4TH INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2024

TEAM CODE-
JUSTICA (R)

4TH INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2024

Before,
THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.-_____/2024

In the Matter of:

STATE OF MANALI…………………………………………………………APPELLANT

VS.

RANA………………………………………………………………………. RESPONDENT

UPON SUBMISSION
TO THE HON’BLE JUSTICE OF THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF KIPASH

-WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT-

1
 4TH INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2024

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS……………………………………………………………………..2
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS………………………………………………………………...4
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES…………………………………………………………………5
STATEMENT OF FACTS……………………………………………………………………7
ISSUES RAISED……………………………………………………………………………..9
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT…………………………………………………………… ..10
ARGUMENT ADVANCE…………………………………………………………………..12
I. WHETHER THE APPEAL IS MAINTAINABLE IN THE SUPREME
COURT?......................................................................................................................12

1.1.No grave miscarriage of justice……………….…………………………………………..12

1.2.No exceptional and special circumstances exist and substantial justice has been
done………………………………………………………………………………………12
1.3. No substantial question of law involved………………………………………………..13
II. WHETHER THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AND EXPERT OPINION
IS SUFFICIENT TO CONVICT A PERSON FOR CHARGE OF
MURDER?..................................................................................................................14

2.1.The respondent cannot be solely convicted on the basis of circumstantial

evidence…………………………………………………………………………………..14
2.1.1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be
fully established………………………………………………………………….15
2.1.2. The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt
of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other
hypothesis except that the accused is
guilty…………………………………………….………………………………15
2.1.3. The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and
tendency…………………………………………………………………………16
2.1.4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be
proved……………………………………………………………………………16
2.1.5. 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 the act must have been done by the
accused…………………………………………………………………………..17
2.2.The essential ingredients of section 300 of Kipash Penal Code are not
fulfilled…………………………………………………………………………………...17
2.3.The Accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt…………………………………………..18
2.4. Whether expert opinion is sufficient to convict a person for charge of
murder?...............................................................................................................................19

2
 4TH INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2024

2.4.1. The requirements of the admissibility of the expert opinion……………..20

2.4.1.1. That the expert must be within a recognized field of expertise……………………...21
2.4.2. that the evidence must be based on reliable principles………………………………..21
2.4.3. That the expert must be qualified in that discipline…………………………………...22

III. WHETHER OFFENCE COMMITTED BY MR. RANA COME UNDER

RAREST OF RARE CASE?.....................................................................................22

3.1.Test 1(the Crime test) meaning the aggravating circumstances of the

case……………………………………………………………………………………….23
3.2.the criminal test, meaning that there should be no mitigating circumstance favouring the
accused…………………………………………………………………………………...24
3.3.Test 3 (R-R test) Rarest of rare case……………………………………………………...26
3.3.1. Manner of committing murder…………………………………………………..26
3.3.2. Motive for Commission of Murder……………………………………….……..27
3.3.3. Personality of the Victim of Murder……………………………………………..28
3.3.4. Magnitude of Crime……………………………………………………………..29
PRAYER….………………………………………………………………………………….30

3
 4TH INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2024

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

¶ paragraph

AIR All India Report

SLP Special Leave Petition

FIR First Information Report

HC High Court

SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases

V. Versus

Art. Article

Anr. Another

Hon’ble Honourable

No. Number

& And

Ors. Others

4
 4TH INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2024

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
CASE LAWS
1. A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Government of Andhra Pradesh…………………………………...…(2007) 4 SCC 221
2. Aero Traders Private Limited v. Ravider Kumar Suri……………………………………….. (2004) 8 SCC 307
3. Anvar P V v. PK Basheer & Ors…………………………………………………..(Civil Appeal No 4226/2012)
4. Bhimsingh v. State of Uttarakhand………………………………………………………….. (2015) 4 SCC 281
5. Bhupinder Singh v. State of Punjab…………………………………………………..……...AIR 1988 SC 1011
6. Bal Krishna Das Agrawal v. Radha Devi…………………………………………………... AIR 1989 SC 1966
7. B.A. Umesh v. Registrar General……………………………………………………………... (2011) 3 SCC 85
8. Bacchan singh V. State of Punjab………………………………………………………………(1982) 3 SCC 24
9. Birju vs State of MP…………………………………………………………………………. (2014) 3 SCC 421
10. Bantu v. State of M.P………………………………………………………………………..(2001) 9 SCC 615
11. Council of Scientific and Industrial Research v. K. G. S. Bhatt…………………………… (1989) 4 SCC 635
12. Chunilal Mehta and Sons Ltd. v. Century Spinning and Mfg. Co. Ltd…………………….. AIR 1962 SC 131
13. C. Chenga Reddy and Ors, v. State of A.P………………………………………………... (1996) 10 SCC 193
14. Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. C.I.T. West Benga………………………………………...(1979) 2 SCC 297
15. Gurvail Singh @ Gala v. State of Punjab……………………………………………………(2013) 2 SCC 713
16. Govinda Swamy vs state of Kerala………………………………………………………... AIR 2016 SC 4299
17. Haresh Mohandas Rajput v. State of Maharashtra…………………………………………. (2011) 12 SCC 56
18. Hero Vinoth (Minor) v. Seshammal…………………………………………………………(2006) 5 SCC 545
19. Inspector Of Police, Tamil Nadu vs John David…………………………………...…AIR 2011 SC (Crl) 1135
20. Janar Lal Das v. State of Orissa……………………………………………………………….(1991) 3 SCC 27
21. Jagmohan vs state of UP…………………………………………………………………….. (1973) 1 SCC 20
22. Kamal v. NCT Delhi, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2023…………………… [SLP(Crl.) No. 6213 of 2021]
23. Kishori v. State (NCT of Delhi………………………………………………………………..(2000) 2 SCC 83
24. Manohar Lal Munna v. State (NCT of Delhi)………………………………………………...(2000) 2 SCC 92
25. Mohd. Chaman v. State (NCT of Delhi)…………………………………………………….. (2001) 2 SCC 28
26. Macchi singh v. State of Punjab………………………………………………………………(1983) AIR 1957
27. Mofil Khan v. Jharkhand……………………………………………………………………...(2015) 1 SCC 67
28. Mahadev Sonu Pardhi v. State of Maharashtra…………………………………………(1996)2 CRIMES 86
29. N. Rajendra Prasad Bhat v. The State of Karnataka………………………………………….. 1996 Cri LJ 257
30. Nilabati Behra v. State……………………………………………………………….……….(1993) 2 SCC 746
31. Pritham Singh v. State………………………………………………………………...……… AIR 1950 SC 169
32. Raja Ram Yadav v. State of Bihar…………………………………………………...….……. (1996) 9 SCC 287
33. Raju v. State of Haryana…………………………………………………………….…………2001 (9) SCC 50
34. Ram Singh v. Sonia…………………………………………………………………..……... AIR 2007 SC 1218
35. Sushil Murmu v. State of Jharkhand………………………………………………...……….. (2004) 2 SCC 338
36. State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Jai Lal and others…………………………………...……….AIR 1999 SC 3318
37. State of H.P. v. Jailal……………………………………………………………………….…. (1997)7SCC 280
38. State of Rajasthan v. Mahesh Kumar……………………………………………………..…..(2019) 7 SCC 678

5
 4TH INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2024

39. Surinder Pal Jain v. Delhi Administration.................................................................................1993 SCR (2) 226

40. State of UP v. Satish…………………………………………………………………………(2005) 3 SCC 114
41. State of Rajasthan v. Islam………………………………………………………………….AIR 2011 SC 2317
42. Sharad Birdichand Sarda v State of Maharashtra…………………………………………..AIR 1984 SC 1622
43. State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava……………………………………………………..1992 SCR (1) 37
44. State of Maharashtra v. Damu Gopinath Shinde…………………………………………….(2000) 6 SCC 269
45.. Shankar Kisanrao Khade v. State of Maharashtra………………………………………… (2013) 5 SCC 546
46. Teja Singh v. Mukhtiar Singh……………………………………………………………...1995 SCC (Cri) 982

CONSTITUTION

• Constitution of India

STATUTES

• The Indian Penal Code, 1860

• The Indian Evidence Act, 1872

WEB RESOURCES

1. SCC OnLine, https://www.scconline.com/

2. LIVE LAW, www.livelaw.in/

3. Manupatra, https://www.manupatrafast.in/

BOOKS

• Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Law of Evidence (27th edn, LexisNexis 2019)
• K N Chandrasekharan Pillai, R.V. Kelkar’s Criminal Procedure (6th edn, EBC 2014)
• PSA Pillai, Criminal Law (12th edn, LexisNexis 2014)
• K D Gaur, Criminal Law (9th edn, LexisNexis 2019)
• Batuk Lal, The Indian Evidence Act (Central Law Agency 2018) 133

6
 4TH INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2024

STATEMENT OF FACTS
[1] In January 2020, Romesh met Shinu in common friend’s birthday party. They develop good
bond which resulted in intimate relationship. On February 20,2021 Romesh share obscene
photo of Shinu with his friend Rana, without consent of Shinu. This led to breakup. Shinu also
lodged a FIR against Romesh for sharing her obscene photo and also threatening her to post it
online. The FIR was filed on February 24,2021 and in accordance inquiry was initiated.
[2] Shinu who is currently 24-year-old, reside in Mysore district of Manali state one of the
constituent states of Union of Kipash. She travels from Bangalore to Mysore on daily basis by
passenger train. On November 01,2023 she embarked on a journey from Bangalore to Mysore.
Later, at around 10:00 p.m. that same day, she was found in an unconscious state within the
woodland close to Mysore Railway Station. Shinu was then transferred quickly to the
Government Medical College Hospital in Mysore, where on November 5,2023, at around 4:00
p.m., she passed away due to her injury. The same was informed to police by Dr. Raunit on
behalf of Hospital authorities.
[3] Investigation was initiated by police, and with the assistance of CCTV footage and co-
passengers, they were able to identify a man named Rana as a suspect of crime. The accuse,
Rana, aged 30 was captured by the police on November 10. Rana is known recidivist with prior
conviction. As per the prosecution’s assertion, Rana purportedly tried to Rob Shinu while she
was in women’s compartment. Allegedly, during this illegal behaviour, he allegedly threw her
out of the moving train after banging her head against the compartment wall in response to her
resistance. Later Rana jumped out of the Moving train and travel approx. 200 meters to indicate
Sonu lying unconscious amid a pool of blood. He then purportedly transported her to an area
close to the railway track and allegedly assaulted her sexually.
[4] DNA sample taken from deceased body and the crime scene matched to ones taken from
the suspect. Additionally, A button from his shirt was discovered within the female
compartment. semen traces were found on the deceased clothing and body. Moreover, there
were traces of suspect’s blood and epidermal cells under the deceased fingernail. Additionally,
abrasion marks of fingernails on the suspect’s body were found. Also, in Rana’s phone obscene
photo of Shinu were present, with the receipt date being 20.02.2021.
[5] Some people reported seeing the accused in the passenger train, while other noted him close
to the Mysore bus stop. In addition, a number of individuals were nearby the Mysore Railway
station and the train passenger heard the women’s cries. While undergoing medical
examination, the accused admitted to Dr. Bhagat Lal at Government Medical College Hospital,
Mysore, the commission of rape against the deceased. Furthermore, Shinu’s cellular device was
retrieved from an individual identified as Chotu, hailing from Rajiv Nagar District, who
purportedly acquired it from the accused, Rana.
[6] During the police investigation, it was ascertained that on 10th September 2023, the accuse
rana was engaged in showing sexual remark towards a female named Tanu, an acquaintance of
the deceased, within the vicinity of Mysore bus stop. Tanu vocally objected to the accused’s
conduct. The accused threatened her of severe loss if she will complaint to police. Despite the
threat, the girl lodged a formal complaint against him. Subsequently, the police initiated legal

7
 4TH INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2024

proceedings by registering a FIR against the accused with charges section 354A and 506 of
K.P.C. and in accordance action was taken.
[7] The forensic surgeon, Dr. Tanvi, who perform the post mortem examination, testified in the
court about 20 bodily injuries, highlighting the fact that injury no.1 and 2 combined were the
main cause of death. She unequivocally asserted that the first injury, characterized by a
lacerated wound accompanied by surrounding abraded contusions on the left side of the
forehead, along with contusions on both sides of the forehead above the eyebrows and
involvement of the left temporalis muscle, exhibited features consistent with the impact
sustained from the deceased’s head striking the wall of the train compartment. Additionally, the
left orbital margin displayed evidence of a fissured fracture, while fractures were evident on
the floor of the left anterior cranial fossa. Moreover, traumatic disruption of the stem of the
pituitary gland was observed, and the left frontal lobe of the brain exhibited multiple areas of
haemorrhage. The second injury, because of a considerable amount of bleeding resulted in
anoxic brain damage, arising out of committing rape in the supine position.
[8] Two co-passengers from the compartment next to the women's compartment were among
the other witnesses; they described hearing noises that suggested a struggle as well as the
woman's agonizing cries. Additionally, a fellow traveller informed them that a woman had
"jumped" off the train.

[9] Upon conclusion of the final proceedings in the trial court, the prosecution claimed that the
evidence, both scientific and circumstantial evidence, supported the designation of this case as
“rarest of rare”. Since the accused showed explicit disregard for moral conscience by
committing both rape and murder simultaneously, the lack of eyewitnesses should not be
considered an obstacle when considering the maximum penalty. In accordance with article
354C, 376 and 302 of the Kipash Penal Code, the trial court found the defendant guilty and
sentence him to death for murder, life imprisonment for rape and one year imprisonment with
imposition of fine Rs. 2 lakhs for voyeurism. Dissatisfied with the trial court’s ruling, the
accused lodged a criminal appeal before the high court.
[10] The High court, on the basis of expert opinion, circumstantial evidence, facts, DNA
Reports etc., set aside trial’s court order, partially granted relief to the accused, absolving him
of the charge of murder, voyeurism. The court reasoned that the prosecution had failed to
substantiate the allegation that the accused forcibly throw the deceased from the train and the
obscene picture was taken by Rana or shared by him. Furthermore, the prosecution did not
establish, beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused possessed the requisite mens rea to inflict
the injury designated as no.2, which ultimately led to the deceased’s demise. Consequently, the
High Court modified the verdict by acquitting from Section 354 C and convicting the accused
under Section 325 instead of Section 302 of the Kipash Penal Code and also reduced the
punishment up to 10 years under Section 376 of the said code.
[11] Exercising its right to legal recourse, the state filed an appeal before the Supreme Court,
seeking confirmation of the charge of murder against the accused.

8
 4TH INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2024

ISSUE RAISEDD

I. WHETHER THE APPEAL IS MAINTAINABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT?

II. WHETHER THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AND EXPERT OPINION IS

SUFFICIENT

III. WHETHER OFFENCE COMMITTED BY MR. RANA COME UNDER RAREST

OF RARE CASE?

9
 4TH INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2024

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

1. Whether the appeal is maintainable in the Supreme Court?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the appeal of prosecution under Article
136 of Constitution of India is not maintainable in the Hon’ble court. in the present case the
essential of SLP i.e., substantial question of law and grave miscarriage of justice are not
fulfilled by the Appellant before approaching this Hon’ble Court under article 136 which
includes firstly there is no substantive question of law arises, the High Court in case correctly
interpret the Section 300 of KPC as there is lack of intention in the given case, secondly there
is no miscarriage of justice arises in this case, as the High court rely on the lack of
circumstantial evidence while giving justice. Special leave under Article 136 will not be
granted when there is no failure of justice or when substantial justice is done, though the
decision might suffer from some legal errors1.The wide discretionary power with which this
Hon’ble Court is invested under it is to be exercised sparingly and in exceptional cases only
and as far as possible a more or less uniform standard should be adopted in granting special
leave in wide range of matters which can come up before it under Art.136.2

2. Whether the circumstantial evidence and expert opinion is sufficient to convict a person
for charge of murder?

It is humbly submitted before the honourable court that the conviction of murder on the basis
of circumstantial evidence and expert opinion must be corroborative and conclusive in nature.
There is certain principles of circumstantial evidence which must be fulfilled that include; the
circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be
fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis
of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and
tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be
proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any
reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be
such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.3
As per the Section 45 of Kipash Evidence Act, the expert opinion is admissible if it drawn a

1
Council of Scientific and Industrial Research v. K. G. S. Bhatt, (1989) 4 SCC 635; State of H. P. v. Kailash
Chand Mahajan, AIR 1992 SC 1277.
2
Pritham Singh v. State, AIR 1950 SC 169.
3
Sharad BirdhiChand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116

10
 4TH INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2024

reliable conclusion and there is also some essentials of admissibility of export evidences which
includes expertise of expert, that the evidence must be based on reliable principles,, and lastly
the expert must be qualified in that discipline.4 And in this case at many instances the missing
chain of evidences create benefit of doubts and also the reliability on expert opinion who lacks
expertise. The prosecution also failed to establish intention of accused hence giving the benefit
of doubt, the accused should not convicted for the murder.

3.Whether offence committed by Mr. Rana come under rarest of rare case?

It is humbly submitted before the honourable court that in this case, the offence committed by
Mr. Rana didn’t come under the category of “rarest of rare” as the test for awarding death
penalty have not been fulfilled. These are : the crime test, which deals with aggravating
circumstances; the criminal test which pertains to mitigating circumstances; and the rarest of
rare case test. The crime test didn’t fulfil as the nature of crime committed by Rana is not with
intention of murder as it was done in due course of committing robbery. The second test i.e;
the criminal test not fulfil as there is presence of important mitigating factors which includes
the age of accused person and having probability of reformation. and the last rarest of rare test
which given not fulfilled as the manner of murder, motive of commission of murder, personality
of victim of murder and Magnitude of crime established in this case, where there is lack of
evidences which need to prove the motive of commission of murder and also injuries inflicted
on the deceased not only caused by the accused but it also caused due to voluntarily escape
from the violence. The settled principle which The extreme penalty of death need not be
inflicted except in gravest cases of extreme culpability and before opting for the death penalty
the circumstances of the “offender” also require to be taken into consideration along with the
circumstances of the “crime”. 5Hence the offence committed by Mr Rana didn’t come under
the category of the “rarest of rare case”.

4
Ramesh Chandra Agrawal v. Regency Hospital Ltd. and others[(2009) 9 SCC 709]
5
Arvind Singh vs The State Of Maharashtra AIR 2020 SUPREME COURT 2451

11
 4TH INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2024

ARGUMENT ADVANCE

1. Whether the appeal is maintainable in the Supreme Court?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the appeal of prosecution under Article
136 of Constitution of India is not maintainable in the Hon’ble court. in the present case the
essential of SLP i.e., substantial question of law and grave miscarriage of justice are not
fulfilled by the Appellant before approaching this Hon’ble Court under article 136 and hence
the SLP is not maintainable on the following grounds.

1.1.No Grave Miscarriage of justice

In the present matter the Hon’ble High Court have rightfully come to conclusion that the
appellant is not guilty u/s 302 and 354C of K.P.C.The is respondent has been acquitted justly
and there is no miscarriage of justice in the impugned matter.

As stated in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Islam6, the Supreme Court exercise its jurisdiction
under Article 136. It definitely exercises a discretionary jurisdiction but such discretionary
jurisdiction has to be exercised in order to ensure that there is no miscarriage of justice.

The respondent contend that the Hon’ble High court have accepted the evidence to be wholly
reliable and have taken all the facts and circumstances into lawful consideration while passing
its judgement.

1.2.No exceptional and special circumstances exist and substantial justice has been
done.

The respondent contends that the Appellant must show that exceptional and special
circumstances exist. Article 136 merely confer a discretionary power on the court to be
exercised only in special and exceptional circumstances. Special leave will not be granted when
there is no failure of justice or when substantial justice is done, though the decision might suffer
from some legal errors7. Although the power has been held to be plenary, limitless8, adjunctive
and unassailable9, in Mc Mehta v. Union of India10 and Aero Trader Private Ltd v. Ravinder

6
State of Rajasthan v. Islam, AIR 2011 SC 2317
7
Council of Scientific and Industrial Research v. K. G. S. Bhatt, (1989) 4 SCC 635; State of H. P. v. Kailash
Chand Mahajan, AIR 1992 SC 1277.
8
A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, (2007) 4 SCC 221 : AIR 2007 SC 154
9
Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat, (2004) 5 SCC 353 : AIR 2004 SC 3467.
10
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (2004) 6 SCC 588 : AIR 2004 SC 4618.

12
 4TH INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2024

Kumar Suri11, it was held that the power under Art. 136 should be exercised with caution and
in accordance with law and set legal principles.

The wide discretionary power with which this Hon’ble Court is invested under it is to be
exercised sparingly and in exceptional cases only and as far as possible a more or less uniform
standard should be adopted in granting special leave in wide range of matters which can come
up before it under Art.136.12 Further it is not possible to define the limitation on the exercise
of the discretionary jurisdiction vested with the Hon’ble under Art. 136, but, being an
exceptional and overriding power13, naturally it has to be exercised sparingly with caution only
in special and extraordinary situation14. In the matter at hand, no exceptional and special
circumstances have been showed by the appellant.

1.3.No substantial question of law involved.

it is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that it must kept in knowledge that the right
of appellant neither a natural nor an inherent attached to the litigation15. Being a substantive
statutory right, it has to be regulated in accordance with law in force at the relevant time. It
cannot be decided merely on equitable grounds.

The respondent contend that there is no substantial question of law as a constitution bench of
Apex Court while explaining the importance of the same expression, observed that: “ the proper
test for determining whether a question of law raised in the case is substantial would be whether
it directly and substantially affect the right of the parties and if so whether it is either an open
question in the sense that it is not finally settled by this court or by the Privy Council or by the
Federal Court or is not free from difficulty or calls for discussion of alternative view”16. If the
question has been well-settled by this Hon’ble Court and it is merely a question of applying the
settled principle in determination of matter, then special leave will not be granted.17

The respondent contends that in the Instant Case, there is no question of general public
importance as the matter decided as per the provision of law and the punishment under section

11
Aero Traders Private Limited v. Ravider Kumar Suri, (2004) 8 SCC 307 : AIR 2005 SC 15.
12
Pritham Singh v. State, AIR 1950 SC 169.
13
Narpat Singh v. Jaipur Development Authority, (2002) 2 SCC 666.
14
Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. C.I.T. West Bengal, A.I.R. 1955 SC 65; Arunachalam, (1979) 2 SCC 297 :
AIR 1979 SC 1284; 1 H.M. SEERVAI, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA, 252 (4 ed., Universal Law
Publishing, 2010)
15
Hero Vinoth (Minor) v. Seshammal, (2006) 5 SCC 545 : AIR 2006 SC 2234.
16
Chunilal Mehta and Sons Ltd. v. Century Spinning and Mfg. Co. Ltd., AIR 1962 SC 131
17
Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari, (2001) 3 SCC 179

13
 4TH INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2024

376 and 325 as already pronounced by the honourable High court, and as there was lack of
intention to murder than decides the matter as per the provision of law and evidences

2. Whether the circumstantial evidence and expert opinion is sufficient to

convict a person for charge of murder?

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that; the Supreme Court has reiterated that
the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and they should be such as to exclude every
hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. It was held that, in other words, there must be a
chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for conclusion with
the innocence of the accused and it must be such that within all human probability the act must
have been done by the accused18.

2.1.The respondent cannot be solely convicted on the basis of circumstantial

evidence.

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that in order to convict an accused solely on
the basis of circumstantial evidence chain of circumstance must be proof beyond reasonable
doubt19.

When attempting to convict circumstantial evidence alone the Court must be firmly satisfied
of the following five thing20

These five golden principleas are as follows:

1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully
established.

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

3. The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency.

4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and

18
C. Chenga Reddy and Ors, v. State of A.P, (1996) 10 SCC 193
19
Janar Lal Das v. State of Orissa, (1991) 3 SCC 27
20
Sharad Birdichand Sarda v State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622

14
 4TH INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2024

5. 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 act must have been done by the accused.

2.1.1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should
be fully established.

In Hanumant Govind Nargundkar and Anr. V. State of Madhya Pradesh21, wherein it was
observed thus: “It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial
nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be in the
first instance be fully established and all the facts so established should be consistent only with
the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive
nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one
proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as
not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the
accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have
been done by the accused.”

This principle itself isn’t sufficiently fulfilled in our case because the fact of case presented by
the prosecution aren’t themselves firmly established. The prosecution’s assertion that the
accused threw the deceased out of the moving train or the deceased jumped off from the train
is not fully established.

The circumstances of the case are only pointing toward the guilt of the respondent because the
appellant has presented the facts in such a way and the HC has subsequently denied that.

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

In State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava22, it was pointed out great care must be taken in
evaluating circumstantial evidence and if the evidence relied on is reasonably capable of two
inferences, the one in favour of the accused must be accepted. It was also pointed out that the

21
Govind Nargundkar and Anr. V. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1952 SC 343
22
State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, 1992 SCR (1) 37

15
 4TH INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2024

circumstances relied upon must be found to have been fully established and the cumulative
effect of all the facts so established must be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt.

It is humbly submitted before the honourable court that the circumstantial evidences is failed
to establish the intention of murder by the accused hence lead to other hypothesis that in the
absence of intention to murder the accused would that make liable for the murder.

2.1.3. The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency.

It is well settled that in the cases of circumstantial evidence, the circumstances from which the
conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established, and all the
facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt of the accused. The
circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and should be such as to exclude every
hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a complete chain
of evidence as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the
innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the
act must have been done by the accused and none else.23 In case based on circumstantial
evidence, the well settled law is that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is
drawn should be fully proved and those circumstance must be conclusive in nature. Moreover,
the establish fact should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused alone
and totally inconsistent with his innocence.24

Regarding the third principle of this case, there is no possible chain which is completed
regarding the fact which relate to the guilt of the respondent. Plus, there is possibility of
reasonable doubt which point toward the innocence of the respondent.

2.1.4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that, it is undisputed where the prosecution
relies on circumstantial evidence alone to prove the guilt, the fact or circumstances from which
the conclusion of guilt is sought to be drawn must be fully established beyond reasonable
doubt25. And the fact and circumstances should not be only be constated with the guilt of the
accused but they must be such in their effect as to be entirely incompatible with the innocence
of the accused and must exclude every reasonable hypothesis, consisted with his innocence26.

23
State of Rajasthan v. Mahesh Kumar, (2019) 7 SCC 678
24
Surinder Pal Jain v. Delhi Administration 1993 SCR (2) 226
25
State of UP v. Satish, (2005) 3 SCC 114
26
Mahadev Sonu Pardhi v. State of Maharashtra, (1996)2 CRIMES 86

16
 4TH INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2024

Such evidence also must show that in all human probabilities act must have been done by the
accused. And in the impugned matter where chain of evidence is established based on
circumstantial evidence and forensic evidence report does not prove that accused was having
intention to cause death.

2.1.5. 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 the act must have
been done by the accused.

In a case, based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances alleged against the accused must
be conclusively established and the chain of circumstances must be so closely knit so as to
exclude all the reasonable hypothesis of innocence of the accused. The evidence must point
only to the guilt of the accused and if the evidence led to two interpretations, the interpretation
in favour of the accused must be given effect to.27

The Court must satisfy itself that various circumstances in the chain of events have been
established clearly and such completed chain of events must be such as to rule out a reasonable
likelihood of the innocence of the accused. It has also been indicated that when the important
link goes, the chain of circumstances gets snapped and the other circumstances cannot in any
manner, establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts.28

It is humbly submitted before the worthy court that in this case prosecution fails to establish
the chain of evidences and all the allegations made on the strong suspicion and the apex court
held in the case of Kamal v. NCT Delhi, that strong Suspicision may be not be treated as
reasonable doubt.29

2.2.The essential ingredients of section 300 of Kipash Penal Code are not fulfilled

There is certain essential ingredient of Section 300 of Kipash Penal code that needs to be fulfil
only that condition ground of murder can be fulfil like intention, cause of death and bodily
injury .Here the most important ingredient that is intention is missing as the post-mortem
examination, testified before the court regarding approximately 20 bodily, emphasizing that the
demise primarily resulted from the combined effects of injuries number 1 and 2. She

27
N. Rajendra Prasad Bhat v. The State of Karnataka, 1996 Cri LJ 257
28
Inspector Of Police, Tamil Nadu vs John David,AIR 2011 SC (CRIMINAL) 1135
29
Kamal v. NCT Delhi, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2023 [SLP(Crl.) No. 6213 of 2021]

17
 4TH INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2024

unequivocally asserted that the first injury, characterized by a lacerated wound accompanied
by surrounding abraded contusions on the left side of the forehead, along with contusions on
both sides of the forehead above the eyebrows and involvement of the left temporalis muscle,
exhibited features consistent with the impact sustained from the deceased’s head striking the
wall of the train compartment. Additionally, the left orbital margin displayed evidence of a
fissured fracture, while fractures were evident on the floor of the left anterior cranial fossa.
Moreover, traumatic disruption of the stem of the pituitary gland was observed, and the left
frontal lobe of the brain exhibited multiple areas of haemorrhage. The second injury, because
of a considerable amount of bleeding resulted in anoxic brain damage, arising out of
committing rape in the supine position. However, to hold that the accused is liable Under
Section 302 Kipash Penal Code what is required is an intention to cause death or knowledge
that the act of the accused is likely to cause death. The intention of the accused in keeping the
deceased in a supine position, was for the purposes of the sexual assault. The requisite
knowledge that in the circumstances such an act may cause death, also, cannot be attributed to
the accused, inasmuch as, to the effect that such knowledge and information is, in fact, parted
with in the course of training of medical and paramedical staff. The fact that the deceased
survived for a couple of days after the incident and eventually died in Hospital would also
clearly militate against any intention the accused to cause death by the act of keeping the
deceased in a supine position. Therefore, in the totality of the facts discussed above, the accused
cannot be held liable for murder.

2.3. The Accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt.

The respondent contends that, The Hon’ble SC observed that “In a case based only on
circumstantial evidence, then there should not be any snap in the chain of circumstances. If
there is a snap in the chain, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. If some of the
circumstances in the chain can be explained by any other reasonable hypothesis, then also the
Accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt”30. Before an accused can be convicted on the
strength of circumstantial evidence, the circumstances in question must be satisfactorily
established and the proved circumstances beyond reasonable doubt.31

The respondent contends that in the impugned matter, the Appellant has to prove whether there
is a chain of circumstantial evidence which lead to guilt of the respondent without any doubt.

30
Bhimsingh v. State of Uttarakhand, (2015) 4 SCC 281
31
Bhupinder Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1988 SC 1011

18
 4TH INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2024

The Appellant, till now has failed to connect the chains of circumstantial evidences at many
instances such as whether she has been jumped out train or whether she has been thrown out
of the train by Rana, given the limited scope of medical evidence and lack of premeditation
and deliberation, there is no evidence on record proving that the appellant had the mens rea to
cause death of the appellant and all claims of to that effect are based on conjecture and
speculation.

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that; the Supreme Court has reiterated that
the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and they should be such as to exclude every
hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. It was held that, in other words, there must be a
chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for conclusion with
the innocence of the accused and it must be such that within all human probability the act must
have been done by the accused32.

2.4. Whether expert opinion is sufficient to convict a person for charge of murder?

As per Section 45 of the Kipash Evidence Act, when the court has formed an opinion upon
such a point of science, the opinion of persons especially skilled in such science upon that point
is relevant fact and such expert can be called as an expert. The importance of that provision has
been explained in State of H.P. v. Jailal33. In order to bring the evidence of a witness as that of
an expert, it has to be shown that he has made a special study of the subject or acquired a special
experience therein or in other words that he is skilled and has adequate knowledge of the
subject. The real opinion of the expert is to put before the Court, all the materials, together with
the reasoning which induce him to come to the conclusion, so that the court, although not an
expert, may form its own judgment by its own observation on those materials. Without
examining an expert as a witness in court, no reliance can be placed on an opinion alone. The
value of the opinion of the expert rests on the facts on which it is based and his competency for
forming a reliable opinion. The evidentiary value of the opinion of the expert depends on the
facts upon which it is based and also the validity of the process by which the conclusion is
reached. It is true that the importance of an opinion is tested on the basis of the credibility of
the expert and the relevant facts supporting the opinion so that its accuracy can be

32
C. Chenga Reddy and Ors, v. State of A.P, (1996) 10 SCC 193
33
State of H.P. v. Jailal, (1997)7SCC 280

19
 4TH INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2024

crosschecked. Emphasis should be given to the data on the basis of which such opinion has
been formed.34

It is humbly submitted before the worthy court that on a perusal of the data furnished by Dr
Tanvi through her evidence as well as the contents of Dr Bhagat Lal, and also the facts narrated
by her in order to support her opinion, we are satisfied that the opinion as to the cause of death
furnished by Dr Tanvi can only be accepted. The evidence clearly reveals the competency of
Dr Tanvi and her credibility as an expert in the field.

2.4.1. The requirements of the admissibility of the expert opinion

The Apex Court in Ramesh Chandra Agrawal v. Regency Hospital Ltd. and others35held as
follows:

"The law of evidence is designated to ensure that the court considers only that evidence which
will enable it to reach a reliable conclusion. The first and foremost requirement for expert
evidence to be admissible is that it is necessary to hear the expert evidence. The test is that the
matter is outside the knowledge and experience of the layperson. Thus, there is a need to hear
an expert opinion where there is a medical issue to be settled. The scientific question involved
is assumed to be not within the court's knowledge. Thus, cases where the science involved, is
highly specialized and perhaps even esoteric, the central role of an expert cannot be disputed.
The other requirements for the admissibility of expert evidence are:

2.4.1.1. That the expert must be within a recognized field of expertise.

An expert witness, is one who has made the subject upon which he speaks a matter of particular
study, practice; or observations; and the must have a special knowledge of the subject.
Therefore, in order to bring the evidence of a witness as that of an expert it has to be shown
that he has made a special study of the subject or acquired a special experience therein or in
other words that he is skilled and has adequate knowledge of the subject. An expert is not a
witness of fact. His evidence is really of an advisory character. The duty of an expert witness
is to furnish the Judge with the necessary scientific criteria for testing the accuracy of the
conclusions so as to enable the judge to form his independent judgment by the application of
this criteria to the facts proved by the evidence of the case. The scientific opinion evidence, if
intelligible, convincing and tested becomes a factor and often an important factor for

34
Govinda Swamy vs state of Kerala, AIR 2016 SC 4299
35
Ramesh Chandra Agrawal v. Regency Hospital Ltd. and others,(2009) 9 SCC 709

20
 4TH INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2024

consideration along with the other evidence of the case. The credibility of such a witness
depends on the reasons stated in support of his conclusions and the data and materials furnished
which form the basis of his conclusions.36

It is humbly submitted before the worthy court that in this case the experts’ s experience not
known, even the procedure which need to followed is also not provided.

2.4.2. that the evidence must be based on reliable principles

The Relevancy of Evidence, purely depends upon relevancy of facts, as the evidence is given
for proving the fact-in-issue as stated in Section 5 of the Kipash evident Act therefore every
such evidence which is given in reference and purpose of proving a fact-in-issue is relevant
evidence under law. And in the present case,

• The accused has been recognised as suspect by the help of CCTV cameras and
copassengers31 which is admissible evidence under section 65B of Kipash Evidence Act,
electronic evidence includes sound, data, images generated or recorded and sent or received in
electronic form. The ratio of the Anvar P V v. PK Basheer & Ors 37give a liberal interpretation
for the admissibility of electronic evidence. The Apex Court of India had put more emphasis
on delivering justice rather than following the strict procedure of law. The Apex Court of India
had opined that Section 65 (B) (4) of the Indian Evidence Act requirement is a procedural
requirement and it may be interpreted liberally if the Hon’ble Court deemed it fit that electronic
evidence produced before the court is reliable and authentic. And according to Section 65B of
the Evidence Act says that electronic records need to be certified by a person occupying a
responsible official position for being admissible as evi- dence in any Court proceedings. Here
in this case there is no such evidence produced for CCTV photos before the court.

• DNA sample of accused matched with the deceased, 33 fingernail of deceased contains
accused epidermal cells(skin) and blood, finger nail abrasion mark on accused body34 In case
of Pantangi Balarama Venkata Ganesh v. State of A.P.35 it was held that “the evidence of DNA
Expert is admissible in evidence as it is a perfect science”.

• a button of accused was found in women compartment, such circumstantial evidence solely
can’t be held liable to an accused.

36
State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Jai Lal and others, AIR 1999 SC 3318
37
Anvar P V v. PK Basheer & Ors,(Civil Appeal No 4226/2012)

21
 4TH INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2024

• Dr. Tanvi, forensic surgeon who conducted the post-mortem of deceased, testimony before
the court (mentioned in moot proposition ¶8)38 In case of Nilabati Behra v. State of Odisha39
that the opinion of a doctor is reliable if he held the post-mortem examination and of Forensic
Science Laboratory. If any other expert doctor gave any contrary opinion who gave cryptic
report and based on its conjectures should not be relied upon. And in the instant case, no
verification of the postmortem report done by any other expert.

It is humbly submitted before the worthy court that in this case export opinion not based reliable
opinion and accused should given the benefit of It as there are many procedural mistakes by
the investigating agency and state.

2.4.3. That the expert must be qualified in that discipline

Section 45 of Kipash Evidence Act also provides a definition of an expert witness. An expert
is one who has acquired special knowledge, skill or experience in any science, art, trade or
commerce: such knowledge, may have been acquired by practice, observation or careful
studies. In Bal Krishna Das Agrawal v. Radha Devi,40an 'expert' was defined as "a person who
by his training and experience has acquired the ability to express an opinion" but an ordinary
witness does not possess this quality.

It is humbly submitted that here in this case prosecution failed to establish the ability of experts
as there is absence of fact about the training and experience.

3. Whether offence committed by Mr. Rana come under rarest of rare case?

To award death sentence, the aggravating circumstances (crime test) have to be fully satisfied
and there should be no mitigating circumstance (criminal test) favouring the accused. Even if
both the tests are satisfied as against the accused, even then the Court has to finally apply the
Rarest of Rare Cases test (R-R Test), which depends on the perception of the society and not
“judge-centric”, that is whether the society will approve the awarding of death sentence to
certain types of crime or not. While applying this test, the Court has to look into variety of
factors like society’s abhorrence, extreme indignation and antipathy to certain types of crimes

38
Moot proposition¶8
39
Nilabati Behra v. State,(1993) 2 SCC 746
40
Bal Krishna Das Agrawal v. Radha Devi, AIR 1989 SC 1966

22
 4TH INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2024

like rape and murder of minor girls, especially intellectually challenged minor girls, minor girls
with physical disability, old and infirm women with those disabilities etc. examples are only
illustrative and not exhaustive. Courts award death sentence, because situation demands, due
to constitutional compulsion, reflected by the will of the people, and not Judge centric.41

3.1. Test 1(the Crime test) meaning the aggravating circumstances of the case

While the Court has often taken into account the prior criminal record of the offender in
determining whether the person is capable of reform. Substantial history of serious assaults and
criminal conviction is an aggravating circumstance when the court is dealing with the offences
relating to the heinous crimes like murder, rape. Armed dacoity etc. 42 case was Sushil Murmu
v. State of Jharkhand,43 where the offence involved murder for the purposes of human sacrifice.
In imposing the death sentence, the Court took into account the “criminal propensities of the
accused which are clearly spelt out from the fact that similar accusations involving human
sacrifice existed at the time of trial.” Though the Court recognized that the result of the
accusations against him were not brought on record, and therefore it was not clear whether the
accusations resulted in a conviction, the Court held that “the fact that similar accusation was
made against the accused-appellant for which he was facing trial cannot also be lost sight of.”
On this basis, the Court imposed the death sentence on the accused. And in another case, B.A.
Umesh v. Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka,44 where the accused was convicted for
rape, murder and robbery, the Supreme Court imposed the death sentence on him, inter alia, on
the ground that he had engaged in similar conduct previously, and had been caught two days
after the present incident, trying to commit a similar crime. The Court held that “the antecedents
of the appellant and his subsequent conduct indicates that he is a menace to society and is
incapable of rehabilitation.

In Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab45, the court referred the aggravating circumstances
suggested by Dr. Chitale;

"Aggravating circumstances: A Court may, however, in the following cases impose the penalty
of death in its discretion:

41
Gurvail Singh @ Gala And Anr vs State Of Punjab,2013 (2) SCC 713
42
Birju vs State of MP, (2014) 3 SCC 421
43
Sushil Murmu v. State of Jharkhand, (2004) 2 SCC 338
44
B.A. Umesh v. Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka, (2011) 3 SCC 85
45
Bacchan singh V. State of Punjab,(1982) 3 SCC 24

23
 4TH INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2024

(a) if the murder has been committed after previous planning and involves extreme brutality;
or

(b) if the murder involves exceptional depravity; or

(c) if the murder is of a member of any of the armed forces of the Union or of a member of
any police force or of any public servant and was committed.

(i) while such member or public servant was on duty; or

(ii) in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by such member

or public servant in the lawful discharge of his duty as such member or public servant
whether at the time of murder he was such member or public 253 servant, as the case
may be, or had ceased to be such member or public servant; or

(d) if the murder is of a person who had acted in the lawful discharge of his duty under Section
43 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, or who had rendered assistance to a Magistrate or
a police officer demanding his aid or requiring his assistance under Section 37 and Section 129
of the said Code."

It is humbly submitted that on the basis on above circumstances propounded in the Bachan
Singh Case, none of them present in the given case henceforth the accused would not liable for
the death penalty.

3.2. the criminal test, meaning that there should be no mitigating circumstance favouring
the accused;

In Bachan Singh,46 the Court recognized and emphasized that each case is unique and has to
be decided on its own facts and circumstances. For this reason, the Court refused to provide
any standardization or categorization of offences for which the death penalty would be
applicable. At the same time however, the Court held that sentencing discretion was not
untrammelled. Rather, it endorsed the holding in Jagmohan vs state of UP 47 that “sentencing
discretion is to be exercised judicially on well-recognised principles…. crystallised by judicial
decisions illustrating as to what were regarded as aggravating or mitigating circumstances in
those eases.” Bachan Singh therefore directed courts to determine whether a case is rarest of

46
ibid
47
Jagmohan vs state of UP, (1973) 1 SCC 20

24
 4TH INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2024

rare keeping in mind judicial principles derived from a study of precedents as to the kinds of
factors that are aggravating and those that are mitigating.48

In case of Bachan Singh vs state of Punjab 49

court considered Dr. Chitaley’s conditions on
mitigating factors:

"Mitigating circumstances: In the exercise of its discretion in the above cases, the Court shall
take into account the following circumstances:

(1) That the offence was committed under the influence of extreme mental or emotional
disturbance.

(2) The age of the accused. If the accused is young or old, he shall not be sentenced to death.
(3) The probability that the accused would not commit criminal acts of violence as would
constitute a continuing threat to society.

(4) The probability that the accused can be reformed and rehabilitated. The State shall by
evidence prove that the accused does not satisfy the conditions 3 and 4 above.

(5) That in the facts and circumstances of the case the accused believed that he was morally
justified in committing the offence.

(6) That the accused acted under the duress or domination of another person.

(7) That the condition of the accused showed that he was mentally defective and that the said
defect impaired his capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct."

It is humbly before this court that in the instant case, the mitigating factors present in this case
i.e; age of the accused is 30 years old which is much younger to be on capital punishment, there
is no threat to society by the accused as prosecution failed to establish motive of the crime and
also there is also probability that the accused can be reformed and rehabilited. The prosecution
is also failed to establish that why accused can’t be reformed and accused would not commit
violence. And it is submitted that if there is presence of any mitigating factor, court should
caution ally grant death penalty.

48
“Supra note 40”
49
ibid

25
 4TH INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2024

3.3. Test 3 (R-R test) Rarest of rare case

The rarest of rare cases test, “which depends on the perception of the society and not “judge
centric”, that is whether the society will approve the awarding of death sentence to certain types
of crime or not. While applying this test, the Court has to look into variety of factors like
society’s abhorrence, extreme indignation and antipathy to certain types of crimes50. Explaining
this test, the Court in Mofil Khan v. State of Jharkhand,51 stated that the test is to “basically
examine whether the society abhors such crimes and whether such crimes shock the conscience
of the society and attract intense and extreme indignation of the community.” In the case of
RAM SINGH VS. SONIA52wherein the Apex Court has referred to the Judgment of Machhi
Singh vs. State of Punjab53 and also considered the decision of Bachan Singh and held that in
rarest of the rare cases, when collective conscience of the community is so shocked that it will
expect the holders of the judicial power centre to inflict death penalty irrespective of their
personal opinion as regards desirability or otherwise of retaining death penalty. With these
observations, the Apex Court confirmed the death sentence;

It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that the instant case didn’t categorically fall
under the doctrine of ‘Rarest of rare case’ on the grounds that it didn’t fulfils the criteria laid
down in the case of Macchi Singh v. State of Punjab54 , in this case Apex court laid down the
following criteria to be fulfilled to come into the rarest of rare case: -

3.3.1. Manner of committing murder

When the murder is committed in an extremely brutal, grotesque, diabolical, revolting, or

dastardly manner so as to arouse intense and extreme indignation of the community.55

In Teja Singh v. Mukhtiar Singh56, the accused had intentionally run down his father's rival
with his tractor and reversed the tractor to come back and shot and killed him with his gun. He
was not given death sentence, holding that this is not one of the “rarest of rare cases” meriting
death sentence. In Shankar Khade case57, the Supreme Court again alluded to the need for
evidence-based death sentencing, and was concerned that the rarest of rare formulation is

50
Gurvail Singh @ Gala v. State of Punjab, (2013) 2 SCC 713
51
Mofil Khan v. Jharkhand, (2015) 1 SCC 67
52
Ram Singh v. Sonia, AIR 2007 SC 1218
53
Macchi singh v. State of Punjab,(1983) AIR 1957
54
ibid
55
Ibid
56
Teja Singh v. Mukhtiar Singh,1995 SCC (Cri) 982
57
Shankar Kisanrao Khade v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 5 SCC 546

26
 4TH INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2024

unworkable unless empirical evidence is made available which allows the Court to evaluate
whether that a particular case is “rarer” than a comparative pool of rare cases. In the absence
of this data, the Court felt that the application of the rarest of rare formulation becomes
“extremely delicate” and “subjective.”

The Court has held that the rape and murder of a one and half year-old child in one case,58of a
6-year-old child in another,59 and 10-year-old child in a third,60 would not attract the death
penalty because though these crimes were heinous, the offenders were not a danger to society,
and the possibility of reform was not closed.

It is humbly submitted before the worthy court that in the given case, the accused lacked the
intention of murder of victim as the prosecution asserted that the accused purportedly travel
through the train to commit robbery but the deceased escape from the violence which results
into the major injury. And also, the prosecution fails to establish motive or intention of accused.

3.3.2. Motive for Commission of Murder

The motive behind a murder can provide insights into the depravity and meanness of the act,
influencing the sentencing decision. For instance, when a murder is committed for motives that
demonstrate extreme depravity and callousness, such as by a hired assassin, a cold-blooded
murder for financial gain, inheritance, or control over property, or a murder driven by betrayal
of the motherland, it reflects a particularly heinous nature of the crime.

The motive for the commission of murder is considered a crucial factor in assessing the gravity
of the offense and the impact on society. When the motive behind a murder reveals a deep-
seated malevolence or a callous disregard for human life, it underscores the severity of the
crime and the threat it poses to society at large. In cases where the motive is driven by factors
that are socially abhorrent or anti-social, such as crimes targeting specific communities, castes,
or individuals, the motive further highlights the egregious nature of the offense.

In State of Maharashtra v. Damu Gopinath Shinde.61 A girl aged 11 years was gruesomely
murdered, motivated by greed for gold. While the court observed that the act committed by the

58
Mohd. Chaman v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2001) 2 SCC 28
59
Bantu v. State of M.P., (2001) 9 SCC 615.
60
Haresh Mohandas Rajput v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 12 SCC 56
61
State of Maharashtra v. Damu Gopinath Shinde, (2000) 6 SCC 269

27
 4TH INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2024

accused was horrendous but held that it was not one of the “rarest of rare cases”, on the ground
that the act was done due to utter ignorance of the accused owing to superstitious belief.

It is humbly submitted before the worthy court as prosecution fails to establish motive of
murder and expert opinion of postmortem report said that the cause of death is due to the rape
in supine position these explicitly draw the conclusion that the accused lacked the intention of
murder.

3.3.3. Personality of the Victim of Murder

When the victim of murder is

(a) an innocent child who could not have or has not provided even an excuse, much less a
provocation, for murder,

(b) a helpless woman or a person rendered helpless by old age or infirmity

(c) when the victim is a person vis-a vis whom the murderer is in a position of domination or
trust

(d) when the victim is a public figure generally loved and respected by the community for the
services rendered by him and the murder is committed for political or similar reasons other
than personal reasons.62

The death sentence imposed by the sessions court and confirmed by the high court in appeal
against the accused in Raju v. State of Haryana63 for rape and murder of an 11-year-old child
was converted to life imprisonment as there was no intention to murder deceased in this case.

It is humbly submitted before the court that in the given case, as prosecution fails to establish
intention of murder hence, this crime would not come under the “rarest of rare category”.

62
“Supra note 48”
63
Raju v. State of Haryana,2001 (9) SCC 50

28
 4TH INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2024

3.3.4. Magnitude of Crime

When the crime is enormous in proportion. For instance, when multiple murders say of all or
almost all the members of a family or a large number of persons of a particular caste,
community, or locality, are committed.64

In Raja Ram Yadav v. State of Bihar,65 the Supreme Court did not impose death sentence
holding that it was not the “rarest of rare cases” though it was clearly held that the murder of
26 persons have been committed in a pre-meditated and calculated manner with extreme cruelty
and brutality, though the victims were innocent and did no harm to the culprits. In Manohar Lal
Munna v. State (NCT of Delhi)66, persons who had killed four people by setting them ablaze
were not given death sentence, though the Supreme Court observed that the murders were
gruesome, holding again that it was not the “rarest of rare cases”.

The accused in Kishori v. State (NCT of Delhi),67 who killed three persons in a brutal and
merciless manner in which the three young persons were dragged out of their house and hacked
to death in the presence of their family members, were not given death sentence based again
on the same theory.

64
Supra 40
65
Raja Ram Yadav v. State of Bihar, (1996) 9 SCC 287.
66
Manohar Lal Munna v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2000) 2 SCC 92
67
Kishori v. State (NCT of Delhi,(2000) 2 SCC 83

29
 4TH INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2024

PRAYERS

WHEREFORE, IN LIGHT OF THE FACTS STATED, ISSUES RAISED, ARGUMENTS

ADVANCED, AUTHORITIES CITED, SUBMISSIONS MADE HERETO ABOVE AND

THOSE TO BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING,

IT IS HUMBLY PRAYED THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED

1. To hold that the appeal filed by the State in the Supreme Court is not maintainable under

Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

2. To declare that the circumstantial evidence and expert opinion is not self-sufficient to

convict a person for the charge of murder.

3. To declare that the offence committed by Mr. Rana does not come under the rarest of the

rare case.

AND PASS ANY OTHER ORDER, DIRECTION, OR RELIEF THAT THIS HON’BLE
COURT MAY DEEM FIT AND APPROPRIATE IN THE INTEREST OF justice, equity, and
good conscience.

All of which is humbly prayed.

TEAM CODE- JUSTICA
Counsel for the Respondent

30