GROUP 2

ROLL NO:1820

ARMY INSTITUTE OF LAW, MOHALI

CLASS MOOT 2, 21TH NOVEMBER 2022

BEFORE THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND

HARYANA

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.___ OF 2022

IN THE MATTER OF

STATE OF HARYANA………………………………………APPELLANTS

v.

UMAKANT and Ors.…………..……………………………RESPONDENTS

Written Submission on Behalf of the Respondent

2
TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS2

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS3

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES…………………………………………………………………
4

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION6

SUMMARY OF FACTS……………………………………………………………………..7

ISSUES RAISED

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. That the POST-MORTEM REPORT DOES NOT PROVE MURDER AND WAS TAKEN INTO
ACCOUNT BY THE LEARNED TRIAL COURT WHILE ISSUING THE DECISION……..
………………………………………………….…

THE AUTOPSY REPORT PROVES DROWNING AND NOT MURDER………….........11

1.2 THE AUTOPSY REPORT IS NOT A S UBSTANTIVE PIECE OF

EVIDENCE ………13

2. THAT THE THE COURT DID APPRECIATE THE TESTIMONY OF HARI NARAYAN BUT
IT CANNOT BE TOTALLY RELIED UPON…

THE UNCORROBORATED TESTIMONY OF WITNESS IS UNWORTHY OF CREDENCE

3. THAT THE COURT APPRECIATED THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE WHICH DOES

NOT CORROBORATE WITNESS’S TESTIMONY …

THAT THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCES DOES NOT PROVE MURDER………18

THAT THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE DOES NOT CORROBORATE THE

WITNESS’S
TESTIMONY……………………………………………………………...20

4. THAT THE ACQUITTAL IS PROPER AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW..

……………….21

2.1 THE ACCUSED DID NOT COMMIT CRIME U/S

302/34…………………………...21

2
 2.2 THE ACQUITTAL IS
PROPER…………………………………………………..21

PRAYER………………………………………………………………………………22

2
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

S. NO. ABBREVIATIONS EXPANSIONS

1. & and

2. ¶ Paragraph

3. Art. Article

4. Hon’ble Honourable

5. CrPC Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

6. Pg. Page

7. SC Supreme Court

8. SCC Supreme Court Cases

9. U.O.I. Union of India

10. v. Versus

2
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

S.NO. CASE NAME CITATION

1. Ghulam Hassan Beigh v. Mohammad Maqbool 2022 SCC OnLine SC

Magrey 913
2. Priya vs The State Rep Crl.A.No.205 of 2015

3. Suresh Murlidhar Bhagat vs State Of I (2005) DMC 777, 2004

Maharashtra (4) MhLj 366
4. Malkhansingh v. State of M.P (2003) 5 SCC 746

5. Ghulam Hassan Beigh v. Mohammad Maqbool 2022 SCC OnLine SC

Magrey 913
6. Slam Pratap v State 1967 All. W.R. (H.C.)
7. Jagdeo Singh v. State 1979 Cri LJ 236

8. 1984 Cr.L.J. 559 (Cal)

Gofur Sheik v State
(DB)
9. Rajeev Kumar v State of Bihar SC 2017
10. Balaji Gunthu Dhule v. State of Maharashtra (2012) 11 SCC 685
11. Joseph v. state of Kerala SC,2002

12. 2020 SCC OnLine SC

Amar Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi)
826
13. Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras [1957] SCR 981

14. (1952 AIR 167, 1952

Lachman Singh And Others vs The State
SCR 839)
15. Ramnaresh & Ors vs State of Chhattisgarh (2012, SC)

16. Ramji Surjya & Another vs State of

1983 SCR (3) 268
Maharashtra
17. Jagdish Prasad And Others vs State Of Madhya
AIR 1994 SC 1251
Pradesh
18. Karunakaran v. State of Tamil Nadu 1976 SCR (2) 708
19. Bodh Raj v. State of Jammu & Kashmir 2002 Supp (2) SCR 67
20. Umedbhai v State of Gujarat AIR 1978 SC 424

2
STATUTES REFERRED

1. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

2. Indian Evidence Act, 1872

BOOKS REFERRED

1. Forensic Medicine; Audrey Farrugia and Bertrand Ludes, 2011

2. Armstrong E.J. Water-related death investigation: practical methods and forensic

applications. 1st ed. Boca Raton: CRC Press; c2011. Chapter 1, Introduction; p. 1–26

3. Vincent Di Maio, The Value of Medical Expertise In Death Investigation: Medicolegal

Death Investigation And The Criminal Justice System

WEBSITES

1. https://www.nap.edu/read/10792/chapter/8

2. https://www.legalserviceindia.com/article/l136-Circumstantial-Evidence.html

3. http://ww.cslsa.org/events/ArchiveAttachments/Spr03Minutes/AttachmentG2.pdf.

4. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK554465

2
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Respondent has invoked the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble High Court under Section 104 of
the Patents Act, 1970.

104. Jurisdiction —

“No suit for a declaration under section 105 or for any relief under section 106 or for
infringement of a patent shall be instituted in any court inferior to a district court having
jurisdiction to try the suit:

Provided that where a counter-claim for revocation of the patent is made by the defendant,
the suit, along with the counter-claim, shall be transferred to the High Court for decision.”

This memorandum sets forth the facts, contentions and arguments for the respondents
in the given case.

2
SUMMARY OF FACTS

1. Tia developed a computer application based on an Image enhancing computer software

program.
2. The invention relates to a method by which real life images taken with mobile phone
cameras are caricatured with the help of a real time editor so that the persons/objects
appearing in the image are made to appear cartoon like.
3. One of Tia’s friend, Aditi used to live with her in the same rented flat in Delhi since 2018.
Tia and Aditi used the same desktop for computer work for their office uses.
4. Aditi copied the application from the desktop and passed on to a start-up initiated by her
brother Rohit. Meanwhile Tia got patent for her invention.
5. On 15th July, 2022, she got to know about her application being used by Rohit’s start up
pretending it to be their own and using it in business with cartoon motion picture
companies.
6. Tia filed a suit for infringement of patent against Rohit. Rohit filed counter claim for
revocation of patent siting section 64 read with section 3(k) of the Patent Act, 1970 as the
ground of revocation.

2
 ISSUES RAISED

I. THAT THE SUIT FOR INFRINGEMENT OF PATENT IS UNTENABLE AS THERE HAS

BEEN NO VIOLATION OF RIGHTS OF THE PATENT HOLDER

II. THAT THE PATENT BE REVOKED UNDER SECTION 64 READ WITH SECTION 3(K) OF

THE PATENT ACT, 1970.

I.

2
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

CONTENTION 1. THAT THE SUIT FOR INFRINGEMENT OF PATENT IS UNTENABLE AS

THERE HAS BEEN NO VIOLATION OF RIGHTS OF THE PATENT HOLDER .

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that

I.1 THE

It is humbly submitted before the honourable High Court of

1.1. THE AUTOPSY REPORT IS NOT A SUBSTANTIVE PIECE OF EVIDENCE

Section 293(1) in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 provides as under:

“Reports of certain Government scientific experts.

Any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Government scientific

expert to whom this section applies, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him
for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under this
Code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this
Code.”

In Malkhan Singh v. State of M.P. it was held that it is trite to say that
the substantive evidence is the evidence of identification in court.1 

In Ghulam Hassan Beigh v. Mohammad Maqbool Magrey, while explaining why the post-
mortem report of the doctor is not substantive evidence, the Court observed that it is the
previous statement based on doctor’s examination of the dead body and the doctor’s
statement in court is alone the substantive evidence.2

Further, the post-mortem report can be used only to corroborate his statement under Section
157, or to refresh   his memory under Section 159, or to contradict his statement in the
witness-box under Section 145 of the Evidence Act, 1872.3

1
Malkhansingh v. State of M.P.; [(2003) 5 SCC 746]: (SCC pp. 751-52, para 7)
2
Ghulam Hassan Beigh v. Mohammad Maqbool Magrey; 2022 SCC OnLine SC 913
3
Ibid.

2
In the case of Slam Pratap v. State4, the court held that post mortem evidence is not allowed
as evidence until inspection and is not substantive. If under section 32 of the Indian Evidence
Act, the report is consistent with the circumstances then such report is suitable and relevant to
the case. If the medical officer dies then the report under sec 32(2) is admissible inside the
court. This was also held in the case of Jagdeo Singh v. State,5 where the court further held
that the use of the post mortem report is to corroborate the deposition given by the medical
expert according to section 157 of IEA. The report can also be used to contradict the
statement under section 145 of IEA.

In the case of Gofur Sheik v. State6, the post mortem report cannot be considered substantive
evidence unless the medical expert has been analysed in court.

Also, in the case of Rajeev Kumar v State of Bihar, the court held post mortem report is not
substantive evidence until the deposition is made by the medical expert who formed the
report.7 On non-accessibility of such expert, the report won’t be permissible even under
section 32 of IEA until some other medical expert testifies to it in court. 8 A medical witness
is independent witness in court, since facts are established and mot merely corroborative
evidence to an eyewitness.

In Balaji Gunthu Dhule v. State of Maharashtra it was held that the post mortem report is
used to corroborate the other prosecution evidence and cannot be relied upon solely to
convict the accused.9

4
Slam Pratap V State, 1967 All. W.R. (H.C.)
5
Jagdeo Singh v. State, 1979 Cri LJ 236
6
Gofur Sheik v State ,1984 Cr.L.J. 559 (Cal) (DB)
7
Rajeev Kumar v State of Bihar, SC 2017
8
Ibid
9
Balaji Gunthu Dhule v. State of Maharashtra; (2012) 11 SCC 685

2
CONTENTION 2- THAT THE COURT DID APPRECIATE THE TESTIMONY OF HARI

NARAYAN BUT IT CANNOT BE TOTALLY RELIED UPON.

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the testimony of witness is

uncorroborated and thus cannot be totally relied upon for passing the judgement.

2.1. THE UNCORROBORATED TESTIMONY OF WITNESS IS UNWORTHY OF CREDENCE

As per the definition of “Evidence” under The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, evidences are
classified into two forms: 

 Oral evidence, and 
 Documentary evidence.10  

The definition of evidence proves that an eyewitness statement is highly valuable in the eye

of law. The evidentiary value of an eyewitness statement can be understood with the help of
the following provisions under The Indian Evidence Act, 1872.:

1. As per Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, every person is competent

under the law to testify unless they are not capable of giving the statements or
understanding any question of the court for the reason of their tender age, extreme old
age or any diseases. The section allows a statement of a lunatic person to be evidence
in the court if he is capable of understanding the questions of the court. The
statements of a child may also be considered as highly valuable evidence if they have
the capable of understanding the questions.  It is to be noted that a credible and
truthful eyewitness statement can plays an important role in the convictions.
2. Another provision that qualifies an eyewitness statement as highly valuable evidence
as well as strengthens the status of such statements is Section 134 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872. As per Section 134, no particular numbers of witnesses are
required to prove a fact. The Act gives importance to the principle of quality than
quantity. A conviction can also occur on the basis of the testimony of a sole witness.

10
Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

2
 3.  The evidentiary value of the eyewitness statement can be construed from the
provision of Section 135 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. As per the Section, the
order in which the witnesses are to be produced shall be regulated by law and the
practice. The section further provides that the witness must be examined as per the
civil and criminal procedure

In a case where there’s a sole witness to the incident his testimony has be accepted with
caution and after testing it on the touchstone of evidence tendered by other witnesses or
evidence.11

There is no legal impediment in convicting a person on the sole testimony of a single witness.
That is the logic of Section 134 of the Evidence Act, 1872. But if there are doubts about the
testimony, Courts will insist on corroboration. 12 It is not the number, the quantity but quality
that is material. The time-honoured principle is that evidence has to be weighed and not
counted. On this principle stands the edifice of Section 134 of the Evidence Act. The test is
whether the evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy or otherwise.13

As seen in Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras, 14 oral testimony was classified into
three categories, namely: (1) Wholly reliable. (2) Wholly unreliable. (3) Neither
wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. 15 In the present case the bench found the
testimony to be of the third category requiring corroborative evidence.  

In Lachman Singh v. The State, the High Court had taken the view that "in all the
circumstances it would be proper not to rely upon the oral evidence implicating particular
accused unless there is some circumstantial evidence to support it".16

As observed in Ramnaresh & Ors vs State of Chhattisgarh that what is needed is that the
statement of the sole eye-witness should be reliable, should not leave any doubt in the mind
of the Court and has to be corroborated by other evidence produced by the prosecution in
relation to commission of the crime and involvement of the accused in committing such a
crime.17

11
Joseph v. state of Kerala SC,2002
12
Amar Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2020 SCC OnLine SC 826,
13
Ibid
14
Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras [1957] SCR 981
15
Ibid
16
Lachman Singh And Others vs The State (1952 AIR 167, 1952 SCR 839)
17
Ramnaresh & ors vs State of Chhattisgarh (2012, SC)

2
Prudence requires that some corroboration should be sought from the other prosecution
evidence in support of the testimony of a solitary witness particularly where such witness also
happens to be closely related to the deceased and the accused are those against whom some
motive or ill will is suggested. 

This is a precaution which is invariably adopted by criminal Courts in dealing with all direct
evidence, and so, the fact that in the circumstances of any particular case, the High Court
required some corroboration before acting upon direct evidence and this Court approved of
the said approach.18

As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagdish Prasad v. State of MP that as a general
rule, a court can and may act on the testimony of a single witness, though uncorroborated,
provided that testimony of that single witness is found out entire reliable and, in such case,
there will be no legal impediment for recording a conviction. 19 But if the evidence is open to
doubt or suspicion, the court will require sufficient corroboration.20

When the accused is going to have a big impact in such a serious charge it is only necessary
that the Court should be circumspect and closely scrutinise the evidence to come to an
unhesitating conclusion that the sole single witness is absolutely reliable.21

18
Ramji Surjya & Another vs State of Maharashtra 1983 AIR 810, 1983 SCR (3) 268
19
Jagdish Prasad And Others vs State Of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1994 SC 1251, 1994 CrLJ 1106
20
Ibid
21
Karunakaran v. State of Tamil Nadu 1976 SCR (2) 708

2
CONTENTION 3- THAT THE COURT APPRECIATED THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

WHICH DOES NOT CORROBORATE WITNESS’S TESTIMONY.

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that the circumstantial evidence does not

prove murder and further does not corroborate witness’s testimony.

3.1 THAT THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCES DOES NOT PROVE MURDER .

According to the Indian Evidence Act (1872),22  the term evidence means and includes all
statements that grants or requires to be made before the court by the witnesses in relation to
any matter of fact which is under inquiry, all such statements are called Oral Evidence. The
second part of the definition which talks about is all documents including the electronic
records, which are produced before the examination of court. These are distinguished from
the oral testimonies and all such documents are known as Documentary Evidence. The term
‘evidence’ means anything by which the alleged matter of fact is either established or
disproved. Anything (exclusive of mere argument) that makes the thing in question evident to
the court is evidence.

The word evidence is used in three different senses or forms:

i) as equivalent to relevant
ii) as equivalent to proof
iii) as equivalent to the material on the basis of which courts come to a conclusion about the
existence or nonexistence of disputed facts.

‘Circumstantial Evidence’ includes all the relevant facts. It is not secondary evidence; it is
merely direct evidence; it is merely direct evidence applied indirectly.

3.1.1 Essentials of circumstantial evidence

In the famous case of Bodh Raj v. State of Jammu & Kashmir,23 Court held that
circumstantial evidence can be a sole basis for conviction provided the conditions as stated
below is fully satisfied. Conditions are:
22
Section 3, IEA 1872
23
2002 Supp (2) SCR 67

2
1) The circumstances from which guilt is established must be fully proved;

2) That all the facts must be consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused;

3) That the circumstances must be of a conclusive nature and tendency;

4) That the circumstances should, to a moral certainty, actually exclude every hypothesis
except the one proposed to be proved.

In the absence of any direct evidence, a person can be convicted on the basis of
circumstantial evidence alone if the conditions mentioned above are satisfied.24 Thus, there
must be a chain of evidence where no reasonable ground is left for a conclusion which is
relevant with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that, it is within all
human possibility, the act must have been done by the accused.25

In the present case, the circumstances arising to establish the guilt were:
a) The death of Radhika was due to drowning in the water of the well as confirmed
by the post-mortem report.
The abrasion wound found on the head of Radhika was an unintentional abrasion
and was caused when she fell into the well.26
b) the statement of the sole eye witness
c) timings
d) insanity of the victim i.e., Radhika
In the case of State of U.P. v Ravindra Prakash Mittal27, The court laid down:
1. The circumstances from which the conclusion is drawn should be established by
the court.
2. The circumstances should be conclusive in nature i.e, unquestionable by the court
on the bases of the set of circumstantial evidence provided as evidence.
3. All the facts that are established should be accordant only with the hypothesis of
guilt and not according to the innocence of the accused.
4. The circumstances should depend on moral certainty, that should exclude the
possibility of the guilt of any person other than the accused person.
24
Umedbhai v State of Gujarat; AIR 1978 SC 424
25
Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v State of M.P.; AIR 1952 SC 343
26
Abrasions are the most common form of injury in children accounting for 70.7% of all injuries. The head and
torso are the most common sites, comprising 50% of all abrasions. Unintentional abrasions are frequently
associated with falls and sports-related injuries among children and with falls in older
patients. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK554465/
27
State of U.P. v Ravindra Prakash Mittal; (AIR 1992 SC 2045)

2
3.2 THAT THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE DOES NOT CORROBORATE THE WITNESS’S
TESTIMONY.

Circumstantial evidence is incredibly important in criminal cases and the reason why it is
important is that in criminal cases there is a probable need to prove the Actus Reus which is
an act and the Mens Rea which is the intention. 

The Supreme Court has held in Pannayar v State of Tamil Nadu that the absence of motive
in a case depending on circumstantial evidence is a factor that weighs in favor of the
accused.28

The Supreme Court in Amitava Banerjee V State of West Bengal, (2011) 12 SCC 554
observed that motive for the commission of an offence assumes greater importance in cases
resting on circumstantial evidence than those in which direct evidence regarding commission
of the offence is available.

Further it was held that in a case of circumstantial evidence aspect of motive assumes
considerable importance. As stated above, there is nothing on record to show as to why the
accused should resort to commit this crime. Further when the medical evidence is
inconclusive, we think it will be highly unsafe to sustain the convictions on the basis of
circumstantial evidence of this nature.29

28
Pannayar V State of Tamil Nadu; (2009) 9 SCC 152
29
Budha Satya Venkata S. Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1994 (3) Crimes 611 SC

2
CONTENTION 4. THAT THE ACQUITTAL IS PROPER AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that the acquittal of accused is proper and in
accordance with the law.

4.1 THE ACCUSED DID NOT COMMIT CRIME U/S 302/34.

Punishment for murder (Section 302)

The punishment for murder is provided under Section 302 of IPC. Under this section
whoever commits murder is punished with:

 Death
 Life imprisonment
 Fine
4.1.1 The Essentials of Murder are not met in the case.

Murder is defined under Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. According to this Act,
culpable homicide is considered as murder if:

 The act is committed with an intention to cause death.

 The act is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury which the offender
has knowledge that it would result in death.

 The person has the knowledge that his act is dangerous and would cause death or
bodily injury but still commits the act, this would amount to murder.

Ingredients of Murder

 Causing death: There should be an intention of causing death,

 Doing an act: There should be an intention to cause such bodily injury that is
likely to cause death, or
 The act must be done: with the knowledge that the act is likely to cause the death
of another. 

2
 In State of Uttar Pradesh V Kishan Pal & others, the Supreme Court examined the
importance of motive in cases of circumstantial evidence and observed:30
The motive is a thing which is primarily known to the accused themselves and it is not
possible for the prosecution to explain what actually promoted or excited them to
commit the particular crime.
The motive may be considered as a circumstance which is relevant for assessing the
evidence but if the evidence is clear and unambiguous and the circumstances prove the
guilt of the accused, the same is not weakened even if the motive is not a very strong
one. It is also settled law that the motive loses all its importance in a case where direct
evidence of eyewitnesses is available, because even if there may be a very strong
motive for the accused persons to commit a particular crime, they cannot be convicted
if the evidence of eyewitnesses is not convincing. In the same way, even if there may
not be an apparent motive but if the evidence of the eye- witnesses is clear and
reliable, the absence or inadequacy of motive cannot stand in the way of conviction.

4.1.2 The post-mortem report proves that it was death due to drowning.

4.2 THE ACQUITTAL IS PROPER

The Court held that in such circumstances and lack of clarity in evidence as to acts
attributable to accused persons, the trial court was right in acquitting the accused persons of
the charges framed. The Court held that the evidence was not clear so as to record a finding
of guilt against the accused persons.31

Acquittal in general terms means that the accused is innocent and has not committed the
offence he/she was accused of. The decision of acquittal is given by the judge after inspecting
all the evidence and hearing arguments of the defence and the prosecution. It implies that no
evidence has been brought up to prove that the accused has carried out an offence as per the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 

30
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Kishan Pal & others, (2008) 16 SCC 73
31
State of Chhattisgarh v. Gurdeep, 2018 SCC OnLine Chh 271

2
PRAYER

In the light of the facts stated, issues raised, arguments advanced & authorities cited, the
counsel on behalf of the petitioner humbly prays before the Hon’ble Court to kindly adjudge
and declare,

I. THAT THE POST-MORTEM REPORT DOES NOT PROVE MURDER

AND WAS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT BY THE LEARNED TRIAL COURT
WHILE ISSUING THE DECISION.

II. THAT THE COURT DID APPRECIATE THE TESTIMONY OF HARI

NARAYAN BUT IT CANNOT BE TOTALLY RELIED UPON.

III. THAT THE COURT APPRECIATED THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL

EVIDENCE WHICH DOES NOT CORROBORATE WITNESS’S
TESTIMONY.

IV. THAT THE ACQUITTAL IS PROPER AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH

LAW.

Or to pass any appropriate relief that the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and is in the best
interest of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience,

And for this act of kindness, the counsel on behalf of the petitioner, as in duty bound shall
forever pray.

ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

_____________________________

Sd/-

THE COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS