Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 33

-

IN THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, AT


NEW DELHI
(CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION)
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.______

In the Matter of:

STATE OF RAJASTHAN...............................................APPELLANT

VERSUS

BHAWAR LAL & OTHERS...RESPONDENT

-MEMORIAL on behalf of the Respondent-

-3rd FYLC-RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITON, 2013-

INDEX

3RD FYCL RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2013


S .No.
1.

PARTICULARS
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Statutes Referred

Books Referred

Scholarly Works And Articles

Websites Referred

Cases Referred

Other Authorities like Articles, Reports

PAGE NO.
4 OF 31

Etc.
3.
4.
6.
7.

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
SYNOPIS OF FACTS
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

7 OF 31
8 OF 31
10 OF 31
11 OF 31

1. THE CONVICTION OF THE ACCUSED FOR


THE ALLEGED OFFENCES IS UNFAIR AND
NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
1.1. Charges framed against the accused not fair
and proper.
1.2. Conviction of the accused illegal.
1.3. Accused unknown to the complainant.
1.4. Charge of kidnapping unreliable.
1.5. Medical inconsistencies.
1.6. The source of money found in night
watchmans room unverified.
2. WHETHER THE THEORY PRESENTED BY
2.1.
2.2.
2.3.
2.4.

THE PROSECUTION IS RELIABLE OR NOT.


Several loopholes in the prosecution theory.
Ambiguity in the site map prepared.
No independent witnesses to the incident.
The earlier incident of harassment not reported

by the complainant.
2.5. Onus of proof on prosecution.
2.6. Sessions court decision influenced by media
Page 2 of 33

3RD FYCL RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2013


publicity
8.

PRAYER

32 OF 32

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATUTES REFERRED:
1. CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 (ACT 2 OF 1974)
2. THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950
Page 3 of 33

3RD FYCL RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2013


3. THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 (ACT 1 OF 1872)
4. THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 (ACT 45 OF 1860)
BOOKS REFERRED:
1. K.D. Gaur, A Textbook on the Indian Penal Code, 4th Edition, 2012, Universal Law
Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd.
2. K.D. Gaur, Criminal Law: Cases and materials, 6th Edition,2009, Lexis Nexis
Butterworth Wadhwa, Nagpur.
3. Modi's, Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, 22nd Edition, Butterworths, India, New
Delhi, 1999.
4. Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, Law of Crimes, Vol. 2, 25th Edition, 2004, Bharat Law House, New
Delhi.
5. Sarkar SC, Code of Criminal Procedure, Vol. 2, 10th Edition, 2012, Lexis Nexis
Butterworth Wadhwa, Nagpur.
6. C.K Thakkar Takwani, Criminal Procedure, 3rd Edition, Lexis Nexis Butterworths
Wadhwa, Nagpur, 2011.
7. R.V. Kelkars, Criminal Procedure, 5th Edition, Eastern Book Company, Lucknow, 2008
8. Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The Law of Evidence, 24th Edition, Lexis Nexis Butterworths
Wadhwa, Nagpur, 2011.
9. M.Monir, Law of Evidence, Vol. 1, 14th Edition, Universal Law Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd.,
2006
SCHOLARLY WORKS AND ARTICLES
1. S.R. Chitnis, Framing of Charge in Criminal Cases, (2002) 2 SCC (Jour) 24
WEBSITES REFERRED:
1. http://www.vakilno1.com/
2. www.indiankanoon.com
3. www.lawyersclubindia.com
4. www.ncrb.nic.in
5. www.supremelaw.in
6. www.manupatra.com
7. www.lawyerservices.in
8. www.findlaw.com
Page 4 of 33

3RD FYCL RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2013

LIST OF CASES:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

Abbas Ahmad Choudhary v. State of Assam (2010) 12 SCC 115: 2010 Cri. L.J. 2062
Alamelu & Anr. v. State AIR 2011 SC 715 : (2012) 2 SCC 385:
Ashok Kumar Chatterji v. State of M.P. AIR 1989 SC 1890, 1989 CriLJ 2124
Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1996 SC 607
Bhagat Ram v. State of Punjab 1967 AIR 927, 1967 SCR (2) 165
Earabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka 1983 AIR 446, 1983 SCR (2) 552
Eradu v. State of Hyderabad AIR 1956 SC 316, 1956 CriLJ 559
Hori Ram Singh v. Emperor AIR 1939 PC 43
Hukum Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1977 SC 1063, 1977 CriLJ 639, (1977) 2

SCC 99.
10. Jai Krishna Mandal & Anr v. State of Jharkhand (2010) 14 SCC 534
11. Krishan Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana AIR 2011 SC 2877 : (2011) 7 SCC 130
12. Kuppuswami Rao v. The King AIR 1949 PC 1
13. Narender Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) AIR 2012 SC 2281: (2012) 7 SCC 171
14. Rajoo & ors. v. State of M.P AIR 2009 SC 858 : (2008) 15 SCC 133
15. Rama Nand v. State of Himachal Pradesh AIR 1981 SC 738: 1981 Cri LJ 298
16. Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1984 SC 1622, 1985 SCR (1)
17. State of M.P v. Sunil AIR 2006 SC 627
18. State of Punjab v. Jagir Singh & Ors 1973 AIR 2407 : 1974 SC (1) 328: 1974 SCC
(3) 277
19. State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava 1992 AIR 840, 1992 SCR (1) 37
20. State of U.P. v. Sukhbasi AIR 1985 SC 1224, 1985 CriLJ 1479
21. Suresh N. Bhusare & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra (1999) 1 SCC 220
22. Tameezuddin @ Tammu v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2009) 15 SCC 566
23. Tukaram & Anr. v. The State of Maharashtra AIR 1979 SC 185
24. Uday v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2003 SC 1639
25. Vimal Suresh Kamble v. Chaluverapinake Apal S.P. & Anr., AIR 2003 SC 818
26. Vishnu v. State of Maharashtra AIR 2006 SC 508
27. Yakub Abdul Razak Memon v. State of Maharashtra 2013 (3) SCALE 565

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ABBREVIATION

ACTUAL TERM

Section

Sections

Paragraph

Paragraphs

F.I.R

First Information Report


Page 5 of 33

3RD FYCL RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2013


&

And

Ld.

Learned

I.P.C
Cr.PC

Indian Penal Code


Criminal Procedure Code

v.

Versus

U/s

Under Section(s)

I.O.

Investigating Officer

P.C.
N.C.T

Police Custody
National Capital Territory

SC

Supreme Court

HC

High Court

SCC

Supreme Court Cases

Para.

Paragraph
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

THE RESPONDENT IN THE PRESENT CASE HAS BEEN EMPOWERED BY ARTICLE


136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1949 TO INITIATE THE PRESENT
PROCEEDINGS IN THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA. THE RESPONDENT
MOST HUMBLY AND RESPECTFULLY SUBMITS TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE
HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE PRESENT MATTER.

Page 6 of 33

3RD FYCL RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2013

SYNOPSIS OF FACTS
THE INCIDENT
Ms Shalini, the victim, aged 20 years, was a Nursing student living in a Government Hostel.
On 30th June 2009, when the complainant came out of her room to the lawn she was
kidnapped by Shri Bhawarlal, night watchman at the hostel and by Shri Tribhuvan, who
forcibly carried her to the night watchman's room at the point of knife where Shri Mohan and
Shri Sohan, were waiting heavily drunk. The victim was tied with cloth and was forcibly
given drugs so as to render her helpless and senseless. She was forcibly put on the mattress
and was mercilessly raped by the accused one by one, who gave her the most brutal treatment
that was possible. After the offence, the victim was thrown naked and in unconscious state
over the backside of the boundary wall of the hostel, where she was spotted by PW-2 and
PW-3.

Page 7 of 33

3RD FYCL RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2013


FIR
The complainant was carried to the nearest police station where FIR was lodged and case
under 376 [2] (g) and 363 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the four
accused persons.
JUDGMENT BY LD. SESSIONS COURT
The Sessions Judge, Jaipur, by judgement dated 30.12.2010 convicted the accused after
holding that the prosecution has proved its case fully based upon the witnesses, medical
reports and material ceased. The accused were convicted as followsa) Shri Bhawarlal, night watchman to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life;
b) Shri Mohan, student, to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for 10 years;
c) Shri Sohan, student, to undergo Simple imprisonment for a period of 7 years; and
d) Shri Tribhuvan was declared a minor.
e) Damages were awarded to the victim of Rs. 10 lacs.
Aggrieved by the said judgement, the complainant lodged an appeal with the Hon'ble High
Court.

JUDGMENT BY LD. HIGH COURT


The Hon'ble High Court said that the learned Sessions Court was justified in coming to the
conclusion that the four accused have committed the heinous act, which could have lifelong
effect on the body and mind of the victim. However, the Hon'ble High Court taking a lenient
view of the matter reduced the sentence awarded by the Sessions Court to the following
period:a) Shri Bhawarlal to undergo Rigorous imprisonment of 10 years;
b) Shri Mohan to undergo Simple imprisonment for 5 years;
c) Shri Sohan to the period already undergone by the accused; i.e. 2 years and 5 months.
d) Damages were reduced to Rs 50,000/-.
Page 8 of 33

3RD FYCL RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2013


The appeal of the accused was allowed in above terms and appeal of the complainant to
enhance sentence and damages was dismissed, being bereft of any substance.
APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT
Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the complainant filed an appeal before the Honble
Supreme Court and the court issued notice pertaining to the quantum of sentence and
damages. This Court also issued notice as to why the sentence awarded by the High Court to
the three accused be not restored to that awarded by the sessions court and why the accused
Bhawarlal not to undergo life imprisonment for whole of the convicts life.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. WHETHER THE CONVICTION OF THE ACCUSED FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES IS


FAIR AND JUSTIFIED OR NOT.
The charges framed against the accused have been improper and also their conviction
remains illegal. There have been several lacunas in the prosecution theory which render it
doubtful that the offence is committed by the accused. The charge of kidnapping against
the accused is not established by the prosecution in absence of any material on record to
justify the same. The medical report has been silent on many points and pre-requisite tests
of the accused have not been conducted in the absence of same their conviction is
improper. Also, the source of money found in the night watchmans room is not verified
by the investigating agency.

Page 9 of 33

3RD FYCL RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2013


2. WHETHER THE THEORY PRESENTED BY THE PROSECUTION IS RELIABLE OR NOT.
The theory presented by the prosecution is not reliable as the case has not been proved
beyond reasonable doubt and the prosecution theory suffers from various inconsistencies.
The site map has not been properly prepared and there have been no independent
witnesses to the incident. The conviction of the accused based on circumstantial evidence
is improper and liable to be set aside.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
CONTENTION 1: THE CONVICTION OF THE ACCUSED FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES IS
UNFAIR AND NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW
It is vehemently contended before this court that both the lower courts have been erroneous in
convicting the accused persons. Firstly, the charges framed against the accused have been
improper. Secondly, both the lower courts have been erroneous to mention the offence under
the code under which the conviction of the accused has taken place. Thirdly, the charge of
kidnapping is not established by the prosecution in the absence of any material on record.
Fourthly, the complaint has named the accused in the FIR although the accused are unknown
to the complainant which renders the prosecution story doubtful. Fifthly, the medical report is
incomplete and several pre-requisite tests of the accused have not been conducted. Sixthly,
the source of money alleged to be found in the Night watchmans room remains unverified by
the investigation agency. In the absence of all the aforesaid, it would not be safe to convict
the accused persons.
Also, the Honble High court has reduced the sentenced of the accused based on appreciation
of defence evidence. But there have been several lacunas in the prosecution theory and until
the case is proved beyond reasonable doubt, conviction of the accused cannot take place.
Page 10 of 33

3RD FYCL RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2013

1.1. CHARGES FRAMED AGAINST THE ACCUSED NOT FAIR AND PROPER
The case against the accused has been registered under 376(2) (g) and 364 (A) of the
Indian Penal Code (herein after I.P.C.). 364(A)1 of the Indian Penal Code talks about
kidnapping for ransom. 364 (A) of the I.P.C. cannot be implied upon the accused as there is
no demand for ransom anywhere in the present factual matrix before us. Therefore the charge
framed against the accused is not fair and proper.
To buttress my contention inference is drawn at 226 of The Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (herein after CrPC) which says:
When the accused appears or is brought before the court in pursuance of a commitment of
the case under 209, the prosecutor shall open his case by describing the charge brought
against the accused and stating by what evidence he proposes to prove the guilt of the
accused
Before invoking provisions of 2272 and 2283 dealing with trials before the Court of
Session, the court has to takes note of 226 which obliges the prosecution to describe the
charge brought against the accused and state by what evidence the guilt of the accused would
be proved. This point was stressed upon by the two-Judge Bench in Satish Mehra v. Delhi

1 Kidnapping for ransom, etc: Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person or keeps a person in detention
after such kidnapping or abduction, and threatens to cause death or hurt to such person, or by his
conduct gives rise to a reasonable appreension that such person may be put to death or hurt, or causes
hurt or death to such person in order to compel the Government or any foreign State or international
inter- governmental organisation or any other person to do or abstain from doing any act or to pay a
ransom, shall be punishable with death or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.
2 Discharge: 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.
3 Framing of Charge

Page 11 of 33

3RD FYCL RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2013


Admn.4 But it is a matter of regret that neither the courts nor the prosecution complies with
this section.5
The correct procedure to be followed is important as non-framing or incorrect framing of
charges are technical grounds on which the accused is entitled to pray for quashing of the trial
as well as the conviction. The Supreme Court reflecting upon the provisions of the Code of
Criminal Procedure in this regard as well as its earlier decisions to this effect declared the
principles relating to "framing of charge" in criminal trial, to serve as guidance for all the
lower courts.6
But in the present matter before hand, the prosecution has not framed proper charges against
the accused.

1.2. CONVICTION OF THE ACCUSED ILLEGAL


In the present matter, the case under 376 [2] (g) and 364 (A) was registered against the
four accused persons. Later on an investigation was carried out, evidence was collected and
accused were arrested. The learned Sessions court and the learned High Court convicted the
accused although they have been erroneous in not mentioning the sections of the code under
which the accused have been convicted. The learned Sessions court as well as the learned
High Court has not mentioned the offences under which the conviction of the accused has
taken place. Hence, the conviction of the accused is illegal.
354 of Code of Criminal Procedure talks about the Language and Contents of judgment
which states:
[1] except as otherwise expressly provided by this Code, every judgment referred to in
353:- (c) shall specify the offence (if any) of which, and the section of the Indian Penal

4 (1996) 9 SCC 766


5 S.R. Chitnis, Framing of Charge in Criminal Cases, (2002) 2 SCC (Jour) 24
6 Ibid.

Page 12 of 33

3RD FYCL RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2013


Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), or other law under which, the accused is convicted and the
punishment to which he is sentenced.
Further clause [2] of 354 states:
When the conviction is under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860) and it is
doubtful under which of two sections, or under which of the two parts of the same section,
of that Code the offence falls, the court shall distinctly express the same, and pass
judgment in the alternative.
The impugned judgment is not a judgment in terms of 353 and 354 of the Code since
proper reasons for conviction and sentence were not provided to the accused along with the
order of conviction and sentence dated 30.12.2010. The accused persons have been sentenced
to different period of imprisonment and no reasons have been given for the same. Further, the
court did not communicate the section of IPC under which they were convicted and
sentenced. In the absence of the entire judgment in terms of the above mentioned provisions,
the conviction and sentence imposed on accused persons cannot be sustained.
Judgment indicates the termination of the case by an order of conviction or acquittal of the
accused and judgment is to be rendered in strict adherence to the provisions of Chapter
XXVII of the Code.7
Inference is drawn from the case of Yakub Abdul Razak Memon v. State of Maharashtra8 in
which the court said that where the reasons given by the trial Court are such that cannot be
supported by the evidence on record, they are not reasons for the decision. To constitute a
legal appreciation of evidence, the judgment should be such as to indicate that the Court has
applied its mind to it. Every portion of the judgment must indicate application of mind by the
Court to the evidence on record. The reason for the decision is an important ingredient of a
judgment. Compliance with the law in this regard should not be merely formal but substantial
and real, for it is this part of the judgment alone which enables the higher Court to appreciate
the correctness of the decision, the parties to feel that the Court has fully and impartially
7 See also Hori Ram Singh v. Emperor AIR 1939 PC 43; and Kuppuswami Rao v. The King AIR 1949
PC 1
8 2013 (3) SCALE 565

Page 13 of 33

3RD FYCL RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2013


considered their respective cases and the public to realise that a genuine and sincere attempt
has been made to mete out even-handed justice. Reasons form the substratum of the decision
and their factual accuracy is a guarantee that the Court has applied its mind to the evidence in
the case. Where the statement of reasons turned out to be a mere hollow pretension of a
baseless claim of application of mind by the Court, the judgment is robbed of one of its most
essential ingredients and forfeits its claim to be termed as judgment in the eyes of law.9

1.3. ACCUSED UNKNOWN TO THE COMPLAINANT


It is the case of the prosecution that the offence under 363 and 376[2] (g) I.P.C. were
committed and case was registered against the four accused persons but it is not
understandable how the case was registered against these four accused when their names
were not known to the complainant. There may be a situation where it can be said that
complainant knew the name of Bhawarlal who was night watchman in the hostel. But a
pertinent question which arises here is that how the complainant knew the names of the other
three persons accused when they were all unknown to the complainant. It is an ambiguous
fact that how the complainant named the accused in the FIR when all the students were
unknown to her. Also, there is no mention of any identification parade being conducted in the
prosecution theory. The object of conducting a 'test identification parade' is two-fold. First is
to enable the witnesses to satisfy themselves that the prisoner whom they suspect is really the
one who was seen by them in connection with the commission of the crime. Second is to
satisfy the investigating authorities that the suspect is the real person whom the witnesses had
seen in connection with the said occurrence.
In the case of Krishan Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana10 eight accused were charged and
prosecuted for commission of offences under 366 and 376 (2) (g) of the I.P.C. for
abducting prosecutrix and then committing rape on her. Trial Court after appreciation of
evidence on record found all the eight accused guilty for commission of offence punishable

9 Yakub Abdul Razak Memon v. State of Maharashtra, CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1728 of 2007, 2013
(3) SCALE 565
10 AIR 2011 SC 2877 : (2011) 7 SCC 130

Page 14 of 33

3RD FYCL RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2013


under 366 and in addition to it, found accused for commission of offences under 376 (2)
(g) of the IPC.
The Supreme Court on the matter said:
The Prosecutrix admitted in her cross examination that she had come to know the names of
all the accused during the course of occurrence, as they were taking each other's names. If
that be so, then why she did not name the Appellant in the FIR is a million dollar question?
These omissions speak volumes against her and her credibility stands shaken. The role of
courts in such cases is to see, whether the evidence available before the court is enough and
cogent to prove the accused guilty. Admittedly, no identification parade was conducted to
identify the Appellant as the description given by prosecutrix about the details did not match
with his appearance.

1.4. CHARGE OF KIDNAPPING UNRELIABLE:


The Complainant was in her room in the hostel and she came out from her room on to the
front lawn of the hostel. There is no evidence that the front lawn of the hostel was having any
light or not. It is another thing that there were 3-4 students in the hostel and they were in their
respective rooms whereas hostel is a big accommodation wherein 100 inmates were residing.
As per the prosecution case, the complainant was in the front lawn of the hostel at about
11pm from where she was kidnapped by the accused. There is no evidence available on
record which might justify as to why the complainant went to the lawn at 11pm at the night of
the incident and that too at a time when there were only 3-4 students present in the hostel
with no warden and no other employee. There must be some purpose for which the
complainant might have come to the lawn of the front hostel which has to be established by
the prosecution, in the absence of the same it would not be safe to convict the accused.
Also, it is alleged by the prosecution that the complainant was kidnapped and forcibly carried
in the Night Watchmans room. But it has to be observed by the court that there was no
weapon used and no injury was inflicted upon the complainant. In the absence of the same
carrying her to the night watchmans room behind the hostel was not forcible.

Page 15 of 33

3RD FYCL RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2013


Furthermore, according to the prosecution theory Shri Sohan and Shri Mohan were
comfortably drinking heavy liquor in the Night Watchmans room while Shri Bhawarlal and
Shri Tribhuvan went to kidnap the complainant. The question which arises here is, that how
can a person be comfortable consuming liquor without any fear knowing that there is a
possibility of them being caught due to any scream or agitation on part of the girl who their
friends have gone to kidnap. The point here is that knowing there was a high probability of
them being caught, they would have been worried about the girl being kidnapped. Also, there
is no mention of participation in kidnapping by the two accused Mohan and Sohan. So they
have been wrongly implicated under the alleged offence.
Moreover, it is alleged that the Complainants mouth and body were tied with a cloth and
Bhawarlal had a knife in his hands. The fact remains that it is understandable that the mouth
of the complainant might be tied up with a cloth but what is the use of tying up the
complainants body? Will that help the accused to commit the act alleged by the prosecution?
The cloth which was allegedly used to tie up the body and mouth of the complainant is
nowhere found out during the course of investigation and hence the version of prosecution is
not reliable to be believed. It is a logical assumption that a person when tied with a rope or a
cloth tightly will have certain marks on the wrists or on the feet, or both or any other vital
part of the body. The version of prosecution that the complainant in the present matter was
tied with a cloth cannot be relied upon because of the fact that it is nowhere mentioned in the
medical report about any such marks to be present on the victim's body. The body, specially
the forearms, wrist, face and back, should be examined for marks of violence such as
scratches, aberrations and bruises caused as a result of struggle. If present, they should be
properly identified, recorded and carefully described as regards to their shape, size, situation
and probable duration. To substantiate false charges, marks of violence are sometimes selfinflicted.11 Although there was an injury on the private parts of the complainant but the
medical report is silent on the point that any marks were found on the body of the
complainant due to tying her with a cloth.
It is further not understandable that whether Bhawarlal was having a knife in both of his
hands or in one hand. It is written in the factsheet that Bhawarlal held a knife in his hands. It
11 Modi's, Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, 22nd Edition, Butterworths, India, New Delhi,
1999.

Page 16 of 33

3RD FYCL RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2013


also remains a fact that the knife was not used by the accused Bhawarlal in any manner and it
was not shown to the complainant to create fear in her mind so this statement of the
prosecution is fully inconsistent and is not reliable at all.
In Rajoo & ors v. State of M.P.12 it was said that according to Section 114-A of evidence act,
presumption can be raised with regard to allegations of consensual sex in a case of alleged
rape. It is however significant that Section 113-A and 113-B too were inserted in the evidence
Act by the same amendment by which certain presumptions in cases of abetment to suicide
and dowry death have been raised against the accused. These two sections thus, raise a clear
presumption in favour of prosecution but no similar presumption, with respect to rape, is
visualised as the presumption under the Section 114-A and the Section is extremely restricted
in its applicability. This clearly shows that insofar as allegations of rape are concerned, the
evidence of prosecutrix must be examined as that of an injured witness whose presence at the
spot is probable but it can never be presumed that her statement should, without exception, be
taken as gospel truth. Additionally her statement can at best be adjudged on the principle that
ordinarily no injured witness would tell a lie or implicate a witness falsely. We believe that it
is under these principles that this case, and others such as this one, needs to be examined. The
veracity of the story projected by the prosecution qua allegations of rape must, thus, be
examined.13

1.5. MEDICAL INCONSISTENCIES

12 AIR 2009 SC 858 : (2008) 15 SCC 133


13 Rajoo & ors. v. State of M.P. AIR 2009 SC 858 : (2008) 15 SCC 133

Page 17 of 33

3RD FYCL RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2013


53 A14 of Code of Criminal Procedure talks about Examination of person accused of rape by
medical practitioner
(1) When a person is arrested on a charge of committing an offence of rape or an attempt to
commit rape and there are reasonable grounds for believing that an examination of this
person will afford evidence as to the commission of such offence, it shall be lawful for a
registered medical practitioner employed in a hospital run by the Government or by a
local authority and in the absence of such a practitioner within the radius of sixteen
kilometres from the place where the offence has been committed by any other registered
medical practitioner, acting at the request of a police officer not below the rank of a subinspector, and for any person acting in good faith in his aid and under his direction, to
make such an examination of the arrested person and to use such force as is reasonably
necessary for that purpose
(2) The registered medical practitioner conducting such examination shall, without delay,
examine such person and prepare a report of his examination giving the following
particulars, namely:(i) the name and address of the accused and of the person by whom he was brought,
(ii) the age of the accused,
(iii) marks of injury, if any, on the person of the accused,
(iv) the description of material taken from the person of the accused for DNA profiling, and
(v) other material particulars in reasonable detail

(3) The report shall state precisely the reasons for each conclusion arrived at
(4) The exact time of commencement and completion of the examination shall also be noted
in the report

14 Inserted by CrPC (Amdt.) Act, 2005 (25 of 2005), dt. 23-6-2005. w.e.f. 23-6-2006 vide SO 923
(E), dt. 21-6-2006.

Page 18 of 33

3RD FYCL RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2013


(5) The registered medical practitioner shall, without delay, forward the report of the
investigating officer, who shall forward it to the Magistrate referred to in 173 as part of the
documents referred to in clause (a) of sub- (5) of that ]
53 A. of CrPC seeks to provide for a detailed medical examination of a person accused of
an offence of rape or an attempt to commit rape by the registered medical practitioner
employed in a hospital run by the Government or a local authority and in the absence of such
a practitioner by any other registered medical practitioner.
The accused should first be identified by the person who brought him, usually a police
constable whose number and name should be noted. The medical examination report of the
accused incorporates the following:
1) Preliminary data (including identity marks),
2) Examination of his clothes,
3) Physical and Systematic Examinations,
4) Injuries on his body and genitals,
5) Collection and preservation of materials for laboratory examinations and
6) Opinion as to whether the accused is capable of performing the sexual act.
While writing the report the following should be noted carefully:
1) The presence of marks of struggle, such as bruises, scratches and teeth bites on body,
especially on face, hands, thighs and genitals.
2) The presence of loose hairs similar to those of female alleged to have been raped.
3) Injury to the genital parts may result from force exerted by accused from force applied by
the victim. In addition to scratches or lacerations on the penis caused by the fingernails by the
victims during the struggles and aberrations on lacerations may be discovered on the penis.15

15 Supra Note 12

Page 19 of 33

3RD FYCL RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2013


The principle features of examination include signs of struggle on clothes and body and local
examination of the genitals. However, there is nothing on record to show such an
investigation carried out and also there have been no signs of any injury found on the accused
persons. In the absence of which, it can be safely concluded that the accused did not indulge
in any sort of violent activity.
The complainant in the present matter was medically examined but there is nothing on record
to show that what intoxicant was given to her and which drug. Not only in what quantity was
it given but the mode of transmission of such a drug remains a pertinent question, not
established by the prosecution. In the absence of same it cannot be alleged that the
complainant was forcibly given drugs. A girl's general behaviour, mental state and any effect
of alcohol or drugs should be noted in detail in the medical report in cases of sexual offences
in an unconscious state.16
When a woman complains to the police that she was given a narcotic drug, such as opium,
dhatura, chloral hydrate or some other similar drug, with the object of making her
unconscious, she should be sent immediately to a medical officer, who should examine her to
ascertain if she manifested any signs of the ingestion of the alleged drug, and should inquire
of her as to how it was given to her and of the symptoms she developed after taking it. He
should also inquire when she developed unconsciousness and how long she remained in that
condition. There would be inconsistencies in her statement if her allegation were untrue.
Estimation of blood levels of the drug or alcohol may help. A sample of her blood or urine
should be collected for chemical analysis. With regard to the administration of an intoxicating
drug or alcohol it is necessary to find out if the woman had been accustomed to the use of
such a drug, and if she had taken it voluntarily or had been forced to take it. It sometimes
happens that a woman voluntarily takes an intoxicating element in excess, which affects her
self control and power of judgement, when she permits her male companion to have sexual
connection with her. However after its effects have worn off, she realizes her mistakes,
repents of her conduct and tries to lay all the blame at the door of her companion.17

16 Ibid
17 Ibid

Page 20 of 33

3RD FYCL RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2013


In case of Krishan Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana18 the Supreme Court said that 6 of the
Evidence Act is an exception to the general rule where-under, hearsay evidence becomes
admissible. But for bringing such hearsay evidence within the ambit of 6, what is required
to be established is that it must be almost contemporaneous with the acts and there could not
be an interval which would allow fabrication. Now, after the incorporation of 53 (A) in the
Criminal Procedure Code, w.e.f. 23.06.2006, it has become necessary for the prosecution to
go in for DNA test in such type of 2009 cases, facilitating the prosecution to prove its case
against the accused. Prior to 2006, even without the aforesaid specific provision in the CrPC
prosecution could have still resorted to this procedure of getting the DNA test or analysis and
matching of semen of the Appellant with that found on the undergarments of the prosecutrix
to make it a fool proof case, but they did not do so, thus they must face the consequences.
In the present matter, no such pre-requisite tests of the accused prescribed under the statute
were conducted, which renders the prosecution story doubtful.

1.6. THE SOURCE OF MONEY FOUND IN NIGHT WATCHMANS ROOM


UNVERIFIED:
It is also alleged by the prosecution in this case that accused Tribhuvan has brought Rs.
10,000/- for Bhawaralal and Rs. 50,000/- for complainant but the prosecution knows it very
well that Tribhuvan was minor and a student. He was not working anywhere so he might have
got this money from his parents but the investigating agency did not check/verify this factum
from the parents and other sources of Tribhuvan and if it was not done hence the prosecution
story of the said amount is totally unreliable and the benefit goes in favour of the accused.

CONTENTION 2: WHETHER THE THEORY PRESENTED BY THE PROSECUTION IS


RELIABLE OR NOT.

18 AIR 2011 SC 2877 : (2011) 7 SCC 130

Page 21 of 33

3RD FYCL RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2013


The version presented by the prosecution is not reliable there are several loopholes in the
same. The site map prepared by the investigating agency is incomplete as it has to been seen
by the court that whether the room of Night watchman was so big as to accommodate five
people and for commencement of the act alleged to be committed by the accused or not. Also,
there have been no independent witnesses to the incident in the absence of the same the sole
testimony of the complainant cannot be relied upon by the court. Further, the Sessions Court
decision is simply influenced by media publicity given to the case and the same is not good in
law. Finally, the onus of proof lies on the prosecution and if the case is not proved beyond
reasonable doubt the conviction of the accused cannot be upheld.

2.1. SEVERAL LOOPHOLES IN THE PROSECUTION THEORY


First and foremost, after the FIR was lodged by the police, the case under Section 363 and
376 [2] (g) was registered against the four accused persons. The Night watchman, Bhawarlal
and the other three accused were traced out heavily drunk sleeping in the Night Watchmans
room. It is the case of the prosecution, that the Night Watchman and the other three accused
persons could be traced out heavily drunk sleeping in the Night Watchmans room19 and then
later it was stated that Shri Tribhuvan was absconding and was later on arrested 20 but this is
the contradiction and inconsistent case of the prosecution which creates doubt in the theory of
the prosecution of which the accused must be given benefit.
It is contended by the prosecution that the Shri Mohan and Shri Sohan were drinking heavy
liquor and Tribhuvan and Bhawarlal had also consumed liquor in the night watchmans room
then how these accused can commit rape upon the complainant and throw her outside the
backside of the boundary wall of the hostel? In state of intoxication, throwing a person
outside the backside of the wall which also implies throwing the victim over a wall is almost
an unachievable task after having heavy liquor and also drugs.
One more question remains for consideration about the height of the wall over which the
complainant was thrown which is not clear. Being a government woman's hostel it is a logical
19 2 moot preposition
20 3 moot preposition

Page 22 of 33

3RD FYCL RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2013


assumption that the wall was high. A person intoxicated by liquor has no clear understanding
of his surroundings nor could tell what is right and wrong. A drunken guy cannot even stand
up straight or walk in a straight line. A person heavily intoxicated with liquor cannot have an
erection, the only way he will have an erection is if the woman actively participates in the act
but even that is not a guarantee that the erection will sustain its rigidity. The only thing a
person wants in the state of intoxication is either a bed to sleep in or a bucket to vomit in.
Also, it is alleged by the prosecution that the complainant was thrown outside in the naked
condition. The fact remains that after committing rape and throwing away the naked
complainant outside through boundary wall they were still sleeping in the Night Watchmans
room? They could have easily run away. Though all the accused were not previously
convicted and had no criminal background the commission of such a heinous crime as alleged
by the prosecution is not at all expected from the first time accused who are mainly students.

2.2. AMBIGUITY IN THE SITE MAP PREPARED


It is alleged in the prosecution story that a bike of an accused Mohan was found in the hostel
compound but same was not found near the place of incident i.e. Night Watchmans room
which creates serious doubt in the theory of the prosecution. It is further stated that Mohan
was allegedly found in the room of the Night Watchman and he had not gone anywhere in the
hostel so there is no question of finding his motorcycle in the hostel.
Site Map of the Night Watchmans room was not prepared, that how big was it so as to
accommodate 5 people and also for commission the alleged offence on the accused? If the
Chowkidars room was small then it could not have been possible to accommodate 5 persons
and also allowing the accused to commit the offence of rape. If the size of the room could
have been verified, then the very genesis of commission of the offence by the Appellant
would fall flat as held in Krishan Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana21. This could have been
possible to ascertain only if spot map had been prepared. This was a lacuna on part of the
investigating agency and the prosecution, the benefit of which must be given to the accused.
This shows the casual manner in which site map was prepared.

21 AIR 2011 SC 2877 : (2011) 7 SCC 130

Page 23 of 33

3RD FYCL RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2013


It is alleged by prosecution that certain articles were found in the car of Tribhuvan including
some cosmetics. It is of utmost importance to throw a light on the relevance of cosmetics in
the car of the accused Tribhuvan while he has already said in his statement that he has had an
intercourse with the complainant with her consent. Also, Tribhuvan has said in his statement
that he saw the complainant in the hostel with a western dress and cosmetics. Hence the
complainant was fond of cosmetics. It has to be brought under the notice of the court that the
material ceased from Tribhuvan's car show that the accused was in a healthy relationship with
the complainant. The material ceased established that Tribhuvans intentions were to take the
complainant on a date which is common in our present generation and also for the fact that a
carpet, a bed sheet, a bottle of foreign liquor were also found in the allegedly accused,
Tribhuvans car. A person with an intention to rape a woman will not get any such gifts for
her.

2.3. NO INDEPENDENT WITNESSES TO THE INCIDENT


There are other two witnesses PW-2 and PW-3 who have seen the complainant in the naked
condition but they are not the witnesses of kidnapping and commission of rape on the
complainant. In the absence of the same no inference can be drawn from their depositions
that these accused persons have committed the said offences.
It is a fact that there is no eye-witness to the offence of kidnapping and commission of rape
except the complainant and in the absence of the same it cannot be believed that the version
presented by the complainant is true or not.
In Alamelu & Anr. v. State22 the accused were charged u/s 376 & 375 and 366 of I.P.C. The
conviction of the accused based on concurrent findings was set aside as the Evidence on
record did not support findings of High Court and trial court. There were doubtful facts and
circumstances in the case and the conviction of the accused was on sole testimony of
prosecutrix. The question of the sustainability of sole testimony of the complainant was
raised. It was held that even though prosecutrix had several opportunities to protest and raise
an alarm, she did not do so. Conviction on sole testimony of prosecutrix, on facts, held, is not

22 (2012) 2 SCC 385: AIR 2011 SC 715.

Page 24 of 33

3RD FYCL RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2013


sustainable. Therefore, High Court recording conviction on basis of her sole testimony set
aside.
Further it was observed:
In our opinion, the prosecution version has been distorted from beginning to the end, in an
effort to suppress the actual truth. There is no evidence to prove that the victim was forcibly
taken in a car. Neither the owner nor the driver of the car has been examined in the Court. In
our opinion, the trial court as well as the High Court had failed to bestow proper attention
on the inherent improbabilities contained in the evidence of the prime witnesses of the
prosecution. In our opinion, the entire story about the abduction by car and the forced
marriage seems to have been concocted to falsely implicate all the accused under Section
366 IPC. Even in the face of the wholly unreliable evidence, as noticed above, both the
Courts have convicted all the accused under Section 366 and 376 IPC. The High Court, in
our opinion, committed a grave error in confirming the conviction of the accused/appellants
under Section 366 IPC. . In view of the aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion that the
prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt any of the offences with which the
appellants had been charged. It appears that the entire prosecution story has been concocted
for reasons best known to the prosecution. In our opinion, the conclusions recorded by both
the courts below are wholly perverse. The appellants are clearly entitled to the benefit of
doubt. In view of the above, the appeals are allowed. All the appellants are acquitted. They
are directed to be released forthwith.
In Abbas Ahmad Choudhary v. State of Assam23, the court observed:
We are conscious of the fact that in a matter of rape, the statement of the prosecutrix must
be given primary consideration, but, at the same time, the broad principle that the
prosecution has to provide its case beyond reasonable doubt applies equally to a case of rape
and there can be no presumption that a prosecutrix would always tell the entire story
truthful

23 (2010) 12 SCC 115: 2010 Cri. L.J. 2062

Page 25 of 33

3RD FYCL RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2013


2.4. THE EARLIER INCIDENT OF HARASSMENT NOT REPORTED BY THE
COMPLAINANT
According to the prosecution case, Shri Bhawarlal, the Night Watchman approached the
complainant, Ms. Shalini and he made an offer to her but she refused to succumb to his offer
for Tribhuvan. If that were the case then why didnt the complainant lodge a complaint
against the Shri Bhawarlal in the first place? This matter should have been reported to the
college authorities or to the police as Shri Bhawarlal was entrusted with a serious job. Being
an educated girl and studying in a government nursing college the complainant should have
taken some action or brought the matter under the notice of her parents or of the college
authorities. But no such complaint had been reported. This raises a doubt on prosecution
story.
In Narender Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi)24 the prosecutix filed an FIR to the effect that
when she was going from village Khirki to Chirag Delhi on that day at about 8 p.m., the
appellant caught hold of her hand and dragged her towards the bushes on the edge of the road
and committed rape on her. She could not raise the noise due to fear. After commission of the
offence, the appellant left her there and ran away. The prosecutrix went to her husband at his
working place and from there went to the police station along with her husband to lodge the
FIR. The prosecutrix was medically examined. On conclusion of the trial, the learned
Sessions Court vide judgment convicted the appellant for the offences under Section 376 IPC
and imposed the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years and imposed a
fine of Rs.2000/-Aggrieved, the appellant preferred Criminal Appeal before the High Court
which was dismissed vide impugned judgment.
The Supreme Court then said:
The courts below erred in not appreciating properly the evidence of the defence witnesses
examined by the appellant. If the court finds it difficult to accept the version of the
prosecutrix on its face value, it may search for evidence, direct or substantial, which may
lend assurance to her testimony25.
Where evidence of the prosecutrix is found suffering from serious infirmities and
inconsistencies with other material, prosecutrix making deliberate improvements on material
24 (2012) 7 SCC 171: AIR 2012 SC 2281

Page 26 of 33

3RD FYCL RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2013


point with a view to rule out consent on her part and there being no injury on her person even
though her version may be otherwise, no reliance can be placed upon her evidence.
In Jai Krishna Mandal & Anr v. State of Jharkhand26, this Court while dealing with the issue
held that, the only evidence of rape was the statement of the prosecutrix herself and when this
evidence was read in its totality, the story projected by the prosecutrix was so improbable that
it could not be believed.
In Rajoo & Ors v. State of Madhya Pradesh27, this Court held that ordinarily the evidence of a
prosecutrix should not be suspected and should be believed, more so as her statement has to
be evaluated on par with that of an injured witness and if the evidence is reliable, no
corroboration is necessary. The court however, further observed:
It cannot be lost sight of that rape causes the greatest distress and humiliation to the victim
but at the same time a false allegation of rape can cause equal distress, humiliation and
damage to the accused as well. The accused must also be protected against the possibility of
false implication and humiliation. There is no presumption or any basis for assuming that the
statement of such a witness is always correct or without any embellishment or exaggeration.
In Tameezuddin @ Tammu v. State (NCT of Delhi)28, this Court held has under:
It is true that in a case of rape the evidence of the prosecutrix must be given predominant
consideration, but to hold that this evidence has to be accepted even if the story is
improbable and belies logic, would be doing violence to the very principles which govern the
appreciation of evidence in a criminal matter.

25 See Vimal Suresh Kamble v. Chaluverapinake Apal S.P. & Anr., AIR 2003 SC 818; and Vishnu v.
State of Maharashtra AIR 2006 SC 508; Suresh N. Bhusare & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra (1999) 1
SCC 220
26 (2010) 14 SCC 534
27 AIR 2009 SC 858
28 (2009) 15 SCC 566

Page 27 of 33

3RD FYCL RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2013


2.5. ONUS OF PROOF ON PROSECUTION
However, even in a case of rape, the onus is always on the prosecution to prove, affirmatively
each ingredient of the offence it seeks to establish and such onus never shifts. It is no part of
the duty of the defence to explain as to how and why in a rape case the victim and other
witness have falsely implicated the accused. Prosecution case has to stand on its own legs and
cannot take support from the weakness of the case of defence. However great the suspicion
against the accused and however strong the moral belief and conviction of the court, unless
the offence of the accused is established beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of legal
evidence and material on the record, he cannot be convicted for an offence. There is an initial
presumption of innocence of the accused and the prosecution has to bring home the offence
against the accused by reliable evidence. The accused is entitled to the benefit of every
reasonable doubt.29
Prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and cannot take support from the
weakness of the case of defence. There must be proper legal evidence and material on record
to record the conviction of the accused. Conviction can be based on sole testimony of the
prosecutrix provided it lends assurance of her testimony. However, in case the court has
reason not to accept the version of prosecutrix on its face value, it may look for
corroboration. In case the evidence is read in its totality and the story projected by the
prosecutrix is found to be improbable, the prosecutrix case becomes liable to be rejected. The
court must act with sensitivity and appreciate the evidence in totality of the background of the
entire case and not in isolation. Even if the prosecutrix is of easy virtue/unchaste woman that
itself cannot be a determinative factor and the court is required to adjudicate whether the
accused committed rape on the victim on the occasion complained of.
In Rama Nand v. State of Himachal Pradesh30, it was held that the chain of events furnished
by the circumstances is not complete and there exists reasonable grounds for conclusion
consistent with the innocence of the accused. It is well established principle of law that where
the inference of guilt of an accused person is to be drawn from circumstantial evidence, only
those circumstances must, in the first place, be cogently established. Further, these
29 See Tukaram & Anr. v. The State of Maharashtra AIR 1979 SC 185; and Uday v. State of
Karnataka, AIR 2003 SC 1639
30 AIR 1981 SC 738: 1981 Cri LJ 298

Page 28 of 33

3RD FYCL RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2013


circumstances should be of a definite tendency pointing towards the guilt of the accused, and
in their totality must unerringly lead to the conclusion that within all human probability, the
offence was committed by the accused and none else.
It has been consistently laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court that where a case rests squarely on
circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating
facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the
guilt of any other person.31
The circumstances from which an inference as to the guilt of the accused is drawn have to be
proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected with the
principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances. In Bhagat Ram v. State of
Punjab32, it was laid down that where the case depends upon the conclusion drawn from
circumstances, the cumulative effect of the circumstances must be such as to negate the
innocence of the accused and bring home the offences beyond any reasonable doubt.
In State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, it was pointed out that great care must be taken in
evaluating circumstantial evidence and if the evidence relied upon is reasonably capable of
two inferences; the one in favour of the accused must be accepted. It was also pointed out that
the circumstances relied upon must be found to have been fully established and the
cumulative effect of all the facts so established must be consistent only with the hypothesis of
guilt.
A reference may be made to a later decision in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of
Maharashtra33 wherein, while dealing with circumstantial evidence, it has been held that the
onus is on the prosecution to prove that the chain is complete and the infirmity or lacuna in
the prosecution cannot be cured by a false defence or plea. The conditions precedent in the

31 See Hukum Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1977 SC 1063: 1977 Cri. LJ 639, (1977) 2 SCC 99, Eradu v.
State of Hyderabad AIR 1956 SC 316: 1956 Cri. LJ 559, Earabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka 1983 AIR 446,
1983 SCR (2) 552 , State of U.P. v. Sukhbasi AIR 1985 SC 1224, 1985 Cri. LJ 1479, Balwinder Singh v. State of
Punjab AIR 1996 SC 607 and Ashok Kumar Chatterji v. State of M.P. AIR 1989 SC 1890: 1989 Cri. LJ 2124

32 1967 AIR 927, 1967 SCR (2) 165


33 AIR 1984 SC 1622, 1985 SCR (1)

Page 29 of 33

3RD FYCL RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2013


words of Hon'ble Court, before conviction could be based on circumstantial evidence, must
be fully established.

2.6. SESSIONS COURT DECISION INFLUENCED BY MEDIA PUBLICITY


It is contended that the Sessions Court decision influenced by large print and media publicity
to the case and a great amount of hype created by the public. Practically, this is not a media
trial but Court trial so the court has to scrutinise all the aspects of a criminal case.
After all the aforesaid things, there is a doubt as to the offence committed by the four accused
persons. The chain of circumstantial evidence is not complete. The benefit of doubt goes in
favour of the accused and they have a right to be acquitted.
In the present matter before us it is vehemently contended that all the allegations put up
against the accused have been falsely implicated and cannot be relied upon. The complainant
was well aware of the social and economic background of the accused and for the fact they
had a good family background, wanted to extort more money out of them. The complainant
sought Rs 20 lacs as damages and the high court reduced them subsequently to Rs 50,000 on
appreciation of defence evidence and considering the fact that there might be a probability
that the complainant might have falsely implicated the accused in order to extort more
money.
In Rajoo & ors. v. State of M.P.34, the apex court said that the evidence of prosecutrix must be
examined as that of an injured witness whose presence at the spot is probable but it can never
be presumed that her statement should, without exception, be taken as the gospel truth. The
court cannot lose sight that rape causes greatest distress and humiliation to the victim but at
the same time a false allegation of rape can cause equal distress, humiliation and damage to
the accused as well. The accused must also be protected against the possibility of false
implications, particularly where a large number of accused are involved.

34 AIR 2009 SC 858

Page 30 of 33

3RD FYCL RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2013


Further, in State of M.P v. Sunil35, three judge Supreme Court bench, the accused was
convicted for rape and abduction and was sentenced to 8 years of RI with fine. The sentence
was reduced by the learned High Court to the period already undergone by the accused which
was 6 years and 2 months. Learned Council for the Appellant submitted that the sentence
imposed by the Hon'ble High Court is wholly inadequate looking at the nature of offence and
is contrary to minimum described by law. The apex court held that the sentence which the
accused has already undergone that is 6 years and 2 months cannot be said to be inadequate
or contrary to law. Thus appeal stands dismissed.
In State of Punjab v. Jagir Singh & Ors36, wherein it was held:
A criminal trial is not like a fairy tale, wherein one is free to give fight to one's imagination
and fantasy. It concerns itself with the question as to whether the accused arrainged at the
trial is guilty of the crime with which he is charged. Crime is an event in real life and is the
product of interplay of different human emotions. In arriving at the conclusion about the guilt
of the accused charged with the commission of a crime, the court has to judge the evidence
by the yardstick of probabilities, its intrinsic worth and the animus of witnesses. Every case
in the final analysis would have to depend upon its own facts. Although the benefit of every
reasonable doubt should be given to the accused, the courts should not at the same time
reject evidence which is ex facie trustworthy on grounds which are fanciful or in the nature of
conjecture

35 AIR 2006 SC 627


36 1973 AIR 2407 : 1974 SC (1) 328: 1974 SCC (3) 277

Page 31 of 33

3RD FYCL RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2013

PRAYER

THEREFORE

IN THE LIGHT OF THE ISSUES RAISED, ARGUMENTS ADVANCED, REASONS GIVEN

AND AUTHORITIES CITED, THE

HONBLE SUPREME COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO:

I.

DECLARE that the High Court was justified in reducing the sentence of the

II.

accused.
HOLD that the accused have a right to be acquitted as the prosecution story is
suffering from various infirmities.

AND PASS ANY OTHER RELIEF THAT THE

HONBLE SUPREME COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO

GRANT AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE COUNSELS FOR THE RESPONDENT SHALL
FOREVER HUMBLY PRAY.

ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

Page 32 of 33

3RD FYCL RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2013

COUNSELS FOR THE RESPONDENT


Sd/-

Page 33 of 33