Professional Documents
Culture Documents
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)
List of Abbreviations..3
Index of Authorities4
Statement of Jurisdiction.7
Statement of Charges.8
Arguments Advanced.9-25
CHARGE 1
WHETHER JOHN CENA, SHAWN MICHAELS & RIC FLAIR ARE INVOLVED IN
CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY?
Prayer.26
AIR
Bom
Cal.
Cr LJ
Cr.
Mah LJ
p.
Punj
SC
SCC
SCW
Paragraph
All India Reporter
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)
3
Lists of Cases
Devender Pal Singh Vs. State N.C.T. of Delhi, AIR 2002 SC 1661.
Firzouddin Basheeruddin Vs. State of Kerala, (2001) 7 SCC 596
Firzouddin Basheeruddin Vs. State of Kerala, (2001) 7 SCC 596.
Hira Lal Hari Lal Bhagwati Vs. CBI, (2003) 5 SCC 257
Hira Lal Hari Lal Bhagwati Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2003 SCC (Cr) 1121.
Kiriti Pal Vs. State of West Bengal, 2015 (5) SCALE 319
4
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Honble Court has jurisdiction to try the instant matter under Section 177 read with Section
6
Section 177:
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.
STATEMENT OF CHARGES
CHARGE 1
CHARGE 2
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
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
CHARGE 1
WHETHER JOHN CENA, SHAWN MICHAELS & RIC FLAIR ARE GUILTY OF
CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY?
10
admissible provided:12
It is contended before the Honble Court that in the instant case, the investigation report
conducted by Central Bureau of Investigation is silent whether the voice was recognized by any
competent witness and if in case it was recognized, then who actually recognized it. Also, the
Defence Witnesses in their statement refused to agree that they had any type of such conference
between them. As per the Statements:
(a) DW 2: Mr. Shawn Michaels: I deny the call recording which you are telling me about;
we never had a conference call in the past month or so.13
(b) DW 3: Mr. Ric Flair: I know nothing of the call record; Mr. Cena never said these
words.14
As in the words of the Apex Court:
10 P. RAMANATHA AIYAR, The Major Law Lexicon, 4th Edition, Volume 1, LexisNexis
Butterworths Wadhwa Nagpur, Haryana (2010) p. 262.
11 Annexure-6 (Report of Investigation Report) (iv)
12 Dr. B.R. SHARMA, Forensic Science in Criminal Investigation & Trials, 5th Edition, Universal
Law Publishing Co. Ltd., (2014) p. 1544
13 Statement of Witnesses, Page 16, 4.
14 Statement of Witnesses, Page 17, 3.
13
1.2.
It is submitted before the Honble Court, that prima facie it cannot be established anywhere that
the accused were involved in any criminal conspiracy. There should be a prima facie evidence
that a person was a party to the conspiracy before his acts can be used against the co15 Mahabir Prasad Verma Vs. Dr. Surindra Kaur, (1982) 2 SCC 258.
16 Nilesh Dinkar Paradkar Vs State Of Maharashtra, (2011) 4 SCC 143.
17 Vijay Kumar Arora Vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi, (2010) 2 SCC 353, Kiriti Pal Vs. State of West
Bengal, 2015 (5) SCALE 319.
18 Firzouddin Basheeruddin Vs. State of Kerala, (2001) 7 SCC 596.T
19 State of Kerala Vs. P. Sugathan, (2000) 8 SCC 203.
20 Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal, AIR 1979 SC 366.
14
Mr. Shawn Michaels and Ric Flair were not mentioned in his dying declaration.
The deceased was not in fit condition.
1.2.1. ACCUSED NO.1 & ACCUSED NO. 2 WERE NOT MENTIONED IN DYING
DECLARATION.
It is submitted before the Honble Court that on 7 th January, 2016 while Mr. Lannister
was addressing the media, not even for once did the deceased mentioned the name of
Shawn Michaels (Accused No. 1) & Ric Flair (Accused No. 2), whereas in FIR it is
21 RATANLAL & DHIRAJLAL, The Law of Evidence, 23rd Edtion, LexisNexis Butterworths
Wadhwa Nagpur, Gurgaon (2012) p. 281.
22 Hira Lal Hari Lal Bhagwati Vs. CBI, (2003) 5 SCC 257.
23 Empress Vs. Rama Birappa, ILR (1878) 3 Bom 12, 17.
24 SUPRA 32, p. 10
25 Page 16, Jury Trial Problem
15
Judges of Supreme Court held that "when the doctor failed to certify that the injured was
in a fit state of mind at the time of recording the dying declaration, it would not be safe to
accept the dying declaration as true and genuine." In the said case certificate of the doctor
only stated that "patient is conscious while recording the statement." It was observed that,
"In medical science two stages namely conscious and a fit state of mind is distinct and
are not synonymous. One may be conscious but not necessarily in a fit state of mind."
It is contended before the Court that as per the analogy given by PW 1, the deceased was
ingested with about 6GBq Polonium (Po210) which is a very lethal dose.35 Also according
to the Forensic Report, the fatality rate in this quantity of Po 210 is about 99%.36 It clearly
shows that the deceased was not in a fit state condition. Also In K. Ramachandra Reddy
and another vs. The Public Prosecutor,37 the Apex court having noticed the evidence of
P.W.20 therein who conducted the post-mortem that there were as many as 48 injuries on
the person of the deceased out of which there were 28 incised wounds on the various
parts of the body including quite a few gaping incised injuries came to the conclusion that
in view of those serious injuries it was difficult to believe that the deceased would have
been in a fit state of mind to make a dying declaration.
As Supreme Court already stated that:
Though a dying declaration is entitled and is still recognised by law to be given greater
weightage but it has also to be kept in mind that the accused had no chance of crossexamination. Such a right of cross-examination is essential for eliciting the truth as an
obligation of oath. This is the reason, generally, the court insists that the dying
declaration should be such which inspires full confidence of the court of its
correctness.38
CHARGE 2
WHETHER JOHN CENA, SHAWN MICHAELS & RIC FLAIR ARE GUILTY OF
MURDER?
It is submitted before the Honble Court that the John Cena, Shawn Michaels & Ric Flair are not
guilty of the offence as per section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. Section 302 defines
punishment of Murder which states:
Punishment for murder.whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or
imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.
38 Sharda v. State of Rajasthan, (2010) 2 SCC 85.
39 Shyamrao Vitthal Poemwar Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2001 Mah LJ 233.
40 Arwind Singh Vs. State of Bihar, AIR 2001 SC 2124.
19
41 Sachindranath Chatterjee Vs. Smt. Nilima Chatterjee, AIR 1970 Cal 38.
42 Gangadhar Behera And Ors Vs. State Of Orissa,
43 State of U.P. Vs. Krishna Gopal, (1988) 4 SCC 302.
20
There is a discrepancy between the dying declaration & investigation report as well as
in FIR, as in the dying declaration there was no mention about the Accused No. 2 & 3
but in the FIR & Investigation Report they have stated that the deceased named the
Accused No. 1 employees with whom he conspired. Such discrepancy creates a
situation of benefit of doubt. A criminal trial is not like a fairy tale wherein one in free
to give flight to one's imagination and phantasm. 45 If two reasonably probable and
evenly balanced views of the evidence are possible, one must necessarily concede the
(ii)
44 Maharashtra State Board of Secondary And Higher Secondary Education Vs. K.S. Gandhi & Others,
1991 SCALE (1) 187.
45 State of Punjab Vs. Jagir Singh, 1974 SCR (1) 328.
46 Chandrappa & Others Vs. State of Karnataka,
47 Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116.
21
PRAYER
Wherefore, in light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, may this
Honble Court be pleased to:
68 K.M. Nanawati Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1962 SC 605.
69 Dahyabha Chhaganbhai Thakker Vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 1964 SC 1563.
70 Sudhdeo Jha Utpal Vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1957 SC 466.
71 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. 221.
72 Sudhir Shantilal Mehta Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2009) 8 SCC 1.
73 SURENDRA MALIK, SUMEET MALIK & SUDEEP MALIK, Supreme Court Yearly Digest,
2014, Eastern Book Company, New Delhi (2014) p. 587.
26
Place: Zelhi
Date:
S/d_____________
COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENCE
27