Nobility Prosecution

-TEAM CODE: NOBILITY
IN THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT OF DELHI

AT DELHI
REKHA DAS AND ORS

(Defendant)
V.
STATE OF DELHI
(Prosecution)
On Submission to the
IN THE DISTRICT AND SESSION COURT OF DELHI
AT DELHI
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION
2nd AURO UNIVERSITY NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2016
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OFABBREVIATIONS....III
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES...IV-VIII
STATEMENT OFJURISDICTION.................................................................................IX
STATEMENT OF FACTS....X
STATEMENT OF CHARGES........XI
STATEMENT OF ISSUES....XII
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS............................................................................................XIII
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED.XIV-XXVIII
PRAYER...............................................................................................................................XXIX
TABLE OF ABBREVATION
ABBREVIATIONS
WORDS
AIR
All India Reporter
ANR
ANOTHER
App.
Application
C.J.
Chief Justice
IPC
Indian Penal Code
No.
Number
p.
Page
Edn.
Edition
SC
Supreme Court
SCC
Supreme Court Cases
SCJ
Supreme Court Journal
SCR
Supreme Court Review
Vs.
Versus
Vol.
Volume
ORS
Others
&
And
M.P
Madhya Pradesh
U.P
Uttar Pradesh
Sec
Section
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
BOOKS REFERRED: Ratanlal and DhirajlalsLaw of Crimes, Vol I, 27
th
Edn. Reprint 2013,
Bharat Law House, New Delhi.

Ratanlal and DhirajlalsLaw of Crimes, Vol II, 25
th
Edn. Reprint 2007,
Bharat Law House, New Delhi.

BasusCode of Criminal procedure, Vol I, 10
th
Edn. 2007, Ashoka Law
House, New Delhi.

th
C D Field, Expert Evidence, 4 Edn. Reprint 2009, Delhi Law House.
th
R A Nelsons Indian Penal Code, 9 Edn. 2003, LexisNexis Butterworths.
th
Justice V VRaghavan, Law of Crimes, 5 Edn. Reprint 2001, India Law
House, New Delhi.
th
Sarkar on Criminal Procedure, 8 Edn. Reprint 2004, India Law House.
th
S V JogaRao, Law of Evidence, 17 Edn. 2001, Butterworths, New Delhi.
st
Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, Law of Evidence, 21 Edn. Reprint 2005, Wadhwa
and Company, Nagpur.
BasusIndian Penal Code (Law of Crimes), Vol I, 9
th
Edn. Reprint 2004,
Ashoka Law House.
WEBSITES REFERRED:
www.lexisnexis.com
www.manupatra.com
www.judis.nic.in
DICTIONARIES:
Oxford Advance learners dictionary, 8th edition, Oxford university press, 2010
Concise Legal dictionary, Allahabad Law House,Faridabad,2004
Blacks Law Legal Dictionary
STATUTE REFFERED:
1.
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
2.
The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

3.
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872

4. The Constitution of India, 1950
CASES CITED AND REFERRED

1. Ram Saran Mahto and Anr. Vs. The State of Bihar MANU/SC/0550/1999
2. Earabhadrappa alias Krishnappa v. State of Karnataka 1983 Cri LJ 846
3. Vijaya v State of Maharashtra (2003) 8 SCC 296
4. Mehboob Ali and Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan MANU/SC/1228/2015
5. Mohmed Inavatullah v. The State of Maharashtra MANU/SC/0166/1975

6. State of UP. v Deoman Upadhyaya AIR 1960 SC 1129
7. Prabhu Kulandaivelu vs State MANU/SCOR/15487/2015
8. Md. Sharif v. State of Orissa 1996 Crl.L.J. 2826
9. Dr. Nisha Malviya And Anr. vs State Of M.P 2000 CriLJ 671
10. Satpal Singh v. State of Haryana 2010 Cri.L.J.4283
11. Anil Kumar vs. State of Delhi 2011 (5) AD (Delhi) 351
12. Sheo Shankar Singh v. State of Jharkhand and Anr (2011) 3 SCC 654
13. State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu (2005) 11 SCC 600
14. Vishal Yadav vs. State Of U.P Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012
15. Muniappan v. State of Tamil Nadu (2010) 9 SCC 567
16. Amit singh Bhikamsingh Thakur v. State of Maharashtra (2007) 2 SCC 310
17. Hardip Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab CRA-S-1226-SB-2000 (O&M)
18. Tondi and Ors. v. The State of U.P. 1975 Cr. L.J. 950
19. Friday Vs. Sajeev CRL.A.No. 2165 of 2007
20. Mahavir And Anr. vs State Of U.P. 1990 CriLJ 1605
21. Upendra Nath Ghose v. Emperor AIR 1940 Cal 561
22. State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava AIR 1992 SC 840
23. Esher Singh v. State Of Andhra Pradesh 2004 (4) ALT 2
24. State v. Navjot Sandhu 2005 Cri LJ 3950(SC)
25. Mohammad Usman Mohammad HussainManiyar&Ors v. State Of Maharashtra 1981

AIR 1062
26. State of U.P. v. Girijashankar Misra AIR 1985 SC 439
27. Subhas v. State of U.P, 1985 CrLJ 1807
28. Trimukh Marothi Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 1 SCC Crl 80
29. Ram Narain Poply v. C.B.I AIR 2003 SC 2748
30. Arun Bhakta Thulu v. State of West Bengal CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1969 OF 2008
31. Mohammed Ajmal Mohammad Amir Kasab Abu Mujahid v. State of Maharashtra
MANU/SC/0792/2015
32. State of Maharashtra Vs. Fahim Harshad Mohammad Yusuf Ansari and Anr AIR
2012 SC3565
33. Radhakant Yadav Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors Criminal Appeal Nos. 1247 and
1248 of 2012
34. Reg. v. Cruse, 1838 C&P 541
35. Parichhat v. State Of Madhya Pradesh, 1972 Cr LJ 322(SC)
36. Nayab Singh v. State of Rajasthan 2007 (3) Raj 2077
37. State v Dinakar Bandu (1969) 72 Bom LR 905
38. Sukhram v. State of Maharashtra AIR 2007 SC 3050
39. Son Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, A.I.R. 1978 SC 1142
40. Nika Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh 1972 CrLJ 1317
41. Mangal Singh v. State of Punjab, 1996 CrLJ 3258, 3262 (P&H)
42. Ranganayaki v. State by Inspector of Police, AIR 2005 SC 418

43. Naseem Ahmed v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1974 SC 691
44. Sharad Birdhich and Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622
45. Palaniswamy v. State, AIR 1968 Bom 127
46. Suresh Vs. State of Rajasthan MANU/RH/0469/2008
47. Bhoori Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan MANU/RH/0265/2008
48. Ummed Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan MANU/RH/0168/2003
49. Vishnu Dutt Sharma Vs. Respondent: State MANU/RH/0385/2006
50. Khim Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand MANU/SC/0592/2014
51. Kalu Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan MANU/RH/0474/2004
52. Ram Kishan and Ors. Vs. State and Ors MANU/DE/1191/2015
53. MO Shamshudin v State of Kerala, (1995)3 SCC 351
54. State of Kerala v Thomas, (1986) 2 SCC 411
55. Rameshwar v State of Rajasthan, AIR 1952 SC 54
56. Nizam V. State of Rajasthan & Ors MANU//SC/0964/2015
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The counsels humbly submit Memorandum on the behalf of the prosecution in the matter of
Rekha Das and Anr vs. State of Delhi.
The council for the prosecution has endorsed their pleading before the
District and Session Court of Delhi under the aegis of section 209 of CrPc.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
For the sake of brevity and the convenience of this Honble High Court the Counsels for the
Petitioner would summarize the gist and the narration of the facts very briefly in the
chronological order:Trisha Das was born to Rekha Das and Siddhartha Das. They split and Rekha left Trisha in
Mumbai, she moved to Delhi. There she met Suhas Kumar, they split up with but remain good
friends. Rekha settled down with Jacob Mukerjee and called Trisha to live with her.
10
Trisha was introduced to Shobhit Mukerjee, son of Jacoob Mukerjee from an earlier
marriage, they indulge in illicit relationship and Trisha got pregnant. It was alleged,
Rekha did not approve of the relationship and Trisha had to abort her child due to her
pressure.
On 24 Apr 2012, Shobhit received a breakup SMS. Rekha claimed that she had gone to
the US for higher studies. Shobhit approached police to file a complaint but it was not
registered. He confronted Rekha for Trishas whereabouts. She told him that Trisha did
not want to be in relationship with him and gone to US. He told her passport was in his
custody to which he replied they got another passport. Rekha was kept under
surveillance.
Rekhas driver Sahu was arrested in an unrelated case and during his interrogation he
allegedly revealed details about Trisha's murder. On 23 May 2012, local police found a
decomposed body at Kausani forest, the skeletal remains were not linked with Trisha
Das.
As per the FIR filed by Delhi police, Sahu gave a statement to the police that the murder
was planned by Rekha, who discussed the plan with Suhas Kumar. Allegedly Rekha
rented an Opel Corsa for the abduction and killing and to dispose of the body. Trisha
was picked by Rekha, Suhas and driver Shyam Sahu in the car where Kumar allegedly
strangled her. Police said that after murder, Trisha's body was taken to Rekha's house
where it was put in a bag and stuffed in the boot of the car. The early morning,the three
accused drove to the village of Kotpuli, Kausani forest area, the accused poured petrol
over the bag in which body was stuffed (the driver brought petrol from Shri Ram petrol
pump situated on the High way connecting Kotputli forest) and set it ablaze, police said.
On Aug 25,2015, Delhi police arrested Rekha alleging her of murdering Trisha. Rekha
was charged under sec. 364,313,302, 201,120B and 34 of IPC. On Aug 26,2015,Suhas
Kumar and Sahu was also arrested and charged under sec. 364, 302, 201, 120-B and 34
of the IPC.
STATEMENT OF CHARGES
CHARGES I, II, III, IV & V

11
ACCUSED 1- REKHA DAS

ACCUSED 2- SHYAM SAHU
ACCUSED 3- SUHAS KUMAR
ACCUSED 1, 2 AND 3 HAVE BEEN CHARGED WITH CRIMINAL

CONSPIRACY, KIDNAPPING OR ABDUCTING IN ORDER TO MUDER,
MURDER, CAUSING DISAPPEARANCE OF EVIDENCE OF OFFENCE, OR
GIVING
FALSE
INFORMATION
TO
SCREEN
OFFENDER.
UNDER
SECTION 120 B, SECTION 364, SECTION 302, SECTION 201 READ WITH
SECTION 34 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860.
ACCUSED 1 HAS BEEN CHARGED WITH CAUSING MISCARRIAGE
WITHOUT WOMANS CONSENT UNDER SECTION 313.
12
STATEMENT OF ISSUE
ISSUE 1-
Whether Accused 1, 2 and 3 are liable for the offences
charged under section 120B and 302 read with section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code
ISSUE 2- i) Whether Accused 1, 2 and 3 are liable for the offences

charged under section 201 and 364 of the Indian Penal Code.
AND
ii)
Whether
Accused 1 is liable for the offence charged under
section 313 of the Indian Penal Code.
13
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
1. Whether Accused 1, 2 and 3 are liable for the offences charged
under section 120B and 302 read with section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code.
This particular issue contests that all the accused are liable for the charges
of respective offences (i) Criminal conspiracy as there was commission of
an illegal act and agreement between the accused
(ii) Section 302 IPC, as the mens rea, actus rea is present in this case.
Moreover chain of circumstantial evidences is complete (iii) Section 34 of
IPC, as there was a criminal act done by the several person with common
intention and they all participated in committing that criminal act.
2.
(i)Whether Accused 1, 2 and 3 are liable for the offences

charged under section 201 and 364 of the Indian Penal
Code.
This particular issue contests that all the accused are liable for the charges
of (i) Section 201, as fabrication of evidences have taken place (ii) section
364, as all the accused abducted Trisha in order to kill her.
(ii) Whether Accused 1 is liable for the offence charged under

section 313
14
This issue contests that the accused 1 is liable for the offence charged
under section 313 as she forced Trisha to abort her child without her
consent.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
ISSUE 1: THE ACCUSED ARE GUILTY OF CONSPIRACY ALONG
WITH ACT DONE BY SEVERAL PERSONS IN FURTHERANCE OF A
COMMON INTENTION
It is humbly contended before this Honble Court that the accused Rekha
Mukherjee, Suhas Kumar and Shyam Sahu are guilty of the offences under
Sec 120 B along with Sec 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. In the instant
matter there existed conspiracy to kidnap or abduct in order to murder Ms.
Trisha Das thereby the action of murdering Ms. Trisha Das took place in
furtherance of the common intention.1
Ratanlal and DhirajlalsLaw of Crimes, Vol I, 27thEdn. Reprint 2013, Bharat Law House, New Delhi.
15
It is not for the Prosecution to meet any and every hypothesis suggested by
the Accused, however extravagant and fanciful it might be.2
[A] ACCUSED ARE LIABLE FOR CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY
Criminal Conspiracy as defined under Sec. 120A consists of an agreement

between two or more persons to commit an illegal act or a legal act by
illegal means.3
The elements of a Criminal Conspiracy are: Agreement between two or
more people by whom the agreement is effected, a criminal object which
may be either the ultimate aim of the agreement, or may constitute the
means, or one of the means by which that aim is to be accomplished.4
[A.1] Commission of An Illegal Act And Agreement Between The
Accused
From the facts of the instant case, it can be established that there was
commission of an illegal act on the part of the defendants.
Of sheer necessity criminal conspiracy has to be read in conjunction with
section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act5.
2
State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, A.I.R. 1992 SC 840.
Esher Singh v. State Of Andhra Pradesh, 2004 (4) ALT 28; HALSBURYS LAW OF ENGLAND 44(Lord
Hailshameds, 4thed 1987)
State v. Navjot Sandhu, 2005 Cri LJ 3950(SC)
th
BasusCode of Criminal procedure, Vol I, 10 Edn. 2007, Ashoka Law House, New Delhi.
16
Where there is reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons

have conspired together to commit an offence, anything said, done or
written by any one of such persons in reference to their common intention,
after the time when their intention was first entertained by any of them is
a relevant fact against each of the persons believed to be so conspiring, as
well as for the purpose of proving the existence of conspiracy as for the
purpose of showing that any such person was party to it.
In the case of Mohammad Usman Mohammad HussainManiyar&Ors
v. State Of Maharashtra6 it was held that for an offence under section
120-A,
IPC,
the
prosecution
need
not
necessarily
prove
that
the
perpetrators expressly agreed to do or caused to be done the illegal act,

the agreement may be proved by necessary implication.
In the case of State of U.P. v. Girijashankar Misra7 it was held by the

apex court that Since conspiracy is often hatched up in utmost secrecy it is
mostly impossible to prove conspiracy by direct evidence. It has, oftener
than not, to be inferred from the acts, statements and conduct of the
parties to the conspiracy.8
The difficulty in adducing direct/positive evidence as proof of guilty mind
has been recognized by the courts, especially where an offence has taken
place in privacy.9
Mohammad Usman Mohammad Hussain Maniyar& Ors vs. State of Maharashtra 1981 AIR 1062
State of U.P vs. Lakshmi Brahman AIR 1985 SC 439
Subhas, 1985 CrLJ 1807
Trimukh Marothi Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 1 SCC Crl 80
17
In the case of Ram Narain Poply v. C.B.I., it was held that conspiracy is a
continuing offence which continues to subsist till it is executed or
frustrated by choice of necessity. During its subsistence whenever any one
of the conspirators does an act or series of acts he would be held guilty
under section 120 B of the IPC10
In the instant case from the evidences it can be concluded that there was a
proper agreement between the parties and in furtherance of that
agreement they proceeded with an illegal act.11
As stated by Sahu in his confession before the police regarding the plot
made by the accused. Though from the preview of Section 26 the
confession before the police is not admissible but on the other hand from
the interpretation of Section 27 the evidences that are recovered from the
confession can be taken as relevant evidences and it can also be used as
corroborative evidence. 1. Recovery of the body from the forest Area 2.
The Petrol pump attendant firstly recognized the driver and then became
hostile. 3.The DNA of the body matched with Trisha Das. 4. The telephone
location of Trisha and Suhas matched and was found near the Kasuni
forest area 5. Both the mobile phones, of Rekha and Sahu were found
missing together, which cannot be a mere coincidence. 6. Calling up Trisha
by deceitful means and then killing her, is a prima facie evidence of the
prior plotting and planning.
In Arun Bhakta Thulu v. State of West Bengal, the Court held that the
offence could be proved by circumstantial evidence also. The principal fact
or factum probandum may be proved indirectly by means of certain
inferences drawn from factum probans, i.e., the evidentiary facts. To put it
10 AIR 2003 SC 2748
th
11 C D Field, Expert Evidence, 4 Edn. Reprint 2009, Delhi Law House.
18
differently, circumstantial evidence is not direct to the point in issue but

consists of evidence of various other facts which are so closely associated
with the facts in issue that taken together. They form a chain of
circumstances from which the existence of the principal fact can be legally
inferred or presumed.
The apex court in the case of Mohammed Ajmal Mohammad Amir
Kasab Abu Mujahid v. State of Maharashtra12 And State of
Maharashtra Vs. Fahim Harshad Mohammad Yusuf Ansari 13 and
Anr.AND Radhakant Yadav Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors 14 was
of the view that the Court shall convict Accused if guilt of Accused
proved by congent and corroborative evidences on record
All of these evidences together make a strong chain that can sufficiently
prove that there was prior agreement between the parties and in
furtherance of that there was an illegal act. 15 Thus it is clear from the
materials available on record that there existed a common design between
all these accused to do the illegal act for which the deliberate preparations
were done. Therefore, it is humbly submitted that conspiracy on part of the
accused can be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
B] ACCUSED ARE LIABLE FOR ACTS DONE BY SEVERAL PERSONS
IN FURTHERANCE OF COMMON INTENTION
12 MANU/SC/0792/2015
13 AIR 2012 SC3565
14 Criminal Appeal Nos. 1247 and 1248 of 2012
15 ibid 7
19
Section 34 of the Penal Code creates no specific offence. It only lays down
a rule of evidence that if two or more persons commit a crime in
furtherance of a common intention, each of them will be held liable jointly
on the principle of group liability.16
To attract the principle of Sec. 34, the following three conditions must
exist, viz.,
A criminal act must be done by several persons;

There must be a common intention of all to commit that criminal act:
There must be participation of all in the commission of the offence in furtherance of that
common intention.17
C] THE ACCUSED ARE GUILTY OF MURDER

It is humbly contended before this Honble Court that the accused Rekha
Mukherjee, Suhas Kumar and Shyam Sahu are guilty of the offence of
murder under section 302, IPC, punishable under section 302 read with
section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, considering Motive and Intention
on the part of the accused [C.1] Complete Chain Establishing the guilt of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt [C.2] Corroborating Circumstantial
Evidence [C.3].
It was held in the case of Nayab Singh v. State of Rajasthan 18 that the
essestials of a murder are intention, motive and knowledge. In the
instant
case,
all
the
three
ingredients
are
present
and
fully
16 Reg. v. Cruse, 1838 C&P 541

17 Parichhat v. State Of Madhya Pradesh, 1972 Cr LJ 322(SC)
18 Nayab Singh vs State of Rajasthan, 2007(3) Raj 2077.
20
established.
C.1 MOTIVE AND INTENTION ON THE PART OF THE ACCUSED
Sec 8, Evidence Act stipulates that any fact is relevant which shows or
constitutes motive or preparation for any fact in issue or relevant fact. 19 It is
further pertinent to note that if there is motive in doing an act, then the
adequacy of that motive is not in all cases necessary. Heinous offences have
been committed for very slight motive.20
The recent case of Sukhram v. State of Maharashtra21 states that,
Motive is that factor which moves or induces a person to act in a certain
manner. Motive refers to that which impels one to act in a particular way.22
The Apex court in the case of Son Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, held that
Previous altercations between parties are admitted to show motive.23
The fact that the relations of the accused with the deceased were strained
would, in the absence of any cogent explanation by him, point to his guilt. 24
In the view of the honble court in the case of Mangal Singh v. State of
Punjab25, exchange of hot words and disagreement by the accused with the
19 R A Nelsons Indian Penal Code, 9thEdn. 2003, LexisNexis Butterworths.
20 State v Dinakar Bandu (1969) 72 Bom LR 905
21 Sukhram v. State of Maharashtra AIR 2007 SC 3050.
22 6 V.P. Sarathi, LAW OF EVIDENCE, 60 (6th edn., 2006)
23 Son Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, A.I.R. 1978 SC 1142
24 Nika Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh 1972 CrLJ 1317
21
deceased few days prior to the incident can be enough motive to kill a
person. The supreme Court further gave a view in the case of Ranganayaki
v. State by Inspector of Police 26, the mere fact that prosecution failed to
translate mental disposition of the accused into clear evidence does not
mean that no mental condition existed in the mind of the assailant27.
In the instant case, the motive of the accused can be clearly established,
taking into consideration, the social stigma attached with the illict relation of
Rekhas daughter with her step brother and pre-marriage pregnancy of
Trisha. In the light of this Rekha conspired with the other two and murdered
Trisha.
C.2 CHAIN OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCES IS COMPLETE.
The circumstantial evidence in a case where there is a link of causation, if

established, proves that the act was committed by the person so accused.28
It is a general proposition that conduct of the accused and other

circumstantial evidence are also
relevant factors in proving the guilt of the accused. 29 So in the instant case
25 Mangal Singh v. State of Punjab, 1996 CrLJ 3258, 3262 (P&H)
26 Ranganayaki v. State by Inspector of Police, AIR 2005 SC 418
27 ibid 24
28 Naseem Ahmed v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1974 SC 691; Sharad Birdhich and Sarda v. State of
Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622
22
where the case is resting on the circumstantial evidences we must consider

the chain of circumstantial evidence.
The accused can be held liable on the basis of the circumstantial evidences alone
In the case of Suresh Vs. State of Rajasthan
30
it was held that when
chain of circumstantial evidence is complete and incapable of any

explanation or any other hypothesis than of guilt of accused, then the
accused will be held liable for the offence.
Similar view was held in the case of Bhoori Singh Vs. State of
Rajasthan31, Ummed Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan 32, Vishnu Dutt
Sharma
Vs.
Respondent:
State 33
Khim
Singh
Vs.
State
of
Uttarakhand34 Kalu Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan35.
Circumstantial Evidences Chain

1. All this was followed after the scene when Rekha Das pressurized Trisha to abort her child when
the accused Rekha Das got to know about the pregnancy of her daughter Trisha Das and her
relation with Shobhit Mukherjee.This indicates that to get rid of this situation,Rekha Das
29 Palaniswamy v. State, AIR 1968 Bom 127

30 MANU/RH/0469/2008
31 MANU/RH/0265/2008
32 MANU/RH/0168/2003
33 MANU/RH/0385/2006
34 MANU/SC/0592/2014
35 MANU/RH/0474/2004
23
conspired with other accused to murder and then they killed Trisha Das.
2. There was no evidence of whatever Rekha Das said about the whereabouts of Trisha Das , she
always claimed that her daughter is in United States which is quite perplexing as in to the
intention of her because of the murder and recovery of the body from Kausani forest. As the
passport of Trisha was with Shobhit Mukherjee it indicates that whatever Rekha Das said is not
the truth. Moreover Rekha Das never tried to contact Trisha even after knowing that there was so
much of controversy about her daughter.
3. The recovery of body from Kausan forest and the matching of the DNA of the same with
Rekha
Das clearly indicates that the body is of Trisha Das

4. According to Pw7, Trisha was continuously in touch with her on watsapp till the date Rekha was
arrested. According to Pw7, Trisha never talked on phone and whenever Ruhi(pw7) tried to have
video conferencing through skype Trisha always made excuses.Considering the facts and
circumstances of the situation it is quite evident in the prima facie view that Rekha Das was using
the phone of Trisha after killing her so as to hide her crime36.
No recovery of mobile phones of Shyam Sahu and Rekha Das shows conspiracy and indicates
that there are some evidences which are caused to be disappear as it cannot be taken as a mere coincidence that the phones of the two accused are not found at the same point of time. Moreover
the locations of Suhas Kumar and Trisha on 25 th April are found to be same which indicates that
the accused were with Trisha.(last seen theory)
Additional link in chain of circumstances
In the case of Ram Kishan and Ors. Vs. State and Ors, In a case resting
on circumstantial evidence if accused fails to offer a reasonable explanation
in discharge of burden placed on him, that itself provides an additional link
in chain of circumstances proved against him.
37
In the instant case , all the accused have failed to offer a reasonable
36 S V JogaRao, Law of Evidence, 17thEdn. 2001, Butterworths, New Delhi.
37 MANU/DE/1191/2015
24
explanation in discharge of burden placed on them which is providing an

additional link in chain of circumstances proved against the accused here.
The counsel humbly contends that it is quite evident from the circumstances and the
evidences produced before the court that all the accused are guilty of committing murder..In the
instant case, the chain of circumstantial evidence is complete and incapable of any explanation or
any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of accused produced before the court. Rekha Das after
getting disturbed by the illict relation of her daughter with Shobhit Mukherjee and pre marriage
pregnancy, conspired with Suhas and Sahu and then killed her. Hence they should be held guilty.
C.3 CORROBORATION AND ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE
Being an accomplice i.e. a guilty partner or associate in a crime 38 the
evidence of the witness is subject to the combined reading of Sec 114 and
Sec 133, Evidence Act and requires some
independent corroboration in
material particulars for acceptance.39 The corroboration need not be direct

evidence but is sufficient if it is merely circumstantial evidence.40
ISSUE 2.
(i)Whether Accused 1, 2 and 3 are liable for the offences charged
under section 201 and 364 of the Indian Penal Code.
D. The accused are guilty of giving false information and causing

disappearance of evidence of offence.
38 MO Shamshudin v State of Kerala, (1995)3 SCC 351
39 State of Kerala v Thomas, (1986) 2 SCC 411
40 Rameshwar v State of Rajasthan, AIR 1952 SC 54
25
Basically Section 201 deals with the following two types of offences:-41
(1) Where the offender causes the evidence of the commission of the offence to disappear.
(2) Where the offender gives any information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to
be false.42
[D.1] Whether the accused had knowledge about the offence or had
reasons to believe the commission of that offence
In the case of Ram Saran Mahto and Anr. Vs. The State of Bihar it was
held that43 it is imperative that prosecution should have established two
41 ibid 1
42 Vijaya (2003) 8 SCC 296,298-299:AIR 2003 SC 3787 :2003 Cri LJ 4318 (SC): (2003) 3 Crimes 360 (SC)
43 MANU/SC/0550/1999
26
premises. First is that an offence has been committed and second is that the
accused knew about it or he had reasons to believe the commission of that
offence. Then and then alone the prosecution can succeed, provided the
remaining postulates of the offence are also established.
In the instant case, the offenders tried to burn the body of Trisha Das which
clearly shows that they tried to remove the evidence to make the evidence
27
disappear from the spot. They have the knowledge of the offence as there
were the ones who lead to it commission and with such knowledge they tried
to disappear the evidences. And hence they are liable for causing
disappearance of evidence of the offence.
[D.2] Whether the information given by Shyam Sahu in police custody is admissible under
section 27 of Indian Evidence Act,1872.
In Earabhadrappa alias Krishnappa v. State of Karnataka
44
it was held that for the applicability
of Section 27 of the Evidence Act two conditions are pre-requisite, viz., (i) information must be
such as has caused discovery of the fact, and (ii) the information must 'relate distinctly' to the fact
discovered. under Section 27 only so much of the information as distinctly relates to the fact
really thereby discovered, is admissible45.
44 1983 Cri LJ 846

45 Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, Law of Evidence, 21stEdn. Reprint 2005, Wadhwa and
Company, Nagpur.
28
In the present case , the information given by the Shyam Sahu has led to the discovery of the fact
that the body recovered by the police is of Trisha Das and on the basis of which the police
investigated the matter by doing DNA test and that is how the information given by the Shyam
Sahu is directly related and has caused the discovery of the fact.
It was held in the case of Mehboob Ali and Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan the information
furnished by the aforesaid accused persons vide information memos is clearly admissible which
has led to the identification and arrest of accused Anju Ali and as already stated from possession
of Anju Ali fake currency notes had been recovered.46
In the present case, the identification of the body of Trisha Das can be made possible solely on the
information given by the Shyam Sahu .And as the information has led to the discovery of the
fact , the information is admissible under section 27 of Indian Evidence Act.
In Mohmed Inavatullah v. The State of Maharashtra it was held that expression 'fact discovered'
includes not only the physical object produced but also place from which it is produced and the
knowledge of the accused as to that.47
In the present case, the identification of the body of Trisha Das can be made possible solely on the
information given by the Shyam Sahu .And as the information has led to the discovery of the
fact , the information is admissible under section 27 of Indian Evidence Act.
In the case of State of UP. v Deoman Upadhyaya48 it was held that It is immaterial that the
46 MANU/SC/1228/2015
47 MANU/SC/0166/1975:1976 Cri LJ 481
48 AIR 1960 SC 1129
29
statement which leads to the fact discovered was obtained out of torture, threat etc
In the present case , facts are silent as in how the statement/information had been obtained, as
section 25 of Indian Evidence Act clearly shows that law doesnt trust police officers when it
comes to making confessions but when there is the discovery of fact according to the information
given then it is immaterial that whether it was obtained under any pressure of the police officials.
So even if we assume that the information was given under any pressure, it is of no use as fact has
been discovered on the basis of such information.
a) The counsel humbly contends that it is quite evident from the circumstances and evidences
produced that the information given by Shyam Sahu and the recovery of the body on the same
information clearly indicates that Trisha Das was abducted, murdered and then was burnt which is
nothing but disappearing the evidence of the offence committed. Moreover the object with which
Trisha Das was strangled was not found , also the car was not recovered which indicates that after
committing the offence under section 364 , 302 of IPC they tried to disappear the evidence and
hence they are liable under section 201 of IPC. It is humbly contended before this Honble Court
that Rekha Das , Suhas Kumar and Shyam Sahu are guilty of the offences under section 201 of
IPC. Firstly , they committed offence under section 364 and section 302 of IPC and then they
disappeared the evidence of offence and hence they are liable.
E. THE ACCUSED ARE GUILTY FOR KIDNAPPING OR ABDUCTING IN
ORDER TO
MURDER
Section 364 Of IPC49 defines- Kidnapping or abducting in order to murder :

Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person in order that such person may be
murdered or may be so disposed of as to be put in danger of being
murdered, shall be punished with imprisonment for life or rigorous
imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be
49 Indian Penal Code, Chapter XVI
30
liable to fine.50
In the case of Vishal Yadav vs. State Of U.P.51
on 2 April, 2014 it was
contended that It is settled law that the evidence of hostile witnesses can
also be relied upon by the prosecution to the extent to which it supports the
prosecution version of the incident. The evidence of such witnesses cannot
be treated as washed off the records, it remains admissible in trial and there
is no legal bar to base the conviction of the accused upon such testimony, if
corroborated by other reliable evidence.
In the case of Muniappan v. State of Tamil Nadu52, Honourable Supreme
Cout took the same view and held that the evidence of a hostile witness
cannot be discarded as a whole, and relevant parts thereof which are
admissible in law, can be used by the prosecution or the defence.
In
the
case
of
Amit
singh
Bhikamsingh
Thakur
v.
State
of
Maharashtra53, it was contended that when on the basis of information

given by the accused there is a recovery of an object of crime which provides
a link in the chain of circumstances, then such information leading to the
discovery of object is admissible and only such information which is found
proximate to the cause of discovery of material objects, alone is taken as
admissible in law.
50 Cbi vs (1) Sh. S.K. Jaiswal, RC Number : 6(S)/2009 CBI/SCB/Lucknow
51 Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012
52 (2010) 9 SCC 567

53 (2007) 2 SCC 310
31
Here in the instant case because of the confession of Shyam Sahu, the dead
body was recovered and later on in investigation it was found that the phone
location
of
Suhas
and
Trisha
matched
which
clearly
indicates
the
admissibility of Shyam Sahus confession.
In the case of Hardip Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab 54 the main
ingredient of Section 364 of IPC was discussed that a person should be
abducted for causing his death.
In the case of Tondi and Ors. v. The State of U.P.55 , it has been held that to establish a charge of
abduction in order to murder when the case is one of abduction by deceitful means, the
prosecution has to prove firstly that there was misrepresentation and secondly, that particular
misrepresentation was under a plan to murder and thirdly that it was the plan by which the
abducted person was himself deceived and was induced to go.
In the instant case Trisha was called by Rekha deceitfully to meet her, from
there she was induced by all three accused that is Rekha, Suhas and Shyam
Sahu to come with them and as per the plan she was being murdered in the
car and then her body was disposed of by all three.
As submitted in the case of Friday Vs. Sajeev56, Section 364 I.P.C would
54 CRA-S-1226-SB-2000 (O&M)
55 1975 Cr. L.J. 950

56 CRL.A.No. 2165 of 2007
32
come into play only when such abduction is in order that such person may be
murdered or may be so disposed of as to be put him in danger of being
murdered.
In the case of Mahavir And Anr. vs State Of U.P. 57 it was discussed that
under all circumstances where the abducted person is murdered accused
should not be held not liable to be convicted Under Section 364 of IPC and
facts of each case would determine the liability for the offence.
It was held in the case of Upendra Nath Ghose v. Emperor
58
, that to
establish an offence punishable under Section 364 it must be proved that the
person charge with the offence had the intention at the time of the abduction
that the person abducted would be murdered or would be so disposed of as
to be put in danger of being murdered59.
If we take into reference these cases and we join the chain of circumstances
that Rekha was against the relationship of Trisha and Shobhit, they
developed intimacy and Trisha got pregnant, this aversion to their
relationship shows her motive as well as intention and thereby making them
liable for the offences under section 364 of IPC60
F.
REKHA IS GUILTY FOR CAUSING MISCARRIAGE WITHOUT
57 1990 CriLJ 1605

58 AIR 1940 Cal 561
59 ibid12
60 BasusIndian Penal Code (Law of Crimes), Vol I, 9thEdn. Reprint 2004, Ashoka Law House.
33
WOMANS CONSENT.
Section 313 of IPC61 defines Causing miscarriage without womans
consent62
Whoever commits the offence defined in the last preceding section without
the consent of the woman, whether the woman is quick with child or not,
shall be punished with 1[imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also
be liable to fine.63In the case of Prabhu Kulandaivelu vs State Rep.64, the
essential ingredients of the said section are discussed. As defined in the case
of Md. Sharif v. State of Orissa 65 ,the expression causing miscarriage
would include anything done or given to procure abortion.
In the case of Dr. Nisha Malviya And Anr. vs State Of M.P. 66, miscarriage
was done without the consent prosecutrix denied having consent for
miscarriage and hence the accused was held liable under this section.
In the case Satpal Singh v. State of Haryana
67
it was held that a woman
61 Indian Penal Code, Chapter XVI

62 ibid 7
63 Moideenkutty Haji and Ors. Vs. Kunhikoya and Ors., MANU/KE/0045/1987
64 MANU/SCOR/15487/2015
65 1996 Crl.L.J. 2826

66 2000 CriLJ 671
67 2010 Cri.L.J.4283
34
has given consent only if she has freely agreed to submit herself.
In the case of Anil Kumar vs. State68 ,it was held that where the case
depends solely on circumstantial evidence, it is essential to prove motive for
commission of the crime.
Motive is that which moves or induces the mind to act in a certain way.69
In the case of Sheo Shankar Singh v. State of Jharkhand and Anr.70,
Honourable Supreme Court observed proof of a motive itself constitutes a
link in the chain of circumstances upon which prosecution may rely.
It was held in the case of State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu 71,
Section 8 of the Evidence Act. In so far as it is relevant for our purpose
makes the conduct of an accused person relevant, if such conduct influences
or is influenced by any fact in issue or relevant fact. It could be either a
previous or subsequent conduct.
In the case the very fact, that Trisha and Shobhit were in an illict
relationship and trisha was pregnant before marriage with her step brother,
held attached to it a social stigma. In a country like India, where such things
are still a taboo, constitutes motive enough for a mother to murder her
daughter for the so-called societal norms, which would otherwise degrade
her dignity.
68 2011 (5) AD (Delhi) 351

69 Law of Evidence ; Dr. V. Krishnamachari, VI edition
70 (2011) 3 SCC 654
71 (2005) 11 SCC 600
35
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Wherefore in the lights of the issues raised, arguments advanced and

authorities
cited,
the
council
for
the
petitioner
most
humbly
and
respectfully prays before this Hon'ble High Court may be pleased to

adjudge and declare that:
The crime commited by them is heinous in nature and against the society at
large, in the light of which no mercy should be shown towards the three accused.
A. Convict Mrs.Rekha Das, Mr.Shyam Sahu and Mr. Suhas Kumar.
B. Give them maximum punishment as prescribed by Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The Court may also be pleased to pass any other order, which the court may deem
fit in light of justice equity and good conscience.
All of which is most humbly prayed.
Place:
DATE:
(On Behalf of the
Prosecution)
36
37

Nobility Prosecution

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

Nobility Prosecution

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

-TEAM CODE: NOBILITY

IN THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT OF DELHI

REKHA DAS AND ORS

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

2nd AURO UNIVERSITY NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2016

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

2nd AURO UNIVERSITY NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2016

All India Reporter

Indian Penal Code

Supreme Court Cases

Supreme Court Journal

Supreme Court Review

2nd AURO UNIVERSITY NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2016

Edn. Reprint 2013,

Bharat Law House, New Delhi.

Bharat Law House, New Delhi.

House, New Delhi.

2nd AURO UNIVERSITY NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2016

Edn. Reprint 2004,

Ashoka Law House.

Concise Legal dictionary, Allahabad Law House,Faridabad,2004

Blacks Law Legal Dictionary

The Indian Penal Code, 1860

The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

2nd AURO UNIVERSITY NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2016

The Indian Evidence Act, 1872

CASES CITED AND REFERRED

2nd AURO UNIVERSITY NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2016

5. Mohmed Inavatullah v. The State of Maharashtra MANU/SC/0166/1975

2nd AURO UNIVERSITY NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2016

25. Mohammad Usman Mohammad HussainManiyar&Ors v. State Of Maharashtra 1981

2nd AURO UNIVERSITY NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2016

42. Ranganayaki v. State by Inspector of Police, AIR 2005 SC 418

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

2nd AURO UNIVERSITY NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2016

2nd AURO UNIVERSITY NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2016

CHARGES I, II, III, IV & V

2nd AURO UNIVERSITY NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2016

ACCUSED 1- REKHA DAS

ACCUSED 1, 2 AND 3 HAVE BEEN CHARGED WITH CRIMINAL

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

2nd AURO UNIVERSITY NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2016

Whether Accused 1, 2 and 3 are liable for the offences

ISSUE 2- i) Whether Accused 1, 2 and 3 are liable for the offences

Accused 1 is liable for the offence charged under

section 313 of the Indian Penal Code.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

2nd AURO UNIVERSITY NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2016

(i)Whether Accused 1, 2 and 3 are liable for the offences

(ii) Whether Accused 1 is liable for the offence charged under

2nd AURO UNIVERSITY NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2016

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

2nd AURO UNIVERSITY NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2016

Criminal Conspiracy as defined under Sec. 120A consists of an agreement

State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, A.I.R. 1992 SC 840.

State v. Navjot Sandhu, 2005 Cri LJ 3950(SC)

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

2nd AURO UNIVERSITY NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2016

Where there is reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons

perpetrators expressly agreed to do or caused to be done the illegal act,

In the case of State of U.P. v. Girijashankar Misra7 it was held by the

State of U.P vs. Lakshmi Brahman AIR 1985 SC 439

Subhas, 1985 CrLJ 1807