Table Of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS...........................................................................................................
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS.............................................................................................
INDEX OFAUTHORITIES..................................................................................................
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS...................................................................................................
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES...................................................................................................
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION.......................................................................................
STATEMENT OF FACTS.......................................................................................................
ISSUES RAISED.......................................................................................................................
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS.............................................................................................
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED…………………………………………………………
1. WHETHER THE APPEAL UNDER ARTICLE 134 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
ABIBI IS MAINTAINABLE……………………………………………………….
1.1 THE APPELLANT HAS THE LOCUS STANDI
1.2 THERE HAS BEEN VIOLATION OF ESSENTIAL PRINCIPLE OF JUSTICE
1.3 THAT THE CERTIFICATE SHOULD SHOUD NOT BE REVOKED
2. THAT THE APPELLANTS POSTED BLOG DOES AMOUNTS TO SEDITION
UNDER SECTION 124A? …………………………………………………………..
2.1. APPELLANT HAS THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF FREEDOM OF
EXPRESSION.
2.2. APPELLANT IS NOT LIABLE UNDER SECTION 124A IPC.
2.3 ADIL’S BLOG BRING INTO HATRED TOWARDS THE GOVERNMENT
ESTABLISHED BY LAW.
2.4 APPELLANT’S BLOG HAS NOT CREATED THE PUBLIC DISORDER.
3. THAT THE CONVICTION BY THE SESSIONS COURT AND HIGH COURT IS
NOT VALID……………………………………………………………….
3.1 THERE IS NOT A REQUIRED CHAIN OF CIRCUMSTANCES
3.2 OFFENCES OF ABDUCTION, RAPE HAS NOT BEEN COMMITED BY THE
APPELLANT.
3.2.1 APPELLANT HAS NOT COMMITTED THE OFFENCE OF ABDUCTION
3.2.2 RAPE AND MURDER HAS NOT BEEN COMMITED BY THE
APPELANT
3.3 CHARGES FRAMED AGAINST ACCUSED HAS NOT BEEN PROVED
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT

PRAYER………………………………………………………………….
 LIST OF ABBREVIATION

¶ Paragraph

& And

AIR All India Report

Anr. Another

Art. Article

Consti. Constitution

Crpc. Criminal Procedure Code

Hon’ble Honorable

i.e That is

IPC Indian Penal Code

Ors. Others

SC Supreme Court

SCC Supreme Court Cases

UOI Union of India

Vs/v/V. Verses
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATUTES
 The Constitution of India, 1950.
 Indian Penal Code,1860
 Criminal Procedure Code,1973
CASES

1. Arup Bhuyan v. State of Assam (2011) 3 SCC 377……………………………….

2. Bakhshish Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR1971 SC 2016…………..
3. Balwant Singh and another vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1995 SC 344……………..
4. Bodha and Ors v State of Jammu & Kashmir ,[2002] 8 SCC 45, (SC), [13]………….
5. Brandenburg v. Ohio, (395 US 444, 1969)……………………………………
6. Chairman, Railway Board v. Chandrima Das(AIR 2000 SC 988)
7. Common Cause and anr. V. Union of India W.P(Civil) S.C No. 683 of 2016
8. Dhananjoy Chatterjee v. State of . B., ( 1994) 2 SCC 22
9. Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi, (AIR 1981 SC
746)…………………………………………………………………………….
10. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab, (AIR 1967 SC 1643)………………………….
11. Hanumanthaiya v. Govt of Mysore, (1948) 52 Mys HCR 265………………
12. Harendra Narayan Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1991 SC 1842………………
13. Htin Gyaw v. King – Emperor, (1972) 6 Ran 6, 14
14. Jonar Lal Das v. State of Orissa, 1991 (3) SCC 27
15. Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, 1962 Supp. (2) S.C.R. 769
16. Khaver Sultan v. Rukha Sultan, ( 1904) 6 Bom LR 983
17. Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Manubhai D. Shah, (AIR 1993 SC 171)
18. Maneka Gandhi V. Union of India, 1978 AIR 597
19. Mohan Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1947 SC 114
20. Musheer Khan v. Sate of MP, AIR 2010 SC 762
21. Padam Pradhan v. State,1982 Cri.L.J.534
22. Rajendra Singh Yadav vs Chandra Sen And Ors., AIR 1979 SC 882
23. Ramji Lal Modi v. State of U. P., [1957] 1 SCR 860
24. S.Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram, (1989) 2 SCC 574
25. SharadViridhi Chandra ShardaVs. State of Maharashtra 1984 (4) SCC 116.
26. ShreyaSinghal v. Union of India (2015) 5 SCC 1
27. Speiser v. Randall, 357 US 513
28. State Bank of India v. S.B.I. Employees' Union, (1987) 4 SCC 370
29. Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra (2006) 10 SCC 68
30. Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra (2006) 10 SCC 681
1. THAT THE APPEAL UNDER ARTICLE 134 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF ABIBI
IS MAINTAINABLE.
It is submitted that the appeal under Art. 134 (1) ( c) of the Constitution of Abibi is
maintainable. In the present case there has been violation of the essential principle of justice
by the Trial Court and the High Court of Moba.
If the certificate does not mention the particular article to appeal, the certificate contemplated
under Article 134-A of the Constitution can only be a certificate which is referred to in clause
(1) of Article 132 or in clause (1) of Article 133 or in sub-clause (c) of clause (1) of Article
134 of the Constitution. This is quite obvious from the language of Article 134-A of the
Constitution. This case falls under sub-clause (c) of Article 134(1) as it is a criminal
proceeding1.
While Sub-clauses (a) and (b) of Article 134(1) of the Constitution confer upon the accused
an absolute right of appeal, Clause (c) confers upon the High Court a discretion to grant a
certificate to the accused to appeal in cases not falling under Sub-clauses (a) and (b). The
grant of certificate under Article 134(1)(c) is not a matter of course. The certificate is granted
only where there has been an infringement of the essential principles of justice or there is
substantial question of law or principle involved; in short the certificate would not be granted
unless there are exceptional and-special circumstances. The Supreme Court has also held that
the conditions pre-requisite for the exercise of the discretionary power to grant a certificate
under Article 134(1)(c) cannot be precisely formulated but it should be exercised sparingly
and not to convert the Supreme Court into an ordinary court of criminal appeal2.
1.1 THE APPELLANT HAS THE LOCUS STANDI
The appellant is having locus standi to appeal in this Hon’ble Court under Art. 134 (1) (c) of
the Constitution of Abibi. It is a criminal case and the certificate has been granted to appeal
under section 134 A of the Constitution of Abibi. If the certificate does not mention the
particular article to appeal, the certificate contemplated under Article 134-A of the
Constitution can only be a certificate which is referred to in clause (1) of Article 132 or in
clause (1) of Article 133 or in sub-clause (c) of clause (1) of Article 134 of the Constitution 3.
In this case there has been violation of the essential principle of law and hence it is a
maintainable under the Art. 134 (1) (c) of the Constitution of Abibi.
1.2 THERE HAS BEEN VIOLATION OF ESSENTIAL PRINCIPLE OF JUSTICE
The Appellant was merely exercising his fundamental rights provided by the Constitution of
Abibi, 1950. Furthermore, the accusations of rape, murder & abduction are frivolous and it is
merely an attempt to frame the for the offences, which a man with such a character and
integrity could not have committed, to gain undue socio-political advantage of the
situation….”
It is contended that there has been violation essential principle of justice and the natural
justice.
1
State Bank of India v. S.B.I. Employees' Union, (1987) 4 SCC 370
2
Rajendra Singh Yadav vs Chandra Sen And Ors., AIR 1979 SC 882
3
State Bank of India v. S.B.I. Employees' Union, (1987) 4 SCC 370
Natural justice cannot be fixed on a rigid frame and fundamental fairness is not unresponsive
to circumstances. The very fact that the subject matter is not fraught with loss of life or long
incarceration and that the appellate or revisionary authority is a high tribunal which has
examined the materials are an assurance of competent and conscientious consideration of the
facts and the law4.

1.3. THAT THE CERTIFICATE SHOULD SHOUD NOT BE REVOKED

Before the introduction of Article 134-A of the Constitution by the Forty-fourth Amendment
of the Constitution there was no express provision in Articles 132, 133 and 134 of the
Constitution regarding the time and manner in which an application for a certificate under
any of those articles could be made before the High Court. There was also a doubt as to the
power of the High Court to issue a certificate suo motu under any of those articles5.
Article 134-A was enacted to make good the said deficiencies. Article 134-A does not
constitute an independent provision under which a certificate can be issued. It is ancillary to
Article 132(1), Article 133(1) and Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution. That is the reason for
the use of words “if the High Court certifies under Article 134-A” in Article 132(1) and
Article 133(1) and for the use of the words certifies under Article 134-A in Article 134(1)(c).
The High Court can issue a certificate only when it is satisfied that the conditions in Article
132 or Article 133 or Article 134 of the Constitution as the case may be are satisfied6.
Thus, the Appellants have approached this Hon’ble Court for adjudicating the matter brought
forth in the court of law.

Kindly maintain space for two paragraph.

4
Rajendra Singh Yadav vs Chandra Sen And Ors., AIR 1979 SC 882
5
State Bank of India v. S.B.I. Employees' Union, (1987) 4 SCC 370
6
Id.
2. That the appellant’s posted blog does amounts to sedition under section 124A IPC.
It is contended that the blog posted by the appellant does not amounts to sedition under article
134A IPC. He is merely exercising fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution of
Abibi.
Free speech is one of the most significant principles of democracy. The purpose of this
freedom is to allow an individual to attain self-fulfilment, assist in discovery of truth,
strengthen the capacity of a person to take decisions and facilitate a balance between stability
and social change. The freedom of speech and expression is the first and foremost human
right, the first condition of liberty, mother of all liberties, as it makes the life meaningful.
This freedom is termed as an essence of free society 7. In Maneka Gandhi V. Union of
India8 ,Bhagwati J., “Democracy is based essentially on free debate and open discussion and
enable everyone to intelligently exercise rights of making choice, free and general discussion
of public matters is absolutely essential.” The right of free speech is absolutely indispensable
for the preservation of a free society in which Government is responsible to everyone
including the minorities.9
2.1 Appellant has the fundamental rights of freedom of expression
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, in its Preamble and Art. 19 declared
freedom of speech as a basic fundamental right, and under Art. 19 of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1976. Which states as follow-
1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.10
2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to
seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either
orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.11
These international instrument of basic human rights provides the appellant to hold the
appellant to hold, receive impart information of all kinds regardless of frontier. The landmark
case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala 12, with the text of the judgement running in
hundreds, an important aspect of human rights was involved. The Court took into
7
Consultation Paper on “SEDITION”, Law Commission of India, 30 August 2018
8
Maneka Gandhi V. Union of India, 1978 AIR 597
9
Speiser v. Randall, 357 US 513
10
ICCPR, 1976, Art. 19 § 1
11
UDHR, 1948, Art. 19, ICCPR, 1976, Art. 19 § 2
12
(AIR 1973 SC 1461)
consideration, that while our fundamental rights and directive principles were being
fashioned and approved of by the Constituent Assembly, on December 10, 1948, the General
Assembly of the United Nations adopted a Universal Declaration of Human Rights and
though the Declaration was not be a legally binding instrument but it an authority to showed
how India understood the nature of Human Rights.
The Constitution of Abibi guarantees protection of life and personal liberty to one and all. It
provides adequate safeguards to fundamental rights against arbitrary decisions. 13 In Maneka
Gandhi v. Union of India14 this court has held that “Universal Declaration of Human Rights
was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 10, 1948 while debates
in the Indian Constitution were going on. Hence, it must be assumed that the makers of the
Indian Constitution, in framing Part III of the Constitution on the Fundamental Rights were
influenced by the provisions of the Universal Declaration. It is therefore legitimate for the
Court to refer to eth comparable provisions of the Universal Declaration in construing the
intent and scope of the relevant text of Part III of the Constitution.” That the Constitution
itself recognising the human rights, the Universal Declaration plays the role of the lighthouse,
in whose light the concept of human rights need to be understood.15 The Declaration
represented the civil, political and religious liberties for which men have struggled through
the centuries and those new social and economic rights of the Individual which the Nations
were increasingly recognising in their Constitutions16. "Speech is God's gift to mankind
through which a human being conveys his thoughts, sentiments and feelings to others."
"Freedom of speech and expression is thus a natural right which a human being acquires on
birth" and is, "therefore, a basic human right." 17 In Chairman, Railway Board v. Chandrima
Das18, this Court observed that Human Rights Jurisprudence based on Universal Declaration
of Human Rights, 1948, which has the international recognition as the ‘Moral Code of
Conduct’, having been adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations. The Court
specifically laid that the applicability of Universal Declaration of Human Rights and
principles thereof may have to be read, if need be, into the domestic jurisprudence. Further
this Court went on to say that “our Constitution guarantees all the basic and fundamental
Human Rights set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, to its citizens and
other persons.”19
Therefore appellant has the fundamental right under the Constitutuon of Abibi and the
international instruments.

