6TH FYLC RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT

COMPETITION, 2016

BEFORE,
THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
[UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA]
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. ______ / 2016

(AGAINST THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND FINAL ORDER DATED PASSED BY

THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN IN CRIMINAL APPEAL _/2016)

IN THE MATTER OF

STATE OF RAJASTHAN & OTHERS

v.
DINESH GOYAL & OTHERS

IN THE MATTER UNDER 302, 304B & 498A OF THE INDIAN PENAL
CODE, 1860.

ON THE SUBMISSION BEFORE THE REGISTRY OF THE COURT ON

03.09.2016.

~SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT~

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVIATIONS

EXPANSIONS

&

And

Section

Sections

Paragraph

Paragraphs

A.P.

Andhra Pradesh

AC

Appeal Cases

AIR

All India Reporter

ART.

Article

BOM.

Bombay

CAL.

Calcutta

CRI LJ/ CR LJ

Criminal Law Journal

DPP

Director of Public Prosecutor

DW

Defence Witness

GOVT.

Government

HC

High Court

HONBLE

Honourable

IEA

Indian Evidence Act

ILR

Indian Law Reporter

IPC

Indian Penal Code

KANT.

Karnataka

KER.

Kerala

LD.

Learned

M.P.

Madhya Pradesh
1 | Page

6TH UFYLC RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

NAG.

Nagaland

NCT

National Capital Territory

ORI.

Orissa

ORS.

Others

P&H

Punajb and Haryana

PUNJ.

Punjab

PW

Prosecution Witness

R.

Reg

RAJ.

Rajasthan

SC

Supreme Court

SCC

Supreme Court Cases

SLP

Special Leave Petition

SUPP.

Supplementary

U.P.

Uttar Pradesh

US

United States

V.

VERSUS

W.B.

West Bengal

WLR

Weekly Law Report

2 | Page
6TH UFYLC RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ........................................................................................................ 5
INDIAN SUPREME COURT CASES .................................................................................................. 5
INDIAN HIGH COURT CASES......................................................................................................... 8
COURT DECISIONS AROUND THE WORLD .................................................................................... 8
BOOKS.......................................................................................................................................... 9
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

.................................................................................................. 9

WEB RESOURCES ....................................................................................................................... 10

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ......................................................................................... 11

SYNOPSIS OF FACTS ............................................................................................................... 12
STATEMENT OF ISSUES ........................................................................................................ 13
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ................................................................................................ 14
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ..................................................................................................... 15
[1] THE SLP FILED IS NOT MAINTAINABLE UNDER ART. 136 ........................................................ 15
[1.1] SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE HAS BEEN DONE IN THE PRESENT CASE ............................................... 15
[1.2] THERE HAS BEEN NO IRREGULARITY OF PROCEDURE OR VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF
NATURAL JUSTICE .......................................................................................................................... 15
[1.3] THE INFERENCE FROM A PURE QUESTION OF FACT IS IN ITSELF A FACT AND HENCE NOT OPEN
TO REVIEW ..................................................................................................................................... 16
[1.3.1] THE PURPOSE OF ART. 134(1) WOULD BECOME SUPERFLUOUS IF LEAVE BE GRANTED ............ 16
[2] THE ACCUSED ARE NOT GUILTY OF COMMITTING DOWRY DEATH OF THE DECEASED .......... 17
[2.1] THE APPELLANTS HAVE FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE INGREDIENTS OF 304-B, IPC ................ 17
[2.1.1] THE DECEASED WAS NOT SUBJECTED TO CRUELTY SOON BEFORE HER DEATH ......................... 18
[2.1.2] THE APPELLANTS HAVE FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE PROXIMITY TEST ....................................... 19
[2.2] THERE EXISTS A REASONABLE APPREHENSION OF THE DECEASED HAVING COMMITTED SUICIDE
....................................................................................................................................................... 19
[2.2.1] THE INGREDIENTS OF DEATH CAUSED THROUGH POISON HAVE NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED.......... 20
[2.2.2] PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT OF SUICIDE SUPPORTS MODICUS PLAUSIBILITY OF COMMISSION OF
SUICIDE. ......................................................................................................................................... 20
[2.2.3] PROSECUTION'S HYPOTHESIS IN REGARDS TO FORCIBLE ADMINISTRATION OF POISON IS
UNTENABLE ..................................................................................................................................... 21
3 | Page
6TH UFYLC RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

[2.3] THE CONDUCT OF THE ACCUSED PERSONS DOES NOT BRING HOME THEIR GUILT .................... 21
[2.4] THE MOTIVE OF CAUSING DOWRY DEATH HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN ........................................... 22
[3.] THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD IS INSUFFICIENT TO PROVE THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED
BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBTS ............................................................................................. 22
[3.1] TESTIMONY OF THE THREE DEFENCE WITNESS CAN BE RELIED UPON ..................................... 23
[3.1.1] DEFENCE WITNESSES ARE INDEPENDENT WITNESSES ............................................................. 23
[3.1.2] TESTIMONIES OF THE DEFENCE WITNESSES PASS THE TEST OF RELEVANCY ............................. 23
[3.2] RELATIVES TESTIMONIES CANNOT BE RELIED UPON ............................................................. 23
[3.2.1] RELATIVES ARE INTERESTED AND CHANCE WITNESSES ............................................................ 24
[3.2.2] TESTIMONIES OF THE INTERESTED WITNESSES ARE NOT CORROBORATED IN THE INSTANT CASE 24
[3.2.3] THEIR TESTIMONIES LACK THE ESSENTIAL PROBATIVE FORCE ................................................. 24
[3.3] APPELLANTS HAVE FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE POISON TEST.................................................. 25
[3.3.1] APPELLANTS HAVE FAILED TO PROVE THAT THE POISON IN QUESTION WAS IN THE POSSESSION
OF THE ACCUSED ............................................................................................................................ 25
[3.3.2] THERE WAS NO SUCH OPPORTUNITY FOR THE ACCUSED TO ADMINISTER THE POISON IN
QUESTION TO THE DECEASED ........................................................................................................... 26
[3.4] THE INJURIES PRESENT IN THE PERSON OF THE DECEASED ARE SELF INFLICTED .............. 26
[3.5] THE BODY OF THE DECEASED WAS UNDER THE CHARGE AND CARE OF POLICE. ...................... 26
[3.6] MEDICAL EVIDENCES AND OPINIONS PASS THE TEST OF RELEVANCY...................................... 27
[3.7] THE DEPOSITIONS OF MEDICAL EXPERTS ARE ADMISSIBLE ..................................................... 27
[3.8]

THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS INCONCLUSIVE IN NATURE ............................................ 28

[3.8.1] THERE IS AN ABSENCE OF A MATERIAL HYPOTHESIS INCRIMINATING THE ACCUSED ................. 29

[3.8.2] SUBSEQUENT CONDUCT OF THE ACCUSED AFTER THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME ................ 29
[3.8.3] THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL CHAIN IS INCOMPLETE AND LEAVES A REASONABLE DOUBT .................. 30
[3.8.4] THE APPELLANTS HAVE BEEN UNABLE TO PROVE THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED BEYOND ALL
REASONABLE DOUBTS ...................................................................................................................... 30

PRAYER ......................................................................................................................................... 31

4 | Page
6TH UFYLC RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

INDIAN SUPREME COURT CASES

SR. NO.

PG. NO.

1)

A.V. Papayya Sastri v. Govt. of A.P., AIR 2007 SC 1546

15

2)

Adambhai Sulemanbhai v. State of Gujarat, (2014) 7 SCC 716

30

3)

Aher Raja Khima v. State of Saurashtra, AIR 1956 SC 217

17

4)

Allarakha K. Mansuri v. State of Gujarat, (2002) 3 SCC (Cri) 519

30

5)

Amzad Ali v. State of Assam, (2003) 6 SCC 270

26

6)

Anant Chintaman Lagu v. State of Bombay, AIR 1960 SC 500

25

7)

Arun Garg v.State of Punjab, (2004) 8 SCC 251

18

8)

Ashok Nagar Welfare Association v. R.K. Sharma, AIR 2002 SC 335

15

9)

Baigana v. Dy. Collector of Consolidation, AIR 1978 SC 944

15

10)

Bakhshish Singh v. State of Punjab, (1971) 3 SCC 182

30

11)

Baldev Singh v. State of M.P., (2003) 9 SCC 45

18

12)

Baldev Singh v. State Punjab, (2008) 3 SCC 233

18

13)

Baljeet Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 2004 SC 1714

18

14)

Bhagwan Singh v. State of Punjab, 1994 Supp (2) SCC 344

26

15)

Bhupinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (1988) 3 SCC 513

25

16)

Bihar Legal Support Society v. Chief Justice of India, AIR 1987 SC 38

16

17)

Biswajit Halder v. State of West Bengal, 2007 Cri LJ 2300

18

18)

Budhuram v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2012) 11 SCC 588

28

19)

Chandra Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (2003) 6 SCC 545

15

20)

Chandrakant Nyalchand Seth v. State of Bombay, Criminal Appeal No.

25

1134 of 1957 (SC)

21)

Chikkaranga Gowda v. State of Mysore, AIR 1956 SC 751

15

22)

Dara Singh v. Republic of India, (2011) 2 SCC 490

24

23)

Dayanidhi Bisoi v. State of Orissa, (2003) 9 SCC 310

25

5 | Page
6TH UFYLC RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

24)

Ghurphekan v. State of U.P., (1972) 3 SCC 361

28

25)

Goura Venkata Reddy v. State of A.P., (2003) 12 SCC 469

26

26)

Gurbakhsh Singh v State of Punjab, AIR 1955 SC 320

18

27)

Gurmail Singh v. State of Punjab, (2011) 15 SCC 412

26

28)

Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v. State of M.P., AIR 1952 SC 343

25

29)

Haresh Mohandas Rajput v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 12 SCC 56

24

30)

Hari Om v. State of U.P., (1970) 3 SCC 453

28

31)

Harjit Singh v. State of Punjab, (2006) 1 SCC 463

18

32)

Ishwar Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1976 SC 2423

21

33)

Kalia Perumal v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2003 SC 3828

18

34)

Kamlesh Panjiyar v. State of Bihar, (2005) 2 SCC 388

18

35)

Kans Raj v. State of Punjab, AIR 2000 SC 2324

18

36)

Kansa Behera v. State of Orissa, (1987) 3 SCC 480

28

37)

Kartarey v. State of U.P., AIR 1976 SC 76

21

38)

Kilakkatha Parambath Sasi v. State of Kerala, (2011) 4 SCC 552

24

39)

Kishan Singh v. State of Punjab, (2007) 14 SCC 204

18

40)

Kunhiabulla v. State of Kerala, AIR 2004 SC 1731

18

41)

Laxmi Raj Shetty v. State of T.N., (1988) 3 SCC 319

30

42)

Manzoor v. State of U.P., (1982) 2 SCC 72

26

43)

Mohan v. State of U.P., AIR 1960 SC 659

19

44)

Mohd. Moinuddin v. State of Maharashtra, (1971) 3 SCC 338

26

45)

Narpal Singh v. Jaipur Development Authority, (2002) 4 SCC 666

15

46)

Neel kumar v. State of Haryana, (2012) 5 SCC 766

25

47)

Omvati v. Mahendra Singh, AIR 1998 SC 249

22

48)

ONGC Ltd. v. Sendhabhai Vastrem Patel, (2005) 6 SCC 454.

15

49)

P.S. Mills Ltd. v. P.S. Mills Mazdoor Union, AIR 1957SC 95

15

50)

Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana, (1998) 3 SCC 309

18

51)

Phino v. State of Punjab, (1975) 4 SCC 119

25

6 | Page
6TH UFYLC RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

52)

Prema S. Rao v. Yadla Srinivasa Rao, AIR 2003 SC 11

18

53)

Pritam Singh v. State, AIR 1950 SC 169

15

54)

Pyare Lal v. State of Haryana, AIR 1999 SC 1563

19

55)

Raghav Prapanna Tripathi v. State of U.P., AIR 1963 SC 74

25

56)

Raghunath G. Pauhale v. Chagan Lal Sundarji & Co., (1999) 8 SCC 1

16

57)

Rajesh Bhatnagar v. State of Uttarakhand, 2012 Cri LJ 3442

18

58)

Ram Gopal v. State of Maharashtra, (1972) 4 SCC 625

20

59)

Ram Kumar v. State of Haryana, AIR 1999 SC 1491

19

60)

Ram Lakhan Singh v. State of U.P., (1977) 3 SCC 268

30

61)

Ram Prasad v. State of U.P., (1974) 3 SCC 388

30

62)

Ramesh v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2005 Cri LJ 1732

19

63)

Ronny v. State of Maharashtra, (1998) 3 SCC 625

28

64)

S.P Bhatnagar v. State of Maharashtra, (1979) 1 SCC 535

30

65)

Sanwant Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1961 SC 715

15

66)

Satbir v. State of U.P., 1981 Supp SCC 54

26

67)

Satvir Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 2001 SC 2828

18

68)

Seema v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2012 SCC OnLine Del 64

24

69)

Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116

25

70)

Shivaji Bobade v. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC 793

25

71)

Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi, AIR 1988 SC 121

18

72)

Sikander v. State, 1992 SCC OnLine Del. 295 21

24

73)

State of Andhra Pradesh v. Raj Gopal Asawa, AIR 2004 SC 1933

18

74)

State of Assam v. Barga Dewani, (1970) 3 SCC 236

16

75)

State of Assam v. Muhim Barkataki, (1986) 4 SCC 439

23

76)

State of Himachal Pradesh v. Rajiv Jassi, Criminal Appeal No. 771 of

21

2005
77)

State of Karnataka v. M.V. Manjunathegowda, AIR 2003 SC 809

18

78)

State of Rajasthan v. Shera Ram, (2012) 1 SCC 602

24

7 | Page
6TH UFYLC RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

79)

State of U.P. v. Punni, (2008) 11 SCC 153

30

80)

State of U.P. v. Rasid, (2003) 9 SCC 449

26

81)

State of U.P. v. Ram Manorath, (1972) 3 SCC 215

15

82)

State of U.P. v. Hari Ram, (1983) 4 SCC 453

23

83)

State (Delhi Admn.) v. Laxman Kumar, (1985) 4 SCC 476

26

84)

Sudam v. State of Maharashta, (2011) 7 SCC 125

24

85)

Swami v. State, AIR 1960 SC 7

16

86)

Tasrem Singh v. State of Punjab, (2008) 16 SCC 155

18

87)

Thakkan Jha & Ors. v. State of Bihar, (2004) 13 SCC 348

18

88)

Thulia Kalia v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1973 SC 501

21

89)

Tufail v. State Of U.P., (1969) 3 SCC 198

25

90)

Tukaram v. State of Maharashtra, (1979) 2 SCC 143

28

91)

Tulsiram Kanu v. State, AIR 1954 SC 1

30

92)

Union of India v. Rajeswari & Co., AIR 1986 SC 1748

15

93)

W.H. King v. Republic Of India, AIR 1952 SC 156

19

94)

Zabar Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1957 SC 465

16

SR. NO.

INDIAN HIGH COURT CASES

PG. NO.

1)

Emperor v. Nishi Kanta Banikya, AIR 1925 Cal 525

22

2)

Mishra Paraja v. State of Odisha, Cr. Appeal No. 242 of 2013

22

3)

Nanda Kishore v. State of Maharashtra, 1996 (5) Bom CR 315

19

4)

Rameshwar Dass & Anr. v. The State of Haryana, (1993) 103 PLR 265

27

5)

Keshab Chandra Pandey v. State, (1995) Cr LJ 174 (Ori.)

24

SR. NO.
1)

COURT DECISIONS AROUND THE WORLD

Chan Kau v. R, [1955] AC 206

PG. NO.
22

8 | Page
6TH UFYLC RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

2)

Director of Public Prosecutor v. Kilbourne, [1973] AC 729

25

3)

Mancini v. DPP, [1942] AC 1

22

4)

State of Minnesota v. Thomas R. Renney, 2003 Min. App. LEXIS 1261

25

SR. NO.

BOOKS

1)

DAVID ORMEROD, SMITH AND HORGAN CRIMINAL LAW, 42 (12th ed.,

Oxford) (2008).

2)

R.A. DUFF, PHILOSOPHY AND THE CRIMINAL LAW, 55 (1998)

3)

C.D. FIELDS COMMENTARY ON LAW OF EVIDENCE, 3309 (13th ed., Delhi

Law House)

4)

BUZZARD, JOHN, MAY, RICHARD, HOWARD, M.N., PHIPHSON ON

EVIDENCE, 682 (12th ed., Sweet & Maxwell, London)

5)

MODI'S MEDICAL JURISPRUDENCE AND TOXICOLOGY, 764 (23rd ed., 2008)

6)

AMERICAN JURISPRUDENCE, 322 (2nd ed., Vol. 29, Thomson Reuters) (2011)

7)

AN ESSAY ON THE PRINCIPLES OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE BY

WILLIAM WILLS, 451 (3rd ed., Henry Butterworth, 7, Fleet Street, Law Bookseller
And Publisher)

8)

WIGMORE, JOHN H., THE PRINCIPLES OF JUDICIAL PROOF, (Little, Brown

and Company, 1913)

9)

TAYLOR ON EVIDENCE, 902, 1418 (12th ed.)

SR. NO.

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

PG. NO.

1)

Article 136

passim

2)

Article 134

passim

9 | Page
6TH UFYLC RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
WEB RESOURCES

SR. NO.
1)

www.westlaw.india.com(WEST LAW INDIA)

2)

www.manupatrafast.com(MANUPATRA)

3)

www.judis.nic.in(SUPREME COURT OF INDIA OFFICIAL)

4)

www.jstor.org(JSTOR)

5)

www.scconline.com(SCC ONLINE)

10 | P a g e
6TH UFYLC RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Appellants herein has approached this Honourable Court under Article 136 of the
Constitution of India.

11 | P a g e
6TH UFYLC RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS

SYNOPSIS OF FACTS

SYNOPSIS OF FACTS
A. BACKGROUND OF THE INCIDENT: Mr Suresh Goyal, got married to Sharda Gupta on
17.07.2012. Soon after the marriage disturbances cropped up between the couple. However, a
compromise was arrived at with the intervention of family friends and Smt. Shalini Goyal
tendered a written apology. After the deceased gave birth to a girl child, disturbances aggravated
and deceased chose to stay in her parental house. The deceased was however, brought back to
her matrimonial home, after reaching a consensus with her husband. On 25.5.2015, the deceased
consumed organo phosphorous drug with an intention to terminate her life and raised alarm to
provide her with salty water in order to vomit. Mr Dinesh Goyal gave her water to vomit and
then took her to SMS Hospital where she was declared dead.
B. EVENTS THAT UNFOLDED SUBSEQUENT TO THE DEATH: Om Prakash, [PW-4] informed the
police about the dilapidated condition of the deceased. The police reached the spot. Dr O.P.
Choudhary was called upon in order to ensure medical attention for the deceased. On coming to
know, about the condition of his daughter, Shri Vikram Gupta [PW-10] lodged a police
complaint stating that accused persons in collusion had caused death of the deceased. The FIR
was registered and during the investigation, the police found out and relied upon the daily diary
maintained by the deceased and subsequently charges were framed under 498A and 304B
read with 34 of IPC.
C. JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE TRIAL COURT: The trial court acquitted Smt Shalini Goyal
and Sh. Suresh Goyal on the plea that there is no direct evidence but convicted Shri Dinesh
Goyal for commission of offence under 302 IPC and awarded imprisonment for 7 years with
no fine.
D. JUDGEMENT OF THE HON'BLE RAJASTHAN HC: The Hon'ble HC acquitted the respondent
on the ground that the circumstances are not of conclusive nature.
E. APPEAL: Aggrieved by the decision of the Honble High Court, the State as well as Shri
Vikram Gupta have preferred an appeal to Hon'ble Supreme Court of India challenging the
setting aside of conviction and non-levy of maximum imprisonment upon the accused.

12 | P a g e
6TH UFYLC RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

[I.]

WHETHER THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE HIGH COURT
IS MAINTAINABLE?

[II.]
[III.]

WHETHER THE ACCUSED ARE GUILTY UNDER 304-B & 498-A, IPC?
WHETHER THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD IS SUFFICIENT TO PROVE THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED
BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBTS?

13 | P a g e
6TH UFYLC RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
[I.]

THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE HIGH COURT IS
NOT MAINTAINABLE.

It is humbly submitted that the Hon'ble HC has acted on the basis of principles settled by
law. Substantial justice has been done by the reasoned decision of the Hon'ble HC in
acquitting the accused for concluding two possible outcomes upon re-appreciation of
evidence. Moreover, the Appeal doesn't involve any substantial questions of law and
thereby Art. 134(1) would become superfluous if leave be granted in the instant case, as
question of facts should not be the basis of an Appeal under SLP.
[II.]

THE ACCUSED ARE NOT GUILTY UNDER 304-B R/W & 498-A, IPC.

It is humbly contended that the Appellants have failed to meet the condition precedents of
304-B IPC to bring home the guilt of the accused. Further, there exists a modicus
plausibility of the deceased having committed suicide. Moreover, neither the conduct of
the accused brings home their guilt nor that the Appellants have established the real state
of mind of the accused persons to commit the dowry death. Therefore, the Hon'ble HC
was legally correct in acquitting the accused persons as the essential legal principles in
terms of circumstantial evidence, the poison test and the proximity test haven't been met
their respective condition precedents by the Ld. Appellants.
[III.]

THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD IS INSUFFICIENT TO PROVE THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED

BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBTS.

It is submitted that the evidence on record is insufficient to prove guilt of the accused as
the chain of circumstances have not been satisfied beyond all reasonable doubts. It is
further submitted that there is exists an alternative hypothesis consistent with the
innocence and inconsistent with the guilt of the accused.

14 | P a g e
6TH UFYLC RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

[1] THE SLP FILED IS NOT MAINTAINABLE UNDER ART. 136.

(1.) It is humbly submitted before the Honble SC that the SLP filed by the Appellants is not
maintainable as a Special Leave cannot be granted when substantial justice has been done 1 and
where no exceptional or special circumstance exists2 [1.1]. Also, no irregularity of procedure or
violation of principles of natural justice3 has been done by the Ld. Courts below [1.2], and that,
in the present case, no substantial question of law is involved and interference is based on pure
question of fact4 [1.3] which is entitled to be dismissed.
[1.1] SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE HAS BEEN DONE IN THE PRESENT CASE.
(2.) It is contended that in an SLP, the Appellants have to show prima facie that exceptional and
special circumstances exists5 and that if there is no interference, substantial and grave injustice
would result.6 It has also to be shown that the case has features of sufficient gravity to warrant
review7 of the decision appealed against on merits8. The instant case involves a reasoned
decision of acquittal by the Hon'ble HC and it requires no interference by the Hon'ble Apex
Court.
(3.) Furthermore, leave can be denied at this stage for it being a stated principle of law that,
"even in cases where special leave is granted, the discretionary power vested in the Court
continues to remain with the Court even at the stage when appeal comes up for hearing".9
[1.2]

THERE HAS BEEN NO IRREGULARITY OF PROCEDURE OR VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF

NATURAL JUSTICE.
1

A.V. Papayya Sastri v. Govt. of A.P., AIR 2007 SC 1546.

Baigana v. Dy. Collector of Consolidation, AIR 1978 SC 944; See also, Pritam Singh v. State, AIR 1950 SC 169.
3
Sanwant Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1961 SC 715.
4
Chikkaranga Gowda v. State of Mysore, AIR 1956 SC 751; See also, P.S. Mills Ltd. v. P.S. Mills Mazdoor Union,
AIR 1957 SC 95; State of U.P. v. Ram Manorath, (1972) 3 SCC 215; Union of India v. Rajeswari & Co., AIR 1986
SC 1748.
5
Chandra Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (2003) 6 SCC 545.
6
ONGC Ltd. v. Sendhabhai Vastrem Patel, (2005) 6 SCC 454.
7
Narpal Singh v. Jaipur Development Authority, (2002) 4 SCC 666.
8
Pritam Singh v. State, AIR 1950 SC 169.
9
Ashok Nagar Welfare Association v. R.K. Sharma, AIR 2002 SC 335.
2

15 | P a g e
6TH UFYLC RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

(4.) It is humbly submitted that except that where there has been an illegality or an irregularity
of procedure10 or a violation of principle of natural justice11 resulting in the absence of a fair trial
or gross miscarriage of justice12, the Hon'ble SC does not permit a third review of evidence with
regard to question of fact in cases in which two courts of fact have appreciated and assessed the
evidence with regard to such questions13. It is thereby contended that this Hon'ble Court in the
instant case should not go into the merits and need not interfere as the justice of the case on facts
doesnt require interference.14
[1.3] THE

INFERENCE FROM A PURE QUESTION OF FACT IS IN ITSELF A FACT AND HENCE NOT

OPEN TO REVIEW.

(5.) It is further contended by the Respondents that the present appeal doesnt involve any
substantial question of law rather it involves pure question of fact and hence, is not maintainable.
It is a settled principle that questions of fact cannot be permitted to be raised unless there is
material evidence which has been ignored by the Hon'ble HC or the finding reached by the Court
is perverse.15 The leave will not be granted merely to question finding of fact which is in favour
of the accused16 neither to examine the reasons for coming to certain conclusions of fact17.
Therefore, there being no negligence in appreciation of material evidence in the instant case, the
interference is not called for as it has been held that the Hon'ble SC cannot consistently with its
practice convert itself into a third court of facts.18
[1.3.1] THE PURPOSE OF ART. 134(1)19 WOULD BECOME SUPERFLUOUS IF LEAVE BE GRANTED.
(6.) It is submitted that Art. 134(1) confers a right of appeal before the Hon'ble SC in certain
cases in terms unqualified, on question of both fact and law and if the scope of Appeal under Art.

10

State of Assam v. Barga Dewani, (1970) 3 SCC 236.

Sanwant Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1961 SC 715.
12
Bihar Legal Support Society v. Chief Justice of India, AIR 1987 SC 38.
13
State of U.P v. Ram Manorath, (1972) 3 SCC 215; See also, Union of India v. Rajeswari & Co., AIR 1986 SC
1748.
14
Raghunath G. Pauhale v. Chagan Lal Sundarji & Co., (1999) 8 SCC 1.
15
Union of India v. Rajeshwari & Co., (1986) 161 ITR 60 (SC).
16
Swami v. State, AIR 1960 SC 7.
17
Zabar Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1957 SC 465.
18
Gurbakhsh Singh v State of Punjab, AIR 1955 SC 320.
19
Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 134(1).
11

16 | P a g e
6TH UFYLC RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

136 is to be extended likewise to question of fact, Art. 134(1) would become superfluous.20 It is
therefore, obvious that the intention of the Constitution in providing for an appeal on facts under
Art.134 (a) and (b) was to exclude it under Art.136. Henceforth, an appeal on question of facts
alone will not be entertained under Art.136.21 For, the aforesaid reasons, it is requested before
this Hon'ble Court that the present appeal doesn't satisfy the general criteria enshrined under Art.
136 and therefore the present appeal is requested to be dismissed.

[2] THE ACCUSED ARE NOT GUILTY OF COMMITTING DOWRY DEATH OF THE
DECEASED
(7.) It is humbly submitted before this Hon'ble Court that it is a fundamental principle of law
that a person accused of an offence shall not be held guilty unless the prosecution has proved
beyond reasonable doubt individually (i) that responsibility is to be attributed to the accused for
certain behaviour or the existence of a certain state of affairs (in a conduct crime), which is
forbidden by criminal law and that the accused has caused a certain event (in result crime) and
(ii) that the accused had a defined state of mind in relation to the behaviour, existence of the state
of affairs or causing of event.22
(8.) The Respondents submit that the instant case doesn't attract guilt of the accused under the
provisions of 304-B IPC r/w 34, IPC for the reasons that; the ingredients of 304-B, IPC
haven't been met with [2.1], that there exists a reasonable apprehension of the deceased having
committed suicide [2.2], that conduct of the accused does not bring home their guilt [2.3] and
that the motive of causing dowry death has not been established beyond all reasonable doubts
[2.4].
[2.1] THE APPELLANTS HAVE FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE INGREDIENTS OF 304-B, IPC.
(9.) It is submitted that the general requirements under 304-B23 are that the death of the
deceased should have occurred within seven years of marriage [1]; that the death of a woman
should be caused by bodily injury or otherwise, than under normal circumstances [2]; that the
20

Aher Raja Khima v. State of Saurashtra, AIR 1956 SC 217.

Pritam Singh v. State, AIR 1950 SC 169.
22
DAVID ORMEROD, SMITH AND HORGAN CRIMINAL LAW, 42 (12th ed., Oxford) (2008).
23
Indian Penal Code, 1860, 304-B.
21

17 | P a g e
6TH UFYLC RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

deceased must have been subjected to cruelty soon before her death [3] and that the harassment
or cruelty should be for or in relation to or in connection with the demand of dowry [4]. 24
(10.) It is contended by the Respondents that the prosecution miserably failed to bring home
the guilt of the accused under 304-B, IPC25 and 113-B, IEA26, as the deceased was not
subjected to cruelty soon before her death27[2.1.1] and that appellants have failed to establish the
proximity test28[2.1.2].

[2.1.1] THE DECEASED WAS NOT SUBJECTED TO CRUELTY SOON BEFORE HER DEATH.
(11.) In Suresh Kumar Singh v. State of UP29, in regards to the expression 'soon before death', it
was held that, "The expression is a relative term which is required to be considered under
specific circumstances of each case and no straight jacket formula can be laid down by fixing
any time limit. The expression is pregnant with the idea of proximity test. The determination of
the period which can come within the term is left to be decided by the Court, depending upon the
facts and circumstances of each case. However, there must be an existence of a proximate and
live link." Further, it is also that the word 'soon' interpreted in 304-B would embrace the series
of incidents forming part of the same transaction which culminated in the death of the concerned
woman.30
(12.) In the instant case, the animosity between the in-laws and the deceased was in regards to
the birth of a baby boy and not dowry. The same was settled and the matter came to rest with the
interference of both the families which is corroborated by the written apology tendered by
24

Keshab Chandra Pandey v. State, (1995) Cr LJ 174 (Ori.); See also, Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana, (1998) 3
SCC 309; Kans Raj v. State of Punjab, AIR 2000 SC 2324; Satvir Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 2001 SC 2828;
State of Andhra Pradesh v. Raj Gopal Asawa, AIR 2004 SC 1933; Baljeet Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 2004 SC
1714; Arun Garg v. State of Punjab, (2004) 8 SCC 251; Kamesh Panjiyar v. State of Bihar, (2005) 2 SCC 388 : AIR
2005 SC 785; Kishan Singh v. State of Punjab, (2007) 14 SCC 204 : AIR 208 SC 233; Tasrem Singh v. State of
Punjab, (2008) 16 SCC 155 : AIR 2009 SC 1454; Rajesh Bhatnagar v. State of Uttarakhand, (2012) 5 SCALE 311 :
2012 Cri LJ 3442.
25
Indian Penal Code, 1860, 304-B.
26
Indian Evidence Act, 1872, 113-B.
27
State of Karnataka v. M.V. Manjunathegowda, AIR 2003 SC 809.
28
Kunhiabulla v. State of Kerala, AIR 2004 SC 1731.
29
2009 (7) SCALE 629; Biswajit Halder v. State of West Bengal, 2007 Cr LJ 2300; Shobha Rani v. Madhukar
Reddi, AIR 1988 SC 121; Thakkan Jha & Ors. v. State of Bihar, (2004) 13 SCC 348; Satvir Singh & Ors. v. State of
Punjab & Anr., (2001) 8 SCC 633; Harjit Singh v. State of Punjab, (2006) 1 SCC 463; Baldev Singh v. State Punjab,
(2008) 3 SCC 233; Kamlesh Panjiyar v. State of Bihar, (2005) 2 SCC 388; Prema S. Rao v. Yadla Srinivasa Rao,
AIR 2003 SC 11; Kalia Perumal v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2003 SC 3828.
30
Rameshwar Dass & Anr. v. The State of Haryana, (1993) 103 PLR 265.

18 | P a g e
6TH UFYLC RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

Shalini Goyal, one of the accused.31 There is no trustworthy evidence on record in respect of
dowry demand.32 In the first place, evidence on record shows that the financial position of the
accused was very high and in such a case, it would not be safe to accept the story of the
demand.33 Thus, the allegation in regards to the dowry is just the hypothesis of the Prosecution
and lacks corroborative evidence. Therefore, it is not a fact that harassment or ill treatment has
been inflicted upon the deceased "soon before" she died.

