MEMORIAL SUBMITTED BY PHENIL BANERJEE, PAYOJA BANERJEE & RUKSAR

TEAM CODE -02

Law of Crimes Paper I (Penal Code) [SLL1703]

Before

THE HON’BLE LEARNED HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

APPEAL No. _______/2020

FILED UNDER SECTION 374 READ WITH SECTION 386 OF CRIMINAL

PROCEDURE CODE, 1973

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN

Pritham_________________________________________(APPELANT)

VERSUS

State of Maharashtra ___________________________(RESPONDENT)

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT COUNSEL

 MEMORIAL SUBMITTED BY PHENIL BANERJEE, PAYOJA BANERJEE & RUKSAR

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Index of Abbreviations ............................................................................................................ 3

Index of Authorities…………………………………………………………………………. 4

Statement of Jurisdiction......................................................................................................... 6

Statement of Facts ................................................................................................................... 7

Issues Raised ............................................................................................................................8

Summary of Arguments .......................................................................................................... 9

Arguments Advanced.............................................................................................................. 10

1) Whether the appeal is maintainable in the Hon’ble High Court?

2) Whether the accused is liable to be punished under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860?
3) Whether there exists any direct, indirect, circumstantial or ocular evidence connected the
accused to the crime?

Prayer……………………………………………………………………………………24
 MEMORIAL SUBMITTED BY PHENIL BANERJEE, PAYOJA BANERJEE & RUKSAR

INDEX OF ABBREVIATIONS

Abbreviations Definition

AIR All India Reporter

Anr Adult Nursing Relationship
Cr.P.C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
DW Defence Witness
DELHC Delhi High Court
HC High Court
Hon’ble Honourable
No. Number
IEA Indian Evidence Act, 1872
IPC Indian Penal Code, 1860
PS Police Station
PW Prosecution Witness
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
Sec. section
Thru Through
u/s Under section
v. versus
W/O Wife of
 MEMORIAL SUBMITTED BY PHENIL BANERJEE, PAYOJA BANERJEE & RUKSAR

INDEX OF AUTHORITY

1. Primary Sources

List of Statutes
1. The Indian Penal Code, 1860
2. The Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
3. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Secondary Sources

3.1.List of Books
1. Ratanlal Dhirajlal Law of Crimes, 24th Edn., Vol. II, (1998), pp. 1593-1599
2. R.V. KELKAR'S - Criminal Procedure (Author- K.N. CHANDRASHEKHARAN
PILLAI, Publisher-Eastern Book Company)
3. The Code of Criminal Procedure by S N Misra 22nd Edn.
3.2.Journals & Articles
https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/nithari-serial-killings-case-allahabad-hc-
acquits-koli-pandher/article67425911.ece/amp/

https://www.livelaw.in/amp/news-updates/gujarat-high-court-acquittal-appeal-evidence-
lacking-corroborative-evidence-loses-significance-203932

https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-14287-ocular-evidence-v-s-medical-
evidence.html#:~:text=Ocular%20evidence%2C%20often%20simply%20referred,is%20
seen%20with%20the%20eyes.

https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-ocular-evidence-best-evidence-unless-
reasons-doubt-178181

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1681167/#:~:text=Oral%20evidence%20must%2C%20in%
20all,a%20fact%20which%20could%20be

https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/lawreports/evidenceact1872/73.php?Title=Revie
w%20of%20the%20Indian%20Evidence%20Act,%201872&STitle=Section%2059#:~:t
ext=Section%2059%20states%20that%20all,production%20and%20examination%20of
%20witnesses'.

https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/lawreports/evidenceact1872/3.php?Title=Review
%20of%20the%20Indian%20Evidence%20Act,%201872&STitle=Section%203:%20Int
erpretation%20clause#:~:text=This%20clause%20'defines'%20several%20words,'%2C
%20and%20'India'.
 MEMORIAL SUBMITTED BY PHENIL BANERJEE, PAYOJA BANERJEE & RUKSAR

https://indianexpress.com/article/what-is/what-is-the-aarushi-talwar-murder-case-
allahabad-high-court-hemraj-rajesh-talwar-nupur-talwar-4886203/

https://www.centurylawfirm.in/blog/section-302-ipc-indian-penal-code-
sod/#:~:text=Under%20section%20302%20of%20the%20Indian%20Penal%20code%2
C%20a%20person,wilfully%20doing%20an%20act%20which

https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-7177-murder-section-302-under-
ipc.html

