TEAM - G

MOOT MEMORIAL

Before
THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Vedanta Kumar.............................................................................PLAINTIFF
V/S
State of Uttar Pradesh.................................................................RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF

 TBLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE NO. HEADING

2 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
3 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
4 STATEMENT OF FACTS
5 STATEMENT OF FACTS
6 ISSUES RAISED
7 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
8 PLEADINGS
9 PLEADINGS
10 PLEADINGS
11 PLEADINGS
12 PLEADINGS
13 PRAYER

1
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATUTES
1. Constitution of India
2. Indian Evidence Act, 1872
3. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

CASES CITED

1. Pawan Kumar @ Monu Mittal vs State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 2015 SC 2050

2. Tofan Singh vs State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2022 SC 5592

3. Rajindra Singh v/s S/o U.P., AIR 2007 SC

4. Doodhnath Pande vs State of U.P., AIR 1981 SC 911

5. Dasari Siva Prasad Reddy v/s Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., AIR 2004 SC 4383

6. Shankar Lal vs State of Maharashtra, AIR 1981 SC 765; See also Sakharam vs State of
M.P., AIR 1952 SC 758

7. Ramadhin v/s Emperor, AIR 1929 Nag 36

8. Sheo Shanker v/s State, AIR 1953 All 652

9. Deva v/s State by Inspector of Police, 2007 CrLJ (NOC) 210 (Mad)

BOOKS REFERRED

1. The Law of Evidence, Batuk Lal

2. Ratanlal & Dhirajlal’s Law of Evidence
3. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Professional Book Publishers

2
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Petitioner Mr. Vedanta Kumar has approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
under Article 134 of the Constitution of India.

3
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

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

4
 her throat and face and their servant Ramu was also lying dead besides her dead body.
Both the dead bodies were lying in a pool of blood. The parents of Trisha were shocked to
see all these things and Mrs. Payal started crying. An FIR was lodged by Mr. Singhavi
before the Viram Khand Police Station, Gomtinagar, on 10/11/2020 at Crime No.
101/2020 for the offences under Section 302 and 449 of the Indian Penal Code. The Police
started its investigation on the same day.
5. Mr. Abdul Khan (PW - 3), who used to live just opposite Mr. Singhavi’s house alleged that
he saw Vedanta (accused) coming out of the gate of the house of Mr. Singhavi, at the time
when the incident had occurred. Mr. Singhavi also told the police that he has suspicions
regarding Vedanta, and he believes that he would have killed his daughter. The CCTV
camera installed at the outside gate of Mr. Singhavi couldn’t record anything (footage) that
day as it had been non-functional for three days. A police team under Sub –Inspector Mr.
Aditya Jain was sent at that time to Noida to arrest the accused Vedanta, but the police was
informed that Vedanta (accused) went to Kanpur to his elder brother’s place. The accused
was taken into police custody from Kanpur on 15/11/2020 by Sub Inspector Mr. Aditya
Jain from the residence of his brother. He was produced before an Executive Magistrate in
Kanpur (UP), where he allegedly confessed the crime.
6. He was brought to Lucknow, where he was again arrested by the Investigating Officer, Mr.
Rajesh Sharma. At this time only, the accused Vedanta produced a train ticket of Rajdhani
express from Delhi to Kanpur for the night of 9th -10th November 2020 and disclosed
before the police officer that the murder weapon (knife) and blood-stained clothes were
thrown by him in bushes behind Fortune hospital and the police was successful in
recovering the knife and blood-stained clothes from the bushes behind Fortune Hospital,
Gomti Nagar.
7. Mr. Aditya Jain, who brought the accused from Kanpur was not examined by the learned
Trial Court. Further, the advocate of the accused, Mr. Dhirendra Yadav, on behalf of his
client filed an application to call T.T.E of Northern Railway, New Delhi along with the
travel record of Vedanta of 9th -10th November 2020, but his application was rejected by
the court. DW-1, Mr. Arjun Kumar, the brother of Accused Vedanta in his deposition
confirmed that the accused reached his place at Kanpur on 10/11/2020 at around 10 A.M.
and stayed with him till Sub-Inspector Mr. Aditya Jain reached his residence and took the
accused with him.

5
6
 ISSUES RAISED

ISSUE 1: WHETHER THE CONFESSION GIVEN BY THE ACCUSED BE

RETRACTED IN THE SUPREME COURT?

ISSUE 2: WHETHER THE ACCUSED WAS PRESENT AT THE PLACE OF

OCCURRENCE OF THE ALLEGED CRIME?

ISSUE 3: WHETHER THE INFORMATION GIVEN WILL BE ADMISSIBLE UNDER

SECTION 27 OF THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872?

