L68Z

2nd NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, (LEGAL ZEMS) 2021

2nd NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETTION, 2021

LEGAL ZEMS

IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CAPITAL ISLAND

Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.____ OF 2020

IN THE MATTER OF:

THE ACCUSED FRED ROCKWELL …PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF CAPITAL ISLAND … RESPONDENT

ON WRITTEN SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF

CAPITAL ISLAND ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT.

Page | 1
 2nd NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, (LEGAL ZEMS) 2021

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Particulars Pg. No.

List of Abbreviations 3

Index of Authorities 4

Statement of Jurisdiction 5

Statements of Facts 6-8

Statement of Issues 9

Summary of Arguments 10

Arguments Advanced 11-17

Prayer 18

Page | 2
 2nd NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, (LEGAL ZEMS) 2021

LIST OF ABBREVIAITIONS

Hon'ble Honorable

FIR First Information Report

i.e. That is

u/s Under section

V. Versus

Sec. Section

IPC Indian Penal Code

Ors. Others

p. Page

pp. Pages

No. Number

HC High Court

CrPC Code of Criminal Procedure

Page | 3
 2nd NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, (LEGAL ZEMS) 2021

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Cases Referred:

1. C. Chenga Reddy and Ors. v. State of A.P. (1996 10 SCC 193)

2. Chattar Singh v. State of Haryana (AIR 2009 SC 378)
3. Dhiren Ghata and Ors. V. State of West Bengal (2006) 1 CALLT 475 HC, 2005 (4) CHN
456
4. Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P. and Ors. (AIR 1990 SC 79)
5. Sharad Birdhihand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1946) 4 SCC 116
6. Karattu Shoukathali v. State of Kerala 2016 LAWS (SC) 2-171
7. Purushottam Dashrath Borate and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra AIR 2015 SC 2170

Books Referred:

1. Dr. J.N. Pandey: Constitutional Law of India, 56th Edition (2019)

2. Ratanlal & Dhirajlal: The Indian Penal Code, 36th Edition (2020)
3. Dr. S.R. Myneni: Law of Crimes, 3rd Edition

Statutes Referred:

1. The Constitution of India, 1949

2. The Indian Penal Code, 1862

Page | 4
 2nd NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, (LEGAL ZEMS) 2021

STATEMENT OF JURISIDCTION

The Hon’ble High Court of Capital Island has the jurisdiction in this matter under Art. 2261 of the
Constitution of Capital Island which reads as follows.

1
Article 226, empowers the high courts to issue, to any person or authority, including the government, orders or
writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, certiorari or any of
them.

Page | 5
 2nd NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, (LEGAL ZEMS) 2021

STATEMENT OF FACTS

For the sake of brevity and convenience of this Hon’ble Court, the facts of the
present case are summarized as follows:-

BACKGROUND

. Susan Knight (Deceased); 18 years of age resided with her mother name Olivia Knight, father
named Tom Knight, and her younger brother named Daniel Knight. She was one of the brightest

students of her class, and she was known for her gentle and soft spoken nature. She was an ideal

child for her parents as she was having an amiable nature.

. Tom Knight (Suspect No 1), He was well-known Doctor by profession in SIIMS hospital of
Capital Island. Fred Rockwell (Accused No 1), he was a compounder in the SIIMS Hospital and
belongs to Schedule Caste.

.Fred Rockwell shared a love relation with the deceased for last 1 year, which tom knight didn’t
find adequate for his daughter. Hence, tom decided to call up Fred and made him understand to
stay away from his daughter by quoting “stay away or otherwise you’ll face consequences”.

. On 9th January 2020 at 7.45A.M., Susan went missing. When she did not came back to her home
from school, family started searching in the school and nearby places. Tom and Olivia Knight
lodged a complaint of kidnapping on 10th January 8.25 AM. They alleged that her boyfriend,
identified as Fred Rockwell, might have kidnapped Susan Knight. A complaint has been registered
and an investigation launched into the kidnapping of Susan Knight.

Page | 6
 2nd NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, (LEGAL ZEMS) 2021

. Investigating Officer Alec Hardy found Dead Body on 12th January 2020 at 4.42 PM. The
forensic team retrieved the body of a female in her mid-fifteens. The body was sent to SIIMS
Hospital, for a post mortem which concluded that the death was a death due to strangulation with

ligature material. The female had sexual intercourse before her death. It was concluded beyond
doubt that the body was that of Susan Knight. A First Investigation Report was filed on 12 January
2020 by the investigating Officer. The investigation started on 12th January 2020 with the police
questioning the family members regarding the last known whereabouts of Susan. Tom was
considered a suspect but he was soon ruled out once he established his alibi. He also told them that
the last person to have possibly seen Susan was Fred as they had been in a relationship and they
also alleged him of her kidnapping in the FIR.

. Investigating officer questioned Fred regarding his last meeting with Susan. Fred’s mother told
them Fred was not at his home since last 2 days and also he came home today morning.

. Officer Hardy questioned Susan’s teachers, her friends and security guard. Security guard told
officers that he saw Susan outside the school the day she went missing; he added that she went
towards a black Scorpio car with tinted glass. One of the Susan’s Teachers told police that Susan
was a bright student yet she was always afraid of her father, she further added that once Susan was
hit by her father for reaching late to home from school, which made Tom a suspect once again for
the police.

CHARGES AGAINST FRED

. Further Investigation in SIIMS hospital they found out that on 11th January both Dr. Tom and
Fred was not present in the hospital. Further, police recovered the ligature material with some
blood stain on it in the hospital locker of Fred. That material was then sent for examination to the
laboratory. Lab confirmed that the blood stain was of Susan Knight, and hence police established
that Fred was the only person who might have killed Susan Knight.

Page | 7
 2nd NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, (LEGAL ZEMS) 2021

.The charge sheet was filed by the police on 30th August 2020 and the trial was conducted by the
Hon’ble Sessions Court of Capital Island. Hon’ble Sessions Court convicted Accused No 1 Fred
Rockwell and sentence him Life Imprisonment u/s 364,376 & Death Penalty under Section
302 with Rs.5, 00,000/- fine. Aggrieved by this order, the accused approach before the Hon’ble
High Court at Capital Island.

Page | 8
 2nd NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, (LEGAL ZEMS) 2021

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUE 1:

Whether the accused can be convicted under S.364?

ISSUE 2:

Whether the provisions of S.376 are fulfilled in the present case?

ISSUE 3:

Whether the accused can be held liable under the provisions of S.302?

Page | 9
 2nd NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, (LEGAL ZEMS) 2021

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

Issue 1: Whether the provisions of S.376 are fulfilled in the present case?

It is humbly and respectfully submitted to the Hon’ble High Court the medical report shows
various injuries in the genital areas of the deceased to the greater extent which shows that it is not
consensual but forceful. The fact that Susan was murdered after committing rape is abundantly
proves the offence u/s 376 of IPC.

Issue 2: Whether the accused can be convicted under S.364?

It is humbly and respectfully submitted to the Hon’ble High Court that the case in hand the accused
did not proved his alibi and was giving evasive replies when he was questioned by police. Susan
was not seen alive once she went missing. After kidnapping, Susan was found dead. And hence
the only inference can be drawn is that Susan was abducted for committing her murder and
therefore offence punishable u/s 364 of IPC is proved.

Issue 3: Whether the accused can be held liable under the provisions of S.302?

It is humbly and respectfully submitted to the Hon’ble High Court that the case in hand is based
upon circumstantial evidence. The chain of circumstances is fully linked and is not broken. The
circumstances are fully established. The accused also has motive to commit the said offence. As
such the prosecution has proved the charge against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

Page | 10
 2nd NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, (LEGAL ZEMS) 2021

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

Issue 1: Whether the provisions of S.376 are fulfilled in the present case?

The counsel on behalf of the State is of the opinion that the offence punishable u/s 376 of IPC,
1860 is proved as against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts.

Post mortem report confirmed that deceased was undeniably raped before the murder.

Rape was also one of the cause for the Susan knight’s death. Deceased had serious injuries on the
genital area. The chain of facts leads us to one and only conclusion that rape was committed by
Fred knight. There was not much difference in the time between victim’s rape and murder.

The fact that there was no medical evidence found regarding Fred being rapist cannot be used as
the reason for his acquittal of the charges. The fact that ligature material which was used for
strangulation was found in Fred’s locker clearly form chain that ultimately leads to Fred being the
culprit.

In article by Hindustan times it was stated that the court has said to prove a case of rape in court,
it is not necessary to prove sexual assault medically as well. Holding that medical evidence in such
cases is not a pre-requisite, it upheld the conviction of a man.

Tom knight do not hold any animosity towards his own daughter. Relationship between tom knight
and his family was very amicable instead. He gave warning to Fred solely out of concern for his
own beloved daughter. So assuming him included in his daughter’s rape and murder charge is
illogical. All actions he took were all solely for one purpose, that is to protect his daughter. Rape
is out of question.

The post mortem report shows genital injuries to great extent. Injuries deceased suffered can
certainly not be the injuries caused by consensual sexual intercourse. Hymen was not intact, vagina
and uterus were swollen. This all indicates deceased was indeed raped. Furthermore all the facts
and circumstances proves that Fred was the culprit.

Page | 11
 2nd NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, (LEGAL ZEMS) 2021

Referring to the decision of court in case of C. Chenga Reddy and Ors. v. State of A. P. (1996) 10
scc 193, wherein it has been observed thus: "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. Moreover, all the circumstances should be
complete and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. Further the proved circumstances
must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with
his innocence.

Fred Rockwell’s location being unknown for 2 days precisely 10th and 11th January 2020, him
meeting with Susan knight quite often after school which further strengthens the charge of
kidnapping and finding the ligature material in his hospital form a perfect chain of evidence. These
events conclusively lead to the undeniable fact that Fred is culprit. These facts are certainly enough
to establish Fred’s crime.

In the decision reported in Chattar Singh v. State of Haryana (AIR 2009 SC 378), the Apex Court
held as follows:

"It has been consistently laid down by this Court that where a case rests squarely
on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating
facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt
of any other person.

• Fred frequently visiting Susan knight after school strengthens the fact that he kidnapped
the victim,
• Him evading questions asked by officer hardy regarding his last meeting with Susan knight,
• Being away from the house for 2 whole days,
• Ligature material used for strangulating Susan knight found in the personal locker of Fred,
• His malice towards tom knight for rejecting his relationship with Susan knight.

All of this facts ultimately complete the chain of events and makes it clear that Fred Rockwell is
not innocent.

Acquittal of accused/appellant is irrelevant in the nature of the evidence available against the
appellant. His conviction therefore calls for no interference.

Page | 12
 2nd NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, (LEGAL ZEMS) 2021

Issue 2: Whether the accused can be convicted under S.364?

The counsel on behalf of the State is of the opinion that the offence punishable u/s 364 of IPC,
1860 is proved as against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts.

While officer hardy was questioning Fred regarding his last meeting with Susan knight, Fred was
without a doubt hesitant to answer the questions. This evasiveness makes it very much likely that
they have been meeting regularly.

Also according to security guard, Fred often came to meet deceased after school hours, hence it
further strengthens suspicion that Fred Rockwell indeed kidnapped Susan knight.

Calcutta High Court in Dhiren Ghata and Ors. V. State of West Bengal stated that,

Section 362 IPC defines 'abduction' and suggests that if a person is compelled to go from a place
as a result of force or by deceitful means, then the said person is stated to be abducted. However
that by itself is not an offence and the offence is to be found only in Section 364 IPC where it is
proved that when any person is abducted in order that he may be murdered or may be so disposed
of as to be put in danger of being murdered, then such person would be guilty of abducting in order
to murder.

In current case victim was murdered is indeed an undeniable fact. Deceased was deceived to get
into the car by accused and hence this can totally be labelled as kidnapping under section 364 of
Indian Penal Code. If by any chance the deceased voluntarily accompanied accused it does not
mean that the accused is acquitted of kidnapping charges since the murder took place inevitably,
and hence the intention of kidnapping was to murder the victim eventually confirms that section
364 is relevant here.

In Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A. P. and Ors. (AIR 1990 SC 79), it was laid down that when
a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the following tests:

(1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently
and firmly established;

Page | 13
 2nd NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, (LEGAL ZEMS) 2021

(2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the
accused;

(3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape
from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and
none else; and

(4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of
explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should
not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence."

Thus we can say that charges of section 364 are not baseless,

• Fred meeting Susan knight frequently after school hours are over confirmed by security
guard.
• Susan knight went into the car unaware of the fact that murder was being planned, so it is
not very farfetched to say Susan knight was deceived by accused/appellant to get into the
car i.e. kidnapping her.
• Accused/appellant out of house for 2 days after kidnapping took place making it clear that
he took deceased away with him.
• And bringing all things together, the ligature material used for strangulating Susan knight
was found in the hospital locker room of Fred Rockwell.

All this facts collectively form a perfect and unbreakable chain of events and hence proving beyond
the reasonable doubt that Fred Rockwell kidnapped Susan Knight.

Page | 14
 2nd NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, (LEGAL ZEMS) 2021

Issue 3: Whether the accused can be held liable under the provisions of S.302?

The counsel on behalf of the State is of the opinion that the offence punishable u/s 302 of IPC,
1860 is proved as against the accused beard all reasonable doubts.

Circumstantial Evidence:- The case in hand is based upon the circumstantial evidence. It is settled
law that in the prosecution has to establish entire chain of circumstance and the circumstances
unerringly points out that it was the accused and accused alone is the perpetrator of the crime and
nobody else. It should unerringly negative the hypothesis of commission of offence by somebody
else. The chain of circumstances should be complete and unbreakable.

In Sharad Birdhihand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116

(1) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully
established.

(2) 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 explainable on any other hypothesis except that the

accused is guilty,

(3) The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency,

(4) They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and

(5) 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 postmortem was conducted on 12.01.2020. These notes have proved that the deceased was

Murdered about 3-4 days back from the date of postmortem. It is the prosecution case that the

Deceased was last seen alive on 09.01.2020. (PW 1 and3)

Page | 15
 2nd NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, (LEGAL ZEMS) 2021

It is case of prosecution that Susan Knight was kidnapped, raped and murdered. After kidnapping,
Susan was not seen alive by anybody. Hence it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that the
kidnapping was with the intention of murder and for no other purpose. The post mortem report had
also proved that Susan was raped prior to her murder. The post mortem report shows genital
injuries to great extent. Blood stained discharge inside vagina. Vagina and uterus found swollen.
These injuries prove that the rape was against her wish, forcible and was not consensual. The
injuries falsify the theory of relationship or consensual act otherwise there would not have been
injuries to such a great extent. The prosecution has proved that Susan was murdered by
strangulation. Hyoid bone is fracture. Ligature marks were noticed on the neck. It is to be noted
that death could be accidental, suicidal or homicidal.

The fact of kidnapping and rape rules out the possibility of accidental and/or suicidal death. More
over her neck was pressed with some ligature material. Thus it is crystal clear that Susan was
murdered. All charges are interlinked. The post mortem has proved the identity and injuries of
Susan.

The prosecution has proved all links. The chains of circumstances are as follows:

i. The accused has motive to commit the crime. Susan was raped against her will. To get rid of the
rape charges the accused committed murder. At the same time Tom Knight, father of Susan had
threatened accused to get away from her or he will face consequences.

ii. When the accused was questioned, he gave evasive and false replies.

iii. The accused was absconding after commission of the crime. The fact of absconding is proved
from the evidence of mother of the accused. The conduct of absconding is an additional link in
chain of circumstances.

iv. Police recovered ligature materials which were having blood stains of Susan from locker of the
accused in the hospital.

v. The accused has taken the plea of alibi. The accused failed to prove the alibi. It is settled law
that the person who takes alibi has to prove the same. The failure of the accused to prove alibi is
one additional link to the chain of circumstances.

Page | 16
 2nd NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, (LEGAL ZEMS) 2021

In Karattu Shoukathali vs. State Of Kerala 2016 LAWS (SC) 2-171

The Hon’ble Supreme Court after going through the facts of the case and law as laid down in
Sharad Birdhihand Sarda (supra) pleases to uphold the conviction of the trial court and confirmed
by the Hon’ble High Court.

In Purushottam Dashrath and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra AIR 2015 SC 2170

The Hon’ble Supreme Court after going through the facts of the case and law pleased to observe
that 33. “In our considered view, in the facts of the present case, age alone cannot be a paramount
consideration as a mitigating circumstance. Similarly, family background of the accused also could
not be said to be a mitigating circumstance and confirmed death sentenced the accused.

Page | 17
 2nd NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, (LEGAL ZEMS) 2021

PRAYER

Wherefore in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities citied, the counsels
for the respondent humbly request that this Hon’ble Court be pleases to adjudge and declare that;

The State has proved the following charges against petitioner beyond the reasonable doubt;

i. Offence punishable u/s 376 of IPC for raping Susan;

ii. Offence punishable u/s 364 of IPC for abducting Susan;
iii. Offense punishable u/s 302 of IPC for murdering Susan

AND/OR

PASS ANY OTHER ORDER THAT IT DEEMS FIT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE,
EQUALITY AND GOOD CONNSCIENCE AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS OF
YOUR LORDSHIPS; THE RESPONDENTS SHALL AS IN DUTY BOUND, EVER
PRAY.

All of which is most humbly prayed

Sd/-
Counsels for Respondents

Page | 18