ST.

WILFRED’S COLLEGE OF LAW,

NATIONAL LEVEL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2016.

IN THE HONOURABLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT

THE APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 374 OF THE CRIMINAL

PROCEDURE CODE, 1973
IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: ____/ 2016

IN THE MATTER OF

MAHARANI PETERJEE,
SUJAY TANNA &
RAMVAR PAI
(APPELLANTS)
v.

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
(RESPONDENT)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

_____________________________________________________________________

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents………………………………………………………………………II

Index of Authorities

Table of Cases………………………………………………………………...III

Books…………………………………………………………………………..V

Lexicon……………………………………………………………………...…V

Websites……………………………………………………………………....VI

Statues……………………………………………………………………...…VI

Statement of Jurisdiction………………………………………………………….…VII

Statement of Facts………………………………………………………………..…VIII

Statement of Charges……………………………………………………..……………X

Summary of Pleadings………………………………………………………..………XI

Written Pleadings

Issue I………………………………………………………………..…………1

Issue II………………………………………………………….………………8

Prayer……………………………………………………………………...…………XII

II
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
_____________________________________________________________________

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

List of Cases

1. A. Jayaram and An r. v. State of AP, AIR 1995 SC 2128

2. Abdul Kadar (1963) 65 Bom LR 864
3. Abdul Kadir, (1880) 3 All 279 (FB)
4. Ameer Khan (1871) 17 WR (Cr) 15 (FB)
5. Annappa Bharamganda (1907) 9 Bom LR 347
6. Atley AIR 1955 SC 80
7. Babu v State of Kerala, JT 2010 (8) SC 560:2007 AIR SCW 5105
8. Bakhshish Singh v State of Punjab AIR 1971 SC 2016
9. Barsay E G AIR 1961 SC 1762
10. Bheru Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (1992) 2 SCC 467
11. Bimbadhar Pradhan AIR 1956 SC 469
12. Bimbadhar Pradhan AIR 1956 SC 469
13. Brij Lal v Prem Chand AIR 1989 SC 1661
14. C. Chenga Reddy v State of A.P. (1996) 10 SCC 193
15. Chikkarange Gowda AIR 1956 SC 731
16. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Patranu Dass Raja Ram Beri, AIR 1982 PH 1
17. Dalmia R K v. Delhi Administration AIR 1962 SC 1821
18. Deonandan Dusadh v. King Emperor, (1928) 7 Pat 411
19. Gurcharan Singh AIR 1956 SC 460
20. Gurdatta Mal AIR 1965 SC 257
21. Hukam v State AIR 1977 SC 1063
22. Jamnadas, (1963) 1 Cri LJ 433
23. Janar Lal Das v. State of Orissa, 1991 (3) SCC 27
24. K. Purnachandra Rao, 1975 Cri.L.J. 1671
25. Kamal Kishore v. State (Del. Admin.), 1997 (2) Crimes 169 (Del)
26. Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, 1994 CrLJ 3139

III
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
27. Kartik Sahu v State of Orissa 1994 Cri.L.J. 102 (Ori)
28. Kehar Singh AIR 1988 SC 1883
29. King v Brisse (1803) 4 East 164, 171
30. Krishnan v State represented by Inspector of Police,(2008) 15S SCC 430;
31. Laxman v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1974 SC 1803
32. Madegowda vs Unknown, AIR 1957 Mys 50
33. Mahesh Gonnade v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2008 SCW 4231
34. Malan AIR 1960 Bom 393
35. Matuki Misser, (1885) 11 Cal 619
36. Memon Mohmad (1958) 61 Bom LR 715
37. Mohan Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1974 SC 1144
38. Mohan Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1974 SC 1144
39. Mulakh Raj v. Satish Kumar, AIR 1992 SC 1175
40. Mussammat Aishan Bibi v. The Crown, (1933) 15 Lah 310
41. Nathulal AIR 1966 SC 43
42. Nirpal Singh v.State of Haryana, (1977) 2 SCC 131
43. Padam Pradhan v State 1982 Cri.LJ. 534
44. Paramhansa v. State of Orissa, AIR 1964 Ori 144
45. Quinn v. Leatham (1901) AC 495, 528
46. Raghubir Singh AIR 1987 SC 149
47. Rajinder Kumar AIR 1966 SC 1322
48. Ram Narain AIR 1973 SC 11881 Halsbury‟s Laws of England, (4th edn.), vol.
11, para 58; p.44.
49. Ram Singh v. State of HP 1997 Cri LJ 1829 (SC)
50. Ramachandra v. State of Kerala, 2009 Cri LJ 168
51. Rambilas Singh AIR 1989 SC 1593
52. Ramesh Bhai and Anr. V State of Rajasthan,(2009) 12 SCC 603
53. Santosh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1975 Cri LJ 602 (SC)
54. Shamdasini P D AIR 1929 Bom 443
55. Sharad Bircichand Sarda v State of Maharashtra AIR 1984 SC 1622
56. Shri Ram AIR 1975 SC 175
57. State of Bihar v. Madanlal, AIR 1967 Pat 63

