Anda di halaman 1dari 23

LAW OF CRIMES

In the Honble Supreme Court of India

Case Concerning, Murder

Santokh Singh and Anr.


(Appellant)
V.
Union of India
(Respondent)

On submission to the Honble Supreme Court


At New Delhi
Memorandum on behalf of the Appellant
ASIT BEHERA
Roll No. 17
SEM IV

Table Of Contents.........................................................................................................................i
Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Authorities...v
Table of Casesv

Supreme Court
Decisions.v

High Court Judgmentsix

International Decisions.......xi

Books and Articlesxi


Statutes.xi
i
Other documents.................xiii
Statement of Jurisdiction
xiv
Synopsis of Facts..xv
Issues
Raised..xviii
Summary of Arguments.xix
Pleadings.1

Admission Issue..1

Merits..5

Prayer20

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

Table Of Contents.........................................................................................................................ii
Contents

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

Index Of Authorities......................................................................................................................v
Authorities
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Table of Cases

- Supreme Court Decisions A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 150......................................................................15
Abdul Husein Tayabali and Ors v. State of Gujarat and Ors, AIR 1968 SC 432...........................7
Aflatoon v. Lt. Governer Delhi, AIR 1974 SC 2077......................................................................10
AIIMS Students Union v. AIIMS, (2002) 1 SCC 428.....................................................................4
Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib, (1981) 1 SCC 722 at 741...........................3
Amarjit Singh Kalra v. Pramod Gupta, AIR 2003 SC 2588...2
Amarjit Singh v. State of Punjab, (1975) 3 SCC 503...............................3
Amrit v State of Punjab, (1992) 2 SCC 411...................................................................................16
AP Pollution Control Board v. MV Nayudu, AIR 1999 SC 812.................................................... 7
AS Gauraya v. SN Thakur, (1986) 2 SCC 709.................................................................................9
BALCO Employees Union (Regd.) v. Union of India and Ors., (2002) 2 SCC 3331
Bandhua Mukti Morcha v, Union of India, (1984) 3 SCC 161....1
Basheshar Nath v. CIT, AIR 1959 SC 149......................................................................................7
Bhatinda Improvement Trust v. Balwant Singh, 1983 LAC 309 at p. 314 (Supreme Court)........11
BM Lakhami v. Municipal Committee, (1970) 2 SCC 267..............................................................9
Bokaro and Rampur Ltd. v. State of Bihar, AIR 1963 SC 5161
Calcutta Gas v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1962 SC 1044..1
CB Boarding & Lodging v. State of Mysore, (1969) 3 SCC 84.......................................................9

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

Index Of Authorities......................................................................................................................vi
Authorities
Central Airmen Selection Board v. Surinder Kumar Das, (2003) 1 SCC 152..............................16
Chairman, Indore Vikas Pradhikaran vs M/s Pure Industrial Coke, MANU/SC/7476/2007.......17
Chairman, Railway Board v. Chandrima Das, AIR 2000 SC 988..1
Chameli Singh and Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr., (1996) 2 SCC 549............................8
Chhetriya Pardushan Mukti Sangharsh Samiti v. State of UP, (1990) 4 SCC 449.........................7
EP Royappa v. State of TN, (1974) 4 SCC 3...............................................................................3
Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union (Regd.), Sindri and Ors. v. Union of India and others,
(1981) 1 SCC 5681, 3
Food Corporation of India v. Kamadhenu Cattle Feed industries, AIR 1993 SC 1601...............18
G.N. Nayak v. Goa University, (2002) 2 SCC 290........................................................................14
Gaurav Jain v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 3021................................................................... 4, 5
Gullapalli Nagerwara Rao v. ASRTC, AIR 1959 SC 308.............................................................15
Hukum Chand & Others v. Union of India & Others, 1988 (Supp) SCC 464...............................9
In the matter of Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal, (1993) Supp 1 SCC 96...................................9
Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. v. Karnataka Electricity Board, AIR 1992 SC 2169.........................16
Indian Council for Enviro Legal Action v. Union of India, (1996) 5 SCC 281...............................7
Janta Dal v. HS Chowdhary, (1992) 4 SCC 305.1
Kasinka Trading v. Union of India, AIR 1995 SC 874.................................................................16
Kasturi Lal v. State of J&K, (1980) 4 SCC 1..........................................3
Khedat Mazdoor Chetna Sangath v. State of MP, AIR 1995 SC 31...............................................9
Land Acquisition Collector v. Durga Pada Mukerjee, AIR 1980 SC 1679..................................10
M Chhagalan v. Greater Bombay Municipality, (1974) 2 SCC 402.......3
M.C.Mehta v. Union of India, (1987) 1 SCC 395...1

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

Index Of Authorities......................................................................................................................vii
Authorities
Madras City Wine Merchants' Assn. and Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1994) 5 SCC 509..........18
Maganbhai v. Union of India, AIR 1969 SC 7831
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 2481
MC Mehta v. Union of India & M/s. DDA, (2001) 4 SCC 577..............................................4, 6, 7
MC Mehta v. Union of India, (2004) 6 SCC 588........................................................................... 6
Minerva Mills Ltd., v. Union of India, (1980) 2 SCC 591...............................................................9
MK Sabha v. A Faizullabhai, (1976) 3 SCC 832, (1976) 3 SCC 832.............................................9
Mohd. Hanif Qureshi v. State of Bihar, AIR 1958 SC 731.............................................................9
Mohd. Ibrahim Khan v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1980 SC 5171
Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka, (1992) 3 SCC 666....................................................................3
Moti Lal Padampath Sugar Mills v State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1979 SC 621......................15, 16
MSI Hussain v. State of Maharashtra, (1976) 3 SCC 598...............................................................9
Munshi Singh v. Union of India, AIR 1973 SC 1150....................................................................12
Nar Singh Pal v. Union of India, (2000) 3 SCC 588.......................................................................7
Narayan Govind Gavate v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1977 SC 183..........................................10
Narendra Jit Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1971 SC 306.................................................11
Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India and Ors., (2000) 10 SSC 664...................................3
Neelima Mishra v. Harinder Kaur Paintal, (1990) 2 SCC 746...............3
New Reviera Co-operative Housing Society v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (1996) 1 SCC
731....................................................................................................................................................8
NR & F Mills v. NTG Bros., AIR 1971 SC 246...1
Padma v. Hiralal Motilal Dearada, (2002) 7 SCC 564................................................................15
Pandit Jhandulal v. State of Punjab, AIR 1961 SC 343..................................................................6

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

Index Of Authorities......................................................................................................................viii
Authorities
Paradise Printers v. Union Territory of Chandigarh, (1988) 1 SCC 440...3
Pawan Alloys v. UP State Electricity, AIR 1997 SC 3901............................................................19
Prakash Singh and Ors. v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors, (2006) 8 SCC 1..................................3
Prem Chand Garg v. Excise Commissioner, AIR 1963 SC 996..2
Ram Swaroop v. District Land Acquisition officer, Aligarh, AIR 1972 SC 2290...........................6
Rama Chandra Nago Patil v. Assistant Collector, Thana, AIR 1974 SC 380..............................14
Ratilal Shankarbhai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1970 SC 984............................................................6
RD Shetty v. Intl Airport Authority, (1979) 3 SCC 489..........................3
Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of UP, (1991) 3 SCC 347.1
Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of UP, AIR 1987 SC 2426................................7
S Jagannath v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 811...........................................................................7
S.P.Gupta v. Union of India, 1981 Supp SCC 871
Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1965 SC 845....................................................................9
Sarwan Singh Lamba v. Union of India, AIR 1995 SC 1729..........................................................9
Sheela Basre v. Secretary, Children Aid Society, (1987) 3 SCC 501
Shri Sitaram sugar Co. Ltd. v. Union of India, (1990) 3 SCC 223.........3
Smt. Somavanti and Ors. v. The State of Punjab and Ors, AIR 1963 SC 151........................5, 6, 8
State of Bombay v. RS Nanji, AIR 1956 SC 294.............................................................................6
State of MP v. Vishnu Prasad, AIR 1966 SC 1593.......................................................................13
State of Punjab v. Gurdail Singh, AIR 1980 SC 319....................................................................14
State of U.P. v. Mohd. Nooh, AIR 1958 SC 86..............................................................................15
State of West Bengal v. Moti Lal, AIR 1966 SC 1953.....................................................................8
Sube Singh and Ors. V. State of Haryana and Ors., AIR 2001 SC 3285........................................4

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

Index Of Authorities......................................................................................................................ix
Authorities
Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar and Ors., (1991) 1 SCC 598...1
Supreme Court Employees Welfare Association v. Union of India, (1989) 4 SCC 187.................8
Surya Narain Yadav v. Bihar State Electricity Board, AIR 1985 SC 491.....................................16
The Special Courts Bill, Re, (1979) 1 SCC 380...............................................................................9
TKN Rajgopal v. TM Karunanidhi, (1972) 4 SCC 267...................................................................9
Union of India v. Anglo-Afghan Agencies, AIR 1968 SC 718.......................................................16
Union of India v. Godfrey Phillips India Limited, AIR 1986 SC 806.....................................15, 16
Unni Krishnan v. State of AP, (1993) 1 SCC 645...........................................................................4
Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India, (1996) 8 SCC 462.......................................... 7
Vincent v. Union of India, (1987) 2 SCC 165......1, 5, 6, 7
Virender Gaur v. State of Haryana, (1995) 2 SCC 574...................................................................7
Vishaka v. State of Rajastan, AIR 1997 SC 3011...........................................................................9
Y. Srinivasa Rao v. J Veeraiah, (1992) 3 SCC 63...........................................................................3

- High Court Judgments Abdul Sattar v. State of UP, AIR 1994 All. 77..............................................................................10
Alagappa Chettiar v. Revenue Div. Officer, Chidambaram and Anr., AIR 1969 Mad. 182..........6
Anant Ram Balmokand v. State of Punjab, AIR 1962 Punj. 235...................................................11
Andem Laxmamma v. The Tahsildar Mothkur, Nalgonda District, AIR 1990 AP 152................11
Bangalore City Municipality v. K. Rangappa, AIR 1954 Mysore 171..........................................11
Behroze Ramyar Batha v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (1992) 1 Civil L.J. 33....................14
Bharat Wools, Ludhiana v. State of Punjab, AIR 1996 P&H 215.................................................19
Brahm Sarup v. State of Hrayana, AIR 1975 P.&H. 26................................................................11

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

Index Of Authorities......................................................................................................................x
Authorities
Chandra Kanta Sharma v. The Deputy Commr;AIR 1971 Assam 1.............................................11
Chandra kanta Sharmah v. Deputy Commr. and collector of Nowgang, AIR 1971 Assam 1......11
Easwara Pillai v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1972 (II) Mad. L.J.R. 92.................................................10
Haripada Mandal v. State of Bihar, 1988 P.L.J.R. 223.................................................................10
Junjamma and Ors. v. The Bangalore Development Authority, represented by its Commissioner
and Ors., 2004 (7) KAR. L.J. 677...............................................................................................4, 12
M.P. Kuttappa Kurup v. Sub. Collector, AIR 1962 Kerala 252....................................................12
Meghanbhai Vanarashibhai Patel v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1976 Guj. 84....................................13
Mogo Nagi v. State of Nagaland, AIR 1995 Gau 6.......................................................................19
Moideen v. Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, 1981 KERALA LAW TIMES 59..........................10
Naga Hills Tea Co. Ltd. v. State of Assam, AIR 1962 Assam 132...............................................12
New Ludhiana Industrial Corporation, Messrs. v. State of Punjab, 1971 Cur.L.J. 436...............10
Pramodbhai Bhulabhai Desai v. Officer on Special Duty No. 2 (Land Acquisition), Ahmedabad ,
1989 (1) Guj.LR. 153....................................................................................................................10
Prasar Bharati v. Debyajoti Bose, AIR 2000 Cal 43.1
Sachindra Kumar v. Patna Regional Developmental Authority, AIR 1994 Pat. 128...................19
Satya Narayan v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1957 Cal. 310...........................................................6
SB Patil v. Director of Resettlement 1992 LAC 54 (Bom)............................................................11
Shivaji v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (2003) 105 (1) Bom LR 691..2
Shri Mahendra Bal Vidyalaya Society v. State of UP, AIR 1976 All. 188....................................10
Town Improvement Trust v. Sahaji Rao, AIR 1978 MP 218...1
V.K. Kangan v. State of Mysore, AIR 1967 Mys. 133...................................................................10

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

Index Of Authorities......................................................................................................................xi
Authorities
1. The Indian Penal Code, 33rd Edn. Ratanlal & Dheerajlal, Lexis Nexis.
2. Textbook on The Indian Penal Code, 4th Edn. K.D.Gaur, Universal Law Publishing Co.

- Statutes -

1. Indian Penal Code, 1860.


2. Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
3. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

Statement of Jurisdiction............................................................................................................xiv
Jurisdiction
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The appellant approaches the Honorable Supreme Court under Article 134 1 of the Constitution of
India, 1950.

Appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court in regard to criminal matters


(1) An appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgment, final order or sentence in a criminal proceeding of a High Court in the territory
of India if the High Court has on appeal reversed an order of acquittal of an accused person and sentenced him to death; or has withdrawn for trial
before itself any case from any court subordinate to its authority and has in such trial convicted the accused person and sentenced him to death; or
(c) certifies under Article 134A that the case is a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court: Provided that an appeal under sub clause (c) shall lie
subject to such provisions as may be made in that behalf under clause ( 1 ) of Article 145 and to such conditions as the High Court may establish
or require
(2) Parliament may by law confer on the Supreme Court any further powers to entertain and hear appeals from any judgment, final order or
sentence in a criminal proceeding of a High Court in the territory of India subject to such conditions and limitations as may be specified in such
law

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

Statement of Jurisdiction............................................................................................................xv
Jurisdiction

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

Synopsis of Facts..........................................................................................................................xv
Facts
SYNOPSIS OF FACTS

The two appellants in this Criminal Appeal have challenged the judgment of the Punjab
and Haryana High Court whereby the High Court upheld the conviction of the appellants
for the offence under Section 3022 read with Section 34 IPC3 sentencing them to undergo
imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- with a direction to further undergo RI for

six months in case of default of payment fine.


The deceased was Secretary of an Employees Union. He however, left the aforesaid

Employees Union. Two days later, he became the President of INTUC Union.
There were four accused in the case : (1) Santokh Singh, President of Employees, (2)
Sawarn Kumar (President of Employees' Union), GE Amritsar (3) Jagsher Singh Bhola,

General Secretary, (4) Gurdev Singh.


The place of the incident, Hotel Genesis in the Cantonment area of Amritsar, was then
visited by the Inspector alongwith other officials. The complainant Rajiv Kumar was also
taken alongwith the police party. Santokh Singh and Sawarn Kumar were arrested from
the spot. Licensed pistol of Sanjay Kumar was found lying near the dead body. One
empty, one missed cartridge and three live cartridges were also recovered therefrom.
Prithipal Singh, Sub Inspector (Finger Prints Expert) was called at that place and the
pistol was got examined from him. It was opined by him that no decipherable finger print
impressions were found. Santokh Singh and Sawarn Kumar (hereinafter referred to as
"the appellants") were got medically examined and it was found that they had not

Section 302. Punishment for murder

Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or 1[imprisonment for life] and shall also be liable to fine.
CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE
PunishmentDeath, or imprisonment for life, and fineCognizableNon-bailableTriable by Court of SessionNon-compoundable.

Section 34. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention

Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.- When a criminal act is done by several persons
in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it
were done by him alone.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

Synopsis of Facts..........................................................................................................................xvi
Facts
consumed any drug or alcohol. The post mortem on the dead body of Sanjay Kumar was
duly performed and the dead body was handed over to his relatives. The other two
accused Gurdev Singh and Jagsher Singh @ Bhola had, thereafter, surrendered in the
Court. They were formally arrested in this case on 25.7.2002. During the investigation,
no witness came forward to give an eye witness account as to how the weapon was
snatched from Sanjay and how he was shot with the same weapon. The investigation,
however, concluded that the four accused had called Sanjay Kumar from his house. It
appears that extra judicial confession was made by Jagsher Singh @ Bhola and Gurdev

Singh before one Vipin Kumar to the effect that they had killed Sanjay Kumar.
The report of the Forensic Science Laboratory indicated that the pistol recovered from the
site of incident was found to be in working condition. It also indicated that shots had been

fired from the very same pistol.


A number of witnesses were examined by the prosecution in support of its case. Upon
closure of the prosecution evidence, the statements of the appellants were recorded under
Section 313 Cr.P.C.4 All the allegations were denied by them. Jagsher Singh @ Bhola and
Gurdev Singh stated that they were innocent and had been falsely implicated. Appellant
No. 1, Santokh Singh stated thus:
The allegations against us are totally false. Deceased was of aggressive nature and also
living under depression. He used to have unpredictable swings of behavior. He was drug
addict and was facing criminal cases. He remained in hospital for treatment also. The
allegations of my along with other going to his house and to bring him are incorrect. He
met us in restaurant. All of a sudden, he fired on his head may be to show false valor. It
all is so sudden and sad, which feelings in him culminated in this act is difficult to tell.
But he was depressed and aggressive and possible drug influence. Police onsite
inspection also agreed with it, but scenario of place of occurrence was changed. We got

totally perplexed. I am innocent.


Appellant No. 2 gives the same version as appellant No. 1.
Upon examination of the entire evidence, the trial court convicted all the four accused
under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and they were sent to undergo imprisonment
for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.

Power to examine the accused.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

Synopsis of Facts..........................................................................................................................xvii
Facts
In default of payment of fine, the defaulter accused would further undergo RI 5 for a
period of 6 months. The aforesaid judgment of the trial court was taken in appeal by the

four convicts.
The High Court upon re-examination of the entire evidence has confirmed the findings
recorded in the impugned judgment qua appellant No. 1, Santokh Singh and appellant
No. 2 Sawarn Kumar. However the co-accused Jagsher Singh @ Bhola and Gurdev Singh
were acquitted of the charge under 302 read with Section 34 IPC. It is in these
circumstances, that the two appellants have challenged the aforesaid judgment in this
appeal.

RI means regional inspector

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

Issues Raised.............................................................................................................................xviii
Raised...............
ISSUES RAISED

I.THE APPELLANTS SUBMIT THAT THEIR CONVICTION UNDER SECTION 302 IS


FALSE AND WITHOUT ANY PROOF.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

Summary of Arguments................................................................................................................xix
Arguments
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

I.THE APPELLANTS SUBMIT THAT THEIR CONVICTION UNDER SECTION 302 IS


FALSE AND WITHOUT ANY PROOF.
The Conviction of the accused in the Trial court and The High Court have been made on some
loose ends of circumstantial evidence. The case is not that of murder but that of suicide while the
prosecution has gone very far in framing the accused. There is no conclusive evidence in this
case. The forensic investigation does not reveal anything and moreover, there are no eye
witnesses. The deceased suffered from an illness and had suicidal tendencies and he shot himself
in turn killing him. The accused have wrongly been charged with the offence of murder.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

Pleadings.....................................................................................................................................1
Pleadings.......................................................
WRITTEN PLEADINGS
I. THE APPELLANTS SUBMIT THAT THEIR CONVICTION UNDER SECTION 302
IS FALSE AND WITHOUT ANY PROOF.

Section 3026 : Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life,
and shall also be liable to fine
Here in the immediate case the appellants have been wrongly convicted by the trial court and the
High Court respectively without any conclusive proof.
(A) Absence of any strong motive to lead to the conviction of the appellants.
The deceased was Secretary of an Employees' Union. He, however, left the aforesaid Employees'
Union. Two days later, he became the President of INTUC 7 Union. It has been alleged that
Accused (1) Santokh Singh, President of Employees' Union, (2) Sawarn Kumar (President of
Employees' Union), GE Amritsar (3) Jagsher Singh Bhola, General Secretary, (4) Gurdev Singh,
came to the quarter of the deceased in the presence of the complainant. They said that they
wanted to discuss something about the disputes of the Union. They, therefore, took Sanjay
alongwith them. Thereafter, Arjinder Pal Singh @ Prince, owner of a Hotel came to their house
and told them that Sanjay has been shot dead. In the complaint, it is stated that the complainant
had full confidence that all the four persons who had called Shammi from his house had made
Shammi drink liquor and while he was under the influence of liquor, they had shot him dead
after snatching his pistol. Here the owner of the hotel thinks that the murder is committed by the
accused, he has not seen anything through his eyes. Moreover, the prosecution has gone out of
the way to fabricate the case against the appellants. The appellants had no motive whatsoever to
kill the deceased. Even if there was slight disagreement with regard to the Union activities, the
same would not provide a motive strong enough to commit the murder of the deceased. The
appellants had also very cordial relations with the deceased.

6
7

Indian Penal Code, 1860.


INTUC-INDIAN NATIONAL TRADE UNION CONGRESS

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

Pleadings.....................................................................................................................................2
Pleadings.......................................................
The legal position regarding proof of motive as an essential requirement for bringing home the
guilt of the accused is fairly well settled by a long line of the decisions of the Court. These
decisions have made a clear distinction between cases where prosecution relies upon
circumstantial evidence on the one hand and those where it relies upon the testimony of the eyewitnesses on the other. In the former category of cases proof of motive is given the importance it
deserves, for proof of a motive itself constitutes a link in the chain of circumstances upon which
the prosecution may rely. Proof of motive however, recedes into background in cases where the
prosecution relies upon an eye-witness account of the occurrence. That is because if the Court
upon a proper appraisal of the deposition of the eye-witnesses comes to the conclusion that the
version given by them is credible, absence of evidence to prove the motive is rendered
inconsequential. Conversely even if prosecution succeeds in establishing a strong motive for the
commission of the offence, but the evidence of the eye-witnesses is found unreliable or unworthy
of credit, existence of a motive does not by itself provide a safe basis for convicting the accused.
That does not, however, mean that proof of motive even in a case which rests on an eye-witness
account does not lend strength to the prosecution case or fortify the court in its ultimate
conclusion. Proof of motive in such a situation certainly helps the prosecution and supports the
eye-witnesses.8
It is well settled and needs no restatement at our hands that the principle for basing a conviction
on the basis of circumstantial evidence is that each and every incriminating circumstance must be
clearly established by reliable and clinching evidence and the circumstances so proved must
form a chain of events from which the only irresistible conclusion about the guilt of the accused
can be safely drawn and no other hypothesis against the guilt is possible. It is also well settled as
held by the Supreme Court that in more than one decision that the Courts have to be watchful
and avoid the danger of allowing the suspicion to take the place of legal proof for some time,
unconsciously it may happen to be a short step between moral certainty and legal proof. That
there is a long mental distance between may be true and must be true and the same divides
conjectures from sure conclusions.9

Shivaji Genu Mohite v. The State of Maharashtra (1973) 3 SCC 219, Hari Shanker v. State of U.P. (1996) 9 SCC
40 and State of Uttar Pradesh v. Kishanpal (2008) 16 SCC 73
9
Tanviben Pankajkumar Divetia v. State of Gujarat (1997) 7 SCC 156

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

Pleadings.....................................................................................................................................3
Pleadings.......................................................
(B) The case is that of Suicide and not that of Murder.
This is undoubtedly a case of suicide which has been deliberately twisted by the prosecution into
a case of murder. The deceased was suffering from chronic Schizophrenia. He had been regularly
receiving treatment for mental illness at the Bhatia Neuro Psychiatric Hospital, Amritsar.
Deceased was also a drug addict. Strong reliance has to be made on the statement made by Dr.
J.P.S. Bhatia (DW-1). It is also submitted that due to his illness, behavior of the deceased was
wholly erratic and unpredictable. It is not possible to know the reason as to why he may have
shot himself. The medical evidence would tend to suggest that he had suicidal tendencies.
Where the question was whether the death in question was homicidal or suicidal, and the expert
who examined the body was not sure either way, the presumption as to murder was held to be
something doubtful.10 Where a person is not proved to be guilty, the presumption of innocence
prevails in reference to him.11
Santokh Singh had also stated thus:
Deceased was of aggressive nature and also living under depression. He used to have
unpredictable swings of behavior. He was drug addict and was facing criminal cases. He
remained in hospital for treatment also. He met us in restaurant. All of a sudden, he fired on his
head may be to show false valour. It all is so sudden and sad, which feelings in him culminated
in this act is difficult to tell. But he was depressed and aggressive and possible drug influence.
The Police onsite inspection also agreed with it.
(C) No conclusive evidence against the appellants.
Prithipal Singh, Sub Inspector (Finger Prints Expert) was called at the restaurant which was the
site of the incident and the pistol was got examined from him. It was opined by him that no
decipherable finger print impressions were found. Santokh Singh and Sawarn Kumar (hereinafter
referred to as "the appellants") were got medically examined and it was found that they had not
consumed any drug or alcohol.

10
11

Dinesh Borthakar v. State of Assam (2008) 3 SCC 6967


Ghurey Lal v. State of U.P. (2008) 10 SCC 450

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

Pleadings.....................................................................................................................................4
Pleadings.......................................................
During the investigation, no witness came forward to give an eye witness account as to how the
weapon was snatched from Sanjay and how he was shot with the same weapon.
It is also submitted that the prosecution had miserably failed to collect any material evidence
from the scene of the crime. Rather, they have tried to help the prosecution by literally shifting
the body of the deceased. Even the prosecution witnesses themselves, have said that the deceased
was sitting on the table with the head on the table. However, according to the police, the body
was lying on the floor and the pistol was lying some distance away. These two statements are in
themselves contradictory.
Another golden thread which runs through the web of the administration of justice in criminal
cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the
guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused
should be adopted. This principle has a special relevance in cases wherein the guilt of the
accused is sought to be established by circumstantial evidence. Rule has accordingly been laid
down that unless the evidence adduced in the case is consistent only with the hypothesis of the
guilt of the accused and is inconsistent with that of his innocence, the court should refrain from
recording a finding of the guilt of the accused. It is also an accepted rule that in case the court
entertains reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the accused, the accused must have the benefit
of that doubt.12
(D) No reliance can be made on the Extra Judicial Confession.
It appears that extra judicial confession was made by Jagsher Singh @ Bhola and Gurdev Singh
before one Vipin Kumar son of Mulakh Raj, resident of Ram Tirath Road, Amritsar to the effect
that they had killed Sanjay Kumar.

Under the Indian Evidence Act, the admissibility of

confessions is regulated by several provisions.13 The prosecutions ability to use confessions is


severely limited. S. 2414 adopts the English Rule that a confession is inadmissible if induced by
fear of prejudice or hope of advantage held out by a person in authority. S.25 states broadly that
no confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against a person accused of any
offence. S.26 further provides that all confessions made in custody of a police officer are
12

Burden of Proof In Criminal Cases and the Supreme Court- New Trends (2003) 8 SCC (Jour) 49
S.14 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
14
Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
13

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

Pleadings.....................................................................................................................................5
Pleadings.......................................................
inadmissible unless made in the immediate presence in a Magistrate. There is an exception in
S.27, not material for our purpose.
Torture is such a terrible thing that when a person is under torture he will confess to almost to
any crime. Even Joan of Arc confessed to be a witch under torture. Hence, where the prosecution
case mainly rests on the confessional statement made to the police by the alleged accused, in the
absence of corroborative material, the courts must be hesitant before they accept such extrajudicial confessional statements.15 In State of A.P. v. S. Swarnalatha 16 Extra-judicial confessions
were found to be doubtful. The view taken by the High Court acquitting the respondents accused
being a plausible one, the Supreme Court refused to interfere.
Hence a decision cannot be made relying on the extra judicial confession.
(E) The case relies heavily on circumstantial evidence.
In the immediate case there are no eye witnesses. If a case depends upon circumstantial evidence
and, as such as, per the settled law, every circumstance would have to be proved beyond
reasonable doubt and further the chain of circumstances should be so complete and perfect that
the only inference of the guilt of the accused should emanate therefrom. 17
The circumstantial evidence must be such also as to lead to reasonable evidence of guilt.18
A wife met her death in the house itself at a time when only her husband and minor children
were present. The Court said in such a case the husband has to prove as to how his wife died.19
Here also the accused need to prove that how the deceased died, they have done so. He shot
himself in the head and killed himself.
The conviction is not sustainable on circumstantial evidence. 20 An acquittal because last seen
together also does not work.21 Hence it cannot be concluded from such circumstantial evidence
that the accused committed murder of the deceased.

15

Arup Bhuyan v. State of Assam Criminal Appeal No(s). 889 of 2007.


(2009) 8 SCC 383 : (2009) 3 SCC Cri 873
17
Ramesh v. State of Rajasthan Criminal Appeal No. 1235 of 2006
18
Tukaram v.State of Maharashtra (1979) 4 SCC
19
Liyaqat v. State of Uttaranchal (2008) 16 SCC 148
20
Mohd. Azad v. State of W.B. AIR 2009 SC 1307
21
A.Yadav v. State of Karnataka AIR 2009 SC 613
16

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

Prayer for relief.............................................................................................................................20


relief...............................................

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

In light of the facts stated, arguments advanced and authorities cited, the Appellant, humbly
prays before the Honorable Court, to adjudge and declare that:
The conviction of the accused under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code is wrongful and to acquit
them.
The Court may also be pleased to pass any other order, which the court may deem fit in light of
justice equity and good conscience.

All of which is most humbly prayed

Counsel for Appellant

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

20