Script prosecution

Counsel seeks permission to approach the dice

Good morning / afternoon
This is counsel on behal of legal representative of the victim in the case of state of dakshin
prakdesh vs raghav iyer and anothers
Counsel seeks permission to enlighten this hpnpourable court with statement of jurisdiction
Much obliged
My lord

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

Advocate:
May it please Your Lordship,

The prosecution respectfully submits that this Hon’ble Court has the rightful jurisdiction to
adjudicate upon the present matter on the following grounds:

1. Territorial Jurisdiction:
The alleged offense took place within Sonipur, Dakshin Prakdesh, Indiana, falling squarely
within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.

2. Nature of the Offense & Sessions Court Jurisdiction:

The charges include murder, sexual assault, and criminal conspiracy—cognizable and grave
offenses triable by this Court.
Under Section 22A of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, this Hon’ble Sessions
Court has exclusive jurisdiction to conduct the trial.

3. Seriousness of the Case:

Given the presence of multiple accused, forensic findings indicating possible ritualistic
elements, and conflicting expert reports, the gravity of the offense warrants trial before this
Hon’ble Court.

4. Prima Facie Case:

Forensic evidence, CCTV footage, and witness testimonies establish a strong prima facie
case, justifying the trial under relevant legal provisions.

Therefore, Your Lordship, this Hon’ble Court has the necessary jurisdiction to proceed with
the matter.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

[IN THE HON’BLE COURT]

Advocate for the Prosecution: May it please this Hon’ble Court,

STATEMENT OF FACTS
Advocate:
May it please Your Lordship,

The prosecution humbly presents the harrowing facts of this heinous and
premeditated crime committed against Ms. Adaa Sharma, a bright 17-year-
old student whose life was mercilessly cut short in an act of sheer brutality.

The Victim’s Disappearance – 30th June 2024

On the fateful evening of 30th June 2024, Adaa Sharma, a young girl full of
dreams and aspirations, left her hostel on a borrowed scooter to celebrate a
birthday trek with her friends.
She never returned. Her absence sent shockwaves through her hostel, with
peers and authorities fearing the worst.

CCTV and Mobile Data Findings

The last digital footprint of Adaa leads to a chilling revelation. Surveillance

footage and mobile data confirm that she unknowingly stumbled upon a dark
and sinister gathering—a group of individuals in black robes and a
mysterious woman in a red saree entering an abandoned administrative
building. This was the last moment she was seen alive.

Filing of Missing Person Report – 1st July 2024

A missing person report was immediately filed, sparking urgent search

operations. But each passing moment deepened the fear that Adaa’s fate had
been sealed by something truly sinister.

Discovery of the Victim’s Body – 3rd July 2024

After three agonizing days, investigators traced her VayuTag signal to the
rooftop of the very building she was last seen near.
What they found was horrifying—her lifeless body, stuffed inside a wooden
box, wrapped in a red saree.
The crime scene bore disturbing evidence of an occult ritual—burnt
candles, eerie chalk markings, and a small doll wrapped in black thread.

Post-Mortem & Forensic Findings

The autopsy confirmed the worst:

● Adaa was manually strangled—a slow and painful death.

 ● Her body bore the marks of unthinkable suffering—multiple bruises,
bite marks, missing fingernails, and shaved scalp patches.
● Signs of sexual assault were present, with semen traces from an
unidentified perpetrator, indicating that at least one assailant remains
at large.

Arrest of Five Suspects

Based on forensic evidence, witness testimonies, and CCTV footage, five

individuals from S.P.V.H. College were arrested:

● Raghav Iyer (19) – Engineering student (bite marks matched his

dentition).
● Ayesha Deshmukh (20) – Politically connected student (identified in
CCTV footage).
● Farhan Mirza (18) – Art student (a minor at the time, now an adult,
whose role raises grave legal questions).
● Nisha Verma (21) – Psychology student (researcher in group behavior).
● Kunal Tiwari (22) – Law student (who claims an alibi of moot court
preparation but remains deeply entangled in the case).

However, at least three unidentified individuals, including the mysterious

woman in the red saree, remain at large.

Motive and Nature of the Crime

The prosecution submits that this was no ordinary crime—it was a

premeditated, brutal, and ritualistic execution.

● The presence of occult symbols, geometric carvings on the victim’s

body, and unmatched DNA samples prove that this was an orchestrated
act of pure evil.
● The manner in which Adaa was tortured and silenced suggests an
elaborate conspiracy that demands full legal scrutiny.

Legal Issues Before This Hon’ble Court

1. Whether the overwhelming evidence establishes guilt beyond

reasonable doubt.
2. Whether Farhan Mirza, a minor at the time, should be tried as an
adult under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice Act, given the barbaric
nature of the crime.
 3. Whether this case qualifies as a ‘rarest of rare’ offense, warranting
the maximum punishment under the law.

Your Lordship, Adaa Sharma was not just another victim—she was a
daughter, a friend, a young soul with dreams, cruelly snatched away by
those who chose darkness over humanity.
The prosecution shall establish, beyond a shred of doubt, that these accused
individuals are responsible for this unspeakable atrocity and that justice
demands nothing less than the full weight of the law.

May justice be served.

Prosecution rests.
Whether the date of the commission of the crime should be legally determined as

the date on which the victim was reported missing, the day the alleged crime was

committed, or the day the victim’s body was recovered, for the purposes of

initiating legal proceedings and determining the applicable statutory provisions.

IN THE HON’BLE COURT OF LAW

PROSECUTION SUBMISSIONS ON THE DETERMINATION OF THE

DATE OF CRIME

May it please Your Lordship,

The prosecution stands before this Hon’ble Court to seek justice for a young,
innocent soul, Adaa Sharma, who suffered a gruesome fate at the hands of
merciless perpetrators. The brutal acts of abduction, sexual assault, and
murder were completed on 1st July 2024, and any attempt by the defense to
alter this indisputable fact is a calculated distortion of legal principles aimed at
obstructing the course of justice.

I. ADAA SHARMA DESERVES JUSTICE, NOT LEGAL MANIPULATION

Your Lordship, let us not forget the face of this case—a 17-year-old girl with
dreams, aspirations, and a bright future that was savagely taken away by the
accused. She was not just a name in a legal document; she was a daughter, a
sister, a human being. The defense’s attempt to shift the crime date to 3rd July
2024, when her body was discovered, is a deliberate attempt to diminish the
horror of the crime and manipulate procedural loopholes to serve the interests
of the accused. This Court must not allow such injustice.
II. LEGAL PRINCIPLES GOVERNING THE DETERMINATION OF THE
DATE OF CRIME

1. The Crime Was Completed on 1st July 2024

● Adaa Sharma was abducted on 30th June 2024, initiating a continuing

offense under Section 64 BNSS (Kidnapping & Abduction).
● The autopsy report conclusively states that her time of death occurred
on the night of 1st July 2024 or early 2nd July 2024.
● The forensic evidence establishes that she was subjected to unspeakable
brutality before her death.
● Thus, the crime of rape under Section 105 BNSS and murder under
Section 103 BNSS was completed by 1st July 2024.

2. Recovery of the Body on 3rd July 2024 is an Evidentiary Aspect, Not the
Date of Crime

● The defense argues that the crime should be dated 3rd July 2024, when
the body was found. This argument is legally untenable.
● Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab (1958 AIR 465) establishes that a crime
is complete at the moment of the fatal act, not when the body is
discovered.
● State of Maharashtra v. Sahebrao (2006) 9 SCC 794 reinforces that the
final criminal act determines the date of the offense, not subsequent
events.
● The doctrine of corpus delicti dictates that while a body is proof of a
crime, it does not define when the crime was committed.

III. LEGAL FRAMEWORK & STATUTORY SUPPORT FOR 1ST JULY 2024 AS
THE DATE OF CRIME

Legal Provision Application to This Case

Section 64 BNSS The victim was forcibly taken; the crime continued until
(Kidnapping & her murder.
Abduction)

Section 103 BNSS Murder is complete at the moment of death, not upon
(Murder) body discovery.
Section 105 BNSS Rape is legally completed upon penetration. In
(Rape and Sexual Bodhisattwa Gautam v. Subhra Chakraborty (1996
Offenses) AIR SC 922), the Hon’ble Court ruled that the offense
occurs at the moment of the act, not later.

Section 2(wa) Justice must prioritize the victim’s suffering over

BNSS (Victim- procedural loopholes.
Centric Approach)

Section 179 BNSS The legal date of an offense is the moment of the final
(Continuing act, not its discovery.
Offense Doctrine)

IV. DEFENSE’S ATTEMPT TO ALTER THE CRIME DATE IS A CUNNING

STRATEGY TO EVADE JUSTICE

Your Lordship, the defense’s claim that the crime should be dated 3rd July
2024 is a blatant attempt to:

1. Manipulate the legal standing of the accused, Farhan Mirza

○ Farhan Mirza was a minor on 1st July but turned 18 by the time
of his arrest.
○ If the crime date is shifted, the defense will argue that he should
be tried as an adult under different legal provisions.
2. Dilute the gravity of the offense
○ The defense seeks to create artificial ambiguity around the
timeline of events, attempting to introduce doubt where none
exists.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v. State of

Madhya Pradesh (AIR 1952 SC 343) made it clear that the discovery of a body
is an evidentiary matter, not a determinant of the crime date.

V. TRIAL OF FARHAN MIRZA UNDER THE JUVENILE JUSTICE ACT, 2015

Your Lordship, the accused Farhan Mirza must be tried as an adult for the
following reasons:
 ● Under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, juveniles involved
in heinous crimes (16-18 years) can be tried as adults.
● The Supreme Court in Shilpa Mittal v. State of NCT Delhi (2020) held
that grievous offenses by juveniles require full accountability.
● The premeditated and brutal nature of this offense warrants strictest
legal action without leniency.

VI. CONCLUSION & PRAYER

Your Lordship, the law must stand firmly on the side of the victim, not the
accused. The only legally and morally correct determination is that the crime
occurred on 1st July 2024, based on:

✅ Forensic evidence confirming time of death.

✅ Established case law holding that a crime is complete at the time of the
final act.
✅ Statutory provisions ensuring that justice is not undermined by procedural
distortions.

The prosecution prays that this Hon’ble Court:

1. Recognize 1st July 2024 as the legal date of the crime.

2. Ensure that the accused are prosecuted under the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023, and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
3. Deny any procedural advantage to the defense that seeks to dilute the
severity of the crime.
4. Deliver justice to Adaa Sharma, ensuring that her suffering is neither
forgotten nor trivialized.

May the law remain unyielding against the guilty and unwavering in its duty
to the innocent.

Prosecution rests.

Here's a structured and compelling courtroom argument for your case:

I have structured the prosecution's argument into a compelling courtroom script,

emphasizing the legal basis for recognizing 1st July 2024 as the crime's date.
Let me know if you'd like any refinements.
Advocate for the Prosecution: May it please this Hon’ble Court,

This case presents a heinous crime, a brutal act of sexual assault and murder against an
innocent young girl, Adaa Sharma. The prosecution submits before this Hon’ble Court that
the legally recognized date of the crime must be 1st July 2024—the day when the offenses
of rape and murder were completed. The defense’s attempt to shift this date to 3rd July
2024, when her body was recovered, is nothing more than a legal distortion meant to subvert
the course of justice.

I. DETERMINATION OF THE DATE OF CRIME

Your Lordship, the fundamental issue in determining the date of the crime is the application
of the principle that an offense is considered committed when its final, essential act is
executed. The defense erroneously argues that the date of crime should be fixed as 3rd July
2024, merely because the body was discovered on that day. This Hon’ble Court has a duty
to reject such an illogical assertion and rely on concrete legal and forensic principles.

1. Abduction and Commencement of Crime:

○ On 30th June 2024, Adaa Sharma was abducted, marking the beginning of
the crime under Section 64 BNSS (Kidnapping & Abduction).
○ This is a continuing offense until the victim is either released or killed, as
upheld in State v. Anil Sharma (2016 SCC Online Del 5558).
2. Completion of the Heinous Acts – 1st July 2024:
○ The forensic report and expert testimony confirm that Adaa Sharma was
raped and murdered before 2nd July 2024.
○ The autopsy explicitly states that her time of death was estimated to be the
night of 1st July or early 2nd July 2024.
○ Therefore, the prosecution submits that the crime of rape under Section 105
BNSS and murder under Section 103 BNSS was completed by 1st July 2024.
3. Recovery of the Body – 3rd July 2024:
○ The body’s discovery is merely an evidentiary aspect and not the defining
date of the crime. The Supreme Court in Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab (1958
AIR 465) held that a crime is completed at the moment of the fatal act,
regardless of when the body is discovered.
○ Similarly, State of Maharashtra v. Sahebrao (2006) 9 SCC 794 establishes
that the date of the crime must be fixed at the time of the final criminal act, not
when the consequences (like body recovery) manifest.
○ The doctrine of corpus delicti affirms that while a body may serve as proof, it
does not establish the moment the crime was committed.

II. LEGAL FRAMEWORK & STATUTORY PROVISIONS

The prosecution relies on the following legal provisions to establish the culpability of the
accused and substantiate 1st July 2024 as the date of the offense:

● Section 64 BNSS (Kidnapping & Abduction): The victim was forcibly taken,
making it a continuing offense until the final act.
● Section 103 BNSS (Murder): Murder is legally complete at the moment of death, not
upon body discovery.
 ● Section 105 BNSS (Rape and Sexual Offenses): Rape is completed the moment
penetration occurs. In Bodhisattwa Gautam v. Subhra Chakraborty (1996 AIR SC
922), it was established that rape is a continuing offense, but the primary offense
occurs at the moment of penetration.
● Section 2(wa) BNSS (Victim-Centric Approach): Justice must prioritize the victim’s
suffering, demanding that the crime be recognized on 1st July 2024.
● Section 179 BNSS (Continuing Offense Doctrine): The legal date of the offense is
determined by the final act leading to the offense’s completion.

III. DEFENSE’S MISGUIDED ATTEMPT TO ALTER THE CRIME DATE

The defense’s argument to shift the legal date to 3rd July 2024 is legally untenable. This is a
calculated attempt to manipulate procedural technicalities, possibly to:

● Influence the applicability of statutory provisions.

● Alter the legal standing of the accused, particularly Farhan Mirza, who turned 18 after
1st July 2024.
● Introduce unwarranted ambiguity into an otherwise clear sequence of events.

Your Lordship, the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that the legal date of crime is
based on when the offense occurred, not when it was discovered. Hanumant Govind
Nargundkar v. State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR 1952 SC 343) clarifies that the discovery of a
body is evidentiary, but it does not alter the crime’s commission date.

IV. TRIAL OF ACCUSED FARHAN MIRZA UNDER THE JUVENILE JUSTICE ACT, 2015

Your Lordship, the accused Farhan Mirza was a minor at the time of abduction but had
attained majority by the time of his arrest. The prosecution submits that:

● Under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, juveniles involved in heinous
crimes between 16-18 years can be tried as adults.
● The Supreme Court in Shilpa Mittal v. State of NCT Delhi (2020) upheld the principle
that juveniles committing grievous offenses must face full accountability.
● The premeditated and brutal nature of this offense mandates that the accused be
tried as an adult.

V. CONCLUSION & PRAYER

Your Lordship, the legally recognized date of the crime must be 1st July 2024, based on:

1. Forensic evidence confirming the time of death on 1st July 2024.

2. Legal precedents establishing that the crime is complete at the moment of the
final act.
3. Statutory provisions ensuring that the focus remains on the severity and
sequence of the crime rather than procedural technicalities.
4. Preventing any misapplication of law regarding the accused’s age and the
applicable legal framework.

The prosecution prays that this Hon’ble Court:

● Recognize 1st July 2024 as the legal date of crime.

● Prosecute the accused under the full extent of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023,
and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
● Hold the accused fully accountable for their actions, ensuring that justice for Adaa
Sharma is neither delayed nor denied.
May justice prevail.

[Prosecution Rests]

why date of determination should be 1 st and not third give reason and if 3 rd is considered
why it is wrong for prosecution

The date of determination should be 1st July 2024 and not 3rd July 2024 for the
following reasons:

I. Legal Principle: A Crime is Complete When the Final Act Occurs

1. Completion of the Offense – The offenses of rape and murder were completed on
1st July 2024, as established by forensic evidence. The time of death, as confirmed
in the autopsy, was estimated to be the night of 1st July or early 2nd July.
2. Irrelevance of Body Recovery to Crime Commission – The discovery of a body
does not determine the legal date of crime; it only serves as evidence of an
already committed offense. This was established in Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab
(1958 AIR 465), where the Supreme Court held that a crime is completed when the
victim dies, not when the body is found.

II. Consequences of Accepting 3rd July as the Crime Date & Why It is
Legally Incorrect
If the court considers 3rd July 2024 (the date of body discovery) as the crime’s legal date, it
creates legal and procedural contradictions:

1. Misrepresentation of the Sequence of Events

○Accepting 3rd July 2024 disregards forensic evidence that confirms that
Adaa was already dead before this date.
○ The autopsy’s estimated time of death (1st–2nd July) would contradict the
new date, undermining factual accuracy.
2. Impact on Legal Framework

○ If 3rd July is accepted, it could create a loophole for the accused, potentially
altering the applicable sections of law and reducing their culpability
under procedural statutes such as the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
(BNSS).
○ The venue of the trial could be challenged under Section 178 BNSS
(Jurisdiction of Trial), arguing that the offense should be treated as having
taken place when the body was found, rather than when the acts were
committed.
3. Implications for Juvenile Accused (Farhan Mirza)

○ If the date of crime is artificially shifted to 3rd July, the defense may
argue that he should be treated as a minor since he turned 18 between
the crime’s actual commission (1st July) and the body discovery (3rd July).
○ This could hinder his trial under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice Act,
which allows juveniles (16–18 years) to be tried as adults for heinous crimes.
4. Judicial Precedents Rejecting Body Discovery as the Crime Date
 ○ State of Maharashtra v. Sahebrao (2006) 9 SCC 794: Held that the crime is
completed when the fatal act occurs, not when the body is recovered.
○ Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v. State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR 1952 SC
343): Clarified that body recovery is evidentiary, but it does not determine
the moment of crime commission.

Conclusion: The Prosecution’s Stand

📌 1st July 2024 is the legally valid date because the fatal acts—rape and murder—were
completed on this day.
📌 Accepting 3rd July 2024 as the crime date distorts legal reasoning, creates
procedural ambiguities, and potentially weakens the prosecution’s case.

Thus, for justice to be properly served, the crime date must be fixed as 1st July 2024.

Whether Farhan Mirza, who was a minor at the time of the alleged offense but
attained majority at the time of arrest, should be tried under the Juvenile
Justice
(Care and Protection of Children) Act, or whether the severity and nature of the
crime warrant his trial under the provisions of the regular criminal justice
system.

IN THE HON'BLE COURT OF SONIPUR

PROSECUTION'S ARGUMENT FOR TRIAL OF ACCUSED FARHAN MIRZA AS AN
ADULT

Advocate for the Prosecution: May it please this Hon'ble Court, we are gathered here
today to seek justice for the heinous and premeditated crime committed against the victim,
Ms. Adaa Sharma. The prosecution respectfully submits that the accused, Farhan Mirza,
who was two days short of attaining majority at the time of the offense, must be tried as an
adult under the regular criminal justice system, as per Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice
(Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act).

I. THE HEINOUS AND PREMEDITATED NATURE OF THE OFFENSE

1. The present case pertains to a brutal and ritualistic murder involving acts of sexual
violence, physical torture, and psychological torment inflicted upon the victim.
2. The accused, along with his co-accused, deliberately planned and executed the
crime, demonstrating full awareness of the consequences of their actions.
3. The forensic evidence, including bite marks and the presence of ritualistic elements,
further establishes the accused’s active participation in this diabolical act.

II. PROXIMITY TO ADULTHOOD AND CRIMINAL MATURITY

 1. The accused, Farhan Mirza, was merely two days away from turning 18 at the time of
the crime. He had the cognitive capacity to comprehend the gravity of his actions.
2. Judicial precedents emphasize that mental and criminal maturity must take
precedence over chronological age.
3. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Heeralal v. State of Rajasthan (2020) reaffirmed that
minors committing heinous crimes must not be given blanket immunity under the JJ
Act if their intent and actions reflect adult culpability.

III. JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS ON THE GRAVITY OF OFFENSES

1. In Salil Bali v. Union of India (2013), the Supreme Court recognized that crimes that
shake the collective conscience of society require stringent judicial scrutiny.
2. The Nirbhaya Case (Mukesh v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2017) reaffirmed the principle
that deterrence is a crucial aspect of justice.
3. In Dharambir v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2016), the Supreme Court ruled that the
brutality of the offense must be a determinative factor in deciding whether a juvenile
should be tried as an adult.

IV. STATUTORY FRAMEWORK UNDER THE JJ ACT, 2015

1. Section 15 of the JJ Act empowers the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) to assess
whether a minor aged 16-18 should be tried as an adult based on factors such as:
○ Mental and physical maturity
○ Nature and circumstances of the offense
○ Degree of participation
2. The prosecution submits that the accused meets all the statutory criteria for trial as
an adult.

V. APPLICABILITY OF MENS REA AND LEGAL MAXIMS

1. The principle of Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea—"An act does not make one
guilty unless there is a guilty mind"—squarely applies here.
2. The accused not only actively participated in the crime but also attempted to evade
detection, demonstrating clear intent and criminal sophistication.

VI. INTERNATIONAL PRECEDENTS ON JUVENILE TRIALS FOR HEINOUS OFFENSES

1. United States: In Kent v. United States (1966), juveniles accused of serious crimes
were deemed fit for adult prosecution based on criminal maturity.
2. United Kingdom: The Criminal Justice Act permits juveniles aged 16-18 to be tried
as adults for grave offenses, including murder.
3. Canada & Germany: Both jurisdictions assess criminal maturity before deciding
whether a juvenile should be tried in an adult court.

VII. PRINCIPLE OF PROPORTIONATE PUNISHMENT

 1. The legal maxim Lex Talionis—"The law of retaliation"—dictates that punishment
must be proportionate to the severity of the crime.
2. Granting the accused juvenile protection would be a travesty of justice, undermining
deterrence, public safety, and the victim’s right to justice.

VIII. CONCLUSION: WHY FARHAN MIRZA MUST BE TRIED AS AN ADULT

1. The accused’s criminal maturity, deliberate participation, and the gruesome nature of
the crime warrant his trial under the regular criminal justice system.
2. Shielding him under juvenile protections would send a dangerous message,
potentially emboldening future offenders.
3. In light of judicial precedents, international legal perspectives, and statutory
provisions, this Hon’ble Court must direct that Farhan Mirza be tried as an adult.

Therefore, the prosecution most humbly prays that this Hon’ble Court grants the
request to transfer the trial of the accused, Farhan Mirza, to the regular sessions court
for trial as an adult.

May justice be served.

To legally argue Farhan Mirza’s guilt despite the lack of direct evidence, the prosecution
should focus on circumstantial evidence, legal presumptions, and inferences derived
from established legal principles. Here’s how:

1. Establishing a Chain of Circumstantial Evidence

● Video Evidence: While the video may not conclusively prove his presence at the
time of the crime, it places him near the scene with individuals involved in the act.
Courts have upheld circumstantial evidence when multiple links form an unbroken
chain leading to guilt (Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, 1984).
● Behavioral Cues: Did Farhan attempt to hide or mislead investigators? Any
inconsistent statements or unusual conduct post-crime can suggest guilty knowledge.

2. Principle of Last Seen Theory

● If the video or witness statements place him near the victim shortly before her death,
the burden shifts to him to explain why he was there (State of U.P. v. Satish, 2005).
His failure to provide a reasonable explanation strengthens the case against him.

3. Criminal Conspiracy and Common Intention (Sections 111 & 120B

BNS)
● Even if Farhan did not directly commit the crime, his association with the group
suggests common intention or conspiracy (State of M.P. v. Suresh, 2009).
Participation, presence, or silence when the crime was planned could make him
equally liable.

4. Mens Rea & Culpability by Association

 ● Under Actus Reus + Mens Rea principles, his continued association with individuals
involved in a crime may indicate pre-planning or aiding and abetting (Dhananjay
v. State of Bihar, 2002).

Conclusion
Even without direct forensic evidence, the prosecution can argue that the totality of
circumstances, his proximity to the crime, and his association with the perpetrators create a
strong presumption of guilt. His failure to rebut this presumption should lead to his conviction
beyond a reasonable doubt.

Would you like this structured into a courtroom argument?

To argue that the murmuring in the video recording constitutes circumstantial evidence
and should be considered, the prosecution must establish the evidentiary value of the
recording within the framework of admissibility and inference-based reasoning. Here's how:

1. Establishing the Legal Admissibility of the Video

● Under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, electronic evidence, including
audio-visual recordings, is admissible if certified.
● Courts have ruled that even unclear recordings can be considered if they corroborate
other evidence (Tomaso Bruno v. State of U.P., 2015).

2. Murmuring as an Indicator of Presence and Participation

● The murmuring suggests the presence of multiple individuals, and forensic audio
enhancement may reveal speech patterns or identities.
● The lack of an alternative explanation from Farhan about his whereabouts at that
time strengthens the inference of his involvement.

3. Circumstantial Evidence: Corroboration with Other Factors

● The video is a piece of the puzzle that aligns with:
○ His known association with the other accused.
○ The ritualistic nature of the crime, suggesting an organized act rather than
random violence.
○ Any incriminating digital footprint, such as phone location data, which
places him near the scene.

4. Precedents Supporting Inference-Based Convictions

● Courts have upheld convictions based on incomplete or indirect evidence if it
forms a logical chain (Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, 1984).
● In Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014), the Supreme Court ruled that digital evidence
need not be perfect but should support a larger body of proof.

5. Shifting the Burden to the Accused

● If the accused was near the scene but denies involvement, why was he there?
● His failure to provide an alternative explanation strengthens the circumstantial
inference against him.
Conclusion
The prosecution should argue that while the murmuring alone may not be conclusive, it is
one link in a strong circumstantial chain that, when considered with other evidence,
proves Farhan’s presence and involvement beyond a reasonable doubt.

Would you like this incorporated into a formal argument structure?

The date of determination of the crime—whether it is 1st July or 3rd July—is crucial in
deciding whether Farhan Mirza should be tried as a juvenile or an adult under the
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act). Here's how each
date impacts his trial:

Scenario 1: If 1st July is Considered as the Date of Crime

● Farhan was a minor (17 years, 11 months, and 29 days) on 1st July.
● Under Section 15 of the JJ Act, the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) will conduct a
preliminary assessment to determine whether he should be tried as an adult.
● However, since he was still legally a minor on 1st July, his defense could argue that
he is entitled to juvenile protection and cannot be transferred to the adult criminal
system.
● Impact:
○ The prosecution must establish criminal maturity (mental and psychological
capacity) to convince the court that he should be tried as an adult.
○ The defense will push for juvenile rehabilitation measures rather than adult
punishment.

Scenario 2: If 3rd July is Considered as the Date of Crime

● Farhan had already turned 18 by 3rd July.
● He would automatically be considered an adult under the law, and the JJ Act would
not apply to his trial.
● Impact:
○ He would face charges under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 as an
adult offender, without the protections of juvenile justice.
○ He would be subject to full criminal liability and harsher penalties, including
life imprisonment or even the death penalty if the case qualifies as the rarest
of the rare.

Legal Strategy for the Prosecution

● Argue that the crime continued until 3rd July.
○ If evidence shows that the victim suffered continued harm (assault,
confinement, or murder) beyond 1st July, then the court can consider 3rd
July as the legal date of the offense.
○ Rely on forensic evidence, such as time of death estimates, to support this
claim.
● Alternatively, argue under Section 15 of the JJ Act
 ○ Even if 1st July is accepted, Farhan’s criminal maturity and intent justify a
transfer to the adult court.

Legal Strategy for the Defense

● Push for 1st July as the legal date to keep Farhan within the juvenile system.
● Challenge the forensic timeline to dispute the prosecution’s attempt to extend the
crime beyond 1st July.
● Emphasize rehabilitation over punishment, citing the objective of juvenile law to
reform young offenders.

Final Analysis
● If the court accepts 3rd July, Farhan is tried as an adult without any juvenile
protections.
● If the court accepts 1st July, the prosecution must fight for his transfer to adult trial
under Section 15 of the JJ Act by proving his criminal maturity.

Would you like a courtroom argument based on this analysis?

If 1st July is taken as the date of determination of the crime, the prosecution must argue
that Farhan Mirza, despite being a minor, should be tried as an adult under Section 15
of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act). The
prosecution's focus should be on establishing Farhan’s criminal maturity, active
participation, and the heinous nature of the offense.

Key Arguments to Justify Trial as an Adult

1. The Heinous and Premeditated Nature of the Crime (Section 15, JJ

Act)
● Sexual violence, physical torture, and murder were inflicted upon the victim in an
organized manner, with signs of planning and premeditation.
● Section 15 of the JJ Act mandates that juveniles aged 16-18 accused of heinous
crimes must undergo a preliminary assessment by the Juvenile Justice Board
(JJB) to determine if they should be tried as adults.
● Judicial Precedent: In Dharambir v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2016), the Supreme Court
held that the brutality of the crime must be a determinative factor in deciding
whether a juvenile should be tried as an adult.

2. Farhan’s Criminal Maturity and Mens Rea (Mental Culpability)

● Though he was two days short of 18, Farhan’s planning, coordination with co-
accused, and attempt to evade detection demonstrate a level of criminal maturity
equivalent to an adult.
 ● The legal maxim "Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea" (An act does not make
one guilty unless there is a guilty mind) applies here—Farhan acted with full
knowledge of his actions.
● Precedent: In Heeralal v. State of Rajasthan (2020), the Supreme Court reaffirmed
that a juvenile’s age alone should not determine their culpability, but rather their
mental and physical maturity.

3. Principle of "Last Seen" and Circumstantial Evidence Supporting His

Involvement
● The video footage, despite containing only murmuring, places Farhan near the
scene of the crime.
● The last seen theory (State of U.P. v. Satish, 2005) states that if a person is last
seen with the victim shortly before their death, the burden shifts to them to explain
their presence.
● His failure to provide a reasonable explanation strengthens the circumstantial
case against him.

4. Public Interest and Deterrence Doctrine

● Heinous crimes involving juveniles are increasing, requiring strict legal
interpretation.
● In Mukesh v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2017) (Nirbhaya case), the Supreme Court
emphasized that public outrage and the nature of the offense must be
considered when determining punishment.
● Farhan’s trial as an adult is necessary to ensure deterrence and uphold justice.

Conclusion
The prosecution must convince the JJB that Farhan possessed the mental and criminal
maturity to be tried as an adult. Since he was close to 18, engaged in a calculated and
organized crime, and demonstrated awareness of wrongdoing, he should be transferred
to the regular criminal justice system.

Would you like this structured into a formal courtroom argument?

IN THE HON’BLE COURT OF LAW

PROSECUTION SUBMISSIONS ON THE DETERMINATION OF THE DATE OF CRIME

May it please Your Lordship,

The prosecution stands before this Hon’ble Court to seek justice for a young, innocent soul,
Adaa Sharma, who suffered a gruesome fate at the hands of merciless perpetrators. The
brutal acts of abduction, sexual assault, and murder were completed on 1st July 2024,
and any attempt by the defense to alter this indisputable fact is a calculated distortion of
legal principles aimed at obstructing the course of justice.
I. ADAA SHARMA DESERVES JUSTICE, NOT LEGAL MANIPULATION
Your Lordship, let us not forget the face of this case—a 17-year-old girl with dreams,
aspirations, and a bright future that was savagely taken away by the accused. She was
not just a name in a legal document; she was a daughter, a sister, a human being. The
defense’s attempt to shift the crime date to 3rd July 2024, when her body was discovered, is
a deliberate attempt to diminish the horror of the crime and manipulate procedural loopholes
to serve the interests of the accused. This Court must not allow such injustice.

II. LEGAL PRINCIPLES GOVERNING THE DETERMINATION OF THE

DATE OF CRIME
1. The Crime Was Completed on 1st July 2024

● Adaa Sharma was abducted on 30th June 2024, initiating a continuing offense
under Section 64 BNSS (Kidnapping & Abduction).
● The autopsy report conclusively states that her time of death occurred on the
night of 1st July 2024 or early 2nd July 2024.
● The forensic evidence establishes that she was subjected to unspeakable
brutality before her death.
● Thus, the crime of rape under Section 105 BNSS and murder under Section 103
BNSS was completed by 1st July 2024.

2. Recovery of the Body on 3rd July 2024 is an Evidentiary Aspect, Not the Date of
Crime

● The defense argues that the crime should be dated 3rd July 2024, when the body
was found. This argument is legally untenable.
● Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab (1958 AIR 465) establishes that a crime is complete
at the moment of the fatal act, not when the body is discovered.
● State of Maharashtra v. Sahebrao (2006) 9 SCC 794 reinforces that the final
criminal act determines the date of the offense, not subsequent events.
● The doctrine of corpus delicti dictates that while a body is proof of a crime, it
does not define when the crime was committed.

III. LEGAL FRAMEWORK & STATUTORY SUPPORT FOR 1ST JULY 2024
AS THE DATE OF CRIME
Legal Provision Application to This Case

Section 64 BNSS The victim was forcibly taken; the crime continued until her
(Kidnapping & murder.
Abduction)

Section 103 BNSS Murder is complete at the moment of death, not upon body
(Murder) discovery.

Section 105 BNSS Rape is legally completed upon penetration. In Bodhisattwa

(Rape and Sexual Gautam v. Subhra Chakraborty (1996 AIR SC 922), the
Offenses) Hon’ble Court ruled that the offense occurs at the moment of
the act, not later.

Section 2(wa) BNSS Justice must prioritize the victim’s suffering over procedural
 (Victim-Centric loopholes.
Approach)

Section 179 BNSS The legal date of an offense is the moment of the final act,
(Continuing Offense not its discovery.
Doctrine)

IV. DEFENSE’S ATTEMPT TO ALTER THE CRIME DATE IS A CUNNING

STRATEGY TO EVADE JUSTICE
Your Lordship, the defense’s claim that the crime should be dated 3rd July 2024 is a blatant
attempt to:

1. Manipulate the legal standing of the accused, Farhan Mirza

○ Farhan Mirza was a minor on 1st July but turned 18 by the time of his
arrest.
○ If the crime date is shifted, the defense will argue that he should be tried
as an adult under different legal provisions.
2. Dilute the gravity of the offense
○ The defense seeks to create artificial ambiguity around the timeline of
events, attempting to introduce doubt where none exists.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v. State of Madhya

Pradesh (AIR 1952 SC 343) made it clear that the discovery of a body is an evidentiary
matter, not a determinant of the crime date.

V. TRIAL OF FARHAN MIRZA UNDER THE JUVENILE JUSTICE ACT, 2015

Your Lordship, the accused Farhan Mirza must be tried as an adult for the following
reasons:

● Under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, juveniles involved in

heinous crimes (16-18 years) can be tried as adults.
● The Supreme Court in Shilpa Mittal v. State of NCT Delhi (2020) held that
grievous offenses by juveniles require full accountability.
● The premeditated and brutal nature of this offense warrants strictest legal action
without leniency.

VI. CONCLUSION & PRAYER

Your Lordship, the law must stand firmly on the side of the victim, not the accused. The
only legally and morally correct determination is that the crime occurred on 1st July
2024, based on:

✅ Forensic evidence confirming time of death.

✅ Established case law holding that a crime is complete at the time of the final act.
✅ Statutory provisions ensuring that justice is not undermined by procedural
distortions.

The prosecution prays that this Hon’ble Court:

1. Recognize 1st July 2024 as the legal date of the crime.

 2. Ensure that the accused are prosecuted under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023, and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
3. Deny any procedural advantage to the defense that seeks to dilute the severity
of the crime.
4. Deliver justice to Adaa Sharma, ensuring that her suffering is neither forgotten
nor trivialized.

May the law remain unyielding against the guilty and unwavering in its duty to the
innocent.

Prosecution rests.