IV
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
58. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Digvijay Singh, 1981 Cri. LJ 1278 (SC)
59. State of Maharashtra v. Meyer Hans George, AIR 1965 SC 722
60. State of MP v. Dharkale, AIR 2005 SC 44
61. State of MP v. Rammi, 1999 (1) JLJ 49 (MP)
62. State of Punjab v Sucha Singh, AIR 2003 SC 1471
63. State of Rajasthan v. Tej Ram, (1999) 3 SCC 507
64. State of Uttar Pradesh v Satish, (2005) 3 SCC 114:AIR 2005 SC 1000
65. State of WB v. Orilal Jaiswal, AIR 1994 SC 1418
66. State v. Dinakar Bandu (1969) 72 Bom LR 905
67. State v. Nalini 1999 Cri LJ 3124 (SC)
68. State v. Som Nath Thapa AIR 1996 SC 1744
69. Subramaniam v State of Tamil Nadu and anr., (2009) 14 SCC 415
70. Topandas AIR 1956 SC 23
71. Tresa V L, (2001) 3 SCC 549
72. Tukaram Ganpat Pandare AIR 1974 SC 514
73. Yash Pal Mital AIR 1977 SC 2433

Books

1. Halsbury‟s Laws of England, (4th edition)

2. Modi‟s Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, (23rd Edition)
3. Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code, (33rd edition)
4. Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The Law of Evidence, (26th Edition)
5. Sarkar, Law of Evidence, (17th Edition)
6. Sarkar, The Code of Criminal Procedure, (11th edition)

Lexicons

1. Aiyar, P Ramanathan, The Law Lexicon, (2nd ed 2006.)

V
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 Websites

1. http://www.manupatrafast.com
2. http://www.scconline.com
3. http://www.judis.nic.in

Statutes

1. The Evidence Act, 1872

2. The Indian Penal Code, 1860
3. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

VI
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
_____________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Appellants Humbly approach the Hon‟ble High Court under S.374(2) of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which reads as follows:

‘ S.374. Appeals from conviction

1. Any person convicted on a trial held by a High Court in its extraordinary

original criminal jurisdiction may appeal to the Supreme Court.
2. Any person convicted on a trial held by a Sessions Judge or an Additional
Sessions Judge or on a trial held by any other Court in which a sentence of
imprisonment fro ore than seven years has been passed against him or against
any other person convicted at the same trial may appeal to the High Court.
3. Save otherwise provided in sub-section (2), any person,
a. convicted on a trial held by a Metropolitan Magistrate or Assistant
Sessions Judge or Magistrate of the first class, or of the second class,
or
b. sentenced under section 325, or
c. in respect of whom an order has been made or a sentence has been
passed under section 300 by any Magistrate, may appeal to the court.’

The respondents humbly submit to the jurisdiction of this Hon‟ble Court.

VII
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
_____________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The deceased Reena Kalra was born to Maharani Peterjee and Charan Das, a
Kolkata based businessman, out of wedlock.

2. Maharani Peterjee left Reena and Michael, her children which her parents T.K
Kalra and Radha Rani, and moved to Guwahati where she married Sujay
Tanna.

3. In 2001, Maharani parted ways with Sujay Tanna and got married to Meter
Peterjee of „Lagataar Network‟ in 2003.

4. Once Reena and Michael Kalra learnt of their mother‟s marriage to Meter
Peterjee, they contacted her since they were in need of money. Maharani
agreed to help them if they were willing to present themselves, to her new
family and friends, as her siblings and not as her children. To this end,
Maharani got the birth and school certificates of Reena and Michael changed
where T.K Kalra and Radha Rani were named as their parents.

5. In 2006, Reena joined St. PVR college in Mumbai and started going out Meter
Peterjee‟s son from his previous marriage, Rohan Peterjee. Mahrani did not
approve of this relationship. She also disliked the growing closeness between
Reena and Meter. Reena informed Rohan that she was Maharani‟s daughter
and not her sister. This fact was eventually disclosed to Meter too. These
reasons formed a bone of contention between Reena and Maharani.

6. The last time Reena Kalra was seen on 24th April, 2012. She took leave from
her office, and later resigned the same day. On the same day, message was sent
by Maharani to Rohan Peterjee from Reena‟s phone, wanting to break up with
him.

7. Suspecting Reena‟s disappearance, Rohan Peterjee tried filing a missing

person‟s report in Parle police station, but the plaint was not registered. Rohan
VIII
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 told the police that Reena‟s passport was at his place, where they were told by
Maharani that she got her a new passport and that Reena had fled the country
to avoid contact with Rohan, who was stalking her.

8. On 23rd May, 2012 the local police found a decomposed body at the crime spot
after the villagers complained of a foul odor. The body remained unidentitfied.
No investigation was initiated by the police on recovery of the dead body.

9. Three years later, an anonymous phone call to the police stated that an auto
rickshaw driver had killed a young girl from a business family. The call also
stated that the body had been dumped in Lohagad. This phone call led the
police to probe further and led them to Ramvar Pai, the co-accused.

10. Upon digging deeper, it was found that the body was of Reena Kalra. The
Hon‟ble Sessions Court has held that she was strangulated to death by Sujay
Tanna in a car being driven by Maharani‟s driver Ramvar Pai, with Maharani,
the mastermind of the entire plan sitting in the car. The body was thereafter
dumped along the Lohagad highway and set ablaze. Maharani was sentenced to
life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.10000/- and other accused were
sentenced to an imprisonment of 10 years with a fine of Rs.15000/-.

IX
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
_____________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF CHARGES

Maharani Peterjee, (Accused 1) has been charged with:

Murder under Section 302 read with Section 34, Abetment under Section 109,
Criminal Conspiracy under Section 120, Causing disappearance of Evidence of
offence under Section 201 read with section 34, of the Indian Penal Code,1860.

Sujay Tanna, (Accused 2) has been charged with:

Murder under Section 302 read with Section 34, Criminal Conspiracy under Section
120, Causing disappearance of Evidence of offence under Section 201 read with
section 34, of the Indian Penal Code,1860.

Ramvar Pai (Accused 3) has been charged with:

Murder under Section 302 read with Section 34, Abetment under Section 109,
Criminal Conspiracy under Section 120, Causing disappearance of Evidence of
offence under Section 201 read with section 34, of the Indian Penal Code,1860.

X
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
_____________________________________________________________________

SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS

ISSUE I

WHETHER THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE RESPONDENT IS

ENOUGH TO UPHOLD CONVICTION?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon‟ble Court that the evidence in the present case
sufficiently established the guilt of the accused for the criminal conspiracy, abetment,
disappearance of evidence and the murder of Reena Kalra. The statement of Ramvar
Pai has been corroborated by the recovery of the murder weapons from the car in
which the murder of Reena Kalra took place. The chain of circumstantial evidence as
formed by the prosecution has been established beyond all reasonable doubt that the
accused are guilty as charged.

ISSUE II

WHETHER THE ACCUSED ARE GUILTY AS CHARGED?

It is humbly submitted before this Hon‟ble Court that the accused are guilty of the
offences of murder, criminal conspiracy, abetment and causing disappearance of
evidence. The accused entered into an agreement to commit the murder of Reena
Kalra, the murder was committed and following this the body was burnt and dumped
along Lohagad Highway. Thereafter, the statement of Ramvar Pai lead to the
discovery of the murder weapons. The circumstantial evidence forms a complete
chain, link by link, to establish the same. Hence it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt
that the crime of Murder was indeed committed by the accused in the case at hand.

XI
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
_____________________________________________________________________

WRITTEN PLEADINGS

ISSUE I

I. WHETHER THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE RESPONDENT-PROSECUTION IN

THE SESSIONS COURT IS ENOUGH TO UPHOLD A CONVICTION

1. That Parts of Accused 3’s statements NOT amounting to Confession can be

Admitted as Evidence
A. All extra-judicial confessions excluded from evidence
Section 25 of the Evidence Act excludes from evidence, all statements amounting to
confession, made to a police officer by an accused person. The section reads as
follows:

S.25: Confession to a police officer not to be proved: No confession made to a police

officer shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence.

This section aims to zealously protect the accused against becoming the victim of his
own delusion or the mechanization of others to self-incriminate in crime. The
confession, therefore, is not received with an assurance, if its source be above and free
from the remotest taint of suspicion. The mind of the accused before he makes the
confession must be in a state of perfect equanimity and must not have been operated
upon by fear or hope or inducement. 1

This section excludes all statements of incriminating nature made to a police officer
whether made before or after becoming an accused person.2

S.25 absolutely excludes from evidence against the accused a confession made by him
to a police officer under any circumstances (while in custody or not). The statement

1
Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, 1994 CrLJ 3139.
2
Bheru Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (1992) 2 SCC 467.
1
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
given by an accused involving himself in the crime and also implicating a third person
cannot be legally proved in the court, as it will be conflicting under ss. 25 and 26. 3

B. S.25 is the rule whereas; S.27 is the exception to this rule.

Section 27 reads as follows:

S.27: How much of information received from the 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.

Although, confession by an accused to a police officer or when in police custody is

inadmissible, statements in the confession, which are relevant for the purpose of s.27,
are admissible.

There are two essential conditions for the applicability of section 27:

i. Accused of an offence
The person giving information must be accused of any offence. Earlier, it was held
that the statement must be of a person who was then an accused. If at the time when
the confession was made, the person making it was an accused, the statement would be
admissible.4 Bombay High Court is of a dissenting view of this matter and has held
that “accused of an offence” would include a person who subsequently becomes an
accused. He either may be an accused at the time of making the confession or may
subsequently become an accused.5

ii. He must also be in police custody.

The word „custody‟ in this section does not mean physical custody by arrest.6 As soon
as an accused or suspected persons comes into the hands of a police-officer, he is, in
the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, no longer at liberty, and is therefore in

3
Kamal Kishore v. State (Del. Admin.), 1997 (2) Crimes 169 (Del)
4
Deonandan Dusadh v. King Emperor, (1928) 7 Pat 411
5
Memon Mohmad, (1958) 61 Bom LR 715
6
State of Bihar v. Madanlal, AIR 1967 Pat 63
2
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 custody within the meaning of ss.26 & 27.7 Even indirect control over the movements
of suspects by the police would amount to „police custody‟.8

C. Parts of confession, admissible under this section:

Further, S.25 excludes a confession to the police, but not any other matter unconnected
with the confession, e.g. a statement by the accused of his presence at the scene of
occurrence of the ill-will that existed against the deceased. 9 The Court on trivial
grounds cannot brush statements admissible under S.27 of the Evidence Act, leading
to discovery, aside.10

As regards discovery of evidence, Section 27 requires that only statements made by

the accused that lead to a subsequent discovery are admissible as evidence.
Requirements of this section are:11

i. Discovery Must be consequent

ii. Must Not Be Within The Knowledge Of The Police:
iii. Information Must Lead To Discovery Of Fact.
iv. Must Be In The Knowledge Of The Accused
v. Information Must be Distinctly Connected with the discovery

i. Discovery Was Consequent

This section contemplates that consequent to the information given by the accused, it
leads to the discovery of some fact stated by him. In the instant case, the discovery of
murder weapons was consequent to the information provided by the accused.

ii. Was Not Within The Knowledge Of The Police:

The fact discovered must be one which was not within the knowledge of the police
and the knowledge of the fact was for the first time derived from the information given
by the accused. The presence of the crime articles in the car was not within the
knowledge of the police.

