IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW
DELHI
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
MOOT COURT COMPETITION MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT
Arguments Advanced
Issue 1: Whether the circumstantial evidence is sufficient to convict the
accused?
It is respectfully submitted that the circumstantial evidence in the present case does not
form a complete chain pointing to the guilt of the Appellant. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) held that for conviction on
circumstantial evidence, the circumstances must be fully established, consistent only with
the hypothesis of guilt, and exclude every possible hypothesis except the one sought to be
proved. In the present case, the mere presence of the Appellant near the scene of crime and
recovery of blood-stained clothes are not conclusive. The absence of direct eyewitnesses
creates reasonable doubt.
Issue 2: Whether the defence of mental instability under Section 22 BNS can be
invoked?
It is submitted that the Appellant has a history of psychiatric issues, emotional trauma, and
abusive relationship patterns supported by medical history and WhatsApp messages.
Section 22 of the BNS (analogous to Section 84 IPC) provides that an act committed by a
person of unsound mind, incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that it was wrong, is
not an offence. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of
Gujarat (1964) held that the burden on the accused to prove insanity is not as high as on the
prosecution and can be established on a preponderance of probabilities. Hence, the defence
of mental instability is available.
Issue 3: Whether the burden of proof has been correctly discharged by the
prosecution?
The prosecution has the duty to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt as per Section 101 of
the Evidence Act. In the present case, the evidence is purely circumstantial with no
eyewitness. The confession was made in police custody and is inadmissible under Section
25 of the Evidence Act. In Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh (1973), the Hon’ble
Supreme Court held that if two views are possible, the one favourable to the accused must
be adopted. Thus, the burden of proof has not been discharged.
