A.K.K. NEW LAW ACADEMY Ph.D.

REASERCH CENTRE
AZAM CAMPUS, PUNE- 411001.

MOOT COURT 2020-2021

GUIDED BY

PROF. Dr. MORESHWAR KOTHAWADE.

SUBMITTED BY

Name:- SHRISHTHI .R. TIKARE

Roll.No. 102

Class:- 3rd Yr L.L.B

Sub :-Practical Training Moot Court

Case Name: Anthony Lazarus V/S The State Of Maharajya

 A.K.K NEW LAW ACADEMY
CLASSROOM MOOT COURT 2020-2021

Before The Honorable Supreme Court of Indiva

Under Article 136 Of The Constitution of Indiva

In The Matter Of

STATE OF MAHARAJYA.....................PROSECUTION

V.

ANTHONY LAZAROUS........................DEFENSE
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Index Of Abbreviations.........

Index Of Authorities..........

Statement Of Jurisdiction.............

Statement Of Facts ...............

Statement Of Issues...............

Summary Of Arguments.......

Arguments Advanced.........

Prayer For Relief..............

 TABLE OF ABREVATIONS

AIR ALL INDIA REPORT

IPC INDIAN PENAL CODE

IEA INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT

SC SUPREME COURT

HC HIGH COURT

U/s UNDER SECTION

 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

TABLE OF CASES REFERED

1. State of U.P. AIR 1974 SC 1552

2. State v. Sanjay Gandhi AIR 1978 SC 961

3. Rishikesh v. State AIR 1970 ALL51(FB)

4. Hari Krishnan and Anr. v. Sukhbir Singh and Ors 1988

AIR2127

5. Haribhajan v. State AIR 1969 SC 97

6. Bhagwanji Appaji v. Kedari Kashinath (1900) ILR 24

Bom202

7. Ankeri v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1994 SC 842

8. State of Rajasthan v. Dhool Singh AIR 2004 SC1264

 STATUES REFERRED

Indian Penal Code ,1860 Indian

Evidence Act ,1872

 WEBSITES REFFERED

https://www.lawctopus.com/

https://www.scribd.com/

www.indiankanoon.org
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

In the honorable Supreme Court of Indiva, Special leave

petition (Criminal no.) 12008 Filled under article 136
"(that reads as Article 136 confers a residuary or
extraordinary power, However, it shall be exercised by
the Supreme Court in accordance with the well-
established judicial principles or the well-known norms
of the procedure.)"
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

ANTHONY LAZARUS V/S THE STATE OF MAHARAJYA

1. A 16-year-old boy, Amar Raut, was murdered on 20th August,

2008, in District Rasa, State of Maharajya. The incident was
reported to the nearby Police station by two people who were
present in the vicinity.

2. The witnesses were questioned and shown Police Records of

people matching the description given by them. The two
eyewitnesses confirmed the photograph of one Anthony Lazarus
and accordingly an F.I.R was lodged., Anthony Lazarus a 25 years
old, father of a two years old daughter, was arrested one week
after registering the FIR and the murder weapon was recovered
from theaccused.

3. According to witnesses’ statement recorded before the

Magistrate Anthony was alleged to be the gunman who had shot
the 16 years old, Amar Raut, in the face, on the afternoon of 20
th August, 2008, after a brief altercation in the street. However,
the statement further noted that the eyewitnesses failed to see
the shooter’s face clearly.

4. The Investigation Officer (IO) confirmed that Anthony was also

‘wanted’ for a robbery that took place in the year 1998 when
Anthony was a juvenile Anthony had pleaded not guilty for the
robbery. From that time onwards, his name was in the records
maintained by the police. Although in 2008, after his arrest for the
murder of Amar Raut Anthony had pleaded guilty to
the robbery of 1998.
5. In his defense Anthony insisted that he was innocent and he
was in Doa on the date of murder. He contended that he had been
staying with his friend, John Steve and his pregnant wife, Jennie.
Anthony said, he was with the couple and other friends when the
baby was born. Thus, taking the plea of innocence as there was no
way that Anthony could have killed 16 years old. Amar Raut in Rasa,
State of Maharajya on 20th August 2008, he gave a detailed
statement inclusive of all the names, addresses, and phone numbers
of 14 people who could confirm his statement.

