Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 14

MOCK TRIAL WRITTEN SUBMISSION

WITNESS HANDLING CASE 2

IN THE MATTER OF: -

STATE ….. PROSECUTION

VERSUS

MUKESH ….. DEFENSE

SUBMITTED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT

NAME: UDAI BAJWA

ROLL NO.: 177598

SECTION: H, III YEAR


TABLE OF CONTENTS

S. NO. PARTICULARS PAGE NO.

I. PARTICULARS OF THE CASE

II. OPENING STATEMENT OF THE DEFENCE

III. CROSS EXAMINATION OF MONIKA (PW-1)

IV. CROSS EXAMINATION OF SATINDER (PW-2)

V. EXAMINATION OF MUKESH (DW-1)

VI. EXAMINATION OF ROSHNI (DW-2)

VII. CLOSING STATEMENT OF THE DEFENCE

VIII. PRAYER
PARTICULARS OF THE CASE

• STATEMENT OF OFFENCE

Voluntarily Causing Grievous Hurt, Contrary to Section 322 read with Section 325,
Indian Penal Code, 1860.

There is no dispute that the accused has injured the complainant’s eye which has caused
her to be in severe bodily pain for twenty days.

• WITNESSES FOR THE PROSECUTION

PW-1: Monika (Victim)

PW-2: Satinder (Sub Inspector, P.S. Green Park)

• WITNESSES FOR THE DEFENCE

DW-1: Mukesh s/o Rajesh


(Accused)
DW-2: Roshni

RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860

Section 96: Things done in private defense

Section 97: Right of private defense of the body and of


property

Section 319: Hurt

Section 320: Grievous hurt

Section 322: Voluntarily causing grievous hurt

Section 325: Punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt


OPENING STATEMENT OF THE DEFENCE

DEFENCE : My Lord, the defendant stands here falsely accused of grievous hurt, a very
serious crime, whereas my client acted out only in his self-defense.

My Lord, the defense will call two witnesses to the stand. First I will call Mr. Mukesh who is
the accused here and my second witness will be Ms. Roshni who is the eye witness of the whole
incident.

At the conclusion of the case we would ask you to find that my client is innocent and a verdict
of not guilty.

Thank you.
CROSS EXAMINATION OF MONIKA (PW-1)

(JUDGE: The defence may cross examine the prosecution witness)

(Defence Counsel seeks permission to proceed with the cross examination. Permission is
granted.)

DEFENCE COUNSEL:

 Ms. Monika do you consider yourself to be a law abiding citizen?

 Is it true that you were convicted of shop lifting in 2013,2014 & 2015 and pleaded
not guilty on each occasion only to be found guilty and fined?

 Ms. Monika is it true that in 2014 you reported of domestic violence against the
accused to the police on five separate occasions only to not make any official
statements in each of the instances? What was your reasoning behind not making a
statement?

 Is it true that it was Sub Inspector Satinder who always attended to all your
complaints?
 And there were never any visible injuries on your person as per your statement?

 Ms. Monika I put to you that the accused never assaulted you during your marriage.

 Would you consider yourself to be a person with temper issues?

 Is it true that in 2015 you broke all the windows of Roshni’s health club for which
you were convicted?

 Ms. Monika, in your statement you say that after you were attacked by the accused,
Ms. Roshni proceeded to rough you up? Is this true?

 Ms. Monika I put to you that you lost your composure at the sight of both Sanjay and
Sonia hugging Ms. Roshni & Mr. Mukesh and the expensive gifts they had gotten the
kids which caused you to lash out physically at the accused first and he acted only in
self-defence.
SUMMARY

 The witness has shown to have had a tendency of being dishonest as per her statement.
She pled not guilty to her shop lifting charges despite being found guilty later as
well as never made any statement after making 5 complaints of domestic violence
against the accused despite having no visible injuries.

 The witness also seems to be suffering from temper as well as mental health issues on
account of her being on medication.

 The fact that she vandalised Ms. Roshni’s health club in 2015 after discovering the
accused’s affair with her & on the 1st of January 2017 when Mr. Mukesh and his partner
returned to her residence to drop the kids off, the sight of her kids ‘closeness with both
Mukesh & Roshni and the expensive gifts they had gotten, she lost her composure and
lashed out physically at the accused causing him to defend himself.
CROSS EXAMINATION OF SATINDER (PW-2)

(JUDGE: The defence may cross examine the prosecution witness)

(Defence Counsel seeks permission to proceed with the cross examination. Permission is
granted.)

DEFENCE COUNSEL:

 Mr. Satinder, can you tell us about the prior complaints that Ms. Monika made against
Mr. Mukesh in 2014 alleging domestic violence on 5 separate occasions?

 Were there any injuries visible on Ms. Monika’s person?

 And is it true that no official statement was given by the victim in any of the instances?

 On the day of the incident, i.e. 1st January 2017, what was the allegation/charge the
victim made against Mr. Mukesh?

 In your statement, you mention that after arriving on the scene Ms. Monika told you
that after the accused hit her he had to be restrained by his partner Ms. Roshni. Is this
true?

 Mr. Satinder, I put to you the victim made a false allegation of kidnapping against Mr.
Mukesh and also contradicts in her statement against Ms. Roshni of roughing her up
whereas she told you that in fact it was Ms. Roshni who held Mukesh back. Given the
history of her not giving statements also when she reported domestic violence to you in
2014, don’t you think she once again tried to file a false complaint?
SUMMARY

 As per Mr. Satinder’s statement, the victim immediately called him after the altercation
and made a false allegation of kidnapping against Mr. Mukesh.

 Given the victim’s history of being dishonest in court regarding her shop lifting
allegations to her not following up with any statements to the domestic violence
allegations against Mr. Mukesh in 2014, her statement and testimony hold no water
against the accused.

 Mr. Satinder in his statement mentions that the victim told him that Ms. Roshni was the
one who held back Mr. Mukesh after the altercation occurred. This directly contradicts
her own statement in which she accuses Ms. Roshni of roughing her up.

 Mr. Satinder also mentions that the children were crying and pleading to keep some
presents which were given to them by Mr. Mukesh & Ms. Roshni. This gives credence
to the theory that Ms. Monika was furious at the sight of the closeness of her children
with the accused and his partner which eventually caused her to lash out and attack Mr.
Mukesh first.

 On the basis of these contradictions in the victim’s statement coupled with the fact that
she has a habit of making unsubstantiated allegations against Mr. Mukesh alongside her
history of pleading not guilty in court for charges that turned out to be true causing
convictions, her testimony should be rejected by the court.
EXAMINATION OF MUKESH (DW-1)

DEFENCE COUNSEL: Defence seeks permission to call the defence witness no. 1 Mr
Mukesh.

JUDGE: Permission granted.


(Witness takes the oath)

DEFENCE COUNSEL:

 Witness, could you please identify yourself before the court?

 And do you understand the charges that are being brought against you here today?

 Do you admit to the charge?

 Did you spend Christmas with your children in 2016?

 What about New Year’s Eve? What was the arrangement you had with Ms. Monika?

 Could you tell us what occurred on the 1st of January 2017 when you returned with the
children to Ms. Monika’s residence to drop them off?

 When you struck the victim, what did Ms. Roshni do?

 What was the conversation that Sub Inspector Satinder and you had when he came to
your residence later that day to arrest you?

 Witness, is it true that the victim made reports on 5 occasions of domestic violence to
the police in 2014 against you?

 Is it also true that you went to court to lie for Ms. Monika during her shop lifting trial
according to her statement?
SUMMARY

 It is evident from Mr. Mukesh’s statement and examination that the victim had an
issue with her children being close to him and Ms. Roshni. She didn’t let Mr. Mukesh
have the children for Christmas and despite having agreed upon letting them stay with
Mukesh for New Year’s Eve, she changed the plan on the final moment in a bid to
restrict access.

 Furthermore when Mr. Mukesh came back to her residence to return the children on
1st January 2017, he stated that their daughter Sonia who was in Mukesh’s arms said
to him, “Daddy, Please tell mummy to be nice to us and let us live at your house.”

 This statement coupled with Ms. Monika’s own statement of Mukesh and Roshni
trying to bribe the kids with gifts angered the victim to the point where she attacked
Mr. Mukesh.

 Mr. Mukesh’s statement also proves that the victim cannot be trusted. She failed to
make any follow up statements to domestic violence allegations against him in 2014.
She plead not guilty to shop lifting charges that eventually lead to her getting
convicted and stated that Mr. Mukesh lied on her behalf to the court when in fact all
he did was testify that she was on medication for depression.

 Mr. Mukesh’s statement alongside Mr. Satinder’s statement regarding Ms. Roshni
completely contradict Ms. Monika’s statement that she had been roughed up by
Roshni. Ms. Roshni had only stepped in between the two to try to diffuse the heated
situation.

 Given Ms. Monika’s history of being dishonest before in court and also making false
allegations against the accused, she had every reason to concoct another lie to take
away custody of the children from the accused as she could not stand the closeness
they had with Mukesh and Roshni.
EXAMINATION OF ROSHNI (DW-2)

DEFENCE COUNSEL: Defence seeks permission to call the defence witness no. 2 Ms.
Roshni for examination.

JUDGE: Permission granted.


(Witness takes the oath)

DEFENCE COUNSEL:

 Witness, could you please identify yourself before the court?

 Could you tell us what happened on the 1st of January, 2017 at Ms. Monika’s
residence?

 And once the altercation occurred what did you do?

 When you went to the police station after Mr. Mukesh’s arrest, what conversation did
you have with Mr. Satinder?

 Is it true that the victim vandalised your health club in July 2015?
SUMMARY

 Ms. Roshni’s statement corroborates Mr. Mukesh’s statement in identifying the cause
for the victim’s attack on the accused

 Ms. Monika was infuriated with how close her children were with both Mukesh and
Roshni. Sanjay was hugging Ms. Roshni and looking at all the expensive gifts they
had gotten the children she could not control herself and lashed out.

 The victim calling Ms. Roshni a “man-eater” and in her own statement saying that she
knew that the gifts were to bribe the children demonstrate the hate she had for both
the victim and his partner.

 Ms. Monika had earlier vandalised the witness’ health club upon discovering the
affair in 2015. This attributes not only to her anger issues which were triggered on the
sight of her children being close with Mukesh and Roshni but also show how she
despised the witness after seeing how Sanjay was hugging her.

 In a fit of uncontrollable rage she lashed out and attacked the accused, causing him to
defend himself.

 As the altercation occurred, Ms. Roshni intervened to separate the victim and accused
as Sonia was still in Mukesh’s arms. Whereas Ms. Monika stated that she was
roughed up by the witness, which proven consistently is another lie and is
synonymous with her being dishonest over a number of occasions.

 The witness’ only concern as per her statement was to get her partner released from
jail. She even refrained from blaming Ms. Monika as per her statement as she thought
it was an unfortunate incident. Ms. Monika’s motives however were the complete
opposite of hers. She wanted sole custody of the children in a bid to restrict access
concocted yet another lie to falsely get Mr. Mukesh arrested and prosecuted.
CLOSING STATEMENT OF THE DEFENCE

DEFENCE : My Lord, in the case that the prosecutor has presented to you today there is
insufficient proof to convict. We would ask for a verdict of not guilty. As I earlier said the
victim is a woman with short temper and on the day of incident she tried to attack my client in
anger. My client only acted in self-defense. That was a mere accident. Victim is lying.

Her testimony cannot be relied depending upon her false allegations made earlier in 2014
against my client and in present case also where she tried to implicate my client in the offence
of kidnapping his own children. She has already been convicted in a case for violence. The
defence thereby requests to kindly reject the testimony of the victim. We would ask you to
render the only verdict that is fair, not guilty.
PRAYER

IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS STATED, ISSUES RAISED, AUTHORITIES


CITIED AND ARGUMENTS ADVANCED, IT IS PRAYED THAT THIS HON’BLE
COURT MAY GRACIOUSLY BE PLEASED TO:

a) Acquit the accused of charges under Section 322 read with Section 325 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860

b) Pass any order that this hon’ble court may deem fit and proper in the interest of
justice, equity and good conscience.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE DEFENDANT AS DUTY BOUND AS EVER,
SHALL HUMBLY PRAY.

Sd/-
Counsel for the defendant.

Вам также может понравиться