Memorial Respondent

TC- 06
THE 2ND NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024
BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDICA
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION NO. ___________ OF 2024
IN THE MATTER OF
SOHAL ……….
PETITIONER/APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF INDICA …………..

RESPONDENT
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF

INDICA, 1950
MOST REVERENTLY SUBMITTED TO THE SUPREME COURT OF INDICA
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SR. HEADING PAGE NO.

NO.
1. TABLE OF ABBREVIATION
2. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
3. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
4. STATEMENT OF FACTS
5. QUESTION OF LAW
6. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
7. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
ISSUE I
Whether the Special Leave Petition against the 77
Judgment of Hon’ble High Court is maintainable
or not?
ISSUE II
Whether the guilt of the accused has been proved 18-20
beyond reasonable doubt or not?
ISSUE III
Whether the old or new law shall apply in the 21-24
present case?
ISSUE IV
2
Whether certain provisions of new criminal laws

are constitutionally valid?
8. PRAYER 37
3
TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
ABBREVIATION FULL FORM
Hon’ble Honourable
Crl. Appeal Criminal Appeal
SLP Special Leave Petition
Crl. Criminal
W.P. Writ Petition
PIL Public Interest Litigation
Ors. Others
IPC Indian Penal Code
FIR First information report
HC High Court
SC Supreme Court
Art. Article
§ Section
CoI Constitution of India, 1950
CrPC Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
POCSO Protection of Children from Sexual

Offences Act, 2012
NCRB National Crime Records Bureau
4
UoI Union of India
SCC Supreme Court Cases
SCR Supreme Court Record
AIR All India Reporter
ILR Indian Law Reports
NCT National Capital Territory
Appln. Application
Cl. Clause
CAD Constitutional Assembly Debates
Vol. Volume
Anr. Another
5
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
CASES REFFERRED :
Sr. No Case Title Citation
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11. .
12.
6
13.
14.
15.
STATUTES:
1. The Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005. (Act 43 of 2005)
2. Constitution Of India, 1950.
3. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act 2 of 1973)
BOOKS:
1. JITENDER KR. DHINGRA, DIGEST ON PROTECTION OF WOMEN FROM DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE ACT, 2005 [2005-2016], LRC PUBLICATIONS, DELHI.
2. R. S. DOGRA, DIGEST ON PROTECTION OF WOMEN FROM DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
ACT, 2005 (2013), PAL PUBLISHING HOUSE, DELHI.
3. V.R. CHOUDHARI, COMMENTARY ON PROTECTION OF WOMEN FROM DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE ACT, 2005 (2023), PREMIER PUBLISHING COMPANY, PRAYAGRAJ.
4. MULLA, COMMENTARY ON THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973, 21 ST
EDITION, DELHI LAW HOUSE, DELHI.
7
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
It is most humbly submitted that the Appellant have approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court Of
India under Article 136 of the Constitution Of India, 1950.
“136. Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court.—
(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its
discretion, grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination,
sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in
the territory of India.
(2) Nothing in clause (1) shall apply to any judgment, determination, sentence
or order passed or made by any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law
relating to the Armed Forces.”
8
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Minni, was an energetic girl, resident of village Baldoa in Mirpur which is situated 100 km
away from Prime City - The capital of Indica. She had left her village to study and fulfil her
aspirations. She was preparing for her medical entrance examination and was enrolled in an
institute located at Ram Nagar, Prime City. In February, 2010 Minni got admission in BA
(English Honors) course at a college situated in Prime City.
Sohal, aged about 24 years, resident of Mitra area situated 50 km away from the Prime City.
He was the owner of the Dhaba situated in Mitra area. In January 2010, Sohal had prepared
for his SSC exams from a coaching centre situated in Prime City. In February 2010, Sohal
took admission to a college in Prime City.
Development of relationship, Minni and Sohal met while travelling in a bus and their
friendship blossomed from there. Soon, they fell in love with each other. In February 2010,
both got enrolled themselves in a college. In 2013, both of them started living together in a
rented house in Prime City. Sohal did not inform his family members about his relationship.
Later on, the family members of Sohal pressurised him to get married and got fixed his
wedding. That Minni got to know that Sohal's engagement had been fixed by his family
members and his wedding is scheduled to take place on 01.07.2013.
Time and list of events that led to the Murder of Minni, when Minni got to know about
the fact that marriage of Sohal has been fixed then she started pressurising him to call off his
wedding. Then on 30.06.2013, following events occurred-:
i. 9:00 PM-: Sohal reached the Krishna area, and the couple left home in his car.
ii. 10:00 PM-: Sohal and Minni reached the Roman Gate area. After reaching there
they both fought for almost an hour inside the car.
iii. 11:00 PM-: Sohal strangled her with the data cable of his mobile phone in his
white Verna car. Thereafter, Sohal panicked not knowing what to do the body, he
roamed the area for few hours and eventually carried body in his car to his Dhaba.
9
Disposal of Body, On reaching the dhaba, Sohal stuffed body of Minni in a blue-coloured,
single-door fridge and closed it using cable wires. Since, it was the wedding of Sohal, the
dhaba will remain close for the next couple of days.
Information received, one of the police officers who stayed in the Krishna area received
information that Minni's family could not contact her. Then a tip-off was received that a man
had killed his girlfriend and gotten married to another girl, Manisha, on the same day.
Investigation, was carried out by Vijay Arora, Special Commissioner of Police, Crime
Branch in death of Minni.
i. Statement of Minni’s father-: He had stated that on the same day, Minni had
called him, saying Sohal was not fulfilling his promise to marry her and that she
was very disturbed.
ii. Statement under section 183 of BNSS-: The statements of the sister and friend of
the deceased's sister were recorded before a Judicial Magistrate under Section 183
of BNSS. They, stated that, in their presence, the deceased and accused left the
room where they lived together.
iii. Post- Mortem Report (PMR)-: The post-mortem report stated that the ligature
mark was transverse, not completely encircling the neck, and crossed the midline on
the thyroid cartilage, indicating a fracture. Death was caused by suffocation, and the
time of death was between 10 PM and 12 PM on June 30, 2013.
iv. Analysis of wedding photos of Sohal-: The wedding photographs of Sohal were
analysed by the police officer in which he, did not appear anxious rather he partied
and danced with his family members.
v. Recovery of Personal Diary of Minni- : The police recovered the personal diary of
the deceased, in which she wrote about her sadness and depression due to Sohal's
inability to convince his parents about their relationship and wedding. She
mentioned Sohal telling her that he did not want his parents to die over a girl.
vi. Mobile Tower locations-: The mobile tower location of Sohal was found near the
dhaba on that day.
Arrest, Sohal was arrested in the evening of July 1, 2013 by the police team from village
Mitra. He admitted his crime and got recorded his confession statement. Sohal refused to sign
his confession statement. On the basis of confession statement the following recoveries were
made-:
10
i. Recovery of body-: The body of the woman was recovered from the fridge.
ii. Recovery of Data Cable-: A data cable was recovered from the car of Sohal.
iii. Mobile phone-: Police also recovered a mobile phone from the possession of
Sohal which they had sent to FSL for the further examination.
FIR Registration, an FIR was registered on July 2nd, 2013 under section 103, 238, 69, 215
(added later on) of Bhartiya Nayay Sanhita, 2023, at police station- Baba Haridas Nagar.
After the registration of FIR, investigating agency took custody of Sohal beyond the period of
15 days, and handcuffed him. During the investigation it was revealed that hours after
allegedly killing Minni, Sohal deleted all the data from his cell phone. Sohal was aware that
phone conversations could be used as evidence against him. Investigating agency seized the
phone and laptop of the Sohal and his father, who objected that it was against their right to
privacy.
Report of FSL, the report stated that the data could not be retrieved as the data had been
deleted from the phone.
Trial, the sister of the deceased appeared as the witness before the trial court and gave her
statement. But the friend of the deceased’s sister did not appear before the trial court.
Evidences led by Sohal before Ld. Trial Court in support of his defence, that are -:
i. They both were just friends.
i. He was not with Minni on June 30, 2013.
ii. He didn’t knew that whether it is a suicide or someone else has murdered Minni
iii. He also produced a rent agreement copy from the landlord of Krishna Enclave,
showing only Minni’s name as the tenant.
iv. He also claimed that he never gave a confession statement to the police.
Judgement of Trial Court, learned Trial Court sentenced Sohal to death for murder and
other offenses based on electronic evidence, medical evidence, testimony from the father and
sister of the deceased, police witnesses, and statements recorded by the Judicial Magistrate.
Judgement of The Hon’ble High Court, aggrieved by the said judgement of the learned
trial court Sohal filed an appeal before the Hon’ble High Court under Section 415 of the
BNSS. The appellate Court also concluded that Sohal is guilty for the offence of murder of
Minni and upheld the order passed by the learned trial court. The Hon’ble High Court later on
converted the death sentence awarded to Sohal into life imprisonment.
11
Special Leave Petition (SLP), aggrieved by the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court, Sohal
preferred this Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indica.
QUESTION OF LAW
ISSUE I
Whether the Special Leave Petition against the Judgment of Hon’ble High Court is
maintainable or not?
ISSUE II
Whether the guilt of the accused has been proved beyond reasonable doubt or not?
ISSUE III
Whether the old or new law shall apply in the present case?
ISSUE IV
Whether certain provisions of new criminal laws are constitutionally valid?
12
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
ISSUE I
That as per the article 136 of the Constitution of India, 1950 the power to grant special leave
petition is conferred upon the Supreme Court, but it is purely discretionary in nature means
that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has its discretion while exercising its power under Article
136 of the Constitution of India. The provisions of Article 136 of the Constitution of India
cannot be invoked as a matter of right by any person.
ISSUE II
13
ISSUE III
Whether the old or new law shall apply in the present case?
ISSUE IV
Whether certain provisions of new criminal laws are constitutionally valid?
14
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
ISSUE I
It is most humbly submitted -:
1. That, the appellant being aggrieved by the order of Hon’ble High Court which states
that the appellant is the guilty for the murder of Minni (since deceased) and his
sentence shall be converted to the life imprisonment instead of death penalty awarded
by the ld. Trial court, has preferred a special leave to appeal before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India against the order of the Hon’ble High Court for the just
decision and proper adjudication of his rights.
2. That as per the article 136 of the Constitution of India, 1950 the power to grant
special leave petition is conferred upon the Supreme Court, but it is purely
discretionary in nature means that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has its discretion while
exercising its power under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The provisions of
Article 136 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked as a matter of right by any
person.
3. That, special leave petitions are filed only when there is a serious question of law in
which the subordinate courts find themselves to be incapable of answering and
resolving the issue, but as in the present case there is no such existence of a unique
question of law. The Hon’ble High Court has rightly adjudicated upon the rights of
the parties.
15
4. That the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held in the case of Mohinder Singh v. State 1 that
SC will not entertain a criminal appeal except in special and exceptional cases where
it is manifest that by a disregard of norms of legal process or by a violation of the
principles of natural justice or otherwise substantial and grave injustice has been
done. The Hon’ble Supreme court will entertain appeal where the accused appellant
has been convicted notwithstanding the fact that the evidence is wanting on the most
material part of the prosecution case.
5. That Supreme Court have further clarified the law on SLP in the case of Murtaza V.
Nazir Mohd.2 that the supreme court does not grant special leave unless exceptional
and special circumstances are shown to exist and the substantial and grave injustice
has been caused to warrant a review of the decision appealed against.
6. That Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab V. Hari Singh 3 was held that it is
the common principle to file all criminal appeals through special leave petition that
the Apex Court will not substitute its own views each of which is reasonably
acceptable to the High Court.
7. That the Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar 4, held that so far
as appeal against order of acquittal is the subject matter in a special leave petition it is
the settled proposition of law that the Supreme Court could not normally interfere
unless there are cogent reasons for such interference or unless there is fragrant
violation of any settled procedure of law resulting in serious miscarriage of justice.
1
AIR 1953 SC 415
2
AIR 1970 SC 668
3
AIR 1974 SC 1168
4
AIR 1979 SC 874
16
ISSUE II
It is most humbly submitted-:

1. That the present case is registered upon receiving of an information about that
Minni's (since deceased) family could not contact her. Then a tip-off was received
that a man had killed his girlfriend and gotten married to another girl, Manisha, on
the same day. After which an investigation was led by Vijay Arora, Special
Commissioner of Police, Crime Branch. Thereafter investigating officer recorded the
statement of the family members of the deceased and a diary of the deceased was
recovered by the investigating officer.
2. That Sohal was arrested in the evening of July 1, 2013 by the police team from
village Mitra. Then he admitted his crime and got recorded his confession statement.
On the basis of confession statement, the following recoveries were made-:
a. Recovery of body-: The body of the woman was recovered from the fridge.
b. Recovery of Data Cable-: A data cable was recovered from the car of Sohal.
c. Mobile phone-: Investigating officer also recovered a mobile phone from the
possession of Sohal which they had sent to FSL for the further examination.
3. That after the recovery of the dead body the post-mortem of the same was got
conducted by the investigating officer and the post-mortem report was collected by
the Investigating officer.
17
4. That the statements of the sister and friend of the deceased's sister were got recorded
by the investigating officer, before a Judicial Magistrate under Section 183 of BNSS.
They, stated that, in their presence, the deceased and accused left the room where
they lived together.
5. That thereafter, the accused was sent to face the trial before the ld. Court of Sessions,
which after going through electronic evidence, medical evidence, testimony from the
father and sister of the deceased, police witnesses, and statements recorded by the
Judicial Magistrate sentenced accused to death for murder and other offenses.
6. That aggrieved by the said judgement of the learned trial court accused filed an
appeal before the Hon’ble High Court under Section 415 of the BNSS. The appellate
Court also concluded that accused is guilty for the offence of murder of Minni (since
deceased) and upheld the order passed by the learned trial court. The Hon’ble High
Court later on converted the death sentence awarded to accused into life
imprisonment.
7. That now the accused has approached the Hon’ble Apex Court, praying for his
acquittal. It is pertinent to mention here that the conviction of the accused was
affirmed by the two courts below and the reasoning given by them was just and
proper and is in accordance with law and is equally justified by law. The courts
below have gone through the evidences on record minutely and then only after
scrutinising the whole evidences on record with a fine-tooth comb they had held the
accused guilty of the offence of murder of Minni (since deceased). So, there is no
new fact on record which establish that accused is innocent and shall be acquitted
and the appeal filled by the accused shall be dismissed on this score only.
8. That the present case is completely based on the circumstantial evidence as there is
no as such eye-witness account to the said murder of the deceased which is
committed by the accused and the prosecution has completely established the chain
of circumstances which only points towards the guilt of the accused Sohal and
nothing else. The chain of circumstances is so complete that it ruled out any other
possible hypothesis, other than the hypothesis that accused is guilty for the murder of
Minni (since deceased).
9. That in order to establish the guilt of the accused prosecution needs to complete the
links of the chain of circumstances which only point towards the guilt of the accused
18
and nothing else. So, in order to prove the guilt of the accused Sohal the prosecution
will prove the links which at last will complete the chain of circumstantial evidence
and hence will prove the guilt of the accused.
10. That the accused is booked for the offence of the murder of Minni (since deceased)
before going further into the evidence the ingredients/essentials of the offence of
murder are need to looked into in order to establish a case against the accused Sohal.
Before understanding the Murder, the culpable homicide is need to be understood and
the same is defined under section 100 of BNS, 2023 as -:
“100. Culpable homicide- Whoever causes death by doing an act with the
intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury
as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act
to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide.
Explanation 1. — A person who causes bodily injury to another who is
labouring under a disorder, disease or bodily infirmity, and thereby
accelerates the death of that other, shall be deemed to have caused his death
Explanation 2. — Where death is caused by bodily injury, the person who
causes such bodily injury shall be deemed to have caused the death, although
by resorting to proper remedies and skilful treatment the death might have
been prevented.
Explanation 3. — The causing of the death of a child in the mother’s womb is
not homicide. But it may amount to culpable homicide to cause the death of a
living child, if any part of that child has been brought forth, though the child
may not have breathed or been completely born.”
11. That murder has been defined under section 101 of BNS. 2023 as -:
“101. Murder- Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is
murder,––
(a) if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing
death; or
(b) if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing
such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the
person to whom the harm is caused; or
19
(c) if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing
bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is
sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death; or
(d) if the person committing the act by which the death is caused, knows that it
is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death, or
such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without
any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.
Exception 1.— Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, whilst
deprived of the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation, causes
the death of the person who gave the provocation or causes the death of any
other person by mistake or accident:
Provided that the provocation is not, ––
(a) sought or voluntarily provoked by the offender as an excuse for
killing or doing harm to any person;
(b) given by anything done in obedience to the law, or by a public servant
in the lawful exercise of the powers of such public servant;
(c) given by anything done in the lawful exercise of the right of private
defence.
Explanation. —Whether the provocation was grave and sudden enough to
prevent the offence from amounting to murder is a question of fact.
Exception 2. — Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender in the exercise in
good faith of the right of private defence of person or property, exceeds the
power given to him by law and causes the death of the person against whom he is
exercising such right of defence without premeditation, and without any intention
of doing more harm than is necessary for the purpose of such defence.
Exception 3. — Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, being a public
servant or aiding a public servant acting for the advancement of public justice,
exceeds the powers given to him by law, and causes death by doing an act which
he, in good faith, believes to be lawful and necessary for the due discharge of his
duty as such public servant and without ill-will towards the person whose death
is caused.
20
Exception 4. — Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without

premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and
without the offender’s having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or
unusual manner.
Explanation. — It is immaterial in such cases which party offers the
provocation or commits the first assault.
Exception 5. — Culpable homicide is not murder when the person whose death is
caused, being above the age of eighteen years, suffers death or takes the risk of
death with his own consent.”
12. That as defined above for making a person guilty for the offence of murder the
following essentials are need to be fulfilled -:
a. Intention of causing death, or
b. With intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely
to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or
c. With the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury
intended to be inflicted is sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause
death, or
d. With the knowledge that the act is so imminently dangerous that it must in all
probability cause the death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death,
and without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury
as is mentioned above.
13. That as per the essentials for the offence of murder the very first link which needs to
be established in the present case is the motive of accused behind the alleged murder
of Minni (since deceased). That is, what was the intention of the accused Sohal to
commit the alleged offence and what all were the circumstances that led the accused
to commit the alleged crime. In the present case the we can infer the motive of the
accused through the evidences collected by the investigating officer. The first
evidence which is on record is the statement of the father of the deceased which
reproduced below -: “He had stated that on the same day, Minni had called him,
saying Sohal was not fulfilling his promise to marry her and that she was very
disturbed.” Here on the fateful day i.e., 30.06.2013, when Minni (since deceased)
was brutally killed by the accused, she called her father and said Sohal was not
21
fulfilling his promise to marry her and she was very disturbed after this she hanged
up the call. As prior to this both Sohal and Minni (since deceased) were in a
relationship with each other. In 2013, both of them started living together in a rented
house in Prime City. Sohal did not inform his family members about his relationship.
As here, the intention of the accused is clear as he never wanted to marry the
deceased that why he never told about his relationship with the deceased to his
parents.
14. That later on, the family members of Sohal pressurised him to get married and got
fixed his wedding. That Minni (since deceased) got to know that Sohal's engagement
had been fixed by his family members and his wedding is scheduled to take place on
01.07.2013. As the accused never intended to marry the deceased and now when his
marriage was fixed with someone else, he wanted to eliminate the deceased from his
way/path as he knew that deceased will not let him marry with somebody else
peacefully.
15. That another evidence on record which establishes the motive of the accused even
more clearly is the personal diary of the deceased which was recovered during the
investigation of the present case by the investigating officer in which Minni (since
deceased) had written about her sadness and depression due to Sohal's inability to
convince his parents about their relationship and wedding. She mentioned Sohal
telling her that he did not want his parents to die over a girl. Here, again the
intention of the accused was very clear that he never wanted to marry the deceased as
he said to Minni (since deceased) that he don’t want his parents to die over a girl
which means he doesn’t care if anything happens to Minni (since deceased). This
clearly establishes the motive of the accused behind the murder of Minni (since
deceased) was that from the very first day he doesn’t want to marry with Minni
(since deceased) and also as his marriage was already fixed with another so he didn’t
wanted that Minni should interfere in his marriage as she loved him and she was in a
relationship with him. So, he murdered Minni (since deceased). That as discussed
above the motive which is one of the essential of the offence of Murder is established
by the prosecution.
16. That the second link which is completing the chain of circumstantial evidence are the
materials which were recovered by the investigating officer upon the confession
22
statement of the accused. On the basis of confession statement, the following

recoveries were made-:
a. Recovery of body-: The body of the woman was recovered from the fridge.
b. Recovery of Data Cable-: A data cable was recovered from the car of Sohal.
c. Mobile phone-: Police also recovered a mobile phone from the possession of
Sohal which they had sent to FSL for the further examination.
17. That the above-mentioned recoveries were affected from the accused on the basis of
his disclosure statement (paste from WhatsApp).
18. That the third link which is completing the chain of circumstantial evidence is that
the accused and the deceased were last seen together and this contention is proved by
the statements of prosecution witnesses that are the sister of Minni (since deceased)
and friend of the deceased's sister, which were recorded before a Judicial Magistrate
under Section 183 of BNSS. In which they, stated that, “in their presence, the
deceased and accused left the room where they lived together”. That the accused
and the deceased were last seen together and it proved by the evidence on record and
the sister of the deceased again appeared before the ld. trial court and gave the same
testimony that she saw the deceased and accused leaving the room where they lived
together. After this no one never saw the deceased and the accused together and after
this only the dead body of the deceased was found and that also was recovered on the
basis of the confession statement of the accused.
19. That the fourth link which is completing the chain of circumstantial evidence are the
medical evidences which proving that the deceased was brutally killed by the
accused. After the dead body was recovered on the basis of the confession statement
of the accused it was sent for the post mortem examination by the investigating
officer and the post-mortem report was collected by him. As, the post-mortem report
states that “the ligature mark was transverse, not completely encircling the neck, and
crossed the midline on the thyroid cartilage, indicating a fracture. Death was
caused by suffocation, and the time of death was between 10 PM and 12 PM on
June 30, 2013”.
20. That as per the PMR the cause of death of Minni was suffocation and ligature mark
was also present on the neck of the deceased. Also, the thyroid cartilage was also
fractured. All the injuries stated in the PMR are corroborating with the story of the
23
prosecution as the accused had strangled the deceased till death with the data cable
and the said data cable was duly recovered by the investigating officer on the basis of
confession statement of the accused. As it was held in the case of ____________,
that intention can only be inferred from the acts committed by the accused. Where a
person strangled the deceased with a knowledge that such bodily injury must cause
the death then he will be convicted under section 302 of IPC, 1860.
21. That the death was caused due to constriction force applied to nech resulting in
asphyxia and shock resulting in death, the theory of suicide was rejected, held in
Eshwarrappa v. State of Karnataka5.
22. That the fifth link which is completing the chain of circumstantial evidence is the
tower location of the accused. During the investigation the investigating officer
collected the mobile tower location of the accused and surprising the mobile tower
location of the accused was found near the dhaba on that day i.e., on 30.06.2013,
which confirms that the accused was present near the dhaba and this again connects
the accused with the alleged occurrence/murder as the body of the deceased was
recovered from that very same dhaba from the fridge.
23. That the sixth link which is completing the chain of circumstantial evidence are the
testimonies of the witnesses which were examined during the trial and they
specifically deposed against the accused which is again connecting the accused with
murder of Minni (since deceased).
24. That the accused is not only guilty for the offence punishable under section 103 of
BNS. 2023. But also, he is liable under section 238 of BNS, 2023 as well. As per
section 238 of BNS, 2023 -:
“238. Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false
information to screen offender - Whoever, knowing or having reason to
believe that an offence has been committed, causes any evidence of the
commission of that offence to disappear, with the intention of screening the
offender from legal punishment, or with that intention gives any
information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false
shall,—
5
AIR 2015 SC 3037
24
(a) if the offence which he knows or believes to have been committed

is punishable with death, be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be
liable to fine;
(b) if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for life, or with
imprisonment which may extend to ten years, be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three
years, and shall also be liable to fine;
(c) if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for any term not
extending to ten years, be punished with imprisonment of the description
provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-fourth part of
the longest term of the imprisonment provided for the offence, or with fine,
or with both.”
25. That in the present case the accused after the commission of offence tried to disappear
the evidence that is the body of the deceased. The accused after commiting the murder
of Minni (since deceased), panicked not knowing what to do with the body, then he
roamed in the area for few hours and eventually carried body in his car to his Dhaba.
On reaching the dhaba, accused stuffed body of Minni (since deceased) in a blue-
coloured, single-door fridge and closed it using cable wires. Since, it was the wedding
of the accused, he knew that the dhaba will remain close for the next couple of days
and this is how he tried to tamper the evidences which were against him. Moreso,
when the accused was arrested by the police, then a mobile phone was recovered from
his possession which was sent to FSL for the forensic examination and to extract the
data stored in it. But when the FSL report was received it stated that “the data could
not be retrieved as the data had been deleted from the phone.” Again the accused to
protect himself from the penal consequences deleted all the data from his phone
which could have been used against him as a piece of evidence. So, the accused shall
also be made liable for the offence under section 238 of BNS, 2023.
26. That from the above evidences on record and facts and circumstances it is very much
clear that the chain of circumstantial evidence is completely established in the present
case and is only pointing towards the guilt of the accused. It is negating any other
hypothesis which probably be put forward by the accused in his defence. It was held
25
in the case of _______________, that when the chain of circumstantial evidence is so

complete that it pointing only towards the guilt of the accused and nothing else then
the accused should be convicted of the offences under which he is charged.
ISSUE III
26
PRAYER
In the light of the facts presented, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited,
the Counsel for the Respondent hereby most humbly submits that this Hon’ble Supreme Court
Of Indica may be pleased to:
1. To dismiss the present Special Leave Petition with costs,
2. To Upheld the order of Hon’ble High Court as the prosecution has established its
case beyond a reasonable doubt,
27
3.
AND/OR
The Hon’ble Court being satisfied may in like manner make any such demand and pass
any other order, direction or relief that this Hon’ble Court may regard fit in the light of
Justice, Fairness, Equity and Good Conscience.
And for this act of kindness, the counsel for the Respondent might as compelled bound ever
humble pray.
S/
d-
(Counsel Appearing for Respondent)
28

Memorial Respondent

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Memorial Respondent

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Memorial Respondent

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TC- 06

THE 2ND NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDICA

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION NO. ___________ OF 2024

STATE OF INDICA …………..

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF

MOST REVERENTLY SUBMITTED TO THE SUPREME COURT OF INDICA

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

SR. HEADING PAGE NO.

Whether certain provisions of new criminal laws

ABBREVIATION FULL FORM

Crl. Appeal Criminal Appeal

SLP Special Leave Petition

W.P. Writ Petition

PIL Public Interest Litigation

IPC Indian Penal Code

FIR First information report

CoI Constitution of India, 1950

CrPC Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

POCSO Protection of Children from Sexual

UoI Union of India

SCC Supreme Court Cases

SCR Supreme Court Record

AIR All India Reporter

ILR Indian Law Reports

NCT National Capital Territory

CAD Constitutional Assembly Debates

1. JITENDER KR. DHINGRA, DIGEST ON PROTECTION OF WOMEN FROM DOMESTIC

VIOLENCE ACT, 2005 [2005-2016], LRC PUBLICATIONS, DELHI.

2. R. S. DOGRA, DIGEST ON PROTECTION OF WOMEN FROM DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

ACT, 2005 (2013), PAL PUBLISHING HOUSE, DELHI.

3. V.R. CHOUDHARI, COMMENTARY ON PROTECTION OF WOMEN FROM DOMESTIC

VIOLENCE ACT, 2005 (2023), PREMIER PUBLISHING COMPANY, PRAYAGRAJ.

4. MULLA, COMMENTARY ON THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973, 21 ST

EDITION, DELHI LAW HOUSE, DELHI.

“136. Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court.—

Whether certain provisions of new criminal laws are constitutionally valid?

Whether certain provisions of new criminal laws are constitutionally valid?

It is most humbly submitted-:

Exception 4. — Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without

statement of the accused. On the basis of confession statement, the following

(a) if the offence which he knows or believes to have been committed

in the case of _______________, that when the chain of circumstantial evidence is so

(Counsel Appearing for Respondent)

You might also like