CHECKMATE-2023

LIST OF CLARIFICATIONS

Important

The Moot Proposition of the 13th Checkmate National Moot Court Competition, 2023 should
not be considered or treated as factual matrix of a trial advocacy competition. Also, that the
Moot Proposition is not an encyclopedia of events and facts.

Questions

1. PARA NO. 8 “.....many other personal things were dumped in a corner of the house ... ”
What Personal things were dumped? Did it include Hukkah as well?

Many personal items include personal items of Jatindas.

2. PARA NO. 2: Did Jatindas and Mr. Parnami know each other since the days of
Partition, or they met at a later stage after settling in Jaipur?

Not relevant, their friendship was old. They were good friends.

3. PARA NO. 12: Was a proper FIR lodged with the police after The Patels narrated the
entire story to Mr. Rathore?
No, not at that point of time.

4. PARA NO. 6:What were the other symptoms that Jatindas was experiencing in addition
to fever and numbness in his limbs?
Refer to Proposition.

5. PARA NO. 13: What were the records perused by the police?
Whatever was recovered.

6. PARA 14: Was Sameer (son of Dinesh) aged 4 at the time of Jatindas' death or his wife
Rani's death?
Sameer was 4 years old at time of Jatindas’s death and older since Rani died later.
7. PARA 19. Bank entries in Sartaj’s accounts and Dates of entries Amounts transacted to
his account during the normal course of his employment as well as during the period of
death of Jatindas & Rani?
Extract information from the facts given.

8. PARA 19: What were the uncomfortable questions asked by Rani? Was there any
incident that created suspicion in Rani’s mind regarding the death of her husband?

No clarification required.

9. PARA 13: Specify the similarities in symptoms of Jatindra and his wife's reports?
Since reports are not attached, the death can be taken as similar places.

10. PARA 20: Were Sartaj's fingerprints not taken? Was this deliberate or a mere
procedural error?

Refer to Paragraph 20 and interpret accordingly.

11. PARA 14: When was Sartaj was removed from his job? Was he removed immediately
after Jatindas’ death or after a lapse of some time? Specify.
Needs no specification. Refer Paragraph 20.

12. PARA NO. 5: What were the other reasons (other than extravagant expenses) for the
strained relationship between Jatindas & and his two elder sons?
Not relevant. Teams are to interpret according to the facts of the case.

13. PARA 7/8: Were blood reports from the path lab received before Jatindas’s death
(i.e.before 17th evening).
After the death of Jatindas.

14. PARA 9: Were Patels and Parnami known to each other since both lived in Jaipur & and
were in the same business of textile printing?
Not Relevant

15. PARA 9: Since “his childhood,” Bhavesh used to talk about his village - Murre? Did
Bhavesh talk about all these instances even before shifting to Jaipur with his family?
Interpret accordingly from the facts of proposition.

16. PARA 12: What were the belongings that Police took into custody when they went to Mr.
Jatindas' house in order to investigate the matter?
 Personal Items.

17. PARA 13: Police took statements of everyone in the house. Please specify all the people
whose statements were recorded. Did it include Jatindas’ third son Mangesh?
If other statements were taken, what did it include?

Everyone includes all, but statement in the moot proposition to be considered.

18. PARA 22: “Certain reports were tendered as exhibits” What were these reports? What
were the contents of the reports tendered?
No clarification required. Deduce from the proposition.

19. PARA 19: When the bank details of Sartaj were investigated, it showed regular entries of
money into his account from different members of the Sharma household. Who were the
other family members who were giving money to the servant? What amounts were
transacted in his account (specifically before and after Jatindas’s and Rani’s deaths)?
No clarification required.

20. According to the reports, what was the time of presence/administration of thallium in the
body of Jatindas & that of Rani’s?
Teams are free to interpret.

21. What was the quantity of thallium found in Jatindas’s and Rani’s bodies respectively?
Refer to moot proposition and interpret accordingly

22. How was the relationship between the three brothers, Ninesh, Dinesh, and Mangesh?
Refer to Proposition.

23. Is Mr. Rathore, the friend of Bhavesh’s Father also the investigating officer in the present
matter?
Mr. Rathore is a senior Police Official, not an Investigating Officer.

24. PARA 6: Was Jatindas admitted to the hospital before 16th Feb 2011? Was there any
previous illness that he suffered?
He was admitted on 17th February.

25. Was Rani admitted to the hospital before 16th Feb 2011? Was there any previous illness
that he suffered?
Facts are silent on it.
26. What happened to Mangesh?
Not Relevant

27. Why didn’t Mr. Parnami depose?

Not Relevant

28. In the second issue it is given that “Recoveries made as a result of confession made by
Bhavesh”. But there was no recovery from Bhavesh’s confession. He has only alleged the
murder.
This question requires no clarification, kindly go by the moot proposition.

29. Do we have to submit the compendium?

No.

30. Does the page limit of 35 pages include Appendix and Exhibits?
No, Appendix and exhibits are exclusive.

31. Do we know the previous medications that were being given to Jatindas?
The question requires no clarification, kindly go by the moot proposition.

32. In PW1, it is given “He was very young even remember names of dozens of households
who used to work in their haveli.” Is there any correction in this line?

He was very young to even remember names of dozens of households who used to work in their
haveli.

33. Whether the police registering a case under Section 304 and Section 34 of IPC equivalent
to filing of an FIR by the police?

Yes, it is equivalent to filing an FIR by the police.

34. A clarification is required in Page No. 4, Para No. 5, Line No. 5 regarding the term ‘ugly’,
substantiating the amount or type , nature of fights mentioned through this term ?

Refer to moot proposition and interpret accordingly.

35. A clarification is required in Page No. 9, with respect to statements of PW 4 “He informed
the court about hearing from his father and grandfather, how Jatindas was unhappy with
his two sons and how he felt that they were up to something illegal.”, is required as to what
made Jatindas feel that the two sons i.e Dinesh and Ninesh were upto something illegal
(Actions , Statements) ?
Refer to moot proposition and interpret accordingly.
36. Is the term “confession” mentioned in Issue B correct as confession termed in the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 means acceptance of guilt whereas in the current case Bhavesh was
not the accused neither did he confess any crime. Is this term to be understood as
‘statements?

It is not a confession, read it as a statement.