Vivek Sharma B.com LL.B Sem 10

MOOT COURT ACTIVITY,2021
BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Appellate Jurisdiction
APPEAL ARISING OUT OF ORDER PASSED BY

HIGH COURT OF M.P
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY

SESSION COURT OF INDORE M.P
RAJENDRA JATAV …APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF M.P ...RESPONDENT.
SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY:
DR. MOHIT SAINI VIVEK SHARMA

Asst. Prof. B.COM LL.B. Sem.-X
Roll No. 16731
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS……………………………………3
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES....................................................... 4-5
STATEMENT OF FACTS........................................................... 6-8
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ............................................ 9
ISSUE FRAMED ........................................................................ 10
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .............................................. .11-12
ARGUMENT ADVANCE ......................................................13-26
PRAYER……………………………………………………...27

ABBREVIATIONS USED
Sec. Section
AIR All India Report
Art. Article
H.C High COURT
Hon'ble Honorable
V. Volume
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
IEA Indian Evidence Act
Anr. Another
CRPC Code of criminal
procedure

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
BINDING PRECEDENTS
1. Rishi Kesh Singh and Ors. vs The State on 18 October, 1968

2. State Vs Rani Kamboj & Anr. on 10 January, 2012
3. Partap vs The State of U.P on 10 September, 1975

4. Dudh Nath Pandey v. State of U.P., (1981) 2 SCC 166,
5. Binay Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar, (1997) 1 SCC 283,
6. Jumni v. State of Haryana,
7. Mohinder Singh v. State, AIR 1953
8. Ajay Chakraborty v. State of Assam
9. Dagadu Dharmaji Shindore v. State of Maharashtra, the Bombay
High Court
10. Kalam @ Abdul Kalam v. Inspector of Police
11. Dinesh Dass vs State Nct of Delhi on 29 August, 2018
12.Tarachand Damu Sutar vs The State of Maharashtra on 4 May,
1961

ONLINE SOURCE
1. www.sci.gov.in
2. www. Hcmadras.tn.nic.in
3. www.manupatra.co.in/AdvancedLegalSearch.aspx
4. www.scconline.com
5. www.lexisnexis.com
6. www.indiankanoon.com
7. www.scribd.com
8. www.wikipedia.org
STATUTES REFERRED
1. The Indian Penal Code, 1860

2. Code OF Criminal Procedure,1973
3. Indian Evidence Act,1872

STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS
1. Dr. Rajesh Sharma (hereinafter “Dr. Sharma”) is a Cardiac Surgeon,

residing with his two daughters (Namely Neha and Shweta) along with his
wife Mrs. Neeta Sharma in Satkar Residency, Vivekananda Nagar, Indore
(Madhya Pradesh). Dr. Rajesh has been practicing in Indore from last 25
Years. Dr. Sharma had cordial relations within his locality. He was known
for his charity and often renders free Medical Aid to poor and needy
people whenever required. Dr. Sharma’s daughters namely Neha, aged 20
years was pursuing her first year MBBS in Government Medical College
Indore and Shweta aged 18 years was pursuing her intermediate in
Dayanand College of Arts & Science, Indore
2. Within the same locality, Mr. Ravindra Jatav (hereinafter “Mr. Jatav”) and
his wife Nilima Jatav along with his Son Rajendra aged 25 years, who was
working as Assistant Manager in Galaxy Pharmaceuticals, used to stay.
Both Dr. Sharma and Mr. Jatav had a very good family relation. These
two families used to frequently visit each other’s residence on various
occasions. During these meetings, Rajendra became friendly with Neha,
the eldest daughter of Dr. Sharma, and soon this friendship transformed
into love. Both of them use to frequently meet and sit behind Ganesh
Temple situated on the outskirts of Indore. They were madly in love with
each other. Mr. Ravindra Jatav and his wife were well aware of all these
facts.
3. In January 2014 Mr. Jatav was transferred to Bhopal, hence he, with his
family shifted there. However, Rajendra used to roam between Bhopal
and Indore to meet Neha. One fine morning on 4/5/2014, Mr. Jatav made
a telephonic call to Dr. Sharma and told him that his son Rajendra and Dr.
Sharma’s daughter Neha are in love with each-other, so he wishes to visit
him to discuss about the marriage of Rajendra and Neha. Dr. Sharma in a
very harsh manner, not only denied the idea of marriage, but also insulted
Mr. Jatav, with remarks on his caste, as he is a Brahmin and Mr. Jatav
belongs to Dalit community. In result, Mr. Jatav replied in the same tone
and warned him to repent for the words.
4. On ill –fated morning dated 8/5/2014, Dr. Sharma and his wife left their

house at about 6:15 A.M. for a morning walk and when they came back
5. At about 7:00 to 7:15 A.M., the outer door was open and a newspaper was
lying in the verandah and on entry into house, they found the younger
daughter Shweta dead with injuries and eldest daughter Neha was found
dead in the toilet.
6. A FIR was lodged before Police Station Vijay Nagar, Indore, at Crime
No.112/2014 for the offences under Section 302 (2 Counts) and 449 of the
I.P.C. During preliminary investigation, Police recovered the knife and
bloodstained clothes from the bushes, behind Holkar Hospital. Jai Prakash
Jain (PW-3), who lived just opposite to the house of Dr. Sharma, alleged
that he saw Rajendra Jatav (Accused) jumping from the compound wall
in the morning. In line of this, Dr. Sharma also raised the suspicion against
said Rajendra Jatav.
7. A team was sent to Bhopal to arrest Rajendra Jatav under Sub Inspector C.K.
Verma, but he was not found there and the Police was informed that Rajendra
(Accused) went to Mumbai to his sister’s place. Accused was taken into
custody from Mumbai on 10/05/2014 by Sub Inspector C.K. Verma from the
residence of his sister. He was produced before an Executive Magistrate at
Mumbai, where he allegedly confessed the offence. He was brought to Indore,
where he was formally arrested by the Investigating Officer Inspector Prithipal
Singh. At the time of his arrest, Accused Rajendra Jatav produced a sleeper
class train ticket from Bhopal to Mumbai for the night of 07th-08th May 2014.
A golden chain was also recovered from him. Memo under section 27 of
Indian Evidence Act 1872 was prepared for knife and bloodstained clothes, in
which he confessed the act and disclosed that he kept the bloodstained clothes
and the weapon (knife) in bushes behind Holkar Hospital. On this statement a
fresh Seizure Memo for both the articles was also prepared along with other
documents. The Accused, Rajendra Jatav, was charged under Section 302
Indian Penal Code, 1860 separately for the murder of two girls and under
Section 449 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
8. During the trial, Accused Rajendra Jatav denied the charges and took the plea
of alibi that he was travelling to Mumbai on the intervening night of 7th-8th
May 2014 (the date of the happening of the incident). He also denied the

confession before Executive Magistrate at Mumbai. All the witnesses deposed

in their testimony in line with the record. However, the officer C.K. Verma,
who brought the Accused from Mumbai was not examined by the learned trial
court. Further, the Accused filed an application to call T.T.E. of North-Central
Railway, Bhopal along with the travel record of S-6 Coach of Punjab Mail of
7/8/2014, but his application was rejected thereon. DW-1 the sister of Accused
Smt. Mahima Kadam in her deposition confirmed that Accused reached her
place at Mumbai on 08/05/2014 at around 10 a.m. and stayed with her till C.K.
Verma (S.I.) reached her residence and took the Accused with him.
9. The learned Trial Court adverted to the chain of following circumstances said
to have been shown against the Accused to establish his guilt beyond
reasonable doubt:
A. Intention/ motive to commit crime i.e. the Accused failed in love affair, so
was the reason committing crime.
B. He was seen by PW-3 Jai Prakash Jain, running from the scene, just after the
incident.
C. Seizure of the chain from the possession of the Accused and the identification
of the same by the mother and father of thedeceased.
D. Disclosure statement given by the Accused under Section 27 of the Evidence
Act and seizure of the knife and blood-stained clothes, not pursuant to the same
but before the same in the process of search of crime scene & nearby places by
the investigation team, the same was approved by the Memo prepared u/s 27
by the Accused.
E. Presence of human blood in the chemical examination of the knife and blood-
stained clothes seized from the Accused.
F. Confession of the Accused as was made before the Executive Magistrate in
Mumbai with respect to the instant matter. The Sessions Court convicted the
Accused and sentenced him to life imprisonment. Aggrieved by the decision
of trial court, appeal was preferred to the High Court. Division Bench of
Hon’ble High Court of M.P. upheld the decision of the Session Court.

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Supreme Court has jurisdiction to hear the matter under
ARTICLE 136 OF INDIAN CONSTITUTION
READ AS:
Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court
(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the Supreme

Court may, in its discretion, grant special leave to appeal from
any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any
cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the
territory of India
(2) Nothing in clause ( 1 ) shall apply to any judgment,

determination, sentence or order passed or made by any court or
tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed
Forces

ISSUES FRAMED
After admitting the petition, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of

India has framed the following Issues?
1. Whether the Prosecution has proved its case beyond
Reasonable doubt or not?

2. Whether the learned Session Court and High Court was
Right in Rejecting the plea of Alibi?

3. Whether the confessions recorded before Executive
Magistrate is Admissible under section 26 of Indian Evidence
Act 1872 or not?
4. Whether The accused is Guilty of Murder or Not?

1
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
 ISSUE 1: Whether the Prosecution has proved its case beyond

Reasonable doubt or not?
 It is submitted that the burden is always on the prosecution to prove the guilt
of accused beyond reasonable doubt. But in this case the chain of events has
not been completely proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.
Thus, the appellants are entitled to the benefit of doubt on the facts of the
present case.
 ISSUE 2: Whether the learned Session Court and High Court

was Right in Rejecting the plea of Alibi?
 It is humbly submitted that “it is not doubt that when alibi is set-up, the
burden of proof is on the accused to lend credence to the defence put up
by him or her. But in this case application for calling the witness and
leading evidence was erroneously rejected by the session and high court
which is grave violation of principal of fair justice enshrined in the
constitution.
 ISSUE 3: Whether the confessions recorded before Executive

Magistrate is Admissible under section 26 of Indian Evidence Act
1872 or not?
 It is humbly submitted that confession recorded before the
executive Magistrate is not admissible under section 26 of the
Indian Evidence Act 1872.According to section 26 confession
record before the executive Magistrate is not admissible and
may not be proved against the accused.
 "Magistrate" occurring in Section 26 of the Evidence Act
can only mean a Judicial Magistrate but not an Executive
Magistrate."
 ISSUE 4: Whether The accused is Guilty of

Murder?
 It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that accused is

not guilty for the offence of murder. Prosecution has failed
prove its case. Thus the order of conviction is liable to be set
aside.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
LEGAL ISSUE 1
 Whether the Prosecution has proved its case beyond
Reasonable doubt or not?
It is submitted that the burden is always on the prosecution to prove

the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. But in this case the
chain of events has not been completely proved by the prosecution
beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, the appellants are entitled to the
benefit of doubt on the facts of the present case.
The circumstances such as:
1. The Hon’ble court do not give an opportunity to the appellant to

prove the alibi Raised by the appellant.
2. The recovery of the chain from the accused confessed the act and
disclosed that he kept the bloodstained clothes and the weapon
(knife) in bushes behind Holkar Hospital. pursuant to a
disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act
which was recorded in the Sake of undue-influence.
3. Confession of the Accused was made before the Executive

Magistrate in Mumbai which is Grave violation the section 26 of
the Indian evidence act.
4. The criminal proceeding is the Grave violation of the principal of

Fair Trial Enshrined in Article 21 of the constitution of India.
From the above contention the one thing is clear that prosecution is
failed to prove its case beyond reasonable ground because the
above Contention’s are sufficient to conclude that the appellant is
Not guilty for the murder because the Hon’ble court did not give
importance to the facts raised by the appellant. Hence, on behalf of
the appellant I strongly note my protest against the Trial conducted
by the Hon’ble court’s and prove appellant guilty of murder without
giving him an opportunity to be heard enshrined under the principal
of audi alteram partemis.
The rules of natural justice have evolved with the growth of

civilization. Natural justice is the concept of common law which
implies fairness, reasonableness, equality and equity. In India, the
principles of natural justice are the grounds of Article 14 and 21 of
the Constitution. Article 14 enshrines that every person should be
treated equally. Article 21 in its judgment of Maneka Gandhi vs.
The Union of India, it has been held that the law and procedure
must be of a fair, just and reasonable kind. The principle of
natural justice comes into force when no prejudice is caused to
anyone in any administrative action. The principle of Audi Alteram
Partemis the basic concept of the principle of natural justice. This
doctrine states the no one shall be condemned unheard. This ensures
a fair hearing and fair justice to both the parties. Under this doctrine,
both the parties have the right to speak. No decision can be
declared without hearing both the parties. The aim of this
principle is to give an opportunity to both the parties to defend
themselves.
I WOULD LIKE TO SUPPORT MY CONTENTION FROM

THESE JUDGEMENTS
In Rishi Kesh Singh and Ors. vs The State on 18 October, 1968
The primary burden resting on the prosecution to prove the guilt of

the accused. That guilt can only be established if the prosecution is
able to prove beyond reasonable doubt all the, essentials that go to
make up the offence, including the fundamental requirement of
mens rea. As already pointed out, a doubt regarding the existence
of mens rea must necessarily arise whenever there is a doubt in the
mind of the Court as to whether the accused is entitled to the

benefit of a general exception such as the right of private defence.
In State Vs Rani Kamboj & Anr. on 10 January, 2012
The court observed in PARA-19 That:

It is cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is
presumed to be innocent. The burden lies on the prosecution to
prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. The
prosecution is under a legal obligation to prove each and every
ingredient of offence beyond any doubt, unless otherwise so
provided by any statute. This general burden never shifts; it always
rests on the prosecution. Accused is not expected to prove his
innocence to the hilt. If prosecution story is doubtful, benefit of
doubt must go to the accused.
In Partap vs The State of U.P on 10 September, 1975
The court observed That:

It is well- settled that the burden on the accused is not as onerous as
that which lies on the prosecution. While the prosecution is required
to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, the accused can
discharge his onus by establishing a mere preponderance of
probability
"The legal position of a state of reasonable doubt may Be viewed

and stated from two opposite angles. One may recognize, in a
realistic fashion, that, although the law prescribes only the higher
burden of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt
and the accused's lower burden of proving his plea by a
preponderance of probability only, yet, there is, in practice, a still
lower burden of creating reason able doubt about the accused's guilt,
and that an accused's can obtain an acquittal by satisfying this lower
burden too in practice. The objection to stating

the law in this fashion is that it looks like introducing a new type of
burden of proof, although, it may be said, in defence of such a
statement of the law, that it only recognizes what is true.

LEGAL ISSUE 2
 Whether the learned Session Court and High Court

was Right in Rejecting the plea of Alibi?
The plea of alibi is relevant and admissible under Section 11 of the

Evidence Act, which lays down as under: When facts not otherwise
relevant become relevant. Facts not otherwise relevant are
relevant—
(1) if they are inconsistent with any fact in issue or relevant fact;
(2) if by themselves or in connection with other facts they make the
existence or non-existence of any fact in issue or relevant fact highly
probable or improbable.
uhaime’s Law Dictionary defines Alibi as a defence to a criminal

charge to the effect that the accused was elsewhere than at the scene
of the alleged crime.
The Criminal Law Desk book of Criminal Procedure states: Alibi is

different from all other defences; it is based upon the premise that
the defendant is truly innocent.
Precisely, to essential components involves the disclosure of an alibi

– adequateness, and timeliness. In general, some other factors have
to adhere as well:
 There must be an alleged offence punishable by law.
The appellant has very much sure about to prove the plea of alibi but
the Hon’ble court did not allow the same. upon certain request court
do not allow the appellate to prove the plea of alibi which is grave
violation of principal of fair justice enshrined in the constitution
I WOULD LIKE TO SUPPORT MY CONTENTION FROM

THESE JUDGEMENTS

In the case of Dudh Nath Pandey v. State of U.P., (1981) 2 SCC

166,
The plea of alibi was explained by Supreme Court by observing
that: “… The plea of alibi postulates the physical impossibility of
the presence of the accused at the scene of offence by reason of his
presence at another place. The plea can therefore succeed only if it
is shown that the accused was so far away at the relevant time that
he could not be present at the place where the crime was
committed.”
the Supreme Court stressed that defence witnesses are entitled to

equal treatment with those of the prosecution, and that the courts
ought to overcome their traditional, instinctive disbelief in defence
witnesses; quite often, they tell lies but so do the prosecution
witnesses.
In the case of Binay Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar, (1997) 1 SCC

283,
the Supreme Court observed that:
“The Latin word alibi means ‘elsewhere’ and that word is used for
convenience when an accused takes recourse to a defence line that
when the occurrence took place he was so far away from the place
of occurrence that it is extremely improbable that he would have
participated in the crime. It is a basic law that in a criminal case, in
which the accused is alleged to have inflicted physical injury to
another person, the burden is on the prosecution to prove that the
accused was present at the scene and has participated in the crime.
The burden would not be lessened by the mere fact that the accused
has adopted the defence of alibi. The plea of the accused in such
cases need be considered only when the burden has been discharged
by the prosecution satisfactorily. But once the prosecution succeeds
in discharging the burden it is incumbent on the accused, who
adopts the plea of alibi, to prove it with absolute certainty so as to
exclude the possibility of his presence at the place of occurrence.
When the presence of the accused at the scene of occurrence has

been established satisfactorily by the prosecution through reliable

evidence, normally the court would be slow to believe any counter-
evidence to the effect that he was elsewhere when the occurrence
happened. But if the evidence adduced by
the accused is of such a quality and of such a standard that the court
may entertain some reasonable doubt regarding his presence at the
scene when the occurrence took place, the accused would, no doubt,
be entitled to the benefit of that reasonable doubt. For that purpose, it
would be a sound proposition to be laid down that, in such
circumstances, the burden on the accused is rather heavy. It follows,
therefore, that strict proof is required for establishing the plea of
alibi.”
In the case of Jumni v. State of Haryana,

the Supreme Court held that it is not as if the accused person is
required to prove his innocence, in fact, it is for the prosecution to
prove his guilt. It was further held in this case that:
“It is no doubt true that when an alibi is set up, the burden is on the
accused to lend credence to the defence put up by him or her.
However, the approach of the court should not be such as to pick
holes in the case of the accused person. The defence evidence has to
be tested like any other testimony, always keeping in mind that a
person is presumed innocent until he or she is found guilty.”
In The case of Mohinder Singh v. State, AIR 1953
The Supreme Court held that the standard of proof required in

regard to a plea of alibi must be the same as the standard applied to
the prosecution evidence and in both cases it should be a reasonable
standard…

LEGAL ISSUE 3
 Whether the confessions recorded before Executive

Magistrate is Admissible under section 26 of Indian
Evidence Act 1872 or not?
It is humbly submitted that confession recorded before the executive

Magistrate is not admissible under section 26 of the Indian Evidence
Act 1872.According to section 26 confession record before the
Magistrate is not admissible and may not be proved against the
accused.
Section 26 of the Evidence Act, 1872 reads thus: -

No confession made by any person whilst he is in the custody of a
police officer, unless it be made in the immediate presence of a
Magistrate, shall be proved as against such person. shall be proved
as against such person."
In our criminal dispensation system, it is a settled position that such

confessions cannot be used as evidence against the accused. This
stems from the fear of such confessions being compelled
testimonies, extracted from the accused by use of unlawful force
and coercive tactics. Section 26 is based upon this same fear that the
police would torture the accused and force him to confess either to
the police officer himself or to someone else. However, this section
recognizes one exception. If the confession takes place in police
custody, but in immediate presence of a Magistrate, it will be
considered valid.
The rationale behind this is that the presence of a Magistrate rules

out the possibility of torture, thereby making the confession
voluntary and reliable. There is a conflict in various decisions of the
High Court’s when holding the ‘Magistrate’ to be ‘Executive’ or
‘Judicial’ under Section 26 of the IEA. The absence of the Apex
Court’s decision on the point, only adds to the ambiguity. The

author has endeavored to discuss the various judgments on the point
and concluded that the ‘Magistrate’ referred to in Section 26 of IEA
should be the read as the ‘Judicial Magistrate’ and not
‘Executive Magistrate’ to ensure that the confession is
voluntary and reliable.
The legislature has used Section 3 (4) of the CRPC to

understand whether the reference made is to the Judicial or the
Executive Magistrate. From this scheme it appears that where the
powers are purely administrative in nature, they are required to be
exercised by an Executive Magistrate. On the other hand, where the
power involves appreciation of evidence or formulation of a
decision exposing a person to some punishment, penalty or
detention, it is required to be exercised by Judicial Magistrates.
Clearly, recording of the confession is an act that requires a legal
bent of mind and can expose a person to a punishment if used
against him in a court of law. Therefore, the reference of the
magistrate made in Section 26 should be construed as that of the
Judicial Magistrate.
Further, in India, both the police and the executive magistrate are
part of the executive branch of the Government. At times, they may
work in consonance with each other, rather than checking the
excesses of the other body. If a heinous offence is committed, there
is a mounting societal pressure upon the police and the civil district
administration to bring the perpetrators to book. In such a scenario,
a possibility exists that an Executive Magistrate may fail to observe
the formalities as prescribed under Section 164 of CRPC, as she
would be under similar pressure as the police to placate the
sentiments of the public by nabbing the perpetrator.

IN Ajay Chakraborty v. State of Assam
The court finds that In:
PARA 28. The Legislature was obviously of the view that any kind
of confession by an accused while he is under the custody of police
is not to be used as evidence against the accused at the time of the
trial of any offence of which the accused is charged. A principle
based on the experience of the lawmakers and the history of
mankind. However, the Legislature recognized an exception to the
rule contained under Sec 26, i.e. a confession made by an accused,
who is Page No.# 17/26 in the custody of the police, to some person
other than a police officer, if such a confession is made in the
immediate presence of a Magistrate. The only reason we can
imagine is that having regard to the separation of powers between
the Executive and the Judiciary and the requirement, belief and
expectation that the Judiciary functions absolutely independent and
uninfluenced by the authority of the Executives and, therefore, the
presence of a Judicial Magistrate eliminates the possibility of
confession being extracted from the accused by a police officer by
methods which are not permissible in law. The presence of an
independent Magistrate by itself is an assurance against the
extraction of confession by legally impermissible methods. Even if
any such impermissible influences are exercised on the accused
before producing the accused before the Magistrate for recording
the confession the Legislature expected that the accused would have
the advantage to complain to the Magistrate that he was being
compelled to make a confession and on such a complaint the
Magistrate is expected to protect the accused from the tyranny of
police
PARA 29: From the foregoing discussion we have no alternative

but to reach an irresistible conclusion that the expression
"Magistrate" occurring in Section 26 of the Evidence Act can
only mean a Judicial Magistrate but not an Executive
Magistrate."
In Dagadu Dharmaji Shindore v. State of Maharashtra, the

Bombay High Court
observed that, “In our view, the presence of Magistrate

contemplated under Section 26 of the Evidence Act cannot be other
than the Magistrate following the mandatory provisions of Section
164 of CrPC.” The confession recorded by the Executive
Magistrate would not be checked by the safeguards similar to
Section 164 CRPC and therefore making its credibility
questionable.
IN Madras High Court in Kalam @ Abdul Kalam v. Inspector of

Police
The court had a similar line of reasoning. It also held that the term
“Magistrate” as referred to in Section 26 of the IEA will mean only
a Judicial Magistrate. Any compelled testimony by an accused
person will also violate Article 20 (3) of the Constitution of India.
THEREFORE, from above contention It is likely that a

confession made by appellant while in police custody suffers from
the blemish of not being free and voluntary. The underlying
jurisprudence in the INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT. is that the presence
of a Magistrate rules out the possibility of torture, rendering the
confession free, voluntary and reliable. In such a scenario, a Judicial
Magistrate could only be relied upon to ensure that any admission
on part of the accused is not due to coercion. It is evident that the
intention of Parliament could not have been to include Executive
Magistrate in Section 26, and therefore it must be interpreted to
mean ‘Judicial Magistrate’ only.

LEGAL ISSUE 4
 Whether The accused is Guilty of Murder or not?
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that accused is not

guilty for the offence of murder. Prosecution has failed prove its
case. Thus the order of conviction is liable to be set aside. The said
Reason’s is discussed below:
 The Hon’ble court do not give an opportunity to the appellant to

prove the alibi Raised by the appellant.
 The recovery of the chain from the accused confessed the act and
disclosed that he kept the bloodstained clothes and the weapon
(knife) in bushes behind Holkar Hospital. pursuant to a
disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act
which was recorded in the Sake of undue-influence.
 Confession of the Accused was made before the Executive

Magistrate in Mumbai which is Grave violation the section 26 of
the Indian evidence act.
 The criminal proceeding is the Grave violation of the principal of

Fair Trial Enshrined in Article 21 of the constitution of India.
It is humbly submitted that every circumstance of the case

has been Not duly proved by the prosecution. There is no
strength in the arguments of prosecution and The prosecution
has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable
doubt. The order of conviction is liable to be set aside.

Dinesh Dass vs State Nct of Delhi on 29 August, 2018
The Hon’ble court observed that IN PARA-29,30:
It is well established in law that in a case founded upon

circumstantial evidence, the prosecution should establish the
complete chain of circumstances, and the circumstances when
looked at together should point only to the guilt of the accused. The
circumstances established by the prosecution, in the present case, in
our view, do not complete the said chain, and there are serious
gaping holes in the story of the prosecution. As noticed
hereinabove, the last seen evidence is weak, and it does not rule out
the possibility of the deceased having interacted with some other
person and having been done to death by some other person; the
weapon of offence has not been connected with the offence since
the blood group of the deceased could not be matched with the
blood on the knife recovered; the clothes of the accused were not
found to contain human blood stains, and; the motive for
commission of offence could not be sufficiently established. The
only incriminating circumstance established by the prosecution is
the conduct of the accused in absconding after the deceased was
killed and of his switching of his mobile phone. These, by
themselves do not complete the chain of circumstances and this
circumstance- though raises suspicion, does not conclusively
establish the commission of the offence by the accused.
In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered view that the
appellant is entitled to the benefit of the doubt. Accordingly, the
appellant stands acquitted.

Tarachand Damu Sutar vs The State of Maharashtra on 4 May,

1961
The Supreme Court observed That:
The High Court had made the latter statement as a statement of fact,
though there was no evidence to support it. Of course, on the basis
of a dying declaration, the High Court had already held before
discussing the defence evidence, that the accused was responsible
for the murder of his wife. If the defence evidence is to be adjudged
on the basis of the final finding of the Court, there is no use for
defence evidence. It has to be taken into consideration before
arriving at a final finding.
We would like to remark that the learned Judges who heard the
appeal should not have heard it when they, at the, time of admitting
it, felt so strongly about the accused being wrongly acquitted 'of the
offence of murder that they asked the Government Pleader to look
into the papers to find out whether it was a case where the
Government would like to file an appeal against the acquittal, under
s. 302, I.P.C We are therefore of opinion that it is not
satisfactorily proved that the appellant committed the murder
of his wife by setting fire to her clothes. We would therefore allow--
the appeal., set aside the order of the Court below and acquit
the appellant of this offence.
“The accused has led evidence and his case is that he was not
responsible for this murder at all.”

PRAYER
WHEREFORE IN THE LIGHT OF THE ISSUES RAISED,

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED AND AUTHORITIES CITED, IT IS
HUMBLY REQUESTED THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY
BE PLEASED TO ADJUDGE AND DECLARE:
 OVERRULE THE FINDING OF THE HON’BLE SESSION

AND HIGH COURT.
 THAT THE CONFESSION MADE UNDER SEC. 26 OF
THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT IS ONLY RESTRICTED
TO THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE.
 THAT THE APPELLANT IS NOT GUILTY FOR THE
OFFENCE OF MURDER.
AND MAY PASS ANY SUCH ORDER, OTHER ORDER

THAT IT DEEMS FIT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE,
EQUITY AND GOOD CONSCIENCE.
AND FOR THIS, APPELLANT AS IN DUTY BOUND SHALL

HUMBLY PRAY.
COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT

Vivek Sharma B.com LL.B Sem 10

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Vivek Sharma B.com LL.B Sem 10

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Vivek Sharma B.com LL.B Sem 10

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MOOT COURT ACTIVITY,2021

BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

APPEAL ARISING OUT OF ORDER PASSED BY

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY

RAJENDRA JATAV …APPELLANT

STATE OF M.P ...RESPONDENT.

SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY:

DR. MOHIT SAINI VIVEK SHARMA

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES....................................................... 4-5

STATEMENT OF FACTS........................................................... 6-8

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ............................................ 9

ISSUE FRAMED ........................................................................ 10

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .............................................. .11-12

ARGUMENT ADVANCE ......................................................13-26

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

1. Rishi Kesh Singh and Ors. vs The State on 18 October, 1968

3. Partap vs The State of U.P on 10 September, 1975

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

1. The Indian Penal Code, 1860

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS

1. Dr. Rajesh Sharma (hereinafter “Dr. Sharma”) is a Cardiac Surgeon,

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

confession before Executive Magistrate at Mumbai. All the witnesses deposed

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

The Supreme Court has jurisdiction to hear the matter under

ARTICLE 136 OF INDIAN CONSTITUTION

Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court

(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the Supreme

(2) Nothing in clause ( 1 ) shall apply to any judgment,

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

After admitting the petition, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of

1. Whether the Prosecution has proved its case beyond

Reasonable doubt or not?

Right in Rejecting the plea of Alibi?

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

 ISSUE 1: Whether the Prosecution has proved its case beyond

 ISSUE 2: Whether the learned Session Court and High Court

 ISSUE 3: Whether the confessions recorded before Executive

 ISSUE 4: Whether The accused is Guilty of

 It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that accused is

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

It is submitted that the burden is always on the prosecution to prove

The circumstances such as:

1. The Hon’ble court do not give an opportunity to the appellant to

3. Confession of the Accused was made before the Executive

4. The criminal proceeding is the Grave violation of the principal of

The rules of natural justice have evolved with the growth of

I WOULD LIKE TO SUPPORT MY CONTENTION FROM

In Rishi Kesh Singh and Ors. vs The State on 18 October, 1968

The primary burden resting on the prosecution to prove the guilt of

mind of the Court as to whether the accused is entitled to the

In State Vs Rani Kamboj & Anr. on 10 January, 2012

The court observed in PARA-19 That:

In Partap vs The State of U.P on 10 September, 1975

The court observed That: