Accused Title

III AMITY NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2015
TEAM CODE : ALSJ023
BEFORE THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION NO. ________/2015
IN THE MATTER OF
BHANWAR LAL...APPELLANT NO.1

MOHAN. APPELLANT NO.2
SOHAN.. APPELLANT NO.3
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN RESPONDENT
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT
AMITY NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2015!

[MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT]
[TABLE OF CONTENTS]
!
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INDEX OF AUTHORITIESi
STATUTES..i
JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS......i
BOOKS...iii
ONLINE DATABASE...iii
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION..1
STATEMENT OF FACTS..2
STATEMENT OF ISSUES.3
SUMMARY ARGUMENTS...4
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED..........5
A. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT SHOULD EXERCISE ITS DISCRETION
TO GRANT SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF
THE HIGH COURT OF JAIPUR IN VIEW OF THE ERRORS APPARENT ON
THE FACE OF RECORD AND THE QUESTIONS OF LAW WHICH NEED TO
BE ADJUDICATED BY THIS COURT..5
B. CONVICTION UNDER 364A IPC IS A FLAGRANT MISCARRIAGE OF
JUSTICE WHICH WARRANTS AN INTERFERENCE.6
B.1. INGREDIENTS OF OFFENCE UNDER SEC. 364 A........6
B.2. NO EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH THE ESSENTIAL INGREDIENT OF
DEMAND FOR RANSOM..............8
B.3. FAILURE OF PRINCIPLES GOVERNING FASTENING OF LIABILITY IN
CRIMINAL LAW.................8
C. CONVICTION OF APPELLANTS UNDER SECTION 376 D IPC IS NOT
SUSTAINABLE ON THE MERE POSSIBILITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES AND AN
UNCORROBORATED
TESTIMONY
WHICH
DOES
NOT
CLEARLY
ESTABLISH THE GUILT OF THE APPELLANT. .9

C.1. ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS OF COMMON INTENTION NOT
ESTABLISHED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT ..10
C.2. CREDIBILITY OF PROSECUTRIX TESTIMONY IS UNDER QUESTION..12
C.3. CONFESSION OF APPELLANTS 1 AND 3 NOT ADMISSIBLE...14

[TABLE OF CONTENTS]
!
!
C.4. EVIDENCE ON RECORD FAILS TO FASTEN INDIVIDUAL LIABILITY TO
APPELLANTS.16
D. THE INSTANT CASE IS AN EXAMPLE OF GROSS VIOLATION OF
CANONS OF CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE.....17
D.1. BURDEN OF PROOF IN CRIMINAL LAW..18
D.2. BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT...18
D.3. BENEFIT OF DOUBT19
PRAYER FOR RELIEF20
AMITY MOOT NATIONAL COURT COMPETITION, 2015!

[INDEX OF AUTHORITIES]
!
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
STATUTES
1. Constitution of India, 1950
2. Indian Penal Code, 1860
3. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Child) Act, 2000
4. Indian Evidence Act, 1872
5. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS
Durga Shankar Mehta v Raghuraj Singh AIR [1954] SC 520.
Sanwat Singh v State of Rajasthan AIR [1961] SC 715.
Kunhayammed v State of Orissa [2000] 6 SCC 359 , AIR [2000] SC 2587.
Ganga Kumar Srivastava v State of Bihar [2005] 6 SCC 211.
Liyakat Mian v State of Bihar [1973] 4 SCC 39.
Deepak Kumar v Ravi Virmani [2002] 2 SCC 737.
Dhirajlal Girdharlal v I.T. Commissioner AIR [1955] SC 271.
Jamuna Pd. Mukhariya v Lachhi Ram AIR [1954] SC 686.
Indira Kaur v Sheo Lal Kapoor [1988] 2 SCC 488-499.
State of Punjab v Karnail Singh [2003] 11 SCC 271.
Malleshi v State Of Karnataka [2004] 8 SCC 95.
Dr. Surajmani Stella Kujur v Durga Charan Hansdah & Anr [2001] 3 SCC 13.
P. Liaquat Ali Khan v State Of A.P [2009] 12 SCC 707.
Soonam Sood @ Kamal Jeet Kaur v State of Rajasthan [2007] 5 SCC 634.
Shyam Babu v State of Haryana [2008] 15 SCC 418.
Vishwanath Gupta v State Of Uttaranchal [2007] 11 SCC 640.
Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v State of Gujarat [1964] SC 1563.
Kali Ram v State Of Himachal Pradesh [1973] SCR 1 722 1974.
Hanuman Prasad & Ors v State Of Rajasthan 1 SCC 507 [2009].
10
Pandurang Tukia and Bhillia v State of Hyderabad AIR [1955] SC 331.
10
Khacheru Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh AIR [1956] SC 546.
10
Baleshwar Rai v State of Bihar [1964] Cr LJ 564.
10
Ashok Kumar v State of Haryana [2003] 2 SCC 143.
10
Zabar Singh v The State Of Uttar Pradesh AIR [1957] SC 465.
10
APPELLANTS SUBMISSION
i!
AMITY MOOT NATIONAL COURT COMPETITION, 2015

!
Priya Patel v State Of M.P. & Anr [2006] 6 SCC 263.
10
Jumman v State of Punjab AIR [1957] SC 469.
10
Banwari Lal v State of Uttar Pradesh AIR [1962] SC 1198.
10
Shiv Prasad Chunni Lal Jain v State of Maharashtra AIR [1965] SC 264.
10
Dajya Moshaya Bhil v State of Maharashtra AIR [1984] SC 1717.
10
Mohan Singh & Anr. v State of Punjab AIR [1963] SC 174.
11
Pandurang v State of Hyderabad AIR [1955] SC 216.
11
Mahbub Shah v Emperor on AIR [1945] PC 118.
11
Pardeep Kumar v Union Administration [2000] 10 SCC 608.
11
Amrik Singh v State of Punjab [1972] 4 SCC (N) 42.
11
Brijlala Prasad Sinha v State of Bihar AIR [1998] SC 2443;
12
Adalat Pandit v State of Bihar [2010] 6 SCC 469.
12
State Of U.P v Sahrunnisa & Anr AIR [2009] SC 3182.
12
Bhaba Nanda Sarma v State of Assam [1977] 4 SCC 396.
12
Vimal Suresh Kamble v Chaluverapinake Apal S.P. [2003] 3 SCC 175.
13
Tameezuddin @ Tammu v State (NCT of Delhi) [2009] 15 SCC 566.
13
Rajoo & Ors. v State of Madhya Pradesh AIR [2009] SC 858.
13
Ramdas v State of Maharashtra [2007] 2 SCC 170.
13
Pakala Narayana Swami v Emperor AIR [1939] PC 47.
14
Hussaina v Emperor AIR [1936] Lah 380.
14
Bheru Singh v State Of Rajasthan [1994] SCC 2 467.
14
Commr. Of Delhi v Narender Singh [2006] 4 SCC 265.
15
Queen Empress v Babulal, I.L.R. [1884] 6 All. 509
15
State Of Gujarat v Anirudh Singh And Another AIR [1997] SC 2780.
15
State of NCT of Delhi v Navjot Sandhu AIR [2005] SC 3820 3852.
15
Noor Aga v State of Punjab [2008] 16 SCC 417- 457.
15
Ibrahim v Emperor [1914] A.C. 599.
15
Reg. v Thompson [1893] 2 Q.B. 12.
15
Rex v Warrickshall [1783] 1 Leach 263.
15
Reg. v Baldry [1852] 5 Cox C.C. 523.
16
Paulose v State of Kerala [1990] Cr LJ 100 -103 (Ker).
16
Nagu Jhalla v Emperor 36 IC 480.
16
Anant Kumar v State of M.P. [1993] Cr LJ 1498 - 1500 (MP).
16
Sakharam v State of M.P. AIR [1952] SC 758.
17
ii!
AMITY MOOT NATIONAL COURT COMPETITION, 2015!

!
State of Haryana v Prabhu AIR [1979] SC 1019.
17
Shankar Lal v State of Maharashtra AIR [1981] SC 765.
17
Dasari Siva Prasad Reddy v Public Prosecutor, High Court A.P. AIR [2004]
SC 4383.
17
Paramjeet Singh @ Pamma v State Of Uttarakhand [2010] 10 SCC 439.
18
Sarwan Singh Rattan Singh v State of Punjab AIR [1957] SC 637.
18
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra AIR [1984] SC 1622.
18
Padala Veera Reddy v State of A.P AIR [1990] SC 79.
18
Vinay D. Nagar v State of Rajasthan [2008] 5 SCC 597.
19
Eradu v State of Hyderabad AIR [1956] SC 316.
19
Hukam Singh v State of Rajasthan AIR [1977] SC 1063.
19
Earabhadrappa v State of Karnataka AIR [1983] SC 446.
19
State of U.P. v Sukhbasi AIR [1985] SC 1224.
19
Balwinder Singh v State of Punjab AIR [1987] SC 350.
19
Ashok Kumar Chatterjee v State of M.P. AIR [1989] SC 1890.
19
C. Chenga Reddy v. State of A.P [1996] 10 SCC 193.
19
BOOKS
KD Gaur , Criminal Law Cases and Materials ( 7 edn., Universal Law
Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd. 2013) 487.
Concise Oxford English Dictionary (2002) 1186.
Advanced Law Lexicon (3rd edn ) 3932.
Phipson on Evidence ( 13th edn., Sweet & Maxwell Ltd 1982).
Wigmore on evidence (13-Volume Set edn., Aspen Publishers 1995).
P S A Pillai, Criminal Law, Dr. K I Vibhute (12th edn., LexisNexis 2014 ) 728.
K.D. Gaur ,Textbook on Indian Penal Code ( 5th edn, Universal Law Publishing
Co. Pvt. Ltd. 2014 ) 372.
Hari Singh Gour, The Penal Law of India , ( Vol. I, 11th edn. 2000) 969 - 994.
13
The Indian evidence act (London, Macmillan and Co.) 165.
15
ONLINE DATABASES
1. WWW.SCCONLINE.COM
2. WWW.MANUPATRA.COM
iii!

[STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION]
!
!
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
This Court has the jurisdiction to hear this matter under the Article 136 of the Constitution of
India which provides for a Special Leave to Appeal against 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.
Article 136, The Constitution Of India
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.
(2) Nothing in clause ( 1 ) shall apply to any judgment, determination, sentence or order
passed or made by any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the
Armed Forces.

[STATEMENT OF FACTS]
!
!
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. The complainant was a student living in a Womens Hostel. On 20th December, 2014
while the complainant came out of her room in the front lawn of the hostel she alleges
to have been kidnapped and forcibly carried by Bhawarlal, a Chowkidar in the hostel
and Tribhuvan at about 11:00 p.m in the Chowkidars room behind the hostel where
Mohan and Sohan were drinking heavy liquor. She alleges to have been intoxicated
with drugs, raped one by one by them and thrown out of the hostel in a naked
condition where she was noticed by passers-by in the morning. A case under S. 363
and 376D IPC was registered.
2. A Panchnamah was prepared. Following articles were seized viz. torn out kurta,
payjama, panty, non-vegetarian food items, tumblers, liquor bottles, drugs, hukka
with tobacco, a knife, Rs.60,000 , 4 mobile cells of the 4 accused , Mercedes car
registered in the name of father of Tribhuvan, Tribhuvans driving license and one
motor bike of Mohan. Medical examination was conducted within 12 hours. The
medical jurist stated that the hymen was damaged and blood was found in the vagina.
Sperm Detection test corroborated the claim of the complainant. The complainant
and other prosecution witnesses were cross-examined and stood to their testimony.
Tribhuvan was minor on the date of event.
3. The Sessions Judge, Jaipur wrongly convicted the three accused and sentenced them
as follows :- Bhawar Lal - rigorous imprisonment for life; Mohan - rigorous
imprisonment for 10 years; Sohan simple imprisonment for 7 years; and Tribuvan,
having been proved as minor to be dealt with separately under the Juvenile Justice
(Care and Protection of children) Act, 2000. Damages were awarded of Rs. 10 lacs.
4.
Aggrieved by the said judgement, the accused as well as the complainant preferred
appeal before the High Court, Jaipur which upheld the conviction but reduced the
sentence as follows :- Bhawar Lal - rigorous imprisonment for 10 years, Mohan simple imprisonment for five years; and Sohan to the period already undergone by the
accused. Damages were reduced to Rs. 50,000/-. Tribhuvan was held as minor and to
be dealt with in accordance with law.
Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the complainant as well as the accused, Bhawar Lal,
Mohan and Sohan have filed appeals before this Honble Supreme Court.
APPELLANTS SUBMISSIONS

[MEMORIALL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT]
[STATEMENT OF ISSUES]
!
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
A - Whether the Honble Supreme Court should exercise its discretion to grant Special
Leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Jaipur in view of the errors
apparent on the face of record and the questions of law which need to be adjudicated by this
court?
B - Whether conviction under 364A IPC is a flagrant miscarriage of justice which warrants
an interference?
C - Whether conviction of appellants under section 376 D IPC is sustainable on the mere
possibility of circumstances and an uncorroborated testimony which does not clearly
establish the guilt of the appellants?
D - Whether the instant case is an example of gross violation of canons of criminal
jurisprudence?
3!

[SUMMARY ARGUMENTS]
!
SUMMARY ARGUMENTS
1. The Honble Supreme Court should exercise its discretion and grant the Special Leave to
appeal against the judgment of the The High court of Jaipur as the conclusions of the High
Court in this case are unsupportable from the evidence on record. The inference of guilt from
circumstantial evidence, riddled with ambiguities, cannot be grounds for conviction and it
would result in grave injustice.
2. With absolutely no evidence on record to fasten the guilt of appellants under section 364
A, The High Court has acted in a perverse and improper manner by holding the appellants
guilty. There is no single evidence to support the essential ingredient of the offence i.e.
Demand for ransom. Thus the conviction which follows, is a failure of the judicial system
to its commitment to protect the innocent.
3. The guilt of the accused cannot be founded upon mere conjectures and surmises, it is to be
proved beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court has upheld the conviction of the appellants
in case of such a heinous crime under section 376D, merely on the possibility of such an
inference from the circumstances. The uncorroborated testimony of the prosecutrix who was
in the intoxicated state fails to inspire confidence. Furthermore, by holding the confessions
made by the appellants to the police officer against them, the lower courts have committed an
error of procedure which vitiates its findings. Hence, the prosecution evidence on record
leaves space for much doubt and uncertainty, falling short of proving the guilt of the
appellants.
4. The prosecution has failed to even cast a faint shadow of suspicion to set up its case under
364A and its case under 376D is not supported by sufficient evidence such that a conviction
can be based on. Thus the present case is an example of gross violation of canons of criminal
jurisprudence. It is the duty of the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all
reasonable doubts. In case of any reasonable doubt, the benefit of doubt must go to the
accused. Hence it would be against the very foundations of the criminal justice system and
the principles of natural justice if such a conviction is allowed.
4!

[ARGUMENTS ADVANCED]!
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
A. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT SHOULD EXERCISE ITS DISCRETION
AND GRANT THE SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT
OF THE HIGH COURT OF JAIPUR
Article 136 confers a wide discretion on the Supreme Court to entertain appeals in suitable
cases in the nature of a residuary or reserve power.1 Decided cases establish that an appeal
will be granted under this article where injustice has been done by disregard to the forms of
legal process, or violation of the principles of natural justice, or otherwise.2 The discretion
conferred is subject to only the wisdom and good sense of justice of the Judges.3
In Ganga Kumar Srivastava v State of Bihar,4 the Court culled out following principles: i) It
is open to this Court to interfere with the findings of fact given by the High Court, if the High
Court has acted perversely or otherwise improperly. (ii) When the evidence adduced by the
prosecution fell short of the test of reliability and acceptability and as such it is highly unsafe
to act upon it. iii) Where the appreciation of evidence and finding is vitiated by any error of
law of procedure or found contrary to the principles of natural justice, errors of record and
misreading of the evidence, or where the conclusions of the High Court are manifestly
perverse and unsupportable from the evidence on record.
In the instant case, the High court has acted improperly by upholding a conviction when the
evidence on record does not prove it conclusively. There is not even an iota of evidence to
establish a prima facie case even against the appellants under section 364 A. To convict the
appellants in the absence of any evidence at all is a travesty of justice which calls for the
interference of this Honble court.
As a normal rule, the Supreme Court does not proceed to review the evidence in criminal
appeals under Article 136, unless there is some serious legal defect or a grave irregularity by
the court below in reading the evidence, and such illegality or irregularity has resulted in
miscarriage of justice.5 Hence the Supreme Court will interfere in a finding of a fact by a
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1
Durga Shankar Mehta v Raghuraj Singh AIR [1954] SC 520.

Sanwat Singh v State of Rajasthan AIR [1961] SC 715.
3
Kunhayammed v State of Orissa [2000] 6 SCC 359 , AIR [2000] SC 2587.
4
[2005] 6 SCC 211.
5
Liyakat Mian v State of Bihar [1973] 4 SCC 39; Deepak Kumar v Ravi Virmani [2002] 2 SCC 737.!
2
5!

tribunal if the findings are based on irrelevant considerations.6 It can also interfere when the
conclusion is pure speculation and cannot be reached by any reasonable mind judicially.7
In the instant case, the lower courts have failed to subject to scrutiny, the evidence produced
by prosecution as it reveals much ambiguity and vagueness. Further the lower courts have
allowed the confession of the appellants to a police officer to be held against them, thereby
violating the procedural law of the criminal justice system. The violation of the procedural
law is an aberration of justice and the constitution, which protects the citizens from being
forced to witness against themselves. This vitiates the findings of the court and upholding a
conviction based on it would amount to negation of a constitutional commitment, which
cannot be permitted under law.
The evidence on record in this case is insufficient to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond
reasonable doubt, as the required standard in the criminal justice procedure. Therefore the
conviction of the appellants defeats the purpose of justice. In case of grave injustice, this
court is duty-bound to interfere with the findings of fact even if they have been affirmed
twice.8
The paramount consideration of the court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is
prevented.9 It is humbly submitted that in this case, the failure of the lower courts in appraisal
of evidence, violation of the procedural law and the unfairness of the conviction calls for the
interference of this Honble Court to uphold justice.
B - CONVICTION UNDER 364A IS A FLAGARANT MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE
WHICH WARRANTS AN INTERFERENCE
It is humbly submitted that in the instant case, the lower courts have grossly erred in
appraising the solidity of the evidence on record and convicting the appellants under Section
364-A of the IPC. On touchstone of probability, the prosecution case is vague and unfounded
as it has no evidence on record to support this allegation.
B.1. INGREDIENTS OF OFFENCE UNDER SEC. 364 A
According to Section 364-A, IPC, Kidnapping for ransom, etc:
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
6
Dhirajlal Girdharlal v I.T. Commissioner AIR [1955] SC 271.

Jamuna Pd. Mukhariya v Lachhi Ram AIR [1954] SC 686, [1955] 1 SCR 608.
8
Indira Kaur v Sheo Lal Kapoor [1988] 2 SCC 488-499.
9
State of Punjab v Karnail Singh [2003] 11 SCC 271.
7
6!

Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person or keeps a person in detention after such
kidnapping or abduction and threatens to cause death or hurt to such person, or by his
conduct gives rise to a reasonable apprehension that such person may be put to death or
hurt, or causes hurt or death to such person in order to compel the Government or [any
foreign State or international inter-governmental organisation or any other person] to do or
abstain from doing any act or to pay shall be punishable with death, or imprisonment for life,
and shall also be liable to fine.]
Kidnapping and abduction are defined in sections 359-361 and section 362, IPC
respectively:10
S.360. Kidnapping from India: Whoever conveys any person beyond the limits of [India]
without the consent of that person, or of some person legally authorized to consent on behalf
of that person, is said to kidnap that person from [India].
S.361. Kidnapping from lawful guardianship: Whoever takes or entices any minor under
[sixteen] years of age if a male, or under [eighteen] years of age if a female, or any person of
unsound mind, out of the keeping of the lawful guardian of such minor or person of unsound
mind, without the consent of such guardian, is said to kidnap such minor or person from
lawful guardianship.
S.362. Abduction: Whoever by force compels, or by any deceitful means induces, any person
to go from any place, is said to abduct that person.
To attract the provisions of Section 364-A what is required to be proved is (1) that the
accused kidnapped or abducted the person; and (2) kept him under detention after such
kidnapping and abduction; and (3) that the kidnapping or abduction was for ransom.11 To
apply this section it is also necessary that the accused compelled (a) The government; or (b)
any foreign state; or (c) any other persons to do or abstain from doing any act or pay any
ransom.12
It is settled position of law that for fastening the criminal liability, the prosecution or the
complainant is obliged to prove the existence of all the ingredients constituting the crime
which is normally and usually defined by a statute.13 However, in the present case, it is
unfortunate that the lower courts did not examine the necessary ingredients of Section 364 A,
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
10
Indian Penal Code 1860.

Malleshi v State Of Karnataka [2004] 8 SCC 95.
12
KD Gaur , Criminal Law Cases and Materials ( 7 edn., Universal Law Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd. 2013) 487.
13
Dr. Surajmani Stella Kujur v Durga Charan Hansdah & Anr [2001] 3 SCC 13.
11
7!

IPC.
B.2 NO EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH THE ESSENTIAL INGREDIENT OF DEMAND
FOR RANSOM
Section 364A deals with separate type of offence where ransom is a distinguishing feature.14
The term ransom has not been defined in IPC. To hold someone to ransom means to
hold someone captive and demand payment for his release.15 According to Advanced Law
Lexicon, "Ransom is a sum of money paid for redeeming a captive or prisoner of war, or a
prize. It is also used to signify a sum of money paid for the pardoning of some great offence
and or setting the offender who was imprisoned.16 Stated simply, 'ransom' is a sum of money
to be demanded to be paid for releasing a captive, prisoner or detenu.17
The essence of the offence is kidnapping and reasonable apprehension that the kidnapped
person may be done to death or hurt if the ransom money demanded is not paid.18 Before the
above section is attracted and the person is convicted the prosecution must prove its
ingredients beyond all reasonable doubts.
However, in the present case there is no evidence at all, direct or indirect to connect the
Appellants with kidnapping of the Respondent for ransom. As a matter of fact one of the
important ingredients is the threat perception coupled with the demand of money.19 There is
not even an iota of evidence that proves any of the appellants had demanded ransom or
threatened any person to commit/ abstain from doing any an act.
B.3 FAILURE OF PRINCIPLES GOVERNING FASTENING OF LIABILITY IN
CRIMINAL LAW - Generally in criminal cases the presumption of innocence casts on the
prosecutor the burden of proving every ingredient of the offence.20 A prosecutor must prove
every fact necessary to substantiate his charge against a prisoner, and that the law will
presume innocence in the absence of convincing evidence to the contrary.21 It is fundamental
principle of criminal jurisprudence that the burden lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
14
P. Liaquat Ali Khan v State Of A.P [2009] 12 SCC 707.

Concise Oxford English Dictionary (2002) 1186.
16
Advanced Law Lexicon (3rd edn ) 3932.
17
Soonam Sood @ Kamal Jeet Kaur v State of Rajasthan [2007] 5 SCC 634.
18
Shyam Babu v State of Haryana [2008] 15 SCC 418.
19
Vishwanath Gupta v State Of Uttaranchal [2007] 11 SCC 640.
20
Phipson on Evidence ( 13th edn., Sweet & Maxwell Ltd 1982).
21
Wigmore on evidence (13-Volume Set edn., Aspen Publishers 1995).
15
8!

of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.22

Rule has accordingly been laid down that unless the evidence adduced in the case is
consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and is inconsistent with that of
his innocence, the court should refrain from recording a finding of guilt of the accused.23
It is very unfortunate that the courts which have pledged to be the hallmark of justice, have
without any substantial evidence convicted the appellant for such a grave offence which
warrants a sentence to death or life imprisonment, thereby eroding the integrity of the
criminal justice system and making a mockery of justice. Thus, it is humbly submitted that in
the instant case the ingredients of the offence of 364-A are not established in order to justify
the conviction and the same should be set aside in the interests of justice.
C - CONVICTION UNDER SECTION 376 D IPC IS NOT SUSTAINABLE
As per the provisions of section 376D, IPC: Where a woman is raped by one or more persons
constituting a group or acting in furtherance of a common intention, each of those persons
shall be deemed to have committed the offence of rape and shall be punished with rigorous
imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than twenty years, but which may extend to
life which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of that persons natural life, and with
fine;
Definition of rape has been provided under section 375, IPC. In order to prove the offence
of gang rape the essential ingredients are24
(1) A woman is raped
(2) by one or more in a group of persons
(3) in furtherance of their common intention.
(4) each of the persons must be deemed to have committed gang raped
Section 376 D is a new section which specifically provides punishment where a woman is
raped by one or more persons constituting a group or acting in furtherance of a common
intention, applying the principle of joint liability under section 34, IPC.25
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
22
Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v State of Gujarat [1964] SC 1563.

Kali Ram v State Of Himachal Pradesh [1973] SCR 1 722 1974.
24
P S A Pillai, Criminal Law, Dr. K I Vibhute (12th edn., LexisNexis 2014 ) 728.
25
K.D. Gaur ,Textbook on Indian Penal Code ( 5th edn, Universal Law Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd. 2014 ) 372.
23
9!

C.1. ESSENTIAL INGREDIENT OF COMMON INTENTION NOT ESTABLISHED

BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT
The essence of the liability in terms of the offence of gang rape is the existence of common
intention.26 It is humbly submitted that in the instant case the prosecution has failed to
establish this most essential ingredient of common intention which negatives the charge.
Section 34, IPC reads Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.
When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all,
each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him
alone.
ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS OF COMMON INTENTION C. 1.1 Pre-concert and prior meeting of minds - The word common intention implies a prior
meeting of minds and participation of all of the members of the group in the execution of that
plan.27 It is not enough to have the same intention independently of each of the offenders. In
such cases, there must be criminal sharing marking out a certain measure of jointness in the
commission of offence.28 It is humbly submitted that in the instant case there is no evidence
adduced to establish the prior meeting of minds or any pre-mediated concert among the
appellants. If there is no clear and acceptable evidence on record of circumstances from
which a previous concert between accused and their participation in a joint criminal act can
be reasonably inferred, conviction with the aid of section 34 is not justified. 29
C.1.2 Act in furtherance of common intention - The sine qua non for bringing in application
of Section 34, IPC is that the act must be done in furtherance of the common intention to do a
criminal act. 30 An overt indicative of a common intention is to do a criminal act in
furtherance of a common intention of all of them.31 It is humbly submitted that there are
ambiguities related to the acts and extent of participation of each accused in the present case
and to ascertain that any of these acts were done in furtherance of a common intention, the
requirement is that the act must be done and hence it cannot be a mere conjecture or
possibility.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
26
Hanuman Prasad & Ors v State Of Rajasthan 1 SCC 507 [2009].

Pandurang Tukia and Bhillia v State of Hyderabad AIR [1955] SC 331, Khacheru Singh v State of Uttar
Pradesh AIR [1956] SC 546, Baleshwar Rai v State of Bihar [1964] Cr LJ 564.
28
Ashok Kumar v State of Haryana [2003] 2 SCC 143.
29
Zabar Singh v The State Of Uttar Pradesh AIR [1957] SC 465, [1957] Cr LJ 58.
30
Priya Patel v State Of M.P. & Anr [2006] 6 SCC 263.
31
Jumman v State of Punjab AIR [1957] SC 469; Banwari Lal v State of Uttar Pradesh AIR [1962] SC 1198;
Shiv Prasad Chunni Lal Jain v State of Maharashtra AIR [1965] SC 264.
27
10!

C.1.3 Difference between common intention and similar intention - Common intention does
not mean similar intention of several persons. They are not synonymous. They are two
different concepts of law. It is necessary that the intention of each one of the several persons
be known to each other for constituting common intention. Same intention of several
persons does not constitute common intention unless they share it with each other.32 This
Court has observed that the persons having similar intention which is not the result of preconcerted plan cannot be held guilty for the "criminal act" with the aid of Section 34.33
Several persons can simultaneously attack a man and each can have the same intention,
namely, the intention to kill, and yet none would have the common intention required by the
specific section because there was no prior meeting of minds to form a pre-arranged plan. In
a case like that, each would be individually liable for whatever injury he caused but none
would be vicariously convicted for the act of any of the others.34 Care must be taken not to
confuse same or similar intention with common intention; the partition that divides their
bounds is often very thin; nevertheless, the distinction is real and substantial, and if
overlooked, will result in miscarriage of justice. In the Court view, the inference of common
intention within the meaning of the term in Section 34 should never be reached unless it is a
necessary inference deducible from the circumstances of the case.35
It is humbly submitted that in this case, such a necessary inference of common intention does
not arise from the circumstances of the case.
C.1.4 Cogent proof of common intention - The prosecution would be required to prove premeeting of mind of accused persons prior to commission of offence of rape by substantial
evidence or by circumstantial evidence.36 Undoubtedly, it is a difficult thing to prove even
the intention of an individual and, therefore, it is all the more difficult to show the common
intention of a group of persons. But however difficult may be the task, the prosecution must
lead evidence of facts, circumstances and conduct of the accused from which their common
intention can be safely gathered.37
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
32
Dajya Moshaya Bhil v State of Maharashtra AIR [1984] SC 1717; Hanuman Prasad v State of Rajasthan
[2009] 1 SCC 507.
33
Mohan Singh & Anr. v State of Punjab AIR [1963] SC 174.
34
Pandurang v State of Hyderabad AIR [1955] SC 216.
35
Mahbub Shah v Emperor on AIR [1945] PC 118.
36
Pardeep Kumar v Union Administration [2000] 10 SCC 608.
37
Amrik Singh v State of Punjab [1972] 4 SCC (N) 42.
11!

The mode of proving common intention should be such as to exclude doubts about the
prevalence of common intention mobilizing the offenders into action. However, if there is
any doubt, then the benefit of doubt should be given to the accused.38
It is humbly submitted that in this case, the prosecution has failed to produce any substantial
or circumstantial evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a common intention existed
among the appellants. Attributing common intention to the phone calls does not hold grounds
as it gives rise to many probabilities and the guilt of the appellants is not the only conclusion.
C. 1.5 Mere presence of accused not conclusive evidence of common intention - The question
is as to whether by their mere presence these respondents could be attributed with the
common intention. The answer is clearly in the negative.39 The prosecution must prove facts
to justify an inference that all participants of the acts had shared a common intention to
commit the criminal act which was finally committed by one or more of the participants.
Mere presence of a person at the time of commission of an offence by the confederates is not,
in itself sufficient to bring his case within the purview of Section 34, unless community of
designs is proved against him.40
In the instant case, the prosecution evidence on record at the most may lead to the possibility
of inference of the presence of the appellants at the scene but it does not conclusively support
the culpability of the appellants.
C. 2. CREDIBILITY OF PROSECUTRIX IS UNDER QUESTION
C.2.1 Intoxicated state of prosecutrix casts reasonable doubt on her story - According to the
case of the prosecution and the facts on record the Respondent was intoxicated at the time the
offence is claimed to have been committed and she was found in a naked state and
completely unconscious under the effect of the drugs.
While the Prosecution has failed to prove the common intention of the Appellants, individual
liability of each of them can be ascertained only with the cogent proof of the extent of
participation and the act committed by each of the Appellants. When several persons are
associated with the commission of a crime the degree of culpability of each will depend on
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
38
Brijlala Prasad Sinha v State of Bihar AIR [1998] SC 2443; Adalat Pandit v State of Bihar [2010] 6 SCC
469.
39
State Of U.P v Sahrunnisa & Anr AIR [2009] SC 3182.
40
Bhaba Nanda Sarma v State of Assam [1977] 4 SCC 396.
12!

the mode of his participation in the crime, for the law recognizes gradations of guilt based on
the variety of ways in which a person might be associated in the act of crime.41
As per the prosecution version, the Respondent was intoxicated and unconscious, such that
she was unable to comprehend her own state of helplessness from 4.00 AM to 5.00 AM, it
cannot be expected that the Respondent would with any required level of clarity remember
the events and the people involved in the offence. The testimony of the Respondent of events
that she grasped in her state of intoxication does not inspire the confidence of the court and
cannot become the basis of conviction of any accused.
C.2.2. Uncorroborated and improbable testimony of prosecutrix fails to inspire confidence
It is no doubt true that in law the conviction of an accused on the basis of the testimony of the
prosecutrix alone is permissible, but that is in a case where the evidence of the prosecutrix
inspires confidence and appears to be natural and truthful. 42 To hold that evidence of
prosecutrix has to be accepted even if the story is improbable and belies logic, would be
violence to the principles which govern the appreciation of evidence in criminal matter.43
It cannot be lost sight of that rape causes the greatest distress and humiliation to the victim
but at the same time a false allegation of rape can cause equal distress, humiliation and
damage to the accused as well. The accused must also be protected against the possibility of
false implication . There is no presumption or any basis for assuming that the statement of
victim is always correct or without any embellishment or exaggeration.44
Conviction in a case of rape can be based solely on the testimony of the prosecutrix, where
the court is convinced about the truthfulness of the prosecutrix and there exist no
circumstances which cast a shadow of doubt over her veracity. In the instant case we do not
find her evidence to be of such quality. 45
Similarly in the instant case, the uncorroborated testimony of the Respondent alleging the
involvement of the Appellants in the offence, in the absence of any independent witness is
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
41
Hari Singh Gour, The Penal Law of India , ( Vol. I, 11th edn. 2000) 969 - 994.
Vimal Suresh Kamble v Chaluverapinake Apal S.P. [2003] 3 SCC 175.
43
Tameezuddin @ Tammu v State (NCT of Delhi) [2009] 15 SCC 566.
44
Rajoo & Ors. v State of Madhya Pradesh AIR [2009] SC 858.
45
Ramdas v State of Maharashtra [2007] 2 SCC 170.
42
13!

inadequate and cannot be entirely relied upon. Furthermore, the Sperm detection Test has
not specifically supported the guilt of any one accused casting a shadow of doubt on extent of
participation of the appellants. In the light of the arguments raised above it is humbly
submitted that the testimony of an intoxicated prosecutrix which is not supported by any
direct or circumstantial evidence is not sufficient to sustain the conviction.
C.3. CONFESSION OF APPELLANTS 1 AND 3 NOT ADMISSIBLE
C.3.1 Confession inadmissible according to Constitution and Indian Evidence Act 1872
Article 20(3) of the Constitution reads,
No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.
This constitutional provision is implemented in the criminal justice system through section 25
of Evidence Act.
Sec. 25, Indian Evidence Act46 : Confession to police officer not to be proved - No confession
made to a police office, shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence.
The word confession has nowhere been defined, but as the definition in Stephens Digest
held that the incriminating statements by the accused to the police suggesting the inference of
commission of crime were also held inadmissible.
Section 25 is broadly worded and it absolutely excludes from evidence against the accused a
confession made him to a police officer under any circumstances. S.25 covers a confession
made to a police officer before any investigation has begun or otherwise not in the course of
an investigation or after investigation.47 It!not only bars proof of admission of an offence by
an accused to a police officer or made by him while in the custody of a police officer but also
the admission contained in the confessional statement of all incriminating facts relating to the
commission of an offence.48
C.3.2 Purpose of making such confessions inadmissible - The policy underlying
behind Sections 25 and 26 is to make it a substantive rule of law that confessions whenever
and wherever made to the police, or while in the custody of the police to any person
whomsoever unless made in the immediate presence of a magistrate, shall be presumed to
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
46
Indian Evidence Act 1872.

Pakala Narayana Swami v Emperor AIR [1939] PC 47; Hussaina v Emperor AIR [1936] Lah 380.
48
Bheru Singh v State Of Rajasthan [1994] SCC 2 467.
47
14!

have been obtained under the circumstances mentioned in Section 24 and therefore,
inadmissible, except so far as is provided by Section 27 of the Act.49
In the Introduction to the Evidence Act50 it was observed that the section was inserted in
order to prevent the practice of torture by the police for the purpose of extorting confessions
from persons in their custody, in the hope of professional advancement. The Legislature in
enacting this had in view the malpractices of police officers in extorting confessions from
accused persons in order to gain credit by securing convictions and those malpractices went
to the length of positive torture.51
The same was observed by this Court case in State of NCT of Delhi v Navjot Sandhu,52 that it
is an undeniable fact the police in our country still resort to crude methods of investigation,
especially in mofussil and rural areas and they suffer many handicaps, such as lack of
adequate personnel, training equipment and professional independence.
S.25 of the Evidence Act was enacted to put a stop to the extortion of confession, by taking
away from the police officers the advantage of proving such extorted confession during the
trial of the accused persons.53 Therefore, Inadmissibility of a confessional statement made to
a police officer under Section 25 of the Evidence Act is based on the ground of public policy.
The Law Commission of India in its 185th Report on review of the Indian Evidence Act
observed that we are compelled to say that confessions cannot replace the need for scientific
and professional investigation.
In Ibrahim v Emperor 54 Lord Sumner gave the history of rules of common law relating to
confessions, and pointed out that they were as old as Lord Hale. Lord Sumner observed that
in Reg. v Thompson55 and earlier in Rex v Warrickshall56 it was ruled: A confession forced
from the mind by the flattery of hope, or by the torture of fear, comes in so questionable a
shape, when it is to be considered as the evidence, that no credit ought to be given to it. Lord
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
49
Commr. Of Delhi v Narender Singh [2006] 4 SCC 265.

The Indian evidence act (London, Macmillan and Co.) 165.
51
per MAHMOOD, J, in Queen Empress v Babulal, I.L.R. [1884] 6 All. 509; State Of Gujarat v Anirudh Singh
And Another AIR [1997] SC 2780.
52
AIR [2005] SC 3820 3852.
53
Noor Aga v State of Punjab [2008] 16 SCC 417- 457.
54
[1914] A.C. 599.
55
[1893] 2 Q.B. 12.
56
[1783] 1 Leach 263.
50
15!

Sumner added: It is not that the law presumes such statements to be untrue but from the
danger of receiving such evidence Judges have thought it better to reject it for the due
administration of justice. Accordingly when hope or fear were not in question, such
statements were long regularly admitted as relevant, though with some reluctance, and
subject to strong warnings as to their weight.57
It is humbly submitted that applying the above mentioned principles in the instant case, the
confessions of appellant no. 1 and 3 are completely barred from being admitted in the
evidence and hence cannot be proved against them. It is pitiable if an alleged confession
made to a police officer spoken to by him is accepted as substantive evidence in violation of
S.25 to convict him.58
C.4. EVIDENCE ON RECORD FAILS TO FASTEN INDIVIDUAL LIABILITY TO
APPELLANTS
C.4.1 Liability Qua Appellant No.1. (Bhawar Lal)
C.4.1.1. - Confession of Appellant No.1 It is barred by section 25 of Evidence Act and
hence the self-incriminating information provided by Appellant is not admissible.
C.4.1.2. - Confession of Tribhuvan It cannot be proved against Bhawar Lal as a confession
made to a police officer is inadmissible not only against the accused person making it but
also inadmissible against the co-accused.59 The statement given by an accused involving
himself in the crime and also implicating third person cannot be proved legally in the court as
it will be conflicting with sections 25 and 26. If such evidence or confession cannot be
proved then the occasion for utilising that statement against another person doesnt arise.60
C.4.1.3 Recovery of knife Recovery of a knife from the room of Bhawar Lal does not
prove his involvement in the alleged crime. Being a chowkidar, the presence of such weapons
in his room is not so inexplicable that his guilt is the only inference that arises from this
evidence.
C.4.1.4 Suspicious conduct of the complainant To sustain the charges of 364A,
kidnapping or abduction of the person and demand for ransom are to be proved. In the instant
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
57
Reg. v Baldry [1852] 5 Cox C.C. 523.

Paulose v State of Kerala [1990] Cr LJ 100 -103 (Ker).
59
Nagu Jhalla v Emperor 36 IC 480.
60
Anant Kumar v State of M.P. [1993] Cr LJ 1498 - 1500 (MP).
58
16!

case, the complainant is of 20 years. Hence offence of kidnapping is not attracted. So far as
abduction is concerned, there is no explanation to the fact as to why the complainant came
out of the hostel at about 11:00 p.m. when all the inmates had gone for winter vacation. The
uncorroborated story of the complainant that she was forcefully taken to the room by the
appellant no. 1, in the absence of any direct or indirect witness does not inspire confidence.
Moreover, there is no evidence of any demand for ransom by the appellant no.1.
Hence it is humbly submitted that the common intention of Bhawar Lal and his involvement
in the commission of the gang rape and kidnapping for ransom is not sustainably established
in the absence of credible evidence.
C.4.2 Liability qua Appellant No. 2 (Mohan)
There is not even an iota of evidence to fasten the liability of Appellant No.2. As per the
evidence on record, Appellant No.2 failed to establish his plea of alibi but this in no way
implies his participation in the commission of the gang rape. The court has observed that
failure on part of the accused to establish plea of alibi does not help the prosecution and it
cannot be held that the accused was present at the scene of the occurrence, the prosecution
must prove it by positive evidence.61 Thus, the mere failure on the part of the accused to
establish the plea of alibi, shall not lead to an inference that the accused was present at the
scene of occurrence.62 It is humbly submitted in the event of failure of the prosecution to
establish his culpability, section 376(D) and section 364 A have no application as far as this
Appellant is concerned.
C.4.3 Liability qua Appellant No.3 (Sohan)
The only evidence against appellant no.3 is his confession which is hit by section 25 and
hence inadmissible. Merely his presence at the scene does not make him liable to be
convicted for such a heinous crime. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the High
court has reduced the sentence of Appellant No.3 to the period already undergone by him.
The conduct of Appellant No.3 in appealing to this court when he is not subject to any further
imprisonment strongly reflects that he wants to prove his innocence and remove the social
stigma attached to him by virtue of his wrongful conviction. Criminal jurisprudence forbids
conviction of an innocent person.
D GROSS VIOLATION OF CANONS OF CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
61
Sakharam v State of M.P. AIR [1952] SC 758; State of Haryana v Prabhu AIR [1979] SC 1019; Shankar Lal
v State of Maharashtra AIR [1981] SC 765.
62
Dasari Siva Prasad Reddy v Public Prosecutor, High Court A.P. AIR [2004] SC 4383.
17!

D.1. Burden of proof in criminal law - The court must bear in mind that human nature is too
willing, when faced with brutal crimes, to spin stories out of strong suspicions. Though an
offence may be gruesome and revolt the human conscience, an accused can be convicted only
on legal evidence and not on surmises and conjecture. The law does not permit the court to
punish the accused on the basis of a moral conviction or suspicion alone. The burden of proof
in a criminal trial never shifts and it is always the burden of the prosecution to prove its case
beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of acceptable evidence. In fact, it is a settled principle
of criminal jurisprudence that the more serious the offence, the stricter the degree of proof
required, since a higher degree of assurance is required to convict the accused.63
It is humbly submitted that the prosecution has failed to discharge its burden satisfactorily in
the light of uncertainties and insufficiency of evidences in the instant case.
D.2 Beyond Reasonable Doubt - Considered as a whole the prosecution story may be true;
but between may be true and must be true there is inevitably a long distance to travel and
the whole of this distance must be covered by legal, reliable and unimpeachable evidence
[before an accused can be convicted].64
In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra,65 this Court observed that it is well
settled that the prosecution's case must stand or fall on its own legs and cannot derive any
strength from the weakness of the defence put up by the accused. This Court laid down
following principles:
(1) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully
established;
(2) The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the
accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the
accused is guilty;
(3) The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency;
(4) They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
63
Paramjeet Singh @ Pamma v State Of Uttarakhand [2010] 10 SCC 439.

Sarwan Singh Rattan Singh v State of Punjab AIR [1957] SC 637.
65
AIR [1984] SC 1622; Padala Veera Reddy v State of A.P AIR [1990] SC 79.
64
18!

(5) There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for
the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human
probability the act must have been done by the accused. 66
In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the settled law is that the circumstances from
which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such circumstances must
be conclusive in nature. 67 Moreover, all the circumstances should be complete and there
should be no gap left in the chain of evidence.68
The conviction in the present case is not standing the test of the canons of criminal
jurisprudence, as the guilt of the appellants is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
D.3. Benefit of Doubt - Another golden thread which runs through the web of the
administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence
adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence,
the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. This principle has a special
relevance in cases wherein the guilt of the accused is sought to be established by
circumstantial evidence.69
It is humbly submitted that the appellants should be given the benefit of doubt, as the
prosecution case is fraught with uncertainties. Therefore, it is pleaded that it will be gross
violation of canons of criminal jurisprudence if the appellants are not acquitted. So in the
interest of justice the conviction be set aside.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
66
Vinay D. Nagar v State of Rajasthan [2008] 5 SCC 597.

Eradu v State of Hyderabad AIR [1956] SC 316; Hukam Singh v State of Rajasthan AIR [1977] SC
1063; Earabhadrappa v State of Karnataka AIR [1983] SC 446, State of U.P. v Sukhbasi AIR [1985] SC
1224, Balwinder Singh v State of Punjab AIR [1987] SC 350, Ashok Kumar Chatterjee v State of M.P. AIR
[1989] SC 1890.
68
C. Chenga Reddy v. State of A.P [1996] 10 SCC 193.
69
Kali Ram v State of Himachal Pradesh [1973] 2 SCC 808.
67
19!

[PRAYER FOR RELIEF]
!
!
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
THEREFORE, in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is
most humbly prayed before this Honble Court to be graciously pleased to hold that :
1. The present appeal is maintainable.
2. The conviction of the Appellants No.1-3 be set aside.
AND PASS ANY OTHER ORDER, DIRECTION, OR RELIEF THAT IT MAY DEEM FIT
IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, FAIRNESS, EQUITY AND GOOD CONSCIENCE.
FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE APPELLANT SHALL DUTY BOUND FOREVER
PRAYS.
PLACE:
SD/-
20!

Accused Title

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

Accused Title

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

III AMITY NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2015

TEAM CODE : ALSJ023

BEFORE THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION NO. ________/2015

BHANWAR LAL...APPELLANT NO.1

THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN RESPONDENT

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

AMITY NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2015!

ESTABLISH THE GUILT OF THE APPELLANT. .9

AMITY NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2015!

AMITY MOOT NATIONAL COURT COMPETITION, 2015!

Sanwat Singh v State of Rajasthan AIR [1961] SC 715.

Kunhayammed v State of Orissa [2000] 6 SCC 359 , AIR [2000] SC 2587.

Ganga Kumar Srivastava v State of Bihar [2005] 6 SCC 211.

Liyakat Mian v State of Bihar [1973] 4 SCC 39.

Deepak Kumar v Ravi Virmani [2002] 2 SCC 737.

Dhirajlal Girdharlal v I.T. Commissioner AIR [1955] SC 271.

Jamuna Pd. Mukhariya v Lachhi Ram AIR [1954] SC 686.

Indira Kaur v Sheo Lal Kapoor [1988] 2 SCC 488-499.

State of Punjab v Karnail Singh [2003] 11 SCC 271.

Malleshi v State Of Karnataka [2004] 8 SCC 95.

P. Liaquat Ali Khan v State Of A.P [2009] 12 SCC 707.

Shyam Babu v State of Haryana [2008] 15 SCC 418.

Vishwanath Gupta v State Of Uttaranchal [2007] 11 SCC 640.

Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v State of Gujarat [1964] SC 1563.

Kali Ram v State Of Himachal Pradesh [1973] SCR 1 722 1974.

Hanuman Prasad & Ors v State Of Rajasthan 1 SCC 507 [2009].

Pandurang Tukia and Bhillia v State of Hyderabad AIR [1955] SC 331.

Khacheru Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh AIR [1956] SC 546.

Baleshwar Rai v State of Bihar [1964] Cr LJ 564.

Ashok Kumar v State of Haryana [2003] 2 SCC 143.

Zabar Singh v The State Of Uttar Pradesh AIR [1957] SC 465.

AMITY MOOT NATIONAL COURT COMPETITION, 2015

Jumman v State of Punjab AIR [1957] SC 469.

Banwari Lal v State of Uttar Pradesh AIR [1962] SC 1198.

Dajya Moshaya Bhil v State of Maharashtra AIR [1984] SC 1717.

Mohan Singh & Anr. v State of Punjab AIR [1963] SC 174.

Pandurang v State of Hyderabad AIR [1955] SC 216.

Mahbub Shah v Emperor on AIR [1945] PC 118.

Pardeep Kumar v Union Administration [2000] 10 SCC 608.

Amrik Singh v State of Punjab [1972] 4 SCC (N) 42.

Brijlala Prasad Sinha v State of Bihar AIR [1998] SC 2443;

Adalat Pandit v State of Bihar [2010] 6 SCC 469.

State Of U.P v Sahrunnisa & Anr AIR [2009] SC 3182.

Bhaba Nanda Sarma v State of Assam [1977] 4 SCC 396.

Vimal Suresh Kamble v Chaluverapinake Apal S.P. [2003] 3 SCC 175.

Tameezuddin @ Tammu v State (NCT of Delhi) [2009] 15 SCC 566.

Rajoo & Ors. v State of Madhya Pradesh AIR [2009] SC 858.

Ramdas v State of Maharashtra [2007] 2 SCC 170.

Pakala Narayana Swami v Emperor AIR [1939] PC 47.

Hussaina v Emperor AIR [1936] Lah 380.

Bheru Singh v State Of Rajasthan [1994] SCC 2 467.

Commr. Of Delhi v Narender Singh [2006] 4 SCC 265.

Queen Empress v Babulal, I.L.R. [1884] 6 All. 509

State Of Gujarat v Anirudh Singh And Another AIR [1997] SC 2780.

State of NCT of Delhi v Navjot Sandhu AIR [2005] SC 3820 3852.

Noor Aga v State of Punjab [2008] 16 SCC 417- 457.

Ibrahim v Emperor [1914] A.C. 599.

Reg. v Thompson [1893] 2 Q.B. 12.

Rex v Warrickshall [1783] 1 Leach 263.

Reg. v Baldry [1852] 5 Cox C.C. 523.

Paulose v State of Kerala [1990] Cr LJ 100 -103 (Ker).

Nagu Jhalla v Emperor 36 IC 480.

Anant Kumar v State of M.P. [1993] Cr LJ 1498 - 1500 (MP).