SOL-38

2ND NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2018

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF SIMALA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 374

OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973.

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. __/2015

SURENDER SHARMA…………………………..……............……….……. APPELLANT 1

VIJENDER SINGH…………………………………….….............…………. APPELLANT 2
NISHANT DIKSHIT……………………………………….............…………APPELLANT 3

VERSUS

STATE……………………………………………………...........……………RESPONDENT

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS-

 2ND NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2018

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INDEX OF ABBREVIATIONS……………………………………....…………….…...…3

2. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES.......................................................................................…...4-6

A. CASES……………………………………………………………...………......……4-5
B. STATUTES……………………………………………………………………....…….5
C. BOOKS…………………………………………………………………………...……5
D. LAW COMMISSION REPORTS………………………………………………...…...5
E. ARTICLES……………………………………………………………………...……..6
F. DATABASES…………………………………………………………..................…..6

3. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION……………………………………………………....7

4. STATEMENT OF FACTS…………………………………………………………..…..8-9

5. ISSUES RAISED……………………………………………………………………..….10

6. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS…………………………………………………..…11-13

7. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED………………………........................................……..14-26

ISSUE I. WHETHER THE APPEAL IN HIGH COURT IS MAINTAINABLE IN

THE EYES OF LAW OR NOT.

……………………………………………………………………………………………....14

1.1. Whether the Court has established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable
doubt………………………………………………………….................……………….14-15

1.2. Whether proper re-assessment of the evidence is necessary to arrive at the conclusion of
guilt of the accused…………………….................................................................................16

ISSUE II. WHETHER SURENDER SHARMA, VIJENDER SINGH AND NISHANT

DIKSHIT HAVE BEEN RIGHTLY IMPLICATED FOR THE MURDER OF
YUGAL…………………………………………….............................................................17

2.1. Whether the accused conspired to commit kidnapping with

ransom……………………………………………………………………………………17-18

1 -MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS-

 2ND NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2018

2.2. Whether the accused committed the offence of kidnapping with

ransom……………………………....................................................................................18-19

2.3. Whether the accused subsequently murdered

Yugal……………………………………………………………………………………..20-22

ISSUE III. WHETHER SURENDER SHARMA HAS BEEN RIGHTLY PROSECUTED

AND CONVICTED FOR THE MURDER OF YUGAL………………….……………23-24

ISSUE IV. WHETHER THE PRESENT CASE FALLS WITHIN THE PARAMETERS OF
RAREST OF THE RARE CASE…………………………………………….….………24-27

8. PRAYER…………………………………………………………………..……….…….28

2 -MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS-

 2ND NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2018

INDEX OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVIATION FULL FORM

A.I.R. All India Reporter
S. Section
Cl. Clause
IPC Indian Penal Code
CrPC The Code of Criminal Procedure
SCC Supreme Court Cases
Anr. Another
Del Delhi
v. Versus
Nag Nagpur
SC Supreme Court
HC High Court
Cr L.J. Criminal Law Journal
& And
Ed. Edition
I.L.R. Indian Law Report
No. Number
Ors. Others
Pg. Page
Raj Rajasthan
UOI Union of India
U.P. Uttar Pradesh
M.P. Madhya Pradesh
T.N. Tamil Nadu
C.B.I. Central Bureau of Investigation

3 -MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS-

 2ND NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2018

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

A. CASES

V. Chacko alias Kunju v. State of Kerala, (2001) 9 SCC 277 ................................................. 19

Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 89 ................................................................. 25

Baldev Singh v. State of Punjab, (2009) 6 SCC 56 ........................................................... 15, 18

Esher Singh v. State of A.P., 2004 (11) SCC 58 ..................................................................... 18

Ishwari Prasad v. Mohammad Isa, AIR 1963 SC 1748 ........................................................... 20

Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab, (AIR 1983 SC 957 ............................................................. 26

Malkiat Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab, (1991) 4 SCC 341................................................ 26

Mulraj v. Murti Raghunathji, AIR 1967 SC 1386 ................................................................... 15

Navaneethakrishnan v. The State by Inspector of Police,2018 SCC OnLine SC 37 ............... 19

Palvinder Kaur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1952 SC 35 ............................................................... 16

Ram Chandra v. State of U.P AIR 1957 SC 381 ..................................................................... 24

Ram Jattan and Others v. State of U.P., AIR 1994 SC 1130 ................................................... 23

Santa Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1956 SC 526 .................................................................. 26

Santosh Kumar Shantibhushan Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 6 SCC 498 .............. 26

Sashi Kumar v. Subodh Kumar, AIR 1964 SC 529 ................................................................. 17

Sayed Darain Ahsan v. State of West Bengal, (2012) 4 SCC 352........................................... 22

State of M.P. v. Lattora, (2003) 11 SCC 761........................................................................... 22

State of M.P. v. Sheetla Sahai, (2009) 8 SCC 617................................................................... 18

State of Maharashtra v. Sindhi, (1975) 1 SCC 647.................................................................. 27

State through Superintendent of Police, CBI/SIT v. Nalini and Others, (1999) 5 SCC 253 ... 16

Subramanian Swamy v. A. Raja, (2012) 9 SCC 257 ............................................................... 18

4 -MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS-

 2ND NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2018

Sudhir Shantilal Mehta v. CBI, (2009) 8 SCC 1................................................................ 15, 18

Lehna v. State of Haryana, (2002) 3 SCC 76………………………………………………...24

Panchhi and Ors. v. State of U.P., (1998) 7 SCC 177………………………………………..24

B. STATUTES

C. BOOKS
1. Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code (34th Ed. 2014)
2. Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The Code of Criminal Procedure, (20th Ed. 2011)
3. [Link] Gaur, Criminal Law: Cases and Materials, (5th Ed. 2008)
4. KD Gaur, A Textbook on the Indian Penal Code, (6th Ed. 2016)
5. R.V. Kelkar, Code of Criminal Procedure, (5th Ed. 2008)
6. S.N Misra, Code of Criminal Procedure, (2oth Ed. 2016)
7. Batik Lal, The Law of Evidence, (21st Ed. 2014)

D. LAW COMMISSION REPORTS

1. 42 th Law Commission Report, June, 1971
2. 262nd Law Commission Report, August, 2015
3. 35th Law Commission Report, 1967

5 -MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS-

 2ND NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2018

E. ARTICLES AND COMMENTARIES

1. AutriSaha and Pritika Rai Advani, The Death Penalty: A new Perspective in Light of
Santosh Bariyar Case, (2009) 2 NUJS L Rev 669.
2. KI Vibhute, Choice Between ‘Death’ and ‘Life’ for Convicts: Supreme Court of India’s
Vacillation sans norms, 59 JILI (2017) 221.
3. Dr. Jyoti Rattan, Death Penalty under Criminal Justice System: International and
National Scenario with special reference to India, (2013) 2 GNLU L. Rev. (April) 31.
4. Michael Hor, Co-accused Confessions: The Third Anniversary, (1996) 8 SAcLJ 323.
5. Siddiqui SaimaJarrarAlam, Analysis of Pragmatic Measures to End Death Penalty in
India, (2013) 2 GNLU L. Rev. (April) 53.

F. ONLINE DATABASES
1. Manupatra ([Link])
2. SCC Online ([Link])
3. Lexis Nexis ([Link])

B. STATUTES

X BKJBBC

[Link]

6 -MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS-

 2ND NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2018

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Hon’ble High Court of Simala has the jurisdiction to hear the matter under Section 374 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The provision under which the appellants have approached the Hon’ble Court is read herein
under as:-

S. 374. Appeals from convictions:-

(1) Any person convicted on a trial held by a High Court in its extraordinary original criminal
jurisdiction may appeal to the Supreme Court.

(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.

(3) Save as otherwise provided in sub- section (2), any person, -

(a) convicted on a trial held by a Metropolitan Magistrate or Assistant Sessions Judge

or Magistrate of the first class, or of the second class, or

(b) sentenced under section 325, or

(c) in respect of whom an order has been made or a sentence has been passed under
section 360 by any Magistrate, may appeal to the Court of Session.

7 -MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS-

 2ND NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2018

STATEMENT OF FACTS

BACKGROUND

1. Yugal, the 4-year old son of Mr. Ram Pratap Gupta and Mrs. Shyama Gupta lives at
Panthapuri, Simala. They own a big showroom in the Panthapuri main market.
2. 14th June, 2014: Yugal was kidnapped from the busy Panthapuri main market, and on
the same day, Mr. Gupta filed a FIR of the missing kid at Sadar Police Station.
3. 16th June, 2014: A criminal case was registered with respect to the incident.
4. 27th June, 2014: A letter seeking a ransom of Rs. 3.6 Cr. was received by Mr. Gupta.
5. 4th July 2014: A second ransom letter was received through post, in which the
kidnappers even threatened to kill Yugal. Information was given to the IO.
6. The last ransom call was received for Rs. 10 Cr., with a threat to kill Yugal, as well as
his two daughters.
INVESTIGATION
7. The police started the investigation but were unable to grab the offender. The case was
later on transferred to the State CID.
8. The agency collected the specimen handwriting of suspects and ransom letters and sent
the same to forensic lab. Many persons were taken as witnesses on the basis of mobile
phone locations.
9. Jan 29th, 2015: Some municipal employees found a skeleton while cleaning the tank
after a jaundice outbreak in the city. On conducting the DNA test, remains matched
with that of Yugal’s parents.

PRESENT CASE

10. The appellants, Surender Sharma, Vijender Singh and Nishant Dikshit, were arrested
under S.457 and S.380 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 on suspicion.
11. The State CID recovered half-written letters from the rented house of one of the
accused Surender Sharma.
12. Surender Sharma was a neighbour to the victim’s family and was also in constant touch
with Yugal’s family members.
13. 20th June, 2014: Surender Sharma was at his brother’s wedding.
14. Post-mortem report confirmed that the skeleton was of Yugal.

8 -MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS-

 2ND NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2018

15. Post-mortem report revealed that he was thrown alive into the water tank, with his body
tied to a big stone and he died of drowning.
PROSECUTION
16. Police filed a challan in the court of the learned CJM of Simala, who found a prima
facie case for commission of offence, punishable under 364A read with 120B, 347 read
with 120B, 302 read with 120B, 201 and 202 read with 120B, of the IPC.
17. Out of the 3 accused, Surender Sharma confessed his guilt that they had thrown Yugal,
thinking him to be dead, in the water tank.
18. The investigation revealed that Yugal was tortured by forcing him to drink alcohol and
beaten severely.
19. The case was transferred to the Hon’ble District and Sessions Judge for want of
jurisdiction.
20. On examining the witnesses, phone details, handwriting specimen and other evidences,
all three accused were prosecuted for the murder of Yugal.
21. The Hon’ble District and Sessions Court convicted the three accused for kidnapping
with ransom and murdering Yugal and punished them with capital punishment, as the
present case falls in the definition of rarest of rare case.

9 -MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS-

 2ND NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2018

ISSUES PRESENTED

ISSUE I: WHETHER THE APPEAL IS MAINTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW

OR NOT.

ISSUE II: WHETHER SURENDER SHARMA, VIJENDER SINGH AND NISHANT

DIKSHIT HAVE BEEN RIGHTLY IMPLICATED FOR THE MURDER OF YUGAL.

ISSUE III: WHETHER SURENDER SHARMA HAS BEEN RIGHTLY

PROSECUTED AND CONVICTED FOR THE MURDER OF YUGAL.

ISSUE IV: WHETHER THE AFORESAID CASE FALLS WITHIN THE

PARAMETERS OF RAREST OF THE RARE CASE.

10 -MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS-

 2ND NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2018

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE I: WHETHER THE APPEAL IS MAINTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW

OR NOT.

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble High Court that the appellants have filed a criminal
appeal against the judgment of the Hon’bleDistrict and Sessions court, convicting the
appellants-accused under S. 364A and S.302 of the IPC, and sentencing them to Capital
Punishment. It is submitted before the High Court that the appeal filed by the appellants is
maintainable vide section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, [Link] Hon’ble District
and Sessions Judge has erred in his judgment, on the ground of failure to scrutinise evidentiary
issues and the flawed contentions of the Prosecution. The evidence produced on record and the
arguments advanced by the Prosecution on the basis of the evidence, have not established the
guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Further, the evidence has not been properly
examined and interpreted, thus leading to a flawed conclusion as to the guilt of the [Link] is
the sacrosanct duty of the Appellate Court, while sitting in appeal against the judgment of the
Sessions court, to be satisfied that the guilt of the accused has been established beyond all
reasonable doubt after proper re-assessment and re-scrutiny of the material on record under
section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Hence, the appeal is maintainable.

ISSUE II: WHETHER SURENDER SHARMA, VIJENDER SINGH AND NISHANT

DIKSHIT HAVE BEEN RIGHTLY IMPLICATED FOR THE MURDER OF YUGAL.

It is contended before the Hon’ble High Court of Simala, that Surender Sharma, Vijender
Singh and Nishant Dikshit have been wrongly implicated for the murder of Yugal and the
judgment of the Hon’ble District and Sessions Court must be set aside since the accused are not
guilty of the offence of murder under section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, [Link], the
evidence relied on to prove the charge of criminal conspiracy and kidnapping with ransom
against the accused suffers from numerous anomalies. The communication exchanged amongst
the accused through the phone calls cannot be conclusive of an agreement to commit an

11 -MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS-

 2ND NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2018

offence, neither can the testimony of witnesses with respect to the kidnapping be relied upon,
since they may be subject to personal basis and human error, on account of the kidnapping
taking place in a busy market area. Secondly, the opinion of the forensic lab after the
examination of handwriting specimen cannot be conclusive of the offence of sending ransom
letters since it has been several times, held be the Supreme Court, that such handwriting
specimen cannot form the basis of conviction. Thirdly, in order to prove that the accused
murdered the victim after the kidnapping, the prosecution relied on the confession by Surender
Sharma and the presumption that since the victim was in the custody of the accused, it is they
who murdered him. The counsel would like to bring to the Court’s notice that the confession of
the said accused merely revealed his possession of the body of the deceased, and the act of
throwing his body into the water tank “thinking him to be dead”. The presumption that the
victim has been murdered by the accused could only have held true if the murder had occurred,
soon after kidnapping, as has been established by judicial precedents. He nowhere confessed to
have murdered the victim, or of having inflicted any bodily injury on him. It cannot be said that
the accused had the intention of causing death, or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death,
as the circumstantial evidence is too weak to lead to such a conclusion. Assuming too, that the
accused inflicted any bodily injury on the accused, and administered him alcohol, the
investigation has failed to reveal, the severity of such injury, and if it was sufficient, in the
ordinary course of nature, to cause death. Therefore, the Prosecution has failed to prove beyond
reasonable doubt that it is the accused who murdered the victim.

ISSUE III: WHETHER SURENDER SHARMA HAS BEEN RIGHTLY

PROSECUTED AND CONVICTED FOR THE MURDER OF YUGAL.

It is contended before the Hon’ble High Court of Simala, that to constitute an offence of
murder,mensrea i.e. guilty mind should be established beyond reasonable doubt and in
accordance with Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act, any part of a confessional statement
made should not be misinterpreted to establish the guilt of the accused. In the present case,
Surender Sharma confessed only to the throwing of the victim’s body into the tank under the
impression that “he was already dead”, and did not confess that he murdered Yugal. Also, the
circumstantial evidence furnished does not exclusively lead to the conclusion that Surender
Sharma was part of the conspiracy or kidnapping with ransom, or that he murdered Yugal with

12 -MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS-

 2ND NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2018

the co-accused. Therefore, he has been wrongly prosecuted and convicted for the offence of
murder.

ISSUE IV: WHETHER THE AFORESAID CASE FALLS WITHIN THE

PARAMETERS OF RAREST OF THE RARE CASE.

It is humbly contented before the Hon’ble High Court of Simala to set aside the judgment of the
Sessions Court, classifying the present case under the ambit of “Rarest of the rare”. Section
354(3) and section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure require that a full-fledged
bifurcated hearing and recording of "special reasons" be held if the Court inclines to award
death penalty, which has been omitted by the Sessions Court. Secondly, it has been held by the
SC that where the Court relies mostly on circumstantial to convict the accused, death penalty
may not be awarded. In the present case, the circumstantial evidence has not established
beyond reasonable doubt that it is the accused who tortured and beat the victim. Also, the SC
has established that life imprisonment is the rule and death penalty is an exception, which may
only be awarded in the gravest cases of extreme culpability. Where there it is altogether
impossible, to rehabilitate a convict, only then may death penalty be awarded. However, such a
scenario does not exist in the present case. Therefore, the death penalty awarded to them on
account of the present case falling in the ambit of rarest of rare, be set aside.

13 -MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS-

 2ND NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2018

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE I: WHETHER THE APPEAL IS MAINTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW

OR NOT.

It is humbly contended before the Hon’ble Court that the appeal of the appellants-accused is
maintainable, vide S. 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, since there has been grave
injustice to the appellants, on account of their conviction by the Hon’ble District and Sessions
Court, which is based on insufficient grounds. The evidence produced on record, has not
proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and has been examined and
interpreted incorrectly. Further, there have been certain procedural anomalies by the Court
before awarding the death penalty. Therefore, the appeal of the accused must be maintained.

1.1. Whether the Court has established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable
doubt.

A.1 The guilt of the accused has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt by the
evidence produced and contentions made by the Prosecution.
1In the present case, the burden is on the respondent to prove “beyond reasonable doubt” that it
is in fact, the accused who kidnapped the victim for ransom and subsequently, murdered him.
The Hon’ble District and Sessions judge has placed reliance on several evidences produced by
the Prosecution, to bring about the appellant’s conviction. However, it is contended by the
appellants that the Hon’ble Court has erred in its judgment, since the evidences do not prove,
beyond reasonable doubt, that it is indeed the accused who committed the offences under
Sections 364A and 302 of the IPC1.

2. Firstly, in order to prove that the accused had conspired to kidnap the victim for ransom,
under S.120 B of the IPC2, the Court placed reliance on the various phone calls made amongst
the accused, prior to the kidnapping of the victim. There is no certainty as to what were the
exact words exchanged amongst them, and if they were sufficient to constitute a concluded
agreement to commit an offence.

1
The Indian Penal Code, 1860, S. 364A; S. 302.
2
The Indian Penal Code, 1860, S. 120B.

14 -MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS-

 2ND NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2018

[Link] was held in the case of Sudhir Shantilal Mehta v. CBI3, the mere transmission of thoughts
or even any discussion held among the accused with respect to the offence, cannot be held to be
conclusive of the guilt of the accused. In the present case, it is unclear whether the discussions
held over the phone calls were in the form of an agreement and amount to criminal conspiracy.
Therefore, it cannot be deduced, “beyond reasonable doubt” that the accused conspired to
kidnap the victim for ransom.

4. Secondly, to prove that the accused committed kidnapping with ransom, under S. 364A of
the IPC, the Court placed reliance on the statements of witnesses and the ransom letters
recovered from the house of one of the accused, Surender Sharma. However, the statements of
such witnesses cannot be relied upon, since the kidnapping took place in a busy market area,
where, it is highly unlikely that any on-looker could have specifically remembered the face and
description of the accused, and even if any person thereof would have noticed any such
incident, given the crowdedness of the market, it is possible that they might have erred in their
judgment. Further, because certain half-written letters were recovered from the house of
Surender Sharma, and on account of him being a neighbour to the victim, it cannot be definitely
concluded that it is the accused, at the behest of whom such letters and the ransom call was
made. It has been reiterated by the Supreme Court, in the case of Mulraj v. MurtiRaghunathji4,
that the examination of handwriting specimen and the opinion of the handwriting
expert/forensic lab cannot be taken to be conclusive of the guilt of the accused, since it is only
an opinion.

5. Thirdly, for proving the charge of murder against the accused, under S.302 of the IPC, the
Court placed reliance on the confessional statement of the accused and certain circumstantial
evidence, which cannot be said to have established the culpability of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt. The aforesaid confessional statement merely related to the act of throwing
the body of the victim into the water tank and not of murdering the victim, or even of inflicting
any bodily injury on him, as is likely to result in his death, or that was sufficient, in the ordinary
course of nature to result in death. The accused, assuming the victim to be dead, disposed of his
body in the water tank. Therefore, the prosecution could not have relied upon such a mixed-up
confessional statement to point to the guilt of the accused.5

3
Sudhir Shantilal Mehta v. CBI, (2009) 8 SCC 1; Baldev Singh v. State of Punjab, (2009) 6 SCC 564.
4
Mulraj v. MurtiRaghunathji, AIR 1967 SC 1386.
5
Palvinder Kaur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1952 SC 354.

15 -MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS-

 2ND NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2018

6. Further, the presumption by the Court that since the victim was in the custody of the accused
before his death, it is the accused who murdered the victim, is erroneous since such a
presumption can only be had when the victim is murdered “soon after” the kidnapping. In the
present case, since it is not certain when exactly the victim was murdered, it cannot be
presumed that the appellants are responsible for the murder of the victim.

1.2 Whether proper-reassessment of the evidence is necessary to arrive at the conclusion

of guilt of the accused.

A.2 The evidence produced on record has not been properly interpreted, examined and
scrutinized.
7. It is humbly contended before the Hon’ble Court that the evidences produced by the
prosecution need to be re-examined to establish their credibility and reliability, since they do
not prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and have been subject to
misinterpretation.

8. Firstly, the phone calls taken as evidence to prove the guilt of the accused under criminal
conspiracy and ransom, are unclear as to what exactly was spoken or communicated between
the accused, and if that communication itself is conclusive of their intention to commit
conspiracy. In the case of State through Superintendent of Police, CBI/SIT v. Nalini and
Others6 , it has been stated that mere exchange of wishes among the accused of committing an
offence, do not constitute conspiracy, such evidence cannot be relied upon to establish the guilt
of the accused under criminal conspiracy.

9. Secondly, the testimony of witnesses taken as evidence to prove that it is the accused who
kidnapped the victim, cannot be relied upon, because such witnesses may have erred in their
recognition of the accused, for it being highly improbable for them to have specifically
remembered the accused, or the details of the incident, in a main market area.

10. Thirdly, the handwriting specimen, and ransom letters, taken as evidence to prove the guilt
of the accused under S.364A of IPC is subject to [Link] the case of Sashi Kumar
v. Subodh Kumar7, it was held that the opinion of a handwriting expert/forensic lab with

6
State through Superintendent of Police, CBI/SIT v. Nalini and Others, (1999) 5 SCC 253.
7
Sashi Kumar v. Subodh Kumar, AIR 1964 SC 529.

16 -MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS-

 2ND NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2018

respect to the examination of handwriting specimen cannot be conclusive of the guilt of the
accused.

11. Fourthly, the confessional statement of Surender Sharma, which was relied upon to prove
the charge of murder, has also been wrongly interpreted since the confession was merely about
the throwing of the victim’s body into the water, and not of having killed the victim.

12. In addition to the above-mentioned evidences, the Prosecution also relied upon other
circumstantial evidence to prove the guilt of the accused, but such evidences are weak and are
insufficient to conclude that it is indeed the accused who murdered the victim. Therefore, in
order to properly establish justice in the present case, it is humbly contended by the appellants
that it is necessary that the evidence produced on record be re-examined and the appeal be
maintained.

ISSUE II. WHETHER SURENDER SHARMA, VIJENDER SINGH AND NISHANT

DIKSHIT HAVE BEEN RIGHTLY IMPLICATED FOR THE MURDER OF YUGAL.

2.1 Whether the accused conspired to commit kidnapping with ransom.

A.3. The ingredients necessary to complete a criminalconspiracy are not satisfied.

13. It is humbly contended before the Hon’ble Court that the charge of criminal conspiracy
against the appellants-accused, under Section 120-B of the IPC, is erroneous and has not been
proved beyond reasonable doubt. The ingredients necessary to complete the offence of
criminal conspiracy, cannot be inferred from the acts of the accused and therefore, their
conviction under Section 364A read with 120B, must be set aside and the appeal allowed.

14. Section 120 A of the IPC reads, “When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be
done, and illegal act, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy.” For the offence
of conspiracy, some kind of “physical manifestation of agreement” is required to be
established.8In the case of Sudhir Shantilal Mehta v. CBI9, it was held that the evidence as to
the transmission of thoughts sharing the unlawful act is not sufficient. Mere knowledge or even
discussion of the plan is also not sufficient. It would not be enough for the offence of

8
Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code, 1860, (34 th Ed. 2014).
9
Sudhir Shantilal Mehta v. CBI, (2009) 8 SCC 1; Baldev Singh v. State of Punjab, (2009) 6 SCC 564.

17 -MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS-

 2ND NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2018

conspiracy when the accused merely entertained a wish, howsoever, horrendous it may be, that
offence be committed.10

Also, in the case of State of M.P. v. SheetlaSahai11, it was held that criminal thought must be
put into action in the shape of a concrete agreement to commit an offence.

15. In the present case, it is not clear what words were exchanged among the accused through
the various phone calls made. Whether the discussions made over the phone calls could be said
to constitute a concluded agreement to commit the offence of kidnapping with ransom, or
whether they were mere transmission of thoughts, has not been proved beyond reasonable
doubt. It appears that the prosecution has based its contention, more on suspicion, than on legal
proof.

16. In the case of Subramanian Swamy v. A. Raja12, it was held that suspicion, however strong,
cannot take the place of legal proof, and discussions held between the accused, whatever matter
that may relate to, cannot lead to the apprehension that they committed criminal conspiracy. A
few bits here and a few bits there on which the prosecution relies cannot be held to be adequate
for connecting the accused with the commission of criminal conspiracy. It must be shown by
the prosecution that all means adopted and illegal acts done were in furtherance of the object of
conspiracy hatched.13

It has, therefore, not been proved by the Prosecution that the acts or conduct of the accused
were clear enough to infer their occurrence as to the common design and execution of a
conspiracy.

17. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid laws and their application to the facts of the instant case,
it is contended before the Hon’ble Court that the appellants-accused have been wrongly
implicated for the offence of criminal conspiracy, and their appeal against the judgment of the
Hon’ble District and Sessions Court, be entertained.

2.2. Whether the accused committed the offence of kidnapping with ransom.
A.4. The testimony of witnesses and examination of handwriting specimen is insufficient
to prove the guilt of the accused.

10
State through Superintendent of Police, CBI/SIT v. Nalini and Others, (1999) 5 SCC 253.
11
State of M.P. v. SheetlaSahai, (2009) 8 SCC 617.
12
Subramanian Swamy v. A. Raja, (2012) 9 SCC 257.
13
Esher Singh v. State of A.P., 2004 (11) SCC 585.

18 -MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS-

 2ND NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2018

18. The appellants have been charged under Section 364 A of the IPC, which requires that in
addition to kidnapping, the kidnappers must have detained the victim, and threatened to cause
death or hurt to him, for payment of a ransom. It is humbly contended before the Hon’ble Court
that the appellants have not committed such an offence and have been wrongly implicated for
the same. Whether the evidence recovered against the accused can be relied upon to prove
beyond reasonable doubt that it is the accused who kidnapped the victim for ransom, needs to
be considered before deciding their culpability.

19. The Supreme Court, in Navaneethakrishnan v. The State by Inspector of Police14, held that
where the prosecution failed to prove all the necessary circumstances, which would constitute a
complete chain, without a snap and pointing to the hypothesis that except the accused, no one
had committed the offence, the conviction must be set aside. Also, the SC, in another case, K.V
Chacko alias Kunju v. State of Kerala15, stated that if the chain of circumstances is not as
complete as to singularly point to the guilt of the accused, and leaves no room for any
explanation other than the guilt of the accused, only then can the accused be convicted.

20. It is clear that Yugal was kidnapped from the busy Panthapuri market area, on 14th June,
2014. Busy signifies that the market must have been considerably crowded, for anyone to have
noticed the disappearance of a minor boy. It is unusual for the witnesses to have particularly
remembered the face or description of the kidnappers, and the details of the incident, amongst
such a crowd. Even if some on-looker would have noticed any such incident, it is highly
possible that they might have erred in their judgment. Since the circumstantial evidence, so
relied upon by the Prosecution, is vulnerable to misinterpretation and open to personal bias, it
cannot be relied upon to convict the accused.

21. With regard to the second part of the offence, which relates to demand for ransom, it has
been consistently established by the Supreme Court that the expert evidence of handwriting
could never be conclusive, because it is, after all, an opinion evidence.16

22. In the case Mulraj v. MurtiRaghunathji17, the SC reiterated that it would be risky to base
conviction solely on the evidence of handwriting expert and before acting upon such evidence,
the Court must always try to see if it is corroborated by either clear, direct or circumstantial

14
Navaneethakrishnan v. The State by Inspector of Police,2018 SCC OnLine SC 378.
15
K.V. Chacko alias Kunju v. State of Kerala, (2001) 9 SCC 277.
16
Ishwari Prasad v. Mohammad Isa, AIR 1963 SC 1748; Sashi Kumar v. Subodh Kumar, AIR 1964 SC 529.
17
Mulraj v. MurtiRaghunathji, AIR 1967 SC 1386.

19 -MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS-

 2ND NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2018

evidence. There is also a manner that must be followed, by which the handwriting on the
disputed letters ought to have been tested and examined by the handwriting expert, by taking
into consideration various factors like zoning, slant, connective form, etc, which is a very
elaborate process.

23. In the present case, it is not clear whether the ransom letters discovered from the house of
one of the accused, were in relation to the present case, or even if they were proved, by the
forensic lab, beyond reasonable doubt, after conducting all testing, to be in the handwriting of
the accused. Even if the handwriting specimen taken from the accused, matched with that of the
ransom letters, with reference to the aforementioned cases, it would not be safe to conclude that
it is the accused, at the behest of whom, ransom was demanded. It is quite possible that such
letters might have been implanted in the house of the accused, to falsely implicate him, or even
that their handwriting was impersonated, in an expert manner, by some other person.

24. Therefore, considering that the circumstantial evidence furnished by the prosecution is
weak and does not prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the appeal should
be maintained and the appellants accused be acquitted for the charge of kidnapping with
ransom.

2.3. Whether the accused subsequently murdered Yugal.

26. It is humbly contended before the Hon’ble Court that the appellants-accused are not guilty
of the offence of murder under Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 18 (hereinafter
referred to as ‘IPC’) and are not liable to be punished for the same under Section 302 of the IPC
as from the circumstantial evidence produced by the Prosecution, it has not been proved
beyond reasonable doubt that it is the accused who murdered the victim.

27. Section 300 of the IPC defines murder as: “Except in the cases hereinafter excepted,
culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with

1) 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

18
The Indian Penal Code, 1860, S. 300.

20 -MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS-

 2ND NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2018

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.”

A.5. Confessional statement of the accused has been wrongly interpreted.

28. Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act, 187219 further provides, “When more persons than
one is being tried jointly for the same offence, and a confession made by any one of such
persons is proved, the Court may take into consideration such confession as against such other
person as well as against the person who makes such confession.”

29. However, the Supreme Court, in the case of Palvinder Kaur v. State of Punjab20, has
clarified that for any admission to be a confession; the person in such statement must either
admit the guilt in terms or admit substantially all the facts which constitute the offence. The
Court further stated that that a mixed-up statement which contains some confessional statement
will still lead to the acquittal of the accused, and hence, isn’t a confession.

30. In the present case, the confession made by one of the accused, as to the accused’s act of
throwing the victim’s body into the water tank, “thinking him to be dead” must be carefully
analysed. Here, he merely confessed to the act of throwing the body into the water tank, and not
of murdering, or even of inflicting any bodily injury on the body of the victim. It does not
reflect the intention of the accused, of either causing the death of the accused, or of inflicting
any bodily injury on him, which would likely result in his death. It is highly possible that since
the accused was acquainted with the victim, and was emotionally attached to him, on coming
into the possession of the body of the deceased, he, with the other accused, may have disposed
of his body, in fear of being implicated for his murder, by virtue of their connection to him.

31. Further, it has been established that the victim died of drowning and not of the bodily injury
inflicted. The accused threw the body into the water tank, not to drown him, but under the
belief that he was already dead. Hence, it cannot be inferred, that their intention all along was to
cause the death of the victim. In the absence of any substantial evidence or witness to directly
testify that it is the accused who, in fact, murdered the victim, it cannot be, on the basis of the
mere confession, and on suspicion, be concluded that the accused were behind his murder.

19
Indian Evidence Act, 1872, S.30.
20
Palvinder Kaur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1952 SC 354.

21 -MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS-

 2ND NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2018

32. In the case of Sayed Darain Ahsan v. State of West Bengal21, the Court held that where the
medical evidence does not go so far as to rule out all possibility of the ocular evidence being
true, the ocular evidence cannot be disbelieved. The investigation has revealed that the body of
the victim was tied to a stone, and subsequently disposed of into the water tank, but no such act
of tying his body to the stone has been revealed in the confessional statement by one of the
accused. Thus, there is a discrepancy between the medical evidence and confessional statement
presented. It cannot be inferred that the confessional statement is false, because it has not been
proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had committed the act of tying him to a stone,
in order to drown the body and destroy all evidence. Had such careful planning been done by
the accused, they could also have destroyed the ransom letters recovered from the house of
Surender Sharma, and misled the police.

33. The exact date of the murder has also not been established. It is only when the victim is
murdered “soon after” the kidnapping that the appellants-accused are presumed to have
murdered the victim.22 It is only the skeleton of the victim that was discovered on Jan 29th,
2015, a long time after the incident of kidnapping with ransom took place. Therefore, it cannot
be presumed that the appellants-accused were responsible for the murder of the accused. In
view of the above-mentioned anomalies and the fact that the culpability of the accused has not
been proved beyond reasonable doubt, it is humbly contended that the appellants be acquitted
of the charge of murder, under Section 302 of the IPC.

A.6. Arguendo to disprove the guilt of the accused.

34. Arguendo that the accused inflicted bodily injury on the victim, it can still not be
established that such bodily injury was likely to result in death, or that it was sufficient, in the
ordinary course of nature, to cause the death of the victim.

21
Sayed Darain Ahsan v. State of West Bengal, (2012) 4 SCC 352;
Dayal Singh v. State of Uttaranchal, (2012) 8 SCC 263.
22
State of M.P. v. Lattora, (2003) 11 SCC 761.

22 -MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS-

 2ND NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2018

35. Section 300 of the IPC provides that culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the
death is caused is done with the intention of causing death. An essential condition to this
section is that the injury caused should be the eventual cause of death and there should be no
intervening factors.

36. In the case of Ram Jattan v. State of U. P23 , where a number of persons attacked three
persons and caused multiples injuries on non-vital parts of their bodies and the injuries were
found to simple in nature, but one of them died the next day, it was held that the case did not fall
under the Section 300 of the IPC. It is necessary for the prosecution to firstly prove the nature
of the bodily injury alleged to be inflicted, how deep it penetrated and whether any vital organs
were affected or not.

37. Further, it must have been unerringly proved that the injury found to be present was the
injury that was intended to be inflicted, and it was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary
course of nature. In the present case, the investigation has only revealed that the victim was
beaten severely after having been administered alcohol. What “beating severely” signifies is a
matter of opinion, and it is not clear whether the beating was so severe that it would ultimately
result in the death of the victim.

ISSUE III. WHETHER SURENDER SHARMA HAS BEEN RIGHTLY PROSECUTED

AND CONVICTED FOR THE MURDER OF YUGAL.

A.7. There is no substantive evidence as to the said accused’s involvement.

38. It is humbly contended before the Hon’ble Court that the evidence produced by the
prosecution and their contentions on the basis of the same, has not established the guilt of the
said accused, Surender Sharma, beyond reasonable doubt, either for conspiracy and
kidnapping with ransom, or for murder of the victim.

39. The law is well settled on the fact that mere knowledge or discussion among the accused,
cannot lead to the implication of the accused for criminal conspiracy. 24 Therefore, since the
communication exchanged amongst the accused prior to the kidnapping of the victim is unclear

23
Ram Jattan and Others v. State of U.P., AIR 1994 SC 1130.
24
Sudhir Shantilal Mehta v. CBI, (2009) 8 SCC 1; Baldev Singh v. State of Punjab, (2009) 6 SCC 564.

23 -MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS-

 2ND NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2018

as to constitute an agreement for kidnapping with ransom, it would be unsafe to conclude that
Surender Sharma was part of a criminal conspiracy under S. 364A.

40. Secondly, as has already been proved in the previous issues, the testimony of witnesses as
to the kidnapping of the victim cannot be relied upon, since it is highly likely that amongst such
a crowd, they would have erred in their recognition of the said accused, or even that their
opinion may be subject to personal bias and error. Further, in the facts, it is only stated that
certain half-written letters were recovered from the house of Surender Sharma, without any
indication as to what their contents were. Assuming that they were ransom notes, it can still not
be concluded that it is the said accused at the behest of whom such letters were sent because
handwriting specimen and the opinion of a handwriting expert/forensic lab cannot solely lead
to the conviction of the accused.25

A.8. Confessional statement of Surender Sharma has been misinterpreted and examined
wrongly.

41. The contention of the Prosecution that the said accused, Surender Sharma, was part of the
criminal offence of murder under S. 300 of the IPC, is based on weak grounds, and cannot be
sustained, since the evidence leading to the same, has been misinterpreted and wrongly
examined.

42. Firstly, the confessional statement of the accused, under S. 30 of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872, was only about the accused’s presence at the place of murder and of his act of throwing
the victim’s body into the water tank. It nowhere stated that he had the intention to cause death
of the victim, or that he inflicted any bodily injury, that would result in his death. Taking such a
confessional statement as evidence of guilt of the accused for murder, is thus, very clearly
erroneous and thus, it cannot be proved by such a confession that the said accused also
committed the murder of Yugal with the co-accused.26

43. Secondly, the presumption that since the victim was in the custody of the accused before his
death, cannot lead to the deduction that it is the said accused who also murdered the victim.
Such a presumption only holds true when the victim is murdered soon after the kidnapping, and
where the circumstantial evidence points to the intention of the accused to cause death of the
victim. In the present case, neither such an intention has been established beyond reasonable

25
Ram Chandra v. State of U.P., AIR 1957 SC 381.
26
Palvinder Kaur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1952 SC 354.

24 -MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS-

 2ND NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2018

doubt, nor has the evidence examined is said to be sufficient to convict the accused. Hence, no
“Mens Rea” could be established.

44. Therefore, it is humbly contended that Surender Sharma be acquitted of the charges under
S. 364A and S.302 of the IPC.

ISSUE IV. WHETHER THE PRESENT CASE FALLS WITHIN THE PARAMETERS
OF RAREST OF THE RARE CASE.

A.9. The present case does not satisfy the parameters of a rarest of rare case.

45. It is humbly contended before the Hon’ble Court that since the guilt of the accused has not
been proved beyond reasonable doubt, by the evidence already produced, and because the
present case does not satisfy the parameters established to qualify as a Rarest of rare case, the
death penalty awarded to the appellants, be set aside, and their appeal be maintained.

46. In Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab27, the Supreme Court stated that death penalty could be
imposed, only in the gravest cases of extreme culpability. If a murder had been committed with
extreme brutality, only then would it classify as Rarest of rare. However, in the instant case,
there has been an error in examining the evidence furnished, and it has not been proved beyond
reasonable doubt that it is the accused who tortured and beat the victim, and caused his death.
Therefore, the accused must not be sentenced to death under Sections 364 A and 302 of the
IPC.

47. The landmark case of Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab 28 further established that life
imprisonment is the rule, and death sentence is an exception. Death sentence must be imposed
only when life imprisonment appears to be an altogether inadequate punishment, having regard
to the relevant circumstances of the crime and provided and only provided, the option to
impose life imprisonment cannot be conscientiously exercised, having regard to the nature and
circumstances of the crime.

48. Here, neither have the circumstances under which the victim died been fully established,
nor is it evident from the present circumstances that it is altogether inadequate to sentence the

27
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 898; Panchhi and Ors. v. State of U.P., (1998) 7 SCC 177.
28
Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1983 SC 957; Lehna v. State of Haryana, (2002) 3 SCC 76.

25 -MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS-

 2ND NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2018

accused to any punishment of a lesser degree. It is not a singular case of kidnapping with
ransom, and murder, neither is the manner in which the crime is alleged to have been
committed, so dastardly, diabolical and revolting, that it would warrant the award of death
penalty. Therefore, it is contended that it would be wrongful to classify the present case as
rarest of rare, and in view of the same, the death penalty awarded to the appellants, be set aside.

A.10. There has been an omission to conduct a hearing for special reasons under S.
235(2) and 354(3) of the CrPC.

49. The SC held in the case of Santosh Kumar ShantibhushanBariyar v. State of Maharashtra29
that under section 235(2) and 354 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code30, there is a mandate as to
a full-fledged bifurcated hearing and recording of "special reasons" if the court inclines to
award death penalty. In the specific backdrop of sentencing in capital punishment, and that the
matter attracts constitutional prescription in full force, it is incumbent on the sentencing court
to oversee comprehensive compliance to both the provisions.31

49. Quality of evidence adduced is also a relevant factor. For instance, extent of reliance on
circumstantial evidence is a factor in deciding the sentence to be declared. The probability that
the accused can be reformed and rehabilitated also needs to be considered. While imposing any
sentence on the accused the court must also keep in mind the doctrine of rehabilitation. This,
considering Section 354(3) of the Code, is especially so in the cases where the court is to
determine whether the case at hand falls within the rarest of the rare case. Since, it the
Hon’ble District and Sessions Court did not hold any such hearing, for special reasons, in
conformity with the aforesaid provisions, it can be deduced that there has been a procedural
error, in sentencing the accused.

50. In State of Maharashtra v. Sindhi32, this Court reiterated, with emphasis, that while dealing
with a reference for confirmation of a sentence of death, the High Court must consider the
proceedings in all their aspects, reappraise, reassess and reconsider the entire facts and law and,
if necessary, after taking additional evidence, come to its own conclusions on the material on
record in regard to the conviction of the accused (and the sentence) independently of the view
expressed by the Sessions Judge.

29
Santosh Kumar ShantibhushanBariyar v. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 6 SCC 498.
30
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, S. 235(2); Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, S. 354(3).
31
Santa Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1956 SC 526; Malkiat Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab, (1991) 4 SCC 341.
32
State of Maharashtra v. Sindhi, (1975) 1 SCC 647.

26 -MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS-

 2ND NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2018

51. Therefore, it is contended that the Hon’ble High Court, re-examine the entire facts and law
of the case, and reassess the evidence available, before categorizing the present case under the
umbrella term of “rarest of the rare”.

27 -MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS-

 2ND NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2018

PRAYER

Wherefore, in light of the issues raised, authorities cited and arguments advanced, may this
Hon’ble Court be pleased to:

1. ALLOW the appeal.

2. SET ASIDE the conviction of the accused, by the Hon’ble District and Sessions Court of
Simala, under Section 302 and Section 364A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

AND/OR

Pass any other order, direction, relief that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the best
interests of justice, equity and conscience.

For this act of kindness, the Appellants shall duty bound, forever pray.

Place: S/d

Date: (Counsel on behalf of the appellant)

28 -MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS-

 2ND NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2018

Table of Contents

INDEX OF ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................................................. 3

[Link] ............................................................................................................................................... 6

B. STATUTES ........................................................................................................................................ 6

C. BOOKS ............................................................................................................................................. 5

D. LAW COMMISSION REPORTS.......................................................................................................... 5

E. ARTICLES AND COMMENTARIES ..................................................................................................... 6

F. ONLINE DATABASES ........................................................................................................................ 6

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ............................................................................................................ 7

STATEMENT OF FACTS ........................................................................................................................ 8

ISSUES PRESENTED............................................................................................................................ 10

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ............................................................................................................. 11

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED .................................................................................................................. 14

ISSUE I: WHETHER THE APPEAL IS MAINTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW OR NOT. .......................... 14

1.1. Whether the Court has established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. 14
1.2 Whether proper-reassessment of the evidence is necessary to arrive at the conclusion of
guilt of the accused. ...................................................................................................................... 16
ISSUE II. WHETHER SURENDER SHARMA, VIJENDER SINGH AND NISHANT DIKSHIT HAVE BEEN
RIGHTLY IMPLICATED FOR THE MURDER OF YUGAL. ....................................................................... 17

2.1 Whether the accused conspired to commit kidnapping with ransom. .................................. 17
2.2. Whether the accused committed the offence of kidnapping with ransom. ......................... 18
2.3. Whether the accused subsequently murdered Yugal. ........................................................... 20
ISSUE III. WHETHER SURENDER SHARMA HAS BEEN RIGHTLY PROSECUTED AND CONVICTED FOR
THE MURDER OF YUGAL. .................................................................................................................. 23

ISSUE IV. WHETHER THE PRESENT CASE FALLS WITHIN THE PARAMETERS OF RAREST OF THE RARE
CASE. ................................................................................................................................................. 25

PRAYER .............................................................................................................................................. 28

29 -MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS-

 2ND NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2018

30 -MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS-