TEAM CODE: SMS002
S.M. SHETTY COLLEGE OF SCIENCE, COMMERCE & MANAGEMENT STUDIES,
POWAI MOOT COURT COMPETITION
IN THE SESSIONS COURT MUMBAI JUDICATURE AT DINDOSHI
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
SESSSIONS CASE NO 1W1224 OF 2024
In the matter between
State of Maharastra ………. Complainant
-Versus-
Mr Rohit Rajeev Malhotra and Ors .............. Accused
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE ACCUSED
FOR OFFENCES UNDER SECTION 85, 103 AND 101 OF THE BHARTIYA NYAYA
SANHITA 2023.
Mumbai, dated 6th November 2025
TABLE OF CONTENT
[Link] Title Page number
1 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND 3
SHORTFORMS
2 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 4
3 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 7
4 STATEMENT OF FACTS 9-10
5 TIMELINE OF EVENTS 11-12
6 ISSUES RAISED 13
7 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT 14
8 ADVANCE ARGUMENT 16
9 PRAYER 20
2
LIST OF ABBREVIATION AND SHORTFORMS
1. Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023- BNS
2. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 -BNSS
3. Bhatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023- BSA
4. CCTV - Closed Circuit Television
5. SCC - Supreme Court Cases
6. S.L.P. - Special Leave Petition
7. Art. - Article (Constitution of India)
8. Sec. – Section
9. Vs.- Versus
10. Hon’ble- honourable
11. Dr.- Doctor
12. AIR- All India Report
13. SC- Supreme Court
14. SCC- Supreme Court Cases
15. Anr- Another
16. Mah- Maharashtra
17. The Constitution of India, 1950- Constitution
3
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
STATUES:
The Constitution of India, 1950 (‘Constitution’)
Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’)
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’)
Bhatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (‘BSA’)
STATUTORY PROVISIONS:
I THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 (COI)
Article 14: Right to equality
Article 21: Personal right to life and liberty Article 39A - Equal Justice and Free Legal Aid Article
136: Special Leave Petition
II INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 (IPC)
Section 120 (B): Punishment for criminal conspiracy Section 300: Murder
Section 302: Punishment for Murder Sectio 375: Rape
Section 376: Punishment for Rape Section 392: Punishment for Robbery
Section 450: House-Trespass in order to commit an offense
THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 (CRPC)
Section 154: Information in cognizable cases
Section 156: Police officer’s power to investigate cognizable case Section 161: Examination of
witnesses by police
Section 173: Report of the Police Officer on completion of investigation
4
Section 207: Supply to the accused of copy of police report and other documents Section
240: Framing of charge
Section 313: Power to examine the accused
Section 320: Compounding of offences
INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872
Section 3: Interpretation Clause - Evidence
Section 45: Opinions of experts
Section 59: Proof of facts contents of documentations
Section 65 (B): Admissibility of electronic records Section
138: Order of examination
Section 114: Court may presume existence of certain facts
Section 157: Former statements of witness may be proved to corroborate latter testimony as to
same fact
Section 165: Judge's power to put questions or order production
LEGAL WEBSITES
[Link]
[Link]
[Link]
[Link]
[Link]
CASES REFFERED
1. Sharad Birdhichand Sarda versus State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116, unless the chain
of circumstances is complete and points unerringly to guilt, conviction cannot stand.
2. as held in Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh (1973) 2 SCC 808, if two views are
possible, the one favoring the accused must prevail.
3. * Lack of motive weakens the circumstantial chain (*Nagaraj v. State, (2015) 4 SCC 739*).
4. As per *Appasaheb v. State of Maharashtra* (2007) 9 SCC 721, “demand for money for
domestic expenses or business purposes” does not amount to a *dowry demand* under
Section 2, *Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961*.
5
5. (*State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram*, (2006) 12 SCC 254*).
6. Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab* (2017) 1 SCC 433, mere marital discord or depression
cannot automatically translate into abetment or homicide liability.
7. In Virsa Singh v State of Punjab AIR 1958 SC 46
6
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
1 Preliminary Objection:
The Respondents respectfully submit that the present case does not fall within the exclusive
territorial or subject-matter jurisdiction of the Hon'ble Sessions Court, Mumbai (South-West),
as alleged by the prosecution. The chain of events and the cause of action, as presented, involve
multiple jurisdictions, and therefore, the assumption of jurisdiction by this Hon'ble Court is
subject to verification of factual and legal grounds.
2 Territorial Jurisdiction:
While it is stated th he deceased, Neha Kapoor, was last seen alive at her residence in Versova
and her body was recovered from Marine Canal, Bandra, both within the limits of Mumbai, the
Respondents submit that the alleged acts forming the basis of the offences are claimed to have
occurred at multiple and indeterminate locations. Until the investigation conclusively
establishes the precise location of the alleged offence and its direct nexus to the Respondents,
territorial jurisdiction cannot be presumed
3 Cause of Action:
The mere recovery of the body within the jurisdiction of Bandra Police Station does not, by
itself, confer jurisdiction on this Hon'ble Court unless it is demonstrated that the offence or a
material part of the transaction occurred within the same territorial limits. The Respondents
further contend that certain alleged communications, financial transactions, and other
purported acts under investigation took place outside the jurisdiction of Mumbai (South-West)
District.
7
S.M. SHETTY COLLEGE OF SCIENCE, COMMERCE & MANAGEMENT
STUDIES, POWAI MOOT COURT COMPETITION
IN THE SESSIONS COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
SPECIAL CASE NO. OF 2025
In the matter of Article 21 of the Constitution of
India 1950;
AND
In the matter of section 32, 302, 304B and 498A
of the Indian Penal Code alongwith section 113B
of Indian Evidance Act 1872
State of Maharastra )
A Stautory Body as a state incorparated )
and defined under Article 12 and )
empowered under Article 300 of the )
Indian Constitution 1950 )
…Petitioner
Versus
1 Mr Rohit Rajeev Malhotra )
age: 37 years occupation: Business )
Sea Breeze Apartment )
Versova Mumbai 400 061 )
2 Dr Shalini Rajeev Malhotra )
age: occupation: clinical psychologist )
3 Mr Rajeev Malhotra )
age: occupation: Retired Banker )
Respondent no 2 and 3 both having their )
addressed at Malhotra Villa )
8
Goregoan Mumbai 400 063 ) ................. Respondents
TO,
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND
THE HON’BLE PUISNE JUDGES OF
THE HON’BLE SESSIONS COURT OF
JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY.
HUMBLE MEMORIAL OF THE ACCUSED
ABOVENAMED:
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH
THE TRUE FACTS OF THE MATTER:
1 The Deceased was a thirty five(35) year old software professional. In or about 2016,
when she was working at Astra Soft Solution (‘Company’) and got promoted to senior project
lead. Around that time Victims parents introduced her to Rohit Malhotra (Respondent no 1)
who a business, However the promotion required a transfer into Company’s pune office and
due to the marriage, she refused the offer.
2 The Respondent no 1 is the husband of the Victim. The Victim and Respondent no 1
married on 15th March 2016. Consequently she moved in Respondent no 1’s family home at
Goregoan. In or about 2017 both had a daughter named Meera. Due to the pressure by
Respondent no 1’s family for the child’s care the Victim resigned from the Company. The
couple moved out from Respodent no 1’s family home to new apartment as shown in cause
title.
3. in months following the wedding the respondent no. 2 (Shalini Rajeev Malhotra) the (mother
–in- law) of the victim thereafter started giving mental harassment to the Victim and kept on
asking for financial help from the Parents of the victim.
4. Later, the Victim received a Notice regarding unpaid business debt from Respondent no 1’s
business Associates. On 20th February 2024 from work pressure and business loss the
9
Respondent no 1 got intoxicated and demanded to sell the car which was a wedding gift from
Victims father. The victim refused however due to pressure the Respondent no 1 sold the car
along with some jewllery.
4 On 5th March 2024 the Vitim was contacted by the Respondent no 2 (being the mother
in law) who urged and pressurized to provide a solution to the Respondent no 1’s financial
problems. Later, due to the repeated harassment from the victim’s inlaws, the victim contacted
her parents and explained them the situation.
5. the parents of the Victim then sold some ancestral property, but funds were not enough hence
an argument started between the Victim and The Respondent no 2. later an argument started
between the couple while at a family dinner at Respondent no 1’s family home.
6. later the Victim was not in home the Respondent no 1 assumed that the Victim was steeped
outside of the home for different environment. However, she did not return home since then.
7. On 6th March 2024 at 10.30 am a missing Report was filed by the Respondent no1 On 7th
March 2024 a sanitation worker found the death body of The Vitctim and informed the
authorities. The dead body of the vivtim was identified by respondent no. 1 The same was then
taken to the St. Francis Hosiptal for examiniation.
9. the family of the Victim on 7th March 2024 filed an First Information Report (‘FIR’)
against all the Respondents. The investigations revealed inconsistencies in phone records of
respondent no. 1, unexplained gaps in the CCTV footage of the victim’s residential complex.
The victim was last seen leaving the building late at night.
10
TIMELINE OF EVENTS
Sr
Date Event
no
1 15th March 2016 The Deceased and the Accused No 1 got married.
The Deceased voluntarily decided to leave her Senior Project
2 In or about 2016 Lead role from the Company to focus on motherhood and
support the family business.
The Deceased and the Accused No 1 faced increasing shared
From 2016 till financial difficulty due to the Accused's No 1 struggling
3
February 2024 export business. The Deceased received a Notice of Unpaid
Debt from Accused No 1.
21th February
4 The car and some jewellery were sold.
2024
Accused No 2 had a discussion with the Deceased reagarding
5th March 2024 the financial condition of the Couple. The Complainants
5
(9:00 a.m.) (Deceased's parents) transfer funds for the business as help to
the Couple.
The couple engaged in a highly volatile marital dispute
5th March 2024
6 resulting in the Deceased threatening to take their daughter
(6:15 p.m. )
and leave.
6th March 2024 The Accused No 1’s CDR places his phone near Sea View
7
(2:50 a.m.) Bar.
6th March 2024
By the Post Mortem Report it appears that the estimated Time
8 (3:30 a.m. -
of death of the Deceased.
4:30 a.m.)
11
Sr
Date Event
no
6th March 2024 All the Accused fully cooperated with the police and file a
9
(10:30 a.m.) missing person's report.
The First Information Report was logded by the Deceased
parents against The Accused. From the further investigation it
7th March 2024
10 appears that only minor blood traces matching the deceased
( 9.00 a.m.)
were found in Accused No 1’s car.
Post-Mortem confirms drowning as the cause of death;
11 7th March 2024 injuries are consistent with a fall during a self-inflicted act.
10th March Forensic analysis confirms Foreign Male DNA under the
12
2024 Deceased’s nails, which does not match with Accused No 1.
20th March Under the sec 193 BNSS a Chargesheet was prepared and
13
2024 accordingly the all the Accused were put in judicial custody.
12
S.M. SHETTY COLLEGE OF SCIENCE, COMMERCE & MANAGEMENT
STUDIES, POWAI MOOT COURT COMPETITION
IN THE SESSIONS COURT MUMBAI JUDICATURE AT DINDOSHI
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
SESSSIONS CASE NO 1W1224 OF 2024
In the matter between
State of Maharastra ………. Complainant
-Versus-
Mr Rohit Rajeev Malhotra and Ors .............. Accused
Issued Raised
Preliminary hearings were concluded before the hon’ble Court and the hon’ble Court was
please to frame the following issues in the matter:
a Whether the Accused No 1 can be held criminally responsible under murder or culpable
homicide for Victim’s death?
b Whether all the Accused can be held liable under anti-dowry and domestic cruelty
provisions?
c Whether the available medical and circumstantial evidence supports a conclusion of
homicide, suicide, or accidental death?
13
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF ALL THE ACCUSED:
I Whether the Accused No 1 can be held criminally responsible under murder or
culpable homicide for Victim’s death?
1 The entire prosecution case rests solely on circumstantial evidence without any
eyewitness confession or conclusive forensic link between the deceased and Accused No 1.
In line with Sharad Birdhichand Sarda versus State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116, unless
the chain of circumstances is complete and points unerringly to guilt, conviction cannot stand.
2 The call data records and CCTV footage gaps do not conclusively establish the presence
or involvement of the accused at the time of death as held in Kali Ram v. State of Himachal
Pradesh (1973) 2 SCC 808, if two views are possible, the one favoring the accused must prevail.
3 It is pertinent to note that no credible motive has been established. The couple had
financial difficulties but continued to live together peacefully with their child. The prosecution
has failed to discharge the burden of proof for offences under Sections 99 (Murder)Section 105
(Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder) BNS Hence, Accused No. 1 is entitled to the
benefit of doubt.
II Whether All The Accused Can Be Held Liable Under Anti-Dowry And Domestic
Cruelty Provisions?
1 The alleged dowry harassment is unsubstantiated by any contemporaneous evidence
such as written communication, messages, or independent witness testimony. As per
Appasaheb v State of Maharashtra (2007) 9 SCC 721, demand for money for domestic
expenses or business purposes does not amount to a dowry demand under Section 2 Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961. Accordingly, essential ingredients of Sections 85 and 103 BNS (cruelty
and dowry death) are not satisfied.
2 Under the Section 85, BNS must be willful conduct likely to cause grave injury or drive
the woman to suicide. Ordinary marital discord or isolated quarrels cannot meet this standard
Girdhar Shankar Tawade v. State of Maharashtra (2002) 5 SCC 177. There is no medical,
psychiatric, or independent record showing continuous harassment or cruelty.
14
3 Statutory Presumption Under Section 119 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam
(formerly Section 113B, Evidence Act) Not Attracted The presumption of dowry death arises
only if cruelty or harassment for dowry is proved soon before death. In Baijnath v State of M
P, (2017) 1 SCC 101, the Supreme Court held that this presumption is rebuttable and not
automatic. No such proximate harassment is shown in the present case therefore, the burden
does not shift to the accused. Parents-in-Law cannot be implicated vicariously.
III Whether the available medical and circumstantial evidence supports a conclusion
of homicide, suicide, or accidental death?
1 The deceased was last seen near a canal area which is uneven and poorly lit. The Post-
Mortem Report confirms drowning as the cause of death and with no fatal ante-mortem injuries.
Hence, an accidental fall due to disorientation or imbalance cannot be ruled out.
2 The autopsy reveals minor injuries consistent with accidental impact or self-inflicted
fall, not homicidal assault. Presence of foreign male DNA under the fingernails is inconclusive
and could result from prior contact. Few items were not found by the Police investigation.
Hence it appears that there are possibilities of the homicide.
3 It is pertinent to note that the deceased was under emotional distress due to financial
pressures and domestic tension. As held in Gurcharan Singh versus State of Punjab (2017) 1
SCC 433, mere marital discord or depression cannot automatically translate into abetment or
homicide liability.
15
ARGUMENTS IN ADVANCE:
I PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS:
1 No ground whatsoever is made out for the reliefs sought in the above Complainant. The
Accused submits that the present Suit is devoid of any merits whatsoever, misconceived,
frivolous, vexatious and is not maintainable in law and deserves to be dismissed in limine on
the following preliminary grounds, each of which are without prejudice and in the alternative
to each other.
II NO CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDANCE:
2 The entire prosecution case rests purely on circumstantial evidence, with no eyewitness,
no confession, and no conclusive forensic link between the Deceased and Accused no 1. In the
above matter there is not any circumstantial evidence that proves that the Accused is criminally
responsible for death of the Deceased.
3 The burden of proof lies on the prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt,
not on the Accused to prove innocence. Here, every circumstance is explainable on other
hypotheses consistent with innocence. The Chain of Circumstances is Incomplete and
Inconclusive: For conviction based on circumstantial evidence as held in Sharad Birdhichand
Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1984 SC 1622), the circumstances must form a complete
and unbroken chain leading only to the guilt of the accused, ruling out every other hypothesis.
In the present case there is no motive is clearly established.
4 It is pertinent to note that the security guard only saw the Deceased leave the building
alone and Accused no 1 return later this cannot be treated as “last seen together. There is no
CCTV footage or GPS evidence placing the Accused no 1 at or near the canal or even near the
Deceased at the time of the death.
5 From the evidence on the record it appears that:
16
a Blood traces in the car were never conclusively matched through serological
testing even if traces existed, they could be from prior incidents;
b CCTV blackout is a technical malfunction, not human tampering — the building
technician confirmed there was an electricity fluctuation;
c Mixed DNA profiles are scientifically inconclusive and the shared domestic
items can naturally result in mixed DNA;
d There is no eyewitness, no confession, and no recovery of any weapon or
material indicating the involvement of the accused; and
e The alleged motive of financial distress is vague and uncorroborated. The
prosecution has failed to demonstrate any act or conduct by the accused
proximate to the death.
Hence, the foundational requirement of a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances is
entirely absent.
6 As none of the essential elements of circumstantial evidence are established no offence
under Murder or Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder of the BNS is made out. The
Accused are therefore entitled to honourable acquittal. In absence of a complete, consistent,
and credible chain of circumstances, the prosecution has failed to discharge its burden. The
alleged facts, even if taken at face value, raise no more than suspicion which is legally
insufficient to sustain a conviction under criminal jurisprudence.
III Absence of Mens Rea (Intention or Knowledge)
7 Even if the death occurred in the backdrop of domestic tension, there is no evidence of
premeditation or intention to cause death. The Accused actions after discovering the missing
of the deceased like contacting friends, searching the neighborhood, and later filing a police
complaint indicates concerns and not a guilt. Accused No 1 himself reported his wife missing.
He did not abscond, tamper with evidence, or resist investigation. His cooperation with the
police from the beginning indicates a clear conscience. A guilty person would have fled or
fabricated an alibi; instead, Rohit faced the inquiry and produced his phone records voluntarily.
17
8 Under Section 101 of the BNS, murder requires intention or knowledge. Mere quarrel
or negligence cannot constitute murder. At the highest, the facts may suggest accidental death,
not homicide. The alleged quarrel or financial issues do not prove intent to kill and the
domestic disagreements are common but not equivalent to homicidal animosity and no weapon
or object linking Accused No 1 to the assault has been found. Hence, the prosecution’s
allegation of concealment or guilt is baseless. Mens Rea Need Not Be Express. It Can Be
Inferred from Circumstances and Conduct. The defence contends that the accused lacked mens
rea however, criminal intention or knowledge is rarely proved through direct evidence. It is
inferred from surrounding circumstances, consistent conduct, and the natural consequences of
one’s acts.
9 In Virsa Singh v State of Punjab AIR 1958 SC 465, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held
that the intention is a state of mind and can be inferred from the nature of the act committed,
the weapon used, and the circumstances attending the act. Similarly, in K. Prema S. Rao v.
Yadla Srinivasa Rao (2003) 1 SCC 217, it was held that a consistent pattern of cruelty,
harassment and humiliation provides sufficient inference of intention or knowledge that such
conduct is likely to cause death or suicide. Thus, even in the absence of direct proof, the
cumulative conduct of the accused establishes mens rea.
10 Presumption of Knowledge in Cases of Dowry Death or Domestic Cruelty- Under
Section 119 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (corresponding to Section 113B of the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872), once it is shown that:
a The woman died under unnatural circumstances within seven years of
marriage, and
b She was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with dowry:
It is pertinent to note that the above essential elements are not completed in the above matter.
11 It is pertinent to note that to attract Cruelty, conduct must be willful and of such nature
as is likely to cause grave injury or drive the woman to suicide. (Girdhar Shankar Tawade v.
State of Maharashtra (2002) 5 SCC 177). The record discloses only occasional quarrels and
general domestic tension, insufficient to constitute cruelty. There is no independent witness,
no medical record and no written complaint by the Deceased or her parents before her death
18
regarding alleging sustained harassment. Therefore the prosecution has failed to prove the
essential ingredients of Cruelty.
12 The post-mortem report confirms drowning as the cause of death and records minor
impact injuries consistent with a fall. No strangulation, assault, or internal injuries were found.
Forensic analysis revealed foreign male DNA under the Victim’s nails that did not match
Accused No 1, further negating the prosecution’s theory. The location is an open canal area
with uneven terrain and low visibility supports a possibility of accidental fall, especially
considering the victim’s emotional distress and late-night movement.
IV No evidence of conspiracy or shared intent:
13 There is no evidence of conspiracy or shared intent among Accused Nos 2 and 3. The
prosecution has failed to show any overt act or instigation on their part. Mere familial
relationship cannot give rise to vicarious criminal liability. (Kashinath v. State of Rajasthan,
(2006) 12 SCC 254). Thus, Accused Nos. 2 and 3 (parents-in-law) deserve immediate
discharge under Section 193 BNSS, as no prima facie case is made out against them.
19
PRAYERS
In light of Justice and principles of equity and good conscience the Accused hereby prays
before the Hon’ble Court that :
1 the Hon’ble Court be pleased to hold that the Prosecutors in this matter has failed to
establish the essential ingredients of offences as alleged in the complaint under the Bhartiya
Nyay Sanhita 2023 and the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, beyond reasonable doubt;
2. The Hon’ble Court be pleased to declared that the presumption under Section 113B of the
Indian evidence act, 1872, stands rebutted in view of the absence of proximate cruelty or
dowry-related harassment;
3. The Hon’ble Court be pleased to acquit the Accused of all charges framed under the
aforementioned provisions;
4. The Hon’ble Court be pleased to incharge the Accused for custody of Victims daughter
( Meera);
5. For costs; and
6. The Hon’ble Court be pleased to pass any other order(s) deemed just, fair, and equitable
in the interest of justice.
20