Surana and Surana Trial Advocacy Moot Court Competition, 2018 Prosecution Memo PDF

1
SURANA AND SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2018
SURANA AND SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY
MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2018
BEFORE THE HON’BLE SESSIONS COURT AT PUNNAI
CASE CONCERNING OFFENCES CHARGED UNDER SECTIONS 307, 354-D,

509, 325, 355 and 358 OF THE BARAT PENAL CODE
IN THE MATTER OF
STATE OF SARDAM………………………....…………………………... (PROSECUTION)

v.
DEVEN S/O PERUMAL…………………………………………..…………... [ACCUSED 1]
JEYANT S/O GAJANAN….………………………...…………..………….…. [ACCUSED 2]
(DEFENCE)
C.C. No. 100 0f 2018
UPON SUBMISSION TO THE SESSIONS JUDGE AT PUNNAI
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF PROSECUTION
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................................. III
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES .............................................................................................................. IV
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION .................................................................................................. VII
STATEMENT OF FACTS .............................................................................................................. VIII
STATEMENT OF CHARGE ............................................................................................................. IX
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS .......................................................................................................... X
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ................................................................................................................ 1
1. THAT UNDER THE FACTS AND EVIDENCES PRESENTED THE ACCUSED NO. 1 IS GUILTY
UNDER § 307 OF BPC .................................................................................................................... 1
A. AN INTENTION OR KNOWLEDGE OF COMMITTING MURDER. ...................................................... 1
B. THE DOING OF AN ACT TOWARDS IT.......................................................................................... 3
2. THAT UNDER GIVEN FACTS STATED AND EVIDENCES PRESENTED ACCUSED NO. 1 IS GUILTY
UNDER § 354-D & § 509 OF BPC................................................................................................... 4
A. THAT THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY UNDER § 354D OF BPC. ........................................................... 4
B. THAT THE ACCUSED NO. 1 IS GUILTY UNDER § 509 OF BPC. ..................................................... 6
3.THAT UNDER GIVEN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES THE ACCUSED NO. 2 IS GUILTY UNDER §
325 OF BPC. ................................................................................................................................... 8

II
A.THE ACT SHOULD INCLUDE GRIEVOUS HURT CAUSED VOLUNTARILY AS MENTIONED UNDER
…...§.322 OF BPC. .......................................................................................................................... 8
B. ACT SHOULD NOT COME UNDER THE AMBIT OF § 335 OF BPC. ................................................. 9
355 OF BPC. ................................................................................................................................. 10
A.THE ACCUSED ASSAULTED, OR USED CRIMINAL FORCE UPON A PERSON. ................................. 10
B.HE DID SO INTENDING THEREBY TO DISHONOR THE SAID PERSON. ........................................... 11
. C. HE DID SO OTHERWISE THAN ON GRAVE AND SUDDEN PROVOCATION GIVEN BY THE SAID
PERSON…………………………………………………………………………………………...12
5. THAT UNDER THE GIVEN FACTS STATED AND EVIDENCES PRESENTED THE ABSCONDED
ACCUSED ARE GUILTY UNDER § 358 OF THE BPC...................................................................... 12
PRAYER .......................................................................................................................................... X
ANNEXURES ..................................................................................................................................... i
EXHIBITS…………………………………………………………………………………....…..xiii

III
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
& And
v. Versus
i.e. That is
¶ Paragraph
LR Law Reporter
BPC Barat Penal Code
No. Number
AIR All India Reporter
P&H Punjab And Haryana
Q.B. Queen’s Bench
CrLJ Criminal Law Journal
Ors. Others
SC Supreme Court
Bom. Bombay
SCC Supreme Court Cases
Cri. Criminal

IV
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
ACTS & STATUTES REFERRED
1. THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973.
2. THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872.
3. THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860.
4. THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2000.
BOOKS REFERRED
1. A S DEOSKAR, MEDICAL JURISPRUDENCE-TOXICOLOGY & FORENSIC SCIENCE (Vimala
Veeraraghavan, A H Tank & A Dutta eds., 3rd ed. 2014).
2. BRIAN J. HEARD, FORENSIC BALLISTIC IN COURT (1st ed., 2013).
3. DURGA D BASU, CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE (K I Vibhute ed., 6th ed.,2017).
4. NISA FASIL, HANDBOOK OF OFFENCES AND PUNISHMENT (M A Rashid ed., 4th ed., 2017).
5. P.S.A PILLAI, CRIMINAL LAW (K I Vibhute ed., 13th ed., 2017).
6. R.A NELSON, INDIAN PENAL CODE (K T Thomas & Aftab Alam eds.,11th ed., 2016).
7. R.V. KELKAR, CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (K.N. Chandrasekharan Pillai ed., 6th ed., 2018).
8. RATANLAL & DHIRAJLAL, LAW OF EVIDENCE (Shakil Ahmed Khan ed. 24th ed., 2016).
9. RATANLAL & DHIRAJLAL, THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (B M Prasad & Manish Mohan
20th ed., 2017).
10. RATANLAL & DHIRAJLAL, THE INDIAN PENAL CODE (K T Thomas & M A Rashid eds., 33rd ed.
2017).
11. WOODROFFE & AMIR ALI, LAW OF EVIDENCE (B M Prasad & Manish Mohan 20th ed., 2017).

V
CASES REFERRED
Arvind Kumar Gupta v. State, AIR 1984 SC 2118......................................................................... 5
Bakshish Singh v. State, AIR 1952 Pepsu 138 ............................................................................... 1
Fagan v. metropolitan police commissioner, (1969) 1 QB 439 .................................................... 10
Gobind Singh v. State, 1946 JLR 361............................................................................................. 1
Hari Kishan v. Sukhbir Singh and Ors, AIR1988 SC 2127 ............................................................ 2
Henry Scott v. Benjamin Hicklin and ors ....................................................................................... 1
Kaluram v. State of Assam,1977 CrLJ SC 98 ................................................................................ 2
Luxman v. State,(1899) Bom LR 286 ............................................................................................. 3
Mrs. Rupan Deol Bajaj & Anr v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill & Anr., (1995) 6 SCC 194 ................... 6
Om Prakash v. State, AIR 1961 SC 1782 ....................................................................................... 3
S.P. Malik v. State of Orissa , 1982 CrLJ 19 (Pat) ....................................................................... 10
State of Kerala v. Hamsa, (1988) 3 crimes 161 (162) .................................................................... 7
State of Maharashtra v. Meyer Hans George, AIR 1965 SC 722 ................................................... 1
State of Maharashtra v. Meyer Hans George, AIR 1965 SC 722. .................................................. 1
State of Punjab v. Major Singh, AIR 1967 SC 63 .......................................................................... 6
Sukhlal Sarkar v. Union of India, (2012) 5 SCC (Cri) 732 .......................................................... 11
DICTIONARIES REFERRED
1. BROOM’S LEGAL MAXIMS (Dr. H.K. Saharay ed., 12th ed.2015)
2. Garner, Black’s Law Dictionary, (9th Ed. Thomus & West, U.S.A 1990).
3. P RAMANATHA AIYAR, THE LAW LEXICON, (Shakil Ahmad Khan 3rd ed. 2015).

VI
WEBSITES REFERRED
1. www.lexisnexis.com
2. www.scconline.com
3. www.supremecourtofindia.nic.in

VII
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Hon’ble Court has jurisdiction to try the instant matter under Section 177 read with
Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Section 177:
‘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.’
Read with section 209:
‘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 bought 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 provision of this Code relating to bail, remand the accused to custody during,
and until the conclusion of, the trial;
c) Send to the court the record of the case and the documents and articles, if any, which are
to be produced in evidence;
d) Notify the Public Prosecutor of the commitment of the case to the Court of Session.’

VIII
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Deven and Pooja studied at Trinity college, Vanjiyur in state of Sardam and belonged to higher
caste and backward class respectively. As they travel 25 K.M. together daily to their college they
developed friendship and become fond of each other. Pooja and Deven got their job at Punnai,
Pooja stayed in a flat with Divya while Deven stayed with Kishore at a men’s hostel. Pooja started
avoiding his calls as she was being criticized by her friends and her colleague Kavita for her choice.
With the help of Jeyant, her distant relative she got a new a new phone number to avoid Deven but
she continued to use her old number as she didn’t want her parents to know anything. She also
blocked him but he tried to reach her through public booths and by standing outside her office for
several hours. She then decided to meet him and tell him about her plan of becoming an air hostess.
They had a heated argument at their meeting and Pooja slapped him when he accused her for losing
her character he felt humiliated and left quietly. Deven met Karan on his way back and they two
got heavily drunk. After which they left for Deven’s hostel.
He was furious after he called Pooja at 11:45 P.M., then he messaged Pooja to meet him for the
last time at any public place as he wanted to apologize. Pooja then invited him to meet at Indra
Nagar Metro Station on 12th and was accompanied by Kavita and was wearing short mini skirt and
a halter neck top which enraged him. Jeyant was also hiding nearby to watch the developments.
Jeyant and Kavita suddenly panicked after realizing that Deven was holding a pen knife very close
to Pooja’s face. Then Jeyant threw a stone at Deven to save Pooja and called for help. Deven to
protect himself held knife against Pooja’s neck in resistance to which she got injured and fell
unconscious. Jeyant further in anguish attacked him with the mob and he too fell unconscious. The
securities called the police and both of them were admitted in the hospital. The case is now being
committed to trial at the Sessions Court.

IX
STATEMENT OF CHARGE
The prosecution, state of Sardam, most respectfully submits before Hon’ble Sessions Court,
Punnai to consider following charges as framed by it in accordance with chapter XVII of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973-
I. Deven has been charged for offences punishable under § 307, 354D, and 509 of the Barat
Penal Code.
II. Jeyant has been charged for offences punishable under § 325 and 355 of the Barat Penal
Code.
III. Four Unknown Persons have been charged for offence punishable under § 358 of the
Barat Penal Code.

X
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
1. THAT UNDER GIVEN FACTS AND EVIDENCES PRESENTED THE ACCUSED NO. 1 IS GUILTY
UNDER § 307 OF BPC.
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the accused no. 1 is guilty under Sec. 307 of
BPC. This section deals with any act done with the intention to commit murder and in pursuance
of that intention does any act towards the commission of murder, whether the act done is
penultimate act or not. To hold a person guilty under this Section two essentials, need to be fulfilled
[A] Intention or knowledge of committing murder [B] The doing of an act towards it. In the instant
case the intention of the Accused no. 1 i.e. Deven is proved by way of panchanama, forensic report,
medical report, and injury certificate and the second essential is proved by way of CCTV footage
(Metro Station) and by Kannan’s statement, both of which clearly proves that Deven used the pen
knife to cut Pooja’s throat.
2. THAT UNDER GIVEN FACTS AND EVIDENCES PRESENTED THE ACCUSED NO. 1 IS GUILTY
UNDER § 354-D &§ 509 OF BPC.
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that the accused No.1 is guilty under § 354-D &
§509 of BPC. Section 354d of BPC describes the crime of stalking and further prescribes the
punishment for the same, whereas Sec 509 penalizes a man who with word, gesture or act intended
to insult the modesty of a woman. In the instant case, accused No. 1 has tried to contact Pooja to
foster her for the personal interaction repeatedly despite indication of disinterest by her, the same
has been proved by the way of CCTV footages and call records, whereas his intention to insult the
modesty of Pooja has been proved by the way of witness statement.

XI
3. THAT UNDER GIVEN FACTS AND EVIDENCE PRESENTED THE ACCUSED NO. 2 IS GUILTY
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that accused no.2 should be held guilty under §
325 of BPC. This section applies when a person voluntary causes grievous hurt and the same
should not arise from gave and sudden provocation. In the instant case, Jeyant caused grievous
hurt by throwing stones at Deven and kicking on his abdomen voluntarily with the intention and
knowledge that his act is likely to cause damage. Further, his acts did not arise from grave and
sudden provocation but were pre-planned action. Hence all the essentials have been fulfilled and
accomplished by the accused no. 2.
4. THAT UNDER THE GIVEN FACTS AND EVIDENCE PRESENTED THE ACCUSED NO. 2 IS
GUILTY UNDER § 355 OF BPC.
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that accused no. 2 should be held guilty under §
355 of BPC. In the instant case Jeyant has used the criminal force by throwing the stones and
kicking at the abdomen with the intention to dishonor Devan at metro station. Further taking into
consideration that his acts were not because of grave and sudden provocation which has already
been proved by the prosecution, it is contended that accused has fulfilled all the required essentials.
5. THAT UNDER THE GIVEN FACTS AND EVIDENCES PRESENTED THE ACCUSED ARE GUILTY
UNDER § 358 OF THE BPC.
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that all the unknown accused are guilty under §
358 of the BPC. This Section prescribes for punishment of assault or use of criminal force on grave
and sudden provocation by that person. In the instant case the liability of all the unknown persons
has been proved by way of [A] Witness Statement and [B] CCTV footage (Metro).

1
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
1. THAT UNDER THE FACTS AND EVIDENCES PRESENTED THE ACCUSED NO. 1 IS GUILTY
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that Deven1 is guilty under § 307 of BPC. This
Section deals with any act done with the intention to commit murder and in pursuance of that
intention does any act towards the commission of murder, whether the act done is penultimate act
or not.2 If a man commits an act with such intention and knowledge and under such circumstances
that if death has been caused the offence would have amounted to murder and the act itself is of
such a nature as would have caused death in the usual course of events but for something beyond
his control which prevented that result his would be punishable as an attempt to murder.3
In the case of Gobind Singh v. State4, the court held that in order to hold a person guilty under this
Sec. the following two ingredients must be present [A] an intention or knowledge of committing
murder [B] the doing of an act towards it.
A. AN INTENTION OR KNOWLEDGE OF COMMITTING MURDER.
It is a principle of natural justice and our law, that actus non facitreum nisi mens sit rea5. The intent
and the act must both concur to constitute the crime6. The basic meaning of mens rea is guilty
intention7 which is generally proved or inferred from the acts of the accused.8
1
Hereinafter referred as accused no. 1.
2
RATANLAL AND DHIRAJLAL, THE INDIAN PENAL CODE 2061 (KT Thomas & MA Rashid eds., 33rd ed. 2016 ).
3
Bakshish Singh v. State, AIR 1952 Pepsu 138.
4
Gobind Singh v. State, 1946 JLR 361.
5
BROOM’S LEGAL MAXIMS (Dr. H.K. Saharay ed., 12th ed.2015).
6
Henry Scott v. Benjamin Hicklin and ors., 1868 [L.R.] 3 Q.B. 360.
7
Commissioner of Income Tax v. Patranu Dass Raja Ram Beri, AIR 1982 P&H 1,¶ 1 & 4.
8
State of Maharashtra v. Meyer Hans George, AIR 1965 SC 722.

2
Intent which is a state of mind can never be precisely proved by direct evidences as a fact; it can
only deduced or inferred from other facts.9 An illuminating discussion on the issue ‘mens rea’ is
to be found in the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Kaluram v. State of Assam10 and the
court established these essentials which are needed to be fulfilled to prove mens rea: (1) The nature
of the weapon; (2) the nature of the injuries caused; (3) the place where the injuries were inflected;
(4) opportunity available which the accused gets. The nature of injury actually caused may
sometimes afford a clue to find it requisite intention to kill was present or not.
This is further reaffirmed by another case Hari Kishan v. Sukhbir Singh and Ors11in which
Supreme Court held that under Section 307 BPC the intention or knowledge of the accused must
be such as is necessary constitute murder. Without this ingredient being established, there can be
no offence of attempt to murder. Under § 307 the intention precedes the act attributed to accused.
Therefore, the intention is to be gathered from all circumstances, and not merely from the
consequences that ensue.
In the instant case the nature of weapon used by accused no. 1 was a penknife which he used to
slash Pooja’s throat and hence inflicted an injury to her. However, it is pertinent to mention that
the penknife was not picked up from the spot and was already in his possession, this shows that he
already had the intention to kill Pooja. The place of injury was Pooja’s throat which is a vital part
of human body and any injury on the same is capable of killing a person as proved by the injury
certificate that the cut was of 5.7 cm x 3 cm, (both margins not cleanly cut; Right end acute)12
which proves that the nature of injuries inflicted were serious and grave in nature. It is evident that
accused No. 1 had the intention to kill Pooja, owing to the humiliation faced by him when he was
9
RATANLAL AND DHIRAJLAL, THE INDIAN PENAL CODE 2067 (KT Thomas & MA Rashid eds., 33rd ed., 2016).
10
Kaluram v. State of Assam,1977 CrLJ SC 98.
11
Hari Kishan v. Sukhbir Singh and Ors, AIR1988 SC 2127.
12
Exhibit no. 16. Page no. xxxviii.

3
slapped by Pooja and was not able to overcome the fact that Pooja was no more interested in him,
he wasn’t able to control his rage and hence used the opportunity available to him at the metro
station to kill Pooja.
From all the facts and evidences, it is evident that Accused no. 1 had all the requisite intention and
knowledge of his acts and his acts were done with an intent to kill Pooja.
B. THE DOING OF AN ACT TOWARDS IT.
Actus reus is any wrongful act.13 There must be an act done, irrespective of its result and the act
must be capable of causing death in the natural and ordinary course of things. The Supreme Court
has held that a person commits an offence under this section when he has an intention to commit
murder and in pursuance of that act is the penultimate act or not.14
Attempt is an intentional preparatory action which fails in its object-which so fails through
circumstances independent of the person who seeks its accomplishment.15 The expression “by that
act” in section 307 does not mean that the immediate effect of the act committed must be death all
that is required is that the result of that act must be death whether immediately or after a lapse of
time.
In the instant case accused No. 1 had used the Pen knife to cut Pooja’s throat, which is reaffirmed
by Kavita, Kannan and Jeyant’s statement as all of them are eye witnesses of the act of Deven
slashing Pooja’s throat, slashing of throat is an act which was capable of causing Pooja’s death in
natural and ordinary circumstances. Further from the CCTV footage it can be proved that he has
slashed Pooja’s throat.
13
AIYAR P. RAMANATHA, THE LAW LEXICON 40 (Shakil Ahmad Khan ed. 3rd ed., 2015).
14
Om Prakash v. State, AIR 1961 SC 1782.
15
Luxman v. State,(1899) Bom LR 286.

4
Since both the ingredients of the section are fulfilled, the accused should be held guilty under this
section.
2. THAT UNDER GIVEN FACTS STATED AND EVIDENCES PRESENTED ACCUSED NO. 1 IS GUILTY
UNDER § 354-D & § 509 OF BPC.
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that the Accused 1 is guilty under § 354-D & §
509 of BPC. [A] The acts of Deven to contacted Pooja to foster personal interaction with her
repeatedly despite indication of clear disinterest by her will come under § 354D of BPC whereas
[B] His intention to insult the modesty of Pooja will be dealt under § 509 of BPC.
A. THAT THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY UNDER § 354D OF BPC.
It is humbly contented to the Hon’ble court that Deven is guilty under § 354d of BPC which states
that “any man who follows a woman and contacts, or attempts to contact such woman to foster
personal interaction repeatedly despite a clear indication of disinterest by such woman commits
the offence of stalking”.16 In the present case Accused no. 1 has committed the offence twice, first
time before he met Pooja at restaurant and second is the period between their meetings at
restaurant and metro station. The expression “man” mentioned under this section denotes a male
human being of any age.17On the interpretation of the section, following ingredients need to be
proved to hold a man guilty under this section;18(A.1) follows a woman and contacts or attempts
to contact such woman, (A.2) to foster personal interaction repeatedly, (A.3)despite a clear
indication of disinterest by such woman.
(A.1) Follows a woman and contacts or attempts to contact such woman.
16
§ 354D (1), INDIAN PEN. CODE, 1860, No. 45 of 1860.
17
§ 10, INDIAN PEN. CODE, 1860, No. 45 of 1860.
18
RATANLAL AND DHIRAJLAL, THE INDIAN PENAL CODE 835 (KT Thomas & MA Rashid eds., 33rd ed., 2016).

5
The word woman has been described under §10 of BPC as female human being of any age.19In the
instant case, Accused No. 1 has followed and attempted to contact Pooja in both phases. The
argument is backed by statement made by Kavita and Jeyant. As per the statement given by Kavita,
he used to stand outside the office when it gets over and wait for Pooja to come out which proves
completion of first essential in first phase. This can be further reconfirmed from the Jeyant’s
statement. As far as second phase is concerned he has frequently called and texted her during office
hours and used to disturb her and after her met at restaurant as same is backed by Exhibit no 920(call
records). All these incidents prove beyond reasonable doubt that Deven has followed and
attempted to contact Pooja.
(A.2) To foster personal interaction repeatedly.
In the instant case, accused No. 1 has repeatedly asked Pooja to meet him through messages and
calls, as supported by the WhatsApp chats and calls records which are humbly submitted by the
prosecution clearly proves that he has recurrently foster her to meet which is the reason she met
him in restaurant and later at the Metro Station. Hence, it fulfills the second essential.
(A.3) Despite a clear indication of disinterest by such woman.
In the case of Arvind Kumar Gupta v. State21 the Hon’ble court stated that ignoring the calls of the
accused is the clear indication of disinterest by a woman. In the instant case, Pooja has not only
avoided his calls but also blocked him. She even used alternative number so that she can avoid
Deven, the same is proved by Jeyant and Kavita. As a victim is the best witness of the incident,
therefore on 9 June, 2017, when Pooja met Deven in the restaurant she again expressly asked
19
§ 10, INDIAN PEN. CODE, 1860, No. 45 of 1860.
20
Page no. xxv.
21
Arvind Kumar Gupta v. State, AIR 1984 SC 2118.

6
Deven that he need not to contact with her anymore which proves beyond any doubt that she has
clearly indicated her disinterest.
The section further provides certain conduct which if a man pursued shall not amount to stalking.22
In the instance case, the prosecution humbly contended that Deven has not been entrusted with the
responsibility of prevention and detection of crime either by state or law. Further his acts were not
reasonable and justified as calling and texting her during her office hours and at night in spite clear
indication of disinterest cannot be justified. Hence it is contented by the prosecution that Deven
should be held guilty under § 354-d of BPC as he has committed the offence twice.
B. THAT THE ACCUSED NO. 1 IS GUILTY UNDER § 509 OF BPC.
Sec 509 penalizes a man who with word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a
woman.23 To penalize a man under this sec following ingredients need to be satisfy by a man, (B.1)
Intention to insult the modesty of a woman, (B.2) The insult must be caused either by uttering
some words, or making some sound, or gesture or exhibiting any object so as to be heard or seen
by such woman, or by intruding upon the privacy of such woman.24
B.1 Intention to insult the modesty of a woman.
Since the term woman modesty has nowhere been described under BPC, hence According to
Oxford English Dictionary modesty is the quality of being modest and in relation to woman means
“womanly propriety of behavior; scrupulous chastity of thought, speech and conduct”.25An
22
(i) it was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime and the man accused of stalking bad been
entrusted with the responsibility of prevention and detection of crime by the State; or
(ii) it was pursued under any law or to comply with any condition or requirement imposed by any person under any
law; or
(iii.) in the particular circumstances such conduct was reasonable and justified.
23
§ 509, INDIAN PEN. CODE, 1860, No. 45 of 1860: Whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters
any word, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object, intending that such word or sound shall be heard, or
that such gesture or object shall be seen, by such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman, shall be
punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, and also with fine.
24
K.D GAUR, THE INDIAN PENAL CODE 833 (Justice V.N. Khare ed., 4th ed., 2012).
25
Mrs. Rupan Deol Bajaj & Anr v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill & Anr., (1995) 6 SCC 194.

7
illuminating discussion on the issue of “modesty of woman” is to be found in Supreme Court’s
decision in State of Punjab vs. Major Singh26 as “modesty is the attribute of her sex” and the
ultimate test for ascertaining whether modesty has been outraged is, is the action of the offender
such as could be perceived as one which is capable of shocking the sense of decency of a woman.
In the instant case, Accused No. 1 at the restaurant, infuriated Pooja and abused her and by saying
that her dress and behavior shows she is losing her character as being proved by Pooja and Kavita.
In the case State of kerala v. Hamsa27the Hon’ble Court stated that even if those gesticulations
were done without being noticed by others except the woman those acts would amount to insult to
her modesty. Hence the statement made by him, though not been heard or seen by others would
amount to insulting the modesty of Pooja.
B.2 The insult must be caused either by uttering some words, or making some sound, or gesture
or exhibiting any object.
The second ingredient is related to the way insult should be made. It may be words or sound or
object. In the case at hand, Deven has out rightly abused Pooja and further said that ‘she is losing
her character as the same is proved by Kavita. His words were abusive enough to insult the modesty
of a woman.
Hence it is contented by the prosecution that accused should be held guilty under § 509 since he
has satisfied all the necessary ingredients.
26
State of Punjab v. Major Singh, AIR 1967 SC 63.
27
State of Kerala v. Hamsa, (1988) 3 crimes 161 (162).

8
325 OF BPC.
It is most humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the accused should be held guilty under
§ 325 of the BPC which provides punishment for voluntary causing grievous hurt.28 From the
interpretation of the section, it can be inferred that there are two essentials which are required to
be proved to hold someone guilty under this section which are; [A] The act should include grievous
hurt caused voluntarily as mentioned under § 322.29 [B] Act should not come under the ambit of
§.335 of BPC.30
A. THE ACT SHOULD INCLUDE GRIEVOUS HURT CAUSED VOLUNTARILY AS MENTIONED UNDER
§.322.
The expression ‘voluntarily causing grievous hurt’ has been explained under § 322.31 As per § 322
any person who causes both the grievous hurt and intends or knows himself to be likely to cause
grievous hurt, is said to have commit the crime of voluntarily causing grievous hurt and what
includes in ‘grievous hurt’ is explained under § 320 in eight methods.32 After the interpretation of
these eight modes, it can be stated that the injury which is actually found should itself be such that
it may put the life of the injured endanger or of such nature which is capable to damage either
permanently or temporally any vital part of human body will constitute grievous hurt. To hold
28
§ 325, INDIAN PEN. CODE, 1860, No. 45 of 1860.-Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 335,
voluntarily causes grievous hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to seven years, and shall also be guilty to fine.
29
RATANLAL AND DHIRAJLAL, THE INDIAN PENAL CODE 2183 (KT Thomas & MA Rashid eds., 33rd ed. 2016 ).
30
R A NELSON, INDIAN PENAL CODE 2829 (K T Thomas & Aftab Alam eds., 11th ed. 2016).
31
§ 322, INDIAN PEN. CODE, 1860, No. 45 of 1860, Voluntarily causing grievous hurt.-Whoever voluntarily causes
hurt, if the hurt which he intends to cause or knows himself to be likely to cause is grievous hurt, and if the hurt which
he causes is grievous hurt, is said “voluntarily to cause grievous hurt.” Explanation.-A person is not said voluntarily
to cause grievous hurt except when he both causes grievous hurt and intends or knows himself to be likely to cause
grievous hurt. But he is said voluntarily to cause grievous hurt, if intending or knowing himself to be likely to cause
grievous hurt of one kind, he actually causes grievous hurt of another kind.
32
§ 320, INDIAN PEN. CODE, 1860, No. 45 of 1860, Eighthly -Any hurt which endangers life or which causes the
sufferer to be during the space of twenty days in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits.

9
someone guilty under this section, that person should not only commit grievous hurt but also has
intention or knowledge to commit such hurt.
In the instant case at the metro station Accused No. 2 threw the stone at Deven’s head with the
knowledge that his act would viciously injure Deven. Further the intention can be inferred as he
hit the stone at such vital part and with such a force that resulted in bleeding of his head.
Voluntarily Causing grievous hurt can further be proved as Jeyant kicked Deven in his abdomen
even when Deven was lying helplessly while having the knowledge that his kick is of such a nature
and on such a vital part of the body which is capable of endangering Deven’s life. Hence the first
essential has been fulfilled.
B. ACT SHOULD NOT COME UNDER THE AMBIT OF § 335 OF BPC.
§ 335 prescribed punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt on grave and sudden
provocation. The essence of the section is that such grievous hurt has been caused on grave and
sudden provocation and nothing else.33
However, in the instant case, Accused No. 2 was from very beginning jealous of Deven, as he was
interested in Pooja and she never displayed the similar interest in him. Further she did not take his
warnings seriously to keep distance from Deven as he didn’t like her relationship with him and he
always kept a watch on her movements. However, it is pertinent to mention that Deven belonged
to backward community while Jeyant belonged to the upper community and due to the political
and caste based parties, violent clashes were quite common in the State of Barat between both
these communities. All these circumstances establish a chain of events through which it can
inferred that Jeyant from very beginning had disliked Deven and always awaited to take revenge
33
RATANLAL AND DHIRAJLAL, THE INDIAN PENAL CODE 2244 (KT Thomas & MA Rashid eds., 33rd ed. 2016 )

10
from him, hence it can be stated that he always had the requisite mens rea to commit the crime and
on the day of the incident it got accompanied with actus reus, thus constituted a crime.
Hence it is humbly contended before the Hon’ble court that Accused No. 2 should be held guilty
under § 325 of BPC.
355 OF BPC.
It is most humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the accused should be held guilty under
sec. 355.34 To hold someone guilty under this section, following essentials need to be proved; [A]
The accused assaulted, or used criminal force upon a person; [B] he did so intending thereby to
dishonor the said person; and [C] he did so otherwise than on grave and sudden provocation given
by the said person.35
A. THE ACCUSED ASSAULTED, OR USED CRIMINAL FORCE UPON A PERSON.
An assault is a gesture or preparation, made by a person, who intends, or knows that it is likely,
that some person present will thereby apprehend that he is about to use criminal force.36 Or in other
words it is an act which intentionally or possibly recklessly causes another person to apprehend
immediate and unlawful personal violence.37 Criminal Force has been defined in the § 350 of BPC
as intentional use of force without the other person’s consent and with the object of either
committing an offence or of causing injury, fear or annoyance to the person, to whom the force is
34
Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person, intending thereby to dishonour that person, otherwise than
on grave and sudden provocation given by that person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for
a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
35
36
37
Fagan v. metropolitan police commissioner, (1969) 1 QB 439.

11
used.38 An illuminating meaning of criminal force is to be found in S.P. Malik v. State of Orissa39
as use of force will become criminal when it is done against the consent of any person with the
intention of committing an offence or to cause injury, fear, annoyance to any person.
After interpretation of the following definitions it can be contended that Accused No. 2 had used
the criminal force against Deven may it be when he threw the stones or viciously kicked his
abdomen. The force was used against Deven without his consent with the intention of causing
injury, thus hereby fulfilling the first essential.
B. HE DID SO INTENDING THEREBY TO DISHONOR THE SAID PERSON.
The term intention has nowhere described under the BPC, however on the basis of analysis on the
Supreme Court interpretation on intention, it can be contended that its implies a pre-arranged plan
and acting in concert pursuant. The intention to dishonor the person assaulted, or to whom the
criminal force is used, is an essential ingredient of an offence under this section.40
In the instant case, Accused No. 2 was from very beginning jealous of Deven, as he was interested
in Pooja and she never displayed the similar interest in him. Further she did not take his warnings
seriously to keep distance from Deven as he didn’t like her relationship with him. Deven belonged
to backward community and violent clashes were quite common in the State of Bharat. Thus it can
be inferred from all the circumstances that the whole act of Accused No. 2 of using criminal force
was done with the intention to dishonor Deven. The use of such force at metro station which is
usually crowded clearly depicts that there was a clear intention of dishonoring him. Further the
intention to dishonor can be deduced from his act of shouting ‘Murder Murder…,’. He even
38
§ 350, INDIAN PEN. CODE, 1860, No. 45 of 1860, Criminal force.-Whoever intentionally uses force to any person,
without that person’s consent, in order to the committing of any offence, or intending by the use of such force to
cause, or knowing it to be likely that by the use of such force he will cause injury, fear or annoyance to the person to
whom the force is used, is said to use criminal force to that other.
39
S.P. Malik v. State of Orissa , 1982 CrLJ 19 (Pat).
40

12
misguided the public in order to dishonor him, these contentions are backed by way of witness
statement and the CCTV footage of the Metro station. Thus, second essential has been fulfilled.
C. HE DID SO OTHERWISE THAN ON GRAVE AND SUDDEN PROVOCATION GIVEN BY THE SAID
PERSON.
The expression “grave” indicate that provocation be of such nature so as to give cause for the alarm
to the aggressor. “Sudden” means an action which must be quick and unexpected so far as to
provoke the aggressor.41
However, in the case at hand, as already been proved by the prosecution that Accused No. 2 always
has the requisite mens rea i.e the intention to take revenge from Devan. Hence his actions weren’t
due to sudden provocations but a pre-plann5ed act.
Hence it is humbly contented by the Prosecution that Accused No. 2 should be held guilty under
the § 325 of BPC, since all the necessary ingredients have been proved by the prosecution.
5. THAT UNDER THE GIVEN FACTS STATED AND EVIDENCES PRESENTED THE ABSCONDED
ACCUSED ARE GUILTY UNDER § 358 OF THE BPC.
It is humbly contended that all the accused are guilty under § 358 of the BPC. § 358 prescribes for
punishment of assault or use of criminal force on grave and sudden provocation by that person.42
In the instant case the 4 unknown persons are guilty under this § and this will subsequently be
proved by the way of [A] Witness Statement and [B] CCTV footage (Metro).
[A] Witness Statement
In this instant case through the evidences and statement of witnesses recorded clearly shows that
acts have been done by the accused. All the witnesses are competent as per Sec. 118 of the Barat
Evidence Act,1872. Kannan’s statement makes it clear that it was after someone shouted Murder
41
Sukhlal Sarkar v. Union of India, (2012) 5 SCC (Cri) 732.
42
§ 358, INDIAN PEN. CODE, 1860, No. 45 of 1860

13
thrice and the subsequent slashing of Pooja’s neck resulted in sudden provocation, this is further
reaffirmed from Kavita’s statement that she heard the same words, the occurrence of both these
acts one after the other led to sudden and grave provocation among the public.
[B] CCTV (Metro Station)
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that in this instant case the Metro CCTV footage43
clearly proves that it was after the stone had hit Deven and on the subsequent slashing of Pooja’s
throat, the crowd went towards Deven and thrashed him.
Therefore, from the aforementioned arguments it can be concluded that the public acted under
sudden and grave provocation and hence four of them should be held guilty under § 358.
43
Exhibit 14, Page xxxiv.

X
PRAYER
Wherefore, in the light of the facts stated, issues raised, authorities cited and arguments advanced,
it is most humbly prayed before the Hon’ble Court, that it may be graciously pleased to:
1. Convict Deven [Accused no.1] punishable under § 307, 354D and 509 of BPC, 1860.
2. Convict Jeyant [Accused no. 2] punishable under § 325 and 355 of BPC, 1860.
3. Convict 4 Unknown Persons [Accused no. 3] punishable under § 358 BPC, 1860
4. Declare a sentence of rigorous life imprisonment to the [Accused no. 1].
5. Declare a sentence of imprisonment of seven years along with the fine to the
[Accused.no.2]
6. Declare a sentence of imprisonment of one month to the [4 unknown Accused]
OR
Pass any other order it may deem fit, in the interest of Justice, Equity and Good
Conscience.
All of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted
Sd/-
(Counsel for the Prosecution)

ANNEXURES

i
ANNEXURE-1
FIRST INFORMATION REPORT
(Under §. 154 of CrPC)
Book no. __________
District Punnai
Police station Indira Nagar Police Station, Punnai
F.I.R Number 110/2017
Date, Place and time of 12th June 2017 at around 9:55 A.M.
the occurrence of the Indira Nagar Metro Station, Punnai (Sardamn)
offence
Complainant/Informant a. Name: Prakash Gaitonde (Sub-Inspector Indira Nagar
Police Station)
b. Father’s Name: To be filled from service book
c. Date/Year of Birth: To be filled from service book
d. Nationality: Indian
e. Passport No.: —— Date of Issue: —— Place

of Issue: ——
f. Occupation: Police Officer
g. Address : To be filled from service book
Type of information Written

Reason for delay in No Delay
filing of FIR
Particulars of
__________________________
properties stolen
(Attach separate sheet,
if necessary)
Total value of property
stolen
__________________________

ii
Inquest Report / U.D.
case No., if any _________________________
First Information On 12th of June 2017 at about 9:30 A.M., Deven a boy Working as
contents (Attach a Civil engineer at PG Builders entered Indira Nagar Metro Station
separate sheet, if and sat at a corner on a bench after 15 minutes a girl named Pooja
required) working as a software developer at software solutions after
sometime the boy took out a knife from his bag and tried to attack
the girl but instead he himself was attacked by a boy named Jeyant
with a stone due to which he got injured. Then Deven caught hold
of Pooja and held knife against her and injured her shoulder and
slashed her neck, after this incident Jeyant thrashed Deven brutally
and some by-standers also attacked Deven.
Details of known/ a. Deven S/o Perumal, Canal Street, Chirapalli, Vanjiyur,
Suspected/ unknown Sardam, Age 25.
accused with full
b. Jeyant, S/o Gajanan, Subhedar Street, Chirapalli, Vanjiyur,
particulars: (attach separate
sheet, if necessary) Sardam, Age 26.
c. 4 unknown persons.
Status of Accused Deven is admitted in city hospital under police supervision and
Jeyant is taken into custody. 2 unknown persons are wanted.
Signature of Officer in charge, Police Station: Sd/-

Prakash Gaitonde
(Sub-Inspector, Indira Nagar police Station)

iii
ANNEXURE-2
Statements of Witness
1. Pooja
He started calling me frequently in spite of my clear instruction of not to call me. I was really
annoyed with his acts and used to tell Pooja about everything that was happening. In order to bring
stop to all his acts I met him in restaurant. But he abused me and I slapped him for that. He
continued his acts so in order to end all this for last I met him at metro station. Suddenly he brought
the knife near my throat and then a stone hit him and he was sin rage and he grasped me and
slashed my shoulder.
2. Deven
We are in a relationship from past four years. Fortunately, we both got job in the same city. She
had better job in the same city. She had better job than me. After one year in Punnai our relationship
was going through many ups and downs. One day she used to be good to me and other day she
behaved indifferent. It was being difficult to understand her behaviour. We used to meet less
frequently. Once we met at restaurant she slapped me and humiliated me. After this I called her
and requested her to meet and solve things and then she fixed our meeting at metro station. We
were sitting on a bench on metro station when a stone hit me and in that very next moment
approached me and started to beat me. The next morning, I woke up in the hospital.

1. Jeyant (Accused 2)
I am a distant relative of Pooja. I work in Punnai where my office is nearby to Pooja’s. many a
times I have seen Deven standing outside office. After few days Pooja asked to me provide her
with new number being irritated with Deven’s call and whatsapp messages. Also, when meeting
was fixed at metro station with Deven she asked me to accompany her. Where I was hiding and
observing them. The next I saw was knife which was close Pooja’s neck. I immediately threw
stone at Deven and approached them quickly. Then Deven had knife against Pooja’s neck and I
threw another stone at Deven then he injured Pooja and she was taken to hospital.

iv
2. Kavita
I worked with Pooja in same office in Punnai and overtime we became close friends. She told me
about Deven and even I saw how he was harassing her by frequently calling her during office time
and often waited outside our office. I told Pooja to meet him to avoid troubles in future and end
things once and for all but she told me that he abused her. In that meeting but he continued his acts
as he used to do before. Then she decided to meet him at metro station. She asked me and Jayent
to accompany her, I met Deven and then he asked me to leave as he wanted to talk to her personally
then I sat on nearby bench about 10 feet away. I saw Deven took the apple out and he started
cutting them and after few minutes the knife was very close to Pooja’s case. I got shocked the next
thing that happened was Deven was hit by something then suddenly he pulled her and placed the
knife on her neck. The knife slashed her shoulder.
3. Karan
I met Deven near my house. He was looking devastated. I was going for the dinner so I asked him
to tag along. I asked him the reason behind his state and he told me that Pooja wants to break up
with him and he went to meet her and after a verbal altercation, she slapped him in public. He also
told me about how Pooja’s sudden change of behavior is hurting him a lot and how she has started
treating him like a stranger. He was depressed and I offered him a couple of drinks and then
dropped him at his flat
4. Kannan
I reached metro station when the metro scheduled at about 9:35 a.m. just departed. In order to wait
for the next metro which was scheduled at about 10:00 a.m., I went and sat on the extreme end of
the metro station. A boy was already sitting there and after 10 minutes two girls arrived. One girl
sat next to the boy. After sometime while cutting an apple the boy he held the knife very close to
the girl’s face and in the very next moment a stone hit the boy’s head. He then caught hold of girl
and held knife against her neck. The boy fell unconscious with another attack and police came and
took cognizance of the situation.

v
5. Kishore
I am Deven’s roommate. Since he has moved with me I have mostly seen him worried and mainly
because of Pooja. He is constantly worried about her safety and wellbeing. One day he comes
home drunk and told me about whatever happened at the restaurant. He then called her to meet for
the last time and told me that this time he will end everything on a good note. Like always he took
fruits and a small knife in his cotton bag and told me that this is how it all started and how he will
offer her an apple for the one last time. It is unfortunate whatever happened to him. He deserved
better.
6. Alex
I have been working as waiter in Lee Meridian for last three years. I was the main attendant of the
table on June 9 when they both came to our restaurant in the evening. I was serving them when the
girl suddenly the girl started shouting I remember the boy was calm and was pacifying her, in the
very next movement the girl slapped the boy, he felt humiliated and left the place.

vi
Annexure 3
INVESTIGATING REPORT
Case no./ FIR no. 110/2017

Case diary no. and Date
Name of Accused 1. Deven
2. Jeyant
Status of Accused Accused 1 is in hospital and accused 2 is in police custody

Wanted Accused 4 absconded accused wanted
Weapons used in crime 1. Pen knife

2. Stones
All the weapons used in the crime have been recovered, knife and
stones are sent to forensic department for finger print analysis
and blood tests.
Injuries
To complainant/witness Pooja is critically injured and was admitted to the ICU. She has
a cut on her throat and muscle injury on right shoulder
To other persons Deven, accused, is also injured was immediately admitted to the
hospital. He has several injuries and is recovering at the hospital.
How the FIR was lodged: Police came to know about the incident when an unknown caller called
at the Indra Nagar Police Station to report the incident that was occurring at the Indra Nagar metro
station. Police with ambulance reached the spot within 10 minutes after the call was received. The
injured were immediately admitted to the hospital. Evidence was collected from the spot along
with the weapons.
Facts of the Case:
On 12th of June 2017 at about 9:30 A.M., Deven a boy Working as a Civil engineer at PG Builders
entered Indira Nagar Metro Station and sat at a corner on a bench after 15 minutes a girl named
Pooja working as a software developer at software solutions after sometime the boy took out a
knife from his bag and tried to attack the girl but instead he himself was attacked by a boy named

vii
Jeyant with a stone due to which he got injured. Then Deven caught hold of Pooja and held knife
against her and injured her shoulder and slashed her neck, after this incident Jeyant thrashed Deven
brutally and some by-standers also attacked Deven.
F.I.R. was registered on the same day and IO started investigation, as four items were
seized which are a pen knife, stone with blood stains, apples and a cotton bag. The forensic team
was called at the crime scene to collect blood and finger-print samples The forensic reports showed
that the sample of blood which was collected form the knife matched with the blood of Pooja. The
figure prints on the knife were found to be of Deven’s. The Stone contained Blood of Deven and
figure prints matched with Jeyant. On further interrogating eye witness Kannan and other
witnesses and considering all the reports it was found that Deven had planned to kill Pooja by
using a pen knife to slash her neck. Jeyant because of jealousy and hatred towards Deven thrashed
him badly even when he was lying helplessly and has surrendered. By going through the call
records and CCTV footage collected from Pooja’s office it was found that Deven was continuously
disturbing her in spite of clear warnings of Pooja, which shows that Pooja was not at all interested
in him.
Evidence Collected 1. Stones that hit Deven
2. Knife and the Cotton bag with fruits
3. Picture of Deven holding a knife against Pooja’s neck
4. Footage of security cameras
5. Blood stained samples
Efforts are being made to arrest the wanted accused of the crime. The investigation is on and they
will be under custody too. Security cameras will help in their identification.
Statements of witness:
Under Section 164 1. Pooja
2. Deven (Accused 1)
Under Section 161 3. Jeyant (Accused 2)

4. Kavita
5. Karan
6. Kannan

viii
7. Kishore
8. Alex
The investigation regarding the incident is still going on. Efforts are being made to recognize the
unknown accused and directions have been given to search for them and reveal their identity.
Sd/-
Prakash Gaiotonde
Investigating Officer

ix
ANNEXURE-4
PROPERTY SEIZURE MEMO
On June 12, the investigating officer visited Indira Nagar Metro Station. After arresting Jeyant and sending
Pooja and Deven to hospital, searched the place, took into possession the following and sealed in front of
witnesses.
1. Pen knife with blood stains

2. Stone with blood stains
3. Cotton shoulder bag
4. Apples with blood stains
Mr. Rupendra Singh and Mr. Saurabh Seth, were present on the scene and have consented
as eyewitnesses and accordingly attested the property seizure memo.
Sd/.
Investigating Officer
Witnesses:
Sd/-
Mr. Rupendra Singh, age 24 years, Residing at: Indira nagar, Sector 10, Vishal Apartments, Flat
no.223.
Sd/-
Mr. Saurabh Seth, age 31 years, Residing at: Indira nagar, 10/153, Nandan Villa.

x
ANNEXURE-5
Charge Sheet
In the Court of Session at Punnai
District: Punnai PS: Indira Nagar Year: 2017, FIR No.: 110/2017 Date: 20/02/2018
1. Charge Sheet No. 16
2. Date 20-02-2018
3. Acts/Sections
A. Deven: BPC Section 307, Section 354-D and Section 509
B. Jeyant: BPC Section 325, Section 355 and Section 504

C. Unknown persons: BPC Section 358
4. Type of Final Report
5. If Final Report Un occurred/

false/mistake of fact/mistake of
--------------------------------
law/non cognizable/civil nature
6. If charge-sheeted Original
original/Supplementary
7. Name of Complainant/Informant Prakash Gaitonde, Sub-Inspector, Indira

Nagar Police Station, Punnai
8. Details of Items Ceased on the spot of incidence

Properties/Articles/Documents
1. Pen knife
recovered/seized during the
2. Apples
investigation and relied upon
3. Cotton Bag
4. Blood stained Stones

xi
9. Witness examined 1. Pooja
2. Deven (Accused 1)
3. Jeyant (Accused 2)
4. Kanan
5. Kavita
6. Karan
7. Kishore
8. Alex
10. If F.I.R. is false, action taken: FIR is not False
11. Facts of the Case:

On 12th of June 2017 at about 9:30 A.M., Deven a boy Working as a Civil engineer
at PG Builders entered Indira Nagar Metro Station and sat at a corner on a bench
after 15 minutes a girl named Pooja working as a software developer at software
solutions after sometime the boy took out a knife from his bag and tried to attack
the girl but instead he himself was attacked by a boy named Jeyant with a stone
due to which he got injured. Then Deven caught hold of Pooja and held knife
against her and injured her shoulder and slashed her neck, after this incident Jeyant
thrashed Deven brutally and some by-standers also attacked Deven.
F.I.R. was registered on the same day and IO started investigation, as four items
were seized which are a pen knife, stone with blood stains, apples and a cotton
bag. The forensic team was called at the crime scene to collect blood and finger-
print samples The forensic reports showed that the sample of blood which was
collected form the knife matched with the blood of Pooja. The figure prints on the
knife were found to be of Deven’s. The Stone contained Blood of Deven and
figure prints matched with Jeyant. On further interrogating eye witness Kannan
and other witnesses and considering all the reports it was found that Deven had
planned to kill Pooja by using a pen knife to slash her neck. Jeyant because of
jealousy and hatred towards Deven thrashed him badly even when he was lying
helplessly and has surrendered. By going through the call records and CCTV

xii
footage collected from Pooja’s office it was found that Deven was continuously
disturbing her in spite of clear warnings of Pooja, which shows that Pooja was not
at all interested in him.
Sd/-
Prakash Gaitonde
(Investigating Officer)

EXHIBITS

xiii
EXHIBIT 1
Letter from IO to Forensic Department. Dated: 14-06-2018

xiv
EXHIBIT 2
Finger print samples of Deven and Jeyant taken by IO during Investigation while they were in
custody.

xv

xvi
EXHIBIT 3
REGIONAL FORENSIC LABORATORY, PUNNAI

Analysis Report
14-Pandey Layout, Punnai
To
Sub-Inspector
Indira Nagar Police Station, Punnai
Subject: Detailed Examination of Exhibits
Respected Sir,
The following data is obtained on examination of the exhibits sent regarding crime no.______.
Description of Parcel/s -Seven seized parcel/s, Seal Intact and as per copy sent.
Result of analysis
1. Finger print on pen knife (Ex. No. A1): The finger prints found on Ex. No. A1 have
matched with the samples in Ex. No. A6 that are of Deven.
2. Blood stain on pen knife (Ex. No. A1): The blood stain found on Ex. No. A1 have matched
with blood sample in Ex. No. A4 that are of Pooja.
3. Finger print on stone (Ex. No. A2): The Finger Print found on Ex. No. A2 have matched
with sample in Ex. No. A7 that are of Jeyant.
4. Blood stain on the stone (Ex. No. A2): The blood stain found on Ex. No. A2 have matched
with blood sample in Ex. No. A5 that are of Deven.
5. Apples (Ex. No. A3): The blood stains have matched with both Pooja (Ex. No. A4) and
Deven (Ex. No. A5).

xvii
EXHIBIT 4

Finger Print Analysis Report
Report No: 5123CR Ward No.: 668B
Place of Incident: Punnai Laboratory No.: 4
Date of Occurrence: 12. June.2017
Location: Indira Nagar metro station
INVESTING OFFICER INFORMATION
Name: Prakash Gaitonde
Department Name: Sardam Police Department
RELATED PERSON INFORMATION
1. Deven
2. Jeyant
ANALYSIS RESULTS INFORMATION
Object Description Observation

The latent finger prints were The finger prints on the knife matched
Pen Knife collected by dusting Aluminum with the samples of Deven.
flakes

xviii
Apples collected by dusting Aluminum with the samples of Deven.
flakes
Stones collected by dusting Aluminum with the samples of Jeyant.
flakes
*alternate light source was used to avoid any alterations in the evidence collected
Administrative approval by: - Date: -
The undersigned does hereby certify that the above foregoing is a true and accurate copy of
research of test labs conducted
Forensic Scientist Date time of evidence: 12-06-2017
Signature- Disposition of evidence: 25-06-2017
The Following items were submitted:
1. Sealed Evidence containing Pen Knife: Ex. No. A1

2. Sealed Evidence containing Stones: Ex. No. A2
3. Sealed Evidence containing Apples: Ex. No. A3
4. Finger Print sample of Deven: Ex. No. A6
5. Finger print sample of Jeyant: Ex. No. A7

xix
EXHIBIT 5

Blood Sample Analysis Report
Report No: 5124CR Ward No.: 668C
Place of Incident: Punnai Laboratory No.: 3
Offence: Attempt to murder on Pooja
Date of Occurrence:12. June.2017
Location: Indira Nagar metro station
Victim: Pooja
Suspect: Deven
Specimen Description Observation
Penknife Liquid blood was collected through a The blood sample matched with that of Pooja
sterile cotton cloth and was immediately
frozen

xx
The undersigned does hereby certify that the above foregoing is a true and accurate copy of research of test
labs conducted
Forensic Scientist Date time of evidence: - 12-06-2017
Signature- Disposition of evidence: - 29-06-2017

4. Blood Sample of Pooja: Ex. No. A4
5. Blood Sample of Deven: Ex. No. A5

xxi
EXHIBIT 6

Blood Sample Analysis Report
Report No: Ward No.:
Place of Incident: Laboratory No.:
Offence: Use of Criminal force and Assault
Date of Occurrence:12. June.2017
Location:
Victim: Deven
Suspect: Jeyant
Specimen Description Observation

Liquid blood was collected through a
Stone sterile cotton cloth and was immediately The blood sample matched with that of Pooja
frozen
Apple Liquid blood was collected through a The blood sample matched with that of Pooja
sterile cotton cloth and was immediately
frozen

xxii
The undersigned does hereby certify that the above foregoing is a true and accurate copy of research of test
labs conducted
Forensic Scientist Date time of evidence: - 12-06-2017
Signature- Disposition of evidence: - 29-06-2017

4. Blood Sample of Pooja: Ex. No. A4
5. Blood Sample of Deven: Ex. No. A5

xxiii
EXHIBIT 7
Letter Sent by IO to Home secretory for seeking call records. Dated 16-07-2017

xxiv
EXHIBIT 8
Permission by home secretory for seeking call records. Dated 18-08-2017
DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS

STATE OF SARDAM
To,
Prakash Gaitonde
Sub-Inspector
Indira Nagar police Station, Punnai
Date:18-08-2017
Ref. No. 8763/2017
Subject: Permission for seeking call records
Sir,
This is with reference to your letter no. 301/2017 which is to inform you that the request to collect
call records of the said phone numbers has been accepted for your ongoing investigation.
We have forwarded the request to the Nodal Officer of Ecotel ltd. and they will provide you with
the call records as early as possible.
Sincerely,
Anoop Soni
Home Secretary
State of Sardam

xxv
EXHIBIT 9
Reply from Ecotel ltd. Dated: 27-08-2017
Ecotel Limited
To,
Prakash Gaitonde
Indira Nagar Police Station Punnai
Date:27-08-2017
Subject: Call duration records
Sir,
As per your request with reference to letter no. 307/2017, we have hereby attached
the details of the users of telephone numbers provided by you. Call duration records
are attached herewith.
Regards,
Nodal Officer
Escotel Limited.
Details of User
1.Mobile: 99555 88666–Pooja D/o Vishal, Age 25, DOB: 10 October 1993, Address: 2 Mettu
Street, Chirapalli, Vanjiyur, Sardam1,:, Ecotel.IMEI-093562123567810.00
2.Mobile: 99555 99555-Deven S/o Perumal, Age 25, DOB: 1 April 1993, Address: 1, Canal
Street, Chirapalli, Vanjiyur, Sardam – 1:, Ecotel IMEI-216495673216750.00

xxvi
ECOTEL Ltd.
Ecotel Limited Call records
SDN Multiple
Type Report of call record
Sr.No. Date Time Phone Answer Dial Caller Callee Total Hang up
Number Time ID ID Duration Cause
Time
(sec)
1 2017-05-05 17:00 99555 99555 Not 501 201 00 Not

answered answered
2 2017-05-05 17:03 99555 99555 Not 501 201 00 Not

answered answered
3 2017-05-05 17:10 99555 99555 Not 501 201 00 Not

answered answered
4 2017-05-05 17:15 99555 99555 Not 501 201 00 Not

answered answered
5 2017-05-05 17:17 99555 99555 17:18 501 201 63 ------------
6 2017-05-05 23:17 99555 99555 Not 501 201 00 Not

answered answered
7 2017-05-05 17:00 99555 99555 Not 501 201 00 Not

answered answered
8 2017-06-05 23:05 99555 99555 Not 501 201 00 Not

answered answered
9 2017-06-05 23:15 99555 99555 Not 501 201 00 Not

answered answered
10 2017-06-05 23:17 99555 99555 Not 501 201 00 Not

answered answered
11 2017-06-05 23:18 99555 99555 Not 501 201 00 Not

answered answered
12 2017-06-05 23:21 99555 99555 Not 501 201 00 Not

answered answered
13 2017-07-05 23:00 99555 99555 23:00 501 201 300 ------------

xxvii
14 2017-07-05 23:33 99555 99555 Not 501 201 00 Not

answered answered
15 2017-09-05 16:45 99555 99555 Not 501 201 00 Not

answered answered
16 2017-09-05 16:55 99555 99555 16:56 501 201 120 Not

answered
17 2017-11-05 1:00 99555 99555 Not 501 201 00 Not

answered answered
18 2017-11-05 1:02 99555 99555 Not 501 201 00 Not

answered answered
19 2017-11-05 1:05 99555 99555 Not 501 201 00 Not

answered answered
20 2017-11-05 1:08 99555 99555 Not 501 201 00 Not

answered answered
21 2017-11-05 17:01 99555 99555 Not 501 201 00 Not

answered answered
22 2017-11-05 17:05 99555 99555 Not 501 201 00 Not

answered answered
23 2017-12-05 23:08 99555 99555 23:09 501 201 43 -------------
24 2017-13-05 2:00 99555 99555 Not 501 201 00 Not

answered answered
25 2017-13-05 2:05 99555 99555 Not 501 201 00 Not

answered answered
26 2017-13-05 2:15 99555 99555 Not 501 201 00 Not

answered answered
27 2017-13-05 4:00 99555 99555 Not 501 201 00 Not

answered answered
28 2017-15-05 14:23 99555 99555 Not 501 201 00 Not

answered answered
29 2017-15-05 14:30 99555 99555 14:31 501 201 15 ------------
30 2017-16-05 23:59 99555 99555 23:59 501 201 17 -------------
31 2017-17-05 12:02 99555 99555 Not 501 201 00 Not

answered answered
32 2017-17-05 12:05 99555 99555 Not 501 201 00 Not

answered answered

xxviii
33 2017-17-05 12:08 99555 99555 Not 501 201 00 Not

answered answered
34 2017-17-05 16:35 99555 99555 Not 501 201 00 Not

answered answered
35 2017-17-05 17:05 99555 99555 Not 501 201 00 Not

answered answered
36 2017-17-05 17:06 99555 99555 Rejected 501 201 00 Rejected
37 2017-18-05 1:00 99555 99555 Not 501 201 00 Not

answered answered
38 2017-20-05 1:00 99555 99555 Not 501 201 00 Not

answered answered
39 2017-20-05 3:56 99555 99555 Not 501 201 00 Not

answered answered
40 2017-20-05 22:09 99555 99555 Not 501 201 00 Not

answered answered
41 2017-20-05 22:30 99555 99555 Not 501 201 00 Not

answered answered
42 2017-23-05 17:00 99555 99555 Not 501 201 00 Not

answered answered
43 2017-23-05 17:05 99555 99555 17:05 501 201 56 ------------
44 2017-24-05 1:00 99555 99555 Not 501 201 00 Not

answered answered
45 2017-24-05 1:10 99555 99555 Not 501 201 00 Not

answered answered

xxix
69 2017-08-06 18:07 99555 99555 18:08 501 201 151 ------------
70 2017-09-06 -------- 99555 99555 Dialed 17:03 501 201 17 ------------
71 2017-09-06 17:34 99555 99555 17:34 501 201 240 ------------
72 2017-09-06 11:45 99555 99555 Not 501 201 00 Not

Answered Answered
73 2017-09-06 11:47 99555 99555 Not 501 201 00 Not

Answered Answered
74 2017-09-06 11:48 99555 99555 Not 501 201 00 Not

Answered Answered
75 2017-09-06 11:47 99555 99555 Not 501 201 00 Not

Answered Answered
76 2017-09-06 11:49 99555 99555 Not 501 201 00 Not

Answered Answered
77 2017-09-06 11:53 99555 99555 11:53 501 201 247 Not

Answered
78 2017-12-06 9:38 99555 99555 9:39 501 201 6 Not

Answered

xxx
EXHIBIT 10
CERTIFICATE
(Under Section 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872)
It is hereby certified that the electronic evidence submitted in C.C. No. 100 of 2018 for expert
analysis have been transcribed and produced in their respective authentic copies:
The telephonic record submitted by the investigation authority has been verified and a report has
been prepared in that regard. The record obtained has been safely stored within a computer system.
Leave be granted to the call record extracts submitted as the true source.
.
Dated: 06-09-2017
Signed by the Certifying Authority

Dr. Manish Yadav, HOD, Pedagogy.

xxxi
EXHIBIT 11
Letter of IO to Director of operations of Metro Department for CCTV footages. Dated 25-07-2017

xxxii
EXHIBIT 12
Letter from metro department for approval. Dated 14-08-2017
Metro Bhavan
Civil Lines , Punnai
To
Prakash Gaitonde
Sub-Inspector
Date: 14-08-2017
Subject: Copy of CCTV footage of Indira Nagar Metro Station
Respected Sir,
With reference to letter no. 315/2017 I hereby provide you with the copy CCTV footage of Indira
Nagar Metro Station, Punnai dated 12. June.2018 from 9:00 A.M. and 12:00 P.M.
Sincerely,
Anirban Chokrobarti
Director Operations
Metro Bhavan, Civil Lines
Punnai

xxxiii
EXHIBIT 13
Letter of IO requesting Still original images of metro CCTV footage. Dated 04-10-2017.

xxxiv
EXHIBIT 14
Metro Bhavan
Civil Lines , Punnai
To
Prakash Gaitonde
Sub-Inspector
Date: 15-10-2017
Subject: Regarding still images of CCTV footage
Respected Sir,
With reference to letter no. 316/2017 the still images of the CCTV camera of Indira Nagar Metro
Station as requested by you are attached below.
Sincerely,
Anirban Chokrobarti
Director Operations
Metro Bhavan
Civil Lines
Punnai

xxxv
Pooja entering with Kavita in red mini skirt and approaching towards Deven who is waiting for
her at 09:46:12
Deven and Pooja sitting together and Kavita sitting at a little distance from them and Jeyant hiding
behind them at 09:50:47
Jeyant throwing stone at Deven as he places the knife close to Pooja’s face at 09:53:07

xxxvi
Deven holding knife against Pooja at 09:55:07
By standers attacked Deven at 09:56:18
Only Jeyant can be seen thrashing Deven at 09:59:57

xxxvii
EXHIBIT- 15
CERTIFICATE
analysis have been transcribed and produced in their respective authentic copies.
The still images of the CCTV from the metro station submitted by the investigation authority have
been verified by the expert and a report has been prepared in that regard. The photographs thus
obtained have been safely stored within a computer system. Leave be granted to the photographs
submitted as the true source.
Dated: 29-10-2017


xxxviii
EXHIBIT-16
PUNNAI CITY HOSPITAL
Daliganj, Punnai,321454
Phone:(12232) 4567890, (12232)889644
INJURY CERTIFICATE
MLC No.:
1. Name Pooja
2. Age 25 years
3. Sex Female
4. Address 2 Mettu Street, Chirapalli, Vanjiyur, Sardam1
5. Occupation Jr. Developer at Software company
6. Brought by
7. Date place and time of examination
8. Examined in presence of
9. Consent
10. Signature Of examinee:____________ In presence of:_______________
11. Identification marks: 1. Birth Mark on the left shoulder 7cm below collar bone 2. Black mole
present over left cheek, 8 cm front of left ear, 6 cm outer to left angle of mouth, 0.3cm in diameter,
slightly raised above the surface

xxxix
12. General Examination Built: Height: Weight:
13. Systematic Examination:
Injury 1:
A. TYPE OF INJURY: Muscle Injury

B. SITE OF INJIURY: Right Shoulder
C. SIZE OF INJURY:
D. NATURE OF INJURY: Slight
E. TYPE OF INFLICYTING WEAPON:
F. AGE OF INJURY: Fresh
G. REMARKS:
Injury 2:
A. TYPE OF INJURY: Stab Injury

B. SITE OF INJIURY: Front of neck slight right side, 10 cm above breasts, from left to right. The left end
of the injury started below the chin at lower third of the neck and deepened gradually with severance of
the right carotid artery. The right sided end of the injury was at the right end of the neck with a tail
abrasion.
C. SIZE OF INJURY: 5.7 cm x 3 cm, both margins not cleanly cut; Right end acute.
D. NATURE OF INJURY: Grievous
E. TYPE OF INFLICYTING WEAPON: Knife
G. REMARKS:

xl
EXHIBIT-17
Daliganj, Punnai,321454
Phone:(12232) 4567890, (12232)889644
INJURY CERTIFICATE
MLC No.:
1. Name Deven
2. Age 25 years
3. Sex Male
4. Address 1, Canal Street, Chirapalli, Vanjiyur, Sardam
5. Occupation Assistant Engineer
6. Brought by
7. Date place and time of examination
8. Examined in presence of
9. Consent
10. Signature Of examinee:____________ In presence of:_______________

xli
11. Identification marks: 1. Black Mole On forehead, 2 cm above Right Eyebrow and 2 cm below hairline
2.Stitch Mark on the left eyebrow
12. General Examination Built: Height: Weight:
13. Systematic Examination:
Injury 1:
A. TYPE OF INJURY: Blunt Injury

B. SITE OF INJIURY: Front of chest on right side, 35 cm below shoulder,6 cm left to midline
C. SIZE OF INJURY:
D. NATURE OF INJURY: grievous
E. TYPE OF INFLICYTING WEAPON:
G. REMARKS:
Injury 2:
A. TYPE OF INJURY: Head Injury

B. SITE OF INJIURY: Back of skull on right side, 5 cm left to ear, 4 cm above neck
C. SIZE OF INJURY: 4 cm in length 0.3 cm in depth 0.2 cm width
D. NATURE OF INJURY: grievous
E. TYPE OF INFLICYTING WEAPON: Stone
G. REMARKS:

xlii
EXHIBIT-18
Application to CMO from IO to inquire about Deven medical condition. Dated 05-07-2018

xliii
EXHIBIT 19
Letter from CMO to IO about Deven health condition. Dated 14-07-2018

xliv
EXHIBIT 20
Letter from IO to CMO for allowing Deven to court room. Dated 25-07-2018

xlv
EXHIBIT 21
Letter from CMO to IO allowing Deven to come to the court. Dated 04-08-2018

xlvi
EXHIBIT 22

Daliganj,Punnai,321454
Phone:(12232) 4567890,(12232)889644
Fitness Certificate
I, Dr. Shekhar Dixit do hereby certify that I had carefully examined Mr. Deven S/o
Perumal whose signature is given below, I have found that he is recovering from his
illness/injury and is now fit to give statement in the court. I also certify that before
arriving at this decision, I have examined the original medical certificate and
statement of the case and have taken these into considerations.
Place: Punnai
Date: 04-08-2018
Signature of Applicant
Signature of Government Medical Officer /Civil Surgeon/Staff

Surgeon/Authorized Medical Attendant/Registered Medical Practitioner along with
official seal
Registration No.___________

xlvii
EXHIBIT 23
WhatsApp Conversation of Deven and Pooja
DATED April 5, 2017 Dated May 1, 2017
Dated June 5, 2017 Dated June 11, 2017

xlviii
CERTIFICATE
analysis have been transcribed and produced in their respective authentic copies.
The conversation of WhatsApp between Deven and Pooja have been screen captured and been
checked and are original. The photographs thus obtained have been safely stored within a
computer system. Leave be granted to the photographs submitted as the true source.
Dated: 22-10-2017


xlix
EXHIBIT 24
Blood stained Pen knife obtained from the crime scene.
Stone with blood stains found on crime scene

Surana and Surana Trial Advocacy Moot Court Competition, 2018 Prosecution Memo PDF

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

Surana and Surana Trial Advocacy Moot Court Competition, 2018 Prosecution Memo PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SESSIONS COURT AT PUNNAI

CASE CONCERNING OFFENCES CHARGED UNDER SECTIONS 307, 354-D,

STATE OF SARDAM………………………....…………………………... (PROSECUTION)

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE SESSIONS JUDGE AT PUNNAI

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................................. III

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES .............................................................................................................. IV

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION .................................................................................................. VII

STATEMENT OF FACTS .............................................................................................................. VIII

STATEMENT OF CHARGE ............................................................................................................. IX

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS .......................................................................................................... X

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ................................................................................................................ 1

UNDER § 307 OF BPC .................................................................................................................... 1

A. AN INTENTION OR KNOWLEDGE OF COMMITTING MURDER. ...................................................... 1

B. THE DOING OF AN ACT TOWARDS IT.......................................................................................... 3

UNDER § 354-D & § 509 OF BPC................................................................................................... 4

A. THAT THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY UNDER § 354D OF BPC. ........................................................... 4

B. THAT THE ACCUSED NO. 1 IS GUILTY UNDER § 509 OF BPC. ..................................................... 6

325 OF BPC. ................................................................................................................................... 8

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

…...§.322 OF BPC. .......................................................................................................................... 8

355 OF BPC. ................................................................................................................................. 10

A.THE ACCUSED ASSAULTED, OR USED CRIMINAL FORCE UPON A PERSON. ................................. 10

B.HE DID SO INTENDING THEREBY TO DISHONOR THE SAID PERSON. ........................................... 11

ACCUSED ARE GUILTY UNDER § 358 OF THE BPC...................................................................... 12

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

BPC Barat Penal Code

AIR All India Reporter

P&H Punjab And Haryana

Q.B. Queen’s Bench

CrLJ Criminal Law Journal

SCC Supreme Court Cases

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

ACTS & STATUTES REFERRED

1. THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973.

2. THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872.

3. THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860.

4. THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2000.

1. A S DEOSKAR, MEDICAL JURISPRUDENCE-TOXICOLOGY & FORENSIC SCIENCE (Vimala

Veeraraghavan, A H Tank & A Dutta eds., 3rd ed. 2014).

2. BRIAN J. HEARD, FORENSIC BALLISTIC IN COURT (1st ed., 2013).

3. DURGA D BASU, CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE (K I Vibhute ed., 6th ed.,2017).

5. P.S.A PILLAI, CRIMINAL LAW (K I Vibhute ed., 13th ed., 2017).

20th ed., 2017).

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

Arvind Kumar Gupta v. State, AIR 1984 SC 2118......................................................................... 5

Bakshish Singh v. State, AIR 1952 Pepsu 138 ............................................................................... 1

Fagan v. metropolitan police commissioner, (1969) 1 QB 439 .................................................... 10

Gobind Singh v. State, 1946 JLR 361............................................................................................. 1

Hari Kishan v. Sukhbir Singh and Ors, AIR1988 SC 2127 ............................................................ 2

Henry Scott v. Benjamin Hicklin and ors ....................................................................................... 1

Kaluram v. State of Assam,1977 CrLJ SC 98 ................................................................................ 2

Luxman v. State,(1899) Bom LR 286 ............................................................................................. 3

Om Prakash v. State, AIR 1961 SC 1782 ....................................................................................... 3

S.P. Malik v. State of Orissa , 1982 CrLJ 19 (Pat) ....................................................................... 10

State of Kerala v. Hamsa, (1988) 3 crimes 161 (162) .................................................................... 7

State of Maharashtra v. Meyer Hans George, AIR 1965 SC 722 ................................................... 1

State of Maharashtra v. Meyer Hans George, AIR 1965 SC 722. .................................................. 1

State of Punjab v. Major Singh, AIR 1967 SC 63 .......................................................................... 6

Sukhlal Sarkar v. Union of India, (2012) 5 SCC (Cri) 732 .......................................................... 11

1. BROOM’S LEGAL MAXIMS (Dr. H.K. Saharay ed., 12th ed.2015)