7
Mussammat Aishan Bibi v. The Crown, (1933) 15 Lah 310
8
Paramhansa v. State of Orissa, AIR 1964 Ori 144
9
In Re: Madegowda vs Unknown, AIR 1957 Mys 50
10
Nirpal Singh v.State of Haryana, (1977) 2 SCC 131
11
Sarkar, Law of Evidence, 17th Edition
3
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 iii. Led To Discovery Of Fact:
Information given by the accused must lead to the discovery of a fact, which is the
direct outcome of such information. “Fact” as understood in the Evidence Act includes
physical as well as psychological fact or mental condition. The information which led
to the discovery of a witness to whom the accused had given the stolen article is also
discovery of fact.12

iv. Was Within The Knowledge Of The Accused

The discovery of the fact must be in relation to the a material object and of course
would then embrace within its fold the mental condition i.e. the knowledge of the
accused of the place where the object was produced and the knowledge that it was
there. The accused was aware about the whereabouts of the car that led the police to
the recovery of crime articles.

v. Distinctly Connected With Discovery

Only such portion of the information as is distinctly connected with the said discovery
is admissible A statement even by way of confession made in police custody, which
distinctly relates to the fact discovered is admissible in evidence even against the
accused.13

2. That the Chain of Circumstantial Evidence is Fully Established

It is a well settled principle that where the case is mainly based on circumstantial
evidence, the court must satisfy itself that various circumstances in the chain of
evidence should be established clearly and that the completed chain must be such as to
rule out a reasonable likelihood of the innocence of the accused.14
When even a link breaks away, the chain of circumstances gets snapped and other
circumstances cannot in any manner establish the guilt of the accused beyond all
reasonable doubts.15 In the absence of clear and cogent evidence pointing to the guilt

12
Ramachandra v. State of Kerala, 2009 Cri LJ 168
13
Bodh Raj v. State of J&K, AIR 2002 SC 3164
14
Mohan Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1974 SC 1144
15
Janar Lal Das v. State of Orissa, 1991 (3) SCC 27
4
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
of the accused, the proof of motive however adequate cannot by itself sustain a
criminal charge.16
When attempting to convict on circumstantial evidence alone the Court must be firmly
satisfied of the following five things:17

a) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be

fully established. The circumstances must be or should and not may be established;
b) 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 explained on any other hypothesis
except that the accused is guilty;
c) The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency;
d) They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved;
e) 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.
These five golden principles constitute the „Panch Sheel‟ of the proof of a case based
on circumstantial evidence.

In drawing the inference the true rule of law, which is to be applied, is the rule, which
requires that guilt be not to be inferred unless that is the only inference, which follows
from the circumstances of the case, and no other innocuous inference can be drawn.

Supreme Court of India in Bakhshish Singh v State of Punjab18, “in a case resting on
circumstantial evidence, the circumstances put forward must be satisfactorily proved
and those circumstances should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of
the accused. Again those circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency
and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be
proved.” 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, the evidence

16
Padam Pradhan v State, 1982 Cri.LJ. 534
17
Sharad Bircichand Sarda v State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622
18
AIR 1971 SC 2016:1971 CriLJ 1452:(1971) 3 SCC 182
5
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
produced by the respondent-prosecution should be of such nature that it makes the
conviction of the accused sustainable.19

In the instant case:

A. Circumstances are fully established

The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully
established. The circumstances must be or should and not may be established. It is
contended that there is a well-established chain of circumstantial evidence proved by
the respondent-prosecution.

B. Circumstances are consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of only the accused.
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 explained on any other hypothesis except
that the accused is guilty. In cases dependent on circumstantial evidence, in order to
justify the inference of guilt, all the incriminating facts and circumstances must be
incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person and
incapable of explanation upon any other reasonable hypothesis than that of his guilt.20
The facts taken as a whole lead to only one inference, i.e, the accused are guilty.

C. Circumstances are of a conclusive nature

The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. In a case based on
circumstantial evidence the settled law is that the circumstances from which the
conclusion of guilt is drawn, should be fully proved and such circumstances must be
conclusive in nature.21 In the given case, the circumstances pointed out by the
Respondent-prosecution are conclusive in nature.

D. Other hypotheses not reasonably possible

Any other hypothesis except the one to be proved, provided by the Appellants, that is
imaginary and trivial, cannot be the basis of an acquittal. The effort of the criminal
court should not be to prowl for imaginative doubts.22 The circumstances must be

19
State of Uttar Pradesh v Satish, (2005) 3 SCC 114:AIR 2005 SC 1000.
20
Hukam v State, AIR 1977 SC 1063
21
C. Chenga Reddy v State of A.P, (1996) 10 SCC 193
22
State of Rajasthan v. Tej Ram, (1999) 3 SCC 507
6
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
complete and conclusive to be read as an integrated whole and not separately and must
indicate guilt of the accused with certainty.23

E. Chain of circumstances is complete

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.

3. That the Recovery of Crime Articles can Lead to Conviction

Recovery of weapons of offence after a long period of time and even not sending them
for forensic examination does not in any way dilute the evidentiary value of the
prosecution version.

Where the offence weapons, gun and knife, were recovered from the house of the
accused at his instance, medical opinion showed that the recovered knife was stained
with human blood, it cannot be said that the prosecution or the police had planted
these articles in the house of the accused, so as to make a show of discovery of
weapons of offence from him.24

23
Kartik Sahu v State of Orissa, 1994 Cri.L.J. 102 (Ori)
24
Mahesh Gonnade v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2008 SCW 4231
7
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 ISSUE 2

II. WHETHER THE ACCUSED ARE GUILTY AS CHARGED BY THE RESPONDENT-

PROSECUTION

It is humbly contended before this Hon‟ble Court that the accused are guilty of the
offences that they have been convicted under, namely the charges of criminal
conspiracy (1), abetment (2), murder (3), causing disappearance of evidence (4).
Further, the Respondent-Prosecution has sufficiently established the guilt of the
accused beyond all reasonable doubt (5).

1. The Accused are guilty of Criminal Conspiracy

Section 120A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 defines „criminal conspiracy‟. It states
that, “When two or more persons:

A. Agree to do or cause to be done

B. An illegal act; or an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such agreement is
designated a criminal conspiracy”25.

A. Agree to do or cause to be done

i. The essence of the offence of conspiracy
The essence of the offence of conspiracy is the fact of combination by agreement. The
agreement may be express or implied. The conspiracy arises and the offence is
committed as soon as the agreement is made and continues to be committed as long as
the combination persists, that is until the conspirational agreement is terminated by the
completion of its performance or by abandonment or frustration or however it may be.
ii. The actus reus in a conspiracy
The actus reus in a conspiracy is the agreement to execute the illegal conduct, not the
execution of it. It is not enough that one or more persons pursued the same unlawful
object at the same time or in the same place.

25
Quinn v. Leatham,(1901) AC 495, 528
8
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 iii. Meeting of the minds
It is necessary to show a consensus ad idem between all the members party to the
criminal conspiracy i.e. a consensus to the effect of an unlawful purpose. It is not,
however, necessary that each conspirator should have been in communication with
every other.”26

B. The agreement to do an ‘illegal act’

The offence of conspiracy consists in the very agreement between two or more
persons to commit a criminal offence irrespective of further consideration whether or
not the offences have actually been committed. The very fact of the conspiracy
constitutes the offence and it is immaterial whether anything has been done in
pursuance if the unlawful agreement.27 The members of a conspiracy can all be held
guilty of the offence of conspiracy to do illegal acts, though for individual offences all
of them may not be liable.28 It is not necessary that each member of the conspiracy
must know all the details of the conspiracy.29 In the case of assassination of Mr. Rajiv
Gandhi by explosion of human bomb, evidence showed that the accused, thick in
conspiracy bought power battery for the explosion of a human bomb having the
knowledge that the said battery was to be used in the explosion, his conviction for the
offence of conspiracy held sustainable.30

C. A General conspiracy as a sum total of separate conspiracies.

In order to constitute a single general conspiracy there must be a common design and a
common intention of all to work in furtherance of the common design. The steps
adopted by one or two of the conspirators without the knowledge of the others will not
affect the culpability of others when they are associated with the object of the
conspiracy.31 It is not necessary that a person has to be a part of the conspiracy from

26
Halsbury‟s Laws of England, (4th edn.), vol. 11, para 58; p.44.
27
Bimbadhar Pradhan, AIR 1956 SC 469
28
Barsay E G, AIR 1961 SC 1762
29
Dalmia R K v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1962 SC 1821
30
State v. Nalini, 1999 Cri LJ 3124 (SC)
31
Yash Pal Mital, AIR 1977 SC 2433
9
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
start to finish. Conspirators may appear and disappear from stage to stage in the
course of the conspiracy.32

When the ultimate offence consists of a chain of actions, it would not be necessary for
the prosecution to establish, to bring home a charge of conspiracy, that each of the
conspirators had the knowledge of what the collaborator would do, so long as it is
known that the collaborator would put the goods and services to an unlawful use.33

i. The evidence on record is sufficient to prove the offence of criminal

conspiracy
Generally a conspiracy is hatched in secrecy and it may be difficult to adduce direct
evidence of the same. The prosecution places its reliance on circumstantial evidence. It
is, however, essential that the offence of conspiracy required some kind of physical
manifestation of agreement. Express agreement, the actual meeting or the words of
communication need not be proved. According to the definition of criminal conspiracy
two or more persons must be parties to such an agreement and one person alone can
never be held guilty of criminal conspiracy for the simple reason that one cannot
conspire with oneself.34

In the instant case, it is evident that there existed an agreement between the three
accused to commit the murder of Reena Kalra. The parameters of „an agreement to do
an illegal act‟ have been met. The conspiracy in this case have been established by the
chain of circumstantial evidence as mentioned above.

a) Circumstantial Evidence is conclusive in nature

In considering the question criminal conspiracy it is not always possible to give
affirmative evidence about the date of the formation of the conspiracy, about the
persons who took part in the formation of the conspiracy, about the object which the
conspirators set before themselves as the object of the conspiracy was to be carried
out. All this is necessarily a matter of inference. The essence of criminal conspiracy is
an agreement to do an illegal act. Such an agreement can be proved either by direct or

32
Raghubir Singh, AIR 1987 SC 149
33
State v. Som Nath Thapa, AIR 1996 SC 1744
34
Topandas AIR 1956 SC 23
10
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
by circumstantial evidence or by both. It is not necessary that there should be express
proof of the agreement; far from the acts and conduct of the parties the agreement can
be inferred.35 In case of conspiracy, the agreement between the conspirators cannot
generally be directly proved, but only inferred from the established facts of the case.36

In the instant case, the chain of circumstantial evidence point conclusively towards the
existence of a conspiracy between the accused.

b) Relevance of overt acts

Overt Acts may be properly be looked at as evidence of the existence of a concerted
intention and in many cases it is only by means of overt acts that the existence of a
conspiracy can be made out. But the criminality of the conspiracy is independent of
the criminality of the overt act. To prove conspiracy it is not necessary that there
should be direct communication between each conspirer and every other but the
criminal design alleged must be common to all.37 In almost every case conspiracies
have to be inferred from the subsequent conduct of the parties having regard to all the
circumstances of the case.38 In a murder case, accused persons assisting others in
causing disappearance of the dead body by throwing it in a river, in furtherance of
conspiracy between them. Conviction of the accused persons under Sec 201 read with
Sec 120B of the IPC, 1860 was help proper.39

The prosecution humbly contends that the three accused entered into an agreement, to
do an illegal act i.e. the murder of the deceased Reena Kalra, thereby fulfilling both
the ingredients of a criminal conspiracy. From the subsequent conduct of the accused
it becomes evident that the accused had a prior agreement to kill the deceased.

35
Ram Narain AIR 1973 SC 1188
36
Bimbadhar Pradhan AIR 1956 SC 469
37
Kehar Singh AIR 1988 SC 1883
38
Abdul Kadar (1963) 65 Bom LR 864
39
Ram Singh v. State of HP 1997 Cri LJ 1829 (SC)
11
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
2. The Accused are guilty of Abetment

Sec 107 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 enumerates abetment. Abetment is constituted
1) By instigating a person to commit an offence; or
2) By engaging in a conspiracy to commit it; or
3) By intentionally aiding a person to commit it.40

A. Combination and Agreement

“Conspiracy” consists in a combination and agreement by persons to do some illegal
act or to effect a legal purpose by illegal means. So long as such a design rests in
intention only, it is not indictable. When two agree to carry it into effect, the very plot
is an act itself, and the act of each of the parties, promise against promise actus contra
actum, capable of being enforced, if lawful, punishable if for a criminal object or for
the use of criminal means.

ii. Proof lies in inference and circumstantial evidence

a) Inference
And so far as proof goes, conspiracy is generally a matter of inference, deduced from
certain criminal acts of the parties accused, done in pursuance of an apparent criminal
purpose in common between them.41
b) Circumstantial Evidence
Conspiracy is a fact, which even in a criminal case can be inferred from circumstantial
or oral evidence. A conspiracy may be proved by other than oral evidence: by
surrounding circumstances and the conduct of the accused both before and after the
alleged commission of the crime. 42

iii. Abetment by Conspiracy

40
Brij Lal v Prem Chand AIR 1989 SC 1661
41
King v Brisse (1803) 4 East 164, 171
42
Annappa Bharamganda (1907) 9 Bom LR 347
12
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
In order to constitute the offence of abetment by conspiracy, there must be a
combining together of two or more persons in the conspiracy, and an act, or illegal
omission must take place in pursuance of that conspiracy and in order to the doing of
that thing. It is not necessary that the abettor should concert the offence with the
person who commits it. It is sufficient if he engages in the conspiracy in pursuance of
which the offence is committed.43 Where the parties concert together and have a
common object, the act of one of the parties done in furtherance of the common object
and in pursuance of the concerted plan is the act of the whole.44

iv. Abetment by Aid

A person abets by aiding, when by any act done either prior to, or at the time of, the
commission of an act, he intends to facilitate, the commission thereof.45 Intentional
aiding and active complicity is the gist of the offence of abetment under the third
paragraph of Sec 107.46

Abetment may take place at the time or even prior to the commission of the offence if
a person facilitates the commission of such an offence. He can be said to aid the doing
of the act, which takes place.47

In the instant case, the accused Maharani Peterjee is guilty of abetment by conspiracy
and Ramvar Pai is guilty of both abetment by conspiracy and by aid. Their abetment
led to the accused Sujay Tanna murdering the deceased Reena Kalra.

3. The Accused are guilty of Murder

It is humbly contended that the Hon‟ble Sessions Court correctly held the Accused as
guilty of murder of Reena Kalra under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC.
Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC envisages commission of murder by two or

43
Explanation 5 to Sec 108
44
Ameer Khan (1871) 17 WR (Cr) 15 (FB)
45
Shri Ram AIR 1975 SC 175
46
Ibid at 176 (AIR)
47
Malan AIR 1960 Bom 393
13
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
more people in furtherance of a common intention. Section 300 of IPC gives the
definition of murder and enumerates the ingredients of the offence.

A person is guilty of murder if he intentionally causes the death of a person or causes

such bodily injury as he knows, is likely to cause death of that person or causes such
bodily injury, which in the ordinary course of nature results into death or commits an
act so dangerous that it must, in all probability cause death of that person.48

Section 34 contemplates the doing of an act by several persons in furtherance of

common intention. The constructive liability under this section would arise only if two
conditions are fulfilled:

a) There must be common intention to commit the crime; and

b) There must be participation by all the persons in doing such act in furtherance of
that intention.
If these two ingredients are established all the accused would be liable for the said
offence.49
The leading feature of Sec 34 is the element of participation in action.50 It is the
essence of this section that the person must be physically present at the actual
commission of the crime. Criminal sharing, overt or covert, by active presence or by
distant direction, making out a certain measure of jointness in the commission of the
act is the essence of this section.51 In order to convict persons vicariously under Sec 34
it is not necessary to prove that each and every one of the accused had indulged in
overt acts. Even so, there must be material to show that the overt act or acts of one or
more of the accused was or were done in furtherance of the common intention of the
accused.52 A person may be „constructively liable‟ for acts not committed by him by
reason of Sec 34.
The terms actus reus and mens rea come from “Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit
rea”, which literally means “an act does not make a person guilty unless mind is also

48
Section 300, IPC.
49
Gurdatta Mal AIR 1965 SC 257
50
Chikkarange Gowda AIR 1956 SC 731
51
Tukaram Ganpat Pandare AIR 1974 SC 514
52
Rambilas Singh AIR 1989 SC 1593
14
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
guilty”. The „Burden of Proof‟ lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused
beyond reasonable doubt.
The Respondent-Prosecution contends that actus reus(1) and mens rea (2) had been
proven successfully, thus The Accused are guilty of murder of Reena Kalra.

B. Actus reus
Actus reus is any wrongful act53. Thus, in a case of murder, actus reus would be the
physical conduct of the accused that causes death of the victim.
In the instant case, it is contended that the actus reus had been established by way of
Accused 3‟s statement (1), circumstantial evidence (2), and discovery of crime articles
(3).

i. Statement by Accused 3
The Accused 3‟s statement as a whole is inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872, but reliance can be placed on those parts of the statement, which
are corroborated by other evidence. It is contended that in the instant case, parts of the
confessional statement of Accused 3, which have been corroborated by other evidence,
prove the actus reus of the accused.

ii. Circumstantial evidence

It is a well settled principle that where the case is mainly based on circumstantial
evidence, the court must satisfy itself that various circumstances in the chain of
evidence should be established clearly and that the completed chain must be such as to
rule out a reasonable likelihood of the innocence of the accused.54

It is the humble contention of the Respondent that the physical act of murdering Reena
Kalra by strangulating had been established by well linked chain of circumstantial
evidence.

iii. Discovery of Crime Articles.

53
Aiyar, P Ramanathan, The Law Lexicon, p. 49 (2nd ed 2006.)
54
Mohan Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1974 SC 1144
15
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
Recovery of weapons of offence after a long period of time and even not sending them
for forensic examination does not in any way dilute the evidentiary value of the
prosecution version.

It is contended that in the instant case, the murder weapons were recovered after a
period of three years, thereby establishing the link in the chain of circumstantial
evidence to prove the actus reus of the accused.

C. MENS REA
Mens rea is considered as guilty intention55, which is proved or inferred from the acts
of the accused.56 It is submitted that the intention to kill had been established [A] in
light of clear-cut motive of the accused [B]. Arguendo, absence of motive would not
be a sufficient ground to dismiss the case [C].

i. Intention
It is presumed that every sane person intends the result that his action normally
produces and if a person hits another on a vulnerable part of the body, and death
occurs as a result, the intention of the accused can be no other than to take the life of
the victim and the offence committed amounts to murder.57

Moreover, the intention to kill is not required in every case, mere knowledge that
natural and probable consequences of an act would be death will suffice for a
conviction under s. 302 of IPC.58

The intention to kill can be inferred from the murder and nature of the injuries caused
to the victim.59

It is humbly contended by the Respondent that the common intention of The Accused
of murdering The Deceased had been established by establishing a chain of of
circumstantial evidence.

ii. Motive

55
Commissioner of Income Tax v. Patranu Dass Raja Ram Beri, AIR 1982 PH 1, 4.
56
State of Maharashtra v. Meyer Hans George, AIR 1965 SC 722.
57
(1951) 3 Pepsu LR 635.
58
Santosh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1975 Cri LJ 602 (SC).
59
Laxman v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1974 SC 1803.
16
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
Sec 8, Indian Evidence Act stipulates that any fact is relevant which shows or
constitutes motive or preparation for any fact in issue or relevant fact. It is further
pertinent to note that if there is motive in doing an act, then the adequacy of that
motive is not in all cases necessary. Heinous offences have been committed for very
slight motive.60

The Supreme Court has held that mens rea is an essential ingredient of a criminal
offence.61 In a criminal court one often wants to test the alleged guilty mind by seeing
what was the motive of the alleged criminal in doing the particular act. It is not
essential under IPC for prosecution to establish motive. But as a matter of common
sense, this is usually of importance, because an average man does not commit a
criminal offence unless he has a strong motive for doing it.62 The absence of proof of
motive has this effect only, that the other evidence bearing guilt of the accused has to
be very closely examined.63 The motive behind the crime is a very relevant fact of
which evidence can be given. The absence of motive is also a circumstance which is
relevant for assessing the evidence. The circumstances which prove the guilt of the
accused are, however, not weakened by the fact that motive has not been established.64
Where the positive evidence against the accused is clear, cogent and reliable, the
question of motive is of no importance.65

It is the humbly contended that Accused 1‟s jealousy and sour relations, which had
been established by way of circumstantial evidence, constitute the motive for the
offence.

iii. Arguendo, Absence of Motive

Assuming for the sake of argument that the accused had no motive, it is humbly
contended that absence of motive is no ground for dismissing the case. Motive is
immaterial so far as the offence is concerned, and need not be established66 as the

60
State v. Dinakar Bandu (1969) 72 Bom LR 905.
61
Nathulal AIR 1966 SC 43.
62
Shamdasini P D AIR 1929 Bom 443.
63
Atley AIR 1955 SC 80.
64
Rajinder Kumar AIR 1966 SC 1322.
65
Gurcharan Singh AIR 1956 SC 460.
66
RATANLAL AND DHIRAJLAL, The Indian Penal Code, (26th ed., 2007).
17
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 mere existence of motive is by itself, not an incriminating circumstance and cannot
take the place of a proof.67

Therefore, absence of proof of motive, does not break the link in the chain of
circumstances connecting the accused with the crime, nor militates against the
prosecution case and is not fatal as a matter of law.68 When the circumstantial
evidence on record is sufficient to prove beyond any doubt to prove that it was the
accused and no one else, who intentionally caused the death of the accused then,
motive of the crime need not be proved.69

The mere missing link of non-establishment of clear motive of accused 2 and accused
3 is immaterial and is not a ground for dismissing the case, in light of the well-
established motive of Accused 1 to commit the murder.

Therefore, it is humbly submitted before this Hon‟ble Court that The Accused were
correctly held guilty for the offence of murder, given that the requisite mens rea and
actus reus had been established by the Prosecution from the facts of the case, beyond a
reasonable doubt.

4. The Accused are guilty of Causing Disappearance of Evidence

S.201, IPC relates to the disappearance of any evidence of the commission of an

offence and includes also the giving of false information with the intention of
screening an offender.

To bring home a charge under s.201, IPC, the prosecution must prove:
1. That an offence has been committed.
2. That the accused knew or had reason to believe the commission of such an offence.
3. That with such knowledge or belief he
a) Caused any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, or
b) Gave any information relating to that offence which he then knew or believed to be
false.

67
State of Punjab v Sucha Singh, AIR 2003 SC 1471.
68
Mulakh Raj v. Satish Kumar, AIR 1992 SC 1175
69
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Digvijay Singh, 1981 Cri. LJ 1278 (SC).
18
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
4. That he did so as aforesaid with the intention of screening the offender from legal
punishment.
5. If the charge be of an aggravated form, it must be further proved that the offence in
respect of which the accused did as in 3. And 4. Supra, was punishable with death
or imprisonment for life or imprisonment extending to ten years.70

It must be proved that an offence, the evidence of which the accused is charged with
causing to disappear, has actually been committed, 71 and that the accused knew, or
had the information sufficient to lead him to believe, that the offence had been
committed. 72

Mere suspicion would not be sufficient. There must be available on record cogent
evidence that the accused has caused the evidence to disappear in order to screen
another known or unknown. The foremost necessity being that the accused must have
the knowledge or must have the reason to believe that such an offence has been
committed.73

The intention to screen the offender must be the primary and sole object of the
accused. The fact that the concealment was likely to have that effect is not sufficient.74

It is humbly contended that the offence under this section is proved by appreciation of
Accused 3‟s statement (A) and circumstantial evidence (B).

A. Accused 3’s statement.

The Accused 3‟s statement as a whole is inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872, but reliance can be placed on those parts of the statement which
are corroborated by other evidence. It is contended that in the instant case, parts of the
confessional statement of Accused 3 which have been corroborated by other evidence
prove that The Accused had knowledge of the offence and burnt the body of the
deceased to screen their offence, thus fulfilling the ingredients of the offence under
S.201, IPC.

70
K. Purnachandra Rao, 1975 Cri.L.J. 1671.
71
Abdul Kadir, (1880) 3 All 279 (FB).
72
Matuki Misser, (1885) 11 Cal 619.
73
Tresa V L, (2001) 3 SCC 549.
74
Jamnadas, (1963) 1 Cri LJ 433.
19
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
B. Circumstantial Evidence
It is contended that the well-established chain of circumstantial evidence is enough to
prove that the accused burnt the body to cause evidence of the main offence to
disappear, with an intention of screening them from legal punishment.

5. THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED BEYOND

ALL REASONABLE DOUBT
The criminal jurisprudence as has developed in the basis of the British model is that
the offence alleged is required to be proved „beyond all reasonable doubt”. What is to
be noted is that the doubt, which is required to be removed, is of a reasonable man and
not every kind of doubt based on surmise or guess. “Reasonable doubt”, therefore,
does not mean a vague, speculative or whimsical doubt or uncertainty, nor a mere
„possible doubt of the truth of the fact to be proved. It also does not mean proof of a
mathematical certainty nor proof beyond the possibility of a mistake. The requirement
in criminal cases, of proof “beyond reasonable doubt” to support conviction, therefore
does not mean proof beyond all possible doubts. 75
Doubts would be called reasonable if they are free from a zest fro abstract speculation.
Law cannot afford any favorite other than the truth. To constitute reasonable doubt, it
must be free from an over emotional response. Doubts must be actual and substantial
doubts as to the guilt of the accused person arising from the evidence or from the lack
of it, as opposed to mere vague apprehension. A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary,
trivial or a merely possible doubt, but a fair doubt based upon reason and
commonsense.76
Exaggerated devotion to the rule of benefit of doubt must not nurture fanciful doubts
or lingering suspicions and thereby destroy social defense. Justice cannot be made
sterile on the plea that it is better to let hundred guilty escape than punish an innocent.
Letting the guilty escape is not justice, according to law.77

75
State of MP v. Rammi, 1999 (1) JLJ 49 (MP).
76
State of MP v. Dharkale, AIR 2005 SC 44.
77
State of WB v. Orilal Jaiswal, AIR 1994 SC 1418.
20
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
_____________________________________________________________________

PRAYER

Wherefore, in light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, may
this Hon„ble Court be pleased to:

1. Declare and adjudge that all three accused are guilty of murdering Reena
Kalra.

2. Uphold the conviction of the Hon’ble Sessions Court.

AND/OR

Pass any other order, as it deems fit, in light of justice, equity and good conscience.

All of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted

Place: Mumbai S/d_____________

Date: January 23rd, 2016 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

XII
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS