ARGUMENT NOTE for DEFENCE [STATEMENT OF FACTS]

TEAM CODE-125

2ND NUALS NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY COMPETITION

Before
THE HONOURABLE SESSIONS COURT OF MALGUDI

FOR OFFENCES CHARGED UNDER

SECTION 103 READ WITH SECTION 3(5) of BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023

S.C No. ___ of 2024

THE STATE OF KERELAPURAM…………………………………......PROSECUTION

v.

ADITHYA RAJ & ANR…………………………………………………....…DEFENDANT

Argument Note On Behalf Of The Defence

ARGUMENT NOTE for DEFENCE [STATEMENT OF FACTS]

STATEMENT OF FACTS

On 5th October, Maya John was found dead near the staircase on the ground floor of her house
by her father John Mathew. The latter called the police stating that his daughter was murdered
and that he suspected Adithya Raj’s involvement in Maya’s death. Immediate action was taken
which involved filing an FIR, taking up of investigation by station house master, visit to the
occurrence site, summoning of the forensic team, etc. The body was then sent for postmortem
to the Malgudi Government Medical College.

The postmortem report gave insights of the different injuries caused to the body. The cause of
death was identified to be blunt force trauma sustained to the head. The time of death was
estimated to be 14-18 hours prior to the postmortem. The forensic report identified just one
object, with clear fingerprints of Adithya Raj, which was the platinum ring.

An arrest memo was issued against Adithya Raj for having been accused of the murder. He was
taken into custody on the same day itself for further investigation and production before the
magistrate within 24 hours of arrest.

Meanwhile, Anirudh Raj surrendered himself at the police station confessing to the crime and
giving a statement stating that he had hidden the object that he used to kill Maya in his house
and that he could show it to the police. Post further interrogation, the police went to his house
when he brought a dented trophy claiming it to be the object used to murder. An arrest memo
was issued and he was taken into police custody as well.

Alongside, Adithya, before the judicial magistrate confessed to have committed the crime along
with stating that his brother was innocent and had no part to play in the murder. As a part of
core evidence, screenshots of Maya’s text messages with Ashwini, which are cryptic in nature
and her recent contact list have been attached which shows numerous missed calls by Adithya
Raj.

After conducting a thorough investigation and referring to the Witness Statements, Post
Mortem Report, Forensic Science Laboratory Reports and various other circumstantial
evidences, it was concluded that both the accused in judicial custody played a part in the murder
of the deceased. The investigation, as per the investigation report, said to have proved that Mr.
Anirudh Raj and Mr. Adithya Raj committed the act of murder in furtherance of a common
intention

2ND NUALS NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY COMPETITION, 2025 I

ARGUMENT NOTE for DEFENCE [ARGUMENTS ADVANCED]

ARGUMENTS TO BE ADVANCED

I. WHETHER THERE EXISTS A PRIMA FACIE CASE OF GUILT?

1. The Supreme Court held that a prima facie case exists when evidence, if unrebutted, is
sufficient to support the charge.1 The Trial Judge is not a mere Post Office to frame the
charge at the instance of the prosecution.2 The evidence as relied on by the investigating
officer is not undisputed. The witness testimonies are not only inconsistent, but do not
match with other evidence produced like Whatsapp chats.

2. At the stage of framing charges, the trial court must evaluate the material provided by
the Investigating Officer, including witness statements, injury reports, post-mortem
reports, and other prosecution evidence, to determine if there is sufficient ground to
presume the accused committed the offense. 3 Inconsistent evidence and loopholes that
are present do not provide enough sufficient evidence that can be relied on by the
prosecution.

3. The court must consider the broad probabilities, overall impact of the evidence and
documents, and any fundamental infirmities in the case. 4 The Sessions Judge discharges
the accused if there are insufficient grounds to proceed, based on a general assessment
of the materials provided by the investigating agency. 5 Whatsapp chats, which provide
evidence that Maya did not know who was behind the threats, are inconsistent with the
witness statements, leading to fundamental infirmities.

4. There are five principles that need to be followed when cases are based on
circumstantial evidence, including the facts so established should be consistent only
with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be
explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. 6

1
State of Maharashtra v Priya Sharan Maharaj, AIR 1997 SC 2041.
2
P. Vijayan v State of Kerala, 2010 (2) SCC 398.
3
State of J&K and Anr v Tanveer Ahmed Salah and Ors, CRR No. 27 of 2010.
4
Ibid.
5
State of Gujarat v Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao, 2023 INSC 894.
6
Sharad v State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622.
2ND NUALS NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY COMPETITION, 2025 1
ARGUMENT NOTE for DEFENCE [ARGUMENTS ADVANCED]

5. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground
for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in
all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. 7 In the present case,
the presence of alternative fingerprints on the alleged murder weapon, and the broken
pieces of liquor bottle, and other objects found near the deceased body provide basis of
alternative theories leading to the death, and does not show the impossibility

6. Moreover, sufficient ground is needed to frame charges, and Maya John was facing
hostility and threats from multiple parties, including anonymous individuals online. 8
The presence of unmatched fingerprints on the alleged murder weapon 9 puts the entire
case of prosecution in question which heavily relies on circumstantial evidence because
the court needs to consider the broad probabilities as stated above along with
infirmities.

7. The prosecution’s reliance on the accused’s fingerprints on the alleged murder weapon
and their DNA under the victim’s nails fails to establish grave suspicion. These
elements could result from legitimate prior contact and do not directly connect the
accused to the act of murder. Moreover, the presence of unexplainable injuries like
small abrasions and fractures on the body of deceased 10 of further weakens the
prosecution’s hypothesis, failing to justify the framing of charges.

8. The prosecution’s case completely relies upon circunmstantial evidence however given
the non-production of accused within 24 hours, coerced confession, doubts in
WhatsApp screenoshots and inconsistencies of witness statements for instance- what
Ashwini said about the relationship between the deceased 11 and one of the accused and
what John Matthew said about the same 12, the grounds are baseless and do not justify
the framing of charges.

9. Section 3(5) has also been applied. The honourable court in Abaram v State of MP
clearly stated that only when a court with some certainty holds that a particular accused
must have pre- conceived or pre-meditated the result which ensued or acted in concert

7
Ibid.
8
Moot Proposition.
9
Ibid.
10
Ibid.
11
Ibid.
12
Ibid.
2ND NUALS NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY COMPETITION, 2025 2
ARGUMENT NOTE for DEFENCE [ARGUMENTS ADVANCED]

with others in order to bring about that result, than section 34{now 3(5)} may be
applied. 13
10. The totality of the circumstances must be taken into consideration in arriving at the
conclusion whether the accused had a common intention to commit an offence of which
they could be convicted.14 The police framed Anirudh under common intention because
of circumstantial evidence founded upon witness statements15 according to which a
lawyer’s black thar was spotted in the building during the time of arrest. There’s no
evidence that Anirudh was there in the car or that was his car or he was in the building,
which eliminates any prior concert before commission of the murder
11. Given the lack of substantive evidence tying Anirudh to the crime or proving his
involvement through common intention, the allegations under Section 3(5) are
unsustainable. Accordingly, the charges based on common intention should not stand.
12. The prosecution's case is fundamentally flawed due to inconsistent witness statements,
procedural irregularities, and the lack of substantive evidence linking the accused to the
crime. The unmatched fingerprints on the alleged murder weapon, alternative theories
of the cause of death, and the coerced confession undermine the reliability of the
prosecution's narrative. Furthermore, the application of Section 3(5) is unsustainable,
as there is no evidence of pre-conceived intention or prior concert by the accused. In
light of these deficiencies, the accused should be discharged.

II. WHETHER THE CONFESSION AND RECOVERY OF THE MURDER

WEAPON ARE ADMISSIBLE UNDER LAW?

13. The Constitution of India protects against self-incrimination, but voluntary confessions
are valid exceptions16. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 permits
confessions made before a magistrate to be admitted as evidence, provided they are
voluntary and made after the accused is informed of their rights. 17 When question of
coerced confession arose the court questioned whether the accused was under influence
of the investigating agency or not.18

13
Abaram v State of MP, (2007) 12 SCC 105 [LNIND 2007 SC 546].
14
Jagdeo singh v state of Maharashtra, 1980 Supp SCC 360.
15
Moot Proposition.
16
The Indian Constitution 1950, art 20(3).
17
The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, s 183.
18
Manoharan v State by Inspector of Police, AIR 2019 SC 3746.
2ND NUALS NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY COMPETITION, 2025 3
ARGUMENT NOTE for DEFENCE [ARGUMENTS ADVANCED]

14. The confession recorded under Judicial magistrate was retracted by both the accused.
While Adithys said that it was coerced, Anirudh simply retracted and since he was in
police custody until the confession therefore, he was clearly under the influence of the
investigating agency hence its inadmissible.
15. The retraction of the confession raises questions about its voluntariness. Under
Shankaria v. State of Rajasthan (1978), a retracted confession requires strong
corroboration to be admissible, which is absent here. The magistrate’s role in ensuring
the confession was voluntary is questionable if the accused was subjected to undue
influence prior to the statement. The presence of coercive conditions during custody, as
alleged, weakens the admissibility of the confession.
16. Also, in the confession statement Adithya has said that he rushed back home after
committing the murder however a/c to witness statement there is no record of him
leaving the building that night. Therefore, this puts either the credibility of the witness
statement or the confession into question. A court may take into account the retracted
confession, but it must look for the reasons for making of the confession as well as for
its retraction, and must weigh the two to determine whether the retraction affects the
voluntary nature of the confession or not.19
17. The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, allows evidence of facts discovered through
information provided by the accused while in custody. Such information is admissible
if it leads directly to the discovery of material evidence. Though it is agreed that the
disclosure statement of Anirudh led to the discovery of the dented trophy, there is not
enough evidence to prove that the dented trophy was the murder weapon considering
that Anirudh retracted from his confession. Also, the postmortem report of Maya John
says that her ribs were broken along with other severe injuries.
18. This, would still remain undisclosed considering that a single trophy, by no way, can
cause this much harm. If the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce to prove
the guilt of the accused, even if fully accepted before it is challenged in cross-
examination or rebutted by the defence evidence, if any, cannot show that the accused
committed the offence, then there will be no sufficient ground for proceeding with the
trial. 20

19
Kashmira Singh v State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1952 SC 159.
20
Union of India v Prafulla Kumar Samal, 1979 AIR 366.
2ND NUALS NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY COMPETITION, 2025 4
ARGUMENT NOTE for DEFENCE [ARGUMENTS ADVANCED]

19. Section 23 of The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 allows admissibility of evidence
that relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered. Forensic analysis of the trophy
revealed fingerprints matching those of both accused. However, these fingerprints are
just evident of the fact that there was contact between the accused and the trophy but
does not symbolise usage of the trophy by the accused.
20. Moreover, the trophy also has a set of unidentified fingerprints which weakens the
prosecution’s case. The Supreme Court highlighted that without forensic evidence
linking the weapon to the victim, its recovery alone is insufficient to establish it as the
murder weapon.21
21. The Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh was pleased to hold that the language of
section 250 of BNSS. is wide enough to include any ground which the Sessions Judge
considers sufficient for not proceeding against the accused. 22 The ground may be that
the evidence produced is not sufficient to warrant the Sessions Judge to proceed against
the accused, or it may be that there is no legal ground for proceeding against the accused
even on the facts placed before the Judge.
22. The disclosure statement of Anirudh Raj and the recovery of the trophy do not satisfy
the legal standards for admissibility. Even if unrebutted, they do not form a strong
suspicion linking the accused to the crime, thus negating the prosecution’s case.
23. It is thus humbly submitted before the Hon’ble sessions court that the confession and
recovery of the murder weapon are legally inadmissible under established procedural
safeguards. The confession was not voluntary, and the recovery of the alleged murder
weapon does not conclusively establish its connection to the crime. Both elements fail
to meet the evidentiary standards required for admissibility under the law.

III. WHETHER THE INVESTIGATION AND ARREST PROCEDURES

COMPLIED WITH LEGAL MANDATES?

24. Article 22 (2) of the Constitution of India and Section 57 of Cr. P.C.(which is now
Section 56 of BNSS) give a mandate that every person who is arrested and detained in
police custody shall be produced before the nearest magistrate within a period of 24
hours of such arrest excluding the time necessary for the journey from the place of the

21
Pradeep Kumar v State of Haryana, (2024) 1 SCR 306.
22
T.V. Sarma v R. Meeriah And Ors, AIR 1980 AP 219.
2ND NUALS NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY COMPETITION, 2025 5
ARGUMENT NOTE for DEFENCE [ARGUMENTS ADVANCED]

arrest to the court of the magistrate and no such person shall be detained in the custody
beyond the said period without the authority of a magistrate.23
25. In Khatri (II) v State of Bihar it has been said that this reasonable provision grants the
magistrate oversight of the police inquiry; magistrates must do their best to ensure
compliance with this order, and they must punish the police force severely if they are
found to be in violation of the law.24 The mere fact that a charge sheet has been filed in
the matter, would not validate the illegality and the unconstitutionality committed at the
time of arresting the accused.25
26. Adithya was arrested on 5th October at 5:30 PM, and Anirudh on 6th October at 7:00
PM.26 However, Adithya was only produced before the magistrate on 7th October, as
mentioned in the charge sheet, after he requested to make a confession. 27 No production
report has been attached for Anirudh. In both cases, the cardinal rule of production
within 24 hours has been violated, indicating illegal detention entitling both of them to
default bail and putting the entire investigation process into question, and provides
evidence that Adithya’s confession has the possibility to be coerced, which he claims
before the trial judge.
27. The legal documents outline several potential challenges to the validity of the mahazar.
Lack of independent witnesses during the seizure and investigation process 28. An
independent witness is a witness, who has no interest in the subject matter. He is neither
for the plaintiff nor for the defendant.29 The witnesses in the scene mahazar, property
seizure and recovery are all witnesses who are for either the defendant or the
prosecution.
28. As already stated before, a case based on circumstantial evidence, the settled law is that
the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved
and such circumstances must be conclusive in nature. Moreover, all the circumstances
should be complete and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. Further,
the proved circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the
accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence.30

23
Central Bureau Of Investigation v Anupam J. Kulkarni, 1992 AIR 1768.
24
Khatri (II) v State of Bihar, MANU/SC/0518/1981.
25
Prabir Purkayasth v State(Nct Of Delhi), 2024 INSC 414.
26
Moot Proposition.
27
Ibid.
28
Sathyan v State Of Kerala, CRL. A. No. 901 of 2005.
29
Ramachandran v Sulaiman, 2014
30
Chenga Reddy v State of A.P., (1996) 10 SCC 193.
2ND NUALS NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY COMPETITION, 2025 6
ARGUMENT NOTE for DEFENCE [ARGUMENTS ADVANCED]

29. Ignorance of evidence like the forensic evidence and post-mortem certificate, Whatsapp
Chats and call logs, and inconsistensies with witness statements provide alternative
hypothesis and do not follow the settled law, where investigating officer needs to take
into account the broader principles without framing charges against specific people.
Moreover, the investigating officer does not provide evidence that the alleged murder
weapon was used to actually murder, and the basis of a confession where the guilt is
inadmisssible.

30. The framing of charges against Adithya is based on disputed evidence and a coerced
confession, while the charges against Anirudh are based on the recovery of an alleged
murder weapon, and because he owns the same car as was present on the basis of one
person’s testimony. It is thus, humbly submitted that the investigation and arrest
procedures did not comply with legal standards.

2ND NUALS NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY COMPETITION, 2025 7

 ARGUMENT NOTE for DEFENCE [ARGUMENTS ADVANCED]

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, IN LIGHT OF THE ISSUES RAISED, ARGUMENTS ADVANCED AND

AUTHORITIES CITED, IT IS HUMBLY PRAYED THAT THIS COURT MAY BE
PLEASED TO:

I. HOLD THAT THERE DOES NOT EXIST A PRIMA FACIE CASE OF GUILT.

II. HOLD THAT THE CONFESSION AND RECOVERY OF THE MURDER WEAPON
ARE NOT ADMISSIBLE UNDER LAW.

III. HOLD THAT THE INVESTIGATION AND ARREST PROCEDURES DID NOT
COMPLY WITH LEGAL MANDATES.

AND PASS ANY OTHER ORDER THAT THIS COURT MAY DEEM FIT IN THE
INTERESTS OF JUSTICE, EQUITY AND GOOD CONSCIENCE.

2ND NUALS NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY COMPETITION, 2025 i