3RD NATION WIDESchool

CT University MOOTof COURT COMPETTION

Law, MOOT COURT, 2025
2024

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF ZANIA

IN CRIMINAL APPEAL. NO: 242 / 2025

WRIT PETITION ( CRIMINAL) NO: 55 / 2025

IN THE MATTER OF

THE STATE OF ZANIA

________________________________________RESPONDENT

VERSUS

PRAKASH CHANDRA & OTHERS

____________________________________________ PETITIONERS

MOST REVERENTLY SUBMITTED TO THE LEANED JUDGES OF THE

HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF ZANIA

-MEMORIAL FILED ON THE BEHALF OF THE RESPONSDENT-

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT I|Page

 3RD NATION WIDE MOOT COURT

Table of Contents

TABLE OF
ABBREVIATIONS………………………………………………………………………
.III

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES.................................................................................................IV

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION....................................................................................VI

STATEMENT OF FACTS...................................................................................................VII

TIMELINE OF PROCEDURAL LAPSES AND INCONSISTENCIES IN

INVESTIGATION…………………………………………………………………………IX

ISSUES RAISED...................................................................................................................XI

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS.........................................................................................XII

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED………………………………………………………...…..XIV

I. Whether Section 152 offends Articles 14 and 19(1)(a) on grounds of vagueness,

arbitrariness, and chilling effect, meriting either total invalidation or further
doctrinal narrowing through an “imminent-violence” test.

II. Whether empowering the Central Government to designate individual

terrorists and permitting property seizure without prior judicial review
contravene Articles 14, 19 and 21 by facilitating arbitrary executive action
lacking procedural safeguards.

III. Whether the night-time warrantless raid, the seizure of electronic devices,
and the 34- hour delay in magistrate production violate Articles 21 and 22,
thereby requiring exclusion of these evidences under constitutional due-process
principles.

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT II | P a g e

 CT University School of Law, MOOT COURT,
2024
IV. Whether the students' continued incarceration under Sections 13 and 15
UAPA satisfies Article 22(4)–(5) safeguards of reasonableness and non-
arbitrariness, and whether Li Xiang enjoys identical fundamental-rights
protection despite restrictive visa conditions.

V. Whether the denial of interim bail in light of impending examinations,

coupled with likely pre-trial detention exceeding one year, violates the speedy-
trial guarantee implicit in Article 21 and the equal-protection mandate of Article
14, thereby justifying constitutional bail irrespective of statutory limitations.

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT III | P a g e

 3RD NATION WIDE MOOT COURT

TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVIATIONS CORRESPONDING EXPANSION

& And

§ Section

¶ Paragraph

AIR All India Reporter

Art. Article

COI Constitution of India

CrPC Criminal Procedure Code

Ed. Edition

HC High Court

HON’BLE Honorable

i.e. That is

IPC Indian Penal Code

OPs Opposite Parties

Ors. Others

Para Paragraph

Pg. Page

SC Supreme Court

SCC Supreme Court Cases Online

SCR Supreme Court Reports

The Act The Indian Evidence Act, 1872

U/§ Under Section

UOI Union of India

U.S. United States

v. Versus

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

LIST OF CASES

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT IV | P a g e

 CT University School of Law, MOOT COURT,
2024

1. Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar AIR 1962 SC 955

2. Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras AIR 1950 SC 124
3. S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram (1989) 2 SCC 574
4. State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu (2005) 11 SCC 600

5. A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras AIR 1950 SC 27

6. Union of India v. Arup Bhuyan (2011) 3 SCC 377
7. National Investigation Agency v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali (2019) 5 SCC 1

8. ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976) 2 SCC 521

9. Brandenburg v. Ohio 395 U.S. 444 (1969)
10. Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab (1994) 3 SCC 569
11. State of Bihar v. Shailabala Devi AIR 1952 SC 329
12. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) 5 SCC 1
13. Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab (1995) 3 SCC 214
14. State of Kerala v. Raneef (2011) 1 SCC 784
15. PUCL v. Union of India (2004) 9 SCC 580
16. Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020) 3 SCC 637
17. Sanjay Chandra v. CBI (2012) 1 SCC 40
18. Niranjan Singh v. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote (1980) 2 SCC 559
19. State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat (2005) 8 SCC 534
20. Kanhaiya Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) 2016 SCC OnLine Del 1619

21. Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel (1985) 3 SCC 398

22. Ex-Armymen’s Protection Services (P) Ltd. v. Union of India (2014) 5 SCC 409

23. People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India (1997) 1 SCC 301

24. Ramlila Maidan Incident, In re (2012) 5 SCC 1

25. Amit Sahni v. Commissioner of Police (2020) 10 SCC 439

26. State of Maharashtra v. Bharat Shanti Lal Shah (2008) 13 SCC 5

27. Arup Bhuyan v. State of Assam (2015) 12 SCC 702
28. Babulal Parate v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1961 SC 884

29. Re: Special Reference No. 1 of 1964 (Keshav Singh’s Case) AIR 1965 SC 745

30. Indra Das v. State of Assam (2011) 3 SCC 380

31. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali v. NIA (2019) 5 SCC 1

