PROBLEM-1

On 15-5-2007 at about 11:00pm the complainant 'A' was is sleeping in the open verandah of his
house. Suddenly somebody assaulted on his head. He got up from the bed and saw the accused B
standing near him a knife in his hand. 'A' chased the accused. On his cries, the neighbour came
out, chased the accused and caught hold of him. At about 11:30 pm in same night the
complainant lodged first information report in police station, wherein he mentioned that accused
caused him injury due to past enmity. The clothes of that the accused had bloodstains. Police
seized a knife and blood stained clothes from the possession of the accused. The knife was also
having blood stains. A was medically examined. In the opinion of the doctor the simple incised
injury on forehead of the complainant was caused by some sharp weapon. In chemical
examination report blood stains were found on the knife and clothes. Police recorded the
statement of witnesses under section 161 of the Cr.P.C. and after completion of investigation
filed charge sheet under section 324 of the IPC against the accused.

Prosecution Evidence

Evidence of complainant'A' was adduced from the side of prosecution which substantially
corroborated prosecution case. In the statement 'A' stated that the accused 'B' caused him injury
by knife due to past enmity. In cross examination 'A' has stated that he knew the accused and
according to neighbour C, they caught the accused while fleeing away and at that time 'A' had
injury on his forehead. There were blood- stains on the cloths of the accused B. Doctor described
the injuries of the complainant and in cross-examination on behalf of the accused denied the
suggestion that the injuries were caused due to fall. Investigation officer stated about writing the
first information report and the recovery of clothes of the accused 'A' and knife.

The accused in his examination under section 313 of Cr.P.C. has stated that he is innocent and
has been falsely implicated in this case due to past enmity with the complainant 'A'. The accused
has not given any explanation about blood stains found on the cloths and knife seized from his
possession.

Defence Evidence: Accused 'B' did not adduce any evidence in his defence.

PROBLEM-2
The Prosecution case is that complainant Kuldeepak on 29-08-2007 submitted a written
application at city Kotwali in which it is mentioned that he has got a shop of motor parts in the
name of Ganga Automobiles situated at Jagatdev Talab. On 24-08-2007 at about 9:00p.m. he
went to his house after closing the shop. On 25-08-2007 at about 9:00 a.m. when he opened the
shop, he found that the motor parts were scattered. Two crown of GNA Company used in TATA
vehicles costing Rs. 7,000 were not found. On the basis of the report the case was registered. Site
map was prepared. The disclosure statement of the accused was recorded on 08.09.2007 and
pursuant to it two crowns were seized from the house of the accused. The statements of the
witnesses were recorded. After completing the investigation the charge sheet was filed in the
Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class.

Defence Plea
The accused denied the charges and his defence is that he has been falsely implicated.

Evidence for Prosecution

The Prosecution examined as many as five witnesses in support of its case. Complainant
Kuldeepak (PW1) proved the FIR (Ex.P-1) lodged by him. He deposed the fact of breaking the
lock of his shop and theft of aforesaid articles therefrom and deposed the fact of identification of
articles. Investigating officer (PW2) deposed the fact regarding the memo and seizure of stolen
property. Rajaram (PW3) and Gopal (PW4) were examined to prove memo and seizure but they
have not supported the prosecution case. They are declared hostile. Nayab Tahsildar (PW5)
deposed the fact of identification of articles.

Evidence for Defence

Accused examined himself in defence and denied the allegations against him and took a defence
of false implication due to enmity.

Arguments of Prosecutor
The Prosecutor has argued that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt
against the accused. Hence, the accused be convicted and sentenced suitably.

Arguments of Defence Counsel

Learned counsel for the accused submitted that the complainant lodged FIR with inordinate
delay of 04 days and no reason for delay has been given. The recording of disclosure statement
on 08-09-2007 of the accused at Ganga Auto Mobile, is also not true and the police has not
seized the stolen articles from his possession. The police has made the concocted story in this
regard. The identification of the stolen articles has not been done properly, therefore, the
prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused. Therefore,
accused be acquitted of the charges.
PROBLEM 3
On 11-12-13 in the evening at about 7:25 p.m., Informant 'B' lodged a First Information Report
with police station Mandsaur to effect that he resides in House No. 10 station road. On 11-12- 13
in evening about 6:30p.m., while he was talking in his drawing room with his friend 'C',
suddenly accused Al and A2 because of previous enmity with 'B' came into the drawing room
armed with lathis. Both the accused person assaulted 'B' with their lathi. Because of assault 'B'
sustained bleeding injuries over head and right arm. When C tried to save 'B' accused Al and A2
also gave lathi blows to 'C' who sustained sustained bleeding injuries over left arm and right leg.
When other family members of 'B' and neighbours came and shouted to save 'B' and 'C', both the
accused intimidated 'B', by threatening to cause death and then fled away.

Thereafter B' and 'C' came to the police station Kotwali Mandsaur and B' lodged the report,
thereby police registered case under crime no. 350/13 and thana incharge firstly sent both the
injured persons to district hospital Mandsaur, where Dr. 'D' medically examined both the injured
persons. Injuries found over 'C' were simple in nature, whereas both the injuries found over 'B'
were grievous in nature. All the found on injured persons were caused by hard and blunt object.
During investigation site plan was prepared, accused Al and A2 were arrested, lathis were also
seized from them and after completion of investigation the charge sheet against Al and A2 filed.

Defence Plea
The accused personally denied the charges and their defence plea is that they have been falsely
implicated on account of enmity.

Prosecution Evidence
In examination-in-chief 'B' (P.W.1) stated that on the date and time of incident the accused A1
and A2 entered into his house and assaulted him over right arm and right side on head with lathis
and when his friend 'C' (P.W.2) tried to save him, both the accused persons also gave lathi blow
to 'C' (P.W.2). His family members and neighbours came and shouted over accused A1 and A2
and they fled away. Then he lodged report (Exhibit P-1) in police station Kotwali, Mandsaur and
doctor medically examined him at district hospital Mandsaur. His right arm and right side of
head were fractured and he was admitted in hospital for seven days. In cross examination 'B' had
denied the suggestion of the defence that he has received the injuries by fall.

Another injured witnesses 'C' (P.W.2) also supported, the prosecution version to the extent as of
the P.W. 1.

Dr. 'D' (P.W.3) also corroborated the versions of 'B' (P.W.1) and 'C' (P.W.2) by proving their
MLC reports (Exhibit P-3 and P-4), X-ray report of 'B' (Exhibit P-5) and X-ray plates (Article X-
1 and X-2).

Defence Evidence
The accused Al and A2 in their examination under section 313 of Cr.P.C. denied the allegations
against them and took a defence of false implication due to enmity. No further evidence in
defence is given by the accused persons.

Arguments of Prosecution

District Prosecution Officer has argued that all charges against accused persons are proved
beyond any reasonable doubt, hence the accused persons be convicted accordingly and rigorous
punishment be imposed.

Arguments of Defence

Accused persons have been falsely implicated due to enmity. Prosecution evidence is doubtful as
no independent witnesses are produced and accused persons can not be convicted only with
evidence of partisan witnesses. Hence, they be acquitted.

PROBLEM-4
Prosecution story in brief is that on 14.12.2016 around 5 p.m. the complainant 'A' lodged an FIR
at City Kotwali, Gwalior stating there in that he resides at Govindpuri Colony Gwalior. On
13.12.2016 around 8 p.m. when he was standing on the road outside of his residence, accused
'B1' and 'B2' came there armed with the lathis and started uttering obscene words to him. When
complainant tried to stop them from abusing him, accused persons B1 and B2 attacked him with
lathis. Complainant sustained on his head, back and right and left arm. When neighbours of
complainant came to save him, accused persons threatened the complainant to kill and fled away.

On the basis of this report crime number 312/16 was registered. Complainant was sent for
medical examination by the in charge of police station. As per medical report, fractures were
found on right ulna bone and left parietal bone of the head of complainant which are grievous
injuries.

During the investigation site map was prepared, accused persons B1 and B2 were arrested and
lathis were recovered from their possession. After the investigation the charge sheet was filed in
the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class.

Defence Plea

The accused have denied that charge and their defence is that they have been falsely implicated
on account of previous Enmity

Evidence for Prosecution

The prosecution examined as many as 6 witnesses in support of its case. Complainant A (PW1)
proved the FIR, lodged by him. He supported the case of prosecution and deposed that when he
was standing on the road outside of his house, accused person B1 and B2 came there armed with
lathis and started uttering obscene words to him. When complainant tried to stop them from
abusing him, accused persons B1 and B2 attacked him with lathis. Complainant sustained
injuries on his head, back and arm. When neighbours of the complainant came to save the
complainant accused persons threatened to kill him and fled away. He lodged an FIR at City
Kotwali Gwalior as per (Ex.P-1). He was sent for medical examination to the district hospital,
Gwalior. As per his medical report he has fractures on head and right arm. He was admitted in
the hospital. Other eyewitnesses C1 (PW2) and C2 (PW3) also supported the prosecution version
to the extent as of the PW1. Dr D (PW4) also corroborated the version of prosecution by proving
his MLC report (Ex.P-2) , X Ray report (Ex.P-3) and X Ray plates (Articles Al and A2). In his
cross examination he denied the suggestions of accused persons that the complainant received
the injuries by fall. Investigation officer PW5 and independent witnesses (PW6) proved the
seizure of the lathis in their deposition.

Evidence for Defence

The accused B1 and B2 in their examination under section 313 of Cr.P.C. denied the allegations
against them and took a defence of false implication due to enmity. No evidence in defence is
given by accused persons.

Arguments of Prosecutor
District prosecution officer has argued that all the charges against accused persons B1 and B2 are
proved beyond any reasonable doubt, hence the accused persons be convicted accordingly and
rigorous punishment be imposed.

Arguments of Defence Counsel

Accused persons have been falsely implicated due to enmity. Prosecution evidence is doubtful,
therefore, accused persons cannot be convicted. Hence, they be acquitted.

PROBLEM-5
Prosecution story in nutshell is that in the night of 2nd July, 2018 at about 08.15, complainant
Ramesh who is a lame, reached his home and found accused Manu and Ballu having liquor in
front of gate of his home Ramesh warned them not to consuing liquor there. Accused Manu and
Ballu used filthly language about his mother and sister and also said that a lame cannot do
anything to them. Ramesh entered his house and requested both the accused not to consume
liquor as that was his prayer time. Thereafter both the accused entered into the house of Ramesh
and thrashed him with kick and fists. Manu picked up a stick and gave a stick blow to Ramesh
resulting in injury to little finger of his left hand. On screaming of Ramesh, Rahees and Ram Lal
came there and rescued him. Thereafter, both the accused went away from the spot and Ram Lal
took injured Ramesh to Police Station on his bicycle where Ramesh lodged a complaint against
the accused persons.

The injured Ramesh was medically examined at the instance of Police Station Kotwali, in
District hospital, Narsinghpur. As per medical report, three injuries i.e. on right cheek, back and
little finger of left hand caused by hard and blunt object within 24 hours of examination were
found on the body of Ramesh. X-ray was advised for the injury of little finger of left hand, in
which fracture was reported by Radiologist on examination of X-ray Film. Investigating officer
prepared a spot map on 3rd July, 2018 and recorded the statements of witnesses. Investigating
officer arrested both the accused on 5th July, 2018 and prepared memo of arrest and seized a
stick of Babool from accused Manu in the presence of witnesses. Completing investigation a
charge sheet was filed in the Court.

