Memorial For The Respondents
Memorial For The Respondents
Memorial For The Respondents
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
(RESPONDENT)
Table of Contents............................................................................................................II
Index of Authorities
Table of Cases...................................................................................................III
Books..................................................................................................................V
Lexicon...............................................................................................................V
Websites............................................................................................................VI
Statues...............................................................................................................VI
Statement of Jurisdiction.............................................................................................VII
Statement of Facts......................................................................................................VIII
Statement of Charges......................................................................................................X
Summary of Pleadings..................................................................................................XI
Written Pleadings
Issue I..................................................................................................................1
Issue II.................................................................................................................8
Prayer...........................................................................................................................XII
II
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
List of Cases
III
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE
27. Kartik Sahu v State of Orissa 1994 Cri.L.J. 102 (Ori)
28. Kehar Singh AIR 1988 SC 1883
29. King v Brisse (1803) 4 East 164, 171
30. Krishnan v State represented by Inspector of Police,(2008) 15S SCC 430;
31. Laxman v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1974 SC 1803
32. Madegowda vs Unknown, AIR 1957 Mys 50
33. Mahesh Gonnade v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2008 SCW 4231
34. Malan AIR 1960 Bom 393
35. Matuki Misser, (1885) 11 Cal 619
36. Memon Mohmad (1958) 61 Bom LR 715
37. Mohan Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1974 SC 1144
38. Mohan Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1974 SC 1144
39. Mulakh Raj v. Satish Kumar, AIR 1992 SC 1175
40. Mussammat Aishan Bibi v. The Crown, (1933) 15 Lah 310
41. Nathulal AIR 1966 SC 43
42. Nirpal Singh v.State of Haryana, (1977) 2 SCC 131
43. Padam Pradhan v State 1982 Cri.LJ. 534
44. Paramhansa v. State of Orissa, AIR 1964 Ori 144
45. Quinn v. Leatham (1901) AC 495, 528
46. Raghubir Singh AIR 1987 SC 149
47. Rajinder Kumar AIR 1966 SC 1322
48. Ram Narain AIR 1973 SC 11881 Halsbury‟s Laws of England, (4th edn.), vol. 11, para 58;
p.44.
49. Ram Singh v. State of HP 1997 Cri LJ 1829 (SC)
50. Ramachandra v. State of Kerala, 2009 Cri LJ 168
51. Rambilas Singh AIR 1989 SC 1593
52. Ramesh Bhai and Anr. V State of Rajasthan,(2009) 12 SCC 603
53. Santosh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1975 Cri LJ 602 (SC)
54. Shamdasini P D AIR 1929 Bom 443
55. Sharad Bircichand Sarda v State of Maharashtra AIR 1984 SC 1622
56. Shri Ram AIR 1975 SC 175
57. State of Bihar v. Madanlal, AIR 1967 Pat 63
IV
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE
58. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Digvijay Singh, 1981 Cri. LJ 1278 (SC)
59. State of Maharashtra v. Meyer Hans George, AIR 1965 SC 722
60. State of MP v. Dharkale, AIR 2005 SC 44
61. State of MP v. Rammi, 1999 (1) JLJ 49 (MP)
62. State of Punjab v Sucha Singh, AIR 2003 SC 1471
63. State of Rajasthan v. Tej Ram, (1999) 3 SCC 507
64. State of Uttar Pradesh v Satish, (2005) 3 SCC 114:AIR 2005 SC 1000
65. State of WB v. Orilal Jaiswal, AIR 1994 SC 1418
66. State v. Dinakar Bandu (1969) 72 Bom LR 905
67. State v. Nalini 1999 Cri LJ 3124 (SC)
68. State v. Som Nath Thapa AIR 1996 SC 1744
69. Subramaniam v State of Tamil Nadu and anr., (2009) 14 SCC 415
70. Topandas AIR 1956 SC 23
71. Tresa V L, (2001) 3 SCC 549
72. Tukaram Ganpat Pandare AIR 1974 SC 514
73. Yash Pal Mital AIR 1977 SC 2433
Books
Lexicons
V
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE
Websites
1. http://www.manupatrafast.com
2. http://www.scconline.com
3. http://www.judis.nic.in
Statutes
VI
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Appellants Humbly approach the Hon‟ble High Court under S.374(2) of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which reads as follows:
VII
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. The deceased Reena Kalra was born to Maharani Peterjee and Charan Das,
a Kolkata based businessman, out of wedlock.
2. Maharani Peterjee left Reena and Michael, her children which her parents
T.K Kalra and Radha Rani, and moved to Guwahati where she married Sujay
Tanna.
3. In 2001, Maharani parted ways with Sujay Tanna and got married to Meter
Peterjee of „Lagataar Network‟ in 2003.
4. Once Reena and Michael Kalra learnt of their mother‟s marriage to Meter
Peterjee, they contacted her since they were in need of money. Maharani
agreed to help them if they were willing to present themselves, to her new
family and friends, as her siblings and not as her children. To this end,
Maharani got the birth and school certificates of Reena and Michael
changed where T.K Kalra and Radha Rani were named as their parents.
5. In 2006, Reena joined St. PVR college in Mumbai and started going out
Meter Peterjee‟s son from his previous marriage, Rohan Peterjee. Mahrani did
not approve of this relationship. She also disliked the growing closeness
between Reena and Meter. Reena informed Rohan that she was Maharani‟s
daughter and not her sister. This fact was eventually disclosed to Meter too.
These reasons formed a bone of contention between Reena and Maharani.
6. The last time Reena Kalra was seen on 24th April, 2012. She took leave from
her office, and later resigned the same day. On the same day, message was
sent by Maharani to Rohan Peterjee from Reena‟s phone, wanting to break up
with him.
IX
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE
told the police that Reena‟s passport was at his place, where they were told by
Maharani that she got her a new passport and that Reena had fled the country
to avoid contact with Rohan, who was stalking her.
8. On 23rd May, 2012 the local police found a decomposed body at the crime spot
after the villagers complained of a foul odor. The body remained unidentitfied.
No investigation was initiated by the police on recovery of the dead body.
9. Three years later, an anonymous phone call to the police stated that an auto
rickshaw driver had killed a young girl from a business family. The call
also stated that the body had been dumped in Lohagad. This phone call led
the police to probe further and led them to Ramvar Pai, the co-accused.
10. Upon digging deeper, it was found that the body was of Reena Kalra. The
Hon‟ble Sessions Court has held that she was strangulated to death by Sujay
Tanna in a car being driven by Maharani‟s driver Ramvar Pai, with Maharani,
the mastermind of the entire plan sitting in the car. The body was thereafter
dumped along the Lohagad highway and set ablaze. Maharani was sentenced
to life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.10000/- and other accused were
sentenced to an imprisonment of 10 years with a fine of Rs.15000/-.
X
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE
STATEMENT OF CHARGES
Murder under Section 302 read with Section 34, Abetment under Section 109,
Criminal Conspiracy under Section 120, Causing disappearance of Evidence of
offence under Section 201 read with section 34, of the Indian Penal Code,1860.
Murder under Section 302 read with Section 34, Criminal Conspiracy under Section
120, Causing disappearance of Evidence of offence under Section 201 read with
section 34, of the Indian Penal Code,1860.
Murder under Section 302 read with Section 34, Abetment under Section 109,
Criminal Conspiracy under Section 120, Causing disappearance of Evidence of
offence under Section 201 read with section 34, of the Indian Penal Code,1860.
XI
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE
SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS
ISSUE I
It is humbly submitted before the Hon‟ble Court that the evidence in the present case
sufficiently established the guilt of the accused for the criminal conspiracy, abetment,
disappearance of evidence and the murder of Reena Kalra. The statement of Ramvar
Pai has been corroborated by the recovery of the murder weapons from the car in
which the murder of Reena Kalra took place. The chain of circumstantial evidence as
formed by the prosecution has been established beyond all reasonable doubt that the
accused are guilty as charged.
ISSUE II
It is humbly submitted before this Hon‟ble Court that the accused are guilty of the
offences of murder, criminal conspiracy, abetment and causing disappearance of
evidence. The accused entered into an agreement to commit the murder of Reena
Kalra, the murder was committed and following this the body was burnt and dumped
along Lohagad Highway. Thereafter, the statement of Ramvar Pai lead to the
discovery of the murder weapons. The circumstantial evidence forms a complete
chain, link by link, to establish the same. Hence it is proven beyond a reasonable
doubt that the crime of Murder was indeed committed by the accused in the case at
hand.
XII
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE
WRITTEN PLEADINGS
ISSUE I
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. The mind of the accused before he makes the
confession must be in a state of perfect equanimity and must not have been operated
upon by fear or hope or inducement. 1
This section excludes all statements of incriminating nature made to a police officer
whether made before or after becoming an accused person.2
S.25 absolutely excludes from evidence against the accused a confession made by
him to a police officer under any circumstances (while in custody or not). The
statement
1
Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, 1994 CrLJ 3139.
2
Bheru Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (1992) 2 SCC 467.
1
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
given by an accused involving himself in the crime and also implicating a third person
cannot be legally proved in the court, as it will be conflicting under ss. 25 and 26. 3
There are two essential conditions for the applicability of section 27:
i. Accused of an offence
The person giving information must be accused of any offence. Earlier, it was held
that the statement must be of a person who was then an accused. If at the time when
the confession was made, the person making it was an accused, the statement would be
admissible.4 Bombay High Court is of a dissenting view of this matter and has held
that “accused of an offence” would include a person who subsequently becomes an
accused. He either may be an accused at the time of making the confession or may
subsequently become an accused.5
3
Kamal Kishore v. State (Del. Admin.), 1997 (2) Crimes 169 (Del)
4
Deonandan Dusadh v. King Emperor, (1928) 7 Pat 411
2
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE
5
Memon Mohmad, (1958) 61 Bom LR 715
6
State of Bihar v. Madanlal, AIR 1967 Pat 63
3
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE
custody within the meaning of ss.26 & 27.7 Even indirect control over the movements
of suspects by the police would amount to „police custody‟.8
7
Mussammat Aishan Bibi v. The Crown, (1933) 15 Lah 310
8
Paramhansa v. State of Orissa, AIR 1964 Ori 144
9
In Re: Madegowda vs Unknown, AIR 1957 Mys 50
10
Nirpal Singh v.State of Haryana, (1977) 2 SCC 131
11
Sarkar, Law of Evidence, 17th Edition
4
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE
iii. Led To Discovery Of Fact:
Information given by the accused must lead to the discovery of a fact, which is the
direct outcome of such information. “Fact” as understood in the Evidence Act includes
physical as well as psychological fact or mental condition. The information which led
to the discovery of a witness to whom the accused had given the stolen article is also
discovery of fact.12
It is a well settled principle that where the case is mainly based on circumstantial
evidence, the court must satisfy itself that various circumstances in the chain of
evidence should be established clearly and that the completed chain must be such as to
rule out a reasonable likelihood of the innocence of the accused.14
When even a link breaks away, the chain of circumstances gets snapped and other
circumstances cannot in any manner establish the guilt of the accused beyond all
reasonable doubts.15 In the absence of clear and cogent evidence pointing to the guilt
12
Ramachandra v. State of Kerala, 2009 Cri LJ 168
13
Bodh Raj v. State of J&K, AIR 2002 SC 3164
14
Mohan Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1974 SC 1144
15
Janar Lal Das v. State of Orissa, 1991 (3) SCC 27
5
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE
of the accused, the proof of motive however adequate cannot by itself sustain a
criminal charge.16
When attempting to convict on circumstantial evidence alone the Court must be firmly
satisfied of the following five things:17
In drawing the inference the true rule of law, which is to be applied, is the rule, which
requires that guilt be not to be inferred unless that is the only inference, which follows
from the circumstances of the case, and no other innocuous inference can be drawn.
Supreme Court of India in Bakhshish Singh v State of Punjab18, “in a case resting on
circumstantial evidence, the circumstances put forward must be satisfactorily proved
and those circumstances should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of
the accused. Again those circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency
and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be
proved.” There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable
ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show
that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused, the evidence
16
Padam Pradhan v State, 1982 Cri.LJ. 534
17
Sharad Bircichand Sarda v State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622
18
AIR 1971 SC 2016:1971 CriLJ 1452:(1971) 3 SCC 182
6
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE
produced by the respondent-prosecution should be of such nature that it makes the
conviction of the accused sustainable.19
B. Circumstances are consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of only the accused.
The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of
the accused; that is to say, they should not be explained on any other hypothesis
except that the accused is guilty. In cases dependent on circumstantial evidence, in
order to justify the inference of guilt, all the incriminating facts and circumstances
must be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other
person and incapable of explanation upon any other reasonable hypothesis than that of
his guilt.20 The facts taken as a whole lead to only one inference, i.e, the accused are
guilty.
19
State of Uttar Pradesh v Satish, (2005) 3 SCC 114:AIR 2005 SC 1000.
20
Hukam v State, AIR 1977 SC 1063
7
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE
21
C. Chenga Reddy v State of A.P, (1996) 10 SCC 193
22
State of Rajasthan v. Tej Ram, (1999) 3 SCC 507
8
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE
complete and conclusive to be read as an integrated whole and not separately and
must indicate guilt of the accused with certainty.23
Where the offence weapons, gun and knife, were recovered from the house of the
accused at his instance, medical opinion showed that the recovered knife was stained
with human blood, it cannot be said that the prosecution or the police had planted
these articles in the house of the accused, so as to make a show of discovery of
weapons of offence from him.24
23
Kartik Sahu v State of Orissa, 1994 Cri.L.J. 102 (Ori)
24
Mahesh Gonnade v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2008 SCW 4231
9
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE
ISSUE 2
It is humbly contended before this Hon‟ble Court that the accused are guilty of the
offences that they have been convicted under, namely the charges of criminal
conspiracy (1), abetment (2), murder (3), causing disappearance of evidence (4).
Further, the Respondent-Prosecution has sufficiently established the guilt of the
accused beyond all reasonable doubt (5).
25
Quinn v. Leatham,(1901) AC 495, 528
10
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE
iii. Meeting of the minds
It is necessary to show a consensus ad idem between all the members party to the
criminal conspiracy i.e. a consensus to the effect of an unlawful purpose. It is not,
however, necessary that each conspirator should have been in communication with
every other.”26
26
Halsbury‟s Laws of England, (4th edn.), vol. 11, para 58; p.44.
27
Bimbadhar Pradhan, AIR 1956 SC 469
28
Barsay E G, AIR 1961 SC 1762
29
Dalmia R K v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1962 SC 1821
30
State v. Nalini, 1999 Cri LJ 3124 (SC)
31
Yash Pal Mital, AIR 1977 SC 2433
11
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE
start to finish. Conspirators may appear and disappear from stage to stage in the
course of the conspiracy.32
When the ultimate offence consists of a chain of actions, it would not be necessary for
the prosecution to establish, to bring home a charge of conspiracy, that each of the
conspirators had the knowledge of what the collaborator would do, so long as it is
known that the collaborator would put the goods and services to an unlawful use.33
In the instant case, it is evident that there existed an agreement between the three
accused to commit the murder of Reena Kalra. The parameters of „an agreement to do
an illegal act‟ have been met. The conspiracy in this case have been established by the
chain of circumstantial evidence as mentioned above.
32
Raghubir Singh, AIR 1987 SC 149
33
State v. Som Nath Thapa, AIR 1996 SC 1744
34
Topandas AIR 1956 SC 23
12
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE
by circumstantial evidence or by both. It is not necessary that there should be express
proof of the agreement; far from the acts and conduct of the parties the agreement can
be inferred.35 In case of conspiracy, the agreement between the conspirators cannot
generally be directly proved, but only inferred from the established facts of the case.36
In the instant case, the chain of circumstantial evidence point conclusively towards the
existence of a conspiracy between the accused.
The prosecution humbly contends that the three accused entered into an agreement, to
do an illegal act i.e. the murder of the deceased Reena Kalra, thereby fulfilling both
the ingredients of a criminal conspiracy. From the subsequent conduct of the accused
it becomes evident that the accused had a prior agreement to kill the deceased.
35
Ram Narain AIR 1973 SC 1188
36
Bimbadhar Pradhan AIR 1956 SC 469
37
Kehar Singh AIR 1988 SC 1883
38
Abdul Kadar (1963) 65 Bom LR 864
39
Ram Singh v. State of HP 1997 Cri LJ 1829 (SC)
13
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE
2. The Accused are guilty of Abetment
Sec 107 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 enumerates abetment. Abetment is constituted
1) By instigating a person to commit an offence; or
2) By engaging in a conspiracy to commit it; or
3) By intentionally aiding a person to commit it.40
40
Brij Lal v Prem Chand AIR 1989 SC 1661
41
King v Brisse (1803) 4 East 164, 171
42
Annappa Bharamganda (1907) 9 Bom LR 347
14
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE
In order to constitute the offence of abetment by conspiracy, there must be a
combining together of two or more persons in the conspiracy, and an act, or illegal
omission must take place in pursuance of that conspiracy and in order to the doing of
that thing. It is not necessary that the abettor should concert the offence with the
person who commits it. It is sufficient if he engages in the conspiracy in pursuance of
which the offence is committed.43 Where the parties concert together and have a
common object, the act of one of the parties done in furtherance of the common object
and in pursuance of the concerted plan is the act of the whole.44
Abetment may take place at the time or even prior to the commission of the offence if
a person facilitates the commission of such an offence. He can be said to aid the
doing of the act, which takes place.47
In the instant case, the accused Maharani Peterjee is guilty of abetment by conspiracy
and Ramvar Pai is guilty of both abetment by conspiracy and by aid. Their abetment
led to the accused Sujay Tanna murdering the deceased Reena Kalra.
It is humbly contended that the Hon‟ble Sessions Court correctly held the Accused as
guilty of murder of Reena Kalra under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC.
Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC envisages commission of murder by two or
43
Explanation 5 to Sec 108
44
Ameer Khan (1871) 17 WR (Cr) 15 (FB)
45
Shri Ram AIR 1975 SC 175
46
Ibid at 176 (AIR)
47
Malan AIR 1960 Bom 393
15
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE
more people in furtherance of a common intention. Section 300 of IPC gives the
definition of murder and enumerates the ingredients of the offence.
48
Section 300, IPC.
49
Gurdatta Mal AIR 1965 SC 257
50
Chikkarange Gowda AIR 1956 SC 731
51
Tukaram Ganpat Pandare AIR 1974 SC 514
52
Rambilas Singh AIR 1989 SC 1593
16
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE
guilty”. The „Burden of Proof‟ lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt.
The Respondent-Prosecution contends that actus reus(1) and mens rea (2) had been
proven successfully, thus The Accused are guilty of murder of Reena Kalra.
B. Actus reus
Actus reus is any wrongful act53. 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, it is contended that the actus reus had been established by way of
Accused 3‟s statement (1), circumstantial evidence (2), and discovery of crime articles
(3).
i. Statement by Accused 3
The Accused 3‟s statement as a whole is inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872, but reliance can be placed on those parts of the statement, which
are corroborated by other evidence. It is contended that in the instant case, parts of the
confessional statement of Accused 3, which have been corroborated by other evidence,
prove the actus reus of the accused.
It is the humble contention of the Respondent that the physical act of murdering Reena
Kalra by strangulating had been established by well linked chain of circumstantial
evidence.
53
Aiyar, P Ramanathan, The Law Lexicon, p. 49 (2nd ed 2006.)
54
Mohan Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1974 SC 1144
17
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE
Recovery of weapons of offence after a long period of time and even not sending them
for forensic examination does not in any way dilute the evidentiary value of the
prosecution version.
It is contended that in the instant case, the murder weapons were recovered after a
period of three years, thereby establishing the link in the chain of circumstantial
evidence to prove the actus reus of the accused.
C. MENS REA
Mens rea is considered as guilty intention55, which is proved or inferred from the acts
of the accused.56 It is submitted that the intention to kill had been established [A] in
light of clear-cut motive of the accused [B]. Arguendo, absence of motive would not
be a sufficient ground to dismiss the case [C].
i. Intention
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 murder.57
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 s. 302 of IPC.58
The intention to kill can be inferred from the murder and nature of the injuries caused
to the victim.59
It is humbly contended by the Respondent that the common intention of The Accused
of murdering The Deceased had been established by establishing a chain of of
circumstantial evidence.
ii. Motive
55
Commissioner of Income Tax v. Patranu Dass Raja Ram Beri, AIR 1982 PH 1, 4.
56
State of Maharashtra v. Meyer Hans George, AIR 1965 SC 722.
57
(1951) 3 Pepsu LR 635.
58
Santosh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1975 Cri LJ 602 (SC).
59
Laxman v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1974 SC 1803.
18
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE
Sec 8, Indian Evidence Act stipulates that any fact is relevant which shows or
constitutes motive or preparation for any fact in issue or relevant fact. 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 motive.60
The Supreme Court has held that mens rea is an essential ingredient of a criminal
offence.61 In a criminal court one often wants to test the alleged guilty mind by seeing
what was the motive of the alleged criminal in doing the particular act. It is not
essential under IPC for prosecution to establish motive. But as a matter of common
sense, this is usually of importance, because an average man does not commit a
criminal offence unless he has a strong motive for doing it.62 The absence of proof of
motive has this effect only, that the other evidence bearing guilt of the accused has to
be very closely examined.63 The motive behind the crime is a very relevant fact of
which evidence can be given. The absence of motive is also a circumstance which is
relevant for assessing the evidence. The circumstances which prove the guilt of the
accused are, however, not weakened by the fact that motive has not been established.64
Where the positive evidence against the accused is clear, cogent and reliable, the
question of motive is of no importance.65
It is the humbly contended that Accused 1‟s jealousy and sour relations, which had
been established by way of circumstantial evidence, constitute the motive for the
offence.
60
State v. Dinakar Bandu (1969) 72 Bom LR 905.
61
Nathulal AIR 1966 SC 43.
62
Shamdasini P D AIR 1929 Bom 443.
63
Atley AIR 1955 SC 80.
64
Rajinder Kumar AIR 1966 SC 1322.
65
Gurcharan Singh AIR 1956 SC 460.
66
RATANLAL AND DHIRAJLAL, The Indian Penal Code, (26th ed., 2007).
19
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE
mere existence of motive is by itself, not an incriminating circumstance and cannot
take the place of a proof.67
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 law.68 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.69
The mere missing link of non-establishment of clear motive of accused 2 and accused
3 is immaterial and is not a ground for dismissing the case, in light of the well-
established motive of Accused 1 to commit the murder.
Therefore, it is humbly submitted before this Hon‟ble Court that The Accused were
correctly held guilty for the offence of murder, given that the requisite mens rea and
actus reus had been established by the Prosecution from the facts of the case, beyond a
reasonable doubt.
To bring home a charge under s.201, IPC, the prosecution must prove:
1. That an offence has been committed.
2. That the accused knew or had reason to believe the commission of such an offence.
3. That with such knowledge or belief he
a) Caused any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, or
b) Gave any information relating to that offence which he then knew or believed to
be false.
67
State of Punjab v Sucha Singh, AIR 2003 SC 1471.
68
Mulakh Raj v. Satish Kumar, AIR 1992 SC 1175
69
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Digvijay Singh, 1981 Cri. LJ 1278 (SC).
20
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE
4. That he did so as aforesaid with the intention of screening the offender from
legal punishment.
5. If the charge be of an aggravated form, it must be further proved that the offence
in respect of which the accused did as in 3. And 4. Supra, was punishable with
death or imprisonment for life or imprisonment extending to ten years.70
It must be proved that an offence, the evidence of which the accused is charged with
causing to disappear, has actually been committed, 71 and that the accused knew, or
had the information sufficient to lead him to believe, that the offence had been
committed. 72
Mere suspicion would not be sufficient. There must be available on record cogent
evidence that the accused has caused the evidence to disappear in order to screen
another known or unknown. The foremost necessity being that the accused must have
the knowledge or must have the reason to believe that such an offence has been
committed.73
The intention to screen the offender must be the primary and sole object of the
accused. The fact that the concealment was likely to have that effect is not sufficient.74
It is humbly contended that the offence under this section is proved by appreciation of
Accused 3‟s statement (A) and circumstantial evidence (B).
70
K. Purnachandra Rao, 1975 Cri.L.J. 1671.
71
Abdul Kadir, (1880) 3 All 279 (FB).
72
Matuki Misser, (1885) 11 Cal 619.
73
Tresa V L, (2001) 3 SCC 549.
74
Jamnadas, (1963) 1 Cri LJ 433.
21
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE
B. Circumstantial Evidence
It is contended that the well-established chain of circumstantial evidence is enough to
prove that the accused burnt the body to cause evidence of the main offence to
disappear, with an intention of screening them from legal punishment.
75
State of MP v. Rammi, 1999 (1) JLJ 49 (MP).
22
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE
76
State of MP v. Dharkale, AIR 2005 SC 44.
77
State of WB v. Orilal Jaiswal, AIR 1994 SC 1418.
23
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE
PRAYER
Wherefore, in light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, may
this Hon„ble Court be pleased to:
1. Declare and adjudge that all three accused are guilty of murdering Reena
Kalra.
AND/OR
Pass any other order, as it deems fit, in light of justice, equity and good conscience.
XII
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS