मुद्दा 1 - क्या सुरेंद्र जी जो 80 साल के हैं उनका गवाह होना वाजिब है ?

क्या पीड़िता के बयान से गवाह के बयान को पुष्टि की जा सकती है

मुद्दा 2 क्या गाडी की गद्दी फटी मिलना परिस्तिथिजन्य साक्ष्य गिरफ्तारी के

लिए पर्याप्त है ?

क्या हे मंत का रामपाल को उसका पारिवारिक जीवन नष्ट करने की धमकी दे ना

उसका इरादा दर्शाता है

क्या परिस्थितिजन्य साक्ष्य की श्रंख

ृ ला पूरी तरह से स्थापित है

मुद्दा 3- हे मंत कुमार के अनुसार हत्या रामपाल ने करवाई है । हां या न दोनों

ही परिस्थतियों में जैसा आप सोचते हैं तर्क दे कर सिद्ध करें ।

Whether the ingredients of Sec.361 are met with to charge the appellant with the same?

उपर्युक्त दलीलों के अनुसार यह पहले ही स्थापित हो चक

ु ा है कि हे मंत प्रिया

की मौत के लिए जिम्मेदार है

क्या हे मंत कुमार को धरा ३०१७ के तहत दोषी करार किया जा सकता है ?
क्या रामपाल की अपरिवर्दनवादी सोच तथा शक्की मिज़ाज़ वाला व्यक्तित्व उस

पर हत्या का आरोप लगाने के लिए पर्याप्त है

--------------------------------------

मुद्दा 4- क्या हे मंत कुमार अपहरण व बलात्कार के लिए उत्तरदायी होगा?

क्या हे मंत कुमार आपराधिक साजिश के लिए उत्तरदायी है

क्या मेडिकल रिपोर्ट और पीड़िता के बयान पर्याप्त रूप से बलात्कार के

अपराध को स्थापित करते हैं

Date rape, also known as “drug-facilitated sexual assault,

मुद्दा 1 - क्या सुरेंद्र जी जो 80 साल के हैं उनका गवाह होना वाजिब है ?

नाबालिग पीड़िता के बयान से गवाह के बयान को प्रमाणित नहीं किया जा

सकता है

मद्द
ु ा 2 क्या गाडी की गद्दी फटी मिलना परिस्तिथिजन्य साक्ष्य गिरफ्तारी के

लिए पर्याप्त है ?

Accused cannot solely be convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence

THEORY PRESENTED BY THE PROSECUTION IS NOT RELIABLE

PLEA OF ALIBY
 मद्द
ु ा 3- हे मंत कुमार के अनस
ु ार हत्या रामपाल ने करवाई है । हां या न दोनों

ही परिस्थतियों में जैसा आप सोचते हैं तर्क दे कर सिद्ध करें ।

TESTIMONY OF Surendra etc

मुद्दा 4- क्या हे मंत कुमार अपहरण व बलात्कार के लिए उत्तरदायी होगा?

यह प्रतिवादी द्वारा प्रस्तत

ु किया जाता है कि इस मामले में कोई साजिश

साबित नहीं होती है । उस संबंध में कोई भी ठोस सबूत नहीं है ।

2.1. Onus of proof on prosecution.

2.2. Benefit of doubt

sentence commensurate with the gravity of the offence

1. THE CONVICTION OF THE ACCUSED FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES IS UNFAIR AND
NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
1.1. Charges framed against the accused not fair and proper.
1.2. Conviction of the accused illegal.
1.3. Accused unknown to the complainant.
1.4. Charge of kidnapping unreliable.
1.5. Medical inconsistencies.

1.6. The source of money found in night watchman’s room unverified.

2. WHETHER THE THEORY PRESENTED BY THE PROSECUTION IS RELIABLE OR NOT.

2.3. Several loopholes in the prosecution theory.
2.4. Ambiguity in the site map prepared.
2.5. No independent witnesses to the incident.
2.6. The earlier incident of harassment not reported by the complainant.
2.7. Onus of proof on prosecution.
2.8. Sessions court decision influenced by media publicity
Accused cannot solely be convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence

Section 273 Cr.P.C mandates that all the evidence taken in the course of trial shall be
taken in presence of the accused, meaning thereby that the evidence recorded in
absence of the accused cannot be taken into consideration against him. 

Section 33 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872

33. Relevancy of certain evidence for proving, in subsequent proceeding, the truth of
facts therein stated.—Evidence given by a witness in a judicial proceeding, or before any
person authorized by law to take it, is relevant for the purpose of proving, in a subsequent
judicial proceeding, or in a later stage of the same judicial proceeding, the truth of the
facts which it states, when the witness is dead or cannot be found, or is incapable of
giving evidence, or is kept out of the way by the adverse party, or if his presence cannot
be obtained without an amount of delay or expense which, under the circumstances of the
case, the Court considers unreasonable: Provided— that the proceeding was between the
same parties or their representatives in interest; that the adverse party in the first
proceeding had the right and opportunity to cross-examine; that the questions in issue
were substantially the same in the first as in the second proceeding. Explanation.—A
criminal trial or inquiry shall be deemed to be a proceeding between the prosecutor and
the accused within the meaning of this section.

Section 27 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872

27. How much of information received from accused may be proved.—Provided that,
when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a
person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such
information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact
thereby discovered, may be proved.

 For the application of Section 33 Indian Evidence Act, it is mandatory that the adversary
must have the right and opportunity to cross-examine the witness, but at the time of
recording statement u/s 164, Cr.P.C, there vests no right or opportunity with the
adversary to cross-examine the witness. Hence, Section 33 of Indian Evidence Act is not
applicable in the case at hand meaning thereby that we cannot legally read the
statement of victim recorded u/s 164, Cr.P.C on the strength of Section 33 of Indian
Evidence Act at least. However, the statement of witness recorded u/s 164, Cr.P.C, itself
bears a corroborative value.
 Explanation 1 of Section 376 IPC expressly states that ―where a woman is raped by one
or more in a group of person acting in the furtherance of common intention, each of the
person shall be deemed to have committed gang rape within the meaning of this sub
section.‖ It therefore means that being member of a group at place of occurrence as well
as acting in furtherance of common intention itself comes within the purview of gang
rape.
Judiciary in following landmark judgment has ruled the important role played by
circumstantial evidence which can later become the sole bases of conviction.

As pointed out by Fazal Ali, J, in V.C. Shukla vs. State" in most cases it will be difficult to get
direct evidence of the agreement, but a conspiracy can be inferred even from circumstances
giving rise to a conclusive or irresistible inference of an agreement between two or more
persons to commit an offence. As per Wadhwa, J. in Nalini's case.

Similarly in the famous case of Bodh Raj V. State of Jammu & Kashmir, Court held that
circumstantial evidence can be a sole basis for conviction provided the conditions as stated
below is fully staisfied. Condition are:
1) The circumstances from which guilt is established must be fully proved;
2) That all the facts must be consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accussed;
3) That the circumstances must be of a conclusive nature and tendency ;
a. That the circumstances should, to a moral certanity , actually exclude every hypotheis
expectthe one proposed to be proved.

 In Trimukh Maroti Kirkan vs. State of Maharashtra 2006 (10) SCC 681 it has been held :

"The normal principle in a case based on circumstantial evidence is that the circumstances
from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly
established; that those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing
towards the guilt of the accused; that 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 they should be incapable of
explanation on any hypothesis other than that of the
 Crl. Appeal No.87 of guilt of the accused and inconsistent with their innocence.

[I] Insufficient light to recognize the accused

¶- It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the unfortunate incident has taken
place in the night around 7:35 PM and the prosecution witnesses themselves accepted in their
testimony that it was too dark to visualize anything that night therefore due the absence of sufficient
light it is impossible for a victim to completely recognize the offender.

¶- In Khushal Rao v. State of Bombay1 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in order to test the
reliability of a dying declaration the court has to keep in view the circumstances like the opportunity
of the dying man for observation, for example, whether there was sufficient light if the crime was
committed in the night

¶- “By far the most problematic form of identification evidence is the testimony of the eyewitnesses.
Eyewitnesses may have seen the actual commission of the offence, or they may have something else
which tends to connect the accused with the offence. Eyewitness testimony which purports to
identify the defendant as the person seen at the material time is notorious for its high risk of
unreliability. Mistaken eyewitness evidence of identity has been responsible for some major
miscarriage of justice.”2

¶-In 1972, The Criminal Law Revision Committee commented in 11th report : “ We regard mistaken
identification as by far the greatest cause of actual or possible wrong conviction.”

¶- State of Madhya Pradesh v. Manka3 , in this case the court has led down few questions to be
answered to accept the evidence of eye-witness, of which four are important to consider in this case
and these are: (i) What was state of prevailing light? (ii) What was the condition of the eye-sight of
the identifier? (iii) What was the state of his mind? (iv) What opportunity did he have of seeing; the
offenders?

the important question to be consider for the acceptance of the identification of accused by the
eyewitness, which in the present case was so dim that it not possible even for a reasonable man to
identify anyone accurately

¶-In Asharfi And Anr. vs The State32 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held

“In the case of every offence committed during the hours of darkness the prevailing light is a matter
of crucial importance. In such cases the stock argument that owing to inadequate light the witnesses
could not see the faces of the culprits found favour in the Courts”

¶- It is vehemently submitted before the Hon’ble Court that Jeyami Singh, the claimed eyewitness of
the incident has accepted the fact in his testimony that “it was too dark to visualize anything”

find it unsafe to sustain the conviction of the appellant on the sole testimony

1
16 1958 AIR 22
2
I.H. Dennis, ‘The Law of Evidence’ 214-215 (Sweet And Maxwell, London, 2nd edition, 2002)
3
1980 MFC 216
In Surajit Sarkar v. State of Bengal4 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed

“ Where the witness, a neighbor of the victim testified that after witnessing the attack on the
deceased, he did not bother to inform the family of the victim or anybody else and simply went
home and he also deposed that he came to know of the death of the deceased only the next
morning, his conduct was held to be quite unnatural and little odd which ought to have been looked
into by police in investigating crime”

4
AIR 2013 SC 807 at p. 814