Before The Honorable Court Of: Surana and Surana National Trial Advocacy Moot Court

SURANA AND SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT
COMPETITION
11th 13th SEPTEMBER 2015
BEFORE THE HONORABLE COURT OF

SESSIONS, DURG, XANADU
S.C.N.o.111 of 2015
MEMORANDUM FOR DEFENCE
IN THE MATTER OF:

State of Xanadu...Prosecution
V.
1. Manohar & 2.Rahul. .Accused/Defence
MEMORIAL SUBMITTED BY
COUNSELS FOR THE DEFENCE
Page |2
SURANA AND SURANA TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2015
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATION....5
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES...7
CASES REFERRED
BOOKS REFERRED
LAW DICTIONARIES
STATUTES REFERRED
WEB SOURCE
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION........11
STATEMENT OF THE FACT.....12
STATEMENT OF CHARGES ....13
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS.......14
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED....16
ISSUE-I:
1. WHETHER THE ACCUSED ARE LIABLE TO BE PUNISHED FOR OFFENCES
ALLEGED UNDER SECTION 302 OF BHARAT PENAL CODE.
1.1 The accused is absolutely innocent and has no involvement in the alleged crime.
1.2 The entire allegations are merely based on suspicion that does not establish the guilt of
the accused.
1.3 PW1 and PW2 out of their vengeance towards the accused implicated the in the crime.
1.4 There is no substantive evidence that explains the reason of Karan's death.
1.5 The prosecution has failed to prove a reasonable motive in the alleged crime
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE
Page |3
ISSUE II:
2. WHETHER THE ACCUSED MR.MANOHAR AND MR.RAHUL ARE LIABLE TO
BE PUNISHED UNDER SECTION 465 OF BHARAT PENAL CODE.
2.1. The acts do not constitute the offence of forgery.
2.2 There is no proof that the accused has used Dr.Choudarys prescription
2.3 Angispan could even be obtained without a prescription.
2.4 There is no ground for alleging the offence of forgery.
ISSUE III:
BE PUNISHED UNDER SECTIONS 66&66C OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
ACT 2005.
3.1 There is no substantive evidence to show that the key loggers were installed by the
accused.
3.2. The prosecution has failed to produce any cyber forensic analysis reports to substantiate
that the key loggers were installed by the accused.
ISSUE IV:
BE PUNISHED UNDER SECTIONS 120-B READ WITH SEC.34 OF BHARAT
PENAL CODE.
4.1 Prosecution could not establish the criminal conspiracy and common objective as
alleged.
4.2 Prosecution could not establish any offence against the accused and thus cannot be
punished under the said sections.
Page |4
ISSUE V:
5. WHETHER THE ACCUSED MR.RAHUL ISLIABLE TO BE PUNISHED FOR
OFFENCES ALLEGED UNDER SECTION 109 OF BHARAT PENAL CODE.
5.1 The accused is not liable to be punished for abetment under Sec.109
5.2 Prosecution could not establish the grounds for abetment as per Sec109.
LIST OF THE DEFENCE WITNESSES.....31
LIST OF DOCUMENTS...32
LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS33
APPENDIX.....34
PRAYER.....41
Page |5
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
A.I.R
All India Reporters
All
Allahabad High Court
Anr
Another
AP
Andra Pradesh
B.P.C
Bharat Penal Code
Bom.
Bombay
BomLR
Bombay Law Reporter
Cal
Calcutta High Court
Crl.A
Criminal Appeal
Cr.Pc
Criminal Procedure Code
Cr.L.J
Criminal Law Journal
PW
Prosecution Witness
DW
Defense Witness
ECC
Essential Commodities Cases
Edn.
Edition
GLR
Gujarat Law Reporter
Guj
Gujarat
I.T Act
Information Technology Act
Honable
Honorable
KLJ
Kerala Law Journal
Mad
Madras
MO
Material Object
No.
Number
Page |6
Ors.
Others
p.
Page
Pat LJR
Patna Law Journal Reports
PH
Punjab & Haryana High Court
PW
Prosecution Witness
QB
Queens Bench
r/w
Read with
SC
Supreme Court
SCC
Supreme Court Cases
SCR
Supreme Court Reporter
Sec.
Section
SLP
Special Leave Petition
Supp.
Supplementary
Tr & Coch
Travancore & Cochin
u/s
Under Section
v.
Versus
vol.
Volume
WB
West Bengal
Page |7
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
TABLE OF CASES:
1. Anil Kumar Bose v. State of Bihar, AIR 1974 SC 1560
2. Anil Sham Rao Sute and Anr.v.State of Maharastra, 2013 CRI.L.J 2233
3. Attygalle v. Emperor, AIR 1936 PC 169
4. Babu v. State of Kerala, (2010) 9 SCC 189
5. Baldev Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 2009 SC Supp. 1629
6. Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1996 SC 607
7. Bhagwan Dass v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2011) 6 SCC 396
8. Brijlala Pd. Sinha v. State of Bihar, (1998)5 SCC 699
9. Crl.A.No.2143 of 2011 By Adv. Shri. M.R Sasith
10. C.S.D Swamy v. State [1960]1 SCR 461
11. Dr.Vimala v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1963 SC 1572
12. Dharam Singh v. Jammu and Kashmir, 2004 CrLJ 1704
13. Emperor v. Sanjiv Ratnappa (1932) 34 BOMLR 1090
14. Govindaraju @ Govinda vs State By Sriramapuram P.S. & Anr AIR 2012 SC
15. Hanumant & Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [1952] SCR 1091
16. Indravadan @ Indubhai Chimanlal v. State of Gujarat (1993) 2 GLR 1351
17. Janar Lal Das v. State of Orissa, 1991 (3) SCC 27
18. Jayantila K.Katakia v. P.Govindan Nair, AIR1981 SC 1196
19. Jayaram and Anr. v. State of AP, AIR 1995 SC 2128
20. Joginder Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh A.I.R 1994 SC 461
21. K.M. Nanavathui v. State of Maharastra,1962 SCR Supl(1) 567
Page |8
22. Kartare v. State, AIR 1976 SC 2324

23. Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1988 SC 1883
24. Kiran Bedi& Jinder Singh v. Committee of Injury, AIR1989 SC714
25. Kishan Chand v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1994 SC 32
26. Mahmood v. State of UP AIR 1976 SC 69
27. Mohan Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1974 SC 1144
28. Munna Kumar Upadhyaya & Munnu Upadhyaya v. State of A.P., AIR 2012 SC 2470
29. Mustak Hussein v. State OF Bombay,[1953] SCR 809
30. Padala Veera Reddy v. State Of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1990 SC 79
31. Paramahamsa Yadav, 1987 Cri.L.J
32. Pratap vs State of U.P.,1976 SCR(1) 757
33. Ram Das v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1977 SC 1164
34. Ram Narayan v. CBI, (2003)3 SCC 641
35. Ramakant Rai v. Madan Rai Cr LJ 2004 SC 36
36. Ramesh Chotalal Dalal v. Union of India, AIR 1988 SC 775
37. Rajkapoor v. Laxman, AIR 1980 SC 605;
38. Rishi Kesh Singh Ors. v. State, AIR 1970All 51(FB)
39. Sahabuddin & Anr v. State of Assam CDJ 2012 SC 894
40. Shushil Suri v CBI, AIR 2011 1713
41. Smt. Karpai v. State (Delhi Admn), Crl. A No. 72/1994
42. Smt. Nagindra Bala Mitra v Sunil Chandra Roy, [1960]3 SCR 1
43. Smt. Sarabati Devi & Anr vs Smt. Usha Devi, 1984 AIR 346
44. State of Gujarat,1991(2) crimes 372 (Guj)
45. State of Haryana and Others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1993 SC 1348
46. State of Madras v. A. Vaidyanatha Iyer, [1958] SCR 580
Page |9
47. State Of Nct Of Delhi vs Ravi Kant Sharma & Ors, AIR 2007 Sc 528
48. Subhasish Mondal @ Bijoy v. State of West Bengal Crl. A No.1391 of 2008
49. Sujith Biswas v. State of Assam, 2013 CRI.L.J. 3140
50. Sukhram v. Maharastra, (2007)7 SCC 502
51. Ujagar Singh v. State of Punjab, 2007)13 SCC 9
52. Wakkar v. State of U.P (2011) 3 SCC 306
53. Woolmington v. Director Of Public Prosecutions, LR 1935 AC 46
BOOKS REFERRED:
1. Justice YV Chandrachud VR Manohar The Indian Penal Code, Ratanlal and Dhirajlal,
2004
2. Dr. K.D. Gaur Commentary on The Indian Penal Code, 2nd Edition
3. Ratanlal & Dhirajlal The Law of Evidence, 2nd Edition
4. Ratanlal and Dheerajlal The Code of Criminal Procedure, 20th Edition
5. Prof.S.N. Mira, The Indian Penal Code, 13th Edition
6. S.K Sarvaria, The Indian Penal Code, 10th Edition
7. Dr. Sri Singh Gaurs, The Indian Penal Code, 11th Edition
8. M.P. Tandon, The Indian Penal Code, 23rd Edn.,2005
9. P.S.A Pillai, Criminal Law,12th Edn 2014
10. S.N. Mishra, The Code of Criminal Procedure, 12th Edition
11. Justice Y.V. Chandrachud, The Code of Criminal Procedure, 17th Edition
12. Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, Commentary on Code on Criminal Procedure, 30th Edition
13. Justice Y.V. Chandrachud, The Law of Evidence, 21st Edition, 2006
14. K D Gaur Criminal Law Cases and Materials, Seventh Edition
15. P.M. Bakshi, Law of Evidence, 6th Edition, 1998, The Oxford Companion to Law
P a g e | 10
16. B M Gandhi, Indian Penal Code, Third Edition

17. Field, C.D., Expert Evidence: Medical and Non-Medical, (4th Ed 2007)
18. James, Jason, Forensic Medicine: Clinical and Pathological Aspects, (1st Ed. 2003)
19. Lyons, Medical Jurisprudence & Toxicology, (11th Ed. 2005)
20. Modis Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, (23rd Ed. 2010)
LAW DICTIONARIES:
1. Henry Campbell Black, Blacks Law Dictionary, (6th Edition 1990), West Publishing
Company, St. Paul
2. Oxford English Dictionary, Ed.10, (2005)
3. Barrons Law Dictionary, Ed. 6(2010)
STATUTES REFERRED:
1. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act 2 of 1973)

2. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Act 18 of 1872)
3. The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860)
4. Information Technology Act, 2000 (Act 21 of 2000)
LEGAL DATABASE:
1. http://www.cdjlawjournal.com
2. http://www.findlaw.com
3. http://www.indiankanoon.org
4. http://www.judis.com
5. http://www.manupatra.co.in
P a g e | 11
STATEMENTS OF JURISDICTION
The counsels for the defence, appearing on behalf of the accused humbly submit this
memorandum under Sec.314 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The memorandum sets
forth the facts, contentions and arguments in the present case.
The counsel humbly submits that Honble Court has jurisdiction to try the instant matter
under Section 177 read with Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Sec.177: Ordinary place of inquiry and trail
Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local
jurisdiction it was committed.
Read with Sec.209
Sec.209: Commitment of case to Court of Session when offence is triable exclusively by it
When 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 trail;
c.
send to that Court the record of the case and the documents and articles, if any, which
are to produced in evidence;
d.
notify the Public Prosecutor of the commitment of the case to the Court of Session.
P a g e | 12
STATEMENTS OF FACTS
Manoharlal alias Mano, the alleged accused in this case, is a bright, sincere and
studious 3rd year medical student of TMC. He lost his parents at the very tender age of 10. After
that he was brought up by his uncle Karan. Despite Manos encouragement, frequent references
to Mano made Karan's son Raghav irritated, which was capable enough to develop hatred for
Mano among family comprising of Raghav and Devika. Their attitude towards Mano and
unpleasant conditions in the house made Karans life difficult and
he became an alcoholic.
Karan knew that, if something happens to him, Mano would be left alone. This worried Karan
and he took an insurance policy with Mano as its nominee. Devikas hostility against Mano
went to such an extent that she even stopped paying his college fees. Karan soon realized that in
order to maintain his family life it is better to pretend before Devika as if he also hates Mano,
thus pretended so. But when ever Karan got a chance he showered all his affection on Mano. On
August 2nd, when Devika was not around, Karan called Mano and asked him to transfer the
money that he needs.
On 3rd August, Karan collapsed due to unbearable chest pain and Mano along with
Raghav searched for his medicines. When they couldn't find them they called Dr.Choudary and
came to know that he was out of town. Even though he was rushed to hospital as per Mano's
suggestion they couldn't save Karan's life. Later, Devika and Raghav, out of there vengeance
towards Mano implicated him with Karans murder.
P a g e | 13
STATEMENT OF CHARGES
CHARGE I:
Charges under section, 302,465 read with 34,120 B of Bharat Penal Code and
under sections 66 &66C of Information Technology Act have been charged
against Mr.Manohar to which the accused has pleaded not guilty.
CHARGE II:
Charges under section, 302,465 read with 34, 120B, 109 of Bharat Penal Code
and under sections 66 &66C of Information Technology Act have been
charged against Mr.Rahul to which the accused has pleaded not guilty.
P a g e | 14
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
1. THE ACCUSED ARE NOT LIABLE TO BE PUNISHED FOR OFFENCES

