LAW OF EVIDENCE - B.A.LL. B/B.B.A.LL. B HONS.

, VI SEMESTER
MOOT PROPOSITION

Dr. Rahul Singhavi is a well-established Management professor who teaches in Indian

Institute of Management, Lucknow and has a good reputation among his colleagues and
students. He resides in Viram Khand, Gomtinagar, Lucknow (UP) with his wife Mrs. Payal
Singhavi who is a house wife and a daughter named Trisha, aged 23 years who is pursuing her
B.A.LL.B Hons. (V year) from a reputed Government Law University in Lucknow. The
family is very cordial and all three members love to help people living in their locality. Their
servant Ramu also lives with them in the same house.
Within the same locality, Mr. Advesh Kumar, who is a businessman and his wife Mrs. Kritika
(housewife) along with their Son Vedanta aged 25 years, who is an engineer and works in
HCL Technologies, Lucknow, used to stay. The two families used to meet each other
frequently and spent quality time. During these meetings, Vedanta became friendly with
Trisha and soon this friendship turned into love. Both of them used to meet frequently and
were having good terms. Mr. Advesh Kumar, the father of Vedanta and his wife were well
aware of all these facts.
In July 2020, Mr. Advesh Kumar along with his family shifted from Lucknow to Noida
(Gautama Buddha Nagar) due to his business engagements. However, this didn’t finish the
relation of his son Vedanta with Trisha and he used to visit Lucknow every month, just to
meet her.
Seeing this, Mr. Kumar made a telephonic call to Mr. Singhavi on 8/11/2020 and intimated
about the relation of Vedanta and Trisha citing the frequent meetings between both of them
and tried to convince him for arranging a meeting to discuss about the marriage of Vedanta
and Trisha. Mr. Singhavi was angry after hearing this and straight away refused to marry his
daughter with Vedanta and scolded Mr. Kumar asking him not to call him again as his
daughter is busy with her studies and he wants her to qualify Civil Judge Junior Division exam
scheduled next year. He also told him to ask his son to stop meeting Trisha and leave her. The
language and tone of Mr. Singhavi frustrated Mr. Kumar and he threatened him to repent for
his words.
On one fateful morning dated 10/11/2020, Mr. Singhavi along with his wife had left his house
at 9 A.M. to take a lecture in his college (IIM) and dropped his wife to a nearby beauty parlor.
When both of them came back at 12 noon, they found that the outer door of their house was

1
open and the furniture of the drawing room was turned upside down. After entering in the
room of their daughter, they found that she was dead with severe injuries on her throat and
face and their servant Ramu was also lying dead besides her dead body. Both the dead bodies
were lying in a pool of blood.
The parents of Trisha were shocked to see all these things and Mrs. Payal started crying. An
FIR was lodged by Mr. Singhavi before the Viram Khand Police Station, Gomtinagar, on
10/11/2020 at Crime No. 101/2020 for the offences under Section 302 and 449 of the Indian
Penal Code. The Police started its investigation on the same day. Mr. Abdul Khan (PW - 3),
who used to live just opposite Mr. Singhavi’s house alleged that he saw Vedanta (accused)
coming out of the gate of the house of Mr. Singhavi, at the time when the incident had
occurred. Mr. Singhavi also told the police that he has suspicions regarding Vedanta and he
believes that he would have killed his daughter. The CCTV camera installed at the outside
gate of Mr. Singhavi couldn’t record anything (footage) that day as it had been non-functional
for three days. A police team under Sub –Inspector Mr. Aditya Jain was sent at that time to
Noida for arresting the accused Vedanta but the police was informed that Vedanta (accused)
went to Kanpur to his elder brother’s place.
The accused was taken into police custody from Kanpur on 15/11/2020 by Sub Inspector Mr.
Aditya Jain from the residence of his brother. He was produced before an Executive
Magistrate in Kanpur (UP), where he allegedly confessed the crime. He was brought to
Lucknow, where he was again arrested by Investigating Officer, Mr. Rajesh Sharma.
At this time only, the accused Vedanta produced a train ticket of Rajdhani express from Delhi
to Kanpur for the night of 9th-10th November 2020 and disclosed before the police officer that
the murder weapon (knife) and blood-stained clothes were thrown by him in bushes behind
Fortune hospital and the police was successful in recovering the knife and blood-stained
clothes from the bushes behind Fortune Hospital, Gomti Nagar. He also confessed his act and
finally a statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was prepared for knife
and blood stained clothes. Along with other relevant documents, a fresh memo was prepared
for both the articles.
The accused, Vedanta was charged under Sections 302 and 449 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 for murdering Trisha and her servant and trespassing house for committing an offence
punishable with death. However, during the trial, the accused denied the charges framed
against him and took the plea of alibi that he was travelling to Kanpur on the intervening night
of 9th-10th November 2020 (the date of the happening of the incident). He also denied the
confession, so made, before the Executive Magistrate at Kanpur as well as the police officer.
2
All the witnesses deposed in their testimony in line with the record. However, the officer Mr.
Aditya Jain who brought the accused from Kanpur was not examined by the learned Trial
Court. Further, the advocate of the accused, Mr. Dhirendra Yadav, on behalf of his client filed
an application to call T.T.E of Northern Railway, New Delhi along with the travel record of
Vedanta of 9th-10th November 2020, but his application was rejected by the court. DW-1, Mr.
Arjun Kumar, the brother of Accused Vedanta in his deposition confirmed that the accused
reached his place at Kanpur on 10/11/2020 at around 10 A.M. and stayed with him till Sub-
Inspector Mr. Aditya Jain reached his residence and took the accused with him.
The learned Trial Court adverted to the chain of following circumstances, said to have been
shown against the accused to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt:

1) Intention as well as motive to commit the crime i.e., refusal of the victim’s father to
marry his daughter with the accused knowing the fact that he was in love with her and
the servant, probably, being the eye – witness to this crime.

2) He was seen by PW-3 Abdul Khan, coming out of the gate of the deceased’s house,
just after the incident.

3) Disclosure statement given by the accused under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence
Act and seizure of the knife and blood-stained clothes.

4) Presence of human blood in the chemical examination of the knife and blood-stained
clothes seized from the accused.

5) Confession of the accused as was made before the Executive Magistrate in Kanpur
with respect to the instant matter.

The Sessions Court convicted the accused and sentenced him to life imprisonment under
Section 302 of I.P.C.
Aggrieved by the decision of the Sessions Court, appeal under Section 374 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 was preferred to the High Court and the Division Bench of
Hon’able High Court of Prayagraj; Lucknow Bench upheld the decision of the Sessions Court.
Against the judgment of the High Court, appeal has been admitted by the Hon’able Supreme
Court of India and the case is listed for final hearing.

Note – Students must frame their own issues.

3
 RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR MOOT COURT

1. Team Composition: Each team shall be comprised of three members. (Two mooters and one
researcher). The marks of the mooters will be deemed to be the marks of the researcher as well.
The students are required to make their team after consulting with each other.
2. Dress Code: Inside the court room, the participants shall follow the below mentioned dress
code:
Female: The formals prescribed by the university.
Male: White shirt, Black trousers, Black tie along with Black Blazer and Black shoes.
3. Arguments:
a) Each team will have to argue from both sides i.e. The Prosecution and the Defence.
b) In case of any doubt, the decision of the panel (judges) will be final.
4. Memorials:
(i) The memorial shall necessarily consist of the following:
(a) Cover Page
(b) Table of Contents
(c) List of Abbreviations
(d) Index of Authorities – Judicial Decisions, Statutes, Books referred, etc.
(e) Statement of Jurisdiction
(f) Statement of Facts (not more than two pages)
(g) Issues Raised
(h) Summary of Arguments
(i) Advance Arguments
(j) Prayer
ii). All the teams shall submit two copies of the memorials of each side i.e., 2 copies from
prosecution’s sides and 2 copies from the Defense’s side, which makes a total of 04 memorials:
iii). The memorial should not exceed 30 pages.
iv). The memorials, however, should not contain any kind of identification whatsoever; else
they may be ‘subject to disqualification’. Every team will be provided with a team code.
v) The Prosecution memorials must have blue paper covers while the Defence must have red
paper covers.

4
vi) All memorials submitted must conform to the following general rules:
a) Memorials must be printed on white A4 size paper with black ink only.
b) The font used must be Times New Roman, size 12.
c) The Harvard Blue Book style, 20th edition of footnoting must be followed as far as
practicable.
d) The font of footnotes must be Times New Roman, Size 10, single line spacing.
e) Each page of the memorial must have a margin of one inch on all sides, excluding its page
number.
f) Page numbers must be given on the bottom right-hand corner.
5. Oral Submissions:
a) Each team should have two speakers (mooters) who shall divide the oral submissions
between them. Rebuttals are permitted.
b) Each team shall have a maximum of 15 minutes to present their oral submissions. However,
granting more time will be at the discretion of the Judges and no complaints/appeals regarding
the same will be entertained. The division of time between the two mooters shall be at their
discretion. The aforesaid time would include the time that each team may want to reserve for
their rebuttals.
c) At the commencement of each session of the oral submissions, each team shall notify the
time of speaker 1 and speaker 2 to the court clerks.

TIMELINE OF EVENTS

1) Release of the Moot Problem – 15/02/2023 (Wednesday)

2) Submission Date (Memorials) – 15/03/2023 (Wednesday)

3) Presentation Date – 20/03/2023 (Monday)

PANEL DETAILS FOR PRESENTATION

To be decided later.

5
 EVALUATION SHEET TEMPLET

S.NO. MARKING CRITERIA MARKS

1 PERUSAL OF FACTS 20

2 KNOWLEDGE AND APPLICATION OF LAW 20

3 RESPONSE TO THE QUESTIONS 20

4 ADVOCACY SKILLS AND PRESENTATION 20

5 CASE LAWS - CITING 20

TOTAL 100