THE K.K.

LUTHRA MEMORIAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2022

Team Code: URN 1897

THE K.K. LUTHRA MEMORIAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF THE STATE OF KILDARE

APPEAL NO. 1111 OF 2021

MR. CRISTO

(APPELLANT)

V.

STATE OF KILDARE

(RESPONDENT)

FOR OFFENCES CHARGED UNDER:

SECTIONS 302 AND 201

OF THE FRISK PENAL CODE, 1860

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF KILDARE

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT I

 THE K.K. LUTHRA MEMORIAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2022

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................................ IV

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ................................................................................... VI

STATEMENT OF FACTS .................................................................................................. VII

STATEMENT OF ISSUES .................................................................................................... X

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS.......................................................................................... XI

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED .................................................................................................. 1

I. WHETHER THE ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS OF SECTIONS 299/300 AND

201 OF THE FRISK PENAL CODE HAVE BEEN MET IN THE FACTS AND
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE INSTANT CASE? .................................................... 1

A. ACTUS REUS IS ESTABLISHED ................................................................... 1

1) STATEMENT OF ACCUSED ....................................................................... 1

2) CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE .................................................................. 2

B. MENS REA IS ESTABLISHED ....................................................................... 2

1) INTENTION .............................................................................................. 3

2) MOTIVE .................................................................................................. 3

C. CRISTO IS GULTY UNDER SECTION 201 OF FRISK PENAL CODE. .. 4

II. WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT HAS CORRECTLY APPLIED THE

APPLICABLE TEST FOR PROVING FACTS ‘BEYOND REASONABLE
DOUBT’? ................................................................................................................ 5

A. CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS CONCLUSIVE ENOUGH. ............... 6

1) CRISTO’S BEHAVIOR AFTER LIONEL'S DISAPPEARANCE ......................... 9

2) CRISTO WAS THE LAST PERSON TO SEE LIONEL ...................................... 9

3) CRISTO’S DISCLOSURE TO THE POLICE AND THE LACK OF DEFENCE

EVIDENCE IN THE TRIAL COURT ............................................................ 9

B. CRISTO IS GUILTY OF MOVING EVIDENCE ........................................ 10

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT II

 THE K.K. LUTHRA MEMORIAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2022

C. WITNESSES’ TESTIMONIES PROVE CRISTO’S GUILT ...................... 11

D. LAST SEEN THEORY IRONCLADS CRISTO’S GUILT FURTHER. .... 12

PRAYER ............................................................................................................................... XII

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT III

 THE K.K. LUTHRA MEMORIAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2022

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

Amrik Singh v. State of Pepsu, 1955 AIR 309 .......................................................................... 3

Bakshish Singh v State of Punjab, AIR 1971 SC 2016 ........................................................... 10

Bhagat Ram v. State of Punjab, AIR 1954 SC 621 ................................................................... 8

Bodh Raj v. State of J&K, AIR 2002 SC 3164 .......................................................................... 9

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Patranu Dass Raja Ram Beri, AIR 1982 PH 1,4. .................. 2

Duryodhan Rout v. State of Orissa, (2015) 2 SCC 783 ........................................................... 11

Harishchandra Ladaku Thange v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2007 SC 2957 ........................... 8

Indra Dalal v. State of Haryana, AIR 2015 SC Supp 1428........................................................ 9

Jamnadas Parsharam v State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1963 MP 106 ...................................... 5

Laxman v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1974 SC 1803 ........................................................... 3, 8

Matuki Misser v. Queen-Empress, (1885) ILR 11 Cal 619 (India) ........................................... 4

Mohan Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1974 SC 1144 ......................................................... 2

Nagendra Sah v. State of Bihar, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 717 ................................................... 13

Queen-Empress v. Abdul Kadir, (1887) ILR 9 All 452 (India) ................................................. 4

Ramreddy Rajesh Khanna Reddy v. State of A.P., AIR 2006 SC 1656 .................................. 13

Santosh v. State of M.P., AIR 1975 SC 654 .......................................................................... 3, 8

Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622 ................................. 7

Sk. Yusuf v. State of W.B., AIR 2011 SC 2283 ........................................................................ 7

State of A.P. v. I.B.S. Prasada Rao, AIR 1970 SC 648 ............................................................. 8

State of Madhya Pradesh v. Dharkale, AIR 2005 SC 44 ........................................................... 6

State of Madhya Pradesh v. Rammi, 1999 (1) JLJ 49 (MP) ...................................................... 5

State of Maharashtra v. Meyer Hans George, AIR 1965 SC 722 .............................................. 2

State of U.P. v. Satish, AIR 2005 SC 1000 ............................................................................ 12

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT IV

 THE K.K. LUTHRA MEMORIAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2022

State of UP v Ashok Kumar Srivastava, AIR 1992 SC 840 .................................................... 10

State of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal, AIR 1994 SC 1418 ...................................................... 6

State v. Dinakar Bandu, (1969) 72 BOM LR 905 ..................................................................... 3

Surendra Pratap Chauhan v. Ram Naik, (2001) 9 SCC 266 .................................................... 11

Surendra Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, AIR 2019 SC 99 ...................................................... 10

VL Tresa v. State of Kerala, (2001) 3 SCC 549 ........................................................................ 4

STATUTES

The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1974, No. 2, Acts of Parliament, 1949 (India). ................VI

The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, No. 1, Acts of Parliament, 1872 (India). ........................ 1, 2, 3

The Indian Penal Code, 1872, No. 45 , Acts of Parliament, 1872 (India). ........................... 1,4

BOOKS

P RAMANATHA AIYAR, THE LAW LEXICON, (2nd ed. 2006)...................................................... 1

RATANLAL & DHIRAJLAL, RATANLAL & DHIRAJLAL: EVIDENCE ACT (LexisNexis 25th ed.
2018). ............................................................................................................................. 12, 13

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT V

 THE K.K. LUTHRA MEMORIAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2022

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Hon’ble Court has the jurisdiction to try the instant matter under section 374 (2)
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC, 1973).

Section 374 CrPC, 1973:

374(2). Appeals from convictions:

“Any person convicted on a trial held by a Sessions Judge or an Additional

Sessions Judge or on a trial held by any other Court in which a sentence of
imprisonment for more than seven years 2 has been passed against him or
against any other person convicted at the same trial, may appeal to the High
Court.” 1

The Counsels for the Respondent most respectfully submit to the jurisdiction of the
Hon’ble High Court of Kildare.

1 The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1974, § 374, No. 2, Acts of Parliament, 1949 (India).

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT VI

 THE K.K. LUTHRA MEMORIAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2022

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Frisk is a developing country with one of the world's lowest populations. Killdare, a state
in Frisk, has recently made news for increased crime rates and police inefficiency in
combating those crimes.

2. Cristo, who had recently moved to Killdare with his family, met Lionel, a fellow
University of Killdare student and local resident from a well-known family. Over time,
Cristo and Lionel became good friends, and the latter frequently lent Cristo money for his
daily expenses on the condition that Cristo pays the money as quickly as possible

3. Cristo is a talented footballer who has always been the main player at his previous
academic institutions, but he has always found himself on the bench at the University of
Killdare, despite the fact that several teammates agreed that he should have been the main
player ahead of Lionel.

4. Cristo called Lionel late one night and asked him out to dinner. After considerable
persuasion, the latter agreed, and Cristo rode his motorcycle to Lionel's favourite eatery,
'Bob's Butchery.'

5. After the dinner, on Cristo’s suggestion to smoke a cigarette, they stopped a few blocks
before Lionel’s house in an isolated area to avoid getting seen by Lionel’s parents.

6. Cristo received a call from Lionel’s parents about his son’s whereabouts. Cristo informed
him that he dropped their son off a few blocks away from their home, as he decided that
he would walk after a heavy meal from Bob’s Butchery.

7. On the same day, police identified a dead body in a shallow ditch in a remote roadside
location, just a few blocks from Lionel's house. Lionel's parents were notified that their
son had been killed by what seemed to be a strike to the head. Lionel's parents informed
the police that they could not think of anyone they knew who would do this to Lionel,
and that all of Lionel's personal possessions appeared to be on him, following which
Lionel's body was submitted for a post-mortem examination.

8. Later, in the evening, the police went to Cristo, for a report, and Cristo informed the
police that he dropped Lionel a few blocks away from his home, upon the latter’s
insistence, and rushed home as his security guard would close the main gate of the
colony.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT VII

 THE K.K. LUTHRA MEMORIAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2022

9. Upon suspicion, the police took Cristo to the police station and interrogated him fiercely.
Cristo was arrested by the police without any proof. They then prepared an Investigation
report accusing Cristo of commission of offences under Sections 302 and 201 of the Frisk
Penal Code 1860, and under the allegations that Cristo had killed Lionel due to his
constant demands to return the money owed by Cristo and jealousy of not being selected
in their team, and that the police recovered a pack of ‘Lucky Strike’ cigarettes, a rare item
that Lionel generally possessed hidden in one of his chests. A long-serving waitress at
‘Bob’s butchery’, one Ms. Antonella confirmed having seen Lionel in the company of
Cristo on the night of his murder. Further, Mr. Chancerton crossed the spot where
Lionel’s body was recovered and he recalled seeing two boys, who were roughly of the
same age as Lionel and Cristo, having a loud heated conversation with each other, and
that Cristo had taken false pleas during the initial investigation about his rush to return
home and Lionel’s insistence to walk back to his house.

10. The Trial Court in Killdare in District Calumny gave an indictment against Cristo for
prima facie commission of offences under Sections 302 and 201 of the Frisk Penal Code
1860 to which he pleaded not guilty, and trial commenced.

11. During State Evidence, Mr. Kun and Mr. Sergio were deposed to show the existence of a
loan. Coach Jose.M deposed that he favoured Lionel over Cristo as he genuinely believed
Lionel to be the better player, and admitted that he never saw Lionel and Cristo quarrel
during training. Doctor Arsene proved his post-mortem report. Ms. Antonella and Mr.
Pique were deposed to seeing Lionel and Cristo together on the night of Lionel’s murder,
and admitted that they were not called by the Police during the investigation to identify
Cristo. Mr. Pep was deposed, and he had identified Lionel’s dead body and that all his
personal belongings appeared to be on him and admitted that he knew Cristo to be
Lionel’s good friend however, had no idea if Lionel routinely lent money to Cristo. Mr.
Chancerton deposed on lines of his previous statement to the Police. He proved receipts
showing the purchase of medicines for his son that night. During cross-examination, he
admitted that he did not know Lionel from before and learnt about his disappearance
from the local newspaper. He also admitted never being called by the Police during the
investigation to identify Cristo. The Investigating Officer admitted that no independent
witnesses were present at the time of preparation of memos for recovery of Lionel’s
body, Cristo’s alleged identification of the spot where Lionel’s body was found and

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT VIII

 THE K.K. LUTHRA MEMORIAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2022

alleged recovery of Lionel’s pack of ‘Lucky Strike’, he added that no public persons were
present as all these memos were prepared at night.

12. Cristo did not lead any defense evidence. In his statement to the Court, he stated that he
dropped Lionel a few blocks before his house on Lionel's advice that he preferred to walk
back, and that he was also in a hurry because he believed he wouldn't be able to enter his
residential complex due to how late it had gotten.

13. Upon perusal of all material on record, the trying Court convicted Cristo by holding that
the State had successfully proved the indictment against him beyond all reasonable doubt.
Aggrieved by the above decision and sentence, Cristo has filed an Appeal before the
High Court of Killdare titled ‘Cristo v. State’ bearing Appeal No.1111 of 2021. The
Appeal has been posted for final hearing in January 2022.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT IX

 THE K.K. LUTHRA MEMORIAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2022

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

I.

WHETHER THE ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS OF SECTION 299, 300, AND 201 OF THE FRISK PENAL
CODE HAVE BEEN MET IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE INSTANT CASE?

II.

WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT HAS CORRECTLY APPLIED THE APPLICABLE TEST FOR PROVING
FACTS ‘BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT’?

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT X

 THE K.K. LUTHRA MEMORIAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2022

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

I. WHETHER THE ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS OF SECTION 299, 300, AND 201 OF THE
FRISK PENAL CODE HAVE BEEN MET IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE
INSTANT CASE.

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the Accused Mr. Cristo is guilty under
section 299,300, and 201 of the Frisk Penal Code (hereinafter FPC).

Firstly, Actus reus is established on the part of Cristo.

Secondly, as Mens rea is evident and has been established by the defence.

Lastly, as Cristo is guilty under section 201 of the Frisk Penal Code for moving evidence
from the scene of crime.

II. WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT HAS CORRECTLY APPLIED THE APPLICABLE TEST
FOR PROVING FACTS ‘BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT’.

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the Accused Mr. Cristo is guilty under
section 299,300, and 201 of the FPC.

Firstly, because the circumstantial evidence is in itself extremely conclusive, leaving no

reasonable doubt that Cristo is guilty for the charges that he is convicted under.

Secondly, as Cristo is guilty for moving evidence from the crime scene.

Thirdly, as testimonies of the witnesses help in establishing circumstantial evidence beyond

reasonable doubt, and

Lastly, Last seen theory ironclads Cristo’s guilt far beyond all reasonable doubt.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT XI

 THE K.K. LUTHRA MEMORIAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2022

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

I. WHETHER THE ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS OF SECTIONS 299/300 AND

201 OF THE FRISK PENAL CODE HAVE BEEN MET IN THE FACTS AND
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE INSTANT CASE?

1. It is humbly contended that the Hon’ble Trial Court has rightly convicted the accused,
Cristo guilty of murder of Lionel under Section 300 of the Frisk Penal Code read with
Section 201 of the Frisk Penal Code under the grounds that:

A. Actus reus is established on the part of Cristo.

B. Mens Rea is evident, and has been established.

C. Cristo’s guilt under section 201, Frisk Penal Code is established.

2. In order to bring a successful conviction under this charge, it is pertinent to refer to

Section 300 of the FPC which elucidates the essentials of murder.

3. A person is guilty of murder if he intentionally causes the death of a person or causes

such bodily injury as he knows, is likely to cause death of that person or causes such
bodily injury, which in the ordinary course of nature results into death or commits an act
so dangerous that it must, in all probability cause death of that person.2 The prosecution
humbly contends that both the actus reus and mens rea of the crime are established in the
instant case.

A. ACTUS REUS IS ESTABLISHED

4. Actus reus is any wrongful act.3 Thus, in a case of murder, actus reus would be the
physical conduct of the accused that causes death of the victim. In the instant case the
existence of actus reus is established by way of:- 1) Statement of Accused and 2)
Circumstantial evidence.

1) Statement of Accused

5. The statement of the accused as a whole is inadmissible under Section 254 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872, but reliance can be placed on those parts of the statement, which are

2
The Indian Penal Code , 1872, § 300, No. 45 , Acts of Parliament, 1872 (India).
3
P RAMANATHA AIYAR, THE LAW LEXICON, 49 (2nd ed. 2006).
4
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, § 25, No. 1, Acts of Parliament, 1872 (India).

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 1

 THE K.K. LUTHRA MEMORIAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2022

corroborated by other evidence.5 It is contended that in the instant case, the accused has
confessed to the police that he hit Lionel on the head with a heavy stone. This statement is
corroborated by the post-mortem report wherein it is mentioned that Lionel was hit in the
head with a blunt object. Thus it can be reasonably inferred that there exists actus reus on
the part of the accused.

2) Circumstantial evidence

6. It is a well- settled principle that where the case is based on circumstantial evidence, the
court must satisfy itself that various circumstances in the chain of evidence should be
established clearly and that the completed chain must be such as to rule out a reasonable
likelihood of the innocence of the accused.6

7. In the instant case the prosecution has established the chain on the basis of the testimony
given by Miss Antonella, Mr. Pique and Mr. Chancerton which establishes the fact that
the victim was last seen in the company of the accused. The prosecution has also placed
reliance on the admissible part of the confession which talks about the mode of killing.
Further, when the police were taken to Cristo’s room, they discovered a particular article
in the form of packet of “Lucky strikes cigarettes”, a rare item that the victim was known
to carry hidden at the bottom of a chest.

8. Thus, it is the humble contention of the Respondent that the physical act of murdering
Lionel by hitting on the head has been established by well-linked chain of circumstantial
evidence.

B. MENS REA IS ESTABLISHED

9. Mens rea is considered as guilty intention,7 which is proved or inferred from the acts of
accused.8 It is humbly contended that the intention of kill has been established on the
following grounds:

1. Intention to kill Lionel.

2. Motive to kill Lionel.

5
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, § 27, No. 1, Acts of Parliament, 1872 (India).
6
Mohan Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1974 SC 1144.
7
Commissioner of Income Tax v. Patranu Dass Raja Ram Beri, AIR 1982 PH 1,4.
8
State of Maharashtra v. Meyer Hans George, AIR 1965 SC 722.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 2

 THE K.K. LUTHRA MEMORIAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2022

1) Intention

10. It is presumed that every sane person intends the result that his action normally produces
and if a person hits another on a vulnerable part of the body, and death occurs as a result,
the intention can be no other than to take the life of the victim and the offence committed
amounts to murder.9

11. Moreover, the intention to kill which can be inferred from the nature of the injuries
caused10 is not required in every case, mere knowledge that natural and probable
consequences of the act is sufficient for the conviction.11

12. In casu, the accused has used a heavy stone to strike on the head of the victim which is an
extremely vulnerable part of the body and hence it can be reasonably inferred that he
knew the consequences of the act and his intention was nothing else but to kill the victim.
This establishes clear mens rea on the part of Mr. Christo.

2) Motive

13. Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act stipulates that any fact is relevant which shows or
constitutes motive or preparation of any fact in issue or relevant fact 12. It is further
pertinent to note that if there is motive in doing any act, then the adequacy of that motive
is not necessary in all cases. Heinous crimes have been committed for very slight
motive.13

14. In the instant case, 2 friends of the accused, one Mr. Kun and Mr. Sergio have established
the fact that there existed some monetary loan between the accused and victim. Further,
the accused being used to being a star of the football team was made to sit on the bench
because of Lionel. This fact is corroborated by Jose M, the coach of the football team
who has expressly stated that he preferred Lionel over Cristo.

15. Thus, it is the humble contention of the prosecution that motive behind the killing of
Lionel was the sour relation due to the return of loan money and jealously of being
considered an inferior player to Lionel.

9
Amrik Singh v. State of Pepsu, 1955 AIR 309.
10
Laxman v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1974 SC 1803.
11
Santosh v. State of M.P., AIR 1975 SC 654.
12
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, § 118, No. 1, Acts of Parliament, 1872 (India).
13
State v. Dinakar Bandu, (1969) 72 BOM LR 905.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 3

 THE K.K. LUTHRA MEMORIAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2022

16. Therefore, it is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the Accused was
correctly held guilty for the offence of murder, given that requisite mens rea and actus
rea has been established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.

C. CRISTO IS GUILTY UNDER SECTION 201 OF FRISK PENAL CODE.

17. It is humbly contended by the Prosecution that the accused is guilty of destroying
evidence of the murder of Lionel under section 201 of the Frisk Penal Code.

18. Section 201 relates to disappearance of any evidence of the commission of an offence
and includes also of giving false information with the intention of screening an
offender.14

19. To bring home a charge under section 201, the prosecution must prove :-

1) The offence has been committed.

2) That the accused knew or had reason to believe the commission of such an offence.

3) That with such knowledge or belief he

a) Caused any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, or

b) Gave any information relating to the offence which he knew or then believed to be
false.

4) That he did so with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment.15

20. It must be proved that an offence, the evidence of which the accused is charged with
causing to disappear, has actually been committed,16 and that the accused knew, or had
the information sufficient to lead him to believe, that the offence had been committed.17

21. Mere suspicion would not be sufficient. There must be available cogent evidence on
record that the accused has caused the evidence to disappear in order to screen himself or
some known or unknown person. The foremost necessity that accused must have
knowledge of the offence and intention to screen the offender as the primary objective.18

14
The Indian Penal Code, 1872, § 201, No. 45, Acts of Parliament, 1872 (India).
15
VL Tresa v. State of Kerala, (2001) 3 SCC 549.
16
Queen-Empress v. Abdul Kadir, (1887) ILR 9 All 452 (India).
17
Matuki Misser v. Queen-Empress, (1885) ILR 11 Cal 619 (India).
18
Jamnadas Parsharam v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1963 MP 106.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 4

 THE K.K. LUTHRA MEMORIAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2022

22. In the instant case, there is circumstantial evidence of the fact that the victim was last
seen in the company of the accused, this statement is corroborated by Miss Antonella, Mr.
Pique and Mr. Chancerton. Secondly, the accused has himself rightly disclosed the mode
of killing corroborated by the disclosure statement admissible under section 27 of the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Lastly, the prosecution contends that the accused had hidden
the pack of “Lucky Strikes Cigarette”, a rare item Lionel was known to carry at the
bottom of a chest.

23. Thus, from the behavior of the accused the prosecution strongly believes that he knew
about the offence and hence he hid and destroyed vital evidence with the intention to
screen himself from conviction.

II. WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT HAS CORRECTLY APPLIED THE

APPLICABLE TEST FOR PROVING FACTS ‘BEYOND REASONABLE
DOUBT’?

24. The criminal jurisprudence as has developed in the basis of the British model is that the
offence alleged is required to be proved "beyond reasonable doubt". What is to be noted
is that the doubt, which is required to be removed, is of a reasonable man and not every
kind of doubt based on a surmise or guess. "Reasonable doubt", therefore, does not mean
a vague, speculative or whimsical doubt or uncertainty, nor a mere 'possible doubt of the
truth of the fact' to be proved. It also does not mean proof of a mathematical certainty nor
proof beyond the possibility of a mistake. The requirement in criminal cases, of proof
"beyond reasonable doubt" to support conviction, therefore does not mean proof beyond
all possible doubts.19

25. Doubts would be called reasonable if they are free from assessed from abstract
speculation. Law cannot afford any favourite other than the truth. To constitute
reasonable doubt, it must be free from an over emotional response. Doubts must be actual
and substantial doubts as to the guilt of the accused person arising from the evidence or
from the lack of it, as opposed to merely a vague apprehension. A reasonable doubt is not

19
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Rammi, 1999 (1) JLJ 49 (MP).

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 5

 THE K.K. LUTHRA MEMORIAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2022

an imaginary, trivial or a merely possible doubt, but a fair doubt based upon reason and
common sense.20

26. Exaggerated devotion to the rule of benefit of doubt must not nurture fanciful doubts or
lingering suspicions and thereby destroy social defense. Justice cannot be made sterile on
the plea that it is better than to let 100 guilty escape than to punish an innocent. Letting
the guilty escape is not justice, according to law.21

27. It is therefore humbly contended before this Hon’ble Court that Cristo is guilty of the
offences that he has been convicted under, namely the charges of murder, section 300 of
the Frisk Penal Code & causing disappearance of evidence, Section 201 of the Frisk Penal
Code, and following are the points that the argument can be based on:

A. Circumstantial Evidence is conclusive to establish the Accused, Cristo’s guilt.

B. Cristo is guilty of moving evidence from the crime scene.

C. The witness testimonies are reliable, and help reach conclusion beyond reasonable
doubt.

D. Last seen theory further establishes and ironclads Cristo’s guilt beyond reasonable
doubt.

A. CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS CONCLUSIVE ENOUGH.

28. In a case where there is direct evidence, circumstantial evidence plays an important role.
Circumstantial evidence is also known as indirect evidence. The distinction between
direct and circumstantial evidence is important because, with the obvious exceptions
(the immature, incompetent, or), nearly all criminals are careful to not generate
direct evidence, and try to avoid demonstrating criminal intent. The criminal can
obliterate the evidences from crime scene but he cannot destroy the circumstances
surrounding the case. Ergo, to prove the mens rea levels of "purposely" or "knowingly,"
the prosecution must usually resort to circumstantial evidence.

20
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Dharkale, AIR 2005 SC 44.
21
State of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal, AIR 1994 SC 1418.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 6

 THE K.K. LUTHRA MEMORIAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2022

29. The Hon’ble Apex Court observed as under in the Case of Sk. Yusuf v. State of West
Bengal stated that:22

“Undoubtedly, conviction can be based solely on circumstantial evidence. However,

the Court must bear in mind while deciding the case involving the
commission of serious offence based on circumstantial evidence that the
circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully
established. The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of
the guilt of the accused and they should not be explainable on any other
hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. The circumstances should be of a
conclusive nature and tendency. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as
not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the
innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability that the
act must have been done by the accused.”

30. In the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra,23 the hon’ble Supreme
Court laid down the five golden principles with regard to a case based on circumstantial
evidence. These conditions are:

i) The circumstantial evidence from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn

should be so fully established.

ii) The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypotheses of the guilt
of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other
hypotheses is except that the accused is guilty.

iii) The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency;

iv) They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one proved, and;

v) There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable

ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must
show that in all probability the act must have been done by the accused.

22
Sk. Yusuf v. State of W.B., AIR 2011 SC 2283.
23
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 7

 THE K.K. LUTHRA MEMORIAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2022

31. In deciding the sufficiency of the circumstantial evidence for the purpose of conviction,
the court has to consider the total cumulative effect of all the proved facts, each one of
which reinforces the conclusion of guilt and if the combined effect of the facts taken
together is conclusive in establishing the guilt of the accused, the conviction would be
justified even though it may be that one or more of these facts by itself are not decisive. 24
Moreover, it has been emphasized that when a case squarely rests on circumstantial
evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and
circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused.25

32. Furthermore, it is presumed that every sane person intends the result that his action
normally produces and if a person hits another on a vulnerable part of the body, and death
occurs as a result, the intention of the accused can be no other than to take the life of the
victim and the offence committed amounts to murder. Moreover, the intention to kill is
not required in every case, mere knowledge that natural and probable consequences of an
act would be death will suffice for a conviction under section 302 of FPC.26 It can also be
inferred from the murder and the nature of injuries caused to the victim.27

33. The intention of Cristo can be construed on the basis of Cristo’s knowledge that a blow
with a rock on the head of Lionel could lead to grievous hurt or death.

34. Further, after the smoke in the isolated area, Cristo was in a hurry to reach home, to the
extent that he lied in his initial statement to Lionel’s parents as well as the Police. The
following are the parameters put forth by the prosecution.

35. Cumulative effect of the circumstances in this case are so well established that so as to
negate the innocence, which has resulted in offences by Cristo home beyond any
reasonable doubt.28 The parameters for which are:

1) Cristo’s behaviour after Lionel’s disappearance

2) Cristo was the last person to see Lionel before he died.

24
State of A.P. v. I.B.S. Prasada Rao, AIR 1970 SC 648.
25
Harishchandra Ladaku Thange v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2007 SC 2957.
26
Santosh v. State of M.P., AIR 1975 SC 654.
27
Laxman v. State of Maharashtra , AIR 1974 SC 1803.
28
Bhagat Ram v. State of Punjab, AIR 1954 SC 621.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 8

 THE K.K. LUTHRA MEMORIAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2022

3) Cristo’s Disclosure to the Police and the lack of Defence Evidence in the Trial
Court clearly establishes his guilt.

1) Cristo’s behaviour after Lionel's disappearance

36. Post the disappearance of Lionel, Cristo approach can only be described as hasty and
hurried. Cristo also confirmed his hurry to the parents of Lionel, as well as the police in
their initial questioning. The reason that Cristo put forth for his hurried behaviour was
that the guard of the complex, in which Cristo resided would close the main gate and go
to sleep, and that he would not be able to enter the complex had he been late. This turned
out to be a blatant lie, as the guard of Cristo’s complex clearly in his statement to the
police as well as the trial court stated that even if the main gate would be closed, there
was a small gate which never restricted the entry and exit of motorcycles.29

2) Cristo was the last person to see Lionel

37. As per the facts of the case, Mr. Chancerton was the last person to see Cristo, Cristo along
with Lionel, Lionel, late in the night bickering with each other. He then promptly gave his
statement to the police after hearing the news, in which he stated that he overheard the
lads bickering.30 After this incident, Lionel’s parents called Cristo up saying that their son
had not returned home that night. This only points towards Cristo hitting Lionel on his
head, and hurriedly leaving the crime scene under the pretext of the security guard closing
the gate that would restrict Cristo’s entry.

3) Cristo’s Disclosure to the Police and the lack of Defence Evidence in

the Trial Court

38. Only such portion of the information as is distinctly connected with the said discovery is
admissible. A statement even by way of confession made in police custody, which
distinctly relates to the fact discovered is admissible in evidence even against the
Accused.31 The Supreme Court, in the case of Indra Dalal v. State of Haryana noted that
other connected evidence available on the record should be otherwise admissible.32

29
Moot Proposition, ¶2.
30
Moot Proposition, ¶11, Point iv.
31
Bodh Raj v. State of J&K, AIR 2002 SC 3164.
32
Indra Dalal v. State of Haryana, AIR 2015 SC Supp 1428.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 9

 THE K.K. LUTHRA MEMORIAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2022

39. Cristo, in his disclosure to the police stated that he had hit Lionel with a rock on his head,
after which he dumped the stone in a stream near his house33 on account of Coach
Jose.M’s biased behaviour and Lionel’s repeated demands for money.

40. The Doctor’s post-mortem reports confirmed that Lionel had been hit with a blunt object
on his head, which is corroborating with that of Cristo’s disclosure to the Police. Bearing
in mind that it is not for the prosecution to meet any and every hypothesis suggested by
the accused, howsoever extravagant and fanciful it might be,34 it is humbly submitted
before this hon’ble court that the circumstantial evidence in the instant matter shows that
within all human probability, the act must have been done by the accused.35

41. In the case of Surendra Singh and Ors. v. State of Uttarakhand36, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court observed that:

“Neither any evidence nor any explanation was given by the Accused on this issue.
We, therefore, find no reason to find fault in this circumstance for reversing the
finding on this issue.”

42. Cristo had failed to lead any Defense Evidence to prove his innocence, leaving no reason
to the Hon’ble Court to acquit him of any charge. The above contentions of the
Respondent clearly prove that Christo was guilty beyond reasonable doubt and the chain
of circumstantial evidence has been well established.

B. CRISTO IS GUILTY OF MOVING EVIDENCE

43. Section. 201 of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC”) reads:

“That Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to

screen offender.—Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been
committed, causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, with the
intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, or with that intention gives any
information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false,

33
Moot Proposition, ¶11, Point ii.
34
State of UP v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, AIR 1992 SC 840.
35
Bakshish Singh v State of Punjab, AIR 1971 SC 2016.
36
Surendra Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, AIR 2019 SC 99.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 10

 THE K.K. LUTHRA MEMORIAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2022

if a capital offence.—shall, if the offence which he knows or believes to have been

committed is punishable with death be punished with imprisonment of either description
for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine;

if punishable with imprisonment for life.—and if the offence is punishable

with[imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three
years, and shall also be liable to fine;

if punishable with less than ten years’ imprisonment.—and if the offence is punishable
with imprisonment for any term not extending to ten years, shall be punished with
imprisonment of the description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to
one-fourth part of the longest term of the imprisonment provided for the offence, or with
fine, or with both.

44. As mentioned in the above paragraph, Cristo had disclosed to the police that he had
dumped the rock that he used to hit Lionel on his head in a rock near his house. In this
case, even if the accused, i.e., Cristo discloses to the police, since his statement is
matching to that of Dr. Arsane’s post-mortem report, should be taken into consideration.37
Further, the Lucky Strike Cigarettes that Lionel famously carried were not found on him
during the identification of his body by his father, Mr. Pep, but were found in Cristo’s
possession by the police. Cristo had carefully hidden them away in one of his chests. This
only points out that Cristo, after hitting Lionel on his head with the rock, took the pack of
cigarettes from Lionel, and hid it away carefully in one of his chests, which proves that
Cristo was guilty of moving evidence from the scene of crime.

C. WITNESSES’ TESTIMONIES PROVE CRISTO’S GUILT

45. Evidence given by eye witnesses cannot be ignored in the possibility of false implication
before scrutinizing the evidence with proper cautions. Therefore, the evidence shall not
stand unbelievable because of minor embellishments as there may be minimal variations
in the evidence given by the various witnesses.38

37
Moot Proposition, ¶2.
38
Surendra Pratap Chauhan v. Ram Naik, (2001) 9 SCC 266.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 11

 THE K.K. LUTHRA MEMORIAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2022

46. The Supreme Court in the case of Duryodhan Rout v. State of Orissa39 convicted the
accused on the basis of circumstantial evidence, and the evidence of the Prosecution
Witnesses which transpired to the chain of events, almost equivalent to the case in hand
where Ms. Antonella, Mr. Pique and Mr. Chancerton only point to the fact that Cristo was
the last person to have been seen along with Lionel.

D. LAST SEEN THEORY IRONCLADS CRISTO’S GUILT FURTHER.

47. Last seen together theory means that two persons are 'seen together' and one is discovered
alive after a period of time, while the other is found dead. One of the most recent
principles employed in determining the guilt of the accused is the notion of last seen
together. If the doctrine of last seen is established, the weight of proof is shifted to the
accused, who must explain how the incident occurred and what happened to the victim
who was last seen with him. If the accused fails to provide any explanation in this respect,
as in the situation at hand, or if he provides a false explanation, there will be a strong
presumption against him and in favour of his guilt, and this will add another link to the
chain of events.

48. When various links in the prosecution case have been satisfactorily made out pointing the
accused as the probable assailant and the proximity of the accused to the deceased as
regards the time and situation, and if the accused does not offer any explanation which
might afford a reasonable basis for a conclusion consistent with his innocence such
absence of explanation or false explanation would be an additional link to the prosecution
links.40

49. Further, The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that “the last-seen theory comes into
play where the time gap between the point of time vendor accused and the deceased were
last seen alive and when the deceased is found dead is so small that the possibility of any
person other than the accused being the author of the crime becomes impossible.”41

50. The Respondent would like to call the Hon'ble Court's attention to the fact that despite
Lionel's concerns that all the restaurants would be closed due to how late it was, Cristo
persisted on taking him out to dinner. Several witnesses claim that Cristo and Lionel were

39
Duryodhan Rout v. State of Orissa, (2015) 2 SCC 783.
40
RATANLAL & DHIRAJLAL, RATANLAL & DHIRAJLAL: EVIDENCE ACT (LexisNexis 25th ed. 2018).
41
State of U.P. v. Satish, AIR 2005 SC 1000.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 12

 THE K.K. LUTHRA MEMORIAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2022

last seen together before Lionel's death. Ms. Antonella, a long-serving waitress, testified
that she saw Lionel and Cristo together on the fateful murder night. Mr. Pique, a
telephone booth operator, also saw Cristo and Lionel on the same day, and he recalled
that the youngsters were riding their bikes without helmets.42

51. Mr. Chancerton, who was on his way to the medical store, occurred to notice Lionel and
Cristo arguing.43 Cristo also initially told the police that he was in a hurry to go home
because his complex's security guard would lock the main gate and go to sleep. The truth
was that the security guard always left a small gate open that did not prevent motorbikes
from entering or exiting.

52. The last-seen theory, furthermore, comes into play where the time gap between the point
of time when the accused and the deceased were last seen alive and the deceased is found
dead is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of
the crime becomes impossible. Even in such a case, courts should look for some
corroboration.44

53. Furthermore, according to the post-mortem report given by Dr. Arsane, Lionel died
between the hours of 12:00 and 2:00 a.m. This period also confirms that Cristo was
Lionel's final encounter before his death.45

54. Where the various links as started above have been satisfactorily made out and the
circumstances point to the appellant as the probable assailant, with reasonable
definiteness and in proximity to the deceased as regards time and situation, such absence
of explanation or false explanation would itself be an additional link which completes the
chain.46

55. The principle underlying Section 106 which is an exception to the general rule governing
burden of proof applies only to such matters of defence which were supposed to be

42
Moot Proposition, ¶12,Point iv.
43
Moot Proposition, ¶2.
44
Ramreddy Rajesh Khanna Reddy v. State of A.P., AIR 2006 SC 1656.
45
Supra 30.
46
Nagendra Sah v. State of Bihar, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 717.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 13

 THE K.K. LUTHRA MEMORIAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2022

especially within the knowledge of the party concerned. It cannot apply when the fact is
such as to be capable of being known also by persons other than the party.47

56. In this case, facts states that both the parties were in close contact at the time of incident.
No fact states that Lionel met any other person after meeting Cristo. Hence, it can be
concluded that they were last seen together. As per the principle underlying section 106,
burden of proof will shift to the accused, Cristo.

57. It can therefore be concluded that the person that was last seen together with Lionel was
Cristo, and the disclosure that Cristo made to the police is corroborating with the chain of
events that seemed to have taken place.

47
RATANLAL & DHIRAJLAL, RATANLAL & DHIRAJLAL: EVIDENCE ACT (LexisNexis 25th ed. 2018).

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 14

 THE K.K. LUTHRA MEMORIAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2022

PRAYER

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

CITED, MAY THIS HON‘BLE COURT BE PLEASED TO:

1. CONVICT CRISTO UNDER THE CHARGES OF SECTION 299, 300 AND 201 OF THE FRISK
PENAL CODE.

AND/OR

PASS ANY OTHER ORDER IT MAY DEEM FIT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, EQUITY AND GOOD
CONSCIENCE.

ALL OF WHICH IS MOST HUMBLY AND RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

PLACE: S/D_________________

DATE: COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT XII