SONOPANT DANDEKAR SHIKHAN MANDALI LAW COLLEGE PALGHAR

IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI

M.P. NO_______

TEAM CODE: - A10

IN THE MATTER OF

DR RAJESH SHARMA PETTIORNER

V/s

MR. RAVINDRA JATAV RESPONDENT

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF REPONDENT

PREETAM JOSHI

1
 SONOPANT DANDEKAR SHIKHAN MANDALI LAW COLLEGE PALGHAR

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PARTICULARS PAGE NO
LIST OF ABBREVATION
INDEX OF AUTHORITES
STATEMENTS OF JURISDICATION
STATEMENTS OF FACTS
STATEMENT OF ISSUSES
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
ARGUMENT IN ADVANCED

PRAYER

2
 SONOPANT DANDEKAR SHIKHAN MANDALI LAW COLLEGE PALGHAR

LIST OF ABBREVATION

AIR All India Reporter

Art Article
& And
Cr. Criminal
Dr Doctor
Govt. Government
No. Number
Hon’ble Honourable
IPC Indian Penal Code
i.e That is
u/s Under section
SCC Supreme Court Cases
SC Supreme Court
PW Prosecution Witness
MP Madhya Pradesh
T.T.E. Travelling Ticket Examiner
www World wide web

3
SONOPANT DANDEKAR SHIKHAN MANDALI LAW COLLEGE PALGHAR

4
 SONOPANT DANDEKAR SHIKHAN MANDALI LAW COLLEGE PALGHAR

STATEMENT OF JUSRISDICATION

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
of India has been invoked under Section 3741
of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 by the
Appellant against the order of conviction
passed by the Hon’ble High Court. It is
humbly submitted that the Hon’ble Court has
jurisdiction over the matter.
The jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has been invoked under Section 3741 of
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 by the Appellant against the order of conviction passed by the
Hon’ble High Court. It is humbly submitted that the Hon’ble Court has jurisdiction over the
matter.

1 374. Appeals from convictions

5
. (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 for more than seven years
2 has been passed against him or against any other person convicted at the same trial], may
appeal to the High Court.
(3) Save as 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 360
by any Magistrate, may appeal to the Court of Session

6
 SONOPANT DANDEKAR SHIKHAN MANDALI LAW COLLEGE PALGHAR

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Dr. Rajesh Sharma (hereinafter "Dr. Sharma") is a Cardiac Surgeon, residing with his two
daughters (Namely Neha and Shweta) along with his wife Mrs. Neeta Sharma in Satkar
Residency, Vivekanand Nagar, Indore (Madhya Pradesh). Dr. Rajesh has been practicing
in Indore from last 25 Years. Dr. Sharma had cordial relations within his locality. He was
known for his charity and often renders free Medical Aid to poor and needy people
whenever required.

2. Dr. Sharma's daughters namely Neha, aged 20 years was pursuing her first year MBBS in
Government Medical College Indore and Shweta aged 18 years was pursuing her
intermediate in Dayanand College of Arts & Science, Indore.

3. Within the same locality, Mr. Ravindra Jatav (hereinafter “Mr. Jatav") and his wife
Nilima Jatav along with his Son Rajendra aged 25 years, who was working as Assistant
Manager in Galaxy Pharmaceuticals, used to stay. Both Dr. Sharma and Mr. Jatav had a
very good family relation. These two families used to frequently visit each other's
residence on various occasions.

4. During these meetings, Rajendra became friendly with Neha, the eldest daughter of Dr.
Sharma, and soon this friendship transformed into love. Both of them use to frequently
meet and sit behind Ganesh Temple situated on the outskirts of Indore. They were madly
in love with each other. Mr. Ravindra Jatav and his wife were well aware of all these
facts. In January 2014, Mr. Jatav was transferred to Bhopal, hence he, with his family
shifted there. However, Rajendra used to roam between Bhopal and Indore to meet Neha.

5. One fine morning on 4/5/2014, Mr. Jatav made a telephonic call to Dr. Sharma and told
him that his son Rajendra and Dr. Sharma's daughter Neha are in love with each-other, so

7
 he wishes to visit him to discuss about the marriage of Rajendra and Neha. Dr. Sharma in
a very harsh manner, not only denied the idea of marriage, but also insulted Mr. Jatav,
with remarks on his caste, as he is a Brahmin and Mr. Jatav belongs to Dalit community.
In result, Mr. Jatav replied in the same tone and warned him to repent for the words.

6. On ill -fated morning dated 8/5/2014, Dr. Sharma and his wife left their house at about
6:15 A.M. for a morning walk and when they came back at about 7:00 to 7:15 A.M., the
outer door was open and a newspaper was lying in the verandah and on entry into house,
they found the younger daughter Shweta dead with injuries and eldest daughter Neha was
found dead in the toilet.

7. A FIR was lodged before Police Station Vijay Nagar, Indore, at Crime No. 112/2014 for
the offences under Section 302 (2 Counts) and 449 of the I.P.C. During preliminary
investigation, Police recovered the knife and bloodstained clothes from the bushes,
behind Holkar Hospital. Jai Prakash Jain (PW-3), who lived just opposite to the house of
Dr. Sharma, alleged that he saw Rajendra Jatav (Accused) jumping from the compound
wall in the morning.

8. In line of this, Dr.Sharma also raised the suspicion against said Rajendra Jatav. A team
was sent to Bhopal to arrest Rajendra Jatav under Sub Inspector C.K. Verma, but he was
not found there and the Police was informed that Rajendra (Accused) went to Mumbai to
his sister's place.

9. Accused was taken into custody from Mumbai on 10/05/2014 by Sub Inspector C.K.
Verma from the residence of his sister. He was produced before an Executive Magistrate
at Mumbai, where he allegedly confessed the offence. He was brought to Indore, where
he was formally arrested by the Investigating Officer Inspector Prithipal Singh. At the
time of his arrest, Accused Rajendra Jatav produced a sleeper class train ticket from
Bhopal to Mumbai for the night of 07th-08th May 2014. A golden chain was also
recovered from him. Memo under section 27 of Indian Evidence Act 1872 was prepared

8
 for knife and bloodstained clothes, in which he confessed the act and disclosed that he
kept the bloodstained clothes and the weapon (knife) in bushes behind Holkar Hospital.

10. On this statement a fresh Seizure Memo for both the articles was also prepared along
with other documents.

11. The Accused, Rajendra Jatav, was charged under Section 302 Indian Penal Code, 1860
separately for the murder of two girls and under Section 449 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860. During the trial, Accused Rajendra Jatav denied the charges and took the plea of
alibi that he was travelling to Mumbai on the intervening night of 7th-8th May 2014 (the
date of the happening of the incident). He also denied the confession before Executive
Magistrate at Mumbai. All the witnesses deposed in their testimony in line with the
record. However, the officer C.K. Verma, who brought the Accused from Mumbai was
not examined by the learned trial court. Further, the Accused filed an application to call
T.T.E. of North- Central Railway, Bhopal along with the travel record of S-6 Coach of
Punjab Mail of 7/8/2014, but his application was rejected thereon. DW-1 the sister of
12. Accused Smt. Mahima Kadam in her deposition confirmed that Accused reached her
place at Mumbai on 08/05/2014 at around 10 a.m. and stayed with her till C.K. Verma
(S.I.) reached her residence and took the Accused with him.

9
SONOPANT DANDEKAR SHIKHAN MANDALI LAW COLLEGE PALGHAR

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

10
SONOPANT DANDEKAR SHIKHAN MANDALI LAW COLLEGE PALGHAR

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. THE CIRCUMSTANCIAL EVIDENCE SOLELY CAN’T BE RELIED UPONIt is humbly submitted by the
appellant with respect to the prosecution story that it is solely relying upon the circumstantial evidence
which are the hunt of multiple lacunas and the missing links. It miserably fails to satisfactorily to
complete the chain of circumstances so as to establish conclusively the guilt of the accused in this case
in a manner that ruled out every hypothesis inconsistent with his innocence.2. MERE SUSPICION IS NOT
THE SUBSTITUTE OF THE LEGAL PROOF It is humbly submitted to the appellant to draw their attention
to the fact that it was onlyin the line of a non-comprehensive submission by Jai Prakash Jatav (PW-3)
that father ofthe deceased, the respondent rose his suspicion against the appellant. It is
furthercontented that the mere directory allegations without any legal proof have been made tofalse
frame the appellant of the murder charges under section 302 IPC and 449 of the IPC.3. THE PEAL OF
AILIBI AND RESOANAL DOUBT SHOULD BE GRANTED It is humbly submitted that the plea of alibi is
established in the present case and thereasonable doubt should be granted in there as the ticket and
the witness statement areconclusive proof. 4. THE STATEMENT BEFORE THE EXECUTIVE
MAGISTRATE CANT BERECORDED.It is humbly submitted by the appellant that the statement recorded
before the executemagistrate cant be taken as a just evidence. It was contended that PW
25 was anExecutive Magistrate and, therefore, extraction of confession by the police in front of
anExecutive Magistrate would not be admissible in evidence.

11