Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 40

6TH FYLC RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT

COMPETITION, 2016

BEFORE,
THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
[UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA]
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. ______ / 2016

(AGAINST THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND FINAL ORDER DATED PASSED BY


THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN IN CRIMINAL APPEAL _/2016)

IN THE MATTER OF

STATE OF RAJASTHAN & OTHERS


v.
DINESH GOYAL & OTHERS

IN THE MATTER UNDER 302, 304B & 498A OF THE INDIAN PENAL
CODE, 1860.

ON THE SUBMISSION BEFORE THE REGISTRY OF THE COURT ON


03.09.2016.

~SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT~

MEMORIAL FOR APPELLANTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ABBREVIATIONS

EXPANSIONS

&

AND

SECTION

SECTIONS

PARAGRAPH

PARAGRAPHS

A.P.

ANDHRA PRADESH

AC/ APP. CASE

APPEAL CASES

AIR

ALL INDIA REPORTER

ART.

ARTICLE

BOM.

BOMBAY

CAL.

CALCUTTA

CLR

COMMONWEALTH LAW REPORTER

CO.

CORPORATION

CRI LJ/ CR LJ

CRIMINAL LAW JOURNAL

CR LR

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW

DEL

DELHI

DPP

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

DW

DEFENCE WITNESS

ED.

EDITION

FIR

FIRST INFORMATION REPORT

GOVT.

GOVERNMENT

H.P.

HIMACHAL PRADESH

HC

HIGH COURT

HONBLE

HONOURABLE

1 | Page
6TH UFYLC RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

MEMORIAL FOR APPELLANTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

IEA

INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT

IPC

INDIAN PENAL CODE

KANT.

KARNATAKA

KER.

KERALA

LD.

LEARNED

LTD.

LIMITED

M.P.

MADHYA PRADESH

NAG.

NAGALAND

N.C.T.

NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY

ORI.

ORISSA

ORS.

OTHERS

P&H

PUNAJB AND HARYANA

P./PG.

PAGE

PUNJ.

PUNJAB

PVT.

PRIVATE

PW

PROSECUTION WITNESS

RAJ.

RAJASTHAN

SC

SUPREME COURT

SCC

SUPREME COURT CASES

SLP

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION

SUPP.

SUPPLEMENTARY

U.P.

UTTAR PRADESH

US

UNITED STATES

V.

VERSUS

W.B.

WEST BENGAL

WLR

WEEKLY LAW REPORT

2 | Page
6TH UFYLC RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

MEMORIAL FOR APPELLANTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ........................................................................................................ 5
INDIAN SUPREME COURT CASES...5
INDIAN HIGH COURT CASES....................................................................................................... 10
COURT DECISIONS AROUND THE WORLD .................................................................................. 11
BOOKS........................................................................................................................................ 12
JOURNALS .................................................................................................................................. 12
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION .................................................................................................. 13
INDIAN STATUTES ...................................................................................................................... 13
FOREIGN STATUTES & RULES ................................................................................................... 13
WEB RESOURCES ....................................................................................................................... 13

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ......................................................................................... 14


SYNOPSIS OF FACTS ............................................................................................................... 15
STATEMENT OF ISSUES ........................................................................................................ 16
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ................................................................................................ 17
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ..................................................................................................... 18
[1] THE APPEAL IS MAINTAINABLE UNDER ARTICLE 136 ...................................................... 18
[1.1] APPELLANTS HAVE LOCUS STANDI IN THE INSTANT CASE. ...................................................... 18
[1.2] HON'BLE SC HAS THE JURISDICTION UNDER ART. 136 TO ENTERTAIN THIS PETITION. ........... 18
[1.2.1] THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE HONBLE HC IS AN APPEALABLE JUDGMENT........................ 19
[1.2.2] THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE HONBLE HC HAS RESULTED IN MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE. ... 19
[1.2.3] THE HONBLE SC SHOULD INTERFERE WHERE CONCURRENT FINDINGS DO NOT EXIST............ 19
[2] THE ACCUSED ARE GUILTY OF MURDER ......................................................................... 20
[2.1] THE ACTUS REUS OF MURDER IS ESTABLISHED ....................................................................... 20
[2.2] THE MENS REA OF MURDER IS ESTABLISHED .......................................................................... 22
[3] GOYALS ARE GUILTY OF THE OFFENCE OF DOWRY DEATH .......................................... 25
[3.1]

INGREDIENTS OF DOWRY DEATH HAVE BEEN PROVED BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBTS. .. 25

[3.1.1] THE DEATH OF THE DECEASED HAS OCCURRED WITHIN SEVEN YEARS OF HER MARRIAGE ........ 26
[3.1.2]

THE DECEASED HAS DIED UNDER SUSPICIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES ............................................ 26

[3.1.2.1] The Death Was Homicidal In Nature ................................................................................... 26


3 | Page
6TH UFYLC RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

MEMORIAL FOR APPELLANTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

[3.1.2.2] Mysterious Circumstances Surrounded The Death Of The Deceased ............................. 26


[3.1.3]

THE DECEASED WAS SUBJECTED TO CRUELTY BY HER HUSBAND AND IN-LAWS ........................ 27

[3.1.4]

THE DECEASED WAS METED WITH CRUELTY AND HARASSMENT SOON BEFORE DEATH BY HER
HUSBAND ........................................................................................................................................ 27

[3.1.4.1] TEST OF PROXIMITY HAS BEEN SATISFIED BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT .......................... 28
[3.1.5]

THE DECEASED WAS INFLICTED WITH CRUELTY AND HARASSMENT IN FURTHERANCE OF THE
DEMAND OF DOWRY. ........................................................................................................................ 28

[4] THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD IS SUFFICIENT TO PROVE THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED
BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBTS. .......................................................................................... 29
[4.1] MR. SANJAYS TESTIMONY IS RELIABLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE. ................................................. 30
[4.1.1] THE TESTIMONY PASSES THE TEST OF RELEVANCY. ................................................................. 30
[4.1.2] THE TESTIMONY IS A CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF FACTS. .................................................. 31
[4.1.3] THE TESTIMONY PASSES THE TEST OF RES GESTAE. ................................................................ 31
[4.2] THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS CONCLUSIVE IN NATURE. .............................................. 32
[4.2.1] THERE IS AN EXISTENCE OF A HYPOTHESIS CONSISTENT WITH THE GUILT AND INCONSISTENT
WITH THE INNOCENCE OF THE ACCUSED. .......................................................................................... 33
[4.2.2] TESTIMONIES OF THE SERVANTS CANNOT BE DISPUTED BY ANY MEANS. ................................... 33
[4.2.3] TESTIMONIES OF THE RELATIVES ARE COGENT AND CREDIBLE IN NATURE. .............................. 33
[4.2.4] SPONTANEOUS UTTERANCES OF THE DECEASED IS AN IMPORTANT LINK IN THE ENTIRE CHAIN OF
EVENTS. .......................................................................................................................................... 34
[4.2.5] DYING DECLARATION OF THE DECEASED COMPLETES THE CHAIN OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE. ...................................................................................................................................... 34
[4.2.5.1] Gestures And Nods Of The Deceased. ......................................................................................... 34
[4.2.5.2] Daily Diary Of The Victim. .......................................................................................................... 35

[4.2.6] OPINIONS GIVEN BY THE DOCTORS LACKS CORROBORATIVE VALUE. ........................................ 35


[4.2.7] THE STATEMENT OF OPINION EXPRESSED BY THE DOCTORS IS PREMATURE; AND HAS NOT STATED
THE BASES OF OPINION. ................................................................................................................... 36
[3.2.8] THE EXPERT OPINION LACKS REQUISITE DEGREE OF CERTAINTY OR PROBABILITY. .................. 36
[3.3]

THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL CHAIN IS COMPLETE AND PROVES THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED BEYOND

ALL REASONABLE DOUBTS ............................................................................................................. 37

PRAYER.

4 | Page
6TH UFYLC RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

MEMORIAL FOR APPELLANTS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
SR. NO.

INDIAN SUPREME COURT CASES

PG. NO.

1)

Amarjit Kaur v. Harbhajan Singh, (2003) 10 SCC 228

21

2)

Arun Garg v. State of Punjab, (2004) 8 SCC 251

27

3)

Arunchalam v. P.S.R. Setarathnam, AIR 1979 SC 1284

20

4)

Ashok kumar v. State of Haryana, (2000) 8 SCC 457

31

5)

B.N. Srikantiah & Ors. v. State of Mysore, AIR 1958 SC 672

25

6)

Balbir Singh v. State of Punjab, (2006) 12 SCC 283

36

7)

Baldev Krishnan v. State of Haryana, AIR 1997 SC 1666

22

8)

Baljeet Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 2004 SC 1714

27

9)

Balram Prasad Agrawal v. State of Bihar, AIR 1997 SC 1830

22

10)

Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab, (2004) SCC (Cri) 2057

29

11)

Basant Singh v. State of Punjab, 1980 Supp SCC 469

21

12)

Bhagwan Singh v. State of M.P. (2002) 4 SCC 85

32

13)

Brij Lal Prem Chand v. State of U.P., AIR 1989 SC 1661

25

14)

Brijpal Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1994 SC 1624

35

15)

Brundaban Moharana v. State of Orissa, (2010) 13 SCC 381

35

16)

Budhuram v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2012) 11 SCC 588

38

17)

C.S.D. Swami v. The State, AIR 1960 SC 7

24

18)

Chanakya Dhibar v. State of W.B., (2004) 12 SCC 398

34

19)

Chandra Bansi Singh v. State of Bihar, (1984) 4 SCC 316

19

20)

D. Sailu v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 2008 SC 505

30

21)

Dastagir Mohammed v. State of Madras, AIR 1960 SC 756

20

22)

Devender Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab, (1998) 3 SCC 309

20

5 | Page
6TH UFYLC RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

MEMORIAL FOR APPELLANTS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

23)

Dharam Das Wadhwani v. State of U.P., AIR 1975 SC 241

33

24)

Dhyaneshwar v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 10 SCC 445

24

25)

Dinesh Sheth v. State (N.C.T) of Delhi, (2008) 14 SCC 94

28

26)

Divine Retreat Centre v. State of Kerala, (2008) 3 SCC 542

19

27)

Durga Shankar Mehta v. Thakur Raghuraj Singh, AIR 1954 SC 520

19

28)

Gali Venkataiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 2008 SC 462

30

29)

Ganga Retreat & Towers Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan, (2003) 12 SCC 91

19

30)

Ghurphekan v. State of U.P., (1972) 3 SCC 361

38

31)

Girja Shankar Mishra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1993 SC 2618

25

32)

Golakonda Venkateswara Rao v. State of A.P., (2003) 9 SCC 277

33

33)

Gopabandhu Biswal v. Krishna Chandra Mohanty, (1998) 4 SCC 447

19

34)

Gorle S. Naidu v. State of A.P., AIR 2004 SC 1169

21

35)

Gura Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (2001) 2 SCC 205

31

36)

Harbans Lal v. State of Haryana, AIR 1993 SC 819

22

37)

Hardeep Singh Sohal v. State of Punjab through CBI, (2004) Cr LJ 4627

25

(SC)
38)

