FETE DE LA

NOMOS 2020 -
MOCK TRIAL
COMPETITION

PROSECUTION
CASE
COMPENDIUM

TEAM CODE: A3
1|Page
 INDEX
I INVESTIGATION…………………………………………………………….03-05
II INQUEST REPORT…………………………………………………………….05-07
III CONFESSION…………………………………………………………………05-09
IV MOTIVE………………………………………………………………………….09-11
V MEDICAL EVIDENCE……………………………………………………………...11
VI CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE…………………………………………………..12
VII EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF WITNESSES……………………………………..12-13
VIII CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY…………………………………………………13
IX FINGER PRINT ANALYSIS…………………………………………………..…..14
X ALIBI………………………………………………………………………………...14
XI CROSS-EXAMINATION…………………………………………………………...15

2|Page
INVESTIGATION:
1) C. MUNIAPPAN AND OTHERS vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU1
“There may be highly defective investigation in a case. However, it is to be examined
as to whether there is any lapse by the IO and whether due to such lapse any benefit
should be given to the accused. The law on this issue is well settled that the defect in
the investigation by itself cannot be a ground for acquittal. If primacy is given to such
designed or negligent investigations or to the omissions or lapses by perfunctory
investigation, the faith and confidence of the people in the criminal justice
administration would be eroded. Where there has been negligence on the part of the
investigating agency or omissions, etc. which resulted in defective investigation, there
is a legal obligation on the part of the court to examine the prosecution evidence
dehors such lapses, carefully, to find out whether the said evidence is reliable or not
and to what extent it is reliable and as to whether such lapses affected the object of
finding out the truth. Therefore, the investigation is not the solitary area for judicial
scrutiny in a criminal trial. The conclusion of the trial in the case cannot be allowed to
depend solely on the probity of investigation.”
2) KARNEL SINGH vs. STATE OF MP2
“In cases of defective investigation, the Court has to be circumspect in evaluating the
evidence but it would not be right in acquitting an accused person solely on account
of the defect; to do so would tantamount to playing into the hands of the Investigating
Officer, if the investigation is designedly defective. The loopholes in the investigation
were left to help the accused at the cost of the poor prosecutrix, a labourer. To acquit
solely on that ground would be adding insult to injury.”
3) ABU THAKIR AND OTHERS vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU REPRESENTED
BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, T. N.3
“If investigation is illegal or suspicious, the rest of the evidence must be scrutinized,
independent of the impact of the faulty investigation: otherwise criminal trial will
descend to the Investigating Officer ruling the roost. Yet, if the court is convinced that
the evidence of eye witnesses is true, it is free to act upon such evidence though the
role of the Investigating Officer in the case is suspicious.”

1
2010 (9) SCC 567
2
AIR 1995 SC 2472
3
AIR 2010 SC 2119

3|Page
 4) AMAR SINGH vs. BALWINDER SINGH AND OTHERS4
“If the prosecution case is established by the evidence adduced, any failure or
omission on the part of the Investigating Officer cannot render the case of the
prosecution doubtful.”
5) RAM BALI vs. STATE OF U.P.5
“If direct evidence is credible, failure, defect or negligence in investigation cannot
adversely affect the prosecution case, though the court should be circumspect in
evaluating the evidence”
6) DHANANJAYA REDDY vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA6
“The Investigating Officer took the eye witnesses to the police station cannot be a
reason for disbelieving them.”
7) SANJAY ALIAS KAKA vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)7
“No independent witnesses were associated with recovery (discovery) under Section
27, Evidence Act is not sufficient to create doubt regarding truth of the prosecution
version.”
8) MUNNA vs. STATE OF M.P.8
“Doubtful nature of recovery of the fatal gun cannot render the ocular evidence
unreliable.”
9) SAMBHU ALIAS BIJOY DAS AND ANOTHER vs. STATE OF ASSAM9
“If a Police Officer in charge of a police station, having reason to suspect the
commission of a cognizable offence, proceeds to the spot without preparing and
sending a report to the magistrate concerned, that does not mean that his proceeding
to the spot was not for investigation. It is not necessary that a formal registration of a
case should have been made before proceeding to the spot, in order to bring inquest
proceedings within the ambit of investigation. It is enough that he has some
information to afford him reason to suspect the commission of a cognizable offence.
Any step taken by him, pursuant to such information, towards detection of the said
offence, would be part of such investigation, even though the formal registration of
the FIR takes place only thereafter. Than an FIR loses its' authority if it is lodged after

4
AIR 2003 SC 1164
5
AIR 2004 SC 2329
6
AIR 2001 SC 1512
7
AIR 2001 SC 979
8
AIR 2003 SC 3346
9
AIR 2010 SC 3300

4|Page
 the inquest report is recorded is not a general proposition of universal application. The
object of inquest is only to ascertain whether a person has died under unnatural
circumstances and if so, what the cause of death is.”
10) RABINDRA MAHTO vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND10
“Where the FIR contained only a brief statement of events, the delay in sending the
FIR to court could not have been to concoct a false case against the accused. If the
FIR had been cooked up after the inquest and autopsy were over, many more matters
or details could have been incorporated in the FIR. The delay, in these circumstance,
cannot, by itself, throw out the prosecution case in its' entirely; such delay cannot be
the sole reason for discarding the prosecution version as being fabricated, if reliable
evidence has been produced against the accused. Delay in sending FIR to court may
provide basis for suspicion that the FIR was recorded much later, to set up a distorted
version. The purpose of Section 157 Crl. Pro. Code is to ensure fair trial without there
being any occasion for falsification or introduction of facts belatedly.”

INQUEST REPORT:
1) PEDDA NARAYANA vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH11
“The Apex Court held that the scope of an inquiry under Section 174 of the CrPC is
limited in nature. It is only to ascertain whether a person has died under suspicious
circumstances or unnatural death and the apparent cause of death.”
2) AMAR SINGH vs. BALWINDER SINGH12
“The section does not contemplate that the manner in which the incident took place or
the names of the accused should be mentioned in the inquest report.”
3) BIMLA DEVI vs. RAJESH SINGH13
“Section 174 of CrPC aims at preserving the first look at the body recovered and it
does not need to contain every minute detail.”
4) RADHA MOHAN SINGH ALIAS LAL SAHEB vs. STATE OF UP14
“The basic purpose of holding an inquest is to determine the apparent cause of death.”
5) BUDHISH CHANDRA vs. STATE OF U.P.15

10
AIR 2006 SC 887
11
1975 AIR SC 1252
12
(2003) 2 SCC 518
13
(2016) 1 MLJ (Crl) 189 (SC)
14
(2006)2 SCC 450

5|Page
 “The form no. 211 prescribed by the U.P., Police Regulations no doubt contains the
column relating to the name of the complainant, time of commencement and time of
conclusion of the inquest report. They appear to have been prescribed in the form for
the purpose of having check on the movement and conduct of the police officials. It
cannot give the handle to spoil the prosecution case by merely omitting to mention
them in the prescribed form of the inquest report and related papers. Similarly, the
complete entries without committing any omission or lapse in preparing the inquest
report form, can give any premium to the prosecution case. It has to be judged in each
case as to what is the effect of such lapses. It is settled law that taking singly such
lapses cannot be sufficient to lead to the conclusion that the investigation was tainted
or unfair.”
6) SURESH AND ANR. Vs. STATE OF U.P.16
“28. Inquest report and related papers such as Challan of dead body etc. have been
prescribed for the purpose of having check on the movement and conduct of the
police officials. They cannot give a handle to spoil the prosecution case, if there is
some slip, negligence or omission in filling them up. We subscribe to the view taken
in the said case which, in its turn, is based on the decision of the Supreme Court in the
case of Podda Narayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh. The Apex Court held in the said
case that a perusal of Section 174, Cr. P.C. indicated that the object was merely to
ascertain whether a person had died under suspicious circumstances or the unnatural
death and if so, what was the apparent cause of death. The proceedings under Section
174, Cr. P.C. have a very limited scope. So, in our considered view the omissions in
the inquest report and Challans of the dead bodies pointed by the learned counsel for
the appellants are not sufficient to return the finding that the first information report
was ante-timed.”
7) MRS.SHAKILA KHADER vs. NAUSHER GAMA AND ANR.17
“In an inquest all the witnesses need not to be examined as an inquest under section
174 of Cr.P.C., is concerned with establishing the cause of the death and only
evidence necessary to establish it need be bought out.”
8) MADHU @ MADHURANATHA & ANR vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA18

15
1991 CriLJ 808
16
2000 CriLJ 2792
17
AIR 1975 SC 1252
18
AIR 2014 SC 394

6|Page
 “13. It has been canvassed on behalf of the appellants that the provisions of Sections
174 and 176(3) CrPC had not been complied with and the body had been exhumed by
the IO without the permission of the Executive Magistrate and therefore, the
investigation had not been conducted in accordance with law. Sub-section (1)
of Section 174 CrPC only puts an obligation on the part of the IO to intimate the
Executive Magistrate empowered to hold inquest but there is nothing in law which
provides that investigation cannot be carried out without his permission in writing or
in his absence. Even otherwise, the provision stands qualified “unless otherwise
directed by any rule prescribed by the State Government, or by any general or special
order of the District or Sub-divisional Magistrate.”

CONFESSIONS:
1) ANTER SINGH vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN19
“Sec.27 of Evidence Act is in nature of exception to preceding provisions particularly
S.25 and S.26 - Conditions necessary for bringing S. 27 in operation stated”. “The
expression 'provided that' together with the phrase 'whether it amounts to a confession
or not' in S. 27 show that the section is in the nature of an exception to the preceding
provisions particularly Ss. 25 and 26. The first condition necessary for bringing this
Section into operation is the discovery of a fact, albeit a relevant fact, in consequence
of the information received from a person accused of an offence. The second is that
the discovery of such fact must be deposed to. The third is that at the time of the
receipt of the information the accused must be in police custody. The last but the most
important condition is that only 'so much of the information' as relates distinctly to the
fact thereby discovered is admissible. The rest of the information has to be excluded.
The word 'distinctly' means 'directly', 'indubitably', 'strictly', 'unmistakably'. The word
has been advisedly used to limit and define the scope of the provable information. The
phrase 'distinctly' relates 'to the fact thereby discovered' and is linchpin of the
provision. This phrase refers to that part of the information supplied by the accused
which is the direct and immediate cause of the discovery. The reason behind this
partial lifting of ban against confessions and statements made to the police, is that if a
fact is actually discovered in consequence of information given by the accused, it
affords some guarantee of truth of that part, and that part only, of the information

19
AIR 2004 SC 2865

7|Page
 which was the clear, immediate and proximate cause of the discovery. No such
guarantee or assurance attaches to the rest of the statement which may be indirectly or
remotely related to the fact discovered. The various requirements of the section can be
summed up as follows :
(1) The fact of which evidence is sought to be given must be relevant to the issue. It
must be borne in mind that the provision has nothing to do with question of relevancy.
The relevancy of the fact discovered must be established according to the
prescriptions relating to relevancy of other evidence connecting it with the crime in
order to make the fact discovered admissible.
(2) The fact must have been discovered.
(3) The discovery must have been in consequence of some information received from
the accused and not by accused's own act.
(4) The persons giving the information must be accused of any offence.
(5) He must be in the custody of a police officer.
(6) The discovery of a fact in consequence of information received from an accused
in custody must be deposed to.
(7) Thereupon only that portion of the information which relates distinctly or strictly
to the fact discovered can be proved. The rest is inadmissible.”
2) PANDU RANGU KALUPATI AND ANOTHER vs. STATE OF
MAHARASTRA20
“The discovery of a fact cannot be equated with the recovery of the object though later may
help in the final shape of what exactly the fact discovered pursuant to the information
elicited from the accused.”
3) SYED CHAND AND OTHER vs. STATE OF A.P.21
“Confession leading to recovery of weapon of offence recovery of knife from
possession of accused or recovery panchanama, even panch witness turned hostile,
and there was no variation of weapon recovered from possession of accused or not
may not have much relevance or significance. When evidence on record which
includes that of direct evidence, clearly proved involvement of accused in commission
of offence, as his confession Investigating officer recovered the weapon knife, even
failure of prosecution to produce same weapon as was recovered from accused will

20
AIR 2002 SC 733
21
2016(2) ALD (Crl)792

8|Page
 not be fatal to prosecution false, when medical evidence clearly showed the injuries
were caused by a sharp object, like seizer weapon.”
4) AGHNOO NAGESIA vs. STATE OF BIHAR22
“The court contended that confessional statements had no rule of severability and
thus, entire confessions that had been made to police officials could not be admitted
as evidence. However, an exception could be accepted, if the statement led to any
substantive recovery of evidence under section 27 of the evidence act.”
5) SURESH CHANDRA BAHRI vs. STATE OF BIHAR23
“The court tried to draw a line as to when other infirmities on part of the prosecution
did not affect the confession made by the accused. In this case the accused’s
confession helped in the discovery of articles used in disposing off the dead body.
However, the prosecution did not examine any witness with regards to this discovery.
The court concluded that in this case the articles were discovered based on the
accused’s confession and were neither visible nor accessible to the people but were
hidden under the ground. Since the evidence discovered by the Investigating Officer
was legitimate and the discovered items were duly identified by the witness, failure of
Investigating Officer to record the disclosure of statement was not fatal.”

MOTIVE:

1) STATE OF KARNATAKA vs. M.N.RAMDAS24

"17. As regards the motive, it is true, as vehemently contended by the learned amicus
curiae that the accused evidence is not quite satisfactory. A bald statement that there
was a land dispute between the deceased and the accused was made by PW1, the wife
of the deceased. She gave a somewhat detailed version insofar as the enmity between
Ranga Raju who is a relation of the accused and the deceased, but that is really not
material. The fact that the prosecution did not adduce satisfactory evidence on the
motive aspect, in our view, is not sufficient to throw out the prosecution case as
unreliable. When there is abundant evidence to show that the accused and the accused
alone would have committed the murder, the absence of proof of motive does not
vitiate the prosecution case."

22
1966 AIR 119
23
1994 AIR 2420
24
2003 SCC(Cri) 134

9|Page
 2) STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH vs. JEET SINGH25
“33. No doubt it is a sound principle to remember that every act was done
with a motive, but its corollary is not that no criminal offence would have
been committed if prosecution has failed to prove the precise motive of the
accused to commit it. When the prosecution succeeded in showing the
possibility of some ire for the accused towards the victim the inability to
further put on record the manner in which such ire would have swelled up in
the mind of the offender to such a degree as to impel him to commit the
offence cannot be construed as a fatal weakness of the prosecution. It is almost
an impossibility for the prosecution to unravel the full dimension of the mental
disposition of an offender towards the person whom he offended.”

3) NATHUNI YADAV V. STATE OF BIHAR26

“Motive for doing a criminal act is generally a difficult area for prosecution.
One cannot normally see into the mind of another. Motive is the emotion
which impels a man to do a particular act. Such impelling cause need not
necessarily be proportionally grave to do grave crimes. Many a murders have
been committed without any known or prominent motive. It is quite possible
that the aforesaid impelling factor would remain undiscoverable.”
4) R. vs. PALMER27
“But if there be any motive which can be assigned, I am bound to tell you that
the adequacy of that motive is of little importance. We know, from experience
of criminal Courts that atrocious crimes of this sort have been committed from
very slight motives; not merely from malice and revenge, but to gain a small
pecuniary advantage, and to drive off for a time pressing difficulties'. Though,
it is a sound proposition that every criminal act is done with a motive, it is
unsound to suggest that no such criminal act can be presumed unless motive is
proved. After all, motive is a psychological phenomenon. Mere fact that
prosecution failed to translate that mental disposition of the accused into
evidence does not mean that no such mental condition existed in the mind of
the assailant.”
5) VIRENDRA KUMAR GARA vs. STATE28

25
1999 Cri.L.J. 2025
26
1988)9 SCC 238 : (1997) AIR SCW 1158
27
(1835) 172 ER 1405

10 | P a g e
 “That the accused absconded immediately after the incident and such conduct
of the accused absconding from the incident is a strong factor to prove his
guilt and the question of recovery of the weapon or otherwise would not affect
the prosecution case and accused is liable for conviction.”

MEDICAL EVIDENCE:
1) STATE OF UP vs. KRISHNA GOPAL AND ANR.29
“In the trite that where the eyewitnesses account is found credible and
trustworthy, medical opinion pointing to alternative possibilities is not
accepted as conclusive.”
2) SOLANKI CHIMANBHAI UKABHAI vs. STATE OF GUJRAT30
“Unless the medical evidence goes so far that it completely rules out all
possibilities whatsoever of injuries taking place in the manner alleged by
eyewitnesses, the testimony of eyewitnesses cannot be thrown out on the
ground of alleged inconsistency between it and the medical evidence.”
3) MAYUR vs. STATE OF GUJRAT31
“2. We think that this is not a case which should have been summarily rejected
by the learned Single Judge and moreover we do not think that the learned
Judge was right in observing that "our courts have always taken the doctors as
witnesses of truth." Even where a doctor has deposed in court, his evidence
has got to be appreciated like the evidence of any other witness and there is no
irrefutable presumption that a doctor is always a witness of truth.”
4) BRIJ BHUKHAN vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH32
“In appropriate case on a consideration of the nature of the injuries and other
relevant evidence, the court can come to its own conclusion, if the medical
evidence is deficient.”

28
2001 II AD (Delhi)
29
1989 CriLJ 288
30
AIR 1977 SC 2274
31
AIR 1983 SC 66
32
AIR 1957 SC 474

11 | P a g e
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE:
1) CHATTAR SINGH & ANR. VS. STATE OF HARYANA33
Circumstantial evidence is sometimes of very great importance. It proves links
in a chain of facts which go to establish the guilt of the accused. where there is
no direct evidence and the proof is made to rest on circumstantial evidence,
the principles should be kept in view in judging the guilt of accused. The
panch-sheel of circumstantial evidence has been reiterated, that :-
(1) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn
should be fully established. The circumstances concerned ‘must’ or ‘should’
and not ‘may be’ established;
(2) The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of
the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any
other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;
(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 as not to leave any
reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the
accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been
done by the accused.

EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF WITTNESSES:

1) STATE OF RAJASTHAN vs. ARJUN SINGH & OTHERS34
“It was held that the testimony of such eye witnesses should not be rejected
merely because witnesses are related to the deceased. The court has held that
the testimonies of such eye witnesses should not be rejected merely because.
Witnesses are related to the decease. The court held that their testimonies have
to be carefully analyzed because of their relationship and if the same are
cogent and if there is no discrepancy, then the same are acceptable.”
2) BHAJAN SINGH @ HARBHAJAN SINGH vs. STATE OF HARYANA35

33
2009 (1) Crimes 11 (SC)
34
2011(4) RCR (Cr) 270
35
2011(3) RCR (Cr) 641 (SC)

12 | P a g e
 “Where without having any substantial cause, two person had been killed and
one had been seriously injured, no neighbour, even if he had witnessed the
incident would like to come forward and depose against the assailants.
Evidence of a related witness can be relied upon provided it is trustworthy.
Such evidence is carefully scrutinized and appreciated before reaching to a
conclusion on the conviction of the accused.”
3) HEM RAJ vs. RAJA RAM36
“It was alleged that there was enmity between the accused and the deceased
and the witnesses were related to the deceased. It has been held that the
evidence of the wireless cannot be discarded merely on the ground that no one
was present at the place of occurrence and their clothes were not stained with
blood. When the wireless alleged that the witnesses were interested but on
examination and cross examination, and there is no reason to show that they
falsely implicated the accused, their depositions are to be accepted.”
4) AMRIK SINGH vs. STATE OF HARYANA37
"It is the right law, that evidence of a hostile witness also can be relied upon to
the extent to which it supports the prosecution version. Evidence of such a
witness cannot be treated as washed off the record. It remains admissible.”
5) RAGHUBIR SINGH vs. STATE OF U.P.38
"10. ... the prosecution is not bound to produce all the witnesses said to have
seen the occurrence. Material witnesses considered necessary by the
prosecution for unfolding the prosecution story alone need to be produced
without unnecessary and redundant multiplication of witnesses. ... In this
connection general reluctance of an average villager to appear as a witness and
get himself involved in cases of rival village factions when spirits on both
sides are running high has to be borne in mind."

CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY:
1) BADRI RAI AND ORS. vs. STATE OF BIHAR39
“Crime or conspiracy is hatched in secret and executed in darkness and
therefore can be proven only with the help of circumstantial evidence and
36
AIR 2004 SC 1489
37
2009 (3) RCR (Criminal) 308 (P&H) (DB).
38
AIR 1971 SC 2156
39
1958 AIR 953

13 | P a g e
 evidence of various acts of the parties. Conspiracy is therefore adduced from
the illegal acts and omissions of the accused which is done in pursuance of the
common intention and the apparent criminal purpose in common amongst
them.”

FINGER PRINT ANALYSYS:

1) STATE OF KARNATAKA vs. M.N.RAMDAS40
“15. The weapon, found on the table in the room contained human blood as per the
chemical analysis report. If the finger prints of the accused could be traced thereon
that would have provided an additional piece of evidence to connect the accused with
the crime. It is doubtful whether blood-soaked chopper, if analysed by the finger print
expert, could have given any clues as to finger prints. Be that as it may, even if it is
considered a lapse in the investigation that will not cast a cloud of doubt on the
prosecution case.”

ALIBI:
1) LAKHAN SINGH @ PAPPU vs. THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI41
“The plea of alibi cannot be equated with a plea of self-defence and ought to be taken
at the first instance and not belatedly at the stage of defence evidence. In any case, the
appellant/accused gives no reason or explanations for not taking this plea of alibi at
the earliest opportunity.”
2) SAHABUDDIN & ANR vs. THE STATE OF ASSAM42
“Once the court disbelieves the plea of alibi and the accused does not give any
explanation in his statement under Section 313 CrPC, the Court is entitled to draw an
adverse inference against the accused. At this stage, we may refer to the judgment of
this Court in the case of Jitender Kumar v State of Haryana[(2012) 6 SSC 2014],
where the Court while disbelieving the plea had drawn an adverse inference and said
that this fact would support the case of the prosecution.”

40
2003 SCC(Cri) 134
41
Delhi HC Crl Appeal No. 166/1999
42
Criminal Appeal No. 629 of 2010

14 | P a g e
CROSS- EXAMINATION:
1) GANESH JADHAV vs. STATE OF ASSAM43
“If the defence fails to challenge and impugned the relevant facts stated by the
prosecution in the course of examination the witness in chief, then the Court
can believe that facts produced by the prosecution are true facts.”

43
1995 1 CR LJ 111

15 | P a g e