FIRST NATIONAL VIRTUAL CRIMINAL MOOT COURT COMPETETION 2020

ORGAINIZED BY ADHIVAKTA PARISHAD, DELHI HIGH COURT UNIT

BEFORE THE COURT OF SESSIONS,

AT DELHI

SC NO: ________ OF 2020

STATE OF DELHI
(PROSECUTION)

VS.

MR. ASHU
(DEFENCE)

FOR OFFENCES CHARGED UNDER

SECTION 302 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860
SECTION 21,25, 27, 27(A), 28 OF NARCOTIC DRUGS and PSYCHOTROPIC
SUBSTANCES ACT 1985
SECTION 27, 28 OF INDIAN ARMS ACT 1959

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE SESSIONS JUDGE

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE

 INDEX

1. Index of authorities…………………………………………

2. Statement of Facts…………………………………………..

3. Summary of Arguments…………………………………….

4. Arguments advanced………………………………………..

5. Prayer………………………………………………………..
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Hon’ble Court has jurisdiction to try the instant matter under Section 177 read with Section

209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Section 177:‘177.Ordinary place of inquiry and trial-Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired

into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed.

’Read with Section 209:‘

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 the case to the Court of Session;

(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
 SYNOPSIS OF FACTS

On 22nd Sept. the Police Station received a call at 8:25am from Mr. Ajay, a milkman

(Prosecution Witness 1) regarding 2 bodies, identified as Mr. Sanjay and his Mother, found at

location Flat 23, Kavi Nagar, Delhi. The concerned station house was informed and the Station

House Officer (SHO) along with 2 Head Constables, HC Ravinder and HC Ankit, were sent to

the location. They rushed to spot but failed make the departure entry in the Roznamcha Register.

SHO and HCs arrived at the location at 9:02am and began their primary inquiries. But when they

reached, they noticed that journalists were already present at the murder scene. Post which the

scene was sealed and a request for forensics and crime team was sent in.

Mr. Ajay’s statement was recorded: Mr. Ajay was the milkman of Mr. Sanjay and went to the

house every day, on the day of the incident reached around 8:20am but there was no response at

the door. Mr. Ajay found the door to be unlocked and went in. He found Sanjay dead (Stabbed in

the abdomen) in the drawing room and his mother’s body (Gunshot wound in the neck) in the

adjoining room. He also found a white colored substance with a unique substance on the table.

The SHO requested the neighbors to inform family members of the deceased.

The Forensic team arrived at 10:05am headed by SI Deepak. They tried to collect fingerprints

and a detailed examination of substance revealed it to be cocaine.

After their investigation the Crime Team suggested the following charges

- Section 302 of Indian Penal Code 1860

- Section 21,25,27,27(A) and 28 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985

- Section 27,28 and 29 of Arms Act 1959

The Victim’s sister, Sakshi, was informed about the incident and arrived at the location 10:35am

and informed that there were family disputes regarding the family properties and immediately

informed the SHO that she doubts her other brother, Sameer, to be responsible for the murders.

SHO after searching the crime scene collected and sealed the following items:

- Blood of the deceased lying on the floor

- Hair found on the floor

- Piece of the bed sheet on which Sanjay’s mother was found lying

- Piece of sofa cover

- 5 black label bottles

- Mobile Phone- Sanjay’s- iPhone 11 (Golden Color)

- Earth Control

- Empty Cartridges (empty kokha) with SPS budged mark having 2.3cm length and 1.2cm

width.

SHO Requested the neighbors to join the investigation but all of them refused. Hence a notice

was served to them under Section 100 of CrPC and their names were recorded in the case dairy.

SHO has his subordinates prepare the case diary and all the seized items and statements recorded

were deposited in the Malkhana Register.

On the 23rd of Sept. the post mortem procedure was conducted on both bodies were conducted at

ABC Hospital, a government hospital. The procedure was video graphed, once the procedure

was completed the remains were given back to Sakshi. Sameer didn’t come to receive the bodies.

The board of doctors that conducted the post mortem handed over the parcel of items to HC

Ravinder, the parcel consisted of:

 - Clothes worn by the deceased

- Blood on swabs

- Bullet found near the stylohyoid muscle

- Hairs

- Viscera of abdomen including liver, pancreas and intestine

The medical board also found a black color wound around the bullet mark on the Mother’s neck.

SHO summoned Sameer, Sanjay’s brother, on the 24th of Sept. 2019. Sameer claims to have been

in Jaipur on the 21st and 22nd of Sept. 2019 and provided photographs of himself at Jaipur. SHO

also ordered for call records, location ID Chart from the Nodal Office, Vodafone, India and

through these records it was confirmed that Sameer was in fact in Jaipur during the stated dates.

Sameer further mentions that he has not been in touch with his family for over a year and his call

records confirmed the same.

On the 26th of Sept. the Police received a detailed Post Mortem Report which detailed:

- Sanjay’s death was caused by the abdominal injuries.

- Mother’s death was caused by the neck injuries

- Sanjay was highly intoxicated at the time of death but no toxicology test was carried out.

- As per this report, the incident occurred 44 hours (plus or minus 6 hours) since the Post

mortem started on the 23th.

On the 24th of Sept. the police went to the location and seized a knife, iron rod and gas cylinder.

On the same day, the SHO also noticed that in the area around the flat there were CCTV

cameras. After scrutinizing the camera footage, one individual was identified to be in the
vicinity. The individual was Mr. Ashu, the Victim Sanjay’s brother in law.

The Police instructed Mr. Gopal (PW3) the owner of the footage to preserve the recordings.

On the 26th of Sept. Ashu was summoned and questioned. During the questioning Mr. Ashu was

asked that he was staying in the adjoining area and he had come to “Bikaner Sweet Home”. His

call records show that he called Sanjay at 7:59pm from ABC Nagar, Delhi. He further claims he

called Sanjay to accompany him to the sweet shop but Sanjay was too drunk and so he restrained

himself. Ashu’s phone was seized. Further perusal of his phone revealed that on the night of the

murder, Ashu was having drinks at 9:30pm with the Victim.

Ashu was then apprehended on the 16th of Dec. 2019 at around 4pm from Vijay Nagar Market

where he was found in his car, BMW X1 (DL 125A 2123). A notice under Section 50 of the

NDPS Act was issued and Ashu in the presence of SHO signed that he did not want to be

searched in front of a Gazetted Officer. After the documentation procedure concluded, Ashu’s

car was searched and 20g of a white colored substance was found in the car. Once the powder

was retrieved, Ashu was immediately arrested.

Ashu’s medical tests were conducted at ABC Govt. Hospital and the report revealed:

- No injuries on the body

- Concerned doctor prepared the evidence medical kit: blood, blood on cotton swab, hair

and nails of Ashu.

On the 16th of Sept. Ashu made a disclosure statement which was as follows:

- Sanjay was a drug addict and Ashu was his supplier. On the 22nd of Sept. he arrived at

Sanjay’s House at around 7pm with a bag of apples. Sanjay and Ashu were sitting

together and eating the said apples. At around 9:00pm, the two of them began consuming
 alcohol and snorting the drugs brought. At this point, Ashu demanded Sanjay return his

loan ( Rs. 2,00,000/-) but Sanjay refused to pay. At this point, Ashu began to hurl abuses

at both Sanjay and his mother. He further admitted that in a fit of rage, using the knife in

hand (to cut apples) he stabbed Sanjay. Hearing her son’s screams, the mother ran into

the room from the adjoining room and she took an iron rod from under the sofa and

began to hit Ashu and his knife was thrown from his hand and went into the sofa. Ashu

claims that the mother hit him on his head and while feeling dizzy he took out his country

made pistol and shot at her in private defence. And then states that the mother ran to the

other room in fear. Frightened by what happened, Ashu immediately runs away from the

crime scene. He went to Gate no. 2 of Nehru park and discarded his gun and 2 live

cartridges in a secluded area at the park.

After the disclosure, Ashu took the officers to the park, and helped them recover the gun from

the hiding spot. On the 18th of Dec. 2019, Ashu’s medical examination took place at DDU

Hospital and he was sent to Judicial Custody.

HC Ravinder deposited all the remaining claimed items to the forensic laboratory, the gun was to

the chemical division and not the ballistic division.

With all the information recovered, the DCP decided to charge Ashu.
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

Issue 1: Whether the Accused is guilty of Murder?

Issue 2:
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

Issue 1:
Whether the Accused is guilty of Murder?

It is humbly contended before this Hon’ble Court that the accused is not guilty for committing

the offence of murder under Sec 302 read with Sec 300, Indian Penal Code (hereinafter be

referred to as “IPC”), considering that the accused was only acting in private-defence.

Furthermore, the Defence submits that the Prosecution’s case must be dismissed because of

heavy reliance on erratic disclosure statement, improper ballistic evidence and unsupported

forensic evidence as well as faulty investigation, all creating the existence of a reasonable doubt.

Erratic Disclosure Statement: The “statement” made by the Accused does NOT amount to a

Confession that can be admitted in court as 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 is read as:

Section 25 - Confession to police officer not to be proved:

No confession made to a police officer1, shall be proved as against a person accused of any

offence.

This section aims to ardently 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

composure and must not have operated upon by fear or hope or inducement.1

This section also 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 accused a confession made by them to a police

officer under any circumstances (while in custody or not). The statement given by an accused

involving himself in the crime and also impacting a third person cannot be legally proved in the

court, as it will be conflicting under S. 25 and 26.3

The statement made in the police custody cannot be submitted in court as a confession of the

crime. The Accused’s, Mr. Ashu, disclosure statement has various inconsistences to the forensic

evidence that has been found and these inconsistencies make it more likely to believe that the

Accused did in fact not kill either of the victims.

The Accused claimed to be have been with the victims’ from 7pm onwards with a bag of apples

and were eating the same and that around 9pm onwards they began the consumption of alcohol

and the snorting of cocaine.

But it is also known to us from the perusal of his call records, that the Accused made a phone

call to the Victim at 7:59 pm and puts his location at “ABC Nagar, Delhi” at the same time

which clearly conflicts with his statement made in custody about being present with the victim.

The Defence also submits that the claim that the Accused shot the mother and she ran into the

other room. This doesn’t seem practical as the shot was on her neck, making it extremely

1
Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, 1994 CrLJ 3139.
2
Bheru Singh v. State of Rajastan, (1992) 2 SCC 467
3
Kamal Kishore v. State(Del. Admin), 1997 (2) Crimes 169 (Del)
difficult for her to physically able enough to run to the other room. The post-mortem report also

revealed a black coloration on the wound and this form of coloration usually occurs when the

shot is made in close range.4 The crime scene then only found blood on the bedsheet which was

found on. Another inconsistency of the “confession” made as there was no mention of any blood

trail to the other room or any blood found anywhere else in the other room.

The Accused also claims that he was hit on the head with an iron rod by the mother, but no

medical report shows any injury whatsoever nor was there any blood or DNA evidence on the

rod, yet another example of the erratic confession and having inconsistencies with the evidence.

Improper and Unsupported Ballistic and Forensic Evidence

As per the Forensic Report, the stab wounds were caused by a sharp object. The Police recovered

a knife from the residence and tested it for Sanjay’s blood and found a match. The Accused in

his supposed statement has claimed that he stabbed Sanjay with the same knife but no

fingerprints of the Accused were found on the knife. The Defence further contends this supposed

statement is extremely contradicting to the forensic evidence found and hence the Accused is not

guilty of the offence.

The country made pistol that was found wasn’t sent for any ballistic test to confirm the bullet

found was of the same gun and shot by the gun found. There is no conclusive evidence proving

that the Accused is responsible for the murder of either victims. The Police have failed to find

any valid link to the evidence and the Accused. All the above made statements creates reasonable

doubt regarding the Accused’s evidence of involvement. The police have based their entire

4
https://www.pathologyoutlines.com/topic/forensicsgunshotwounds.html
charge merely on the disclosure statement but there’s no admissibility of this statement in court

in hopes of a conviction. It was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that “Recovery on disclosure

statement made by accused - Weapon of murder recovered - Weapon however not sent to

Forensic Science Laboratory - Accused also not quizzed u/S. 313, Criminal P.C. on question of

recovery - Evidence of recovery - Cannot be relied upon for conviction”.5

Faulty Investigation

From day 1, the Police have failed to ensure a proper and systematic investigation. The

incompetency of the Police from the beginning of the investigation led to Journalists completely

contaminating the crime scene and ruining the sanctity of the evidence.

From the get go, due to the letdowns of the Police the evidence collected has been tainted. They

failed to contain the crime scene and control the interference of journalists. In fact, for some

reason, 8 journalists were first to the scene and had unrestricted and unsupervised access to the

scene. Who’s to say that they didn’t tamper with the scene. The Police arrived later and then

claimed the scene.

The Police also failed to send the pistol recovered for the correct tests i.e., ballistics. There is no

conclusive evidence that proves the Accused has killed anyone and the murder charge on Mr.

Ashu seems to be motivated more by pressure on the investigating officers because of failure to

perform duties than any forensic evidence that he killed Sanjay or his mother.

5
State of Rajasthan Vs. Wakteng reported in AIR 2007 SC 2020
Under Section 313 of the CrPC, no conviction can be made merely based on the statement of the

Accused in the presence of the Police.6,7

It is an established principle that if the case is based on circumstantial evidence, the court must

satisfy itself that various circumstances in the chain of evidence should established clearly and

that the completed chain must be such as to rule out a reasonable likelihood of the innocence of

the accused.8

When a link breaks away, the chain of circumstance discontinues and other circumstances cannot

in any manner establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts.9

In the absence of clear and persuasive evidence pointing to the guilt of the accused, the proof of

motive however adequate cannot by itself sustain a criminal charge.10

When attempting to convict on circumstantial evidence alone, the Court must be firmly satisfied

on the following five things.11

i. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully

established;

ii. 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;

iii. The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency;

iv. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved;

6
Sanatan Naskar & Another v. State of West Bengal; AIR 2010 SC 3507
7
Manu Sao v. State of Bihar; (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 370
8
Mohan Lal V. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1974 SC 1144
9
Janar Lal Das v. State of Orissa, 1991 (3) SCC 27
10
Padam Pradhan v. State, 1982 Cr.L.J. 534
11
Sharad Birichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622
 v. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as to not leave any reasonable ground

for the conclusion consistent with the innocence and must show that in all human

probability the act must have done by the accused.

These 5 golden principles constitute the ‘Panch Sheel’ of the proof of a case based on

circumstantial evidence.

In the instance case,

i. Circumstances are fully established: According to the rules, the circumstances from

which h the conclusion is to be drawn should be fully established. The Defence

contends that the police failed to fully establish the guilt of the Accused. From the

Accused’s presence at the crime scene to his motive, no actual evidence has been

provided to establish his guilt.

ii. Circumstances are consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of only the accused: The

police failed to question any other individuals for the offences commited and focused

completely on the Accused. In reality, another hypothesis that can be established is

the involvement of Sakshi, (PW1) in the murder of Mr. Sanjay and his mother. Sakshi

had motive and motivation for the crime and never provided or was questioned her

alibi.

iii. Circumstances are of a conclusive nature: The circumstances should be of conclusive

nature and tendency but the in the instance, all evidence raise more questions as to the

guilt of the accused. For example, if the accused was guilty why is it that there are no

fingerprints on the knife used to kill Sanjay, why is there no physical proof of his

involvement.
 iv. Other hypothesis not reasonably possible: In the case of Mr. Sanjay’s and his

mother’s murder, there is one more hypothesis that the police failed to investigate and

rule out. The involvement of Sakshi (PW1) was never questioned. She had motive,

and is also the one who stands to gain the most now. The circumstances must be

complete and conclusive to be read as an integrated whole and not separately and

must indicate guilt of the accused with certainty which the current case fails to do so.

v. Chain of Circumstances is complete: There must be a chain of evidence so complete

as to not leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the accused

and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the

accused. But our current case fails to establish said chain, if the Accused truly was

responsible for the murder than why do call records show his location somewhere

else when he claims to be with the victim, why does the murder weapon not have his

finger prints?

The instance case fails to satisfy the 5 pillars of circumstantial evidence cases.

The Police failed to interrogate any other individual for the murders. The Police solely focused

on the Accused even though there wasn’t enough substantial evidence to prove his involvement

in the murder. Sakshi, the sister of the victim, was never questioned for the offence. Nor was her

alibi ever inquired or confirmed. In the instance case, with the death of Sanjay, his mother and

the fact that the other brother, Sameer, has already been excluded from the property. Sakshi

stands to be the most benefitted from the happenings of that night and yet the police failed to

even question her whereabouts even though she had motive.

The police also failed to conduct any toxicology tests on the victims to ascertain the state of the

inebriation or presence of any foreign substance in their bodies. The Police have failed to take

due care and collect relevant information to prove the death of the victims is the doing of the

Accused. The Police clearly had tunnel vision and focused only on the Accused but the reality is,

there is no evidence that can be corroborated to prove the Accused’s guilt.

 Issue 2

Whether accused is guilty of possession and distribution of narcotic substances?

The Prosecution hereby submits to this Hon’ble Court that the Accused has been charged under

the sections 21,25, 27, 27(A) and 28 of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act,

1985 and are not guilty of the offences.

Section 21 is read as

Punishment for contravention in relation to manufactured drugs and preparations.

Whoever, in contravention of any provision of this Act, or any rule or order made or condition of

license granted thereunder manufactures, possesses, sells, purchases, transports, imports inter-

State, exports inter-State or uses any manufactured drug or any preparation containing any

manufactured drug shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be

less than ten years but which may extend to twenty years and shall also be liable to fine which

shall not be less than one lakh rupees but which may extend to two lakh rupees:

Provided that the court may, for reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a fine exceeding

two rupees.
Section 25 is read as

Punishment for allowing premises, etc., to be used for commission of an offence.

Whoever, being the owner or occupier or having the control or use of any house, room,

enclosure, space, place, animal or conveyance knowingly permits it to be used for the

commission by any other person of an offence punishable under any provision of this Act, shall

be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but

which may extend to twenty years and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than one

lakh rupees but which may extend to two lakh rupees:

Provided that the court may, for reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a fine exceeding

two lakh rupees.

Section 27 is read as:

Punishment for illegal possession in small quantity for personal consumption of any

narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or consumption of such drug or substance.

Whoever, in contravention of any provision of this Act, or any rule or order made or permit

issued thereunder, possesses in a small quantity, any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance,

which is proved to have been intended for his personal consumption and not for sale or

distribution, or consumes any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance, shall, notwithstanding

anything contained in this Chapter, be punishable ,-

(a) where the narcotic drug or psychotropic substance possessed or consumed is cocaine,

morphine, diacetyl-morphine or any other narcotic drug or any psychotropic substance as may be
specified in this behalf by the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, with

imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine or with both; and

(b) where the narcotic drug or psychotropic substance possessed or consumed is other than those

specified in or under clause (a), with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or

with fine or with both.

Explanation. - (1) For the purposes of this section "small quantity" means such quantity as may

be specified by the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette.

(2) Where a person is shown to have been in possession of a small quantity of a narcotic drug or

psychotropic substance, the burden of proving that it was intended for the personal consumption

of such person and not for sale or distribution, shall lie on such person.

Section 27A. is read as:

Punishment for financing illicit traffic and harboring offenders

Whoever indulges in financing, directly or indirectly, any, of the activities specified in sub-

clauses (i) to (v) of clause (viiia) of section 2 or harbors any person engaged in any of the

aforementioned activities, shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall

not be less than ten years but which may extend to twenty years and shall also be liable to fine

which shall not be less than one lakh rupees but which may extend to two lakh rupees:

Provided that the court may, for reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a fine exceeding

two lakh rupees.]

Section 28 is read as:

Punishment for attempts to commit offences.

Whoever attempts to commit any offence punishable under this Chapter or to cause such offence

to be committed and in such attempt does any act towards the commission of the offence shall be

punishable with the punishment provided for the offence.

The statement made in Police custody is to be completely disregarded and not to be taken as face

value. The number inconsistencies and lack of corroboration with the forensic evidence found

prove the unlikeliness of the events made in the statement. The Defence contends that the police

were under pressure to solve the murder and coerced the Accused to make the statement. The

Police could have used the narcotic substance found and the charges leveled for that offence as

leverage against the Accused and influenced him to make that statement. Hence, the Defence

further submits, that any claim about the Accused being a supplier of narcotic substances must be

disregarded.

The white substance that was found in the residence of Mr. Sanjay cannot be linked to the

Accused by any forensic evidence, the only link the police have produced is the statement made

in their custody and like mentioned above the statement’s erratic nature and lack of corroboration

with evidence collected must be enough to dismiss any sort of claims on the Accused and his

involvement with the white colored substances found at the victims’ home.

The Police have also failed to conduct any medical tests to prove that the Accused has consumed

any of the said narcotic substances. They have rushed their investigation because they were

under pressure and had forgone the correct course of enquiry. The shortcomings of the Police

and the manner in which they handled the investigation has led to an innocent man being charged
with offences he had no connection to. The only evidence the Prosecution has submitted in court

is the Accused’s statement made in custody and the Defence has contended the credibility of this

statement and argued with the forensic evidence about absurdity that is the statement.

The Defence requests this Hon’ble to dismiss the excessive and unnecessary charged levied on

him. The Accused was found in possession of a small amount of the control substance in his car

and under Section 27 (a), the Accused can be jailed for a maximum term of 1 year or fine or

both. The Prosecution on the other hand has charged the Accused for offences he has not

committed.
 Issue 3:
Whether the accused is guilty of illegal possession of arms?

The Prosecution hereby submits to this Hon’ble Court that the Accused has been charged under

the sections 27, 28 and 29 of The Arms Act 1959 and are not guilty of the offences.

Section 27 of the Act reads:

Punishment for using arms, etc.-

(1) Whoever uses any arms or ammunition in contravention of section 5 shall be punishable with

imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven

years and shall also be liable to fine.

(2) Whoever uses any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition in contravention of section 7

shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but

which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.

(3) [Whoever uses any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition or does any act in

contravention of section 7 and such use or act results in the death of any other person, shall be

punishable with death.]

Section 28 reads:

Punishment for use and possession of firearms of limitation firearms in certain cases

Whoever makes or attempts to make any use whatsoever or a firearm or an imitation firearm

with intent to resist or prevent the lawful arrest or detention of himself or any other person shall

be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years [ [ Note: Subs. by

Act 25 of 1983, s. 10 (w.e.f 22-6-1983).] and with fine].

Section 29 reads:

Punishment for knowingly purchasing arms, etc., from unlicensed person or for delivering

arms, etc., to person not entitled to possess the same -

Whoever (a) Purchase any firearms or any other arms of such class or description as may be

prescribed or any ammunition from any other person knowing that such other person is not

licensed or authorized under section 5; or

(b) Delivers any arms or ammunition into the possession of another person is entitled by virtue of

this Act or any other law for the time being in force to have, and is not prohibited by this Act or

such other law from having, in his possession the same, shall be punishable with imprisonment

for a term which may extend to [ [ Note: Subs. by s. 11, ibid., (w.e.f. 22-6-1983) ] three years, or

with fine, or with both].

The Defence humbly submits to this Hon’ble court that the Accused did not resist or prevent any

lawful arrest with the Country made pistol and hence the charge under Section 28 is completely

baseless and must be disregarded.

There is no ballistic proof that the pistol was used by the Accused and caused any harm or death

of any individual. Again, the only evidence submitted by the Police has been an inconsistent

statement made by the Accused that is completely disproved by all the forensic evidence

collected.

No ballistic report has been provided to this Court proving the Pistol in question has been fired

or used to commit any offence. The Charges levied on the Accused are excessive in nature and

will ruin his life.

The Police took close 2 months to track down the Accused and then after his word only were

they able to retrieve the pistol. The time gap between the incident and the retrieval forces us to

question if the gun was tampered with.

Charges levied on the Accused cannot be proven in this Hon’ble Court and so the Defence

humbly requests this court to acquit the accused of all the baseless charges registered against

him.
PRAYER