12th RC CHOPRA NATIONAL MOOT COURT

COMPETITION MEMORIAL

BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT

APPEAL ( CRIMINAL )
APPEAL NO.......................2023

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN

Y...............................APPELLANT
V.
STATE........................RESPONDENT

APPEAL TO THE HIGH COURT FILED

BY APPELANT UNDER SECTION
OF 374(2) CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

RC-2354

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

SC Supreme Court
HC High Court
U/s Under section
v. versus
CrPC Criminal Procedure Code

IPC Indian Penal Code

AIR All India Reporter
SCC Supreme Court Cases

2
RC-2354

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. List of Abbreviations...............................................................2
2. Index of Authorities.................................................................3-4
3. Statement of jurisdiction...........................................................5
4. Statement of facts.....................................................................6
5. Statement of issues...................................................................7
6. Summary arguments.................................................................8-9
7. Arguments advanced…............................................................10-21
8. Prayer.........................................................................................22

3
 RC-2354

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

BOOKS REFERRED :

I. Indian Penal Code, KD Gaur, 2020, 7th edition

II. Indian Penal code, Ratanlal and Dhirajlal
III. Indian Evidence, Ratanlal and Dhirajlal

STATUTES REFERRED :

I. Indian Evidece Act, 1872

II. Indian Penal Code, 1860
III. Constitution of India
IV. Code of Criminal Procedure,1973

TABLE OF CASES :

I. Hanumat V. State Of M.P. , SC,1952..........................................................................11

II. Pakala Narayan Swami v. Emperor AIR 1939 PC
47….............................................................................................................................11
III. Jagroop Singh V. State of Punjab.................................................................................12,15
IV. Sidhartha vashishta @ Many Sharma V. State ( Nct of Delhi ), AIR 2010, SC..........12
V. Santosh kumar singh V. State through CBI, AIR 2010, SC........................................12
VI. Dr. Srimati Nupur Talwar V. State of UP and anr, AIR 2017, Allahabad high court 12
VII. Pryadarshini Matto case..................................................................................................12
VIII. Aarushi Talwar murder case / Noida double murder case.............................................12
IX. Sharad Bridhi Chand v. State of Maharashtra,1984, SC................................................12
X. M Nanavati V. State of Maharashtra, 1901.....................................................................12.
XI. Pattu lal V. State Of Rajasthan, 1996, SC:......................................................................12
XII. Madhu V. State of Karnataka..........................................................................................13
XIII. Jagdish V. State of MP....................................................................................................13
XIV. Md. Ajmal Md. Amir Kasab V. State of Maharashtra, 2012, SC:...................................14
XV. Tamil Nadu V. Kutty @ Lakshmi Narasimha, AIR 1964, SC........................................14
XVI. Ram Chandra Prasad Sharma V. State of Bihar..............................................................14
XVII. State of Tamil Nadu V Lakshmi Narasimhan..................................................................14
XVIII. Henry West H Pyarelal Bhargawa V State of Rajasthan uller V State of Assam...........15
XIX. Swaran singh V state of Punjab........................................................................................15
XX. Dharumaiyan V State, 2008, Madras High Court.............................................................15.
XXI. Silash Singh v. State.........................................................................................................16
XXII. Vijay Saini V. State, 2022, Delhi high...............................................................................16
XXIII. Udai Bhanu v. Stete of UP.................................................................................................17

4
 RC-2354

XXIV. State of HP v. Jeet Singh , 1999, SC..................................................................................18

XXV. Ramanand and ors v. State of HP.....................................................................18
XXVI. Brijesh Kumar v. State......................................................................................18
XXVII. Sevaka Perumal v. State of TN.........................................................................18
XXVIII. Sanjay Rajak v.State of Bihar, AIR 2019, SC,.................................................18
XXIX. Kanchan Singh v. State of Gujarat....................................................................18
XXX. Manchindra v. Sjjan Galfa.................................................................................18
XXXI. Ulla Mahapatra Case.........................................................................................20
XXXII. Kakoo v. State of HP........................................................................................20
XXXIII. Madras High court in Rajkumar v. State, 2023.................................................20

5
RC-2354

. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The counsel for respondent , hereby humbly submit to this honorable court’s
jurisdiction under section 374(2), of criminal procedure code, 1973.
“Section 374(2) : any person convicted on a trial held by a sessions judge or
an additional sessions judge or on a trial held by any other court in which a
sentence of imprisonment for more than seven years has been passed against
him or against any other person convicted at the same trial ; may appeal to
the high court.”