Prosecution has completely failed to establish the offence of murder against the
accused in the instant case.
1.1 The entire allegations are merely based on suspicion that does not establish the guilt
of the accused.
1.2 The accused is absolutely innocent and has no involvement in the alleged crime.
1.3 There is no substantive evidence to explain Karans death.
1.4 Prosecution has failed to prove a reasonable motive in the alleged crime.
1.5 The prosecution has miserably failed to establish a chain of incidents and
incriminating circumstances against the accused.
1.6 Devika and Raghav, interested witnesses out of their vengeance and hatred against
the accused implicated the accused in the crime.
2. THE ACCUSED MR.MANOHAR AND MR.RAHUL ARE NOT LIABLE TO BE
PUNISHED UNDER SECTION 465 OF BHARAT PENAL CODE.
The question of forgery is completely irrelevant in the present case. The acts of the
accused in no way constitute the offence of forgery.
2.1 The allegation that the accused has used Dr.Choudarys prescription to obtain
Angispan is baseless and malicious as Angispan is freely available medicine in the
market even without a prescription from a doctor.
2.2 The accused has not faked any document or even attempted to access any document
or account as alleged.
P a g e | 15
THE ACCUSED MR.MANOHAR AND MR.RAHUL ARE NOT LIABLE TO BE

PUNISHED UNDER SECTIONS 66&66C OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT
2005.
The charges are mere allegations. The prosecution could not provide any substantive
evidence
3.1 There are no sufficient proofs to show that the key loggers were installed or used by
the accused.
3.2 The prosecution has not produced any evidence to show that the accused had hacked
or accessed the account of Karan.
3.3 Further the prosecution has absolutely failed in producing any cyber forensic analysis
reports to substantiate the allegations against the accused.

PUNISHED UNDER SECTIONS 120-B OF BHARAT PENAL CODE.
It is humbly submitted before this Honble Court that the accused are not liable to be
punished under Sec.120-B for conspiracy.
4.1 As the prosecution could not establish criminal conspiracy as they failed to establish
the existence of meeting of minds or prior agreements in furtherance of alleged crime
4.2 No offences are proved against the accused and thus no circumstance to establish the
said allegations.
5 THE ACCUSED MR.RAHUL IS NOT LIABLE TO BE PUNISHED FOR
OFFENCES ALLEGED UNDER SECTION 109 OF BHARAT PENAL CODE.
5.1 The accused is not liable to be punished for abetment.
5.2 Prosecution could not submit any proof or evidence of abetment under Sec109.
P a g e | 16
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
ISSUE I
1. THE ACCUSED ARE NOT LIABLE TO BE PUNISHED FOR OFFENCES ALLEGED
UNDER SECTION 302OF BHARAT PENAL CODE
The edifice of the judicial system in India rests on the principle, it is
better and more satisfactory to acquit a thousand guilty than to condemn a single innocent `.This
sacred principle is unimpeachably embedded in the Criminal laws of India so that the rule in its
sublime semantics does not become a rope of sand loosing it righteous meaning and moral
quintessence, causing a miscarriage of justice. The defense humbly submits before the Honble
Court of Sessions that the accused is not liable for the offences punishable under Sec302 murder.
1.1 The accused is absolutely innocent and has not committed the alleged crime
Sec.300 of IPC presupposes a mens rea and an overt act to prosecuting anybody for murder.
In the present case neither is there any mental intention for the accused to kill his own uncle nor
has he attempted to cause injury to the deceased.
In clear and categorical terms Brijlala Pd. Sinha v. State of Bihar1 laid down that where the
intent and overt act is not unerringly established without any room for doubt against the accused,
the tentacles of Sec.302 shall not be extended to the accused, rather he shall be presumed
innocent. As both ingredients are not present in the instant case, by no stretch of imagination, the
accused can be convicted from the charge of the brutal crime, murder.
Scrutinizing the outlines of mens rea the Supreme Court in Anil Kumar Bose v. State of
Bihar2 laid that, the evidence adduced must establish beyond reasonable doubt, intent to kill the
1
2
(1998)5 SCC 699

AIR 1974 SC 1560
P a g e | 17
deceased on the part of the accused 3(hereinafther also refered to as PW1)4. The accused had no
intention to kill the deceased. It is sad that the accused is being prosecuted for his love and
affection towards his uncle. In order to convict anybody there should be an act that is criminal in
nature with a motive to commit the offence and the totality of the circumstances should affirm
the same.5In the instant case, there is nothing material on the part of the prosecution to make out
criminality of the accused nor could they point out any overtact from the part of the accused that
in itself resulted in the death. The prosecution could not even make out the basic ingredients of
murder in the case at hand.
1.2 The Entire Allegations Are Merely Based On Circumstances That Does Not
Conclusively Establish The Guilt Of The Accused.
In a criminal case suspicion however strong cannot take place of proof6. The court has to
make sure that the distance between may be and must be is covered by clear, cogent &
unimpeachable evidence.7 There is no clear, cogent & unimpeachable evidence to substantiate
the present case. As elucidated in Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab 8in a cases based on
circumstantial evidence, the court has to be on its guard to avoid the danger of allowing
suspicion to take the place of legal proof and has to be watchful to avoid the danger of being
swayed by emotional considerations, however strong they may be, to take the place of proof. The
entire allegations in the present case are merely based on nothing but circumstances that does not
conclusively establish the guilt of the accused. It is a well settled principle that where the case is
mainly based on circumstantial evidence, the court must satisfy itself that various circumstances
Kishan Chand v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1994 SC 32

Case data page 6
5
Joginder Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh A.I.R 1994 SC 461
6
Jayantila K.Katakia v. P.Govindan Nair, AIR1981 SC 1196; Rajkapoor v. Laxman, AIR 1980 SC 605; Kiran
Bedi& Jinder Singh v. Committee of Injury, AIR1989 SC714; Ramesh Chotalal Dalal v. Union of India, AIR 1988
SC 775
7
Anil Sham Rao Sute and Anr.v.State of Maharastra, 2013 CRI.L.J 2233; Sujith Biswas v. State of Assam, 2013
CRI.L.J. 3140
8
AIR 1996 SC 607
4
P a g e | 18
in the chain of evidence should be established clearly and that the completed chain must be such
as to rule out a reasonable likelihood of the innocence of the accused. 9 That means when even a
link breaks away, the chain of circumstances gets snapped and other circumstances cannot in any
manner establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts.10 Here in the instant case
DW1 is implicated for this action relying upon some imaginary situations. When attempting to
convict on circumstantial evidence alone the Court must be firmly satisfied of the following three
things:11
i.
The circumstances, from which the inference of guilt is to be drawn, must have fully
been established by unimpeachable evidence beyond a shadow of doubt.
ii.
The circumstances are of determinative tendency, unerringly pointing towards the

guilt of the accused
iii.
The circumstances taken collectively, are incapable of explanation on any reasonable

hypothesis except that of the guilt sought to be proved against him
Thus the circumstances relied upon must be established and the cumulative effect of
the established facts must lead to singular hypothesis that the accused is guilty. 12 In the present
case the prosecution counsel has failed to do that, the charge sheet arbitrarily indicts the accused
by attempting to rope in a story which is not based on conclusive evidence worthy of credence
but is based on a confused story as also shaky and fragile nature of evidence which hardly
inspires confidence. It was laid in Paramahamsa Yadav13 that if prosecution relies on
circumstantial evidence a clear link has to be established and the chain has to be completed
9
Mohan Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1974 SC 1144
10
11
Janar Lal Das v. State of Orissa, 1991 (3) SCC 27; A. Jayaram and Anr. v. State of AP, AIR 1995 SC 2128.
Mahmood v. State of UP AIR 1976 SC 69
12
Pratap v. State of U.P., 1976 SCR(1) 757; Rishi Kesh Singh Ors. v. State, AIR 1970All 51(FB);K.M. Nanavathui
v. State of Maharastra,1962 SCR Supl(1) 567; Mustak Hussein v. State OF Bombay,[1953] SCR 809; Smt Nagindra
Bala Mitra v Sunil Chandra Roy, [1960]3 SCR 1;Woolmington v. Director Of Public Prosecutions, LR 1935 AC
46;Attygalle v.Emperor, AIR 1936 PC 169; State Of Madras v. A. Vaidyanatha Iyer, [1958] SCR 580; C.S.D Swamy
v. State [1960]1 SCR 461
13
1987 Cri.L.J
P a g e | 19
otherwise it would indeed be hazardous to accept a part of the link as a complete one. By
invoking Sukhram v. Maharastra14the circumstances should be conclusive and tend only to
prove that the accused is guilty. In the case at hand, as proved earlier, no solid evidence of
circumstances exist to prove the guilt of accused. With reference to Ujagar Singh v. State of
Punjab15 & above mentioned authorities pertaining to delineation of cases that hinge on
circumstantial evidence, it is apposite that the weighed circumstances on diligent evaluation and
appreciation makes it evincible that, the circumstances on which
the quintessence of the
prosecution case lies on is incapable of establishing guilt of the accused.

In short, the prosecutions arguments are only leaning towards the fact that the crime
may have been committed by the accused, but they have failed to make the link between may
have committed the crime and must have committed the crime. The prosecution has miserably
failed to establish a chain of incidents and incriminating circumstances against the accused.In
light of all the aforementioned arguments, the accused humbly submits that there exists
reasonable doubt and hence they should be acquitted of the alleged crime.16
1.3 PW1 and PW2 out of their vengeance towards the accused implicated the accused in
the crime.
Legal system across the globe is based on the underlying principle Fiat justitia, ruat
coelum which means justice must be done though the heaven should fall down.17 The greatest
hindrance that often makes judiciary betray is the vengeance. Vengeance is a monster of appetite,
forever bloodthirsty and never filled. It brings out the hidden anger to express as retaliation thus
often resulting in the bloodshed of the innocent. In this case, the charges against the accused are
the pure child of vengeance.
14
(2007)7 SCC 502

(2007)13 SCC 9;Vide Munna Kumar Upadhyaya @ Munnu Upadhyaya V. State Of A.P., AIR 2012 SC 2470
16
Ramakant Rai v. Madan Rai Cr LJ 2004 SC 3663, IV. Nelson R. A. , Indian Penal Code, p. 2905, (10th Ed. 2008)
17
Id
15
P a g e | 20
Here it is to be noted that DW1 considered the deceased as his Godfather. DW1 lost
both his parents and became an orphan at the very tender age of 10 since then it was his most
loving uncle who took care of him. The unconditional affection between the uncle and his
nephew results in the vengeance of Devika and Raghav (herein after referred to as PW1 and
PW2)18 against the accused they scared that the situations will go out of their hand and that all
that the deceased had would eventually go the accused. Both tried to fume rivalry between the
deceased and the accused. It should be noted that both were anxious to see the deceaseds
insurance policy for which DW1 was the nomine and consequently implicated him for murdering
the deceased.
It should also be noted that as per Sec 39 of Insurance Act, 1938 a nominee is only a
person entitled to collect the insurance amount from the insurance company and he is expected to
handover the amount to the legal heirs in accordance with the Succession laws of the nation. So
if at all Karan, the deceased was murder for the benefits of his wealth and the insurance policy it
must have been done by PW1 or PW2. This is capable enough to giving rise to a fair doubt based
upon reason and common sense19 and thus it is contented that the case is a fabricated one which
is watered by the grudge and enmity of the complainants against the accused. Hence, as in the
case of State of Haryana and Others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal20 this case squarely and fairly is a
complaint of wreak vengeance21 and therefore the accused are ought to be acquitted.
1.4 There is no substantive evidence to explain Karans death.
In Lailabha Mahobatsinh v. State of Gujarat22 it was held that evidence offered should
connect the injury with weapon and the weapon with the accused. The circumstantial evidence in
18
Case data page 6
19
Ramakant Rai v. Madan Rai Cr LJ 2004 SC 36
20
AIR 1993 SC 1348

Id 12.
21
22
1991(2) Crimes 372 (Guj)
P a g e | 21
order to sustain conviction must be complete and capable of explanation of any other hypothesis
than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the
guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence.23 In the matter at hand,
prosecution has not conclusively explained the cause of death thus giving room for several
reasonable doubts. Once a person has died an unnatural death it is extremely essential to ferret
out the causa mortis beyond any reasonable doubt that is the cause of death should be clear and
every unanswered question about the death should be answered properly. Unless and until the
reason of the death is not clear no person shall be prosecuted for murder relying only on
circumstantial evidence.
Post Mortem Report concludes that death is due to cross reaction or over dose of
drugs24 and forensic report says that the death is due to air embolism25. As far as medicine is
concerned the causes for both are entirely different to each other. Hence, as a case which
depends on circumstantial evidence, prosecution has not proved the case against the accused
conclusively and unerringly, and at any rate two reasonable views are possible.26 This implies
that in the case concerning the future of two sincere, hardworking and studious medical students
the nature of death whether natural or unnatural is still uncertain and inconclusive, pointing out
glaring discrepancies and contradictions making them unreliable and unbelievable.27 This is
capable enough to give rise to a fair doubt based upon reason.28Since it is obvious that the
authenticity of the reports are considerably shaken and when such divergent possibilities
23
Padala Veera Reddy v. State Of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1990 SC 79
24
Case details, Annexure 3, p.10

Case details, Annexure 4, p.11
26
Ram Das v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1977 SC 1164
25
27
28
Subhasish Mondal @ Bijoy v. State of West Bengal Crl.Appeal No.1391 of 2008, Decided on : 21-11-2013
Ramakant Rai v. Madan Rai Cr LJ 2004 SC 36
P a g e | 22
exist, the case cannot be construed as one which is beyond reasonable doubt,29 the accused are
ought to be acquitted.
Further in this case the statement of the accused made under Sec 161 of CrPc which is
an extra judicial confession, cannot be relied upon as to prove the guilt of the accused as there
was no recovery on the basis of the confession. The recovery of material objects produced before
the court is false, frivolous and implanted one, which is proved by the fact that prosecution has
not carried out any forensic tests to support the credibility of the evidences produced. The golden
thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two
views are possible on the evidence adduced in a case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused the
view which is favorable to the accused should be adopted, and none shall be convicted without
the proper examinations of any of the material objects produced before the court30
1.5 Prosecution Has Failed To Prove a Reasonable Motive In The Alleged Crime
It is a well settled principle that in a case which is based on circumstantial evidence,
motive for committing the crime on the part of the accused assumes importance. 31 The fulcrum
of the prosecution case rests on the alleged fact that, DW1 has murdered Karan for his money,
but there is no corroborative evidence to support this allegation. The argument that the accused
has murdered the deceased for taking the benefit of an insurance policy is baseless. The fact is
that Mano is just a nominee and not a benefactor of the deceaseds life insurance policy.
Insurance Act, 193832 does not contains a word benefactor but only the word
nominee. Sec. 39(6) of the Act explains that although the amount of an insurance policy shall
be payable to the nominee or nominees it does not mean that the amount will belong to the
29
Smt Karpai v. State (Delhi Admn), Crl Appeal No. 72/1994

Govindaraju @ Govinda vs State By Sriramapuram P.S. & Anr AIR 2012 SC 654
31
Wakkar v. State of U.P (2011) 3 SCC 306; Bhagwan Dass v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2011) 6 SCC 396
32
4 of 1938
30
P a g e | 23
nominee or nominees. Supreme Court in Smt. Sarabati Devi & Anr vs Smt. Usha Devi33 has
clarified that nominee is just an agent and it does not create a third line of succession. The
nominee is expected to handover the policy amount to the legal heirs in accordance with the
Succession laws of the nation, as far as he is not testamentarly entitled for the amount. In this
present case it is alleged that the core motive behind the act of accused is the insurance money,
but as he get no benefit out of the policy the argument is absurd and should be ruled out.
Blacks Law Dictionary defines motive as the inducement, reason, or willful
desire and purpose behind the commission of an offense. Here in the present case, DW1 gets no
benefit by killing his uncle. The prosecution is merely beating about the bush and has not
established any motive which is most essential to acquit anybody for the offence of murder. This
further amounts to a larger lacunae in the prosecution case which whereby emphasizes the
innocence of the accused.
ISSUE II:

PUNISHED UNDER SECTION 465 OF BHARAT PENAL CODE.
It is humbly submitted before this Honble Court that the charges against accused
are falsely implicated by the prosecution. The accused has not done any act of forgery. There is
no evidence to establish the forgery. The accused has done no act which will amount as forgery
hence the very allegation of the offence is baseless.
2.1 The Acts Do Not Constitute The Offence Of Forgery.
Blacks law dictionary defines forgery as the falsely making or materially altering, with
intent to defraud, any writing which, if genuine, might apparently be of legal efficacy or tile
33
1984 AIR 346
P a g e | 24
foundation of a legal liability.34 The essential ingredients of forgery as defined in Sec.436 can
be enumerated as
1. The making of a false document or false electronic record or part of it
2. Such making should be with intent
a) to cause injury to public or any person
b) to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed35
In the present case no act done by the accused constitutes forgery. The allegation by the
prosecution is that the accused has attempted to defraud using the prescription of Dr.Chourdary,
but they have terrible failed to substantiate the argument. The allegation is merely a here say.
None of the witness has given a supportive statement. Neither has the accused tried to
fraudulently forge any valid document nor has he transmitted any electronic record with an
intention to injure anybody. In Ram Narayan v. CBI
36
the Supreme Court held that the first
essential of the offence of forgery is the making of false document with intent to cause damage
to injury to the public or to any class of public or to any community. Since no such elements are
complied with and no satisfactory evidence is offered the accused is not liable. Thus the question
of forging a document is immaterial in the present case.
2.2 There Is No Proof That the Accused Has Used Dr.Choudarys Prescription.
The offence of forgery is framed as if the accused has fraudulently used the
prescription of Dr.Choudary, but this allegation is baseless, the prosecution has terribly failed to
proof this argument. The prosecution is devoid of strong corroborative evidence, none of the
witness has testified against the accused. The allegation on itself is baseless as the accused have
never prescribed any medicine for the deceased.
34
Henry Campbell Black, Blacks Law Dictionary, (6th Edition 1990), West Publishing Company, St. Paul
35
Shushil Suri v CBI AIR 2011 1713

(2003)3 SCC 641
36
P a g e | 25
2.3 Angispan Could Even Be Obtained Without Any Prescription.

At the very base of the offence of forgery is the making of a false document with
the criminal intention to cause damage to any person.37 It was settled by Supreme Court in
Dr.Vimala v. Delhi Administration38 that as far as there is no unreasonable gain to the accused or
any infringement of anothers right by the accused the offence of forgery is not established. In
the present case as the medicine which DW1 is alleged to have fraudulently obtained with
Dr.Choudarys prescription is a commonly used medicine which can be attained even without a
doctors prescription. The pharmacist would not deny the said medicine even when there is no
doctors prescription, and thus the accused should not be implicated for forgery relying on a
mere piece of
paper which does not create any legal validity in the present situation. The
allegation that the accused has acted dishonestly to fake identity is immaterial even if the paper
used by him was Dr.Choudarys prescription at the rarest possibility.
2.4 The Charge Sheet In Itself Is Defective; There Is No Ground For Alleging The Offence
Of Forgery.
The prosecution has completely failed to provide sufficient proofs for the allegation of
forgery. A part from the mere statement about the offence there is no material evidence to
substantiate the same. No act of accused constitute forgery, in spite of the meticulous scrutiny of
oral and documentary evidence no conclusive finding has been obtained to implicate DW1for
forgery. The charge sheet in itself is defective; the investigating officer without any evidentiary
background jumped into a conclusion that the accused has committed forgery and has not even
explained on what basis the charge was formulated. This itself, reflects the glaring
inconsistencies of the prosecution case.39 The presence of strong and cogent evidence is sine quo
37
Criminal law, P.S.A Pillai,12th Edn., Lexis Nexis p.860

AIR 1963 SC 1572
39
Kartare v. State AIR 1976 SC 2324
38
P a g e | 26
non to charge any criminal offence. Hence it can be construed that the entire case is reflection of
lackadaisical attitude of the prosecution in levying criminal charges.
ISSUE III:
3.THE ACCUSED MR.MANOHAR AND MR.RAHUL ARE NOT LIABLE TO BE
PUNISHED UNDER SECTIONS 66&66C OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT
2005.
It is humbly submitted before this Honble Court that accused are not liable to be
punished under Sections 66 and 66C of Information Technology Act. It is because D.W.1 has
obtained prior permission for all the transactions and there is no evidence that D.W.1 has used
key-loggers
3.1 The prosecution has not produced any evidence to show that the accused had
hacked or accessed the account of Karan.
Section 66 of IT Act, 2000 punishes all the dishonest and fraudulent actions mentioned in
Section 43 IT Act, 2000. To constitute an offence under Section 43 the act should be done
without prior consent. The prosecution has miserably failed to establish that any transaction was
done without obtaining the consent of the deceased.
Section 66C punishes all the fraudulent or dishonest use of electronic signature, password or
unique identification feature of any person. In this case there is no element of wrongful gain40 or
fraud41. Hence no acts of the accused are illegal.
3.2. The prosecution has failed to produce any cyber forensic analysis reports to
substantiate that the key loggers were installed by the accused.
One of the main allegations made by the prosecution is that the accused has hacked into the
account of D.W.1 using the key-loggers42. But they have not conclusively made any attempt to
40
41
Sec.24 of Bharat Penal code

Sec.25 of Bharat Penal code
P a g e | 27
prove that D.W.1 has used the key-loggers. The prosecution has not produced any cyber forensic
analysis reports to substantiate the allegations against the accused43. These key-loggers might
have been installed by the deceased itself for business purposes and to troubleshoot technical
problems regarding the computer thus to safeguard his computer network from losing vital
information with regard to his business.
There is no proof to identify or to establish the use of key-loggers at any point of time.
Hence it cannot be established that the accused have hacked into the account at any point of time.
Further, other than the legal transfer of Rs.2.5 lakh, there is no information or evidence
establishing any of the transactions in the past. Hence it must be construed that only legal
transactions have been carried on and in the absence of the evidences the accused cannot be
made liable for hacking. Hence the accused are not guilty under Sections 66&66c of Information
Technology Act, 2005.
ISSUE IV:

PUNISHED UNDER SECTIONS 120-B OF BHARAT PENAL CODE.
It is humbly submitted before this Honble court that the accused have been falsely
charged with the offence under sec.120B. For the accused to be charged and punished for the
offences under the section, the prosecution must prove the act of criminal conspiracy beyond any
doubt and should explain the agreement that binds them to the offence.
4.1 Prosecution Could Not Establish the Criminal Conspiracy and Common Objective as
Alleged.
42
43
MO.5 Page 6 of 20
State Of Nct Of Delhi vs Ravi Kant Sharma & Ors, AIR 2007 Sc 528
P a g e | 28
It is submitted that in the instant case the evidences do not corroborate together to form one
sequence of events such as to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. To
constitute the offence of criminal conspiracy, there must be an agreement between two or more
persons to do an act which is illegal from its very inception or which is done by illegal means 44.
There are no such circumstances in the instant case. Prosecution could not establish any evidence
so as to connect DW1 and DW2 to any of the alleged charges. The mere fact that both were seen
together using a computer is no strong ground for punishing the accused for such grave offence
as alleged. Further as the allegations on themselves stand unproved.
4.2 Prosecution Could Not Establish Any Offence Against The Accused And Thus Cannot
Be Punished Under Section 120 B.
The prosecution cannot levy criminal charges against the accused on weak and vague
evidences. In the instant case apart from presumptions there are no strong evidences to prove the
guilt of the accused in any of the allegations. The circumstances relied upon should be
conclusive and should point towards the guilt of the accused. As far as the prosecution failed to
do this the accused cannot be charged with the offence. . All the evidences brought by the
prosecution are defective and deficient. The prosecution could not establish any of the alleged
charges and thus could not establish the a conspiracy has happened
At this point it is very relevant to note the Supreme Court verdict in Kehar Singh v. State
(Delhi Administration)45 that It is better to err in acquitting than convicting. The observation
was made by the Supreme Court, while setting free the accused Balbir Singh, asserting lack of
incriminating evidence in the Indira Gandhi assassination. In a criminal case, however strong the
suspension is, it cannot be taken as a proof.
44
45
Dharam Singh v Jammu and Kashmir,2004 CrLJ 1704

