MOOT

PROBLEM Alliance School of Law 2016-17

Dr.Mrs.Sarah Dhankal
v.
C.B.I., Navvi Dallii and Anr.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY:
Prosecution: C.B.I., Naavi Dalli
Defence: Dr.Mrs.Sarah Dhankal and one Dr.Micheal Dhankal
FIR was filed against the defendant under Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302, Section 34, and
Section 201.

Sessions Court: Badlapur
The Sessions Court of Badlapur convicted the accused, Dr. Micheal Dhankal and Dr.Sarah
Dhankal for the foresaid offences under the sections 302,34,201 I.P.C .Dr. Micheal Dhankal is
also convicted under section 203 I.P.C. The accused was found guilty and as charged with life
imprisonment and was fined for Rs.10, 000/- each.
Defence found guilty
The accused challenged the judgement of the sessions court in the High Court of Allahabad.

MATERIAL FACTS:
On 15.05.2008 at about 9:30 P.M. only Dr. Micheal Dhankal, Dr.Sarah Dhankal, Ms.
Aayushi and Debraj were last seen in the house by Himesh Sharma (the driver of Dr. Micheal
Dhankal) and on the morning of 16.05.2008 Aayushi was found dead in her bedroom, which was
adjacent to the bedroom of the accused persons and between these bedrooms there was a
wooden partition wall.

Dr.Mrs.Sarah Dhankal v. C.B.I., Navvi Dallii and Anr. Page 1

 MOOT PROBLEM Alliance School of Law 2016-17

When the maid Ms. Sarti Mangal went in Aayushis room on 16.05.2008 she discovered
that Aayushis dead body was lying on the bed covered with a white bed sheet and her throat
was slit. She immediately informed the inmates and went to another house to do her job. After
that Micheal and Sarah Dhankal reached there and called people to come down to their
apartment informing them what had happened. By the time police also arrived and investigation
was taken up by S.I Bata Ram Hazaaria, who during the course of investigation proceeded to the
scene of crime, inspected the bedroom of the deceased and recorded the statements of Micheal
and Sarah Dhankal. He also seized the blood stained pillow, bed sheet and pieces of mattress
from the room of Aayushi and memo was prepared. Mr. Micheal Dhankal filed a report against
the domestic help Debraj on not finding him in the house suspecting him to have committed
Aayushis murder.

A site-plan was prepared and statements of Ms. Sarti Mangal and other people were
taken. Mr. Hazaaria tried to go to the roof of the house but the door was locked and had blood
stains. He asked Mr. Micheal Dhankal to give him the keys of the lock of the terrace but he said
that he wasnt having the keys and asked him not waste his time; else Debraj will manage to flee
away.

On 17.05.2008, the case took a new turn when the Investigator Bata Ram Hazaaria found
the dead body of Debraj on the terrace after he broke the lock of the door. The body was lying in
the pool of blood and was covered with panel of cooler and dragging marks were visible.

Police alleged that Mr. Dhankal had killed his daughter and his servant after finding them
in compromising position due to sudden and grave provocation. On 25.05.2008 Mr. Micheal
Dhankal was arrested by local police.

Dr.Mrs.Sarah Dhankal v. C.B.I., Navvi Dallii and Anr. Page 2

 MOOT PROBLEM Alliance School of Law 2016-17

ARGUMENTS

PROSECUTION:
The prosecution counsel lays down the following facts that:
MURDER WAS COMMITTED BY THE DHANKALS:
On the fateful night of May 15 and 16, 2008 both the accused were last seen with both
the deceased in Flat No. L-32, Water Park at about 9.30 P.M. by Himesh Sharma, the
driver of Micheal Dhankal.
On the morning of May 16, 2008 at about 6.00 A.M. Aayushi was found murdered in
her bed-room which was adjacent to the bedroom of the accused and there was only
partition wall between two bed-rooms. The dead body of the servant Debraj was found
lying in the pool of blood on the terrace of flat no. L-32, Water Park on May 17, 2008
and the door of terrace was found locked from inside.
There is a close proximity between the point of time when both the accused and the
deceased persons were last seen together alive and the deceased were murdered in
the intervening night of May 15 and 16, 2008 and as such the time is so small that
possibility of any other person(s) other than the accused being the authors of the crime
becomes impossible.
The door of Aayushi's bed-room was fitted with automatic click-shut lock. Suresh
Kumar Mishra, the then S.P. (City), NOIDAPUR has deposed that when he talked to
Micheal Dhankal on May 16, 2008 in the morning, he had told him that in the preceding
night at about 11.30 P.M. he had gone to sleep with the key after locking the door of
Aayushi's bed-room from outside. Both the accused have admitted that door of
Aayushi's bed-room was having automatic-click shut lock like that of a hotel, which
could not be opened from outside without key but could be opened from inside
without key. No explanation has been offered by the accused as to how the lock of
Aayushis room was opened and by whom.
The internet remained active in the night of the gory incident suggesting that at least
one of the accused remained awake. There is nothing to show that an outsider(s) came