6
RC-2354

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. On 26 May,2020 one Mohanto called police station , informing the huge quantity of
blood has been seen on the Canal road near Dilbagh extension.
2. After receiving the call the head constable Amar Das made due entry in GD register and
along with sub inspector Kishwar proceeded for the spot.
3. On the spot there was huge blood on the roadside, some broken pieces of glass and some
pieces of blood stained paper was found. All these articles were taken into custody and
recovery memo was prepared.
4. On further investigation visible marks of dragging some heavy articles in jungle on the
side of the road were found. These continued upto river and then vanished.
5. While the investigation was still being conducted police station received information
from Balwaan that his son Sumit was missing since the previous evening that is 25th May,
2020. Summit had gone on his bike but did not return. Statement of mother
recorded by investigating officer revealed that Sumit around 5 PM went out from home
and told his mother not to prepare dinner as he was going out with his friends, Ganga and
juvenile Devi.
6. Both Ganga and Devi were called in the police station but they did not report.
7. So investigating officer went to their house where they both ( Ganga and Dev ) confessed
that :
a) They had gone out with Sumit on 25th May, 2020.
b) Three of them rode the bike together towards the Canal road towards the
Dilbagh Extension.
c) On the way purchased the alcohol and consumed it.
d) After sometime they got down to answer the call of nature but Sumit was sitting
on motorcycle.
e) At this time they both assaulted Sumit with big knives. They threw the helmet and
purse of the victim in the nearby jungle and dragged the body and the motorcycle
to the nearby river and threw them in the river. Then they swam across the river
and burnt their blood stained clothes and hid the weapon of crime in the jungle.
8. The police also recovered the weapon of the crime on the basis of the information given
by the two accused.
9. Case was registered under section 302 and 34 of Indus Penal Code.
10. Statement was recorded under by magistrate under section 164 of CrPC.
11. In trial court although they retracted from their earlier confession but they were convicted
under section 302 and 34 and were awarded imprisonment for life.
12. Now the accused had made the appeal in High court against their conviction

7
RC-2354

. STATEMENT OF ISSUES

Issue 1
CAN CONVICTION BE BASED ON CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AVAILABLE IN

THE CASE ?

Issue 2
IS CONVICTION BASED ON RETRACTED CONFESSION APPROPRIATE ?

Issue 3
CAN CONVICTION BE BASED MERELY ON RECOVERY UNDER SECTION 27 OF

INDUS EVIDENCE ACT, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY FORENSIC EVIDENCE AND

RECOVERY OF DEAD BODY ?

Issue 4
IS CONVICTION OF THE JUVENILE ACCUSED BY THE TRIAL COURT

JUSTIFIED ?

8
RC-2354

SUMMARY ARGUMENTS

ISSUE 1

Can conviction be based on circumstantial evidence available in the

case ?

YES, conviction can be based on the circumstantial evidence given under the case. It is a
well established principle that a witness may lie but not the circumstances. If in case of
circumstantial evidence the evidence directly shows the guilt of accused and no other
inference can be drawn and there is chain of evidence than it can form the basis of
conviction. In this case we can see that circumstantial evidences of blood marks,
dragging marks, confession, not reporting to police station form a definite chain of
circumstances and makes it evident that crime has been committed by the accused. In
various landmark cases like Jessica Lal case, Priyadarshini Matto case, Nitish Katara
Murder Case, Aarushi Talwar murder case etc conviction was based on circumstantial
evidence.

ISSUE 2

Is conviction based on retracted confession appropriate ?

YES, conviction based on retracted confession is appropriate in this case. It is so because

firstly it is very common in criminal cases of accused getting retracted from confession.
Secondly here we can see that there is a corroboration of circumstantial evidence in this
case. So in such a case where a court is satisfied that confession was true conviction can
be made. Moreover we would like to humbly submit before this court that it is true that
certificate while recording the statement by judicial magistrate was not issued but this
discrepancy by magistrate may not led to the acquittal of the accused. This can led to the
infringement of fundamental right to access justice under article 21 just because there
was default of magistrate. We think the person who should pay for this default is
magistrate and not victim. In serious cases like murder more stress should be given on
providing justice instead of focusing on formal flaws. This discrepancy should be ignored
and circumstantial evidences plus confession which are pointing towards the conviction
should be more stressed upon.

9
RC-2354

ISSUE 3

Can conviction be based merely on recovery under section 27 of Indus

Evidence act , in the absence of any forensic evidence and recovery of

Dead body ?

It is humbly submitted to this court that in this particular case conviction can be based on the
evidence found under section 27 of the Indus Evidence Act. As it is well established that part of
statement of accused under section 27 which leads to the discovery of weapon is admissible but
not the confession part. To prove the fact that particular weapon was also used in the commission
of an offence it has to be corroborated by further evidence and link is to be established. In this
particular case it is submitted to the court that circumstantial evidences clearly show that there
has been use of weapon combined with the confession made by the accused in front of
magistrate. So even in the absence of dead body which accused threw in the river to remove
evidence and in the absence of forensic report which is almost impossible to be made in the
absence of dead body and due to their action of burning down their clothes conviction can be
based.

ISSUE 4

Is conviction of the juvenile accused by the trial court justified ?

It is humbly submitted to this court that yes the conviction of a juvenile by the trial court is
justified as according to section 21 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 a child in conflict with law
can be given life imprisonment with the possibility of release. Moreover in present case the age
of juvenile is above 12 years and if we consider section 83 of the IPC than a children above the
age of 12 years can commit an offence. So in this particular case it is apt to convict juvenile Dev
under section 302 of IPC and section 34 of IPC as his mental state as well as common intention
can be proved from the act of throwing the body into the river and hiding the weapon

1
RC-2354

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE 1

CONVICTION CAN BE BASED ON CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

IN THIS CASE.

1.1 Circumstantial evidence is not direct to the point in issue but consists of evidences of
various other facts which are so closely associated with the fact in issue that taken together they
form a chain of circumstances from which the existence of the principle fact can be legally
inferred or presumed.1 Hanumat V. State Of M.P. , SC,1952 , in this case the doctrine of
circumstantial evidence which is also commonly known as Hanumant’s Doctrine was
established. SC gave a set guidelines in this case which are as follow :

a) Circumstances should prove guilt and there must not be any other conclusion.
b) Exclude every other hypothesis except to be proved.
c) Chain of evidences must be formed.

It is humbly requested to the court that all three points are covered in this case.

1.2 In this case accused is rightly convicted by trial court on the basis of circumstantial
evidence. In this particular case chain of circumstances which prove the guilt of accused is as
follows:

a) Huge spots of blood on the roadside, pieces of glass and blood stained paper.
b) Visible marks of dragging some heavy article in the jungle.
c) During investigation complaint of Sumit being missing was received by police. Statement
of his mother that he went with his friends can also be regarded as dying declaration
under section 32 of the evidence act. As a statement given by deceased before he left can
be regarded as dying declaration.2

1
Lectures on Indian Law of Evidence, Ed.1 , 2020; Paramjit kaur
2
Pakala Narayan Swami v. Emperor AIR 1939 PC 47 ; In this case dead body was found on train coach. Wife
recognized the body and she told that last time when they met her husband told her that he was going to collect
the loan money from the people who were also threatening him.

1
RC-2354

d) Ganga and Devi did not reported to the police station when called by police. According
to us it is a suspicious act and last seen together within circumstantial evidence and
unusual and suspicious conduct of accused may lead to conviction.3
e) Confession made by them to IO as well as magisterate.
f) On the basis of confession weapons were found. Confession also corresponds to the
statement of mother and evidences found on road like blood spots and dragging marks. I
was held in Jagroop Singh V. State of Pumjab4 it was held that all circumstances that took
place n this case such as the recovery of weapon which convinced them to opine that the
prosecutions established the chain of circumstances.

1.3 There are several cases in which conviction was based on circumstantial

evidence: Following are the cases:

a) Jessica Lal Case5; In this case the supreme court’s decision was based on circumstantial
evidence as witness were turned hostile.
b) Pryadarshini Matto case6 In this case the additional sessions judge GP Thareja gave the
statement “ That I know the defendant is guilty , my hands are tied. As a judge I can only
go by the evidences provided by the investigating agencies.” Delhi law university student
was acquitted but however Delhi high court said that overall analysis of circumstances
proved beyond any doubt and evidence is unimpeachable that offence has been
committed.
c) Aarushi Talwar murder case / Noida double murder case 7 In this case it was held that if
all the circumstances and evidences on whose basis it is pointed towards that the accused
is guilty and there is no chance of possibility any other way then in such a situation
accused can only be solely convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence.
d) Sharad Bridhi Chand v. State of Maharashtra,1984, SC: In this case five golden rules
were given regarding the circumstantial evidence . One of them was that circumstantial
evidence should exclude every possible hypothesis except one to be proved.
e) M Nanavati V. State of Maharashtra, 1901: It was held that circumstantial evidence
could be used to establish guilt if circumstances points to no other conclusion.
Pattu lal V. State Of Rajasthan, 1996, SC: In this case it was held that if the
circumstances established by clear and clinching evidence only indicate that it was the
accused and no one else had committed the crime , evidentiary value of deposition
establishing such circumstances which are otherwise admissible would not diminish
merely because of absence of corroboration

3
Ramesh V. state , AIR 2014, SC
4
AIR 2012, SC
5
Sidhartha vashishta @ Many Sharma V. State ( Nct of Delhi ), AIR 2010, SC ( Jessica lal case )
6
Santosh kumar singh V. State through CBI, AIR 2010, SC
7
Dr. Srimati Nupur Talwar V. State of UP and anr, AIR 2017, Allahabad high court
1
RC-2354

Hence it is humbly submitted to the court that in present case as the circumstantial evidence
directly point towards the guilt of accused so without any further corroboration conviction is apt.

1.4 Conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence where body not found:

In Madhu V. State of Karnataka8 it was held that law is well settled that it is not at all
necessary for conviction of an accused for murder that the corpus dedecti (dead body ) be found.
Undoubtedly in the absence of the dead body there must be direct or circumstantial evidence
leading to the inescapable conclusion that accused are the person who committed the murder.
Discovery of body is a rule of caution and not rule of law.

1.5 Conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence without proving motive:

Bhim Singh V. State , 2015,SC : In this case it was held that proof of motive is immaterial
when facts are clear and links in the chain of circumstances are not broken. Similarly in the case
of Jagdish V. State of MP9 it was held that it is true that in case of circumstantial evidence
motive does have an extreme significance but to say that in absence of motive the conviction
based on circumstantial evidence cannot in principle be made is not correct. Absence of motive
in a case based on circumstantial evidence is not of much consequence when chain of proved
circumstances is complete.

8
AIR 2014, SC
9
AIR 2009, SC

1
RC-2354

ISSUE 2

CONVICTION CAN BE BASED ON RETRACTED CONFESSION IN

THIS CASE

2.1 If confession is true, voluntarily made and there is corroboration of evidence than such
confession can be acted upon even if it is retracted, as we all know that non retracted confession
is the rarity in criminal cases. There is a great importance of confession and they can never be
ignored. Confessions are highly credible because no reasonable person can make an admission
against himself unless compelled to do so by his conscience.10

2.2 Cases in which conviction was based on retracted confession:

a) Md. Ajmal Md. Amir Kasab V. State of Maharashtra, 2012, SC : In this case it was held that
it is safe to place reliance on retracted confession if it can be established that the confession is
true and has been made voluntarily. It is also important to keep in mind that the confession
has been corroborated sufficiently. The courts have the power to discard the exculpatory facts
and consider inculpatory facts.
b) Tamil Nadu V. Kutty @ Lakshmi Narasimha, AIR 1964, SC : In this case supreme court
held that it is not the law that once the confession is retracted the court should presume that
confession is tainted. As a matter of practical knowledge we can say that non retracted
confession is a rarity in criminal cases. To retract from confession is the right of confessor
and all the accused against whom confessions were produced by the prosecution have
invariably adopted that right. It would be injudicious to jeltisome a judicial confession on the
mere premise that its maker has retracted from it. The court has a duty to evaluate the
evidence concerning the confession by looking at all aspects.
c) Ram Chandra Prasad Sharma V. State of Bihar:11 In this case SC has laid down that it is
not an inflexible rule of practice or prudence that in no circumstances, can conviction be
based without corroboration on a retracted confession. However such corroboration is
required not as a rule of law but only as a rule of prudence.
d) State of Tamil Nadu V Lakshmi Narasimhan :12 It was held in this case that in a case where
sufficient materials are brought on records to lend assurance to the court in regard to the
truthfulness of the confession made, which is corroborated by several independent
circumstances lending assurance thereto even a retracted confession may be acted upon.

10
State of NCT of Delhi V. Navjot Sandhu, AIR 2005, SC ( Parliamentary attack case )
11
AIR 1967, SC
12
AIR 2001, SC

1
RC-2354

e) Henry West Huller V State of Assam :13 It was held in this case that if retracted confession is
generally corroborated by circumstantial evidence it can be acted upon.
f) Pyarelal Bhargawa V State of Rajasthan :14 It was held that a retracted confession may form
a legal basis of conviction if court is satisfied that it was true and was voluntarily made, but
corroboration is must.
g) Swaran singh V state of Punjab 15 : It was held In this case that the fact of retraction puts the
court on enquiry as to its voluntary character, its truth and consequent evidentiary value. If
on considering the circumstances the court believe that it is true it can base conviction. If it
believes that confession may be involuntary or untrue it may require corroboration.

2.3 Confession can be accepted even if there is some procedural defect:

In Dharumaiyan V State, 2008, Madras High Court , it was held that a mere failure on the part
of magistrate to certify in terms of subsection 4 of section 164 in a case where the accused was
produced from judicial custody and not from police custody may be only a procedural defect
which may not effect the evidentiary value of the confessional statement as such.

In Jagroop Singh V State of Punjab , SC, 2012: In this case it was held that if a case has some
flaws because human beings can make errors than the case can be said to be imperfect. But if the
case gives the clear picture of the crime and the guilt of the accused than there can be conviction.

So I would like to humbly submitted to this court that in this case the conviction based on
retracted confession is appropriate because it was true as it coincides with circumstantial
evidence, statement of mother and weapon found on the basis of it. There suspicious act of not
reporting to police station also shows their guilt. Further we have sufficient corroboration in this
case of evidences fond.

13
AIR 1985, Cri; Lj, SC
14
AIR 1963,SC
15
AIR 1957, SC

1
RC-2354

ISSUE 3

CONVICTION CAN BE BASED ON RECOVERY UNDER SECTION 27 OF

THE EVIDENCE ACT WHEN CORROBORATED BY CIRCUMSTANTIAL

EVIDENCE IN THE ABSENCE OF FORENSIC REPORT AND RECOVERY

OF DEAD BODY

3.1 Conviction on the basis of recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence act

( 3.1.1 ) Section 27 of the evidence act starts with the word provided. Therefore it is a proviso
by way of an exception to sections 25 and 26 of Evidence act. This basic idea embedded in this
particular section is the doctrine of confirmation. The doctrine is founded on the principle that if
any fact is discovered as a search made on the strength of any information obtained from a
prisoner
, sch a discovery is guarantee that the information supplied by the prisoner is true.

( 3.1.2 ) Conviction can be made when recovery is made on the basis of disclosure by accused
if close link is established between the material discovered and its use in commission of
offence
. In Silash Singh v. State 16it was held that in case of a murder where no eye witness
was there and the case was only based on the circumstantial evidence but recovery of weapon
and disclosure of accused were there , he prosecution has to establish a close link between the
discovery of material and its use in the commission of offence. In another case of Vijay Saini V.
State, 2022, Delhi high court held that if recovery under section 27 of evidence act was duly
corroborated by circumstantial evidence than conviction can be based.

It is humbly submitted to this court that in this particular case link between the discovery of
weapon and its use in the commission of offence can be well established through the
circumstantial evidences and confessions of the accused. Link can be established as follows that
huge blood spots were there which clearly indicate that at that particualar spot there occurred an
incident which caused injury to someone due to which blood came out . Now if we see huge
amount of blood on road side there can be two possibilities that either an accident occurred or if
not than there has been commission of an assault by using sharp weapons. Now in this particular
situation if there was accident than some vehicle must have been found. But no such weapon was
found , which clearly

1
RC-2354

1616
2017 , Calcutta high court

1
RC-2354

indicates that there occurred something which was for sure not an accident. Now if we combine
our chain of circumstantial evidences to this case and confessions and

connect two statements i.e. weapon found on the basis of disclosure and confession made to
magistrate than a link between weapon found and its use in commission can be established on the
basis of which conviction can be made.

( 3.1.3 ) Such recovery is a guarantee that accused had knowledge about it.
In Vijay Saini case17 it was held that under section 27 doctrine of confirmation is founded
on the principle that if any fact is discovered in a search , made on the strength of any
information obtained from prisoner , such a discovery is guarantee that the information supplied
by the prisoner is true. Such information can be admissible as evidence upto admission portion.
Although the exact information given by the accused while in custody which led to recovery of
the article has to be proved.

In Parliament attack case18 it was held that if a fact is actually discovered in consequence
of the information supplied , it affords some guarantee that the information is true and can
therefore be safely be allowed to be admitted in evidence as incriminating factor against accused.

In Udai Bhanu v. Stete of UP19 it was held that a discovery of a fact includes the object
found, the place from which it is produced and the knowledge of the accused to its existence.

( 3.1.4 ) Doesn’t matter if discovery made from open place . In State of HP v. Jeet Singh ,
1999, SC it was held that there is nothing in section 27 of the evidence act which renders the
statement of the accused inadmissible if recovery of article is made from any place which is open
or accessible to others . It is a fallacious notion that when recovery of any incriminating article
was made from an open place it would vitiate the evidence u/s 27 of the Evidence act.

3.2 Conviction can be made in the absence of dead body.

There can be no smoke without fire.

Principle that dead body must be found simply open the door for the accused to escape from law
where they are enough cunning to destroy the dead body. Leading counsel Amit Desai said, “ If
there is compelling evidence of murder absence of dead body can not prevent conviction. There
is the last scene concept and other circumstances besides direct evidence and admissible
confession that could play role in gathering up a body of evidence.20Aabad Ponda said that
17
Vijay Saini v. state , 2022, Delhi high court
18
State ( NCT of Delhi v. Navjot Sandhu, AIR 2005, SC
19
AIR 1962 , SC
20
Timesofindia.indiatimes.com

1
 RC-2354

corpus delecti is not mandatory to get a conviction. Even in the absence murder can be proved
on the basis of strong circumstantial evidence.21

It is humbly submitted to this court that as the body was not found because accused threw it in
the river so conviction be based on the circumstantial evidence. Cases in which courts held that
conviction was made in the absence of dead body are as follows:

a) Ramanand and ors v. State of HP 22 It was held in this case that if the dead body of a
victim in a murder case is not found other cogent and satisfactory proof of the homicidal
death of the victim must be adduced by the prosecution. Such proof may be of eye
witness or circumstantial evidence or both. But where murder is to be established by
circumstantial evidence alone the circumstances must be of clinching and definite
character unerringly leading to the inference that the victim concerned has met the
homicidal death.
b) Brijesh Kumar v. State23 In this case it was held that the fail on the part of the
prosecution to recover the dead body will not indicate that there was no murder. It was
held that a fact of murder can be proved by circumstantial evidence which leads to only
one conclusion although body not found.
c) Sevaka Perumal v. State of TN 24 It was held that conviction can be based without corpus
delecti because in some cases it may not be possible to trace or recover the corpus
delecti.
d) Sanjay Rajak v.State of Bihar, AIR 2019, SC, In this case it was held that failure of
police to recover dead body of victim does not entitle the accused to acquittal on benefit
of doubt.

3.3 conviction in absence of Forensic Report in this particular case

It is humbly submitted to this court that while the presence of forensic evidence tends to help
yield a conviction primarily when cases are otherwise weak. If case has otherwise strong
confession and evidence than conviction can be made without it. While explaining the pre-
requisites of expert evidence supreme court in Kanchan Singh v. State of Gujarat25 held that
before taking expert testimony it is necessary to prove that subject is such that expert testimony
is necessary . But in this particular case circumstantial evidences in corroboration with
confession clearly indicates the commission of offence.

In this particular case autopsy is not possible as the accused disappeared the body by throwing it
in the river so that all the evidences can be vanished. They also burnt their clothes on which there
were blood stains.

21
ibid
22
AIR 1981, SC

1
RC-2354

23
AIR 1958, all.
24
AIR 1991,, SC
25
AIR 1979 , SC

2
RC-2354

In the case of Jessica lal when forensic report of weapon was vitiated the court convicted the
accused on the basis of circumstantial evidence.

In case of Manchindra v. Sjjan Galfa26 when post mortem report was inadequate it was not
considered . Similarly in this particular case there can not be formed an adequate repot in the
absence of dead body and blood stained clothes. So it is humbly requested to court to maintain
conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence.

In Pattu Rajan v.State of Tamil Nadu 27 Supreme court upheld the conviction. While discussing
the argument regarding the absence of DNA profiling the court reiterated that it is the duty of an
xpert witness to assist the court by furnishing the report based on their expertise along with
reasons so as to enable the court to form its independent judgment by assessing such materials.
However the opinion evidence is advisory and the court is not bound by expert evidence. The
court further noted that while the accuracy of DNA evidence is increasing, it cannot be
considered infallible. Therefore the absence of DNA evidence would not lead to an adverse
inference , especially due to the presence of other cogent and reliable evidence.

26
AIR 2017, 13 SCC 491
27
AIR 2019, SCC.771

2
RC-2354

ISSUE 4

CONVICTION OF THE JUVENILE ACCUSED BY THE TRIAL COURT IS

JUSTIFIED

4.1 In India the situation is that children above the 12 years of age can commit crime . They
are regarded as enough mature for the commission offence. At the age of 12 years the child is
malatia supplet aetatem i.e. mental age when they start to understand the consequences of their
actions. U/s 83 of IPC general defence is only given to those who are below 12 and not above.
Under the Indian Penal Code a child at the twelve years of age attains full responsibility for his
or her deeds and he or she is liable under criminal law to the same extent as an criminal adult

4.2 If we consider the provisions of Juvenile Justice Act, 2015; U/s 21 we can give life
imprisonment to juvenile with the possibility of release. Section 21 of JuvenileJustice act is as
follows: “ No child in conflict with law shall be sentenced to death or for life imprisonment
without the possibility of release, for any such offence, either under the provisions of this Act or
under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code or any other law for the time being in force.” The
expression life imprisonment is not absolute but it is qualified by other expression without the
possibility of release. If we accept that a juvenile cannot be sentenced to life imprisonment it
would render the second expression futile. The only thing that this prohibition signifies is that
though there can be sentence of imprisonment for life but there shall always be possibility of
release.

In Ulla Mahapatra Case28, when a 12 year old boy attacked on a person with knife he was
convicted under section 302 of IPC , however he was not give life imprisonment because t that
time it was not allowed by law. But now it is humbly submitted to this court that now life
imprisonment under section 21 can be given so juvenile Dev is accurately convicted by trial
court.

In Kakoo v. State of HP29 when a13year old accused committed rape 2 year old girl was held to
be fully aware of his actions.

In Krishna Bhagwan v. State of Bihar the high court of Patna held that if at the time of
commission of an offence or during the trial the child accused completes the age of seven years
then such child can be convicted by te court if it can be proved that child is capable of
understanding the nature of the act and knew the consequences of the offence.

2
RC-2354

28
AIR 1950, ori.
29
AUR 1976 , SC

2
RC-2354

Recently Madras High court in Rajkumar v. State, 2023 held that there is no prohibition to
sentence a juvenile to life imprisonment. The bar under section 21 of Juvenile Justice act 2015, is
only for the imposition of life imprisonment without the possibilty of release. It is not a complete
or total bar for a court to impose life imprisonment if there is a possibility of release either
premature or on completion of 14 years.

So it is humbly submitted to the court that conviction of juvenile Dev of life imprisonment by
trial court is justified .

2
RC-2354

PRAYER

wherefore in light of the facts of the case, issues raised, arguments advanced
and authorities cited , this hon’ble court may be pleased to :

Find that:

1. Conviction can be based on circumstantial evidences available in this

case.
2. Conviction can be based even in the case of retracted confession.
3. Conviction can be based on the basis of recovery made under section
27 of the Evidence act when it is proved that discovered weapon is
also used in the commission of the offence, in the absence of dead
body and forensic report.
4. Conviction of juvenile accused by the troll court is justified.

And pass any other order that it may deem fit in the ends of justice, equity and good
conscience. All of which is respectfully submitted.

Place: S/d-----------------------

Date : ( counsel on behalf of the respondents)