COMMON INDUCTION MOOT 2020, CAMPUS LAW CENTRE

IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS AT MINGHAM

State of Mingham
v.
Tommy Murphy

State of Mingham ………...………………………...………………………..……… Prosecution

Tommy Murphy …………………………………..………………………………….. Defendant

MEMORIAL FOR DEFENDANT

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT
 -Defendant-
-

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ......................................................................................................................... 2

2. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION.............................................................................................................. 4

3. STATEMENT OF FACTS........................................................................................................................... 5

4. STATEMENT OF ISSUES........................................................................................................................... 7
I. WHETHER THERE IS A RIGHT OF PRIVATE DEFENCE AVAILABLE TO THE DEFENDANT?
II. WHETHER THE TESTIMONY OF THE CHILD WAS TAKEN IN A CORRECT MANNER AND IN
ACCORDANCE TO PROCEDURE ESTABLISHED BY LAW?

5. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS................................................................................................................... 8

6. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED....................................................................................................................................................................................9

7. PRAYER .................................................................................................................................................... 18

1
 -Defendant-
-

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATUTES

1. The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860)

2. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act 2 of 1973)

3. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Act 18 of 1872)

4. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, (Act 2 of 2015)

COMMENTARIES

1. Gaur, KD, Criminal Law: Cases and Materials, (9th Ed., 2019)

2. Gupte and Dighe, Criminal Manual, (7th Ed., 2007)

3. Kelkar, R.V. Criminal Procedure, (5th Ed., 2011)

4. Lal, Batuk, The Law of Evidence, (18th Ed., 2010)

5. Sarkar, Laws of Evidence, (19th Ed., 2016)

6. S.Nalwa & H.D.Kohli, Commentary on The Juvenile Justice Act, (2nd Ed., 2016)

7. Tyagi, Surendra Prakash, Criminal Trial (2nd Ed., 1996)

CASES CITED

1. Mahandi v. Emperor (193031Criminal Law Journal 654, Lahore)

2. Alingal Kunhinayan & Another v. Emperor Indian Law Reports (28Madras454)

3. Ranganadham Perayya, In re (1957 1 Andhra Weekly Reports 181)

4. Puran Singh & Others v.The State of Punjab (1975) 4 SCC 518

5. Vidhya Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1971) 3 SCC 244

6. Buta Singh v. State of Punjab (1991) 2 SCC 612

7. Dharam And Ors. v. State of Haryana, (2007) 15 SCC 241

2
 -Defendant-
-
8. Bhagwan Swaroop v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1992) 2 SCC 406

9. Robert B. Brown v. United States of America (1921) 256 US 335

10. State of Orissa v. Rabindranath Dalai & Another 1973 CrlLJ 1686 (Orissa)

11. James Martin v. State of Kerala (2004) 2 SCC 203

12. Munshi Ram v. Delhi Admn AIR 1968 SC 702

13. State of Gujarat v. Bai Fatima 1975 2 SCC 7

14. Salim Zia v. State of UP 1979 2 SCC 648

15. State of Orissa v. Nirupama Panda, 1989 CrLJ 621 (Ori)

16. Indu Kumari Pathak v. S.K.Pathak, (1983) 2 DMC 64 (Raj)

17. Digamber Vaishnav v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2019) 4 SCC 522

18. Alagupandi @ Alagupandian v. State of Tamil Nadu [2012(5) SCALE 595]

19. Panchhi and others v. State of UP, (1998) 7 SCC 177

20. State of U.P. v. Ashok Dixit and another, (2000) 3 SCC 70

21. State of Rajasthan v. Om Prakash, (2002) 5 SCC 745

22. Rajendra Singh vs. State of U.P, (2007) 7 SCC 378

23. Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh (1973) 2 SCC 808

WEBSITES

1. http://www.manupatra.co.in/AdvancedLegalSearch.aspx

2. http://www.scconline.com

3
 -Defendant-
-
STATEMENT OF J URISDICTION

The Hon’ble Court has jurisdiction to try the instant case under Section 177 read with Section 209
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Section 177 states:

177. Ordinary place of inquiry and trial:

Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired inland tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction
it was committed.

Section 209 states:

209. Commitment of case to Court of Session when offence is triable exclusively by it:

When in a case instituted on a police report or otherwise, the accused appears or is brought before
the Magistrate and it appears to the Magistrate that the offence is triable exclusively by the Court
of Session, he shall—

a. commit, after complying with the provisions of section 207 or section 208, as the case may be,
the case to the Court of Session, and subject to the provisions of this Code relating to bail,
remand the accused to custody until such commitment has been made;

b. subject to the provisions of this Code relating to bail, remand the accused to custody during,
and until the conclusion of, the trial;

c. send to that Court the record of the case and the documents and articles, if any, which are to
be produced in evidence;

d. notify the Public Prosecutor of the commitment of the case to the Court of Session.

The defendant(s) thus submit to the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.

4
 -Defendant-
-

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Indusland is a country which lies in Southern Asia, Mingham is a highly populated city of

Indusland. Its past is marred with instances of religious conflicts between two groups,
Shelbys and Sabinis. This hostility has led to several hein ous crimes being committed
against the Shelby people.

2. "Heath" is the main city center of Mingham which is not only a prime marketplace but also

a witness of these riots as well. Tommy Murphy, who belongs to the Shelby religion, owns
a famous cloth shop in the main market of "Heath", the same shop has an adjoining
residential structure, in which Tommy Murphy and his family reside. He lives with his
daughter Ruby, and son Charlie Murphy (11 years old).

3. Tommy Murphy is a highly respected man among people for h is progressive work and

views on downtrodden, women empowerment, non-discrimination between religious

groups, equality and fraternity of people.

4. Amongst the Sabini people, Oswald Mosley is an influential political leader and a well-

placed candidate to win the upcoming elections in 2021, his campaigning is all about
infusing hostility between the Shelbys and Sabinis and he hopes to reap benefit from this
rift.

5. In the past, Mr. Mosley has been rumored to be involved in several religiously motivated
crimes against the Shelbys, but has been successful in dodging from the police owing to his
higher connections. ‘Sabini Liberal Party’ (SLP) which is tainted with accusations of
hooliganism, riots, crimes in the name of religion, and especially crimes against women.

6. Owing to his progressive views, on 29th June, 2020, Mr. Murphy was invited by the

Principal of The Imperial College of Law for a speech, where he not only criticized "SLP"
but also criticized Oswald Mosley for the careless attitude in the matter of grave concerns.
Mr. Mosley was outraged by this incident when he got to know about this from various
sources including the newspaper.

5
 -Defendant-
-
7. On the afternoon of 30th June 2020, Oswald Mosley along with Freddie Thorne (an SLP

member) and a police officer Chester Campbell (not in police uniform at that time) went to
confront Tommy Murphy in his shop regarding his speech. Later he was infuriated to know
that Mr. Murphy is contesting against him in the upcoming elections.

8. At 8:30 P.M. On 1st July 2020, the "Heath's" local police station received a call from a man

who ran a shop right in front of the shop of Tommy Murphy. The call was regarding a
shooting incident that took place in the residential building adjoining the cloth shop of
Tommy Murphy.

9. Police arrived at the crime scene and found a ravaged shop; Inspector Chester Campbell

did not make any arrest but took Charlie Murphy (Son of Tommy Murphy) to the police
station to take his statement.

10. Emphasis has been put on statements of three witnesses and going by them, the men who

attacked were Oswald Mosley and Freddie Throne with "SLP" members armed with lathis
and baseball bat, entered and started breaking the shop. Oswald and Freddie were drunk
and threatened to rape the daughter, Ruby and hearing this Mr. Murphy came ou t of hiding
and shot them both in private defence. In Annexure 2 (Charlie's statement) it has been stated
he heard the word "jaane de" being uttered by Oswald, which he denied later in the trial.

6
 -Defendant-
-
STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1. Whether there is a right of private defence available to the defendant?

2. Whether the testimony of the child was taken in a correct manner and in
accordance to procedure established by law?

7
 -Defendant-
-

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. There is a right to private defence available to the defendant.

It is humbly submitted before this Hon'ble Court that the accused is not guilty of murder as
the alleged crime which he had committed was well within his right of private defence
under section 100, firstly, secondly and thirdly read with section 97 of IPC. The act was
committed in defence of his children as they were under serious apprehension s of murder,
grievous hurt and rape by the aggressors. Hence the crime of murder cannot stand against
the accused.

2. The testimony of the child was not taken in a correct manner and was not in
accordance to procedure established by law.

