Best Memo Procesution

TEAM CODE-08
5th INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT

COMPETETION, 2016
BEFORE THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

S.L.P. (Crl.) No. Of 2016
In the matter of
STATE
Vs
JEYSHA AND ORS.
FOR OFFENCES CHARGED UNDER:

SECTION 302 READ WITH SECTION 201 AND SECTION 34 OF I.P.C, 1860
UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HONBLE DIVISION BENCH
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION
5th INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVATIONS...3
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES4
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION9
STATEMENT OF FACTS10
STATEMENT OF ISSUES...12
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS...13
THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED..15
CONTENTION 1: THAT THE TESTIMONY OF BALLANPRASAD IS TRUE TO THE
FACTS OF THE CASE AND WELL CORROBORATED WITH MEDICAL EVIDENCE.15
1. Medical Report Corroborates with the Direct Evidence15
2. Ballan Testimony Qualifies as the Direct Evidence and is free from any fabrication.19
CONTENTION 2: THAT THE SAID ACCUSED HAVE COMMITTED MURDER IN THE
FURTHERANCE OF COMMON INTENTION..25
1. The accused person are guilty of Murder under Section 300 of the IPC25
2. The criminal Act was done in furtherance of Common intention of all the accused
hence liable under Section 34 of IPC.28
CONTENTION 3: THAT THE ACCUSED ARE LIABLE UNDER SECTION 201 FOR
CAUSING DISAPPEARANCE OF MURDER WEAPON29
CONTENTION 4: THAT THE DEATH PENALTY SHOULD BE GIVEN TO THE ACCUSED
FOR THE HEINOUS NATURE OF CRIME AND ENHANCEMENT OF FINE...31
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
Death penalty will act as a deterrence31

Absolute scope for recidivism32
Punishment to be proportional with the offence33
Grant of Rs.10 Lakh as compensation34
THE PRAYER..35
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

[2]
LIST OF ABBREVATIONS
A.I.R
All
Anr.
AP
Bom
Cal.
Chh
Cr.L.J
Cri.
CrLR
D.B
Ed.
Gau
Honble
I.P.C
IA
ILR
J.T.R.I
LJ
M.P
Mad.
MLJ
NOC
Ori.
Ors
Raj
SC
SCALE
SCC
Sec.
SLJ
Supp
U.P
V
Vol
Paragraph
All India Reporter
Allahabad
Another
Andhra Pradesh
Bombay
Calcutta
Chhattisgarh
Criminal Law Journal
Criminal
Criminal Law Report
Division Bench
Edition
Guwahati
Honorable
Indian Penal Code
Interlocutory Application
Indian Law Reporter
Judicial Training and Research Institute
Law Journal
Madhya Pradesh
Madras
Medical Law Journal
No Objection Certificate
Orissa
Others
Rajasthan
Supreme Court
Supreme Court Almanac
Supreme Court Cases
Section
Supreme Law Journal
Supplementary
Uttar Pradesh
Versus
Volume

[3]
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
STATUARY COMPILATIONS
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950.
THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 (ACT 2 OF 1974).
THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 (ACT 45 OF 1860).
THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 (ACT 1 OF 1872).
BOOKS AND DIGESTS
B.M Prasad and Manish Mohan, Woodroffe and Amir Alis,Law of Evidence, Lexis
Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa Nagpur, Vol. 1, 2, 3 & 4, 19th Ed., 2013.
Dr. Avtar Singh, Principles of Law of Evidence, Central Law Publications, 21st Ed.,
2014.
Justice Ruma Pal and Samaraditya Pal, M.P Jains Indian Constitutional Law, Lexis
Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa Nagpur, 6th Ed., 2012.
K.D Gaur, Indian Penal Code, Lexis Nexis Universal Law Publisher, 5th Ed., 2016.
Lyon, Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, Delhi Law House, 11th Ed., 2009.
Modi, Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, Lexis Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa

Nagpur, 23rd Ed., 2010.
Ram Jethmalani, The Indian Penal Code, Thomson Reuters, Vol.1, 1st Ed., 2014.
Ratan and Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code, Lexis Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa
Nagpur, 32nd Ed., 2010.
R.C Goel & Rajiv Raheja, Hints & Tricks on Criminal Law, Capital Publishing House,
2010.
S.P Tyagi, Criminal Trial, Vinod Publications (P) Ltd., 3rd Ed., 2006.
Surendra Malik & Sudeep Malik, Supreme Court on Evidence Act, Eastern Book
Company, Vol. 1&2, 2013.
V.P.Sarthy, Law of Evidence, Eastern Book Company,Lucknow, Ed.4 1989(12).

[4]
TABLE OF CASES
1. Amitsingh Bhikamsing Thakur v State of Maharashtra A.I.R 2007 SC 676...24
2. Angad v State of Maharashtra A.I.R 1981 SC 1227...23
3. Appabhai v State of Gujarat A.I.R 1988 SC 696....22
4. B.N Srikanatiah v State of Mysore A.I.R 1958 SC 672...27
5. Babulal v State, 2005 Cr.L.J 2095 (M.P)....28
6. Bachchitar Singh v State of Punjab A.I.R 2002 SC 3473...22
7. Badri v State of Rajasthan A.I.R 1976 SC 560...22
8. Badri v State of U.PA.I.R 1953 All 189.26
9. Baitullah v State of Uttar Pardesh A.I.R 1997 SC 3946.......24
10. Banti alias Guddu v State of Madhya Pradesh 2004 Cr.L.J 372 (SC)....28
11. Bhagga v State of Madhya Pardesh A.I.R 2008 SC 175....24
12. Bhagirath v State of HaryanaA.I.R 1996 SC 343124
13. Bhupan v State of Madhya Pradesh 2002 Cr.L.J. 1474......18
14. Brajesh Kumar Singh v State2007 Cr.L.J 2132 (Chh)...27
15. Chimanbhai Ukabhai v State of Gujarat A.I.R 1983 SC 484.....17
16. Chittar lal v State of Rajasthan A.I.R 2003 SC 3590.....22
17. Chuhar Singh v State of Haryana A.I.R 1977 SC 386....22
18. Dalsigar alias Dalloo v State of Uttar Pardesh Cri. Appeal No. 2570 of 1979.22
19. D Sailu v State of Andhra Pardesh A.I.R 2008 SC 505.24
20. Dhananjoy Chatterjje v State of West Bengal (1994) 2 SCC 220..32
21. Dharam Pal v State of U.P A.I.R 2008 SC 920..24
22. Dibia v State of U.P A.I.R 1953 All 373.....27
23. Duinath Barik alias Bihar v State (1985) 1 Crimes 800 (Ori.) (DB)......22
24. Gali Venkataiah v State of A.P A.I.R 2008 SC 462....24
25. Gunthu Dhule v State of Maharashtra A.I.R 2013 SC 26419
26. Gurmukh Singh v State of Haryana (2009) 15 SCC 635....27
27. Harabailu Kariappa v State of Karnataka (1996) Cr.L.J 321...24
28. Harbans Kaur v State of Haryana A.I.R 2005 SC 2989....24
29. Harijana Narayana v State of A.P, A.I.R 2003 SC 2851....24
30. Inder Dass v State of Rajasthan 1985 Cr.L.J 1416.31
[5]
31. Inder Singh v State (Delhi Administration)A.I.R 1978 SC 1092...21

32. In Re Thothan A.I.R 1956 Mad. 425...26
33. Jaibir v State 1987 All WC 170..23
34. Johar Singh v State 2005 Cr.L.J 2035 (Uttar)28
35. Jose v State of Kerela A.I.R 1973 SC 944......22
36. Kapildeo Mandal v State of Bihar A.I.R 2008 SC 533...24
37. Khacharu Singh v State of U.P A.I.R 1956 SC 546...29
38. Krishna Govind Patil v State of Maharashtra A.I.R 1963 SC 1413...29
39. Labhu Ram v State of Punjab 1955 Supp. 4 SCC 17..27
40. Lakhma v State of Rajasthan 1983 Raj LW 594.25
41. Laxman v State of Maharashtra A.I.R 1974 SC1803.26
42. Lehna v State of Haryana 2002 3 SCC 76..33
43. Machhi Singh v State of Punjab A.I.R 1983 SC 957..33
44. Madkami Baja v State 1986 Cr.L.J 433.22
45. Maharaj Singh v State of Rajasthan A.I.R 1981 SC 936...25
46. Mahesh v State of M.P (1987) 3 SCC 80...31
47. Mangal Hansada v State 1985 Cr.L.J 1589, Orissa (DB)..18
48. Maqsoodan v State of Uttar PradeshA.I.R 1983 SC 126..21
49. Mayur v State of Gujarat A.I.R 1983 SC 5....19
50. Mepa Dana A.I.R 1960 SC 289.28
51. Mohammad Sharif and Anr. v Rex ILR 1951 All 673....27
52. Mohan Anna Chavan v State of Maharashtra 2008 7 SCC 561....33
53. Mst Dalbir Kaur v State of PunjabA.I.R 1977 SC 472......22
54. Muliakusani v State1984 Cr.L.J 123......23
55. Munigadappa Meenaiah v State of A.PA.I.R 2008 SC 3027.....24
56. Nallabothu Venkaiah v State of A.P A.I.R 2002 SC 2945..24
57. Neeraj v State1978 All L.J 1293....31
58. Pakla Naryanaswami v Emperor (1939) 66 IA 66..19
59. Paramjit Singh v State (1983) Cr.L.J (NOC) 108...30
60. Parasa Raja Manikyala Rao v State A.I.R 2004 SC 132....28
61. Parichhat v State of M.PA.I.R 1972 SC 535..29
[6]
62. Parsuram Pandey v State of Bihar A.I.R 2004 SC 560827

63. Patamji v State of Haryana 1997 SCC (Cr) 138.....16
64. Ponnam Chandraiah v State of A.P A.I.R 2008 SC 3209...24
65. Prabhu and Ors. v State of M.P 1991 Supp. (2) SCC 725826
66. Rachamreddi Chenna Reddy v State of A.P A.I.R 1999 SC 994....25
67. Rajendra Prasad v State of U.P 1979 3 SCC 646...32
68. Rajendra Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh 1984 Cr.L.J 1164...25
69. Rajesh Kumar Singh v State 2007 Cr.L.J 2132 (Chh).....27
70. Ram Lakhan v State of Uttar Pradesh 1996 4 Cr.L.J 3496 (SC)...24
71. Ram Lal Singh and Ors. v State of Haryana A.I.R 1992 SC 59....27
72. Ramakant Rai v Madan Rai A.I.R 2004 SC 77..21
73. Raman Kalia v State of Gujarat1979 SLJ 115 (NOC)...25
74. Ram Chandra v State of Haryana A.I.R 1983 SC 817....23
75. Rammi v State of M.P A.I.R 1999 SC 3544...30
76. Rana Pratap v State of Haryana A.I.R 1983 SC 680..23
77. Ravji alias Ram Chandra v State of Rajasthan 1996 2 SCC 175...33
78. Re P Ramanna 1969 Cr.L.J 1453 (AP)..24
79. Risideo Pande v State of U.PA.I.R 1955 SC 334..29
80. R. Venkula v State A.I.R 1956 SC 171....26
81. Sakharam v State of Maharashtra A.I.R 1969 3 SCC 730.18
82. Sarwan Singh v State of Punjab 1976 SCC (Cr) 646......24
83. Sevaka Perumal v State of T.N 1991 3 SCC 471.....31
84. Shankar Budhajai and Ors. v State of Maharashtra 2000 SCC Online Bom509...17
85. Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade v State of Maharashtra 1973 2 SCWR 426...22
86. Shivu v Registrar General, H.C Karnataka 2007 4 SCC 713.....33
87. Smt. Majindra Bala Mehra v Sunil Chandra Roy A.I.R 1960 SC 706...19
88. State of A.P v Dr M.V Ramana Reddy (1992) MLJ (Cr) 288.....25
89. State of Assam v Safiuddin Sheikh 1981 Cr.L.J (NOC) 4 (Gau).....25
90. State of H.P v Mast Ram A.I.R 2004 SC 5056....24
91. State of Haryana v Ram Singh A.I.R 2002 SC 620.....19
92. State of M.P v Deshraj 2004 Cr.L.J 1415 (SC)..26
[7]
93. State of Punjab v Jugraj Singh 2002 3 SCC 234....19

94. State of Punjab v Wasan Singh A.I.R 1981 SC 697....24
95. State of Rajasthan v Shobha Ram (2013) 14 SCC 732 .27
96. State of U.P v Satish 2005 3 SCC 114...33
97. State of Uttar Pradesh v Gangaram A.I.R 2006 SC 20..22
98. State of Uttar Pradesh v M.K Anthony A.I.R 1985 SC 48..20
99. State of Uttar Pradesh v Noorie alias Noor Jahan A.I.R 1996 SC 3703.......25
100. Suleman Rahiman v State of Maharashtra A.I.R 1968 SC 829.....29
101. Suraj Pal v State of Uttar Pradesh A.I.R 1994 SC 748.........15
102. Suresh v State of Haryana 2015 2 SCC 227......34
103. Tejinder Singh v State of Punjab (2013) 12 SCC 503...29
104. Tunu v State of Orissa 1988 Cr.L.J 524.31
105. Vahula Bhushan v State of Tamil Nadu A.I.R 1989 SC 236....22
106. Vdivelu Thevar v State of Madras A.I.R 1957 SC 614..22
107. Vijai Singh v State of Rajasthan 1983 Cr LR (Raj) 728....21
108. Vikram Singh v U.O.I 2015 (9) SCALE 183....33
109. Waliullah v State of U.P A.I.R 1951 All 21.....29
ARTICLES REFERRED
1. A Zuckerman, The Principles of Criminal Evidence Oxford University Press, 1989.
2. Brooks, The Judge and the Adversary System, The Canadian Judiciary, Ed A Linden
1976.
3. Ernest Hagg The Ultimate Punishment; a defence 99 Harvard Law Review 1662, 1666
(1986).
4. J Jackson Two Methods of proof in Criminal Procedure Modern Law Review vol. 51,
1985 (249).
5. M.L Slghal Medical Evidence and its use in trial of cases J.T.R.I Journal 1st year issue3, 1995.
6. P.K Malhotra, Ex Officio Member, Law commission of India, D.O. No. 31/08/2015-LS.
7. Report 262 Law Commission of India Death Penalty August 2015.
8. Thomas Orsagh and Jong-Rong Chen The Effect of Time Served on Recidivism: An
Interdisciplinary Theory Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 4(2):155-171, 1988.

[8]
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
THE COUNSELFOR PROSECUTION HUMBLY REQUESTS THIS HONBLE APEX

COURT TO GRANT SPECIAL LEAVE UNDER ARTICLE 136(1) OF THE INDIAN
CONSTITUTION WHICH READS AS UNDER:
136. Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court

(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its
discretion, grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or
order in any cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India.

[9]
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. On night of 23/24 January 2016, Assistant Sub Inspector Harpal Singh received
information that Mr. Lallan Prasad (MLC No. E-33432) had been admitted in the Deen
Dukhi Dukhiyara (3D) Hospital by his brother Mr. Mallan Prasad in a critical condition.
( 1)
2. He arrived at the hospital and found that the victim had sustained multiple stab wounds
on both of his arms, chest wall, scalp and right side of the gluteal region. The doctor
suggested that the victim was not in the condition to give a statement and the injuries
were inflicted with a sharp edged weapon.( 2)
3. The police took the statement of Mr. Ballan Prasad, the brother of the victim and the
prime and sole eyewitness to the crime scene. He stated that due to a property dispute
which was ruled in favour of the Prasads, his maternal uncle and his five sons had
developed hostile relations with them. On the night of 23rd January, around 11:30 p.m,
both Lallan and Ballan had stepped out for a walk near Budh Bazaar Road and Lallan
was about 50-60 steps away from Ballan. He saw his cousin Jeysha and his friend Tashi
engage Lallan in a fight and the other brothers joined in as well. One of the brothers,
Geysha, gave the instructions to end Lallan when he said Iska kaam khatm kar do.
Lallan was the stabbed by Jeysha until Ballan raised a hue and cry causing the assailants
to flee but luckily, Tashi was caught by the public. ( 3)
4. The F.I.R was lodged on 24th January 2016 at around 3:15 a.m whereby all the accused
were charged under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. ( 4)
5. ASI Harpal received information on 24th January 2016 that the victim, Mr. Lallan Prasad
had died in the ICU at 6:45 a.m. The murder case was registered under Section 302/34 of
the IPC. ( 5)

