR (SC) 1812

Baldev Singh V. State of Punjab 2009 (6) SCC 564

SushilSuri V. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2011 AIR SC 1713;

Damodar V. State of Rajasthan, 2004 (12) SCC 336;

Nazir Khan V. State of Delhi 2003 (8) SCC 461

Vimal Chand V. State of Rajasthan, 1999 Cr LJ 128 (Raj.)

Mohd. Usman Mohd. Hussain V. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1981 SC 1062

KeharSimgh V. State (Delhi Admin) (1989) Cr LJ 1

Queen Empress V. HosNak, 1941 ALJR 416

JURY TRIAL, BAR THE LEX FIESTA 2016

JURY TRIAL, BAR THE LEX FIESTA 2016

Read with Section 209:

JURY TRIAL, BAR THE LEX FIESTA 2016

JURY TRIAL, BAR THE LEX FIESTA 2016

JURY TRIAL, BAR THE LEX FIESTA 2016

Mr Ric Flair - section 302 r/w 34 and 120B

JURY TRIAL, BAR THE LEX FIESTA 2016

That the accused had the intention to cause death

4 Santosh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1975 Cri LJ 602 (SC)

5 Laxman v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1974 SC 1803

JURY TRIAL, BAR THE LEX FIESTA 2016

that he wanted to get rid of the deceased Mr. Jignesh Lannister.

6 Williams (1986) 84Cr AppR 299,CA

7 Shyama Charan Sri Ram Saran v. State, AIR 1969 All 61

JURY TRIAL, BAR THE LEX FIESTA 2016

(B) DYING DECLARATION

9 (1993) 2 SCC 684.

JURY TRIAL, BAR THE LEX FIESTA 2016

In Vikas and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra11 ; Paniben V. State of Gujarat12

JURY TRIAL, BAR THE LEX FIESTA 2016

JURY TRIAL, BAR THE LEX FIESTA 2016

15 2008(15) SCC 753

16 AIR 1958 SC 465

JURY TRIAL, BAR THE LEX FIESTA 2016

1.2.1 : That bodily injury is present

JURY TRIAL, BAR THE LEX FIESTA 2016

1.3: That the murder was caused by poisoning

JURY TRIAL, BAR THE LEX FIESTA 2016

20 1988 AIR 1011, 1988 SCR (3) 409

JURY TRIAL, BAR THE LEX FIESTA 2016

JURY TRIAL, BAR THE LEX FIESTA 2016