Page |1

TEAM CODE: 02 (B2)

BEFORE THE HON’BLE

HIGH COURT OF MADRAS

CRL.A: -----/2022
UNDER SECTION 374 OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE

SOORAJ KUMAR

…APPELLANT

VS

STATE OF KERALA

…RESPONDENT

CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER 374 OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE CHALLENGING

THE CONVICTION AND IMPRISONMENT IMPOSED BY THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
COURT OF KOLLAM

MEMORIAL FOR THE APPELLANT

INDEX
WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF BEHALF OF APPELLANT
 Page |2

S.NO TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE NO

1 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
2 LIST OF ABBREVATION
3 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
4 STATEMENT OF CHARGE
5 STATEMNET OF FACTS
6 STATEMENT OF ISSUES
7 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
8 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
9 PRAYER

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF BEHALF OF APPELLANT

 Page |3

LIST OF STATUTES REFERRED

1. Indian Penal Code,1860

2. Code of Criminal Procedure,1973
3. Wildlife Protection Act,1972
4. Indian Evidence Act,1872
5. Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,2005
6. Dowry Prohibition Act,1961

BOOKS REFERRED:

1.Discretion,Discrimination & the Rule of Law: Reforming Rape sentencing in India” by Scholar
Mrinal Satish.

2. Indian Penal Code by Ratanlal and Dhirajlal

3.Criminal Procedure by R.V. KELKAR

4.Principles of the Law of Evidence by Dr.Avtar Singh.

5. K.Narayana Reddy and VV Pillai- Text Book on Forensics And Toxicology

ONLINE JOURNALS REFERRED:

1) SUPREME COURT CASES (SCC)

2) ALL INDIA REPORTER (AIR)

3) MANUPUTRA (MANU)

4) SUPREME COURT RECORDER (SCR)

5) CRIMINAL LAW JOURNALS(CRLJ)

LIST OF CASES

WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF BEHALF OF APPELLANT

 Page |4

S.N CASES
o
1 Ashok Kumar Vs State of Madhya Pradesh 1980
2 Narayana Reddy vs U.V.Pillai Jext on Joxicology
3 Sharad Birdhichand Sarada vs State of Maharastra 1984
4 Harbeer Singh Vs Sheepshpal Ors 2016
5 Slam Narair Vs Province of Punjab 1875
6 Mayur Vs State of Gujarat 2021
7 State of Haryana Vs Bhagiratr Mannu 1999
8 Pruthviray Vano Vs Dinesg Vala 2021
9 Makhan Vs State of Gujurat 1997
10 Ramesh Durgaooa Hurekaur Vs State of Maharastra 2017
11 Thomas Brwo & Anothers Vs State of UP 2012
12 Munnikrishna Vs State of Ulsoor 2022
13 Union Territory Chardigurh Administration & ord Vs Pradeep Kumar 2018
14 Inspector General of Police Vs Samuthiram
15 State of Rajasthan Vs Love Kush Meena 2021
16 Gajaraj Singh Vs State of Rajasthan 2007
17 Kishore Singh Ravindar Vs State of Rajasthan 1981
18 Ajay Kumar Vs State of UP 2016
19 K.M.Nanavati Vs State of Maharastra 1962
20 Rajappan Vs Stae of Kerala 2012
21 Selvi Vs State of Karnataka 2004
22 Mahmood Vs State of UP 1976
23 Maneka Gandhi Vs Unoin Of India 1978
24 Sukh Das Vs State of Arunachal Pradesh 1986
25 A.K.Gopalan Vs State of Madras 1950
26 Mohamed Hussain Ali Vs Delhi Table 2013
27 Ankul Chandra Pradha Vs UOI 1997
28 Babu Vs State of Kerala 2016
29 Manu Sharma Vs State of Delhi 2010
30 Omkar Nuth Misgru Vs State of Delhi 2008
31 Preeti Gupta Vs State of Jharkhand 2010
32 Chanda Bee Vs State of Delhi
33 Savitri Devi Vs Ramesh Chavel 2003
34 Saritha Vs R.Ramchandra 2002
35 Nimish Agrwal Vs State of Chandigar 2021
36 Kaun Raj Vs State of Punjab 2000
37 Munna Ansuri Vs State of Jharkhand 2021
38 Som Mittal Vs Government of Karnataka 2008
39 Harbhajan Singh Bajwa Vs SSP 2000
40 Tulasi Ram Vs State of Madhya Pradesh 1970
41 Madhav Vs State of Madhya Pradesh 2021
42 State of Rajasthan Vs Raja Ram 2003
43 Johindar Kumar Vs State of Uttar Pradesh 1994
WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF BEHALF OF APPELLANT
 Page |5

44 D.K.Basu Vs State of West Bengal 1997

45 Prakash Kadan Vs Ramprasad Gupta 2011
46 Priosns Vs State of Assam 2016
47 Kishore Singh Vs State of Rajasthan 1981
48 Raju Premiji Vs Customs Unit
49 Tarfem Kumar Vs Delhi Administration 1994
50 R. Vs Lester
51 R Vs Mugan Ramsay 1964
52 Arjun Nair Vs State of Bihar 1994
53 P.Ragu Vs CBI (Sathankulam Case)
54 Union Of India Vs Sriharan 1994
55 Santa Singh Vs State of Punjab 1956
56 Munnippan Vs State of Tamilnadu 1981
57 Union Of India Vs Sriharan 2016
58 B.G.Gowsami Vs Delhi
59 Pamasharya Chakravarti Vs Statr of Madhya Pradesh
60 Anvar P.V Vs P.K.Basheer
61 Bruno Vs State of Uttarpradesh
62 Dalbior Kaur Vs State of Punjab
63 Kali ram Vs State of Himachal Pradesh 1973
64 Aarendra Singh Pal Vs Sandeep Kumar
65 Masalti Vs State of Uttarpradesh 1965
66 Mahendra Nath Das Vs UOI
67 Rudulshah Vs State of Bihar
68 Surinder Signh Vs State of Punjab
69 Sattiya Vs State of Maharastra

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF BEHALF OF APPELLANT
 Page |6

ABBREVIATIONS MEANING/FULL FORM

PW Prosecution Witness

MO Material object

IPC Indian penal code

CrPC Code of Criminal Procedure

WLPA Wildlife protection act

CW Court Witness

Ex Exhibit

DW Defence witness

SCC Supreme court cases

AIR All India Report

SC Supreme court

HC High court

Vs Versus

UOI Union of India

Eg Example

Etc Et ceter

Ors Others

SCR Supreme court recorder

MANU Manuputra

WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF BEHALF OF APPELLANT

 Page |7

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The appellant has appealed from conviction granted by the Sessions Judge to this Hon’ble Court under
Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Sec.374 of CrPC: Appeals from convictions.

(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 2 has been passed against
him or against any other person convicted at the same trial], may appeal to the High Court.

STATEMENT OF CHARGES

WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF BEHALF OF APPELLANT

 Page |8

Charge I

 The accused has been charged with punishment for murder under section 302 of IPC

Charge II

 The accused has been charged with attempt to murder under Section 307 of IPC

Charge III

 The accused has been charged for causing hurt by means of poison with intent to commit an offence
under Section 328 of IPC

Charge IV

 The accused has been charged for causing disappearance of evidence of offence or giving false
information to screen offender under Section 201 of IPC

STATEMENT OF FACTS

WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF BEHALF OF APPELLANT

 Page |9

Uthra W/o.Mr. Sooraj S. Kumar, a Hindu female aged about twenty-five years was a differently abled
women residing at Anchal in the State of Kerala is the deceased victim in the above said case.

Sooraj S.Kumar, S/o. Surendra panikal, a hindu male aged about twenty-seven years old, bank
employee, residing at parakkodu muri, Adoor Village, in the state of Kerala, is the accused of the above case.

The accused married the deceased with the intention of obtaining financial gains. After the birth of their
first child, he sought to get rid of the deceased and in furtherance of it, he planned and committed an act of
murder. The accused planned to kill the deceased with venomous snake i.e, viper snake. Accused bought viper
from suresh,who is a snake handler for Rs.10000.In the first attempt,on 27/02/2020, he placed the snake on the
stairs and sent uthra to take mobile to upstairs, intention that to be bitten, but he failed that uthra raised an
alarm. The accused thereafter captured the snake but instead of getting rid of it, he kept it in his possession. In
the second attempt, dated 02/03/2020, accused mixed some sedative tablets in the deceased’s food and when she
was asleep, he released the snake on her body as a result of which she was bit by the snake. Later, he destroyed
evidence by throwing it out of the house. The deceased cried for help in pain but the accused did not take her to
the hospital then She was taken to the hospital by Mr. Sujith.First,taken to government Hospital, Adoor and
then Holycross hospital, Adoor. Eventually, admitted in ICU of Pushpagiri hospital at Thiruvalla.

After 52 days of treatment, she recovered and returned to her mother’s home. While uthra convalescing
in her house at Anchal.Meanwhile,the Accused bought cobra for Rs.7000 from Suresh. He once again mixed
sedatives in the juice of the deceased and once she was asleep, he released the cobra onto her as a result of
which she was bitten twice in her left arm. After her death, he deleted all call records with Suresh. He destroyed
the stick, which used to handle the snake.Next day, her mother found her motionless in the cot. Uthra taken to
the hospital and the duty doctor confirmed her death and informed that the death was unnatural and medico
legal case. At the time of the death, the brother of the deceased had filed an FIR for unnatural death
under Section 174 of CrPC.After the deceased’s body was cremated, her parents suspecting foul play lodged a
complaint regarding the same before the Rural District Police Chief, Kollam.During the investigation, on the
basis of disclosure statement of accused, the plastic jar used to keep the cobra was recovered by the Ashokan,
District crime branch.

However, the accused pleaded not guilty and denied all the incriminating circumstances/evidence that
was filed against him. He stated that he met suresh for the purpose of vehicle sales and during the first attempt
he was outside with his friends. In second attempt deceased take medicines for pain and she slept. In middle of
night while the deceased cried in pain due to viper bite, the accused take his wife to the hospital. In third
WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF BEHALF OF APPELLANT
 P a g e | 10

attempt also he pointed that, the deceased asked him to open the window as she found some breathing difficulty.
And also accused pointed that the house was under CCTV coverage and there was no evidence against him in
the CCTV footage.

Based on the evidence and the investigation report, the Sessions Court charged the accused under
Sections 302,307,328 and 201 of Indian Penal Code.

In court sooraj found guilty for using a live cobra to kill his wife, Uthra. The kollam Additional District
and sessions court lead by Additional sessions Judge ruled that Sooraj must serve 17 years in prison for the two
other crimes and life imprisonment would begin only after that and further an additional penalty of five lakh
rupees.

After pronouncing judgement from the sessions court the accused went for an appeal in following grounds:

1. The judgement pronounced on basis of circumstantial evidence may not be admissible.

2. Sentence imposed by sessions court is not reasonable.

3. There is Procedural deviation.

4.Admissability of confession given by sooraj is not acceptable.

5.FIR lodged against the Appellant is in malafide intention.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF BEHALF OF APPELLANT

 P a g e | 11

STATEMENTS OF ISSUES:

1. Whether the judgement given on the basis of circumstantial evidence is valid?

2. Whether there was any ambiguity in registering FIR?

3. Whether there has been any procedural deviation?

4. Whether confession given by the accused is acceptable and admissible in the eye of law?

5. Whether the Sentence imposed by Sessions Court is reasonable?

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF BEHALF OF APPELLANT

 P a g e | 12

1) WHETHER THE JUDGEMENT PRONOUNCED BASED ON THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL

EVIDENCE IS VALID ONE?

Circumstantial evidence was not direct evidence from the witness who saw or heard something. It
is not drawn from the direct observation of fact of issue. It was well established one that most of the convictions
in the criminal system based on the circumstantial evidence. But it is mandatory that the fact must be relevant in
nature there should be a serious of chain of events supported and mandated in a logical sense by the means like
medical examination etc; but it should proved by the court of law beyond the reasonable doubt; if there is a
small presumption held on the part of accused deemed to have benefit on the part of accused. Then the
circumstantial evidence cannot be taken as conclusive proof to impose penalization to the accused.

2) WHETHER THERE IS A PROCEDURAL DEVIATION ON THE PART OF INVESTIGATING

AUTHORITIES?

While collecting the evidences , it was initially collected by the forest authority. And the
examination done by the forest authority which was not done by the police authorities who are entitled to done
the examination and present it to the magistrate or to the court of law which the procedures are not followed by
the state and which is violative of principles of natural justice which ultimately leads to the Miscarriage of
Justice.

3) WHETHER THERE IS AN AMBIGUITY IN THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT?

While filing the FIR against the person , on intention of accused and the complainant should be
explained and it should be justified by the court of law while examining the facts and circumstances which leads
to the conviction or acquittal of the accused. But in this case the intention of accused is not taken under the
consideration and the material facts which plays a major role in the event of constituting or determining the case
are not explained in the detailed analysis.

4) WHETHER THE CONFESSION GIVEN BY THE ACCUSED IS ACCEPTABLE AND

ADMISSIBLE IN THE COURT OF LAW?

In this case the confession made by the Appellant and the PW1 suresh before the forest department
and the police department where subjected to the custodial torture and the extra judicial confession recorded
was violative of fair investigation and constitutional provisions which causes Grave Miscarriage of Justice and
leads to gross injustice to the Appellant.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF BEHALF OF APPELLANT

 P a g e | 13

5) WHETHER THE SENTENCE IMPOSED BY THE SESSIONS COURT IS IN ACCORDANCE

WITH LAW AND REASONABLE?

In this case, the sentence imposed by the Lower court on the basis of evidences of circumstantial in
nature, on the basis of medical examination and the procedures followed by the investigating authorities was
not in par with the accordance of law and subjected to Judicial review.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF BEHALF OF APPELLANT

 P a g e | 14

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1) WHETHER THE JUDGEMENT PRONOUNCED BASED ON THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL

EVIDENCE IS VALID ONE?

In general sense, circumstantial evidence plays a major role in the incriminating the accused. But it
cannot be taken as full evidence, because there may be contradicting factors arose which may not relevant to the
fact and there may be a breakage of serious events of the act in the particular case is discussed. In this case there
arises various contradiction in determining the circumstantial evidence as the conclusive evidence, the validity
of medical examination done by the medical experts and what based the charges framed and imposed the life
imprisonment. In the case of Ashok kumar Vs State of Madhya Pradesh 1 , it was held that there should be a
complete chain of events and it should be established the guilt of the accused beyond the reasonable doubt, that
the accused committed the offence without any possibility of an alternative. In this case , the appellant has the
reasonable grounds of presumption of innocence on this part and the court of law failed to prove that principle
of beyond reasonable doubt.

1.1) Whether the medical examination done by the experts are valid one?1

The function of medical evidence is to guide judges in order to make rational decisions when it
comes to passing the judgements for criminal cases. 

medical evidences are provided by medical officers hired as an expert who provides the court with his/her
opinion regarding the same. This expert opinion is inevitable and comes into play most of the times when
criminal cases are being decided. Taking reference from a matter wherein the accused might be appealing for
relief on the basis of unsoundness of mind or insanity, it is medical evidence and the scientific methods
associated with it that establishes the insanity the scientific tests that are conducted in order to produce an
expert's report play a huge role in establishing the offence of rape in itself. However, because the Court of law
has the discretionary option to approve or refuse the expert's assessment, its evidential significance is not
enforceable. This discretionary authority in the disposal of the Court stems from Section 45 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872, which, in theory, devalues expert evidence by classifying it as purely corroborative in
essence. In this case the prosecution in the lower court fails to explain the contention raised by the Appellant
regarding the validity of the Inquest report and the medical examination. There is no proper examination of
medical examination done on the part of the forensic department by PW44 and the by the by the PW65 doctor

1
1) 1998 CRiLJ 41043
2)V.V.Pillai’s Textbook of forensic medicine and Toxicology 2019(19 th edition)&K.S.Narayana
Reddy book on The essentials of Forensic Medicineand Toxicology(4 th edition)
3)(1984)4 SCC 116
WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF BEHALF OF APPELLANT
 P a g e | 15

of the post moderm report. As the forsenic department is concerned for the purpose of determining the antigen
in the venom they used the guidelines of the Toxicology experts suggestion 2Narayana reddy and V.V.Pillai,
ELISA Test must be taken for the accurate finding of antigen of cobra and it is recommended but in this sense
only diffusion test is taken for determining the case,only the effective means of test must be undergo by the
forensic department to prove the medical examination as the effective means of evidence beyond the reasonable
doubt. But there is ineffectiveness of forensic examination which causes ineffectiveness and there is a chance of
retaliation of Principle of BEYOND RESONABLE DOUBT. I N THE CASE OF

Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra 3, (1984) 4 SCC 116, the Court observed that in a case of
circumstantial evidence, it is also well settled that suspicion, howsoever strong it may be, cannot replace proof
beyond a reasonable doubt.

Manipulation of Forensic Reports

The Court noted a grave discrepancy in the laboratory reports. The prosecution submitted that the sample was
received in the laboratory on 22-09-2000, whereas as per the two reports, it was received by the Assistant
Chemical Examiner, Dr. Sandeep Kakkar, on 22-11-2000 from one Dr. O.P. Goel after his suspension, not in a
sealed form, but as an open case. The Court observed,“This note ‘This opened case, received by me from Dr.
O.P. Goel on 22.11.2000 after his suspension.’ Is typed out in both the reports after an overwriting /cutting is
made by using alphabet “X” continuously.”

The laboratory report dated 31-01-2001 mentioned that there were three sealed jars in the sealed parcel which
contained parts of organs. Whereas as per the post-mortem report and the statement of Dr. Avatar Singh, four
sealed packets were sent, three containing parts of organs, and one containing the saline solution. The result
referred to presence of the organophosphorus compound in the three sealed jars and it also refers to no poison
found in the contents of fourth jar. Similarly, the other laboratory report dated 05-02-2001 of the Assistant
Chemical Examiner, Dr. Sandeep Kakkar, with respect to milk, boiled and unboiled and the utensils also had a
similar cutting, and a note attached to that it was received as an open case from Dr. O.P. Goel on 22-11-2000
after his suspension. Hence, the Court pointed out the following:

That samples were not handed over to the Assistant Chemical Examiner who had to conduct the analysis in a
sealed form. The cutting, and a fresh note regarding parcels being open also creates a doubt. Chances of
tampering with the samples could not be ruled out.

When there is a cobra envenomation there is blood clots which leads to contraction of respiratory ducts and
causes Paralysis of Diaphragm and damage the neuromuscular activities. But in this case in the Post mortem

WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF BEHALF OF APPELLANT

 P a g e | 16

report there is a LACUNA that there is no Paralysis of Diaphragm takes place and it was not explained by the
PW65 in his Damage report. Hence there is numerous ambiguities and unreasonable reports were causes the
presumption of not proving the Beyond reasonable doubt principle and the reports are contradicting in nature. In
addiction to that the Necropsy done by the investigating officer of veterinary department PW63 Dr.Kishore
Kumar owing to the expert in the test of the Necropsy , the test can be done in the Reptiles only by the remnants
of small in the coelomic cavity. But it was admitted in this case that there is no presence of coelomic cavity in
the cobra and the test of Necropsy mainly relied on the basis of this part which gives the effective results
regarding the cobra snake’s specifications like heights of the Cobra etc., This implies there is no clear and
ambigious in the report regarding the dtermination of heights and which is determined as 150cms which maybe
unclear and if there is high probability of determination of snake’s height which may be more than the
determined level and it can climb and can entered to room through the window as the experts says that it can
came one third of the height of the cobra height which is relevant and logical in nature and no inducement by
the human to enter in the room. In The case of 4Harbeer Singh vs Sheepshpal& ors the Supreme court held
that ‘When there is Conflicting reports after testing the chemical samples analysis , the one which is in favour of
the accused , then there is no impeaching in the correctness of the report’. Therefore the case falls under the
concept of Rarest of rare cases in which the Circumstantial evidence cannot be held admissible.

In the event that the evidence of the observer for the prosecution is absolutely conflicting with the medical
evidence, this is a most major imperfection in the prosecution case and unless sensibly clarified, it is adequate to
dishonor the whole case.5 (Slam Narain v. Province of Punjab. AIR 1975 SC 1727) 2

In 6Mayur v/s State of Gujarat, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed – we think this Isn’t a case which ought
to have been summarily dismissed by the educated single judge and Moreover we don’t think the scholarly
judge was right in observing that our courts have Constantly taken the doctors as observer of truth. Even where
a doctor has dismissed in court, His evidence must be acknowledged like the evidence of some other witness
and there is no Irrefutable presumption that a doctor is dependably an observer of truth. The opinion of the
Doctor who is an expert must be bolstered by reasons and it is the reasons which are of Significance in
evaluating the value of the proposal and opinion. For this situation the opinon Composed was as an answer to
specific inquiries made by the sub inspector of police. The Doctor report was dismissed as it didn’t contain
reasons. The medical evidence by the doctor Must be continually keeping up the most astounding standard of
their work and lead. For a Situation the prosecution had analyzed medical legal scholar Dr. Subash Jain as PW
21 who Opined over the span of his announcement on oath before the educated extra sessions judge That the
2
4) (2016)16 SCC 418
5)AIR 1975 SC 1727
6)(GJH)/2021-7-92
WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF BEHALF OF APPELLANT
 P a g e | 17

damage no.l was not adequate in the conventional course of nature to cause passing Of Kadir Mohammed,
perished. The previously mentioned explanation of the doctor was justan expert opinion and its testimonial
value is subject 34to examination of this court, as Envisaged under Section 45 read with Section 51 of the Indian
Evidence Act.

7
State of Haryana v. Bhagirath & Ors that the viewpoint of a medical witness shall not be the deciding factor
in any case. The opinions of the witnesses in case of an inconsistency must be given due importance but not to
the extent that it becomes a liability to accept and enforce it

The latest case of PruthvirajayantibhaiVanol v. Dinesh DayabhaiVala8, the Supreme Court has held that the
ocular evidence may only be disbelieved if there is a clear conflict between medical evidence and oral evidence,
and the medical evidence makes the ocular testimony implausible and rules out the chance of the ocular
evidence being true. While overturning the accused’s acquittal, the court emphasized the importance of ocular
evidence. The judgement of Makhan v. State of Gujarat 9 and the court had also added that if such
inconsistency would be glaring then the prosecution case would be stated to have a defect in itself. If such a
glaring inconsistence would not be sufficiently resolved by the respective witnesses and then the prosecution
would be fundamentally defective thereby discrediting the entire case. The court has stated in the case of State
of Haryana v. Bhagirath & that the viewpoint of a medical witness shall not be the deciding factor in any
case. The opinions of the witnesses in case of an inconsistency must be given due importance but not to the
extent that it becomes a liability to accept and enforce it

1.2) Whether the circumstantial evidence is in serious chain of action?

Circumstantial evidence can be admissible if there is a linkage of proof that builds up without reasonable
doubt, the guilt of the accused and furthermore sets up that the act had been done by the accused.

11
Ramesh durgappa hirekerur vs. State of Maharashtra

In this case, the Bombay High Court quashed and set aside the order and judgment of the trial court. The trial
court had convicted and sentenced the accused. The accused were alleged to have murdered the deceased,
Arjun. They were convicted under section 120(B), 302 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 34 of the

3
7) Section 45 & 51 of Inian Evidence Act,1872
8)MANU/SC/0362/1999
9)MANU/SC/0475/2021
10)MANU/SC/1797/197
4

WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF BEHALF OF APPELLANT

 P a g e | 18

following. The High Court observed that this case was based on circumstantial evidence by looking at the
materials available on record. And there was no eyewitness in this case. The Court opined the following:

The court said that to convict an accused on circumstantial evidence alone, the prosecution needs to establish
the chain of circumstances that points at the accused only and is inconsistent with their innocence.

It Is also important on the part of the prosecution to establish the chain of circumstances from which the guilt of
the accused can be drawn. Then these circumstances need to be taken into consideration. The prosecution needs
to establish that the accused and no other person has committed the offense within all human probability. It was
also contended that the case is based on circumstantial evidence when the motive assumes significance.

1. There is a risk of too easily jumping to conclusions.

2. Instructions to the jury are useful in warning of the risk of this type of evidence.
3. Instruction should remind the jury the inference of guilty should be the only reasonable inference from
the facts.5

When providing the circumstantial evidence one should not jump too easily to the conclusion, remember that
other possibilities are involved and think them through. The inference one wishes to draw probably by tendering
other forms of circumstantial evidence because the truth of the matter is the more one can build various
circumstantial points, the more strong propositions can be proven. Like by showing road is wet, well the road is
wet is one thing that one piece of circumstantial evidence, it was cloudy that is another piece of circumstantial
evidence, people were carrying an umbrella that is another piece of circumstantial evidence, it usually rains at
that time of the year that is all circumstantial evidence to prove that on that day it was raining even though
nobody saw that it was raining. Circumstantial evidence can add up and become a powerful tool in the
evidentiary reasoning process. Also in the trial of session court there were circumstantial evidence 24 and 26 ,
were not admitted. Where the essentials of constituting the serious of events not in coherence with the
circumstantial evidence. So there was a contradiction occurs in the determination of conclusive of the decision.
In the case of 12Thomas Bruno and Anrs vs state of Uttar Pradesh (2015) it was held there should be reliance
and coherence of the facts must be determined by the serious of events supported by the logical interpretations.

In this case, the prosecution failed to prove the above-stated points. Hence, the court quashed the order of the
trial court. In the landmark case of 13Munikrishna vs State rep by ULSOOR in the apex court CJI UULalit
says In the case of circumstantial evidence the court has to scutinize that very duty is cast upon the prosecution
is that it has to prove its case beyond its reasonable doubt. But I this case there arises the chance of presumption
of innocence on the part of Appellant.
5
11) 2017 SCC ONL BOM 9190
WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF BEHALF OF APPELLANT
 P a g e | 19

1.3) Whether there arises the BENEFIT OF DOUBT?

In the aforesaid averments it is reasonable of concrete believe of Benefit of doubt and there is a existence
of presumption of innocence towards the accused.

In the case of 14Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration & Ors. V. Pradeep Kumar & Anr. (2018),
the scope of the term “ acquittal” was explained. According to the Supreme Court, any person acquitted in a
criminal case is not eligible for the candidature of the concerned post. It was also observed that it is not always
necessary that an acquitted or discharged person was falsely involved and has no criminal antecedent or
background. Hence, the candidate cannot take the benefit of the case unless and until it’s the acquittal. 6

Further, in the case of the 15Inspector General of Police v. S. Samuthiram (2012), the acquittal was defined
as an accused who is acquitted after full consideration of the prosecution evidence and prosecution has
miserably failed to prove the charges levelled against the accused, such accused was considered as acquitted. It
was specifically pointed out by the court that to enter police service, a candidate needs to be of good character,
integrity, and clean antecedent. It was also opined at the end that any acquittal charged in a criminal case is not
entitled as a candidate for the appointment of the said post, as such persons are not considered to be fit in the
category.

In the instant case of 16State of Rajasthan vs Love kush Meena, one of the

respondents has committed the murder of the appellant’s aunt in the field and along with his other members has
also injured the appellant by hurting them through knives. Later, the accused were charged with criminal
offences under Section 302, 323, 341, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [IPC].After the investigation, a
charge sheet was filed against the accused to which the accused denied all the charges. Later, it was observed by
the learned judge that the prosecution has failed to demonstrate the case against all the accused beyond
reasonable doubts.

Also, the court in the case of BAPPU@GAJRAJ SINGH VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN 17 Justice held that
the, benefit of doubt deserves to be given to the appellant as there is evidence on record which shows that the
appellant was mentally retarded at the time of incident and it was to the knowledge of the prosecution side.

6
12) 2012 SCC ONL ALL 4139
13) 2022 LIVELAW(SC)812
14)(2018) 1 SCC 799
15)(2013) 1 SCC 598
WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF BEHALF OF APPELLANT
 P a g e | 20

Hence after carefully and minutely scrutinizing the entire evidence available on record it is seen that in present
case.7

2) WHETHER THERE IS PROCEDURAL DEVIATION ON THE PART OF INVESTIGATING

AUTHORITIES?

In the present case, there were numerous non compliance of procedures on the part of Investigating
officer of Police, Forest and forensic Department. Even there is small deviation of procedures prescribed in the
legislations is violative of Principles of Natural Justice and the Doctrine of Fair trail and there is Ultra vires to
the concepts of RULE OF LAW.

2.1) WHETHER PROCEDURAL COLLAPSE BY FOREST DEPARTMENT AND POLICE

DEPARTMENT?

In this case, the investigation done by the forest range officer under the Wildlife Protection Act,1972
under the section 54 authorizes him to initiate investigation based on the cause of dander to the Wildlife species
is based only on the plain and oral statement given by the Suresh the snake handler, only on the influence and
not in the procedural manner. The jars and the evidences collected by the forest officer under the supervision of
DSP officer Ashok kumar leads to the ambiguity in the procedural collapse and also in the lower court held the
investigation and confession done by the lower court is Inadmissible on the basis of the discretional power of
the court. In general sense the investigation report must be submitted under the compliance of section 100 of
Crpc must be in the procedural given under the Crpc. But in this case the procedures are not followed and
notably the contentions of the Appellant by the Investigating officer are not taken into consideration which
causes grave discrepancy to the concept of fairness of Justice and violative of Constitution of India. These
collapse of proceedings of investigations also leads to violative of Provisions of Crpc and Constitution.

In the case of Kishore Singh ravinder vs State of Rajasthan 18, the court held that there should be the laws of
India like evidentiary constitutional procedural must be followed in the strict manner to render the chance and
grant fair trail to the Accused.

According to the recommendations made by the Malimath committee that the state must have to protect the
innocent and punish the guilty; The accused should have the rights enshrined in the criminal administration
system and constitutional rights in the cases where there is a abuse of powers by the Police and investigation

7
16) 2021 (2) SCT 168
17)2007(6) TMT 557
WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF BEHALF OF APPELLANT
 P a g e | 21

officers and the procedures must be followed and the Magistrate courts or sessions courts in order to follow the
investigation proceeding under the purview of section 313 of crpc and it be direct the officials in cases of abuse
by officials to the accused.  The Allahabad High Court presided over by J.S.P. Kesarwani &  J. S.
Ahmed laid down this ratio in the case of  19 Ajay Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. &
Ors, .The Court in this case has clubbed several petitions. The Petitions were filed under Article 226
of the Constitution with a prayer to direct the Police authorities to carry out the fair and proper
investigation in various criminal cases. The Petitioner argued that they have a right to seek directions
from the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution if the investigating authority/agency is not
functioning properly. They further, argued that there was no need to invoke Section 156(3) of the Crpc
as the High Court has the power to pass such directions.The  High Court in this case had two questions
before it that is whether the concerned Magistrate has the power to direct the police authorities to carry
out fair and proper investigation. Secondly, whether the petitioners can directly approach the High
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution without exhausting the remedy under Section 156(3) of the
Crpc. The Court in this case was of the opinion that every investigation has to be conducted in a fair
manner and in accordance with the law. The Court further stated that 8

 “Fair and proper investigation is the primary duty of the investigating officer. In every civilized
society, the police force is invested with powers of investigation of a crime to secure punishment for
the criminal and it is in the interest of the society that the investigating agency must act honestly and
fairly and not resort to fabricating false evidence or creating false clues only with a view to secure a
conviction because such acts shake the confidence of the common man not only in the investigating
agency but in the ultimate analysis in the system of dispensation of criminal justice. The proper result
must be obtained by recourse to proper means, otherwise, it would be an invitation to anarchy.”

The Malimoth committee also recommends if there minimal possibility to prove the concept of
PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE then the offence on which the accused committed should prove beyond the
reasonable doubt. In the case of KM Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra (1962)20, Nanavati was charged for the
murder of Prem (the deceased defendant). Nanavati claimed the defense of grave and sudden provocation. The
Supreme Court, in this case, held that, as per general rule, there is a presumption of innocence in the favour of
the accused and the prosecution has to prove the legal burden. But when the accused claimed the general
exception under IPC, Section 105 comes into the picture and shifts the burden of proof upon the accused to

8
18)1981 AIR 625;1981 SCR(1) 995
19)(2016) 15 SCC 289
WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF BEHALF OF APPELLANT
 P a g e | 22

rebut the presumption. Hence in the above case, the accused failed to prove his grave and sudden provocation
and was convicted of murder.

2.2) WHETHER THERE IS A PROCEDURAL DEVIATION ON THE PART OF FORENSIC

DEPARTMENT?9

In this case there is a grave discrepancy on the part of forensic department regarding the procedure and
examination of Ass. Chemical Examiner of PW76 . . But there is no procedure followed by the PW76 For
examination and test adopted for the detection of Venom. It was also contended that PW76 has admitted the
report that the solubility of Certirizine as a solubility factor . But there is no permission obtained by the PW76
from the Investigation agency in the written format and not overlooked by the chief examination officer of
forensic department. Moreover there is no cross examination done for the PW76 and admitted the evidence
under section 293 of crpc in which cross examination must be done by court of law. Hence the admission of
these evidence is violative of the provisions of section 293 and 283 of crpc.

Thus there is no procedure followed by the forensic department and the examination done by the chemical
examiner has numerous ambiguities.

In the case of Rajappan vs state of Kerala21 it was held that if there occurs differing opinion or conflict arises
in the examination of the chemical analysis then the benefit of doubt always goes to the Accused.

In the case of Selvi vs State of Karnataka22 , the supreme ruled that compulsory administration of forensic
techniques such as polygraphs was Unconstitutional if there is violative of principles of Article 21 and the
procedures are not in coherence of the cases.

And in the case of Mahmood vs State of UP23 the Supreme court held that the term expert and convicting
anyone based on the testimony of expert without the examination of the analysis or report is extremely
dangerous.

Also in the present case there is no examination done which is violative of Article 21 and the principles of
Natural Justice.

2.3) Whether the procedures constitutes Fair trail enshrined under the Constitution?

9
20) AIR 162 SC 605

WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF BEHALF OF APPELLANT

 P a g e | 23

10
Article 21 of constitution of India depicts ‘No person shall be deprived of his or her personal liberty
unless the procedure established by the law’

But in this case, there is numerous procedures were violated. Therefore there is a violation of Right to fair trail
prescribed in the constitution and violations of Principles of natural justice.

In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India24, it has been held by a Constitution Bench of this Court that the
procedure for depriving a person of his life or liberty should be fair, reasonable and just. “We are of the opinion
that it is not fair or just that a criminal case should be decided against an accused in the absence of a counsel. It
is only a lawyer who is conversant wit h law who can properly defend an accused in a criminal case. Hence, in
our opinion, if a criminal case (whether a trial or appeal/revision) is decided against an accused in the absence
of a counsel, there will be violation of Article 21 of the Constitution.

Section 304 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 assures there should be fair trial to the accused

The Supreme Court In Sukh Das v. State of Arunachal Pradesh 24

has held that a conviction of the accused in
a trial in which he was not provided legal aid would be set aside as being violative of Article 21 of the
Constitution. And also in the case of AK Gopalan vs state of Madras25 held it is ultravires to the constitution
if the accused were denied the right to fair trial.

The accused person has the right to cross-examine any number of witnesses so that it would ensure the fairness
of the trial. In the case of Mohd. Hussain Julfikar Ali v. The State (Govt. of NCT)26, the appellant was not
provided with an opportunity to cross-examine the fifty-six witnesses. Only one witness was cross-examined to
complete the formality. Hence the appellant’s conviction and sentence was set aside for the same reasons.

In the case of Anukul Chandra Pradhan v. Union of India & Ors 27., it was held that; “Presumption of
innocence of an accused is a legal presumption and should not be destroyed at the very threshold through the
process of media trial and that too when the investigation is pending. In that event, it will be opposed to the very
basic rule of law and would impinge upon the protection granted to an accused under Article 21 of the
Constitution.”

The court In the case of Babu v. State of Kerala while elaborating the concept of doctrine of innocence
observed that presumption of innocence is a human right. It is a basic concept in criminal jurisprudence which
can be taken away only by way of certain statutory exceptions. And while dealing with such exceptions the

21) 2012 (2)KHC 657

10

22) 2016(7) SCC 263

23)AIR 1976 SC 69
24)AIR 1978 SC 597
WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF BEHALF OF APPELLANT
 P a g e | 24

court must look in to the nature of the offence, its seriousness and gravity. The Courts must be on guard to see
that merely on the application of the presumption; the same may not lead to any injustice or mistaken
conviction.11

In the case of Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma vs State (Nct Of Delhi) 30 which is famously known as
Jessica Lal Murder case, the appellant was accused of the murder of Jessica by shooting her with a gun. The
trial court acquitted the appellant and in an appeal by the State, the High Court reversed the order and convicted
him. In an appeal against the said order in the Supreme Court, the accused claimed that he was denied of the
right of fair trial enshrined under Article 21. He claimed that the prosecution didn’t produce a ballistic report
which was favourable to him in the court as well as he was denied of access to certain other documents which
were necessary to place a proper defence. Taking into consideration of the facts, the Court opined that the duty
of a prosecutor is not to ensure the conviction of the accused at all costs. But rather a prosecutor shall help the
court in finding the truth. More than a state engaged lawyer, he is an officer of the court. He shall ensure a fair
play in the proceedings and bring all relevant matters before the Court for the determination of truth and justice
for all parties including the victims. The Court further observed that the expression `due process of law‘ shall
deem to include fairness in the trial. It is a constitutional mandate as well as a statutory right of the accused to
access the documents which prosecution relies upon. In some cases, even documents which are not relied upon
by the prosecution shall be provided to the accused if it is necessary for the fair play. The accused has a right to
file an application before the Court, if the prosecution fails to do so.

3) WHETHER THERE IS AN AMBIGUITY IN FIRST INFORMATION REPORT?

Initially the case was registered under the section 174 of unnatural death and constitutes the serious of
events accompanying by the lodging of FIR on the person suspected and the procedures are upheld and
initiated. But in this case there were numerous discrepancies in lodging of FIR on the accused on the allegations
which are deemed to be groundless in nature.

3.1) Whether the Intention of accused is malafide in nature?

The case is initiated after the complaint made by the PW3 who was the brother of Uthra and by the
family members is of that are striving only for the purpose of Financial gains and on the grounds of cruelty and
Domestic violence and on the grounds of dowry. But, Appellant in any such instance not demanded any form of

25) AIR 1986 SC 991

11

26) AIR 1950 SC 27

27)(2013) SCR 1003
28)AIR 1997 SC 2814
29)2010(1)KLT 132
30)MANU/SC/0268/2010
WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF BEHALF OF APPELLANT
 P a g e | 25

dowry or money or material objects during the marriage. But it was only given the Uthra’s family and not by
the demand made by the Appellant. The Appellant is also filed in such case of section 498 A of IPC which deals
with the Cruelty. But there is no events or acts which results in Cruelty by the Appellant in the course of
marriage life and there is no allegations were made by the Uthra during her Lifespan, in which there is no scope
of Cruelty and there was no locus standi prevailed to accuse the Appellant on the said offence. In the case of
Onkar Nath Mishra vs State of Delhi 31 it was held by the court in examining the concepts of dowry
harassment which ultimately causes death. But there is scope that Appellant can be charged on the said offence.
Sometimes there is a grave Misuse of the section 498A.which was also expressed by the MALIMOTH
COMMITTEE REPORT,2003 which notifies the misuse of this section and there is need to reform the
provision and the validity of the complaint should be explained.

In the case of Preeti Gupta vs State of Jharkand32, the Supreme court expresses it as a Legal terrorism and
observed that in a serious look that reflected in the large number of complaints which are false in nature . Also
in the case of Chandra ben vs State of Delhi it was concluded that if there is a false allegation then there is
speedy remedy should be given to the aggrieved party.

In the case of Savitri Devi v Ramesh Chand &amp33; Ors the court held clearly that there was a misuse and
exploitation of the provisions to such an extent that it was hitting at the foundation of marriage itself and proved
to be not so good for health of society at large. The court believed that authorities and lawmakers had to review
the situation and legal provisions to prevent such from taking place. This section was made keeping in mind
protection of the married woman from unscrupulous husbands but is clearly misused by few women and again
this is strictly condemned in Saritha v R.Ramachandran34 where the court did notice that the reverse trend and
asked the law Commission and Parliament to make the offence a non-cognizable and bailable one. It is been a
duty of the court to condemn wrongdoings and protect the victim.12

And Moreover there is no violation of Provisions of Protection of Women from domestic violence Act,2005
and there is no bar to the provisions of the Dowry prohibition Act,1961 and especially to the section of 4 which
explains the dowry demanded by the Husband in which in the this case there is no Dowry demanded by the
Appellant. In the case of 35Nimish Agarwal vs State of Chattisgarh , it was held that there should be proper
examination of case relating to the Dowry on the both parties.

36
Kans Raj v/s State of punjab, AIR 2000 SC 2324

31) 2008 (2) SCC 561

12

32) (2010) 7 SCC 667

33)2003 CRiLJ 2759
34)2002 (6) ALD 319
35)2021 SCC ONL CHH 3202
WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF BEHALF OF APPELLANT
 P a g e | 26

For the fault of the husband, the in-laws or the other relations cannot, in all cases, be held to be involved in the
demand of dowry . In cases where such accusation is made, the overt acts attributed to persons other than
husband are required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. By mere conjectures and implications such
relations cannot be held guilty for the offence relating to dowry death The High of Court Jharkhand recently
comprising of a bench of Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary observed that the mere fact that the petitioner was
acquitted for the offence under Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act on the technical ground of lack of
sanction for prosecution has no bearing or effect on the aforementioned concurrent findings leading to the
petitioner’s conviction under Section 498 A of the IPC. (Munna Ansari @ Md. Munna Ansari vs The state
of Jharkhand)37

b) Whether there is a Malafide Intention on FIR registered regarding the grounds?

In this case the Fir registered initially for the financial gains prescribed by the family members on the
part of accused. But there a doubt arises that a malafide intent prevailed on the part of Uthra’s family that after
the death of the her that her husband and her children were entitled for the property rights of the family.
Moreover, the appellant during marriage not demanded any dowry or quantum of dowry. It was admitted fact
that only the family gave the financial gains to the Uthra and for her family, and there was no reason can be
provided that there was malafide intention on the part of the Appellant to murder in the cold blooded nature
which leads to the circumstance that falls under the RAREST OF RARE cause on the part of Appellant which
was framed charges against him on the basis of grave nature on the malafide in tention of the family members
on the basis of the allegations made by them which leads to the grave nature of MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE
by the authorities. Also there was no proper and fair investigation done by the investigation officer in which
there is suppression of material factsd which was not admitted by the Investigating officer and the court of law
during trial which results in GROSS INJUSTICE to the Appellant.13

In Som Mittal v. Govt. of Karnataka38, the Supreme Court held that, When grave miscarriage of justice would
be committed if the trial is allowed to proceed; or Where the accused would be harassed unnecessarily if the
trial is allowed; or When prima facie it appears to Court that the trial would likely to be ended in acquittal.

Harbhajan Singh Bajwa vs. Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala &amp 39; Anr., it washeld that:
“Whenever any information is given to the authorities and when the said authority found that the accusations
made in the complaint were false, it is for that authority to initiate action under Section 182 I.P.C. The offence
under Section 182 I.P.C. is punishable with imprisonment for a period of six months or with fine or with both.

36)AIR 2000 SC 2324

13

37) 2021 LATEST CASELAW 3721 JHARK

WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF BEHALF OF APPELLANT
 P a g e | 27

Tulsi Ram vs. the State of M.P40., It was held that Where the police refused to register FIR on the grounds of
false allegations founded in the preliminary inquiry, the High Court directed the registration of the FIR and
fresh investigation in the case.

The Supreme Court has set aside the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment of three people under Section
302 IPC, noting that investigation was faulty and not carried out with the intention of unearthing the truth, but
for burying the same fathom deep, for extraneous considerations and that it was denied to turn the informant
and her family members as accused and allow the real culprits named in the FIR to escape. (Madhav vs State
of Madhya Pradesh41)14

4. WHETHER THE CONFESSION MADE BY THE ACCUSED IS ACCEPTABLE AND

ADMISSIBLE BEFORE THE COURT OF LAW?

It is humbly submitted by the appellants that the confession made by the accused is not acceptable and
admissible before the court of law

4.1 The confession made by the accused in the police custody is extrajudicial

It is the humbly submitted by the appellants before the Hon’ble high court that the confession made by
the accused in the police custody is extrajudicial as Section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act

From the very beginning concededly the appellants were in the police custody. They were put to
interrogation by the police officers. They were not free persons. They were under orders of restraint and
thus would be in the custody of the police officers. Any statement made by them while in custody of a
police officer would be inadmissible in evidence in terms of Section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872.15

42
In the case of State of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram16, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in the case of
extra judicial confession the court has to satisfy in regard to voluntariness of the confession, truthfulness
14
38)2008 ALL MR (CRI)151(SC)
39)2000 CRiLJ 3297
40)AIR 1970 MP 123
41)CRL A.NO.852/2021
15
42)Raju Premji vs Customs Ner Shillong Unit
16
43)State of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram AIR 2003 SC 360
WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF BEHALF OF APPELLANT
 P a g e | 28

of the confession and corroboration. But in this case it was subjected to the custodial torture of the
investigating officers. Custodial torture is universally held as one of the cruellest forms of human rights
abuse. The
Constitution of India, the Supreme Court, the National Human Rights Commission and the United
Nations forbid it. But the police across the country defy these institutions. Therefore, there is a need to
strike a balance between the individual human rights and societal interests in combating crime by using
a realistic approach (Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1994) 4 SCC 260)
The Article 21 of the Constitution”of India is understood to protect the right to be free from torture. This
view is held because the Right to Life is more than a simple Right to Live an animalistic existence. The
expression Life or Personal Liberty in Article 21 of the Constitution of India includes a guarantee
against torture and assault even by the State and its functionaries to a person who is taken in custody and
no
sovereign immunity can be pleaded against the liability of the State arising due to such criminal use of
force over the captive person. (D. K. Basu Vs. State of W. B, (1997) 1 SCC 416).
In [Prakash Kadam Vs Ramprasad Vishwanath Gupta, (2011) 6 SCC 189], the Supreme Court
observed that: Policemen are persons who are supposed to uphold the law. In our opinion, if crimes are
committed by ordinary people, ordinary punishment should be F given, but if the offence is committed
by policemen,much harsher punishment should be given to them because they do an act totally contrary
to their duties
In [Re Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons Vs State of Assam, AIR 2016 SC 993], the Supreme
Court observed as follows:
There are several such cases – documented and undocumented – all over the country but in spite of
repeated decisions delivered by this Court and perhaps every High Court there seems to be no let-up in
custodial deaths. This is not a sad but a tragic state of affairs indicating the apparent disdain of the State
to the life and liberty of individuals, particularly those in custody. The time to remedy the situation is
long past and yet, there seems to be no will and therefore no solution in sight.
In the case of [Kishore Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1981 SC 625] the Supreme Court held that
the use of third degree by the police is violative of Article 21 The first element of extrajudicial
confession depends upon the voluntariness of the confession which in the given case the element is not
fulfilled upon.

The factual matrix of the given case warrants that the accused gave the confession to the police when he
was in the custody of the police and there was no presence of a magistrate so it can’t be proved as per
WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF BEHALF OF APPELLANT
 P a g e | 29

sec 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 2872. This was also re-established in the case of 43
Raju Premji vs
Customs Ner Shillong Unit where it was held that the accused were put to interrogation by the police
officers and they were not free persons. They were under orders of restraint and thus would be in the
custody of the police officers. Any statement made by them while in custody of a police officer would
be inadmissible in
Evidence in terms of Section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

4.2 The discovery made from confession doesn’t incriminate the accused

It is humbly submitted by the appellants before the Hon’ble high court that the discovery made from
confession doesn’t incriminate the accused as it led to discovery of items under Section 27 44 of the
Indian Evidence Act,
1872.17

The only remaining circumstance to be dealt with is the alleged disclosure made by the appellant and
recovery of bloodstained clothes belonging to the appellant at his instance. In view of Section 27 of the
Evidence Act, there was no difficulty in accepting this evidence and to consider the same along with
other circumstances if proved beyond all reasonable doubt. But the unfortunate feature of the present
case, which has also been noticed by the trial court, is that many witnesses who can be said to be the
stock witnesses of the police, have been produced on behalf of the prosecution to prove important
circumstances. In this background the court has to be very cautious about the investigation done by the
police in this case. The circumstance regarding the recovery of the bloodstained clothes belonging to the
appellant, on the disclosure made by him, has to be examined in the background of the witnesses like
PW 9, PWs 8 and 30, PWs 2 and 3, on whom it is difficult to place any reliance for the reasons
mentioned above. It is not possible to hold that the vital links of the prosecution case which are
necessary to be proved before a finding can be recorded, that the chain of evidence is complete, have
been proved beyond reasonable doubt. If the evidence of PWs 2 and 3 are rejected, then the main
circumstantial evidence that the appellant was in exclusive possession of the room in question and he
had got the pit dug by PWs 2 and 3 in which the dead body of the victim was found in the night of 18-
10-1974, shall be deemed to have not been proved.18

17
44)Section 27, Indian Evidence Act, 1872
18
45)Tarseem Kumar v. Delhi Admn., 1994 Supp (3) SCC 367
WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF BEHALF OF APPELLANT
 P a g e | 30

In the case in hand, the plastic jar and other evidences that were retrived based on the confession in the
police custody weren’t enough to prove that the accused murdered the deceased beyond reasonable
doubt like how in the case of 45Tarseem Kumar v. Delhi Adminstration, the murder of the deceased
wasn’t proved beyond reasonable doubt despite the police discovering the deceased’s body from the
disclosure statement given by the accused.

4.3 The confession made by the accused is not acceptable and admissible before the court of law

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble high court that the confession made by the accused is not
acceptable and admissible before the court of law.
In 46
R. v. Lester, the accused was being taken in a tonga by a police constable. In the absence of
constable, the accused confessed to the tanga-driver that he committed the crime. The confession was
held to be in police custody as the accused was in the custody of constable and it made no difference of
his temporary absence. Where a woman, charged with the murder of her husband, was taken into the
custody of the police, a friend of the woman also accompanied her. The policeman left the woman with
her friend and went away to procure a fresh horse. The woman confessed her guilt to her friend while
the policeman was away. The confession would not be admissible against the accused as the prisoner
should be regarded in custody of the police in spite of the fact that he was absent for a short time.19

47
Police authority itself, however, carefully controlled, carries a menace to those brought suddenly under
its shadow and the law recognises and provides against the danger of such persons making incriminating
confessions with the intention of placating authority and without regard to the truth of what they are
saying.20

48
In the case of Arjun Malik v. State of Bihar 21 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the High Court
had committed gross error in convicting the accused for the alleged charge of 302 read with 34 of IPC,
relying upon a very weak kind of evidence of extra judicial confession allegedly made by the co-accused
Videshi.

19
46)R. v. Lester
20
47)R v. Murugan Ramasay, (1964) 64 C.N.L.R. 265 (P.C.)
21
48)Arjun Marik v. State of Bihar, 1994 Supp (2) SCC 372
WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF BEHALF OF APPELLANT
 P a g e | 31

In the given case, the confession was given to a police officer in his custody without the presence of a
judicial magistrate as mentioned in R v. Murugan Ramasay, police authority carries a menace and has
the power to get incriminating confessions.

In the case in hand, the confession made by the accused and co accused Suresh from whom the cobra is
said to be allegedly bought from, is similar to that case of the case of Arjun Malik v. State of Bihar
where it was held that the confession given to a police in police custody cannot be the only incriminating
factor in conviction of an accused. And also in the convincing nature of police always leads to the
custodial nature and also in the case of P.Ragu vs CBI(Saathankulam case) which ultimately the
custodial torture leads to the death of the Jayaraj and Bennicks which is violative of principles of
Natural Justice and causes grave Miscarrige of Justice. Hence, in the light of submissions made, it is the
humble submission of the appellants that the confession made by the accused is not acceptable and
admissible before the court of law.

5. WHETHER THE SENTENCE IMPOSED BY THE SESSIONS COURT IS IN ACCORDANCE

WITH LAW AND REASONABLE?

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble High Court that the sentence imposed by the Sessions Court has
been passed in complete disregard of the principles ofsentencing and is violative of the mandatory procedures
laid down under Section 235(2) the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

5.1. Whether the mandatory procedures laid down under section 235(2) of the Criminal Procedure
Code,1973 have been complied with?

Section 235(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 reads as follows“If the accused is convicted, the Judge
shall, unless he proceeds in accordancewith the provisions of section 360, hear the accused on the question of
sentence, and then pass sentence on him according to law.”

The 48th Report of the Law Commission and the statement of objects and reasons of the 1973 – Code of
Criminal Procedure show that section 235(2) is a very salutary provision. It contains one of the cardinal features
of natural justice, namely, that the accused must be given an opportunity to make a representation against the
sentence proposed to be imposed on him. It seeks to achieve a socio economic purpose and is aimed at attaining
the ideal principle of proper sentencing in a rational and progressive society . The obligation to hear the
WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF BEHALF OF APPELLANT
 P a g e | 32

accused on the question of sentence under Section 235(2) is not discharged by putting a formal question to the
accused as to what he has to say on the question of sentence. The judge must make a genuine effort to elicit
from the accused all information which will eventually bear on the question of the sentence. It is the bounden
duty of the judge to cast aside the formalities of the court scene and approach the question of sentence from a
broad, sociological point of view. In determining the mandatory nature of Section 235(2) of the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973 the supreme court has categorically held in the case of Union of India V. Sriharan
‘That having regard to the gravity of the matter, the trial court should have allowed reasonable opportunity to
the counsel for the accused to address arguments on sentence’. Thus it is humbly submitted that the trial court
has shown impatience and also incorrectly applied the law.

5.2. Whether the sentence passed by the Sessions Court is in line with the principles of sentencing?

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble High Court that the sentence passed by the Sessions Court is in
violation of the principles of sentencing. The question on how a sentence is to be imposed has to be gathered
from the pronouncements of

1 Santa Singh vs State Of Punjab 1956 AIR (SC) 526

2 Muniappan v. State of Tamil Nadu (1981) 3 SCC 11

3 UNION OF INDIA VS SRI HARAN (2016) 7 SCC 1 : (2016) 2 SCC (Cri) 695

the Supreme Court in as much as the legislation gives no indication. In the reportedjudgement of the Supreme
Court in the case of B.G. Goswami V. Delhi22 Administration, the Supreme Court observed that the “question
of sentence is always a difficult question, requiring as it does, proper adjustment and balancing of various
considerations appropriate quantum in a given case”. 4 The 47 th Report of the Law Commission of India 5 has
set down that the prior criminal record of the offender, the age of the offender, the professional and social
record of the offender, the prospect for the rehabilitation of the offender, the possibility of a return of the
offender to normal life in the community shall all be considered as extenuating or aggravating circumstances in
passing a proper sentence. Further the Supreme Court has upheld in the case of Ramashraya Chakravarti v.
State of M.P 6 ., the Supreme Court has held that in judging the adequacy of a sentence, the nature of the
offence, the circumstances of its commission, the age and character of the offender, injury to the individuals or

22
(1974) 3 SCC 85
49)
50) 47th report, LAW COMMISSION OF INDIA dated 1972 para 44
WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF BEHALF OF APPELLANT
 P a g e | 33

to society, effect of the punishment on the offender, eye to correlation and reformation of the offender, are some
among many other factors which should be ordinarily taken into consideration by Court.

5.2.2. It is further stated that, the court should not give any imprisonment to the accused merely on the basis of
society and media pressure of the said case. The justice should be always available for both the parties to the
case. But in this case due to media sensation and outside pressure the judiciary failed to give reasonable
opportunity to the accused and failed to grant a fair trail for the accused and passed the verdict without even
considering the accused side arguments which is not permissible in the eye of law and the double imprisonment
given by the sessions court is not in accordance with the law it is only because of the outside pressure and social
sensation of the said case. And it is humbly prayed before the Hon’ble High Court to suspend the sentence
given by the sessions court.

5.3. Whether the judiciary has given a reasonable opportunity for the accused?

The judiciary failed to give fair train opportunity to the accused which is violation of Cr.P.C and the judiciary
failed to see the fair arguments of the defence side because of the media pressure on the case. The judiciary
shall never ever give the judgement due to outside pressure, it should be always on the basis of the circumstance
and evidence of the said case. But in this case the judiciary failed to see accused side arguments which is a clear
violation.

5.3.1. It is further states that, in the FIR charges were framed against the accused for attempt for murder under
section 307 without any conclusive evidence hence it is invalid. In the experts report itself it is clearly stated
that, the snake will also live in both dry and marsh land. At the time of the offence happened the surrounding
area was wet due to the rain. There is a high possibility that the snake might have come naturally without any
human interference. It is further states that, there was no concrete evident that the sooraj was in the
crime spot when the snake bite Uthra. And in the CCTV footage too there was no movement of Mr.Sooraj

around the crime spot but the footage was supressed by the police officials which caused prejudice to
sooraj.

According to a three-judge panel in the case of Anvar P.V. vs P.K. Basheer, an electronic document exists.
The Lord’s Bench Arjun Panditrao’s recent judgment explained about the certificate under the Section. By
stating, “If the final text is submitted even before Court for review, Section 64b (4) is not required for
Examination, then the situation in terms of the certificate requirement has become transparent”.
WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF BEHALF OF APPELLANT
 P a g e | 34

In the case of CCTV, the image is captured by the sensors and transformed to digital by the DVR ( Digital
Video Recorder). Since it stores data in electronic form, the DVR is an electronic record. If the DVR is
presented to the Court, it will be considered the main evidence by Section 62 of the IEA unless the original
document is presented to the Court for review, and the provisions of Section 65b (4) of the IEA will not apply.

Tomaso Bruno vs The State of U.P., a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court strayed from the agreed role.
The court ruled that secondary proof of the details of a report may also be taken through Section 65 of the Act
in a criminal trial where CCTV footage was required to be used.

5.3.2. It is further stated that, because of the evidence suppressed by the police officials there was no reasonable
opportunity given to the accused to prove his innocence. Harendra Singh Pal vs Sandeep Kumar and others
14.07.2017 In this case, the Uttarkhand High Court states that, the direct evidence or circumstantial evidence, to
establish murder by poisoning will depend on the facts of each case. If the evidence produced turn to failure of
prosecution to prove the fact satisfactorily, either by of direct evidence or circumstantial evidence, then the
benefit

of doubt is given to the accused. As mentioned in the above case it is clearly states that, if the judgement given
based on the circumstantial evidence then it is a duty of prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt. But in this case the prosecution failed to do so and supressed all the accused side arguments

5.3.3. It is further stated that, because of numerous ambiguity and no proper investigation done by the police
officials there was no fair trail given to the accused which will leads to grave miscarriage of law. And as a result
of social pressure there was no reasonable pleading opportunity was given and the judiciary failed to hear the
arguments of the accused and not accepted the same which is unjust and prejudice to the accused.

In the case of DALBIR KAUR & ORS VS STATE OF PUNJAB Substantial and grave injustice has
been done”. But whether such injustice has been done in a given case depends on the circumstances of the case,
and not think one could catalogue exhaustively all possible circumstances in which it can be said that there has
been grave and substantial injustice done in any case. In the appeals before us the findings recorded by the trial
court and affirmed by the High Court do not disclose any such exceptional and special circumstances as would
justify the claim made on behalf of the appellants whose appeals we propose to dismiss that there has been a
failure of justice in these cases. Thus there were numerous confusions which cannot be taken for the
conclusiveness for the decision and the procedures are violated in the greater manner which is violative of
Article 21 of the Constitution of India which ultimately results in grave miscarriage of Justice to the Appellant.
The Supreme court held it view as 23
23
51) Kali Ram vs State of Himachal Pradesh(1973) 2 SCC 808
WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF BEHALF OF APPELLANT
 P a g e | 35

‘If an innocent person is sent to jail and undergoes the sentence, the scars left by the Miscarriage of Justice
cannot be erased by any subsequent act of expiation , and the cautions of wrongful convictions’

PRAYER

Wherefore, may it please the Hon’ble High court, in the light of facts and circumstances of the case , issues
raised, Summary of arguments and Arguments advanced Authorities cited , The Respondent prays that this
Hon’ble court may be pleased to adjudge, rule upon, and determine the following,

1) The medical examination done by the experts are ambiguity in nature,

2) The FIR lodged against the Appellant is in Malafide in nature,

3)The confession given by the Appellant & PW1 (Suresh)was subjected to custodial torture by the Investigating
officer,

4) The Order of Sentence imposed by the Sessions (lower) court based on the circumstantial evidence like
medical which is arbitrary and vagueness in nature must be Set aside, and

5) The Appellant must be acquitted on the benefit of doubt and on basis of vagueness of procedure followed by
the authorities and the court of law.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF BEHALF OF APPELLANT

 P a g e | 36

AND OR

Pass any other order it may deem fit in the interest of Justice, Equity and Good conscience.

ALL OF WHICH IS MOST RESPECTFULLY PRAYED AND HUMBLY SUBMITTED

WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF BEHALF OF APPELLANT