6. Before trial, while in police custody, Anthony met with the court
appointed lawyer. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer (IO)
instructed his subordinate to visit Doa to carry out the investigation.
The subordinate did not carry on the enquiry and no report was filed.

7. However, the IO was transferred and the present case was handed
over to the succeeding IO. The incoming IO did not follow up with
the enquiry at Doa. Due to an apparent miscommunication between
the IOs, no investigator was sent to verify and interview the
witnesses in Doa. With no evidence, other than the witnesses’
identification, Anthony was linked to the murder.

8. Even so Anthony’s friends, John and Jennie came forward as alibi

witnesses to testify that Anthony was in their house in Doa on the
day of the murder and they remembered the day well because their
first child was born the next day. But the prosecution convinced the
court that these witnesses were not credible because they were
Anthony’s friends. Thus, Anthony was convicted and sentenced to 20
years of life imprisonment by the Ld. Trial Court.

9. Anthony challenged his conviction before the Hon’ble High Court

of Tombay, arguing that the public prosecutors were building the
case on improper investigation. During the hearing Hon’ble High
Court noted that seven of the alibi witnesses had testified before the
Learned Trial judge that Anthony had been in Doa. The High Court
ruled against him and held that the lawyers on the whole had
‘represented Anthony skillfully and with integrity’ but the failure of
the Investigating authorities to send investigator to Doa was the
result of ‘misunderstanding or mistake’ that ‘was not deliberate’.
The Hon’ble High Court further confirmed the decision of the Learned
Trial Court mainly on the fact that the murder weapon was found in
the custody of the accused and keeping in mind his past criminal
record.

10. Anthony, then, approached to the Supreme Court of Indiva for

fair trial and justice, arguing that the judges failed to read the police
report which had been produced 10 years ago at the trial in which
the main eyewitnesses stated, they actually had not seen the
shooter’s face.

11. The case is fixed for final hearing on 12thMarch, 2020

 STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1. Whether The Special Leave Petition Brought In This

Court Is Maintainable Or Not?

2. Whether Anthony Is Guilty Of Robbery When He

Was A Juvenile In 1998?

3. Whether The Accused Is Guilty Of Murder?

4. Whether The Presence Of Anthony Lazarous Is Proved

That He Is Guilty?

5. Whether Anthony Lazarous Is Liable To Acquit From All

The Charges?
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

Issue no 01
1. Whether The Special Leave Petition Brought In This Court Is
Maintainable Or Not?

It is most humbly submitted before this Hon'ble Supreme Court of

India that this special leave petition is maintainable in this Court
under Article 136 of the Constitution of India against or in

a) any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order, b) in

any case of matter,

c) passed or made by any Court or tribunal in the territory of India.

d) in special and exceptional circumstances

e) where there is a grave injustice.

In the case of Sanwat Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1961

SC 715 it was held that where grave and substantial injustice has
been done or violation of principles of natural injustice is done.
 Issue no 02
Whether Anthony Is Guilty Of Robbery When He Was A
Juvenile In 1998?

No, my lordship;
Anthony Lazarous was not guilty according to part III Article
20(2) of Indian constitution reads as " No person shall be
prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once
." The concept of double jeopardy. In the year 1998 when
Anthony was a juvenile had pleaded not guilty. Also, children in
conflict with the law can be rehabilitated under Chapter VII
prescribed under S.39 to S.55. Also as per S.54 of IEA of 1872
attracts previous bad character is not relevant.
 Issue no 03
Whether The Accused Is Guilty Of Murder?

It is humbly submitted by the defense in this case, U/s 302 of IPC

it can be proved that even one of the elements that constitute the
crime of murder has not been successfully proved by the
prosecution, then the accused cannot be held criminally liable for
that act. The prosecution failed to prove both Actus Reus and
Mens Reus which is associated with the criminal offense U/s 302
and is solely relying on witnesses statement which is contrary in
nature and the weapon was discovered from accused.

As the IO negligence in the case and investigation did was

improper. As Anthony pleaded he was in another city with his
friends it attracts PLEA OF ALIBAI and trial was done in trial court
but according to S.135 of IEA cross-examination of the witnesses
not done further. As IO misdirected from this case and
subordinate not performed their duty This act is suspicious in
nature and against natural justice. Also, the witnesses' statement
is contrary and they recognized Anthony from the police record
photo which is maintained 10 years ago. And they failed to see the
face of the convict in bright afternoon hence their credibility as a
witness is in question.

As per relevancy of fact is not maintained prescribed under S.5 to

S.55. Parade is not done as per S.9 to maintain the investigation is
being done in the right direction.

Recovery of weapon is doubtful as no document produced of the

witness (5) at the time of recovery and no Ballistic report
submitted to prove the weapon was used. No record of bullet
shell produced in forensic investigation.
As per the statement of witness disposed before the magistrate
that they saw the deceased being shot from a distance of 10 feet.
However, U/s45 the medical report showed that the nature of the
wound was such that it could have been caused only from a
distance of 10 yards(914.4cm). Thus the prosecution has thus fore
not been able to attach guilt to the accused without any
reasonable doubt.
Issue no 04
Whether the presence of Anthony Lazarous is Proved that he is
guilty?

Not guilty, Honible as the witness's statement is in reasonable

doubt and the credibility is in question. This case also attracts the
PLEA OF ALIBAI, and Anthony's 7 witnesses were ignored for
further cross-examination with negligence by the IO and
subordinate in the investigation.

No documentary evidence was produced for the recovery of

evidence as per S.25 and S.27 of Arms Act this remains in
reasonable doubt. Anthony was in Goa on the date with his family
as it was an important date for him, hiswife gave birth to a baby.
Issue no 05
Whether Anthony Lazarous is liable to acquit from all the
charges?

Yes Anthony is liable to acquit from all the charges U/s 302.
Burden to prove the facts lies on the prosecution

S.101 of the Evidence Act, 1872 states the true meaning rule is
that where a given allegation, whether affirmation or negative
forms as an essential part of a party's case the proof of such
allegation rest on him.

The principle of burden of proof is based on Co-Incumbit

Prabatio Quidict Non que negat- The burden of proving of fact
rests on the party who substantially asserts the affirmative of
the issue not upon the party who denies it.

Burden of Proof and Onus Probandi:

As said above the burden of proof is two kinds:

1. Burden of Proof is on pleading

2. Burden of adducing evidence.

The burden that arises from the pleadings depends upon the
facts asserted or denied and is determined by the rules of
substantive and statutory law or by the presumption of law
and fact.
In criminal cases, the burden of proof lies on the prosecution
and the accused must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
In Prabhoo v. Emperor, in Criminal jurisprudence, it is the most
fundamental that a person arraigned as an accused is
presumed to be innocent unless that presumption is rebutted
by the prosecution by the production of evidence as may show
him to be guilty of the offences charged.

The burden of proving the guilt of the offence charged. It was

an accepted principle of criminal jurisprudence that the burden
is always on the prosecution and never shifts. Therefore, it is
contended that the prosecution must prove that Mr. Anthony
Lazarous who is innocent otherwise.

Presumption of the Innocence of the accused, must be taken

into consideration.

There is a presumption of innocence against the commission of

crime. This ratio has been laid down by the Supreme Court in
the case Shivaji v. State and a catena of other cases In
K.Joseph v. Narayanan the Supreme Court upheld that
"the accused is entitled to rely on the presumption of
innocence totestimonial compulsion to swear against himself."

In the case of K. M. Nanavati v. State the Supreme Court

opined that "the burden is thrown upon the prosecution to
prove its casebeyond reasonable doubt."
 Reasonable Doubt-

Reasonable doubt is simply a degree of doubt which would

permit a reasonable and just man to come to a conclusion and
reasonableness of doubt must commensurate with the nature
of the offence to be investigated.

In Gopal Reddy v. State the Apex Court was of the opinion that
"reasonable doubt does not mean light, insubstantial doubt that flit
through the mind of any of us about anything at some time or other, it
is not a doubt begotten by sympathy out of reluctance to convict, it
means a real doubt, a doubt founded on reasons."
 PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Wherefore in the light of issues raised, arguments advanced and

authorities cited, the Defence humbly submits that the Hon’ble Court
may be pleased to dismiss the appeal for acquittal pass such orders
proper in the circumstances of the case with costs, which this Court
may deem fit, in the light of equity, justice and good conscience for
which the counsel may forever pray.

Sd/-
Counsel For The Defence