Dr.Mrs.Sarah Dhankal v. C.B.I., Navvi Dallii and Anr. Page 3

 MOOT PROBLEM Alliance School of Law 2016-17

inside the house in the said night after 9.30 P.M.There was no disruption in the supply
of electricity in that night. No person was seen loitering near the flats in suspicious
circumstances during that night. There is no evidence of forcible entry of any
outsider(s) in the flat in the night of occurrence.
The door of the terrace was never locked prior to the occurrence but it was found
locked in the morning of May 16, 2008 and the accused did not give the key of the lock
to the police despite being asked to give the same.
Golf-club no.5 was thrown in the loft after commission of the crime and the same was
produced after many months by the accused Micheal Dhankal. The pattern of head
and neck injuries of both the accused persons are almost similar in nature and can be
caused by golf-club and scalpel respectively. That the accused Micheal Dhankal was a
member of the Golf-Club NOIDAPUR and golf clubs were produced by him before the
CBI and scalpel is used by the dentists and both the accused are dentists by profession.

DEFENCE:
MURDER NOT COMMITTED BY THE DHANKALS:
The accused claimed that they were being framed by the police to cover up their own
botched-up investigation.
The Dhankals stated that they slept through the murders because of the noise
produced by two air conditioners on the hot night. The couple's room had a window
AC, and Aayushi's room had a split AC; both were switched on the night of 15 May. In
addition, their bedroom was shut. Aayushi is also believed to have had a throat
infection, due to which she could not have screamed aloud. In 2013, the defence
witness and forensic expert Dr. RK Sharma stated that a 14-year-old child would have
fallen unconscious immediately due to the first blow from the blunt weapon, and
would not have been able to scream for help. He based this statement on an analysis
of the injuries on Aayushi's body. A sound expert team later recreated the air
conditioners' noise in the house on CBI's invitation. The team concluded that it was

Dr.Mrs.Sarah Dhankal v. C.B.I., Navvi Dallii and Anr. Page 4

 MOOT PROBLEM Alliance School of Law 2016-17

possible that the Dhankals' could not hear the sounds outside their room, and thus,
could have slept through the activities in their house on that night.
The parents denied that they had dressed up the crime scene, pointing out that if they
wanted to do so, they would have not left the Scotch whisky bottle with bloodstains
in the living room for everyone to see. The family denied that they had shown any
haste in cleaning the crime scene or cremating Aayushi's body. Sarah's mother
Charlotte and their clinic manager Sikaas Sethi stated they received permission from
the police to clean the house. The police had told them that they had already collected
all the necessary evidence; include a part of Aayushi's mattress. It was the police who
suggested that Aayushi's mattress be taken to the terrace for now, given the media
clamor downstairs. Vikas found the terrace locked, and when he could not find the
key, he placed the mattress on the neighbouring terrace. The family also claimed that
the police confirmed that they won't need the body for any further analysis, since the
post-mortem had already been done. Since it was decomposing fast, they cremated
it.
The Dhankals provided counter-arguments for the points that had made them the
prime suspects. The parents also pointed out that they would not indulge in
something like honour killing, as they came from liberal educated families and had an
inter-caste marriage.

JUDGEMENT
SESSIONS COURT:
The Special Judge, Additional Sessions Court, Badlapur found the accused Dr.Micheal
Dhankal and Dr.Sarah Dhankal, parents of the deceased Aayushi Dhankal (14), guilty of
committing a double murder. The accused Dr. Micheal Dhankal and Dr.Sarah Dhankal were
convicted under sections 302 read with section 34 and section 201 read with section 34 I.P.C. Dr.
Micheal Dhankal is also convicted under section 203 I.P.C. Both the accused are sentenced to
rigours imprisonment for life under section 302 read with section 34 IPC with a fine of Rs.10,000/-
each and in default of payment of fine to undergo six months simple imprisonment and to five

Dr.Mrs.Sarah Dhankal v. C.B.I., Navvi Dallii and Anr. Page 5

 MOOT PROBLEM Alliance School of Law 2016-17

years rigorous imprisonment under section 201 read with section 34 I.P.C. with a fine of
Rs.5,000/-each and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment of three
months. Dr. Micheal Dhankal was also sentenced to one year simple imprisonment under section
203 I.P.C. with a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple
imprisonment of one month. The accused shall be sent to District Jail under warrant of conviction.

MOOT JUSRISDICTION AND ISSUE:

HIGH COURT:
The accused challenged the Sessions Court judgement in the High Court of Jallahabad
asking for bail and Re-Investigation on the matter.


Students are hereby instructed to frame the issues and place their arguments on the said
case. There can be maximum four issues allowed.

Dr.Mrs.Sarah Dhankal v. C.B.I., Navvi Dallii and Anr. Page 6