1st MLU INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETETION

1 ST MLU INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION–

2023

IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF

SATYAMPUR
Criminal Case No.- _____/2023

IN THE MATTER PERTAINING TO

THE STATE OF SATYAMPUR …..APPELLANT

V/S.

ARON AND ORS. . ....RESPONDENT

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

[Memorandum submitted on behalf of the respondent]

1
 1st MLU INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETETION

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. LIST OF ABBREVIATION------------------------------------------------------------3

II. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES----------------------------------------------------------4-5

A. Table of cases--------------------------------------------------------------------------4
B. Books referred-------------------------------------------------------------------------5
C. Statutes --------------------------------------------------------------------------------5
D. E- resources ---------------------------------------------------------------------------5
III. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION---------------------------------------------------6

IV. STATEMENT OF FACTS-------------------------------------------------------------7-9

V. STATEMENT OF ISSUES-------------------------------------------------------------10

VI. STATEMENT OF ARGUMENTS ----------------------------------------------------11

VII. ARGUMENT ADVACED------------------------------------------------------------12-20

A. WHETHER THE CONVICTION OF ARON IS JUSTIFIABLE.------------12-15

B. WHETHER THE CONFESSION OF MEHSUD IS INCRIMINATING SAHID FOR

THE TRIAL UNDER SAME OFFFENCE.---------------------------------------16-20

VIII. PRAYER------------------------------------------------------------------------------------21

[Memorandum submitted on behalf of the respondent]

2
 1st MLU INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETETION

LIST OF ABBREVIATION

1. Cr.P.C.- CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE

2. IPC- INDIAN PENAL CODE
3. SCC- SUPREME COURT CASES
4. BOMLR- BOMBAY LAW REVIEW
5. SC- SUPREME COURT
6. U/S- UNDER SECTION
7. SEC.- SECTION
8. IEA- INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT
9. AIR- ALL INDIA REPORT
10. CRMNL- CRIMINAL

[Memorandum submitted on behalf of the respondent]

3
 1st MLU INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETETION

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

TABLE OF CASES

1. Parvat Singh Vs.State of Madhya Pradesh A.I.R. 2020 SC 1515

2. Dajabhai s/o Lumbabhai v/s Mancharam Dwarkadas Sadhu (2022) LiveLaw (Guj)
352.
3. Sewaki v. State of Himachal Pradesh 1981 Cri. LJ 919.
4. Kochu Mani & Anr v. State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 352
5. Rajeesh v. State of Kerala ILR 2022(1) Kerala 569
6. Subramanya vs State of Karnataka | 2022 Live Law (SC) 887 | CrA 242 OF 2022
7. .Prathap Reddy V/s the state 2019, Live Law (Madras)209
8. Pappu Kalani v. State of Maharashtra 1998 SUPREME COURT 3258(India)
9. P.Pragasam vs. State 1993 SC 866 (India)
10. Surinder Kumar Khanna vs. Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence.
2018 (8) SCC 271
11. Haricharan Kurmi vs. State of Bihar1964 (6) SCR 623
12. Emperor vs. Lalit Mohan Chakraborty and others. (1911) ILR 38 Cal 559
13. In re. Peryaswami Moopan and Anr. (1930) 59 MLJ 471

14. Bhuboni Sahu vs The King (1949) 51 BOMLR 955

[Memorandum submitted on behalf of the respondent]

4
 1st MLU INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETETION

BOOKS REFERRED

1. Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code (34th Ed. 2014)

2. Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The Code of Criminal Procedure, (20th Ed. 2011)

3. KD Gaur, Criminal Law: Cases and Materials, (5th Ed. 2008)

4. KD Gaur, A Textbook on the Indian Penal Code, (6th Ed. 2016)

5. R.V. Kelkar, Code of Criminal Procedure, (5th Ed. 2008)

6. S.N Misra, Code of Criminal Procedure, (2oth Ed. 2016)

7. Batik Lal, The Law of Evidence, (21st Ed. 2014)

STATUTES

1. The code of criminal procedure,1973

2. Indian Penal Code(45 of 1860)
3. Protection of children from sexual offenses act, 2012
4. The Evidence Act, 1872
5. Information Technology Act, 2000
6. Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe(Prevention Of Atrocities) Act ,1989

E-RESOURCES

1. Manupatra (www.manupatra.com)

2. SCC Online (www.scconline.in)

3. Lexis Nexis (www.lexisnexis.com)

[Memorandum submitted on behalf of the respondent]

5
 1st MLU INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETETION

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Honorable high court has the jurisdiction of taking cognizance of this matter under

Section 377(1) and section 378(1) of Code of criminal procedure, 1973.

As per section 377(1);-

Appeal by the State Government against sentence

(1) Save as otherwise provided in sub- section (2), the State Government may, in any case of
conviction on a trial held by any Court other than a High Court, direct the Public Prosecutor
to present an appeal to the High Court against the sentence on the ground of its inadequacy.

As per section 378(1):-

Save as otherwise provided in sub- section (2) and subject to the provisions of sub- sections
(3) and (5), the State Government may, in any case, direct the Public Prosecutor to present an
appeal to the High Court from an original or appellate order of acquittal passed by any Court
other than a High Court 2 or an order of acquittal passed by the Court of Session in revision.]

[Memorandum submitted on behalf of the respondent]

6
 1st MLU INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETETION

STATEMENT OF FACTS

In 2012, Tejus community members demanded "Scheduled Tribe" status, claiming they were
labeled as "other backward class" before the State of Satyampur's merger. During this time, they
witnessed a flood of tribal refugees from Union of Ahomaa settle in reserved forests, protected
forests, and wildlife sanctuary areas, leading to feelings of insecurity among the Tejus
community.
1. The High Court of Satyampur has directed the state government to submit a recommendation
to the Central Government for the inclusion of the Tejus community in the Scheduled Tribe
status. This move could lead to the community receiving benefits and protections. The State
Government has also initiated a comprehensive survey to identify instances of land
encroachment in reserved forests, protected forests, and wildlife sanctuaries in the
"Surrounding Hills Area," aiming to protect the rights and territories of tribal communities
residing in these ecologically and culturally significant regions.
2. Tribal groups in Satyampur took drastic action on April 27, 2023, setting fire to an open gym
scheduled for inauguration by the Chief Minister. Authorities imposed Section 144 of the
Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) to maintain public order and security. Violence erupted
again on May 3, 2023, when tribal communities encountered a "counter-blockade" initiated
by the "Tejus" community after a protest organized by the "All Tribal Students Union of
Satyampur."
3. On May 5th, 2023, a media visual depicting sexual assault and violence on women in
Satyampur featured three women being paraded naked on the high way road.
4. On May 4th, 2023, two Adus tribal women, Mandira and Sukhoi, went to Archum valley to
fetch water from a pond. However, they didn't return home, and a 16-year-old girl named
Tridevi also went missing on the same day. This incident raised concerns for their families.
5. Tridevi's father, Tridevi, is searching for Tridevi, her brother’s friend and her paramour
Aron. A neighbor, Sahera, revealed that Tridevi was seen leaving with Aron early in the
morning, the last person seen with her before her disappearance. This revelation deepened
the mystery and increased the urgency of the situation, prompting Tridevi's father to register
an FIR at the Archum valley police station.

