A.K.

K NEW LAW ACADEMY CLASSROOM

MOOT COURT 2020-2021

Before The Honourable Supreme Court Of IIndiva

Under Article 136 Of The Constitution Of Indiva

In The Matter Of

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

V.

ANTHONY LAZAROUS........................DEFENSE

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENSE

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

INDEX OF ABREVATIONS.........

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES..........

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION.............

STATEMENT OF FACTS ...............

STATEMENT OF ISSUES...............

SUMMARY OF ARGUEMENTS.......

ARGUEMENTS ADVANCED.........

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?

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

State of U.P. AIR 1974 SC 1552

State v. Sanjay Gandhi AIR 1978 SC 961

4Rishikesh v. State AIR 1970 ALL

51(FB)

5Hari Krishnan and Anr. v. Sukhbir Singh and Ors 1988 AIR
2127

6Haribhajan v. State AIR 1969 SC 97

7Bhagwanji Appaji v. Kedari Kashinath (1900) ILR 24

Bom202

8Ankeri v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1994 SC 842

9 State of Rajasthan v. Dhool Singh AIR 2004 SC

1264
 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
[1 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 eye
witnesses 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 the
accused.
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 eye witnesses 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 hisstatement.
 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 ARGUEMENTS
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 SC715

it was held that where grave and substantial injustice has been
done or violation of principles of natural injustice is done.

2.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.

3.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.

4.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, his
wife gave birth to a baby.

5.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 to

testimonial 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 case

beyond reasonable doubt."

3.5.1 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