Defence Plea

Both the accused advanced defence that the complainant has grudge with them because they did
not lend money to him. The accused persons took a defence that complainant Ramesh fell down
due to deformity in his leg and he has lodged a false complaint against them to get monetary
benefits in the name of injuries.

Evidence for prosecution

Complainant Ramesh (PW-1) stated that, in the night of 2nd July, 2018 at about 08.15,
complainant Ramesh who is a lame, reached his home at Kandeli Narsinghpur, and found
accused Manu and Ballu having liquor in front of gate of his home. Ramesh warned them not to
consume liquor. Accused Manu and Ballu started abusing for his mother and sister and said a
lame cannot do anything to them. Ramesh entered his house. Thereafter, both the accused also
entered in the house of Ramesh and beat him with kicks and fists. Manu picked up a stick lying
nearby and gave a stick blow to Ramesh and he got injuries in the little finger of left hand. The
complainant went to Police Station Kotwali, Narsinghpur and lodged a complaint Ex. P-1.
Dr. Manoj Shrivastava (PW-2) stated that the injuries on the body of Ramesh (PW-1) may be
caused by hard and blunt object inflicted within 24 hours of examination and a fracture of little
finger of left hand was found.

Evidence for defence

Accused persons examined his neighbour Shyam (DW-1) who deposed that Ramesh has also
lodged same type of complaints with the similar type of allegations against two other persons
and compounded the same after getting money. On refusing to advance money to complainant,
he has filed present false report against them.

Arguments of Prosecutor
Prosecution case is supported with medical evidence. There is no ground in existence to
disbelieve the testimony of victim. So, both the accused are liable to be convicted.

Arguments of Defence Counsel

No independent witness from the locality has been examined by prosecution. As per opinion of
Dr. Manoj Shrivastava (PW-2) the injuries found on body of Ramesh may be inflicted due to
falling down. Their defence is proved to the preponderance of probability. So, they are entitled to
be exonerated from the charge with which they are subjected to the trial.

PROBLEM 6
Meena was going to school on foot and was walking by the left side of the road. When she was
about to turn left, a bike coming from front at very fast speed suddenly turned slightly and passed
by her at an inch distance and accused 'A' shouted aloud in order to scare her and while passing
by Meena he touched her at her waist. Then bike rider turned back with his bike and again came
back to Meena and caught hold of her. This incident was being observed by Mr. Kaushik from
first floor of his house who shouted at the accused and warned him. At this the accused pelted a
stone at Mr. Kaushik's window and broke the glass and ran away on his bike before Mr. Kaushik
could reach up to him. After this Mr. Kaushik accompanied Meena to the police station and FIR
was lodged and statement of victim Meena was also recorded by judicial magistrate. Accused
was arrested next day and TIP was conducted by executive magistrate. After investigation charge
sheet was filed.

Defence

Accused claimed himself to be innocent and claimed that Mr. Kaushik is Meena's uncle and
hence an interested witness and there is no other eye witness.

Prosecution Evidence

• Prosecution examined complainant Meena as PW1 who reiterated the prosecution story.

• Mr. Kaushik as PW2 stated that on the relevant day he went upstairs to water the plants kept in
the first floor balcony of his house when he saw that Meena, in her school uniform, was walking
by the left side of the road and then suddenly accused A came from opposite direction at very
fast speed and passed by her at an inch distance and shouted aloud in order to scare her and while
passing by her the touched her at her waist. He further deposed that after that the accused came
back on his bike again and caught hold of Meena. He further deposed he shouted at the accused
and warned him after which the accused pelted a stone at his window and broke the glass and ran
away on his bike before he could reach up to him. He further deposed that he accompanied
Meena to the police station and FIR was lodged.

• I.0. as PW3 proved arrest memo and investigation.

• Executive Magistrate X proved the TIP.

Defence Evidence

Accused did not examine any witness in his defence.

Prosecution Argument
Prosecution case stands proved beyond any reasonable doubt and hence strict punishment should
be given to the accused.

Defence Argument

PW2 is an interested witness and hence prosecution case has not been proved beyond reasonable
doubt and hence he should be acquitted.

PROBLEM-7
Tension was going on between two adjacent villages regarding a right of way. On 01-06-2016
during his morning walk, Rohan was passing by the village pond at around 6 a.m. in morning.
He saw two accused persons pouring some powdery substance into the pond. He clicked their
photos in his mobile phone. Unfortunately he was observed by the third accused who was
standing behind a tree. Rohan was slapped from behind at his mobile phone and threw it into
Pond. He also warned Rohan to keep his mouth shut, or otherwise to face dire consequences.
Then the accused left the place. Rohan noted the number of bike as CG10 X 1384. He
immediately went to village Sarpanch and then they together went to police station to lodge FIR.
Accused were arrested on the basis of suspicion, TIP was conducted in presence of Tehsildar and
spot map was prepared. Wallet of accused A was found at the crime scene containing his Aadhar
Card. According to address mentioned on his aadhar card he belongs to village Y.

Water of Pond was sent for chemical examination which confirmed poisonous substance in it.

Defence

Accused persons denied all the allegations and took the plea that witnesses of TIP and
investigation officer belong to village X, and there is no independent witness. They also stated
that there was no source of light at village pond and hence complainant could not have identified
them So, they should be acquitted giving them benefit of doubt.

Prosecution Evidence

• Complainant Rohan was examined as PW1 who reiterated the prosecution story.

• Sarpanch of the village was examined as PW2 who supported the version of PW1.

• Investigation officer was examined as PW3 who deposed about lodging of FIR, investigation,
arrest of accused persons, preparation of spot map, seizures at crime scene etc.
• Tehsildar was examined as PW4 who deposed about the TIP conducted by him.

• Chemical examiner was examined as PW5 who deposed that the sample of pond water given to
him contains poison.

PROBLEM-8
Both accused, A and B lived in Bhim Colony and the complainant Sunita also lived in the same
colony. She used to go for jogging in the park. Accused A started liking Sunita and one day left a
letter in her scooty in which his mobile number was written. As Sunita did not bother to call him
back, after 3 days he tried to interact with Sunita in the park, but she showed her disinterest.
Accused A started following Sunita and accused B used to accompany him most of the times.
One day Sunita went to a recharge shop and wrote her number on the diary for the purpose of
recharge. Accused went into shop and when she left he noted her number. Thereafter he tried to
contact her on whatsapp, and also called her repeatedly of her mobile number. One day Sunita
abused him on phone. He got very angry and decided to take revenge. He told about the abuse to
B and they made a plan and went to her house.

They scaled the wall and entered her house in evening around 8 p.m. when all other family
members had gone to temple and she was at home with her 7 year old nephew. They entered
bedroom and while B took hold of Sunitas's hands at her back, accused A held her head by her
hair and with sharp razor made numerous incised wounds on her face and then both of them left.
When her brother and mother came back home she narrated the entire story to them and they
took her to hospital. Soon after that her brother went to police station and lodged FIR.

Prosecution
Victim as PW1 corroborated the prosecution story and her nephew PW2 deposed that the two
accused injured his aunt. Her brother as PW3 said that his sister used to tell her about the
stalking by the accused and he had lodged a written complaint with the local police station copy
of which has been produced in the court. His mother as PW4 corroborated him. Investigation
officer as PW5 deposed about FIR and investigation. Dr. Vasundhra, who conducted the medical
examination of the victim reported 40 incised wounds on her faces including 13 half inch deep
wounds apparently caused by a sharp razor. The wounds could be stitched only with 13 stitches.

Defence

The accused persons in their defence denied all the allegations and took the defence that the
testimony of PW2 is not reliable since he is a child witness and other witnesses are interested
witnesses. They pleaded that they are being falsely implicated. However they could not produce
any witness in their defence.