Defense Upes

TC-10 1
4th UPES NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY COMPETITION, 2018
BEFORE THE COURT OF SESSIONS

AT JAGDISHPUR
STATE
(PROSECUTION)
V.
SANT MAHHARAJ JI & KAANT
(DEFENSE)
FOR THE OFFENCES CHARGED UNDER

SECTION 376 D 120B, 354, 506, 107,34 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860
UPON SUBMISSION TO THE COURT OF SESSION

________________________________________________________________
WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF THE DEFENSE
MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF DEFENSE

TC-10 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pg.No
TABLE OF CONTENTS 2
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 3
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 5
[A] Table of cases 5
[B]Statutes 5
[D]Books 5-6
[E}Online Databases 6
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 7
STATEMENT OF FACTS 8
STATEMENT OF CHARGES 9
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 10
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED 12
PRAYER 26

TC-10 3
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AIR All India Reporter
All Allahabad High Court
Cal Calcutta High Court
Cri LJ Cr LJ Criminal Law Journal
Cr.P.C Code of Criminal Procedure
Del Delhi High Court
DW Defense Witness
Ed. Edition
IPC Indian Penal Code
LW Law Weekly
Mad Madras High Court
Ori Orissa High Court
pg. Page No.
P&H Punjab and Haryana High Court
Pat Patna High Court
PW Prosecution Witness
Raj Rajasthan High Court
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
Sec. Section
V. Versus
ILR Indian law Reporter

TC-10 4
Bom. Bombay
U.P Uttar Pradesh
A.P Andhra Pradesh
Ors. Others
M.P Madhya Pradesh

TC-10 5
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
TABLE OF CASES Pg.no

1. Shankarlal Gyarasilal Dixit vs. State of Maharashtra1.
2. Shankarlal Gyarasilal Dixit vs. State of Maharashtra2.
3. Nand Kishore vs . State of Rajasthan
4. Shri Rakshit Khosla v. The State
5. Shri Rakshit Khosla v. The State
6. Ram Das v. State of West Bengal,
7. Shashi Chaudhary vs. Ram Kumar and Ors
8. Lalliram and Ors. vs. Respondent: State of M.P
9. Satpal and Ors . vs . State of H . P.
STATUTES
1. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act 2 of 1973)
2. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Act 18 of 1872)
3. The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860)
BOOKS
1. Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code, 33rd Ed. (2011)..
2. Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The Law of Evidence, 22nd Ed. (2006)..
3. Sarkar, Law of Evidence, (13th Ed,1990) …
4. Kelkar, R.V. Criminal Procedure, (5th Ed. 2011) ..
5. Lal, Batuk, The Law of Evidence, (18th Ed. 2010) ..
1 MANU/SC/0211/1980
2 MANU/SC/0211/1980

TC-10 6
6. Lyons, Medical Jurisprudence & Toxicology, (11th Ed. 2005) ..
7. Modi’s Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, (23rd Ed. 2010).
8. Gaur, KD, Criminal Law: Cases and Materials, (6th Ed. 2009)..
9. Jethmalani and Chopra’s, Commentary on Law of Evidence..
10. Halsbury laws of England 44 (4th edition 1987)..
11. Halsbury laws of England 58 (4th edition 1987)..
12. James Humber , Biomedical ethics and the law 518 (2nd ed, 1979)..
13. P. Ramanatha Aiyer, The law Lexicon 84 ( 2nd ed, 1997)..
14. Batuklal , law of evidence , central law Publication 19th edition 2011.
15. Hari Singh gaur , The Indian penal code, Law publisher Vol 2 14th ed 2014.
ONLINE DATABASES
1. http://www.findlaw.com
2. http://www.judis.nic.in
3. http://www.manupatra.co.in/AdvancedLegalSearch.aspx
4. http://www.scconline.com
5. http://www.indiankanoon.org

TC-10 7
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Hon’ble Court has jurisdiction to try the instant matter under Sec.177 read with Sec.209 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Section177
‘177: Ordinary place of inquiry and trial- ‘Every offence shall ordinarily be
inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed.’
Read with Section 209:

‘209: Commitment of case to Court of Session when offence is triable exclusively by it-
When in a case instituted on a police report or otherwise, the
accused appears or is brought before the Magistrate and it appears to the Magistrate
that the offence is triable exclusively by the Court of Session, he shall-
(a) commit the case to the Court of Session;
(b) subject to the provisions of this Code relating to bail, remand the accused
to custody during, and until the conclusion of, the trial;
(c) send to that Court the record of the case and the documents and articles, if
any, which are to be produced in evidence;
(d) notify the Public Prosecutor of the commitment of the case to the Court of
Session.’

TC-10 8
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. On 26th Of August 2018, an FIR was lodged in a police station of Jagdishpur, against a
religious leader [Sant Maharaj ji], of allegedly raping a girl of seventeen-years-old [Eila].
The FIR was lodged on that very day by her father after she told her parents about blood
between her legs. They were residents of Sant Vihar.
2. Eila and her family visited the ashram and guruji asked her to stay back for the sudhi-
pooja ,she claimed that after having dinner at the ashram she felt heavy and dizzy, after
entering the healing room and seeing Kant, she tried to run and escape but was forced to
have the ‘holy water’, and lie down in front of Guruji. She felt almost unconscious, when
she heard Guruji asking a few sevikas to leave the room and after that she felt someone’s
touch in her abdomen, legs and chest part, and as she tried to held herself up, somebody
pulled her head backwards and closed her eyes.
3. When the IO sub inspector Lallan Top started investigating, he found out some letters
that were exchanged between Eila and her boyfriend (Ricky), where she mentioned about
her strong disbelieve about Sant Maharaj Ji.(Annexure 4).These letters were shown to
Kant by Ricky had friendly relations.
4. By the medical tests of the girl that were done, it is confirmed that there is clear evidence
of drug/ alcoholic intoxication, clear injuries on the genitals/anus, forceful penetration,
evidence of STD: rashes.( Annexure 1), evidence of bites and pinches on neck, blood
stains visible on the cloths.
5. During the time of investigation it was found out that a similar case of assault was made a
year ago by a sannyasi, who went missing thereafter.
6. Also that, on the day of this incident, Eila went to visit Ricky, when no one else was
present at his place, and returned after a few hours.
7. After considering all the facts and circumstances, Maharaj ji and Kant has been arrested,
the matter is before the sessions court for hearing.

TC-10 9
STATEMENT OF CHARGES
CHARGE I & II
__________________________________________________________________________
Sant Maharaj ji (Accused 1) and Kaant (Accused 2) have been charged with Gang rape,] and
Criminal Conspiracy R/W Common Intention with respect to S.120B R/W S.34 respectively of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
CHARGE III
__________________________________________________________________________
Both the accused (i.e Sant Maharaj ji & Kaant) have been charged with the offence of
molestation with respect to S.354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
CHARGE IV
__________________________________________________________________________
Both the accused (i.e Sant Maharaj ji & Kaant) are guilty of criminal intimidation with respect
to S. 506 of the Indian Penal Code,1860.
CHARGE V
__________________________________________________________________________
The accused, Sant Maharaj Ji is guilty of Abetment with respect to S. 107 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860.

TC-10 10
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
CHARGE I: WHETHER SANT MAHARAJ JI AND KAANT ARE GUILTY UNDER

SECTION 375 READ WITH 376D OF INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that Accused 1 and Accused 2 are not guilty of
rape R/W Gang rape. Accused 2 was a blind follower of Guruji and respected him, he never had
any wrong intention. None of them have even tried to touch the girl in the healing room, and she
came in for the sudhi pooja with all her consent and her family’s consent. Hence the accused are
not guilty of the above held offences.
CHARGE II:WHETHER SANT MAHARAJ JI AND KAANT ARE GUILTY UNDER

SECTION 120B READ WITH 34 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860
criminal conspiracy R/W common intention. Accused 1 and Accused 2 did not conspire anything
against the victim, they were all present there for the sudhi pooja, hence they aren’t guilty of the
above held offence.
CHARGE III: WHETHER SANT MAHARAJ JI AND KAANT ARE GUILTY UNDER
SECTION 354 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860
molesting her, as they did not touch her inside the healing room, sudhi pooja was going on inside
the room, hence the accsed are not guilty of the above held offence.
CHARGE IV: WHETHER SANT MAHARAJ JI AND KAANT ARE GUILY OF

SECTION 506 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860.
criminal intimidation, as victim’s family themselves came to visit guruji and they agreed on the
decision that were taken as of the sudhi pooja, thus nothing was done against their will by the
accused, hence they are not guilty of the above held offence.

TC-10 11
CHARGE V: WHETHER SANT MAHARAJ JI IS GUILTY OF SECTION 107 OF

INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860.
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that Accused 1 is not guilty of abetting the
victim, as Sant Maharaj Ji did not stop her from going out of the room, neither did he ask her to
come in the room against her wish, hence he is not guilty,.

TC-10 12
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
Most respectfully showeth :
CHARGE 1: The accused Sant Maharaj ji and Kaant are accused of Rape
under Sec 375 R/W Sec.376(1) along with Sec. 376D of the Indian Penal
Code,1860.
It is contented before this Hon’ble Court that the accused Sant Maharaj ji and Kaant (hereinafter
individually to be referred to as ‘D.W.1’ and ‘D.W.2’ respectively) are guilty of unlawful
offences of rape under Sec.375 r/w Sec.376D(gang rape), Sec.120B R/W Sec. 34, Sec. 506, Sec.
354 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as the ‘I.P.C.’) and D.W.1 has been separately
charged under Sec. 107 of I.P.C.
The crux of the offence of rape under section 375, IPC is sexual intercourse by a man with a
woman against her will and without her consent under any one of the following circumstances
being:
 (1)Against her will

 (2)Without her consent
 (3) With consent obtained by putting her or any other person in whom she is interested
under fear of death or of hurt
 (4) With consent but given under misconception of fact that the man was her husband
 (5) Consent given by reason of unsoundness of mind or under influence of intoxication
or any stupefying or unwholesome substance
 (6) Women under eighteen with or without consent or when wome is unable to
communicate consent. 3
The crux of gang rape will be dealt in the present contention (Charge I), while the charge of
criminal conspiracy will be proved in the subsequent contention (Charge II). On the next
3
UNIVERSAL’S CRIMINAL MANUEL, INDIAN PENAL CODE, PG. 504.

TC-10 13
contention will be discusses about the charge of molestation. (Charge III).The subsequent
contention deals with criminal intimidation (Charge IV). And the separate charge of abetment
against D.W.1 will be dealt in the last contention (Charge V).
In the instant matter D.W.1 and D.W.2 had conspired together to rape, Eila (hereinafter referred
as deceased/victim). It is to be noted that the essential elements of Sec. 376D (Gang rape) are as
follows:
 There must be an involvement of more than one individual.

 There has to be a common intention.4
 Without her consent and against her will.
Sexual assault comprises of:
 The introduction (to any extent) by a man of his penis, into the vagina (which term shall
include the labia majora), the anus or urethra or mouth of any woman or child
 The introduction (to any extent) by a man of an object or a part of the body (other than
the penis) into the vagina(which term shall include the labia majora) or anus or urethra
of a woman
 The introduction (to any extent) by a person of an object or a part of the body (other than
the penis) into the vagina(which term shall include the labia majora) or anus or urethra
of a child.
 Manipulating any part of the body of a child so as to cause penetration of the vagina
(which term shall include labia majora) anus or the urethra of the offender by any part of
the child's body.
It is humble submitted that accused 1 and accused 2, i.e. DW2 and DW3 are not guilty under
section 376(1) and Section 376D of the Indian Penal code, 1860 which talks about the
punishment of rape and gang rape respectively.
It is further contended that there is no eyewitness under section 134 of the Evidence act, 1872
to the said incident instead of the proclaiming prosecution itself, i.e. PW1. It as to be taken into
4
Mukesh and Anr V. State for NCT of Delhi

TC-10 14
consideration that there is no direct evidence stating or proving that the accused are guilty or
have committed the heinous crime of rape. Shri Rakshit Khosla v. The State It is further
contended that the prosecutionex, i.e. was already filled with a pre-prejudice mindset against the
accused and his path of believe. It is very well clear from the facts that PW1 was always against
the ideas and teaching of the accused.
It is also contended that PW1 mention in the letters written to Ricky that she wanted to lift the
veil of faith from the eyes of people5. This highlights that PW1 was completely prejudice against
the accused DW2. DW3, i.e. Kaant when received the letters from Ricky and saw such wordings
from PW1, immediately bought that into the accused 1’s knowledge and shown him the letters.
It is also contended that when PW1 came late for the “shuddhi pooja” and was asked by DW2
the reason for the same, she replied that she was at a friend’s place. Then DW2 also asked her
about the blood stains on her cloth, to which she replied that she fell while walking towards
the ashram.
Nand Kishore vs . State of Rajasthan6 the H.C. of Rajasthan stated that “In view of what has
been discussed above, the testimony of the prosecutrix does not inspire confidence nor it
stands corroborated by any evidence whatsoever. Therefore, the version of the prosecutrix
that she was subjected to forceful intercourse without her consent also does not inspire
confidence and cannot be believed. Even the medical evidence, as discussed above, also does
not support her version, inasmuch as PW.9 Dr. Rajesh Khunteta who examiner her for to find
out the fact of commission of rape did not find any external injury on her body and he has not
given any opinion as regards rape, in his report Ex.P.3. Under the circumstances that the
prosecutrix left her father's house with the accused appellant, went to railway station,
travelled in the train, visited the market along with the appellant to purchase cloths for
herself, not offering any resistance or even not raising alarm so as to get rid of the clutches of
appellant, not making any complaint to any one during the period she remained with the
appellant, it is too difficult for me to accept the truthfulness of the version of the prosecutrix
that any sexual assault as alleged was committed on her. It must, therefore, be held that the
5
Annexure4. Trial Problem
6
MANU/RH/0647/2002

TC-10 15
prosecutrix in the case is one on whose testimony no reliance can be placed. The argument of
the learned counsel for the appellants holds good that the prosecutrix was a willing party to
go with the appellant on her own and the culpability of the appellant, in the above
circumstances does not stand established. For the reasons aforesaid, it is held that the
prosecution has not been able to establish the charges under Sections 363, 366 and 376 1PC
against the accused appellant and his culpability remains unestablished. Accordingly, the
appellant de serves acquittal. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The conviction of the
appellant under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC and the sentences awarded thereunder are set
aside and he is acquitted of the offences charged with. The appellant is in jail and he be set at
liberty, if not required in any other case.
It is further contended that the accused 1 is a respectable member of the society and has many
followers around the nation and this type of acquisitions made by the prosecution is a way to
damage that garnished image and respect that the accused as earned in so many years and the
motive behind this seems to be like the prevailing of the prejudice mindset of PW1.
Gang rape: Gang rape under Section 376D of the Indian Penal Code states that “Where a
woman is raped by one or more persons constituting a group or acting in furtherance of a
common intention, each of those persons shall be deemed to have committed the offence of rape
and shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than twenty
years, but which may extend to life which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of that
persons natural life, and with fine”.
It is further contended that DW3 has been dragged into the whole scenario without any
relevant evidence and witness, but just because of mere assumption and hypothetical scene
created by the side prosecution. Shri Rakshit Khosla v. The State7. The Delhi High Court stated
that “finding cannot lead to the inference that the allegations made by the prosecution against
Rakshit Khosla are true. In the first place, neither the learned Additional Sessions Judge nor I
have held that the plea of alibi was false and fabricated. In the second place the prosecution
must stand on its own legs. It cannot succeed on the weakness of the defence. The prosecution, as
7
ILR (1969) DEL 653, 1969 SCC ONLINE DEL 122

TC-10 16
already discussed, failed to establish its case against Rakshit Khosla. The result is that Criminal
Appeal No. 219 of 1967 of Rakshit Khosla is allowed. His Indian Penal Code. The fine, if paid,
shall be refunded to him. Rakshit Khosla is on bail. His bail bond is discharged”.
It is also contended that the prosecutioner in her written statement under Section 164(5A) of
Crpc, 1973 has clearly stated that she was not able to recognize the people inside the room, what
she remembers is that there was a Guru ji , a shopkeeper and a person whom she thought that
was Ricky. It is very clear from the statement which was made by the victim herself that she is in
a state of ambiguity that who was really there in that room with her.
It is also contended that the accused is respectable person of the society and that he has many
followers, he worships the almighty and follows is path of love and peace. The accused is highly
focused on his mission to teach is disciples the path of god and peace.
It is also contended that there is no direct evidence against the accused, the medical report under
section 164(a) of crpc, 1973 is yet not the final report, there is no such proof of accused
character and no questions have been put on on it in the past. It is also contended that the
whatsapp messages between accused 2 and Ricky are just a communication between two friends
and nothing more and is not admissible under section 65B of the Evidence Act, 1872 ,
moreover the victims such intimate letters to Ricky proves that she was very close to him with a
few days of their friendship.
Shankarlal Gyarasilal Dixit vs. State of Maharashtra8.
. 9Delhi H.C. stated that “there is no doubt that rape causes great distress and humiliation to the
victim of rape but at the same time false allegation of committing a rape also causes humiliation
and damage to the accused. From the aforegoing, it is clear that the Courts must not be blind to
the rights of the accused. A false accusation of rape may be as damning to an accused as to a
victim of rape. The accused may be shunned in the society and by his own family, spouse and
children for no fault of his own only because one woman has leveled false allegations of rape in
pursuance of her evil design. Present case seems to be no different when the sole purpose of the
8 MANU/SC/0211/1980
9
MANU/DE/2028/2017

TC-10 17
prosecutrix and PW-6 seems to extract revenge against the respondents. We are prima facie
satisfied that there was a conscious and deliberate effort to misuse the process of law to initiate
false proceedings against the respondents. To achieve their nefarious plan, the complainant
(PW-3) and Ram Pravesh (PW-6) connived and have given patently false evidence in Court. The
same should not be taken lightly and accordingly, in the interest of justice, we are of the opinion
that the Trial Court failed to initiate proceedings against the prosecutrix (PW-3) and Ram
Pravesh (PW-6). Accordingly, we find no illegality or infirmity in the judgment of the Trial Court
warranting interference. The present leave petition is dismissed"
CHARGE 2 :The accused are guilty of criminal conspiracy under S.120B R/W
S.34 common intention of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
It is contented that the accused Sant Maharaj ji and Kaant (hereinafter individually to be referred
to as ‘D.W.1’ and ‘D.W.2’ respectively) are guilty of unlawful offences under Sec. 120B r/w
Sec.34 of IPC,1860.
In the instant matter D.W.1 and D.W.2 had conspired together to rape Eila (hereinafter referred
as deceased/victim). It is to be noted that the essential elements of Sec. 120B (Punishment for
criminal conspiracy) are as follows:
 There must be an agreement or understanding between the persons who are alleged to
conspire;
 The agreement should be for doing of an illegal act, or for doing by illegal means an act
which may not itself be illegal.10
It is to be noted that the essential elements of Sec. 120-B are as follows:
 There must be an agreement or understanding between the persons who are alleged to
conspire;
10
LennartSchussle v. Director of Enforcement, New Delhi, (1971) 1 SCJJ 199

TC-10 18
 The agreement should be for doing of an illegal act, or for doing by illegal means an act
which may not itself be illegal.11
A criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or
rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or more has been treated as a serious offence for
which there is no express provision in the Code, a party to such a conspiracy shall be punished in
the same manner as if he has abetted such offence.
The offence of criminal conspiracy is of a technical nature and the essential ingredient of the
offence is the agreement to commit an offence. The very agreement, concert or league is the
ingredient of the offence.Since criminal conspiracy is an offence in itself irrespective of the fact
whether any offence in pursuance of this is committed or not, a person can be separately charged
with respect to such a conspiracy. If any offence has also been caused in pursuance of the
criminal conspiracy the charges against the conspirators will be for both, the conspiracy as well
as the offence.
Therefore, the essence of criminal conspiracy is an agreement to do an illegal act and such
agreement can be proved either by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence or by both, and
it is a matter of common experience that direct evidence of criminal conspiracy is seldom
available.
In the matter at hand D.W.2 and D.W.3 had not committed any crime in furtherance of any
common intention Sec 34. There was no criminal conspiracy in relevance to the matter at record.
In the present matter, there was no intention to commit rape. None of the witness Statement’s or
events of the case depicts that the accused had agreed to commit the rape of the victim. Neither
there was a common design nor there was an agreement between DW2 and DW3 for the
commission of a crime. The prosecution has no substantial evidence to prove the agreement,
which is the gist of the offence, between D.W.2 and D.W.3.
11
LennartSchussle v. Director of Enforcement, New Delhi, (1971) 1 SCJJ 199

TC-10 19
CHARGE 3: The accused are guilty of molestation under S. 354 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860.
Section 354, IPC, has been enacted with a view to protect a woman against indecent assault. The
object of the provisions as contained, is to protect a woman against indecent behavior of others
which is offensive to morality. In fact, these offences are as much in the interest of the woman as
in the interest of public morality and decent behavior.
The woman was subjected to criminal force with a view to outrage her modesty or the assaulter
had an intention to outrage her modesty.Modesty is the quality of being modest which means, as
regards to women decent in manner and conduct, scrupulously chaste, shrinking from indecency.
Decency means propriety of behavior, which is required by good taste or delicacy, avoidance of
obscene language and gesture and of undue exposure of person, and respectability. Decorum
means propriety of speech, manner, etc., and dignity.
In the case of Ram Das v. State of West Bengal, the accused was charged for having committed
an offence under s. 354, IPC. The accused boarded the train at night where two women were
seated accompanied by their male escorts. The accused opened his trousers and was in his
undergarments, when a heated exchange of words took place between him and the two other
males on his attire. In the quarrel, he pushed one of the women. It was held that no inference of
an action to outrage the modesty of the women could be drawn and therefore the accused was not
guilty.
CHARGE 4: The accused are guilty of criminal intimidation under S.506 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860.

TC-10 20
Criminal Intimidation u/s 503 of IPC states that “whoever threatens another with any injury
either to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of anyone in whom that
person is interested, with the intention of causing alarm to that person, or to cause that person to
do any such act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that other
person is entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal
intimidation. There is an explanation attached to the section according to which a threat to injure
the reputation of any person who is dead in whom the person threatened is interested, is within
this section.”12
The section contemplates that the offender must threaten another with any injury to his person,
reputation or property, or to the person or reputation, and not to property, of any one in whom
that person is interested. The intention of the offender must be to cause alarm to the person
threatened, or to cause the person threatened either to do any act which he is not legally bound to
do, or to omit to do any act which he is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the
execution of such threat.
It may not necessarily be direct; it is sufficient if it reaches the victim through third parties. A
mere advice to another not to deal with a person cannot constitute threatening because the
threatening must be with any injury to the person, reputation or property of another or the person
or reputation of anyone in whom the victim is interested.
In “Shashi Chaudhary vs. Ram Kumar and Ors.”13 The H.C. of Delhi stated that “Having
regard to the entire evidence placed on record and taking into consideration the conduct of the
Petitioner/prosecutrix as noted above, this Court is of the opinion that the conclusion arrived at
by the trial court to the effect that the testimony of the Petitioner/prosecutrix was not reliable is
neither arbitrary, illegal or contrary to the record. There are a number of loopholes in the story
set up by the Petitioner, so as to shake the foundation of the case laid by the prosecution. The
trial court rightly held that the prosecution failed to prove its case against Respondent No.
1/accused under Sections 376/506 IPC. The conduct of the Petitioner in the given facts and
circumstance when tested on the anvil of ordinary reaction of a normal person, cannot withstand
12
HTTP://WWW.SHAREYOURESSAYS.COM/KNOWLEDGE/SECTION-503-OF-INDIAN-PENAL-CODE-1860-EXPLAINED/118570
13
MANU/DE/0834/2011

TC-10 21
scrutiny. It appears to be more a case of the Petitioner seeking to involve the Respondent No.
1/accused in the offence under Sections 376/506 IPC only to pressurize him in the civil litigation
initiated by her, in respect of the tenanted premises, of which Respondent No. 1/accused is the
landlord.”
It contended that the submission of statement made by the prosecutioner is completely non-
reliable as the prosecutioner herself is under the state of ambiguity that exactly what happened
inside the room and who all where present14.
It is further contened that the prosecutioner came inside the room on her own will for the shuddhi
pooja ceremony and she was not at induced by the accused or any other person.
It is also contended that the accused never criminally intimidated any person or the prosecutioner
herself as he him self is a follower of god and has renounced from such wishes way back in his
life, he is a person of dignity and self respect and also belives in the fact of showing mutual
respect to the mankind.
In Lalliram and Ors. vs. Respondent: State of M.P. the S.C. decided that “It is rightly
contended by learned Counsel for the appellants a decision has to be considered in the
background of the factual scenario. In criminal cases the question of a precedent particularly
relating to appreciation of evidence is really of no consequence. In Aman Kumar's case (supra)
it was observed that a prosecutrix complaining of having been a victim of the offence of rape is
not an accomplice. There is no rule of law that her testimony cannot be acted upon without
corroboration in material particulars. She stands on a higher pedestal then the injured witness.
In the latter case there is injury in the physical form while in the former both physical as well as
psychological and emotional. However, if the court finds it difficult to accept the version of a
prosecutrix on the face value it may search for evidence direct or circumstantial.
So far as testimony of the victim is concerned the High Court has found that PW-2 stated about
injuries on the cheek and back of the prosecutrix. But no such injury was found in the first
medical examination. PW-2 had stated that she had suffered injuries on her legs. But such
injuries were also not noticed. Another interesting statement of the prosecutrix was that accused
14
CLARIFICATION, TRIAL COMPRISE.

TC-10 22
Lalliram had dragged her by catching her bunch of hair for a considerable distance. The trial
Court noticed that if that was so there would have been injuries and interestingly she had not
stated about this part in the FIR. In view of the aforesaid factual position the trial Court was
justified in directing acquittal and the High Court's judgment upsetting the acquittal is clearly
unsustainable.
The appeal is allowed. The conviction recorded by the High Court is set aside. The accused
persons who are in custody shall be released forthwith unless required to be in custody in
connection with any other case.”15
CHARGE V: That the Accused Sant Maharaj Ji is guilty under Section 107 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860.
Abetment of a thing: A person abets the doing of a thing, who, First Instigates any person to do
that thing, Secondly Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the
doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and
in order to the doing of that thing, third Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the
doing of that thing.
In order to constitute abetment, the abettor must be shown to have “intentionally aided” the
commission of the crime. A person may invite another by the way or for a friendly purpose and
that may facilitate the murder of the invitee, but unless the invitation was extended with intent to
facilitate the commission of the murder, the person inviting cannot be said to have abetted the
murder.It is not enough that an act on the part of the alleged abettor happens to facilitate the
commission of the crime. Intentional aiding and active complicity is the gist of abetment under
the third paragraph of Section 107. For a person to be guilty of abetment of an offence, it is not
necessary that the offence should have been committed. It may take place in any one, of the three
ways: (1) instigation, (2) conspiracy, or (3) intentional aid. Acquittal of the doer of the offence
does not mean that there was no abetment thereof. It cannot be held in law that a person cannot
15
MANU/SC/8036/2008

TC-10 23
ever be convicted of abetting a certain offence when the person alleged to have committed that
offence in consequence of the abetment has been acquitted. The question of the abettor’s guilt
depends on the nature of the act abetted and the manner in which the abetment was made. The
offence of abetment is complete when the alleged abettor has instigated another or engaged with
another in a conspiracy to commit the offence16.
It is contended that the accused cannot be held guilty under Section 107 of IPC, 1860 as he is
not a person who may/might instigate another person to commit an unlawful activity that too like
rape. That the accused had no conversations with accused 2 in reference to such activity.
It is also contended that the accused is being intentionally defamed and is being used as an
umbrella for over shadowing victims own activity with her friend Ricky. In Satpal and Ors . vs
. State of H . P. The H.C. of Himanchal Pradesh stated that “The inevitable conclusion on the
appreciation of the evidence discussed above is that prosecution has not been able to establish
case against the accused beyond suspicion but suspicion, we hardly need to emphasise, is no
substitute for proof. The inevitable conclusion on the appreciation of the evidence discussed
above is that prosecution has not been able to establish case against the accused beyond
suspicion but suspicion, we hardly need to emphasise, is no substitute for proof. In result, we
accept the appeal. The impugned judgment of the Sessions Judge and consequent conviction of
the accused is set-aside. The accused are acquitted. Their bail bonds are discharged. They be
released forthwith if not required in any other case. The fine, if realized, shall be refunded back
to them. The case property shall be dealt with in accordance with the orders of learned Sessions
Judge.”17
It is also contended that the victim along with her family members is trying to escape from the
incident which might have took place between the victim and Ricky which the prosecutioner as
stated in her statement under section 164(5a) of the Crpc, 1973, when the victim went to meet
her alone the same day.18 Also the procestioner has stated that he saw a person resembling Ricky
16
http://www.shareyouressays.com/knowledge/what-are-the-ingredients-of-abetment-under-indian-penal-
code/119733
17
MANU/HP/0164/2000
18
Trial Problem, Pg. 4 para 16 ; line 6.

TC-10 24
in the “shuddhi-pooja” room, hence this is also justified that the prosecutioner is not reliable on
her part and her statements cannot be taken seriously by this court of justice.

TC-10 25
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Wherefore, in the light of the issues raised, facts stated, authorities cited and
arguments advanced, may this Hon’ble Court be pleased to:
1. Acquit D.W.1 for Rape, criminal intimidaton,molestation, criminal

conspiracy,abetment read under Sections 376D, 120B, 354, 506, 107r/w 34 of
Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2. Acquit D.W.2 for Criminal Conspiracy, rape, criminal intimidation,
molestation under Sections 120B, 302 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
AND/ OR
Pass any other order it may deem fit, in the interest of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience.
All of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted.
Place: Jagdishpur
Date: ___February, 2018
S/d_____________
(Counsel on Behalf of the Defense)

TC-10 26

Defense Upes

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Defense Upes

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

TC-10 1

4th UPES NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY COMPETITION, 2018

4th UPES NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY COMPETITION, 2018

BEFORE THE COURT OF SESSIONS

FOR THE OFFENCES CHARGED UNDER

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE COURT OF SESSION

WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF THE DEFENSE

MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF DEFENSE

MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF DEFENSE

AIR All India Reporter

All Allahabad High Court

Cal Calcutta High Court

Cri LJ Cr LJ Criminal Law Journal

Cr.P.C Code of Criminal Procedure

Del Delhi High Court

IPC Indian Penal Code

Mad Madras High Court

Ori Orissa High Court

pg. Page No.

P&H Punjab and Haryana High Court

Pat Patna High Court

Raj Rajasthan High Court

SCC Supreme Court Cases

MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF DEFENSE

U.P Uttar Pradesh

A.P Andhra Pradesh

M.P Madhya Pradesh

MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF DEFENSE

TABLE OF CASES Pg.no

1. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act 2 of 1973)

2. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Act 18 of 1872)

3. The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860)

2. Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The Law of Evidence, 22nd Ed. (2006)..

3. Sarkar, Law of Evidence, (13th Ed,1990) …

4. Kelkar, R.V. Criminal Procedure, (5th Ed. 2011) ..

5. Lal, Batuk, The Law of Evidence, (18th Ed. 2010) ..

MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF DEFENSE

6. Lyons, Medical Jurisprudence & Toxicology, (11th Ed. 2005) ..

7. Modi’s Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, (23rd Ed. 2010).

MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF DEFENSE

Read with Section 209:

MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF DEFENSE

MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF DEFENSE

MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF DEFENSE

CHARGE I: WHETHER SANT MAHARAJ JI AND KAANT ARE GUILTY UNDER

CHARGE II:WHETHER SANT MAHARAJ JI AND KAANT ARE GUILTY UNDER

CHARGE IV: WHETHER SANT MAHARAJ JI AND KAANT ARE GUILY OF

MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF DEFENSE

CHARGE V: WHETHER SANT MAHARAJ JI IS GUILTY OF SECTION 107 OF

MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF DEFENSE

Most respectfully showeth :

 (1)Against her will

MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF DEFENSE

 There must be an involvement of more than one individual.

Sexual assault comprises of:

MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF DEFENSE

MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF DEFENSE

MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF DEFENSE

MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF DEFENSE

It is to be noted that the essential elements of Sec. 120-B are as follows:

MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF DEFENSE

MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF DEFENSE

MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF DEFENSE

MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF DEFENSE