Bennett University Intra Moot Court Competition, 2023, Study notes of Law

Download Bennett University Intra Moot Court Competition, 2023 and more Study notes Law in PDF only on Docsity! Page 1 of 13 Bennett University Intra Moot Court Competition, 2023 BEFORE THE HONOURABLE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT OF NANJIM IN THE MATTER OF CRIMINAL APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 177 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE OF 1973 AND SEC. 302 AND SEC. 375 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 STATE OF TOA…………………PLAINTIFF V. MR. LALIT……………………………DEFENDANT FOR THE KIND ATTENTION OF THE HON’BLE JUSTICES OF THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT OF NANJIM MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT TEAM CODE- ITC 05 Page 2 of 13 INDEX Page no. INDEX OF ABBREVIATIONS…...……………………………………………….… 3 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES……………………………………………………….…. 4 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION…………………………………………………. 5 STATEMENT OF FACTS……………………………………………………….…... 6 STATEMENT OF ISSUES………………………………………………………...…. 8 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS……………………………………………….……. 9 BODY OF ARGUMENTS……………………………………………………………. 10 ISSUE I: Whether the prosecution has proved that accused has committed rape on victim? ISSUE II: Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused has committed offence u/s 302 of IPC? PRAYER………………………………………………………………………………13 Page 5 of 13 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION The Hon’ble Principal District Court of the State of Tao has jurisdiction in this matter under Sec. 177 of the Criminal Procedure Code which reads as follows: Section 177 of the Criminal Procedure Code – Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. Page 6 of 13 STATEMENT OF FACTS • Aarti, a married woman of 25 years, lives in Malaya village in the West District of the state of Toa. She took the Vulture train between Uguem (a village in Toa's South District) and Malaya on a regular basis. She was discovered unconscious in a forest near the Malaya Railway Station around 9.00 p.m. on 15/07/2017 and was taken to Health Government Medical College Hospital, Nanjim, where she died of injuries around 2.00 p.m. on 16/07/2017. • Lalit, 35, works for Fortune car service and was very friendly with Aarti, whom he met frequently at the Malaya railway station. On July 17, 2017, the police arrested accused Lalit of Calapur village in Toa's North District on charges of rape and murder of deceased victim Aarti. Lalit had a history of being convicted of minor offences. According to prosecution witness Mahi, who owns a tea and snack stall at the Malaya railway station and last saw Lalit and Aarti walking together towards the end of the Malaya railway platform on July 15, 2017. He had also seen both of them moving towards the direction of the forested area before they vanished. • He also claims that he remembered both of them visiting his stall frequently for a cup of tea and a samosa, which was their regular order whenever they visited his stall. • Mr. Mohan, who was passing through the forest late in the evening on July 15, 2017, discovered the victim's body in a pool of blood. He stated that he heard a lady moaning and that when he arrived at the scene of the crime, Aarti was unconscious. • When Mr. Mohan attempted to contact the police, he sounded nervous. Mr. Mohan, a car mechanic, admitted to police that he knew the deceased Aarti because she was Mr. Mohan's good friend Suresh's wife. He also stated that Suresh was fed up with Aarti and that they used to fight frequently because Suresh was annoyed and irritated by Aarti's close relationship with Lalit. • The police sent the body of the deceased victim for post mortem. It came to the notice of the police as evidence procured from crime scene was a railway ticket in the name of Lalit dated 15/07/2017 was procured from the purse of deceased Aarti. This travel ticket was of Vulture train running between Uguem and Malaya. The police also found a car jack that was at a distance of 50 mts from the crime scene that had traces of victim’s blood. • Following that, DNA samples were collected from the crime scene and Aarti's body was compared to Lalit samples. A button from the accused's shirt was discovered on the ground beneath the deceased's body. Furthermore, the deceased's fingernails contained Lalit skin cells. • Following a medical examination of the accused, it was discovered that the accused's body bore the fingermarks of the deceased Aarti. Traces of the accused's sperm were discovered in the victim's body and clothes. • Suresh's phone, which belonged to Aarti, was also taken into custody by the police. The police tracked the messages exchanged between the deceased Aarti and Lalit on their mobile phones. Suresh expressed his doubt during interrogation that Aarti could have left her phone Page 7 of 13 in a hurry at her residence on July 15, 2017. A few people saw the accused Lalit on the Vulture train, and others saw him near the Malaya bus stop near the Malaya railway station. • During the police investigation, it was discovered that the accused tried to tease a girl named Pushpa, a friend of Aarti, in her presence at Malaya railway station a few days before the incident. Aarti had objected to the accused's action. As a result, the accused threatened them with dire consequences if they reported the incident to the police. • Without fear of reprisal, the girls filed a complaint against the accused at Malaya Police Station, and the police registered a FIR against the accused, and an investigation was underway. • During the investigation, the deceased's body was also sent for a post-mortem, which was performed by Dr. Nikita, a forensic surgeon from the Health Government Medical College Hospital. She conducted the post-mortem mentioned in the report and informed that there were approximately twenty injuries in the deceased's body and that the death was primarily due to injuries no. 1 and 2. She stated unequivocally that the first injury was a "lacerated wound with a surrounding abraded contusion on the left side of the forehead, abraded contusion on the left side of the forehead above the eye brow, and contusion of the left temporalis muscle, involving its entire thickness." A fissured fracture was visible on the left orbital margin. The floor of the left side of the anterior cranial fossa was also fractured. • There is traumatic disruption of pituitary gland stem and left frontal lobe of brain showed multiple areas of haemorrhage", which was caused by the victims' head being hit with a hard object. "The second injury is due to aspiration of a significant amount of blood, which resulted in anoxic brain damage as a result of forcible sexual intercourse in the supine position.” Page 10 of 13 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED III. WHETHER THE PROSECUTION HAS PROVED THE ACCUSED HAS COMMITTED RAPE ON VICTIM? 1. My Client Mr. Lalit, 35 years of age, is charged under Sec. 375, Sec. 376 and Sec. 376(a) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the state, for the rape and murder of Aarti, 25 years of age, a resident of Malaya village. 2. As per the facts of the case, all the evidences that are against my client are circumstantial. The tea stall owner spotted my client going to the end of the platform on the Malaya Railway Station. That is all that the prosecution is pointing at but one needs to also look at the fact that Aarti went with my client willingly. 3. Mahi, the tea stall owner also asserts the fact that he remembers both of them being frequent visitors at his stall for a cup of tea and samosa which was their regular whenever they visited. This statement again points to the fact that my client Mr. Lalit and Aarti were very well acquainted to each other. 4. To support this statement, I would like to state that Mr. Mohan who is a friend of Aarti’s husband Suresh mentions in his statement given to the police that Aarti and Lalit both shared a close relationship with each other due to which there were repeated quarrels between Aarti and her husband Suresh. 5. The prosecution is pointing to the fact that 50mts from a crime scene a car jack was recovered with the victim’s blood on it and that it points to the fact that it was Mr. Lalit who was present there. But I would like to bring to the attention of the court to the fact that Mr. Mohan who is a close friend of Aarti’s husband Suresh is also a car mechanic, this point would be further covered by my co-counsel. 6. As stated in the case of Uday v. State of Karnataka that the burden is on the prosecution to prove each and every ingredient of the offence, absence of consent being one of them.1 7. One of the main pieces of evidence that the prosecution is relying on is the post mortem report. But post mortem reports cannot be completely relied upon. According to Sec. 157 of the Evidence Act, 1872 the post mortem reports can only be used to corroborate the statements made.2 8. In the case of State of Punjab v. Gian Singh, it was held that the post mortem report or an injury report is not substantive evidence. It has to be proved by the maker of it.3 9. All the evidences that are against my client are circumstantial and the statements made by Mr. Mohan where he states that Aarti’s Husband Suresh was agitated by the close relationship she shared with Lalit points to the fact that she went with him willingly and not by force. 1 Uday v. State of Karnataka, (2003) 4 SCC 46 (para 21) 2 Section 157, The Evidence Act, 1872 3 State of Punjab v. Gian Singh, Special Leave Petition Crl. No.8989 of 2010 Page 11 of 13 10. To add to that, at last I would like to mention that the prosecution has not proved beyond doubt that lalit is guilty and that the sexual intercourse was not consensual. IV. Whether the prosecution has proved beyond the reasonable doubt that accused has committed offence u/s 302 of IPC? Mr. Lalit is also being charged with the offence of murder under the Sec. 302 of IPC. The evidences presented by the prosecution in the court are based on the circumstantial evidence, and circumstantial evidences only is not so much a type of evidence as it is a logical principle of deduction. These are unrelated facts that, when considered together, can be used to infer a conclusion about something unknown. So the arguments presented to the court by the prosecution does not prove beyond the reasonable doubt that my client has murdered Aarti. 1.Statement given by the tea stall owner Mahi also state that my client and the deceased Aarti shared a very good relationship, this proves that both them shared a good level of trust and friendship. My client does not have the mens rea or the intent for killing her, and in a criminal offence mens rea is one of the important ingredient. 2.The other evidence like the shirt button of my client and the railway ticket issued in the name of Lalit can easily be framed by anyone, and is not concrete evidence to consider my client guilty of the offence. The train ticket which was found in the victim’s purse can be their as they shared close relation Aarti kept the ticket in her purse for Lalit. 3.Car jack which is said to be the murder weapon in the case is found 50mts away from the scene and have victim’s blood on it. But it does not carry any fingerprints on it, and my client working in a car shop does not necessarily make him the accused as acquiring a car jack is very easy and generally every person who owns a car possesses one. Mr. Mohan, who is a good friend of the victim’s husband Suresh is also a mechanic by profession. As statements given by Mr. Mohan tells us about the quarrels between Aarti and Suresh. It is important to look at the facts, that at the day of the incident Aarti’s phone was at her home and Suresh tells us that she might have left the phone in a hurry. But this also give a rise to a doubt on Suresh, he also can be culprit in the murder of Aarti as he didn’t like the relation shared by Lalit and Aarti. 4.The post-mortem report presented to the courts are something on which we cannot always rely, Sec. 157 of the Evidence Act4 states that the post-mortem report can only be used to corroborate the statements made. As my co-counsel mentioned the case of State of Punjab vs Gian Singh where court held that the post-mortem report or an injury report is not substantive evidence. In 4 Sec. 157, The Evidence Act, 1872 Page 12 of 13 addition to that the Supreme Court also stated post-mortem report by itself is not substantive evidence.5 5. Sec.101 and 102 of the Indian Evidence Act6 states that the burden of proof generally lies with the prosecution in most of the criminal cases. Defence case is not needed to be reasonable it does not mean that prosecutor is right, prosecutor case should be based on strength and merit, it was established in Toran singh vs State of M.P.7 6. At the end I would like to add to the fact that we follow the policy of innocent until proven guilty and the prosecution in both the issues has not proved beyond reasonable doubt that my client Mr. Lalit is guilty of offence of Murder and Rape defined under Sec. 302 and Sec. 375 of the IPC. 5 State of Punjab v. Gian Singh, Special Leave Petition Crl. No.8989 of 2010 6 Sec. 101 and Sec. 102, The Evidence Act, 1872 7 Toran Singh v. State of MP, Crl. Appeal 39 of 2002