Final Memo Respondent 1 2

TEAM CODE:
IN THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF HINDIA

APPEALLATE JURISDICTION
(Under Article 134 of the Constitution of Hindia)
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO/2016
CASE CONCERNING HIT AND RUN
STATE OF SAMRASHTRA........................................................................APPELLANT
V.
SHAHID KHAN..........................................................................................RESPONDENT
ON SUBMISSION TO THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF HINDIA
MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

SHAHID KHAN
Memorial on behalf of respondent
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Abbreviations
Index of Authorities
Statement of Jurisdiction
Statement of Facts
Statement of Issues
11
Summary of Arguments
12
Arguments Advanced
Prayer
Institute of Law, Jiwaji University National Moot Court Competition, 2016
14-26
27
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Paragraph
&
Air
And
All India Reporter
Annex.
Annexure Art.
SCC
Supreme Court Cases
SCR
Supreme Court Reports
Doc.
Document
Sec.
Section
Govt.
Government
i.e
That Is
Vol.
Volume
IPC.
Indian Penal Code
LOE.
Law Of Evidence
Const.
Constitution
Ed.
Edition
SC
Supreme Court
v.
Versus
Pg.
Page
No.
Number
AIR
All India Reporters
COI.
Constitution Of India
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
1.
Cases Referred
Alister Anthony Pareira v. State Of Maharashtra1
Empress of India v. Idu Beg
Amar Singh vs Chhaju Singh And Anr.2
State Of Bihar vs Ramesh Singh3
Yogesh V. State of Mahrashtra4
Dilwar balu kurane v. state of Maharashtra5.
Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal6
State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh7
(2012) 2 SCC 648
AIR 1973 P H 213
1977 AIR 2018, 1978 SCR (1) 257
AIR 2008 SC 2991
AIR 2002 SC 564
AIR 1979 SC 366
AIR 1977 SC 2018
2. Statutes Referred
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
The Evidence Act, 1872
The motor vehicles Act,
3. Books and Digests
Sengupta, D., Commentary on the Motor Vehicle Act and rules, 6 th Edition
2015, Press:- Dwivedi Law Agency
Dr. Gour, H.S., Penal Law of India, 11th Edition [Update] reprint 2008, Press:Law Publishers (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Aiyar, P.R., Concise Law Dictionary, 3rd Edition reprint 2010, Press:- Lexis
Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa, Nagpur
Sarkar, S.C., Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sec. 1 to 299, 2 nd Edition, 2008, Vol. 1,
Press:- Dwivedi Law Agency
Sarkar, S.C., Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sec. 303 to 408, 2 nd Edition 2008, Vol. 3
Sarkar, S.C., Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sec. 409 to End, 2 nd Edition 2008, Vol. 4,
4. Website Referred
http://www.crim.cam.ac.uk/8
http://www.arsipso.com/9
https://www.icrc.org/10
research/beyond_reasonable_doubt/ last accessed 2016 march-2
PROOF-BEYOND-REASONABLE.asp last accessed on 2016,feburary-29
10
customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_rul_rule100_sectionc last accessed on 2016, march-02
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Respondents respectfully submit to the Appellate Jurisdiction of the Honble Supreme
Court invoked by the Appellant under Art.134 of the Constitution of Hindia.11
11
Appellate Jurisdiction of Supreme Court in regard to criminal matter
Art 134(1) An appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgement, final order or sentence in a criminal
proceeding of a high court in the territory of Hindia if the High court has on appeal reversed an order of acquittal
of an accused person and sentenced him to death; or has withdrawn from trial before itself any case from any
court subordinate to its authority and has in such trial convicted the accused person and sentence him to death.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Samrashtra is a state in Hindia which is democratic country located in south East Asia.
Being as a actor was provided with police security and one Rajesh Kadam was
appointed as security guard of Shahid . On 7th August 2003 around 10:30 p.m., along with his
friend Mr. Abdul Khan and Rajesh Kadam took out his Toyota land Cruiser and drove towards
a Hotel Blue Heaven. About 1:30 a.m. all of them left for the city center where Shahid Khan
resides.
While the car was taking a right turn from the M.G Road, the control of the car was lost
and mounted into a showroom called Ethnic Touch where on the Staircase people were sleeping
and one of them died and other four were injured.
As a result accident many people gathered and started pelting stone on Shahid Khan and
due to this they were forced to run away.
Thereafter Rajesh went to the police Station and lodged an F.I.R against Shahid on 8th
August 2003 and a case of negligence and reckless driving was registered as a result of which
he came to be arrested.
After getting the bail on same day Shahid was again arrested on 17 th September 2003 by
police as they added provision of Sec 304(A) of Hindian Penal Code.
Session convicted him under Sec 304(II), 279, 357, 338, 427of Hindian Penal Code read
with 130(1), 134(a) & (b), 177, 181(3) of Motor Vehicle Act for 5 year of the imprisonment and
fine of Rs. 50 thousand.
Aggrieved by the decision of the session Court, Shahid Appealed before the Honble
High Court of Samrashtra where the court decided that the burden of establishing of guilty of
an accused which is be proved beyond reasonable doubt lies with the prosecution. Hence the
order passed the Session Court framing charge under Section 304(II) against applicant is
10
quashed and set aside.
Against this order of the Honble High court of Samrashtra, the state has appealed
before the Supreme Court of Hindia.
11
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
1.
Whether, the Evidence laid by the prosecution has proven its case
beyond reasonable doubt.
2.
Whether, Minor discrepancies occurred in the prosecution witnesses
testimony can form the basis of acquittal and on the discrepancy of such
nature, the story of prosecution could said to be doubtful.
3.
Whether, the high court of Samrashtra in the exercise of its appellate
jurisdiction was right in setting aside the order of conviction when the order
of conviction passed by the learned trial court based on due consideration of
the evidence on record.
12
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
1.

Evidence provided by or laid by prosecution does not prove that Shahid Khan
was guilty of that offence because there are many loopholes in the investigation by the
investigation authorities. In P.W 7 the manager of blue Heavens Bar and Restaurant MR.
Shammi Aslam in his evidences, approved the bills but your lordship the bills was not provided
into the court in proper manner i.e. panchnamma.
2.
Whether, Minor discrepancies occurred in the prosecution witnesses
testimony can form the basis of acquittal and on the discrepancy of such
nature, the story of prosecution could said to be doubtful.
Your lordship the minor discrepancies occurred by the prosecution witnesses were
form the basis of acquittal, because there were no proper and fully defined witnesses and
proves. The witnesses PW-5 to PW-11 and PW-13 were not proper maintained the prosecutor in
this case. Then why your lordship the prosecution said that shahid khan was guilty of this
offence, according to university of Cambridge: legal academics and judges have expressed that
the undefined version of BRD (the defendant is presumed innocent unless the prosecution has
proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt).12
3.
12
Whether, the high court of Samrashtra in the exercise of its appellate

http://www.crim.cam.ac.uk/research/beyond_reasonable_doubt/ last accessed 2016 march-2
13
jurisdiction was right in setting aside the order of conviction when the order
of conviction passed by the learned trial court based on due consideration of
the evidence on record.
The session Court is a learned court as we all know but your lord ship in
proceedings of session court the investigation authority does not investigate in a proper manner
and not give pure and quality evidences to the session court thats why your lord ship the
session court give its decision in favor of state of Samrashtra. That is the main motive of
appealing in Honble High court by Shahid Khan. All courts always work in good conscience
and equity but because of default of investigation authority and lack quality evidences the
decision of session court goes against Shahid Khan.
ARGUMENT ADVANCED
1.
14

Evidence provided by or laid by prosecution does not prove that Shahid Khan was guilty
of that offence because there are many loopholes in the exploration by the investigation
authorities.
In P.W 7 the manager of Blue Heavens Bar and Restaurant Mr. Shammi Aslam in his
evidences, approved the bills but your lordship the bills was not provided into the court
in proper manner i.e. Panchnamma.
The RTO inspector Mr. Rakesh Pilgaonkar who inspected the vehicle involved in the
accident and submitted his report was also default as he not inspected the vehicle
properly because Toyota land Cruiser come with Vehicle Stability Control system which
detects lateral skidding cornering, and automatically controls engine output as well as
braking force on each tyre, helping the driver to maintain control and also this car comes
with multi- terrain ABS uses control logic that instantly detects off road driving
conditions such as sand and dirt, and automatically switches to the optimum ABS for the
surface conditions that stops it form skidding. Also there was a default on part of
investigation Officer who added Section 304(II) of Penal Code as he didnt investigated
or questioned Mr. Abdul Khan and the valet parking executive and also in F.I.R Rajesh
Kadam didnt mentioned that Shahid Khan was Intoxicated, so what was the need of
taking blood sample. Hence your lordship in criminal case beyond reasonable doubt lies
with prosecution it means the burden of proof is on prosecution.
According to equity, justice, and good conscience where we follow the reformative
15
practice a person cannot be convicted when the case is not proof beyond reasonable doubt.
According to European Convention on Human Rights:- Article 6(2) of the 1950
European Convention on Human Rights provides: Everyone charged with a criminal offence
shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.
According to International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights:-Article 14(2)
of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides: Everyone charged
with a criminal offence shall have the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty
according to law.
According to American Convention on Human Rights :-Article 8(2) of the 1969
American Convention on Human Rights provides: Every person accused of a criminal offence
has the right to be presumed innocent so long as his guilt has not been proven according to law.
Then hence your lordship how can be Shahid Khan can be held convicted as there are no
proper evidences against him.
The Committee on Criminal Justice Reforms constituted under the Chairmanship of

Justice V.S. Malimath, former Chief Justice of Karnataka and Kerala High Courts, has made a
number of important recommendations for revamping of the Criminal Justice System so as to
restore the confidence of the common man in it by protecting the innocent and the victims and
punishing unsparingly the guilty and criminals. It has also examined some of the fundamental
principles of criminal Jurisprudence and recommended that in criminal case the standard
of proof should be clear and convincing proof and not proof beyond reasonable doubt. This
alongwith some other recommendations of the committee has sparked off animated debates and
created differences of opinion among the jurists, lawyers and members of the public. 13
13
http://www.arsipso.com/PROOF-BEYOND-REASONABLE.asp last accessed on 2016,feburary29
16
Proof beyond reasonable doubt has not been defined. Prof. Wigmore in his classic
Treatise on Evidence highlights the difficulties in ascertaining how convinced one must be to
become convinced beyond a reasonable doubt. He says that the truth is that no one has
invented or discovered a mode of measurement for the intensity of human belief. Hence, there
can be as yet no successful method of communicating intelligibly a sound method of selfanalysis for ones belief. And yet the choice of the standard of proof makes the difference.
In courts of law, civil cases are governed by the standard of proof prescribed by
Section 3 of Indian Evidence Act, namely, preponderance of probabilities while the criminal
cases are governed by higher standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt as laid down by
judicial decisions. Presumption of the innocence of the accused is a cardinal principle of AngloSaxon adversarial criminal justice system. Every person accused of crime is presumed to be
innocent unless his guilt is established beyond reasonable doubt. 14
Your lordship there are other international conventions15 also said:According to Additional Protocol I:- Article 75(4)(d) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I
provides: Anyone charged with an offence is presumed innocent until proved guilty according
to law.
According to Additional Protocol II:- Article 6(2)(d) of the 1977 Additional Protocol II
provides: Anyone charged with an offence is presumed innocent until proved guilty according
to law.
14
Indian Evidence Act, 1872
15
https://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_rul_rule100_sectionc
17
According to African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights:-Article 7(1) of the 1981
African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights provides: Every individual shall have the right
to have his cause heard. This comprises: the right to be presumed innocent until proved
guilty by a competent court or tribunal.
According to Convention on the Rights of the Child:-Article 40(2)(b)(i) of the 1989
Convention on the Rights of the Child provides: Every child alleged or accused of having
infringed the penal law has at least the following guarantees: (i) to be presumed innocent until
proven guilty according to the law.
In case of State Of Bihar vs Ramesh Singh16, The Sessions Judge discharged the accused
under S. 227 of Cr. P. Code 1973 on the ground that there was
not
sufficient
ground for proceeding with the trial against respondent and he was discharged in accordance
with section227.
According to S. 227 of Cr.PC: Discharge of Accused. If, upon consideration of the record
of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions
of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not
sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused
and record his reasons for so doing.
In Yogesh V. State of Mahrashtra17, It is trite that the words no sufficient grounds for
proceeding against the accused appering in S. 227 postulate exercise of judicial mind on the
16
1977 AIR 2018, 1978 SCR (1) 257
17
AIR 2008 SC 2991
18
part of the judge to the facts of the case in order to determine whether a case for trial has been
made out by the prosecution. See also Dilwar balu kurane v. state of Maharashtra18.
In Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal19 However, if two views are equally possible and
the judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him gives rise to suspicion only as
distinguished from grave suspicion, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused.
In State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh20, if the evidence which the prosecutor purposes to adduce
to prove the guilt of the accused even if fully excepted before it is challenged in crossexamination or rebutted by the defence evidence, if any, cannot show that the accused
committed the offence, then there will be no sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial.
HELD : (1) Under s. 226 of the Code the prosecutor while opening the case has got to
describe the charge against the accused and State by what evidence he proposes to prove
the guilt of the accused. Thereafter, comes it the initial stage,
the duty of the Court to
consider the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith. The Judge
has then
to pass an order either u/s. 227 or u/s. 228 of Code. [259C, D] If the Judge considers that there
is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused
and record his reasons for so doing as enjoined by s. 227. If on the other hand, the Judge is of
opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence.
18
AIR 2002 SC 564
19
AIR 1979 SC 366
20
AIR 1977 SC 2018
2.
19
Whether, Minor discrepancies occurred in the prosecution witnesses testimony
can form the basis of acquittal and on the discrepancy of such nature, the story of
prosecution could said to be doubtful.
Your lordship according to PW-5:- Chitransh Singh who is a waiter in the blue
heavens bar and restaurant witness the presence of Shahid khan in restaurant but your
lordship only the presence of Shahid does not prove that Shahid Khan was intoxicated.
According to PW-6:- Ramadhar Dayahnand shukla first visitor at the site of accident.
Saw the accused getting out from the right side of the car. But your lordship was he able to
see clearly at 1:30 a.m that the person he saw is Shahid Khan.
According to PW-7:- Shammi Aslam who is the manager of the blue heavens bar and
restaurant , and in his evidence he approved the bills but your lordship he doesnt give
conclusive proof that Shahid Khan drank alcohol, which means it might happen that only
Abdul Khan has drunk alcohol and the bills were paid by Shahid Khan.
According to PW-8:- Nitin Dayal Verma he had seen one big car coming which went
over the persons sleeping on the staircase of Ethnic Touch but your lordship he didnt
mention that the car he saw was of Shadhid Khan. Your lordship after giving the statement he
become hostile and mentioned only of a big car.
In case of Amar Singh vs Chhaju Singh And Anr.21 Oral evidence must, in all cases,
whatever, be dirt; that is to say-22
21
AIR 1973 P H 213
20
If it refers to a fact which could be seen, it must be the evidence of a witness who says he saw
it;
If it refers to a fact which could be heard, it must be the evidence of a witness who says he
heard it;
If it refers to a fact which could be perceived by any other sense or in any other manner, it
must be the evidence of a witness who says he perceived it by that sense or in that manner;
According to PW-10:- Rakesh Pilgaonkar the RTO inspector who inspect vehicle
involved in the accident and submitted his report. Your Lordship as according to the
specification by the company(Toyota) of car it includes Vehicle Stability Control system
which detects lateral skidding cornering, and automatically controls engine output as well as
braking force on each tyre, helping the driver to maintain control and also this car comes with
multi- terrain ABS uses control logic that instantly detects off road driving conditions such as
sand and dirt, and automatically switches to the optimum ABS for the surface conditions that
stops it form skidding. Thats why your lordship car cannot skid.
According PW-11:- Dr. SurendraNath- who is medical officer in the Govt. Hospital
who extracted blood from Shahid for the alcohol test. According to the Motor Vehicle Act,
22
Section 60 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 :- Oral evidence must be direct.Oral evidence must, in all
cases whatever, be direct; that is to say If it refers to a fact which could be seen, it must be the evidence of a
witness who says he saw it; If it refers to a fact which could be heard, it must be the evidence of a witness who
says he heard it; If it refers to a fact which could be perceived by any other sense or in any other manner, it must
be the evidence of a witness who says he perceived it by that sense or in that manner; If it refers to an opinion or
to the grounds on which that opinion is held, it must be the evidence of the person who holds that opinion on
those grounds: Provided that the opinions of experts expressed in any treatise commonly offered for sale, and the
grounds on which such opinions are held, may be proved by the production of such treatises if the author is dead
or cannot be found, or has become incapable of giving evidence, or cannot be called as a witness without an
amount of delay or expense which the Court regards as unreasonable: Provided also that, if oral evidence refers
to the existence or condition of any material thing other than a document, the Court may, if it thinks fit, require
the production of such material thing for its inspection.
21
1988 it was said in Section 203 Breath tests.1 (1) A police officer in uniform or an officer
of the
Motor Vehicles Department, as may be authorised in this behalf by that Department, may
require any person driving or attempting to drive a motor vehicle in a public place to provide
one or more specimens of breath for breath test there or nearby if such police officer or
officer has any reasonable cause to suspect him of having committed an offence under section
18523: Provided that requirement for breath test shall be made (unless, it is made) as soon as
reasonably practicable after the commission of such offence.
According to Section 20424 (b) such person, when given the opportunity to submit to a
breath test, has refused, omitted or failed to do so: Provided that where the person required to
23
Driving by a drunken person or by a person under the influence of drugs.Whoever, while driving, or
attempting to drive, a motor vehicle, 1[(a) has, in his blood, alcohol exceeding 30 mg. per 100 ml. of blood
detected in a test by a breath analyser, or](b) is under this influence of a drug to such an extent as to be incapable
of exercising proper control over the vehicle, shall be punishable for the first offence with imprisonment for a
term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both; and
for a second or subsequent offence, if committed within three years of the commission of the previous similar
offence, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to three
thousand rupees, or with both. Explanation.For the purposes of this section, the drug or drugs specified by the
Central Government in this behalf, by notification in the Official Gazette, shall be deemed to render a person
incapable of exercising proper control over a motor vehicle.
24
Laboratory test.(1) A person who has been arrested under section 203 may, while at a police station be
required by a police officer to provide to such registered medical practitioner as may be produced by such police
officer, a specimen of his blood for a laboratory test if,(a) it appears to the police officer that the device, by
means of which breath test was taken in relation to such person, indicates the presence of alcohol in the blood of
such person, or(b) such person, when given the opportunity to submit to a breath test, has refused, omitted or
failed to do so: Provided that where the person required to provide such specimen is a female and the registered
medical practitioner produced by such police officer is a male medical practitioner, the specimen shall be taken
only in the presence of a female, whether a medical practitioner or not.
22
provide such specimen is a female and the registered medical practitioner produced by such
police officer is a male medical practitioner, the specimen shall be taken only in the presence
of a female,whether a medical practitioner or not. But your lordship the medical officer
directly examined the blood without asking for breath test.
Your lordship intention is mandatory in case of murder but there is no intention of
murdering people. According to Sec. 299 of Hindian Penal code Whoever causes death by
doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily
injury as is likely to cause death
Illustration :(a) A lays sticks and turf over a pit, with the intention of thereby causing death, or
with the knowledge that death is likely to be thereby caused. Z believing the ground to be
firm, treads on it, falls in and is killed. A has committed the offence of culpable homicide.
Illustration :(b) A knows Z to be behind a bush. B does not know it A, intending to cause, or
knowing it to be likely to cause Zs death, induces B to fire at the bush. B fires and kills Z.
Here B may be guilty of no offence; but A has committed the offence of culpable homicide.
In case of Alister Anthony Pareira v. State Of Maharashtra25, Section 300 deals
with murder and also provides for exceptions. The culpable homicide is murder if the act by
which the death is caused is done: (1) with the intention of causing death, (2) with the
intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death
of the person to whom the harm is caused, or (3) with the intention of causing such bodily
injury as is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, The exceptions provide
that the culpable homicide will not be murder if that act is done with the intention or
knowledge in the circumstances and
25
on 12 January, 2012
23
subject to the conditions specified therein. In other words, the culpable homicide is not
murder if the act by which death is caused is done in extenuating circumstances and such act
is covered by one of the five exceptions set out in the later part of Section 300.
In case of Empress of India v. Idu Beg, Straight J., explained the meaning of criminal
rashness and criminal negligence in the following words: criminal rashness is hazarding a
dangerous or wanton act with the knowledge that it is so, and that it may cause injury but
without intention to cause injury.
3. Whether, the high court of Samrashtra in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction
was right in setting aside the order of conviction when the order of conviction
passed by the learned trial court based on due consideration of the evidence on
24
record.
The session Court is a learned court as we all know but your lord ship in proceedings
of session court the investigation authority does not investigate in a proper manner and not
give pure and quality evidences to the session court thats why your lordship the session court
give its decision in favor of state of Samrashtra. That is the main motive of appealing in
Honble High court by Shahid Khan. All courts always work in good conscience and equity
but because of default of investigation authority and lack quality evidences the decision of
session court goes against Shahid Khan.
"The court is expected to be impervious of pressure from public and media. It is for
good reason that law of evidence has no place for general public opinion to be a factor while
deciding a case. The perception of truth in public is required to be proved before a court of
law and in which the established principles of law and evidence must be adhered to. Even the
cardinal principle of jurisprudence and burden of prosecution must not be forgotten and any
strong suspicion cannot be considered as material to convict a person.
The Samrashtra High Court found that Shahid Khan was not guilty because the
prosecution had:
a) Failed to establish beyond doubt that the actor was driving and was drunk at the time of the
accident.
b) Not proven the credibility of Khan's bodyguard, the only key witness who died on
23/12/2008.
25
c) Presented evidence like bar bills, collected in a manner that 'suggested fabrication'.
d) Not examined singer AbdulKhan, who was also in Salman Khan's car that night.
Your lordship the Honble High Court held that is true because there might be many
circumstance according to the held by of High court:In the first held by Honble High Court Your lordship there might be other
circumstance like Abdul khan was driving and Shahid was sit besides Abdul khan, Abdul
khan was drunk.
In the second held by Honble High Court Your lordship the key witness in no
more than how it can be proof that Shahid Khan was guilty of this offence. According to
equity, justice and good conscience where we follow the reformative practice a person
cannot be convicted when the case is not proof beyond reasonable doubt, and also the
international conventions said that everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be
presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.
In the third held by Honble High Court your lordship Presented evidence like
bar bills, collected in a manner that 'suggested fabrication 26 because only the bills does not
proves that shahid drunks the alcohol, bills only prove that the alcohol were purchase it does
not prove who drinks it.
26
To invent or produce something false in order to deceive someone
26
In the fourth held by Honble High Court your lordship the investigation
authority only take the statement of Rajesh kadam who was also with the police, your
lordship it is a trick to dirt an actors reputation, why investigation authority not examine
Abdul khan, he was also in the car according to the facts, investigation authority take
evidence from persons whether they are not fully aware about the incidents, a (Abdul khan)
person who is fully aware with the circumstances then why not take his evidences by
authority.
27
PRAYER
Therefore, in light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is
humbly
Prayed that this Honble Court may be pleased to hold, adjudge and declare that:
1. To dismiss the criminal appeal filed by the Appellant.
2. To acquittal Shahid Khan from this case.
3.
To give any other relief to the Respondents which the Honble Supreme Court may
deem fit in the light of justice, equity and good conscience.
All of which is most humbly prayed.
Counsel for Respondents

Shahid khan

Final Memo Respondent 1 2

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Final Memo Respondent 1 2

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

TEAM CODE:

IN THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF HINDIA

CASE CONCERNING HIT AND RUN

ON SUBMISSION TO THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF HINDIA

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

Memorial on behalf of respondent

Institute of Law, Jiwaji University National Moot Court Competition, 2016

Memorial on behalf of respondent

Supreme Court Cases

Supreme Court Reports

Indian Penal Code

Institute of Law, Jiwaji University National Moot Court Competition, 2016

Memorial on behalf of respondent

All India Reporters

Institute of Law, Jiwaji University National Moot Court Competition, 2016

Memorial on behalf of respondent

Alister Anthony Pareira v. State Of Maharashtra1

Empress of India v. Idu Beg

Amar Singh vs Chhaju Singh And Anr.2

State Of Bihar vs Ramesh Singh3

Yogesh V. State of Mahrashtra4

Dilwar balu kurane v. state of Maharashtra5.

Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal6

State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh7

(2012) 2 SCC 648

AIR 1973 P H 213

1977 AIR 2018, 1978 SCR (1) 257

AIR 2008 SC 2991

AIR 2002 SC 564

AIR 1979 SC 366

AIR 1977 SC 2018

Institute of Law, Jiwaji University National Moot Court Competition, 2016

Memorial on behalf of respondent

The Indian Penal Code, 1860

The Evidence Act, 1872

The motor vehicles Act,

3. Books and Digests

Memorial on behalf of respondent

research/beyond_reasonable_doubt/ last accessed 2016 march-2

PROOF-BEYOND-REASONABLE.asp last accessed on 2016,feburary-29

customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_rul_rule100_sectionc last accessed on 2016, march-02

Institute of Law, Jiwaji University National Moot Court Competition, 2016

Memorial on behalf of respondent

Appellate Jurisdiction of Supreme Court in regard to criminal matter

Institute of Law, Jiwaji University National Moot Court Competition, 2016

Memorial on behalf of respondent

due to this they were forced to run away.

police as they added provision of Sec 304(A) of Hindian Penal Code.

Memorial on behalf of respondent

quashed and set aside.

before the Supreme Court of Hindia.

Institute of Law, Jiwaji University National Moot Court Competition, 2016

Memorial on behalf of respondent

beyond reasonable doubt.

Whether, Minor discrepancies occurred in the prosecution witnesses

Whether, the high court of Samrashtra in the exercise of its appellate

Institute of Law, Jiwaji University National Moot Court Competition, 2016

Memorial on behalf of respondent

beyond reasonable doubt.

Whether, Minor discrepancies occurred in the prosecution witnesses

Whether, the high court of Samrashtra in the exercise of its appellate

Institute of Law, Jiwaji University National Moot Court Competition, 2016

Memorial on behalf of respondent

Memorial on behalf of respondent