Hari Om v. State of U.P., (1970) 3 SCC 453

38

39)

Harjinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2004) 11 SCC 253

22

40)

Harpal Singh v. Devinder Singh, AIR 1997 SC 2914

30

41)

Hira Lal v. State (Govt of N.C.T) of Delhi, (2003) 8 SCC 80

28

42)

Hitendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1994 SC 1962

25

43)

Jagdish v. State of Uttaranchal, (2015) 2 SCC 252

20

44)

Jagjit Singh v. State of H.P, 1994 SCC (Cri) 176

38

45)

Jagroop Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 11 SCC 768

33

46)

Jaharlal Das v. State of Odisha, AIR 1991 SC 1388

26

47)

Jai Prakash v. State (Delhi Administration), (1991) 2 SCC 32

24

6 | Page
6TH UFYLC RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

MEMORIAL FOR APPELLANTS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

48)

Jaipal v. State of Haryana, AIR 2002 SC 3447

23

49)

Jasbir Singh v. Vipin Kumar Jaggi, (2001) 8 SCC 289

19

50)

Jaspal Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1986 SC 683

25

51)

Jaswant Singh v. State of Haryana, (2000) 4 SCC 484

21

52)

Jhummamal v. State of M.P., AIR 1988 SC 1973

21

53)

Jindal Vijayanagar Steel v. Jindal Praxair Oxygen Co. Ltd., (2006) 11

19

SCC 521
54)

Kailash v. State of U.P., (1997) 11 SC 525

30

55)

Kalegura Padma Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 2007 SC 1299

30

56)

Kaliyaperumal v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2003 SC 3828

28

57)

Kamesh Panjiyar v. State of Bihar, AIR 2005 SC 785

23

58)

Kamla v. State of Punjab, (1993) 1 SCC 1

36

59)

Kans Raj v. State of Punjab, AIR 2000 SC 2324

27

60)

Kansa Behera v. State of Orissa, (1987) 3 SCC 480

38

61)

Kapildeo Mandal v. State of Bihar, AIR 2008 SC 533

30-

62)

Kartik Malhar v. State of Bihar, (1996) 1 SCC 614

30

63)

Kathi Bharat Vajsur v. State of Gujarat, (2012) 5 SCC 724

31

64)

Kaushal Prasad v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1996 Cr LJ 2268

26

65)

Kerala SEB v. Kurien E. Kalathil, (2000) 6 SCC 293

19

66)

Kishan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 2008 SC 233

27

67)

Konkan Railway v. Rani Construction Pvt. Ltd., AIR 2002 SC 778

20

68)

Krishna Pillai v. State of Kerala, AIR 1981 SC 1237

30

69)

Kunhiabdulla v. State of Kerala, AIR 2004 SC 1731

29

70)

Kuriya v. State of Rajasthan, (2012) 10 SCC 433

31

71)

Laxman v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1974 SC 1803

25

72)

Madhu v. State of Kerala, (2012) 2 SCC 399

38

73)

Madhusudan Das v. Narayanbhai, AIR 1983 SC 114

30

7 | Page
6TH UFYLC RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

MEMORIAL FOR APPELLANTS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

74)

Mahabir Mondal v. State of Bihar, (1972) 1 SCC 748

25

75)

Mahendra Emporium (II) v. G.V. Srinivasa Murthy, (2005) 1 SCC 10

19

76)

Mangal Das K. Desai v. Shashikant R. Desai, (2002) 9 SCC 28

19

77)

Mangleshwari Prasad v. State of Bihar, AIR 1954 SC 715

38

78)

Manohar Lal v. State of Haryana, AIR 2014 SC 2555

29

79)

Matru v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1971) 2 SCC 75

33

80)

Mustafa Shahdal Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 11 SCC 397

29

81)

Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary v. State of Maharashtra, (2000) 8 SCC

31

457
82)

Narpat Singh v. Jaipur Development Authority, AIR 2002 SC 2036

19

83)

Nathu Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1966 SC 43

24

84)

Nathuni Yadav v. State of Bihar, AIR 1997 SC 1808

25

85)

Neerukonda Parabrahma Murthy v. State of A.P., (1997) 11 SCC 408

23

86)

Noorjahan v. State, AIR 2008 SC 2113

28

87)

Om Prakash v. State of Punjab, AIR 1993 SC 138

22

88)

Paniben v. State of Gujarat, (1992) 2 SCC 474

36

89)

Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana, (1998) 3 SCC 309

27

90)

Ponnam Chandraiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 2008 SC 3209

30

91)

R. Balakrishna Pillai v. State of Kerala, AIR 2003 SC 1012

24

92)

Rafiq v. State of U.P., (1980) 4 SCC 262

19

93)

Raj Kishore Jha v. State of Bihar, AIR 2003 SC 4664

21

94)

Ram Bharosey v. State of U.P., 1954 Cri LJ 1755

38

95)

Ram Das v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1977 SC 1164

23

96)

Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State of Gujarat, (1996) 9 SCC 225

21

97)

Ravi Chander v. State of Punjab, (1998) 9 SCC 303

35

98)

Ravishwar Manjhi v. State of Jharkhand, AIR 2009 SC 1262

30

99)

Rizan v. State of Chhattisgarh, AIR 2003 SC 976

30

8 | Page
6TH UFYLC RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

MEMORIAL FOR APPELLANTS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

100)

Ronny v. State of Maharashtra, (1998) 3 SCC 625

30

101)

Sachchey Lal Tiwari v. State of U.P., (2004) 11 SCC 410

34

102)

Satpal v. State of Haryana, (1998) 5 SCC 687

28

103)

Satvir Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 2001 SC 2828

27

104)

Shanti v. State of Haryana, AIR 1991 SC 1226

28

105)

Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622

25

106)

Sharif Ahmed v. RTA, AIR 1978 SC 209

21

107)

Sher Singh v. State of Punjab, (2008) 4 SCC 265

35

108)

Shingara Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 2004 SC 124

20

109)

Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC 793

21

110)

State of A.P. v. K. Srinivasulu Reddy, (2003) 12 SCC 660

34

111)

State of A.P. v. P.V. Hanumantha Rao, (2003) 10 SCC 121

19

112)

State of Andhra Pradesh v. Raj Gopal Asawa, AIR 2004 SC 1933

27

113)

State of Gujarat v. Acharya D. Pandey, AIR 1971 SC 866

24

114)

State of Himachal Pradesh v. Jeet Singh, AIR 1999 SC 1293

22

115)

State of Himachal Pradesh v. Nikku Ram, (1995) Cr LJ 41 84 (SC)

29

116)

State of Himachal Pradesh v. Rajiv Jassi, Criminal Appeal No. 771/

24

2005
117)

State of Karnataka v. Moin Patel, AIR 1996 SC 3041

21

118)

State of Maharashtra v. Mayer Hans George, AIR 1965 SC 722

24

119)

State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram, AIR 2007 SC 144

21

120)

State of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram, (2003) 8 SCC 180

20

121)

State of U.P. v. Desh Raj, (2006) 9 SCC 278

38

122)

State of U.P. v Sukhbasi, AIR 1985 SC 1224

26

123)

State of U.P. v. G.K. Ghosh, AIR 1984 SC 1453

26

124)

State of U.P. v. Nawab Singh, AIR 2004 SC 1511

21

125)

State of U.P. v. Ram Sewak, (2003) 2 SCC 161

21

9 | Page
6TH UFYLC RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

MEMORIAL FOR APPELLANTS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

126)

State of U.P. v. Samman Dass, AIR 1972 SC 677

21

127)

State of Uttar Pradesh v. Santosh Kumar, (2009) 9 SCC 626

28

128)

State of W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswal, AIR 1994 SC 1418

20

129)

State of West Bengal v. Mohammed Khalid, AIR 1995 SC 785

25

130)

Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam, (2013) 12 SCC 406 : 2013 SCC

33

131)

Sukhchain Singh v. State of Haryana, (2002) 5 SCC 100

31

132)

Sunil Bajaj v. State of M.P., (2001) 9 SCC 417

29

133)

Sunil Kumar v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (2003) 11 SCC 367

31

134)

Surinder Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2011) 10 SCC 173

36

135)

Surinder Kumar v. State of Punjab, (2012) 12 SCC 120

36

136)

Surinder Singh v. State of Haryana, (2014) 4 SCC 129

36

137)

Swinder Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1992 SC 669

26

138)

Tasrem Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 2009 SC 1454

27

139)

Thangaiya v. State of T.N., (2005) 9 SCC 650

34

140)

Thimma and Thimma Raju v. State of Mysore, (1970) 2 SCC 105

38

141)

Tukaram v. State of Maharashtra, (1979) 2 SCC 143

19

142)

U.H. Jadhav v. Union of India, (1999) 3 SCC 365

29

143)

Uday Chakraborty and Ors. v. State of W.B., AIR 2010 SC 3506

29

144)

Ujjar Singh v. State of Punjab, 2008 Cri LJ 808 (813)

25

145)

Umakant v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2014) 7 SCC 405

35

146)

Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India, (1991) 4 SCC 584

19

147)

Vidya Devi v. State of Haryana, AIR 2004 SC 1757

29

148)

Vijender v. State of Delhi, (1997) 6 SCC 171

38

149)

Yashoda v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2004) 3 SCC 98

29

SR. NO.

INDIAN HIGH COURT CASES


10 | P a g e
6TH UFYLC RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

PG. NO.

MEMORIAL FOR APPELLANTS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

1)

Akabbai Ali v. Emperor, (1931) 59 Cal 19

20

2)

Bhagwani Appaji v. Kedari Kashinath, (1900) ILR 25 Bom 202

24

3)

Chander Bahadur Suha v. State of Sikkim, 1978 Cr LJ 942

21

4)

Devinder v. State of Haryana, 1994 Cr LJ 1679 (Punjab and Haryana)

29

5)

Eso Mathew v. State of Kerala, (1967) ILR 1 Ker 352

21

6)

Gul Mohummed v. King Emperor, AIR 1947 Nag 121

21

7)

Jagatjit Distilling Ltd. v. State of Punjab, (1965) 1 ILR 189 (P&H)

19

8)

Keshab Chandra Pandey v. State, (1995) Cr LJ 174 (Ori.)

27

9)

Lila Ram v. State of Rajasthan, (1993) 1CCR 421 (Raj.)

29

10)

Manik Datta v. State of Tripura, (1999 Cri LJ 356)

20

11)

Pyarejan v. State, (1972) Cr LJ 404 (Mysore)

21

12)

Rajiv Jassi v. State of H.P., 2004 SCC Online 112

27

13)

S.G. Gundegowda v. State of Karnataka, 1996 Cr LJ 852 (Kant.)

30

14)

Savitri Devi v. Ramesh Chand, (2003) Cr LJ 2759 (Del.)

28

15)

State v. B.D. Meattle, AIR 1957 Punj 74 (P&H)

24

SR. NO.

COURT DECISIONS AROUND THE WORLD

PG. NO.

1)

cf. Roberts v. DPP, [1994] Cri LR 926

32

2)

Davidson v. Miller, 276 Md. 54, 61, 344 A.2d 422, 427 (1975)

37

3)

31

4)

Director of Public Prosecutor v. Kilbourne, [1973] 2 WLR 254 (HL)


276, 277
Dysart Peerage Case, (1881) 6 App. Case 489

5)

P.P. v. Bernard, 1920 AC 479 (HL)

25

6)

Papadimitropocelos v. R, (1957) 98 CLR 249

22

7)

R v. Andrews, [1987] AC 281 (HL)

32

8)

Ratten v. R, [1972] AC 378

32

11 | P a g e
6TH UFYLC RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

33

MEMORIAL FOR APPELLANTS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

9)

Staples v. United States, 511 US 600 (1994)

24

10)

Woodhouse v. Hall, (1981) 72 Cr App R 39

32

SR. NO.

BOOKS
AMERICAN

1)

LAW

INSTITUTE,

MODEL

PENAL

CODE

AND

COMMENTARIES (PHILADELPHIA: AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE, 1985) ,


2.01
B. GARNER, A DICTIONARY OF MODERN LEGAL USAGE, (2nd ed., Oxford)

2)

(1995)
BUZZARD, JOHN, MAY, RICHARD, HOWARD, M.N., PHIPSON ON

3)

EVIDENCE, 63, (12th ed., Sweet & Maxwell, London)


4)

J. WIGMORE ON EVIDENCE, (Chadbourn rev. ed., 1976)

5)

JO SHOW, JO HUNT & CHLOE WALLACE, EVIDENCE RAYMOND EMSON,


15 (4th ed., Palgrave Macmillan) (2006)

6)

K.I VIBHUTE, PSA PILLAI'S CRIMINAL LAW, 606 (12th ed.,2014)

7)

MOITRA & KAUSHAL, MEDICAL JURISPRUDENCE& TOXICOLOGY, 217,


(3rd ed., 2007)
MURPHY AND GLOVER,MURPHY ON EVIDENCE, 252 (12th ed., Oxford
University Press, 2011)
PAUL C. GIANNELLI & EDWARD J. IMWINKELRIED, SCIENTIFIC

8)
9)

EVIDENCE 2 (LexisNexis) (2007)


10)

SR. NO.
1)

VINAY SHARMA, DOWRY DEATHS- LEGAL PROVISIONS & JUDICIAL


INTERPRETATIONS, 5 (1st ed., 2010)

JOURNALS

PG. NO.

Schimdt, "Cross Examination of An Expert Witness," 13 St.


Mary's L.J. 89, 91 (1981)

37

12 | P a g e
6TH UFYLC RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

MEMORIAL FOR APPELLANTS


2)

SR. NO.

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Medical Evidence- Sufficiency of Expert's Opinion, 17 Def. L.J


181 (1968)

37

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION

PG. NO.

Article 136

passim

1)

SR. NO.

INDIAN STATUTES

1) Indian Penal Code, 1860


2) Indian Evidence Act, 1872
3) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

SR. NO.

FOREIGN STATUTES & RULES

1) Australian Evidence Act, 1955


2) New Zealand Evidence Act, 2006
3) United States Federal Rules of Evidence, 1975

SR. NO.

WEB RESOURCES

1) www.westlaw.india.com(WEST LAW INDIA)


2) www.manupatrafast.com(MANUPATRA)
3) www.judis.nic.in(SUPREME COURT OF INDIA OFFICIAL)
4) www.jstor.org(JSTOR)
5) www.scconline.com(SCC ONLINE)

13 | P a g e
6TH UFYLC RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

MEMORIAL FOR APPELLANTS

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Appellants herein have invoked the plenary Jurisdiction of this Honourable Court under
Article 136 of the Constitution of India, 1950. Article 136 read as:
136. Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court(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, sentence or order passed
or made by any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces.

14 | P a g e
6TH UFYLC RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

MEMORIAL FOR APPELLANTS

SYNOPSIS OF FACTS

SYNOPSIS OF FACTS
A. BACKGROUND: Mr. Suresh Goyal, got married to Mrs. Sharda Gupta on 17.07.2012.
However, Mrs Sharda Goyal did not receive proper treatment from her in-laws and was
subjected to continuous dowry demands for Mercedes Benz and a fixed deposit of Rs. 1 Cr. She
was subjected to mental and physical cruelty by her in-laws and in such non-congenial
atmosphere, Mrs Sharda Goyal could not conceive.
B. CIRCUMSTANCES THAT LED TO THE DEATH OF THE DECEASED: The mother-in-law in
collusion with the father-in-law and her son, forcibly administered poison to the deceased to kill
her due to non-fulfillment of dowry demand. The deceased was declared dead and the cause of
death was examined as asphyxia secondary to organo phosphorous poison.
C. EVENTS THAT UNFOLDED ON THE FATEFUL NIGHT: Om Prakash, [PW-4] informed the
police about the dilapidated condition of the deceased. The police proceeded towards the spot
and called upon Dr. O.P Choudhary in order to ensure medical attention for the deceased. On
coming to know, about the condition of his daughter, Shri Vikram Gupta, [PW-10] lodged a
police complaint stating that accused persons in collusion had caused death of the deceased. The
FIR was registered and during the investigation, the police found out and relied upon the daily
diary maintained by the deceased and subsequently charges were framed under 498A and
304-B read with 34 of IPC.
D. JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE TRIAL COURT: The trial court acquitted Smt. Shalini Goyal on
the plea that there is no direct evidence and convicted Shri Dinesh Goyal for commission of
offence under 302, IPC and awarded imprisonment for 7 years with no fine.
E. JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE RAJASTHAN HC: The Hon'ble HC acquitted the respondents
on the ground that the circumstances are not of conclusive nature.
F. APPEAL: Aggrieved by the decision of the Hon'ble High Court, the State as well as Shri
Vikram Gupta have preferred an appeal to Hon'ble Supreme Court of India to reverse the
acquittal by imposing maximum imprisonment and exemplary costs.

15 | P a g e
6TH UFYLC RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

MEMORIAL FOR APPELLANTS

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

[I.]

WHETHER THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE HIGH
COURT IS MAINTAINABLE?

[II.]

WHETHER THE ACCUSED ARE GUILTY UNDER 302, IPC R/W 34, IPC?

[III.]

WHETHER THE ACCUSED ARE GUILTY UNDER 304-B & 498-A, IPC?

[IV.]

WHETHER THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD IS SUFFICIENT TO PROVE THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED
BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBTS?

16 | P a g e
6TH UFYLC RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

MEMORIAL FOR APPELLANTS

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
[I.]

THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE HIGH COURT IS
MAINTAINABLE.

The Hon'ble SC being vested with a plenary jurisdiction should not abjure in its duty to
interfere in the impugned judgment as the Hon'ble HC has committed some serious and
flagrant violation of the law, by acquitting the accused persons, ignoring material
evidence, resulting in gross miscarriage of justice. Therefore, the leave should be granted.

[II.]

THE ACCUSED ARE GUILTY UNDER 302, IPC R/W 34, IPC.

In the instant case, the accused persons are guilty of murder of the deceased as the 'causal
relationship' between the act of the accused and the resultant harm on the person of the
deceased is established through the actus reus and the mens rea of the accused persons,
thereby attracting liability under 302, IPC r/w 34, IPC.

[III.]

THE ACCUSED ARE GUILTY UNDER 304-B & 498-A, IPC.

The accused are guilty of the offence of dowry death. The ingredients of dowry death
have been satisfied beyond all reasonable doubts. The accused have committed the
offence in collusion with each other and there has been prior meeting of mind before the
execution of the final act of causing death. Therefore, the concerned act of causing death
has been carried out with common intention.

[IV.]

THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD IS SUFFICIENT TO PROVE THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED


BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBTS.

It is submitted that the evidence on record is sufficient to prove guilt of the accused as the
chain of circumstances have been satisfied beyond all reasonable doubts. It is further
submitted that there is existence of hypothesis consistent with the guilt of the accused and
inconsistent with the innocence.

17 | P a g e
6TH UFYLC RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

MEMORIAL FOR APPELLANTS

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
[1] THE APPEAL IS MAINTAINABLE UNDER ARTICLE 136
(1.) It is humbly submitted before this Hon'ble Court that the present appeal from the impugned
judgment of the Hon'ble HC of Rajasthan be allowed by the Honble SC under Art. 1361.
(2.) Under this Art., the Hon'ble SC is vested with plenary jurisdiction in entertaining all kinds
of appeals2, thus the present criminal appeal can be granted special leave. The assertion is made
on the following two grounds i.e., the appellants have the required locus standi [1.1] and that the
Hon'ble SC has the jurisdiction under Art. 136. [1.2]
[1.1] APPELLANTS HAVE LOCUS STANDI IN THE INSTANT CASE.
(3.) The Appeal has been preferred by the father of the deceased and the State to challenge the
legality and correctness of the judgment of the Hon'ble HC. Therefore, the Appellants possess
the required locus standi.3
[1.2]HON'BLE SC HAS THE JURISDICTION UNDER ART. 136 TO ENTERTAIN THIS PETITION.
(4.) The Hon'ble SC is not only a court of law but also a court of equity. 4 This Court may
interfere in order to prevent injustice5 and errors of law6. It is an overriding power where this
Hon'ble Court may generally step in to impart justice7. Therefore, this argument has been divided
in the following submissions, which are the sine qua non for the grant of special leave, i.e., the
judgment passed by Honble HC is an appealable judgment [1.2.1]; the impugned judgment has
1

Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 136.


Jagatjit Distalling v. State of Punjab, (1965) 1 ILR 189 (P&H).
2
Jagatjit Distalling v. State of Punjab, (1965) 1 ILR 189 (P&H).
3
Gopabandhu Biswal v. Krishna Chandra Mohanty, (1998) 4 SCC 447; See also U.H. Jadhav v. Union of India,
(1999) 3 SCC 365; Mangal Das K. Desai v. Shashikant R. Desai, (2002) 9 SCC 28; Jasbir Singh v. Vipin Kumar
Jaggi, (2001) 8 SCC 289; Divine Retreat Centre v. State of Kerala, (2008) 3 SCC 542; State of A.P. v. P.V.
Hanumantha Rao, (2003) 10 SCC 121.
4
Chandra Bansi Singh v. State of Bihar, (1984) 4 SCC 316, 323.
5
Mahendra Saree Emporium (II) v. G.V. Srinivasa Murthy, (2005) 1 SCC 481; See also Durga Shankar Mehta v.
Thakur Raghuraj Singh, AIR 1954 SC 520; Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India, (1991) 4 SCC 584.
6
Rafiq v. State of U.P., (1980) 4 SCC 262.
7
Narpat Singh v. Jaipur Development Authority, AIR 2002 SC 2036; See also Ganga Retreat & Towers Ltd. v. State
of Rajasthan, (2003) 12 SCC 91; Kerala SEB v. Kurien E. Kalathil, (2000) 6 SCC 293; Jindal Vijayanagar Steel
(JSW Steel Ltd.) v. Jindal Praxair Oxygen Co. Ltd., (2006) 11 SCC 521.
2

18 | P a g e
6TH UFYLC RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

MEMORIAL FOR APPELLANTS

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

resulted in miscarriage of justice [1.2.2] and that this Hon'ble Court should interfere where
decisions are not concurrent [1.2.3].
[1.2.1] THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE HONBLE HC IS AN APPEALABLE JUDGMENT.
(5.) It is submitted that the judgment passed by the Hon'ble HC is an appealable judgment.8 For
an order to be the subject of a petition for special leave under Art. 1369, it must be an
adjudicatory order - an order that adjudicates upon the rival contentions of the parties and it must
be passed by an authority constituted by the State, by law, for the purpose in discharge of States
obligation to secure its people.10 In the present case the order challenged has been passed by the
appropriate authority of the law i.e. Hon'ble HC of Rajasthan.
[1.2.2] THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE HONBLE HC HAS RESULTED IN MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE.
(6.) The impugned judgment passed by the Hon'ble HC has resulted in miscarriage of justice,
mainly because of the reasons, that the Hon'ble HC has failed in appreciating the true effect of
the materials brought on record.11 The Hon'ble HC was apparently erroneous12 in holding the
Prosecution case to be vicious and doubting the credibility of the witnesses for unjustified and
uncredible reasons.13 The impugned judgment is thus a compelling ground for the Hon'ble SC's
interference14 as the Ld. Lower Courts allowed themselves to be deflected by the red herrings
drawn across the track. The evidence that was accepted by the Ld. Trial Court was rejected by
the Hon'ble HC after a perfunctory consideration and this baneful approach of the Hon'ble HC
has resulted in vital and crucial evidence being ignored.
[1.2.3] THE HONBLE SC SHOULD INTERFERE WHERE CONCURRENT FINDINGS DO NOT EXIST.
(7.) It is a settled principle of law that where the findings are not concurrent, the Hon'ble SC
may review the evidence and see whether the Hon'ble HC's assessment was correct.15 In the
matter at hand a reasoned decision of conviction of Sh. Dinesh Goyal by the Ld. Trial Court has
8

Shingara Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 2004 SC 124; See also Akabbai Ali v. Emperor, (1931) 59 Cal 19.
Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 136.
10
Konkan Railway v. Rani Construction Pvt. Ltd, AIR 2002 SC 778.
11
Arunchalam v. P.S.R. Setarathnam, AIR 1979 SC 1284.
12
State of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram, (2003) 8 SCC 180, 7.
13
Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1973 SC 2622; 55; See also, State of W.B. v. Orilal
Jaiswal, AIR 1994 SC 1418; Manik Datta v. State of Tripura (1999 Cri LJ 356); Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana,
(2010) 7 SCC 578; Jagdish v. State of Uttaranchal, (2015) 2 SCC 252, 9; Devender Singh & Ors. State of Punjab,
(1998) 3 SCC 309.
14
State of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram, (2003) 8 SCC 180, 7.
15
Dastagir Mohammed v. State of Madras, AIR 1960 SC 756.
9

19 | P a g e
6TH UFYLC RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

MEMORIAL FOR APPELLANTS

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

been reversed by the Hon'ble HC merely on conjectures. Furthermore, the acquittal of Sh. Suresh
Goyal and Mrs. Shalini Goyal is based on surmises and self-contradictory conclusions, therefore,
the Hon'ble SC would be unjust not to interfere.16
(8.) Hence, in the instant case the Hon'ble SC's interference is called for as the Hon'ble HC has
committed some serious and flagrant violation of the law17, by delivering a decision which is
patently erroneous18, and is obviously wrong19, and has dealt the matter fallaciously20 by
ignoring material evidence, rejecting unimpeachable evidence on surmises and conjectures,
laying undue importance on trivial and ignorable contradictions and conclusions drawn which
were self-contradictory21.
[2] THE ACCUSED ARE GUILTY OF MURDER.
(9.) The Appellants humbly contend that the accused in the instant case have committed an
offence under 'Firstly' of 300, IPC r/w 34, IPC. The Actus Reus [2.1] and the Mens Rea [2.2]
of the commission of the offence have been established beyond all reasonable doubts.

[2.1]THE ACTUS REUS OF MURDER IS ESTABLISHED.


(10.) It is humbly submitted that actus reus is the conduct that constitutes a particular crime22.
In a case of murder, actus reus would be the physical conduct of the accused that causes death of
the victim.23 In the instant case, the act of the accused persons in planning the administration of
poison24 and the execution of the same is the 'actual cause' of the resulted harm on the person of
deceased.25 Thus, the necessary element of a 'causal relationship' between the act of the accused
16

State of U.P. v. Ram Sewak, (2003) 2 SCC 161, 13 & 26, relying on Bhagwan Singh v. State of M.P. (2002) 4
SCC 85; Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC 793; Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State of
Gujarat, (1996) 9 SCC 225 and Jaswant Singh v. State of Haryana, (2000) 4 SCC 484.
17
Amarjit Kaur v. Harbhajan Singh, (2003) 10 SCC 228.
18
Jhummamal v. State of M.P., AIR 1988 SC 1973.
19
Sharif Ahmed v. RTA, AIR 1978 SC 209.
20
State of U.P. v. Samman Dass, AIR 1972 SC 677.
21
State of Karnataka v. Moin Patel, AIR 1996 SC 3041, See also, State of U.P. v. Ram Sevak, (2003) 2 SCC 161;
Gorle S. Naidu v. State of A.P., AIR 2004 SC 1169, Raj Kishore Jha v. State of Bihar, AIR 2003 SC 4664; State of
U.P. v. Nawab Singh, AIR 2004 SC 1511; State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram, AIR 2007 SC 144.
22
Gul Mohummed v. King Emperor, AIR 1947 Nag 121; See also, Chander Bahadur Suha v. State of Sikkim, 1978
Cr. LJ 942.
23
AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE, MODEL PENAL CODE AND COMMENTARIES, 2.01 ( Philadelphia:
American Law Institute, 1985).
24
Moot Proposition- 6th UFYLC Ranka National Moot Court Competition 2016, p.4, 10.
25
Eso Mathew v. State of Kerala, (1967) ILR 1 Ker 352; See also, Pyarejan v. State, (1972) Cr LJ 404 (Mysore).

20 | P a g e
6TH UFYLC RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

MEMORIAL FOR APPELLANTS

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

and the prohibited result26 that constitutes an offence under clause 'Firstly' of 300 27, IPC is
established.

[2.1.1]

THE DOUBT THAT THE DECEASED WOULD HAVE COMMITTED SUICIDE IS A PREPOSTEROUS

PRESUMPTION.

(11.) It is humbly stated by the Appellants that the evidence of the persons who gather
immediately on hearing the cries of the victim is a valuable piece of evidence to serve as a
conclusive proof to the alleged offence.28 In the instant case, Shri Surendra Kumar [PW-2], a
servant of the accused had testified that he had heard the shrieks and cries of the deceased who
was crying for salty water stating that she did want to die.29 This clearly supports the contention
of the Appellants that the deceased has not committed suicide as had she done that, she would
not have had cried for help which would have increased her chances of survival.30
(12.) Moreover, having regard to the ordinary course of human conduct and particularly of a
mother, it is difficult to believe that she would commit suicide and leave her child at the mercy
of her in-laws31, especially when the accused were contemplating for remarriage of the
deceased's husband.32
(13.) Furthermore, the medical experts were not supposed to be an arbiter on the issue whether
the victim had taken the poison herself rather their objective opinion stands writ large that
considering the nature of injuries33 which they stated it could be a case of forcible administration
of poison and in the process the accused had caused injuries while the deceased had struggled.
Thus the approach of Hon'ble HC cannot be said to be of objective assessment of evidence 34 as it
involves preposterous inferences35.

26

Papadimitropocelos v. R, (1957) 98 CLR 249 ( Common Wealth Law Reporter).


Indian Penal Code, 1860, 300, Firstly.
28
Harjinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 2004 Cri LJ 3854 (3856) (SC) : (2004) 11 SCC 253.
29
Moot Proposition- 6th UFYLC Ranka National Moot Court Competition 2016, p.4, 10.
30
Om Prakash v. State of Punjab, AIR 1993 SC 138.
31
Baldev Krishnan v. State of Haryana, AIR 1997 SC 1666; See also, Brij Lal Prem Chand v. State of U.P., AIR
1989 SC 1661.
32
Balram Prasad Agrawal v. State of Bihar, AIR 1997 SC 1830.
33
State of Himachal Pradesh v. Rajiv Jassi; Criminal Appeal No. 771 of 2005 dated May 6, 2016.
34
Harbans Lal v. State of Haryana, AIR 1993 SC 819.
35
State of Himachal Pradesh v. Jeet Singh, AIR 1999 SC 1293.
27

21 | P a g e
6TH UFYLC RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

MEMORIAL FOR APPELLANTS

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

[2.1.2] THE ACCUSED PERSONS HAD COMMON INTENTION TO MURDER.


(14.) The servants of the accused, Shri Ved Prakash [PW-3], and Shri Om Prakash [PW-4], had
deposed that they smelt a poisonous odour on reaching the scene of crime and that the articles in
the room were scattered with the deceased lying on the bed having bruises and contusions on her
face.36
(15.) This establishes the contention of the Appellants that she was administered poison by her
mother-in-law with her husband holding her hands physically as it is normally not possible to
administer poison forcefully to another adult by a single assailant without causing injury to the
assailant herself.37 Because the resistance of the deceased would have been very forceful with
her hands unless she was trussed up on her hands held up by someone else.38 Henceforth, the fact
that the father-in-law of the deceased had purchased the poison and the same was administered
by the mother-in-law and the husband of the deceased tends towards their common intention to
cause the death of the deceased.

[2.1.3]

MERE ACT OF ACCUSED PERSONS IN CARRYING THE DECEASED TO THE HOSPITAL CANNOT

IMPLY INNOCENCE.

(16.) It was deposed by Shri Om Prakash, [PW-4] that when he requested Shri Dinesh Goyal
and Sh. Suresh Goyal to take the deceased to the hospital, they ignored the same.39 This clearly
supports the contention of the Appellants that the accused feared the chances of survival of the
deceased if being taken to the hospital.40 It was only when a lot number of individuals came to
know about the detoriating health condition of the deceased along with the Police Inspector, Biru
Ahmed, [PW-7], she was finally taken to the hospital and mere presence of the accused in
carrying her along to the hospital cannot be treated as their conduct of innocence41 which the
Hon'ble HC erroneously considered in favour of the accused42.

36

Moot Proposition- 6th UFYLC Ranka National Moot Court Competition 2016, p. 4, 10.
Jaipal v. State of Haryana, AIR 2002 SC 3447.
38
Neerukonda Parabrahma Murthy v. State of A.P. (1997) 11 SCC 408, 5.
39
Moot Proposition- 6th UFYLC Ranka National Moot Court Competition 2016, p. 4, 10.
40
Ram Das v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1977 SC 1164.
41
State of Himachal Pradesh v. Rajiv Jassi; Criminal Appeal No. 771 of 2005 dated May 6, 2016; See also, Kamesh
Panjiyar v. State of Bihar, 2005 Cri LJ 1418: AIR 2005 SC 785.
42
Findings of the Hon'ble HC; Moot Proposition- 6th UFYLC Ranka National Moot Court Competition 2016, p. 8.
37

22 | P a g e
6TH UFYLC RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

MEMORIAL FOR APPELLANTS

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

[2.1.4]THE BURDEN OF EXPLAINING THE INJURIES OF DECEASED WAS UPON THE ACCUSED.
(17.) The fact that the accused were in the company of the victim in the same room brings
home the guilt of the accused and it was upon them to explain the cause of the injuries found on
the person of dece ased. Failure to explain that why the deceased was in an unconscious position
coupled with other evidence is a grave circumstance43 which militates against accused persons
vide 106 of the IEA.44

[2.2] MENS REA OF MURDER IS ESTABLISHED.


(18.) It is humbly submitted that, mens rea is a state of mind indicating culpability45, which is
required by statute as an element of crime.46 It is the volition, which is the motive force behind
the criminal act47 and is an essential ingredient of criminal liability48. It means some blameworthy mental condition, whether constituted by knowledge or intention or otherwise.49 In the
instant case, intention to cause death is clearly established through a list of circumstances in light
of clear-cut motive of the accused, therefore, the mens rea of the crime is established.50

[2.2.1] THE ACCUSED INTENDED TO CAUSE THE DEATH OF THE DECEASED.


(19.) It is humbly submitted before this Hon'ble Bench that, the expectation that the desired
motions will lead to certain consequences is the intention. It connotes a conscious exercise of the
mental faculties of a person to do a particular act with a view to accompanying or satisfying a
particular purpose.51 An intention to kill a person brings the matter so clearly within the general

43

Dhyaneshwar v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 10 SCC 445, 10.


State of Himachal Pradesh v. Rajiv Jassi, Criminal Appeal No. 771 of 2005 dated May 6, 2016; See also, C.S.D.
Swami v. The State, AIR 1960 SC 7; P.N. Krishna Lal & Ors. v. Govt. of Kerala & Anr. 1995 Supp (2) SCC 187;
Siddhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma v. State (N.C.T. of Delhi), AIR 2010 SC 2352.
45
R. Balakrishna Pillai v. State of Kerala, AIR 2003 SC 1012.
46
Staples v. United States, 511 US 600 (1994).
47
State v. B.D. Meattle, AIR 1957 Punj 74 : 1957 Cr LJ 427.
48
State of Maharashtra v. Mayer Hans George, AIR 1965 SC 722.
49
State of Gujarat v. Acharya D. Pandey, AIR 1971 SC 866.
50
Nathu Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1966 SC 43.
51
Bhagwani Appaji v. Kedari Kashinath, (1900) ILR 25 Bom 202; Jai Prakash v. State (Delhi Administration)
(1991) 2 SCC 32.
44

23 | P a g e
6TH UFYLC RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

MEMORIAL FOR APPELLANTS

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

principles of mens rea as to cause no difficulty.52 Such intention53 is proved or inferred from the
acts of the accused54 as a man is presumed to intend the natural consequences of his own act55.
(20.) The nature of the weapon used by the accused persons in the form of Organo Phosphorous
poison clearly establishes their intention56 to cause the death of the deceased57. Further, buying
of the poison in the month of May58 on pretext of killing flies clearly tends towards the accused
of their intention behind such a purchase during the summer season.

[2.2.2]NATURE OF INJURIES IMPLIES INTENTION TO KILL.


(21.) It is also submitted that the intention to kill can be inferred from the murder and nature of
the injuries caused to the victim.59The fact that there were so many injuries on the front side of
the deceased, clearly establishes the fact that she was 'done to death'. The circumstantial
evidence drawn out, clearly establishes the opportunity, the accused had, to commit the
offence.60

[2.2.3] THE ACCUSED HAD MOTIVE TO CAUSE THE DEATH OF THE DECEASED.
(22.) It is submitted that, the longing for the object desired which sets the volition in motion is
motive.61 It is a psychological phenomenon that impels a person to do a particular act.62 It is not
sine qua non for holding the accused liable63, though, is relevant and important on question of
intention64. It is to be adjudged from the circumstances available on record.65

52

Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1958 SC 465.


Commissioner of Income Tax v. Patranu Dass Raja Ram Beri, AIR 1982 PH 1, 4.
54
State of Maharashtra v. Mayer Hans George, AIR 1965 SC 722.
55
P.P. v. Bernard, 1920 AC 479 (HL).
56
Hitendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1994 SC 1962.
57
B.N. Srikantiah & Ors. v. State of Mysore, AIR 1958 SC 672; Jaspal Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1986 SC 683.
58
Moot Proposition- 6th UFYLC Ranka National Moot Court Competition 2016, 10.
59
Laxman v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1974 SC 1803.
60
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622.
61
State of West Bengal v. Mohammed Khalid, AIR 1995 SC 785.
62
Nathuni Yadav v. State of Bihar, AIR 1997 SC 1808.
63
Ujjar Singh v State of Punjab, 2008 Cri LJ 808 (813); See also, Girja Shankar Mishra v. State of Uttar Pradesh,
AIR 1993 SC 2618; Hardeep Singh Sohal v. State of Punjab through CBI, (2004) Cr LJ 4627 (SC).
64
Mahabir Mondal v. State of Bihar (1972) 1 SCC 748.
65
Brijpal Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1994 SC 1624.
53

24 | P a g e
6TH UFYLC RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

MEMORIAL FOR APPELLANTS

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

The evidence on record continuously show without any doubt that cruelty to the deceased did
exist through mental and physical torture by the in-laws.66 It is not disputed that the deceased
was being ill-treated and the non-fulfillment of the demanded dowry amounting to a Mercedes
Benz and 1,00,00,000 INR deposit money67 had raged the in-laws creating a clear-faced motive
to cause the death of the deceased68.
[2.2.4]THE CHAIN OF EVIDENCE IS COMPLETE TO BRING HOME GUILT OF THE ACCUSED.
(23.) Relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in Udaipal Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh69
where it was held that "In cases of circumstantial evidence, if it is shown that the accused having
a strong motive had the opportunity of committing the crime 70 and the established circumstances
on the record negating the possibility of anyone else being the culprit, then the chain of evidence
can be considered to be so complete so as to show that within all possible human probability, the
crime must have been committed by the accused", the accused must under these circumstances,
safely be held guilty.
Furthermore, it is noteworthy that when a circumstantial evidence is consistent with the guilt of
the accused and inconsistent with his innocence, even then there should be no difficulty in
upholding the prosecution case.71 It being a well-established fact that in cases of circumstantial
evidence, suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of legal proof.72

[3] THE ACCUSED ARE GUILTY OF THE OFFENCE OF DOWRY DEATH


(24.) It is humbly submitted before the Honble Court that Goyals have committed the offence
of dowry death and cruelty and are punishable under 304-B read with 34 and 498-A of IPC.
[3.1] INGREDIENTS OF DOWRY DEATH HAVE BEEN PROVED BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT.
(25.) In order to establish the offence under 304-B, the following ingredients need be proved
beyond all reasonable doubt that the death of the deceased should have occurred within 7 years
66

Moot Proposition- 6th UFYLC Ranka National Moot Court Competition 2016, p.3-4, 7, 8 & 9.
Moot Proposition- 6th UFYLC Ranka National Moot Court Competition 2016, p. 4, 7.
68
Surinder Singh v. State of Haryana, (2014) 4 SCC 129.
69
AIR 1972 SC 54.
70
Kaushal Prasad v. State of Madhya Pradesh 1996 Cr LJ 2268.
71
State of U.P. v. G.K. Ghosh, AIR 1984 SC 1453; See also, State of U.P. v Sukhbasi, AIR 1985 SC 1224.
72
Jaharlal Das v. State of Odisha, AIR 1991 SC 1388; See also, Swinder Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1992 SC
669.
67

25 | P a g e
6TH UFYLC RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

MEMORIAL FOR APPELLANTS

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

of marriage [1]; that the death of a woman should be caused by bodily injury or otherwise, than
under normal circumstances [2]; that the deceased must have been subjected to cruelty soon
before her death [3] and that the harassment or cruelty should be for or in relation to or in
connection with the demand of dowry [4]. 73

[3.1.1] THE DEATH OF THE DECEASED HAS OCCURRED WITHIN SEVEN YEARS OF HER MARRIAGE.
(26.) The marriage was performed in 17.07.2012 and the incident occurred in 25.05.2015.74

[3.1.2] THE DECEASED HAS DIED UNDER SUSPICIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES.


(27.) The expression 'otherwise than under normal circumstance' would mean death not in the
usual course but apparently under suspicious circumstances, if not caused by burns or bodily
injury.75 An unnatural death may be suicidal, homicidal or accidental.76
[3.1.2.1] The Death Was Homicidal In Nature.
(28.) The injury inflicted upon the person of the deceased is indicative of homicidal death. In
cases of homicide, bruises are common.77 Furthermore, there were several disturbances and
altercations that were exchanged between the deceased and the respondents which preceded her
death.
[3.1.2.2] Mysterious Circumstances Surrounded The Death Of The Deceased.
(29.) It is submitted that few days prior to date of the death, the deceased was sent back to her
paternal house after familial disturbances. She was rebuked and cursed for the fact that she gave
birth to a baby girl against the wish of the Goyals. However, on 20.05.2015, she was brought
back to the Goyal House, after she consented to an apology put forth by her husband. The death

73

Keshab Chandra Pandey v. State, (1995) Cr LJ 174 (Ori); See also, Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana, (1998) 3
SCC 309; Kans Raj v. State of Punjab, AIR 2000 SC 2324; Satvir Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 2001 SC 2828;
State of Andhra Pradesh v. Raj Gopal Asawa, AIR 2004 SC 1933; Baljeet Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 2004 SC
1714; Arun Garg v.State of Punjab, (2004) 8 SCC 251; Kamesh Panjiyar v. State of Bihar, (2005) 2 SCC 388, AIR
2005 SC 785; Kishan Singh v. State of Punjab, (2007) 14 SCC 204, AIR 208 SC 233; Tasrem Singh v. State of
Punjab, (2008) 16 SCC 155 : AIR 2009 SC 1454; Rajesh Bhatnagar v. State of Uttarakhand, (2012) 5 SCALE 311 :
2012 Cri LJ 3442.
74
Moot Proposition- 6th UFYLC Ranka National Moot Court Competition 2016, p.2&4, 4&10.
75
Satvir Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 2001 SC 2828, (2001) 8 SCC 633; Nallam Veera Satyanandam v. Public
Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 2004 SC 1708.
76
Rajiv Jassi v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2004) SCC Online 112 (HP).
77
MOITRA & KAUSHAL, MEDICAL JURISPRUDENCE & TOXICOLOGY, 217,(3rd ed., 2007).

26 | P a g e
6TH UFYLC RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

MEMORIAL FOR APPELLANTS

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

had history of consumption of poison and the person of the deceased bore several injuries and
bruises on neck, cheek and face. Therefore, this leaves a big room of suspicion with respect to
the complicity and reliability of the prosecution's version.
[3.1.3] THE DECEASED WAS SUBJECTED TO CRUELTY BY HER HUSBAND AND IN-LAWS.
(30.) The Hon'ble SC has held that 304-B and 498-A cannot be held to be mutually
exclusive.78 Having regard to the common background of these offences, it can be construed that
the term cruelty occurring in 304-B has the same meaning as given in explanation of Section
498A.79 Cruelty includes both mental and physical cruelty.80 In the instant case, the deceased
was subjected to ill treatment by her in laws and it is deposed that with the mental disturbance
and non-congenial atmosphere, she could not conceive her first child. The same maybe
corroborated by the written apology tendered by Shalini Goyal.81
(31.) The factum of cruelty inflicted upon the deceased may be corroborated by the daily diary
maintained by the deceased. Moreover, the deceased was abused and beaten before the servants
of the house. In order to constitute 'harassment' it is essential to prove that (i) the woman was
tormented, i.e. tortured either physically or mentally through constant interference or
intimidation; (ii) such act was with a view to persuade or compel her to do something which she
is legally or not otherwise expected to do by using force or threats, and (iii) intention to subject
the woman was to compel or force her or her relatives to fulfill the unlawful demands for any
property or valuable security.82 In the instant case, all the conditions have been substantiated so
as to attract an offence under 498A as well.
[3.1.4] THE DECEASED WAS METED WITH CRUELTY AND HARASSMENT SOON BEFORE DEATH BY HER
HUSBAND.
(32.) The expression 'soon before her death' used in the substantive provisions of IPC83 and the
IEA84 is pregnant with the proximity test. No definite period has been indicated and the
78

Shanti v. State of Haryana, AIR 1991 SC 1226; Keshab Chander Panda v. State, (1995) Cr LJ 175 (Ori); Dinesh
Sheth v. State (NCT) of Delhi, (2008) 14 SCC 94; Noorjahan v. State, AIR 2008 SC 2113; State of Uttar Pradesh v.
Santosh Kumar, (2009) 9 SCC 626.
79
Hira Lal v. State (Govt of NCT) of Delhi, (2003) 8 SCC 80; Kaliyaperumal v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2003 SC
3828.
80
Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana, AIR 1998 SC 958; Satpal v. State of Haryana, (1998) 5 SCC 687.
81
Moot Proposition- 6th UFYLC Ranka National Moot Court Competition 2016, p.3, 7.
82
Savitri Devi v. Ramesh Chand, (2003) CrLJ 2759 (Del).
83
Indian Penal Code,(1860), 304-B.

27 | P a g e
6TH UFYLC RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

MEMORIAL FOR APPELLANTS

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

expression 'soon before' is not defined.85 The determination of the period which may come
within the term 'soon before' is left to be determined by the courts, depending upon the facts and
circumstances of each case.86
[3.1.4.1] Test Of Proximity Has Been Satisfied Beyond All Reasonable Doubt.
(33.) The test of proximity has been relied upon by the Hon'ble SC in plethora of cases 87, to
justify a charge under 304-B. There must be existence of a proximate and live link between the
effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the concerned death. The alleged incident of
cruelty should not be remote in time and stale enough not to disturb the mental equilibrium of the
women concerned.88. In the instant matter, the deceased could not conceive due to the noncongenial atmosphere that emanated because of the family disturbances pertaining to nonfulfillment of dowry demand. Therefore in the instant case, the mental and physical equilibrium
of the deceased has been disturbed to the extent that could not conceive. Henceforth, it is
submitted that the sufferings of the deceased emanated from the demands of dowry, therefore
these facts have a strong relation with the factum of demand of dowry that preceded her death
'soon before'.
[3.1.5] THE DECEASED WAS INFLICTED WITH CRUELTY AND HARASSMENT IN FURTHERANCE OF THE
DEMAND OF DOWRY.
(34.) The alleged harassment and cruelty has to be inflicted for or in relation with the demand
of dowry.89 The Hon'ble SC has emphasized that demand for dowry is made on three occasions:
(i) before marriage (ii) at the time of marriage (iii) after the marriage. 90 Greed being limitless, the
demand for dowry becomes insatiable in many cases followed by torture of the girl leading to
84

Indian Evidence Act, (1872), 113-B.


HiraLal v. State (Govt of NCT, Delhi), AIR 2003 SC 2865, (2003) 8 SCC 80, (2003) CrLJ 3711; Kunhiabdulla v.
State of Kerala, AIR 2004 SC 1731 (2004) 4 SCC 13; Kaliyaperumal v. State of Tamil Nadu AIR 2003 S(12th C
3828, (2004) 9 SCC 157; State of Andhra Pradesh v. Raj Gopal Asawa, AIR 2004 SC 1933, (2004) CrLJ 1791.
86
Hira Lal v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi), AIR 2003 SC 2865; Vidya Devi v. State of Haryana, AIR 2004 SC
1757, (2004) SCC (Cr) 1306; K.I VIBHUTE, PSA PILLAI'S CRIMINAL LAW, p.606 (12th ed. 2014).
87
Manohar Lal v. State of Haryana, AIR 2014 SC 2555; Kaliyaperumal v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2004) 9 SCC 157;
Sunil Bajaj v. State of M.P., (2001) 9 SCC 417; HiraLal v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi), 2003 SCC (Cri) 2016;
Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab, (2004) SCC (Cri) 2057.
88
Mustafa Shahdal Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, 2012 CrLJ 4763; Kaliyaperumal v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR
2003 SC 3828; Yashoda v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2004 (3) SCC 98; Uday Chakraborty and Ors. v. State of W.B,
AIR 2010 SC 3506; State of Andhra Pradesh v. Raj GopalAsawa, AIR 2004 SC 1933.
89
Lila Ram v. State of Rajasthan, (1993) 1CCR 421 (Raj), Devinder v. State of Haryana, 1994 Cr.L.J 1679 (Punjab
and Haryana); .
90
State of Himachal Pradesh v. Nikku Ram, (1995) Cr. LJ 41 84 (SC).
85

28 | P a g e
6TH UFYLC RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

MEMORIAL FOR APPELLANTS

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

either suicide in some cases or murder in some. In the instant case, the demand for dowry has
been made twice, first at the time of marriage, second after the marriage. Despite the fact that the
Goyals had a palatial house and extravagant standard of living91, but at times the lust and greed
of dowry is increased to such heights that the in laws of the deceased, think it desirable to
remove her by terminating her life and give it a colour of suicide or show it to be a natural
death.92
(35.) The same maybe deposed by Vikram Gupta, father of the deceased [PW-10], who has
been aware of the long drawn issues between the deceased and Goyals, which took different
forms over the course of time. Mr Gupta being the father, his evidence cannot be discarded for
the fact that he was interested witness93. Therefore, the same is also corroborated with the daily
diary maintained by the witness, which was instrumental in the investigation by the police, which
may be deposed by Biru Ahmed, [PW-7].

[4] THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD IS SUFFICIENT TO PROVE THE GUILT OF THE


ACCUSED BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBTS.

(36.) In the instant case, the Honble HC has acquitted the accused Dinesh Goyal and others on
the ground that the circumstances are not of conclusive nature. With the evidence presented at
the trial stage, there is sufficient and conclusive evidence to show that Goyal family is indeed
guilty of the offences under 34 read along with 302 & 304-B of IPC.

91

Moot Proposition- 6th UFYLC Ranka National Moot Court Competition 2016, p.2, 1.
VINAY SHARMA, DOWRY DEATHS- LEGAL PROVISIONS & JUDICIAL INTERPRETATIONS, 5 (1st ed.
2010).
93
Kartik Malhar v. State of Bihar, (1996) 1 SCC 614; S.G. Gundegowda v. State of Karnataka, 1996 Cr LJ 852
(Kant); Kailash v. State of U.P., (1997) 11 SC 525; Harpal Singh v. Devinder Singh, AIR 1997 SC 2914; Rizan v.
State of Chattisgarh, AIR 2003 SC 976; Ravishwar Manjhi v. State of Jharkhand, AIR 2009 SC 1262;
GaliVenkataiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 2008 SC 462; D. Sailu v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 2008 SC
505; Kapildeo Mandal v. State of Bihar, AIR 2008 SC 533; Ponnam Chandraiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR
2008 SC 3209; Kalegura Padma Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 2007 SC 1299; Madhusudan Das v.
Narayanbhai, AIR 1983 SC 114; Krishna Pillai v. State of Kerala, AIR 1981 SC 1237.
92

29 | P a g e
6TH UFYLC RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

MEMORIAL FOR APPELLANTS

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

[4.1] MR. SANJAYS TESTIMONY IS RELIABLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE.


(37.) In the instant matter, the Honble High court of Rajasthan has discarded the evidence of
Mr. Sanjay94 without giving any categorical and determinate rationale and justification. The
Respondent humbly submits that the testimony of Mr. Sanjay is admissible as well as reliable
enough to convict the accused.
[4.1.1] THE TESTIMONY PASSES THE TEST OF RELEVANCY.
(38.) To be admissible, any item of evidence must be relevant to a fact in issue or contribute
towards an explanation of the background to the case.95 It has been held in the case of DPP v
Kilbourne96, evidence is relevant if it makes the matter which requires proof more or less
probable. Similar requirements are envisaged in the Australian 97, New Zealand98 and
American99 jurisdictions.
(39.) The testimony of Sanjay Kumar [PW-1] is of sterling worth and doesnt deserve to be
discarded on unexplained and erroneous grounds. In the context of criminal jurisprudence, it
would mean a witness worthy of defence, one who is reliable and truthful.100 This has to be
gathered from the entire statement of the witnesses and the demeanour of the witnesses, if any,
noticed by the court.101
(40.) In the instant case, the testimony of [PW-1] is reliable, trustworthy and deserves credence
by the Honble court. The Honble HC has erroneously and erringly discarded the testimony of
the [PW-1] on whimsical and fictitious grounds. In the instant matter, the testimony of Mr.
Sanjay suffices this test of relevancy. It makes the fact in issue, that is the involvement of the

94

Moot Proposition 6th UFLYC Ranka National Moot Court Competition, p.7.
JO SHOW, JO HUNT & CHLOE WALLACE, EVIDENCE RAYMOND EMSON, 15 (4th ed.,Palgrave
Macmillan) (2006).
96
[1973] 2 WLR 254 (HL), 276-277.
97
Australian Evidence Act, 1955, 55.
98
New Zealand Evidence Act, 2006, 7(3).
99
United States Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 401.
100
Kuriya v. State of Rajasthan, (2012) 10 SCC 433 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 202 : 2012 Cri LJ 4707 : AIR 2013 SC
1085 ; Kathi Bharat Vajsur v. State of Gujarat, (2012) 5 SCC 724 : (2012) 2 SCC (Cri) 740; Narayan Chetanram
Chaudhary v. State of Maharashtra, (2000) 8 SCC 457; Gura Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (2001) 2 SCC 205;
Sukhchain Singh v. State of Haryana, (2002) 5 SCC 100; Sunil Kumar v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (2003) 11
SCC 367.
101
Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2000) 8 SCC 457.
95

30 | P a g e
6TH UFYLC RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

MEMORIAL FOR APPELLANTS

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

accused in the offences committed, more probable. Hence, it is submitted that the testimony is
admissible and is relevant to the case at hand.
[4.1.2] THE TESTIMONY IS A CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF FACTS.
(41.) It the present case, the testimony of Mr. Sanjay can be taken cognisance as circumstantial
evidence of a fact. In many cases102, the Courts have admitted statements as circumstantial
evidence of facts. The purpose of adducing the evidence is to invite an inference as to a matter
thought to be implied in the statement.103 Because the purpose of evidence is to establish the
probability of the facts upon which the success of a partys case depends in law.104
(42.) It is submitted that the testimony in question plays a very pertinent role in implicating the
accused. The testimony marks the beginning of the chain of the events as it was Mr. Dinesh
Goyal who bought the poison under the pretext that he required the same to kill for flies.105
Hence, it is most humbly contended that Mr. Sanjays testimony evidences the criminal acts of
the accused, inter alia, in a circumstantial manner.
[4.1.3] THE TESTIMONY PASSES THE TEST OF RES GESTAE.
(43.) It is humbly contended that the test for applying the rule of Res gestae is that the
statement should be spontaneous and should form part of the same transaction, ruling out any
possibility on concoction.106 The expression is used in the common law to refer to the events at
issue or others contemporaneous with them.107 In Ratten v. R.108, the Privy council has held that
the expression Res Gestae may be used to cover the questions which may arise when does the
situation begin and when does it end. It basically contains the acts, declarations, and incidents,
which constitute, or accompany and explains, the fact or transaction in issue, are admissible, for
or against either party.109

102

Ratten v. R [1972] AC 378; Woodhouse v. Hall (1981) 72 Cr App R 39; cf. Roberts v. DPP [1994] Cri LR 926.
MURPHY AND GLOVER,MURPHY ON EVIDENCE, 252 (12th ed., Oxford University Press,2011).
104
Ibid, 31.
105
Moot Proposition-6th UFYLC Ranka National Moot Court Competition, 2016, p.4, 10.
106
Gentela Vijayavardhan Rao v. State of A.P, (1996) 6 SCC 241: 1996 SCC (Cri) 1920 : AIR 1996 SC 2791.
107
B. GARNER, A DICTIONARY OF MODERN LEGAL USAGE,(2nd ed., Oxford) (1995).
108
[1972] AC 378 ; R v. Andrews [1987] AC 281 (HL).
109
BUZZARD, JOHN, MAY, RICHARD, HOWARD, M.N., PHIPSON ON EVIDENCE, 63, (12th ed., Sweet &
Maxwell, London)
103

31 | P a g e
6TH UFYLC RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

MEMORIAL FOR APPELLANTS

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

(44.) The rule is, therefore, that where the making of a statement in controversy, or the doing of
an act, assists in constituting the transactions or in proving per se a relevant fact, the declaration
or act is competent.110 Not only may considering its attendant circumstances test the probability
of an occurrence111, but also these undersigned incidents are often essential to elucidate its true
character, to reveal the motives of the parties or to establish their connection with the main
fact.112 Mr. Sanjay has deposed that the accused had bought the poison under the pretext of
killing the flies.113 The testimony provides concrete evidence that the poison was bought
deliberately as per the plan, not to kill the flies but to murder the deceased.
[4.2] THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS CONCLUSIVE IN NATURE.
(45.) An item of circumstantial evidence is an evidentiary fact from which an inference may be
drawn rendering the existence of a fact in issue more probable. 114 Every evidentiary
circumstance is a probative link, strong or weak, and must be made out with certainty. Each link
taken separately may just suggest but when hooked on to the next and on again may manacle the
accused separately. Only then can a concatenation of incriminating facts suffice to convict a
man.115
(46.) In the present case, the plausibility of the hypothesis is conclusive in nature and leaves no
reasonable doubt about the existence of any other hypothesis. The proposition to be proved in the
instant matter is that the accused planned and accordingly murdered the victim and indeed
committed the offences of Murder and Dowry death. The testimony of Mr. Sanjay, servants,
relatives and the dying declaration of the deceased essentially corroborated by the circumstances
encompassing situation at hand successfully proves the factum probandum.

110

J. WIGMORE ON Evidence 1767 n.1 (Chadbourn rev.ed., 1976) citing the Ship Money Case (1637) 3 How.
St. Tr. 825, 988.
111
Dysart Peerage Case, (1881) 6 App.Case 489.
112
Supra 17, p.1.
113
Moot Proposition-6th UFYLC Ranka National Moot Court Competition, 2016, p.4, 10.
114
Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam, (2013) 12 SCC 406 : 2013 SCC OnLine SC 488 : 2013 Cri LJ 3140 : (2013) 127
AIC 25 (SC); Golakonda Venkateswara Rao v. State of A.P, (2003) 9 SCC 277 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 1904; Jagroop
Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 11 SCC 768 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 1136 : 2012 SCC OnLine SC 537; Matru v. State
of Uttar Pradesh, (1971) 2 SCC 75 : 1971 SCC (Cri) 391.
115
Dharam Das Wadhwani v. State of U.P, AIR 1975 SC 241 : 1974 CriLJ 1249 : (1974) 4 SCC 267 : 1974 SC
CNR 159.

32 | P a g e
6TH UFYLC RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

MEMORIAL FOR APPELLANTS

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

[4.2.1] THERE IS AN EXISTENCE OF A HYPOTHESIS CONSISTENT WITH THE GUILT AND INCONSISTENT
WITH THE INNOCENCE OF THE ACCUSED.
(47.) In the instant matter, the Goyals have planned and accordingly murdered the deceased.
There was motive, generation of an opportunity and it was within the capacity of the accused 116
to commit the acts in question. All the circumstances taken together corroborate the same.
[4.2.2] TESTIMONIES OF THE SERVANTS CANNOT BE DISPUTED BY ANY MEANS.
(48.) Servants are independent witnesses and there should be no reason for the Honble court to
discard their testimonies as evidences. They have expressly mentioned in their respective
testimonies about the various circumstances that unfolded on that dreadful night.117 Considering
the place of the commission of the crime, the presence of the servants at that place and at that
time is highly probable and cannot be disputed and denied by any sense and logic.
(49.) Merely because the witnesses were servants of the deceased, they cannot be interested or
partisan witnesses.118 Their version, not being shown to be tutored, should be held reliable.119
The testimonies of these witnesses have been put to strict and careful scrutiny and hence, there
should be no impediment in accepting the same by the Honble court.
[4.2.3] TESTIMONIES OF THE RELATIVES ARE COGENT AND CREDIBLE IN NATURE.
(50.) Relatives are independent witnesses and are not chance witnesses. It cannot be implied
thereby that their evidence is suspicious and their presence at the crime scene is doubtful.
Murders are not committed with previous notice to witnesses soliciting their presence.120
(51.) The evidence cannot be brushed aside or viewed with suspicion on the ground that they
are mere chance witnesses.121 The expression chance witnesses is borrowed from countries
where every mans home is considered as castle and everyone must have an explanation for his
116

Vijay Shankar v. State of Haryana, (2015) 12 SCC 644 : 2015 Cri LJ 4774 : (2015) 154 AIC 164 (SC); Mahesh
v. State of M.P, (2011) 9 SCC 626 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 783; Majendran Langeswaran v. State (NCT of Delhi),
(2013) 7 SCC 192 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 226 : AIR 2013 SC 2790.
117
Moot Proposition 6th UFLYC Ranka National Moot Court Competition, 2016, p.7.
118
Radhey Shyam Narendra v. State of Orissa, (1980) 1 SCC 585 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 293.
119
Rajaram v. State of Orissa, (1980) 1 SCC 585 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 293.
120
Chanakya Dhibar v. State of W.B, (2004) 12 SCC 398; Sachchey Lal Tiwari v. State of U.P, (2004) 11 SCC 410
: AIR 2004 SC 5039; Thangaiya v. State of T.N, (2005) 9 SCC 650 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1284 : 2005 Cri LJ 684 : AIR
2005 SC 1142; State of A.P v. K. Srinivasulu Reddy, (2003) 12 SCC 660 : AIR 2004 SC 3305.
121
Chanakya Dhibar v. State of W.B, (2004) 12 SCC 398; Thangaiya v. State of T.N, (2005) 9 SCC 650 : 2005 SCC
(Cri) 1284 : 2005 Cri LJ 684 : AIR 2005 SC 1142; Sachey Lal Tiwari v. State of U.P, (2004) 11 SCC 410 : AIR
2004 SC 5309; State of A.P v. K. Srinivasulu Reddy, (2003) 12 SCC 660 : AIR 2004 SC 3305.

33 | P a g e
6TH UFYLC RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

MEMORIAL FOR APPELLANTS

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

presence elsewhere or in another mans castle. It is quite an unsuitable expression in a country


where people are less formal and more casual.122
[4.2.4] SPONTANEOUS UTTERANCES OF THE DECEASED IS AN IMPORTANT LINK IN THE ENTIRE CHAIN
OF EVENTS.
(52.) It is a common law rule that a relevant spontaneous statement made during the drama of
an event is admissible in evidence to prove the matter stated provided that the risk of concoction
or distortion can be excluded.123 The details of the common rule were clarified by the Privy
Council in Ratten v. R.124 and confirmed by the House of Lords in R v. Andrews.125
(53.) In the instant case, it has been testified that Shri Surendra kumar [PW-2], a servant heard
the shrieks and cries of the deceased and extreme weeping of her child. The deceased was crying
Give me salty water. I do not want to die.126 Henceforth in the light of the aforementioned
arguments, the spontaneous utterance of the deceased passes through all tests of relevancy and
admissibility.
[4.2.5] DYING DECLARATION OF THE DECEASED COMPLETES THE CHAIN OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE.
(54.) It is a well settled principle under 32127 that all the circumstances would be admissible
under 32 as relevant to the circumstances that led to the deceased of the accused.128
[4.2.5.1] Gestures And Nods Of The Deceased.
(55.) Dying declaration recorded on the nods and gestures is not only admissible but possesses
evidentiary value, the extent of which shall depend upon who recorded the statement129, what

122

Chanakya Dhibar v. State of W.B., (2014) 12 SCC 398.


WIGMORE ON EVIDENCE, CHABOURN REV, 1747 (Boston, 1976).
124
[1972] A.C. 378, PC.
125
[1987] A.C. 281, HL.
126
Moot Proposition 6th UFLYC Ranka National Moot Court Competition, p.4, 10.
127
Indian Evidence Act, 1872, 32.
128
Sher Singh v. State of Punjab, (2008) 4 SCC 265 : (2008) 2 SCC (Cri) 783 : 2008 Cri LJ 2062 : (2008) 63 AIC
53 (SC) : AIR 2008 SC 1426; Ravi Chander v. State of Punjab, (1998) 9 SCC 303 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 1004; Umakant
v. State of Chattisgarh, (2014) 7 SCC 405 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 216; Brundaban Moharana v. State of Orissa, (2010)
13 SCC 381 : (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 1173.
129
Alexander Perera Chandarasekera v. King, AIR 1937 PC 24 : 38 Cri LJ 281 : (1937) 1 MLJ 600.
123

34 | P a g e
6TH UFYLC RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

MEMORIAL FOR APPELLANTS

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

gestures and nods were made130, what were the questions asked131, whether they were simple or
complicated and how effective or understandable the nods and gestures were132.
(56.) In cases of dying declaration, it has been held that the statement made by the deceased
should be voluntary133 and trustworthy134, apart from the fact that it is equally necessary to prove
that the deceased was in a fit state of mind135. In the instant case, the statement made by the
deceased satisfies all the aforementioned conditions and henceforth, it should be duly accepted as
a reliable piece of evidence by the Honble court.
[4.2.5.2] Daily Diary Of The Victim.
(57.) It is humbly submitted that all the information regarding the circumstances and acts that
led to the murder of the deceased has been minutely mentioned in the Daily Diary of the
deceased136 and henceforth, would become admissible under the second part of 32137.
(58.) Arguendo, the events mentioned in the diary are corroborated by the testimony of Shri
Dinesh Goyal [PW-10] and hence, there should be no questions in the mind of the Honble court
to accept the aforementioned evidences.
[4.2.6] OPINIONS GIVEN BY THE DOCTORS LACKS CORROBORATIVE VALUE.
(59.) The reliability of evidence derived from a scientific theory or principle depends upon
three factors: (1) the validity of underlying theory, (2) the validity of the technique applying that
theory, and (3) the proper application of the technique on a particular occasion. 138 The medical
130

Darpan Potdarin v. Emperor, AIR 1938 Pat 153 : 39 Cri LJ 384 : 1938 PWN 266.
Gajendra kar v. State of Orissa, 1973 Cri LJ 1058 : 39 Cut LT 186 : 1973 Cut LR (Cri) 109.
132
Meesala Ramakrishnan v. State of A.P, (1999) 4 SCC 182 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 838.
133
Balbir Singh v. State of Punjab, (2006) 12 SCC 283 : (2007) 1 SCC (Cri) 715 : AIR 2006 SC 3221 ; Surinder
Kumar v. State of Punjab, (2012) 12 SCC 120 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 246 ; Surinder Kumar v. State of Haryana,
(2011) 10 SCC 173 : (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 230; Kamla v. State of Punjab, (1993) 1 SCC 1 : AIR 1993 SC 374;
Paniben v. State of Gujarat, (1992) 2 SCC 474 : AIR 1992 SC 1817.
134
Chandra Narain Yadav v. Shibjee Yadav, (1999) 6 SCC 63 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 1060.
135
Kaliya v. State of M.P, (2013) 10 SCC 758 : (2013) 4 SCC (Cri) 135 : (2013) 129 AIC 255 (SC) : (2014) 1 SCC
(Civ) 142; State of Rjasthan v. Santosh Savit, (2013) 12 SCC 663 : 2013 Cri LJ 4611; Babu Ram v. State of Punjab,
(1998) 9 SCC 495 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 1043 : AIR 1998 SC 2808; P.V Radhakrishna v. State of Karnataka, (2003) 6
SCC 443 : (2003) SCC (Cri) 1679 : 2003 Cri LJ 3717 : AIR 2003 SC 2859; Laxman v. State of Maharashta, (2002)
6 SCC 710 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 1491; Rambai v. State of Chattisgarh, (2002) 8 SCC 83; Sunder Singh v. State of
Uttaranchal, (2010) 10 SCC 61, 263; Muthu kutty v. State, (2005) 9 SCC 113 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1202 : AIR 2005 SC
1473.
136
Moot Proposition 6th UFLYC Ranka National Moot Court Competition, p.4, 8.
137
Indian Evidence Act, 1872, 32(1).
138
PAUL C. GIANNELLI & EDWARD J. IMWINKELRIED, SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE, 2 (LexisNexis) (2007).
131

35 | P a g e
6TH UFYLC RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

MEMORIAL FOR APPELLANTS

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

jurisprudence is not an exact science and it is indeed difficult for any doctor to say with precision
and exactitude as to when a particular injury was caused.139 It has been observed that the
testimonies of doctor should be treated like evidence from any other witness.140 A Court is not
bound by expert's opinion which is to large extent advisory in nature.141
[4.2.7] THE STATEMENT OF OPINION EXPRESSED BY THE DOCTORS IS PREMATURE; AND HAS NOT
STATED THE BASES OF OPINION.
(60.) The orthodox, common law view is that the witness must list all the bases for the opinion
before stating the opinion.142 Under the law, where a witness testifies in the form of opinion not
based upon his personal observation, the assumed facts must be stated in order to show that the
witness has some basis for forming an intelligent opinion and to permit the trier of fact to
determine the applicability of the opinion in light of existence or nonexistence of such facts.143 In
the matter at hand, Dr O.P Chaudhary and Dr Piyush Kapila, did not mention the bases of
forming the opinion that the deceased could have consumed the poison in order to commit
suicide. Therefore their respective opinions lacks requisite corroborative force and lacks probity.
[4.2.8] THE EXPERT OPINION LACKS REQUISITE DEGREE OF CERTAINTY OR PROBABILITY.
(61.) The Courts have excluded expert opinions couched in terms of mere possibility. Indeed,
if the courts demanded reasonable certainty, even a probabilistic statement is inadmissible.144
Courts have defended the view by arguing that statements of "mere conjectures or speculation"
lack sufficient probative value to support findings.145 In the instant matter, the opinions given by
the doctors with respect to the nature of the death of the deceased are probabilistic and not
conclusive, therefore their opinions are liable to be rejected.

139

Pratap Misra v. State of Punjab, AIR 1977 SC 1307.


M.P Shah v. State of Gujarat, 1982 Cri LJ 1972 (SC).
141
Malay Kumar Ganguly v. Dr Sukumar Mukherjee, AIR 2010 SC 1162, 1178.
142
SCHIMDT, "CROSS EXAMINATION OF AN EXPERT WITNESS," 13 St. Mary's L.J. 89, 91 (1981); Law
Revision Commission Comment, California Evidence Code 802.
143
Law Revision Commission Comment, California Evidence Code.
144
"Medical Evidence- Sufficiency of Expert's Opinion," 17 Def. L.J 181 (1968)
145
Davidson v. Miller, 276 Md. 54, 61, 344 A.2d 422, 427 (1975).
140

36 | P a g e
6TH UFYLC RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

MEMORIAL FOR APPELLANTS


[4.3]

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL CHAIN IS COMPLETE AND PROVES THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED

BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT.

(62.) Sir Alfred Wills in his book146 lays down the following rules specially to be observed in
the cases of circumstantial evidence: (1) the facts alleged as the basis of any legal inference
must be clearly proved and beyond reasonable doubt with the factum probandum; (2) the burden
of proof is always on the party who asserts the existence of any fact, which infers legal
accountability; (3) in all cases, whether of direct or circumstantial evidence the best evidence
must be adduced which the nature of the case admits; (4) in order to justify the inference of guilt,
the inculpatory facts must be incompatible with the innocence of the accused and incapable of
explanation, upon any other reasonable hypothesis than that of his guilt; (5) if there be any
reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused, he is entitled as of right to be acquitted. The same
has been reiterated in a plethora of Cases147 and by Wigmore148 and Phispon149. In the present
case, the plausibility of the hypothesis is conclusive in nature and leaves no reasonable doubt
about the existence of any other hypothesis.
(63.) Following below mentioned circumstances can be relied upon by the Hon'ble court to
reach the conclusion that the prosecution has established the guilt of the appellant.
(a) The relations between the accused and the deceased after the marriage were strained and the
deceased was rebuked, harassed and cursed for dowry and various other demands, which
eventually served as a motive to murder the deceased.

146

AN ESSAY ON THE PRINCIPLES OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE BY WILLIAM WILLS, (3rd ed.


HENRY BUTTERWORTH, 7, FLEET STREET, LAW BOOKSELLER AND PUBLISHER).
147
Basant Singh v. State of Punjab, 1980 Supp SCC 469 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 376; Jagjit Singh v. State of H.P , 1994
SCC (Cri) 176 : 1994 Cri LJ 233 ; Vijender v. State of Delhi, (1997) 6 SCC 171 ; Ram Bharosey v. State of U.P,
1954 Cri LJ 1755 : AIR 1954 SC 704 ; Madhu v. State of Kerala, (2012) 2 SCC 399 : (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 892 : AIR
2012 SC 664; Mangleshwari Prasad v. State of Bihar, AIR 1954 SC 715; State of U.P v. Desh Raj, (2006) 9 SCC
278 : (2006) 2 SCC (Cri) 489; AIR 2006 SC 1712 ; Thimma and Thimma Raju v. State of Mysore, (1970) 2 SCC
105 : AIR 1971 SC 1871; Hari Om v. State of U.P , (1970) 3 SCC 453; Ronny v. State of Maharashtra, (1998) 3
SCC 625 : AIR 1998 SC 1251; Kansa Behera v. State of Orissa, (1987) 3 SCC 480 : AIR 1987 SC 1507; Budhuram
v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2012) 11 SCC 588 : (2013) 121 AIC 196 (SC); Tukaram v. State of Maharashtra, (1979) 2
SCC 143 : AIR 1979 SC 185; Ghurphekan v. State of U.P., (1972) 3 SCC 361 : AIR 1972 SC 1172.
148
WIGMORE, JOHN H., THE PRINCIPLES OF JUDICIAL PROOF: As given by Logic, Psychology and General
Experience and Illustrated in Judicial Trials, 632, (Little, Brown and Company, 1913).
149
BUZZARD, JOHN, MAY, RICHARD, HOWARD, M.N., PHIPSON ON EVIDENCE, 63 (12th ed., Sweet &
Maxwell, London).

37 | P a g e
6TH UFYLC RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

MEMORIAL FOR APPELLANTS

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

(b) The entire family planned and accordingly, Mr. Dinesh Goyal purchased on 24.5.2015
organo phosphorus sold under the trade name of "NUVAN'' from [PW-1].
(c) The post-mortem report/certificate disclosed that the deceased has died due to asphyxia
secondary to the organo phosphorous poison.
(d) The appellants had access to the poison and opportunity to administer it.
(e) The conduct and demeanour of the appellants in answering the questions of the relatives.
(f) The relatives inquired about the precarious and deteriorating condition of the deceased from
her. To which, she raised her hand towards the appellants, and
(g) The cry of the deceased - "Give me salty water. I do not want to die." was heard by [PW-2].
(64.) In the present case, the hypothesis put forth by the Prosecution gives the evidence of the
motive, a plan, the commissioning of the actual act, testimonies of the witnesses, conduct of the
accused and the dying declaration of the deceased. The cumulative effect of the circumstances
leads to the conclusion that the facts probans point towards the factum probandum, in other
words the only reasonable conclusion is that the offences can be accredited to the accused.
(65.) It is therefore most respectfully submitted that the Evidence presented is sufficient and
carries with it the Probative force to sustain a conviction.

38 | P a g e
6TH UFYLC RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

MEMORIAL FOR APPELLANTS

PRAYER

PRAYER
In the light of facts stated, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, the
Appellants most humbly and respectfully pray and request the Honourable Court:
1)

TO CONVICT

THE ACCUSED PERSONS FOR COMMITTING


304-B r/w 34 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860.

2)

TO DECLARE A SENTENCE OF IMPRISONMENT FOR LIFE UNDER

OFFENCES UNDER

302,

302, 304-B r/w

34 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860.


AND/OR
TO GRANT ANY OTHER ORDER IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANTS WHICH THE HONOURABLE
COURT MAY DEEM THINK FIT IN THE EYES OF JUSTICE, EQUITY AND GOOD CONSCIENCE.

All of which is respectfully submitted and for such act of kindness the Appellants shall be duty
bound as ever pray.

Sd/COUNSELS FOR THE APPELLANTS

39 | P a g e
6TH UFYLC RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016