32. Shaheen Welfare Assn. v. Union of India (1996) 2 SCC 616

33. Union of India v. Paul Manickam (2003) 8 SCC 342

34. Anuj Garg v. Hotel Association of India (2008) 3 SCC 1

35. Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma v. State of Maharashtra (2005) 5 SCC 294

36. Ashok Kumar v. State of Jammu & Kashmir (2017) 2 SCC 498
37. State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar AIR 1952 SC 75

38. State of Madras v. V.G. Row AIR 1952 SC 196

39. Chintaman Rao v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1951 SC 118

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT V|Page

 3RD NATION WIDE MOOT COURT

40. Superintendent, Central Prison v. Ram Manohar Lohia AIR 1960 SC 633

FOREIGN CASES

S. No. Name of the Case / Instrument Citation / Year

1. Brandenburg v. Ohio 395 U.S. 444 (1969)

2. Handyside v. United Kingdom (1976) ECHR 5

3. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) 1966

4. General Comment No. 34 on Article 19, ICCPR United Nations Human Rights
Committee, 2011

STATUTES

S. No. Statute / Act Relevant Provisions

1. Constitution of Zania (Pari materia to Constitution of India)Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(2), 21,
22
2. Zania Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 152
3. Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 Sections 13, 15, 35(2), 43D(5)
4. Code of Criminal Procedure (Zania Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita) Provisions on arrest, remand
& search
5. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Sections 24–27, 45
6. Information Technology Act, 2000 Section 69A, 79
7. Forest Rights Act, 2006 (Contextual reference — tribal consultation)

BOOKS

S. No. Title of the Book / Commentary Author / Editor Edition / Publication

 Indian Constitutional Law M. P. Jain 9th Edition, LexisNexis

 Constitution of India V. N. Shukla 14th Edition, Eastern Book Company
 Constitutional Law of India H. M. Seervai 4th Edition, Universal Law Publishing
 Commentary on the Constitution of India D. D. Basu 9th Edition, LexisNexis
 Law of Sedition in India Abhinav Chandrachud 2nd Edition, Eastern Book Company
 Principles of Constitutional Interpretation T. R. S. Allan Oxford University Press, 2013
 Fundamental Rights and Their Enforcement A. Lakshminath 3rd Edition, LexisNexis
 Criminal Law: Cases and Materials K. D. Gaur 9th Edition, LexisNexis
 Constitutional Rights and National Security David Cole & James X. Dempsey Yale University Press,
2006

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT VI | P a g e

 CT University School of Law, MOOT COURT,
2024
 Preventive Detention and Personal Liberty in India P. L. Mallick Universal Law Publishing
 Human Rights and the Constitution: Vision and Reality A. M. Bhagwati (ed.) Eastern Book
Company
 Media Law and Freedom of Expression Dr. Ushar B. Rao Central Law Publications
 Comparative Constitutional Law Vicki C. Jackson & Mark Tushnet 3rd Edition, Foundation Press
 The Constitution of India: A Contextual Analysis Arvind P. Datar Hart Publishing, 2019
 Criminal Procedure Code Commentary R. V. Kelkar (Revised by C. K. Thakkar) 6th Edition,
Eastern Book Company
 Law of Evidence Batuk Lal 27th Edition, Central Law Agency
 Public Order and the Law Glanville Williams 2nd Edition, Stevens & Sons
 Administrative Law I. P. Massey 9th Edition, Eastern Book Company
 The Constitution of India: Cornerstone of a Nation Granville Austin Oxford University Press
 Indian Penal Code: Commentary K. D. Gaur 6th Edition, Universal Law Publishing

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

1. The Respondents most respectfully submit that this Hon’ble Court is vested with the competent
jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the present matter under Articles 32, 136, and 142 of the Constitution
of Zania. The petitions before this Hon’ble Court have been rightly entertained owing to the combined
nature of constitutional and criminal issues arising therefrom.

2. The instant proceedings comprise Criminal Appeal No. 242 of 2025, preferred against the judgment
of the Hon’ble High Court of Zania dated 21 February 2025, and Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 55 of
2025, invoking the Hon’ble Court’s original jurisdiction under Article 32 for alleged infringement of
fundamental rights. In view of the overlapping legal questions, this Hon’ble Court has, in exercise of

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT VII | P a g e

 3RD NATION WIDE MOOT COURT

its powers under Articles 136 and 145(3), constituted a Special Constitution Bench to ensure
uniformity and finality of law.

3. The Respondents submit that while the Hon’ble Supreme Court possesses extraordinary
constitutional powers, such jurisdiction is to be exercised with judicial restraint and only in cases of
manifest constitutional infirmity. The mere existence of differing interpretations or administrative
actions does not, per se, warrant invocation of this Hon’ble Court’s extraordinary powers.

4. It is further submitted that the Hon’ble High Court of Zania, being the competent forum under
ordinary criminal and constitutional procedure, has already exercised its jurisdiction in accordance
with established precedent. The Respondents therefore contend that the impugned order neither
suffers from perversity nor from any jurisdictional defect warranting interference under Article 136.

5. The Respondents accordingly submit that the present petitions, though maintainable for
consideration before this Hon’ble Court, disclose no cause for the invocation of its extraordinary
jurisdiction, and the reliefs sought by the Petitioners are liable to be denied on merits and
maintainability alike.

All of which is most respectfully submitted.

THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES SETS FORTH

THE FACTS, CONTENTIONS AND ARGUMENTS IN THE PRESENT CASE.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

2022 – Discovery of Mineral Deposits

1. In the year 2022, extensive geological surveys conducted by Horizon Metals Ltd.
revealed substantial bauxite reserves in the Kiri Hills region, an area spanning two
administrative districts of the Republic of Zania. The discovery held potential for
significant industrial and economic development.

10 November 2023 – Grant of Environmental Clearance

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT VIII | P a g e

 CT University School of Law, MOOT COURT,
2024
2. After thorough evaluation and in compliance with environmental statutes, the Union
Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change granted Stage-I Forest Clearance
for the proposed mining project. The clearance mandated detailed ecological safeguards
and community consultation processes.

Mid–2024 – Formation of People’s Green Front (PGF)

3. In response to the proposed mining operations, a group of university students at
National Central University (NCU), Zania City, formed a collective known as the
People’s Green Front (PGF). Initially, PGF presented itself as an environmental
advocacy group but gradually adopted a politically charged stance, opposing
governmental policy and questioning parliamentary decisions.

15 December 2024 – Circulation of Inflammatory Pamphlet

4. On 15 December 2024, PGF issued a bilingual pamphlet accusing Horizon Metals
Ltd. and the Government of Zania of “corporate exploitation” and “state-sponsored
dispossession.” The document urged citizens to “resist government policy through non-
cooperation,” generating public unrest and widespread social-media dissemination.

2 January 2025 – Student Protest at NCU

5. On 2 January 2025, more than 2,000 individuals, including students and activists,
gathered at Freedom Square, NCU, to protest the mining policy. During the
demonstration, Mr. Prakash Chandra, a final-year law student and PGF leader, delivered
a speech that was broadcast live on multiple digital platforms.

6. The speech included statements urging resistance against the Government and
rejection of parliamentary decisions. Several participants displayed banners and slogans
critical of the State, contributing to rising public agitation.

5 January 2025 – Registration of FIR No. 17/2025

7. Acting upon credible intelligence and video evidence, the City (North) Police Station
registered FIR No. 17/2025 under Section 152 of the Zania Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, for
acts intended to promote disaffection against the State. The registration followed legal
scrutiny and approval from the supervisory authority.

10 January 2025 – Search and Arrest Operations

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT IX | P a g e

 3RD NATION WIDE MOOT COURT

8. On the night of 10 January 2025, a legally sanctioned search and seizure operation
was conducted at the residence of Prakash Chandra, under Section 185 of the Zania
Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita. The operation led to the recovery of digital devices and
written material relevant to the investigation.

9. Co-residents Ayesha Khan and Ravi Narayan were briefly detained for questioning
and released after verification. Simultaneously, the Cyber Cell conducted a coordinated
raid on the student hostel room of Li Xiang, a Noria national, who was found to have
engaged in encrypted communications with a suspected foreign entity.

12 January 2025 – Judicial Remand

10. The accused were produced before the competent Judicial Magistrate (First Class)
within the prescribed time. Upon reviewing the case material, the Magistrate found
prima facie evidence linking the accused to activities prejudicial to national sovereignty
and remanded them to police custody for further investigation.

14 January 2025 – Declaration under UAPA

11. On 14 January 2025, the Zania State Home Department, upon examining intelligence
reports, declared the People’s Green Front an “unlawful association” under Section 3 of
the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), on the grounds of receiving
unaccounted foreign contributions and engaging in activities detrimental to public order.

15 January 2025 – Registration of NIA Case

12. Following the declaration, the National Investigation Agency (NIA) assumed charge
of the case and registered Case No. 03/2025-NIA-DL, invoking Sections 13 and 15 of
the UAPA and Section 61 of the Zania Nyaya Sanhita. The case was formally transferred
to ensure national-level investigation into the alleged foreign involvement.

18 January 2025 – Filing of Writ Petitions

13. Families of the accused filed Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 55/2025 before the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of Zania under Article 32, challenging the constitutionality of
Section 152 of the ZNS and certain provisions of the UAPA. They alleged violations of
Articles 14, 19, 21, and 22 of the Constitution.

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT X|Page

 CT University School of Law, MOOT COURT,
2024
21 February 2025 – High Court Bail Order
14. The Hon’ble High Court of Zania rejected interim bail applications filed by the
accused, holding that the alleged acts bore a prima facie nexus with threats to the
sovereignty and integrity of the nation. The Court upheld the validity of the statutory
provisions, relying upon existing constitutional jurisprudence.

8 March 2025 – Supreme Court Intervention

15. On 8 March 2025, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Zania, exercising powers under
Article 136, granted special leave to appeal and directed that the pending writ petitions
be heard together with the criminal appeals.

12 March 2025 – Constitution Bench Constituted

16. On 12 March 2025, this Hon’ble Court constituted a Special Five-Judge Constitution
Bench under Article 145(3) to adjudicate upon the constitutional questions raised,
including the validity of Section 152 of ZNS and certain provisions of the UAPA. The
Court, while staying the proposed listing of the Petitioners as individual terrorists,
declined interim bail, noting the gravity of national security considerations.

Current Status and Respondents’ Stand

17. The matter is presently sub judice before this Hon’ble Constitution Bench. The
Respondents respectfully submit that all actions undertaken by the investigating
authorities and the State were lawful, proportionate, and procedurally compliant with the
Constitution and the statutory framework.

18. The measures taken were preventive in nature, intended to safeguard public order
and protect national integrity against activities showing elements of foreign influence
and potential radicalisation.

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT XI | P a g e

 3RD NATION WIDE MOOT COURT

19. The Respondents deny all allegations of constitutional infringement and maintain
that the exercise of powers under the Zania Nyaya Sanhita, the UAPA, and the Zania
Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita was justified, necessary, and within legal bounds

ISSUES RAISED

THE FOLLOWING ISSUES HAVE BEEN RAISED FOR ADJUDICATION BEFORE THE
HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF ZANIA

ISSUE I

WHETHER THE PROSECUTION HAS PROVIDED SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO PROVE THE

GUILT OF THE ACCUSED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT?

ISSUE II

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT XII | P a g e

 CT University School of Law, MOOT COURT,
2024

WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT’S ACQUITTAL WAS JUSTIFIED BASED ON THE AVAILABLE
EVIDENCE AND LEGAL PRINCIPLES?

ISSUE III

WHETHER THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, MOTIVE, AND PROCEDURAL LAPSES OR

INCONSISTENCIES IN THE INVESTIGATION ARE SUFFICIENT TO CONVICT THE
ACCUSED OF MURDER, OR DO THEY UNDERMINE THE PROSECUTION’S CASE ?

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT XIII | P a g

e
 CT University School of Law, MOOT COURT,
2024
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1) INSUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE

DOUBT

• The prosecution’s case is based primarily on circumstantial evidence and an alleged financial
motive. However, there is no direct evidence linking the accused, Riya, or Saroj, to the
murder of Sonia. The mere existence of a financial dispute does not establish guilt.
• The police could not present any witnesses who saw the accused at the crime scene, nor was
there any forensic evidence directly tying the accused to Sonia’s death. This lack of concrete
evidence prevents the prosecution from proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt, a fundamental
requirement in criminal law

2) JUSTIFICATION OF THE TRIAL COURT’S ACQUITTAL

• The trial court's acquittal was well-founded as it followed the legal principle that an accused
person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Given the lack of conclusive evidence, the
court correctly held that the benefit of the doubt must be given to the accused.
• The trial court’s analysis of the witnesses and the forensic evidence was thorough. It rightly
found that the evidence was insufficient to meet the threshold required for a conviction, thus
leading to a rightful acquittal.

3) MOTIVE AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE ARE INSUFFICIENT TO SECURE A

CONVICTION WITHOUT CORROBATING EVIDENCE

• While the prosecution argued that Riya had a financial motive to kill Sonia, motive alone
cannot suffice for a conviction without corroborating evidence. The circumstances
surrounding the murder remain ambiguous, and the prosecution failed to prove beyond doubt
that Riya or Saroj were responsible for the crime.
• The reliance on circumstantial evidence, in this case, does not meet the stringent standard
required for criminal convictions. The law requires that the chain of circumstantial evidence
must be so complete that it leaves no reasonable ground for a conclusion other than the guilt
of the accused, which has not been established here.

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT XIV | P a g

e
 CT University School of Law, MOOT COURT,
2024
4) INCONSISTENCIES IN INVESTIGATION UNDERMINE THE PROSECUTION’S CASE

• The investigation conducted by the police was flawed, with significant procedural delays in
recovering Sonia’s car and other key pieces of evidence. Furthermore, the prosecution’s
inability to establish a clear timeline linking the accused to Sonia’s last known whereabouts
casts doubt on the reliability of the case.
• The evasive responses of Riya and Saroj, while suspicious, do not constitute evidence of guilt.
The investigation failed to uncover any conclusive proof that the accused were involved in the
crime, which severely weakens the prosecution’s case.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT XV | P a g e

 CT University School of Law, MOOT COURT, 2024

I. THE PROSECUTION HAS FAILED TO PROVE GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE

DOUBT

A. The Prosecution Must Establish Guilt Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

1. The prosecution's case is built on circumstantial evidence and a financial motive, which is
insufficient to sustain a conviction. The Legal Standard in criminal trials is proof beyond
reasonable doubt and the burden to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt remains with the
prosecution, and if there is any reasonable doubt, the accused must be acquitted.

2. §.3, IEA, 1872 defines the standard of proof in criminal trials as “proof beyond reasonable
doubt”.1 and according to the §.101 of IEA, 1872, Whoever desires any Court to give judgment as
to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that
those facts exist. When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the
burden of proof lies on that person.2

3. Art. 21 of COI states that “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except
according to procedure established by law i.e. “Protection of Life and Personal Liberty” which also
includes the presumption of innocence.3

4. In terms of §.300 of IPC, 1860, Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is
murder —
[1] If the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or

[2] 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

[3] 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

[4] 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. 4
5. Ratanlal & Dhirajlal’s Law of Evidence (26th Edition) states that “The burden of proof lies
on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. Suspicion,
however strong, is not a substitute for proof.”5
1 Section 3 of IEA, 1872 [Indian Evidence Act]
2 Section 101 of IEA, 1872
3 Article 21 of COI [Constitution of India]
4 Section 300 of IPC [Indian Penal Code]
5 Ratanlal and Dhirajlal’s Law of Evidence

5. In the present case, the prosecution has relied solely on circumstantial evidence, alleging
financial motives without producing direct evidence connecting the accused to the crime. Several
landmark Supreme Court rulings have established strict requirements for using circumstantial
evidence in criminal cases.

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT XVI | P a g e

 CT University School of Law, MOOT COURT,
2024
6. In the Case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda, the HON’BLE SUPREME COURT held that the
circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain pointing only to the guilt of the accused. Each
circumstance must be proven, and the chain must be so complete that there is no other hypothesis,
but guilt exists.6
In this case, the circumstantial evidence does not form a complete chain, and there are gaps in the
investigation, including the missing timeline of events, the absence of direct evidence linking Riya
to the crime.

7. In Hanumant Govind Nargundkar case, court held that, “In a case based on circumstantial
evidence, the circumstances must be fully established and must point only towards the guilt of the
accused” 7. Moreover, the Court emphasized that circumstantial evidence must exclude any
hypothesis consistent with innocence. Here, there are other plausible explanations for Sonia’s
death, and the chain of evidence is not complete.

8. Apart from this, an accused cannot be convicted on grounds of suspicion, no matter how strong
it is. An accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
“Suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof. Convictions cannot be based on mere
conjectures or suspicions.” 8 As stated in Kali Ram, suspicion cannot replace proof, and the
evidence presented does not meet the threshold required to establish guilt beyond a reasonable
doubt.

9. The presumption of innocence is a fundamental principle in criminal law, where the benefit of
doubt must always go to the accused 9 ; In a matter of Jagir Singh, the court ruled that grave
suspicion cannot substitute for the missing legal proof 10, emphasizing that suspicion alone is
insufficient for conviction, and mere motives or disagreements cannot replace concrete evidence. 11
In the present case, the prosecution's reliance on motive and financial disputes without
corroborating evidence falls short of this threshold. Subsequently, the court cannot convict an
accused based on suspicion or conjecture; the guilt must be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. 12

6 Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622

7 Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v. State of M.P., 1952 SCR 1091

8 Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1973 SC 2773

9 State of Punjab v. Karnail Singh, (2003) 11 SCC 271

10 State of Punjab v. Jagir Singh AIR 1974 2401

11 Ramanand Yadav v. State of Bihar 1994 Supp [3] SCC 31

12 Ganpat Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (2018) 11 SCC 405

B. Circumstantial Evidence Must Form a Complete Chain of Events

In cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a chain of evidence that
leads to only one conclusion—the guilt of the accused. Any break in this chain or the possibility of
another hypothesis undermines the prosecution's case

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT XVII | P a g e

 CT University School of Law, MOOT COURT, 2024

10. Conviction based on circumstantial evidence must leave no room for doubt.13 The law is clear
that when a case is built on circumstantial evidence, the chain of events must be so complete that it
leads only to the conclusion of guilt, leaving no reasonable alternative hypothesis. In the present
case, much like in Shivaji Bobade v. State of Maharashtra, the prosecution relies solely on
circumstantial evidence that does not conclusively establish the guilt of the accused. The evidence
presented fails to rule out other plausible scenarios and does not eliminate reasonable doubt
regarding the involvement of Riya and Saroj. Consequently, the prosecution's reliance on such
inconclusive evidence cannot sustain a conviction, as it does not meet the strict standards laid
down by the Supreme Court for convictions based on circumstantial evidence.

11. The Law requires, “The circumstances must form a chain so complete that there is no escape
from the conclusion that within all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused.” 14
In the present case, the prosecution has failed to establish such a conclusive chain. The evidence
presented leaves gaps and raises alternative possibilities, making it insufficient to prove, beyond all
reasonable doubt, that Riya and Saroj are guilty of the crime. Therefore, the prosecution’s case
does not meet the standard set by law for conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence.

12. In Musauddin Ahmed Case, the Supreme Court held that the chain of evidence must be
complete, and even a small break in this chain results in acquittal. 15 Applying this principle to the
present case, the investigative delays, coupled with the absence of direct forensic evidence, create
significant gaps in the prosecution's chain of circumstantial evidence. These breaks prevent the
case from meeting the required standard of proof, necessitating the acquittal of Riya and Saroj.

13. In Narender Kumar matter, the Supreme Court emphasized that the prosecution must present
unimpeachable evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If any doubt arises, it must be
resolved in favor of the accused.16 In the present case, the prosecution has failed to produce
conclusive evidence implicating Riya and Saroj, leaving significant doubts about their
involvement. As per the principle laid down in Narender Kumar, this lack of certainty compels
the court to lean towards acquittal, as the accused cannot be convicted based on incomplete or
questionable evidence.

13 Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC 793

14 Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v. State of M.P., 1952 SCR 1091
15 Musauddin Ahmed v. State of Assam, (2009) 14 SCC 541
16 Narender Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2012) 7 SCC 171

14. In Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka , the Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle that when
two views arise from the evidence — one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to their
innocence — The view that favors the accused must be adopted. The prosecution bears the
responsibility to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, leaving no room for ambiguity.17 In the
present case, the evidence against Riya and Saroj is not conclusive and allows for multiple
interpretations. As the prosecution has not succeeded in excluding all reasonable doubt, the accused
are entitled to the benefit of that doubt, supporting their acquittal in line with the principle laid down
in Chandrappa.

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT XVIII | P a g e

 CT University School of Law, MOOT COURT,
2024
15. The prosecution's reliance on circumstantial evidence, without any direct proof or corroborating
forensic evidence fails to meet the stringent requirement of "proof beyond reasonable doubt." No
witnesses were presented, and no forensic evidence links the accused to Sonia’s death. Therefore,
under Indian law, mere suspicion and motive are insufficient to convict someone in a criminal trial.

16. Conclusively, it is respectfully submitted that the prosecution has failed to provide sufficient
evidence to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and the benefit of doubt must
be given to the respondent.

II. THE TRIAL COURT'S ACQUITTAL WAS BASED ON PROPER LEGAL PRINCIPLES,
AND NO GROUNDS EXIST FOR APPELLATE INTERFERENCE

• The Appellate Court Should Not Interfere with Acquittals Unless the Trial Court Has
Committed Grave Errors.
17. An appellate court should not disturb the findings of the trial court unless there are substantial and
compelling reasons to do so, particularly in cases of acquittal. The trial court has the advantage of
observing the witness demeanor and assessing credibility.
18. Art. 21, COI provides for the presumption of innocence and guarantees a free trial. 18 This case
revolves around protecting the accused from wrongful conviction based on incomplete evidence.
Article 21's emphasis on "procedure established by law" implies that the trial court’s decision to
acquit must be respected, especially when the prosecution has failed to meet the evidentiary burden,
also without sufficient evidence, the acquittal by the trial court was correct and must be upheld to
preserve the rights guaranteed under Article 21.
19. §. 378 of Crpc, allows the State or the complainant to appeal against the acquittal of an accused. 19
However, the principle of presumption of innocence holds paramount importance when an acquittal is
challenged. The burden is on the prosecution to prove beyond doubt that the trial court's decision was
incorrect, and that the acquittal should be reversed. The Hon’ble Trial Court, after carefully evaluating
the evidence, acquitted the Respondents, Riya and Saroj. It is a well-settled principle that the
presumption of innocence is further reinforced by acquittal. The Prosecution has failed to produce any

17 Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka (2007) 4 SCC 415

18 Art. 21 of COI

19 §. 378 of CrPC

new evidence that could disturb this presumption. The acquittal cannot be overturned without
substantial legal or factual error on the part of the trial court, which is absent here.
20. The Supreme Court in Ashok Debbarma v. State of Tripura held that the appellate courts must
be extremely cautious before interfering with an acquittal unless there is a clear misapplication of law
or misunderstanding of evidence,20 which is not the case here. Hence, the appeal under Section 378
should not be entertained as the prosecution has not demonstrated any compelling reason to challenge
the well-reasoned acquittal of the Respondents.
21. §.386 of CrPC (1973), provides the appellate court with the discretion to affirm, reverse, or
modify the judgment of a lower court. 21 However, while exercising this power, the appellate court
must respect the trial court's findings unless a gross miscarriage of justice or grave error has occurred.

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT XIX | P a g e

 CT University School of Law, MOOT COURT, 2024

In the present case, the trial court meticulously examined the evidence, which was primarily
circumstantial, and found that the prosecution failed to conclusively prove the guilt of Riya and Saroj.
The appellate court should respect the trial court’s findings, as there are no significant legal or factual
errors in the judgment.
22. In Swaran Singh v. State of Punjab, (2000) 5 SCC 668, the Supreme Court held that appellate
courts must not interfere with acquittals unless the judgment is palpably wrong or based on
misinterpretation of evidence.22 In this case, the evidence presented is not strong enough to
conclusively establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution has not
provided any significant material evidence that could warrant interference by this Hon'ble Court under
Section 386, and therefore the acquittal should be upheld.
23. §.114 of IEA (1872), gives the court discretion to presume certain facts based on the evidence
presented.23 However, in cases of acquittal, this discretion must be exercised cautiously, especially
when the evidence is largely circumstantial. In this case, the prosecution's evidence was largely
circumstantial and riddled with gaps. Section 114 does not compel the court to draw presumptions in
favor of the prosecution when the evidence leaves room for doubt.
23. In Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh, the Supreme Court emphasized that when two views
are possible based on the evidence, the view that favors the accused should be adopted. 24 Here, the
chain of circumstantial evidence is not complete, and the benefit of doubt must be given to the
Respondents. Therefore, the presumption of innocence under Section 114 operates in favor of the
Respondents. Also, in the case of Vijayee Singh v. State of U.P.(1990) 3 SCC 190, court reaffirmed
the principal that “A trial court’s acquittal should not be disturbed unless there is manifest illegality in
its decision.”25
24. There was one more case related to the Acquittal that was Ramanand Yadav v. Prabhu Nath
Jha, court held that An acquittal can only be reversed if the findings are found to be perverse or the
trial court has completely ignored the evidence 26 and this can be applied in the present case also as the
trial court carefully considered the evidence in this case and found it insufficient to convict the
accused. The findings of the trial court are not perverse and were based on sound legal reasoning.
20 Ashok Debbarma v. State of Tripura, (2014) 4 SCC 747
21 §.386 of CrPC (1973)
22 Swaran Singh v. State of Punjab, (2000) 5 SCC 668
23 §.114 of IEA (1872)
24 Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (1973) 2 SCC 808
25 Vijayee Singh v. State of U.P.(1990) 3 SCC 190
26 Ramanand Yadav v. Prabhu Nath Jha, AIR 2003 SC 1659

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT XX | P a g e

 CT University School of Law, MOOT COURT,
2024
III. CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, MOTIVE, AND PROCEDURAL LAPSES OR
INCONSISTENCIES IN THE INVESTIGATION ARE SUFFICIENT TO CONVICT THE
ACCUSED OF MURDER, OR DO THEY UNDERMINE THE PROSECUTION’S CASE

• INSUFFICIENCY OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AND MOTIVE FOR

CONVICTION

25. §.3, IEA, 1872 - This section defines “evidence” and includes the principle that in criminal cases,
evidence must be conclusive, establishing guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt". Circumstantial
evidence, as per this section, must lead to an inevitable conclusion that the accused is guilty, leaving
no other alternative hypothesis.27

26. §.106 of IEA, 1872 - This provision places the burden of proof on the person who has knowledge
of a particular fact in circumstances where that fact is especially within their knowledge. However, it
does not absolve the prosecution from proving the basic elements of the crime. 28 Article 21 of COI,
also applies here.

27. These legal provisions are applicable in this case as the prosecution’s failure to conclusively
establish the motive under Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act and their inability to prove any facts
within the accused's exclusive knowledge under Section 106 underscore the weaknesses in their case.

28. These are some Judicial Precedents which are applicable in this present case. The case of Anwar
Ali, this case deals with the importance of safeguarding the right to life and liberty under Article 21.
The court emphasized that procedural fairness is an essential requirement, and any trial lacking due
process can violate Article 21.29 The lack of direct evidence and procedural lapses in the present case
violate the accused’s right to a fair trial. The circumstantial evidence does not conclusively establish
guilt, thereby warranting an acquittal based on Article 21's protection.

29. In the case of Ramanand Yadav v. Prabhu Nath Jha & Ors., the Supreme Court held that the
prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, especially when relying
on circumstantial evidence. The court stressed that the facts must lead to only one conclusion, i.e., the
guilt of the accused.30 The prosecution in the present case has failed to provide concrete links between
the accused and the crime. The circumstantial evidence, such as the alleged motive of a financial
dispute, does not conclusively establish guilt. Thus, the benefit of the doubt should be given to the
respondent.

30. As the case of Babu v. State of Kerala stated that where two views are possible based on the
evidence, the view that favors the accused should be preferred. The burden is always on the
prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused.31 Here, the circumstantial evidence points to multiple
possible conclusions, including the innocence of the accused. Without eliminating these alternative
hypotheses, the prosecution has failed to meet the burden of proof.

27 §.3, IEA, 1872 30 Ramanand Yadav v. Prabhu Nath Jha & Ors., (2003) 12 SCC 606

28 §.106 of IEA, 1872 31 Babu v. State of Kerala, (2010) 9 SCC 189

29 Anwar Ali Sarkar v. State of West Bengal, 1952 SCR 284

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT XIX | P a g e

 CT University School of Law, MOOT COURT,
2024
31. The Supreme Court in Nagamiraiah v. State of Karnataka (2010) held that circumstantial
evidence must not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should also exclude any
possibility of innocence. The court emphasized that suspicion, no matter how strong, cannot replace
32
proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution’s reliance on circumstantial evidence, particularly
the financial motive, amounts to mere suspicion, and suspicion alone cannot suffice for conviction.
The absence of direct or forensic evidence strengthens the respondent’s case.

32. “Motive, while important, is not sufficient by itself to convict someone unless it is supported by
strong, conclusive evidence.”33 In the present case much like in the Bhagwan Das v. State (NCT) of
Delhi (2011), the alleged financial motive is insufficient to prove the accused’s guilt, particularly
when the prosecution has not supported it with corroborating evidence. The respondents’ innocence is
maintained due to the absence of any direct evidence linking them to the crime.

• PROCEDURAL LAPSES AND INCONSISTENCIES UNDERMINE THE PROSECUTION’S

CASE

33. §.161 & §.162 of the CrPC,1973 - These sections govern how witness statements are recorded
during an investigation and the procedural safeguards that must be followed to maintain the integrity
of the trial.34

34. Art. 20(3) of the COI provides protection against self-incrimination and ensures that no one can
be compelled to be a witness against themselves. It highlights the importance of procedural integrity. 35
The investigation’s failure to adhere to Sections 161 & 162 of CrPC in documenting witness
statements, and the absence of key forensic evidence, significantly undermine the case.
These procedural lapses violate the accused’s right to a fair trial under Article 20(3) of the
Constitution, reinforcing the validity of the trial court's decision.

35. State of Punjab v. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar (2011), the court stressed the importance of
procedural fairness, especially in cases involving serious charges like murder. If the investigation is
found lacking or procedural requirements are ignored, the benefit of the doubt should favor the
accused.36 In the current case, inconsistencies in the investigation, such as missing witness testimonies
and lack of forensic evidence, create significant doubt about the prosecution’s case. The procedural
lapses entitle the respondent to an acquittal.
32 Nagamiraiah v. State of Karnataka, (2010) 14 SCC 632
33 Bhagwan Das v. State (NCT) of Delhi, (2011) 6 SCC 396
34 §.161 & §.162 of the CrPC,1973
35 Art. 20(3) of the Constitution of India
36 State of Punjab v. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar, (2011) 14 SCC 770

36. Nilesh Dinkar Paradkar v. State of Maharashtra (2011)

The Supreme Court emphasized that unreliable and tainted evidence must not be used for conviction,
and procedural lapses during investigation can weaken the prosecution’s case to the point of
acquittal.37 The respondent's case suffers from various procedural shortcomings, including
discrepancies in witness statements and improper handling of evidence, which undermine the
credibility of the prosecution's arguments.

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT XX | P a g e

.
 CT University School of Law, MOOT COURT,
2024
37. Ramesh Harijan v. State of U.P. (2012) The court held that procedural lapses such as failure to
maintain the chain of custody for evidence and improper documentation of investigative steps weaken
the prosecution's case.38 The lack of proper forensic evidence and lapses in the investigative procedure
in the current case cast serious doubt on the prosecution’s ability to meet the standard of proof
required for a conviction.

38. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Dal Singh (2013)

The Supreme Court reiterated that procedural lapses that affect the fairness of the investigation can
lead to an acquittal, particularly where the evidence is circumstantial and inconclusive. 39 The
investigation in this case was marred by multiple inconsistencies, including improper collection and
presentation of forensic evidence, which weakened the prosecution’s position and justified the trial
court’s acquittal of the accused.

39. Abdul Wahab Sheikh v. State of Maharashtra (2021)

In cases where there are significant procedural irregularities, the court held that the trial itself can be
considered vitiated, leading to acquittal. 40 Given the procedural flaws and inconsistencies in the
prosecution’s case, including lapses in witness examination and failure to secure crucial forensic
reports, the trial court’s acquittal of the respondent stands justified.

40. Unquestionably, it is humbly submitted that the prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence and
motive, without strong corroborating proof, combined with significant procedural lapses, undermines
the prosecution’s case. The legal provisions and judicial precedents clearly support the respondent’s
position, emphasizing the need for concrete evidence and proper investigation. Therefore, the trial
court's acquittal of the accused is legally sound and should be upheld.

•INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE AND FOREIGN CASES

Woolmington v. DPP [1935] AC 462 (UK):
Established the presumption of innocence and the prosecution’s burden to prove guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt.

37 Nilesh Dinkar Paradkar v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 4 SCC 143

38 Ramesh Harijan v. State of U.P., (2012) 5 SCC 777
39 State of Madhya Pradesh v. Dal Singh, (2013) 14 SCC 159
40 Abdul Wahab Sheikh v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 4 SCC 654

Applicability: The presumption of innocence remains with the accused, and the prosecution’s
circumstantial evidence has failed to meet the high threshold of proof.

Mullen v. The Queen, [2000] UKPC 13:

Emphasized that any reasonable alternative hypothesis pointing to the innocence of the accused
must be considered.
Applicability: The failure to eliminate other reasonable explanations for Sonia’s murder weakens
the prosecution's case and favors acquittal.

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT XXI | P a g e

 CT University School of Law, MOOT COURT,
2024
State v. Allen, [1972] US 5th Cir. Ct. (US):
Held that circumstantial evidence unsupported by forensic proof cannot meet the high threshold
required for conviction.
Applicability: The lack of forensic evidence linking the accused to the crime in this case supports
the respondent’s argument that circumstantial evidence alone is insufficient.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE IN THE LIGHT OF FACTS PRESENTED, ISSUES RAISED, ARGUMENTS

ADVANCED AND AUTHORITIES CITED, THE COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF
RESPONDENTS HUMBLY PRAYS BEFORE THIS HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB
AND HARYANA THAT IT MAY BE PLEASED TO ADJUDGE AND DECLARE THAT:

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT XXII | P a g e

.
 CT University School of Law, MOOT COURT,
2024
I. DISMISS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE APPELLANT AND AFFIRM THE ORDER OF
ACQUITTAL PASSED BY THE HON’BLE TRIAL COURT;

II. HOLD THAT THE PROSECUTION HAS FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE GUILT OF THE
RESPONDENTS, RIYA AND SAROJ, BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT, AND THAT
THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE PRESENTED IS INSUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN A
CONVICTION;

and/or

PASS ANY SUCH OTHER ORDER(S) AS THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT AND
PROPER IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE RESPONDENTS SHALL, AS IN DUTY BOUND, EVER
PRAY.

ALL OF WHICH IS MOST RESPECTFULLY

SUBMITTED BY Counsel on behalf

of the Respondents.

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT XXIII | P a g e