INDEX

[Link]. PARTICULAR PAGE.

NO.

1. Introduction 3

2. Facts of the Case 4-5

3. Jurisdiction 6

4. (A) Summary of Evidence Adduced (Prosecution) 7-9

(B) Summary of Evidence Adduced (Defense) 10

5. (A) Summary of Arguments (Prosecution) 11

11
(B)Summary of Arguments (Defense)

6. Relevant Authorities 12

7. Judgement 13-14

8. Conclusive Remark 15

1
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I have taken full efforts in this enclosed moot court Assignment. However, it would not have
been possible for me without the kind support and help of many individuals and
organizations. I would like to extend my sincere thanks to all of them

Iam highly indebted to the dedicated and sincere faculty of School of Law, DAVV.
Respected Dr. Manish Sitlani Sir, head of department , Dr. Archana Ranka Ma’am and prof.
Mr. Aditya Shrivastava for his valuable guidance and constant supervision as well as for
providing information regarding the assignment & also for his support in completing this
assignment.

Iam also thankful to all the co-operative and dedicated faculties of School of Law, DAVV
for their valuable guidance and constant support.
Lastly. I would also like to thank each and everyone, mentioned or not, who had helped me.

Himanshu Dhurvey
[Link] (hons.)
IXsemester

2
 INTRODUCTION

A Moot Court exercise serves as an essential academic tool for law students, enabling
them to experience the practical functioning of the criminal justice system through
simulated court proceedings. It provides an opportunity to understand procedural law,
evidentiary rules, courtroom decorum, and the analytical reasoning required in real
criminal [Link] present moot proposition pertains to the alleged murder of Rahul
Sharma, tried under Section 103(1) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. This
Introduction aims to present the case in a clearer, more structured manner while
preserving the original legal essence. It explains how the trial revolves around
circumstantial evidence, including forensic recovery, witness testimonies, and digital
records, all of which form the basis for judicial assessment.

This Moot Court Diary records the proceedings of a criminal trial involving a charge
Of murder under Section 103(1) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 revolves
around The death of Rahul Sharma, a tenant found stabbed in his apartment in Indore.
The purpose of this diary is to document the procedural aspects of a Sessions Trial,
Including the analysis of the First Information Report (FIR), the framing of charges,
The examination and cross-examination of witnesses, the appreciation of forensic
Evidence, and the final delivery of judgement.

The case is purely circumstantial in nature, lacking direct eyewitnesses to the act of
Killing. It relies heavily on the “Last Seen” theory, motive regarding rent disputes,
And forensic recovery of the weapon. The diary emphasizes the burden of proof
Required to convict an accused based solely on circumstantial evidence.

3
 FACT OF THE CASE

The following is a narrative summary of the facts of the case, leading up to the filing
of the First Information Report (FIR No. 221/2024) and the subsequent judicial
proceedings:

1. On the night of 14 August 2024, Rahul Sharma, aged 28 years, was residing alone at
Flat No. 302, Block C, Green Park Colony, Indore. At approximately 11:30 PM, his
sister, Meera Sharma, received an urgent call from Rahul’s friend, Ragini Kaur, who
informed her that Rahul was lying unresponsive inside his flat.

2. When Meera arrived, she found her brother lying near the dining table, soaked in
blood. Ragini, who was already present at the spot, stated that she had reached Rahul’s
flat around 10:50 PM, found the door unlocked, and discovered him motionless.

3. Meera Sharma alleged that her brother had a strained Relationship with his landlord,
Sanjay Kumar Shah (the Accused), who lived in Flat No. 304 of the same building.
Rahul had allegedly informed Meera via a phone call At 9:45 PM on the night of the
incident that Sanjay was harassing him for increased Rent and had threatened him.

4. Meera Sharma approached P.S. South Kotwali. The FIR was Registered as FIR No.
221/2024 on 15.08.2024 at 12:30 AM under Section 103(1) of BNS, 2023. The police
reached the scene at 12:45 AM.

[Link] arrival at the locus delicti, the investigating authorities observed the body of
the Deceased lying in a supine position in the vicinity of the dining area. A
preliminary examination revealed a penetrating stab wound on the left side of the
chest. Crucially, the Investigating Officer noted the absence of any signs of forced
entry or resistance at the crime scene, suggesting the assailant may have been known
to the victim or had easy access. The murder weapon was not discovered at the scene
during the initial inspection.

4
[Link] Post-Mortem Examination, conducted on 15.08.2024, substantiated the nature of
the death as homicidal. The autopsy report opined that the cause of death was
haemorrhagic shock secondary to a deep, penetrating, single-edged stab injury to the left
ventricle of the heart. Furthermore, a superficial incised wound was noted on the right
forearm of the Deceased, which has been characterized as a ‘defensive wound,’
indicating a struggle or an attempt by the victim to ward off the attack.

[Link] the investigation, statements under Section 180 of the Bharatiya Nagrik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, were recorded from Meera Sharma, Ragini Kaur, and Mahesh
Verma. Ragini Kaur admitted to a quarrel with the deceased earlier that evening and
stated that she entered his flat at about 10:50 PM, finding the door open and the
deceased unresponsive. Mahesh Verma stated that he heard loud voices around 8:15 PM
and saw the accused, Sanjay Kumar, near the deceased’s flat at about 9:15 PM carrying
a cloth bag.

[Link] 16 August 2024, a blood-stained kitchen knife was recovered from a dustbin
outside Block C at the instance of the accused, pursuant to his disclosure made
during interrogation. The weapon was duly seized in the presence of independent
witnesses. Forensic analysis confirmed a 99.9% DNA match between the blood on
the knife and that of the deceased, while the fingerprint examination yielded only
partial characteristics, insufficient for definitive identification.

[Link] extraction from the deceased’s mobile phone disclosed a series of

communications between the deceased and the accused shortly prior to the estimated
time of death, containing threats and references to rent-related disputes. CCTV footage
further corroborated the accused’s entry into the apartment complex at 8:00 PM and the
subsequent arrival of Ragini and Meera later that night, with no visual record of the
accused exiting the premises prior to his arrest.

[Link] cumulative investigative material, comprising forensic evidence, digital records,

witness statements, and the purported recovery of the weapon, collectively forms the
foundation of the prosecution’s case under Section 103 of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita,
2023.

5
 JURISDICTION

The Hon’ble Court of Sessions, Indore, Madhya Pradesh, has the requisite territorial
and subject matter jurisdiction to hear and determine the present matter.

1. Territorial Jurisdiction:
The crime was committed at Flat No. 302, Block C, Green Park Colony, Indore,
Madhya Pradesh. This falls under the jurisdiction of P.S. South Kotwali, District
Indore. Consequently, the Sessions Court, Indore, has the territorial jurisdiction
to try the offense.

2. Subject Matter Jurisdiction:

The accused is charged with Murder. Under Section 103(1) of the Bhartiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the punishment for murder is death or imprisonment for
life, and a fine. As per the First Schedule of the BNSS (Bhartiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita), 2023, the offense of murder is Cognizable, non-bailable, and
triable exclusively by a Court of Session.

Therefore, this Court is competent to adjudicate the matter.

6
 SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE ADDUCED

(A) Prosecution Witnesses (PW)

• PW-1MeeraSharma(Informant/Sister):
o Testimony: Deposed that she received a call from Ragini at 11:30
PM about Rahul’s death. She reached the flat and saw the body.
o Motive: Stated she spoke to Rahul at 9:45 PM, who claimed the
landlord (Sanjay) was harassing him for rent and threatening him.
She overheard an Argument.
o Cross-Examination: Admitted she lived separately and had no personal
Knowledge of the landlord. Admitted she did not witness the crime.
Conceded Rahul never filed a formal police complaint against Sanjay.
Admitted that Ragini and Rahul had an argument at 8:00 PM regarding
money (Rs. 7000).

• PW-2 Rakhi Singh (Investigating Officer):

o Testimony: Registered FIR, inspected the crime scene, and prepared
the spot Map. Arrested the accused. Recovery: Testified that the
o accused voluntarily disclosed the location of the Weapon (knife)
under Section 27 Evidence Act equivalent in BNSS. Recovered The
knife from a dustbin near Block C. Cross-Examination: Admitted the
dustbin was in a public place accessible to Anyone. Admitted no
o eyewitness saw the accused enteringthe specific flat at The time of
the murder. Admitted Ragini’spresence at the scene prior to police
Arrival meant the scene was notimmediately secured.

• PW-3 Ragini Kaur (Friend of Deceased):

o Testimony: Stated she arrived at 10:50 PM, found the door unlocked,
and the Body inside. Called Meera. Claimed Rahul told her about
landlord disputes.
oHostile/Cross-Examination: Prosecution treated her as hostile
regarding certain Details. In cross-examination, admitted she had a
heatedargument with Rahul At 8:00 PM over financial matters
(Rahulspending her money on liquor). Admitted she did not call the
policeimmediately due to shock.

7
• PW-4 Mahesh Verma (Neighbor):

o Testimony: “Last Seen” witness. Stated he heard arguments from

Rahul’s flat at 8:15 PM. Stated he saw Sanjay (Accused) entering
Rahul’s flat at 09:15 PM carrying a cloth bag.
oCross-Examination: Admitted he did not see Sanjay leave. Admitted
he did not See any physical altercation. Admitted he only “assumed”
the earlier argument Was on the phone.

• PW-5 Dr. Renu Kewat (Forensic Medical Officer):

o Testimony: Conducted Post Mortem. Identified fatal stab wound to

the heart. Estimated time of death between 10:30 PM and 11:30 PM.
Confirmed injury was Homicidal.

• PW -6 Dr. Anant Sethi (FSL Expert):

o Testimony: Analyzed the knife (Exhibit A1). Findings: Blood on the

o blade matched Rahul Sharma (99.9%). Fingerprints on The handle
were partial (6 out of 12 points match with Sanjay). Cross-
Examination: Explicitly stated that a 6-point match is not conclusive
o for Identification. Admitted smudged prints and other biological
traces (sweat/saliva) on the handle did not match Sanjay, leavingthe
possibility of Another handler.

• PW-7 Ratan & PW-8 Gagan (Panch Witnesses):

o Testimony: Witnessed the recovery of the knife from the dustbin.

o Cross-Examination: Admitted they did not see the accused put the
knife there. Confirmed the dustbin was in an open public area.

8
(B) DOCUMENTARY AND PHYSICAL EVIDENCE

[Link] Information Report (FIR) – The First Information Report, bearing number
221/2024, was registered at Police Station South Kotwali on 15.08.2024 at 12:30 AM. It
records the Initial complaint lodged by Ms. Meera Sharma (sister of the deceased) under
Section 103(1) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. The document details the
time of the information received, the identity of the victim (Rahul Sharma), and the
specific allegation against the landlord, Sanjay Kumar, based on prior disputes over rent
and threats.
[Link] Mortem Report –

The Post Mortem Report (No. PM/2024/582), dated 15.08.2024 and prepared by Dr.
Renu Kewat, provides the medical cause of death. It documents the external and internal
examination of the body, specifically noting a fatal stab wound (2.8 cm x 1.2 cm)
penetrating the heart’s left ventricle and a defensive wound on the right forearm. It
establishes the death as homicidal and estimates the time of death between 10:30 PM
and 11:30 PM on 14.08.2024.
[Link] Memo of Weapon –

This memorandum, prepared on 16.08.2024 at 08:00 AM, records the discovery of the
murder weapon. It details the recovery of a blood-stained kitchen knife wrapped in a
white cloth from a public dustbin near Block C, Building No. 12. The memo notes that
this recovery was made at the instance of the accused, Sanjay Kumar, following his
disclosure statement, and is signed by independent witnesses Ratan and Gagan.
[Link] Science Laboratory (FSL) Report –
Ex. P-4 The FSL Report (No. FSL/MDP/2024/BIO/1130), dated 20.08.2024, serves as
scientific confirmation of the biological evidence. It confirms that the blood found on
the recovered knife (Exhibit A1) matches the DNA of the deceased, Rahul Sharma
(99.9% match). Crucially, it also reports on the fingerprint analysis, noting a partial,
inconclusive match (6 out of 12 points) with the accused on the knife handle, as well
as the presence of unidentified sweat and saliva traces.
[Link] Extraction Report (Electronic Evidence)-

Dated 17.08.2024, this report summarizes the digital evidence extracted from the
deceased’s mobile phone. It provides a transcript of the last active chat between the
deceasedand the accused at 9:15 PM on the night of the murder. The report highlights
specificthreatening messages regarding unpaid rent (“If you don’t pay immediately, I
will notlet this go easily”), which the prosecution uses to establish motive.

9
[Link] Footage Seizure Memo- This evidence consists of the surveillance footage
retrieved from the main entrance of Green Park Colony. The memo records the specific
times of entry for relevant individuals: the accused entering at 08:00 PM, the witness
Ragini Kaur at 10:45 PM, and the informant Meera Sharma at 11:40 PM. This timeline
is critical for corroborating witness statements and establishing the “last seen”
arguments.

Defense Evidence (DW)

Defense did not produce independent witnesses but relied on the Contradictions brought
out during the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses. To establish a reasonable
doubt.

10
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

(A) Prosecution Arguments

The prosecution contends that the accused possessed a clear and compelling motive
to commit the offence, as the deceased was in financial distress and had ongoing
disputes with the accused, his landlord, regarding rent escalation and eviction
threats, as deposed by PW-1 Meera and supported by the chat records referred to by
the Investigating Officer. It is further urged, on the basis of the testimony of PW-4
Mahesh Verma, that the accused was the last person seen entering the deceased’s
flat at approximately 9:15 PM, with the death occurring within a proximate
timeframe of 10:30 to 11:30 PM. The prosecution also relies upon the recovery of
the alleged murder weapon—a kitchen knife—at the instance of the accused
pursuant to his disclosure, asserting that such recovery is admissible and indicative
of his knowledge of the weapon’s location. Forensic examination confirmed that the
blood on the recovered knife matched that of the deceased, and although the
fingerprints obtained were only partial, they reflected characteristics suggestive of
the accused. The prosecution further submits that the threats allegedly issued by the
accused earlier that evening, as overheard by PW-1 Meera, establish the requisite
mens rea for the commission of the offence.

(B) Defense Arguments

The defence submits that the “last seen” circumstance is unreliable in the present case,
as PW-4 allegedly observed the accused at 9:15 PM, whereas the estimated time of
death ranges between 10:30 PM and 11:30 PM, leaving a substantial interval of 1.5 to 2
hours during which any other individual could have entered the premises. It is contended
that the jurisprudential requirement that the time gap be so narrow as to exclude all
possibility of intervention by a third party stands unfulfilled. The defence further argues
that the forensic evidence is inconclusive, as PW-6 acknowledged that a 6/12 fingerprint
match does not meet the standard for positive identification and that unidentified
biological traces (sweat/saliva) were detected on the knife handle, suggesting the
involvement of an unknown third party. The recovery of the knife is also challenged on
the ground that it was effected from a public dustbin accessible to all residents, thereby
rendering the recovery weak and susceptible to fabrication or planting. The defence
additionally highlights the presence of an alternative suspect, PW-3 (Ragini), who
admitted to having an altercation with the deceased over money at around 8:00 PM and
was the first to discover the body, with the main door found open, thus providing both
motive and opportunity and raising reasonable doubt regarding the accused’s exclusive
culpability. Finally, the defence characterizes Meera’s testimony concerning the rent
dispute as hearsay, being based solely on telephonic conversations and unsupported by
any formal written complaint or independent documentations.

11
 RELEVANT AUTHORITIES

[Link] Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1984 SC 1622: In a case

based on circumstantial evidence, the chain of Evidence must be so complete as not to
leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the
accused. It must show That within all human probability, the act must have been done
by the Accused.

2. Bodhraj v. State of J&K (2002): The “Last Seen” theory comes into play where the
time gap Between the point of time when the accused and deceased were seen last Alive
and when the deceased is found dead is so small that possibility of Any other person
being with the deceased becomes impossible.

[Link] v. State of Tamil Nadu (2009): Recovery of a weapon from an open place
accessible to all and Sundry is not reliable evidence under Section 27 of the Evidence
Act (now BNSS equivalent).

[Link] Singh v. State of Punjab (2006): Where two views are possible, one
pointing to the guilt of the Accused and the other to his innocence, the view
favourable to the Accused should be adopted.

5 Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1952 SC 343

The Court heldthat in cases based oncircumstantial evidence,thecircumstancesmust
be Fully established and consistent only with the guilt of the accused; any circumstance
creating A reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal.

[Link] Khan v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2025 INSC 167, the Supreme Court reiterated
that a disclosure statement under Section 27 is admissible solely to the limited extent
that it leads directly to the discovery of a relevant fact. The prosecution is required to
establish, with strict certainty, the voluntariness of the disclosure, the authenticity of the
statement, and independent corroboration of the recovery. The Court further held that
where the alleged recovery is effected from an open or publicly accessible location, or
where the chain of custody and forensic linkage are deficient or incomplete, the
probative value of such recovery is considerably diminished and cannot be treated as a
decisive or determinative circumstance for sustaining a conviction

12
 JUDGEMENT

In the case concerning the death of Rahul Sharma, the accused Sanjay Kumar faces charges of
murder. After reviewing the evidence, witness statements, and forensic reports, the Court
delivers its judgment.

1. Facts and Evidence

a. Deceased Rahul Sharma was found dead in his flat with a stab wound to the left
chest.

b. No murder weapon was initially found at the scene. Later, the accused brought
forth a knife (Exhibit A1), claimed to be the weapon, recovered from a dustbin
near the building.

c. Forensic analysis showed 99.9% DNA match of blood on the knife with the
deceased Rahul Sharma. Minor traces of sweat and saliva on the knife handle
did not match the accused.

d. Blood swabs from the floor (Exhibit A2) confirmed to be from the deceased.

e. Fingerprint comparison on the knife handle with the accused showed 6 out of
12 minutiae points matched, the remaining impressions were smudged or
incomplete. The fingerprint evidence is suggestive but inconclusive regarding
the accused having handled the knife.

f. The CCTV footage shows Sanjay Kumar entering the colony at 8:00 PM, with
no record of his leaving the premises before arrest.

g. There is no sign of forced entry at the crime scene, no witnesses saw the murder,
and the victim was found in the condition described without visible struggle.

h. Statements of three witnesses, including the deceased’s sister, Meera Sharma

and friend. Ragini Kaur establish the background of disputes over rent but do
not directly place or prove the accused at the scene at the time of the crime or
holding the weapon.

2. Analysis

a. recovered from the dustbin does have the deceased’s blood on it, but this alone
does not clearly prove that Sanjay Kumar used it to commit the murder. The

13
 sweat and saliva found on the knife handle do not match him, and the fingerprint
marks are only partial and smudged. Because of this, the fingerprints cannot be
treated as firm proof that he handled the knife. Therefore, the weapon recovery
does not strongly or conclusively connect Sanjay Kumar to the act of stabbing.

b. The absence of forced entry and eyewitnesses, combined with no concrete

forensic evidence to affirm Sanjay Kumar’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt,
weakens the prosecution’s case.

c. CCTV evidence places Sanjay Kumar within the colony but does not prove he
committed the murder or handled the weapon.

d. The fact that Sanjay Kumar was present in the colony does not equate to his
involvement in the stabbing without further corroborative evidence.

e. The defense’s narrative and the existing ambiguities in forensic evidence raise
substantial doubt about the accused’s guilt.

Conclusion:- The prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of Sanjay Kumar beyond reasonable
doubt. The evidence is insufficient and inconclusive to sustain a conviction for murder under
relevant penal provisions.

Accordingly, Sanjay Kumar is hereby acquitted of the charge of murder and set at liberty
forthwith.
Order accordingly.

Prashant Soni
Principle District and Session Judge
Indore, M.P.

14
 CONCLUDING REMARK

The instant case epitomizes a scenario where suspicion is cast, but the legal standard of
proof is not met. The Defense has successfully demonstrated that the evidence adduced
by the Prosecution, particularly the crucial link of weapon recovery, is fundamentally
flawed, thereby breaking the Panchsheel of circumstantial evidence. A man’s liberty
cannot be compromised on the basis of suspicion, no matter how strong.

Where the circumstances are capable of two inferences, one pointing to the guilt of the
accused and the other to his innocence, the one which is favorable to the accused must
be adopted. The Prosecution has failed to exclude the reasonable hypothesis that the
knife was placed in the public dustbin by a third party or that the fatal injuries were
inflicted by someone other than the Accused.

The trial of State of M.P. vs. Sanjay Kumar Shah served as a profound exercise in
Understanding the nuances of the Indian criminal justice system. While drafting this
Moot court diary, several key legal insights were gained:

1. The Sanctity of “Beyond Reasonable Doubt”: The case highlighted that even If
an accused seems likely to be guilty (due to presence and motive), the court
Cannot convict without conclusive proof. The gap between “may be true” and
“must be true” is where the defense operates.

2. Importance of Cross-Examination: The defense strategy relied almost Entirely

on cross-examination to bring out the time gap and the in conclusion .

15