MOOT COURT COMPETITION-2024

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

IN THE MATTER OF
State of Punjab………………………. Prosecution
v/s
Abdul Khan…………………………………………Accused

Submitted By Submitted to
Mimansa Arora Prof. Suresh Mam
Class-B.A.LL.B(10th Sem) Moot Court In charge
Class roll no.-205129
Uni. roll no.-11242021010
SR.NO. PARTICULAR PAGE
NO.
1 LISTS OF ABBREVATION
2 LISTS OF STATUTES
3 BOOKS AND ONLINE RESEARCHERS
4 LISTS OF AUTHORITIES
5 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
6 STATEMENTS OF FACTS
7 ISSUES PRESENTED
8 CHARGES
9 POST MORTEM REPORT

10 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
11 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
12 PRAYER
 ABBERVATION
IPC Indian penal code

AIR All India Report

V Versus

H.C. High court

IPC Indian Penal court

S.C. Supreme Court

CRPC Code of criminal procedure

& And

POCSO. Protection of child from sexual offences

HON'BLE. Honourable
 LISTS OF STATUTES
• THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860
• THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973
• THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872
• Protection of child from sexual offences act, 2012

BOOKS FOLLLOWED
• The Indian Penal Code, S.N. MISHRA
• The Law of Evidence , S.R Miyani Second Addition 2014
• The Law of Evidence,Dr. Ashok Jain

ONLINE RESOURCES
 LISTS OF AUTHORIES

1. Case - Ratten v/s Queen (1971)

2. Case - Bishna v/s State of west bengal (2005)SC
3. Case - Chohotka v/s The State (1958)
4. Judgment - State of Karnataka v/s M.Rajashekar (2002)
5. Judgment - Gura singh v/s State of Rajasthan (2001)
6. Judgment - Budhu nag chatar v/s State of Jharkhand (2024)
7. Judgment - Pappu Tiwary vis state of Jharkhand (2022)
8. Judgment - Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v/s State of Maharashtra (1984)
9. Judgment - Nandu singh v/s State of Madhya Pradesh (2022) SC
 STATEMENTS OF JURISDICTION
The Hon’ble Court has jurisdiction to try the instant matter
under Sec 177 read with sec.209 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973.

Section 177: Ordinary place of inquiry and trial-

Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and trial by a
court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed.’

Read with Sec 209:

Commitment of case to court of session when offence is
triable exclusively by it-
When in a case instituted on a police report or otherwise, the
accused appears or is brought before the magistrate and it
appears to the magistrate that the offence is triable
exclusively by the Court of Session, he shall-

(a) Commit the case to the Court of Session;

(b) Subject to the provision of this code relating to bail,
remand the accused to custody during, and until the
conclusion of trial;
(c) Send to that Court the record of the case and the
documents and articles if any which are to be produced in
evidence;
(d) Notify the Public Prosecutor of the commitment of the case
to the Court of Session.’
 STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. Saleem (complainant) a vegetable vendor, was living with his family
consisting of his wife and three children in ludhiana. Saleems's sister
Fatima was residing with her husband Bashir Khan and daughter
Sameena(deceased) IN Amritsar.

2. Fatima died in 2004 and her husband Bashir khan left the custody of her
daughter after about 2 years with the complainant. The complainant was
looking after her alongwith his two children. Sameena used to go to learn
stitching for the last three four months before the occurrence at about 10
or 11am alongwith other female children residents of the area of the
complainant.

3. On 23-9-2015 Noori, daughter of Naushad,took sameena from house.

Then sameena returned after a short interval. Again about 5:15pm, Noori
took sameena with her on the pretext of defecating where after sameena
did not return. Despite searching she could not be found.

4. On 25-9-2015 at about 6pm the dead body of sameena was found in the
bushes near the cremation ground of the village by Noor jahan wife of the
complainant, who was informed by a 12 year old boy Dilbar from the
neighbourhood.

5. On the receipt of information from his wife, the complainant alongwith

his brother Rehman and other neighbours went to the said place. The
complainant found sameena's lifeless body with clear signs of violence ,
including injury marks around the neck, a jute thread tied around her
neck,one of her feet was found tied with a dupatta,she was naked from the
lower part, her garment was lying at a distance, blood was also scattered
there, slippers of the deceased were also found at some distance, one
black colour male slippers was also foundd there. From circumstances
observed by the complainant it seemed that sameena was killed and then
her dead body was dragged into the bushes.

6. After recording the statement of saleem FIR was registered under section
302 IPC. Inquest report about the condition of the dead body of
sameena,was prepared. Dead body was dispatched to civil hospital
ludhiana for postmortem examination.
 Post-mortem report revealed that death resulted due to neck injury and
possibility of rape cannot be ruled out before death.

7. On 26-9-2015 sadiq hussain made statement tp police that, on the day of

occurrence he overheard one abdul khan talking with his companion, while
sitting at dhaba that he had tried to commit rape on the person of one female
child but when she started crying, he killed her.

8. on 28-9-2015 Abdul khan made extra judicial confession before Sukhwinder

singh Namberdar that - on 23-9-2015 Sameena niece of saleem was found going
into the jungle to defecate and on seeing her he became furious in sexual lust and
went into the bushes. When he tried to commit rape on her by putting off her
clothes, she resisted and raised cries due to which he took out jute thread from
his pocket and tied off around her neck and strangulated her to death. Thereafter,
he dragged her dead body into the bushes and after leaving her there he ran
away . As the police was behind him and thereafter, he should help him for his
production before the police so as to avoid his torture at hands of the police.
Sukhwinder singh Namberdar produced the accused before SHO. Accused Abdul
khan was nominated in the case and was formally arrested.

9. On 27-9-2015 , Dilber made a statement that on 25-9-2015 at about 4:30 pm

he was returning to his house from the market. Present accussed Abdul khan is
also a resident of his area. He met the accused on the way near the cremation
ground . He heard some noise from the bushes near the cremation ground and
rushed to the bushes and saw Sameena lying in the pool of blood and he got
frightened and informed about this incident to Noor jahan aunt of Sameena.

10. After commitment of case to the court of session , charges under section
302,376-A IPC read with section 4 and 18 of the protection of children and
sexual offences act 2012 was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not
guilty and claimed trial.
 LEGAL ISSUES

1.Whether Hearsay evidence is admissible in the court of law?

2. Whether the extra judicial confession can be acceptable or
not as evidence?
3.Can a person be convicted solely on the basis of
circumstantial evidence?
 STATEMENT OF CHARGES

CHARGE DETAILS
The accused has been charged under section 302 and 376-A
of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and read with section 4 and 18
of protection of child from sexual offences act,2012.
 POST MORTEM REPORT

Post Mortem Report no.1727.

Date and Hour of Receipt of Inquest Paper and Dead Body:
Date and Hour of Starting Autopsy:
Date and Hours of Concluding Autopsy:
Body brought and identified by:
SCHEDULE OF OBSERVATIOEN.
A-GENERAL
1.Name:
2.age
3.address
4.height
5.injuries
B-EXTERNAL EXAMINATION
The body is that of sameena's.
C- INTERNAL EXAMATION
D- EVIDENCE OF INJURY
Injury marks around her neck and jute thread around her neck.
E-SPECIMEN COLLECTED FOR TOXICOLOGICAL
ANALYSIS:
F- TIME SINCE DEATH
G- OPINION
 Summary arguments
Issue No. 1 Whether Hearsay evidence is admissible in the
court of law?
It is humbly Submitted before the Honourable Court that hearsay evidence can
be admissible in the court of law if it falls under the exceptions such as res
gestae, dying declaration, admissions and confessions statements made under
specific circumstances. The statement made by Sadiq hussain(that he overheard
Abdul khan confessing to killing the girl) is hearsay. This statement is
connecting two things.
• Firstly, Sadiq hussain heard the statement that abdul khan is talking with
his companion at the dhaba that he tried to commit rape on the person of
one female child but when she started crying he killed her. The statement
is heard on the day of occurrence ie on 23-9-2015 when sameena lost.
• Secondly A 12 year old boy (Dilber) also watched the accused on
25-9-2015 returning from the cremation ground.
• Thirdly, Sadiq hussain and abdul khan both are relatives, Sadiq can be
fined of voice of abdul khan.These two events makes the connection that
the statement may be true.
Issue no. 2 Whether Extra judicial Confession can be acceptable
or not as evidence?
• It is humbly Submitted before the honourable Court that an extra judicial
confession are admissible under sec 24-30 of IEA. Extra judicial confession
means the confession made outside the court room.
• Abdul khan extra judicial confession before sukhwinder singh (Namberdar)
is a key piece of evidence. Here the confession stating his intent to commit
the rape and subsequent strangulation of the victim with the jute thread.
• This confession aligns with the material evidence like the body dragged
into bushes,marks around the neck.
Issue no. 3 Can a person be convicted solely on the basis of
circumstantial evidennce?
Yes, a person can be convicted based on circumstantial evidence if it forms a
complete chain of events that leads to only one conclusion : the guilt of the
accused.
Circumstantial evidence here includes :-
• Abdul khan being seen near the cremation ground
• Blood found at the scene
• Injury marks and jute thread consistent with strangulation
• Slippers of the deceased and corroboration from dilbar's statement.
 ADVANCED AGRUMMENTS
1.Whether the hearsay evidence is admissible in the court of law.?
⇒ It is humbly submitted before the hon'ble court that in order to prove that
hearsay evidence is admissible in the court of law or not provision under sec
60 could be taken.

The general rule under the evidence act that any evidence that is hearsay is not
admissible. Sec 60 of the IEA specifically addresses this issue. It states that
oral evidence in the form of hearsay ie a statement made by someone other
than the witness who is testifying is not ordinarily admissible. The reason
behind this rule is to ensure that evidence presented in court is reliable,
trustworthy and subject to cross examination.

.EXCEPTIONS TO HEARSAY RULE:

While the Indian evidence act largely excludes any evidence that is
hearsay in nature, it recognises certain exceptions where such evidence
may be admitted. These exceptions are based on the principle
1.3 To corroborate this fact, we have recovered the WhatsApp chat of Accused
and Nisha in which accused insisting Nisha to run away together and get
married but she denied to do so.

1.4 Electronic records, WhatsApp chats are admissible under Sec 65B of the
IEA. Anything in this act any information Contained in electronic record
which is printed on paper, started recording or copied in optical or produced
by computer or computer output shall be deemed to be document its
condition authorities is checked and satisfied in relation to information such
as document shall be admissible on proceeding.

1.5 Moreover, the brutality of the crime showing sheer intention. The killing
were particularly brutal exhibiting rage and multiple wounds, it would
strongly lean towards the intention of killing rather then accidental or
impulsive act.

1.6 Forensic report showed the injuries which are submitted before the court
and admissible under the sec 45 of IEA i.e., permit the opinion of experts to
be considered in matter of science, arts or foreign law where the court
deems it necessary. The includes forensic experts as well.

1.7 So, the above said that there are three grounds forming and showing strong
motive and intention behind murder of the daughters of Dr. Bhupesh
Sharma.

1.8 Under sec8 of IEA motive, preparation and previous or subs conduct i.e.,
any fact is relevant which shows or constitute a motive and preparation for
any fact in issue or relevant fact.

Case -Sampath Kumar v/s inspector of police Krishnagar 2012(SC)

In this case supreme court of India observed the effect of presences of motive
and said that the presence of motive in the facts and circumstances of a case
creates a strong suspicion against the accused.
Supreme court a Bench of Justice MR Shah and Justice B V Nagaratha –
In the recent judgment of 2022 considering the state of Uttarakhand appeal
challenging HC order of setting aside the conviction of accused in murder case,
supreme court stated that the circumstances can be used to inter the intention to
cause a murder under sec 302.
Sec 299 IPC CULPARBLE HOMICIDE
Whoever cause the death by doing an act with intention of causing such a bodily
injury as is likely to cause death or with knowledge he is likely by such an act to
cause death, commit the offence of culpable homicide.

2.Whether the confession given by Accused during the

investigation is admissible or not?
it is humbly Submitted before the hon'ble court that Confession is completely
admissible as the Accused Vivek gave this Contention in sound mind and without
and indue influence or fear. The confession made by him is admissible under sec
26 of IEA, as confession given by him to Executive magistrate by fallowing the
all the procedure mentioned under see 164 of crpc.
Sec-26 of IEA, 1872
Confession by accused while in custody of police not to be proved against him.
No confession made by any person whilst he is in custody of a police officer
unless it be made in the immediate presence of a magistrate, shall be proved as
against such person.
Sec-27 of IEA,1872
How much information received from accused may be proved? –
Provided that when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequences of
information received from accused person of any offence in the custody of
police officer so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession
or not, as relates to distinctively to the fact thereby discovered may be proved.
Bench of Justice A B Chaudhary & Justice Surinder Gupta of Punjab &
Haryana court has held that expression Magistrate appearing in sec 26 of IEA
would include execute magistrate also.
Sec-26 of IEA: Confession in police custody made in immediate presence of
executive magistrate admissible. During verdict of High Court contention that
“had there been any intention to confer the power only on the judicial
magistrate. The Parliament would not have forgotten to insert the ward
Magistrate in sec-26 OF IEA
2.2. There are various corroborative facts which are admissible under sec 6 read
with sec 27 of the Indian evidence act, 1872 which are supporting the
confession made by the accused and showing that confession is true and made
without any undue influence.
Sec-6 of IEA: Relevancy of facts forming part of some transaction.
- Facts though not in issue, are so connected with a "fact in issue as to form part
of the same transaction, are relevant, whether they occurred at same trine and
place or at different times or place.
These are as follows as corroborative facts to confession:
(I) Police recovered the knife and blood-stained clothes from bushes behind the
hospital which are belongs to Vivek.
-In a DNA Testing blood on the clothes is of Nisha and Shweta and the finger
impression on the knife is of the accused Vivek.
Above provided evidences are admissible u/s-45 of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872
Sec-45 of IEA: Opinions of Expert
When the court has to form an opinion upon a point of foreign law or of science
or art or as to Identity of handwriting or finger impression, then opinion upon,
that point of persons of special skulled in such a field are relevant.
Sec 46 of IEA: Facts bearing upon opinion of experts: -
Facts, not otherwise relevant if they support or are inconsistent with the
opinions of experts, when such opinions are relevant.
Case- V. Kishon Rao vs. Nikhil super speciality Hospital and Ans SC (2010)
SC held that before farming an opinion, the expert evidence is necessary to
come on the conclusion.
(ii) Another Corroborative Fact to confession is PW1 Sumit Jain's testimony
who lived just opposite to the house of Dr. Bhupesh Bhupesh to saw the Vivek
Jumping from the compound wall on the day of morning of murder on dated 8
.5.2021.
Eye witness is testimony is admissible as relevancy of fact under Indian
Evidence Act.
Sec-118 of IEA: Every person is competent to testify before the court of law
unless exempted due to legal disability.
Sec-134 IEA: Another provision which Strengthen the status of sole eye
witness i.e. No particular number of eye witness shall in any case required for
the proof of any fact.
Case-Ranji Surya Palvi vs State of Maharashtra AIR 1983 SC 1983
In this case Apex Court stated that Co of sale eye-witnesses in murder Case is
not necessary.
Case- SPS Rathore V/S CBI & anr (2017) 5SCC 817
In this case supreme court held that Even Single exe witness sufficient for
maintaining conviction.
(11) Another Corroborating fact, i.e., Eye witness PW1 Amit Jain who saw the
Accused Vivek jumping from the Compound of Dr. Bhupesh on the date and
time of murder morning. So, this is the one relevant fact which destroys the
Accused is Plea of Alibi
Above said fact are admissible under the Sec-11of IEA; -
When facts not otherwise relevant become relevant
(1) If they are inconsistent with any fact in issue or relevant fact
(2) If by themselves or in connection with other facts they make the existence or
non-existence of any fact in issue or relevant fact.
A Bench of Justices S. Abhay’s Oka and Justice Sanjay karal of Supreme
Court on dated 110ct 2023
Held that a plea of Alibi cannot come to rescue of an accused unless it is
supported by Corroborative evidence.
Case- Pappu Tiwary vis state of Jharkhand (2022)
In this recent case SC held that The Pilea of alibi in fact is required to be proved
with certainty so as to Completely exclude the possibility of the presence of the
accused at the place of occurrence.
Supreme court Bench of Justice Abhay is Oka & Justice Pankaj Mithal
(2024)
Recently upheld the conviction in a murder Case observing that the ocular
evidence given by the eye witness can’t be dis credited.
Case- Hanumant v/s State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1952 SC343
The SC laid down Principles on Plea of Alibi and stated that the Accused must
prove the Plea of Alibi and to the satisfaction of the court, but the prosecution’s
case can't rest solely on the weakness of the Plea of Alibi.
3. Whether Accused Commit House trespass in order to Commit
offence Murder of victims?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that it is un-deniable fact as
regards to above proved facts That Accused Commit the House trespass in order
to Commit the murder of Nisha and Shweta.
Sec449 of IPC - House Trespass in order to commit offence punishable with
Death: -
whoever commit’s house trespass in order to committing of any offence
punishable with death, shall be Punished imprisonment of life or with rigours
imprisonment for a term not exceed 10 year and shall also be liable for fine.
To corrobarting the above fact there is an Eye witness – Pw1: Sumit Jaim who
saw the Accused to Jumping from the compound wall on the date of murder
morning i.e., 8-5-2023.
 PRAYER

Wherefore In the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities
May this Hon’ble court be pleased to;
Punishing Vivek for the offence of committing trespass with murder under
sec449/302 of IPC, 1860.
AND/OR
Pass any order it may deem fit in the matter of justice, equality and good
conscience.
Place: Jaipur
Public Prosecutor