It is humbly submitted before this Hon'ble Court that the manner in which investigation of
Charlie (son of Mr. Murphy) has been conducted is not in accordance with the procedure
established by law. Furthermore, it has also been submitted that the statement of Charlie
needs corroboration as it doesn't fit in chain of events, due to the tender and fragile nature
of the children corroboration of their evidences is a necessity.

8
 -Defendant-

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE 1

1. There is a right to private defence available to the defendant.

1.1. Factors which gives rise to the necessity to practice right of private defence.

Law of Indusland has been clear on the right of private defence and it has been
stated in large number of cases that law does not require a citizen, however law-
abiding he may be, to behave like a rank coward on any occasion.This principle has
been enunciated in Mahandi v. Emperor;1 Alingal Kunhinayan & Another v.
Emperor2 & Ranganadham Perayya.3 The facet of its necessity, that is on what need
it becomes imperative to practice this right, in this case it can be noted and as stated
by all the witnesses in their statements which are submitted as Annexures 1,4 2 5 and
3 6 that aggressors were the ones who created a hostile situation by forced entry &
use of force, which gave rise to imminent danger. As stated by Apex Court of
Indusland in Puran Singh & Others v. The State of Punjab,7 the right of private
defence can be exercised when:

i) There is no sufficient time for recourse to the public authorities.

ii) There must be a reasonable apprehension of death or grievous hurt to the person
or danger to the property concerned.

As it is clear by abovementioned facts that there were no time to approach the

authorities, as the aggressors were in the bedroom, after doing severe damage to the
shop.8 Several dangers were hanging on the the heads of defendant and his family,
from which most potent one was danger of rape as stated in Annexure 1 9 (where

1
Mahandi v. Emperor (1930 31 Criminal Law Journal 654, Lahore)
2
Alingal Kunhinayan & Another v. Emperor Indian Law Reports (28 Madras 454)
3
Ranganadham Perayya, In re (1957 1 Andhra Weekly Reports 181)
4
Annexure 1, Page 6, Moot Proposition
5
Annexure 2, Page 7, Moot Proposition
6
Annexure 3, Page 8, Moot Proposition
7
Puran Singh & Others v. The State of Punjab (1975) 4 SCC 518
8
Paragraph 10, page 3, Moot Proposition
9
Supra, Note 6

9
 -Defendant-

there crooked track record 10 has been stated by Arthur) & 3 11 which is a viable
ground of defence under section 100, thirdly of the Indian Penal Code,1860 ,12 which
reads hereunder:

100. When the right of private defence of the body extends to causing death. —
The right of private defence of the body extends, under the restrictions mentioned
in the last preceding section, to the voluntary causing of death or of any other harm
to the assailant, if the offence which occasions the exercise of the right be of any of
the descriptions hereinafter enumerated, namely:—

(Thirdly) — An assault with the intention of committing rape.

1.2. Conditions and proportion while exercising the right of private defence.

Now comes the most important portion of that in which manner and in what
proportion should it be administered, for the purpose of the same it would like to
draw attention towards catena of observations and judgements of the Supreme Court
of Indusland. In Vidhya Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh,13 apex court observed
that "the right of self-defence is a very valuable right, serving a social purpose and
should not be construed narrowly. Situations have to be judged from the subjective
point of view of the accused concerned in the surrounding excitement and confusion
of the moment, confronted with a situation of peril and not by any microscopic and
pedantic scrutiny. In adjudging the question as to whether more force than was
necessary was used in the prevailing circumstances on the spot it would be
inappropriate, as held by this court, to adopt tests by detached objectivity which
would be so natural in a court room, or that which would seem absolutely necessary
to a perfectly cool bystander. The person facing a reasonable apprehension of threat
to himself cannot be expected to modulate his defence step by step with any
arithmetical exactitude of only that much which is required in the thinking of a man
in ordinary times or under normal circumstances".

In Buta Singh v. The State of Punjab,14 Supreme Court noted that a person who is

10
Paragraph 5, Page 2, Moot Proposition
11
Supra, Note 8
12
Section 100, Indian Penal Code (Act 45 of 1860)
13
Vidhya Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1971) 3 SCC 244
14
Buta Singh v State of Punjab (1991) 2 SCC 612

10
 -Defendant-

apprehending death or bodily injury cannot weigh in golden scales in the spur of
moment and in the heat of circumstances, the number of injuries required to disarm
the assailants who were armed with weapons. In moments of excitement and
disturbed mental equilibrium it is often difficult to expect the parties to preserve
composure and use exactly only so much force in retaliation commensurate with
the danger apprehended to him where assault is imminent by use of force, it would
be lawful to repel the force in self-defence and the right of private defence
commences, as soon as the threat becomes so imminent.

Similarly, in Dharam And Ors. vs. State of Haryana,15 Apex Court of Indusland
stated that,

"We may, however, hasten to add that the means and the force a threatened person
adopts at the spur of the moment to ward off the danger and to save himself or his
property cannot be weighed in golden scales. It is neither possible nor prudent to
lay down abstract parameters which can be applied to determine as to whether the
means and force adopted by the threatened person was proper or not". It is
impossible to lay a strait-jacketed formula for measuring the apprehension, and that
impossibility multiplies when it comes to the prudence and modulated behavior
under such apprehended danger. Same can be seen in this case as when there is a
threat followed by not only apprehension of rape but also backed by advance 16
towards the heinous crime which is defined under section 375 of Indian Penal
Code.17 No father can see or bear such thing, and the father here was such for whom
women, and their rights was one of the dear purposes18. He must have been already
under a lot of stress just by thinking about Sabinis past crimes which he must have
been discussed with his helper, Arthur,19 which has been implied under annexure.
Such circumstances and hostile situation must have been doubled by knowing about
the lathis and baseball bat and it must have added fuel to the fire of stress and
anxiety. As it has been established by Supreme Court of Indusland in Bhagwan
Swaroop v. State of Madhya Pradesh,20 a lathi is capable of causing a simple as well

15
Dharam And Ors. vs. State of Haryana, (2007) 15 SCC 241
16
Supra, Note 8
17
Section 375, Indian Penal Code, (Act 45 of 1860)
18
Paragraph 3, Page 1, Moot Proposition
19
Supra, Note 6
20
Bhagwan Swaroop v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1992) 2 SCC 406

11
 -Defendant-

as a fatal injury.

Aforementioned facts raise many serious apprehensions, that is of death and

grievous hurt, death because proportion and impact of blow from these objects on
a 11-year boy will be much more as compared to a normal grown up and leading of
the same to death is a potent probable possibility. Both of which (murder and
grievous hurt) are covered under right of private defence available to them under
section 100, firstly and secondly respectively of IPC 21. So, under so much trauma
and pressure, as seen in an American case Robert B. Brown v. United States of
America.22 Justice Holmes in the aforementioned case aptly observed "detached
reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife". According to
the aforementioned mental condition which is not merely fictional but is real and
apparent, Mr. Murphy has acted rightly and practiced his right to private defence
correctly.

1.3. Right to private defence in case of criminal trespass; burden and scope of proof
of right to private defence.

Section 96 of I.P.C. 23 defines private defence, section 97, secondly of I.P.C. 24 gives
right to practice this defence under this code in case of criminal trespass of property
which certainly happened in this case. A Full Bench of the Orissa High Court in
State of Orissa v. Rabindranath Dalai & Another25 summarized the legal position
with respect to defence of person and property thus: In a civilized society the
defence of person and property of every member thereof is the responsibility of the
State. Consequently, there is a duty cast on every person faced with apprehension
of imminent danger of his person or property to seek the aid of the machinery
provided by the State but if immediately such aid is not available, he has the right
of private defence. This may not the main factor but certainly one of the driving
factors.

Though the accused has to satisfy the court vide section 105 of Indian Evidence

21
Supra, Note 14
22
Robert B. Brown v. United States of America (1921) 256 US 335
23
Section 96, Indian Penal Code, (Act 45 of 1860)
24
Section 97, Indian Penal Code, (Act 45 of 1860)
25
State of Orissa v. Rabindranath Dalai & Another 1973 Crl LJ 1686 (Orissa)

12
 -Defendant-

Act, 1872 26 but as stated in James Martin v. State of Kerala,27 Supreme Court stated
that the principle that the accused need not prove the existence of the right of private
defence beyond reasonable doubt. It is enough for him to sho w as in a civil case
that the preponderance of probabilities is in favour of his plea. Supreme Court has
also observed that it is trite that the burden of establishing the plea of self -defence
is on the accused but it is not as onerous as the one that lies on the prosecution.
While the prosecution is required to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the
accused need not establish the plea of self-defence to the hilt and may discharge the
wonus by showing preponderance of probabilities in favour of that plea on the basis
of the material on record, Munshi Ram v. Delhi Admn.,28 State of Gujarat v. Bai
Fatima 29 and Salim Zia v. State of U.P.30

Courts of the country has granted right to private defence extending to the
aggressor's death in apprehension of rape in the cases of State of Orissa v. Nirupama
Panda,31 Indu Kumari Pathak v. S. K. Pathak,32 on that note I would like to conclude
with the words of Jeremy Bentham "It is a noble movement of the heart, that
indignation which kindles at the sight of the feeble injured by the strong. It is noble
movement which makes us forget our danger at the first cry of distress….. It
concerns the public safety that every honest man should consider himself as the
natural protector of every other".

26
Section 105, Indian Evidence Act, (Act 18 of 1872)
27
James Martin v. State of Kerala (2004) 2 SCC 203
28
Munshi Ram v. Delhi Admn AIR 1968 SC 702
29
State of Gujarat v. Bai Fatima 1975 2 SCC 7
30
Salim Zia v. State of U.P 1979 2 SCC 648.
31
State of Orissa v. Nirupama Panda, 1989 CrLJ 621 (Ori)
32
Indu Kumari Pathak v. S. K. Pathak, (1983) 2 DMC 64 (Raj)

13
 -Defendant-

ISSUE 2

2. The testimony of the child was not taken in a correct manner and was not in
accordance to procedure established by law.

2.1 Procedure and manner in which testimony of child was taken.

Charlie who was 11 years old 33 after witnessing trauma inflicted on him by recent
dangerous events of attack 34 he was taken to police station by the inspector Chester
Campbell35 This very incident of him being taken to police station is against the
procedure established by law and a flagrant violation of it, as section 160 (1) of
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 36 reads hereunder:

160. Police officer' s power to require attendance of witnesses.

(1) Any police officer, making an investigation under this Chapter may, by order in
writing, require the attendance before himself of any person being within the limits
of his own or any adjoining station who, from the information given or otherwise,
appears to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case; and such
person shall attend as so required: Provided that no male person under the age of
fifteen years or woman shall be required to attend at any place other than the place
in which such male person or woman resides.

It is clear by looking at the section that a child below the age of 15 is not comfortable
within the premises of the station, that is why his testimony should be taken where
he resides, where he is comfortable. Not only that legislators of this nation are fully
aware of the fragile nature of the children that is why they have envisaged in
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 37 in the Acts very
preamble, it says that:

A child-friendly approach in the adjudication and disposal of matters in the best

interest of children must be adhered to.

33
Moot Proposition, page 1, paragraph 3
34
Supra, Note 5
35
Paragraph 11, Page 4, Moot Proposition
36
Section 160, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Act 2 of 1973)
37
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, (Act 2 of 2015)

14
 -Defendant-

In section 107 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 38
it is stated:

Section 107 (1) In every police station, at least one officer, not below the rank of
assistant sub-inspector, with aptitude, appropriate training and orientation may be
designated as the child welfare police officer to exclusively deal with children either
as victims or perpetrators, in co-ordination with the police, voluntary and non-
governmental organizations.

(2) To co-ordinate all functions of police related to children, the State Government
shall constitute Special Juvenile Police Units in each district and city, headed by a
police officer not below the rank of a Deputy Superintendent of Police or above and
consisting of all police officers designated under sub-section (1) and two social
workers having experience of working in the field of child welfare, of whom one
shall be a woman.

(3) All police officers of the Special Juvenile Police Units shall be provided special
training, especially at induction as child welfare police officer, to enable them to
perform their functions more effectively.

Though the act produced here is regarding children who are either victims or
perpetrators but the legislative intent of the act is to care and protect children from
the ill-will of society. Child witness of such gruesome act is no less than a victim,
so Charlie was ought to be taken with utmost care while his statement was being
recorded, here the officer Inspector Campbell failed to follow the procedure.

2.2 Credibility of child witness.

In cases of child witnesses a corroboration is a vital requisite and must be presented,

not because they are incompetent but because of the tenderness of their age. As
stated by Apex Court of Indusland in Digamber Vaishnav v. State of Chhattisgarh 39
and in Alagupandi @ Alagupandian v. State of Tamil Nadu 40 that evidence of the
child witness and its credibility could depend upon the facts and circumstances of

38
ibid
39
Digamber Vaishnav v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2019) 4 SCC 522
40
Alagupandi @ Alagupandian v. State of Tamil Nadu [2012 (5) SCALE 595]

15
 -Defendant-

each case. There is no rule of practice that in every case the evidence of a child
witness has to be corroborated by other evidence before a conviction can be allowed
to stand but as a prudence, the court always finds it desirable to seek corroboration
to such evidence from other reliable evidence placed on record. Only precaution
which the court has to bear in mind while assessing the evidence of a child witness
is that witness must be a reliable one.

Reasoning behind this has also been stated by the Supreme Court of Indusland in
Panchhi and others v. State of U.P,41 State of U.P. v. Ashok Dixit and another42 and
State of Rajasthan v. Om Prakash 43 this Court has consistently held that evidence
of a child witness must be evaluated carefully as the child may be swayed by what
others tell him and he is an easy prey to tutoring. Therefore, the evidence of a child
witness must find adequate corroboration before it can be relied upon. It is more a
rule of practical wisdom than law. Position gets more clarity when it is referred to
evidence act, as section 118 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 44 states that:

S.118. Who may testify. —All persons shall be competent to testify unless the Court
considers that they are prevented from understanding the questions put to them, or
from giving rational answers to those questions, by tender years, extreme old age,
disease, whether of body or mind, or any other cause of the same kind.

Children's testimony needs corroboration because of their tender age as

aforementioned, moreover it has been stated by Supreme Court of Indusland in
Rajendra Singh vs. State of U.P,45 that, "A statement under Section 161 Cr. P. C is
not a substantive piece of evidence". Here recording of statement has been done
under section 161 Cr.P.C. 46 for that matter also a chain of events must be established
beyond reasonable doubt. Here Mr. Murphy's act as denoted by his son Charlie in
his statement is in question, because other two statements by the elders doesn't state
the fact that Mr. Mosley said "Jaane de" (leave it) or heard Mr. Murphy saying
“Mere baccho ko haath lagayega?”(You dare to touch my children?).47 The fact that

41
Panchhi and others v. State of U.P, (1998) 7 SCC 177
42
State of U.P. v. Ashok Dixit and another, (2000) 3 SCC 70
43
State of Rajasthan v. Om Prakash, (2002) 5 SCC 745
44
Section 118, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, (Act 18 of 1872)
45
Rajendra Singh vs. State of U.P, (2007) 7 SCC 378
46
Section 161, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, (Act 2 of 1973)
47
Supra, Note 5

16
 -Defendant-

listening to "Jaane de" (leave it) was denied by Charlie48 when called for
examination by counsel for the prosecution in Court, clears out that the statement
in question is not corroborating with other evidences. It cannot be ignored that Mr.
Chester Campbell, the inspector was with Mr. Mosley and other SLP members a
day before the shooting had taken place49, when all of them went and confronted
Mr. Murphy. Mr Mosley's was well known for his high connections.50 maybe Mr.
Campbell is one of them as envisaged, Mr. Murphy has also raised suspicion on the
process of investigation.51

Charlie's statement and its non-corroborative nature, his denial of a part regarding
the statement in his testimony; suspicious role of inspector Campbell considering
the manner and outcome of Charlie's testimony raises question of grave importance
as a life is at stake. Based upon facts stated above right to private defence becomes
a potent defence and as said by Honourable Supreme Court of Indusland in Kali
Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh52has stated:

"It is also well-settled principle that in criminal cases, if two views are possible on
evidence adduced in the case, one binding to the guilt of the accused and the other
is to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused, should be adopted".

48
Paragraph 16, Page 4, Moot Proposition
49
Paragraph 8, Page 3, Moot Proposition
50
Supra, Note 10
51
Paragraph 14, Page 4, Moot Proposition
52
Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (1973) 2 SCC 808

17
 -Defendant-

PRAYER

Wherefore, in the light of issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is most
humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to:

Declare the Defendant to be acquitted on all charges as pressed by the Prosecution.

AND/OR

Pass any other order, direction or relief that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the interest of
justice, equity and good conscience.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, DEFENDANT AS IS DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER
PRAY.

All of which is humbly prayed,

Counsel for the DEFENDANT

18