MTC - 103

MANIPAL UNIVERSITY 1st NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY COMPETITION 2021

[Apr 16 – 18, 2021]

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SESSIONS COURT OF PRAYAG SHEHAR

State
(PROSECUTION)

v.

Ramesh, Suresh, Mukesh, Adnan, Salman & Ors.

(DEFENDANT)

FOR OFFENCES CHARGED UNDER SEC 302,323,324,147,148,149,336,427 INDIAN

PENAL CODE & 4/25 OF ARMS ACT

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS

MEMORANDUM OF ARGUMENTS FOR THE PETITIONER

 MANIPAL UNIVERSITY 1st NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY COMPETITION 2021

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS....................................................................................................3

INDEX OFAUTHORITIES.......................................................................................................4

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION..........................................................................................6

STATEMENT OF FACTS ........................................................................................................7

STATEMENT OF CHARGES......................................................................................………8

SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS…..........................................................................................…9

PLEADINGS………………................................................................................................…10

1. WHETHER THE EVIDENCES AND STATEMENTS OF PROSECUTION BE

ADMISSABLE AS THE SOLE BASIS FOR THE CONVICTION?……………………….10
1.1 Absence of Evidence to show who was the aggressor…………………………...10

1.2 Absence of Conclusive evidence…………………………………………………11

1.3 Unreliable Investigation by IO…………………………………………………...11

1.4 Re-investigation is vital…………………………………………………………..12

2. WHETHER THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE CHAIN OF EVENTS HAVE BEEN

ESTABLISHED CLEARLY?………………………………………………………………..13
2.1 An Important link in the chain of events has not been established………………14

2.2 Prosecution fails to establish the foundations of S. 300 of IPC………………….15

3. WHETHER THE PROSECUTION PROVED THEIR ACCUSATIONS BEYOND

REASONABLE DOUBTS?………………………………………………………………….16

3.1 Presence of clear Ground for Reasonable Doubts………………………………..16

3.2 The Soul of Justice must be Protected……………………………………………17

PRAYER……………………………………………………………………………………..18

LIST OF WITNESS………………………………………………………………………….19

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS PAGE 1 of 20

 MANIPAL UNIVERSITY 1st NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY COMPETITION 2021

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

& And

Etc. Et cetera

Ibid In the Same Source

AIR All India Reporter

IEA Indian Evidence Act

Art. Article

Cr.P.C Code of Criminal Procedure

Hon’ble Honorable

Ltd. Limited

P. Page

No. Number

Ors. Others

CM Chief Minister

SC Supreme Court

SCC Supreme Court Cases

SCR Supreme Court Reports

pp. Pages

UOI Union of India

v. Versus

i.e) That is

Sec. Section

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS PAGE 2 of 20

 MANIPAL UNIVERSITY 1st NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY COMPETITION 2021

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

BOOKS REFFERED:

Durga Das Basu ,Criminal Procedure Code,1973,‟ (4thEdn.2010),Lexi Nexis Butterworths

Wadhwa,Nagpur. Vol.1,2.
P.M.Bakshi, „Law Of Crimes‟(5th Edn.2000)India Law House,New Delhi.Vol.1,2.
R.P.Kathuria‟s, „Supreme Court On Criminal Law 1950-2002‟(6th Edn.2002),Professional
Book Publishers,New Delhi.Vol.2,4,6.
Sarkar‟s, „Law of Evidence,‟ (17th Edn.2010), Lexis Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa, Nagpur.
Vol.1,2.
J.K.Soonavala, „Supreme Court Criminal Digest (1950-2010)‟,(5th Edn. 2011) Lexis Nexis
Butterworths Wadhwa,Nagpur, Vol. 1-4
Dr.Hari Singh Gaur‟s, „Indian Penal Code‟, (14th Edn. 2013), Law Publishers India(P) Ltd.,
Allahabad, Vol 1&2

STATUTES REFERRED:

The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
The Arms Act 1878.

WEBSITES REFERRED:

www.indiankanoon.org
www.livelaw.in
www.scconline.com
www.wikipedia.org
www.timesofindia.com
www.manupatra.in
www.thehindu.com
CASES REFFERED:

1. Jumman And Ors. vs The State Of Punjab AIR 1957 SC 469, 1957 CriLJ 586

2. Gian Chand vs Mani Karan 1989 (58) FLR 360, (1990) ILLJ 565 HP

3. State Of J And K vs Sunderdas And Ors.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS PAGE 3 of 20

 MANIPAL UNIVERSITY 1st NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY COMPETITION 2021

4. Chander Prakash @ Chander vs The State (Delhi Admn.) 1995 CriLJ 3028, 58 (1995)
DLT 238

5. Smt. Somavanti And Others vs The State Of Punjab 1963 AIR 151, 1963 SCR (3) 774

6. Hukam Singh v. State of Rajasthan (AIR 1977 SC 1063)

7. State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, (1992 Crl. L.J 1104)

8. Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2013) 6 SCC 348

9. Zahira Habibullah H. Shaikh v. State of Gujarat AIR 2004 SC 3114

10. Shakila Abdul Gafar Khan (Smt.) v. Vasant Raghunath Dhoble and Anr. (2003 (7) SCC
749).

11. Eradu and Ors. v. State of Hyderabad AIR 1956 SC 316

12. Ram Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar and Ors. (1998 (4) SCC 517)

13. Kalluri Vema Reddy vs Reddi Gangi Reddi 1958 CriLJ 1118
14. Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P. And Ors.(AIR 1990 SC 79)
15. State of Gujarat v. Kishanbhai, reported at (2014) 5 SCC 108
16. Tanviben Pankajkumar Divetia vs. State of Gujarat (1997) 7 SCC 156

17. C.Chenga Reddy and Ors. v. State of A.P. (1996) 10 SCC 193

18. Virsasingh v. State of Punjab, A.I.R 1958 S.C. 672

19. Papadimitropocelos v. R, (1957) 98 C.L.R. 249.

20. State of Maharashtra v. Mayer Hans George, A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 722 (731)

21. Noor Aga vs. State of Punjab, AIR 2009 SC 852

22. Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1964 SC 1563

23. Sanatan Naskar and another vs. State of West Bengal (2010) 3 SCC (Crl) 814

24. Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1987 SC 350)

25. Bhagat Ram v. State of Punjab (AIR 1954 SC 621)

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS PAGE 4 of 20

 MANIPAL UNIVERSITY 1st NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY COMPETITION 2021

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Counsels for Defendants in the present case, hereby most respectfully submit that this
Hon’ble Court of Sessions at Prayag Shehar, has applicable jurisdiction in Case. No 20 of
2021, under S.177 read with S.209 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The Counsels on behalf of
the Defendants hence avail the honour of submitting before the Hon’ble Sessions Judge, their
memorandum so as to prove the Innocence of the accused upon being charged under, S.
302,323,324,147,148,149,336,427 Indian Penal code & 4/25 of arms act. This document sets
forth the facts, charges and corresponding arguments of the instant case. The Defence
Counsel(s) affirms that it shall accept any Judgment of the Court as final and binding upon
itself and shall execute it in its entirety and in good faith.

All of which is respectfully submitted

By:
Counsels for the Defence
Place: Prayag Shehar

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS PAGE 5 of 20

 MANIPAL UNIVERSITY 1st NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY COMPETITION 2021

STATEMENT OF FACTS

[A] BACKGROUND OF THE CASE:

Alam (Deceased) an adult male aged about 19 years is a resident of Plot No. 69, Laxminagar,
Prayag Shehar. Four days prior to the present day, Salman, Adnan, Dinesh and others were
fighting unknown people near Babu’s Shop. Alam heard the people quarrelling and arrived at
the scene of incident and intervened.

[B] RELEVANT FACTS:

On the present day, i.e., 21.02.2021, at around 7:30 pm in the evening, at the street of
Metrajan Shop, Alam, Raja and Avinash were standing with their friends. After a while, out
of nowhere (“Accused”) i.e., Ramesh, Suresh, Mukesh, Adnan and Salman along with 15
other people arrived at that said place on motorcycles.

[C] EVENTS THAT LED THE CASE BEFORE THE HON’BLE SESSION’S COURT:

The accused after reaching the said place they started beating Alam, Raja and Avinash. On
hearing the loud noises of them quarreling and shouting the complainant immediately ran
towards the scene of crime. When the complainant reached the place of incident, he saw
Ramesh, Suresh, Mukesh, Adnan and Salman were assaulting Alam. Alam was stabbed by
Ramesh, Suresh, Mukesh, Adnan and Salman along with 15 other people at the street of
Metrajan Shop on 21.02.2021, at 7:30 pm in the evening.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS PAGE 6 of 20

 MANIPAL UNIVERSITY 1st NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY COMPETITION 2021

STATEMENT OF CHARGES

The Prosecution, had respectfully asked this Hon‟ble Court of Sessions to consider the
following charges as framed by it in accordance with Chapter XVII of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973.

Ramesh, Suresh, Adnan, Salman, Mukesh and along with 15 other people charged with
Sec. 302, 323, 324, 147, 148, 149, 336 and 427 of IPC and 4/25 of Arms Act.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS PAGE 7 of 20

 MANIPAL UNIVERSITY 1st NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY COMPETITION 2021

SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS

1. WHETHER THE EVIDENCES AND STATEMENTS OF PROSECUTION BE

ADMISSABLE AS THE SOLE BASIS FOR THE CONVICTION?

It is Humbly submitted before this Hon’Ble court that,

It is only when the motive is there and these facts are all proved that the court may be
able to draw the inference, that the accused to the deceased resulting in his death. In this case
there is not even one reliable and acceptable evidence to show that the accused were the
aggressors. Fingerprints have not been lifted from the scene, the murder weapon has not been
recovered, and any credible motive is absent. Serious lapse on the part of the investigation
which would cast a doubt on the veracity of the prosecution case. The Courts should not
ignore its mandate which is to search for truth and justice and direct for further investigation
if necessary at this stage

2. WHETHER THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE CHAIN OF EVENTS HAVE BEEN

ESTABLISHED CLEARLY?.

It is Humbly submitted before this Hon’Ble court that,

The chain of events established has not been completed to show clearly that Ramesh,
Suresh and ors, stabbed the Deceased. Important link, has not been established to establish
the guilt of the accused and constitutes a serious lapse in investigation. The Courts should
direct further investigation if necessary at the stage, prior to cognizance under Section
156(3) Cr.P.C. or subsequently under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C.

3. WHETHER THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE CHAIN OF EVENTS HAVE BEEN

ESTABLISHED CLEARLY?

It is Humbly submitted before this Hon’Ble court that,

The burden is upon the prosecution of proving a defendant's

guilt beyond reasonable doubt before he is convicted. The motive as well as the
entire events as enumerated should have been established and form a
complete chain of events which must be proved by the prosecution beyond a reasonable
doubt.. The circumstances from which an inference as to the guilt of the accused is drawn
have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected
with the principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS PAGE 8 of 20

 MANIPAL UNIVERSITY 1st NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY COMPETITION 2021

PLEADINGS

1. WHETHER THE EVIDENCES AND STATEMENTS OF PROSECUTION BE

ADMISSABLE AS THE SOLE BASIS FOR THE CONVICTION?
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that, in this present case, Where the
evidence is circumstantial the fact that the accused had motive to cause death of the deceased,
though relevant, is not enough to dispense with the proof of certain facts which are essential
to be proved in such cases, It is only when the motive is there and these facts are all proved
that the court may be able to draw the inference, that the accused to the deceased resulting in
his death.

1.1 Absence of Evidence to show who was the aggressor:

In a case where a mutual conflict develops and there must be reliable and acceptable
evidence to show how it started and who was the aggressor. 1

In the present case, Tannu stated that, “I heard that someone is quarreling, I went
there and Moen Ali also came”. It clearly shows that she knows the entire incident happening
only after she heard the noise according to her statement, so there is a clear assumption found
in her statement, but such assumption without evidence is unwarranted.2 In the statement of
Mr. Avinash, he said that “ I also called my friend Raja Khan there. Who arrived there by his
scooty, and sat on the scooty after placing it. After some time, our friend Alam also came
there”. But it is contradictory with the statement of Mr. Raja, who said that, “ Standing on the
side, and sat on it and started talking to Alam and Avinash”.

The credibility of a witness can be doubted if contradictions appearing in his evidence

are such which make the version of the witness improbable. The witnesses are the eyes and
ears of justice; therefore, the eye witness's account requires a careful and independent
assessment and evaluation for their credibility. The evidence of each witness is required to be
assessed independently and its credibility has to be tested.3

It would not be safe for the Court to convict the defendants on the uncorroborated and
contradictory and prevaricated statement of a witness.4

1
Jumman And Ors. vs The State Of Punjab AIR 1957 SC 469, 1957 CriLJ 586
2
Gian Chand vs Mani Karan 1989 (58) FLR 360, (1990) ILLJ 565 HP
3
State Of J And K vs Sunderdas And Ors.
4
Chander Prakash @ Chander vs The State (Delhi Admn.) 1995 CriLJ 3028, 58 (1995) DLT 238

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS PAGE 9 of 20

 MANIPAL UNIVERSITY 1st NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY COMPETITION 2021

1.2 Absence of Conclusive evidence:

An evidence means and includes all statement which the court permits or requires to
be made,. when the law says that a particular kind of evidence would be conclusive as to the
existence of a particular fact it implies that that fact can be proved either or by evidence or by
some other evidence which the Court permits or requires to be advanced. Where such
other evidence is adduced it would be open to the Court to consider whether, upon
that evidence, the fact exist or not. Where on the other hand, evidence which is
made conclusive is adduced, the Court has no option but to hold that the fact exists. If that
were not so, it would be meaningless to call a particular piece
of evidence as conclusive evidence.5

Fingerprints have not been lifted from the scene, the murder weapon has not been
recovered, and any credible motive is absent. Non production of the weapon of crime is a
serious lapse on the part of the investigation which would cast a doubt on the veracity of the
prosecution case."It has been consistently laid down by this Court that where a case rests
squarely on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the
incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the
accused or the guilt of any other person”.6

It was pointed out that great care must be taken in evaluating circumstantial evidence
and if the evidence relied on is reasonably capable of two inferences, the one in favour of the
accused must be accepted. The circumstances relied upon must be found to have been fully
established and the cumulative effect of all the facts so established must be consistent only
with the hypothesis of guilt.7

1.3 Unreliable Investigation by IO:

a. There is not even one proper evidence to show who stabbed Alam.

b. No murder weapon was found.

c. Charges were entirely made by relying upon mere assumptions of the Prosecution
witnesses.

What more required to show that the entire investigation by the IO is defective?

5
Smt. Somavanti And Others vs The State Of Punjab 1963 AIR 151, 1963 SCR (3) 774
6
Hukam Singh v. State of Rajasthan (AIR 1977 SC 1063)
7
State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, (1992 Crl. L.J 1104)

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS PAGE 10 of 20

 MANIPAL UNIVERSITY 1st NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY COMPETITION 2021

”The investigating officers are the kingpins in the criminal justice system. Their
reliable investigation is the leading step towards affirming complete justice to the victims of
the case. Hence they are bestowed with dual duties I.e. to investigate the matter exhaustively
and subsequently collect reliable evidences to establish the same."8

In the present case, investigation team did not identified the persons reasonable for the
death of the deceased. The crime happend on 21st Feb, at around 7:30 PM, the investigation
team made the charge sheet the same day within 4 to 4 and half hours, which considerably
shows that the investigation was not conducted properly. Unless
a proper investigation is conducted, the real truth will not come out. Faulty and biased
investigation have marred the sanctity of the entire exercise undertaken to bring the real
culprits to books. If the State's machinery fails to protect citizen's life, liberties and property
and the investigation is conducted in a manner to help the accused persons, it is but
appropriate that this Court should step in to prevent undue miscarriage of justice that is
perpetrated upon the victims and their family members.9

1.4 Re-investigation is vital:

The Courts should not ignore its mandate which is to search for truth and justice and
with this end to direct further investigation if necessary at the stage, prior to cognizance
under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. or subsequently under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. The latter
provision also confers powers on the investigating agency to further investigate a.case even
after submission of a charge sheet or final report, during the pendency of a trial in Court.10 If
deficiency in investigation or prosecution is visible or can be perceived by lifting the veil
trying to hide the realities or covering the obvious deficiencies, Courts have to deal with the
same with an iron hand appropriately within the framework of law. It is as much the duty of
the prosecutor as of the Court to ensure that full and material facts are brought on record so
that there might not be miscarriage of justice.11

Just with an unclear CCTV footage, unreliable statements of Prosecution witnesses, a

knife without fingerprints and a screen shot of a vague message, we cannot decide who was
responsible behind the scene. It cannot constitute a strong link to charge the accused with
such heinous crimes. Circumstantial evidence should point inevitably to the conclusion that it

8
Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2013) 6 SCC 348
9
Zahira Habibullah H. Shaikh v. State of Gujarat AIR 2004 SC 3114
10
Ibid, 9
11
Shakila Abdul Gafar Khan (Smt.) v. Vasant Raghunath Dhoble and Anr. (2003 (7) SCC 749).

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS PAGE 11 of 20

 MANIPAL UNIVERSITY 1st NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY COMPETITION 2021

was the accused and the accused only who were the perpetrators of the offence and such
evidence should be incompatible with the innocence of the accused.12

If primacy is given to such designed or negligent investigation, to the omission or

lapses by perfunctory investigation or omissions, the faith and confidence of the people
would be shaken not only in the Law enforcing agency but also in the administration of
justice in the hands of Courts.13

It is well settled that first information report can be used only for corroboration
under Section 157 or for contradiction under Section 145 of the IEA. Nor can it be used as a
basis for conviction or acquittal. Its importance may lie in the fact as to what was the initial
version of the case as stated to the police. It all depends upon from which quarter the
information came, whether from a person aggrieved or an eye-witness or a stranger.14

2. WHETHER THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE CHAIN OF EVENTS HAVE BEEN

ESTABLISHED CLEARLY?

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that, the next question to be
considered is whether the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the circumstances so
relied on, so as to conclude the guilt of the accused and whether the chain of evidence is
complete without leaving any reasonable ground for the conclusion, inconsistent with the
innocence of the accused and whether the circumstances and evidence so established by the
prosecution, exclude every possible hypothesis, except the guilt of the accused and finally
whether the circumstances so established are conclusive in nature and it tended towards the
guilt of the accused alone.

It was laid down by the apex court that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, such
evidence must satisfy the following tests:15

"(1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be
cogently and firmly established;

(2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of
the accused;

12
Eradu and Ors. v. State of Hyderabad AIR 1956 SC 316
13
Ram Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar and Ors. (1998 (4) SCC 517)
14
Kalluri Vema Reddy vs Reddi Gangi Reddi 1958 CriLJ 1118
15
Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P. And Ors.(AIR 1990 SC 79)

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS PAGE 12 of 20

 MANIPAL UNIVERSITY 1st NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY COMPETITION 2021

(3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no
escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the
accused and none else;

(4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable
of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence
should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his
innocence."