[Memorandum submitted on behalf of the respondent]

7
 1st MLU INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETETION

6. On May 5th, police searched for Tridevi based on Tridevi's father's FIR and found two dead
bodies in the Archum Valley canal. The bodies were identified as Mandira's and Sukhoi's,
who were found to have been gang raped and had their throats cut with a sharp object. Police
later discovered another complaint from Sukhoi's parents in Tuhirbad district, a nearby
district.
7. On May 10th, police found Tridevi in an abandoned cow shed, rescued her, and sent for
medical examination. Sahera, the sole witness, provided the statement under Aron u/s 161 of
Cr.P.C, 1973.
8. Tridevi was invited to a local fair by her brother’s friend, Aron, but instead, he took her to an
abandoned rice mill in the backyard of Sahid, where she met two other women, Mandira and
Sukhoi, who were gang-raped by Aron, his friends Mehsud, Sahid, and Pulan. Four men
guarded the rice mill, and after raping the women, they paraded them on the high way and
recorded them with a mobile camera. Mehsud cut Mandira's throat, and Tridevi became
uncontrollable, escaping their hold and hiding in a cow shed.
9. Eight people, including Tridevi's father, were arrested following a FIR. Police discovered
that Sukhoi's parents had made another complaint about the disappearance of their daughter,
but no FIR was registered. After arrest, Mehsud confessed to killing Mandira and Sukhoi
with a saw due to his hatred towards the "Adus" community. The police discovered the saw
buried under a rice mill window, and Mehsud himself went with the police to show the
location of the saw.
10. On May 16, 2023, Satyampur experienced statewide violence, demanding justice for three
women who were killed by throwing smoke bombs on government vehicles and destroying
public property. The court ordered a committee for further investigation.
11. Two out of three women who were gang-raped and their father and brother were killed by a
mob on May 4, while a Zero FIR was filed on May 18, 14 days after the incident, which was
reported by Sukhoi's parents in Tuhirbad district.
12. Police charged Aron, Mehsud, Sahid, and Pulan with assisting offenders by guarding the
door of a rice mill under sections 354, 376D, 302, 120 B, and section 109 of the Indus Penal
Code, 1860, Sec 3 of the Scheduled Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989, and Sec 67, 66 Information Technology Act, 2000.

[Memorandum submitted on behalf of the respondent]

8
 1st MLU INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETETION

13. Four anonymous men were declared juvenile in a trial at Satyampur Juvenile court. Aron,
Mehsud, Sahid, and Pulan were tried by a Sessions Judge. Sahera, the neighbor of Tridevi,
was declared a hostile witness due to his claim that he never informed the police about
Tridevi and Aron leaving together before Tridevi's disappearance.
14. Aron and Sahid, in their Section 313 Cr.P.C, 1973 statement, denied knowing about the
murders of Mandira and Sukhoi, while Mehsud confessed to killing them with a saw in his
statement.
15. The Sessions Judge sentenced Aron to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of 1
lakh and one month of simple imprisonment, while Mehsud was convicted for life
imprisonment.
16. The Sessions Judge acquitted Sahid due to the lack of evidence, stating that the murder
weapon was recovered through the joint confession of Mehsud and Sahid, as the judicial
confession of a co-accused cannot be relied upon for conviction.
17. State of Satyamur appealed Sahid's acquittal and Aron's punishment enhancement, and the
case is now set for final hearing before a Division Bench, following the acquittal of Sahid.

[Memorandum submitted on behalf of the respondent]

9
 1st MLU INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETETION

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUE -1:-

WHETHER THE CONVICTION OF ARON IS JUSTIFIABLE.

ISSUE 2:-

WHETHER THE CONFESSION OF MEHSUD IS INCRIMINATING SAHID FOR THE

TRIAL UNDER SAME OFFFENCE.

[Memorandum submitted on behalf of the respondent]

10
 1st MLU INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETETION

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. WHETHER THE CONVICTION OF ARON IS JUSTIFIABLE.

The statement made u/s 161 cannot be treated as substantive evidence and is meant for
corroboration and contradiction. The statement recorded by police under this section cannot be
treated as a substantive piece of evidence. The statement of Sahera and Tridevi under this section
however does not constitute any criminal liability on both the accused.

The punishment awarded to Aron by the session’s court is not maintainable as the punishment
awarded is erroneous and there has been no mention of any specific provision under which the
accused has been convicted which lead to the ambiguity of the nature of the punishment
prescribed. There has been no established evidence against the accused 1 that is Aron, and
without any proper corroboration to the statement recorded u/s 161 of Cr.P.C. , it does not carry
any evidentiary value to convict the accused for the allegation of the offence committed.

2. WHETHER THE CONFESSION OF MEHSUD IS INCRIMINATING SAHID

FOR THE TRIAL UNDER SAME OFFFENCE.

The confession made by Mehsud cannot incriminate Sahid for the trial under same offence as the
judicial confession of a co accused cannot be relied upon as evidence for conviction under same
trial. Judicial confession of a Co-accused cannot be relied On as Substantive Evidence, It's Only
a corroborative Piece of evidence. The confession of one accused is not evidence as against the
co-accused. When the rest of the evidence is sufficient for a conviction, this confession could be
used to tilt the balance against a co-accused. It cannot form the basis of a conviction and it
cannot be taken as a piece of evidence against the cc- accused.

Along with this there is no absolute evidence established against Sahid as apart from the
statement of Tridevi there is no other evidence relating Sahid to the commission of act however
the statement of Tridevi cannot be treated as substantive u/s 161.

[Memorandum submitted on behalf of the respondent]

11
 1st MLU INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETETION

ARGUMENT ADVANCED

1. WHETHER THE CONVICTION OF ARON IS JUSTIFIABLE.

It is submitted that the statement made u/s 161 is not admissible as substantive evidence in the
court of law.

A. STATEMENT OF SAHERA AND TRIDEVI U/S 161 IS NOT SUBSTANSIVE

EVIDENCE.

Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. states that,

Any police officer making an investigation under this Chapter, or any police officer not below
such rank as the State Government may, by general or special order, prescribe in this behalf,
acting on the requisition of such officer, may examine orally any person supposed to be
acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case.
Such person shall be bound to answer truly all questions relating to such case put to him by such
officer, other than questions the answers to which would have a tendency to expose him to a
criminal charge or to a penalty or forfeiture.
The police officer may reduce into writing any statement made to him in the course of an
examination under this section; and if he does so, he shall make a separate and true record of the
statement of each such person whose statement he records.

In the case of Parvat Singh1 , Parvat Singh and others were convicted by the Trial Court finding
them guilty of offences under Section 302 r/w Section 149 of the IPC for having killed one Bal
Kishan. While confirming the Trial Court judgment, the High Court relied on the statement given
by one of the prosecution witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in which she stated that the
accused were having lathis.

1. Parvat Singh Vs.State of Madhya Pradesh A.I.R. 2020 SC 1515

[Memorandum submitted on behalf of the respondent]

12
 1st MLU INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETETION

Perusing the evidence on record, the bench noted that there are material contradictions,
omissions and improvements in the statement of the prosecution witnesses recorded under
Section 161 Cr.P.C. as well as deposition before the Court qua the appellants. The bench
observed that the statement that the accused were having lathis was not made in deposition as
Prosecution witnesses. The bench said:

As per the settled preposition of law a statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is
inadmissible in evidence and cannot be relied upon or used to convict the accused. As per the
settled proposition of law, the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. can be used only to
prove the contradictions and/or omissions. Therefore, as such, the High Court has erred in
relying upon the statement of PW8 recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. while observing that the
appellants were having the lathis.

In another case of Dajabhai s/o Lumbabhai v/s Mancharam Dwarkadas Sadhu2 ,

The Gujarat High Court, while reiterating that the statement of a witness recorded by the
investigating officer under Section 161 of CrPC does not fall within the ambit of evidence, has
upheld the acquittal of a Murder accused.

The Bench comprising Justices SH Vora and Rajendra Sareen explained in the context of the
statement recorded by the investigating officer:

"Such evidence is only for confrontation in the cross examination. Statement of witnesses
recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure being wholly inadmissible in
evidence and cannot be taken into account. As per the settled proposition of law, statement
recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be used only to prove the
contradictions and/or omissions."

2. Dajabhai s/o Lumbabhai v/s Mancharam Dwarkadas Sadhu (2022) LiveLaw (Guj) 352.

[Memorandum submitted on behalf of the respondent]

13
 1st MLU INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETETION

In the case of In Sewaki v. State of Himachal Pradesh3, it was determined that statements made
by investigating officers under Section 161of Cr.P.C. are neither recorded under oath nor are
they subject to cross-examination as required by Section 145 of the Evidence Act, 1872. As a
result, according to the law of evidence, these statements are not substantive pieces of evidence
because they do not provide proof of the facts stated in them.

Sec 145 of the Indian Evidence Act says that, A witness may be crossexamined as to previous
statements made by him in writing or reduced into writing, and relevant to matters in question,
without such writing being shown to him, or being proved; but, if it is intended to contradict him
by the writing, his attention must, before the writing can be proved, be called to those parts of it
which are to be used for the purpose of contradicting him. So the statement cannot form any part
of the evidence withour corroboration.

B. THE PUNISHMENT PRESCRIBED TO ACCUSED 1 IS ERRONEOUS.

The session’s court sentenced Aron for 10 years of rigorous Imprisonment along with fine and in
default 1 month of simple imprisonment, but the honorable court failed to mention the
concerning provision under which the person is being convicted.

The chargesheet framed against Aron is u/s 354,376D,302 and 120B whereas there has been no
such evidence collected to hold the accused 1 for conviction. The statement made by the sole
witness Tridevi is not maintainable as there is no evidence collected for corroboration of the
statement.

The Kerala High Court in a judgment held that merely recovering the object does not establish
guilt unless there are other materials connecting the accused to the commission of the offence.
The statements of witness without sufficient corroborative evidence were unjustifiable. The
Single Judge went through the records and noticed that the trial court had found the accused
guilty merely relying on the recovery statements.4

3. Sewaki v. State of Himachal Pradesh 1981 Cri. LJ 919.

4. Kochu Mani & Anr v. State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 352
[Memorandum submitted on behalf of the respondent]
14
 1st MLU INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETETION

Reliance was placed on Rajeesh v. State of Kerala5 to observe that recovery statements alone
cannot form the basis for conviction without further evidence linking the recovered articles to the
crime. As such, the prosecution failed to establish a close link between the recovered gold ingots
and the commission of the offence, resulting in doubt about the guilt of the appellants.

So it is evident from the above relevant cases cited, that the conviction of Aron is unjust and
erroneous as there have been no corroborative evidences.

5.ILR 2022(1) Kerala 569

[Memorandum submitted on behalf of the respondent]

15
 1st MLU INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETETION

2. WHETHER THE CONFESSION OF MEHSUD IS INCRIMINATING SAHID

FOR THE TRIAL UNDER SAME OFFFENCE.

It is submitted that the confession of Mehsud is not incriminating Sahid for the trial under same
offence.

A. THE JUDICIAL CONFESSION OF CO ACCUSED CANNOT BE RELIED UPON FOR

CONVICTION.

In the Subramanya6 case, The Supreme Court observed that the extra judicial confession of a
co-accused could not be relied on as substantive evidence.

The confession of a co accused could be used only in support of the evidence and could not be
made a foundation of a conviction, the bench of CJI UU Lalit and Justice JB Pardiwala observed.

The bench observed thus while allowing the appeal filed by a murder convict. In this case, the
murder accused was acquitted by the Trial Court, but the Karnataka High Court allowed the
appeal filed by the State and convicted the accused. The High Court had relied on an judicial
confession made by one co-accused to convict the accused.

One of the contentions raised in appeal before the Apex Court was that the High Court
committed a serious error in making the extra judicial confession as the basis and thereafter
going in search for corroboration. This confession of a coaccused, even if proved, cannot be the
basis of a conviction and although it is evidence in the generic sense, yet it is not evidence in the
specific sense and it could afford corroboration to other evidence and cannot be the supporting
point or the sole basis of the conviction, it was contended. On the other hand, the State contended
that the extra judicial confession alleged to have been made by the co-accused is admissible
against the accused.

6.Subramanya vs State of Karnataka | 2022 Live Law (SC) 887 | CrA 242 OF 2022

[Memorandum submitted on behalf of the respondent]

16
 1st MLU INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETETION

Referring to Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act and earlier decisions of the Supreme Court,
the bench observed:

“To come to the ratio, we find that the view was affirmed that confession of a co accused could
only be considered but could not be relied on as substantive evidence. The case in hand is not
one of a confession recorded under Section 15 of the TADA Act. On the language of sub section
(1) of Section 15, a confession of an accused is made admissible evidence as against all those
tried jointly with him. So, it is implicit that the same can be considered against all those, tried
together. In this view of the matter also, Section 30 of the Evidence Act need not be invoked for
consideration of confession of an accused against the co accused, abettor or conspirator charged
and tried in the same case along with the accused. The accepted principle in law is that the
confessional statement of an accused recorded under Section 15 of the TADA Act is a
substantive piece of evidence against his co accused, provided the accused concerned are tried
together. This is the fine distinction between an extra judicial confession being a corroborative
piece of evidence and a confession recorded under Section 15 of the TADA Act being treated as
a substantive piece of evidence.”

While allowing the appeal and restoring acquittal of the accused, the bench observed that the
evidence of discovery of the weapon, clothes and dead body of the deceased at the instance of
the accused can hardly be treated as legal evidence.

In another case of Prathap Reddy V/s the state7, the high court of Madras stated that,

A confession is made and the above confession is provided in a Court of law, then that
confession could be described as a confession of a co- accused as against the others which could
be thrown in the balance of evidence against the others. The confession of one accused is not
evidence as against the co-accused. When the rest of the evidence is sufficient for a conviction,
this confession could be used to tilt the balance against a co-accused. It cannot form the basis of
a conviction and it cannot be taken as a piece of evidence against the co- accused.

7.Prathap Reddy V/s the state 2019, Live Law (Madras)209

[Memorandum submitted on behalf of the respondent]

17
 1st MLU INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETETION

In Pappu Kalani v. State of Maharashtra8 it is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as follows:-

At that stage the Court is required to confine its attention to only those materials collected during
investigation which can be legally translated into evidence and not upon further evidence (dehors
those materials) that the prosecution may, adduce in the trial, which would commence only after
the charges are framed and the accused denies the charges. The Designated Court was, therefore,
not at all justified in taking into consideration the confessional statement of Dr.Bansal
(prosecution) for framing charges against Kalani (accused).

In the matter of P.Pragasam Vs. State9, rep.by the Inspector of Police, Karaikal Town Police,
Pondicherry, it has been held that when the confession of co accused does not lead to recovery,
the confession is inadmissible in law and the charge sheet based on the confession which does
not lead to recovery has no legal basis and is liable to be quashed.

Section 30 of the Evidence Act10 reads thus:

Consideration of proved confession affecting person making it and others jointly under trial for
same offence. – “When more persons than one are being tried jointly for the same offence, and a
confession made by one of such persons affecting himself and some other of such persons is
proved, the Court may take into consideration such confession as against such other person as
well as against the person who makes such confession.”

The expression “the Court may take into consideration such confession” is significant. It
signifies that such confession by the maker as against the co-accused himself should be treated as
a piece of corroborative evidence. In absence of any substantive evidence, no judgment of
conviction can be recorded only on the basis of confession of a co- accused, be it extra-judicial
confession or a judicial confession and least of all on the basis of retracted confession.”

8. Pappu Kalani v. State of Maharashtra 1998 SUPREME COURT 3258(India)

9. P.Pragasam vs. State 1993 SC 866 (India)

10. The Indian Evidence Act of 1872.

[Memorandum submitted on behalf of the respondent]

18
 1st MLU INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETETION

In a similar case of Surinder Kumar Khanna vs. Intelligence Officer11,

the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that the conviction on the basis of confession of the
co-accused is not permissible, as held in paragraph No.14, which is extracted hereunder

“14.In the absence of any substantive evidence it would be inappropriate to base the conviction
of the appellant purely on the statements of co-accused. The appellant is therefore entitled to be
acquitted of the charges leveled against him. We, therefore, accept this appeal, set aside the
orders of conviction and sentence”

The constitutional Bench decision on the case of Haricharan Kurmi vs. State of Bihar12,

It was held that the stage to consider the confessional statements arrives only after the other
evidence is recorded and found to be satisfactory. In the present case, the trial has not
commenced and therefore the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was
arrayed as an accused based on the confession of the co-accused and therefore he should be
discharged cannot be considered at this stage. Para Nos. 13 and 14 of the said decision of the
Constitution Bench can usefully be extracted hereunder:-

"13. As we have already indicated, this question has been considered on several occasions by
judicial decisions and it has been consistently held that a confession cannot be treated as
evidence which is substantive evidence against a co-accused person. in dealing with a criminal
case where the prosecution relies upon the confession of one accused person against another
accused person, the proper approach to adopt is to consider the other evidence against such an
accused person, and if the said evidence appears to be satisfactory and the court is inclined to
hold that the said evidence may sustain the charge framed against the said accused person, the
court turns to the confession with a view to assure itself that the conclusion which it is inclined to
draw from the other evidence is right.

11. Surinder Kumar Khanna vs. Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence. 2018 (8) SCC 271

12. Haricharan Kurmi vs. State of Bihar1964 (6) SCR 623

[Memorandum submitted on behalf of the respondent]

19
 1st MLU INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETETION

As was observed by Sir Lawrence Jenkins in Emperor vs. Lalit Mohan Chakraborty13

A confession can only be used to lend assurance to other evidence against a co- accused".

In In re. Peryaswami Moopan14 Reilly J. observed that the provision of sec. 30 goes not further
than this: "where there is evidence against the co- accused sufficient, if, believed, to support his
conviction, then the kind of confession described in sec.30 may be thrown into the scale as an
additional reason for believing that evidence." In Bhuboni Sahu v. King15 the Privy Council has
expressed the same view. Sir John Beaumont who spoke for the Board observed that a
confession of a co-accused is obviously evidence of a very weak type. It does not indeed come
within the definition of "evidence" contained in sec. 3 of the Evidence Act. It is not required to
be given on oath, nor in the presence of the accused, and it cannot be tested by cross-
examination. It is a much weaker type of evidence than the evidence of an approver, which is not
subject to any of those infirmities.

Section 30, however, provides that the Court may take the confession into consideration and
thereby, no doubt, makes it evidence on which the court may act; but the section does not say
that the confession is to amount to proof. Clearly there must be other evidence. The confession is
only one element in the consideration of all the facts proved in the case, it can be put into the
scale and weighed with the other evidence."

As the judicial confession of a co accused cannot be relied upon, there lays no other evidence to
reverse the acquittal of Sahid. As Without any proper evidence the rule of law never prescribes
conviction.

13. Emperor vs. Lalit Mohan Chakraborty and others. (1911) ILR 38 Cal 559

14. In re. Peryaswami Moopan and Anr. (1930) 59 MLJ 471

15. Bhuboni Sahu vs The King (1949) 51 BOMLR 955

[Memorandum submitted on behalf of the respondent]

20
 1st MLU INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETETION

PRAYER

WHEREFORE IN THE LIGHTS OF THE ISSUES RAISED, ARGUMENTS

ADVANCED, IT IS HUMBLY PRAYED THAT THE HON’BLR COURT MAY BE
PLEASED TO:-

1. Acquit Accused 1 as there is no corroborative evidence recovered.

2. Uphold the acquittal of accused 3 as no evidence established against him.

AND/ OR

Pass any order, direction or relief that this Hon’ble court may deem fit in the interests of
justice, equity and good conscience.

All of which is humbly prayed,

By the counsel of the Respondent.

[Memorandum submitted on behalf of the respondent]

21