BEFORE THE HON’BLE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE (FIRST CLASS)

GORAKHPUR
GORAKHPUR, UTTAR PRADESH – 273001

IN THE MATTER OF:

STATE OF U.P …. APPLICANT

VERSUS

ADITYA KUMAR …. ACCUSED 1

SHIWANGI KUMAR ….ACCUSED 2

WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY PROSECUTION FOR FINAL ARGUMENTS

U/S 234 OF Cr.P.C, 1973
Most respectfully showeth,

1. That the First Information Report1 in this case has been registered by one Mr. Jeetu
Prasad on 24.10.2018 at around 07:40 in the morning about the murder of his maalik Mr.
Akshat Kumar at his residence.

2. Police inspector Rishi Sharma was appointed as the I.O in the present case.

3. That the investigating officer started investigation against the unknown accused in the
present case and after the completing the investigation, the charge sheet was filed on
30.12.20182 against the two accused Aditya Kumar and his sister Shiwangi Kumar under
section 302/120B/34 of Indian Penal Code of 1860.

4. That after the committal of case to Session Judge, charges were framed against both the
accused under Section 302 of IPC.

1
Page 7 of the Case File.
2
Page 3 of the Case File.
 5. It is submitted that the present case is still largely based on circumstancial evidences as
well as direct evidences with the help of human agency. In Hanumant v. State of
Madhya Pradesh3, the Court Observed, "In dealing with circumstantial evidence it is
well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature the
circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first
instance, be fully established and all the facts so established should be consistent only
with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. In other words there can be a chain of
evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion
consistent 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."

6. That the prosecution story is both the accused were the elder siblings of the
victim/deceased and that their relations with the victim were not cordial. Accused 1
Aditya Kumar wanted to take revenge from his brother (Victim) for humiliating him and
also, he was jealous of his accomplishments in life due to which Aditya Kumar always
felt that he cannot get his share of success and wealth as long as the victim is around and
Accused 2 Shiwangi Kumar had an on-going marital affair which she desperately wanted
to hide from her husband and the victim knew of it and had warned the Accused 2 that he
will inform her husband about her and she could not let that happen.

7. That to attract section 300 of IPC, intention is the condition precedent but motive
prompts the intention. In the State of Rajasthan v. Khuma [1999 Cri Lj 5057 (Raj)], the
court held that the cases that rest on circumstantial evidences, motive assumes paramount
consideration in order to tilt the scale against an accused person.

8. That in cases where largely the evidences are circumstantial, one normally starts looking
for motive and opportunity to commit the crime. Proof of motive and opportunity are
regarded as two of the most crucial tests of circumstantial evidences.

9. That having the motive accrued, the opportunity to commit the crime came on the night
of 23rd October 2018, where both the accused, in course of the heated argument with each
other first and then later with the deceased at his place of residence, that now, in order to
save their personal and selfish motive, they came up with the plan that there is no other
way other than to kill the deceased. On the night on 23rd October 2018, when Aditya and
Shiwangi talked to each other on the phone, they were very tensed because Aditya was
furious that Akshat (Victim) humiliated him in front of everyone at their work place so he
had been planning out a revenge so that he can pacify himself and also he needed money
so badly that he wanted to sell the house that belonged to victim but that wasn’t possible
till the time the victim was alive. Further, Shiwangi (accused 2) and Aditya (Accused1)

3
AIR 1952 SC 343, 1953 CriLJ 129, 1952 1 SCR 1091
 were warned by the victim that he will reveal about the extra marital relationship of
Shiwangi to her husband which made them so furious that they went to his place to talk
to him but when they couldn’t convince Akshat (victim), they ended up killing him by
stabbing his throat with the screw driver at his place of residence and then they ran away.

10. That in deciding the sufficiency of the circumstantial evidence for the purpose of
conviction, one has to consider the cumulative effect of all proved facts, each one of them
reinforces the conclusion of guilt. Therefore, what is necessary is the combined effect of
all these facts taken together is conclusive in establishing the guilt of the accused.

11. That in Bodh Raj v. State of J&K [AIR 2002 SC 2164], the Supreme Court held that
the circumstantial evidences can be the sole basis for conviction provided the conditions
precedent before conviction on circumstantial evidence are fully established i.e.,
Circumstantial evidence must be both exclusive and conclusive. (Vide: Gambhir v.
State of Maharashtra [AIR 1982 SC 1157], State of Uttar Pradesh v. Desh Raj [AIR
2006 SC 1712]).

12. That the prosecution would now like to establish the chain of circumstances consistently
pointing towards the guilt of both the accused and inconsistent with their innocence.

13. That important circumstances that is proved are:

a. That there were disputes between the three siblings i.e., The accused 1, accused 2 and
Victim:
It is submitted that the testimonies of PW 34 (Accountant of the firm), PW 65
(Manager of the Firm), PW 76 (servant of the deceased and primary informant), PW
97 (Girlfriend of the deceased), it is quite evident that Accused 1 and victim shared a
very strained relationship and furthermore, Accused 2 also had a very strained
relationship with the victim which is clarified from the testimony of the PW 9. The
reasons that led to this strained relationship between the three siblings is to be also
taken into account as PW 3 and PW 4 who were working in the firm which was co-
owned by both the Victim and the Accused 1 and they had experienced severe
disagreement and heated public arguments between the two parties, the reason of
which was the dishonest behavior of Accused1 which is further corroborated by the

4
Page 117 of the case file.
5
Page 123 of the case file.
6
Page 126 of the case file.
7
Page 133 of the case file.
 evidences found during the search and seizure 8 of the property of Accused 1 wherein
there were documents which showed the deals from the proposed buyers for the
house of victim which the Accused 1 wanted to sell off without his consent for need
of money. Further, PW 9 informed the court of the severity of the bad relationship
between the Accused 2 and the victim which was due to the victim’s knowledge of
the extra marital affair of the Accused2 with his best friend and his willingness to
inform the Accused 2’s husband about it and Accused 2 clearly not wanting that to
happen at any cost which is again corroborated with the help of material evidence
which was found during the search and seizure 9 of the property of Accused 2 wherein
there were tickets of her private vacation with the best friend of the victim.

b. The presence of both the accused at the crime spot.

It is submitted that the CCTV transcripts10 of the house of the Victim/deceased was
duly prepared in accordance to the guidelines laid down in the Section 65 B of the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The investigating officer Rishi Sharma and the FSL
Expert Dr. Rakshan Aggarwal furnished the CCTV transcripts wherein it is clearly
shown that both the accused entered the residence of the victim on the night of 23 rd
October 2018 at around 11:30 PM and they were the last ones seen alive with the
victim as per the testimony of PW 711 and further, according to the CCTV transcript,
both he accused are seen leaving the premises at around 3 AM on the morning of 24 th
October 2018, after which the victim/deceased was discovered dead in his dining hall
in the morning at around 07:30 AM. Further, after conducting the search and seizure
of the crime spot12, the murder weapon was seized by the IO which was a screwdriver
upon which finger prints of both the accused were found 13 which further establishes
the presence of both the accused at the crime spot.

c. The death of deceased is sure.

It is submitted that both the accused in the heat of the moment, when they could not
convince the victim to shut his mouth and to comply with what they wanted out of
him, stabbed him with a screwdriver they saw lying in the dining hall of the house of
victim/deceased and then they left the premises. The deceased was thus found dead in

8
Page 36 of the case file.
9
Page 36 of the case file.
10
Page 108 of the case file.
11
Page 126 of the Case File.
12
Page 37 and 38 of the case file.
13
FSL Report on the page 60 of the case file.
 the morning by his servant and watchman as per the FIR report 14 and further,
according to the Post Mortem Report15 also confirmed the death of the of Mr. Akshat
Kumar at around 03 AM in the morning of 24th October 2018.

d. The incident of theft from the firm followed by the argument between Accused 1 and
the deceased in the firm.
It is submitted that the intentions of Accused 1 were not very good from the
beginning, though he too was the owner in the firm, but he was always jealous of the
success of the deceased as established by the testimony of PW 3 16 and PW 617
wherein both these employees confirmed that the work environment was very
strained due to the non-ethical business standards of Accused 1 and deceased’s
distatste over it. Further, these testimonies along with the testimony of PW 5 18
confirmed that accused 1 has been stealing money from the Firm’s joint account and
had been transferring it to his personal account without the knowledge of the
deceased and when the deceased came to know of it, they had a very horrid argument
in the firm in front of all the employees after which Accused swore for revenge which
is again substantiated by the testimony of PW 3 and PW 6.

e. The jealousy among the siblings and the extra marital affair of the Accused 2.
It is submitted that both Accused 1 and Accused 2 were always jealous of the
deceased as substantiated by the testimony of PW 919 wherein she informed that both
A1 and A2 were jealous of the deceased right from the childhood and when the
deceased was given the house of his parents after their death, A1 became highly
furious. Also, the same testimony further revealed that A2 was in an extra marital
relationship with the best friend of the deceased which is also substantiated by
looking at the call records20 of A2 wherein frequent calls were made and received at
abrupt hours to the best friend of the deceased and then, when the victim confronted
A1 and A2 about the affair, they warned him not to tell them but he didn’t listen and
told them he will tell about it to the husband of A2.

14
Page 7 of the case file.
15
Page 53 of the case file.
16
Page 117 of the case file.
17
Page 123 of the case file.
18
Page 122 of the case file.
19
Page 133 of the case file.
20
Page 62 of the case file.
 f. That Accused 1 was planning to sell the house of the deceased without his knowledge
or consent.
It is submitted that in the testimony of PW 6 21 and further documents seized from the
property of the accused 22 , that A1 was planning on selling the house that belonged to
the victim for money without even telling him or his consent and he had deals
proposed from various interested buyers for the same and when the PW 6 asked him
about it, he said that who knows if something happens to victim, he is anyway going
to get the house so it is okay not to tell the deceased about his plans to sell the house.

g. The accused 1 and accused 2 absconded from the crime spot

It is submitted that the CCTV transcripts23 of the house of the Victim/deceased was
duly prepared in accordance to the guidelines laid down in the Section 65 B of the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The investigating officer Rishi Sharma and the FSL
Expert Dr. Rakshan Aggarwal furnished the CCTV transcripts wherein it is clearly
seen that the Accused 1 and Accused 2 are seen abruptly leaving the house of the
deceased at around 03 AM in the morning

14. It is submitted that the five golden principles which constitute the “panchsheel” as was
laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra [1984 4 SCC 116] in
respect of a case based on a circumstantial evidence has been satisfied which equivocally
established the guilt of both the accused.

15. That last seen together circumstance and act of absconding from the crime spot can
scarcely be held as a determining link in completing the chain of circumstantial evidence
which must admit of no other reasonable hypothesis is then that of guilt of both the
accused. (Vide: State through CBI v. Mahendra Singh Dahiya [2011 cri LJ 2177].

16. That in the case of Trimuk Maruti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra [2007 Cri Lj 20
SC], the court held that there is a corresponding burden on accused. He can’t get away by
simply keeping quiet and offering no explanation on supposed premises that burden to
establish the case lies entirely upon the prosecution & there is no duty at all on the
accused to offer any explanation. It is humbly submitted that the burden on the State to

21
Page 123 of the case file
22
Page 36 of the case file
23
Page 108 of the case file.
 prove the guilt of the accused is of lighter character as is required in other cases of
circumstantial evidence when the offence committed in secrecy.

17. That in the case of Rajendra Mahtan v State of Bihar [AIR 1998 SC 1546], The
Supreme Court held that false explanation by accused serves as an additional link in the
chain of circumstances to connect the accused with offence. It is submitted that the
defence has given a concocted story and gave a false explanation of what had happened
that night through its witnesses, since the witnesses are not consistent in their version,
which have served as an additional link to connect the dots that is going on to prove the
guilt of the accused not only beyond reasonable doubts but all doubts.

18. Prayer:

1. That the circumstances are conclusive in nature and from which the conclusion of
guilt to be drawn is fully proved. The essentials of the offences have been met and the
evidences to prove those are sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt.

2. That in light of the above arguments and authorities cited, it is submitted that the
accused 1 and accused 2 deserve to be convicted under Section 302 of IPC, 1860.

Through
Adv. Prachi Pandey
(Public Prosecutor)