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 Prosecution

ARGUMENT NOTE for PROSECUTION [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 PROSECUTION [ARGUMENTS ADVANCED]

ARGUMENTS 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 A prima facie case exists if the evidence, if
unrebutted, could result in conviction.2 The Sessions Judge discharges the accused if
there is insufficient ground for proceeding, but if there is sufficient evidence that
creates a presumption of guilt, the case moves forward.3

2. If there is a strong suspicion which leads the Court to think that there is a ground for
presuming that the accused has committed an offence, then it will not be open for the
Court to say that there were no sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused. 4
While considering the framing of charges, the trial court must evaluate whether the
material on record, including witness statements, injury reports, post-mortem reports,
and other evidence presented by the prosecution, provides sufficient grounds to
presume the accused committed the offense.5

3. Circumstantial evidence must provide enough material to show the accused’s

involvement prima facie.6 If circumstantial evidence creates a presumption of guilt,
charges are framed, and the case proceeds to trial. 7 Circumstantial evidence, if linked
logically and consistently, is sufficient for establishing a prima facie case. 8 Moreover,
collective participation in furtherance of a common intention justifies the application
of Section 3(5) of BNS.9 Further, motive strengthens the chain of circumstantial
evidence.10
4. The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 in itself is unambiguous and categoric in
laying down that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of a person, the
1
State of Maharashtra v Priya Sharan Maharaj, (1997) 4 SCC 393.
2
State of Bihar v Ramesh Singh, (1977) 4 SCC 39.
3
The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, s 250.
4
Charge And Discharge Framing Of Charges Presented by D. Vijay Goutam V, Additional District and Sessions
Judge, East Godavari District, Rajamahendravaram.
5
State Of J&K And Another vs Tanveer Ahmad Salah And Others, CRR No. 27 Of 2010.
6
Id at 3.
7
The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, s 251.
8
Kehar Singh v State (Delhi Administration), (1988) 3 SCC 609.
9
Krishna Govind Patil v State of Maharashtra, AIR 1963 SC 1413 [LNIND 1963 SC 12].
10
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v State of Maharashtra, 1984 INSC 121.

2ND NUALS NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY COMPETITION, 2025 1

ARGUMENT NOTE for PROSECUTION [ARGUMENTS ADVANCED]
burden of proving that fact is upon him.11 Thus, if a person is last seen with the
deceased, he must offer an explanation as to how and when he parted company,
especially when the death takes place shortly after the people that were last seen
together.12

5. After considering the record of the case and documents submitted, if there is a ground
for presuming that the accused has committed an offense, the court shall frame
charges.13 The standard is a “presumption of guilt,” not proof beyond reasonable
doubt. Framing of charge is not a stage to apply the standard of guilt beyond
reasonable doubt. It is enough if the material raises a grave suspicion that the accused
has committed an offense.14

6. The post-mortem report and injury report state that the death occurred due to blunt
force trauma sustained to the head15, and the murder weapon obtained was a dented
trophy16. This evidence clearly explains the cause of death. According to witness
statements17, as well as Adithya’s confession 18, he entered Maya’s house at around
8:30. Furthermore, as per witness statements, Anirudh’s car was spotted in the
building around the suspected time of the murder 19. These facts indicate the possibility
of prior concert between Adithya and Anirudh, pointing to collective participation.

7. The circumstances that are available to us are by themselves indictive to the narrative
that the accused are prima facie guilty. The circumstances that are available to us are
by themselves indictive to the narrative that the accused are prima facie guilty.
Witness statements suggest the fact that Adithya came to Maya’s house when she won
the award, and she had plans to expose him at the press conference on 5 th October,
providing motive for the same.

11
The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023, s 106.
12
Keshav v State of Maharashtra, (2007) 13 SCC 284.
13
The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, s 251.
14
Kanti Bhadra Shah v State of West Bengal, (2000) 1 SCC 722.
15
Moot Proposition.
16
Ibid.
17
Ibid.
18
Ibid.
19
Ibid.

2ND NUALS NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY COMPETITION, 2025 2

ARGUMENT NOTE for PROSECUTION [ARGUMENTS ADVANCED]
8. Other evidence, like Whatsapp chats of Maya, call logs of Maya and Adithya, witness
statements, which corroborate the presence of black thar with a lawyer’s emblem, and
disclosure statements leading to the discovery of a potential murder weapon validate
the hypothesis that there was a common intention between Adithya and Anirudh Raj
to murder Maya John. Moreover, according to witness statements, Adithya was the
last seen person with the deceased, and the ‘last seen’ principle applies.

9. The above arguments and evidences available under investigation, as justified above,
do raise a strong suspicion which are prima facie enough for the framing of charges
against the accused. The circumstantial evidence also justified the presence of motive
which further strengthened the prosecution’s case, which is enough for the pre-trial
stage. It is thus humbly submitted before the Hon’ble sessions court that there exists a
case of Prima facie guilt which must be used as a base and charges must be framed
against the two accused in order for the case to move for further proceedings.

II. WHETHER THE CONFESSION AND RECOVERY OF THE MURDER

WEAPON ARE ADMISSIBLE UNDER LAW?

10. Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India protects against self-incrimination, but
voluntary confessions are valid exceptions. 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.20 A confession before a magistrate, certified as voluntary, is admissible and
holds significant evidentiary value.21

11. Retracting a confession later does not negate its admissibility; it only affects its
evidentiary weight.22 The Supreme Court ruled that a retracted confession remains
admissible under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniya. The retraction goes to the weight
of the confession and not to its admissibility.23 The Court reiterated that a retracted

20
The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, s 183.
21
State of UP v Deoman Upadhyaya, (1960) SCC OnLine SC 8.
22
Shankaria v State of Rajasthan, (1978) 3 SCC 435.
23
Pyare Lal v State of Rajasthan, (1963) AIR SC 1094.

2ND NUALS NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY COMPETITION, 2025 3

ARGUMENT NOTE for PROSECUTION [ARGUMENTS ADVANCED]
confession must be evaluated in the context of the other evidence presented. Its
evidentiary weight may vary based on corroboration.24

12. 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. 25 Recovery evidence is
admissible if it directly results from the accused’s disclosure, as in this case. 26 Proper
recovery of a murder weapon strengthens the prosecution’s case when corroborated
with forensic evidence.27

13. The confession by Adithya Raj before the magistrate was made in compliance with
Section 183 of BNSS. The magistrate’s record confirms that Adithya Raj was
informed about his right to remain silent and the consequences of making a
confession. The magistrate also recorded that the confession was voluntary and
detailed. The magistrate explicitly recorded that the accused was informed of his
rights and that the confession was voluntary.

14. This eliminates any scope for coercion or undue influence of any sort. The
magistrate’s certification of voluntariness ensures the confession is valid. The
retraction of the confession by Adithya Raj does not render the confession
inadmissible. Further, the confession's voluntary nature and corroborative evidence
establish its credibility. The confession of Adithya holds a consistent account of the
crime, which corroborates other evidence, including the forensic, timeline of events,
that is the 9:30 PM heart rate drop recorded by the Apple Watch, circumstantial
evidence and witness statements.

15. The confession corroborates independently verifiable facts, such as the timeline of the
murder and the use of the trophy as the weapon. The dented trophy, identified as the
murder weapon, was recovered based on the disclosure statement of Anirudh Raj. The
trophy directly connects the accused to the crime, with forensic analysis confirming

24
State of Maharashtra v Kamal Ahmed Mohammed Vakil Ansari, (2013) 12 SCC 17.
25
The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023, s 23.
26
Pulukuri Kottaya v King-Emperor, 1946 SCC OnLine PC 47.
27
State of Maharashtra v Damu Gopinath Shinde, (2000) 6 SCC 269.

2ND NUALS NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY COMPETITION, 2025 4

ARGUMENT NOTE for PROSECUTION [ARGUMENTS ADVANCED]
fingerprints of both accused. This recovery clearly points to the fact that both the
accused were involved in the murder which was done with a common intention.

16. 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 and traces of the victim’s
DNA, strongly linking the weapon to the crime and signalling at the fact that the
trophy was indeed the murder weapon. The recovery solidifies the prosecution’s
narrative, connecting the accused with the murder weapon and the act itself.

17. The disclosure statement of Anirudh Raj and the recovery of the trophy satisfy the
legal standards for admissibility. Together, they form a strong evidentiary basis
linking the accused to the crime, supporting the prosecution’s case. It is thus humbly
submitted before the Hon’ble sessions court that the confession and recovery of the
murder weapon are legally admissible under established procedural safeguards. The
evidence is credible, corroborated, and critical to proving the guilt of the accused.

III. WHETHER THE INVESTIGATION AND ARREST PROCEDURES

COMPLIED WITH LEGAL MANDATES?

18. The BNSS, 2023, governs the procedural requirements for investigations, including
filing an FIR, conducting an inquest, and collecting evidence. 28 The BNSS mandates
that arrest procedures must adhere to established legal protocols, including the
documentation of reasons for arrest and communication to the accused.29

19. Prompt registration of the FIR is mandatory.30 Forensic evidence is a crucial

component of criminal investigations and enhances the prosecution's case when
properly documented and analysed.31Arrest memos have to follow the DK Basu
guidelines.32 The Indian Constitution guarantees the right of an accused to be

28
The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, s 173.
29
The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, s 36.
30
Lalita Kumari v Government of UP, (2014) 2 SCC 1.
31
Selvi v State of Karnataka, (2010) 7 SCC 263.
32
DK Basu v State of West Bengal, (1997) AIR 1997 SC 610.

2ND NUALS NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY COMPETITION, 2025 5

ARGUMENT NOTE for PROSECUTION [ARGUMENTS ADVANCED]
informed of the grounds of arrest and to consult a legal practitioner of their choice. 33
The Supreme Court laid down guidelines for lawful arrest and investigation to prevent
arbitrary actions.34 The presence of independent witnesses during the seizure of
evidence adds credibility to the investigation. Arrests must be based on credible
information and not arbitrarily conducted.35

20. The investigation began promptly after John Mathew’s report, with the FIR registered
at 8:35 AM on October 5, 2024. The crime scene was secured, and evidence,
including the trophy, fingerprints, and DNA samples, was collected systematically.
Forensic evidence, such as the Apple Watch data, was retrieved and analyzed to
establish the timeline of the crime. Witness statements from neighbors, family
members, and experts were recorded to corroborate the sequence of events.

21. All material objects were recovered before panchas and appropriate panchnama was
secured. The forensic findings were corroborated by physical evidence and witness
statements, demonstrating a balanced and methodical approach to investigation. The
FIR was filed without delay, satisfying the procedural requirement under Section 173
of the BNSS. Prompt registration demonstrates diligence on the part of the
investigating officer.

22. The crime scene investigation was thorough, with detailed documentation,
photographs, and evidence collection following legal protocols, ensuring the integrity
of the evidence chain. Arrest memos for both accused were duly prepared and signed
by witnesses, fulfilling the mandates of DK Basu guidelines.

23. The inclusion of forensic evidence, such as fingerprints on the trophy and Apple
Watch data, shows that the investigation leveraged scientific methods to substantiate
allegations, in line with modern investigatory standards. The forensic reports further
corroborate the timeline and physical presence of the accused at the crime scene,
strengthening the prosecution’s case.

33
The Indian Constitution 1950, art 22(1).
34
Id at 32.
35
Joginder Kumar v State of UP, (1994) 4 SCC 260.

2ND NUALS NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY COMPETITION, 2025 6

ARGUMENT NOTE for PROSECUTION [ARGUMENTS ADVANCED]
24. Adithya Raj was arrested on October 5, 2024, following the discovery of
circumstantial evidence linking him to the crime. His rights were read to him, and he
was informed of the grounds for his arrest. Anirudh Raj surrendered voluntarily and
led the police to the murder weapon, which was recovered, in front of panchas, in
compliance with Section 23 of the India.

25. Adithya Raj’s arrest was based on a combination of circumstantial evidence and
eyewitness testimony. This satisfies the requirement under section 35 of BNSS for the
existence of “reasonable suspicion” prior to arrest. Anirudh Raj’s voluntary surrender
and subsequent recovery of the murder weapon further validate the investigative
process and adherence to due procedure.

26. The magistrate was involved at critical stages, including the confession recording and
remand proceedings, ensuring judicial oversight of the investigation. Both accused
were informed of their legal rights, demonstrating adherence to constitutional
protections. Witnesses were examined and their statements recorded in compliance
with Section 180 of BNSS.

27. The arrests of both accused satisfy the standard of lawful arrests. The guidelines for
arrest, including informing the accused of their rights, were adhered to in this case. It
is thus humbly submitted before the Hon’ble sessions court that the investigation and
arrest procedures were conducted in strict adherence to legal mandates and
constitutional protections. The thorough documentation of evidence, compliance with
arrest guidelines, and reliance on forensic analysis reinforce the integrity of the
process, supporting the prosecution’s case.

2ND NUALS NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY COMPETITION, 2025 7

 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 EXIST A PRIMA FACIE CASE OF GUILT

II. HOLD THAT THE CONFESSION AND RECOVERY OF THE MURDER

WEAPON ARE ADMISSIBLE UNDER LAW

III. HOLD THAT THE INVESTIGATION AND ARREST PROCEDURES

COMPLIED 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