3.3.Website Referred
1) Manupatra Online Resources, http://www.manupatra.com.
2) Lexis Nexis Academica, http://www.lexisnexis.com/academica.
3) Lexis Nexis Legal, http://www.lexisnexis.com/in/legal.
4) SCC Online, http://www.scconline.co.in.
5) Oxford Dictionary, http://www.oxforddictionaries.com.
 MEMORIAL SUBMITTED BY PHENIL BANERJEE, PAYOJA BANERJEE & RUKSAR

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay has jurisdiction to try the instant matter under Section 374(2)
read with Section 386 (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Section 374(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 has been passed against him or against any other person convicted at the
same trial; may appeal to the High Court.

Section 386 (b): (b) in an appeal from a conviction---

(i) reverse the finding and sentence and acquit or discharge the accused, or order him to be re-
tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction subordinate to such Appellate Court or committed for
trial, or

(ii) alter the finding, maintaining the sentence, or

(iii) with or without altering the finding, alter the nature or the extent, or the nature and extent,
of the sentence, but not so as to enhance the same---
 MEMORIAL SUBMITTED BY PHENIL BANERJEE, PAYOJA BANERJEE & RUKSAR

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Pritham is a citizen of India. He is an industrialist in the field of textiles and is counted

among the richest in the country. His wife Pushti was also a woman of substance and has stake
in Pritham’s business. The family consisted of Pritham and Pushti’s daughter Krithi and her
brother Kranthi, who lives in Pune. Mr. Pritham’s family occupied the 8th and 9th floors of the
‘Woodside’ building. Kranthi used to usually stay in his room located on the 9th floor.

2. Kranthi was the biological son of Pushti whom she had conceived when she was 16 years
old. This information was concealed and only Pushti, and her parents knew about this. Pushti
had married Pritham when she was 18. Pushti’s parents had died in 2019 post which Pushti
brought Kranthi to her home to care for him. Krithi is 20 years old when Kranthi is brought.
They both start to like each other not knowing they are actually biological siblings. Pushti
knowing this fact, was disgusted, and advised Krithi to stay away but as her friendly advice was
paid no heed, she was sent abroad for higher studies against her wishes.

3. Pritham seeing these things from the sidelines grew suspicious about Pushti’s actions and her
reasons to send Krithi abroad investigates and gets to know about Kranthi being the biological
son of Pushti before she married Pritham. This betrayal enraged him and he tried to stay calm,
not talk with either Pushti or anyone and try to cool down and deal with this situation later on.
On 2nd August 2020, around 10 pm at the dinner table Pushti starts a conversation about Krithi
and starts to shift the blame on Krithi which further enrages Pritham and after arguing with her
and asking her to tell him the truth, Pritham loses his cool and brings his revolver to make
Pushti confess to him. Their fight continues for an hour and 30 mins after which Pritham
misfires the gun believing it not to be loaded causing their window to break with crackling
sound of the glass.

4. Kranthi’s body was then found on the ground, Vishal the resident of Dreamland building had
seen Kranthi’s body fall from the 9th floor of his balcony. Subsequently it was confirmed by the
post mortem report Kranthi had died due to the bullet injury fired by the same revolver pointed
towards Pushti by Pritham.

5. On witnessing the dead body the watchman informed the building secretary who called the
police station. The SHO recovered the body and sent it to the city government hospital for the
post mortem and subsequently recorded the first information report (FIR) based on the
statement given by the secretary and gave a copy of the same to him.

6. The IO Jai started the investigation by first questioning Vamsi the building secretary, after
questioning they visited the 9th floor where Kranthi lived, they found a suicide note from his
room. Kranthi was angry on Pushti for sending Krithi’s abroad. It is inferred from the suicide
 MEMORIAL SUBMITTED BY PHENIL BANERJEE, PAYOJA BANERJEE & RUKSAR

note that Kranthi had loaded the gun and intended to use it on Pushti but he eavesdropped and
got to know that Pushti is his biological mother and Krithi was his biological sister. This
revelation turned Kranthi’s entire life around, he was disgusted by himself for having a
relationship with his biological sister and for thinking about killing his own mother, he kept the
gun where it was, went back to his room and after contemplating decided to commit suicide
from the 9th floor. After inquiring with Pritham, Pushti and the maid, the inspector got to know
that the couple had a very bad fight the earlier night and during that fight Pritham had got his
revolver to make Pushti confess. During the altercation, the trigger was pulled and a shot was
misfired on the window causing the window to break. The team calculated the distance to be
15M between the fight of Pritham and Pushti and the window.

7. Post mortem revealed that Kranthi had died due to being shot in the head and the forensics
revealed that the bullet was shot from Pritham’s gun. An FIR was registered against Pritham.
There are major discrepancies in the Post mortem report which leads to discrepancies in the FIR
as well.

8. A trial was held, the Sessions court convicted Pritham for the crime of murder and sentenced
him for 10 years of rigorous imprisonment. Pritham is being solely convicted by the session
court on the grounds that the gun was Pritham’s, Pritham was angry & that Kranthi’s supposed
death was caused by Pritham’s gun according to the flawed Post mortem report.
 MEMORIAL SUBMITTED BY PHENIL BANERJEE, PAYOJA BANERJEE & RUKSAR

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUE 1

Whether the appeal is maintainable in the Hon’ble High Court?

ISSUE 2

Whether the accused is liable to be punished under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860?

ISSUE 3

Whether there exists any direct, indirect, circumstantial or ocular evidence connected the accused
to the crime?
 MEMORIAL SUBMITTED BY PHENIL BANERJEE, PAYOJA BANERJEE & RUKSAR

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE 1 Whether the appeal is maintainable in the Hon’ble High Court?

The Defendant’s appeal is maintainable based on strong evidence, potential legal errors or
misinterpretations by the Sessions Court, the need for further scrutiny of witness testimonies,
challenges to the defense's arguments, and the role of the High Court in judicial review. These
factors provide a solid basis for the Defense to seek a review of the conviction and present their
case before the High Court. Mr. Pritham (hereinafter referred to as Accused) has approached
the Bombay High Court against the decision of the Sessions Court. The present appeal is
maintainable under S. 374 of the code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as
“CrPC’) because the Sessions Court has erroneously convicted the Accused for the offence of
murder.

ISSUE 2 Whether the accused is liable to be punished under section 302 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860?

It is humbly and respectfully submitted before the Hon’ble High Court that the essential
ingredients of Murder are not fulfilled in the present case as the accused did not have the intention
or knowledge to kill anyone. Secondly the accused takes the plea of alibi, that he was not present
at the crime scene supported by the testimonies of his wife, maid and Mr Vishal from the opposite
building. Thirdly, there is a severe lack of evidence to convict the accused.

ISSUE3 Whether there exists any direct, indirect, circumstantial or ocular evidence
connected the accused to the crime?

It is humbly and respectfully submitted before the hon’ble High Court (hereinafter referred to as
“HC”) that the there exists no direct, circumstantial or ocular evidence as defined under the Indian
Evidence Act,1872 (hereinafter referred to as “IEA”) connecting Mr. Pritham (hereinafter
referred to as “Accused”) to the crime and hence the accused has been wrongfully convicted
under section 300 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”).
 MEMORIAL SUBMITTED BY PHENIL BANERJEE, PAYOJA BANERJEE & RUKSAR

THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE 1 Whether the appeal is maintainable in the Hon’ble High Court?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble High Court that the present appeal from the judgement
of Sessions Court is maintainable before the court as. (1.1) Definition of Appeal (1.2) the High
Court has jurisdiction to hear the appeal under S. 374 of CrPC; and, (1.3) the Judgement of the
Sessions Court was erroneous.

1.1 Definition of Appeal:

1. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that appeal is a matter of right which is
provided through the legislature under specific statutes. Appeal provides the aggrieved party in
any decree to approach the higher court, although this right comes with a bar of limitation
period but that too can be taken into consideration if a genuine and just cause could be shown
for the delay in that limitation. The limitation period is a technical aspect and thus should not
be aside without considering the just cause.
2. Appeal as defined under the Merriam-Webster Dictionary is: "A proceeding in which a case
is brought before a higher court for review of a lower court's judgment for the purpose of
convincing the higher court that the lower court's judgment was incorrect."
3. The Black's Law Dictionary defines Appeal as "Resort to a superior (i.e. appellate) court to
review the decision of an inferior (i.e. trial) court or administrative agency. A complaint to a
higher tribunal of an error or injustice committed by a lower tribunal, in which the error or
injustice is sought to be corrected or reversed."

1.2 The High Court has jurisdiction to hear the appeal under S. 374 of CrPC
It is humbly submitted that an appeal is indisputably a statutory right and an Accused who has
been convicted is entitled to avail this right which is provided under S. 374 of the CrPC S. 374
(2), states that, if a trial is held by the Sessions Judge in which a sentence of imprisonment of
more than seven years has been passed, an appeal would lie to the High Court.
In the present case, the Accused has been sentenced by the Sessions Court to life Imprisonment
and fine u/s 302 of IPC. Therefore, u/s 374 of CrPC, the Accused has the right to appeal before
the High Court against the impugned order passed by the Session Court.
1.3 the Judgement of the Sessions Court was erroneous

While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach of the court must be to check
whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole inspires confidence. The moment it
establishes the confidence, it becomes necessary that court scrutinizes and evaluates the
evidence properly.
In the present case, the Sessions Court in its judgement has not been able to substantiate the
repudiation of the defense put forth by the appellant under S. 80 of the IPC. Therefore, it is
humbly submitted that the sentence passed by the Sessions Court has erroneously convicted
the Accused.
The Sessions Court’s judgment was flawed due to various reasons:
1. The conviction relied on circumstantial evidence and witness testimony, lacking direct
proof of Mr. Pritham’s intent to murder Kranthi.
2. The motive for murder was speculative, based on an argument and threats made by Mr.
Pritham, without concrete evidence of premeditated intent.
3. The possibility of the gunshot being accidental was not adequately considered, despite
Mr. Pritham and Pushti claiming it was unintentional.
4. Witness testimonies may not be entirely reliable, with Ms. Sumathi based on what she
heard during an argument and Mr. Vishal’s limited view of Kranthi falling from the
building.
5. The Sessions Court may have failed to explore alternative scenarios, such as accidental
death or suicide, leading to a potentially biased decision against Mr. Pritham.
In the case of Aarushi Talwar murder case. Aarushi, a teenager, was found dead at her home
in 2008, and the Initial suspect was the family’s domestic help, who was also later found dead.
Aarushi’s parents were convicted but were acquitted by the Allahabad High Court in 2017
due to lack of conclusive evidence. It was a case that really captured the nation’s attention.
And also known as double murder case of 2008. (Dr. (Smt.) Nupur Talwar vs State Of
U.P. And Anr, 20171)
Another case related to the case of Pritham, The Nithari serial killings occurred in Noida,
Uttar Pradesh, between 2005 and 2006, involving the brutal murders and sexual assaults of
young girls and women. Moninder Singh Pandher and his servant Surendra Koli were
arrested in 2006. While both were convicted in 2009 by the Sessions Court, the Allahabad
High Court later acquitted Pandher due to lack of direct evidence. Koli’s conviction was
upheld, and he was sentenced to death. The case exposed flaws in the investigation and legal
proceedings, emphasizing the necessity of robust evidence in criminal trials. (Surendra Koli
vs State Thru C.B.I, 20232)
The appeal is maintainable based on the grounds presented because they highlight significant
flaws in the judgment of the Sessions Court. The arguments put forth in the appeal

1
2 SCC 627
2
SLP (Crl) NO. 608 of 2010
 [Law of Crimes Paper I (Penal Code) [SLL1703]]

demonstrate that the conviction of the accused may have been erroneous due to various
reasons, including insufficient evidence, speculative motive, and consideration of alternative
scenarios. These grounds suggest that the judgment may not have been based on a thorough
and fair evaluation of the evidence, thereby warranting a review by a higher court. Therefore,
the appeal is maintainable on the grounds provided.

ISSUE 2 Whether the accused is liable to be punished under section 302 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860?

The Madras High Court in Balamurugan v. State (2020)3 put strong emphasis on the idea
of “1000 culprits can escape, but one innocent person should not be punished”, and this is
the central idea of the Appellate counsel’s arguments.

The counsel humbly submits before this hon’ble high court that the accused is not liable to
be punished under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 under the following
contentions:

2.1 Ingredients to constitute a murder:

Murder is defined under section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860,
Section 300 of the IPC, 1860 reads –

Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which
the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or—
2ndly. —If it 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—
3rdly. —If it 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—
4thly. —If the person committing the act 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.

3
SCC OnLine Mad 2165

13 | P a g e
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT
 [Law of Crimes Paper I (Penal Code) [SLL1703]]

The ingredients of murder can be established from the above section –

1. The killing of a human by another human
2. Accused must have intention to cause death; or
3. Must have intention to cause such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to
cause death of the person the harm is inflict; or
4. Injury inflicted sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature to cause death;
or
5. Must know that the act is so imminently dangerous that it must in all probably cause
death or cause bodily injury sufficient to cause death and commits the act without any
excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or injury.

It is humbly contended that the accused had no intention to cause anyone’s death. The
accused is from a humble background filled with humility. The accused is rarely seen to be
angry and that can be proved by the testimony of Ms Sumati. She described the accused as
a peaceful man and a caring husband. She also testified that the accused and his wife rarely
had any fights. The accused even in a fit of rage after having the revelation of her wife’s
betrayal, controlled his anger and decided to not engage and rather cool down and take
rational decisions later on. The accused had no knowledge that the revolver he had brought
was loaded, the deceased had loaded it to kill the accused’s wife for separating him with
his lover but after getting to know that the accused’s wife is his mother, he regretted it and
left the revolver where he took it from. Unfortunately, the accused not aware of the fact that
the gun was loaded brought the gun to make Pushti confess about her illegitimate child and
her betrayal.

The Delhi High Court in Sunil Kumar v State4 acquitted the accused on the grounds that
the prosecution was unable to prove whether the accused knew that the gun was loaded or
not. In the case, Sunil Kumar, was accused of shooting another constable in the chest with
a SLR gun while trying to eat his lunch. In his defence he claimed that he didn’t have the
knowledge that gun was loaded and didn’t intend to fire it. In the present case, the accused
did not have the knowledge that gun was loaded and should be acquitted on similar grounds.

4
(MANU/DE/3391/2017)

14 | P a g e
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT
 [Law of Crimes Paper I (Penal Code) [SLL1703]]

The counsel contends that the most essential ingredient to constitute a murder is not present
in this instant case, neither there is knowledge nor there is intention to kill anybody let
alone the deceased.

2.2 Plea of Alibi

The counsel humbly contends that the accused and the deceased were at different places
when the deceased died and that there exists no collaboration which links the deceased’s
death with the accused. The accused was present on the 8 th floor with the gun in his hand
when the gun misfired at around 11:30 pm. The maid is an eye witness and a strong alibi
for the accused that he did not leave the 8th floor. The testimony of Mr Vishal proves that
the deceased fell from the 9th floor of the building after 11:20 pm. This proves that there is
no way that the accused could cause the death of the deceased.
The counsel would like to apprise the court about a few facts about the plea of alibi-

The counsel contends under Section 103 of the Indian Evidence Act that whoever wishes
the Court to believe the existence of any fact has the burden to prove such fact.
In the plea of alibi, the accused wishes the court to believe in the fact that he was elsewhere
from the crime scene. Hence, under Section 103, it is the burden of the accused to prove
the existence of the fact that he was elsewhere from the crime spot.

The counsel also contends that the accused is the only person who can take the plea of alibi.
The counsel would also like to bring light to the fact observed by legal analysts that if the
accused takes the plea of alibi at the earlier stage of the prosecution, that would favour him
as its credibility increases by doing so.

The court in Sahdeo v. State of Uttar Pradesh5 (2010), held that the Court shall have no
power to not give due weight to the public document filed before it for the proof of alibi at
any part of time during the prosecution.

The counsel would like to contend the essentials for the plea of alibi-
1. There should be a crime.

5
2010 AIR SCW 1852, 2010

15 | P a g e
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT
 [Law of Crimes Paper I (Penal Code) [SLL1703]]

2.The person taking the plea of alibi should be accused of the said crime.
3. The accused must not be present at the crime scene.
4. The accused has to prove the plea with no reasonable doubt.

All the ingredients for the plea of alibi are being fulfilled in this present case.

In the case of Anna & Ors v. Hyderabad State6 (1955), the Court held that it must be
understood that mere failure on the part of the accused to establish the plea of alibi will not
and cannot give rise to the conclusion that the accused was at the place where the crime is
said to have been committed.
The counsel would like to contend with the above precedent that even if the plea of alibi
were to fail even then it cannot undoubtably give rise to the conclusion that the accused
was at the place of the crime.

The counsel also contends that the court in Binay Kumar Singh v. The State of Bihar7
(1997) held that plea of alibi is not an exception (special or general) envisaged in the Indian
Penal Code or any other law. It is only a rule of evidence recognized in Section 11 of the
Evidence Act that facts which are inconsistent with the fact in issue are relevant.

2.3 Lack of Evidence

The counsel would like to submit the last leg of the argument under this issue, there are
many inconsistencies in the present case and the prosecution side has failed to prove how
did the death of the decease take place. The Session’s court has submitted a perverse
judgement of convicting the accused of murder without establishing the manner the death
was caused. There is a severe lack of evidence and a shoddy job has been done in the
investigation. The date and time of the post mortem report is inconsistent in the post mortem
report, the FIR, the chargesheet and the Investigating officer’s oral statement as a
prosecution witness. The date and time of the post mortem report has been variable and has
been stated to be 3rd August 2021, 2nd August 2020 and 4th August 2020. It isn’t stated by
the prosecution side how many bullets have been fired by the gun. The post mortem report

6
1956CRILJ887
7
AIR 1997 SUPREME COURT 322

16 | P a g e
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT
 [Law of Crimes Paper I (Penal Code) [SLL1703]]

states at one place, bullet has gone through the head while in another place states that the
bullet is found in the head. This is the start of the list of the many discrepancies made in
this case by the prosecution side.

It is to contend that the court in Surendra Koli v State through central bureau of
investigation8 acquitted the accused on the grounds of lack of direct evidence which is a
parallel to this instant case.

ISSUE 3: Whether there exists any direct, circumstantial or ocular evidence connecting
the accused to the crime?
It is humbly and respectfully submitted before the hon’ble HC that there exists no direct,
circumstantial or ocular evidence as classified under section 3, section 59 and section 60 of
the Indian Evidence Act,1872 connecting the accused to the crime and hence due to lack of
evidence the accused’s conviction under section 300 and 302 should be reversed.
Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act,1872, defines what is evidence. It reads:
‘“Evidence”. ––“Evidence” means and includes ––
(1) all statements which the Court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses, in
relation to matters of fact under inquiry; such statements are called oral evidence;
(2) 4 [all documents including electronic records produced for the inspection of the Court;]
such documents are called documentary evidence.’
The aforementioned section establishes the mechanism for admissibility and assessment of
evidence by defining the types of evidence in IEA,1872. It categorizes evidence into two
primary categories: oral evidence which essentially includes statements made by witnesses
relevant to the matter under inquiry and presented with the court authorization and
documentary evidence comprising of documents either physical or electronic submitted for
court examination.
o Oral Evidence
Oral evidence refers to spoken statements. These are all the statements that the court permits
or requires to be made before it by witnesses pertaining to the matters of fact under inquiry.
These statements on a standalone basis are admissible as proof without the need for
supporting documents, these statements are deemed to be credible.
Section 59 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 reads “All facts, except the contents of
documents or electronic records, may be proved by oral evidence”

8
SLP (Crl) No. 608 of 2010

17 | P a g e
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT
 [Law of Crimes Paper I (Penal Code) [SLL1703]]

Meaning that other than the contents of documents or electronic records, all the facts can be
proven by oral evidence.
Under the purview of legal proceedings, oral and documentary evidence is classified into two
main categories; direct evidence and indirect evidence.

o Direct Evidence
Direct evidence refer to the information acquired by the individual through their own
senses.
This is the type of evidence that establishes a specific fact. It establishes a clear and
conclusive proof of a fact without the need for interpretation.

o Circumstantial or Indirect Evidence

Circumstantial evidence is indirect evidence where in the facts on the face value do
not establish a specific fact but impliedly on inference of such facts prove another key
fact.

(3.1) Whether there exists any direct evidence connecting the accused to the crime scene?
Section 60 of the Indian Evidence Act states that oral evidence must be direct. This section
reads:
‘60. Oral evidence must be direct.
Oral evidence must, in all cases, whatever, be direct; that is to say, -
If it refers to a fact which could be seen, it must be the evidence of a witness who says he saw
it;
If it refers to a fact which could be heard, it must be the evidence of a witness who says he
heard it;
If it refers to a fact which could be perceived by any sense or in any other manner, it must be
the evidence of a witness who says he perceived it by that sense or in that manner;
If it refers to an opinion or to the grounds on which that opinion is held, it must be the
evidence of the person who holds that opinion on those grounds:
Provided that the opinions of experts expressed in any treatise commonly offered for sale,
and the grounds on which such opinions are held, may be proved by the production of such
treatises if the author is dead or cannot be found, or has become incapable of giving
evidence, or cannot be called as a witness without an amount of delay or expense which the
Court regards as unreasonable.
Provided also that, if oral evidence refers to the existence or condition of any material thing
other than a document, the Court may, if it thinks fit, require the production of such material
thing for its inspection.’

18 | P a g e
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT
 [Law of Crimes Paper I (Penal Code) [SLL1703]]

It is humbly and respectfully submitted before the hon’ble HC that there is no direct evidence
establishing, connecting or proving that the accused, Mr. Pritham, is in anyway connected to
the crime scene.
In order to establish the connection of the accused with the crime scene, it is pertinent for the
accused and the victim to be at the same place and at the same time during which the crime
was committed.
During this particular case, there is no evidence providing that the accused and the victim
were at the same place and at the same time during the commission of the crime.
The witness statements of Ms. Sumathi, the maid clearly state that she “spotted” the accused
with a gun during a heated argument between the accused and his wife while they were
consuming their dinner at their house, after the accused returned home from work. This
statement establishes that the accused was present at the 8 th floor from 10pm on the day the
crime was committed.
Neither Sumathi nor the neighbors have testified that the accused left the 8th floor and went to
the 9th floor during the course of the argument or during the timeframe provided for Mr.
Kranthi’s death.
One of their neighbors, Mr. Vishal of the opposite building testified that when he went to the
balcony at 11:20pm he saw Mr. Kranthi fall from the 9th floor of the building, establishing
that the accused was not present at the crime scene during the death of the victim, Mr.
Kranthi, since the accused was present in the 8th floor of the building and hence, he has no
connection with the crime scene.
In the case Surendra Koli v. State through Central Bureau of Investigation9, the hon’ble
court acquitted the accused Surendra Koli for 12 cases and his boss Moninder Singh Pandher
for 2 cases due to lack of direct evidence.
It is humbly and respectfully submitted before the hon’ble HC that referring to the acquittal
in the aforementioned case, Mr. Pritham, by applying a similar decree should be acquitted
due to lack of direct evidence.

(3.2) Whether there exists any circumstantial evidence connecting the accused to the crime
scene?
It is humbly and respectfully submitted before the hon’ble HC that there is no circumstantial
evidence establishing, connecting or proving that the accused, Mr. Pritham, is in anyway
connected to the crime scene.
Mr. Pritham, the accused, had no knowledge of the material fact that his gun was loaded
when he took it to confront Ms. Pushti, his wife. This fact serves as sufficient circumstantial
evidence that the accused had no intention to cause grievous hurt or death of anybody, let
alone his wife or the victim. Furthermore, he only took the gun in a fit of rage to confront his
wife in hopes that she will reveal the truth about her illegitimate child which she has been

9
SLP(Crl) NO. 608 of 2010

19 | P a g e
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT
 [Law of Crimes Paper I (Penal Code) [SLL1703]]

concealing since the time of their marriage and also bringing Mr. Kranthi to stay with them in
the pretext of him being her brother.
Furthermore, it is pertinent to note that the post mortem report states that gun belonging to
the accused was used to kill Mr. Kranthi, however, this may not serve as sufficient
circumstantial evidence since it is not known that how did the gun reach the 9 th floor, when
Mr. Pritham himself was in the 8th floor during the entire duration of the argument between
him and his wife. It is unknown, how the same gun was used to kill Mr. Kranthi, when the
accused himself was not present at the crime scene. Also, how the gun was used at the 8th
floor of the building during the supposed time frame of the victim’s death, which was ruled
out to be by the gun belonging to the accused, if the accused had the possession of it at some
other place during that very duration. Following that he was not present at the 9th floor of the
building where the crime was committed. This gives rise to a reasonable doubt that how did a
bullet wound supposedly induced by the accused’s gun kill the victim when the gun and the
accused were not present at the crime scene.
In the case, State of Gujrat v. Kishorbhai Devjibhai Parmar & 4 other(s)10, The sister of
the deceased was eve-teased by the five accused and she died leading to a clash of words
between the deceased and the accused persons. The incident had taken place 5 years prior to
the death of the deceased and it was alleged that the deceased death happened out of a grudge.

The Trial Court had acquitted the respondents-accused of all the charges. An appeal was filed
before the High Court, the hon’ble bench observed that in the matter, substantial evidence in
linking the accused with crime was lacking and so the corroborative evidence loses its
importance.

It is also pertinent to note that the victim had clear intention to commit suicide, which is
indicated by his suicide note. This may serve as ample circumstantial evidence that the victim
took his own life on the faithful day of 2nd August 2020.

(3.3) Whether there exists any ocular evidence connecting the accused to the crime scene?
It is humbly and respectfully submitted before the hon’ble HC that there is no ocular
evidence establishing, connecting or proving that the accused, Mr. Pritham, is in anyway
connected to the crime scene.
Ocular evidence refers to the evidence of the eye witness or the oral evidence. It is based on
the observations and interpretations of individuals.
In the case of Pruthviraj Jayantibhai Vanol v. Dinesh Dayabhai Vala11 (Criminal Appeal
No. July 2014, page 177), 26th July 2021, the hon’ble court regarded ocular evidence as the
most acceptable form of evidence in court if it has been supported by other evidences without
any basis for doubt.
In the case of Mr. Pritham, the ocular evidence provided by Ms. Sumathi, the maid of their
house clearly states that she spotted the accused with a gun at his own house, meaning the 8 th
floor. None of the witnesses have testified that the accused had left the 8 th floor and was

10
R/CR.A/518/1996
11
AIRONLINE 2021 SC 382

20 | P a g e
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT
 [Law of Crimes Paper I (Penal Code) [SLL1703]]

present at the 9th floor. The ocular evidence makes it clear that the accused was not present at
the very crime scene. He was at his own residence from 10pm and continued to stay there
during the supposed time frame of the victim’s death.

21 | P a g e
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT
 [Law of Crimes Paper I (Penal Code) [SLL1703]]

PRAYER

Wherefore, in light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is most
humbly prayed and implode before the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay that may be pleased
to:

1. To reverse the order passed by the Hon’ble sessions court; and

2. To acquit the accused of the charges under section 300 and section 302 of IPC, 1860 put
on him.

AND/OR

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

All of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted

Place: Bombay S/d_____________

Date: XX/XX/XXXX Appellate Counsel

22 | P a g e
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT