Professional Documents
Culture Documents
AT DURG, XANADU
SEC.302, SEC.465 R/W SEC.34, SEC.120B, SEC.109 OF BHARAT PENAL CODE, 1860
TABLE OF CONTENTS
[B.1.B] The medicine and air embolism was administered by the accused. ............. 5
[B.2.B] The accused had the knowledge that his act would lead to the death. .......... 7
[A] D.W.2 IS LIABLE FOR ABETTING IDENTITY THEFT U/S 109 OF IPC ............ 9
[C] WHETHER ACCUSED HAD COMMITTED FORGERY U/S 465 OF BPC, 1860
[C.3] Offense under Sec.66C of Information Technology Act, 2000 is constituted ... 15
LIST OF ABBREVIATION
& And
Cal. Calcutta
Cri. Criminal
Ed. Edition
Eds. Editor
Ker. Kerala
Lah. Lahore
Mad. Madras
Mys. Mysore
p. Paragraph
pg. Page
Sec. Section
v. versus
Vol. Volume
Vol. Volume
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
5. Daniel Bernstien v. United States (Dept. of State), 922F Supp. 1426. ........................ 14
8. Deepti Anil Devasthali & Leena Anil Devastnali v. State of Maharashtra, 2009 (111)
Bom LR 3981............................................................................................................... 11
10. Dr. Laxman Balkrishna Joshi v.Dr. Trimbak Bapu Godbole, 1969 (1) SCR 206 ......... 7
13. Esher Singh v. State of Andhra Pradesh , 2004 (4) ALT 28 ................................... 1, 11
14. G.D. Jiladia v. Minor Dharmistha Chhotubhai Goswami, 2003 CPJ 381 .................... 7
16. Hardeo Singh v. State of Bihar & Others, 2000 Crl. L.J. 2978 ................................... 11
17. In Re:Rasiyat Ali v. Unknown, 1881 ILR (7) Cal 352 ................................................. 13
20. Jayendra Saraswati Swamigal v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2005 SC 716 ................... 3
24. Mohd.Farooq Abdul Gafur & Anr v. State of Maharashtra, 2010 (14) SCC 641....... 11
26. Narendra Nama Das v. State of Tripura, 2009 (1) GLR 856 ........................................ 4
28. Noor Mohammad Yusuf v. State of Maharashtra; 1971 AIR SC 885 ......................... 10
32. Pramatha Nath Taluqdar v. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar, 1962 AIR SC 876 ........................ 10
35. Rajinder Kumar v. Secretary, Delhi Administration, 1985 AIR SC 1805 .................. 10
36. Ram Narayan Popli v. CBI 2003 (3) SCC 671 .............................................................. 2
44. Shankarlal Kacharabai and Others v. State of Gujrat, AIR 1965 SC 1260 ......... 11, 12
45. Sharad Birdhichand Sardav. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622 ..................... 4
47. Sherimon v. State of Kerala, 2012 (1) SCC (Cri) 116 ................................................... 2
48. Shiv Prasad Chunni Lal Jain v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1965 SC 264 ................. 11
52. Uttam Singh Duggal & Co. Ltd. v. United Bank of India, AIR 2000 SC 2740. ............ 5
53. Vajruben & Ors v. State of Gujrat, 2015 (III) CCR 34 ............................................... 10
[B] STATUTES
3. James Humber, BIOMEDICAL ETHICS AND THE LAW 518 (2nd ed., 1979). ......... 5
1. Daniel Bernstienv. United States (Dept. of State), 922 F Supp. 1426 ......................... 14
GLYCERYLTRINITRATE AND
OXYCODONE,http://www.ehealthme.com/Atorvastatin-Calcium-Plavix-Aspirin-
https://www.rbi.org.in/SCRIPTS/PublicationReportDetails.aspx?UrlPage=&ID=244
2015) .............................................................................................................................. 4
1. Westlaw (www.westlawindia.com)
2. Manupatra (www.manupatra.com)
4. JSTOR (www.jstor.org)
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Honble Court has jurisdiction to try the instant matter under Sec.177 r/w Sec.184 and
Sec.177: Ordinary place of inquiry and trial- Every offence shall ordinarily be
inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed.
(a) the offences committed by any person are such that he may be charged
with and tried at one trial for, each such offence by virtue of the provisions of
(b) the offence of offences committed by several persons are such that they
may be charged with and tried together by virtue of the provisions of Sec.223,
the offences may be inquired into or tried by any Court competent to inquire
r/w Sec.209:
accused appears or is brought before the Magistrate and it appears to the Magistrate
(b) subject to the provisions of this Code relating to bail, remand the accused
(c) send to that Court the record of the case and the documents and articles, if
(d) notify the Public Prosecutor of the commitment of the case to the Court of
Session.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. Manohar (hereinafter, Mano)became an orphan at the age of 10. Since then his uncle
Karan brought him up and financed his education including payment of his college
fees.
3. Mano was always indebted to his uncle and for that matter he extremely respected his
uncle and took care of him when no one else did. Mano and Rahul were good friends.
4. Mano always had his uncles express authority to transfer money online from his bank
5. It is suspected that even on the morning of 3rd August Karan had drank alcohol, and
wanted to go for work on the same day despite his condition, both of which Mano
6. On the same day, Karan complained of chest pain. Mano sent his cousin Raghav to
half an hour.
7. Subsequently, Karan developed fits and seizure, and collapsed. Mano and Raghav
8. Following this, an F.I.R was filed by Devika and Mano and Rahul were later arrested
9. In the investigation under Sec.173, the medicine Oxycontin, which is a painkiller, and
10. On forwarding of the police report to the Magistrates Court, the court took
STATEMENT OF CHARGES
ACCUSED 1 AND ACCUSED 2 HAVE BEEN CHARGED WITH CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY, MURDER, AND
FORGERY WITH COMMON INTENTION UNDER SEC.120B, SEC.302, AND SEC.465 READ WITH SEC.34
CHARGES IV & V
ACCUSED 1AND ACCUSED 2 HAVE BEEN CHARGED WITH HACKING AND IDENTITY THEFT UNDER
SECTION.66 AND SEC.66C OF THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2005 AND RAHUL GULATI HAS
BEEN CHARGED WITH ABETMENT UNDER SEC.109 OF THE BHARAT PENAL CODE, 1860
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
WHETHER MANOHAR LAL AND RAHUL ARE GUILTY OF CONSPIRACY OF MURDER AND MURDER
The Accused 1 and Accused 2 are guilty of criminal conspiracy because there was an
the conspiracy acted with the intention in a manner that his act would in all likelihood cause
the death of Karan and that it did, is proved beyond reasonable doubt (hereinafter referred to
as the deceased)
CHARGE IV & V
The accused Manohar and Rahul had the common intention to commit the offense of forgery
and identity theft as they had a common agreement and the act was done in furtherance of the
common agreement. The accused (A1 and A2) are liable for forgery and identity theft. They
are liable for forgery where they had hacked the bank account and forged the records and
transferred funds to their respective account. Since they had accessed computer resources to
commit the forgery and misused the password of Karans bank account provisions of Sec.66
and 66C would also be attracted. Rahul is also liable for aiding and abetting the commission
of crime.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
It is humbly contended before this Honble Court that the accused ManoharLal and Rahul
the offences under Sec.302 and Sec.120B of the Bharat Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter
referred as the BPC). In the instant matter DW1 and DW2 had conspired together to murder
deceased [A] and their actions lead to murder of the deceased. [B] D.W.2 is also liable for
The accused have been rightfully charged under Sec.120B, the essential of which is
formulation of conspiracy. Conspiracy has been defined as the agreement of two or more
persons to do an unlawful act or to do a lawful act by unlawful means.1 The essence of the
conspiracy have been stated to be3: An object to be accomplished, [A.1] A plan or scheme
two or more of the accused persons whereby, they become definitely committed to co-operate
for the accomplishment of the object by the means embodied in the agreement, or by any
1
Esher Singh v. State of Andhra Pradesh , 2004 (4) ALT 28; HALSBURYS LAWS OF ENGLAND 44(Lord
Hailshameds., 4thed 1987).
2
Sec.120A, Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860).
3
Devender v. State 2002 (5) SCC 234; Mohd.Khalid v. State 2002(7) SCC 334.
Even person being aware of the likelihood of the commission of the offense can be held liable
for common object.4 In the instant matter the conversation made by both of the accused about
the deceaseds death signifies their common intention to commit the Murder of accused in
In the present matter the accused had a well thought plan, both the accused D.W.1 and D.W.2
were medical students and had knowledge of how to commit the murder, since the murder
The parties to a criminally conspired agreement will be guilty of criminal offence, even if the
illegal act agreed to be done has not been done.7 The agreement may be proved by a
necessary implication.8It is essential to pay attention to certain events which occurred in order
forconviction under Sec.120B.9It is not, however, necessary that each conspirator should
4
Gajanand v. State of U.P., AIR 1954 SC 595.
5
Pg 3, Factual Matrix, para 16
6
Pg 8, Annexure 2 Panchnama
7
Major Bassey v. State, AIR 1961 SC 1762.
8
Ram Narayan Popli v. CBI 2003(3) SCC 671.
9
Sherimon v. State of Kerala 2012 (1) SCC (Cri) 116.
10
HALSBURYS LAWS OF ENGLAND 58 (Lord Hailshameds., 4thed 1987).
Sec.10 of the Evidence Act makes the acts and statements of a co-conspirator admissible
against the whole body of conspirators.11 The expression 'in reference to their common
intention' impliedly means 'in furtherance of', with the result anything said, done or written
by a co-conspirator, will be evidence against the other before he entered the field of
D.W.2 always discussed and constantly reminded D.W.1 how rich D.W.1would be if his
uncle were dead. The Constant reminders to D.W.1 who was over ambitious presumably gave
birth to an idea to commit an offence of Murder thus showing the meeting of minds. Thus by
necessary implication, it is proved that the conspirators had agreed impliedly to the intention
In the present case, when the above circumstances are taken together on their face value they
indicate the meeting of minds between the conspirators D.W.1 and D.W.2 for achieving the
It is humbly presented before the court, that under Sec. 300(2), a person is guilty of
committing murder if he acts with the intention of causing such bodily injury which he
knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom such harm is caused. The
Prosecution contends that both, the actus reus [B.1] and the mens rea of the crime are
11
Jayendra Saraswati Swamigal v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2005 SC 716.
12
Mirza Akbar v. Emperor, AIR 1940 PC 176.
The circumstantial evidence in a case where there is a link of causation, if established, proves
that the act was committed by the person so accused.13 In the present case, the link of
causation is established as the administration of Angispan and the air embolism lead to the
death of Deceased [A], and this was done by the accused, DW1 [B].
[B.1.A] The administration of Angispan intravenously along with an air embolism led to
Deceased death.
The post-mortem report is an extremely relevant and important document, in cases brought
under Sec.302, of the Bharat Penal Code;14 and the forensic report can also be relied upon to
prove facts.15
Post-mortem report
In the instant case, the post-mortem report states that the cause of death of Deceased is due to
cross-reaction of drugs administered to him.16 The drug Oxycontin was found in the house
during investigation,17 and since the drug Angispan can react with the drug Oxycontin,18 and
the drug Angispan alone can also have fatal side-effects,19 it is reasonable to conclude that
13
Naseem Ahmed v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1974 SC 691; Sharad Birdhich and Sarda v. State of
Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622.
14
Sheo Govind Bin v. State of Bihar, 1985 BBCJ 632.
15
Narendra Nama Das v. State of Tripura, 2009 (1) GLR 856.
16
Page 9, Annexure 3- Post Mortem Report.
17
Page 16, Annexure 6 Report of Investigation u/s 173CrPC.
18
FROM FDA REPORTS : DRUG INTERACTIONS BETWEEN GLYCERYLTRINITRATE AND
OXYCODONE,http://www.ehealthme.com/Atorvastatin-Calcium-Plavix-Aspirin-Perindopril-Glyceryl-
Trinitrate-Oxy-3694069 (last visited 15th August 2015).
19
TIME DEPENDENT INTERACTIONS OF THE HYPERTENSIVE EFFECTS OF SILDENIFAL CITRATE
AND GLYCERYLTRINITRATE, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2679103 (last visited 15th
August 2015);SIDE-EFFECTS OF GLYCERYLTRINITRATE, http://www.nhs.uk/medicine-
guides/pages/MedicineSideEffects.aspx (follow Glyceryl Trinitrate hyperlink; then follow side effects;
last visited 23rd August 2015).
such cross-reaction or over-dose, as the case may be, had occurred when DW1 administered
Forensic report
In the instant case, the forensic report concludes that death was caused due to air embolism in
the artery.20 It is humbly presented before the court that in cases of ill patients, an air
embolism caused by injecting 3 syringes or more of air is enough to be fatal in the patient.21
[B.1.B] The medicine and air embolism was administered by the accused.
It is humbly contended before the court that an answer made in an interrogative statement can
be considered an admission,22 for the purposes of Sec.18 of Bharat Evidence Act,23 and such
preceding the act, it is presumed to be in the same transaction,25 and therefore is a relevant
That deceased was administered an injection of Angispan by D.W.1, is evident27 and has been
reaffirmed by the statement of the accused, D.W.1, which amounts to an admission by him,
regarding the commission of the act. This fact is also relevant for consideration as it is in the
20
Page 11, Annexure 4- Forensic Report
21
James Humber, BIOMEDICAL ETHICS AND THE LAW 518 (2nd ed., 1979).
22
Uttam Singh Duggal& Co. Ltd. v. United Bank of India, AIR 2000 SC 2740.
23
Sec.18, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872).
24
Bharat Singh &Anr v. Bhagirathi, AIR 1966 SC 405.
25
Emperor v. C.E. Ring 1929(31) BOMLR 545.
26
Sec.6, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872).
27
Page 4,Factual Matrix, Pp 21
It is also pertinent to note that, since none of the medicines that were prescribed to Deceased
were required to be administered in syringe form, the presence of 4 used syringes that were
recovered from the deceaseds house,28 and only one being used to administer the drug
Angispan, leads to the reasonable conclusion that three of them were used to forcibly
Even if it is assumed that all four of the used syringes found were used to administer
Angispan to the deceased, it is humbly submitted before the court that such quantity of
In the absence of any circumstances to show that injury was caused accidentally or
unintentionally, it is presumed that there was intention to cause the inflicted injury.29 When
there are repeated blows or attempts at taking a persons life, there can be said to have existed
an intention on the part of the inflictor to kill the other person.30 Moreover, the criminality of
In the present case, on the basis of the statement of the accused made under Sec.161 of the
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, it is evident that in order to manufacture time to forcibly
introduce an air embolism in Deceaseds arteries the accused sent Raghav (hereinafter,
28
Page 16, Annexure 6 Report of Investigation u/s 173CrPC.
29
Dayanand v. State of Haryana, AIR 2008 SC 1823.
30
Ramesh v. State, 1979 Cri. L. J 727 at p. 732.
31
Statev.Sikora, 44 N.J. 453 (1965).
P.W.1) to obtain the medicine.32 The existence of four syringes in33 the room where the
deceased was, shows that, to cause a fatal air embolism, D.W.1 repeatedly gave intravenous
injections from three different syringes filled with air, which amounted to repeated blows to
the deceased. Furthermore, the attempt at the deceaseds life was repeated, as D.W.1 later
Moreover, there was a plan and collusion between the two co-accused in the form of a
[B.2.B] The accused had the knowledge that his act would lead to the death.
'Knowledge' has been defined to mean information and skills acquired through experience or
education.36 Therefore, a person who held himself out ready to give medical treatment
impliedly undertakes that he was possessed of the skill and knowledge for the purpose.37
In the instant case, not only is the accused a medical student,39 he has also seen and practiced
this procedure before,40 and he therefore had the knowledge that administration of this
32
Page 13, Annexure 5- Statement of Manohar.
33
Annexure 2, Page 8.
34
Infra, note 41.
35
Supra, note 12.
36
Sanjeev Nanda v. State 2009 DLT775.
37
Dr.LaxmanBalkrishna Joshi v.Dr. Trimbak Bapu Godbole, 1969(1) SCR 206.
38
G.D. Jiladia v. Minor Dharmistha Chhotubhai Goswami, 2003 CPJ 381.
39
Page 12, Annexure 5 - Statement of Manohar.
40
Page 4, Factual Matrix , pp 21.
medicine would lead to a cross-reaction, because he knew which medicines Deceased took;41
and also that the air embolism caused by injecting three or more syringes with air would be
fatal. The accused had impliedly undertaken that he was possessed of this skill and
knowledge when he held himself out ready to give medical treatment by signing a
Therefore, it is evident from the above that the deceased was murdered by the accused
D.W.1, who injected air equivalent to the volume of three or more syringes in order to kill the
deceased and later repeated his attempt on the deceaseds life by taking advantage of his skill
and knowledge to administer a medicine that would cross-react, or gave it in a fatal quantity.
Thus, these facts circumstantially establish, beyond all reasonable doubt, the guilt of D.W.1
by proving that, both, the actus reus and mens rea to commit the crime were present.
In the case of Daniel Hailey Walcott v. State,42 the intention behind committing an offence
under this Sec.463 was emphasized upon. Thus, it is clear from the definition of the Sec. 463
that apart from making of a false document or false electronic record the person should intend
to cause damage or injury either to public or to any person.43 Execution of a document is also
In the instant matter, the only reason for writing the medicines name on the prescription of
Dr. Choudhary was to procure the medicine and, thereby commit murder with the medicine
41
Page 4, Factual Matrix, pp 17,
42
Daniel Hailey Walcott v. State, AIR 1968 Mad349.
43
R.R. Diwakar v. B. Guttal, 1975 Cr LJ 90.
44
Dickinsv. Gill, 1896 (2) QB 310.
obtained from the forged prescription. The intention to cause harm is evident in D.W.1s act
of sending Raghav (hereinafter, P.W) for procuring the medicine with the forged prescription,
It is humbly placed before the Honble Court that D.W.1 and D.W.2 are guilty of offenses
under Sec.34 r/wSec.465 of Bharat Penal Code and Sections 66 and 66C of Information
Technology Act, 2005 as D.W.2 would be liable for instigating and abetting the crime
caused, [A] andthey had the common intention [B] to defraud and subsequently that led to
[A] D.W.2 IS LIABLE FOR ABETTING IDENTITY THEFT U/S 109 OF IPC
It is humbly placed before the Honble Court that a person is said to abet a crime when he
instigates [A.1], conspires [A.2] and intentionally aids [A.3] the commission of the crime.45
stimulate the same.46 D.W.2 had admitted to D.W.1his ability to stealthily transfer money
from his fathers account without consent or knowledge.47 D.W.2 himself had admitted that
he had taught D.W.1 to decrypt his Uncles password for fun by tracking the keystrokes.48
45
Sohan Raj v. State, 2008(11) SCC 215, Ranjana Yaki v. State, 2004(12) SCC 521.
46
Sanju v. State, 2002(5) SCC 371.
47
Page 2, Factual Matrix
48
Pg 18 Report of IO u/s 173 of CrPC, 1973
two or more persons and an illegal act or omission must also take place in pursuance of
conspiracy.49 Conspiracy under Sec.109 of the Bharat Penal Code can be proved by
circumstantial evidence,50 even if the accused is not present at the place of commission of the
crime.51
P.W.1in his statement admitted that he would often find D.W.1 and D.W.2 fiddle with his
fathers desktop computer by connecting D.W.2s laptop to it.52 The act was committed as
D.W.2 and D.W.1 would often embezzle funds from the account of Deceased without his
knowledge or consent.53
Intentional aiding means to help, assist or facilitate the commission of a crime, promote the
In the case of Mohd Farooq Abdul Gafur & Another v. State of Maharashtra55 the accused
were charged with Sec.109 of the Code of 1860 as they had provided the rest of the accused
49
Pramatha Nath Taluqdar v. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar, 1962 AIR SC 876.
50
Noor Mohammad Yusuf v. State of Maharashtra; 1971 AIR SC 885.
51
Rajinder Kumar v. Secretary, Delhi Administration, 1985 AIR SC 1805.
52
Pg 14 Statements Recorded u/s 161 of CrPC 1973
53
Pg 3, Factual Matrix, pp16
54
P. RamanathaAiyer,THE LAW LEXICON 84 (2nd ed., 1997); State v. D. Fetters, Iowa 1972 (202) N.W. 2d
84; Vajruben & Ors v. State of Gujrat, 2015 (III) CCR 34.
with the weapons and mobile phones aiding them to commit the crime conspired by them in
In the present case not only did D.W.2 teach D.W.1 how to hack and embezzle fund but also
provided him with the technology (pen drive shaped key logger) to accomplish the crime of
identity theft.56
OF IDENTITY THEFT
To prove common intention two elements must be necessarily proved i.e. there was a
common intention [B.1] and offense was committed in furtherance of the crime [B.2].57
Common intention implies that there should be a prior concert or prior meeting of minds58
and such has to happen prior to the commission of the act of crime.59 Common intention is
proved by necessary implication, and the express agreement need not be proved60 mere
circumstantial evidences is proof enough to prove the existence of the subsisting agreement.61
The accused can be convicted for forgery under Sec.465 read with Sec.34 of the Bharat Penal
55
Mohd.Farooq Abdul Gafur&Anrv. State of Maharashtra, 2010(14) SCC641.
56
Pg 3, Factual Matrix, pp16
57
Shiv Prasad ChunniLal Jain v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1965 SC 264.
58
PandurangTukia v. State of Hyderabad, AIR 1955 SC 331.
59
ShankarlalKacharabai and Others v. State of Gujrat, AIR 1965 SC 1260;Ram Tahal v. State of Uttar
Pradesh, AIR 1972 SC 254.
60
Sachin v. State, 2008 (3) SCC 390; Esher Singh v. State of Andhra Pradesh , 2004 (4) ALT 28.
61
Hardeo Singh v. State of Bihar & Others, 2000Crl. L.J. 2978.
62
Deepti Anil Devasthali & Leena Anil Devastnali v. State of Maharashtra, 2009 (111) BomLR 3981; Anant
Chintaman Lagu v. State of Bombay, AIR 1960 SC 500.
The guidelines for admitting circumstantial evidence was laid down in the ruling of
Mahmood v. State of UP63 and all the criteria mention duly satisfy the present case. (1) The
circumstances must have fully been established by unimpeachable evidence. (2) The
explanation on any reasonable hypothesis except that of guilt. Their actions in the present
To attract the commission of mischief under Sec.34 not only a common agreement but also
Kacharabhai v. State65 the term furtherance has been interpreted as an act done in
the ultimate felony if it is a step taken intentionally for the purpose of effecting felony.67 For
a crime like forgery the accused might not be required to be physically present,68 at the actual
place of occurrence.69 Thus D.W.2 can be held liable for the fraud committed by D.W.1 even
in his absence. Therefore, it is humbly submitted before the Honble Court that D.W.1 and
D.W.2 are jointly and criminally liable as they had the common intention to commit a fraud
63
Mahmood v. State of UP, AIR 1976 SC 69.
64
Sunny Kapoorv.State, 2006 10 SCC 182.
65
Shankarlal Kacharabai and Others v. State of Gujrat, AIR 1965 SC 1260.
66
Dani Singh v. State, 2004 (13) SCC 203.
67
Parasa Raja v. State, 2003 12 SCC 306.
68
Mubarak Ali v. State of Bombay, AIR 1957 SC 837.
69
J.M. Desai v. State of Bombay, AIR 1960 SC 889.
70
Pg 3, Factual Matrix, para 16, Pg 4, Factual Matrix, para 2.
[C] WHETHER ACCUSED HAD COMMITTED FORGERY U/S 465 OF BPC, 1860
The essential ingredient of the crime of forgery includes criteria like the accused prepared a
false document or electronic record71[C.1], the act was intended for the purpose of fraud or
deceit,72 and the document or electronic record was prepared dishonestly[C.2] and the act
was intended to cause wrongful gain to one and loss to another. Thereby also constituting the
It is humbly submitted that making of a false document includessealing and signing on it.73
The document in concern can be given the stature of document or electronic record.74
Provisions relating to admitting accounting entries in account books as evidence have been
amended to include electronic records.75 Moreover as per Bankers Book Evidence Act, 1891
electromagnetic form.76
It is further humbly placed before the Honble Court that in this case the account was
encrypted with a password. The process of encryption has been defined as locking a
71
Peoples Patriotic Front v. Birla, 1984CrLJ 545.
72
Indian Bank v. Satyam, 1996 5 SCC 550.
73
In Re:Rasiyat Ali v. Unknown, 1881 ILR (7) Cal 352.
74
RBI REPORT ON INTERNET BANKING (PART 2 OF 2), 22/01/2000,
https://www.rbi.org.in/SCRIPTS/PublicationReportDetails.aspx?UrlPage=&ID=244 (last visited 15th August,
2015); Annexure 1 Clause B.
75
Schedule 2 under Sec.12(4), Information Technology Act, 2000 (Act 21 of 2000).
76
Schedule 3,Information Technology Act, 2000 (Act 21 of 2000).
communication with a private code,77 and Password has been defined as string of
characters to provide access to computer resources.78 Banking networks use password, PIN or
Moreover in the case of Sartaj v. State80 the aspect of log in and password was clarified
stating that the password provided access to the computer system and the use of ID
Thereby the fact that the password used can and has been used as a seal or signature which
It is humbly placed before the Honble Court that to constitute offense under Sec.465 of the
Code of 1860 the document has to be made fraudulently or dishonestly.81 The word
fraudulently has been interpreted in the context as mere deception or injury82 it implies that
there must be some advantage to one side and corresponding losses to another.83
77
Daniel Bernstien v. United States (Dept. of State), 922F Supp. 1426.
78
Schedule V of The Information Technology (Certifying Authorities) Rules, 2000.
79
RBI REPORT ON INTERNET BANKING (PART 2 OF 2), 22/01/2000,
https://www.rbi.org.in/SCRIPTS/PublicationReportDetails.aspx?UrlPage=&ID=244 (last visited 15th August,
2015).
80
Sartaj v. State,2014(4)JCC3027.
81
Emperor v. Rachappa Yellapa, AIR 1932 Bom 545.
82
Raja Kulkarni v. State of Bombay, 1954 CrLJ 788.
83
Emperor v. Rachappa Yellapa, AIR 1932 Bom 545.
In the case of Arnish Arora v. State of Kerala,84 the accused were held liable for fraud and
deceit when they dishonestly withdrew money from anothers bank account. D.W.2 and
D.W.1 forged the bank records for transferring funds from Deceaseds accounts to their bank
account. It is therefore humbly submitted that in the present case the situation satisfies all the
It is humbly placed before the Honble court that the offense of forgery committed would
also attract conviction under Sec.66C of Information Technology Act. In the present scenario
all the elements of the offence under Sec.66C of Information Technology Act i.e. use of
password85, dishonestly and fraudulently86 has already been placed before this Honble Court.
Sec.66 of the Information Technology Act would also be attracted as D.W.2 and D.W.1
committed the act as prohibited under Sec.43 of the IT Act, 200087 i.e. of accessing computer
system and computer network secured by password, downloaded and extracted data for
HonbleSessions Court that the accused D.W.1 and D.W.2 are out rightly liable for the
offenses contended for by the Prosecution and this has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
84
Arnish Arora v. State of Kerala, 2014 CriLJ 1189.
85
Sartajv.State,2014(4)JCC3027.
86
Arnish Arora v. State of Kerala, 2014 CriLJ 1189.
87
Sec.43, Information Technology Act, 2000 (Act 21 of 2000).
Wherefore, in light of facts stated, issues raised, authorities cited and arguments advanced,
1. Convict DW1 for Criminal Conspiracy , Murder and Forgery read under Sections
120B, 302, 465 r/w 34 of Bharat Penal Code and Identity theft under Sections 66 &
2. Convict DW2 for Criminal Conspiracy , Murder and Forgery read under Sections
120B, 302, 465 r/w 34 of Bharat Penal Code and Identity theft under Sections 66 &
AND/ OR
Pass any other order it may deem fit, in the interest of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience.
S/d ____________