TC-352 P (Final)

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 33

12th R.C.

CHOPRA MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT


COMPETITION 2023

TEAM CODE: RC- 2356

12th R.C. CHOPRA MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT

COMPETITION 2023

APPELLANT JURISDICTION

IN THE MATTER OF

GANGA ......................................................................................................(APPELLANT 1 )

DEV ..............................................................................................................( APPELLANT 2)

VERSUS

STATE OF INDUS ................................................................................( RESPONDENT 1 )

APPELENT NO. _/_2023_

ON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT

UNDER SEC. 374(1) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE,1973

Wriiten submission on behalf of Appellant

Counsel on behalf of Appellant

-MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF APPELLANT- 1|Page


12th R.C. CHOPRA MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION 2023

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS………………………………………………………………….. 2
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS……………………………………………………………… 3
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES………………….…………………………………….……4-6
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION………………………………………………………7
FACTS OF CASE…………………………………………………………………….….8-9
ISSUES RAISED ………………………………………………………………………10
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ………………………………………………………11 -12
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED…………………………………………………………..13-32

ISSUE 1.CAN CONVICTION BE BASED ON CIRCUMSTANCIAL EVIDENCE


AVAILABLE IN THE CASE?

ISSUE2.IS CONVICTION BASED ON RETRACTED CONFESSION


APPROPRIATE?

ISSUE 3. CAN CONVICTION BE BASED MERELY ON RECOVERY UNDER


SECTION 27 OF INDUS EVIDENCE ACT, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY FORENSIC
EVIDENCE AND RECOVERY OF DEAD BODY?

ISSUE 4. IS CONVICTION OF THE JUVENILE ACCUSED BY THE TRIAL


COURT JUSTIFIED?

PRAYER…………………………………………………………………………………33

-MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF APPELLANT- 2|Page


12th R.C. CHOPRA MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION 2023

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Abbreviations Expansion
& And
¶ Paragraph
AIR All India Reporter
App Appellant
Const. Constitution
Etc. Ectera
Hon’ble Honourable
i.e., That is
ITU International Telecommunication Union
Ltd. Limited
Ors Others
Para Paragraph
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases

-MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF APPELLANT- 3|Page


12th R.C. CHOPRA MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION 2023

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Case Referred

A. Supreme Court Cases

S. No. Cause Title Citation

1. . Shakhram Shankar Bansode v. State of AIR 1994 SC 1594


Maharashtra
2. Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani
1978 AIR 1025
3. Pakala Narayana Swami v. Emperor (1939) 41 BOMLR 428

4. Kalawativs Vs. State of Himanchal 1953 AIR 131, 1953 SCR 546
Pradesh
5. State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad 1962 (3) SCR 10
6. State of Tamil Nadu Vs..Kutty alias Appeal (crl.) 453 of 1991
Lakshmi Narashinhan
7. D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997 (1) SCC 416)
9. Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab 1994 SCC (3) 569
10. State of Punjab vs. Iqbal Singh 1976 AIR 667
11. Baiju vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (1978) 1 SCC 588
12. 1975 AIR 856, 1975 SCR (3) 453
Ravindra vs. State of Haryana

13. 2014 5 SCC 509


Bharat vs. State of U.P

14. (2019) 02 P&H CK 0121


Mohanlal vs. State of Haryana

15. Hanumat v. State of M.P [1953] SCR 1091


16. Bodhraj @Bodha And Ors. vs. State (2002) 8 SCC 45
of Jammu & Kashmir
17. Bhagat Ram v.State of Punjab AIR 1954 SC 621

18. C. Chenga Reddy v. State of A.P (1996) 10 SCC 193, (SCC pp. 206-
07,para 21)

-MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF APPELLANT- 4|Page


12th R.C. CHOPRA MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION 2023

19. Ram Bihari Yadav vs State Of Bihar 1998 (4) SCC 517

20. State of Rajasthan v. Teja Ram 2000 (1) WLC 13.

21. Muhammed v. State of Kerala (2004) 9 SCC 193

22. Naveenthakrishnan v. State by Inspector of AIR 2018 SC 2027


Police
23. Ram Naresh Yadav v. State of (2012) 4 SCC 257
Chhattisgarh
24. Raja & Anr.v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2013) 3 SCC 394

25. State of Maharashtra v. Suresh (2000) 1 SCC 471

26. Umesh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan (2011) 11 SCC 466

27. Ramanand Tiwari v. State of Madhya (2011) 10 SCC 114


Pradesh
28. Gurbachan Singh v. State of Punjab (2017) 10 SCC 416

39. Jitendra Singh alias Babloo v. State of (2007) 9 SCC 667


U.P.
30. Rajendra Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar (2013) 14 SCC 193

31. Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand (2005) 3 SCC 551

32. Rajendra Shyamlal Oswal v. State of (1993) 2 SCC 759


Maharashtra
33. Mohd Jamiludan Nasir v. State of W.B (2014) 7 SCC 443 (Para 21)

B. High Court Cases

S.N Cause Title Citation/Case No.


o
1. Daljit Singh v. State of Punjab 1992 Cr LJ 1051

-MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF APPELLANT- 5|Page


12th R.C. CHOPRA MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION 2023

STATUES INCORPORATED

S. No Statue Article/Section
1. The Constitution of Indus, 1950 Art. 20(3)
2. Criminal Procedural Code, Sec.164, 281
3. The IndusPenal Code, 1860 Sec.292(1), 292(2)(a), 295A
4. Juvinile Justice Act, 2015 S 3, 10, 12, 21, 23, 39
5. The Indus Evidence Act, Sec. 24, 27,

BOOKS REFERRED

S. No Name of the Author Name of the Books Edition/Year


1. Dr J.N. Pandey Constitutional Law of India
2023
2. Lexis Nexis Universal Constitution Bare Acts 2022
3. Lexis Nexis Universal IPC Bare Acts 2023
4. Lexis Nexis Universal IEA bare acts 2022
5. Ratanlal and dhirajlal The Law of Evidence 2017
6. S.N. Mishra The Code Of Criminal Procedure 2020

WEB RESOURCES REFERRED

S. No Web Resources Websites


1. Live Law https://www.livelaw.in/
2. SCC Online https://www.scconline.com/
3. Manupatra https://www.manupatrafast.com/?t=desktop
4. Lexis Nexis https://www.lexisnexis.com/

-MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF APPELLANT- 6|Page


12th R.C. CHOPRA MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION 2023

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

THE COUNSEL FOR THEAPPELENT,HEREBY HUMBLY SUBMIT TO THIS


HON’BLE COURT’S JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 374 (1) of CODE OF
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 1973FOR THE APPEAL OF HIGH COURT ORDER.

THE APPELENT MOST HUMBLY AND RESPECTFULLY SUBMITS BEFORE


THE JURISDICTION OF THE PRESENT COURT AND ACCEPTS THAT IT HAS
THE POWER AND AUTHORITY TO PRESIDE OVER THE PRESENT CASE.

Section 374 (1) Code Of Criminal Procedure 1973 -

“Any person convicted on a trial held by a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge or
on a trial held by any other court in which a sentence of imprisonment for more than seven
years has been passed against him, or against any other person convicted at the same trial,
may appeal to the High Court.”

-MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF APPELLANT- 7|Page


12th R.C. CHOPRA MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION 2023

FACTS OF THE CASE

Initial Report: On 26 May 2020, a concerned citizen, Mr. Mohanto, made a call to the local
police station, reporting a significant amount of blood on Canal Road near Dilbagh
Extension.

First Responder: Head Constable Amar Das received the call and immediately recorded the
information in the General Diary (GD) register.

Police Response: Sub-Inspector Kishwar, accompanied by Head Constable Amar Das,


promptly proceeded to the reported location to investigate the matter.

Scene Examination: Upon reaching the scene, they discovered a substantial pool of blood on
the roadside. Additionally, there were broken glass pieces and blood-stained paper scattered
nearby.

Evidence Collection: All relevant articles, including the broken glass, blood-stained paper,
and samples of the blood, were carefully collected, sealed, and a recovery memo was duly
prepared.

Drag Marks: During further investigation, conspicuous marks were found, suggesting the
dragging of a heavy object from the road into a nearby jungle. These drag marks extended up
to the river but vanished thereafter.

Missing Person Report: Simultaneously, the police station received a report from Mr.
Balwaan, stating that his son, Sumit, had gone missing since the previous evening, i.e., 25
May 2020. Sumit had left home on his motorcycle but had not returned.

Statement of Mother: The investigating officer visited the residence of Sumit, where he
recorded a statement from Sumit's mother. She disclosed that Sumit returned from his office
around 5 PM on 25 May 2020, informing her not to prepare dinner as he was planning to
meet his friends, Ganga and juvenile Dev, and would be out late.

Uncooperative Friends: Both Ganga and juvenile Dev, the friends of Sumit, were
summoned to the police station for questioning, but they initially did not report.

-MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF APPELLANT- 8|Page


12th R.C. CHOPRA MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION 2023

Confession Statements: Subsequently, Ganga and juvenile Dev confessed to the police that
on 25 May 2020, they, along with Sumit, rode together on Sumit's motorcycle on Canal Road
towards Dilbag Extension. Along the way, they purchased alcohol, consumed it, and
continued towards Dilbagh Extension.

Assault and Crime: At a certain point, they stopped to answer the call of nature, with Sumit
remaining seated on the motorcycle. It was during this interval that both Ganga and Dev
allegedly assaulted Sumit using large knives.

Disposal of Evidence: After the alleged assault, they discarded Sumit's helmet and purse in a
nearby jungle, dragged Sumit's body and the motorcycle to the nearby riverbank, and threw
them into the river. Following this, they swam across the river and burnt their blood-stained
clothes. The weapon used in the crime was concealed in the jungle.

FIR and Arrest: An FIR was registered against Ganga and Dev under sections 302 (murder)
and 341 (wrongful restraint) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Both accused were subsequently
arrested by the police.

Weapon Recovery: Based on the information provided by the accused, the police
successfully recovered the alleged murder weapon, which was an important piece of
evidence.

Statement under Section 164 CrPC: The accused were presented before a Magistrate for
recording their statements under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
However, it is notable that the Magistrate did not record the certificate under Section 164
CrPC, and these statements were taken in the presence of the investigating officer.

Trial and Conviction: During the trial, both accused retracted their confessions, alleging that
they were made under duress. Nevertheless, the Trial Court convicted both Ganga and Dev
for the murder of Sumit and imposed a sentence of imprisonment for life under Section 302
of the IPC, read with Section 34.

Grounds of Appeal: In their appeal to the High Court, both Ganga and Dev contend that
their confessions were obtained under coercion, and they vehemently deny their involvement
in the alleged crime. They assert that the conviction was solely based on circumstantial
evidence and discoveries under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, raising doubts about
the legality of their convictions.

-MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF APPELLANT- 9|Page


12th R.C. CHOPRA MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION 2023

ISSUES RAISED

ISSUE 1.

CAN CONVICTION BE BASED ON CIRCUMSTANCIAL EVIDENCE AVAILABLE


IN THE CASE?

ISSUE 2.

IS CONVICTION BASED ON RETRACTED CONFESSION APPROPRIATE?

ISSUE 3.

CAN CONVICTION BE BASED MERELY ON RECOVERY UNDER SECTION 27


OF INDUS EVIDENCE ACT, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY FORENSIC EVIDENCE
AND RECOVERY OF DEAD BODY?

ISSUE 4.

IS CONVICTION OF THE JUVENILE ACCUSED BY THE TRIAL COURT


JUSTIFIED?

-MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF APPELLANT- 10 | P a g e


12th R.C. CHOPRA MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION 2023

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE 1. CAN CONVICTION BE BASED ON CIRCUMSTANCIAL EVIDENCE


AVAILABLE IN THE CASE?

It is most humbly submitted to the Hon’ble High CourtIn the case presented, the conviction
of the App. solely based on circumstantial evidence is not tenable due to several key reasons.
Firstly, the evidence does not fully meet the essential conditions required for such a
conviction, including a complete and conclusive chain of evidence. Secondly, there is a
notable absence of substantial evidence, as the prosecution failed to produce the victim's
body or establish a concrete link to the appellant. Additionally, the lack of a discernible
motive weakens the case further. In the absence of compelling evidence, the benefit of doubt
principle should prevail, and the appellants should be acquitted.

ISSUE 2. IS CONVICTION BASED ON RETRACTED CONFESSION


APPROPRIATE?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon ‘ble high court thatConviction based on retracted
confessions in the present case is not appropriate due to several compelling reasons. Firstly,
the confessions were obtained under duress and coercion, potentially rendering them
involuntary and inadmissible under Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act. Secondly, the
accused have the right to retract their confessions, as protected by Article 20(3) of the
Constitution, especially if they were obtained involuntarily. Lastly, the violation of their legal
rights, specifically the right to legal representation, during the confession process raises
concerns about the fairness of the investigation. These factors collectively cast doubt on the
reliability of the confessions and the appropriateness of a conviction based on them.

ISSUE 3 CAN CONVICTION BE BASED MERELY ON RECOVERY UNDER


SECTION 27 OF INDUS EVIDENCE ACT, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY FORENSIC
EVIDENCE AND RECOVERY OF DEAD BODY?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon ‘ble high court that conviction based solely on the
recovery under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, without accompanying forensic
evidence and the recovery of the victim's dead body, is not justified. Several legal precedents

-MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF APPELLANT- 11 | P a g e


12th R.C. CHOPRA MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION 2023

emphasize the need for corroborative evidence in such cases. The absence of forensic
evidence raises reasonable doubts, and the failure to recover the victim's body hampers the
establishment of corpus delicti, making it challenging to prove that a murder occurred. This
critical deficiency in evidence calls into question the validity of the conviction and
underscores the need for a more comprehensive case to establish guilt beyond a reasonable
doubt.

ISSUE 4. IS CONVICTION OF THE JUVENILE ACCUSED BY THE TRIAL


COURT JUSTIFIED?
It is most humbly submitted to the Hon’ble High court that conviction of the juvenile
accused by the trial court is unjustified for several reasons. Firstly, the trial court lacked
jurisdiction to try the juvenile, as per the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, which mandates separate
proceedings for juveniles. Secondly, the conviction contradicts various provisions of the
Juvenile Justice Act, including sections 10, 13, 21, and 39, which prioritize rehabilitation
over punishment. Thirdly, it violates the fundamental rights of the accused under Article
20(3) of the Indian Constitution, as their statements were allegedly obtained under duress.
The conviction does not align with the principles of juvenile justice and is legally untenable.

-MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF APPELLANT- 12 | P a g e


12th R.C. CHOPRA MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION 2023

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE 1. CAN CONVICTION BE BASED ON CIRCUMSTANCIAL EVIDENCE


AVAILABLE IN THE CASE?

[¶1.] It is most humbly submitted to the Hon’ble High Court that in this present case
conviction merely based on circumstantial evidence is not possible because, Firstly, the act is
not fulfilling the essential conditions (1.1).Secondly, Absence of any substantial evidence
(1.2) Thirdly, the absence of any motive (1.3)

1.1 the act is not fulfilling the essential conditions

[¶2.] Before a case against an accused vesting on circumstantial evidence can be said to
be fully established the following conditions must be fulfilled as laid down in Hanumat v.
State of M.P1

 The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully
established;
 The facts so established should be consistent with the hypothesis of guilt and the
accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except
that the accused is guilty;
 The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency;
 They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and
 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

These five golden principles constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on
circumstantial evidence and in the absence of a corpus deliciti. The principle of
circumstantial evidence has been reiterated by the Apex Court in a plethora of cases. InBodhraj
@Bodha And Ors. v. State of Jammu & Kashmir2, wherein this court quoted number of
judgments and held as under:

1
Hanumat v. State of M.P,(1953) SCR 1091.
2
Bodhraj @Bodha And Ors. v. State of Jammu & Kashmir,(2002) 8 SCC 45.

-MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF APPELLANT- 13 | P a g e


12th R.C. CHOPRA MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION 2023

“It has been consistently laid down by this Court that where a case rests squarely on
circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the in
criminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of
the accused or the guilt of any other person.”

In Bhagat Ram v.State of Punjab3, it was laid down that where the case depends upon the
conclusion drawn from circumstances the cumulative effect of the circumstances must be
such as to negative the innocence of the accused and bring home the offences beyond and
reasonable doubt. We may also make a reference to a decision of the Apex Court in

C. Chenga Reddy v. State of A.P4, wherein it has been observed thus:


“In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the settled law is that the circumstances from
which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such circumstances must be
conclusive in nature. Moreover, all the circumstances should be complete and there should
be no gap left in the chain of evidence. Further, the proved circumstances must be consistent
only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his
innocence.”

[¶3.] And in this present case scenario the conditions are not been completely fulfilled as the
evidence in the case is not corroborative in nature and the chain of evidence is not complete
as only on the basis of some glass pieces, blood stained paper which was noticed and taken
in custody and Further, missing report of the respondent Sumit was received both of the
scenes were presumed to be interlinked only on the grounds that App. were seen with the
respondent which and there is no proof that evidence found is linked anywhere to the
respondent and further there is no evidence which connects the App. to the murder of the
respondent. Thus, convicting App. of murder is drawing a conclusion which is based on false
hypothesis and not on conclusive evidence.

1.2 Absence of any substantial evidence

[¶4.] According to Section 101 of the Indus Evidence Act 18725, the burden of proof lies on
the person who asserts the fact, therefore, here the whole burden lies on the

3
Bhagat Ram v. State of Punjab, AIR1954 SC 621.
4
C. Chenga Reddy v. State of A.P, (1996) 10 SCC 193, (SCC pp. 206-07,para 21).
5
Indus Evidence Act, 1872, § 101, No. 1, Acts of Parliament, 1872 (Indus).

-MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF APPELLANT- 14 | P a g e


12th R.C. CHOPRA MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION 2023

prosecution to prove the case against the appellants in which they miserably failed. Suspicion
howsoever grave cannot take place of proof. Prosecution case to succeed has to be in the
category of ”must be” and not “may be” a distance
to be covered by way of clear, cogent and unimpeachable evidence to rule out aby possibility
of wrongful conviction resulting in miscarriage of justice. Prosecution has to prove the case
against the accused in the manner stated by it and that any act or omission on the part of the
prosecution giving rise to any reasonable doubt would go in favor of the accused. The story
of the prosecution will have to be examined de hors such omissions and contaminated
conduct of the officials otherwise the mischief which was deliberately done would be
perpetuated and justice would be denied to the complainant party and this would obviously
shake the confidence of the people not merely in the law enforcing agency but also in the
administration of justice6

[¶5.] The most important part of the murder cases is that recovery of the victim’s body and
the prosecution is entitled to produce the same in the court to leave no reasonable doubt or
create any sense of uncertainty

It is humbly submitted to court the most important and crucial evidence is absent in
this case and prosecution has failed to produce the body and has failed to link the App.
to murder due to lack of concrete evidence.

And the same was observed in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Teja Ram7: This case
involved a missing person presumed to be murdered. The accused was acquitted because the
prosecution could not establish the death of the victim beyond a reasonable doubt.

Other forms of evidence comes into play like eye witness and circumstantial evidence such
as witness testimony, and forensic analysis, may still be used to establish guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt in such cases but in our present case no concrete comprehensive evidence
have been presented to the court to justify the conviction and proof any sort of guilt.

[¶6.] Further, It is humbly submitted to the court that mere recovery of the murder
weapon is not a conclusive and corroborative evidence for conviction along with them it

6
Ram Bihari Yadav v. State Of Bihar, 1998 (4) SCC 517.
7
State of Rajasthan v. Teja Ram, 2000 CriLJ 244, 2000 (1) WLC 13.

-MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF APPELLANT- 15 | P a g e


12th R.C. CHOPRA MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION 2023

is necessary to produce some additional and comprehensive evidence which could


support the evidence

In the case of Kunju Muhammed v. State of Kerala8, The Supreme Court, in its judgment,
held that the mere recovery of the knife, without any other corroborating evidence, was not
sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court emphasized
the importance of establishing a nexus between the accused, the recovered weapon, and the
commission of the crime. In the absence of such a nexus and additional evidence linking the
accused to the murder, the recovery of the weapon alone was insufficient to secure a
conviction.

Thus, in the present case scenario, no additional conclusive evidence or proof were recovered
as such or presented by the prosecution which could link the knife to the Appin any sense and
proof their guilt which created a reasonable doubt in the eyes of law. It is not forming
compelling evidence to justify the conviction.

[¶7.] Further,very rightly said in the case of Naveenthakrishnan v. State by Inspector of


Police9 that Last seen theory requires corroboration. Accused person cannot be convicted
solely on the evidence of last seen together with the deceased.

So, it is most humbly submitted to the honourable court that just because the App. were
seen last with the respondent does not in any sense prove any type of guilt. The App.
were friends with the respondents and it is obvious and very general for friends to
spend time together with each other but that is no sense any conclusive evidence that the
App. are guilty of murdering the respondent

Similar was said in the judgment of Ram Naresh Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh 10 In this
case, the Supreme Court stressed that the "last seen theory" alone cannot lead to a conviction.
The Court emphasized that the prosecution must provide additional evidence to connect the
accused with the crime.

8
Kunju Muhammed v. State of Kerala,(2004) 9 SCC 193.
9
Naveenthakrishnan v. State by Inspector of Police, AIR 2018 SC 2027.
10
Ram Naresh Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2012) 4 SCC 257.

-MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF APPELLANT- 16 | P a g e


12th R.C. CHOPRA MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION 2023

And in Munna Raja & Anr.v. State of Madhya Pradesh 11, The Supreme Court held that
the last seen theory, while relevant, cannot be the sole basis for conviction. The Court
emphasized the importance of corroborative evidence to establish guilt beyond a reasonable
doubt.
[¶8.] Further it is very pertinent to note in the case that eye witness is very important in
the cases of circumstantial evidence to proof the nexus or the chain of events.

State of Maharashtra v. Suresh12: In this case, the Supreme Court held that in cases based on
circumstantial evidence, the presence of an eyewitness can be crucial to establish guilt
beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court emphasized the importance of eyewitness testimony to
fill gaps in the circumstantial evidence.
As also in Umesh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan 13The Supreme Court held that in cases based
on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution should provide eyewitness testimony or other
strong corroborative evidence to establish guilt. The Court emphasized that circumstantial
evidence alone may not be sufficient.

In this present case there is no eye witness testimony provided by the prosecution to link the
App. to the crime or prove the guilt. Thus, it created a room for the doubt and there is no
compelling evidence to prove any guilt or connecting the App. to the crime in any sense
beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, the whole case is purely based on suspicion and no
substantive proof has been produced by the prosecution in the court of law to create a nexus
or interconnecting the App. to the respondent murder and the conviction has been given
solely on the evidence which created doubt and are apprehensive in nature.

1.3 absence of motive

[¶9.] A motive is the underlying reason or incentive that drives a person to commit a
particular criminal act. It represents the individual's emotional, psychological, or rational
explanation for their actions. Motive provides insight into the "why" behind a crime, whereas
intent focuses on the "how" and "what" of the criminal act.

11
Munna Raja & Anr.v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2013) 3 SCC 394.
12
State of Maharashtra v. Suresh,(2000) 1 SCC 471.
13
Umesh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, (2011) 11 SCC 466.

-MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF APPELLANT- 17 | P a g e


12th R.C. CHOPRA MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION 2023

The Supreme Court in the case of Ramanand Tiwari v. State of Madhya Pradesh14 acquitted
the accused, emphasizing that the absence of a clear motive weakened the prosecution's case.
The Court held that the mere recovery of the murder weapon and circumstantial evidence
were insufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt when there was no motive.

Gurbachan Singh v. State of Punjab15 In this case, the Supreme Court acquitted the accused
due to the lack of a motive. The Court held that without a motive, it was challenging to
establish the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Thus, it is most humbly submitted that the App. has nothing to gain in the sense of financial
gain, revenge, jealousy, fear, or any other emotional or rational drive that leads to criminal
conduct. TheApp. will not be benefited in any sense by murdering the respondent and no
beneficial outcome can possibly be thought of which could drive the motive of the App. or
could have compelled them to commit such heinous crime

[¶10.] Thus, In light of the conflicting statements of witnesses and the absence of direct
evidence linking the appellants to the crime, it is clear that the prosecution has not met the
standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The benefit of doubt principle dictates that, in
such circumstances, the appellants should be given the benefit of doubt and acquitted. The
prosecution's case lacks the requisite strength and certainty required in criminal trials, and
justice demands that the appellants not be held criminally liable in the absence of conclusive
evidence of their guilt.

Thus, conviction merely based on circumstantial evidence is not possible

ISSUE 2.IS CONVICTION BASED ON RETRACTED CONFESSION


APPROPRIATE?

[¶11.] It is humbly submitted before the Hon ‘ble high court that the conviction can’t be
based on retracted confession until it fulfils the certain conditions but in present scenario it
fails to do , firstly, Inadmissibility of Retracted Confessions(2.1)secondly, Statement before
the Magistrate has the right to retract his confession under the garb of Article 20(3) of the
Constitution; (2.2)thirdly, Legal Rights been violated (2.3)

2.1. Inadmissibility of Retracted Confessions

14
Ramanand Tiwari v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2011) 10 SCC 114.
15
Gurbachan Singh v. State of Punjab, (2017) 10 SCC 416.

-MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF APPELLANT- 18 | P a g e


12th R.C. CHOPRA MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION 2023

[¶11.] The confessions made by the accused were obtained under duress and coercion. Both
Ganga and Dev retracted their statements during trial, indicating that they were not freely
given. The Magistrate recorded these confessions without following the mandatory
requirement of recording a certificate under section 164 CrPC, raising serious doubts about
their voluntariness. And in section 24 of the Indus evidence act, 1872.

[¶12.] In section 24 Confession caused by inducement, threat or promise, when irrelevant


in criminal proceeding16.—A confession made by an accused person is irrelevant in a
criminal proceeding, if the making of the confession appears to the Court to have been caused
by any inducement, threat or promise, having reference to the charge against the accused
person, proceeding from a person in authority and sufficient, in the opinion of the Court, to
give the accused person grounds, which would appear to him reasonable, for supposing that
by making it he would gain any advantage or avoid any evil of a temporal nature in reference
to the proceedings against him.

This section aims to zealously protect the accused against becoming the victim of his own
delusion or the mechanization of others to self-incriminate in crime. The confession,
therefore, is not received with an assurance, if its source be above and free from the remotest
taint of suspicion.

It is well settled now that a retracted extra-judicial confession, though a piece of evidence on
which reliance can be placed, but the same has to be corroborated by independent evidence.
If the evidence of witness before whom confession made was unreliable and his conduct also
doubtful and there is no other circumstance to connect accused with crime, conviction based
solely on retracted extra-judicial confession is not proper and the accused is entitled to
acquittal; Shakhram Shankar Bansode v. State of Maharashtra17.

Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani18is pertinent here, where the Supreme Court held that a
confession, to be admissible, must be voluntary and not obtained under duress or
intimidation. In this instance, the accused allege that they were compelled to confess the
crime and that their confessions are not reliable.

When a confession is retracted, it creates doubt about its voluntariness. The act of retracting
indicates that the confession may have been made under duress, inducement, or coercion.

16
Indus Evidence Act, 1872, § 24, No. 1, Acts of Parliament, 1872 (Indus).
17
Shakhram Shankar Bansode v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1994 SC 1594
18
Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani 1978 AIR 1025

-MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF APPELLANT- 19 | P a g e


12th R.C. CHOPRA MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION 2023

The Privy Council reaffirmed the fundamental principle of the presumption of innocence.
Any doubt about the guilt of the accused must result in acquittal.

Presently, Ganga and Dev, both accused initially confessed but later retracted their
confessions during the trial. The observations made in the Pakala Narayana Swami 19 case are
highly relevant here. They emphasize that while retracted confessions can be admitted as
evidence, they should be viewed with caution, and their weight is diminished.

Ganga and Dev's retraction of their confessions during the trial underscores the potential
issues surrounding the voluntariness of their statements. These retractions suggest that they
are distancing themselves from statements they allege were made involuntarily.

[¶13.] Section 164(4) in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 197320

(4) Any such confession shall be recorded in the manner provided in section 281 for
recording the examination of an accused person and shall be signed by the person making the
confession; and the Magistrate shall make a memorandum at the foot of such record to the
following effect:-" I have explained to (name) that he is not bound to make a confession and
that, if he does so, any confession he may make may be used as evidence against him and I
believe that this confession was voluntarily made. It was taken in my presence and hearing,
and was read over to the person making it and admitted by him to be correct, and it contains a
full and true account of the statement made by him.

Section 281(5) in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 197321

(5) It shall thereafter be signed by the accused and by the Magistrate or presiding Judge, who
shall certify under his own hand that the examination was taken in his presence and hearing
and that the record contains a full and true account of the statement made by the accused.

Presently, the confession taken by the magistrate did not fulfilled the sec 164 Subsection (4) 22
says that the confession should be recorded in the manner provided under section 281 and
shall be signed by the person making it. The Magistrate shall then make the memorandum at
the foot of such confession., the magistrate fails to do so and did not gave the certificate of
record. This is violation of this section. The entire confession must have brought on record.
The confession without memorandum that it is voluntary is bad in law and cannot be
19
ibid
20
The code of criminal procedure, 1973, § 164(4), No. 1, Acts of Parliament, 11073 (Indus).
21
ibid

22
ibid

-MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF APPELLANT- 20 | P a g e


12th R.C. CHOPRA MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION 2023

admitted in evidence. This raises the credibility of the confession and create doubt about the
fairness of the investigation.

2.2. Statement before the Magistrate has the right to retract his confession under the
garb of Article 20(3) of the Constitution.

[¶14.] It is humbly submitted before the Hon ‘ble high court of that it is the Fundamental
Rights of a person under Article 20 (3)23 of Indian Constitution, 1950 ha been violated.

Article 20(3)24 in The Constitution of India 1949

Right Against Self-Incrimination:

The right against self-incrimination is a fundamental right enshrined in Article 20(3) 25 of the
Indian Constitution, which states: "No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to
be a witness against himself." This constitutional provision embodies the principle that no
person can be forced to provide evidence or make statements that may incriminate
themselves.

In the case of Kalawativs. State of Himanchal Pradesh26 it was pointed out that Article
20(3) of the Indian constitution provides the right to retract the confession by an accused it is
taken involuntarily by the accused.

State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad27

1. In this case, the Supreme Court emphasized that a confession must be voluntary to be
admissible as evidence. If a confession is obtained through inducement, threat, or promise, it
is not admissible.

2. The Court noted that Article 20(3) protects the accused from being compelled to be a
witness against themselves and safeguards their right to remain silent.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in State of Tamil Nadu Vs..Kutty alias Lakshmi
Narashinhan28observed that to retract from confession is the right of the confessor and all
the accused against confessions were produced by the prosecution have invariably adopted
that right. It would be injudicious to jettison a judicial confession on the mere premise that its
23
India Const. art. 20(3), § , cl.1949
24
ibid
25
ibid
26
Kalawativs. State of Himanchal Pradesh 1953 AIR 131
27
State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad 1962 (3) SCR 10.
28
in State of Tamil Nadu Vs..Kutty alias Lakshmi Narashinhan Appeal (crl.) 453 of 1991.

-MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF APPELLANT- 21 | P a g e


12th R.C. CHOPRA MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION 2023

maker has retracted from it. The Court has a duty to evaluate the evidence concerning the
confession by looking at all aspects.

Presently, Ganga and Dev did not make his statement voluntarily, hence he has all right to
retract from his statement which was involuntary. Article 20(3) will come into the picture to
safeguard his interest for not giving self-incriminating statement, hence Ganga and Dev can
retract from his confessional statement.

2.3. Violation of Legal Rights

[¶15.] It is humbly submitted before the Hon ‘ble high court During the investigation, the
accused's legal rights were violated. They were allegedly coerced into making confessions
without legal representation or access to legal counsel. This violation of their rights raises
questions about the integrity of the entire investigative process.

Article 22(1)29: "No person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being
informed, as soon as maybe, of the grounds for such arrest nor shall he be denied the right to
consult, and to be defended by, a legal practitioner of his choice."

This article guarantees two essential rights to an accused person:

1. The right to be informed of the grounds for their arrest promptly.


2. The right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of their choice.

[¶16.] These rights are integral to ensuring a fair trial and protecting the interests and rights of
individuals accused of offenses. The accused person has the right to engage a legal counsel to
represent and defend them during legal proceedings, including in court. This constitutional
provision safeguards the right to legal representation for accused individuals in India.

The case of D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal30 emphasizes the importance of upholding
the rights of accused persons during investigation. The accused in this case were denied these
fundamental rights.

Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab31In this case, the Supreme Court emphasized that legal
representation is crucial when an accused person is facing serious criminal charges. It held
that the denial of legal representation could result in an unfair trial and miscarriage of justice.

29
India Const. art. 22, cl.1 .1949.
30
D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997 (1) SCC 416).
31
Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab 1994 SCC (3) 569.

-MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF APPELLANT- 22 | P a g e


12th R.C. CHOPRA MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION 2023

Presently, as mention in the proposition at the time of confession to magistrate lawyer of the
Ganga and dev were not present bringing to the magistrate for recoding of confession
without the presence of their lawyer which underscore violation of the fundamentalright of
them. Denying an accused person this right not only violates their legal rights but also
threatens the fairness and integrity of the criminal justice process. Legal representation

Thus, conviction based on retracted confession is not appropriate

ISSUE 3 CAN CONVICTION BE BASED MERELY ON RECOVERY UNDER


SECTION 27 OF INDUS EVIDENCE ACT, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY FORENSIC
EVIDENCE AND RECOVERY OF DEAD BODY?

[¶17.] It is humbly submitted before the Hon ‘ble high court that the conviction based solely
on the recovery under section 27 of the Indus Evidence Act, without forensic evidence and
the recovery of the dead body, is not justified. The recovery does not establish the guilt of the
accused beyond a reasonable doubt. Firstly, conviction can’t be merely on the discovery of
murder weapon on confession. (3.1) Secondly, Absence of Forensic Evidence (3.2), Thirdly,
Lack of a Dead Body (3.3)

3.1 conviction can’t be merely on the discovery of murder weapon on confession.

[¶18.] It is humbly submitted before the Hon ‘ble high court of Conviction cannot be based
solely on the recovery of items or evidence under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act,
especially in cases involving serious offenses like murder, in the absence of any forensic
evidence and the recovery of a dead body.

S.27: - How much of information received from the accused may be proved 32: Provided
That, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from
a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of Such
information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the Fact
thereby discovered, may be proved. Although, confession by an accused to a police officer or
when in police custody is Inadmissible, statements in the confession, which are relevant for
the purpose of s.27, are admissible.

32
Indus Evidence Act, 1872, § 27, No. 1, Acts of Parliament, 1872 (Indus).

-MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF APPELLANT- 23 | P a g e


12th R.C. CHOPRA MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION 2023

PulukuriKotayya vs. Emperor33In this case, the accused was charged with the murder of his
wife. He made a statement to the police about the location of a knife he claimed to have used
in the crime. The police recovered the knife, and the accused was convicted based on this
evidence. However, the Privy Council held that the recovery of the knife alone was
insufficient to prove guilt, and there must be independent evidence to connect the accused
with the crime. The mere fact that the knife was discovered as a result of the accused's
statement did not establish his guilt.

Baiju vs. State of Madhya Pradesh34: In this case, the accused was charged with murder,
and the prosecution relied on the recovery of a knife and clothes based on the accused's
statement under Section 27. However, the Supreme Court held that the recovery of the
weapon and clothes alone, without any forensic evidence linking them to the crime or the
recovery of the victim's body, was insufficient to prove the accused's guilt.

[¶19.] Presently, the trial court conviction relies heavily on recovery evidence under Section
27 but lacks the necessary corroboration by other credible evidence. These cases emphasize
that while statements leading to the discovery of evidence under Section 27 can be admitted
as evidence, they must be corroborated by other evidence to secure a conviction. Conviction
in a criminal case especially in cases involving serious offenses like murder, in the absence of
any forensic evidence and the recovery of a dead body. Section 27 deals with the
admissibility of statements leading to the discovery of facts, but it doesn't provide a complete
basis for conviction on its own. To secure a conviction in such cases, the prosecution
typically needs a combination of strong evidence, including forensic evidence, eyewitness
testimony, circumstantial evidence, and more., including direct and circumstantial evidence,
witness testimony, and other relevant factors.

3.2. Absence of Forensic Evidence

[¶20.]It is humbly submitted before the Hon ‘ble high court that in the absence of forensic
evidence is not reliable reflects a valid concern in criminal justice. A critical deficiency that
raises serious questions about the validity of the conviction. The absence of forensic evidence
can be a critical aspect of a criminal trial, and there have been cases where the lack of such

33
PulukuriKotayya vs. Emperor AIR 1947 pc 67.
34
Baiju vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (1978) 1 SCC 588

-MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF APPELLANT- 24 | P a g e


12th R.C. CHOPRA MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION 2023

evidence has affected the outcome. Here are a few cases where the absence of forensic
evidence played a significant role:

Ravindra vs. State of Haryana35: In this case, the accused was charged with murder. The
prosecution's case relied heavily on circumstantial evidence but lacked forensic evidence
linking the accused to the crime. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of forensic
evidence in establishing guilt and noted that the absence of such evidence can create
reasonable doubt. The accused was acquitted due to the lack of conclusive forensic evidence.

Bharat vs. State of U.P.36: In this case, the accused was charged with murder. The
prosecution's case relied on circumstantial evidence and eyewitness testimony but lacked any
forensic evidence linking the accused to the crime. The court held that the absence of forensic
evidence, such as fingerprints or DNA analysis, raised doubts about the prosecution's case,
and the accused was acquitted.

[¶21.]Presently, the trial court has convicted the Ganga and Dev only on the only on the
finding of the murder weapon without considering any other aspect of evidence. In these
cases highlight the importance of forensic evidence in criminal trials and how the absence of
such evidence can impact the prosecution's case. While the absence of forensic evidence may
result in an acquittal, it can raise reasonable doubt and lead to a more favourable outcome for
the accused if the other evidence is not strong enough to establish guilt beyond a reasonable
doubt. Forensic evidence is pivotal in criminal proceedings, particularly in cases involving
heinous crimes such as murder. The absence of fingerprint or any forensic connection
between the accused and the alleged crime scene raise significantly doubt in the evidence.

3.3 Lack of a Dead Body

[¶22.]It is humbly submitted before the Hon ‘ble high court that it is critical aspect of this
case is the failure to recover the victim's dead body. In cases of alleged murder, the recovery
of the victim's body is often pivotal in establishing that a crime has indeed occurred. It not
only confirms the corpus delict but also provides crucial evidence for determining the cause
of death and identifying the perpetrator.

35
Ravindra vs. State of Haryana 1975 AIR 856
36
Bharat vs. State of U.P 2014 5 SCC 509

-MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF APPELLANT- 25 | P a g e


12th R.C. CHOPRA MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION 2023

In State of Punjab v. Iqbal Singh37, the Supreme Court underscored the importance of
proving the corpus delicti, which includes the recovery of the victim's body in murder cases.
The Court emphasized that establishing the corpus delicti is a fundamental requirement for
securing a conviction in a murder case. In the absence of such crucial evidence, it becomes
exceedingly challenging to establish the occurrence of a murder.

Mohanlal vs. State of Haryana38: In this case, the accused was charged with the murder of
his wife, but her body was never found. The prosecution relied primarily on circumstantial
evidence. The Supreme Court of India emphasized that while a conviction in a murder case
without a dead body is possible if there is strong and conclusive evidence pointing to the guilt
of the accused, the absence of the victim's body does create an element of doubt. The court
acquitted the accused due to the lack of substantial evidence.

[¶23.]Presently, the dead body of Sumit was never recovered. Without the victim's body, the
prosecution's ability to prove that a murder took place is severely compromised. The mere
fact that someone is reported missing cannot automatically lead to the presumption of their
death, let alone the presumption that they were murdered.

Thus, the conviction based solely on the recovery under section 27 of the Indus Evidence
Act, without forensic evidence and the recovery of the dead body, is not justified

ISSUE 4. IS CONVICTION OF THE JUVENILE ACCUSED BY THE TRIAL


COURT JUSTIFIED?
[¶24.]It is most humbly submitted to the Hon’ble High court that conviction of the juvenile
accused by the trial court is not justified because firstly, the trial court does not have the
jurisdiction to try the juvenile. (4.1)Secondly, it is in contradiction with Juvenile Justice Act,
2015 (4.2).thirdly, in violation with the fundamental rights under art.20 (3) of Indian
Constitution (4.3).

[¶25.] The Juvenile Justice Act, in India, has been enacted with the primary motive and
objective of providing a separate and specialized legal framework for the care, protection,
rehabilitation, and reintegration of children who are in conflict with the law or in need of care
and protection.

37
State of Punjab v. Iqbal Singh (2013) 6 SCC 428
38
Mohanlal vs. State of Haryana (2019) 02 P&H CK 0121

-MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF APPELLANT- 26 | P a g e


12th R.C. CHOPRA MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION 2023

Jitendra Singh alias Babloo v. State of U.P39In this case, the Supreme Court reviewed the
trial of a juvenile offender and stressed the importance of adhering to the provisions of the
Juvenile Justice Act. The Court emphasized that the primary aim of the juvenile justice
system is the rehabilitation of juvenile offenders.

(4.1) the trial court does not have the jurisdiction to try the juvenile.

[¶26.] The Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 promotes and emphasizes on the fact that juveniles
should be given special treatment in comparison to the adults and should be treated with
some leniency and their rights must be protected in all the cases. Further its sections also
clearly states that the a child cannot be tried in a joint trial with an adult

Section 2340 states

“No joint proceedings of child in conflict with law and person not a child.

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 223 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (2 of 1974) or in any other law for the time being in force, there shall be no joint
proceedings of a child alleged to be in conflict with law, with a person who is not a child.

(2) If during the inquiry by the Board or by the Children’s Court, the person alleged to be in
conflict with law is found that he is not a child, such person shall not be tried along with a
child.”

Thus, the in the present case scenario the conviction of the juvenile is in direct violation of
the section 2341 of The Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 where the juvenile App. Dev should have
given his right to be tried separately and not jointly with the adult appellant.

Rajendra Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar42

In this case, the Supreme Court of India addressed the issue of whether a juvenile can be tried
separately from adult co-accused under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)
Act, 2000. The Court held that the juvenile justice system aims to provide a separate and
distinct procedure for the trial of juvenile offenders to ensure their rehabilitation and
protection. As a result, the Court ruled that a juvenile can and should be tried separately from
adult co-accused, in accordance with the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act.
39
Jitendra Singh alias Babloo v. State of U.P. (2007) 9 SCC 667

40
Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, §23, Acts of Parliament, 2015 (Indus).
41
Ibid
42
Rajendra Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar, (2013) 14 SCC 193.

-MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF APPELLANT- 27 | P a g e


12th R.C. CHOPRA MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION 2023

In Daljit Singh v. State of Punjab43

Where minor along with the other accused were tried for murder by session court , the high
court intervened, separated the trial of the minor from the rest, released him on the bail and
directed his case to the juvenile court of the area

(4.2)is in contradiction with Juvenile Justice Act, 2015

[¶27.]As mentioned above the conviction of the juvenile is contradicting the section 23 The
Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 but the present conviction is also violating other sections of the act

Firstly it is violating the section 1044of Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 which states

“Apprehension of child alleged to be in conflict with law.—

1. As soon as a child alleged to be in conflict with law is apprehended by the police,


such child shall be placed under the charge of the special juvenile police unit or the
designated child welfare police officer, who shall produce the child before the Board
without any loss of time but within a period of twenty-four hours of apprehending the
child excluding the time necessary for the journey, from the place where such child
was apprehended:

Provided that in no case, a child alleged to be in conflict with law shall be placed in a
police lockup or lodged in a jail.

2. (2) The State Government shall make rules consistent with this Act,—
i. to provide for persons through whom (including registered voluntary or non-
governmental organisations) any child alleged to be in conflict with law may be
produced before the Board;
ii. to provide for the manner in which the child alleged to be in conflict with law may
be sent to an observation home or place of safety, as the case may be.”

In the present case during the arrest of the juvenile no proper were followed, the authorities
were aware of the fact that one of the App. is juvenile and will come under the ambit of the
juvenile justice act,2015 but no such precautions and procedures were taken into
considerations. He was not handled by the special forces of police made especially for the
juveniles neither he was produced in front of the juvenile justice board within the 24 hours

43
Daljit Singh v. State of Punjab, 1992 Cr LJ 1051.
44
Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, §10 , Acts of Parliament, 2015 (Indus).

-MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF APPELLANT- 28 | P a g e


12th R.C. CHOPRA MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION 2023

and it very clearly mentioned that in no circumstances the juvenile can be placed in the
lockup or jail which is directly violating the section 1045 of Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.

[¶28.]Further, it humbly submitted to take note that of sec. 1346 of Juvenile Justice Act,
2015 which states

“Information to parents, guardian or probation officer.—

1. Where a child alleged to be in conflict with law is apprehended, the officer


designated as Child Welfare Police Officer of the police station, or the special
juvenile police unit to which such child is brought, shall, as soon as possible after
apprehending the child, inform—
i. the parent or guardian of such child, if they can be found, and direct them to
be present at the Board before which the child is produced; and
ii. the probation officer, or if no probation officer is available, a Child Welfare
Officer, for preparation and submission within two weeks to the Board, a
social investigation report containing information regarding the antecedents
and family background of the child and other material circumstances likely to
be of assistance to the Board for making the inquiry.
2. Where a child is released on bail, the probation officer or the Child Welfare Officer
shall be informed by the Board.”

In this present case nothing of such sort was seen and the parents or guardian of the juvenile
were not informed at the first instance of the arrest of their child which is violating the rights
of the Appellant and is in contradiction with the section 1347 of Juvenile Justice Act, 2015

[¶29.]Further, it is most humbly submitted before the court that it is very crucial and
pertinent to consider the sec.2148. Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 which is being violated
prime facia with the delivery of the conviction sentence by the trail court.

Sec. 2149 clearly states

“Order that may not be passed against a child in conflict with law.—

45
Ibid
46
Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, §13, Acts of Parliament, 2015 (Indus).
47
Ibid
48
Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, §21, Acts of Parliament, 2015 (Indus).
49
Ibid

-MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF APPELLANT- 29 | P a g e


12th R.C. CHOPRA MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION 2023

No child in conflict with law shall be sentenced to death or for life imprisonment without the
possibility of release, for any such offence, either under the provisions of this Act or under
the provisions of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) or any other law for the time being in
force.”

[¶30.]In the light of facts of the case present, the sentence of life imprisonment given to the
juvenile in no circumstance given by the trial court is justified is directly infringing the rights
ensured by the section the sec.21. Juvenile Justice Act, 2015

Very rightly examined and observed by the Supreme Court in the Pratap Singh v. State of
Jharkhand50this case involved the trial of a juvenile offender, and the Supreme Court
examined whether the trial court had followed the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act. The
Court emphasized the need to ensure that the rights of juvenile offenders are protected and
that the principles of rehabilitation are upheld.

And similarly the same has been laid down in the sec. 3951.cl 1 and cl. 2which emphasize the
importance of rehabilitation rather than punishing a child.

“Process of rehabilitation and social re-integration.—

1. The process of rehabilitation and social integration of children under this Act shall be
undertaken, based on the individual care plan of the child, preferably through family
based care such as by restoration to family or guardian with or without supervision
or sponsorship, or adoption or foster care:

Provided thatall efforts shall be made to keep siblings placed in institutional or non-
institutional care, together, unless it is in their best interest not to be kept together.

2. For children in conflict with law the process of rehabilitation and social integration
shall be undertaken in the observation homes, if the child is not released on bail or in
special homes or place of safety or fit facility or with a fit person, if placed there by
the order of the Board.”

In the present case, the trial court neglected this section and altogether the objective of the
Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 which believes that rehabilitation is preferred and better for the
juveniles instead of punishing tem and by punishing the juvenile App. with life imprisonment

50
Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand, (2005) 3 SCC 551.
51
Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, §39, cl.1 & 2, Acts of Parliament, 2015 (Indus).

-MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF APPELLANT- 30 | P a g e


12th R.C. CHOPRA MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION 2023

and has violated the general principles which is mandatory to be kept in mind in regard to the
provisions laid in this act which is stated in section 352 Juvenile Justice Act, 2015

“General principles to be followed in administration of Act.—

The Central Government, the State Governments, 1[the Board, the Committee, or] other
agencies, as the case may be, while implementing the provisions of this Act shall be guided by
the following fundamental principles, namely:—

(i) Principle of presumption of innocence: Any child shall be presumed to be an innocent of


any mala fide or criminal intent up to the age of eighteen years.

(iii) Principle of participation: Every child shall have a right to be heard and to participate
in all processes and decisions affecting his interest and the child’s views shall be taken into
consideration with due regard to the age and maturity of the child. any mala fide or criminal
intent up to the age of eighteen years.

(iv) Principle of best interest: All decisions regarding the child shall be based on the primary
consideration that they are in the best interest of the child and to help the child to develop full
potential.

(xv) Principle of diversion: Measures for dealing with children in conflict with law without
resorting to judicial proceedings shall be promoted unless it is in the best interest of the child
or the society as a whole.”

Rajendra Shyamlal Oswal v. State of Maharashtra53:In this case, the Supreme Court
scrutinized the trial of a juvenile and reiterated the importance of adhering to the provisions
of the Juvenile Justice Act. The Court emphasized the need to treat juvenile offenders with
leniency and to focus on their rehabilitation.

In the present case the juvenile App. claimed in the trial court that his statement was taken
under threat and pressure and further no other measures of rehabilitation were taken keeping
in mind the best interest of the child and directly the judgment was delivered which is no
sense valid.

(4.3) violation of fundamental rights under article 20(3)

[¶31.]Art. 2054. “Protection in respect of conviction for offences.—


52
Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, §3, cl.1, 3, 4 &15, Acts of Parliament, 2015 (Indus).
53
Rajendra Shyamlal Oswal v. State of Maharashtra, (1993) 2 SCC 759.
54
INDUS CONST. art. 20, § 3.

-MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF APPELLANT- 31 | P a g e


12th R.C. CHOPRA MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION 2023

(3) No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. “

This constitutional provision embodies the principle that no person can be forced to provide
evidence or make statements that may incriminate themselves.

Both the App. under sec. 24 55 of Indian Evidence Act 1872, were compelled to give their
statements against themselves which has been on record and said by both the App. in session
court which created reasonable doubt and uncertaininty but still they were convicted Further,
one of the App. is juvenile and is of very tender age and because of pressure from police and
fear he gave the statement against him which is being used as evidence which is not in itself
conclusive and concrete proof to prove their guilt and connect them to respondent’s murder.

Where the accused was produced before the magistrate hand cuffed from police custody and
he recorded the confession without ascertain the possibility of pressurisation by police, the
confession was held to be wasted56

Further, with the presence of I.O added further fear in the Appand pressure to give statement
which they have been asked to give so.

In Mohd Jamiludan Nasir v. State of W.B57

[¶32.]While interpretation of the sec. 164 of CrPc, the SC breaks down the element which
needs to be ensured, the court mentions too that statement was made in the presence of the
judicial magistrate and none else that while making the confession there was no other person
present other than the accused and the magistrate concerned.

In the light of all the cases and arguments considered the sentence given by the trial court is
not justified and most importantly the trial court does not have the jurisdiction to do so and
convict the juvenile but rather should have adopted rehabilitative steps which were in the best
interest of the juvenile.

Thus, the conviction of the juvenile by the trial court is not Justified.

55
Supra,19
56
Bhagwan Singh v. State of M.P. , 2003 Cr LJ 1262.
57
Mohd Jamiludan Nasir v. State of W.B., (2014) 7 SCC 443 (Para 21).

-MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF APPELLANT- 32 | P a g e


12th R.C. CHOPRA MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION 2023

PRAYER FOR THE RELIEF

THEREFORE, IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS USED, ISSUES RAISED, ARGUMENTS


ADVANCED AND AUTHORITIES CITED, THE COUNSEL FOR THE APPMOST
HUMBLY AND RESPECTFULLY PRAYED THAT THIS HON’BLE HIGH COURT
MAY QUASH THE TRIAL COURT JUDMENTS AS :

1. The conviction merely based on circumstantial evidence is not possible.


2. The conviction based on retracted confession is not appropriate.
3. The conviction based solely on the recovery under section 27 of the Indus Evidence
Act, without forensic evidence and the recovery of the dead body, is not justified.
4. That the conviction of the juvenile by the trial court is not justified.

5. Acquit the appellate of all the charges.


AND PASS ANY ORDER, DIRECTION OR RELIEF THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT
MAY DEEM FIT IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE, EQUITY AND GOOD
CONSCIENCE.

The Counsel pleads this Hon’ble Court to bind “Sacramentum habet in se trscomites,
veritatem, justitiam et judicium; veritas habendaest in jurato, Justitia et judicium in
judice”.

And for this act of kindness and justice, the Appshall be duty-bound and
Forever pray.

All of which is submitted with utmost reverence


Counsels for the Appellant
Date:
Place: INDUS

-MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF APPELLANT- 33 | P a g e

You might also like