1. Whether the accused and the co accused are guilty of the offences under S.

302 r/w S
34 and 120 B of HPC?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Sessions Court of Kranchi that there are
multitudinous incidents and evidences that corroborate the fact that the accused is guilty for
the offence of murder and under Section 3021. In order to bring affluent conviction under this
charge it is pertinent to refer to essentials of murder.2 Further there are multifarious episodes
that put on the endeavors made by the defendant as [1.1] Accused and co- accused had requisite
Actus Reus [1.2] and Mens Rea in the instant matter [1.3] negating any claim of private defense.

A person is guilty of murder if he intentionally causes death of a person3 or causes such bodily
injury as he knows, is likely to cause death of that person4 or causes such bodily injury, which
in ordinary course of nature results into death5 or commits an act so dangerous that it must, in
all probability cause death of that person.6 And the prosecution humbly submits that both, actus
reus and the mens rea of the crime are established in the instant matter.

[1.1] Accused and the co accused had the requisite Actus Reus.

Actus reus is any wrongful act7. Murder is a crime of crimes, 8 it is brutal,9 and violent10 It is
a felonious act11 where death is caused with intent and motive.12 The offence of murder is
encompassed of a vicious act and vicious will.13 This is because all criminal prosecutions rests
on a principle, ‘actus non facit reum, nisi men sit rea’.14 In the case of murder actus reus is the
physical conduct of the accused that causes death of the victim. In the instant case actus reus
is established with the help of [1.1.1] witness statements, [1.1.2] forensic reports, [1.1.3]
ballistic report, [1.1.4] Confession letter of the accused and [1.1.5] fingerprint experts report.

1
Section 302 of Indian Penal Code.
2
Section 300 of Indian Penal Code.
3
Rau Bhagwanta Hargude v. State of Maharashtra, A.I.R 1979 S.C 1224; See also, Bandampalli Venkateswarlu
v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1975 3 SCC 492.
4
Rajwant Singh v. State of Kerala, A.I.R 1966 SC 1874; See also, State of Uttar Pradesh v. Virendra Prasad,
AIR 2004 SC 1517.
5
Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1958 SC 465.
6
Jagrup Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1972 SC 952.
7
Aiyar, P Ramnatha, The Law Lexicon, p.49 (2 nd ed. 2006).
8
Rajendra Prasad v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1979) 3 SCC 646.
9
Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, A.I.R 1977 SC 349.
10
Carlose John v. State of Kerala, 1974 Cri.LJ 796.
11
Sanwat Khan v. State of Rajasthan, A.I.R 1956 SC 54.
12
Vide Rita Devi v. new India Assurance Company Ltd., (2000) 5 SCC 113.
13
Papadimitropocelos v. R, (1957) 98 CLR 249.
14
State of Maharashtra v. Mayer Hans George, Air 1965 SC 722.
 [1.1.1] Witness Statements prove actus reus.

Keeping in mind that it is not for the prosecution to meet any and every hypothesis suggested
by the accused, howsoever extravagant and fanciful it might be,15 it is humbly submitted before
this Hon’ble court that the circumstantial evidence in the instant matter shows that within all
human probabilities, the act is done by the accused.16

In the broad day light of 15th February, 2018 Farhan (Hereinafter accused No. 1) and Salim
(accused no. 2) criminally trespassed the house of Mr. Bhawani Shankar post 11 A.M.17
According to statements of prosecution witness 1 (PW-1) father of the deceased.18 Accused-1
punched Rudra (Deceased-1) hard on his face with some metal stuck.19 Later the metal
knuckle20 (murder weapon) was found blood stained21 from the kitchen of the house from
where the accused persons were arrested22 and this is duly in corroboration with Panchnama.23
Moreover, later when Avani decided to stay with her family, enraged Farhan asked Accused
No. 2 to shoot her and run out of the house and the same was done.24 Salim’s gun later fell
from his hand when PW 1 tried to snatch it. This gun bears fingerprints of the accused 25 also
ballistic report26 confirms the same.

There are various cases where eye witnesses who were in blood relation their testimony was
admitted.27 It is a well-known maxim that ‘Evidence has to weighed and not counted’28 and
this has been given statutory placement by Section 134 of Evidence Act which states that no
particular number of witnesses are required.29 also, sole reliance on single eye witness
testimony was upheld in various cases.30 Therefore the testimony of Eye witness and other
witnesses in this case have duly proved Actus Reus.

15
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, AIR 1992 SC 840.
16
Bakshish Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1971 SC 2016.
17
Exhibit 3, Page 11 Proposition.
18
Exhibit 3.
19
Exhibit 3, Page 11 Proposition.
20
Exhibit 16 Page 61 Proposition.
21
Page 47 Proposition.
22
Exhibit 9, Arrest Memo.
23
Exhibit No. 10, Page 46.
24
Page 11 Proposition.
25
Exhibit 12, Page 50 Proposition.
26
Exhibit 7.
27
Seeman v. State, AIR 2005 SC 2503.; See also, Bhagwan Singh & ors. V. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2002) Cr
LJ 2024 (SC)
28
Nikhil Soni v. State of H.P, 2015 Cr LJ 1299.
29
Kartik Malhar v. State of Bihar, (1996) Cr. LJ 889.
30
Ramesh Krishna Madhusudan Nayar v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2008 SC 927.
 [1.1.2] Forensic Reports

Postmortem report becomes important in matters where the cause of death is to be established
and is a matter of controversy.31 Moreover it is not possible for the prosecution to explain each
and every injury suffered by the victims.32 However, for the convenience the prosecution feels
highly obliged to assist the Hon’ble sessions court to understand the intricacies of postmortem
report.

In the case of Deceased No. 133 severe hemorrhage was seen in scalp and skull,34 also the first
thoracic vertebra (T1) is fractured and third thoracic vertebra (T3) is dislocated. 35 Severe
fractures were witnessed in the first thoracic vertebra (T1) and nasal bone36, and abrasions over
forearms, left arm and right shoulder also there were lacerated wound over nasal bone.37 In the
opinion of the doctor this type of wound can only be caused due to punching with a metal
object.38

In the case of Deceased No. 2- there was a tangential gunshot wound on the left-hand side of
the face39 which caused internal fracture and hemorrhage on skull up to its scalp alongside.40
Severe damage can be seen on the frontal lobe of the brain and temporal lobes and pons have
suffered moderate damage.41

When a projectile transvers the skull and emerges, the aperture in the bone differs in relation
to the outer and inner tables42; the defect is larger in the direction in which the bullet travels.43
An entrance hole bevels inward and therefore, the entrance is usually clean cut and the defect
on the inner surface of the parts is larger than the outer surface.44 This view is consistent with
the autopsy report keeping in mind that gunshot will perforate causing instant death of Avani.45

31
Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1988 SC 2016.
32
Ravindra Shantaram Sawant v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2000 SC 2461.
33
Page 25 Proposition.
34
Page 26 Proposition.
35
Page 26 Proposition.
36
Page 27 Column F.
37
Page 27 Column F, 29.
38
Page 30 Proposition
39
Page 33 Proposition
40
Ibid.
41
Page 35 Proposition.
42
Modi’s Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, Twenty First edn., as quoted in Vijay Singh v. State of Madhya
Pradesh, (2000) Cr. LJ 650 M.P
43
Parikh.CK, Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence, Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, p . 4.42 (6th ed. 1999)
44
Ibid, p. 4.43
45
Ibid, p. 4.50
 [1.1.3] Ballistic Report.
As per ballistic report,46 chargesheet47 and Panchnama48 an empty shell in dilapidated state was
found from the crime scene49 which matches 0.315 in. Single Shot Pistol50 which is owned by
Accused No. 2 (Salim) and is accepted by Accused 1 in his statement51 duly corroborated with
accused 2 statement.52 In cases where injuries are caused by fire arms, the opinion of the
ballistic expert is of a considerable importance53 and is sufficient to prove the guilt of the
accused.54 When the direct evidence is well corroborated by the circumstantial evidence and
conforms to the probabilities, there is no reason why it should not be accepted.55

The entrance of wound is oval in structure with an uneven eccentric with prominent abrasions56,
also there is no rifling mark57 which is not made only in case of desi katta, 58
in the present
matter murder weapon is desi katta. The report also indicates the presence of a wide zone of
powder tattooing around the entrance wound and soot particles.59 The tattooing is due smoke
produced buy combustion of gun-powder, coupled with a small portion of carbonaceous
matter.60 Even ‘smokeless’ powder produces a small amount of smoke which may mark
objects at close range.61 Presence of blackening on wound is thus firing from a very close
range.62 After the analysis of the wound, it can be clearly categorized as an Intermediate Range
Wound63 and from PW 1(eye witness) statement it is clear that the shots were duly fired from
a short distance64 hence both are duly corroborated. Therefore, after examination of wound and
empty shell it is clear that shot was fired from desi katta which belonged to Accused No. 2.

[1.1.4] Confession letter of the accused.

46
Exhibit 7, Page 41 Proposition.
47
Exhibit 2, Page 7 Proposition.
48
Exhibit 6, Page 39 Proposition.
49
Exhibit 2, Page 7 Proposition.
50
Page 4, Proposition.
51
Appendix 1, Page 66.
52
Appendix 1, Page 69.
53
Sukhwant Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1995 SC 1601.
54
Kalua v. State of UP, AIR 1958 SC 180.
55
Field, C.D., Expert Evidence: Medical and Non-Medical, 4th Ed (2007)
56
Page 42 Proposition.
57
Ibid
58
http://medind.nic.in/jal/t13/i2/jalt13i2p165.pdf
59
Page 42 Proposition.
60
Hari Singh v. State of M.P, 2010, Cr. LJ 4706, p 4707 (SC).
61
Gaur. KD Firearms, Forensic Ballistics, Forensic Chemistry and Criminal Jurisprudence, p. 71 (2nd ed 1989).
62
Badshah Singh v State, AIR 1958 All 677.
63
Page 42 Proposition.
64
Page 11 Proposition.
Section 30 of the Evidence Act states that when a co- accused confesses and the confession is
proved the court may take such confessions as against other persons. 65 In this case the
confession letter of the co accused66

65
Haricharan Kurmi v. State of Bihar AIR 1964 SC 1184, p 1190.
66
Exhibit 18, page 63.