7
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE 1: WHETHER THE CONFESSION GIVEN BY THE ACCUSED BE

RETRACTED IN THE SUPREME COURT?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the confession cannot be
retracted since the appellant did not make any such confession before the Executive Magistrate
in Kanpur, nor did he tell the police about the location of the murder weapon or the blood-
stained clothes.

ISSUE 2: WHETHER THE ACCUSED WAS PRESENT AT THE PLACE OF

OCCURRENCE OF THE ALLEGED CRIME?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the appellant was not present at the
place of occurrence at the time of the mishappening. The appellant was traveling from Delhi to
Kanpur on the intervening night of 9th – 10th November 2020(the date of the incident) to see his
brother. DW 1, Arjun Kumar, who is the sibling of Mr. Vedanta confirms that he came to his him
at 10 a.m. in the morning and stayed till Sub-Inspector Mr. Aditya Jain reached their residence and
took the appellant with them.

ISSUE 3: WHETHER THE INFORMATION GIVEN WILL BE ADMISSIBLE UNDER

SECTION 27 OF THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the information given will not be
admissible under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act that talks about ‘how much of information
received from accused may be proved’. The appellant did not give any information to the investigation
officer in Lucknow during the investigation.

8
 PLEADINGS

ISSUE 1: WHETHER THE CONFESSION GIVEN BY THE ACCUSED BE

RETRACTED IN THE SUPREME COURT?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the confession cannot be retracted
since the appellant did not make any such confession before the Executive Magistrate in Kanpur,
nor did he tell the police about the location of the murder weapon or the blood-stained clothes
while investigation conducted by Mr. Rajesh Jain in Lucknow. Also, if the appellant would’ve
given any information or confessed his guilt, he was in police custody. As per section 26 of the
Indian Evidence Act, no confession made by any person whilst he is in the custody of a police
officer unless it is made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate shall be proved as proved
against such person. Also, in section 25 of the Act, no confession made to a police officer shall be
proved against a person accused of any offense. This is a settled principle of law that was
observed in the case of Pawan Kumar @ Monu Mittal vs the State of Uttar Pradesh 1. If the
appellant were also compelled to yield information or confess his guilt while being held in police
custody, it won’t be a confession in the eyes of law. This was held in the case of Tofan Singh vs
the State of Tamil Nadu2.

ISSUE 2: WHETHER THE ACCUSED WAS PRESENT AT THE PLACE OF

OCCURRENCE OF THE ALLEGED CRIME?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the accused was not present at the
place of occurrence when the alleged crime took place. The appellant took the plea of alibi. The
appellant was traveling in the train from Delhi to Kanpur on the intervening night of 9 th – 10th
November 2020(the date of incident) to see his brother. DW 1, Arjun Kumar, who is the sibling of
Mr. Vedanta confirms that he came to his him at 10 a.m. in the morning and stayed at his place till
Sub-Inspector Mr. Aditya Jain reached their residence and took the appellant with them. The
appellant produced the train ticket to support the same. In the morning of 10 th November 2020, at
9:00 a.m., Mr. Singhavi left their house for giving his lecture at the college. Mrs. Singhavi also
1
AIR 2015 SC 2050
2
AIR 2022 SC 5592
9
left the house with her husband since she had to drop at a nearby beaty parlor. Trisha was alone at
home, except obviously their servant Ramu. The couple came back within 3 hours i.e., at 12 noon.
When they came, they found the dead bodies of their daughter and their servant lying in the pool
of their blood, with all the furniture around turned upside down. Distance between Lucknow &
Noida is around 510 kms. AND the distance between Lucknow & Kanpur is around 90 kms. One
needs to travel for six and a half hours by road and 3 hours by train to reach Lucknow from Noida.
Also, one needs to travel for 2 hours by road to reach Lucknow from Noida. The time frame
between Mr. & Mrs. Singhavi leaving their daughter at house and coming back is exactly 3 hours.
Considering the travelling part, it is very hard for the appellant to travel for this long just to kill
the girl he once loved but couldn’t get married to. Also, it is highly improbable that the appellant
managed to find the time frame of 3 hours where he could suddenly make up his mind and come
murder Trisha. The plea of alibi taken by the appellant is nowhere failing considering all the facts
and statistics. As said by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajindra Singh v/s S/o U.P. 3, it
is the prosecution upon whom the burden of proving the plea of alibi by leading evidence(here
train ticket AND the appellant’s sibling’s statement).
‘In order to establish the plea of alibi the accused must lead evidence to show that he was so far
off at the moment of the crime from the place of occurrence that he could not have committed the
offence’. This is what was said in the case of Doodhnath Pande vs State of U.P. 4 The appellant
was almost 100 kms. away from the place of occurrence, proving that it would be very improbable
for him to commit the alleged offence. ‘The mere failure, if any, on the part of the accused to
establish the plea of alibi, shall not lead to an inference that the accused was present at the scene
of occurrence’. This was held in the case of Dasari Siva Prasad Reddy v/s Public Prosecutor, High
Court of A.P.5 If in any case, failure on the part of the accused to establish plea of alibi does not
help the other side and it cannot be held that the accused was present at the scene of occurrence,
the other side must prove it by positive evidence. This was held in the case of Shankar Lal vs State
of Maharashtra6
A defence of alibi, if true, is to be raised at the earliest moment. This was held in the case of
Ramadhin v/s Emperor7. The appellant has been taking the defence of alibi since the trial at the
Trial Court commenced. Hence, it cannot be argued by the opposition that the appellant is taking

3
AIR 2007 SC
4
AIR 1981 SC 911
5
AIR 2004 SC 4383
6
AIR 1981 SC 765; See also Sakharam vs State of M.P., AIR 1952 SC 758
7
AIR 1929 Nag 36
10
this defence now when the appeal has come before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Allahabad
High Court held in the case of Sheo Shanker v/s State 8 that if the alibi evidence is good and no
weakness is detected by the court in it, it should not be given the go-by. If the court comes to
know of no weakness in the opposition’s evidence, the two cannot be true and the weakness must
be found somewhere, however difficult it might be. If the court fails to find any weakness in
either, the benefit of such failure must go to the accused and not to the opposition, because a well-
established alibi must be sufficient to show that the opposition’s witness was not speaking the
truth, or at least to throw doubt upon their truthfulness. When a defense of alibi is set up and that
defense utterly breaks down, it is a strong inference that, if the prisoner was not in fact where he
says he was, then all probability he was where the prosecution says he was. Moreover, such
inference is to be drawn only when the defense of alibi breaks down and not when it is
disbelieved. The Madras High Court, in the case of Deva v/s State by Inspector of Police 9, has
well said that ‘the defense of alibi is the best and the worst of defenses at the same time. It is the
best because if the accused was not there when the deceased was murdered, he could not have
murdered her and it is the worst because once he raises the plea of alibi, no other defense is
usually open to him. The appellant is able to establish the plea of alibi and hence this answers the
question that he was not at the place of occurrence when the alleged crime took place.

PW 3 seeing the appellant coming out of Mr. Singhavi’s house has no reasonable explanation but
he mistaking the actual offender for Mr. Vedanta or maybe he had any personal grudge from the
past against the Kumar’s or particularly the appellant. Also, there has been the mention of the
blood-stained clothes and the murder weapon(knife) found behind the bushes of the Fortune
Hospital since the trial at the Trial Court commenced, but the learned counsel did not present any
medical or forensic reports if that blood even was of the victim or was it a piece of evidence
associated to some totally different offense. Also, the murder weapon found is alleged to have
been the one used by Mr. Vedanta to injure & kill Trisha, but nowhere is provided/attached a
forensic report that says that the appellant’s fingerprints or his own blood have been found on it.

8
AIR 1953 All 652
9
2007 CrLJ (NOC) 210 (Mad)
11
ISSUE 3: WHETHER THE INFORMATION GIVEN WILL BE ADMISSIBLE UNDER
SECTION 27 OF THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the information given will not be
admissible under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act that talks about ‘how much of information
received from accused may be proved’. The appellant did not give any information to the investigation
officer in Lucknow during the investigation. As per section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, no
confession made by any person whilst he is in the custody of a police officer unless it is made in
the immediate presence of a Magistrate shall be proved as proved against such person. Also, in
section 25 of the Act, no confession made to a police officer shall be proved against a person
accused of any offense. This is a settled principle of law that was observed in the case of Pawan
Kumar @ Monu Mittal vs the State of Uttar Pradesh 10. If the appellant were also compelled to
yield information or confess his guilt while being held in police custody, it won’t be a confession
in the eyes of law. This was held in the case of Tofan Singh vs the State of Tamil Nadu 11. Section
27 was introduced as an exception to provisions sections 25, and 26. This is the doctrine of
confirmation. This doctrine is founded on the principle that if any fact is discovered in a search
made on the strength of any information obtained from an accused, such a discovery is a guarantee
that the information supplied by the prisoner is true. But here in this situation, the articles found
i.e., the blood-stained clothes and the murder weapon(knife) are yet to be gone through a forensic
observation test. Hence, it would be wrong to allege the accused to have supplied the information
AND got involved in the commission of the alleged offense.

10
AIR 2015 SC 2050
11
AIR 2022 SC 5592
12
 PRAYER

Therefore, in the light of issues raised, arguments advanced, and authorities cited, it is most
humbly requested that this Hon’ble Supreme Court may be pleased to adjudge and declare, that:

1. The confession made before the Executive Magistrate may not be retracted.
2. That Mr. Vedanta be acquitted and be discharged of all the charges.

The Hon’ble Court may pass any other decree or judgment that it deems fit proper in the light
of Justice, Equity, and Good Conscience.

ALL OF WHICH IS MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

Counsel of plaintiff

13