TEAM CODE-MTC 103

MANIPAL UNIVERSITY 1st NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY COMPETITION 2021

[Apr 16 – 18, 2021]

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SESSIONS COURT OF PRAYAG SHEHAR

(S.C. NO 20 /2021)

IN THE MATTER OF

State ……… Prosecution

V.

Ramesh, Suresh, Salman, Adnan, Mukesh & Ors. .……... Defendant

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

FOR OFFENCES CHARGED UNDER SEC 302,323,324,147,148,149,336,427 INDIAN

PENAL CODE & 4/25 OF ARMS ACT

APPEARING ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS....................................................................................................4
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES......................................................................................................5
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION..........................................................................................7
STATEMENT OF FACTS ........................................................................................................8
STATEMENT OF ISSUES .......................................................................................................9
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS.............................................................................................10
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED………………………………………………………………..11
ISSUE 1. WHETHER ALTERATION OF CHARGES CAN BE MADE………………11
1.1 THE COURT HAS POWER TO ALTER THE CHARGES…………………………….11
1.2 ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS OF § 34…………………………………………………..12

ISSUE 2. WHETHER THE ACCUSED CAN BE HELD GUILTY OF §302 READ WITH
§34 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE?..........................................................................................13

2.1 THE ACCUSED HAD THE COMMON INTENTION TO MURDER THE

DECEASED………………………………………………………………………………….13

2.1.1. Witness statements…………………………………………………………...........14

2.1.2. Forensic report………………………………………………………………........14

2.2 MEN’S REA OF MURDER IS ESTABLISHED………………………………………...15

2.2.1 The accused had the intention to kill the deceased………………………………..15

2.2.2 The accused had the motive to kill the deceased………………………………….16

2.2.3 Arguendo, absence of motive is irrelevant…………………………………………16

ISSUE 3. WHETHER THE ACCUSED CAN BE HELD GUILTY OF OTHER

OFFENCES PUNISHABLE BY IPC?..................................................................................17

3.1 THE ACT OF THE ACCUSED FALLS WITHIN THE AMBIT OF SEC 323 AND SEC
324 OF IPC…………………………………………………………………………………...17

3.2 THE ACT OF THE ACCUSED FALLS WITHIN THE AMBIT OF SEC 147, 148 AND
SEC 149 OF IPC……………………………………………………………………………..18

2
3.3 THE ACT OF THE ACCUSED FALLS WITHIN THE AMBIT OF SEC 336 AND 427
OF IPC………………………………………………………………………………………..18

PRAYER FOR RELIEF……………………………………………………………………...19

LIST OF WITNESS STATEMENTS………………………………………………………...20

3
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

SYMBOL ABBREVIATIONS
& And
§ Section
A.I.R All India Reporter
Art. Article
Anr. Another
C.B.I Central Bureau of Investigation
Cr.P.C Criminal Procedure Code
Cal. Calcutta
D.L.T Delhi Law Times
ed. Edition

Hon’ble Honourable
I.T.R. Industrial Tribunal Reporter
M.P Madhya Pradesh
S.C. Supreme Court
S.C.C Supreme Court Cases
S.C.R Supreme Court Reporter

4
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

A. CASE LAWS
1. Abdul Sayeed v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2010) 10 S.C.C. 259
2. Appabhai v. State of Gujarat, 1988 CriLJ 848
3. Arichchat v. State of Madhya Pradesh A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 535
4. Badri v. State of U.P., AIR 19953 All 189
5. Bakshish Singh v State of Punjab, AIR 1971 SC 2016
6. Bala v. State (U T of Pondicherry) 2015 (11) S.C.A.L.E. 635
7. Bharwad Mepa Dana v. State of Bombay
8. C.B.I vs. Karimullah Osan Khan AIR 2014 SC 2234
9. Chhotka v State of WB, AIR 1958 Cal 482
10. Commissioner of Income Tax v Patranu Dass Raja Ram Beri, AIR 1982 PH 1, 4
11. Dibia v. State of U.P., AIR 1953 All 373
12. Enumula Subarao v. State , 1979 CriLJ 258.
13. Goundappa v. State of Karnataka (2013) 3 S.C.C. 675
14. Jagdish v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1981 CriLJ 630
15. Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1988 SC 1883
16. Krishna Govind Patil v. State of Maharashtra, A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 1415.
17. Lakhma v. State of Rajasthan, (1984) 1 Cr. L.J. 50.
18. Laxman v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1974 SC 1803
19. Leela Ram v. State of Haryana AIR 1999 SC 3717
20. Md. Idrish v. State, 2004 Cr LJ 1724 (Raj)
21. Md. Sharif And Anr. v. Rex, AIR 1950 All 380
22. Mithu Singh v. State of Punjab A.I.R. 2001 S.C. 1929.
23. Mohinder Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh 1976 (1) SLR 555
24. Mulakh Raj v. Satish Kumar, AIR 1992 SC 1175
25. Nand Kishore v. State Madhya Pradesh, A.I.R. 2011 S.C. 2275.
26. Narasinga Nadir v. State, 1985 Cr. L.J. 1397
27. Noor Mohammad Yusuf Momin AIR 1971 SC 855
28. Prakash v. State of M.P
29. Rajendra Singh Sethia v. The State, A.I.R. 1925 cal 579.
30. Ram Blias Singh v. The State of Bihar
31. Ram Tehal v. State of UP, A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 254
32. Ramesh Singh v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2004) 11 S.C.C. 305
33. Ravindra Shantaram Sawant v. State of Maharashtra , AIR 2000 SC 2461
34. Re: Bommareddi Satyanarayana Reddi, A.I.R. 1947 Mad 174
35. Sajjan Kumar v. State of MP, 1999CriLJ 4561
36. Santosh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1975 Cri LJ 602 (SC)
37. Satyavir Singh Rathi v. State, A.I.R. 2011 S.C. 1748

5
 38. Shyamlal Ghosh v. State of West Bengal A.I.R. 2012 S.C. 3339
39. Son Lal v State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 1142
40. State of Himachal Pradesh v. Lekh Raj and Anr., 1999 (9) ST 155
41. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Digvijay Singh, 1981 Cri. LJ 1278 (SC)
42. State of Maharashtra v Meyer Hans George, AIR 1965 SC 722
43. State of Maharashtra v. Bhairu Sattu Berad, AIR 1956 Bom 609
44. State of Mysore v. Venkapasetty, 1973 Cr. L.J. 1568
45. State of Punjab v Sucha Singh, AIR 2003 SC 1471
46. State of Rajasthan v. Kalki and Anr., 1981 CriLJ 1012
47. State of U.P. v. M.K. Anthony, 1985 CriLJ 493
48. State of UP v Ashok Kumar Srivastava, AIR 1992 SC 840
49. State v Dinakar Bandu (1969) 72 Bom LR 905
50. Suresh v. State of Madhya Pradesh A.I.R. 2001 S.C. 1344
51. Sushil Arora v. State

B. BOOKS REFERRED
1. Durga Das Basu ,Criminal Procedure Code,1973,‟ (4th Edn.2010),Lexi Nexis Butterworths
Wadhwa,Nagpur. Vol.1,2.
2. P.M.Bakshi, „Law Of Crimes‟(5th Edn.2000)India Law House,New Delhi.Vol.1,2.
3. R.P.Kathuria‟s, „Supreme Court On Criminal Law 1950-2002‟(6th Edn.2002),Professional Book
Publishers,New Delhi.Vol.2,4,6.
4. Sarkar‟s, „Law of Evidence,‟ (17th Edn.2010), Lexis Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa, Nagpur. Vol.1,2.
5. J.K.Soonavala, „Supreme Court Criminal Digest (1950-2010)‟,(5th Edn. 2011) Lexis Nexis
Butterworths Wadhwa,Nagpur, Vol. 1-4
6. Dr.Hari Singh Gaur‟s, „Indian Penal Code‟, (14th Edn. 2013), Law Publishers India(P) Ltd., Allahabad,
Vol 1&2

C. STATUTES REFERRED
1. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
2. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
3. The Indian Penal Code, 1860
4. The Arms Act 1878.

D. WEB SOURCE PREFERRE

1. www.manupatra.com
2. www.scconline.com
3. www.lexisnexis.co.in
4. www.jstor.org
5. www.austlii.edu.au

6
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Prosecution Counsels in the present case, hereby most respectfully submit that this Hon’ble
Court of Sessions at Prayag Shehar, has applicable jurisdiction in S.C. No 20 of 2021, under§
177 read with § 209 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The Counsels on behalf of the Prosecution
hence avail the honour of submitting before the Hon’ble Sessions Judge, their memorandum
so as to prove the guilt of the accused upon them not pleading guilty. This document sets forth
the facts, charges and corresponding arguments of the instant case. The Prosecution affirms
that it shall accept any Judgment of the Court as final and binding upon itself and shall execute
it in its entirety and in good faith

All of which is respectfully submitted

By: Counsels for the Prosecution

Place: Prayag Shehar

7
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

[A] BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

Alam (Deceased) an adult male aged about 19 years is a resident of Plot No. 69, Laxminagar,
Prayag Shehar. Four days prior to the present day, Salman, Adnan, Dinesh and others were
fighting unknown people near Babu’s Shop. Alam heard the people quarrelling and arrived at
the scene of incident and intervened.

[B] RELEVANT FACTS

On the present day, i.e., 21.02.2021, at around 7:30 pm in the evening, at the street of Metrajan
Shop, Alam, Raja and Avinash were standing with their friends. After a while, out of nowhere
(“Accused”) i.e., Ramesh, Suresh, Mukesh, Adnan and Salman along with 15 other people
arrived at that said place on motorcycles

[C] EVENTS THAT LED THE CASE BEFORE THE HON’BLE SESSION’S COURT

The accused after reaching the said place they started beating Alam, Raja and Avinash. On
hearing the loud noises of them quarrelling and shouting the complainant immediately ran
towards the scene of crime. When the complainant reached the place of incident, he found out
that Ramesh, Suresh, Mukesh, Adnan and Salman were assaulting Alam. Alam was stabbed by
Ramesh, Suresh, Mukesh, Adnan and Salman along with 15 other people at the street of
Metrajan Shop on 21.02.2021, at 7:30 pm in the evening.

8
 STATEMENT OF CHARGES

The Prosecution, most respectfully asks this Hon’ble Court of Sessions at Prayag Shehar to
consider the following charges as framed by it in accordance with Chapter XVII of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Ramesh, Suresh, Adnan, Salman, Mukesh and along with 15 other people charged with
Sec. 302, 323, 324, 147, 148, 149, 336 and 427 of IPC and 4/25 of Arms Act.

9
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE 1. WHETHER ALTERATION OF CHARGES CAN BE MADE.

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that If there are reasonable grounds to believe
that the accused had common intention alteration of charge is legal. As per Section 216 of the
Cr. P.C. have given ample power to revise or alter charges, provided there are materials on
record to support the revision or addition or alteration of the charges. Therefore, they are liable
to be punished under section 302 read with section 34 of IPC .

ISSUE 2. WHETHER THE ACCUSED CAN BE HELD GUILTY OF §302 READ WITH
§34 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE?

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the accused is guilty of murder as he had
committed an act of stabbing the victim in the street of Metrajan shop which is Actus Reus and
the accused had the requisite mens rea to commit the said crime, and he even had a previous
enmity with the victim which was well established in the fact. Hence it is proven beyond
Reasonable doubt that the crime of Murder was indeed committed by the accused in the case
at hand.

ISSUE 3. WHETHER THE ACCUSED CAN BE HELD GUILTY OF OTHER

OFFENCES PUNISHABLE BY IPC?

It is most humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the accused had committed the
crime of murder in addition to this, they are also done certain acts which includes unlawful
assemble with dangerous weapons with intent to cause hurt to the victims and also causing
wrongful loss to the public property which is forbidden by law and also punishable by Indian
Penal Code. So therefore the accused is guilty of Sec.323, 324, 427, 428, 429, 336, and 427 of
IPC.

10
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE 1. WHETHER ALTERATION OF CHARGES CAN BE MADE

The Counsel for the prosecution most humbly craves before this Hon’ble court that in the
present case it would be proper and appropriate to alter the charge under § 216 of the Cr.P.C.
The accused was charged under § 302,323,324,147,148,149,336,427, IPC and 4/25 Arms Act.
The prosecution would prefer to alter the charge under § 302 for murder read with § 34 for
common intention.

1.1 THE COURT HAS POWER TO ALTER THE CHARGES:

The counsel humbly submits that the court may also add a new charge at any time before
judgment is pronounced. The words "add to" in the section do not mean an addition of a few
words to the existing charge. They mean addition of a new charge 1.§ 216 of the new Cr. P.C.
have given ample power to revise or alter charges, provided there are materials on record to
support the revision or addition or alteration of the charges 2

Where a Magistrate summoned the accused under a certain section of the Penal Code, but the
evidence disclosed an offence under another section, he can amend the charge. The fact that he
originally summoned under a wrong section does not affect the question. If he presumed that
the accused have committed this offence. But such a charge was not framed. It is thus contended
that there was an implied discharge of the accused of this offence. It is in this context that the
scope of § 216, Cr, P, C. falls, for consideration 3.

The courts can exercise the power of modification of charges under S.261 of Cr.P.C only when
there exists some material before the court which has some connection or link with the charges
sought to be amended, added, and modified. In other words alteration of charge must be made
for an offence made out by the evidence recorded during the course of trial before the court. 4

The charge can be altered and added even without recording the evidence in the court. It has
not been provided under Section 216 Cr.P.C. that such addition and alteration of the charge is
permissible only after recording the evidence of the witness in the Court. In view of

1
Re: Bommareddi Satyanarayana Reddi, A.I.R. 1947 Mad 174
2
Rajendra Singh Sethia v. The State, A.I.R. 1925 cal 579.
3
Enumula Subarao v. State , 1979 CriLJ 258.
4
C.B.I vs. Karimullah Osan Khan AIR 2014 SC 2234

11
this Section the court is justified in alteration/ addition of charge even without recording the
evidence of any witnesses.5

1.2 ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS OF § 34

It is humbly submitted that when a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the
common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it
were done by him alone6. Thus, the essential ingredients to charge under § 34 of IPC are,

a). Where a criminal act is done by several person

b). In furtherance of the common intension
c). Each of such person is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone 7.

In order to hold a person liable under IPC § 34 or, it is not necessary to prove that each and
every one of them was involved in the overt act8. In most cases it has to be inferred from the
act like, the conduct of the accused or other relevant circumstances of the case. The inference
can be gathered by the manner in which the accused arrived at the scene, mounted the attack,
determination and concert with which the attack was made, from the nature of injury caused
by one or some of them. The contributory acts of the persons who are not responsible for the
injury can further be inferred from the subsequent conduct after the attack. In this regard even
an illegal omission on the part of such accused can indicate the sharing of common intention.
In other words, the totality of circumstances must be taken into consideration in arriving at the
conclusion whether the accused had the common intention to commit an offence of which they
could be convicted.9 . The object of the section is to find out the acts committed by individual
members or to find what part was taken by each of them in furtherance of common intention
of all. If there are reasonable grounds to believe that the injury caused by the accused was
intentional alteration of charge is legal. Since the prosecution adding the charge under § 34 as
there was enough prima facie evidence to support that there was common intention among the
accused.

5
Mohinder Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh 1976 (1) SLR 555
6
Sushil Arora v. State
7
Prakash v. State of M.P
8
Ram Blias Singh v. The State of Bihar; Bharwad Mepa Dana v. State of Bombay
9
Noor Mohammad Yusuf Momin AIR 1971 SC 855

12
ISSUE 2. WHETHER THE ACCUSED CAN BE HELD GUILTY OF §302 READ WITH
§34 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE?

The counsel for the prosecution humbly submits that Ramesh, Suresh, Mukesh, Adnan and
Salman have committed the offence of murder by killing the deceased and should be punished
under §302 read with §34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

It is further contended that the accused is guilty for committing the offence of murder under §
302, IPC. § 302 prescribes the punishment for committing murder. In order to bring a
successful conviction under this charge, however, it is pertinent to refer to §300, IPC which
elucidates the essentials of murder.

2.1 THE ACCUSED HAD THE COMMON INTENTION TO MURDER THE DECEASED

Any person who in ‘furtherance of common intention’ participated in the commission of a

crime each one of them becomes jointly liable10. The main ingredients to be satisfied is that the
act must be done by several persons, the criminal act must be to further the common intention
of all and there must be participation of all persons in furthering the common intention 11. Every
member in the group charged with the aid of §34 must participate in the criminal act 12. It means
that if two or more persons intentionally do a thing jointly, it is just the same as if each of them
has done it individually13. The totality of the circumstances must be taken into consideration to
determine the common intention14.

Actus reus is any wrongful act15. Thus, in a case of murder, actus reus would be the physical
conduct of the accused that causes death of the victim. In the instant case, the actus reus is
established by way of witness statements [2.1.1], Forensic Report [2.1.2]

10
Ramesh Singh v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2004) 11 S.C.C. 305, Abdul Sayeed v. State of Madhya Pradesh
(2010) 10 S.C.C. 259, Goundappa v. State of Karnataka (2013) 3 S.C.C. 675, Satyavir Singh Rathi v. State,
A.I.R. 2011 S.C. 1748, Bala v. State (U T of Pondicherry) 2015 (11) S.C.A.L.E. 635.
11
arichchat v. State of Madhya Pradesh A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 535, Suresh v. State of Madhya Pradesh A.I.R. 2001
S.C. 1344, Mithu Singh v. State of Punjab A.I.R. 2001 S.C. 1929.
12
Shyamlal Ghosh v. State of West Bengal A.I.R. 2012 S.C. 3339, Nand Kishore v. State Madhya Pradesh,
A.I.R. 2011 S.C. 2275.
13
State of Mysore v. Venkapasetty, 1973 Cr. L.J. 1568; Narasinga Nadir v. State, 1985 Cr. L.J. 1397; Lakhma
v. State of Rajasthan, (1984) 1 Cr. L.J. 50.
14
Ram Tehal v. State of UP, A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 254; Krishna Govind Patil v. State of Maharashtra, A.I.R. 1963
S.C. 1415.
15
Aiyar, P Ramanatha, The Law Lexicon, p. 49 (2nd ed 2006)

13
2.1.1. WITNESS STATEMENTS

Bearing in mind that it is not for the prosecution to meet any and every hypothesis suggested
by the accused, howsoever extravagant and fanciful it might be16, it is humbly submitted before
this Hon’ble Court that the circumstantial evidence in the instant matter shows that within all
human probability, the act must have been done by the accused 17.

It is most humbly submitted that on 21.2.2021 around 7:30 PM the accused and others arrived
at the street of Metrajan shop with their motorcycles which is corroborated by the witness
statements of Moen Ali and Tannu and also after reaching the place they started beating Alam,
Raja and Avinash. When Alam ran towards Hatwada Road the two named accused Ramesh
and Suresh who stabbed the deceased with Knife result of which Alam was bloodied and fall
on the ground which is corroborated all of the witness statements.

It is contended that there exist discrepancies, between the witness statements with respect to
the name of the accused and the number of members. However, in the instant case, none of the
statements contradict each other with respect to the manner in which the crime was carried out.
Neither is there any inconsistency in the chain of events which have been narrated by the
witnesses. There is bound to be some discrepancy between the narrations of different witnesses
due to errors of observation, errors of memory due to lapse of time, mental disposition and the
like18. Trivial discrepancies ought not to obliterate otherwise acceptable evidence of
eyewitnesses19 and are not fatal for the prosecution’s case 20 as they do not go to the root of the
prosecution story and need not be given undue importance 21.

2.1.2 FORENSIC REPORT

The post mortem report becomes important in cases where the cause of death is to be
established and is a matter of controversy22. Moreover, it is not possible for the Prosecution in
to explain each and every injury suffered by the witnesses23. However, for the sake of

16
State of UP v Ashok Kumar Srivastava, AIR 1992 SC 840
17
Bakshish Singh v State of Punjab, AIR 1971 SC 2016
18
State of Rajasthan v. Kalki and Anr., 1981 CriLJ 1012
19
Leela Ram v. State of Haryana AIR 1999 SC 3717 ; State of U.P. v. M.K. Anthony, 1985 CriLJ 493;
Appabhai v. State of Gujarat, 1988 CriLJ 848; Sajjan Kumar v. State of MP, 1999CriLJ 4561
20
State of Himachal Pradesh v. Lekh Raj and Anr., 1999 (9) ST 155
21
Jagdish v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1981 CriLJ 630
22
Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1988 SC 1883
23
Ravindra Shantaram Sawant v. State of Maharashtra , AIR 2000 SC 2461

14
convenience, the Prosecution feels obliged to assist this Hon’ble Court in understanding the
intricacies of the post mortem report.

I. Cause of death

8th Wound- Stab incised wound of size 2 x ¼ cm, elliptical in shape with acute angles, oozing
of blood from wound present on left side chest wall region. 6 ½ cm from left nipple 11 cm from
right side nipple, 12 cm from medical end of Left side clavicle bone.

9th Wound -Stab incised wound of size 2 x 1 ½ cm elliptical in shape with both acute angle and
oozing of blood from wound resent on Left side chest wall region, 9 cm from left side nipple
region, 11 cm from right side nipple region. There is distance of 11 cm in between two.

Antemortem injury no. 8 and associated with injury no. 9 Individually and cumulatively
sufficient to cause death in ordinary cause of nature. The ante mortem injury 8 and 9 caused
the Ramesh, Suresh and others which is corroborated with witness statements.

2.2 MEN’S REA OF MURDER IS ESTABLISHED

Mens rea is considered as guilty intention24, which is proved or inferred from the acts of the
accused25 . It is submitted that the intention to kill is established [2.1.1] in light of clear-cut
motive of the accused [2.2.2]. Arguendo, absence of motive would not be a sufficient ground
to dismiss the case [2.2.3]

2.2.1 THE ACCUSED HAD THE INTENTION TO KILL THE DECEASED

It is presumed that every sane person intends the result that his action normally produces and
if a person hits another on a vulnerable part of the body, and death occurs as a result, the
intention of the accused can be no other than to take the life of the victim and the offence
committed amounts to murder26. Moreover, the intention to kill is not required in every case,
mere knowledge that natural and probable consequences of an act would be death will suffice
for a conviction under §.302 of IPC27.

The intention to kill can be inferred from the murder and nature of the injuries caused to the
victim28 Causing a serious injury on a vital part of the body of the deceased with a dangerous

24
Commissioner of Income Tax v Patranu Dass Raja Ram Beri, AIR 1982 PH 1, 4
25
State of Maharashtra v Meyer Hans George, AIR 1965 SC 722
26
5 (1951) 3 Pepsu LR 635
27
Santosh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1975 Cri LJ 602 (SC)
28
Laxman v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1974 SC 1803

15
weapon must necessarily lead to the inference that the accused intended to cause death or bodily
injury sufficient to cause death of the victim, and it answers to § 300 and is murder29.Given
that the accused used double edged sharp weapon to cause the injury 8 and 9 , it is logical to
conclude that he intended to cause the death of the victim.

2.2.2 THE ACCUSED HAD THE MOTIVE TO KILL THE DECEASED

Sec 8, Evidence Act stipulates that any fact is relevant which shows or constitutes motive or
preparation for any fact in issue or relevant fact. Thus, previous threats or altercations between
parties are admitted to show motive30. It is further pertinent to note that if there is motive in
doing an act, then the adequacy of that motive is not in all cases necessary. Heinous offences
have been committed for very slight motive31.

In this present case on the month of July 2020, Ramesh had broken into Alam’s house with
arms and damaged vehicles parked outside the house and threw stones inside the house and
threatened to kill Alam. This incident clearly shows that there is pre-existing motive to kill
Alam and it was executed by the accused on the day of 21.2.2021.

2.2.3 ARGUENDO, ABSENCE OF MOTIVE IS IRRELEVANT

Assuming for the sake of argument that the accused had no motive, it is humbly contended that
absence of motive is no ground for dismissing the case. Motive is immaterial so far as the
offence is concerned, and need not be established32 as the mere existence of motive is by itself,
not an incriminating circumstance and cannot take the place of a proof 33.

Therefore, absence of proof of motive, does not break the link in the chain of circumstances
connecting the accused with the crime, nor militates against the prosecution case and is not
fatal as a matter of law34. When the circumstantial evidence on record is sufficient to prove
beyond any doubt to prove that it was the accused and no one else, who intentionally caused
the death of the accused then, motive of the crime need not be proved 35, as in the current case.

29
Md. Idrish v. State, 2004 Cr LJ 1724 (Raj); Md. Sharif And Anr. v. Rex, AIR 1950 All 380; Badri v. State of
U.P., AIR 19953 All 189; Dibia v. State of U.P., AIR 1953 All 373, State of Maharashtra v. Bhairu Sattu Berad,
AIR 1956 Bom 609
30
Son Lal v State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 1142, Chhotka v State of WB, AIR 1958 Cal 482
31
State v Dinakar Bandu (1969) 72 Bom LR 905
32
Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code, 33rd Ed. (2011)
33
State of Punjab v Sucha Singh, AIR 2003 SC 1471
34
Mulakh Raj v. Satish Kumar, AIR 1992 SC 1175
35
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Digvijay Singh, 1981 Cri. LJ 1278 (SC)

16
Therefore, it is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the accused is guilty for the
offence of murder, given that the requisite mens rea and actus reus is established from the facts
of the case, beyond a reasonable doubt.

ISSUE 3. WHETHER THE ACCUSED CAN BE HELD GUILTY OF OTHER

OFFENCES PUNISHABLE BY IPC?

It is most humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the accused is held guilty of Sec.
323, 324, 147, 148, 149, 336 and 427 of IPC and under Section 4/25 of Arms Act.

3.1 THE ACT OF THE ACCUSED FALLS WITHIN THE AMBIT OF SEC 323 AND SEC
324 OF IPC

Sec 321 of IPC states that Voluntarily causing hurt. --Whoever does any act with the intention
of thereby causing hurt to any person, or with the knowledge that he is likely thereby to cause
hurt to any person, and does thereby cause hurt to any person, is said "voluntarily to cause
hurt".

In this instant case the accused along with their companions reached the chacha chawla shop
and they started beating Alam, Avinash and Raja. Therefore, the said act falls within the
meaning of 321 of IPC and therefore it was punishable under Sec 323 of IPC.

Sec. 324 states that whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes
hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which,
used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated
substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive
substance or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to
swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or
with both.

In the present case the accused used the blunt weapon to cause hurt to the victim’s which is
used for cutting or stabbing so therefore the said act was punishable under Sec.324 of IPC.

3.2 THE ACT OF THE ACCUSED FALLS WITHIN THE AMBIT OF SEC 147, 148 AND
SEC 149 OF IPC

Sec 149 states that Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in
prosecution of common object. --If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful

17
assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such as the members of that
assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who, at
the time of the committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that
offence.

Sec 146 states the definition of Rioting. --Whenever force or violence is used by an unlawful
assembly, or by any member thereof, in prosecution of the common object of such assembly,
every member of such assembly is guilty of the offence of rioting.

In this present case on the day, i.e., 21.02.2021, at around 7:30 pm in the evening, at the street
of Metrajan Shop, Alam, Raja and Avinash were standing with their friends. After a while, out
of nowhere (“Accused”) i.e., Ramesh, Suresh, Mukesh, Adnan and Salman along with 15 other
people arrived at the said place, on motorcycles and as soon as they reached, they started
beating Alam, Raja and Avinash and used violence against the victim with deadly weapon
which caused the death and caused injury to his friends so therefore the accused is guilty of
Sec 147, 148 and 149 of IPC.

3.3 THE ACT OF THE ACCUSED FALLS WITHIN THE AMBIT OF SEC 336 AND 427
OF IPC

Sec 336 states that an Act endangering life or personal safety of others. --Whoever does any
act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life or the personal safety others, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months
or with fine which may extend to two hundred and fifty rupees, or with both.

Sec 427 states that Mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees. -- Whoever commits
mischief and thereby causes loss or damage to the amount of fifty rupees or upwards, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years,
or with fine, or with both.

In the present case the accused used violence to affect the personal safety of the people and
also caused wrongful loss to the public thereby causing damages to the public So therefore the
accused is guilty of Sec 336 and 427 of IPC.

18
 PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Wherefore in the light of the facts stated, charges framed, evidence adduced, arguments
advanced and authorities cited, the Counsels for the prosecution humbly pray and implore
before this Hon’ble Court of Sessions to Convict all the accused and set the at liberty and
declare (u/s. 225 of Cr.P.C.) that

 Ramesh, Suresh, Adnan, Salman, Mukesh and along with 15 other people is guilty of
Sec. 302, 323, 324, 147, 148, 149, 336 and 427 of IPC and 4/25 of Arms Act or

The Court may make any such order as it may deem fit in terms of justice, equity and good
conscience.

And for this act of kindness, the Defence shall as duty bound ever humbly pray.

Respectfully Submitted

Place: Prayag Shehar S/d______________________________

Date: April 2021 Counsel(s) for the Prosecution

19
 LIST OF WITNESS

161 CRPC statement Tarnum a.k.a Tannu D/o Shri Irshad Ali and sister of Alam, by
caste Muslim Age 21 years Resident Plot No.69, Laxmi Nagar, prayag shehar.

That I am residing in Plot No.69 Laxmi Nagar, prayag shehar with my family. Alam was my
brother we used to live with our family in the said plot number 69. Alam is my younger brother.
On 21.02.2021 in the evening, the time was around 7.30PM, In the street of Metrajan Shop.
Alam was standing with his friends Raja and Avinash. At the same time, Ramesh, Suresh,
Mukesh, Adnan, Salman with 10-15 other boys came from Hatwada road in a herd and started
fighting with Raja and Alam on the street. I heard that someone is quarrelling, I went there and
Moen Ali also came. Then, Ramesh, Suresh, Mukesh, Adnan, and Salman attacked Alam with
a sharp knife. Then they fled away on their motorcycles and scooters. I sent Alam with Moen
Ali to the Hospital on Shabir’s Motorcycle. But in the Hospital, Dr. declared my brother Alam
as dead.

161 CRPC Mr. Raja Khan Son Mr. Mustafa Khan Caste Muslim 18 years

That I reside at the above address with my family. I have set up a pet shop (Dog food) shop in
xxxxxxx. Alam and Avinash are my friends. On 21.02.2021 in the evening the time was around
7.00PM, I was at my shop. At that time, my Friend Avinash called me and asked me to come
at chacha chai in the street next to the Natarajan Sweets at Hatwada Road Prayag Shehar. On
which I took my maestro scooty to where both my friends Alam and Avinash met. I parked my
scooty in the street opposite the gate of Uncle Tea Shop. Standing on the side, and sat on it and
started talking to Alam and Avinash. After about 5 to 7 minutes, about 8 -10 boys came from
a road towards Hatwada road and started beating me and Alam and Avinash with punches.
From behind me, one of these boys hit the face and feet with something. Which made me bleed.
When Alam ran towards Hatwada road to escape, Ramesh came in the street with two boys
who reached Alam directly and stabbed him in the stomach and chest two times. Because of
which Alam was bloodied and fell on the ground, due to which his clothes were stained with
blood and there was a lot of blood on the ground too. One of them fled backwards and the rest
fled towards Hatwada Road. Meanwhile, Alam's younger brother Moen Ali had come there
with the help of which I, and Moen took him to the LML Hospital. Where the doctors checked
declared him dead. After that, the three men went back to the spot where the police were present
and were taking action where Alam's brother Moen presented a report of the incident. The
perpetrators of the incident include Ramesh and Suresh and others.

20