2.2. Appellant is not liable under section 124A IPC.

Section 124 A of the IPC defines the sedition as follow -
124A. Sedition.—Whoever, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible
representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or
13
¶ 2, Moot Proposition
14
1978 AIR 597
15
Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi, (AIR 1981 SC 746)
16
I.C. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab, (AIR 1967 SC 1643)
17
Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Manubhai D. Shah, (AIR 1993 SC 171)
18
Chairman, Railway Board v. Chandrima Das(AIR 2000 SC 988)
19
Chairman, Railway Board v. Chandrima Das, (AIR 2000 SC 988)
attempts to excite disaffection towards, 102 [***] the Government established by law
in 103 [India], [***] shall be punished with 104 [imprisonment for life], to which fine may be
added, or with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added,
or with fine.
Explanation 1.—The expression “disaffection” includes disloyalty and all feelings of enmity.
Explanation 2.—Comments expressing disapprobation of the measures of the Government
with a view to obtain their alteration by lawful means, without exciting or attempting to
excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an offence under this section.
Explanation 3.—Comments expressing disapprobation of the administrative or other action of
the Government without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do
not constitute an offence under this section.
The essentials of the offence under S. 124A are:
1. Bringing or attempting to bring into hatred or contempt or exciting or attempting to excite
disaffection towards, the Government of India.
2. Such act or attempt may be done (i) by words, either spoken or written, or (ii) by signs, or
(iii) by visible representation.20
Adil Khan, a young boy, aged 21 years old from the State of Mohenjo, got an opportunity
through a student exchange programme to study Law at National University of Abibi situated
in Moba, Abibi.21 Being a brilliant student and an aware social individual, he has opinions
regarding the socio-legal problems of the world and so, he created an online blog on
www.thebridge.com titled “MY RIGHTS MY VOICE” on 20 May 2019. He wrote several
articles on Gender Discrimination, Child Labour, Child Marriage, Women and Child
Trafficking etc. On 15 August 2019, he posted a very contentious, situational and reality-
based blog in relation to exploitation, harassment and discrimination of Muslims because
they are treated as minorities in the Republic of Abibi. The title of the article was “HERE
DIED THE SOUL OF THE CONSTITUTION” 22. The blog commented about several news
& real time stories about the exploitation of the minority people on the name of religion23.
The essence of the offence of sedition under S. 124A, is the intention with which the
language of a speech is used and that intention has to be judged primarily from the language
itself. In forming an opinion as to the character of speech charged as sedition, the speech
must be looked at and taken as a whole, freely and fairly, without giving undue weight to
isolated passages and without pausing upon an objectionable sentence here or a strong word
there, and, in judging of the intention of the speaker, each passage, should be considered in
connection with the others and with the general drift of the whole. 24 After examining the
content as whole it is undoubtedly clear that the appellant has no as such intention to the
excite disaffection towards the government establish by law.
2.3. Adil’s blog bring into hatred towards the government establish by law
20
Pillai, Criminal Law 1131( K.I.Vibhute Edn. 2009)
21
¶ 3, Moot Proposition
22
¶ 7, Moot Proposition
23
¶ 7, Moot Proposition
24
Hanumanthaiya v. Govt of Mysore, (1948) 52 Mys HCR 265.
He contends that no substantial actions are being taken by the police department and the
government in relation to exploitation of the minorities. 25 The main reason for writing the
article was, firstly, to draw the attention of the government towards this issue and, secondly,
to encourage my own community to raise their voices to protect and recognise their
fundamental rights which were directly or indirectly infringed by those who believe that
being a Muslim is a sin26. He has written several articles against such terrorists Gender
Discrimination, Child Labour, Child Marriage, Women and Child Trafficking and their
activities in the same blog27. As already pointed out, the explanations appended to the main
body of the section make it clear that criticism of public measures or comment on
Government action, however strongly worded, would be within reasonable limits and would
be consistent with the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression 28 The court has
been categorical in expressing that every criticism does not amount to sedition and the real
intent of the speech must be considered before imputing seditious intent to an act.29
The descriptions which the Indian Penal Code30 gives are that the term ―disaffection
includes disloyalty and all feelings of hate. It also reads as, that the comments that expresses
firm disapproval of the measures of the Government, with an opinion to obtain their desired
modifications by legal means, without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or
disaffection, do not constitute an offense as per this section. 31 Or, comments expressing
strong disapproval of the administrative or other action of the Government without exciting
or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, does not constitute as an offense as
per this section.32
In Brandenburg v. Ohio33, US Supreme Court held “the constitutional guarantee of free
speech does not permit a state to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law
violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless
action and is likely to incite or produce such action. The decision has stood the test of time,
and is the law of the land in America ever since. It was followed by two decisions of the
Indian Supreme Court in Arup Bhuyan v. State of Assam 34.The word ‘imminent’ in
Brandenburg test is extremely important. It stresses on the time element, and makes more
defined and more rigorous.35
Recently the Apex Court in the case Common Cause and anr. V. Union of India 36 filed by
NGO ‘Common Cause’ and Dr.S.P. Udayakumar as PIL seeking urgent intervention of the
Supreme Court to address the misuse and misapplication of Sec.124A APC by successive
government leading to routine persecution of students, journalist and intellectuals involved in
social activism held “authorities must be strictly guided by the principles laid down by the

25
¶ 8, Moot Proposition
26
EXHIBIT – III, TESTIMONIAL OF ADIL KHAN (ACCUSED)
27
¶ 7, Moot Proposition
28
Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, 1962 Supp. (2) S.C.R. 769
29
Balwant Singh and another vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1995 SC 344
30
IPC, 1860, § 124A
31
IPC, 1860, Explanation – 2 § 124A
32
IPC, 1860,Explanation 3 § 124A
33
(395 US 444, 1969)
34
(2011) 3 SCC 377
35
Id.
36
W.P(Civil) S.C No. 683 of 2016
Constitution Bench in Kedar Nath V. State of Bihar 37”. It is the fundamental right of the
citizens to have thier own political ideas and theories and propagate them in peaceful manner.
This Court in the case of KedarNath Singh v. State of Bihar38 understood the term
‘Government establish by law’ in the following way:-
….the expression ‘government established by law’ has to be distinguished from the persons
for the time being engaged in carrying the administration. ‘Government established by law’ is
the visible symbol of the state. The very existence of the state will be in jeopardy if the
government established by law is subverted.
Consequently the ‘government established by law’ referring to party in power, and referring
to the symbol of the state, must be distinguished. The target must now be the institution of
governance, that is, republican democracy, embodied by various elements of the
Constitution’s basic structure39.
2.4. Appllant’s blog has not created the public disorder
As already pointed out, the explanations appended to the main body of the section make it
clear that criticism of public measures or comment on Government action, however strongly
worded, would be within reasonable limits and would be consistent with the fundamental
right of freedom of speech and expression40. It is only when the words, written or spoken, etc.
which have the pernicious tendency or intention of creating public disorder or disturbance of
law and order that the law steps in to prevent such activities in the interest of public order.
The court has been categorical in expressing that every criticism does not amount to sedition
and the real intent of the speech must be considered before imputing seditious intent to an
act.41
It is crucial in determining the threshold of incitement required to justify a restriction on
speech. In S.Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram42, the court held that “the effect of the words
must be judged from the standards of reasonable, strong minded, firm and courageous men,
and not those of weak and vacillating minds, nor of those who scent danger in every hostile
point of view. The content of the offence of sedition must be determined with reference to the
letter and spirit of the constitution and not to the standards applied during the colonial rule.
The act in question must have tendency to cause public disorder. 43 The Court formulated
those acts which take an ‘aggravated form of insult to religion when they are perpetrated with
the deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of that class. The
calculated tendency of this aggravated form of insult is clearly to disturb the public order.’
Mere presence of violent words does not make a speech or publication seditious provided it
must be accompanied by violent acts prejudicial to Security of the State.44

37
1962 Supp. (2) S.C.R. 769
38
Id.
39
Gautam Bhatia, Offend, Shock, or Disturb: Free Spech under the Indian Constitution, 99, (Oxford University
Press, New Delhi, 2016 )
40
Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, 1962 Supp. (2) S.C.R. 769
41
Balwant Singh and another vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1995 SC 344
42
S.Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram, (1989) 2 SCC 574
43
Ramji Lal Modi v. State of U. P., [1957] 1 SCR 860
44
Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, 1962 Supp. (2) S.C.R. 769
In ShreyaSinghal v. Union of India 45, Justice RohintonNariman, puts out the red flag to the
dangers of over expansive terms curbing free speech and thought. Information that may be
grossly offensive or which causes annoyance or inconvenience, are undefined terms which
take into the net a very large amount of protected and innocent speech. An individual may
discuss or even advocate by mode of writing, disseminate information that may be a view or
point of view pertaining to governmental, literary, scientific or other matters which may be
unpalatable to certain sections of society, any serious opinion dissenting with the mores of
the day would be caught within its net. Such is the reach of the section and if it is to
withstand the test of constitutionality, the chilling effect on free speech would be complete.
The main reason for writing the article was, firstly, to draw the attention of the government
towards this issue and, secondly, to encourage my own community to raise their voices to
protect and recognise their fundamental rights which were directly or indirectly infringed by
those who believe that being a Muslim is a sin46. He has written several articles against such
terrorists Gender Discrimination, Child Labour, Child Marriage, Women and Child
Trafficking and their activities in the same blog.47

45
(2015) 5 SCC 1
46
EXHIBIT – III, TESTIMONIAL OF ADIL KHAN (ACCUSED)
47
¶ 7, Moot Proposition
3. THAT THE CONVICTION BY THE SESSIONS COURT AND HIGH COURT IS
NOT VALID
It is contended that the conviction by the Sessions Court and the High Court is not valid.
There has been infringement of the essential principles of justice, ‘Circumstantial evidences
and the testimonial presented herein with’ does not form the required chain of circumstances
to establish the said offence against the appellant. The appellant put forth that due to the
discrepancy there is a possibility of a third person committing the said murder as there was no
restrictions were placed on boys entering the girl’s hostel and vice versa48
3.1 THERE IS NOT A REQUIRED CHAIN OF CIRCUMSTANCES
In Bodha and Ors v State of Jammu & Kashmir 49 , Court held that circumstantial evidence
can be a sole basis for conviction provided the conditions as stated below is fully satisfied.
These conditions are:
1) The circumstances from which guilt is established must be fully proved;
2) That all the facts must be consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused;
3) That the circumstances must be of a conclusive nature and tendency;
4) That the circumstances should, to a moral certainty, actually exclude every hypothesis
except the one proposed to be proved.
Taking note of the abovementioned case in light of the facts of the present case, we put forth
that due to the discrepancy there is a possibility of a third person committing the said murder
as there was no restrictions were placed on boys entering the girl’s hostel and vice versa50.

The circumstances from which guilt is established is not fully proved

In a case, based on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be drawn only when all
the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of
the accused.51

48
¶ 12, Moot Proposition
49
2002] 8 SCC 45, (SC), [13]
50
¶ 12, Moot Proposition
51
Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra (2006) 10 SCC 681
On 26th August 201952 police received information while search for considerable evidence
that due to criticism and such unrest against him, he has shifted to his uncle’s house two days
ago in the village Kurchipuram of a nearby city Beht 53. Looking at the university attendance
registers, the Police found that he has not attended any of his classes since 23th August 2019.
When police entered the room by breaking the lock and it smelt like a butcher-house however
it was completely clean54

The circumstances arising out of these facts clearly establish beyond reasonable doubt that
the appellant was absent when the alleged crime was committed and in such a situation it is
natural that the appellant does not have a reasonable clarification. When a case is to be
proved solely based on the circumstantial evidence, the court said that the presumption of
innocence of the accused must have a dominant role. The fact evolving out of the proven
circumstances must not admit any inference except that of the guilt of the accused. 55 There is
this basic rule of criminal jurisprudence that if two views are possible on the evidence
adduced in the case of circumstantial evidence.56
The crime scene has to be scientifically dealt with, without any error. In criminal cases,
especially based on circumstantial evidence, forensic science plays a pivotal role, which may
assist in establishing the element of crime, identifying the suspect, ascertaining the guilt or
innocence of the accused57.
All the facts must be consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused
Due to criticism and such unrest against him, he has shifted to his uncle’s house in the village
Kurchipuram of a nearby city Beht58, was not in the hostel for a week and he has not attended
any of his classes since 23th August 2019 59. According to the post-mortem report the death of
the deceased has been caused 1-2 (24th or 25th) days prior to the date of admission of the dead
body for post-mortem i.e. 26th Aug 2019.60
Therefore, there is highly improbable, possible that appellant might have committed the
alleged offences and further it is relevant under sec 11 of the Evidence Act Further criminal
jurisprudence also states that benefit of the doubt must be given to the accused. There is this
basic rule of criminal jurisprudence that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in
the case of circumstantial evidence.61
That the circumstances are of conclusive nature and circumstances only proposed to
prove the guilt of appellant
It is well settled that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances from
which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established and
52
¶ 12, Moot Proposition
53
¶ 12, Moot Proposition
54
¶ 12, Moot Proposition
55
Musheer Khan v. Sate of MP, AIR 2010 SC 762
56
Harendra Narayan Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1991 SC 1842
57
Shakil Ahmed Khan, Ratanlal&Dhirajlal : The Law of Evidence, 562, ( 26th edition, Lexis Nexis, 2017)
58
¶ 12, Moot Proposition
59
Id.
60
Exhibit II
61
Harendra Narayan Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1991 SC 1842
that those circumstances must be conclusive in nature unerringly pointing towards the guilt of
the accused. Moreover all the circumstances taken cumulatively should form a complete
chain and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. Further the proved
circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and
totally inconsistent with his innocence62.
In a case, based on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be drawn only when all
the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of
the accused63.
3.2 OFFENCES OF ABDUCTION, RAPE HAS NOT BEEN COMMITED BY THE
APPELLANT
It is contended that the alleged offences have not been committed by the appellant. It is
proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was not present at the place of occurrence
at the time when crime was committed. After efficiently analysis that whether the girl was
raped by Adil or not, it was unable to find any link between Adil & the Girl to prove that the
girl was raped by Adil.64
3.2.1 APPELLANT HAS NOT COMMITTED THE OFFENCE OF ABDUCTION
Abduction is defined under section 362 of the IPC, 1860, that whoever by the force compels,
or by any deceitful means induces, any person to go from any place, is said to abduct that
person. Abduction pure and simple is not an offence. It is an auxiliary act not punishable in
itself, but when it is accompanied by a certain intention to commit another offence, it per se
becomes punishable as offence65.
It is contended that the girl was not forcibly compel by the appellant or has not used any
deceitful means to go from any place with intend to commit any offence. Police failed to
establish any relationship of the girl with Adil Khan except that of the body was found in
Adil’s room66, which is totally consistent with the testimony of Adil Khan i. e appellant,
where he has stated that, ‘I am nowhere connected to the girl; I've never seen her and I do not
know who she is.’67
Due to criticism and such unrest against him, he has shifted to his uncle’s house in the village
Kurchipuram of a nearby city Beht68, was not in the hostel for a week and he has not attended
any of his classes since 23th August 2019 69. According to the post-mortem report the death of
the deceased has been caused 1-2 (24th or 25th) days prior to the date of admission of the
dead body for post-mortem i.e. 26th Aug 201970.
Therefore, there is highly improbable, possible that appellant might have committed the
alleged offences and further it is relevant under sec 11 of the Evidence Act Further criminal

62
SharadViridhi Chandra ShardaVs. State of Maharashtra 1984 (4) SCC 116.
63
Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra (2006) 10 SCC 681
64
Exhibit II
65
K D Gaur, Textbook on Indian Penal Code, 856 (6th edition Lexis Nexis, 2018)
66
¶ 12, Moot Proposition
67
Exibit II
68
¶ 12, Moot Proposition
69
Id.
70
Exhibit II
jurisprudence also states that benefit of the doubt must be given to the accused. There is this
basic rule of criminal jurisprudence that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in
the case of circumstantial evidence.71
Section 11 of the Evidence Act, states that, facts not otherwise relevant are relevant72—
(1) if they are inconsistent with any fact in issue or relevant fact;
(2) if by themselves or in connection with other facts they make the existence or non-
existence of any fact in issue or relevant fact highly probable or improbable.
The question is, whether A committed a crime at Calcutta on a certain day. The fact that, on
that day, A was at Lahore is relevant. The fact that, near the time when the crime was
committed, A was at a distance from the place where it was committed, which would render
it highly improbable, though not impossible, that he committed it, is relevant.73
The admissibility under this section in each case must depend on how near is the connection
of the facts sought to be proved with facts in issue, to what degree they render facts in issue
probable or improbable when taken with other facts in the case and to what extend would the
admission of evidence be inconstant with principles enunciated elsewhere in the Act.74
These collateral facts may be admissible as relevant under this section as fulfilling the two
requirements75:
(1) That the collateral fact must itself be established by the reasonably conclusive evidence,
and,
(2) that it must, when establioshed, afford a reasonable presumption or inference as to the
matter in dispute76.
Thus the fact of presence elsewhere is essentially inconsistent with the presence at the place
and time alleged, and therefore with personal participation in the act ( theory of alibi)77.
3.2.2 RAPE AND MURDER HAS NOT BEEN COMMITED BY THE APPELANT
It is humbly submitted that the alleged offences has not been committed in the present case
by the appellant. Appellant was absent since 23th August 201978 and there was no
relationship b/w girl and accused79.It is well settled principle that where the case is mainly
based on circumstantial evidence, the court must satisfy that various circumstances in the
chain of evidence should be established clearly and that the completed chain must be such as
to rule out a reasonable likelihood of the innocence of the accused80.

71
Harendra Narayan Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1991 SC 1842
72
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 § 11
73
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 § 11, Illustration ( a)
74
Htin Gyaw v. King – Emperor, (1972) 6 Ran 6, 14
75
Khaver Sultan v. Rukha Sultan, ( 1904) 6 Bom LR 983
76
Id.
77
Dhananjoy Chatterjee v. State of . B., ( 1994) 2 SCC 220
78
¶ 12, Moot Proposition
79
Id.
80
Mohan Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1947 SC 1144
When even a link breaks away, the chain of circumstances gets snapped and other
circumstances cannot in any manner establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable
doubt81. In the absence of clear and cogent evidence pointing to the guilt of the accused, the
proof of motive however adequate cannot by itself sustain a criminal charge82.
Due to criticism and such unrest against him, he has shifted to his uncle’s house in the village
Kurchipuram of a nearby city Beht83, was not in the hostel for a week and he has not attended
any of his classes since 23th August 2019 84. According to the post-mortem report the death of
the deceased has been caused 1-2 (24th or 25th) days prior to the date of admission of the
dead body for post-mortem i.e. 26th Aug 201985.
Therefore, there is highly improbable, possible that appellant might have committed the
alleged offences and further it is relevant under sec 11 of the Evidence Act Further criminal
jurisprudence also states that benefit of the doubt must be given to the accused. There is this
basic rule of criminal jurisprudence that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in
the case of circumstantial evidence.86
As it is undoubtedly proved that the appellant was not present at the place of occurrence and
at the time of occurrence beyond the reasonable doubt prove that the chain of the
circumstances stood braked and hypothesis of the prosecution now established to be a mere
allegation.
The counsel humbly submits that the post mortem report of the girl’s dead body found in the
appellant room does not establish any link between appellant and the girl in order to prove the
commission of rape by the appellant. Dr .Sanjay Kumar, who has done the autopsy of the
dead body, after testing appellant in order to establish whether the girl was raped by the
appellant or not. After the analysis he stated in one of his reports that he was unable to find
any link between appellant & the girl to prove that the girl was raped by appellant. 87
Moreover, The girl’s body could not be identified throughout the investigation and the Police
failed to establish any relationship of the girl with appellant except that of the body was
found in Adil’s room.88
The evidentiary burden in the matter lies with the respondent. A guilty state of mind of the
Appellant has to be established. The appellant, in the instant matter, had no intention to
commit the offences. As Glanville Williams observed that “the proof of a man’s intention can
be probed by determining, whether there is any reasonable interpretation of his actions other
than the hypothesis that he intended the consequence”89.
Since the appellant was not present at the place of occurrence and it was unable to find any
link between appellant & the Girl to prove that the girl was raped by Appellant 90, the
provisions of section(s) 300 and 375 of IPC cannot be attracted towards the accused. Taking
81
Jonar Lal Das v. State of Orissa, 1991 (3) SCC 27
82
Padam Pradhan v. State,1982 Cri.L.J.534
83
¶ 12, Moot Proposition
84
Id.
85
Exhibit II
86
Exhibit II
87
Exhibit II
88
¶ 12, Moot Proposition
89
Glanville Williams, Text Book of Criminal Law, (2nd edn, Universal Law Publishing, 1999).
90
Exibit II
note of the abovementioned case in light of the facts of the present case, it is put forth that
due to the discrepancy there is a possibility of a third person committing the said murder as
there was no restrictions were placed on boys entering the girl’s hostel and vice versa 91.
The evidentiary burden in the matter lies with the respondent. A guilty state of mind of the
Appellant has to be established. The appellant, in the instant matter, had no intention to
commit the offences. As Glanville Williams observed that “the proof of a man’s intention
can be probed by determining, whether there is any reasonable interpretation of his actions
other than the hypothesis that he intended the consequence”.92

[3.3] Charges framed against Accused has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
The criminal jurisprudence as has developed in the basis of the British model is that the
offence alleged is required to be proved „beyond all reasonable doubt”. What is to be noted is
that the doubt, which is required to be removed, is of a reasonable man and not every kind of
doubt based on surmise or guess. “Reasonable doubt”, therefore, does not mean a vague,
speculative or whimsical doubt or uncertainty, nor a mere „possible doubt of the truth of the
fact to be proved. It also does not mean proof of a mathematical certainty nor proof beyond
the possibility of a mistake. The requirement in criminal cases, of proof “beyond reasonable
doubt” to support conviction, therefore does not mean proof beyond all possible doubts .
Doubts would be called reasonable if they are free from a zest fro abstract speculation. Law
cannot afford any favorite other than the truth. To constitute reasonable doubt, it must be free
from an over emotional response. Doubts must be actual and substantial doubts as to the guilt
of the accused person arising from the evidence or from the lack of it, as opposed to mere
vague apprehension. A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely possible
doubt, but a fair doubt based upon reason and common sense .
Exaggerated devotion to the rule of benefit of doubt must not nurture fanciful doubts or
lingering suspicious and thereby destroy social defense. Justice cannot be made sterile on the
plea that it is better to let hundred guilty escape than punish an innocent. Letting the guilty
escape is not justice , according to law.
Supreme Court of India in Bakhshish Singh v. State of Punjab93, “in a case resting on
circumstantial evidence, the circumstances put forward must be satisfactorily proved and
those circumstances should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused.
Again those circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be
such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved.”

91
¶ 12, Moot Proposition
92
Glanville Williams, Text Book of Criminal Law, (2nd edn, Universal Law Publishing, 1999).
93
AIR1971 SC 2016: