ISSUE II

Section 161 of the CRPC deals with the oral examination of witnesses by the police
and the subsequent record of such statements to be made. The object of Section 161 is
to obtain evidence, which may later be produced at the trial.

PLACE OF OCCURRENCE AND MANNER OF OCCURRENCE

NOT PROVED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt means proof that is close to an absolute certainty. If
the judge or jury is sure you committed the crime based on the evidence, that is
enough. They have been satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that you're guilty. In
criminal cases, the guilt should be proved beyond any reasonable doubt that a
reasonable man with ordinary prudence can have. There should be no doubt whether
the accused is guilty or not. If there is slightest doubt, no matter how small it is, the
benefit will go the accused. In the case of Ram Sarup v. State it was held that the real
onus is on the prosecution to prove its case, including the manner of occurrence
beyond all reasonable doubt.
FIR AND GUDDU SINGH’S STATEMENT
The FIR made by Prakash Gaitonde, Superintendent of Police states the time of
receiving information as 10 PM where according to Guddu Singh’s statement
recorded under Section 161 by the police, the informant in the following case has
stated that he recalls the beginning of the incident from 10 PM. He further explains
the situation by stating: -
 An altercation between two persons, where the altercation escalated and one
of them took out his gun which led to commotion
 Amidst all the chaos he heard a gunshot, which was followed by a loud sound
of explosion from the other side.
 After a few minutes he saw two bodies lying down, one at the platform and
another on the road. He also heard people shouting about bomb explosion.
It was then that he ‘immediately’ called the police and the police arrived after 10-15
minutes. From the facts it can be clearly deduced that the beginning of the entire
chain of events occurred from 10 PM and further the police reached the scene of
crime after the lapse of an estimate of 30-45 minutes. However, the FIR made shows
that the time of receiving the following information was 10 PM, which in itself makes
this document inherently flawed on the basis of manner of occurrence. Further, it is
seen that Mr. Ramesh Srivastava states that Guddu Singh saw an altercation at around
10:17 PM whereas Guddu Singh states he saw the altercation between Tejas and
Veerbhadra at 10 PM. This gravely affects the manner and time of occurrence of this
incident.

SPOT PANCHNAMA
Tejas & Veerbhadra
The Panchas Mr. Sandeep Sharma and Ms. Pallavi Sharma were brought to the crime
scene at Azad Chowk, Ponchinkipur at round 11 PM by Mr. Ramesh Srivastava. They
reached the place around 11:30 PM where they saw people gathered around the scene.
They saw two bodies, one of Mr. Tejas and other of Mr. Veerbhadra Singh lying at a
distance of 20-30 meters. A lady constable checked both the bodies and it was found
that the both of them were alive. After ‘outlining the bodies’ of both the individuals,
they were ‘rushed’ to the hospital. It must be duly noted that the police had received
the information of the incident well in advance before 11 PM and inspite of the
knowledge that both Tejas and Veerbhadra were alive, they waited long enough for
the Panchas’ presence and then showed agility by rushing them to the hospital.
Another very grey area is how the police outlined the body of the two victims, but
there is no such photograph or record in the course of investigation of such an act.
This ultimately tampers and leaves room for reasonable doubt of the manner of
occurrence.
Vasundhara and Hemant Kumar
Upon further investigation within 500 meters in the presence of Panchas, it was seen
that there was another spot of explosion. Upon reaching the spot of explosion, there
was an army jeepsey that had exploded. Further, two bodies were found near the
jeepsey. One body was identified as Ms. Vasundhara who was declared to be
completely burnt and dead upon examination by a lady constable. The other person
was Hemant Kumar, who was found half-burnt but alive and was immediately sent to
the hospital.
It is very important to note that the autopsy report given by Gurpreet Singh Mann,
states that the cause of death of Ms. Vasundhara is attributable to blood loss owing to
internal hemorrhage in the thorax region, which has occurred because of multiple
wounds sustained by the deceased from the entering of shrapnels. The detailed post
mortem also reports the 5 completely identifiable injuries over the lacerated thorax
region and 10 pieces of shrapnel were also removed from the body of the deceased.
Further the report does not make any mention of any injuries sustained in the head,
shoulder, abdomen, legs and spinal column by the deceased. This ultimately brings us
to the conclusion that the cause of death is not attributable to burning, which has been
stated by Mr. Ramesh Srivastava in his statement 1 and the Panchas in the spot
Panchanama. There is also no such report of the driver Hemant Kumar except for the
aforementioned statements made. This also leaves room for reasonable doubt and the
credibility of the information supplied by the witnesses of the scene.

VEERBHADRA SHOOTING
The chargesheet explicitly states that Major Veerbhadra Singh Waghela shot Tejas
after an altercation they had. However, the statements of Guddu Singh and Tejas
states otherwise. In his statement, Guddu Singh states that he saw Veerbhadra take out
his gun, which led to a commotion, and amidst this chaos he heard a gunshot. Tejas in
his statement also states that he saw a few men that he had never seen before, trying
to get ahold of Veerbhadra and in that chaos caused, a shot was fired at him.
Additionally, the ballistic report states that the pistol which was given for testing has
1 bullet in the firing chamber while its 7 round detachable magazine contained only 6
rounds now, which leads to the conclusion that there was no bullet fired from
Veerbhadra’s pistol. Further the finger print report shows that there was no
determination of the fingerprint on the trigger of the pistol. This therefore determines
that the manner of occurrence of the shooting of Tejas lies with sufficient reasonable
doubt and non-recording of credible information.

1
Pg 34
 ISSUE III

It is humbly submitted before the court that OFFENCES CHARGED AGAINST

EITHER OF THE ACCUSED ARE NOT MADE OUT. For this the counsel shall
proceed by breaking up the elements of each offence.
(A 1) TEJAS
Charged under: section 10, 11 & 13 of the UA (P) Act, 1967; section 124A of
the IPC 1860.
INGREDIENTS of 124A

i) By words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible

representation, or otherwise: In the present case, it is alleged that
Tejas raised anti-national remarks and was engaged in proactive
speech which involved blatant remarks against the country. Para
19.1 and 19.2 of the charges mentioned in the charge sheet
explicitly states that these allegations were made solely on the basis
of the statements of the witnesses, statements which were recorded
u/s 161 of Cr.P.C and which have no evidentiary value. The charge
sheet submitted by the police states that the evidences submitted
“conclusively” prove the charges; however, the defense counsel
shall now deal with these evidences to establish that they are not
conclusive in nature and they don’t prove the charges beyond
reasonable doubt.
a) STATEMENTS OF WITNESSES U/S 161 of Cr.P.C: In his
statement to the police/NIA, Hukum Singh stated that Tejas was
involved in activities against the state and creating unrest and
disruption of peace. However, his statements are not supported by
any transcript or any audio or video recording of Tejas indulging in
such activities. There is no record of words, either spoken or
written, or sighs or visible representation or any other material to
show or even establish a link between him and the allegations
made by the Home Minister. It is important to note that the
statements under section 161 of Cr.p.c. have no evidentiary value,
still if the prosecution takes them into consideration for the lack of
better evidence, which again shows defect in the investigation
process, the statement of Swarnima Sehgal(prosecution witness),
 Tejas(defense witness 1) and Veerbhadra Singh(defense witness 2)
should also be taken into account. Swarnima Sehgal has stated that
the FIR lodged against Tejas for making a remark that Indiana not
worth a country living and full of intolerants” was withdrawn and
as per the statement of Veerbhadra Singh and Tejas, due to the
efforts of none other than Hukum Singh. If Tejas’ actions were
against the state and were exciting hatred, contempt or disaffection
towards the government then why was the FIR against him
withdrawn. Why wasn’t he prosecuted earlier? It is also important
to note that Swarnima Sehgal did not hear Tejas making such
statement herself, rather she was told so by Vasundhara Singh
Waghela, therefore, she is a hearsay witness in the matter. It is also
alleged that Tejas was involved in the activities against the
government for long and his activities were creating unrest and
disrupting the peace, however the local machinery did not take any
action against him or for the protection and preservation of peace.
The inaction on the part of local machinery implies that Tejas was
not involved in any activity which was against the maintenance of
public order, peace and tranquility
b) NO WRITTEN OR SPOKEN MATERIAL ON RECORD: There
is no written, spoken or other material on record to show that Tejas
was involved in anti-government activities. No signs, marks or
representations are recorded as evidence and no audio or video
recording of his speeches and public addresses are taken on record.
There is no such evidence to show that his addresses incited or
excited the masses to cause violence or create disaffection towards
the government.

Hence, the first element of the offence is not met.

ii) Brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or

attempts to excite disaffection towards, the Government established
by law: There are no evidences to show that anything said or done
by Tejas was bringing or inciting hatred or contempt, or disaffection
towards government established by law. Even the witnesses’
 statements, on which the police has relied upon to “conclusively”
prove the charges do not make explicit mention of any such
statement which brought or which attempted to bring hatred against
the government. Statements made by Tejas were mere criticism of
government’s oppressive policies and they are covered under the
ambit of statement made under art. 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, that
is, under the freedom of speech and expression. None of his
statements caused the disruption of public order and peace, as
contrary cannot be established by prosecution witnesses or
evidences. Even, Veerbhadra Singh, in his statement has clearly stated
that when he reached the campaign site Tejas was “speaking in absurd
manner against the government” and its policies. Nowhere did he
mention that he was creating unrest among the public. His actions and
speeches were mere awareness programs against the government’s ill
practices and oppressive policies.
a) Comments expressing disapprobation of the measures of the
Government with a view to obtain their alteration by lawful
means, without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt
or disaffection, do not constitute an offence under this
section.(Exp. 2): Tejas’ actions or statements were not intended
or directed against the state or to bring hatred, contempt or
disaffection. It was only condemning government’s actions and
policies and to lawfully obtain their alteration by making the
people aware. This became a major concern for Hukum Singh,
as Tejas stated in his statement to Police, that he was worried
that such activities weren’t good for his upcoming election.
iii) Comments expressing disapprobation of the administrative or other
action of the Government without exciting or attempting to excite
hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an offence under
this section.(Exp.3): Tejas’s action and speech were only a
disapprobation or condemnation of government’s administrative
actions and therefore, they’re not covered under this section.
 Court in Kedarnath Singh v. State of Bihar held that, “What has been
contended is that a person who makes a very strong speech or uses very
vigorous words in a writing directed to a very strong criticism of measures of
Government or acts of public officials, might also come within the ambit of
the penal section. But, in our opinion, such words written or spoken would be
outside the scope of the section”.
“…The provisions of the sections read as a whole, along with the
explanations, make it reasonably clear that the sections aim at rendering penal
only such activities as would be intended, or have a tendency, to create
disorder or disturbance of public peace by resort to violence. As already
pointed out, the explanations appended to the main body of the section make it
clear that criticism of public measures or comment on Government action,
however strongly worded, would be within reasonable limits and would be
consistent with the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression. It
is only when the words, written or spoken, etc. which have the pernicious
tendency or intention of creating public disorder or disturbance of law and
order that the law steps in to prevent such activities in the interest of public
order.”
Kedar Nath Singh vs. State of Bihar (20.01.1962 - SC): MANU/SC/0074/1962

OFFENCES U/S 10, 11 AND 13 OF UA (P) ACT, 1967

 Section 10 of the act: Section 10(a) states that whoever,

I) is and continues to be a member of such association:
II) takes part in meetings of such association; or
III) contributes to, or receives or solicits any contribution for the purpose
of, such association; or
IV) in any way assists the operations of such association, shall be
punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two
years, and shall also be liable to fine
It is important to note that there is no evidence on the prosecution’s part
to conclusively establish that Tejas continued to be a part of SKS after
it was declared unlawful by the government notification. Tejas was
receiving scholarships and was managing the funds of the said
organizations only till it was declared unlawful by the government.
After which he stopped receiving scholarship for his studies and which
caused him to “resurrect a team and unveil the face of the government”.
(moot proposition, p.74) Use of word “I” in Tejas’ statement shows that
he was not acting in furtherance of the objectives or agendas of SKS,
instead his actions were in furtherance of his own objective to make
people aware about the oppressive policies of the government.
Section 10(b) states that- “A person who is or continues to be a member of such
association, or voluntarily does an act aiding or promoting in any manner the
objects of such association and in either case is in possession of any unlicensed
firearms, ammunition, explosive or other instrument or substance capable of
causing mass destruction and commits any act resulting in loss of human life or
grievous injury to any person or causes significant damage to any property,—
 i) and if such act has resulted in the death of any person, shall be
punishable with death or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable
to fine;
ii) in any other case, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term
which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to
imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”
Since, no such allegations are made against Tejas to having possessed any arms or
ammunitions or to have caused mass destruction or loss to human life etc. the
elements of this section are not met and therefore, offence under this section cannot
be made out.

 Section 11 of UA (P) Act, 1967

“ Penalty for dealing with funds of an unlawful association.—If any person
on whom a prohibitory order has been served under sub-section (1) of
section 7 in respect of any moneys, securities or credits pays, delivers,
transfers or otherwise deals in any manner whatsoever with the same in
contravention of the prohibitory order, he shall be punishable with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or
with both, and notwithstanding anything contained in the 1[Code], the
court trying such contravention may also impose on the person convicted
an additional fine to recover from him the amount of the moneys or credits
or the market value of the securities in respect of which the prohibitory
order has been contravened or such part thereof as the court may deem fit.”
No evidence on record to show that he was still dealing with the funds of the
organization: statements of Ramadhir Singh and Tejas showed that he was
involved in “raising funds and sensitizing people against the malpractices of
the government” only till the organization was declared unlawful, after which
he had no relation or involvement with the funding or activities of the
organization.

 Section 13 of the Act

Whoever—
(a) Takes part in or commits, or
(b) Advocates, abets, advises or incites the commission of, any unlawful
activity, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may
extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
As established earlier, Tejas’ activities were not unlawful. They were very
much in the exercise of his right to freedom of speech and expression and
right to peacefully assemble or to form union under Art. 19(1)(a) and (b)
respectively. None of his public addresses resulted in violent outbreaks,
hatred, contempt or disaffection towards government or mass destruction and
therefore, they are covered within the ambit of art. 19. And are not unlawful
activities.
It is also humbly submitted before the court that mere sensitization of people
against government policies do not count as advocating, abetting, advising or
inciting the commission of any unlawful activity.
(A 3) RAMADHIR SINGH
Charged under section 10, 11 and 13 of Unlawful activities (Prevention Act) 1967
and u/s 3 r/w 6 of Explosive Substance act 1908 and section 302 r/w 34 of IPC

I. Section 10, 11 and 13 of UA (P) Act, 1967: Ramadhir Singh was the
leader of the organization called SKS and was involved in receiving funds
for the assisting needy people of the society like Tejas, an orphan who was
been given scholarship for his studies. This organization was involved in
the upliftment of the oppressed people in Jharkhand. This organization
received funds for its activities from various organizations, this funding
increased after the FIR filed against Tejas, Vasundhara and his teammates
was withdrawn on the insistence of home ministry, as it came into lime
light. After this the government stopped their activities by imposing
sanctions on the organization declaring it unlawful under the UAPA act. It
is to be noted that there are no records or evidences to show that Ramadhir
Singh was still involved in the activities of the organization after it was
declared unlawful. The police based its findings on the witnesses’
statements; however, none of the witnesses have stated in their statement
that it was known to them that Ramadhir Singh was still working or
carrying out the plans and policies of SKS. By Tejas’ statement it is made
clear that the rally which was to be conducted was a furtherance of his
individual motive of unveiling the policies of government, it was not the a
part of the execution of plans and policies of SKS, therefore, offences
against Ramadhir Singh under section 10, 11 and 13 of the act is not made
out.
II. Section 3 r/w 6 of Explosive Substance Act 1908: Section 3 tends to
punish the causing of an explosion of a nature likely to cause injury or
damage to life or property of a person by using any or a special explosive
substance while section 6 penalizes the abetment or aiding of any such
offence by providing money or explosive substance. However, in the
present case, there is no conclusive or any evidence to show that the
explosion which resulted in death of Vasundhara can be linked with
Ramadhir Singh. No witness has stated that they saw or heard anything
which could lead to the conclusion that Ramadhir Singh had any
involvement in the explosion. The prosecution case against Ramadhir
 Singh is based on assumptions and allegations made by the police owing
to the previous case in which he was charged under this act but was
acquitted, there are no other grounds to show that he could’ve possessed
and supplied anyone with such substances to cause a blast as these
explosives are of special nature and are cannot be procured by civilians
like him.
It is also important to note that mere assurance given to Tejas that he’ll see
to any threat against the rally or his life cannot establish a direct link
between him and the explosion. The assurance maybe to resort to proper
authorities for obtaining security or to provide him security himself. It
cannot be construed that Ramadhir Singh had any involvement in the
matter, in fact, the statements of the other two accused in the FIR, who
have been identified by the police on grounds and evidences not disclosed
in the charge sheet, could also not been taken to establish a link between
the event and Ramadhir Singh. It is also important to note that the
explosion was effected against Vasundhara and not Veerbhadra Singh
which also leaves a window open for reasonable doubt regarding who
caused the blast and who was targeted.

III. Section 302 r/w 34 of IPC 1806

The facts of the case fail to establish motive of Ramadhir Singh behind the
death of Vasundhara and nexus between him and the blast. There is also
no basis or conclusive grounds to establish direct link between the
absconders who allegedly caused the accident or with whoever caused the
accident. It is important to note that even if Ramadhir Singh had some
motive or intention to kill Veerbhadra Singh, why would he opt for a
method which would attract more attention and which is of such grave
intensity. Hence, there are no logical or reasonable grounds to establish
connection of Ramadhir Singh with events of the blast which resulted in
Vasundhara’s death and therefore, he cannot be charged under section 302
r/w 34 of IPC as it cannot be established beyond reasonable doubt that he
abetted or aided the offence of murder by supplying money or arms or
explosive substance to cause the death of the deceased person in this case.