2nd NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY AND JUDGMENT WRITING COMPETITION, 2024

TEAM CODE: NTAJWC0217

2nd NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY AND JUDGMENT WRITING

COMPETITION, 2024

BEFORE THE COURT OF SESSIONS AT KARKARDOOMA, DELHI

C. C. No.: 101/2024

In the matter of:

STATE OF DELHI ...PROSECUTION

V.

PERK ANAND & DUFFY AGARWAL …DEFENCE

UNDER SECTION 117, 304 AND 61 r/w 104 OF THE BHARTIYA NYAYA
SANHITA, 2023

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE SESSIONS JUDGE

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE

1|Page
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE
 2nd NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY AND JUDGMENT WRITING COMPETITION, 2024

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS…………………………………………………………………3
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES…………………………………………………………..………4
Table of cases………………………………………………………………..………………4
Statutes referred…………………………………………………………..……….…………6
Books…………………………………………………………………………...……………6
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION……………………………………………..……………7
STATEMENT OF FACTS…………………………………………………………….………8
ISSUES PRESENTED…………………………………………………………...……………9
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS………………………………………………...….….……10
Arguments Advanced…………………………………………………...……………………11
I. WHETHER OR NOT THE ACCUSED ARE LIABLE u/s 117, 304
R/W 61 OF BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023?..............................................11

[1.1] That the accused are not liable for voluntarily causing grievous hurt……...…..11
[1.2]That the accused are not liable for snatching with the intent of criminal
conspiracy……………………………………………………………….………13

II. WHETHER OR NOT ACCUSED ARE LIABLE FOR THE OFFENCE

OF MURDER U/S 103 BNS, 2023?...........................................................................17

[2.1] That the accused cannot be solely convicted based on circumstantial

Evidence...................…………………………………..………………………17
[2.2] That the accused are not guilty for the offence of murder…………….….……20
[2.3] That there are reasonable doubt in the circumstance………………….……..…21

III. WHETHER OR NOT THE CHARGES FRAMED AGAINST THE ACCUSED

ARE ERRONEOUS AND LIABLE TO BE QUASHED?...........................................23

[3.1] That the accused were not present at the place of offence…………………..…23
[3.2] That the testimony of eye witness proves the innocence of accused……………25
[3.3] That the confession by accused was involuntary and violates their human
rights………………………………………………………………………….…26
PRAYER………………………………………………………………………..……………29

2|Page
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE
2nd NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY AND JUDGMENT WRITING COMPETITION, 2024

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVIATIONS MEANING

A1 Accused 1
A2 Accused 2
AIR All India Reporter
ALL ER All England Law Reports
ALT Andhra Law Times
ANR. Another
And &
BNS Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
BNSS Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita
Cr LJ Criminal Law Journal
CrPC Code of Criminal Procedure
EDN. Edition
HC High Court
HON’BLE Honorable
I.E. Id est (That is)
ORS. Others
¶ Paragraph
R/W Read with
RLW Rajasthan Law weekly
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
SD/- Signed
SCR Supreme Court Reporter
U/S Under Section
V. Versus
WLR Weekly Law Reports
§ Section

3|Page
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE
 2nd NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY AND JUDGMENT WRITING COMPETITION, 2024

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

A. TABLE OF CASES

[Link]. CASE TITLE CITATION

1. Arvind v. State (Delhi Admn.) 1999 (4) SCC 4861: 1999 (3) JT
554
2. C. Chenga Reddy and Ors. v. State of A.P. (1996) 10 SCC 191

3. Chandu Bhai Shana Bhai Parmar v. State of AIR 1982 SC 1022: (1981) SCC
Gujarat
(Cr) 682
4. Dana Yadav @Dahu and Ors. v. State of Bihar (2002) 7 SCC 295

5. Dhananjoy Chaterjee v. State of West Bengal AIR 1994 SC 2206

6. Dhanwantrai Balwantrai Desai v. State of AIR 1964 SC 575

Maharashtra
7. Empress v. Babulal AIR 1924 PC 115

8. Gambhir v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1982 SC 1157

9. Hardyal and Prem v. State of Rajasthan (1991) Cr LJ 345 (SC)

10. Jagriti Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh AIR 2009 SC 2869

11. K. D. Gupta v. State of West Bengal AIR 1970 SC 1090

12. Krishna Govind Patil v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1963 SC 1413

13. Kuna v. State of Odisha AIR 2017 SC 5364

14. Madhu Madhuranatha v. State of Karnataka AIR 2003 SC 2463

15. Matru Alias Girish Chandra v. State of Uttar AIR 1971 SC 1050
Pradesh
16. Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab (2018) 17 SCC 627

17. Mohan Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1974 SC 1144

18. Mohan v. State of Punjab (2003) 7 SCC 250

19. Muthuswamy v. State of Madras AIR 1954 SC 4

4|Page
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE
 2nd NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY AND JUDGMENT WRITING COMPETITION, 2024

20. Munshi Prasad v. State of Bihar AIR 2002 SC 2053

21. Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani AIR 1978 SC 1025

22. Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P. AIR (1990) SC 79

23. Raj Kumar Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 2013 SC 3150

24. Raj v. State of Jammu & Kashmir (2002) 8 SCC 45

25. Raghunath v. State of Haryana AIR 2003 SC 165

26. Ramakant Rai v. Madan Rai (2003) 12 SCC 395

27. Ramesh Harijan v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2012) 5 SCC 777

28. S.D. Soni v. State of Gujarat AIR 1980 SC 1292

29. Sahib Singh v. State of Haryana AIR 1997 SC 3247

30. Sarwan Singh Rattan Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 2000 SC 2402

31. Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of AIR 1984 SC 1622

Maharashtra
32. Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of AIR 1973 SC 2622
Maharashtra
33. State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad AIR 1961 SC 1808

34. State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal AIR 1992 SC 604

35. State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy AIR 1977 SC 1489

36. State of Maharashtra v. Sukhdev Singh AIR 1992 SC 2100

37. State of U.P. v. M.K. Anthony AIR 1985 SC 48

38. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Rajesh Gautam AIR 2003 SC 1230

39. Suleman Rahiman Mulani v. State of AIR 1968 SC 829

Maharashtra
40. Surinder Pal Jain v. Delhi Administration 1993 SCR (2) 226

41. Tahsildar Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1959 SC 1012

42. Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1958 SC 465

43. Vikas Kumar Roorkewal v. State of AIR 2019 SC 1186

Uttarakhand & Ors.

5|Page
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE
 2nd NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY AND JUDGMENT WRITING COMPETITION, 2024

B. STATUTES REFERRED

1. Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 PASSIM

2. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 PASSIM

3. Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 PASSIM

C. BOOKS

1. Gaur,KD, Criminal Law: Cases and Materials, (6th Ed. 2009)

2. Gaurav Kataria, Crime and Criminal Justice System, 1st Ed. (2014)
3. Kishor Prasad, Problems and Solutions on Criminal Law, (3rd Ed. 2016)
4. Lal, Batuk, The Law of Evidence, (18th Ed. 2010)
5. Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The Code of Criminal Procedure, 23rd Ed. (2022)
6. Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code, 36rd Ed. (2019)
7. Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The Law of Evidence, 22nd Ed. (2006)
8. Takwani, C.K., Indian Penal Code, 1st Ed. (2014)

6|Page
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE
 2nd NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY AND JUDGMENT WRITING COMPETITION, 2024

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

This memorandum is submitted before this Hon'ble Sessions Court of Karkardooma in

response to the petition filed by the Prosecution u/s 1971 r/w § 243(1)2 of Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. This memorandum sets forth the facts, laws, and the corresponding
arguments on which the claims are based in the instant case.

The respondent affirms that they shall accept any judgment of this Hon'ble Court as final and
binding upon itself and shall execute it in its entirety and good faith.

1
Section 177- Ordinary place of inquiry and trial:
Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was
committed.
2
Section 220(1)- Trial for more than one offence:
If, in one series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction, more offences than one are
committed by the same person, he may be charged with, and tried at one trial for, every such offence.

7|Page
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE
 2nd NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY AND JUDGMENT WRITING COMPETITION, 2024

STATEMENT OF FACTS
FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY AND CONVENIENCE OF THIS HON’BLE COURT THE
FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ARE SUMMARIZED AS FOLLOWS:
1. On 30th June 2024, Mrs. Anuradha reported to Delhi Police that two men wearing helmets
snatched a necklace from Mrs. Anjali outside Pandav Nagar, causing her severe injuries.
2. Police were promptly informed, and Mrs. Anjali was taken to the hospital. An FIR was
registered, and evidence was collected, including blood samples, photos of the
suspectsbike, and Mrs. Anjali’s images wearing the necklace at a wedding. The necklace,
valued at Rs. 1.50 lakhs, was reported to jewellers in Delhi NCR to alert them if it was sold.
3. CCTV footage confirmed the crime, showing the suspects fleeing on a bike. The apartment
security guard noted the suspects suspicious behaviour before the crime. A juice shop
owner informed that he can identify the accused after seeing them as both the accused has
visited his shop earlier before the incident. On 5th July 2024, Mrs. Anjali dies because of
her injuries due to throat slitting. Later after all the pressure on 15.07.2024, the
commissioner of Delhi Police stated in the press conference that they will catch the culprits
before the end of this month either by hook or crook.
4. Despite efforts, police struggled to catch the suspects until a jeweller reported on 30th July
that someone has tried to sell a necklace matching to the stolen one. The police arrested
the two accused from the jewellery shop in Karol Bagh, recovering the necklace and the
bike used in the crime. The FSL report found blood stains on the necklace, but the blood
could not be matched. The suspects confessed in police custody and were identified by a
witness, but later denied the confession before a Magistrate. A charge sheet was filed
against them, but their families claimed they were wrongly framed and arrested from their
home, not the jewellery shop. They also got the support from the local MLA and the case
has been started for trial.
5. The mother of one accused .i.e., Perk Anand claimed that the necklace which the officials
are showing is her own which she has bought a few days ago only and at the same time his
brother also claimed that they do not own any [Link] girlfriend of other accused .i.e.,
Duffy Agarwal provided an alibi, stating they were together on the night of the crime. The
case was committed to trial.

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

8|Page
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE
 2nd NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY AND JUDGMENT WRITING COMPETITION, 2024

ISSUE 1

WHETHER OR NOT THE ACCUSED ARE LIABLE U/S 117, 304 R/W 61 OF
BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023?
[1.1] That the accused are not liable for voluntarily causing grievous hurt.
[1.2] That the accused are not liable for snatching with the intent of criminal conspiracy.

ISSUE 2

WHETHER OR NOT THE ACCUSED ARE LIABLE FOR THE OFFENCE OF

MURDER U/S 103 BNS, 2023?
[2.1] That the accused cannot be solely convicted based on circumstantial evidences.
[2.2] That the accused are not guilty for the offence of murder.
[2.3] That there exists a reasonable doubt of the liability of the accused.

ISSUE 3

WHETHER OR NOT THE ACCUSED WERE PRESENT AT THE CRIME SCENE ON

THE NIGHT OF THE INCIDENT?
[3.1] That the accused were not present at the place of offence.
[3.2] That the testimony of eye witness proves the innocence of accused.
[3.3] That the confession by accused was involuntary and violates their human rights.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

9|Page
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE
 2nd NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY AND JUDGMENT WRITING COMPETITION, 2024

ISSUE 1

WHETHER OR NOT THE ACCUSED ARE LIABLE U/S 117, 304 R/W 61 OF
BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that Duffy Agarwal and Perk Anand are not
guilty of unlawful offences and they had not snatched the necklace of Mrs. Anjali and they
have not committed the crime of snatching of the necklace of victim worth Rs. 1.50 lakhs that
was worn by her on 30th June 2024 and during this course they had not voluntarily hurt her
with no intention of criminal conspiracy.
ISSUE 2

WHETHER OR NOT THE ACCUSED ARE LIABLE FOR THE OFFENCE OF

MURDER U/S 103 BNS, 2023?
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that the alleged accused are not guilty for
committing the offence of murder u/s 103 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. §103
prescribes the essentials of murder which the accused does not fullfill and hence creates a
reasonable doubt which leads to the conclusion that circumstantial evidence are not enough in
themselves to make the accused liable.

ISSUE 3

WHETHER OR NOT THE ACCUSED WERE PRESENT AT THE CRIME SCENE ON

THE NIGHT OF THE INCIDENT?
It is humbly submitted that the charges framed against the alleged accused are erroneous and
unsustainable in light of the available evidence and established legal principles. It is a well-
established principle in criminal law that a charge can only be framed when there exists
sufficient evidence to indicate that the accused is prima facie connected to the offense. In the
instant case, the prosecution has failed to provide credible evidence that directly links the
accused to the alleged crime.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE 1

10 | P a g e
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE
 2nd NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY AND JUDGMENT WRITING COMPETITION, 2024

WHETHER OR NOT THE ACCUSED ARE LIABLE U/S 117, 304 R/W 61 OF
BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023?

It is respectfully submitted before this Hon’ble court that, Duffy Agarwal and Perk Anand
(hereinafter referred to as the “accused”) are not guilty of unlawful offences u/s 117(1), 304
and 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNS’), 2023.

The alleged accused had not snatched the necklace of Mrs. Anjali (hereinafter referred to as
the “victim”) and they have not committed any of the crimes. They had no intent of snatching
the necklace of the victim. And, the alleged accused were not present at the crime scene since
they were present somewhere else on the night of 30th June, 2024, and, it is physically
impossible for a person to be omnipresent3. Thus, meaning that they have not committed the
crime and are totally unrelated to the crime.

The alleged accused have not committed the offence of voluntarily causing grievous hurt,
criminal conspiracy and snatching. The evidence and testimonies presented by the prosecution
are insufficient to meet the burden of proof required to establish guilt beyond a reasonable
doubt. Therefore, the accused are not liable u/s 117, 304r/w 61 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
(BNS), 2023.

The accused were not present at the scene of the alleged crime and the same has been proved
above. Therefore, they were incapable of committing either the offences of voluntarily causing
grievous hurt, snatching and criminal conspiracy.

[1.1]THAT THE ACCUSED ARE NOT LIABLE FOR VOLUNTARILY CAUSING

GRIEVOUS HURT

1. It is humbly submitted that, ‘Voluntarily causing grievous hurt’ is defined u/s 1174.
Clause (1) of this section states that,

3
Black’s Law Dictionary defines Omnipresent as,“Present everywhere at the same time; ubiquitous”.
4
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

11 | P a g e
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE
 2nd NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY AND JUDGMENT WRITING COMPETITION, 2024

Whoever voluntarily causes hurt, if the hurt which he intends to cause or knows himself to
be likely to cause is grievous hurt, and if the hurt which he causes is grievous hurt, is said
“voluntarily to cause grievous hurt.”

The term "Probatio incumbitei qui dicit, non ei qui negat" means that the burden of proof
is on the one who declares, not on the one who denies. And, therefore, the same has to be
proved by the prosecution that the accused were the ones who were actually present at the
crime scene and also that they committed the crime.

2. It is most humbly argued that, to prove that the alleged accused have committed the offence
of voluntarily causing grievous hurt, two things need to be proved i.e., actus reus and mens
rea. Actus reus is the ‘physical act of committing the offence’ and mens rea is the ‘intent’
to do the offence. In the present case, the alleged accused had no intention to cause grievous
hurt to the victim. And they were not physically present to do the physical act of committing
the offence.

The essentials of ‘Voluntarily causing grievous hurt’ are5:

• The person causing the hurt must have the intention and knowledge to grievously hurt
another person.
• The injuries caused by him must be of grievous nature.

In the present case, the essentials to cause grievous hurt voluntarily are missing because the
accused had no intention or even knowledge to cause the grievous hurt.

3. It is submitted that in the case of Sahib Singh v. State of Haryana6, the SC emphasized the
need for proof that conclusively places the accused at the scene to establish guilt. Since the
accused were not present at the crime scene in the present case, the act (actus reus) of
committing the offence is directly negated.

5
Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1958 SC 465
6
Sahib Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 1997 SC 3247

12 | P a g e
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE
 2nd NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY AND JUDGMENT WRITING COMPETITION, 2024

4. It is submitted that, in the case of Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab7, the SC held that the
prosecution must prove that the accused intentionally caused an injury that met the legal
definition of grievous hurt. If intent or knowledge isn’t clearly established, liability for
grievous hurt cannot be imposed. Therefore, the accused cannot be held liable for grievous
hurt, as they did not cause the injury and the intent and knowledge are not clearly
established by the prosecution.

In the case of Jagriti Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh8, the SC held that for a charge of
voluntarily causing grievous hurt, it must be proved that the accused had the specific intent
or knowledge required by Section 322 of the IPC. Since this could not be established, the
accused was not found liable for grievous hurt. In the present case also, there was no intent
let alone to be the word ‘specific’ and hence, the accused should not be held liable.

5. It is submitted that, to convict someone of murder or voluntarily causing grievous hurt, it

must be established that the accused was present at the crime scene and engaged in the
criminal act. Physical presence is a critical element in proving the accused’s direct
involvement. The SC in the case of Raj Kumar Singh v. State of Rajasthan9
reiterated that, in order to convict for murder or causing grievous hurt, evidence must
directly link the accused to the scene of the crime. In the absence of such evidence, the
accused cannot be held liable. And in the instant case, the absence of concrete evidence to
prove the presence of the alleged accused at the crime scene is not present.

[1.2]THAT THE ACCUSED ARE NOT LIABLE FOR SNATCHING WITH THE
INTENT OF CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY

6. It is most humbly submitted that, Snatching is defined u/s 304 of BNS, 2023, Clause (1) of
this section reads as-

7
Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1958 SC 465
8
Jagriti Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 2009 SC 2869
9
Raj Kumar Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2013 SC 3150

13 | P a g e
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE
 2nd NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY AND JUDGMENT WRITING COMPETITION, 2024

“Theft is snatching, if in order to commit theft, the offender suddenly or quicklyor forcibly
seizes or secures or grabs or takes away from any person or from his possession any
movable property.”

7. It is submitted that in the present case, the CCTV camera recordings from the camera
installed at the gate of Delhi Police Apartments clearly shows that two men wearing helmet
came on a black 150 cc pulsar bike having no number plate and snatched the necklace
from10 the victim. But, it can nowhere be seen that the accused were the ones who
committed the crime of snatching the necklace. The men were wearing helmets and
therefore, it was difficult to identify their faces.

In the case of Ramesh Harijan v. State of Uttar Pradesh11, the SC held that witness
identification under poor visibility or obscured conditions is unreliable. Further, the court
emphasized that in cases where the accused’s identity is uncertain due to unclear visibility,
the benefit of the doubt should be given to the accused, as wrongful conviction could result
from relying on such unreliable evidence.

Similarly, in the case of Dana Yadav @Dahu and Ors. V. State of Bihar12, the SC held
that for clear identification to be reliable, witnesses must have had a clear and unobstructed
view of the accused.
By taking the precedent from the above two cases it can be clearly derived that Mr. Peter
(The Juice Shop Owner) claimed that he did not remember the faces of the accused
clearly.13 And, also they were wearing helmets. So, by connecting all the aspects, it can be
inferred that there is a reasonable doubt the benefit of which should be given to both the
accused.

8. It is argued that the inconsistencies in the testimonies of the witness create reasonable doubt
in establishing the presence of the accused at the crime scene. In the case of Tahsildar

10
¶6 Fact sheet
11
Ramesh Harijan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2012) 5 SCC 777
12
Dana Yadav @Dahu and Ors. V. State of Bihar, (2002) 7 SCC 295
13
¶6 Fact sheet

14 | P a g e
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE
 2nd NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY AND JUDGMENT WRITING COMPETITION, 2024

Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh14the court held that major inconsistencies in witness
statements diminish the credibility of evidence and cast doubt on the prosecution’s case.
In the present case, the witnesses have provided conflicting statements regarding the
accused's presence at the crime scene. This lack of consistency casts a doubt on the
reliability of their testimonies, further supporting the position that the accused were not
actually present and, thus, could not have committed the alleged crime whatsoever.

9. Furthermore, criminal conspiracy is defined u/s 61 of BNS, 2023, which states that:
“When two or more persons agree with the common object to do, or cause to be done-
(a) An illegal act; or
(b) An act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal
conspiracy:
Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to
a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more
parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof.”

10. It is argued that to establish the charge of criminal conspiracy, the prosecution must prove15:
a. There was an agreement between the accused to commit the offence.
b. The act was done in furtherance of the conspiracy.
In the present case, both the accused, had no common intention and object to do an
illegal act and have not committed the illegal act of snatching the necklace.

11. In the case of Krishna Govind Patil v. State of Maharashtra16, the SC ruled that in order
to establish common intention under Section 3417, there must be proof of a pre-arranged
plan and active participation. The absence of coordination and mutual intention weakened
the prosecution’s case, resulting in an acquittal for the accused. This ruling supports the
argument that mere presence does not prove common intention without evidence of shared
motive or planning.

14
Tahsildar Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1959 SC 1012
15
Kishor Prasad, Problems & Solutions on Criminal Law, (3rd Edn., 2016)
16
Krishna Govind Patil v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1963 SC 1413
17
Indian Penal Code, 1860

15 | P a g e
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE
 2nd NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY AND JUDGMENT WRITING COMPETITION, 2024

In the present case, the primary contention is the absence of the accused at the scene; the
notion of a pre-arranged plan is secondary.

12. It is also submitted that, the necklace was not seized from the accused in Karol Bagh18 but
from Duffy Agarwal’s home which belonged to his mother, Ms. Shruti Agarwal, which she
had purchased only a few days before. The Police had taken the necklace from the locker
of her house19. And the receipt of the same had been shown by her. In the case of
Dhanwantrai Balwantrai Desai v. State of Maharashtra20, the Supreme Court emphasized
that the chain of possession must be clear and uninterrupted for an accused to be directly
implicated in connection to seized property. If an item is found in the possession of a lawful
owner with proof of purchase, this evidence significantly weakens any claim of criminal
possession or involvement by the accused.

13. Similarly, in the case of Suleman Rahiman Mulani v. State of Maharashtra21the SC

stressed that mere possession of an item by a third party such as a family member and
documentation proving lawful purchase suffices to rebut any presumption of theft or illegal
possession by the accused. This principle applies directly if the third party, like Ms. Shruti
Agarwal in the present case, can prove ownership through a purchase receipt, which clears
the accused of any connection to the item. And thus, the accused cannot be held liable for
snatching the necklace from the victim because the accused’s mother presented the receipt
of the necklace22.

14. In the case of Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra23, the SC ruled that
tampered or questionable evidence should not form the sole basis for conviction. In cases
where blood or other forensic evidence cannot be matched conclusively due to
contamination or washing, the burden falls on the prosecution to explain these
discrepancies. If they cannot, the benefit of the doubt should go to the accused. In the
present case, the blood on the necklace could not be matched with the blood of the victim

18
¶ 12 Fact sheet
19
¶ 18 Fact sheet
20
Dhanwantrai Balwantrai Desai v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1964 SC 575
21
Suleman Rahiman Mulani v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1968 SC 829
22
¶ 18 Fact sheet
23
Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1973 SC 2622

16 | P a g e
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE
 2nd NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY AND JUDGMENT WRITING COMPETITION, 2024

as it was washed from water multiple times, therefore, it can be said that the evidence is
fabricated against the accused.

15. In the case of Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab24, the Court stated that seizure of items without
proper documentation and independent witnesses can lead to an acquittal. This case
supports the argument that if the police did not follow standard procedures in seizing the
necklace, the evidence may be deemed unreliable. The necklace was taken by the police
from the locker of alleged accused’s house in Patparganj and not from the jewellery shop
in Karol Bagh.

Therefore, it is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that the accused are not liable
u/s 117 and 304 r/w 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

ISSUE 2

WHETHER THEACCUSED ARE LIABLE FOR THE OFFENCE OF MURDER U/S 103
BNS, 2023?

It is humbly contended before this Hon’ble Court that the accused are not guilty for committing
the offence of murder u/s 103 r/w § 101 of BNS, 2023, and the case of the prosecution must be
dismissed. It is a well settled principle that where the case is mainly based on circumstantial
evidence, the court must satisfy by itself that various circumstances in the chain of evidence
should be clearly established and that the completed chain must be such as to rule out a
reasonable likelihood of the innocence of the accused25. So, the counsel in this issue will prove
that the case is solely based on circumstantial evidence and the accused are not guilty for the
offence of murder and therefore a reasonable doubt exists to prove their liability.

[2.1] THAT THE ACCUSED CANNOT BE SOLELY CONVICTED BASED ON

CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

24
Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab, (2018) 17 SCC 627
25
Mohan Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1974 SC 1144

17 | P a g e
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE
 2nd NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY AND JUDGMENT WRITING COMPETITION, 2024

16. It is most humbly submitted that, in the case of C. Chenga Reddy and Ors. v. State of
A.P.26, it was held that, there must be a chain of evidence, so far complete as not to leave
any reasonable ground for a conclusion with the innocence of the accused and it must be
such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the
accused. When proof of guilt depends solely on circumstantial evidence, it is incumbent on
the courts to properly consider and scrutinise all the material factors and circumstances for
determining whether the chain of circumstantial evidence is so complete as to lead to the
only conclusion of guilt.27

In the present case also, there are a lot of assumptions which are solely based on
circumstantial evidence. There are a lot of arguments on probability and hence relying
solely on assumption of the prosecution the accused cannot be held liable for murder.

17. It is also submitted that, in the landmark case of Bodh Raj v State of Jammu & Kashmir28,
the court held that circumstantial evidence can be a sole basis of conviction provided that
the conditions as stated below are fully satisfied. Conditions are:-
a) The Circumstances from which guilt is established must be fully proved;
b) That all the facts must be consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused;
c) That the circumstances must be of a conclusive nature and tendency;
d) That the circumstances should, to a moral certainty, actually exclude every hypothesis
except the one proposed to be proved.

In the present case, although based solely on circumstantial evidence, the other conditions
have not been fulfilled. Firstly, the circumstances of the guilt have not been proven fully in
any of the courts. Secondly, the facts are in a reasonable doubt to be consistent with the
facts of the case. For instance, the brother of the A2 [Duffy Agarwal], namely Vithal
Agarwal, clearly stated that they did not own any bike29 but all the evidences including the
statement of the eye-witness clearly state that when the snatching had taken place the two

26
C. Chenga Reddy and Ors. v. State of A.P., (1996) 10 SCC 191
27
Matru Alias Girish Chandra v. State Of Uttar Pradesh,AIR 1971 SC 1050
28
Raj v State of Jammu & Kashmir, (2002) 8 SCC 45
29
¶ 18 Fact sheet

18 | P a g e
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE
 2nd NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY AND JUDGMENT WRITING COMPETITION, 2024

men were on a bike. A fact of this kind clearly shows the inconsistencies which are
sufficient enough not to hold the accused accountable for the offence.

18. It is argued that, now it is an accepted doctrine of law that if two views are possible, one in
favour of the accused and the other adversely against it, the view favouring the accused
must be accepted30. The present case has a lot of doubts, therefore, convicting a person
solely based on circumstantial evidence will not be morally correct when there is a
reasonable doubt for considering his guilt. So, even though he can be convicted just because
law allows it, does not mean we should convict him, because he is entitled to the
benefit of doubt. Therefore, the accused in the instant case cannot be convicted solely on
account of circumstantial evidence as the reasonable doubt of guilt exists.

19. It is contended before the Hon’ble court that the chain of evidence must be complete with
fully established circumstances as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion
consistent with the innocence of accused. It should be of conclusive nature31. And, in the
present case, the chain of events are not fully established as there are many gaps in the
events. And they do not provide any conclusion to the events. Therefore, the accused cannot
be convicted solely on this basis.

20. Also, in the case of Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P.32, it was laid down that when a
case rests upon circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the following tests:
a) The circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be
cogently and firmly established;
b) Those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt
of the accused:
c) The circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is
no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was
committed by the accused and none else;
d) The circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and
incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of guilt of the accused and

30
Raghunath v. State of Haryana, AIR 2003 SC 165
31
Arvind v. State (Delhi Admn.), 1999 (4) SCC 4861: 1999 (3) JT 554.
32
Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P.,AIR (1990) SC 79

19 | P a g e
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE
 2nd NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY AND JUDGMENT WRITING COMPETITION, 2024

such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilty of the accused but should
be inconsistent with his innocence.

Rule (a) itself isn't sufficiently fulfilled in the instant case because the facts of the case
presented by the prosecution are not in itself firmly established and therefore, the accused
cannot be convicted.

21. Furthermore, in a case based solely on circumstantial evidence, the well- established
principle is that, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be
fully proved and those circumstances must be of conclusive nature. Moreover, the
established facts should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused
alone and totally inconsistent with his innocence.33 Therefore, the circumstances need to
be fully proved for concluding the liability of the accused. Mere circumstantial evidence is
not enough to prove the guilt of the accused when the facts are inconsistent with the
evidence and favours the accused.

[2.2] THAT THE ACCUSED ARE NOT GUITY FOR THE OFFENCE OF MURDER
22. It is humbly submitted in this Hon'ble court that both the accused have been wrongly
charged under the offence of murder. When an innocent is wrongly convicted, there is a
high chance that the real culprit walks away freely from the law and their punishment. Not
only is this unfair to the accused, but it also gives the culprit another chance to commit
heinous crime34. Furthermore, it is also contended that in the present case, such wrongly
framed charges could cause a threat to the livelihood of the accused in the society.

23. In the case of Mohan v. State of Punjab35, the court laid down some key points for
determining the essentials of murder which are as follows:
• Intent: The Court emphasized that for an act to qualify as murder, there must be a clear
intention to kill.
• Knowledge: The accused must also have knowledge that their actions could likely
result in death or serious injury.

33
Surinder Pal Jain v. Delhi Administration, 1993 SCR (2) 226
34
Gaur, Ritendra and Diwakar, Dheeraj, “Innocent behind Bars: Challenges and Remedies.” Manupatra, (last
updated 27 December 2021)
35
Mohan v. State of Punjab, (2003) 7 SCC 250

20 | P a g e
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE
 2nd NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY AND JUDGMENT WRITING COMPETITION, 2024

• Causation: It must be established that the accused's actions directly caused the death
of the victim.
From the above given essentials, we can conclude that in the given case the accused are not
liable for the offence. Because, they do not fall under the ambit of any of the essentials. On
the contrary, they according to the factual matrix, they were not present at Pandav Nagar
when the offence was being committed and the same had been clearly stated by their
neighbour declaring that these two were arrested from their house36 and not from some
jewellery shop as the police had stated37.

24. It is submitted that, in the case of Chandu Bhai Shana Bhai Parmar v. State of Gujarat38
it was said that, “When ocular evidence in murder case is unreliable, benefit of doubt to be
given to all accused.” So, the accused should be given benefit of doubt before holding them
liable for the offence.
Similarly, in the case of Kuna v State of Odisha39it was said that “Medical evidence that
the death was homicidal, cannot alone be made the basis to connect the accused person
with crime. The accused persons are entitled to the benefit of doubt.”Therefore, there is no
basis to connect the accused with the crime.

[2.3] THAT THERE EXISTS A REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE LIABILITY OF THE

ACCUSED
25. Considering, all the aforementioned arguments, the accused humbly submits that there
exists a reasonable doubt and hence they should be acquitted of the charges of the alleged
crime. A reasonable doubt must not be imaginary, trivial or merely possible doubt, but a
fair doubt based upon reason and common sense arising out of the evidence of the case.40
In the present case, the reasonable doubt is not imaginary, trivial or merely possible doubt.
It is a fair doubt based on the aforementioned reasons.

36
Facts stated as Extra Information
37
¶ 12 Fact sheet
38
Chandu Bhai Shana Bhai Parmar v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1982 SC 1022: (1981) SCC (Cr) 682
39
Kuna v State of Odisha, AIR 2017 SC 5364
40
Ramakant Rai v. Madan Rai,(2003) 12 SCC 395

21 | P a g e
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE
 2nd NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY AND JUDGMENT WRITING COMPETITION, 2024

26. It is submitted that, in the case of S.D. Soni v. State of Gujarat41, the SC said that, “In case
of murder in which the conclusion of guilt is drawn by prosecution it must be fully
established beyond all reasonable doubt and consistent with the guilt of the accused.” But,
in this case there are numerous examples which affirm that the accused have all the rights
to create the ground that there is a reasonable ground of their acquittal.

27. Furthermore, the prosecution's arguments are more inclined towards the fact that the crime
'may have been committed by the accused’, however, they have failed to form a link
between 'may have committed the crime" and "must have committed the crime" and that
lacuna must be filled by the prosecution with the help of legal, reliable and unimpeachable
evidence before a conviction can be sustained.42 In the case of, Gambhir v. State of
Maharashtra43, the Supreme Court reiterated that in cases built on circumstantial evidence,
every link must unambiguously point to the guilt of the accused. If gaps or lacunae exist
that create reasonable doubt, the accused is entitled to an acquittal. The Court ruled that
conjecture or suspicion, without unimpeachable evidence, cannot satisfy the standard
required for a conviction.

28. It is submitted that, in the case of Hardyal and Prem v. State of Rajasthan44, it was said
that, in cases where facts and circumstances from which conclusion of guilt was sought to
be drawn by prosecution was not established beyond reasonable doubt, the conviction under
§302 r/w § 34 had to be quashed. The same can be applied for the given case that, the case
should be quashed because the prosecution was not able to prove the guilt of the accused
beyond a reasonable doubt.

Therefore, it is humbly submitted before this hon’ble court that the accused are not liable
for the offence of murder under § 103 r/w § 101 BNS, 2023.

41
S.D. Soni v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1980 SC 1292
42
IV. Nelson R. A., Indian Penal Code, 2905, (10th Ed., 2008)
43
Gambhir v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1982 SC 1157
44
Hardyal and Prem v. State of Rajasthan, (1991) Cr LJ 345 (SC)

22 | P a g e
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE
 2nd NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY AND JUDGMENT WRITING COMPETITION, 2024

ISSUE 3

WHETHER THE ACCUSED WERE PRESENT AT THE CRIME SCENE ON THE

NIGHT OF THE INCIDENT?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that the charges framed against the accused
are erroneous and unsustainable in light of the available evidence and established legal
principles it can be proven that the accused were not present at the crime scene on the night
of the incident.

It is a well-established principle in criminal law that a charge can only be framed when there
exists sufficient evidence to indicate that the accused is prima facie connected to the
offense.45In the instant case, the prosecution has failed to provide credible evidence that
directly links the accused to the alleged crime. The framing of charges without the requisite
material facts violates the fundamental rights of the accused under Article 2146 of the Indian
Constitution47.

It is humbly submitted that the charges framed against the accused by the prosecution are
erroneous, unsupported by evidence, and contrary to established legal principles and the
defence will prove the same through the three instance namely: That the accused were not
present at the place of offence [3.1], That the testimony of eye witness proves the innocence
of accused [3.2] and lastly, That the confession by accused was involuntary and violates their
human rights [3.3]

[3.1] THAT THE ACCUSED WERE NOT PRESENT AT THE PLACE OF OFFENCE
29. It is a well-settled principle in criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution bears the burden
of proving the presence of the accused at the scene of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt
and the same has been proved in the above issue by the defence. In the instant case the
prosecution has failed to discharge this burden. Various pieces of evidence that we are
going to present such as alibis and the statements of witnesses which clearly establish that
the accused were not present at the crime scene at the time of the alleged offence.

45
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604
46
No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.
47
The Constitution of India, 1950

23 | P a g e
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE
 2nd NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY AND JUDGMENT WRITING COMPETITION, 2024

30. It is submitted that “Plea of Alibi” refers to a defense strategy employed by an accused
individual claiming they were in a different location at the time of the alleged offense
thereby making it impossible for them to have committed the crime48. In the case of
Dhananjoy Chaterjee v. State of West Bengal49 the Court held that, “It is well settled that
a plea of alibi if raised by an accused is required to be proved by him by cogent and
satisfactory evidence so as to completely exclude the possibility of the presence of the
accused at the place of occurrence at the relevant time.”

In the present case there are satisfactory number of things which can prove that the
accused are not present at the scene at the time of the incident. For one instance, The
girlfriend of the A1 clearly states that he was with her at Chandni Chowk and they were
dropped by the cab driver50.

31. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy51 held that the
framing of charges should not be done in a mechanical manner and that the Court must
consider whether the materials presented justify a trial. In this case the absence of reliable
evidence negates the basis of the charges rendering them invalid. And if two views arise
from the evidence presented — one favoring the prosecution and the other favoring the
accused — the Court should adopt the view that benefits the accused52.

32. Furthermore it is submitted that, it is pertinent to note that no direct evidence places the
accused at the scene of the crime. Testimonies documentary evidence and electronic
records including call logs and potential alibi witnesses suggest that the accused were not
present at the location during the alleged time of the offense.

Moreover, the case of Munshi Prasad v State of Bihar53 The Supreme Court held in this

48
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Rajesh Gautam AIR 2003 SC 1230
49
Dhananjoy Chaterjee v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1994 SC 2206
50
¶19 Fact sheet
51
State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy, AIR 1977 SC 1489
52
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622
53
Munshi Prasad v State of Bihar, AIR 2002 SC 2053

24 | P a g e
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE
 2nd NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY AND JUDGMENT WRITING COMPETITION, 2024

case that the accused's presence at a reasonable distance from the place of occurrence is
necessary to prove a defence of plea of alibi, and the distance should be at least 500meters.
In the given case the distance was way more than 500 metres.

33. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in several landmark cases, such as Sarwan Singh
Rattan Singh v. State of Punjab54, that when the prosecution fails to prove the presence
of the accused at the scene, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused. The
right to a fair trial, enshrined in the Indian Constitution and international covenants,
mandates that no individual shall be subjected to arbitrary or unjust legal proceedings.
The charges against the accused, in this instance, were framed without due regard for the
absence.

[3.2] THAT THE TESTIMONY OF EYE WITNESS PROVES THE INNOCENCE OF

ACCUSED

34. Eyewitness testimony plays a vital role in the justice delivery system. It is the necessity
of fundamental justice that there should be truth and impartiality as the quintessence of
justice.55With this comes the role of an eyewitness who confirms the commission or
omission of an act leading to an offence. Whatever statements of eyewitness are recorded,
they are correct as they are recorded on oath. The role of an eyewitness is of paramount
importance in the justice delivery system. An eyewitness plays a major role in the justice
delivery system, but many times they lead to wrongful convictions due to which an
innocent get convicted of a crime he has not committed.

In the case of Madhu Madhuranatha V. State of Karnataka56 it was said that, “a

witness has been defined as a person who is able to provide information by oral or written
depositions given in the court or otherwise.” And here, there are number of witness who
will give their in the testimony of the accused.

54
Sarwan Singh Rattan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 2000 SC 2402
55
State of Maharashtra v. Sukhdev Singh, AIR 1992 SC 2100
56
Madhu Madhuranatha V. State of Karnataka, AIR 2003 SC 2463

25 | P a g e
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE
 2nd NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY AND JUDGMENT WRITING COMPETITION, 2024

35. Another provision of the Bharatiya Sakshaya Adhniyam, 2023 that strengthens the status
of an eyewitness is Section 139. This section lays down the provision that there is no
particular number of witnesses fixed by law which can be required to prove any fact. Even
one witness can be enough to prove a fact before the court of law. The SC has held that
even there can be conviction even on the basis of the sole witness.57

36. As held in the case of Vikas Kumar Roorkewal v. State of Uttarakhand &Ors.58,
Supreme Court has examined the role of witnesses in the criminal justice system. The court
laid down its observation that the witnesses play an integral role in the criminal justice
system. In the same case, the Supreme Court also held the taking legislative measures for
the protection of witnesses can contribute to conducting a fair trial.

[3.3]THAT THE CONFESSION BY ACCUSED WAS INVOLUNTARY AND

VIOLATES THEIR HUMAN RIGHTS

37. While confessions can be valuable evidence in criminal proceedings, courts must exercise
caution in relying on them. Confessions should be considered in conjunction with other
evidence and their voluntariness and truthfulness must be carefully evaluated before being
used to convict an accused.

While it is assumed that individuals would not make false statements against their own
interests, confessions can be influenced by various factors, such as the accused’s mental
state or external pressure. Therefore, courts must carefully consider confessions in the
context of the overall case and corroborate them with other evidence before relying on
them for a conviction.59

38. If a confession is obtained through coercion or duress, it is considered inadmissible as

evidence, as it violates the accused person’s fundamental right against self-incrimination.

57
State of U.P. v. M.K. Anthony, AIR 1985 SC 48
58
Vikas Kumar Roorkewal v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors, AIR 2019 SC 1186
59
K. D. Gupta v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1970 SC 1090

26 | P a g e
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE
 2nd NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY AND JUDGMENT WRITING COMPETITION, 2024

In another case, State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad60, the Supreme Court held that
a confession obtained through physical or mental torture is not admissible as evidence in
court.

In this case, the accused person was subjected to physical torture and forced to confess to
the commission of an offence. The Supreme Court also said that, “the confession was
obtained through coercion and was, therefore, inadmissible as evidence.”
In the present case also the accused were forced to make the confession infront of the
media61 because the neighbor of the accused clearly said that they were arrested from their
house.

39. In the case of Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani62, the Supreme Court of India addressed
the issue of the voluntariness of a confession. The court emphasized the importance of a
free and voluntary confession. It ruled that if a confession is found to be involuntary, it
cannot be admitted as evidence. By taking the precedent from the above case the
confession of the accused should be not be taken as truth.

40. It is further contended that under Article 11 of Universal Declaration of Human rights
(UDHR) it is stated that Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed
innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the
guarantees necessary for his defense. No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on
account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or
international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be
imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

41. Section 22 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023clearly specifies that a confession is
admissible if it is voluntary. It is essential to determine whether the confession was made
by the accused of their own free will or if it was extracted through pressure or improper
influence. If a confession is found to be coerced or made under duress, it is inadmissible.
The onus of proving the voluntariness of a confession rests on the prosecution. In other

60
State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad, AIR 1961 SC 1808
61
¶6 Fact sheet
62
Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani, AIR 1978 SC 1025

27 | P a g e
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE
 2nd NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY AND JUDGMENT WRITING COMPETITION, 2024

words, it is the prosecution’s responsibility to demonstrate that the confession was made
voluntarily.

Any confession made under compulsion is rendered inadmissible in evidence by virtue of

S. 22 of The Evidence Act63. It cannot be disputed that accused is good source of
information about the commission of the offence. But unfortunately this source is not fully
tapped may be for the fear of infringing the accused's right to silence granted by Article
20(3)64.

42. In Empress v. Babulal65, Hon'ble Court specifically pleased to hold that: "The main object
of this exclusion is to prevent police officers from extorting confessions in order to gain
credit by securing convictions, if confession to police were allowed to be proven in
evidence, the police would torture the accused and force him to confess to crime he may
not have committed.

In the case of Muthuswamy v. State of Madras66, it was observed that confessions are
inherently weak evidence and should not be accepted merely because they contain a great
deal of information. The Supreme Court has also emphasized that convictions should not
be based solely on confessions, especially in cases of murder.

It is most humbly submitted before this Hon'ble court that the accused were wrongly framed
under these offences and that they were not present at the location where the crime was
committed. Along with that such charges also threatens their livelihood in the society and
hampers their dignity as well. It is further contented that the charges should be quashed
against them.

63
Indian Evidence Act, 1872
64
The Constitution of India, 1950
65
Empress v. Babulal, AIR 1924 PC 115
66
Muthuswamy v. State of Madras, AIR 1954 SC 4

28 | P a g e
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE
 2nd NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY AND JUDGMENT WRITING COMPETITION, 2024

PRAYER

Wherefore in the light of facts presented, issues raised, arguments advanced and
authorities cited, the Counsels on behalf of defence humbly pray before this Hon’ble
Court that it may be pleased to:

1. Grant Bail, to the alleged accused (Perk Anand and Duffy Agarwal) for the rest of
the proceedings.
2. Acquit the accused of all the offences u/s 304/103/61/117 of Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023.
3. Compensation for the mental agony, defamation, and all other court expenses.

AND/OR

Pass any other order that the court may deem fit in the light of Equity, Justice, Fairness
and Good Conscience.

For this act of kindness, the defence, as in duty bound, shall humbly pray.

ALL OF WHICH IS MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

Date: Sd/________________

Place: Delhi (Counsel for the Defence)

29 | P a g e
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE