KERALA LAW ACADEMY NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY

COMPETITON

ISSUE 1:

(Prosecution)

Whether the accused is liable under S. 103 of BNS?

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS:

It is most humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the accused are guilty for the
offence of Murder. In the present case, both the actus reus i.e., commission of the act and
mens rea i.e. guilty mind is present. The accused with the intention of killing through
administering poison through the food to the deceased, putting him in a serious condition
which caused death. All this along with the conduct of the accused and the dying declaration
of deceased proves that accused is guilty of alleged offence.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED:

It is most humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the accused are guilty for
committing the offence of murder under Section 103 of the BNS.

Section 103 of BNS prescribes the punishment for committing murder. In order to bring a
successful conviction under this charge, it is pertinent to refer to Section 103, BNS which
elucidates the essentials of murder. According to Section 103, BNS “A person is guilty of
murder if he intentionally causes the death of a person or causes such bodily injury as he
knows, is likely to cause death of that person or causes such bodily injury, which in the
ordinary course of nature results into death or commits an act so dangerous that it must, in
all probability cause death of that person”.

The prosecution humbly contends that both, the actus reus & the mens rea of the crime are
established in the instant matter
THAT MENS REA OF MURDER IS ESTABLISHED:

Mens rea is considered as guilty intention which is proved or inferred from the acts of the
accused. It is submitted that the intention to kill is established in light of clear-cut motive &
preparation of the accused.

In the case of Public Prosecutor v. Somasundaram, AIR 1959 Mad 323, it was held, it is
presumed that every sane person intends the result that his action normally produces and the
intention of the accused can be no other than to take the life of the victim & the offence
committed amounts to murder.

Moreover, the intention to kill is not always required in every case, mere knowledge that the
natural & probable consequences of an act would be death will suffice for a conviction under
Section 103 of the BNS.

In the case of Joginder Singh v State of HP, (1995) 1 Cr LJ 124, which held Mens rea is
considered as guilty intention, which is proved or inferred from the acts of the accused.

It is pertinent to note in the present case that the intention to kill is quite clear i.e., administer
of poison. The act of the accused persons that is administering the poison through the food
itself makes it clear the guilty mind behind the act.

While the deceased have gone for lunch on 02/07/2024 with Praseeda and where-after she
gave a health concoction which was bitter in taste and pungent in smell, that the deceased
consumed, which was bitter and having pungent smell. After consuming it he felt uneasiness
and then returned to his home at about 2:00 pm. After telling all this to his father, he became
unconscious was having severe uneasiness and Froth was started coming from his mouth.
After a short span of time he came in a serious condition which later caused his death.

THAT THE ACTUS REUS OF MURDER IS ESTABLISHED:

Poison is a known lethal substance, and it is reasonable to assume that Ramchandra had
knowledge of the fatal consequences of administering it. Ramchandra's deliberate act of
administering poison to Deepak through Praseeda demonstrates clear intent to cause death
and Praseeda’s act of passing administering of the poison to Deepak shows a clear intent to
cause death. This act meets the criteria for murder under Section 103 of BNS. Also, Praseeda,
knowingly or unknowingly, acted on the directions of Ramchandra to administer the poison
to Deepak acting as a intermediary so as to cause the murder.
This shows that the accused have pre-planned and have hidden the bottle of ‘Ecalux’ in order
to hide the evidence behind the newspapers. Ramchandra was also later identified by the
shopkeeper from where he has purchased one bottle of Atul’s Herbal Health Tonic on
01/07/2024 (later proved by the copy of bill No. 140/ 01/07/2024 with regard to the purchase)
where the stock as per the barcode on the label of the bottle and bill was tallying.

Another shopkeeper identified Ramchandra who purchased one bottle of Ecalux on

01/07/2024 (later proved by the copy of bill No. 156/01/07/2024 regarding the sale of
Ecalux) where the stock as per the barcode on the bottle and bill was tallying. Also, he
disliked Deepak. This demonstrates pre-planning which shows a clear motive to kill Deepak
through the posion.

The health drink with bottle recovered from the house of A2 and Ecalux bottle with contents
recovered from the house of A1 makes it clear, the involvement of both the accused persons
in furtherance of the commission of the crime.

In the case of Kalu Ram v. State of Rajasthan (2000) held that poisoning with the intent to
cause death constitutes murder under Section 103 of BNS.

In addition to this, Ramachandra Panikker at about 3.15 had instructed Praseeda to bury the
bottle containing the health drink. This clearly shows Ramachandra's intention to suppress
evidence by asking Praseeda to dispose of the poison bottle.

Section 6(1) of the BSA, “Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct. Any fact
is relevant which shows or constitutes a motive or preparation for any fact in issue or
relevant fact.

In the case of Son Lal v State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 1142, broadly interpreted
Section 6(1) of the BSA.

Here in the present case, the acts of Ramachandra and Praseeda fulfils the elements of the
Section 6(1) of the BSA because of the prior planning and preparation of both the accused
persons and further proved by the subsequent conduct in the commission of the murder of the
deceased.

DYING DECLARATION IS ADMISSIBLE PER SE:

The word “Dying Declaration” means a statement written or verbal of relevant facts made by
a person, who is dead. It is the statement of a person who had died explaining the
circumstances of his death. This is based on the maxim ‘nemo moriturus presumuntur
mentri’ i.e., a man will not meet his maker with lie on his mouth. Our Indian law recognizes
this fact that ‘a dying man seldom lies’ or ‘truth sits upon the lips of a dying man.

In the case of Satbir Singh. v. State of Haryana (2005) 12 SCC 72, it was held, dying
declaration is a statement made by a person who has died explaining the circumstances of his
death which is admissible per se in the court.

In the case of Waikhom Yaima Singh v. State of Manipur, 2011 Cr LJ 2673, where held that
the dying declaration is reliable & requires no corroboration for conviction.

Section 26 of BSA deals with the cases related to that person who is dead or who cannot be
found and according to it “when the statement is made by a person as to the cause of his
death, or as to any of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death, in cases
in which the cause of that person's death comes into question. Such statements are relevant
whether the person who made them was or was not, at the time when they were made, under
expectation of death, and whatever may be the nature of the proceeding in which the cause of
his death comes into question”

In the case of K. Ramachandra Reddy v. Public Prosecutor, (1976) 3 SCC 618, Section 26,
there must be a statement made by a person about the cause of his death, for its admissibility
& it need not disclose all surrounding circumstances. Also, a mere omission, in a dying
declaration, of the motive of the accused to kill the deceased does not affect its veracity,
insofar as it relates to the cause of death.

In the present case, the dying declaration of Deepak clearly indicated that he consumed
something poisonous in the house of Praseeda which should be admissible in the court as it is
based on the principle ‘a dying man seldom lies’ or ‘truth sits upon the lips of a dying man.
Deepak in his dying statement said about the circumstances of the transaction which resulted
in his death.

FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES PROVES THE COMMISSION OF THE MURDER

BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT:

In the case of State of UP v. Randhir, AIR 1959 All 727, the facts and circumstances which
proves the murder beyond the reasonable doubt is acts as evidence in the court of law.
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the circumstantial evidence in the
instant matter shows that within all human probability, the act must have been done by the
accused.

In the case of Chhotanney v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 2009 SC 2013, it was held that a
reasonable doubt must not be imaginary, trivial or merely possible doubt; but a fair doubt
based upon reason & common sense arising out of the evidence of the case.

In the above-mentioned facts it is clearly stated that the crime was committed by the accused
& not by the any other person. It is clearly establishing the chain of circumstantial evidence.
There is no doubt in this as to “may have committed or has committed”, the prosecution has
established this by legal, reliable & unimpeachable evidence for conviction to be sustained.

ADMISSIBILITY OF THE POST MORTEM REPORT AND CHEMICAL ANALYSIS

OF THE SAMPLES:

In the case of Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), the court said the post mortem
report becomes important in cases where the cause of death is to be established and is a
matter of controversy.

Here, in the present case, troth has come from the side of the mouth of Deepak. The froth was
brownish in colour with pungent smell and finger nails bluish in colour. Rigor mortis feebly
present at jaw, neck and fully retained on other parts of the body. The internals findings
showed that frothy fluid was present in the respiratory tracts. Liver was congested and yellow
patches were found in the liver. Echymotic hemorrhage were found all along the intestines.
Preliminary findings were consistent with death due to poisoning.

The chemical analysis report of Viscera and Blood showed that Viscera contained undigested
rice, vegetables and dark brown liquid with pungent smell. Chemical analysis of the viscera
contents revealed presence of quinalphos, organo thiosulphate chemical. Blood samples on
chemical analysis contained quinalphos 22 ng/100 ml of blood which is exceeding the
hazardous level of 20 ng/ 100 ml of blood.

The chemical analysis report of Atul’s Herbal Health Tonic and Ecalux showed that, the
contents contained in Atul’s Herbal Health Tonic bottle contained quinal phos, organothio
sulphate chemical used as pesticide. Ecalux showed the contents contained in Ecalux bottle
contained quinalphos, organothio sulphate chemical used as pesticide.
As per Section 39(1) of the BSA which states, “When the Court has to form an opinion upon
a point of foreign law or of science or art, or any other field, or as to identity of handwriting
or finger impressions, the opinions upon that point of persons especially skilled in such
foreign law, science or art, or any other field, or in questions as to identity of handwriting or
finger impressions are relevant facts and such persons are called experts”.

As per Section 39(1)(a) of the BSA which states, “the question is, whether the death of A was
caused by poison. The opinions of experts as to the symptoms produced by the poison by
which A is supposed to have died, are relevant”

The report and chemical analysis of the samples by the experts showed that the death is
caused by the poisonous substances is relevant and thus acts as primary evidence which is
admissible in the court.