Prosecution

TEAM - M
SHRI RAMSWAROOP MEOMRIAL

UNIVERSITY
DEWA ROAD, BARABANKI
MOOT COURT
BEFORE THE HON’BLE SESSIONS COURT
IN Case No. SC ……. of 2023
IN THE MATTER OF
STATE ...PROSECUTION
V.
RAHUL ...DEFENSE
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

MOOT COURT PRACTICAL EXAMINATION, 2023 TEAM
[M]
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS 2
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 4
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 5
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 9
STATEMENT OF FACTS 10
ISSUES RAISED 11
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 12
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
ISSUE 1: WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS LIABLE TO BE CONVICTED FOR

MURDER UNDER SECTION 302 OF IPC? 13
THAT THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY OF COMMITTING MURDER 13

MENS REA TO COMMIT MURDER WAS PRESENT 14
ACTUS REUS TO COMMIT MURDER WAS PRESENT 15
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS RELIABLE 17
POST MORTEM REPORT 19
PLEA OF ALIBI 20
LAST SEEN THEORY 21
THAT IT WAS A MURDER AND NOT SUICIDE 22
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PROSECUTION Page 2

[M]
ISSUE 2: WHETHER THE ACCUSED HAS ABETTED THE SUICIDE OF THE

DECEASED UNDER SECTION 306 OF IPC? 24
CHARGES UNDER BOTH SEC 302 AND 306 IPC 25

THAT THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY OF ABETTING THE DECEASED’S SUICIDE 26
THAT THERE IS ENOUGH EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO PROVE THAT THE
DECEASED COMMITTED SUICIDE 29
THAT THE ACCUSED INSTIGATED THE DECEASED TO COMMIT SUICIDE 31
ISSUE 3: WHETHER THE ACCUSED HAS CAUSED MISCARRIAGE

ANDVOLUNTARY HURT?
32
THAT THE ACCUSED HAS CAUSED MISCARRIAGE 32

THAT THE ACCUSED HAS CAUSED VOLUNTARY HURT 33
PRAYER 34

[M]
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
& And
¶ Paragraph
AIR All India Reporter
All Allahabad
ALR Allahabad Law Reports
Anr. Another
Art. Article
Edn. Edition
Hon’ble Honourable
i.e. That is
ILR Indian Law Reports
LW Law Weekly
Ltd. Limited
Mad Madras
M.P. Madhya Pradesh
MLJ Madras Law Journal
No Number
Pvt. Private
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
SCR Supreme Court Reports
U/S Under section
U.P. Uttar Pradesh
v. Versus
Viz. Namely
Vol. Volume
www World Wide Web

MOOT COURT PRACTICAL EXAMINATION , 2023 TEAM
[M]
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
CASES CITED CITATION

S.NO
1 Sanwat Khan vs State of Rajasthan AIR 1956 SC 54 ,1129
2 Ramashraya vs State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 2001 SC 1129
3 State of Maharashtra v Meyer Hans AIR 1965 SC 722

George,
4 Son Lal v State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1978 SC 1142
5 V. Vijaykumar vs State of Kerala AIR 2000 SC 586
6 Bakhtawar vs State of Haryana AIR 1979 SC 1006

7 State of Madhya Pradesh v. Digvijay 1981 Cri. LJ 1278 (SC)
Singh
8 Ravinder Singh v. Govt of NCT Delhi 2008 (101) DRJ 61 (DB)
9 Bodh Raj v. State of J&K AIR 2002 SC 3164, para 17: (2002)
8 SCC 45.
10 Mahmood v. State of UP AIR 1976 SC 69
11 Bakshish Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1971 SC 2016.
12 State of Haryana v. Ram Singh, (2002) 2 SCC 426 (para 1)
13 Subhash Chand v. State of H P 1995 CrLJ 3460 (para 21)
(HP).
14 Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1956 SC 460
15 State of U.P. v. Snghar Singh AIR 1978 SC 191
16 Narendra Singh v. State of M.P (2004) 10 SCC 699,708 (para
31)
17 Vikas v. State of Rajasthan (2002) 6 SCC 728, para 13:
AIR 2002 SC 2830
18 Sheo Govind bin V. State of Bihar 1985 BBCJ 632.
19 Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Administration) AIR 1988 SC 1883
20 Bhupinder Singh vs State of Punjab AIR 1988 SC 1011
21 State of U.P. vs Narendra Nath Tewari AIR 1989 SC 733
22 Surender vs State of Haryana 2007 Cri LJ 779 (782)
23 State of West Bengal vs Sampat Lal AIR 1985 SC 195

[M]
24 Charan Singh v. State of U.P AIR 1967 SC 520.

25 Bimla Devi v. State of Jammu & Kashmir AIR 2009 SC 2387
26 Bindyan Pramanik v. The State 2010 4 Cal LT 156
27 Lakhjit Singh v. State of Punjab 1994 Supp (1) SCC 173
28 Ramesh Kumar vs State of Punjab AIR 1994 SC 945
29 Satvir Singh vs State of Punjab AIR 2001 SC 2828
30 Wazir Chand v. State of Haryana AIR 1989 SC 378
31 Asha Shukla v. State of U.P. 2002 CriLJ 2233
32 Goura Venkata Reddy v. State of A.P (2003) 12 SCC 469.
33 Brij Lal vs Prem Chand AIR 1989 SC 1661
34 Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of (2009) 16 SCC 605
NCT of Delhi)
35 State of Punjab v. Iqbal Singh AIR 1991 SC 1532
36 Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of (2009) 16 SCC 605
NCT of Delhi)
37 Prema Rao v. Yadla Rao AIR 2003 SC 11
38 Didigam Bikshapathi v. State of A.P AIR 2008 SC 527
39 R vs Bourne (1938) 3 All ER 615

MOOT COURT PRACTICAL EXAMINATION,2023 TEAM
COMPETITION, 2016 [M]
STATUTES REFERRED
1. THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 (2 OF 1974)
2. THE GENERAL CLAUSES ACT, 1897 (10 OF 1897)

3. THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 (1 OF 1872)
4. THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 (45 OF 1860)
JOURNALS REFEERED
S.NO NAME
1. All India Reporter
2. Supreme Court Cases
3. Manupatra
4. Supreme Court Reporter
5. CDJ Law Journal
BOOKS REFERRED:
1. Batuk Lal, “Commentary on the Indian Penal Code, 1860”, Ed. R. P. Kataria
and S. K. A. Naqvi, Vol-I, (Section 1 to 300), (Orient Publishing Company, 1st
Edn. New Delhi) (2006-07).
2. Dr. Hari Singh Gour, “The Penal Law of India”, Vol-I, (Section 1 to 120), (Law
Publishers (India) Pvt. Ltd., 11th Edn.) (2006).
3. Field’s “Commentary on Law of Evidence”, Ed Gopal S. Chaturvedi, Vol-I &
II,(Delhi Law House, 12th Edn.) (2006).
4. Halsbury’s Laws of India, Vol-32, “Criminal Procedure – I & II”, (Lexis Nexis
Butterworths, New Delhi) (2007).
5.
Nelson R. A. Indian Penal Code, 10th Ed. (2008)
6. Kathuria, R.P. Supreme Court on Criminal Law, 1950-2002, ( 6th Ed. 2002)

[M]
8. Mitra, B.B., Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (20th ed. 2006)
9. K. D. Gaur, “Commentary on Indian Penal Code”, (Universal Law Publishing

Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi) (2006).
10. Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, “Commentary on the Code of Criminal Procedure”, Vol-
I & II, (Wadhwa and Company, 18th Edn., Nagpur) (2006).
11. Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, “Law of Crimes”, Vol-I & II, Ed. Justice C. K.
Thakkar,(Bharat Law House, 25th Edn., New Delhi) (Reprint 2006).
LEGAL DICTIONARIES
S.NO NAME
1. BLACKS LAW DICTIONARY, (WEST PUBLISHING GROUP 7TH EDN.) (1999)
2. P. RAMANATHA AIYAR’S, “ADVANCED LAW LEXICON”, VOL-I TO IV, (WADHWA

AND
COMPANY, 3RD EDN., NAGPUR) (2005).
3. STROUD’S JUDICIAL DICTIONARY OF WORDS AND PHRASES, VOL-I TO III, EDITOR
DANIELGREENBERG, (SWEET AND MAXWELL LTD., 7TH EDN., 2006, REPRINT 2008)
LONDON.
4. WHARTON’S LAW LEXICON, BY A. S. OPPE, (SWEET AND MAXWELL UNIVERSAL
LAWPUBLISHING CO. PVT. LTD.,14TH EDN., 1997).

[M]
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
THE PROSECUTION HAS APPROACHED THIS HON’BLE SESSIONS COURT UNDER

SECTION 26 R/W SECTION 28 R/W SECTION 177 R/W SCHEDULE I OF THE CODE OF
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973, WHICH READS AS HEREUNDER:
S. 26. Courts by which offences are triable:
Subject to the other provisions of this Code,-
(a) Any offence under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) may be tried by-
(i) …
(ii) The Court of
Session(iii)…
S. 28. Sentences which High Courts and Sessions Judges may pass:
(1) …
(2) A Sessions Judge or Additional Sessions Judge may pass any sentence authorised by law;
but any sentence of death passed by any such Judge shall be subject to confirmation by the
High court
(3) …
S. 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.

[M]
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. February, 2013: Priya, aged 24, completed her education in mass communication
from Dehradun. was a 24-year-old girl. She moved to Delhi for better career
opportunities but struggled to settle there.
2. May, 2013: Priya met Rahul who was running a production agency. They both shared
common interests and became close friends.
3. July,2013: Rahul helped her to find a good job and also arranged an apartment for her.
Rahul was a big support for Priya in Delhi.
4. December, 2013: They decided to live in together and lived happily for two years.
5. January, 2016: Priya suspected Rahul of having physical relations with Pooja. Rahul
said Pooja was her client and tried to convince Priya that he re is nothing going on
between him and Pooja. Priya was mentally upset and went to depression.
6. February, 2016: Things were not going good in between Rahul and Priya. They were
spotted often fighting with each other even at public places. Once Rahul said that its
better to get separated and move on life but Priya was not convinced.
7. 15th May, 2016: Pooja visited their apartment and which Priya got offended. Rahul
asked Pooja to leave the apartment. Priya accused Rahul for bad character. Rahul tried
to convince Priya but became frustrated as things didn’t get resolved.
8. 16 May, 2016: He left the apartment when she was asleep without informing her. When
she woke up, she tried calling her but he didn’t pick up her call and instead switched
off his phone. She found herself lonely and alone. When he came back, he found her
body hanging from the ceiling fan. He gathered some neighbours and her body was
taken to hospital where she was declared brought dead.
9. According to her mother, she was two months pregnant and proposed Rahul for
marriage but he refused to marry and compelled her to abort the child. The doctors have
also confirmed that Priya was pregnant and had undergone abortion not long before her
demise. There was no suicide note found.
10. Rahul has been arrested on the complaint of Priya's mother. The Police registered a case
against Rahul u/s 302 IPC,306 IPC, 312 IPC, 313 IPC, 323 IPC and 376 IPC.

[M]
ISSUES RAISED

MURDER UNDER SECTION 302 OF IPC?

DECEASED UNDER SECTION 306 OF IPC?
ISSUE 3: WHETHER THE ACCUSED HAS CAUSED MISCARRIAGE

ANDVOLUNTARY HURT?

MOOT COURT PRATICAL EXAMINATION, 2023 TEAM
[M]
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

MURDER UNDER SECTION 302 OF IPC?
Yes, Rahul is liable to be convicted for the murder of Priya. The two ingredients of murder
i.e. mens rea and actus reus are fulfilled in the current case. Circumstantial evidence points
out to the fact that it could not have been a case of suicide but murder itself.

Yes, Rahul has abetted the suicide of Priya. The deceased committed suicide to the acts of the
accused and clearly both the conditions of abetment under Section 306 of IPC are satisfied.
Direct involvement by the accused in such abetment or instigation is clear from the
circumstantial evidence.
ISSUE 3: WHETHER THE ACCUSED HAS CAUSED MISCARRIAGE AND

VOLUNTARY HURT?
The accused, compelled the deceased to abort her child and also inflicted voluntary hurt upon
her. This is evident from the post mortem report of the deceased. So the accused should be held
guilty for the said offences.

[M]
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
ISSUE 1: WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS LIABLE TO BE CONVICTED FOR MURDER

UNDER SECTION 302 OF IPC?
THAT THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY OF COMMITTING MURDER
It is humbly submitted that the accused is guilty of murder. Under S.300(2), a person is guilty
of committing murder if he acts with the intention of causing such bodily injury which he
knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom such harm is caused. It is he
felonious killing of another human being with malice afore thought.1
A person is guilty of murder if he intentionally causes the death of a person or causes such
bodily injury as he knows, is likely to cause death of that person or causes such bodily injury,
which in the ordinary course of nature results into death or commits an act so dangerous that
it must, in all probability cause death of that person2.
Whether the offence falls under S. 302, I.P.C. or S. 304, I.P.C., the nature of the injuries
sustained by the deceased and the circumstances under which the incident took place are
relevant factors. From the nature of the injuries and the origin and genesis of the incident, it
could be spelt out that all the ingredients of the offence of murder defined under S. 300, I.P.C
are made out and it is not possible to bring the offence within any of the five exceptions of S.
300, I.P.C.3
Under clause third of S. 300 I.P.C, culpable homicide is murder, if both the followingconditions
are satisfied; i.e. (a) that the act which causes death is done with the intention of causing death
or is done with the intention of causing a bodily injury; and (b) that the injury intended to be
inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. It must beproved that there
was an intention to inflict that particular bodily injury, which in the ordinarycourse of nature,
was sufficient to cause death, viz., that the injury found to be present the injury that was
intended to be inflicted. Even if the intention of accused was limited to the infliction of a bodily
injury sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, and did
1
Sanwat Khan vs State of Rajasthan AIR 1956 SC 54
2
Sec 300, IPC
3
Ramashraya vs State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 2001 SC 1129

[M]
not extend to the intention of causing death, the offence would be murder. Illustration (c)
appended to S. 300 clearly brings out this point.
In the present case, the accused compelled the deceased for aborting their child and refused to
marry. The accused wanted to get rid away of the deceased while the deceased loved the
accused truly and she tried to make their relationship better. Therefore, the accused planned
everything and murdered the deceased.
MENS REA TO COMMIT MURDER WAS PRESENT
In the absence of any circumstances to show that injury was caused accidentally or
unintentionally, it is presumed that there was intention to cause the inflicted injury. Mens reais
considered as guilty intention, which is proved or inferred from the acts of the accused4.
In the present case, there is no doubt that the death of deceased is non-natural death. It cannot
be accidental or intentional also. This indicates that the accused has some active part in the
death of the deceased which makes a strong case against the accused for murder.
It is presumed that every sane person intends the result that his action normally produces and
if a person hits another on a vulnerable part of the body, and death occurs as a result, the
intention of the accused can be no other than to take the life of the victim and the offence
committed amounts to murder. Moreover, the intention to kill is not required in every case,
mere knowledge that natural and probable consequences of an act would be death will suffice
for a conviction under s. 302 of IPC.
Sec 8, Evidence Act stipulates that any fact is relevant which shows or constitutes motive or
preparation for any fact in issue or relevant fact. Thus, previous threats or altercations between
parties are admitted to show motive5. It is further pertinent to note that if there is motive in
doing an act, then the adequacy of that motive is not in all cases necessary.
For the commission of the offence of murder, it is not necessary that the accused should have
the intention to cause death. It is now well settled that if it is proved that the accused had the
4.State of Maharashtra v Meyer Hans George, AIR 1965 SC 722

[M]
intention to inflict the injuries actually suffered by the victim and such injuries are found to
be sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death, the ingredient of clause 3rdly of S.
300 of the I.P.C are fulfilled and the accused must be held guilty of murder punishable under
S. 302 of the I.P.C.6
Arguendo, Absence of motive is irrelevant
Assuming for the sake of argument that the accused had no motive, it is humbly contended that
absence of motive is no ground for dismissing the case. Motive is immaterial so far as the
offence is concerned, and need not be established as the mere existence of motive is by itself,
not an incriminating circumstance and cannot take the place of a proof.
Therefore, absence of proof of motive, does not break the link in the chain of circumstances
connecting the accused with the crime, nor militates against the prosecution case and is not
fatal as a matter of law. When the circumstantial evidence on record is sufficient to prove
beyond any doubt to prove that it was the accused and no one else, who intentionally caused
the death of the accused then, motive of the crime need not be proved7, as in the current case.
ACTUS REUS TO COMMIT MURDER WAS PRESENT
Actus reus is any wrongful act. It is the conduct that constitutes a particular crime. Every
criminal act is based on actus reus and mens rea. The word "actus reus" connotes an overt act.
This is a physical result of human conduct, and therefore, an event which is distinguished from
the conduct which produced the result. In a murder case, it is the victim's death which is an
event and, therefore, is an actus reus. The circumstantial evidence in a case where thereis a
link of causation, if established, proves that the act was committed by the person so accused.
6
Bakhtawar vs State of Haryana AIR 1979 SC 1006
7
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Digvijay Singh, 1981 Cri. LJ 1278 (SC)

[M]
Bearing in mind that it is not for the prosecution to meet any and every hypothesis suggested
by the accused, howsoever extravagant and fanciful it might be, it is humbly submitted before
this Hon’ble Court that the circumstantial evidence in the instant matter shows that within all
human probability, the act must have been done by the accused.
PW-26 and PW-27 did not rule out the possibility of suicidal hanging altogether, but certain
injuries found on the deceased being ante-mortem in nature and since hairs were seenprojecting
from the knot, both the witnesses who conducted the autopsy, came to the conclusion that
possibly the death was homicidal. It would, thus, appear that the medical evidence was not very
categorical about the homicidal nature of death.8
In a similar case, the Doctor, PW-5, who conducted the post-mortem examination, found two
injuries and there was no evidence of any ligature mark around the neck. He gave the opinion
that the deceased died of asphyxia due to manual strangulation (throttling) and death must have
been almost instantaneous. After receipt of the post-mortem report, Ex P-4 and on completion
of investigation, the investigating agency altered the case to one under Ss. 498-A and 302,
I.P.C.
It is submitted that the post mortem report suggests strangulation marks on the neck & other
mild injuries, scratches and scars on the body. The phrase “other mild injuries, scratches and
scars on the body” signifies that there was some physical spat between the accused and the
deceased. It means that the deceased resisted the accused while he was using force. Therefore,
it is established that there was actus reus. In the post mortem report, the cause of death was
stated as strangulation. There is nothing given as to signify homicidal death. There is no oral
or documentary evidence present to prove the actus reus. In various cases, courts have given
the different meanings of strangulation but usage of such a general term in the post mortem
does not lead to any conclusive proof9. So hence there is no clarity as to whether the death was
suicidal or homicidal.
8
V. Vijaykumar vs State of Kerala AIR 2000 SC 586
9
Ravinder Singh v. Govt of NCT Delhi 2008 (101) DRJ 61 (DB)

[M]
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE PROVES THE MURDER BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT
Essential ingredients to prove guilt by circumstantial evidence are:

(1) Circumstances from which conclusion is drawn should be fully proved.
(2) Circumstances should be conclusive.
(3) All facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt and
inconsistent with innocence of the accused.
(4) Circumstances should exclude the possibility of guilt of a person other than the accused.
The Supreme Court, in Bodh Raj v. State of J&K,10 added one more point to the above four,
viz., 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. These conditions being satisfied
circumstantial evidence can be the sole basis for conviction.
Justice Hidayatullah observed "Circumstantial evidence in this context means a combination
of facts creating a net-work through which there is no escape for the accused, because the facts
taken as a whole do not admit of any inference but of his guilt."
When attempting to convict on circumstantial evidence alone the Court must be firmly
satisfied of the following three things11:
i. The circumstances from which the inference of guilt is to be drawn, must have fully
beenestablished by unimpeachable evidence beyond a shadow of doubt
ii. The circumstances are of determinative tendency, unerringly pointing towards the guilt of
the accused
iii. The circumstances taken collectively, are incapable of explanation on any reasonable
hypothesis except that of the guilt sought to be proved against him
10
AIR 2002 SC 3164, para 17: (2002) 8 SCC 45.
11
Mahmood v. State of UP AIR 1976 SC 69

[M]
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that evidence of the suicide has to be drawn
from the post-mortem report of the victim and the mental condition of the victim. It is humbly
submitted that as per Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, Evidence includes all documents
produced for the inspection of the Court12. These documents are admissible in court as expert
opinion under Section 45 of the I.E.A.
It is respectfully submitted that the post mortem report submitted by the doctor conducting
autopsy of the dead body is admissible in evidence even without examining the doctor in court.
The Apex Court has admitted as evidence and relied on post mortem reports in a catena of
cases.
The standard of proof required to convict a person on circumstantial evidence is well-
established by a series of decisions of the Supreme Court. According to that standard the
circumstances relied upon in support of the conviction must be fully established and the chain
of evidence furnished by those circumstances must be so far complete as not to leave any
reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and further it
must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the
accused13 and, if two views are possible on such evidence, the view pointing towards the
innocence of the accused is to be adopted. However, this does not mean that before the
prosecution can succeed in a case resting upon circumstantial evidence alone, it must meet any
and every hypothesis suggested by the accused, however extravagant and fanciful it might be.
Further, it is not necessary that every one of the proved facts must initself be decisive of
the complicity of the accused or point conclusively to this guilt. Therefore, when deciding the
question of sufficiency, what the Court has to consider is the total cumulative effect of all the
proved facts each one of which re-enforces the conclusion of
12
"Evidence" means and includes-- (1) all statements which the Court permits or requires to be made before it
by witnesses, in relation to matters of fact under inquiry; such statements are called oral evidence; (2) all
documents produced for the inspection of the Court; such documents are called documentary evidence.
13
Bakshish Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1971 SC 2016.

[M]
guilt. It is the cumulative result of all the circumstances which must unerringly point to the guilt
of the accused and not one circumstance by itself.
It is the function of the court to separate the grain from the chaff and accept what appears to be
true and reject the rest.
Post Mortem Report

The post-mortem report submitted by the doctor conducting autopsy of the dead body is
admissible in evidence even without examining the doctor in Court. However, the Bombay
High Court has held that the post-mortem report or the medical certificate is not substantive
evidence. The post-mortem report is a document which by itself is not substantive evidence. It
is the doctor's statement in Court, which has the credibility of a substantive evidence and not
the report, which in normal circumstances ought to be used only for refreshing the memory of
the doctor witness or to contradict whatever he might say from the witness box , and the
significance of the evidence of the doctor lies vis--vis the injuries appearing on the body of the
deceased person and likely use of the weapon therefore and it would then be prosecutor's duly
and obligation to have the corroborative evidence available on the record from the other
prosecution witnesses14 .
Mere presence of ligature mark is not sufficient to prove death by strangulation. Evidence as
to the effects of violence in underlying tissues is necessary15 . Where post-mortem report and
evidence of doctor shows that the death of the deceased was caused due to strangulation and
that was homicidal and could not have been done by the deceased herself, it was held to be
proved beyond doubt that the death was homicidal not a suicidal one.
14
State of Haryana v. Ram Singh, (2002) 2 SCC 426 (para 1)
15
Subhash Chand v. State of H.P., 1995 CrLJ 3460 (para 21) (HP).

[M]
The post-mortem report is an extremely relevant and important document, in cases brought
under Sec.302, of the Indian Penal Code. The post mortem report becomes important in cases
where the cause of death is to be established and is a matter of controversy.
The chain of link starts from the fact that they both fell in love. Later on, they started living in
together. The accused had illicit relationship with Priya. Meanwhile, the deceased aborted their
child because the accused forced her to do so. Moreover, the accused refused to marry her but
she had faith in her love. When the deceased came to know about the illicit relationship, the
accused got an intention to remove her from his life. On 15th May the accused came to know
about the character of the accused and on 16th May, the deceased died.There was no one else
in the apartment apart from the accused and the deceased. The presence of injuries on the
deceased body indicates that there was use of force on her body.
The above mentioned chain of link is complete and prove the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt.
Plea of Alibi
Section 103 of IEA, 1872 talks about plea of alibi and provides that it is for the accused who
pleads alibi to prove it. Burden to prove plea of alibi is on accused pleading it. Burden is on the
accused who is setting up defence of alibi to prove it but even so, the burden of proving the
case against the accused is on the prosecution irrespective of whether or not the accused have
made out plausible defence16. Onus is on accused to substantiate plea of alibi and make it
reasonably probable.17
Where the accused pleads that he was elsewhere at the time of incident, the burden to prove
the same lies on him. Though burden is not as heavy as on the prosecution to prove its case
16
Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1956 SC 460;
Narendra Singh v. State of M.P., (2004) 10 SCC 699,708 (para 31)
17
State of U.P. v. Snghar Singh, AIR 1978 SC 191; Chandrika v. State, AIR 1972 SC 109; Satyovir v. State,
AIR1958 All 746; Bindeshwari Singh v. State, AIR 1958 Pat 12.

[M]
beyond reasonable doubt, the defence of alibi can be probabilised also. The false plea of alibi
cannot destroy the prosecution case which is supported by direct and unshaken evidence of the
eye-witnesses. The false plea of alibi cannot destroy the prosecution case which is supported
by direct and unshaken evidence of the eye-witnesses.
From the above authorities, it is clear that the burden is on the accused to prove that he was not
present at the apartment when the deceased died. On 16th May morning, the deceased trying
calling accused but the accused didn’t picked her call. After that, the accused switchedoff his
mobile phone. The accused switched off his mobile phone so that his location cannot be traced
out and used as evidence against him.
Last seen evidence

The last seen theory comes into play where the time-gap between the point of time when the
accused and the deceased were seen last alive and when the deceased is found dead is so
small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of the crime
becomes impossible. It would be difficult in some cases to positively establish that the deceased
was last seen with the accused when there is a long gap and possibility of the other persons
coming in between exists.54
Last seen together evidence cannot be discarded merely on the grounds of discrepancy in the
statement of the witness, who was a rustic village woman, about the day and time of the
occurrence in the FIR as she could not be expected to have remembered the incident, after a
lapse of four years. However, the witness reaffirmed that she last saw the deceased and the
accused talking to each other sitting at the place. Her statement could be relied upon.26The
deceased wife was last seen with her husband on a motorbike. It was held to be not essential
for the accused to be the owner of the vehicle.18
It is submitted that the deceased was last seen together with the accused. There is a strong case
against the accused as there was no one else in the apartment that morning.
18
Vikas v. State of Rajasthan, (2002) 6 SCC 728, para 13: AIR 2002 SC 2830

[M]
NOT A CASE OF SUICIDE BUT MURDER
The post-mortem report is an extremely relevant and important document, in cases brought
under Sec.302, of the Indian Penal Code19 . The post mortem report becomes important in cases
where the cause of death is to be established and is a matter of controversy20. Moreover,it is
not possible for the Prosecution in to explain each and every injury suffered by the deceased.
There was no suicide note found and the injuries found on the deceased body indicates its not
a suicide but murder.
In Bhayani Luhana Radhabai vs State of Gujarat21, it was stated, “Mukta was at the time of her
death carrying a foetus four and a half months old. This was first conception. It is difficult to
believe that in this condition Mukta would ever think of committing suicide.”
Since there is no evidence that there was any proximate cause for her to attempt to end her
life on that morning so the theory of suicide is not sustainable. The post-mortem report giving
the description of injuries found on the body of the deceased would also defy all doubts about
the theory of suicide. She had contusion on the front of right leg. Abrasion on the front of the
left leg just below the knee joint. Linear abrasion on the back of the righthand. Linear
abrasion on the anterolateral aspect of left fore-arm in its middle. And contusionon the back of
right elbow joint. These injuries, as the Courts below have observed, could have been caused
while Gian Kaur resisted the poison being administered to her. Appeal was dismissed.22
It is extremely unlikely that an educated woman of this academic distinction who was prepared
to face her problems and was optimistically looking forward to the future beyondher marital
home would be inclined to commit suicide by burning herself. It was held that there was no
question of her being broken-hearted and frustrated so as to resolve to commit suicide. The
State appeal was accepted. The accused was convicted for murder.23
19
Sheo Govind bin V. State of Bihar, 1985 BBCJ 632.
20
Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1988 SC 1883
21
1977 SCC (Cr) 181
22
Bhupinder Singh vs State of Punjab AIR 1988 SC 1011
23
Subedar Tiwari vs State of U.P. and State of U.P. vs Narendra Nath Tewari AIR 1989 SC 733

[M]
Priya at the time of incident, as per the post-mortem report, was having a pregnancy of 3-4
months and this is also not in tune with the act of commission of suicide.
A young pregnant woman having a child in the womb would not ordinarily commit suicide
unless she was compelled to do so24 . The sequence of events does not lead to any
inferencethat something happened during the night which made her commit suicide
immediately. That constant fact of wailing and weeping is one of the important symptoms of
an intention tocommit suicide as mentioned by George W. Brown and Tirril Harris in their
book " SocialOrigins of Depression"
Normally, one would not commit suicide unless there are strong and compelling reasons for
it. Thus, ordinarily there has to be a very pressing motive behind every case of suicide25 .
The inference of proof of a fact in dispute, having been established, can be drawn from the
given objective facts, direct or circumstantial.
It is the say of the deceased that she was 'madly in love' with the accused. If deceased was
really in love, she would not have committed suicide – her faith in her love would have
restrained her from taking refusal of accused to marry, in literal sense. Further, the person in
love would not express oneself by urging that the action as strong as possible should be taken
against his or her beloved. Love never demands, it only gives. It is certainly doubtful that
language of nature used in the suicide note would ever be used by one for the person with
whom one claimed to be in love. The learned trial court has rightly raised the doubt about
genuineness of the suicide26 .
24
Surender vs State of Haryana 2007 Cri LJ 779 (782)
25
State of West Bengal vs Sampat Lal AIR 1985 SC 195
26
Charan Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1967 SC 520.

[M]

CHARGES UNDER BOTH SEC 302 AND 306 IPC

Where the accused is charged under S. 302 IPC, he can be convicted under S. 306 for abatement
of suicide if the evidence and circumstances establish offence under S. 306 IPC, even if no
specific charge under S. 306 IPC has been framed. In the current case, the accused is also
charged under both sections.
Mere omission or defect in framing charges does not disable the criminal court from convicting
the offence which is found to have been proved on the evidence on record. The Code of
Criminal Procedure 1973 has ample provisions to meet with such situations.
A two judge bench of the Supreme Court has held in Lakhjit Singh v. State of Punjab27 that if
a prosecution has failed to establish the offence under Section 302 IPC, which alone was
included in the charge, but if the offence under Section 306 IPC was made out in the evidence
it is permissible for the court to convict the accused of the latter offence.
In Bimla Devi v. State of Jammu & Kashmir28, the accused charged under Section 302 but
convicted under Section 306. In the case of Bindyan Pramanik v. The State29, the appellant
faced trial in respect of both counts of charges, i.e., under Sections 306/498 IPC as well as
under Sections 302/34 IP4 IPC to Section 306 IPC and was finally convicted on Sec306 IPC.
But even if the position was otherwise and the appellants were not charged under Section 306
IPC and tried only under Sections 302/34 IPC there would not have been any legal bar in
altering the conviction from Section 302.
27
1994 Supp (1) SCC 173
28
AIR 2009 SC 2387
29
2010 4 Cal LT 156

[M]
THAT THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY OF ABETTING PRIYA’S SUICIDE
It is most deferentially submitted before this Hon’ble Court that for a person to be convicted of
abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code30, two essential ingredients
must be established:
1. The deceased committed suicide
2. The accused abetted her in committing suicide.
3. Direct involvement by the accused in such abetment or instigation is necessary
4. The first has already been established above.

Abetment contemplated in section 306 must conform to the definition given in section 107 of
the Indian Penal Code, according to which abetment can be brought about in three ways: by
instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid to the deceased. Be that as it may, in a case of this
nature, where a plea of suicide has been put forward, the Courts below should examine whether
such a plea is altogether untenable and whether suicide is ruled out31 . The offence ofabetment
by instigation depends upon the intention of the person who abets and not upon the act which
is done by the person who has abetted. The abetment may be by instigation, conspiracy or
intentional aid as provided under Section 107 IPC.
S. 306, I.P.C. penalises abetment of suicide. It is a unique legal phenomenon in the Indian Penal
Code that the only act, the attempt of which alone will become an offence. The person who
attempts to commit suicide is guilty of the offence under S. 309, I.P.C. whereas the person who
committed suicide cannot be reached at all. S. 306 renders the person who abets the commission
of suicide punishable for which the condition precedent is that suicide should necessarily have
been committed. It is possible to abet the commission of suicide. Butnobody would abet a
mere attempt to commit suicide. It would be preposterous if law could afford to penalise an
abetment to the offence of mere attempt to commit suicide. Learned Sessions Judge went wrong
in convicting the appellants under under S. 116 linked with S. 306, I.P.C. The former is
"abetment of offence punishable with imprisonment--if offence be not committed". But the
crux of the offence under S. 306 itself is abetment. In other words, if there is no abetment,
there is no question of the offence under S. 306 coming into play. It is
30
306. Abetment of suicide - If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide,
shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also
be liable to fine.
31
Ramesh Kumar vs State of Punjab AIR 1994 SC 945

[M]
inconceivable to have abetment of an abetment. Hence, there cannot be an offence under S.

116 read with S. 306, I.P.C.32
The Supreme Court has reiterated that before anybody can be punished for abetment of suicide,
it must be proved that the death in question was a suicidal death.33
Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in
doing a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid incommitting
suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. Deceased committed suicide by hanging himself
because of alleged illicit relationship between his wife and the accused. Accused took the wife
of deceased away from house of her brother and kept her with him for 4 days. There is definitely
a proximity and nexus between the conduct and behaviour of accused and wife of deceased
with that of suicide committed by the deceased.
THAT THERE IS ENOUGH EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO PROVE THAT THE

DECEASED COMMITTED SUICIDE
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that evidence of the suicide has to be drawn
from the post-mortem report of the victim and the mental condition of the victim. It is humbly
submitted that as per Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, Evidence includes all documents
produced for the inspection of the Court. These documents are admissible in court as expert
opinion under Section 45 of the I.E.A.
It is respectfully submitted that the post mortem report submitted by the doctor conducting
autopsy of the dead body is admissible in evidence even without examining the doctor in
court. The Apex Court has admitted as evidence and relied on post mortem reports in a catena
of cases.
32
Satvir Singh vs State of Punjab AIR 2001 SC 2828
33
Wazir Chand v. State of Haryana, AIR 1989 SC 378 : 1989 Cr LJ 809 : (1989) 1 SCC 244.

[M]
THAT THE ACCUSED INSTIGATED THE DECEASED TO COMMIT SUICIDE
It is submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the accused ‘abetted’ the suicide of the deceased
by instigating her to commit suicide. As per Section 14 of the I.E.A34 , facts showing the
existence of a state of mind such as intention are relevant when the existence of such a state
of mind is in issue or relevant. Therefore certain acts of the accused, which clearly indicate
his intention to instigate the victim to commit suicide, are relevant in the present case.
Abetment contemplated in section 306 must conform to the definition given in section 107 of
the Indian Penal Code, according to which abetment can be brought about in three ways: by
instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid to the deceased. Be that as it may, in a case of this
nature, where a plea of suicide has been put forward, the Courts below should examine whether
such a plea is altogether untenable and whether suicide is ruled out.35
It is humbly submitted that the law regarding offence of abetment to commit suicide is clear.
A person can be said to instigate another when he incites or otherwise encourages another,
directly or indirectly, to commit suicide36. The word ‘instigate’ means to goad or urgeforward
or provoke, incite, urge or encourage to do an act.
Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do "an act". To satisfy the
requirement of "instigation", though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that
effect or what constitutes "instigation" must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the
consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being
spelt out. Where the accused had, by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct,
created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit
suicide, in which case, "instigation" may have to be inferred. A word uttered in a fit
34
14. Facts showing existence of state of mind, or of body, of bodily feeling - Facts showing the existence of any
state of mind, such as intention, knowledge, good faith, negligence, rashness, ill- will or good- will towards any
particular person, or showing the existence of any state of body or bodily feeling, are relevant, when the existence
of any such state of mind or body or bodily feeling, is in issue or relevant.
35
Ramesh Kumar vs State of Punjab AIR 1994 SC 945
36
Asha Shukla v. State of U.P. 2002 CriLJ 2233

[M]
of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow, cannot be said to
be instigation. Thus, to constitute 'instigation', a person who instigates another has to provoke,
incite, urge or encourage the doing of an act by the other by "goading" or 'urging forward'. The
dictionary meaning of the word "goad" is "a thing that stimulates someone into act ion; provoke
to action or reaction to keep irritating or annoying somebody until he reacts. The word
"instigate" literally means to provoke, incite, urge on or bring about by persuasion to do
anything. The abetment may be by inaligation, conspiracy or intentional aid as provided in the
three clauses of the section37 . Instigate means the active role played by a person with a view
to stimulate another person to do the thing. In order to hold a person guilty of abetting it must
be established that he had intentionally done something which amounted to instigating another
to do a thing.
The Supreme Court has observed in the case of Gangula Mohan Reddy Vs. State of Andhra
Pradesh38, that: "20. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or
intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the
accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained.
It is submitted that there is no instigation by the accused. There are problems in every
relationship but that cannot be concluded as instigation under abetment.
As to what would constitute instigation for the commission of an offence would depend upon
the facts of each case.
Therefore, in order to decide whether a person has abetted by instigation the commission of
an offence or not, the act of abetment has to be judged in the conspectus of the entire
evidence in the case. The act of abetment attributed to an accused is not to be viewed or
tested in isolation39. The Supreme Court has reiterated that before anybody can be punished
for abetment of suicide, it must be proved that the death in question was a suicidal death.
Therefore, in order to decide whether a person has abetted by instigation the commission of
an offence or not, the act of abetment has to be judged in the conspectus of the entire
37
Goura Venkata Reddy v. State of A.P., (2003) 12 SCC 469.
38
2010 Cr.L.J. 2110 (Supreme Court)
39
Brij Lal vs Prem Chand AIR 1989 SC 1661

[M]
evidence in the case. The act of abetment attributed to an accused is not to be viewed or tested
in isolation.40
It is humbly submitted that the law regarding offence of abetment to commit suicide is clear.
A person can be said to instigate another when he incites or otherwise encourages another,
directly or indirectly, to commit suicide41. The word ‘instigate’ means to goad or urgeforward
or provoke, incite, urge or encourage to do an act.
It is respectfully submitted that the Supreme Court upheld conviction under section 306 of
Indian Penal Code when the accused by his acts produced an atmosphere which forced the
deceased to commit suicide.42
The Supreme Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State held that “Each person's suicidability
pattern is different from the other. Each person has his own idea of self-esteem and self- respect.
Therefore, it is impossible to lay down any strait-jacket formula in dealing with such cases.
Each case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances.43
Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in

doing a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid incommitting
suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. In a noted case, deceased committed suicide by
hanging himself because of alleged illicit relationship between his wife and the accused.
Accused took the wife of deceased away from house of her brother and kept her with him for
4 days. There is definitely a proximity and nexus between the conduct and behaviour of accused
and wife of deceased with that of suicide committed by the deceased. Mere harassment of wife
by husband due to differences per se does not attract Section 306 read with Section 107, IPC.
40
Brij Lal vs Prem Chand AIR 1989 SC 1661
41
Asha Shukla v. State of U.P. 2002 CriLJ 2233
42
State of Punjab v. Iqbal Singh AIR 1991 SC 1532.
43
Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (2009) 16 SCC 605.

[M]
It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no
option and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he
committed suicide.
In Didigam Bikshapathi v. State of A.P 44 mental harassment and pressure put on the deceased
were held to be amounting to instigation to commit suicide.
In Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)45, Supreme Court re-iterated thelegal
position laid down in its earlier three judge bench judgment in the case of Ramesh Kumar v. State of
Chhattisgarh and held that where the accused by his acts or continued course of conduct creates such
circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide, an instigation
may be inferred. In order to prove that the accused abetted commission of suicide by a person, it has to
be established that: -
(i) the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words, deeds or wilful omission
or conduct which may even be a wilful silence until the deceased reacted or pushed or forced
the deceased by his deeds, words or wilful omission or conduct to make the deceased move
forward more quickly in a forward direction; and
(ii) that the accused had the intention to provoke urge or encourage the deceased to commit
suicide while acting in the manner noted above. Undoubtedly, presence of mens rea is the
necessary concomitant of instigation.
Reflecting all of the above, it is clear that the accused instigated the deceased to commit suicide.
The constant acts by the accused led the deceased into a state of frustration and depression.
They kept quarrelling and one day the accused finally declared that if things are not sorted out,
then, it is better for both of them to get separated and to move on in life. The
44
Didigam Bikshapathi v. State of A.P. AIR 2008 SC 527; Prema Rao v. Yadla Rao AIR 2003 SC
11.
45
2009 (16) SCC 605: AIR 2010 SC 1446

[M]
accused also compelled the deceased to abort and even refused to marry her.
The night before the suicide, Pooja visited the apartment which led the deceased to doubt the
accused more. All these instances by the accused instigated the deceased to commit suicide.

[M]
ISSUE 3: WHETHER THE ACCUSED HAS CAUSED MISCARRIAGE AND

VOLUNTARY HURT?
THAT THE ACCUSED HAS CAUSED MISCARRIAGE
Whoever voluntarily causes a woman with child to miscarry shall, if such miscarriage be not
caused in good faith for the purpose of saving the life of the woman, be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine,
or with both; and, if the woman be quick with child,3shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine46
. The term "miscarriage" is synonymous with "abortion".
The unborn child in the womb must not be destroyed unless the destruction of that child is for
purpose of preserving the yet more precious life of the mother.47
Good faith by itself is not enough. It has to be good faith for the purpose of saving the life of
the mother or the child and not otherwise.
A woman had pregnancy of 24 weeks out of illicit relations and a doctor administered an
injection for determination of the pregnancy but the woman died the next day without
miscarriage. It was held that the act of the doctor amounted to 'voluntarily causing miscarriage'
within the meaning of section 312 read with section 511, as the doctor was presumed to know
the possible effects of the medicine.59 Deceased, an unmarried girl was pregnant from accused,
she died while causing mis-carriage due to perforation of uterus following abortion. It is a clear
case that accused was an instrumental in causing the womanto miscarry and obviously it was
not done in good faith for purpose of saving life of deceased. Miscarriage was with a view to
wipe out evidence of deceased being pregnant. Accused liable to be convicted under Sections
312, 315, 316 and 201 of I.P.C.
It is submitted that the accused compelled the deceased for abortion. The doctors have
confirmed that the deceased had gone for abortion before her demise. Therefore, the accused
is guilty under S.312 of IPC.
46
S 312 IPC
47
R vs Bourne (1938) 3 All ER 615

[M]
The burden is on the prosecution to prove that the procuring of the miscarriage was not
necessary to save life. There was no danger to the deceased life but the accused forced herto
abort. Therefore, the accused is guilty.
THAT THE ACCUSED HAS CAUSED VOLUNTARY HURT
Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or
with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
Where accused caused simple injuries to victim and not grievous injuries still accused are guilty
for offence under section 323. Therefore in the current case, accused must be held guilty for
causing hurt.

[M]
PRAYER
Wherefore in light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is humbly
and respectfully submitted that this Honourable Court may be pleased to:
1. Convict the accused for murder under Section 306 of IPC
2. Convict the accused for abetment of suicide under Section 306 of IPC
3. Convict the accused for causing miscarriage and voluntarily causing hurt under
Sections 312 and 323 respectively.
And pass any other order that this Honourable Court may deem fit in the interests of
justice, equity and good conscience.
All of which is humbly prayed,
TEAM [M] ,
Counsels for the Prosecution

Prosecution

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Prosecution

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TEAM - M

SHRI RAMSWAROOP MEOMRIAL

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SESSIONS COURT

IN Case No. SC ……. of 2023

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

ISSUE 1: WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS LIABLE TO BE CONVICTED FOR

THAT THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY OF COMMITTING MURDER 13

MEMORANDUM FOR THE PROSECUTION Page 2

ISSUE 2: WHETHER THE ACCUSED HAS ABETTED THE SUICIDE OF THE

CHARGES UNDER BOTH SEC 302 AND 306 IPC 25

ISSUE 3: WHETHER THE ACCUSED HAS CAUSED MISCARRIAGE

THAT THE ACCUSED HAS CAUSED MISCARRIAGE 32

MEMORANDUM FOR THE PROSECUTION Page 3

MEMORANDUM FOR THE PROSECUTION Page 5

CASES CITED CITATION

2 Ramashraya vs State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 2001 SC 1129

3 State of Maharashtra v Meyer Hans AIR 1965 SC 722

4 Son Lal v State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1978 SC 1142

5 V. Vijaykumar vs State of Kerala AIR 2000 SC 586

6 Bakhtawar vs State of Haryana AIR 1979 SC 1006

MEMORANDUM FOR THE PROSECUTION Page 6

24 Charan Singh v. State of U.P AIR 1967 SC 520.

MEMORANDUM FOR THE PROSECUTION Page 7

1. THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 (2 OF 1974)

2. THE GENERAL CLAUSES ACT, 1897 (10 OF 1897)

1. All India Reporter

2. Supreme Court Cases

4. Supreme Court Reporter

5. CDJ Law Journal

MEMORANDUM FOR THE PROSECUTION Page 8

8. Mitra, B.B., Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (20th ed. 2006)

9. K. D. Gaur, “Commentary on Indian Penal Code”, (Universal Law Publishing

2. P. RAMANATHA AIYAR’S, “ADVANCED LAW LEXICON”, VOL-I TO IV, (WADHWA

MEMORANDUM FOR THE PROSECUTION Page 9

THE PROSECUTION HAS APPROACHED THIS HON’BLE SESSIONS COURT UNDER

S. 177. Ordinary place of inquiry and trial

MEMORANDUM FOR THE PROSECUTION Page 10

MEMORANDUM FOR THE PROSECUTION Page 11

ISSUE 1: WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS LIABLE TO BE CONVICTED FOR

ISSUE 2: WHETHER THE ACCUSED HAS ABETTED THE SUICIDE OF THE

ISSUE 3: WHETHER THE ACCUSED HAS CAUSED MISCARRIAGE

MEMORANDUM FOR THE PROSECUTION Page 12

ISSUE 1: WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS LIABLE TO BE CONVICTED FOR

ISSUE 2: WHETHER THE ACCUSED HAS ABETTED THE SUICIDE OF THE

ISSUE 3: WHETHER THE ACCUSED HAS CAUSED MISCARRIAGE AND

MEMORANDUM FOR THE PROSECUTION Page 13

ISSUE 1: WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS LIABLE TO BE CONVICTED FOR MURDER

THAT THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY OF COMMITTING MURDER

MEMORANDUM FOR THE PROSECUTION Page 14

MENS REA TO COMMIT MURDER WAS PRESENT

4.State of Maharashtra v Meyer Hans George, AIR 1965 SC 722

MEMORANDUM FOR THE PROSECUTION Page 15

ACTUS REUS TO COMMIT MURDER WAS PRESENT

MEMORANDUM FOR THE PROSECUTION Page 16

MEMORANDUM FOR THE PROSECUTION Page 17

CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE PROVES THE MURDER BEYOND

Essential ingredients to prove guilt by circumstantial evidence are:

MEMORANDUM FOR THE PROSECUTION Page 18

MEMORANDUM FOR THE PROSECUTION Page 19

Post Mortem Report

MEMORANDUM FOR THE PROSECUTION Page 20

MEMORANDUM FOR THE PROSECUTION Page 21

Last seen evidence