[10]
6. On 30th January 2016, ASI Harpal and his team caught the rest of the accused in Ambala
and upon interrogation, it was found that Jeysha had deliberately taken the knife and
thrown it in the Ghaggar river, near Ambala. Section 201 was also added to the charge.
( 6)
7. The statements of the prime witnesses were taken whereby Ballan (PW-1) deposed the
same version of his statement. Mallan (PW-2) stated how he rushed to the hospital to find
his brother Ballan holding his injured brother in his arms and how he admitted his brother
while Ballan went to inform his parents about the incident. Dr. Kamini (PW-3), the Chief
Medical Officer deposed that the injuries sustained by the victim were sufficient to cause
the death of the victim. The Investigation Officer (PW-4) deposed that they had found the
victim in a critical condition and the doctor had prohibited him from taking the statement
of the victim. They had also successfully arrested all of the accused but had failed to
collect any witnesses from the public regarding the crime scene. ( 7)
8. The learned Sessions Court convicted the accused under Section 302/201/34 and
sentenced each of them to life imprisonment along with compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/to be paid to Mr. Lallans parents immediately. They were also awarded rigorous
imprisonment for 2 years under Section 201 IPC. Both sentences were to run
concurrently. ( 9)
9. The accused filed an appeal in the High Court of Delhi. The learned High Court acquitted
all the accused on grounds of appeal being bereft of any substance and the testimony of
Ballan being fabricated on account of his being an interested party. The evidence
pointing towards the guilt of the accused was wrongfully set aside by the learned Court.
( 10)
10. Hence, the current petition is submitted before the Honble Supreme Court of India.( 11)

[11]
THE STATEMENT OF ISSUES
THE PROSECUTION RESPECTFULLY ASKS THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT:

I.
WHETHER TESTIMONY OF BALLAN PRASAD IS TRUE TO THE FACTS OF

THE CASE AND WELL CORRABORATED WITH MEDICAL EVIDENCE?
II.
WHETHER THE SAID ACCUSSED HAVE COMMITTED MURDER IN

FUTHERENCE OF THE COMMON INTENTION?
III.
WHETHER ACCUSED ARE LIABLE UNDER 201 FOR CAUSING THE

DISAPPERANCE OF MURDER WEAPON?
IV.
WHETHER DEATH PENALTY SHOULD BE GIVEN TO THE ACCUSED FOR

THE HEINOUS NATURE OF CRIME AND ENHANCEMENT OF FINE?

[12]
THE SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
I.
THAT THE TESTIMONY OF BALLAN PRASAD IS TRUE TO THE FACTS

OF THE CASE AND WELL CORROBORATED WITH MEDICAL
EVIDENCE.
In the instant case, Mr. Ballan Prasad happens to be the prime eye witness of the case and his
testimony is direct evidence which is corroborated with the medical evidence. The evidence of
the witness, when read as a whole brings out the complete truth of the case. In addition to it, the
medical evidence also proves that the injuries could have been caused in the manner alleged and
death could have been caused by the injuries, making the prosecution case consistent with
matters verifiable by medical science. Hence proving the testimony of Ballan, to be true to the
facts of the case.
II.
THAT THE SAID ACCUSSED HAVE COMMITTED MURDER IN

FUTHERENCE OF COMMON INTENTION.
The accused had inimical relations with the victim due to the property dispute decided in favour
of the victim. According to the statement of eye-witness he heard Geysha saying Iska kaam
khatam kar do. This points towards the intention of the accused which is a prerequisite to prove
the guilt of the accused under Sec. 302 of the I.P.C. Section 34 is intended to deal with cases in
which it may be difficult to distinguish between the acts of the individual members of a party or
to prove exactly what part was taken by each of them in furtherance of the common intention.
In the present case also the eye-witness saw all the accused committing the act. Moreover, one of
the accused Tashi was nabbed from crime scene which further substantiates the case of the
prosecution hence making the accused liable for the murder of Lallan Prasad in furtherance of
common intention.

[13]
III.
THAT ACCUSED ARE LIABLE UNDER SECTION 201 FOR CAUSING THE
DISAPPERANCE OF MURDER WEAPON.
The prosecution has proved that an offence has been committed. It is not merely a suspicion that
it might have been committed, and that the accused knowing or having reason to believe that
such an offence had been committed, and with the intent to screen the offender from legal
punishment, had caused the evidence thereafter to disappear. The proof of the commission of an
offence is an essential requisite for bringing home the offence under Sec. 201 of the I.P.C.
Also the statement given by the accused under Sec. 313 of the Cr.P.C is in gross contradiction
with the confession of Jeysha to the Police.
IV.
THAT DEATH SHOULD BE GIVEN TO THE ACCUSED FOR THEIR

HEINOUS CRIME AND ENHANCMENT OF FINE.
That as the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable ground, the accused be awarded
with death penalty for the heinous nature of crime that they have committed in order to set
deterrence.
The life of the victim is beyond any monetary compensation, yet keeping in mind that he has
aging parents and two other brothers to support, the said compensation must be enhanced to Rs
10,00,000 /- for the Prasad family for their emotional trauma and the cost of litigation of going
through three trials along with the cost of bringing up the now unfortunately deceased, Mr.
Lallan Prasad.

[14]
THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

CONTENTION
: TESTIMONY
TRUE
TOTO
THE
FACTS
OF
CONTENTION1 1:
TESTIMONYOF
OFBALLAN
BALLANPRASAD
PRASADISIS
TRUE
THE
FACTS
THE
CASECASE
AND AND
WELL
CORRABORATED
WITH
MEDICAL
EVIDENCE.
OF THE
WELL
CORRABORATED
WITH
MEDICAL
EVIDENCE.
I.
Medical Report Corroborates with the Direct Evidence
The medical evidence adduced by the prosecution, has great corroborative value. It proves that
the injuries could have been caused in the manner alleged and death could have been caused by
the injuries, so that the prosecution case being consistent with matters verifiable by medical
science, there is no reason why the eyewitness should not be believed.1When an eye-witnesss
testimony is well corroborated by medical evidence, the testimony cannot be rejected on the
ground of interestedness.2
1.1 Inference drawn from Medical Report supporting the case of Prosecution
Medical expert Dr. Kamini, who is a Chief Medical Officer, deposed her expertise and presented
her report. As her report is expert evidence, it is admissible u/s 45 of the Indian Evidence Act.3
Dr. Kamini explained that after examining Lallan Prasad (victim), who was brought in a critical
condition to the Hospital that the victim had several injuries inflicted on him, sufficient to cause
death. Dr Kamini explained that there were 21 injuries which were inflicted on the victim in her
Medico Legal Report - 024. This report establishes all the injuries in forensic traumatology5
under the scope of section 44 of the I.P.C.6 There were 14 injuries produced by blunt mechanical
force, which included abrasions, contusions and lacerations. Then there were 7 injuries produced
by sharp object, which included stab wounds. On closely studying the injuries following analysis
is found:
Modi Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology 34 (23rd Ed. 2010).

Suraj Pal v State of Uttar Pradesh A.I.R 1994 SC 748.
3
Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Opinions of experts.-When the Court has to form an opinion upon
a point of foreign law, or of science, or art, or as to identity of handwriting 2*[or finger impressions], the opinions
upon that point of persons specially skilled..
4
Factsheet, Medico Legal Report-02.
5
Lyon Medical Jurisprudence & Toxicology Ed.11, 2009 (832).
6
Section 44 of IPC- The word injury denotes any harm whatever illegally caused to any person, in body, mind,
reputation or property.
2

[15]
1. There are 10 contusions inflicted on the victim. Contusion is also known as bruise and is
produced by extravasations of blood into the tissues, as a result of damage to small
vessels by blunt impact, and there is no disruption in the continuity of skin, and is
preferred to describe injury in internal organs.7
Injuries 3, 5, 6, 7, 12, 13, 17, 19, 20 and 21 are contusions.8
These contusions are different in nature. The nature of these contusions based on their location
establishes that the victim was held with excessive force. And the nature of these contusions
based on their dimensions establishes that victim was held back, overpowered, hurt to prevent
any resistance.
Whereas injuries 12 and 13 are boggy contusions inflicted on victims head. Boggy contusions
are head injuries, and were inflicted on victims head by blows of blunt force to the head. Boggy
contusions are critical and fatal in nature. The dimensions of injuries 12 and 13 are large in
nature and hence establish the great force by which they were inflicted. This Honble court has
already observed that the nature of the injury and the extent of damage injuries caused to the
internal organs showed the force with which it was caused9, hence establishing the intention to
cause grievous hurt.
2. There are 2 lacerations. Lacerations are tears and splits of the skin, mucous membranes,
muscles or internal organs produced by the application of blunt force, which crush or
stretches tissues beyond the limits of their elasticity. 10
Injuries 1 and 11 are lacerations.11
These lacerations are different in nature. Injury 1 is a contused laceration, inflicted on the
victims nose. The nature of a contused laceration is that it is inflicted by blunt force,12 and
leaves the wound with irregular edges.13 Injury 2 is a clean cut laceration, inflicted an incised
wound on the victims right palm. Incised wound is one produced by a sharp edged weapon,
7
Ibid 5 (840).
Ibid 4.
9
Patamji v State of Haryana 1997 SCC (Cr) 138.
10
Ibid 5 (843).
11
Ibid 4.
12
Ibid 5 (845).
13
Ibid 5 (696).
8

[16]
which is longer on the skin than it is deep.14 It is an established fact in medical jurisprudence that
incised wounds on the inner side of the forearms and on the hands are generally defense
wounds15.
3. There are 3 abrasions. Abrasions are injuries involving loss of the superficial epithelial
layer of the skin, and they do not leave a scar on healing.16
Injuries 2, 4 and 14 are abrasions.17
These abrasions establish that there was a struggle, victim was occupied in. Injuries 2 and 14 are
scratch abrasions. Scratch abrasions are linear injuries generally produced by finger nails.18The
Honble Supreme Court has correctly observed that abrasions are caused due to application of
blunt force such as being dragged across the ground, fall on rough surface, finger nails or bites
and in the manner these injuries are distributed shows known signs of struggle and are usually
seen in assaults.19
4. There are 6 stab wounds. Stab wounds are produced by a pointed instrument, in which
the depth of penetration into the body is greater than the length of the wound on the
skin20. Dr. Kamini observed that all the stab wounds are clean cut and she declared that
the injuries inflicted were from a sharp weapon21. It is necessary to establish the murder
weapon and the nature of the injuries as it proves that the injuries could have been caused
in the manner alleged22.The value of medical evidence is corroborative23 and hence holds
significant value in the process of justice.
Injuries 8, 9, 10, 15, 16 and 18 are clean cut stab wounds. 24
All the stabs show a consistency of forming clean spindle shaped wound. The edges of the
wound have their own importance, if the injury is inflicted with a single edged weapon, the
14
Ibid 5 (845).
Ibid 5 (847).
16
Ibid 1 (694).
17
Ibid 4.
18
Ibid 5 (839).
19
Shankar Budhaji Moundekar & Ors. v State of Maharashtra2000 SC Bom 509.
20
Ibid 5 (851).
21
Factsheet 2.
22
M.L Slghal Medical Evidence and its use in trial of cases J.T.R.I Journal 1st year issue- 3, 1995.
23
Chimanbhai Ukabhai v State of Gujarat AIR 1983 SC 484.
24
Ibid 4.
15

[17]
injury is wedged shaped, and if the weapon is double edged, the wound is spindle shaped.25 From
the above stated nature of the injury, it is deduced that the weapon is most likely a double edged
knife. This Honble court has already observed that where weapon could not be discovered, its
nature can be accessed from the injuries caused.26 It has also been observed that it is not
necessary in every case that the weapon of attack must have to be recovered in a case of murder
and non-recovery of the weapon of the attack would not affect the other evidence if found
reliable and acceptable.27
From the assessment of the dimensions and locations of these stab wounds, it is uncontrovertibly
found that all the stab wounds have been inflicted by the same weapon, as the dimensions of
injuries are consistent with each other. It is a fact that the numbers of stab wounds on the body
are not similar in shape is no indication that they were caused by a different weapon 28, but in this
case even the injuries are similar and consistent with each other. From the dimensions of injury
8,29 it is established that it was the deepest infliction. Dimension of the injuries, especially injury
8 provides with a rough idea that the double edged knife is at least 13cm long, as the dimension
of injury 8 is 15cm deep and in Medical Jurisprudence it is an established fact that a penetrating
wound in the abdominal cavity may measure 2 or more inches in excess of the depth to which the
weapon entered, owing to the giving of the abdominal wall before the pressure of the hand
clasping the knife.30
All the stabs were cleanly cut; this nature of the injury provides with a very crucial detail, that
there was little to no resistance by the victim, while he was getting stabbed. Either he had lost
consciousness, or he was over powered and held back. From the nature and number of injuries, it
is clear, that it could not have been caused by a single person but by a group of persons.31
Stab wounds 8, 9, 15 and 16 are located on victims chest and back, and targeted vital organs like
kidneys and large intestine, making each blow of infliction on the victim fatal, causing
hemorrhage and shock, ante-mortem. Hence, these injuries essentially establish the nature of
25
Jhalla and Raju, Medical Jurisprudence 315 (Ed 6).

Sakharam v State of Maharashtra AIR 1969 3 SCC 730, 735.
27
Mangal Hansada v Sate 1985 Cr.L.J 1589, Orissa (DB).
28
Ibid 5 (854).
29
Ibid 4.
30
Ibid 1 (852).
31
Bhupan v State of Madhya Pradesh 2002 Cr.L.J 1474.
26

[18]
stabbing as homicidal; hence the injuries inflicted were to cause death. This Honble court has
already observed that the nature of the injury and the extent of damage injuries caused to the
internal organs showed the force with which it was caused.32
The Honble Supreme Court has observed it is wrong to say that the medical evidence is only
opinion evidence because it is often that the direct evidence of the facts is found upon the
victims person.33 The Honble court has also rightly observed that where a doctor has deposed
in Court, his evidence has got to be appreciated like the evidence of any other witness and there
is no irrefutable presumption that a doctor is always a witness of truth.34 In the present case the
injuries inflicted on Lallan Prasad (victim), and the medical opinion of Dr. Kamini throws light
at some uncontroverted facts, which are significant for corroboration. These are as follows:
I.
Intention to cause Death
II.
Double edged sharp weapon
III.
Homicidal stabbing
IV.
Crime committed by more than one person
The testimony35 of Ballan Prasad as P.W-1 is very much in corroboration with the Injury Report
and the Post-Mortem Report. In the case of State of Punjab v Jugraj Singh,36 it was held that
conviction based on ocular testimony of eyewitness which was corroborated by medical evidence
is held proper.
II.
Ballans testimony qualifies as the Direct Evidence and is free from any
fabrication.
Arriving at a rational conclusion, prima facie requires best possible evidence37before the court.
Similarly, in different contexts, other forms of evidences like confession38 and direct witness39are
32
Ibid 9.
Smt. Majindra Bala Mehra v Sunil Chandra Roy AIR 1960 SC 706.
34
Mayur v State of Gujrat AIR 1983 SC 5; State of Haryana v Ram Singh A.I.R 2002 SC 620.
35
Factsheet 3.
36
(2002) 3 SCC 234; Gunthu Dhule v State of Maharashtra AIR 2013 SC 264.
37
Generally, MR Damaska Evidentiary Barriers to Conviction and Two Models of Criminal Procedure: A
Comparative Study University of Pennsylvania Law Review vol. 121, 1973 (506); A Zuckerman, The Principles of
Criminal Evidence Oxford University Press, 1989; J Jackson Two Methods of proof in Criminal ProcedureModern
Law Review vol. 51, 1985 (249); Brooks, The Judge and the Adversary System, The Canadian Judiciary, Ed A
Linden 1976.
38
Pakala Narayanaswami v Emperor (1939) 66 IA 66.
33

[19]
also considered as best evidence, though, in a qualified sense.40 Direct evidence is the testimony
of a witness to the existence or non-existence of a fact or facts in issue. Now in the present case
the testimony of prime eye-witness which happens to be the direct evidence in the case was not
taken into consideration by the H.C.41
It has been held by the Honble Supreme Court that while appreciating the evidence of a witness,
the approach must be whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring
of truth. If the court before whom the witness gives evidence had the opportunity to form the
opinion about the general tenor of evidence given by the witness, the appellate court which had
not this benefit will have to attach due weight to the appreciation of evidence by the trial court
and unless there are reasons weighty and formidable it would not be proper to reject the evidence
on the ground of minor variations or infirmities in the matter of trivial details. Even honest and
truthful witness may differ in some details unrelated to the main incident because power of
observation, retention and reproduction differ with individuals42.
1.2.1 Statement forming the Ring of truth
In the present case, it is true to the fact that Ballan Prasad is the brother of the deceased Lallan
Prasad but, it is humbly submitted that his testimony is not fallacious and is indeed reliable as he
was the only eye-witness to the crime and has no other intention but to see justice done for the
cold-blooded murder of his brother. His testimony is duly corroborated by the following
evidence:
(i)
The night of 23 January 2016 was a full moon night with the visibility level being
1 Km.43 Budh Bazaar Road is a densely populated area and a busy road; hence, it is
safe to assume that there would be street lights at reasonable distances. The accused
are first cousins to the deceased and his brothers. Ballan could have easily recognized
his cousins due to their prior familiarity. If the assailant is well known to the witness
39
VP Sarathy Law of Evidence Eastern Book Co Lucknow Ed.4 1989 (12).

Qualifications like voluntary nature as envisaged by S.164, Cr.P.C 1973.
41
Ibid 35 10.
42
State of Uttar Pardesh v MK Anthony A.I.R 1985 SC 48.
43
<http://www.timeanddate.com/weather/india/delhi/historic?month=1&year=2016> Last visited on: 29 August,
2016.
40

[20]
he can be identified in the light of moon and half lit lantern.44 Therefore, Ballans
testimony is beyond reasonable doubt as identification by him of the assailants is
absolute in the given scenario.
(ii)
The presence of the accused in this case is established by the fact that Ballan heard
Geysha instructing the co-accused Iska kaam khatm kardo, enabling him to
identify his cousin by way of his voice. Since the accused and the witness shared
familial relations, it is safe to draw the inference that Ballan must know what his
cousin Geysha sounds like. After Ballan heard Geysha giving instruction to the coaccused he saw them drag the victim to a Gali to stab him ruthlessly.
(iii)
The involvement of the accused in this heinous crime is further solidified by the
apprehension of Tashi at the crime scene by the public. Only because of the hue and
cry raised by Ballan. This ultimately led to Tashi being arrested by the police at the
crime scene. It has already been stated by Ballan that Tashi was a friend of Jeysha
and his brothers and there is no other reason for the arrest of Tashi at the crime scene
apart from the fact that he was equally involved in the murder of Mr. Lallan Prasad.
Credibility of testimony, oral or circumstantial, depends considerably on a judicial evaluation of

the totality, not isolated scrutiny.45Evidence is to be tested for inherent consistency and inherent
probability of prosecution story for rendering it credible.46
1.2.2 Prosecution possible on evidence of solitary Eye-witness
Section 134 of The Indian Evidence Act states that no particular number of witnesses shall, in
any case, is required for the proof of any fact. It is not the number of witnesses examined, nor the
quantity of evidence adduced by the prosecution that counts. It is the quality that counts. 47 Where
in a murder case, the only eye-witnesses to the incident was the son and brother of the deceased
persons, he could not be called as an interested witness, though he may be related to the deceased
44
Punitram v State of M.P 1984 (1) Crimes 365; Sone Lal v State of U.P 1978 SCC (Cri.) 587.
Inder Singh v State (Delhi Administration) A.I.R 1978 SC 1092.
46
Ramakant Rai v Madan Rai A.I.R 2004 SC 77.
47
Maqsoodan v State of Uttar Pardesh A.I.R 1983 SC 126 ; Vijai Singh v State of Rajasthan 1983 Cr LR (Raj) 728
at 734 (DB).
45

[21]
as he had no reasons to save the real culprit of his father and brother, and involve in place of the
real culprit, some other accused falsely in the case.48
In the case of Vadivelu Thevar v The State of Madras,49 the Supreme Court has held that the
conviction can be based on the evidence of a solitary eye-witness and referring to sections 134,
Indian Evidence Act, 1872, it has observed that the well- organized maxim Evidence has to be
weighed and not counted is enshrined in the said section. The S.C held as follows:
The contention that in a murder case the court should insist upon plurality of witnesses is much
too broadly stated. The Indian legislature has insisted on laying down any such exceptions to the
general rule recognized in Sec. 134, which by laying down that no particular number witnesses,
in any case, be required for the proof of any fact.50
1.2.3 Non deposition by the public who nabbed Tashi not to affect Ballans Testimony
It is not incumbent, unless there are special circumstances in the individual case, on the
prosecution, to produce all the persons who happened to have gathered at the spot, when the
offence occurred or was discovered.51 Disbelieving the eye-witness on the ground of there being
no independent witness of the locality is improper.52
In the case of Appabhai v State of Gujarat53, the Supreme Court has observed that Experience
reminds us that civilized people are generally insensitive when crime is committed even in their
presence. They withdraw both from the victim and vigilants. They keep themselves away from
the court unless it is inevitable. They think that crime like civil dispute is between two
individuals or parties and they must not involve themselves. The kind of apathy of general public
48
Woodroffe and Amir Ali Law of Evidence Ed.19 2013 Butterworths Wadhwa Nagpur (338).
A.I.R 1957 SC 614; Badri v State of Rajasthan A.I.R 1976 SC 560; Maqsoodan v State of Uttar Pradesh A.I.R
1983 SC 126; Bachchitar Singh v State of Punjab A.I.R 2002 SC 3473; Chittar lal v State of Rajasthan A.I.R 2003
SC 3590; Vahula Bhushan v State of Tamil Nadu A.I.R 1989 SC 236 at 238.
50
Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade v State of Maharashtra (1973) 2 SCWR 426 ; Jose v State of Kerela A.I.R 1973 SC 944;
Chuhar Singh v State of Haryana A.I.R 1977 SC 386; Mst Dalbir Kaur v State of Punjab A.I.R 1977 SC 472;
Maqsoodan v State of Uttar PardeshA.I.R 1983 SC 126 (in a murder case, conviction can be recorded on the
testimony of a single witness); Madkami Baja v State 1986 Cr.L.J 433 at 434 (the evidence of a solitary witness to
the occurrence can be acted upon, provided such evidence is clear, cognet, trustworthy and above reproach);
Duinath Barik alias Bihar v State (1985) 1 Crimes 800 (Ori.) (DB).
51
Ibid 49 (341).
52
State of U.P v Gangaram A.I.R 2006 SC 20.
53
A.I.R 1988 SC 696. The correct legal position is that the testimony of relative witnesses or the witnesses who are
otherwise interested cannot be equated with the testimony of a tainted witness; Dalsigar alias Dalloo v State of
Uttar Pardesh Criminal appeal No. 2570 of 1979.
49

[22]
is indeed unfortunate, but it is everywhere, whether in village life, towns or cities. One cannot
ignore the handicap with which the investigating agency has to discharge its duties. The court,
therefore, instead of doubting the prosecution case for an independent witness must consider the
broad spectrum of the prosecution version and then search for the nugget of truth with due regard
to probability, if any, suggested by the accused.
1.2.4 No Adverse inference to be drawn from behavior shown by Ballan Prasad
In the case of Rana Pratap v State of Haryana,54 the Apex court clearly states that there is no
legal principle of universal application as to how a witness will react on seeing an occurrence. A
person may be dumb-founded and may not disclose the incidence to others immediately. Some
are stunned. Some become speechless and some stand routed to the spot. The court while
considering the conduct of the witnesses has to bear in mind that even in a given situation
different persons act differently which may not be considered to be natural and probable by
others, while judging the matter for number of years.
As a matter of fact, it varies from individual to individual. There cannot be any set pattern or
uniform rule of human reaction and to discard a piece of evidence on the ground of his reaction
not falling within a set pattern is unproductive and a pedantic exercise.55
Clear and acceptable testimony of a witness cannot be discarded merely because he had not
intervened at the time of the occurrence,56or because he did not receive injuries in the
occurrence.57The witnesses to a heinous crime may not react in a normal manner, nor do they
react normally. The court cannot reject their evidence merely because they have behaved or
reacted in an unusual manner.58
1.2.5 Interestedness or Relation no ground for rejection of Evidence.
There is no proposition in law that relatives are to be treated as untruthful; reason has to be
shown when plea of partiality is raised to show that witnesses had reason to shield actual culprit
54
A.I.R 1983 SC 680.

Ibid 47 p.411.
56
Angad v State of Maharashtra A.I.R 1981 SC 1227; Mulia Kusani v State 1984 Cr.L.J 123;The reaction of people
similar situations is not always in uniform. The reactions vary according to the mental equipment and social
awareness of the individual Ram Chandra v State of Haryana A.I.R 1983 SC 817.
57
Jaibir v State 1987 All WC 170 (All) (DB).
58
Appabhai v State of Gujarat A.I.R 1988 SC 696.
55

[23]
and falsely implicate accused.59In a murder case, evidence of close relatives of the accused is not
liable to be rejected on the ground of them being interested witnesses. What is necessary is that
the court should scrutinize the evidence of such witnesses carefully.60
In a murder case, where the eye-witness accompanying the deceased had identified the accused,
it was held by the Supreme Court that the plea of rejection of his evidence on the ground of his
relationship with the deceased is without substance. Relationship would not result in the
mechanical rejection of his evidence. The settled norms of appreciation of evidence required that
evidence of such witnesses is to be assessed with caution.61
In Gali Venkataiah v State of Andhra Pardesh,62 Dr Pasayat, J, speaking for the Bench
observed as follows:
Relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a witness. It is more often than not that a
relation would not conceal actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person.
Foundation has to be laid if plea of false implication is made. In such cases, the court has to
adopt a careful approach and analyse evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible.
In the case of Nallabothu Venkaiah v State of Andhra Pardesh,63it has been held that the
witnesses are inimically disposed to the accused alone would be no ground to throw away their
otherwise reliable, natural and credit-worthy statement. Animosity is double edged sword and it
can cut both sides. It can be a ground for false implication. It can also be a ground for assault.
We are constrained to deprecate the manner in which the High Court threw away the eye-witness
accounts of PWs 1 to 3 on ground of animosity albeit without any discussion.
59
Harbans Kaur v State of Haryana A.I.R 2005 SC 2989; Harijana Narayana v State of A.P A.I.R 2003 SC 2851.
Ram Lakhan v State of Uttar Pardesh 1996 4 Cr.L.J 3496 (SC); Bhagirath v State of Haryana A.I.R 1996 SC
3431; State of Punjab v Wasan Singh A.I.R 1981 SC 697.
61
Amitsingh Bhikamsing Thakur v State of Maharashtra A.I.R 2007 SC 676; Re P Ramanna 1969 Cr.L.J 1453 (AP).
62
A.I.R 2008 SC 462; D Sailu v State of Andhra Pardesh A.I.R 2008 SC 505; Kapildeo Mandal v State of Bihar
A.I.R 2008 SC 533; Dharam Pal v State of U.P A.I.R 2008 SC 920; Bhagga v State of Madhya Pardesh A.I.R 2008
SC 175 ( The fact that all the said eye-witnesses belong to one family cannot be a reason to disbelieve their
evidence);State of Himachal Pradesh v Mast Ram A.I.R 2004 SC 5056; Munigadappa Meenaiah v State of Andhra
Pradesh A.I.R 2008 SC 3027; Ponnam Chandraiah v State of A.P A.I.R 2008 SC 3209; Harabailu Kariappa v State
of Karnataka (1996) Cr.L.J 321 (Even if after assessing the evidence(of interested or related witness) cautiously and
carefully, if the courts finds that the evidence is acceptable. The court will be justified in accepting such an
evidence.); Baitullah v State of Uttar Pardesh A.I.R 1997 SC 3946; State of Punjab v Wasam Singh A.I.R 1981 SC
451.
63
A.I.R 2002 SC 2945; State of Punjab v Wasan Singh A.I.R 1981 SC 697; Sarwan Singh v State of Punjab 1976
SCC (Cri) 646.
60

[24]
With regard to appreciation of eyewitnesses, the court has to adhere to two principles: (i)
whether it was possible for the witnesses to be present; and (ii) whether there is anything
inherently improbable and unreliable.
64
The evidence of an eye-witness should not be rejected
merely on the ground that he is the brother of the deceased.65 The mere fact that the witness is
inimical to the accused is no ground to reject his testimony, if his evidence is otherwise found
reliable.66
CONTENTION2:2:THAT
THAT THE
THE SAID
SAID ACCUSSED
ACCUSSED HAVE
CONTENTION
HAVE COMMITTED
COMMITTED MURDER
MURDERIN
IN
FUTHERENCEOF
OFTHE
THECOMMON
COMMONINTENTION.
INTENTION.
FUTHERENCE
I.
The accused are guilty of Murder under Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code.
It is most humbly submitted before this Honble Court that the offence committed by the accused
falls under Section 300 of I.P.C which is punishable under 30267 of the Act. Section 300 lays
down certain ingredients which are essential for its application. It states that Except in the cases
hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done
with the intention of causing death, or secondly if it is done with the intention of causing such
bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the
harm is caused, or thirdly if it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person
and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to
cause death, or fourthly if the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently
dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause
death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such
injury as aforesaid.
64
State of Uttar Pradesh v Noorie Alias Noor Jahan A.I.R 1996 SC 3073.
Maharaj Singh v State of Rajasthan A.I.R 1981 SC 936; State of Andhra Pradesh v Dr MV Ramana Reddy (1992)
MLJ (Cr) 288; Rachamreddi Chenna Reddy v State of Andhra Pradesh A.I.R 1999 SC 994.
66
Raman Kalia v State of Gujarat 1979 SLJ 115 (NOC); Lakhma v State of Rajasthan 1983 Raj LW 594 (Raj) (DB)
(evidence not to be discarded in toto, but to be scrutinized with care; it would be an additional circumstance to be
looked while accepting the statement of the witness against the accused); Rajendra Singh v State of Uttar pradesh
1984 Cr.LJ 1164 at 1168; State of Assam v Safiuddin Sheikh 1981 Cr.L.J (NOC) 4 (Gau) (DB).
67
Section 302. Punishment for Murder Whoever commits Murder shall be punished with death, or
[imprisonment for life], and shall also be liable to fine.
65

[25]
2.1 Requirement of Intention for proving Murder.

Austin defined intention as the aim of the act, of which the motive is the spring. 68 It means
shaping of ones conduct so as to bring about a certain event. Therefore in the case of intention
mental faculties are projected in a set direction. The intent and the act must concur to constitute
the crime.69 Intention can be by pre-arranged plan or in the heat of the moment. 70
In the instant case, the act of committing the murder of Lallan Prasad squarely falls under the
clause (1) of Section 300 of the IPC. The prosecution will further elaborate on the fact put forth.
2.2 Ballans Testimony pointing towards the intention of Accused.
In the case at hand, there is direct evidence in the form of the deposition of Ballan Prasad, the
brother of the deceased, who was the sole eye witness of the crime. According to his testimony,
two of the accused i.e. Jeysha and Tashi, engaged Lallan in a fight and were soon joined by the
other brothers. Ballan has stated that he clearly heard Geysha saying Iska kam khatm kar do,
which brings to fore the intention of the accused to murder Lallan Prasad. In furtherance of their
intention of killing Lallan, they dragged him into a Gali and Jayesha started stabbing him.71
Intention is always a state of mind and can only be proved by way of physical manifestations.
Intention to kill can be inferred from the murder and nature of the injuries caused to the
victim.72Where injuries are inflicted by a number of persons with intention of killing a person
and death results as a result of injuries, the conduct answers Clause (1) or at least Clause (3) for
at any rate the injuries are sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death 73.
In the case of Mohammad Sharif and Anr. v Rex74it was held that when a person stabs another
person particularly an unarmed person with knife or any sharp edged cutting weapon on vital
part of the body like abdomen, he obviously intends to cause death or intends to cause bodily
injury sufficient to cause death.
68
Austin Lectures on Jurisprudence 165 (Students Ed), 1920.

Williams.G Criminal Law (29).
70
State of M.P v Deshraj 2004 Cr.L.J1415(S.C).
71
Factsheet 3.
72
Laxman v State of Maharashtra A.I.R 1974 SC 1803; Prabhu & Ors v State of M.P 1991 Supp (2) SCC 7258; In
Re Thothan A.I.R 1956 Mad. 425.
73
Badri v State of U.P A.I.R 1953 All 189; R. Venkula v State A.I.R 1956 SC 171.
74
ILR(1951) All 673; A person who causes severe injuries which are of such a nature as would cause death in the
ordinary course of nature he must be held to have inflicted them intentionally, Bhori v State A.I.R 1953 All 189.
69

[26]
Where the accused without any provocation or instigation by the deceased repeatedly attacked
thrice on vital parts of body of the deceased with intention to cause his death, conviction of
accused u/s 302 was held proper.75 In B.N Srikanatiah v State of Mysore76, there were as many
as 24 injuries on the deceased and of them 21 were incised. They were on his head, the neck, the
shoulders, and the forearms. Since, most of the injuries were on vital parts, it was held that the
intention of causing bodily injuries was established; bringing it under the cover of Sec. 300.
2.3 Past Enmity as basis of Intention
Past Enmity between the accused persons and the deceased or victim is relevant fact and may be
taken into account for forming an opinion whether there was common intention to kill the
deceased or to cause injury.77 Now the facts of the case very clearly point towards the enmity
that existed between the accused and the victims family.78 The decision of the property dispute
case was held in favour of the victims family and that had led to inimical relation between the
two.79
In the case of Gurmukh Singh v State of Haryana80 the Honble Apex court quoted that
following tests could determine the intention of a person: Motive or Previous Enmity81, whether
the incident took place in spur of movement, the gravity, dimension and the nature of injury82,
Adverse history of the accused, the conduct and behavior of accused towards the deceased,
circumstances in which incident took place.
Where the accused gave repeated blows of iron rod with sufficient force on head of deceased and
then caused injuries on body with knife. Thus assault was established to have been made with
deliberate intention to cause death due to old existing enmity between them. Conviction for
murder was held proper.83
75
Brajesh Kumar Singh v State 2007 Cr.L.J 2132 (Chh).

A.I.R 1958 SC 672; Labhu Ram v State of Punjab 1995(4) Crimes 139; Dibia v State of U.P A.I.R 1953 All 373.
77
Ram lal Singh & Ors. v State of Haryana A.I.R 1992 SC 59.
78
Factsheet 3.
79
Ibid.
80
(2009) 15 SCC 635.
81
State of Rajasthan v Shobha Ram A.I.R 2013 SC 1760.
82
Parsuram Pandey v State of Bihar A.I.R 2004 SC 5608.
83
Babulal v State 2005 Cr.L.J 2095 (M.P). Deceased was chased and the fired from closed range and motive of
murder to take revenge of old enmity. Conviction had proper, Johar Singh v State, 2005 Cr.L.J 2035 (Uttar).
76

[27]
II.
The criminal act was done in furtherance of common intention of all the accused
hence liable under Sec. 34.
This section is intended to meet cases in which it may be difficult to distinguish between the
acts of the individual members of a party or to prove exactly what part was taken by each of
them in furtherance of the common intention of all.84 In the case of Shankar Budhaji
Moundekar and others v State of Maharashtra85 evidence on record showed that all the
accused participated in commission of offence in one or the other way along with accused who
did the principal act. If seen otherwise also, the number and nature of injuries on the person of
victim clearly indicated that without assistance of the other accused such severe injuries could
not be inflicted.
The allegation was that co-accused jointly caught hold of deceased and immobilized him and
other accused gave various blows on neck, back and abdomen with knife in gruesome manner.
Previous enmity between parties, happening of events immediately before incident in question
and utterances said to have made during course of assault and role played by co-accused were
sufficient to provide sound basis for inevitable inference of existence of common intention.
Conviction of co-accused under Sec. 302/34 was held proper.86It is to be noted that even if the
deceased fell dead at the hands of one of them, all the accused are responsible for having caused
the death of their victim, if they started with the common object of intentionally causing such
hurt as would likely to end fatally.87
Sec. 34 is not attracted unless, first, it is established that a crime has been committed by several
persons, second, that there was a common intention and a pre-arranged plan to commit an
offence and, third, that there was a participation in the commission of the offence in furtherance
of that common intention.88 Accepting the legal position that common intention may develop at
the spot the Honble Supreme Court held; Common Intention under Sec. 34 presupposes a
prior concert that is prior meeting of the minds, such pre-concert can develop on the spot and
84
Mepa Dana A.I.R 1960 SC 289.

2000 SCC OnLine Bom 509.
86
Parasa Raja Manikyala Rao v State A.I.R 2004 SC 132;Banti alias Guddu v State of M.P 2004 Cr.L.J 372 (SC).
87
Indian Penal Code Sec. 34.
88
Parichhat v State of M.P A.I.R 1972 SC 535.
85

[28]
without any long interval of time between it and the doing of the act commonly intended. 89As
already stated for the operation of sec. 34, there must be a prearranged plan. But a pre-arranged
plan does not mean that there should be a conference where resolutions are moved and a decision
arrived at to commit a particular crime, the plan might have been arranged just half a minute
before the actual beating started.90
In the case at hand, the intention of the accused was determined with regard to the murder of
Lallan Prasad the very instant when Geysha said Iska kam khatm kar do which translates to
ending the life of Mr. Lallan. Only after the said instructions were given, did all the accused drag
the victim into a Gali (street) and stabbed him mercilessly till the brother of the victim raised a
hue and cry.91
CONTENTION 3: THE ACCUSED ARE LIABLE UNDER SECTION 201 FOR
CAUSING THE DISAPPERANCE OF MURDER WEAPON.
To establish the charge under Section 201 the prosecution must first prove that an offence had
been committed not merely a suspicion that it might have been committed, and that the accused
knowing or having reason to believe that such an offence had been committed, and with the
intent to screen the offender from legal punishment, had caused the evidence thereafter to
disappear. The proof of the commission of an offence is an essential requisite for bringing home
the offence under Sec. 201, I.P.C.
92
In the current case; the police were unable to retrieve the
murder weapon. As according to the admission by Jeysha, while running from the crime scene,
he deliberately took the knife and threw it into the river Ghaggar near Ambala. 93 It was then that
Section 201 was added to the existing criminal charge. It has already been established by the
aforementioned contentions that there is no other hypothesis regarding the murder of Lallan
Prasad, apart from the one that points towards the guilt of the accused.
89
Risideo Pande v State of U.P A.I.R 1955 SC 334; Khacharu Singh v State of U.P A.I.R 1956 SC 546; Krishna
Govind patil v State of Maharashtra A.I.R 1963 SC 1413.
90
Waliullah v State of U.P A.I.R 1951 All 21.
91
Factsheet 3.
92
Suleman Rahiman v State of Maharashtra A.I.R 1968 SC 829; Tejinder Singh v State of Punjab (2013) 12 SCC
503.
93
Factsheet 6.
[29]
It is noteworthy that the accused gave their official statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C that
they were being falsely implicated due to the previous enmity with the complainant and his
family members and they knew nothing about this event.94This statement is in gross
contradiction with the confession Jeysha made to the police after their arrest and interrogation.
To contradict a witness by a previous statement of his, the previous statement must be
inconsistent with the statement in the witness-box. In the present mode of impeachment, there
must, of course, be a real inconsistency between the two assertions of the witness. The purpose is
to induce the tribunal to discard the one statement, because the witness has also made another
statement which cannot at the same time be true. Thus, it is not a mere difference of statement
that suffices, not yet is an absolute oppositeness essential; it is an inconsistency that is required. 95
It was held in the case of Rammi v State of M.P96that courts should bear in mind that it is only
when the discrepancies in the evidence of a witness are so incompatible with the credibility of
his version that the court is justified in jettisoning his evidence. A breakdown of the confession is
as follows:
i.
Running away from the crime sceneIt must be noted that according to the testimony of Ballan Prasad, the accused fled the
scene of crime.97 They were caught six days later on 30th January 2016 and arrested.
Herein lies the proof of them having absconded from the crime scene. Where the
accused conceal themselves away from their normal residence after the occurrence, it
usually indicates the guilty mind of the accused.98
ii.
Deliberately took the knife and threw it in the Ghaggar River

The act undertaken by Jeysha of deliberately taking the knife and throwing it into the
river shows that he was intent upon causing disappearance of the murder weapon i.e
the knife to ensure none of them suffered the consequences of killing Lallan Prasad.
The fact that the medical report has also clearly corroborated with the kind of murder
weapon stating that it is a sharp object, further completes the chain of events
establishing the guilt of the accused. Mere non-recovery of the weapon of attack
94
Factsheet 8.
Woodroffe and Amir Ali Law of Evidence Ed.19 2013(5243).
96
AIR 1999 SC 3544.
97
Factsheet 3.
98
Paramjit Singh v State (1983) Cr.L.J (NOC) 108.
95

[30]
would not be sufficient to throw out a case of murder or assault and in a number of
cases;99 the investigating agency may not be in a position to recover the weapons of
attack.
The extra judicial confession has to be proved like any other fact. A free and voluntary
confession whether judicial or extra judicial whether retracted or not deserves highest credit and
cannot be lightly dealt with because it is presumed to flow from a sense of guilt. A man laboring
under emotion may confess but when time is passed and feelings are cooled, discretion may
cause him to retract it. But that is no reason for rejecting the conviction based on such
confession. The rule of corroboration is a rule of prudence and not a rule of evidence. If the
evidence relating to extra judicial confession inspires confidence, no corroboration is required
and if the corroboration is there it serves as an additional fact in assessing the guilt of the
culprit.100
CONTENTION4:4:DEATH
DEATHPENALTY
PENALTYSHOULD
SHOULD BE
BE GIVEN
GIVEN TO
CONTENTION
TO THE
THE ACCUSED
ACCUSED FOR
FOR
THEHEINOUS
HEINOUSNATURE
NATUREOF
OFCRIME
CRIMEAND
ANDENHANCEMENT
ENHANCEMENTOF
OFFINE.
FINE.
THE
4.1
Death Penalty will act as a Deterrence
There is a considerable body of opinion to state that death penalty has a deterrence.
101
In
Mahesh v State of M.P102, the court noted that [the common man] understands and appreciates
the language of deterrence, more than the reformative jargons103. The 35th Commission added
that the deterrent object of capital punishment was the most important object, saying it
constituted its strongest justification.104The court held that the retributive theory has had its
day and is no longer valid. Deterrence and reformation are the primary social goals which make
deprivation of life and liberty reasonable as penal panacea105 Often quoted in this regard is a
statement of Sir James Fitzjames Stephen that, some men probably abstain from murder because
they fear that if the committed murder, they would be hanged. Hundreds of thousands abstain
99
Tunu v State of Orissa 1988 Cr.L.J 524; Neeraj v State 1978 All LJ 1293.
Inder Dass v State of Rajasthan 1985 Cr.L.J 1416.
101
For this proposition, the commission (Report 262) sites reply received to its questionnaire, as well as a statement
made by Sir Patrik Spens in the House of Commons based on his experience in India.
102
(1987) 3 SCC 80.
103
Sevaka Perumal v State of T.N 1991 3 SCC 471.
104
Report 262 Law Commission of India Death Penalty August 2015.
105
Rajendra Prasad v State of Uttar Pardesh (1979) 3 SCC 646.
100

[31]
from it because they regard it with horror. One great reason why they regard it with horror is that
murders are hanged.106
If the implications keep getting waived off, a time will come when law will cease to exist. A
convict is to be punished so that it becomes an example for rest of humanity and deters perverted
minds from committing such crimes. Therefore, if a crime, as heinous as taking another persons
life is committed, the punishment has to be severe. There may be instances where life sentence
may not serve the desired purpose. There are instances where convicts serving a life sentence are
granted parole and soon return to their old ways, harming the society. While there cannot be two
opinions that rights of the accused are to be respected, it is the victims and the society whose
right should get precedence over the rights of the accused. Thinking of rights of accused person
committing heinous crime at the cost of violation of rights of victims and safety of society will
amount to misplaced sympathy with the accused. 107
4.2 Absolute scope for Recidivism
The act of the accused is a heinous crime. They have no prior record of criminal activities yet it
was with complete ease that they killed the victim, who was helpless, unarmed and completely
unaware108 that his life would come to such a short and gruesome end. He was their cousin and
someone who meant no harm to the accused whatsoever. Thereby it is safe to say that they
hardly possess any ability to rehabilitate or reform. Their actions were incredibly brutal and there
was no other motive than to end the life of Lallan Prasad. It is humbly submitted that such a
bewildering and disturbing crime must be given the strictest punishment as they have absolute
scope for recidivism.
When prison sentences are relatively short, offenders are more likely to maintain their ties to
family, employers, and their community, all of which promote successful re-entry into society.
Conversely, when prisoners serve longer sentences they are more likely to become
106
Ernest Hagg The Ultimate Punishment; a Defence 99 Harvard Law Review 1662, 1666 (1986).
Ibid 103.
108
Dhananjoy Chatterjje v State of West Bengal (1994) 2 SCC 220(Defenseless and unprotected state of victim).
107

[32]
institutionalized, lose pro-social contacts in the community, and become removed from
legitimate opportunities, all of which promote recidivism.109
In the case of Ravji alias Ram Chandra v State of Rajasthan110, it was held that it is the nature
and gravity of the crime but not the criminal, which are germane for consideration of appropriate
punishment in a criminal trial. The punishment to be awarded for a crime should conform to and
be consistent with the atrocity and brutality with which the crime has been perpetrated, the
enormity of the crime warranting public abhorrence and it should respond to the societys cry
for justice against the criminal.
4.3 Punishment to be proportional with Offence
It was observed by the Apex court in the case of Vikram Singh v U.O.I111 that the punishment
must be proportionate to the offence is recognized as a fundamental principle of criminal
jurisprudence around the world. According to the Apex court, the punishment prescribed by the
penal code reflects the legislative recognition of the social needs, the gravity of the offence
concerned, its impact on the society and what the legislature considers as punishment suitable for
a particular offence.112In some cases the Supreme Court has used proportionality has a
penological goal.113
Machhi Singh v State of Punjab,114In the first place, the very humanistic edifice is constructed
on the foundation of reverence for life principle. When the member of the community violates
this very principle by killing another member, the society may not feel itself bound by the
shackles of this doctrine. Secondly it has to be realized that every member of the community is
able to live with safety without his or her own life being endangered because of the protective
arm of the community and on account of the rule of law enforced by it. The very existence of the
rule of law and the fear of being brought to book operates as a deterrent to those who have no
scruples in killing others if it suits their ends. When ingratitude is shown instead of gratitude by
109
Thomas Orsagh and Jong-Rong Chen The Effect of Time Served on Recidivism: An Interdisciplinary Theory
Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 4(2):155-171, 1988.
110
(1996) 2 SCC 175.
111
2015(9) SCALE 183.
112
P.K Malhotra, Ex Officio Member, Law commission of India, D.O. No. 31/08/2015-LS.
113
Shivu v Registrar General, H.C Karnataka2007 4 SCC 713; Lehna v State of Haryana (2002) 3 SCC 76;State of
U.P v Satish (2005) 3 SCC 114;Mohan Anna Chavan v State of Maharashtra (2008) 7 SCC 561.
114
AIR 1983 SC 957.
[33]
killing a member of the community which protects the murderer himself from being killed, or
when the community feels that for the sake of self-preservation the killer has to be killed, the
community may well withdraw the protection by sanctioning the death penalty.115
4.4 Grant of Rs 10 Lakh as Compensation
It is humbly submitted before this Honble Court that compensation worth Rs.10 lakh be granted
to the family of the deceased victim, Mr. Lallan Prasad for the irrevocable loss they have
suffered at the hands of the accused. The life of the victim is beyond any monetary compensation
yet keeping in mind that he had aging parents and two other brother to support, the said
compensation must be granted to the Prasad family for their emotional trauma and the cost of
litigation of going through three trials along with the cost of bringing up the now unfortunately
deceased, Mr. Lallan Prasad. It is submitted that the State must grant compensation to the
Prasads under Section 357-A whereby under clause (1) it is provided that Every State
Government in co-ordination with the Central Government shall prepare a scheme for providing
funds for the purpose of compensation to the victim or his dependents who have suffered loss or
injury as a result of the crime and who require rehabilitation.116 It was held in the case of
Suresh v State of Haryana117that gravity of offence and need of the victim are some of the
guiding factors to be kept in mind, apart from such other factors as may be found relevant in the
facts and circumstances of an individual case. It has already been established by the council for
prosecution that the brutality of the crime was of immense magnitude and it is, but natural for the
victims family to be granted compensation as they lost their son and a member of the family
who would have become an earning member of the household had his life not been terminated by
the accused.
115
Ibid 113.
Justice M.R. Mallick Criminal Manual (174).
117
(2015) 2 SCC 227.
116

[34]
PRAYER
Wherefore, in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, May this
Honble court be pleased to:
(1) Declare the accused Jeysha, Kishan, Bishaan, Disham, Geysha and Tashi guilty under
Section 302 read with Section 201 and 34 I.P.C.
(2) Award Death Penalty to the accused for their heinous crime and also enhance the
compensation to Rs. 10,00,000/-.
AND/OR
Pass any other appropriate order, which this Honorable Court may deem fit in light of Justice,
Equity and Good Conscience. For this act of kindness, the Counsel for Prosecution as in duty
bound shall forever pray.
All of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted.
Sd/(Counsel for the Prosecution)

[35]

Best Memo Procesution

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Best Memo Procesution

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TEAM CODE-08

5th INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT

BEFORE THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

FOR OFFENCES CHARGED UNDER:

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HONBLE DIVISION BENCH

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

5th INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

Death penalty will act as a deterrence31

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

5th INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

5th INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950.

THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 (ACT 2 OF 1974).

THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 (ACT 45 OF 1860).

THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 (ACT 1 OF 1872).

BOOKS AND DIGESTS

Modi, Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, Lexis Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa

V.P.Sarthy, Law of Evidence, Eastern Book Company,Lucknow, Ed.4 1989(12).

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

5th INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

5th INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

31. Inder Singh v State (Delhi Administration)A.I.R 1978 SC 1092...21

5th INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

62. Parsuram Pandey v State of Bihar A.I.R 2004 SC 560827

5th INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

93. State of Punjab v Jugraj Singh 2002 3 SCC 234....19

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

5th INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

THE COUNSELFOR PROSECUTION HUMBLY REQUESTS THIS HONBLE APEX

136. Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

5th INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

5th INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

5th INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

THE STATEMENT OF ISSUES

THE PROSECUTION RESPECTFULLY ASKS THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT:

WHETHER TESTIMONY OF BALLAN PRASAD IS TRUE TO THE FACTS OF

WHETHER THE SAID ACCUSSED HAVE COMMITTED MURDER IN

WHETHER ACCUSED ARE LIABLE UNDER 201 FOR CAUSING THE

WHETHER DEATH PENALTY SHOULD BE GIVEN TO THE ACCUSED FOR

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

5th INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

THE SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

THAT THE TESTIMONY OF BALLAN PRASAD IS TRUE TO THE FACTS

THAT THE SAID ACCUSSED HAVE COMMITTED MURDER IN

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

5th INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

THAT DEATH SHOULD BE GIVEN TO THE ACCUSED FOR THEIR

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

5th INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

Medical Report Corroborates with the Direct Evidence

Modi Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology 34 (23rd Ed. 2010).

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

5th INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

5th INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

5th INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

Jhalla and Raju, Medical Jurisprudence 315 (Ed 6).

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION