Doubt regarding the date of registration of FIR

 According to the FIR, date of lodging of FIR – 16th July, 2016

 According to Gaitonde, date of registration of FIR – 16th July, 2016 (Which
was after NIA was delegated the duty of investigation of the present case.)
 According to the Charge sheet and Notification of Govt. date of handing over
of the case to the NIA - 19th July, 2016

There is a lack of clarity regarding the date of filing of the FIR.

There is an inherent uncertainty regarding the date of lodging of the FIR,
as the NIA’s official delegation of duty to Prakash Gaitonde was on 19th ,
whereas he says that he did the same on 16th.
There is a lack of description on the part of Inspector Ramesh
Shrivastava, as he did not get the FIR lodged, and also got Guddu Singh’s
161 statement recorded before the registration of the FIR (as per his own
161 statement).
According to the chargesheet, the FIR was lodged on 19th July, 2016 (RC
– 01/2016/ NIA , MVB). The delay is inordinate, and has no supplement
of any reasoning attached, to explain the delay.
According to the NIA, it was Ramesh Shrivastava who acted in the
capacity of complainant/informant to get the FIR registered. Then why has
Guddu Singh been named as the informant and why has his signature been
taken on the concerned FIR.
In his 161, Guddu Singh mentions no instance where he was even asked to
go for 161 or FIR by the investigating authorities.
In the FIR’s list of accused persons, 5 persons have been named. But in the
story of the FIR, there are only two persons, namely, Tejas and
Veerbhadra, who have been mentioned.
Latches in the Chargesheet

In Paragraph 16.2 of the Chargesheet, the author of the same asserts that A1
and A3 have been previously involved in the execution of various unlawful
activities. According to the Character Certificate of Ramadhir Singh in
Exhibit 11, it has been stated that he has pending cases against him. But in the
chargesheet, in the slot of pending cases, it has been stated that he has no
pending cases against him. In both the documents, he has no previous
convictions whatsoever. As far as Tejas is concerned, he too has no previous
convictions, nor does he have any pending cases against him. Even so, the
chargesheet, on materials not on record asserts that they have indulged in the
execution of various unlawful activities.
In Para 16.4 it has been stated that 307 that Veerbhadhra allegedly committed
against Tejas came into light only during the investigation. But in the FIR, it
was the basic story with which the case began.
Para 17.1 “an attempt to carry out unlawful activities and to bring hatred
towards the Govt. of Indiana”. This is a mere assertion, as there exists no
transcript or digital evidence to suggest the same. There is no eye witness as
well, who could have recounted his speech, on the basis of which the
aforementioned statement could have been asserted.
Para 17.2 “Tejas was indulged in propagating anti-governmental ideologies”.
This statement is general and omnibus. There are no specifics to reinforce the
veracity of this assertion.
In para 17.3 owing to some unauthorized campaigns organized by Tejas and
his associates in Dholakpur, there was an FIR registered, under the number
“RC45/2016/DLP” which was allegedly withdrawn when orders from Home
Ministry came. This has also been asserted in the 161 of Swarnima Sehgal,
Veerbhadra Singh, and Tejas as well. If the same was done, then the act
would have been legally wrong, as an FIR cannot be withdrawn, the only way
in which an FIR can be dropped is ether in the case of and order issued in
pursuance of S. 321 of the Cr.P.C. or in the case of S. 482 quashing.
The chargesheet in Paragraph 17.8 suggests that Vasundhara knew that
Veerbhadra had an intention to kill Tejas. This is very controversial.
 According to the depositions of Hukum Singh, Veerbhadra wanted to confront
Tejas regarding his affair with his daughter. According to tejas, Veerbhadra
wanted to confront him for the same reason as mentioned by Hukum Singh,
which was what Vasundhara had told him. Hence, to assert that Vasundhara
warned tejas about the same is too far fetched.
The Chargesheet in Paragraph 17.9 states that, “Slogans and remarks to bring
hatred towards Govt. and Indiana and was also persuading the public to
support his agenda” There is no material on record to ascertain the same.
There are no transcripts, no recordings, no eye-witnesses who have come
forward, or who have been inquired regarding the same.
Also, in paragraph 17.9, the chargesheet suggests that the two alleged users of
RPG, namely Banwari Lal and Natra Singh fired the RPG when they heard
the Gunshot. This assertion is highly absurd. A deduction can be, that if they
fired upon hearing the gunshot, the movement of Vasundhara’s car was
tracked, or it’s pace was in the control of perpetrators.
TECHNICAL EVIDENCE : even though the chargesheet hints something
about the linkage established between the accused persons by studying the
call details, there is no evidence on record to verify the same.

Depositions of the prosecution Witnesses

P.w. 1 – Hukum Singh

 According to Hukum Singh, he came to know about Tejas and

Vasundhara’s relationship when Veerbhadra Visited him.
 According to Hukum Singh, he could see anger in Veerbhadra’s eyes
when he asked for his Bike’s keys.

Why, when Hukum Singh knew that Veerbhadra was heavily drunk,
and was angry with Tejas to an extent that it was visible on his face,
allow Veerbhadra to use his bike and go to confront Tejas?
P.w. 2 – Swarnima Sehgal

 Swarnima says that it was because of Veerbhadra’s association

with Hukum Singh that the FIR was withdrawn.
 That Vasundhara didn’t like Tejas’ anti-governemental stance.
 That Veerbhadra used to get angry even at the thought of tejas.

p.w. 3 - Hemant Kumar

usage of the term “while returing mr. Waghela was heavily drunk and looked quite
sad.”
There can be two extrapolations
 Q. Why did Hemant use the term “while returning”?
 Q. How did you come to know about his sadness and
intoxication?

He also heard that Mr. Waghela had an altercation with Vasundhara.

 Q. did you physically witness the altercation? Or did someone
told you about this?
 Was she talking over the phone when she left Hukum’s?
 Did she ask you to specifically head to somewhere?
Hemant also was a victim and had injuries and was half burnt, and was
apparently sent for medical aid. There is attached document to assert
the same.

p.w. 4 – Ramesh Shrivastava

The time of receipt of information reflected in FIR states that it was

received at 10:00 P.M. whereas Ramesh says that it was at 10:22.
According to Ramesh he reached the site and did preliminary inquiry.
In the case of LalitaKumari vs. Govt. of U.P. (2014) 2 SCC; AIR 2014
SC 187, it has been reflected that registration of FIR is mandatory
 under S. 154 of the Cr.P.C. and if the information discloses
commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is
permissible in such a situation.
Ramesh says that he collected blood samples. There is no forensic
report on the same. There is no record to even suggest that the same
was sent for FSL.
Time of altercation : 10:17. According to 161 of Guddu Singh, the
altercation took place at 10:00p.m.
“duly collected all the evidence” the RPG’s forensic analysis is
nowhere to be found in the material on record, the bike which was
ceased hasn’t been duly examined, no record as to ascertain its
ownership is there on record.
He took Guddu Singh, after investigating, for 161. The registration of
FIR was neglected as infinitum by Mr. Ramesh.
161 of Guddu Singh was preferred over FIR, which is not even the
standard way of procedure.

p.w. 5 Prakash Gaitonde

Mr. Gaitonde came to know about the incident on 16th, and took over
the case on the same date. But according to the notification of the , the
Central government in exercise of its powers under section 6(5) r/w 8
of the NIA Act, 2008 vide order F. No. 111/17/2016-IS.IV, dated
19/07/2016 of the Ministry of Home Affairs, directed the NIA to
investigate this case. Which means that he did not visit the site of
occurance on 16th, which means his statement regarding him asking
for the CCTV footage too is unreliable.
he says that he duly collected the evidences, but still, even the NIA
missed on the FSL of blood samples recovered from near Tejas, the
RPG and the bike went even off the NIA’s scanner.
It was Ramesh who acted as the complainant. Then why has Guddu
Singh been named as the informant and he is the one who has signed
 the FIR. Mr. Gaitonde makes no statement to assert mr.. Guddu’s
presence.
No seizure list was prepared regarding the items seized.
3 days delay in lodging the FIR.

p.w. 6 Mr. Gonsalves

The statement of Mr. Gonsalves mentions the time of bringing of Tejas

and Veerbhadra to be 12P.M.
He doesn’t mention himself making any queries about the lodging of
FIR.

p.w. 7 Dr. Mann

He makes no mention of him making any queries regarding the

registration of FIR, and he even began the autopsy without it.
The Autopsy report finds no mention of any burn marks, the degree of
burns. It doesn’t deal about any burn injuries whatsoever. Whereas, a
blast had taken place, and panchas assert that there were two bodies
which were found, one was fully burnt, which was declared dead, and
the other was not fully burnt and was alive, which was sent for medical
aid.
The Autopsy report doesn’t talk about Rigor Mortis, or the time
elapsed since death of the victim.

p.w. 8 Dr. Martinez.

Dr. Martinez mentions that the seized Colt M1911A1 pistol had 6
bullets in the magazine and one in the firing chamber, this means that
no bullet left the pistol of Veerbhadra Singh.
The other seized item that Dr. Martinez received was the cartridge of
.45 ACP bullet fired from a Colt M1911A1 pistol, similar to what had
been recovered. This was discerned on the basis of class
 characterization method, as it was based on the examination of rifling
marks present on the bullet cartridge and of another bullet shot from
another test Colt M1911A1 pistol. But, to ascertain whether the bullet
recovered was shot from the gun recovered, there must have been
another test, namely an Individual Characterization test, which would
have examined the firing chamber mark, the firing pin mark, the
breech mark and the ejector mark present on the cartridge in
consonance with the Pistol received.. the same was not done.
Also, in the ballistic report, the requirement of distance determination
test and gunshot residue test, which tests the shooter’s hand to know
whether he shot the bullet or not, both the tests aren’t on record.
Dr. Martinez also examined the explosive. And her examination is
based on evidences in the form of remains of automobiles in which the
victim was travelling, rock samples which melted, and traces of
Nitroglycerin and cyclotrimethylenetrinitramine. The photographs
show that an RPG was also recovered. But the same was not received
by Dr. Martinez for examination.
(source of procurement waali baat meri clear nahi ho paayi thi)

According to the autopsy report:-

1. Scalp skull – unremarkable

2. Vertebra – unremarkable

3. Brain and Spinal Cord – Unremarkable

4. Walls, Ribs, Cartilages – Internal Hemorrhage

5. Larynx & Trachea – unremarkable

6. Lungs – Pulmonary Edema

7. Pericardia – internal Haemorrhage

8. Heart – Decompensated
 9. Large Vessels – ruptured due to presence of shrapnel

10. Walls of abdomen - Unremarkable

11. Peritoneum - unremarkable

12. Mouth, Oesophagus, condition of teeth - unremarkable

13. Stomach and its content – digested food

14. Small intestine and its content - unremarkable

15. Large intestine and its content - unremarkable

16. Liver – unremarkable

17. Spleen - unremarkable

18. Kidneys (right and left) - unremarkable

19. Bladder - unremarkable

20. Organs of generation (external and internal) – unremarkable

Injury – Multiple penetrating and lacerated wounds present on the thorax of the
deceased

No disease

No fractures

No dislocations

Recognizable wounds :

a. 1”x1.5”x2”

b. 0.75”x1.25”x1.75”

c. 1.25”x0.75”x1.5”
 d. 1.35”x0.9”x1.38”

e. 1.5”x1.1”x1.5”

Pieces of shrapnels recovered

i. 1cm.x1.25cm

ii. 0.5cm x1cm

iii. 1.25cm x 0.75cm

iv. 1.15cm x 0.75cm

v. 1.3cm x 1cm

vi. 1.4cm x 1.2 cm

vii. 1.35cm x 1cm

viii. 1.5cm x 1cm

ix. 0.8cm x 0.6cm

x. 1.2 cm x 1.1 cm

Clothings – Blue round neck tshirt, dark blue denims, black undergarments, and a pair
of black sandals. The clothes have various blood marks from blood loss.

Opinion of the doctor - The cause of death is due to blood loss owing to the internal
haemorrhage in the thorax region which has occurred because of multiple wounds
sustained by the deceased from the entrance of shrapnel as well as blood loss
sustained by the deceased from the wounds to the thorax itself.

Loopholes

1. The wound mentioned are secondary in nature and are merely constricted to
the thorax region. In cases of high order explosives like Nitroglycerin and
Cyclotrimethylenetrinitramine, the explosives should have had at least one
 primary wound. Primary wounds are caused by the shock waves created by the
explosion of high order explosives.

i. It can cause damage to the ear, which can destroy the whole ear or its
part, depending on its proximity with the victim (Tympanic membrane
rupture, ossicular disruption, cochlear damage).

ii. It can cause damage to the lungs of the victim, in the form of alveolar
haemorrhage, which can consequently cause pulmonary oedema. The
lungs parenchyma is damanged as well.

iii. Damage to gastrointestinal tract due to air blast – it can take form of
hemorrhages in the peritoneum of the gut and into the mesentery and
omentum. The intestines may extend circumferentially as annular
bands. Occasionally the gut may rupture if there are air filled
segments. In severe cases, the organs close to the abdomen, like
kidney, spleen or liver may be damaged.

iv. Brain Damage - Primary blast waves can cause concussions or mild
traumatic brain injury (MTBI) without a direct blow to the head.
Consider the proximity of the victim to the blast particularly when
given complaints of headache, fatigue, poor concentration, lethargy,
depression, anxiety, insomnia, or other constitutional symptoms. The
symptoms of concussion and post traumatic stress disorder can be
similar.

Apart from this, there may be secondary damages, which may be caused by the flying
missiles, which may come from the warhead (grenade shrapnel) or from the material
coming in contact with the explosion, like wood or plaster.

Tertiary blast injuries are caused when the person in displaced through the air and
impacts on another object by the blast wind, or when a structure collapses and causes
injury to the person. The resulting injury can be either blunt trauma due to the impact
or penetrating injury if the victim is propelled and the striking structure enters the
body. Injuries are determined by what the victim strikes. The strength of the explosion
determines the severity of the injuries sustained. High explosive blasts can cause skull
fractures, fractured bones, head injuries, or any traumatic injury (open or closed
injuries, chest, abdominal, pelvic injuries, amputations, spinal injuries, and any
others).

Quaternary blast injuries are comprised of all injuries that are not included in primary,
secondary, or tertiary blast injury categories. Quaternary blast injuries can be caused
by exposure to resulting, fire, fumes, radiation, biological agents, smoke, dust, toxins,
environmental exposure, and the psychological impact of the event. As a result of all
the debris, wounds can be extremely contaminated with a wide variety of sources.1

In the present scenario, the victim’s body just has 5 recognizable wounds in the thorax
region, and a total of 10 shrapnels have been recovered, the material of which has not
been examined. Apart from this, the report is silent on the entry point of these
shrapnels recovered.

Furthermore, the victim’s heart has decompensated and the pericardial sac has
internal haemorrhage and the large vessels are ruptured due to presence of shrapnels,
which is likely to have caused the pulmonary oedema in the lungs. Pleural cavity has
internal rupture, the reason behind which has not been stated.

The Report also doesn’t talk about rigor mortis, about color of body, status of eyes,
and time elapsed since death, the report is silent on the issue of any quaternary
injuries.

Spot Panchnama

1
Singh AK, Ditkofsky NG, York JD, Abujudeh HH, Avery LA, Brunner JF,
Sodickson AD, Lev MH. Blast Injuries: From Improvised Explosive Device Blasts to
the Boston Marathon Bombing. Radiographics. 2016 Jan-Feb;36(1):295-307.
 The Police, the arrival timing of which is still under dispute, went to
Mr. Sandeep Sharma and Mrs. Pallavi Sharma to ask them to become
the Panchas. This was at 11:00 P.M. o 15th. It took 30 minutes for the
Panchas and accompanying police to reach back at the spot. According
to the panchas, the distance between Tejas and Veerbhadra was 20 to
30 mtrs, whereas according to Guddu, it was just 10 to 15 mtrs.
The panchas have stated that it was after outlining Veerbhadra and
Tejas that they were rushed to the hospital. But, there is no material on
record to suggest that any such procedure was undertaken.
The panchas have stated that a pistol, a bullet shell and a stone with
blood stain was recovered. But, no seizure list was made. From another
site, bike and RPG were found at a distance of 100 mtrs and 50 mtrs
from the site of explosion, respectively.
Mr. Hemant was found half burned and was sent to hospital. But no
material on record exists to ascertain this very fact.

ISSUE II
Section 161 of the CRPC deals with the oral examination of witnesses by the police
and the subsequent record of such statements to be made. The object of Section 161 is
to obtain evidence, which may later be produced at the trial.

PLACE OF OCCURRENCE AND MANNER OF OCCURRENCE

NOT PROVED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt means proof that is close to an absolute certainty. If
the judge or jury is sure you committed the crime based on the evidence, that is
enough. They have been satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that you're guilty. In
criminal cases, the guilt should be proved beyond any reasonable doubt that a
reasonable man with ordinary prudence can have. There should be no doubt whether
the accused is guilty or not. If there is slightest doubt, no matter how small it is, the
benefit will go the accused. In the case of Ram Sarup v. State it was held that the real
onus is on the prosecution to prove its case, including the manner of occurrence
beyond all reasonable doubt.
FIR AND GUDDU SINGH’S STATEMENT
The FIR made by Prakash Gaitonde, Superintendent of Police states the time of
receiving information as 10 PM where according to Guddu Singh’s statement
recorded under Section 161 by the police, the informant in the following case has
stated that he recalls the beginning of the incident from 10 PM. He further explains
the situation by stating: -
 An altercation between two persons, where the altercation escalated and one
of them took out his gun which led to commotion
 Amidst all the chaos he heard a gunshot, which was followed by a loud sound
of explosion from the other side.
 After a few minutes he saw two bodies lying down, one at the platform and
another on the road. He also heard people shouting about bomb explosion.
It was then that he ‘immediately’ called the police and the police arrived after 10-15
minutes. From the facts it can be clearly deduced that the beginning of the entire
chain of events occurred from 10 PM and further the police reached the scene of
crime after the lapse of an estimate of 30-45 minutes. However, the FIR made shows
that the time of receiving the following information was 10 PM, which in itself makes
this document inherently flawed on the basis of manner of occurrence. Further, it is
seen that Mr. Ramesh Srivastava states that Guddu Singh saw an altercation at around
10:17 PM whereas Guddu Singh states he saw the altercation between Tejas and
Veerbhadra at 10 PM. This gravely affects the manner and time of occurrence of this
incident.

SPOT PANCHNAMA
Tejas & Veerbhadra
The Panchas Mr. Sandeep Sharma and Ms. Pallavi Sharma were brought to the crime
scene at Azad Chowk, Ponchinkipur at round 11 PM by Mr. Ramesh Srivastava. They
reached the place around 11:30 PM where they saw people gathered around the scene.
They saw two bodies, one of Mr. Tejas and other of Mr. Veerbhadra Singh lying at a
distance of 20-30 meters. A lady constable checked both the bodies and it was found
that the both of them were alive. After ‘outlining the bodies’ of both the individuals,
they were ‘rushed’ to the hospital. It must be duly noted that the police had received
the information of the incident well in advance before 11 PM and inspite of the
knowledge that both Tejas and Veerbhadra were alive, they waited long enough for
the Panchas’ presence and then showed agility by rushing them to the hospital.
Another very grey area is how the police outlined the body of the two victims, but
there is no such photograph or record in the course of investigation of such an act.
This ultimately tampers and leaves room for reasonable doubt of the manner of
occurrence.
Vasundhara and Hemant Kumar
Upon further investigation within 500 meters in the presence of Panchas, it was seen
that there was another spot of explosion. Upon reaching the spot of explosion, there
was an army jeepsey that had exploded. Further, two bodies were found near the
jeepsey. One body was identified as Ms. Vasundhara who was declared to be
completely burnt and dead upon examination by a lady constable. The other person
was Hemant Kumar, who was found half-burnt but alive and was immediately sent to
the hospital.
It is very important to note that the autopsy report given by Gurpreet Singh Mann,
states that the cause of death of Ms. Vasundhara is attributable to blood loss owing to
internal hemorrhage in the thorax region, which has occurred because of multiple
wounds sustained by the deceased from the entering of shrapnels. The detailed post
mortem also reports the 5 completely identifiable injuries over the lacerated thorax
region and 10 pieces of shrapnel were also removed from the body of the deceased.
Further the report does not make any mention of any injuries sustained in the head,
shoulder, abdomen, legs and spinal column by the deceased. This ultimately brings us
to the conclusion that the cause of death is not attributable to burning, which has been
stated by Mr. Ramesh Srivastava in his statement 2 and the Panchas in the spot
Panchanama. There is also no such report of the driver Hemant Kumar except for the
aforementioned statements made. This also leaves room for reasonable doubt and the
credibility of the information supplied by the witnesses of the scene.

VEERBHADRA SHOOTING
The chargesheet explicitly states that Major Veerbhadra Singh Waghela shot Tejas
after an altercation they had. However, the statements of Guddu Singh and Tejas
states otherwise. In his statement, Guddu Singh states that he saw Veerbhadra take out
his gun, which led to a commotion, and amidst this chaos he heard a gunshot. Tejas in

2
Pg 34
his statement also states that he saw a few men that he had never seen before, trying
to get ahold of Veerbhadra and in that chaos caused, a shot was fired at him.
Additionally, the ballistic report states that the pistol which was given for testing has
1 bullet in the firing chamber while its 7 round detachable magazine contained only 6
rounds now, which leads to the conclusion that there was no bullet fired from
Veerbhadra’s pistol. Further the finger print report shows that there was no
determination of the fingerprint on the trigger of the pistol. This therefore determines
that the manner of occurrence of the shooting of Tejas lies with sufficient reasonable
doubt and non-recording of credible information.

ISSUE III

It is humbly submitted before the court that OFFENCES CHARGED AGAINST

EITHER OF THE ACCUSED ARE NOT MADE OUT. For this the counsel shall
proceed by breaking up the elements of each offence.
(A 1) TEJAS
Charged under: section 10, 11 & 13 of the UA (P) Act, 1967; section 124A of
the IPC 1860.
INGREDIENTS of 124A

i) By words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible

representation, or otherwise: In the present case, it is alleged that
Tejas raised anti-national remarks and was engaged in proactive
speech which involved blatant remarks against the country. Para
19.1 and 19.2 of the charges mentioned in the charge sheet
explicitly states that these allegations were made solely on the basis
of the statements of the witnesses, statements which were recorded
u/s 161 of Cr.P.C and which have no evidentiary value. The charge
sheet submitted by the police states that the evidences submitted
“conclusively” prove the charges; however, the defense counsel
shall now deal with these evidences to establish that they are not
conclusive in nature and they don’t prove the charges beyond
reasonable doubt.
a) STATEMENTS OF WITNESSES U/S 161 of Cr.P.C: In his
statement to the police/NIA, Hukum Singh stated that Tejas was
involved in activities against the state and creating unrest and
disruption of peace. However, his statements are not supported by
any transcript or any audio or video recording of Tejas indulging in
such activities. There is no record of words, either spoken or
written, or sighs or visible representation or any other material to
show or even establish a link between him and the allegations
made by the Home Minister. It is important to note that the
statements under section 161 of Cr.p.c. have no evidentiary value,
still if the prosecution takes them into consideration for the lack of
better evidence, which again shows defect in the investigation
process, the statement of Swarnima Sehgal(prosecution witness),
Tejas(defense witness 1) and Veerbhadra Singh(defense witness 2)
should also be taken into account. Swarnima Sehgal has stated that
the FIR lodged against Tejas for making a remark that Indiana not
worth a country living and full of intolerants” was withdrawn and
as per the statement of Veerbhadra Singh and Tejas, due to the
efforts of none other than Hukum Singh. If Tejas’ actions were
against the state and were exciting hatred, contempt or disaffection
towards the government then why was the FIR against him
withdrawn. Why wasn’t he prosecuted earlier? It is also important
to note that Swarnima Sehgal did not hear Tejas making such
statement herself, rather she was told so by Vasundhara Singh
Waghela, therefore, she is a hearsay witness in the matter. It is also
alleged that Tejas was involved in the activities against the
government for long and his activities were creating unrest and
 disrupting the peace, however the local machinery did not take any
action against him or for the protection and preservation of peace.
The inaction on the part of local machinery implies that Tejas was
not involved in any activity which was against the maintenance of
public order, peace and tranquility
b) NO WRITTEN OR SPOKEN MATERIAL ON RECORD: There
is no written, spoken or other material on record to show that Tejas
was involved in anti-government activities. No signs, marks or
representations are recorded as evidence and no audio or video
recording of his speeches and public addresses are taken on record.
There is no such evidence to show that his addresses incited or
excited the masses to cause violence or create disaffection towards
the government.

Hence, the first element of the offence is not met.

ii) Brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or

attempts to excite disaffection towards, the Government established
by law: There are no evidences to show that anything said or done
by Tejas was bringing or inciting hatred or contempt, or disaffection
towards government established by law. Even the witnesses’
statements, on which the police has relied upon to “conclusively”
prove the charges do not make explicit mention of any such
statement which brought or which attempted to bring hatred against
the government. Statements made by Tejas were mere criticism of
government’s oppressive policies and they are covered under the
ambit of statement made under art. 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, that
is, under the freedom of speech and expression. None of his
statements caused the disruption of public order and peace, as
contrary cannot be established by prosecution witnesses or
evidences. Even, Veerbhadra Singh, in his statement has clearly stated
that when he reached the campaign site Tejas was “speaking in absurd
manner against the government” and its policies. Nowhere did he
mention that he was creating unrest among the public. His actions and
 speeches were mere awareness programs against the government’s ill
practices and oppressive policies.
a) Comments expressing disapprobation of the measures of the
Government with a view to obtain their alteration by lawful
means, without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt
or disaffection, do not constitute an offence under this
section.(Exp. 2): Tejas’ actions or statements were not intended
or directed against the state or to bring hatred, contempt or
disaffection. It was only condemning government’s actions and
policies and to lawfully obtain their alteration by making the
people aware. This became a major concern for Hukum Singh,
as Tejas stated in his statement to Police, that he was worried
that such activities weren’t good for his upcoming election.
iii) Comments expressing disapprobation of the administrative or other
action of the Government without exciting or attempting to excite
hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an offence under
this section.(Exp.3): Tejas’s action and speech were only a
disapprobation or condemnation of government’s administrative
actions and therefore, they’re not covered under this section.

Court in Kedarnath Singh v. State of Bihar held that, “What has been
contended is that a person who makes a very strong speech or uses very
vigorous words in a writing directed to a very strong criticism of measures of
Government or acts of public officials, might also come within the ambit of
the penal section. But, in our opinion, such words written or spoken would be
outside the scope of the section”.
“…The provisions of the sections read as a whole, along with the
explanations, make it reasonably clear that the sections aim at rendering penal
only such activities as would be intended, or have a tendency, to create
disorder or disturbance of public peace by resort to violence. As already
pointed out, the explanations appended to the main body of the section make it
clear that criticism of public measures or comment on Government action,
however strongly worded, would be within reasonable limits and would be
 consistent with the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression. It
is only when the words, written or spoken, etc. which have the pernicious
tendency or intention of creating public disorder or disturbance of law and
order that the law steps in to prevent such activities in the interest of public
order.”
Kedar Nath Singh vs. State of Bihar (20.01.1962 - SC): MANU/SC/0074/1962

OFFENCES U/S 10, 11 AND 13 OF UA (P) ACT, 1967

 Section 10 of the act: Section 10(a) states that whoever,

I) is and continues to be a member of such association:
II) takes part in meetings of such association; or
III) contributes to, or receives or solicits any contribution for the purpose
of, such association; or
IV) in any way assists the operations of such association, shall be
punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two
years, and shall also be liable to fine
It is important to note that there is no evidence on the prosecution’s part
to conclusively establish that Tejas continued to be a part of SKS after
it was declared unlawful by the government notification. Tejas was
receiving scholarships and was managing the funds of the said
organizations only till it was declared unlawful by the government.
After which he stopped receiving scholarship for his studies and which
caused him to “resurrect a team and unveil the face of the government”.
(moot proposition, p.74) Use of word “I” in Tejas’ statement shows that
he was not acting in furtherance of the objectives or agendas of SKS,
instead his actions were in furtherance of his own objective to make
people aware about the oppressive policies of the government.
Section 10(b) states that- “A person who is or continues to be a member of such
association, or voluntarily does an act aiding or promoting in any manner the
objects of such association and in either case is in possession of any unlicensed
firearms, ammunition, explosive or other instrument or substance capable of
causing mass destruction and commits any act resulting in loss of human life or
grievous injury to any person or causes significant damage to any property,—
i) and if such act has resulted in the death of any person, shall be
punishable with death or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable
to fine;
ii) in any other case, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term
which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to
imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”
Since, no such allegations are made against Tejas to having possessed any arms or
ammunitions or to have caused mass destruction or loss to human life etc. the
elements of this section are not met and therefore, offence under this section cannot
be made out.

 Section 11 of UA (P) Act, 1967

“ Penalty for dealing with funds of an unlawful association.—If any person
on whom a prohibitory order has been served under sub-section (1) of
section 7 in respect of any moneys, securities or credits pays, delivers,
transfers or otherwise deals in any manner whatsoever with the same in
contravention of the prohibitory order, he shall be punishable with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or
with both, and notwithstanding anything contained in the 1[Code], the
court trying such contravention may also impose on the person convicted
an additional fine to recover from him the amount of the moneys or credits
or the market value of the securities in respect of which the prohibitory
order has been contravened or such part thereof as the court may deem fit.”
No evidence on record to show that he was still dealing with the funds of the
organization: statements of Ramadhir Singh and Tejas showed that he was
involved in “raising funds and sensitizing people against the malpractices of
the government” only till the organization was declared unlawful, after which
he had no relation or involvement with the funding or activities of the
organization.
  Section 13 of the Act
Whoever—
(a) Takes part in or commits, or
(b) Advocates, abets, advises or incites the commission of, any unlawful
activity, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may
extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
As established earlier, Tejas’ activities were not unlawful. They were very
much in the exercise of his right to freedom of speech and expression and
right to peacefully assemble or to form union under Art. 19(1)(a) and (b)
respectively. None of his public addresses resulted in violent outbreaks,
hatred, contempt or disaffection towards government or mass destruction and
therefore, they are covered within the ambit of art. 19. And are not unlawful
activities.
It is also humbly submitted before the court that mere sensitization of people
against government policies do not count as advocating, abetting, advising or
inciting the commission of any unlawful activity.
(A 3) RAMADHIR SINGH
Charged under section 10, 11 and 13 of Unlawful activities (Prevention Act) 1967
and u/s 3 r/w 6 of Explosive Substance act 1908 and section 302 r/w 34 of IPC

I. Section 10, 11 and 13 of UA (P) Act, 1967: Ramadhir Singh was the
leader of the organization called SKS and was involved in receiving funds
for the assisting needy people of the society like Tejas, an orphan who was
been given scholarship for his studies. This organization was involved in
the upliftment of the oppressed people in Jharkhand. This organization
received funds for its activities from various organizations, this funding
increased after the FIR filed against Tejas, Vasundhara and his teammates
was withdrawn on the insistence of home ministry, as it came into lime
light. After this the government stopped their activities by imposing
sanctions on the organization declaring it unlawful under the UAPA act. It
is to be noted that there are no records or evidences to show that Ramadhir
Singh was still involved in the activities of the organization after it was
declared unlawful. The police based its findings on the witnesses’
 statements; however, none of the witnesses have stated in their statement
that it was known to them that Ramadhir Singh was still working or
carrying out the plans and policies of SKS. By Tejas’ statement it is made
clear that the rally which was to be conducted was a furtherance of his
individual motive of unveiling the policies of government, it was not the a
part of the execution of plans and policies of SKS, therefore, offences
against Ramadhir Singh under section 10, 11 and 13 of the act is not made
out.
II. Section 3 r/w 6 of Explosive Substance Act 1908: Section 3 tends to
punish the causing of an explosion of a nature likely to cause injury or
damage to life or property of a person by using any or a special explosive
substance while section 6 penalizes the abetment or aiding of any such
offence by providing money or explosive substance. However, in the
present case, there is no conclusive or any evidence to show that the
explosion which resulted in death of Vasundhara can be linked with
Ramadhir Singh. No witness has stated that they saw or heard anything
which could lead to the conclusion that Ramadhir Singh had any
involvement in the explosion. The prosecution case against Ramadhir
Singh is based on assumptions and allegations made by the police owing
to the previous case in which he was charged under this act but was
acquitted, there are no other grounds to show that he could’ve possessed
and supplied anyone with such substances to cause a blast as these
explosives are of special nature and are cannot be procured by civilians
like him.
It is also important to note that mere assurance given to Tejas that he’ll see
to any threat against the rally or his life cannot establish a direct link
between him and the explosion. The assurance maybe to resort to proper
authorities for obtaining security or to provide him security himself. It
cannot be construed that Ramadhir Singh had any involvement in the
matter, in fact, the statements of the other two accused in the FIR, who
have been identified by the police on grounds and evidences not disclosed
in the charge sheet, could also not been taken to establish a link between
the event and Ramadhir Singh. It is also important to note that the
explosion was effected against Vasundhara and not Veerbhadra Singh
 which also leaves a window open for reasonable doubt regarding who
caused the blast and who was targeted.

III. Section 302 r/w 34 of IPC 1806

The facts of the case fail to establish motive of Ramadhir Singh behind the
death of Vasundhara and nexus between him and the blast. There is also
no basis or conclusive grounds to establish direct link between the
absconders who allegedly caused the accident or with whoever caused the
accident. It is important to note that even if Ramadhir Singh had some
motive or intention to kill Veerbhadra Singh, why would he opt for a
method which would attract more attention and which is of such grave
intensity. Hence, there are no logical or reasonable grounds to establish
connection of Ramadhir Singh with events of the blast which resulted in
Vasundhara’s death and therefore, he cannot be charged under section 302
r/w 34 of IPC as it cannot be established beyond reasonable doubt that he
abetted or aided the offence of murder by supplying money or arms or
explosive substance to cause the death of the deceased person in this case.