NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024, AMITY UNIVERSITY JAIPUR

TEAM CODE:

NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024,

AMITY UNIVERSITY JAIPUR

Before
THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDICANA,
AT NEW ANSARA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Criminal Appeal No: _______ of 2024

IN THE MATTER OF

PRIYA MEHRA & ANR ……(APPELLANTS)

Versus

STATE OF TIAMAAR ……(RESPONDENT)

APPEAL filed u/s 374 of INSS Challenging the conviction u/s 103(1) of INS

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS

 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024, AMITY UNIVERSITY JAIPUR

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SR. NO. CONTENTS PAGE NO.

1. TABLE OF CONTENTS

2. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

3. LIST OF LAWS

4. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

5. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

6. ISSUES RAISED

7. STATEMENT OF FACTS

8. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

9. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

10. PRAYER

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024, AMITY UNIVERSITY JAIPUR

ABBREVIATIONS FULL FORMS

Hon’ble Honorable

Art. Article

AIR All India Reporter

& And

R.T.I Right to Information

B. A. Bail Application

Sec Section

SSC Supreme Court Cases

F.I.R First Information Report

Consti. Constitution

C.C Certified Copy

C. A. Charge Application

LIST OF LAWS
 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024, AMITY UNIVERSITY JAIPUR

STATUTES

The Constitution of Indicana , 1950

The Indicana Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA)

The Indicana Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)

The Indicanan Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS)

General Clauses Act, 1897

Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

RESEARCH DATABASE
a) AIR ONLINE
b) SSC ONLINE
c) MANUPATRA
d) INDIAN KANOON
e) JUSTIA
f) PARLIAMENT UK
 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024, AMITY UNIVERSITY JAIPUR

BOOKS

“Principles of Criminal Law” by Ratanlal & Dhirajlal

“Criminal Law: Cases and Materials” by K.D. Gaur

“Kenny’s Outlines of Criminal Law” by J.W.C. Turner

“The Law of Evidence” by M. Monir

“Law of Evidence” by Vepa P. Sarathi

“Phipson on Evidence” by Hodge Malek

Durga Das Basu’s Commentary on the Constitution of India, 3481

“Constitutional Law of India” by H.M. Seervai

“Code of Criminal Procedure” by Ratanlal & Dhirajlal

“Circumstantial Evidence” by S.L. Phipson

“Principles of Circumstantial Evidence” by Avtar Singh

“Supreme Court on Criminal Law” by Surendra Malik

“Commentary on the Indian Evidence Act” by Sarkar

NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024, AMITY UNIVERSITY JAIPUR

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024, AMITY UNIVERSITY JAIPUR

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024, AMITY UNIVERSITY JAIPUR

STATEMENT OF FACTS
 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024, AMITY UNIVERSITY JAIPUR

ISSUES RAISED

I. Whether Priya can be held liable under section 103(1) of INS?

II. Whether the evidence was sufficient enough to prove Naina’s guilt for
conspiracy, aiding in the crime, and tampering with evidence as per
(sec. 61(2)(a), 3(5) and 238) of the INS?

III. Whether trial court have conducted fair trial by ignoring the
absence of Raichand?
 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024, AMITY UNIVERSITY JAIPUR

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. Whether Priya can be held liable under section 103(1) of INS?

NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024, AMITY UNIVERSITY JAIPUR
 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024, AMITY UNIVERSITY JAIPUR

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. Whether Priya can be held liable under section 103(1) of INS?

No, Priya Mehra cannot be held liable u/s 103(1) of Indicanan Nyaya
Sanhita (INS) which provides punishment for murder as there is no direct
evidence of Priya’s involvement in murder of Shailja and the case
remains hypothetical. The case against Priya had relied heavily on
circumstantial evidence i.e. Priya’s argument with Tanmay for his
involvement with Shailja and her car being seen in CCTV footage near
the crime scene. Also, appellant contends that there is no conclusive
evidence linking her to the murder of Shailja. Multiple sets of fingerprints
and the presence of other suspects at the crime scene such as Rajiv
Singhania, Lalit Raichand’s phones were traced near crime scene further
complicates the case raising a reasonable doubt on the involvement of
Priya in the crime. Without definitive evidence Priya’s guilt cannot be
established beyond the reasonable doubt.

 It is humbly submitted that appellant have approached the Hon’ble

Supreme Court under Article 134 of the Constitution of Indicana as
the matter involves substantial question of law, on the ground that
the Mens Rea was not established and the conviction was based on
incomplete evidence of intent to murder (mens rea) and also the
hon’ble High Court of Tiamaar relied heavily upon the
circumstantial evidence ignoring the fact that the reasonable doubt
arising from multiple sets of fingerprints and the lack of direct
evidence.

 In Bacchan Singh V. State of Punjab, this hon’ble court had

underscored its role in ensuring that legal standards are correctly
applied in criminal trials. In the present matter, the failure of High
Court to properly examine the circumstantial evidence warrants
scrutiny by this hon’ble court under Article 134.

 It is humbly submitted that the charge u/s 103(1) of Indicanan

Nyaya Sanhita (INS) requires that Priya had intentionally murdered
Shailja. However, the respondent had failed to prove Mens Rea of
Priya. The emotional outburst of Priya over Tanmay during the
 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024, AMITY UNIVERSITY JAIPUR

telephonic conversation was recorded such a statements made in

the anger do not necessarily prove the intent to cause murder.
 In State of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram, the Supreme Court held that
mere words spoken in anger without substantial evidence of a
clear, planned intent to kill are insufficient to prove murder. In
present case, the emotional reaction does not meet the intention
(mens rea) for premeditation required under Section 103(1) INS.

 In K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra, the Court emphasized

that intent and direct involvement are critical for conviction under
murder charges. The lack of clear evidence directly implicating
Priya weakens the respondent’case.

 It is further submitted that the case relied heavily on the

circumstantial evidence such as presence of Priya’s car near the
apartment where Shailja died and her fingerprints on the laptop as
well as murder weapon. However, circumstantial evidence while
admissible must be conclusive in nature and should lead to only
one reasonable conclusion that Priya had committed the crime.

 In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda V. State of Maharashta, the

Supreme Court laid down that in cases based on circumstantial
evidence, the chain of evidence must be so complete that there is
no room for any conclusion other than the guilt of the accused. In
the present case, the fingerprints of Priya on the knife and laptop is
reasonable as she was the roommate of Shailja. They were living in
the same apartment and also trial court and hon’ble high court had
ignored the fact that there is a presence of other individuals’
fingerprints which is unidentified and unresolved the fact regarding
the involvement of others including Lalit Raichand, leaves gap in
the respondent’s theory.

 The respondent must prove that Priya is guilty of the crime beyond
the reasonable doubt against Priya are not conclusive and does not
meet the high standard. The fact that Shailja had multiple conflicts
with other individuals including her stepfather Rajiv Singhania and
his close friend Lalit Raichand creates a reasonable doubt.

 In Kaliram V. State of Himachal Pradesh, this hon’ble court

reiterated that the prosecution must prove the case beyond
 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024, AMITY UNIVERSITY JAIPUR

reasonable doubt, and if there is any reasonable doubt, the benefit

must go to the accused. The conflicting evidence in this case, such
as multiple sets of fingerprints and Raichand’s threatening
messages supports this argument.

 It is furthermore submitted that there is an evidence of personal

conflict between Priya and Shailja. The motive given by
respondent which is related to Tanmay’s relationship with Shailja is
weak. There is no direct or conclusive evidence that links this
motive to premediated Mens Rea of Priya to kill Shailja.

 In Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam, the Supreme Court highlighted

that when the motive is weak or circumstantial, the burden on the
prosecution to prove the guilt beyond a reasonable doubt
becomes heavier.

 It is also humbly submitted that the investigation into human

trafficking allegations against Arsha Hotel in 2018 which is owned
by Rajiv Singhania, stepfather of Shailja and also there is heavy
investment by Lalit Raichand in the same hotel. Moreover, the
threatening messages by Lalit Raichand to Shailja provides
significant reason for the murder. Raichand had absconded shortly
after the death of Shailja strongly suggests his involvement in the
murder. This argument distances Priya from being prime suspect as
the murder might have been connected to Shailja’s knowledge of
illegal activities of Raichand.

 In Mohd. Aman v. State of Rajasthan, the Supreme Court held that

external threats or coercive circumstances involving third parties
can reduce the likelihood of the accused being the perpetrator if
such parties had a stronger motive. Thus, the respondent has failed
to establish Priya’s guilt, mens rea beyond the reasonable doubt.

 It is humbly submitted before this hon’ble court that the role of

Tanmay revolves around the romantic relationship triangle between
him, Priya and Shailja. His decision to break all the ties with Priya
to pursue future with Shailja directly triggered Priya’s emotional
outburst which was heard and testimonied by the witnesses.
Tanmay’s testimony cannot be relied upon because Priya’s
conviction for murder directly benefits Tanmay, as it diverts
 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024, AMITY UNIVERSITY JAIPUR

suspicion away from him. His motive due to his relationship with
both Priya and Shailja could have been a significant point of
investigation. The conviction of Priya avoids further scrutiny or
accusations against him.

 Also, trial court and hon’ble high court have ignored that Rajiv
Singhania, Shailja’s stepfather had a complicated relationship with
her involving past disputes and unresolved family business
conflicts. Shailja had distanced herself from her family after the
allegations were imposed about human trafficking on her family’s
business. The conviction of Priya shifts the focus away from the
allegations concerning Singhania’s family business. As Shailja was
having knowledge about the illegal activities such as human
trafficking within the family business as mentioned by her in her
diary puts a significant threat to Rajiv, and also Rajiv was present
near the crime scene on the night of Shailja’s murder raises
reasonable question about is involvement.

 It is further more submitted that absence of lalit raichand who is

critical figure in moot problem as his involvement in shailja’s
personal life and the business dealing Singhania family there is a
serious question of his involvement in the murder his sexual
harassment on Shailja and also his threatning messages to her life
provide a strong motive of shailja’s murder by him however the
trial court and honorable court had ignored the raichand’s absence
during the proceedings and also he was absconded following
shailja’s death adds further complexities in the investigation
without raichands testimony and opportunity to cross examine him
lacks crucial information with his interaction with shaija leading to
her death. The role of raichand, as potential suspect weakens the
respondents case against Priya as, the true offender could be
someone else with more compelling motive (specifically raichand)

 In cases such as Bhagwan Das v. State of Rajasthan, the Supreme

Court highlighted the importance of examining all possible
suspects, especially when a key figure is missing. The absence of
raichand pass doubt on the completeness of investigation and fair
trial.
 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024, AMITY UNIVERSITY JAIPUR

 The appellants respectfully contents that despite the disappearance

of raichand the trial had been expedited without proper
investigation on the raichands involvement and also the serious
allegations on him of sexual harassment, threats and his connection
in human trafficking also, the hon’ble court could have delayed
proceedings to ensure that all evidence including raichands
testimony. The legal principle of natural justice audi alteram
partem which means that hear both the sides is violated in this
present case.

 The appellant humbly submits that, the trial should have been
adjourned until raichand’s whereabouts were discovered rushing
the trial without the key testimony violate the fundamental right of
Priya to fair trial, In Mohd. Hussain v. State (Govt. of NCT of
Delhi), the Supreme Court held that denying a fair opportunity to
examine witnesses or gather key evidence can result in the
miscarriage of justice. Similarly, In this case, absence of raichand
necessitated a delay to ensure all parties could be
examined properly.

Therefore, in the light of above mentioned argument and cases

cited it is humbly submitted that Priya is not guilty under sec
103(1) of Indicanan Nyaya Sanhita for murder. Her conviction is
not sustainable as direct link between evidence, and reliability on
weak circumstantial evidence and the presence of multiple
unidentified suspects, the failure of investigation to conclusively
link Priya beyond the reasonable doubt as required under the
criminal law. The absence of testimony of Lalit raichand and
unexplored individuals involving rajiv Singhania and tanmay
leaves significant gap between respondents case, additionally the
emotional outburst of Priya does not full fill the legal requirement
of mens rea that is important element to murder. The appelent
respectfully contents tot this hon’ble supreme court to exercised its
jurisdiction under art 134 of constitution of Indicana to review this
present case and rectify the misapplication of legal standards to
ensure that justice is served.
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient enough to prove Naina’s guilt for
conspiracy, aiding in the crime, and tampering with evidence as per
(__section) of the INS?
 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024, AMITY UNIVERSITY JAIPUR

No, the evidence was not sufficient enough to prove naina’s guilt for
conspiracy, adding in the crime and tampering with the evidence as per _
sec of INS, the respondent had charged Naina under section 61(2)(a) of
INS which necessitates proof of deliberate agreement between two or
more persons to commit an unlawful act. The main requirement here is
the respondent must establish the existent of common intention between
Priya and naina to conspire in committing shailja’s murder. However, the
evidence presented here fails to meet the legal requirement for conviction
under this section.

 It is humbly submitted that the respondent heavily relied upon nainas

statement, “Whatever you decide, I will be by your side” uttered during
emotional moment while consoling Priya after her breakup with tanmay,
the statement utter appears to be one’s moral and emotional support and
does not indicate any clear intention to participate in criminal conspiracy.
Mere expression of loyalty and emotional cannot be compared with an
agreement to commit an criminal act. In conspiracy cases, meeting of
minds of conspirator to execute an unlawful act must be prove beyond a
reasonable doubt. A vague or ambiguous statement uttered in emotional
moment is insufficient to establish criminal conspiracy.

In State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu (Parliament Attack Case), the

Supreme Court held that mere association or knowledge of an unlawful
act is not enough to infer conspiracy. The respondent must prove overt
acts or an explicit agreement to commit the crime. In the present case, the
respondent has failed to establish any such agreement or overt act beyond
the statement in question.
NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024, AMITY UNIVERSITY JAIPUR
NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024, AMITY UNIVERSITY JAIPUR

PRAYER