Since the guilt of the accused in the instant case is to be based on circumstantial
evidence, it is essential for us to determine whether or not a complete chain of events has
been established from the evidence produced by the prosecution.16

2.1 An Important link in the chain of events has not been established:

The chain of events established has not been completed to show clearly that Ramesh,
Suresh and ors, stabbed the Deceased. The principle for basing a conviction on the edifice of
circumstantial evidence has also been indicated in a number of decisions of this Court and the
law is well-settled that each and every incriminating circumstance must be clearly established
by reliable and clinching evidence and the circumstances so proved must form
a chain of events from which the only irresistible conclusion that could be drawn is the guilt
of the accused and that no other hypothesis against the guilt is possible.

The evidences produced by the prosecution shows that the accused namely Ramesh,
Suresh, Mukesh, Adnan, where seen at the place of crime occurred, but that is not enough for
their conviction, because Chacha Chai Shop, being a public place, there would have been
many random strangers in that scene, we cannot accuse everyone who were present at that
time, so the prosecution must have submitted a conclusive proof for the conviction. But they
failed miserably at this part. There are neither evidences nor a clear eye witnesses to show a
conclusive proof for the conviction the accused.

According to the prosecution the event chain goes like this:

a. Around 7:30 PM Avinash called Raja and Alam.

b. Who came first? Whether Raja or Alam? (Contradictions between the statements of Raja
and Avinash)

State of Gujarat v. Kishanbhai, reported at (2014) 5 SCC 108

16

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS PAGE 13 of 20

 MANIPAL UNIVERSITY 1st NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY COMPETITION 2021

c. They met near a shop, ie. Uncle chai shop.

d. After 5-10 mins. 8-10 unknown boys came and started beating.

e. After that 2 unknown persons came other side of the street and stabbed alam.

f. Who stabbed alam? (Prosecution relies upon their assumptions)

Now the prosecution is obscure regrading the evidence to show, the persons who stabbed
Alam.

This important link, has not been established by the prosecution, breaks the chain of
events necessary to establish the guilt of the accused Ramesh, Suresh, and others., and
constitutes a serious lapse in investigation. In the absence of circumstances clearly
established forming such chain of events which unmistakably point out the guilt of the
accused and leaving no room for any other inference, the prosecution case based on
circumstantial evidence is bound to fail.17

"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. Moreover, all the circumstances should be complete and there
should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. Further the proved circumstances must be
consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with
his innocence...."18

There are many contradictions in the statements which cuts the link and makes a way
to show that there is a fabricated theory behind the Plaintiffs. IO didn’t recovered the
“Murder Weapon”, “Finger Prints” and “marble stones” which was stated as the object
thrown at Avinash and Raja, by the accused. So, This lapse in the investigation of the case,
had also resulted the omission of a vital link in the chain of events which would have
unquestionably established the guilt of the accused Ramesh, Suresh and Ors. of having
committed murder or possibly their innocence.

2.2 Prosecution fails to establish the foundations of S. 300 of IPC:

The essential ingredients required of the offence of murder under S.300 of IPC are “Mens
Rea” and “Actus Reus”. It is true that intention is a subjective element and in most of the
cases direct proof of intention is not forthcoming. It has rightly been said that “the Devil

17
Tanviben Pankajkumar Divetia vs. State of Gujarat (1997) 7 SCC 156
18
C.Chenga Reddy and Ors. v. State of A.P. (1996) 10 SCC 193

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS PAGE 14 of 20

 MANIPAL UNIVERSITY 1st NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY COMPETITION 2021

himself knows not the thought of man”.19 The offence of murder as enshrined in S. 300 is
encompassed of a vicious act and vicious will.20 This is because every criminal prosecution
rests on the principle “actus non facitreum, nisi mens sit rea‟.21 It is hence pleaded that in this
instant case, firstly there is no direct or even circumstantial evidence to prove that the accused
have caused the death of the deceased. There is no intension with the accused to cause death
to the deceased.

On the whole, If the prosecution fails to prove the foundational facts, the actus reus by
the accused cannot be said to have been established.22 So, the defendants cannot be charged
with Murder accusations.

3. WHETHER THE PROSECUTION PROVED THEIR ACCUSATIONS BEYOND

REASONABLE DOUBTS?

It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that, "The burden is upon the
prosecution of proving a defendant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt before he is convicted.
Even where the evidential burden shifts to the defendant the burden of establishing
proof beyond reasonable doubt remains upon the prosecution and never changes. If on the
whole case the jury have such a doubt the defendant is entitled to be acquitted."23

"It is fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to

be innocent and therefore, the burden lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt.24 All the PWs are constantly struggling with their
assumptions, so they failed to prove any of their accusations on the defendants beyond the
reasonable doubts.

3.1 Presence of clear Ground for Reasonable Doubts:

The motive as well as the entire events as enumerated should have been established
and form a complete chain of events which must be proved by the prosecution beyond a
reasonable doubt.25 But there are many vital contradictions in the statement of Avinash, Raja,
Tannu, and Moen ali which is unjust and oppressive violating the cardinal principles of proof
of crime beyond reasonable doubt.

19
Virsasingh v. State of Punjab, A.I.R 1958 S.C. 672
20
Papadimitropocelos v. R, (1957) 98 C.L.R. 249.
21
State of Maharashtra v. Mayer Hans George, A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 722 (731)
22
Noor Aga vs. State of Punjab, AIR 2009 SC 852
23
Phipson on Evidence, 13th edn. page 44
24
Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1964 SC 1563
25
Sanatan Naskar and another vs. State of West Bengal (2010) 3 SCC (Crl) 814

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS PAGE 15 of 20

 MANIPAL UNIVERSITY 1st NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY COMPETITION 2021

Tannu and Moen Ali stated that “Alam was standing with his friends Raja and
Avinash. At the same time, Ramesh, Suresh, Mukesh, Adnan, Salman with 10-15 other boys
came from Hatwada road in a herd and started fighting with Raja and Alam on the street.I
heard that someone is quarrelling”, which constitutes an irregular order of the event. And
Strongly in contradintion with the statements of Raja and Avinash, because Avinash said 2
unknown persons came and stabbed Alam, who came after these 8-10 people who started to
beat them, Raja also corroborated with the statement of Avinash and stated that he saw
Ramesh with another unknown person stabbing alam, but Tanu and Moen ali already said
they saw Ramesh, Suresh, Mukesh, Adnan, Salman at the same time when alam, avinash, and
raja were talking at the Uncle chai shop. Raja stated that he accompanied Moen ali to the
hospital, but neither Moen ali nor Tannu, didnt stated such things, like this many
contradictions clearly shows the grounds for reasonable doubts.

The maxim that the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt is a rule
of caution laid down by the Courts of Law in respect of assessing the evidence.in criminal
cases. Section 105 of IEA, places 'burden of proof' on the accused in the first part and in the
second part we find a presumption which the Court can draw regarding the absence of the
circumstances which presumption is always rebuttable. Therefore, taking the Section as a
whole the 'burden of proof' and the presumption have to be considered together.

It is axiomatic when the evidence is sufficient as to prove the existence of a fact

conclusively then no difficulty arises. But where the accused introduces evidence to displace
the presumption which may affect the prosecution case or create a reasonable doubt about the
existence of one or other ingredients of the offence and then it would amount to a case where
prosecution failed to prove its own case beyond reasonable doubt. The circumstances from
which an inference as to the guilt of the accused is drawn have to be proved beyond
reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact sought
to be inferred from those circumstances.26 Where the case depends upon the conclusion
drawn from circumstances the cumulative effect of the circumstances must be such as to
negative the innocence of the accused and bring the offences home beyond any reasonable
doubt.27 Thus, the defendants are entitled to the benefit of doubt on the facts of the present
case.

26
Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1987 SC 350)
27
Bhagat Ram v. State of Punjab (AIR 1954 SC 621)

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS PAGE 16 of 20

 MANIPAL UNIVERSITY 1st NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY COMPETITION 2021

3.2 The Soul of Justice must be Protected:

In future, If one even cursorily glances through the records of the case, one will get a
feeling that the justice delivery system was being taken for a ride and literally allowed to be
abused, misused and mutilated by subterfuge. Because the investigation appears to be
perfunctory and anything but impartial without any definite object of finding out the truth and
bringing to book those who were responsible for the crime.

Criminal trials should not be reduced to be the mock trials or shadow boxing or fixed trials.
Judicial Criminal Administration System must be kept clean and beyond the reach of
whimsical political wills or agendas and properly insulated from discriminatory standards or
yardsticks of the type prohibited by the mandate of the Constitution.Those who are
responsible for protecting life and properties and ensuring that investigation is fair and proper
seem to have shown no real anxiety. Whether the accused persons were really assailants or
not could have been established by a fair and impartial investigation.

So it is most humbly submitted that, this Hon’ble Court must scrutinize all the lapses and
deficiencies in the investigation and the contradictions in all the statements of the prosecution
witness before delivering the verdict.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS PAGE 17 of 20

 MANIPAL UNIVERSITY 1st NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY COMPETITION 2021

PRAYER

Wherefore in the light of the facts stated, charges framed, evidence adduced, arguments
advanced and authorities cited, the Counsels for the Defence humbly pray and implore before
this Hon‟ble Court of Sessions to be graciously pleased to declare that:

Ramesh, Suresh, Adnan, Salman, Mukesh and along with 15 other people is not guilty of Sec.
302, 323, 324, 147, 148, 149, 336 and 427 of IPC and 4/25 of Arms Act

or

The Court may make any such order as it may deem fit in terms of justice, equity and good
conscience.

And for this act of kindness, the Defence shall as duty bound ever humbly pray.

Respectfully Submitted

Place: Prayag Shehar S/d_________________________

Date: April 2021 Counsel for the Defence

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS PAGE 18 of 20

 MANIPAL UNIVERSITY 1st NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY COMPETITION 2021

LIST OF WITNESS

161 Cr.P.C Statement Chotu (Uncle Tea Shop Owner) s/o Shri Unknown by caste sindhi
age 45 years Resident of Prayag Seher.

That i am residing in Prayag seher with my family and i own a shop with name uncle tea shop.
avinash used to come to my tea shop to drink tea. on 21.02.2021, at around 7:20 pm in the
evening, avinash and with one of his friends came to my shop and order two cup of tea. then
avinash was calling someone i only heard from is “ sudharna jruri hai tu sab ko bula le” and
cut the phone. avinash and his friend were in mood of anger that time. before i could give cup
of tea to them few more persons on two three motorcycles arrived there who started talking
with avinash and his friend. then again few boys on motorcycle arrived there with hockey
sticks, i requested all of them to not to do riot on my shop and then they went to some
distance and started quarrelling and shouting on each other due to which a large crowd
gathered and i could not see anything. later on, i come to know that alam friend of avinash
was killed by bikers. i don’t know anything else about the incident. investigation officer

Police Station Prayag Seher

161 Cr.P.C Statement Mr.Suresh Resident plot XXXXXXXX

That I am residing in the plot XXXXXXX, Alam is nice person, he is just my friend. Ramesh,
Mukesh, Adnan, are my close friends. Very often we four will go out for many get-to-
gathers, one such beautiful day was 21st, of Feb, we decided to go to Uncle chai shop, so we
four went there around 7:30 PM on by bike. When we enter metrajan shop street we saw
people were standing together and beating some one. Then only we saw alam was the one
who was beaten up by those boys,there were 8 -10 boys beating alam, so we immediately
intervened and tried to stop them, but they had many weapons with them, inspite of that we
defendend them from alam but we couldn’t manage everyone they attacked alam brutally so
he ran towards hatwada road and 2 unknown persons came to him straightly and stabbed him
2 times, we immediately ran towards Alam, seeing us they got in their vehicle, and tried to
escape, we too got on our vehicle and chased them, they were riding rashly so we could not
catch them eventually, we lost them. After this unfortunate event, We heard that Alam was
dead, so we all felt so sad for him and we all returned to our home.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS PAGE 19 of 20