AIR 1988 SC 1883
P a g e | 29
ISSUE V:
5. THE ACCUSED MR.RAHUL IS NOT LIABLE TO BE PUNISHED FOR OFFENCES

It is humbly submitted that in the instant case the accused has been falsely
charged with the offence under sec.109. The said section prescribes the punishment of abetment
if the act abetted is committed in consequence and where no express provision is made for its
punishment.46 For the accused to be punished under the said section, the prosecution must prove
the act of abetment beyond any doubts, which they have failed to do in the instant case.
5.1 The Accused Is Not Liable To Be Punished For Abetment under Sec.109.
The accused in the present case is charged with the offence of abetting murder, forgery
and electronic theft, however the counsel submits that the evidences do not corroborate together
to form one sequence of events such as to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt. A person can be charged and convicted for abetting an offence only if he has evidently
instigated another to commit a criminal actor render intentional aid by act or omission or engages
somebody to do an illegal act47. A charge under Sec. 109 has to be along with some other
substantive offence committed in consequence of abetment48. In the matter at hand there is no
substantive offence which has been proved or any evidence of abetment. The mere joining
together of two persons alone shall not be considered as the attribute to constitute abetment.
5.3 Prosecution Could Not Establish the Grounds for Abetment as per Sec.109
Active abetment is necessary to convict any person under the section. In the present case
the question as to when, where and how DW2 has abetted DW1 is not specified. The
46
Bharat Penal Code, Sec109

Ami Lal v State of Rajasthan (1996)CrLJ 1585 (Raj)
48
Kehar Singh V State(Delhi Administration) AIR 1988 SC 1883
47
P a g e | 30
prosecution cannot levy criminal charges against the accused on weak and vague evidences.
As far as the prosecution has failed give sufficient explanation, the accused cannot be
charged with the offence.
P a g e | 31
LIST OF DEFENCE WITNESSES
WITNESS
NAME
DW1
Mr.Manohar
DW2
Mr.Rahul
DW3
Prof.Deshpande
DW4
Dr.Choudhary
DW5
Mr.Ayush
PW/DW
Mr. Hashmeet
P a g e | 32
LIST OF DOCUMENTS
DOCUMENT NO.
DOCUMENT DESCRPITION
Annexure1
First Information Report
Annexure2
Panch nama /Mahazar
Annexure3
Post Mortem Report
Annexure4
Forensic Report
Annexure5
Statement of Witnesses
Annexure6
Report of Investigating Officer
Annexure7
Expert witness-Hashmeet
P a g e | 33
LIST OF MATERIALS OBJECTS
MATERIAL OBJECT NO.
DESCRIPTION
MO1
Desktop computer
MO2
Karans laptop
MO3
Manos laptop
MO4
Prescription of Dr.Choudhary
MO5
Key logger-mass storage device-look-a-alike
MO6
Syringe
MO7
A packet/box of medicines
MO8
Hard Drive
P a g e | 34
APPENDIX
RELEVANT EXTRACTS OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860

Sec.24. Dishonestly
Whoever does anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful
loss to another person is said to do that thing dishonestly.
Sec.25. Fraudulently
A person is said to do a thing fraudulently if he does that thing with intent to defraud but not
otherwise.
Sec. 29. Document
The word document denotes any matter expressed or described upon any substance by means
of letters, figures, or marks, or by more than one of those means, intended to be used, or which
may be used, as evidence of that matter.
Explanation 1.It is immaterial by what means or upon what substance the letters, figures or
marks are formed, or whether the evidence is intended for, or may be used in, a Court of Justice,
or not.
Illustrations -A writing expressing the terms of a contract, which may be used as evidence of
the contract, is a document. A cheque upon a banker is a document. A power-of-attorney is a
document. A map or plan which is intended to be used or which may be used as evidence is a
document. A writing containing directions or instructions is a document.
P a g e | 35
Explanation 2.Whatever is expressed by means of letters, figures or marks as explained by

mercantile or other usage, shall be deemed to be expressed by such letters, figures or marks
within the meaning of this section, although the same may not be actually expressed.
Illustration -A writes his name on the back of a bill of exchange payable to his order. The
meaning of the endorsement, as explained by mercantile usage, is that the bill is to be paid to the
holder. The endorsement is a document, and must be construed in the same manner as if the
words pay to the holder or words to that effect had been written over the signature.
Sec.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 the persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.
Sec.109. Punishment of abetment if the act abetted is committed in consequence and where
no express provision is made for its punishment
Whoever abets any offence shall, if the act abetted is committed in consequence of the abetment,
and no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment of such abetment, be punished
with the punishment provided for the offence.
Explanation.An act or offence is said to be committed in consequence of abetment, when it is
committed in consequence of the instigation, or in pursuance of the conspiracy, or with the aid
which constitutes the abetment.
Sec.120A. Definition of criminal conspiracy
When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done,
(1) an illegal act, or
P a g e | 36
(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.
Sec.120 B. Punishment of criminal conspiracy
(1) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death,
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 manner as if he had abetted as if he had abetted such offence.
(2)Whoever is a party to 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.
Sec. 300. Murder
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
(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
P a g e | 37
(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.
Sec.302. Punishment for murder
Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or [imprisonment for life], and shall also
be liable to fine.
Sec.463. Forgery
Whoever makes any false documents or false electronic record or part of a document or
electronic record, with intent to cause damage or injury], to the public or to any person, or to
support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any
express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed,
commits forgery.
Sec.465. Punishment for forgery
Whoever commits forgery shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
RELEVANT EXTRACTS OF THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2000
Sec.43 Penalty and compensation for damage to computer, computer system, etc
If any person without permission of the owner or any other person who is in charge of a
computer, computer system or computer network,(a) accesses or secures access to such computer, computer system or computer network [or
computer resource];
P a g e | 38
(b) downloads, copies or extracts any data, computer data base or information from such
computer, computer system or computer network including information or data held or stored in
any removable storage medium;
(c) introduces or causes to be introduced any computer contaminant or computer virus into any
computer, computer system or computer network;
(d) damages or causes to be damaged any computer, computer system or computer network,
data, computer data base or any other programs residing in such computer, computer system or
computer network;
(e) disrupts or causes disruption of any computer, computer system or computer network;
(f) denies or causes the denial of access to any person authorized to access any computer,
computer system or computer network by any means;
(g) provides any assistance to any person to facilitate access to a computer, computer system or
computer network in contravention of the provisions of this Act, rules or regulations made there
under;
(h) charges the services availed of by a person to the account of another person by tampering
with or manipulating any computer, computer system, or computer network,
(i) destroys, deletes or alters any information residing in a computer resource or diminishes its
value or utility or affects it injuriously by any means;
(j) steal, conceals, destroys or alters or causes any person to steal, conceal, destroy or alter any
computer source code used for a computer resource with an intention to cause damage; [he shall
be liable to pay damages by way of compensation to the person so affected.
P a g e | 39
Explanation.- For the purposes of this section,(i) "computer contaminant" means any set of computer instructions that are designed(a) to modify, destroy, record, transmit data or program residing within a computer, computer
system or computer network; or
(b) by any means to usurp the normal operation of the computer, computer system, or computer
network;
(ii) "computer database" means a representation of information, knowledge, facts, concepts or
instructions in text, image, audio, video that are being prepared or have been prepared in a
formalized manner or have been produced by a computer, computer system or computer network
and are intended for use in a computer, computer system or computer network;
(iii) "computer virus" means any computer instruction, information, data or program that
destroys, damages, degrades or adversely affects the performance of a computer resource or
attaches itself to another computer resource and operates when a program, data or instruction is
executed or some other event takes place in that computer resource;
(iv) "damage" means to destroy, alter, delete, add, modify or rearrange any computer resource by
any means;
(v) "computer source code" means the listing of programs, computer commands, design and
layout and program analysis of computer resource in any form.
Sec.66 Computer related offences
If any person, dishonestly or fraudulently, does any act referred to in section 43, he shall be
punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine which
may extend to five lakh rupees or with both.
P a g e | 40
Explanation. -For the purposes of this section,(a) the word "dishonestly" shall have the meaning assigned to it in section 24 of the Indian Penal
Code (45 of 1860);
(b) the word "fraudulently" shall have the meaning assigned to it in section 25 of the Indian
Penal Code (45 of 1860)
Sec. 66C Punishment for identity theft
Whoever, fraudulently or dishonestly make use of the electronic signature, password or any other
unique identification feature of any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine with may
extend to rupees one lakh.
P a g e | 41
PRAYER
For the foregoing reasons in the light of arguments advanced and authorities cited, the
defense humbly prays that the Honble Court may be pleased to adjudge and declare that:
1. The Accused be held not guilty for the charges of murder u/s 302 of the B.P.C.
2. The Accused be held not guilty of forgery u/s 465 read with Section34 of the B.P.C
3. The Accused be held not guilty for the charge of criminal conspiracy u/s 120B of the
B.P.C.
4. The Accused be held not guilty u/s 66 & 66C of Information Technology Act 2005.
5. The Accused be held not guilty u/s 109 of B.P.C
And pass any other order in favor of the Defense as it deems fit in the interest of justice,
equity and good conscience.
For This Act of Kindness, the Petitioner Shall Duty Bound Forever Pray.
All of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted
Place: Xanadu
Sd/Counsel on behalf of Defense

Before The Honorable Court Of: Surana and Surana National Trial Advocacy Moot Court

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

Before The Honorable Court Of: Surana and Surana National Trial Advocacy Moot Court

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SURANA AND SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT

BEFORE THE HONORABLE COURT OF

MEMORANDUM FOR DEFENCE

IN THE MATTER OF:

1. Manohar & 2.Rahul. .Accused/Defence

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

All India Reporters

Allahabad High Court

Bharat Penal Code

Bombay Law Reporter

Calcutta High Court

Criminal Procedure Code

Criminal Law Journal

Essential Commodities Cases

Gujarat Law Reporter

Information Technology Act

Kerala Law Journal

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

Patna Law Journal Reports

Punjab & Haryana High Court

Supreme Court Cases

Supreme Court Reporter

Special Leave Petition

Travancore & Cochin

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

22. Kartare v. State, AIR 1976 SC 2324

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

16. B M Gandhi, Indian Penal Code, Third Edition

1. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act 2 of 1973)

4. Information Technology Act, 2000 (Act 21 of 2000)

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

commit the case to the court of Session;

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

1. THE ACCUSED ARE NOT LIABLE TO BE PUNISHED FOR OFFENCES

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

THE ACCUSED MR.MANOHAR AND MR.RAHUL ARE NOT LIABLE TO BE

4. THE ACCUSED MR.MANOHAR AND MR.RAHUL ARE NOT LIABLE TO BE

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

(1998)5 SCC 699

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

Kishan Chand v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1994 SC 32

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

The circumstances are of determinative tendency, unerringly pointing towards the

The circumstances taken collectively, are incapable of explanation on any reasonable

Mohan Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1974 SC 1144

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

the quintessence of the

prosecution case lies on is incapable of establishing guilt of the accused.

(2007)7 SCC 502

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

Case data page 6

Ramakant Rai v. Madan Rai Cr LJ 2004 SC 36

AIR 1993 SC 1348

1991(2) Crimes 372 (Guj)

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

Padala Veera Reddy v. State Of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1990 SC 79

Case details, Annexure 3, p.10