[2.1.2] THE APPELLANTS HAVE FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE PROXIMITY TEST.

(13.) It is well-settled that in interpreting a penal statute, the principle of strict construction
should be applied in consonance with the ratio laid down in W.H. King v Republic Of India34.
Therefore, once the evidence is clear that there is no connection between the harassment or
cruelty meted out to the deceased and that of the demand of money or other valuables35, it
transpires that the two in the instant case, are independent of each other36 and thus leading to the
conclusion that, in absence of a criteria to prove that the death was a dowry death, the
presumption under 113-B would not come into play to attract 304-B.37

[2.2]

THERE EXISTS A REASONABLE APPREHENSION OF THE DECEASED HAVING COMMITTED

SUICIDE.

(14.) It is contended before this Hon'ble Court that there is no direct evidence of administration
of poison by the accused to the deceased. Therefore, there exists a reasonable doubt as to the
commission of suicide by the deceased herself as the ingredients of death caused through poison
have not been established38 [2.2.1], the psychological aspect of suicide supports modicus
plausibility of deceased having committed suicide [2.2.2] and that the hypothesis of the
prosecution in regards to forcible administration of poison is untenable [ 2.2.3].
31

Moot Proposition- 6th UFYLC Ranka National Moot Court Competition 2016, p.3, 7.
Ramesh v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2005 Cr LJ 1732.
33
Nanda Kishore v. State of Maharashtra, 1996 (5) Bom CR 315.
34
AIR 1952 SC 156, 6; The Lordships observed that, "As statute creates an offence and imposes penalty of fine
and imprisonment, the words of the be strictly construed in favour of the subject. We are not concerned so much
with what might possibly have been intended as with what has been actually said in and by the language employed.
35
Ram Kumar v. State of Haryana, AIR 1999 SC 1491.
36
Pyare Lal v. State of Haryana, AIR 1999 SC 1563.
37
Nanda Kishore v. State of Maharashtra, 1996 (5) Bom CR 315.
38
Mohan v. State of U.P, AIR 1960 SC 659.
32

19 | P a g e
6TH UFYLC RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

[2.2.1] THE INGREDIENTS OF DEATH CAUSED THROUGH POISON HAVE NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED.
(15.) The Hon'ble HC was justified in its decision for the reason that the Prosecution in the
instant case has miserably failed to establish the poison test.39 It has not been cogently proven
that the accused had the possession of poison; thereby there was no opportunity to administer
such poison, neither could it establish a particular motive for the accused to have committed the
alleged offence beyond all reasonable doubts.
[2.2.2] PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT OF SUICIDE SUPPORTS MODICUS PLAUSIBILITY OF COMMISSION OF
SUICIDE.
(16.) It is noteworthy that, "The psychological aspect of suicide is an important factor to be
taken into consideration while re-appreciating the evidence. The melancholy marriage may
create or much of emotional disorder resulting from frustration and pessimism that one may
become psychotic and develop a tendency to end his life. Persons with such psychotic tendency
or bent of mind always dream of an ideal, they possess a peculiar psychology which instils
extreme love and devotion but when their ideal fails or when they are faced with disappointment
or find their environment so unhealthy or unhappy, they seem to lose all the charms of life and
they are driven to end their life."40
(17.) It has also been held that "Revenge fantasies are also associated with suicide. In cases of
women of sensitive and sentimental nature it has usually been seen that if they are tired of their
life, they become so desperate that they develop a spirit of revenge and try to destroy those who
have made their lives worthless and under this strong spell of revenge, sometimes they can go to
the extreme limit of committing suicide with a feeling that the subject who is the root cause of
their malady is also destroyed."41
(18.) Therefore, there exists a modicus possibility that the deceased has caused injuries to
herself, consumed the poison, acted in a result to show the entire scenario to be homicidal in
order to falsely implicate the accused persons for she couldn't bear the taboo of being driven out
of her in-laws house and done away with her life as a revenge to the accused persons for a matter
that the accused persons had already pleaded apology for.

39

Mohan v. State of U.P, AIR 1960 SC 659; See also, Ram Gopal v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1972 SC 656;
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622.
40
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622.
41
Ibid.

20 | P a g e
6TH UFYLC RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS

[2.2.3]

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

PROSECUTION'S HYPOTHESIS IN REGARDS TO FORCIBLE ADMINISTRATION OF POISON IS

UNTENABLE.

(19.) It is humbly contended that no definite opinion was given by any of the doctors regarding
the possibility of the forcible administration of the poison. It is also that in view of the
convulsions, the possibility of the deceased having sustained the injuries, during such
convulsions, is a reasonable apprehension and cannot be legally proved out of contention. This
possibility is strengthened from the fact that the number of injuries had increased during the
period of the deceased being examined by the two doctors, especially, in the absence of an
explanation by the prosecution as to how the number of injuries came to be increased.
(20.) Moreover, it is noteworthy that in forcible administration of poison, the victim would try
to spit it out and there is a likelihood that the poison would spill on the clothes and body of the
deceased.42 As the clothes weren't produced, material evidence has thus been withheld by the
prosecution and as such, an inference may be drawn to the effect that neither stains nor traces of
poison were found in the clothes of the deceased.

[2.3] THE CONDUCT OF THE ACCUSED PERSONS DOES NOT BRING HOME THEIR GUILT.
(21.) It is contended that even if the accused committed the alleged act, then it does not seem
likely that they would have left the poison in the scene of crime43. In addition to that, it was the
duty of the prosecution and the Honble Court to see that the poison i.e., the reason of death, is
shown to the medical witness and his opinion as to whether all or any of the injuries on the
victim could be caused with such44. The proof of the possession of such poison with the accused
being absent in the instant case, it is even fallacious to claim that the accused had the opportunity
to commit the murder.45
(22.) Further, the manner in which the accused are shown to have conducted themselves as per
the evidence on record, is indicative of their innocence. They had all the time to remove or
destroy the poison to do away with any kind of doubts being levelled against them. No such
thing being done, it is fallacious to believe the contention of the Ld. Prosecution that the incident
was a pre-planned murder with a strong motive.

42

State of Himachal Pradesh v. Rajiv Jassi, Criminal Appeal No. 771 of 2005 dated May 6, 2016.
Thulia Kalia v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1973 SC 501.
44
Kartarey v. State of U.P, AIR 1976 SC 76; See also, Ishwar Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1976 SC 2423.
45
State of Himachal Pradesh v. Rajiv Jassi, Criminal Appeal No.771 of 2005, dated May 6, 2016.
43

21 | P a g e
6TH UFYLC RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

[2.4] THE MOTIVE OF CAUSING DOWRY DEATH HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN.
(23.) It is a matter of principle that the proof of motive is not necessary to sustain a conviction
but when the prosecution puts forward a specific case as to motive for the crime, the evidence
regarding the same has got to be considered in order to judge the probabilities.46 It is well-settled
that motive for a crime is a satisfactory circumstance of corroboration when there is convincing
evidence to prove the guilt of an accused person but it cannot fill up a lacuna in the evidence.47
(24.) Now, it being not disputed that the witnesses had seen the deceased lying on the bed with
water all around and that her dress was drenched, supports the contention of the defence that
gastric lavage was carried out by the accused persons and in such circumstances, the innocence
of the accused is deemed to be inferred.
(25.) Moreover, the legal principles establish that, in case the Court is not satisfied with the
story of the accused to be true, even then the court must acquit if the court thinks that it might
reasonably be true which is a rule of general application.48
(26.) Furthermore, it is possible for Courts to dispense with mens rea, but they can never
dispense with actus reus as crimes without actus reus, i.e., 'thought crimes' do not exist.
Henceforth, in the instant case, the lack of direct evidence coupled with broken links in the chain
of the circumstances clearly gives rise to reasonable doubts on substantial grounds.
(27.) Therefore, it is submitted that, there being no proof of a real state of mind, the Appellants
have failed to satisfy this Court so as the accused had the requisite state of mind, whatever it is,
when they did the fatal act alleged and thus it is fallacious in nature.

[3] THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD IS INSUFFICIENT TO PROVE THE GUILT OF THE

ACCUSED BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBTS
(28.) In the instant matter, the Honble HC has acquitted Goyals of the offences of Murder and
Dowry death under 302 and 304-B of the IPC. With the evidence presented at the trial stage,
there is insufficient and inconclusive evidence to show that Goyal family is indeed guilty of the
aforementioned offences.
46

Emperor v. Nishi Kanta Banikya, AIR 1925 Cal 525; See also, Mishra Paraja v. State of Odisha, Cr Appeal No.
242 of 2013.
47
Omvati v. Mahendra Singh, AIR 1998 SC 249.
48
Mancini v DPP, [1942] AC 1; Chan Kau v R, [1955] AC 206.

22 | P a g e
6TH UFYLC RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

[3.1] TESTIMONY OF THE THREE DEFENCE WITNESS CAN BE RELIED UPON.

(29.) The Respondent submits that the Defence witnesses are independent witnesses and their
testimonies should be relied upon by the Honble court.

[3.1.1] DEFENCE WITNESSES ARE INDEPENDENT WITNESSES.

(30.) Defence witnesses are independent witnesses and their testimonies cannot be discarded on
whimsical and erroneous grounds.49 The evidences of independent witnesses can only be rejected
on very strong reasons50 which are patently absent in this case. All the three witnesses have
respectively mentioned in their testimonies before the Honble court that Sharda Goyal was
happy in the Goyal House and their relations inters were cordial and she was treated as a
daughter.51
(31.) There are no evidences whatsoever which has been adduced from the Appellant on which
the veracity and probity of their testimonies can be questioned and negated.
[3.1.2] TESTIMONIES OF THE DEFENCE WITNESSES PASS THE TEST OF RELEVANCY.
(32.) The testimonies given by the three defence witnesses pass the test of relevancy and
should be accepted by the Honble court on merits. In order to admit evidence under 50 three
conditions must be fulfilled: (1) the person must be proved to have special means of knowledge;
(2) (a) the opinion alone is evidence; (b) the opinion as expressed by conduct only is evidence ;
and (3) the opinion which is relevant must be the one as to the existence of the relationship. 52 In
the instant matter, all the requisite aforementioned conditions have been fulfilled by the
testimonies given by the three witnesses and henceforth, the Honble court should duly take
consideration of the testimonies of the defence witnesses to come to a conclusion.
[3.2] RELATIVES TESTIMONIES CANNOT BE RELIED UPON.
(33.) The Respondent submits that the testimonies of Relatives are erroneous, uncorroborated
and lacks the requisite probative value.

49

State of Assam v. Muhim Barkataki, (1986) 4 SCC 439: 1986 SCC (Cri) 503: AIR 1987 SC 98.
State of U.P. v. Hari Ram, (1983) 4 SCC 453 : 1983 SCC (Cri) 861 : 1983 Cri LJ 1638 : AIR 1983 SC 1081.
51
Moot Proposition 6th UFLYC Ranka National Moot Court Competition, p.4, 10.
52
C.D. FIELDS COMMENTARY ON LAW OF EVIDENCE, 3309 (13th ed., Delhi Law House) (2011).
50

23 | P a g e
6TH UFYLC RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

[3.2.1] RELATIVES ARE INTERESTED AND CHANCE WITNESSES.

(34.) Relatives in the instant case are interested witnesses as they have a motive to falsely
implicate the accused. If the chance witnesses fail to assign any convincing reason for being at
the place of the commission of the crime at abnormal hour, testimonies of such witnesses, on fact
should be held unreliable53.
(35.) In the instant case, Shri Anil Kumar [PW-5], and Shri Shiv Kumar [PW-6], relatives of
the deceased have failed to provide any convincing reason to be present on that place on that
hour of the night. Both the witnesses are interested witnesses, inimically disposed against the
accused persons and so far as the present incident is concerned, their presence at the scene is
highly suspicious. Hence, in the absence of any such credible explanations, any such events
narrated by them become highly doubtful, suspicious and controversial.
[3.2.2] TESTIMONIES OF THE INTERESTED WITNESSES ARE NOT CORROBORATED IN THE INSTANT
CASE.
(36.) Its a well settled principle of law that testimonies of interested witnesses must be
scrutinized with caution, care and scrutiny.54 In cases of suspicion and doubt, their testimonies
should be corroborated.55
(37.)

In the instant matter, the Appellants have failed to adduce any such evidences to

corroborate the testimonies of the relatives. Hence, it is submitted before the Honble Court that
with such grave doubts, the Honble Court should righteously reject their testimonies.
[3.2.3] THEIR TESTIMONIES LACK THE ESSENTIAL PROBATIVE FORCE.
(38.) In the instant matter, the Prosecution has presented the testimonies of the relatives to
establish that the accused have been indulged in the criminal act. As previously prescribed by the
Appellant that the testimonies in question are infected with suspicion, surmise and conjecture, it
is uncorroborated and furthermore, they are interested and chance witnesses.
(39.) Phipson on Evidence56 states that where a witness in a criminal case may be regarded as
having some purpose in the case at hand, the judge would be unjustified in accepting such a
53

Baldev Singh v. State of M.P., (2003) 9 SCC 45 : 2003 Cri LJ 880 : AIR 2003 SC 2098.
State of Rajasthan v. Shera Ram, (2012) 1 SCC 602; See also, Haresh Mohandas Rajput v. State of Maharashtra,
(2011) 12 SCC 56; Ramachandran v. State of Kerala, (2011) 9 SCC 257; State of Rajasthan v. Abdul Mannan,
(2011) 8 SCC 65 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 56; Seema v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2012 SCC OnLine Del 6421; Sikander v.
State, 1992 SCC OnLine Del 295 : (1992) 24 DRJ 295 (DB) : ILR (1993) 1 Del 40; Angrej Singh v. State, 2013
SCC OnLine Del 4196.
55
Sudam v. State of Maharashta, (2011) 7 SCC 125 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 56; See also, Kilakkatha Parambath Sasi v.
State of Kerala, (2011) 4 SCC 552 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri); Dara Singh v. Republic of India, (2011) 2 SCC 490.
54

24 | P a g e
6TH UFYLC RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

statement without corroboration. In dealing with the admissibility of uncorroborated evidence to

establish the guilt of the accused, the court has held that such evidence is admissible but on the
qualification that it must possess the probative value to conclude as to what the appellant had
done.57
(40.) It has been held in the case of State of Minnesota vs. Thomas Royal Renney58, testimony
provided by an interested witness must be corroborated to establish its probative weight, and
cannot sustain a conviction on its own. The testimony of an accomplice or an informant or an
interested Party must necessarily be corroborated to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt59.
[3.3] APPELLANTS HAVE FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE POISON TEST.
(41.) In a case of administration of poison, where the evidence is circumstantial the fact that
the accused had motive to cause death of the deceased, though relevant, is not enough to
dispense with the proof of certain facts which are essential to be proved in such cases. Three
questions arise in such cases namely (Firstly), did the deceased die of the poison in question?
(secondly), had the accused the poison in question in his possession and (thirdly), had the
accused an opportunity to administer the poison in question to the deceased? It is only when the
motive is there and these facts are all proved that the court may be able to draw the inference,
that the poison was administered by the accused to the deceased resulting in his death.60 In the
instant case, all the facts have not been proved by the appellants. They are as:
[3.3.1]

APPELLANTS HAVE FAILED TO PROVE THAT THE POISON IN QUESTION WAS IN THE

POSSESSION OF THE ACCUSED.

(42.) In the instant case, Appellants have failed to prove at any stage by adducing any credible
evidence to show that the poison in question was in the possession of the accused. None of the
56

BUZZARD, JOHN, MAY, RICHARD, HOWARD, M.N., PHIPHSON ON EVIDENCE, 682 (12th ed., Sweet &
Maxwell, London)
57
Director of Public Prosecutor v. Kilbourne, [1973] AC 729.
58
2003 Minn. App. LEXIS 1261.
59
Birbal Singh v. Kedar Nath, (1976) 4 SCC 691 : (1977) 2 SCR 1 : AIR 1977 SC 1.
60
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 : 1984 SCC (Cri) 487; See also, Anant
Chintaman Lagu v. State of Bombay, AIR 1960 SC 500 : 1960 Cri LJ 682; Dayanidhi Bisoi v. State of Orissa,
(2003) 9 SCC 310 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 1798; Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v. State of M.P., AIR 1952 SC 343 : 1953
Cri LJ 129; Tufail v. State Of U.P, (1969) 3 SCC 198 : 1970 SCC (Cri) 55; Ram Gopal v. State of Maharashtra,
(1972) 4 SCC 625; Shivaji Bobade v. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC 793 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 1033; Neel Kumar
v. State of Haryana, (2012) 5 SCC 766,774; Phino v. State of Punjab, (1975) 4 SCC 119 : 1975 SCC (Cri) 376;
Bhupinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (1988) 3 SCC 513 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 694; Raghav Prapanna Tripathi v. State of
U.P, AIR 1963 SC 74 : (1963) 1 Cr LJ 70; Chandrakant Nyalchand Seth v. State of Bombay, Criminal Appeal No.
of 1957 (SC).

25 | P a g e
6TH UFYLC RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

testimonies given by the prosecution witnesses make it absolute clear that the possession of the
poison was with the accused. In such a situation of uncertainty and quandary, benefit of doubt
should always be given to the accused.61
[3.3.2]

THERE WAS NO SUCH OPPORTUNITY FOR THE ACCUSED TO ADMINISTER THE POISON IN

QUESTION TO THE DECEASED.

(43.) It has been already mentioned in the earlier issue that there exist a cloud of uncertainty
and quandary over the question of possession and undoubtedly, it will also mean that at the point
of the commission of the crime, the accused didnt have the requisite opportunity to implement
the act.
(44.) Henceforth, it is respectfully submitted that with such clear doubts about the certainty of
these events, the Appellants have failed to establish the poison test.
[3.4] THE INJURIES PRESENT IN THE PERSON OF THE DECEASED ARE SELF-INFLICTED.
(45.) In the instant case, the injuries enlisted in the post mortem investigation by [PW-9] are
self-inflicted in nature. Suicidal wounds are generally situated on the front of the body in easily
accessible position, especially on the throat, chest, or wrist.62 The wounds inflicted by the
deceased are located in lower lips, neck, chest sternocalvicular joint which are situated at
accessible parts of the body. Therefore, the possibility of suffering the specified injuries during
convulsions cannot be ruled out. The same probability has also been highlighted by the doctors
[PW-8] and [PW-9], who have carried out their ante-mortem and post-mortem investigations. In
the present case, facts and circumstances established along with the evidences on record are
inconclusive in nature. Therefore the observations made by the Honble HC are valid.

61

Manzoor v. State of U.P, (1982) 2 SCC 72 : 1982 SCC (Cri) 356 : AIR 1983 SC 295; See also, Goura Venkata
Reddy v. State of A.P., (2003) 12 SCC 469; State of U.P v. Rasid, (2003) 9 SCC 449 : 2003 AII LJ 1152 : 2003 Cri
LJ 201; State of U.P v. Rashid, (2003) 9 SCC 449 : 2003 AII LJ 1152 : 2003 Cri LJ 2011 : AIR 2003 SC 1243; State
(Delhi Admn.) v. Laxman Kumar, (1985) 4 SCC 476 : 1986 SCC (Cri) 2 : AIR 1986 SC 250; Mohd. Moinuddin v.
State of Maharashtra, (1971) 3 SCC 338 : 1971 SCC (Cri) 617; Har Prasad v. State of M.P., (1971) 3 SCC 455 :
1971 SCC (Cri) 703 : 1971 Cri LJ 1135 : AIR 1971 SC 1450; Bhagwan Singh v. State of Punjab, 1994 Supp (2)
SCC 344 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 1473; Amzad Ali v. State of Assam, (2003) 6 SCC 270 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 1338 : 2003 Cri
LJ 3545 : AIR 2003 SC 3587; Satbir v. State of U.P, 1981 Supp. SCC 54 : 1982 SCC (Cri) 132 : AIR 1982 SC
1216; Gurmail Singh v. State of Punjab, (2011) 15 SCC 412 : 2012 Cri LJ 665: (2011) 104 AIC 186 (SC).
62
MODI'S MEDICAL JURISPRUDENCE AND TOXICOLOGY, 764 (23rd ed., 2008).

26 | P a g e
6TH UFYLC RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

[3.5] THE BODY OF THE DECEASED WAS UNDER THE CHARGE AND CARE OF POLICE.
(46.) The body of the deceased was under the charge and care of police officials right after they
were informed by Om Prakash.63 However, on one hand two injuries were recorded in ante
mortem investigation, on the other hand, the injuries rose to six during the post mortem
investigation. The apparent inconsistency between both the reports, is suggestive of the fact that
prosecution has failed to establish and justify such inconsistency, therefore the accused
respondents are entitled to benefit of doubt, in the instant case. The medical evidence is itself
manifested with errors and omissions and thus cannot be used as a corroborative evidence to
prove how truthful the accused was. 64

[3.6] MEDICAL EVIDENCES AND OPINIONS PASS THE TEST OF RELEVANCY.

(47.) The opinion of medical officer as to the nature of an injury or how it can be caused is
relevant to enable the Court to form its own conclusion of the point. 65 It is a general rule that the
opinion of witnesses possessing peculiar skill is admissible, whenever the subject matter of
enquiry is such that inexperienced persons are unlikely to prove capable of forming a correct
judgement upon it without such assistance.66 Therefore, in the instant case, the opinions given by
the doctors are relevant as per the provisions of 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

[3.7] THE DEPOSITIONS OF MEDICAL EXPERTS ARE ADMISSIBLE.

(48.) Evidence of an expert should be interpreted like any other evidence. 67 Medical evidence
in a criminal case, is of great probative and corroborative value. 68 In cases of nature of injuries
and cause of death, the most competent witness is the doctor examining the deceased and
substitute its opinion in place of doctor's.69
(49.) Whether the wounds are suicidal, homicidal or accidental, can be determined by the
medical practitioner by noting the following points: 70 The situation and character of the wounds

63

Moot Proposition-6th UFYLC Ranka National Moot Court Competition, 2016 , p.5, 11.
Rameshwar Singh v. State of J&K, AIR 1972 SC 102.
65
Ramanathan v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1978 Cr LJ 1204.
66
TAYLOR ON EVIDENCE, p. 902, 1418 (12th ed.).
67
Malay Kumar Ganguly v. Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee, AIR 2010 SC 1162.
68
Duraipandi v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1973 SC 659.
69
Mafabhai N. Raval v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1992 SC 2186.
70
MODI'S MEDICAL JURISPRUDENCE AND TOXICOLOGY, 763 (23rd ed., 2008).
64

27 | P a g e
6TH UFYLC RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

[I]; The number, direction and extent of the wounds [II]; The condition of the locality, the
surroundings of the wounded persons and circumstances of the injury [III].
(50.) In the instant case the doctors [PW-8] and [PW-9], after proper examination and
application of due diligence have deposed that the possibility of the injuries being caused by
convulsions cannot be ruled out. The same has also been admitted by the Honble HC. Therefore,
it is apparent that the nature, directions, character and extent of the injury inflicted upon the
person of the deceased may also be self-inflicted. Since, the prosecution appellants have relied
upon surmises and conjectures without corroboration beyond reasonable doubt that such injuries
were inflicted as a result of forceful administration of poison, the respondents are entitled to
benefit of doubt.
[3.8] THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS INCONCLUSIVE IN NATURE.
[51.] As Jaffee says Propositions are true or false; they are not "probable"'.71 In court as
elsewhere, the data cannot 'speak for itself'. It has to be interpreted in the light of the competing
hypotheses put forward and against a background of knowledge and experience about the
world.72 Sir Alfred Wills in his book73 lays down the following rules specially to be observed in
the cases of circumstantial evidence: (1) the facts alleged as the basis of any legal inference
must be clearly proved and beyond reasonable doubt with the factum probandum; (2) the burden
of proof is always on the party who asserts the existence of any fact, which infers legal
accountability; (3) in all cases, whether of direct or circumstantial evidence the best evidence
must be adduced which the nature of the case admits; (4) in order to justify the inference of guilt,
the inculpatory facts must be incompatible with the innocence of the accused and incapable of
explanation, upon any other reasonable hypothesis than that of his guilt; (5) if there be any
reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused, he is entitled as of right to be acquitted. The same
has been reiterated in a plethora of cases74 and by Wigmore75 and Phispon76. In the present case,

71

AMERICAN JURISPRUDENCE, 322 (2nd ed., Vol. 29, Thomson Reuters) (2011).
Leonard Jaffee, Of Probativity and Probability, 46 University of Pittsburgh Law Review 924, 934 (1985).
73
AN ESSAY ON THE PRINCIPLES OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE BY WILLIAM WILLS, (3rd ed.
Henry Butterworth, 7, Fleet Street, Law Bookseller And Publisher).
74
Basant Singh v. State of Punjab, 1980 Supp SCC 469 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 376; See also, Jagjit Singh v. State of H.P
, 1994 SCC (Cri) 176 : 1994 Cri LJ 233 ; Vijender v. State of Delhi, (1997) 6 SCC 171 ; Ram Bharosey v. State of
U.P, 1954 Cri LJ 1755 : AIR 1954 SC 704 ; Madhu v. State of Kerala, (2012) 2 SCC 399 : (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 892 :
AIR 2012 SC 664; Mangleshwari Prasad v. State of Bihar, AIR 1954 SC 715; State of U.P v. Desh Raj, (2006) 9
SCC 278 : (2006) 2 SCC (Cri) 489; AIR 2006 SC 1712 ; Thimma and Thimma Raju v. State of Mysore, (1970) 2
SCC 105 : AIR 1971 SC 1871; Hari Om v. State of U.P, (1970) 3 SCC 453; Ronny v. State of Maharashtra, (1998) 3
72

28 | P a g e
6TH UFYLC RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

the plausibility of the hypothesis put forward by the Prosecution at the trial stage is inconclusive
in nature. The circumstances encompassing situation at hand fail to prove the factum probandum.
[3.8.1] THERE IS AN ABSENCE OF A MATERIAL HYPOTHESIS INCRIMINATING THE ACCUSED.
[52.] In the instant matter, Goyals have been charged of murdering the deceased Sharda at their
own place. The offences, if committed at all, must have been committed by the Goyals on that
day in that very room. To convict the Goyals, it is essential for the prosecution to prove that they
had the possession and opportunity to administer the poison at the point of the commission of the
crime, which has not been established by the Appellants. It is thus contended that none of the
existing circumstances are concrete enough to prove the factum probandum. In addition to this,
the testimonies of the relatives lack the essential probative value and are uncorroborated.
Moreover, they are partisan and interested witnesses.
[53.] Thus the available chain of circumstances fails to prove the proposed hypothesis and at
the same time fails to exclude any other possible hypothesis. The Apex Court in the case of
Bakhshish Singh v State of Punjab77 has observed that 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.
[3.8.2] SUBSEQUENT CONDUCT OF THE ACCUSED AFTER THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME.

[54.] The subsequent conduct of the accused would be relevant under 8 of the IEA. In the
instant case, the conduct of all the three members of the Goyal family had been quite
contradictory to the likes of an individual who had just committed murder. They didnt try to
abscond rather they tried their level best to get the deceased diagnosed.

SCC 625 : AIR 1998 SC 1251; Kansa Behera v. State of Orissa, (1987) 3 SCC 480 : AIR 1987 SC 1507; Budhuram
v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2012) 11 SCC 588 : (2013) 121 AIC 196 (SC); Tukaram v. State of Maharashtra, (1979) 2
SCC 143 : AIR 1979 SC 185; Ghurphekan v. State of U.P, (1972) 3 SCC 361 : AIR 1972 SC 1172.
75
WIGMORE, JOHN H., THE PRINCIPLES OF JUDICIAL PROOF: As given by Logic, Psychology and General
Experience and Illustrated in Judicial Trials, 632 (Little, Brown and Company, 1913).
76
BUZZARD, JOHN, MAY, RICHARD, HOWARD, M.N., PHIPSON ON EVIDENCE, 63 (12th ed., Sweet &
Maxwell, London).
77
AIR 1957 SC 904.

29 | P a g e
6TH UFYLC RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

[3.8.3] THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL CHAIN IS INCOMPLETE AND LEAVES A REASONABLE DOUBT.

[55.] There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for
the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human
probability the act must have been done by the accused, the evidence produced by the
prosecution should be of such nature that it makes the conviction of the accused sustainable.78
[56.] In the present case, the testimonies of the defence and prosecution witnesses, the failure
on the part of the Appellants to prove the poison test, medical reports and opinions of the doctors
and the subsequent conduct of the accused leads to an inference that there is a hypothesis which
points to the innocence of the accused. It does not exclude any other possible hypothesis nor is
the chain concrete enough to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
[57.] On the contrary, the facts so established are very well explainable on any other
hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. It is therefore most respectfully submitted that the
evidence presented is insufficient to sustain a conviction.
[3.8.4]

THE APPELLANTS HAVE BEEN UNABLE TO PROVE THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED BEYOND

REASONABLE DOUBT.

[58.] In the case of Woolmington v. DPP79, it has been elucidated by the Honble court that the
prosecution must prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. It has been mentioned by numerous
authorities that an accused must not be convicted unless the court is satisfied of guilt beyond all
reasonable doubt.80 The above-mentioned arguments do prove at least there lies a reasonable
doubt in all the charges framed against the accused. Thus, the conviction should be set aside.
78

Kishore Chand v. State of H.P, (1991) 1 SCC 286 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 172 : 1990 Cri LJ 2289 : AIR 1990 SC 2140;
See also, Narain Lal v. State of Rajasthan, (1969) 2 SCWR 282; Bakhshish Singh v. State of Punjab, (1971) 3 SCC
182 : 1971 SCC (Cri) 251 : 1971 Cri LJ 1452 : AIR 1971 SC 2016; S.P Bhatnagar v. State of Maharashtra, (1979) 1
SCC 535 : 1979 SCC (Cri) 323 : 1979 Cri LJ 566 : AIR 1979 SC 826; Laxmi Raj Shetty v. State of T.N, (1988) 3
SCC 319 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 633 : (1988) 2 Crimes 107 : AIR 1988 SC 1274; Usman @ Khalnayak v. State of U.P,
2016 SCC OnLine AII 616; Arjun v. State of Rajasthan, 2016 SCC OnLine Raj 5138; Kedarnath v. State of U.P,
2016 SCC Online AII 544.
79
[1935] AC 462.
80
Adambhai Sulemanbhai v. State of Gujarat, (2014) 7 SCC 716: (2014) 5 SCC (Cri) 312; See also, Ram Lakhan
Singh v. State of U.P, (1977) 3 SCC 268 : 1977 SCC (Cri) 474; Tulsiram Kanu v. State, AIR 1954 SC 1 : 1954 Cri
LJ 225; Ram Prasad v. State of U.P, (1974) 3 SCC 388 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 953; State of U.P v. Punni, (2008) 11 SCC
153 : (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 372; Allarakha K. Mansuri v. State of Gujarat, (2002) 3 SCC (Cri) 519 : 2002 Cri LJ 1489
: AIR 2002 SC 1051; Mallappa Siddappa Alakanur v. State of Karnataka, (2009) 14 SCC 748, 753-754; Surinder
Kaur v. State of Haryana, (2004) 4 SCC 109 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 926; Mohinder Singh v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
(2002) 10 SCC 189; Ashish Batham v. State of M.P., (2002) 7 SCC 317 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 1718; Gurbachan Singh v.
Satpal Singh and others, (1990) 1 SCC 445 : 1990 SCC (Cri) 151.

30 | P a g e
6TH UFYLC RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS

PRAYER

PRAYER

In the light of facts stated, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, the
Respondents most humbly and respectfully pray and request the Honourable Court:
1)

TO DISMISS THE PRESENT APPEAL.

2)

TO UPHOLD THE CONVICTION.

AND/OR
TO GRANT ANY OTHER ORDER IN FAVOUR OF THE RESPONDENTS WHICH THE HONOURABLE
COURT MAY DEEM THINK FIT IN THE EYES OF JUSTICE, EQUITY AND GOOD CONSCIENCE.

All of which is respectfully submitted and for such act of kindness the Respondents shall be duty
bound as ever pray.

Sd/COUNSELS FOR THE RESPONDENTS

31 | P a g e
6TH UFYLC RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016