TEAM CODE: E

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Special Leave Petition Filed Under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

MEMORIAL FILED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

State … Respondent

V.

Naveen … Petitioner 1

Ramesh … Petitioner 2

Suresh … Petitioner 3

Dinesh … Petitioner 4

Most Respectfully Submitted to the Hon’ble Judges of the Supreme Court of India.

COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ‘PETITIONERS’.

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................................ iii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ......................................................................................................... iv

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION............................................................................................... v

SUMMARY OF FACTS ............................................................................................................... vi

ISSUES ......................................................................................................................................... vii

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ................................................................................................. viii

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

1. Undue and unreasonable delay of four days in lodging the FIR put facts provided by
Suneel under suspicion. .............................................................................................................. 1

1.1. Delay by natural causes is highly improbable in this case. .......................................... 1

1.2. There is no explanation for delay of 4 days in registration of the First Information
Report by Suneel. .................................................................................................................... 2

1.3. The undue and unreasonable delay shrouds the prosecution’s story with
untruthfulness. Thereby creating reasonable doubt. ............................................................... 3

2. Neither the names of the assailants are mentioned in the FIR nor is anything conclusive
proved regarding their identity.................................................................................................. 45

2.1. The facts of the case implicate that the assailants were known to either Suneel or the
prosecutrix............................................................................................................................. 45

2.2. The names of the assailants were purposely omitted. ................................................ 45

PRAYER ....................................................................................................................................... 78

ii
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Abbreviations Description

I.P.C Indian Penal Code

Cri LJ Criminal Law Journal

AIR All India Report

Hon’ble Honorable

Ors. Others

Anr. Anothers

J. Justice

pp Page Number

Ed. Edition

i.e. That is

iii
 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Bishnu Deo vs The State, 1982 Cri LJ 493. .................................................................................... 8

Thulia Kali vs The State of Tamil Nadu, 1973 AIR 501.................................................................. 3
Jagannath Narayan Nikam vs. State of Maharashtra, 1995 Cr LJ 1412 (Gau).. ........................... 7
Apren Joseph vs. State of Kerala, 1973 AIR, 1 1973 SCR (2) 16. .................................................. 3
Ganesh Bhavan Patel & Anr vs State Of Maharashtra, 1979 SCR (2) 94. .................................... 4
Tarachand vs State of Haryana, AIR 1971 SC 1891.. .................................................................... 2
Emperor vs Khwaja Nazir Ahmed, (1945) 47 BOMLR 245.......................................................... 11
Jagarnath Giri v. state of Bihar. ..................................................................................................... 3
Bijoy Singh vs. State of Bihar, AIR 2002 SC 1949........................................................................ 10
State of Gujarat vs. Anirudh Singh, AIR 1997 SC 2780. ................................................................ 2
Hallu vs. State of MP, 1974 AIR 1936.. ........................................................................................ 11
Bathula Nagamalleswara Rao & Ors. vs. State Rep. by Public Prosecutor ................................ 10
K. Ashokan & Five Ors vs. State of Kerala, (1998) 3 SCC 570.. ................................................. 11
Tara Singh and others vs. the State of Punjab, AIR 1991 SC 63. ................................................. 11
Rambagas vs State of Madhya Pradesh, (1984) CriLJ 1068 .......................................................... 6
Basudev Yadav and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Ors, 1988 Cri LJ 1408........................................ 1

Statutes

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973................................................................................................... i

Indian Evidence Act, 1872.............................................................................................................. 4
Indian Penal Code, 1860 ................................................................................................................. x

BOOKS

M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law,. ........................................................................................... 2

Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, the Code of Criminal Procedure, 17th Ed. .................................................... 7

iv
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

THE DEFENDANT SUBMITS TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF

INDIA UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.

ART. 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA WHICH READS HEREWITH AS UNDER:

136. (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, and sentence or order passed or
made by any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces.

v
 SUMMARY OF FACTS
1. Sunita and Suneel are two medicos in Delhi.
2. In the cold evening of 16th December 2015, Sunita, who is 22 year old, was returning to
girl’s hostel after watching a film at EP with her friend Suneel.
3. As they were standing in Jawahar Circle, a classic Innova car driven by a commerce
graduate Naveen along with his three co-students Ramesh, Suresh and Dinesh (Minor)
stopped to offer them lift which was readily accepted.
4. The four raped Sunita brutally, ruptured her private parts with rods and threw Suneel in a
dense forest beyond Jagatpura after robbing him and giving life threats.
5. Suneel, who had become unconscious after being thrown, was found a passerby Raj
Kumar who called the control room. Suneel was taken to SMS hospital by a PCR van.
Sunita was searched by the Police and was found naked and unconscious.
6. Sunita was first taken to SMS Hospital and then to IIMS Hospital where she died.
7. FIR was lodged on 20th of December by Suneel and after depth investigation, the four
accused were arrested. Some items belonging to Suneel and Sunita were recovered from
the accused.
8. The charge sheet is filed on 3rd of January 2016 in the Court of Sessions which convicts
all the four accused and gives death sentence in its order dated 10.09.2016.
9. The High Court vide judgment dated 13.3.2017, affirmed the conviction and confirmed
the death penalty imposed upon the accused.

vi
 ISSUES

I. Undue and unreasonable delay of four days in lodging the FIR put facts provided by
Suneel under suspicion.
II. Neither the names of the assailants are mentioned in the FIR nor is anything conclusive
proved regarding their identity.

vii
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

I. Undue and unreasonable delay of four days in lodging the FIR put facts provided by
Suneel under suspicion.
There has been a delay of four days in lodging of the complaint and no reason for this
delay have been put forward for justification. There is no circumstances imaginable
which can stop anyone from reporting such a heinous crime and the delay is undue,
unusual and unreasonable. Even if we assume, Suneel was unable to file the FIR on
account of unconsciousness, there were other witnesses as well eligible for this purpose.
This puts the story unfurled by prosecution under doubts and suspicion. Courts in
numerous cases have exhorted the importance of expeditious lodging of FIR and held that
unexplained and unjustified delay shrouds the prosecution’s case with untruthfulness and
weakens it. Therefore, in this case, the version of the story presented by the prosecution
has not established beyond reasonable doubt and its benefit should be given to the
accused.

II. Neither the names of the assailants are mentioned in the FIR nor is anything
conclusive proved regarding their identity.
The names of the accused were not mentioned either in the dying declaration of the
victim or in the FIR filed by PW-1 Suneel. There is no material evidence to lead to
finding of the accused and uncertainty in the method adopted by the police to arrest the
accused gives rise to the possibility that the names of the accused had been purposely not
disclosed, so that, later on, after discussion, deliberation and consultation, the names
could be given. This creates a reasonable doubts which cannot be ignored.

viii
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. Undue and unreasonable delay of four days in lodging the FIR put facts provided by
Suneel under suspicion.

It is most humbly submitted that delay in lodging the First Information Report1 quite often
results in embellishment which is a creature of afterthought of spontaneity, but danger creeps
in of the introduction of colored version, exaggerated account or concocted story as a result
of deliberation and consultation and for these reasons, it is essential that delay in lodging the
First Information ReportFIR should satisfactorily be explained.2 Criminal Courts attach great
importance to the lodging of prompt FIR because the same greatly diminishes the chances of
false implication of the accused as well as that of informant being tutored3.

It is most respectfully submitted that in the case o In Apren Joseph vs. State of Kerala4, this
Court observed, “Undue or unreasonable delay in lodging the FIR inevitably gives rise to
suspicion which puts the court on guard to look for the possible motive and the explanation
and consider its effect on the trustworthiness or otherwise of the prosecution version.”

1.1. Delay by natural causes is highly improbable in this case.

1.1.1. It is humbly submitted that the FIRFirst Information Report gives information of
the commission of a cognizable crime. It may be made by the complainant or by any
other person knowing about the commission of such an offence.5 Section 154 does
not require that the Report must be given by a person who has personal knowledge
of the incident reported6. As a matter of fact, PW-72 Raj Kumar was the first person
to find Suneel who had claimed of getting unconscious at that time. The fact that
write namePW-72 did not lodge a FIR immediately puts suspicion over the
truthfulness of the four-day delayed FIR filed by PW-1 Suneel.

1
Hereinafter referred as FIR.
2
Bishnu Deo v The State, 1982 Cri LJ 493; Thulia Kali vs The State of Tamil Nadu, 1973 AIR 501.
3
Jagannath Narayan Nikam vs. State of Maharashtra, 1995 Cr LJ 1412 (Gau).
4
Write the name of case also1 1973 SCR (2) 16.
5
Bijoy Singh vs. State of Bihar, AIR 2002 SC 1949; State of Gujarat vs. Anirudh Singh, AIR 1997 SC 2780.
6
Hallu vs. State of MP, 1974 AIR 1936.

1
 1.1.2. It is further submitted that it is highly improbable to assume that there was no one
eligible to lodge a complaint considering the fact that it is a Medico Legal Case and
even the hospital authorities had great duties regarding communicating with the
police as well as the kith and kin of the prosecutrix. This court in C. V. Govindappa
v. State of Karnataka7 had held that the doctor must mention all the statements made Formatted: Font: Italic

to him by the persons who brought the patient to him.

1.2. There is no explanation for delay of 4 days in registration of the First Information
Report by Suneel.

1.2.1. It is humbly submitted that even after going through such a horrendous crime,
Suneel did not think it necessary to lodge a complaint expeditiously. It is a moral
and legal duty of a person to report a crime he/she witnesses as soon as possible, but
in this case, in spite of the seriousness of the crime, a delay of four days have been
made without any imaginable reason. As a friend of Sunita and one of the victims of
the crime, there cannot be thought of a task of higher priority than lodging a
complaint. Mention the facts

1.2.2. It is further submitted that in criminal trial, one of the cardinal principles for the
Court is to look for plausible explanation for the delay in lodging the report. Delay
sometimes affords opportunity to the complainant to make deliberation upon the
complaint and to make embellishment or even make fabrications. Delay defeats the
chance of the unsoiled and untarnished version of the case to be presented before the
Court at the earliest instance. That is why if there is delay in either coming before
the police or before the Court, the Courts always view the allegations with suspicion
and look for satisfactory explanation. If no such satisfaction is formed, the delay is
treated as fatal to the prosecution case8. Explain with facts.

7
1998 Cr. LJ 1107 (SC)
8
Dilawar Singh v. State of Delhi, 2007 Cri LJ 4709 (SC).

2
 1.3. The undue and unreasonable delay shrouds the prosecution’s story with untruthfulness.
Thereby creating reasonable doubt.

1.3.1. It is further submitted that in State of U. P. v. Anil Singh9, the court held that,
“with regard to falsehood stated or embellishments added by the prosecution
witnesses, it is well to remember that there is tendency amongst witnesses in our
country to back up a good case by false or exaggerated version. It is also
experienced that invariably the witnesses add embroidery to prosecution story,
perhaps for the fear of being disbelieved.”

1.3.2. Lastly, it is submitted that in light of all the submissions made herein-above, it
can be said that the delay in registration of the FIR has not been properly explained
by the prosecution. How? Thus, this undue delay is to be looked with a certain
amount of suspicion.10 It creates a reasonable doubt on the involvement of the
accused in the incident whose benefit is to be given to them11.

9
Write the name of the caseAIR 1988 S.C. 1998.
10
Bathula Nagamalleswara Rao & Ors. v. State Rep. by Public Prosecutor, (2008) 11 SCC 722.
11
K. Ashokan & Five Ors v. State of Kerala, (1998) 3 SCC 570.

3
2. Neither the names of the assailants are mentioned in the FIR nor is anything conclusive
proved regarding their identity.

It is most humbly submitted that neither the names of the accused are mentioned in the FIR,
nor have DNA results confirmed the identity of the assailants. Moreover, struggle marks was
not found on fourth accused. This proves that the involvement of the accused was not
confirmed and therefore, in this case conviction of the accused is not sustainable. The hon’ble
High Court of Patna in Basudev Yadav and Ors. vVs. State of Bihar and Ors.12 held that
conviction shall not be sustainable unless prosecution proved identification of accused for Formatted: Font: Italic

commission of offence.

2.1. The facts of the case implicate that the assailants were known to either Suneel or the
prosecutrix.

2.1.1. It is humbly submitted that it is highly improbable that Sunita along with her
friend Suneel would have “readily” accepted an unasked offer of lift by a group of
four youngsters unless either of them knew them beforehand. Thus, there has been
falsity in Suneel’s version of the story.

2.2. The names of the assailants were purposely omitted.

2.2.1. It is humbly submitted that PW-1 Suneel purposely did not disclose the
identities/names of the assailants, so that, later on, after discussion, deliberation
and consultation, the names could be given. This is not improbable given the fact
that MLCswhat is MLC of only first three accused showed injuries and struggle
marks.

2.2.2. It is further submitted that in K. Ashokan & Five Ors vs. State of Kerala13, this
Court gave the benefit of reasonable doubt to the petitioners whose names were
absent in the original copy of the FIR, but were squeezed in it at a later period with
a different ink. The Court in the said case held that disclosures of the names or

12
1988 Cri LJ 1408.
13
(1998) 3 SCC 570.write the name of the case

4
 identities of the offenders, if known, by a person who figures as an eye witness is
one of the most material facts and such a fact cannot be equated with narration of
graphic details. Conclude your point.

2.3. Suspicious and doubtful methods of investigation by the police creates probability of
arrest of wrong persons.

2.3.1. It is humbly submitted that neither the names nor identification of any of the
accused was mentioned in the FIR or the dying declaration of Sunita. Moreover,
there being no material evidences connected to the accused which can lead to their
tracking, puts suspicion over the method of investigation adopted by the Police.

2.3.2. It is further submitted that the accused are made the scapegoats of the rising
public and political pressure as no measures for identification of the assailants were
taken. It is pertinent to note that neither the content of the CCTV footage was used
nor were the result of the DNA tests ever published and no explanation of such
action waswere provided.

2.3.3. It is further submitted that the prosecution, having regard to the right of an
accused to have a fair investigation, fair inquiry and fair trial as adumbrated under
Art.21 of the Constitution of India, cannot at any stage be deprived of taking
advantage of the materials which the prosecution itself have placed on record14.

2.4. There are no independent witness or conclusive evidences available to prove the guilt or
involvement of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

2.4.1. It is humbly submitted that Suneel is interested witness how? of this case and
therefore, the statements made by him may be biased and his testimony cannot be
relied upon. There are no independent witnesses or conclusive evidences available

14
Sunder Singh v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, 2005 Cri LJ 2732.

5
 to corroborate the version of the story claimed by him and this gives rise to the
possibility of embellishment and modifications of the facts.

2.4.2. It is further submitted that in Rambagas v.s State of Madhya Pradesh15, the High
Court of Madhya Pradesh held that testimony of sole eye witness without being
corroborated in the material particulars by any evidence from an independent
source, was unsafe for holding check the wordaccused’s conviction and the Court
would give him the benefit of doubt and acquit him.

2.4.3. Lastly, it is submitted that in Rang Bahadur Singh v. State of U. P.16, this court
observed, “there is no doubt about it that the rape is a heinous offence not only
against the entire society. While remembering such point, the court must also guard
against false and frivolous cases. A criminal court cannot afford to deprive liberty
of a person, perhaps life only liberty, without having at least a reasonable level of
certainty that the accused was the real culprit.”

15
1984 CriLJ 1068.
16
(2000) 3 SCC 454.

6
 PRAYER

WHEREFORE IN THE LIGHT OF ISSUES RAISED, ARGUMENTS ADVANCED,

REASONING GIVEN AND THE AUTHORITY CITED, IT IS HUMBLY PRAYED THAT
THIS COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO,

I. ACQUIT THE ACCUSED OF ALL CHARGES;

II. ACQUIT THE ACCUSED OF THE PUNISHMENT GIVEN BY THE SESSIONS
COURT AND UPHELD BY THE HIGH COURT.

AND ANY OTHER RELIEF THAT THIS COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO GRANT FOR
THE SAKE OF JUSTICE, EQUITY AND GOOD CONSCIENCE.

COUNSEL FOR PETITIONERS DEFENDANT