TC-13

14th DADA NARI GURSAHANI

FESTIVAL - VIDHI MANTHAN 2023

BEFORE THE HON’BLE

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

ALOK KUMAR
(APPELLANT)
V.
STATE OF DELHI
(RESPONDENT)

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVATIONS ………………………………………………………………………………….….3

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ……………………………………………………………………….…………….4
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION …………………………………………………………………………….5
STATEMENT OF FACTS ……………………………………………………………………………………….6
ISSUES RAISED ………………………………………………………………………………………………….7
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT …………………………………………………………………………………...8
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
1. WHETHER THE APPEAL IS MAINTAINABLE?................................................................................11
2. WHETHER THE DOCTRINE OF “RAREST OF RARE CASE” IS APPLICABLE IN THIS
CASE?..........................................................................................................................................................12
3. WHETHER THE PUNISHMENT BASED ON CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS
JUSTIFIED?................................................................................................................................................13
4. WHETHER THE CONFESSION GIVEN BY ALOK IS ADMISSIBLE IN THE GIVEN
CASE?..........................................................................................................................................................16
5. WHETHER THE TESTIMONY OF FORENSIC EXPER IS ADMISSIBLE AS A SUBSTANTIVE
EVIDENCE; AND IS SUFFICIENT TO INFLICT DEATH PENALTY UPON THE
ACCUSED?.................................................................................................................................................17
PRAYER ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….19

2|Page
MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT
 LIST OF ABBREVATIONS

AIR All India Reporter

Anr. Another

Hon’ble Honorable

Ors. Others

Sec. Section

SC Supreme Court

SCC Supreme Court Cases

SCR Supreme Court Report

u/s Under Section

v. Versus

& And

CrPC The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

IPC The Indian Penal Code, 1860

3|Page
MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

I. LEGISLATION

1. THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950

2. THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860
3. THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973
4. THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872

II. CASES CITED

Cases Citation

Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1980 SC 898

Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab 1983 AIR 957

Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra 1984 AIR 1622

Surendra Mishra v. State of Jharkhand 2011 SCC 495

Narayan Swami vs State Of Maharashtra 1968 AIR 609

K Govindswamy vs. Government of India AIR 1986 Mad 204

III. DATABASE FOR LEGAL RESEARCH

1. www.manupatrafast.com
2. www.indiacode.nic.in

4|Page
MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

THE RESPONDENT IS APPEARING BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT

OF INDIA IN RESPONSE TO THE APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE APPELLANT.
HOWEVER, IT IS THE CASE OF THE RESPONDENT THAT THE HON’BLE
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA LACKS JURISDICTION IN THE INSTANT CASE.

5|Page
MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

For the sake of brevity and convenience of the Hon’ble Court, the facts of the case are summarised as
follows:

A. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE:

1. Alok Kumar and Surabhi Singh met on the dating app "Kinder" and developed mutual interest.
2. They began dating and eventually decided to live together in a rented flat in Delhi.
3. Alok was a Chef by profession; Surabhi worked in a Telecom company.
4. Surabhi's parents opposed her relationship with Alok.
5. Due to disagreements about expenses and Alok's extravagant nature, verbal arguments and fights arose.
6. Alok had a temper and physically abused Surabhi during arguments.
7. Verbal fights escalated over time; physical abuse turned violent.

B. COMMISSION OF CRIME:
1. On April 10, 2022, an argument about money turned into a fight.
2. Alok strangled Surabhi during the altercation.
3. He stored her dead body in the bathroom overnight.
4. The next day, Alok bought a knife and a fridge.
5. He dismembered Surabhi's body into 50 pieces.
6. The body parts were packed into bags and stored in the fridge.
7. Over the next ten days, he disposed of the body parts in nearby locations.

C. DISCOVERY AND INVESTIGATION:

1. Surabhi's mother grew concerned when she couldn't contact her daughter.
2. She filed a missing person report against Alok.
3. The police arrested Alok and he confessed to the crime during interrogation.
4. Net banking transactions from Surabhi's account on the day of the murder were found.
5. Alok admitted planning the murder, inspired by crime web series.
6. The police sent body parts and the murder weapon for DNA analysis.
7. Forensic expert Dr. Dheeraj Shukla confirmed the body parts were Surabhi's.
8. 14 witnesses were presented by the prosecution, including Surabhi's mother, a neighbour, and an auto
rickshaw driver.
9. Witnesses testified to witnessing fights and the strained relationship between the couple.

D. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS:
1. The Sessions Court framed charges against Alok under IPC sections 302 (murder) and 201
(disappearance of evidence).
2. Based on circumstantial evidence, Alok was sentenced to death.
3. The High Court upheld the death penalty after Alok appealed the decision.
4. Alok challenged the High Court's decision in the Supreme Court.

6|Page
MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT
 ISSUES RAISED

ISSUE I

WHETHER THE APPEAL IS MAINTAINABLE?

ISSUE II

WHETHER THE DOCTRINE OF “RAREST OF RARE CASE” IS APPLICABLE IN

THIS CASE?

ISSUE III

WHETHER THE PUNISHMENT BASED ON CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS

JUSTIFIED?

ISSUE IV

WHETHER THE CONFESSION GIVEN BY ALOK IS ADMISSIBLE IN THE GIVEN

CASE?

ISSUE V

WHETHER THE TESTIMONY OF FORENSIC EXPER IS ADMISSIBLE AS A

SUBSTANTIVE EVIDENCE; AND IS SUFFICIENT TO INFLICT DEATH PENALTY
UPON THE ACCUSED?

7|Page
MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE I: WHETHER THE APPEAL IS MAINTAINABLE?

The counsel on the behalf of the Respondent most humbly submits that the Appellant’s appeal
to the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India is not maintainable. The premises on the basis of which
the appeal has been preferred by the Appellant does not involve any substantial question of law
that necessitates the intervention of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. It is a well settled
principle that for an appeal to be maintainable, it must raise substantial questions of law that
require interpretation or clarification by the Apex Court. In the present case, the facts and
evidence relied upon by the Respondent are well-established, leaving no scope for any
ambiguity with respect to the guilt of the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Further, the
decisions of the Trial Court and the Hon’ble High Court at Delhi are both based on sound legal
principles and hence, admitting the appeal will only lead to unnecessary delay in the
administration of speedy justice which is needed in the present case.

ISSUE II: WHETHER THE DOCTRINE OF “RAREST OF RARE CASE” IS

APPLICABLE IN THIS CASE?

The counsel on behalf of the Respondent most humbly submits that the doctrine of “rarest of
rare case” is applicable in the given case. The instant case comes under the threshold of "rarest
of rare case" because of the Appellant's harsh and depraved behaviour and the cold-blooded
nature of the crime. The intention of the Appellant and his conduct including the preparation
of committing the murder i.e., such as obtaining the relevant tools and the conduct subsequent
to the commission of the crime such as disposing of the dead body of the victim clearly
establish that the crime was premeditated and that Appellant had mens rea and actus reus for
the crime. This case goes beyond ordinary wrongdoings and strikes at the core of social norms,
justifying the most severe form of punishment to serve as a deterrent to similar crimes in the
future. Hence, the doctrine of rarest of rare is applicable in the instant case.

ISSUE III: WHETHER THE PUNISHMENT BASED ON CIRCUMSTANTIAL

EVIDENCE IS JUSTIFIED?

8|Page
MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT
The counsel of behalf of the Respondent most humbly submits that the imposition of
punishment based on circumstantial evidence is wholly justified in the present case, as the
Indian legal framework recognises the importance of such evidence in establishing guilt
beyond a reasonable doubt. The Respondent has presented a coherent chain of events to
establish the credibility of circumstantial evidence including testimonies of 14 (fourteen)
witnesses, expert, confession, financial transactions, and the discovery of body parts as those
of the victim. The forensic expert's confirmation of the victim's body and the confession of the
Appellant have already convinced the Trial Court and Hon’ble High Court at Delhi. The chain
of events is complete, compelling, and excludes any plausible alternative scenarios, justifying
the death penalty as a proportionate response given the nature of heinous crime committed.

ISSUE IV: WHETHER THE CONFESSION GIVEN BY ALOK IS ADMISSIBLE IN

THE GIVEN CASE?

The counsel on behalf of the Respondent states that the confession given by the Appellant is
admissible in the given case. The counsel contends that Appellant’s confession aligns with the
parameters set forth in Section 271 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Section 27 of the Indian
Evidence Act stipulates that if any information received from a person accused of an offence,
who is in police custody, leads to the discovery of a new fact, then that specific information,
whether it qualifies as a confession or not, can be presented as evidence in court. This
admission need not necessarily encompass a complete confession; any revelation leading to
novel facts is permissible. The Appellant’s confession made during his custodial period
divulged significant particulars regarding the crime, thus adhering to the requisites of Section
27 and hence, should be admissible.

ISSUE V: WHETHER THE TESTIMONY OF FORENSIC EXPER IS ADMISSIBLE

AS A SUBSTANTIVE EVIDENCE; AND IS SUFFICIENT TO INFLICT DEATH
PENALTY UPON THE ACCUSED?

The counsel on behalf of the Respondent most humbly submits that the testimony of a forensic
expert is admissible as substantive evidence and is sufficient to inflict death penalty upon the
Appellant. In this particular case, the forensic specialist has merely presented factual

1
Indian Evidence Act,1872, §27.
9|Page
MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT
information by verifying the identity of the body parts as belonging to the victim. According
to Section 452 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 expert opinions that pertain to the subject
matter under consideration are considered relevant facts. Dr. Shukla's expert analysis, directly
addressing the identity of the victim and the discovery of the weapon used for the commission
of murder by the Police Officer, falls squarely within the ambit of this provision, reinforcing
its status as substantive evidence. The forensic analysis, together with the testimonies of 14
witnesses and the Appellant’s confession, reinforces the heinous crime's inherent probative
value and establishes the appellant's guilt and is sufficient to inflict death penalty upon the
accused.

2
Indian Evidence Act,1872, §45.
10 | P a g e
MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. WHETHER THE APPEAL IS MAINTAINABLE?

The counsel on behalf of the Respondent respectfully contends that the Appellant's appeal to
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India should not be considered maintainable. It is the assertion
of the Respondent that the Appellant has failed to present any substantial question of law that
warrants the intervention of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in this matter.

In support of this contention, the counsel draws attention of this Hon’ble Court to the case of
K Govindswamy vs. Government of India3, in which the Madras High Court has observed that
where the High Court has confirmed the sentence of death awarded by the Sessions Court, no
appeal as of right may be preferred to the Supreme Court. In the instant case, the Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi has confirmed the death penalty of the Appellant. The appeal filed by the
Appellant to the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has also resulted in upholding the decision of
conviction including the death sentence of the Appellant.

The law is settled that for an appeal to be maintainable, it must raise substantial questions of
law that require further interpretation or clarification by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In the
present case, the facts and evidence are well-established, and the decisions of the Trial Court
and the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi are based on sound legal principles.

The Appellant has not adequately met the threshold requirement of presenting a substantial
questions of law which justifies the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India’s intervention. The issues
raised by the Appellant largely revolve around factual aspects of the case, such as the
circumstances of the crime, the relationship between the Appellant and the victim, and the
conduct of the investigation. These aspects do not inherently constitute substantial questions
of law that warrant the scrutiny of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

In light of the above, the counsel on behalf of the Respondent firmly submits that the
Appellant's appeal should not be deemed maintainable before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India and should be dismissed. The failure on part of the Appellant to establish the existence

3
K Govindswamy vs. Government of India, AIR 1986. Mad. 204.
11 | P a g e
MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT
of substantial questions of law, the predominantly factual nature of the issues raised in the
appeal and the absence of any specific statutory right with the Appellant to prefer the appeal
indicates the present appeal lacks the requisite legal foundation and basis for the Hon’ble
Supreme Court's intervention.

2. WHETHER THE DOCTRINE OF “RAREST OF RARE CASE” IS

APPLICABLE IN THIS CASE?

The counsel on behalf of the Respondent states that the present case unquestionably and
undoubtedly falls within the ambit of the "rarest of rare case" doctrine, warranting the
imposition of the most severe form of punishment.

Under Section 3024 of the IPC, the punishment for murder includes death and the payment of
fine. Section 3005 of the IPC in turn defines murder as “where death is caused by the act of the
offender, the death caused is done with the intention of causing death or causing such bodily
injury which is likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused.”

In the present case, the Appellant's actions of strangulating the victim, dismembering her body,
and disposing of the chopped pieces of the body of the victim in a calculated and vicious
manner highlight an unparalleled level of brutality and depravity including premeditation on
the part of the Appellant. The action of the Appellant satisfies the requirement of actus reus
and mens rea which is why the lower courts have convicted the Appellant and imposed/ upheld
the infliction of the death penalty.

The present case echoes the sentiments expressed in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab6, where
the Supreme Court emphasized that the "rarest of rare" doctrine is applicable to those cases
that stand out for their exceptional barbarity. In the present case, the Appellant's deliberate and
premeditated actions, including purchasing tools to dismember the body and planning the
disposal of the chopped pieces of the body over a span of days, exhibit a chilling level of

4
Indian Penal Code, 1860, §302.
5
Indian Penal Code, 1860, §300.
6
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 898.
12 | P a g e
MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT
calculated cruelty. Such meticulous planning and execution demonstrate a complete disregard
for the sanctity of human life and align with the considerations laid down in another case i.e.,
Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab7 the relevant of which are as follows:-

1. Where the manner of commission of the murder is extremely brutal, diabolical or

reprehensible manner so as to awaken intense and extreme indignation of the
community; and
2. Where the body of the victim mutilated or cut into pieces in a brutal manner.

In the instant case, the Appellant’s very own confession on how he murdered the victim led to
the discovery of certain important facts including some body parts of the deceased, thus leading
to the satisfaction of Section 278 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Moreover, the very fact that
the fights between the Appellant and the deceased over money sharing expenses and the
Appellant’s intention to “get rid” of the deceased are relevant to establish the thresholds under
Section 300 of the IPC, the punishment for which is contained in Section 302.

In light of the above and given the exceptional brutality and calculated planning exhibited by
the Appellant, and the imperative need for deterrence in the society, unequivocally establishes
that this case falls squarely within the contours of the "rarest of rare" doctrine. The appellant's
heinous crime goes beyond ordinary criminality and strikes at the heart of societal values,
necessitating the imposition of the most severe form of punishment.

3. WHETHER THE PUNISHMENT BASED ON CIRCUMSTANTIAL

EVIDENCE IS JUSTIFIED?

The counsel on behalf of the Respondent states that the imposition of punishment based on
circumstantial evidence is wholly justified in the present case. The Indian legal framework
recognises the significance of circumstantial evidence in establishing guilt beyond any
reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court of India, in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of

7
Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab, 1983 AIR 957.
8
Indian Evidence Act, 1872, §27.
13 | P a g e
MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT
Maharashtra 9 , laid down the five golden rules of circumstantial evidence, which are as
follows:-

1. The circumstances from which the guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
2. The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of
the accused.
3. The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency.
4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and
5. There must be a chain of evidence so complete so as to not leave any reasonable ground
for the conclusion consistent with the innocent of the accused and must show that in all
human possibility that act must have been done by the accused.

In the present case, the conduct of the Appellant before the commission of the murder is
relevant as is given in Section 810 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The fact that prior to the
murder, the relations between the victim and the Appellant were sour has been attested to by
the witnesses of the Respondent. The mother of the deceased has in fact stated that she was
also aware of the physical abuses inflicted upon her daughter i.e., the victim. Thus, the previous
conduct of the Appellant is clearly established and relevant in the present case. Moreover,
during the course of the investigation by the interrogation officer, the Appellant’s statements
led to the discovery of vital information including the discovery and eventual identify of the
deceased, thus forming a vital piece of evidence under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872.

Additionally, the actions on the part of the Appellant i..e, purchasing the murder weapon which
is the knife in the present case along with the fridge, chopping off the dead body and watching
videos on crimes, all establish facts relevant to proving preparation on part of Section 8 of the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In the instant case, since the fight broke out at 9:00pm in the house
rented by the victim where she was staying with the Appellant, also shows the presence and
easy access to the victim by the Appellant, thus leaving no scope for any alternative hypothesis
save for the one that the victim was brutally murdered by the Respondent.

9
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, 1984 AIR 1622.
10
Indian Evidence Act, 1872, §8, ¶2.
14 | P a g e
MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT
In the present case, the Respondent has successfully established a coherent and unbroken chain
of circumstances pointing to the Appellant's guilt. The Respondent has meticulously presented
multiple corroborative factors that converge to firmly establish the Appellant’s culpability.
The testimonies of witnesses who witnessed the volatile relationship, the confession by the
Appellant, the financial transaction on the day of the crime, and the discovery of body parts all
form a compelling web of evidence forming part of the same transaction. 11 The forensic
expert's confirmation that the body parts belong to the victim, coupled with the Appellant's
confession detailing the method of crime, attests to the robustness of the circumstantial
evidence.

The Supreme Court, in Surendra Mishra v. State of Jharkhand12, emphasised that circumstantial
evidence must be of a high degree of probability, which is unequivocally met in this case.

According to Section 3 13 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the investigating officer has
collected both oral and documentary evidence from the witnesses called upon by the to
establish the Appellant’s guilt and physical commission of the crime in the current case. In line
with Section 614 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which deals with “res gestae” the relevance
and assessment of different facts are intertwined, leading to a comprehensive establishment of
the Appellant’s guilt and commission of the crime.

In conclusion, the Respondent submits that the chain of circumstances, in the present case, is
complete, compelling, and excludes any plausible alternative scenario, thus justifying the
imposition of the death penalty as a proportionate response to the heinous crime committed by
the Appellant.

11
The Indian Evidence Act, §6.
12
Surendra Mishra v. State of Jharkhand, 2011 SCC 495.
13
Indian Evidence Act,1872, §3. Interpretation-clause.
14
Indian Evidence Act, 1872, §6. Relevancy of facts forming part of same transaction.
15 | P a g e
MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT
 4. WHETHER THE CONFESSION GIVEN BY ALOK IS ADMISSIBLE IN THE
GIVEN CASE?

The counsel on behalf of the Respondent states that the confession given by Alok is admissible
in a court of law. Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act,1872 stipulates that if any information
received from a person accused of an offence, who is in police custody, leads to the discovery
of a new fact, then that specific information, whether it qualifies as a confession or not, can be
presented as evidence in a Court.

This rule says that if the person accused of a crime admits something, and that admission helps
in the discovery of new information during the investigation, pertinent to the fact in issue in
question, then that admission ought to be used as evidence in a Court. Even if the admission
was made because of threats or promises, if it helps reveal a truth, it is being contended that
the same can still be used as evidence. Moreover, the said fact has been corroborated with
multiple other pieces of evidence hence, proving the guilt of the Appellant beyond reasonable
doubt.

In the present case, the Appellant’s confession to the investigating police officer during his
custody led to the discovery of new facts, such as the manner in which the murder was
committed, the method of disposal of the victim’s body parts and the weapon used in the
commission of the crime.

The counsel relies upon the Judgement of Narayan Swami vs State of Maharashtra15, wherein
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that the information provided by the accused was
not a confession, but rather a statement leading to the discovery of a fact. The Hon’ble Supreme
Court reiterated that for evidence to be admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence
Act, 1872, it is not necessary that the information given should amount to a confession. Even
a statement that leads to the discovery of a fact will fall under the purview of this Section.

15
Narayan Swami v. State of Maharashtra, 1968 AIR 609.
16 | P a g e
MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT
In conclusion, the Respondent contends that the Appellant’s confession, offered while in
custody by the police, aligns perfectly with the requisites stipulated under Section 27 of the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

5. WHETHER THE TESTIMONY OF FORENSIC EXPER IS ADMISSIBLE AS

A SUBSTANTIVE EVIDENCE; AND IS SUFFICIENT TO INFLICT DEATH
PENALTY UPON THE ACCUSED?

The counsel on behalf of the Respondent states that the testimony of forensic expert is
admissible as substantive evidence and is sufficient to inflict death penalty upon the Appellant
as the opinion of the forensic expert, Dr. Dheeraj Shukla from Delhi FSL, falls squarely within
the ambit of this provision, reinforcing its status as substantive evidence.

Under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, “opinions of third persons are relevant if
such a third person is an expert who is consulted by the Court on a point of such expertise”.
Given the brutal and inhumane nature in which the victim was murdered and her dead body
was chopped, establishing the identity would have been burdensome. This is precisely where
the expert’s opinion, under the said Section 45, would become relevant. In the said case, the
forensic expert, Dr. Dheeraj Shukla was examined by the lower court which indicates the
credibility of his opinion. It is also pertinent to note that Dr. Dheeraj Shukla is associated with
the Delhi FSL which is a leading laboratory in India for conducting forensic related work, thus
adding credibility to his opinion.

The counsel for the Respondent also submits that the forensic expert’s opinion has satisfied the
test of corroborative nature as the chain of circumstances has been established by the
Respondent.

The forensic analysis serves to directly impact the establishment of the Appellant's guilt by
bridging critical gaps in the chain of indispensable evidence. The identification of the victim's
body parts, along with the discovery of the weapon used for the commission of murder, forms
a cohesive link between the Appellant and the crime. This substantive impact on proving
essential elements of the crime reinforces its status as evidence with inherent probative value.
17 | P a g e
MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT
The testimony of forensic expert aggregated with the testimonies of the 14 witnesses called
upon by the Respondent along with the confession of the accused to the investigating police
officer and, given the nature of the heinous crime, it is sufficient to inflict death penalty upon
the accused.

18 | P a g e
MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT
 PRAYER

Wherefore, in the light of the facts of the case, issues raised, arguments advanced and
authorities cited, it is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased:

1. To declare that; the appeal is not maintainable due to the lack of substantial question
of law

2. To declare that; the doctrine of rarest of rare cases is applicable in this case

3. To hold that; the punishment based on circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct
evidence is justified

4. To declare that; the confession given by Alok is admissible in this case and

5. To declare that; the testimony of forensic expert is admissible as substantive evidence

and is sufficient to inflict death penalty upon the accused

AND/OR

Pass any other order, direction, or relief that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the interests
of justice, equity and good conscience. And for this act of kindness, the counsels for the
Respondents as in duty bound shall every pray.

Place: S/d___________________
Date: (Counsel on behalf of the Respondent)

19 | P a g e
MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT