Memorial for the Prosecution

Team Code-20

HSL 3rd National Level Moot Court Competition

BEFORE THE DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, SURAJPUR

GAUTAM BUDDHA NAGAR, UTTAR PRADESH

CASE NO. SC/……/2024

IN THE MATTER OF:

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH ……… PROSECUTION

V.

SIDDHANTH AND ORS. ………. ACCUSED PERSON

FIR NO………../2024

PS-----------------------

FOR THE OFFENCES CHARGED UNDER SECTION 3(5), 238, 103(1),126(2), 61(2)

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

Memorial for the Prosecution

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
II. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
III. STATEMENT OF JUURISDICTION
IV. STATEMENT OF FACTS
V. ISSUES INVOLVED
VI. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
VII. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. Whether the five interns, in furtherance of a common intention, committed the murder of
Rohan, punishable under Section 103(1) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
1.1 Common Intention Under Section 3(5) BNS
1.2 Absence of Private Defence – Sections 38to BNS
1.3 Rebutting the Defence of Grave and Sudden Provocation (Exception 1 to S.101)
1.4 Forensic and Circumstantial Evidence Under BSA, 2023

2. Whether the disposal of Rohan’s body by the interns, and Komal’s instruction for the same,
amounts to destruction of evidence under Section 238 and abetment under Section 61(2) BNS,
2023.
2.1 Destruction of Evidence
2.2 Komal's Criminal Liability as Abettor
2.3 Whether the accussed interns were under duress or acted voluntarily
2.4 komal's mental condition
2.5 Burden of proof

3. Whether the collective acts of the accused, including concealment and coordination post-
incident, amount to criminal conspiracy under Section 126(2) BNS, 2023.
3.1 Essential components of wrongful restarint
3.2 Voluntarily Causing Grievous Hurt
Memorial for the Prosecution
4. Whether the accused took the law into their own hands instead of approaching lawful
authorities, thereby committing an offence under Section 3(5) BNS, 2023
4.1 Common Intention
4.2 Interpretation of taking law onto one's hand
4.3 is collective conduct relevant to establish the offence

VIII. PRAYER
Memorial for the Prosecution

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AIR All India Reporter

BNS Bhartiya Nyaya Sahinta
Sec. Section
Art. Article
SC Supreme Court
& And
PIL Public Interest Litigation
BSA Bhartiya SakshiyaAdhiniyam
Memorial for the Prosecution

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATUTES REFFERED

1. Bhartiya Nyaya Sahinta

2. Bhartiya SakshayaAdhiniyam

CASES REFFERED

1. Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. King Emperor, AIR 1925 PC 1 (India)

2. Mahbub Shah v. Emperor, AIR 1945 PC 118 (India).
3. Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab, (2010) 2 SCC 333 (India).
4. State of M.P. v. Ramesh, (2011) 4 SCC 786 (India).
5. Rajendra Singh v. State of Bihar, (2000) 4 SCC 298 (India).
6. K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1382 SC 605 (India).
7. Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 (India).
8. State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram, (2006) 12 SCC 254 (India)
9. Sanatan Naskar v. State of W.B., AIR 2010 SC 158 (India)
10. Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 9 SCC 608 (India).
11. Narayana Swamy v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2005 SC 3276 (India).
12. Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 (India).
13. State of Tamil Nadu v. Nalini, (1999) 5 SCC 253 (India)
14. K.R. Purushothaman v. State of Kerala, AIR 2006 SC 35 (India)
15. State of U.P. v. Dan Singh, (1997) 3 SCC 747 (India).
16. Masalti v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1965 SC 202 (India).
17. Keki Hormusji Gharda v. Mehervan Rustom Irani, (2009) 4 SCC 217 (India).
Memorial for the Prosecution
18. Alla Rama Krishna Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Civil Appeal No. 1568 of 2021, (Decided on
Apr. 15, 2021) (India).
19. Rohith Thammana Gowda v. State of Karnataka, Civil Appeal No. 4987 of 2022, decided on July 29,
2022
20. State of Karnataka v. Battegowda, Criminal Appeal No. 1694 of 2014, decided on Jan. 9, 2025
(India).

21. Ashish Singha, In re, (2021) SCC Online Cal 2913 (India)

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Hon’ble court has jurisdiction to try the instant matter under section- 232, The Bhartiya Nagrik Surakha
Sanhita,2023.

S 232. When in a case instituted on a police report or otherwise, the accused appears or is brought before
the Magistrate and it appears to the Magistrate that the offence is triable exclusively by the Court of
Session, he shall—

(a) commit, after complying with the provisions of section 230 or section 231the case to the Court of
Session, and subject to the provisions of this Sanhita relating to bail, remand the accused to custody until
such commitment has been made;

(b) subject to the provisions of this Sanhita relating to bail, remand the accused to custody during, and
until the conclusion of, the trial;

(c) send to that Court the record of the case and the documents and articles, if any, which are to be
produced in evidence; Commitment of case to Court of Session when offence is triable exclusively by it.

(d) notify the Public Prosecutor of the commitment of the case to the Court of Session:

Provided that the proceedings under this section shall be completed within a period of ninety days from
the date of taking cognizance, and such period may be extended by the Magistrate for a period not
exceeding one hundred and eighty days for the reasons to be recorded in writing:

Provided further that any application filed before the Magistrate by the accused or the victim or any
person authorized by such person in a case triable by Court of Session, shall be forwarded to the Court of
Session with the committal of the case
Memorial for the Prosecution

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Ms. Komal Chauhan is a practising criminal advocate at District and Sessions Court, Surajpur and also guest
faculty at HSL, Greater Noida. It is pertinent to note that she has two associates along with her, Priya and
Vivek. She teaches criminal law to the first-year LL.B. students. It has been close to a decade she has been
practicing as well as teaching law. She has a unique tendency of giving hands-on training to the students.

Every year she chooses four students from her class to come and work for her as her interns. This is done by
an assignment which she gives to the students of her class in the first week and on the basis of the said
assignment she chooses four students. This year, Ms. Komal chose five students instead of four because she
felt that there was an increase in her workload. These interns were Himanshu, Vartika, Karan, Sonal and
Siddhanth. Karan is a homosexual whereas Siddhanth belongs to the OBC category. These students from
August, 2024 became an integral part of Komal’s life.

The students were very happy to have been selected to work under the guidance, however, little did they
know what was supposed to come their way. In the initial days, Sonal started liking Vivek and became close
to him. Siddhanth was always liked by Ms. Komal for his inquisitiveness to learn things. Karan and Vartika
were working very hard to ensure that they don’t disappoint Komal. Himanshu on the other hand didn’t
bother about anything and just went with the flow as he was the grandson of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh
Bindal, former Chief Justice of the High Court of Allahabad.

Their lives were going on well until on one fateful day, a rape victim sought the help of Komal. In cases of
rape, sexual assault and other cases where the women are a victim, Komal didn’t charge any professional
fees. Now, this rape victim Meenakshi, told her entire chain of event to Komal and her team. The victim was
raped by her boss in the firm where she was working as a receptionist. Komal initiated the proceedings in
the Sessions Court of Surajpur. While the proceedings were going on, Komal found out that her fiancé,
Rohan, was also a party in the act of rape. It was mid-trial and she couldn’t go back. She was in a mental
trauma and all her team members noticed that. This went on for a week and on the night of Dussehra, when
the entire world was celebrating the victory of good over evil, Komal confronted Rohan. Rohan was taken
aback and upset. He understood that this mask was off and now he had to find out a way to save himself. He
confessed his guilt and tried to persuade before Komal that such an act would never be repeated.

Komal was devastated and shattered. She left the house immediately and called Siddhanth and told him to
come at Magic Court near Yamuna Expressway. Both Komal and Siddhanth met and Komal told her
everything. Siddhanth told her not to worry, calmed her down and took her to his apartment and told her to
rest. In the meantime, Siddhanth had messaged the other four on their personal group about the crisis that
Komal had faced and all of them wanted justice for their Professor. Komal was unaware of all this. The five
Memorial for the Prosecution
of them planned to meet near Pari Chowk and then proceed towards Komal’s home at Gaur City to talk to
Rohan and make the relations between him and Komal amicable.

They met at Pari Chowk and proceeded towards Komal’s home. On reaching Komal’s home they found that
the door was opened. They went inside but no one answered them when they were calling Rohan by his
name. However, the group heard some noise coming from the bedroom upstairs and Siddhanth went to the
bedroom to find that Rohan was raping Meenakshi once again. Seeing that enraged Rohan and he took the
metal vase which was just near the table and hit on the head of Rohan which made his unconscious and he
lay on the bed. The others had rushed in by this time.

They all started to comfort Meenakshi, but just as they were comforting, Rohan came to his senses and was
trying to hit Siddhanth with the vase when Himanshu stabbed him with a knife to death. After this, they all
got terrified and wanted to leave the house and while they were thinking so, Komal arrived. When she saw
what they had done, she was taken aback. She wanted to save them but didn’t know how. Finally, she
devised a strategy and asked the students to get rid of the body. The students obeyed her while she took care
of Meenakshi at the house.

The body was disposed but the very next day the police did find the same and upon investigation arrested all
the five students and charged them under section 3(5), 238, 103(1), 126(2), 61(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023 only on the basis of the circumstantial evidence and not on the basis of any corroborative or
primary evidence. Komal was also charged under section 61(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
Memorial for the Prosecution

ISSUES

ISSUE I

Whether the five interns, in furtherance of a common intention, committed the murder of Rohan,
punishable under Section 103(1) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

ISSUE II

Whether the disposal of Rohan’s body by the interns, and Komal’s instruction for the same, amounts
to destruction of evidence under Section 238, Section 190 unlawful assembly and abetment under
Section 61(2) BNS, 2023.

ISSUE III

Whether the collective acts of the accused, including concealment and coordination post-incident,
amount to criminal conspiracy under Section 126(2) BNS, 2023.

ISSUE IV

Whether the accused took the law into their own hands instead of approaching lawful authorities,
thereby committing an offence under Section 3(5) BNS, 2023.
Memorial for the Prosecution

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. Whether the five interns, in furtherance of a common intention, committed the murder of
Rohan, punishable under Section 103(1) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The Prosecution submits that the killing of Rohan was not a spontaneous or defensive act, but a result of a
shared and coordinated intention among the five interns—Himanshu, Siddhanth, Karan, Sonal, and Vartika
—to confront and harm him. Their actions meet the requirements of Section 103(1) BNS (murder) and
Section 3(5) BNS (common intention).The group assembled after Komal revealed Rohan’s role in a rape
case. They coordinated their movements via a private group chat, met at Pari Chowk, and proceeded to
Komal’s house—indicating prior planning. At the residence, Siddhanth struck Rohan with a vase, and
Himanshu fatally stabbed him, even after the immediate threat had passed. The Prosecution argues that the
right of private defence under Sections 38– BNS is not available, as the threat had ended and the use of
lethal force was disproportionate. Precedents like Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab and State of M.P. v.
Ramesh affirm that self-defence ends when danger ceases.The claim of grave and sudden provocation under
Exception 1 to Section 101 BNS is also inapplicable. Himanshu did not witness the rape directly, acted after
a cooling-off period, and used a knife—signaling intent rather than impulse. K.M. Nanavati v. State of
Maharashtra supports this view. Through Section 3(5) BNS, the Prosecution holds all five equally liable,
even if only one committed the fatal act, as they shared a common object. Landmark rulings in Barendra
Kumar Ghosh and Mahbub Shah clarify that shared intention—not simultaneous action—is the key.Finally,
under the BharatiyaSakshyaAdhiniyam, 2023, Section places the burden on the accused to explain facts
within their special knowledge, such as the body’s location. Section 6 (res gestae) allows the full sequence
of events to be considered as part of the same transaction. The chain of circumstantial evidence, as validated
in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, is sufficient for conviction. The Prosecution concludes
that the killing was intentional, coordinated, and later concealed—making all five accused liable under
Section 103(1) read with Section 3(5) BNS.

2. Whether the disposal of Rohan’s body by the interns, and Komal’s instruction for the same,
amounts to destruction of evidence under Section 238, Section 190 Unlawful asembly and
abetment under Section 61(2) BNS, 2023

The prosecution claims that five interns, including Himanshu, Siddhanth, Karan, Sonal, and Vartika,
deliberately disposed of Rohan's body following his murder under the instruction of Komal Chauhan. This
act violates Section 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which penalizes disappearance or
suppression of evidence with the intent to shield an offender. The interns were not impulsive or driven by
panic but rather deliberate and methodical. Komal, despite her role as a criminal law professor and legal
Memorial for the Prosecution
professional, did not report the incident. Instead, she instructed the interns to dispose of the body, a
calculated attempt to conceal the crime.

The prosecution contends that these acts were deliberate and methodical, not impulsive or driven by panic.
To establish an offence under Section 238 BNS, two key elements are required: the existence of a criminal
offense (here, murder) and an act of concealment or evidence destruction intended to protect the offender
from legal consequences. Judicial precedents such as State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram and Sanatan Naskar
v. State of West Bengal confirm that acts of post-crime concealment, especially in murder cases, reflect a
clear intention to obstruct justice and are independently punishable. Komal's role qualifies as abetment under
Section 61(2) BNS, as she not only knew of the offence but also directed others to carry out acts that
suppressed key evidence.

The prosecution has met its burden under Section 101 and Section BSA, 2023, shifting the burden of
explanation to the accused for facts within their special knowledge. The coordination among all five interns
demonstrates a planned effort not only to commit but also to conceal the offence.

3. Whether the collective acts of the accused, including concealment and coordination post-incident,
amount to criminal conspiracy under Section 126(2) BNS, 2023

The prosecution asserts that the collective actions of the five interns and Komal were not driven by panic or
necessity but stemmed from a shared, culpable intention to confront and punish Rohan. This confrontation
escalated into physical violence and ultimately, a fatal stabbing. As per Section 126(2) of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, wrongful restraint is defined as voluntarily preventing a person from proceeding in a
direction to which they are legally entitled. In this case, the interns who entered without permission or
lawful authority restrained Rohan in his own home. The element of “intentional obstruction” is satisfied as
they entered with a prior plan to confront him. Even if the intent to kill wasn’t performed, the moment they
used physical force to prevent him from leaving, particularly with Siddhanth striking him with a vase, the
act became criminal. Following this, Himanshu stabbed Rohan, escalating the encounter from restraint to
voluntarily causing grievous hurt under Section 117. The prosecution argues that these were not instinctive
reactions but deliberate acts supported by private group communication and coordinated entry, indicating
planning and preparation.

4. Whether the accused took the law into their own hands instead of approaching lawful
authorities, thereby committing an offence under Section 3(5) BNS, 2023

The second core of the prosecution’s argument rests on the doctrine of common intention under Section 3(5)
of BNS, which holds all participants in a criminal act jointly liable if they act in furtherance of a shared
purpose. The prosecution highlights that the five interns acted as a unit both during and after the incident.
Their post-incident behaviour—disposing of Rohan’s body and concealing the crime—clearly reflects
Memorial for the Prosecution
conscious and unlawful coordination. This conduct amounts not just to obstruction of justice but also to the
unlawful assumption of roles legally reserved for law enforcement under BNS. Komal, despite being a legal
professional, chose not to report the crime but to orchestrate concealment. The interns’ compliance further
demonstrates their participation in a joint plan, even if formed spontaneously. Section 238 BNS dealing with
the disappearance of evidence strengthens the prosecution’s stance that the group acted with criminal
foresight. Their attempt to erase Rohan’s body not only interfered with justice but confirmed their collective
liability. Thus, the prosecution concludes that the group acted with shared intention, and actively obstructed
justice.
Memorial for the Prosecution

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE I: WHETHER THE FIVE INTERNS, IN FURTHERANCE OF A COMMON INTENTION,

COMMITTED THE MURDER OF ROHAN, PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 103(1) OF THE
BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023 Read with s 62

The prosecution respectfully contends that the combined actions of the accused interns—Himanshu,
Siddhanth, Karan, Sonal, and Vartika—resulted in the heinous and unlawful killing of Rohan, thereby
constituting an offense punishable under Section 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter
referred to as "BNS"). The facts, supported by robust legal reasoning, draw a stark picture that this act was
not a mere spontaneous reaction or an exercise of private defense, but rather the outcome of a collaborative
scheme, unified conduct, and a shared culpable mindset—elements that unequivocally satisfy the legal
definition of "common intention." While causing death injury

Section 103(1) of the BNS, 2023 reads as follows:

“Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life and shall also be liable
to fine.”

The provision mirrors the essence of Section 302 IPC and retains the basic principles of culpable
homicide amounting to murder, now codified under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The prosecution
submits that the five interns, acting in furtherance of a common intention, committed the
premeditated and unlawful killing of Rohan, thereby satisfying the elements of murder under the said
provision of 62 BNS

Section 103(1) of the BNS clearly stipulates that anyone who commits murder shall face either the death
penalty or life imprisonment.

The essential components of murder—namely (i) the intention to kill, or (ii) the knowledge that the act is so
inherently dangerous as to likely result in death—are manifestly present in this case. In the circumstances at
hand, Siddhanth initiated the assault on Rohan with a vase, but it was Himanshu who delivered the fatal stab
wound with a knife. Consequently, the pivotal question arises: Is it only Himanshu who bears the brunt of
legal accountability, or do the other interns also share culpability under the law of common intention, which
serves as a principle of constructive criminal liability?

Common Intention Under Section 3(5) BNS

Memorial for the Prosecution
Section 3(5), BNS, 2023 retains the established understanding of common intention, akin to Section 34
of the IPC. The doctrine of common intention is not merely about simultaneous action but is defined
by a prearranged plan and a concerted effort to commit the offence.

The doctrine of common intention, codified in Section 3(5)and of the BNS—akin to the erstwhile Section
34 of the Indian Penal Code—asserts that when a criminal act is committed by multiple individuals in
pursuit of a common intention, each participant is liable for the act as if it were solely their own. This
doctrine emphasizes not merely simultaneous physical involvement in the criminal act but rather the prior
convergence of minds and a shared objective. The Supreme Court, in the landmark case of Barendra Kumar
Ghosh v. King Emperor1 , determined that even if an individual does not partake in the actual act, they may
still be equally accountable if they share a common intention. Likewise, in Mahbub Shah v. Emperor 2, the
Privy Council underscored that common intention necessitates a pre-conceived plan and collective action
under that plan.

In the present case, the timeline of events illustrates not a hasty, individual response but a meticulously
coordinated strategy. Following Rohan’s confession of rape, Siddhanth, after comforting Ms. Komal,
activated the group through a private messaging platform. The five interns subsequently gathered at a
predetermined location, Pari Chowk, and proceeded together to Komal’s residence. This orchestrated
movement reflects clear premeditation and intent to collectively confront Rohan, driven by the belief that
they needed to “set things right” for their mentor. Such collaborative conduct indicates the establishment of
a shared goal, aligning with the principles of common intention.

Upon arriving at the residence, Siddhanth made his way to the bedroom and struck Rohan with a metal vase,
rendering him unconscious. This act clearly indicated that any potential threat to Meenakshi had dissipated.
Nevertheless, when Rohan regained consciousness and allegedly attempted to retaliate, Himanshu inflicted a
fatal stab wound. It is crucial to note that at this juncture, the threat was neither significant nor immediate;
the excessive force employed—namely, stabbing with a knife—was wholly disproportionate and unjustified.

Absence of Private Defence – Sections 38 BNS

The right to private defence, under Chapter IV (Sections 38–) BNS, is a justifying defence, not
available when:

I. The threat is not immediate.

II. The force used is disproportionate to the threat posed.
III. There exists a less harmful alternative

Legal precedents firmly establish that the doctrine of private defense, as outlined in Sections 38– of the
BNS, cannot be invoked if the force used is excessive or if the threat has subsided. In Darshan Singh v. State
1
Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. King Emperor, AIR 1925 PC 1 (India)
2
Mahbub Shah v. Emperor, AIR 1945 PC 118 (India).
Memorial for the Prosecution
of Punjab 3, the Supreme Court affirmed that the right to private defense does not extend to causing more
harm than necessary. Similarly, in State of M.P. v. Ramesh 4, the Court emphasized that this right is only
applicable in response to an ongoing threat. In this instance, once Rohan was incapacitated, the lethal force
utilized was beyond the bounds of lawful self-defense.

Furthermore, the group’s failure to seek police or medical intervention, coupled with their concerted efforts
to conceal the crime, reveals not innocence or panic, but a calculated attempt to evade legal repercussions.
Their coordinated actions following the incident—particularly the disposal of the body—underscore their
shared knowledge and criminal complicity. In Rajendra Singh v. State of Bihar 5, the Supreme Court noted
that concealing a dead body post-crime is indicative of a guilty conscience. Their silence, efforts to hide
evidence, and destruction of incriminating materials form a cohesive chain of circumstantial evidence
implicating them under Section 103(1) in conjunction with Section 3(5) of the BNS.

Rebutting the Defence of Grave and Sudden Provocation (Exception 1 to S.101)

Section 101, Exception 1 (akin to Exception 1 of IPC Section 300) allows a lesser charge if the act is
done under grave and sudden provocation.

However, the defence fails in this case because:

 The act of rape was against Meenakshi, not Himanshu or a family member.

 Himanshu did not witness the initial act — he reacted after others had intervened.

 The cooling-off period was enough to restrain the situation or call authorities.

 The use of a knife, a deadly weapon, shows a deliberate intent to kill, not reflex

The defense of grave and sudden provocation, as articulated in Exception 1 to Section 101 , is not applicable
in this case. Established legal principles, as affirmed in K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra 6, indicate that

1. if a cooling-off period exists between the provocation and the act, this exception cannot be claimed.
Here, the group had ample time to deliberate, traverse across town, and enter the residence.
2. The considerable delay between the emotional trigger (i.e., Komal's trauma) and the murder nullifies
the immediacy required to sustain this defense.
3. Himanshu’s actions were not impulsive; rather, they were premeditated and occurred after Rohan
had already been incapacitated

3
Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab, (2010) 2 SCC 333 (India).
4
State of M.P. v. Ramesh, (2011) 4 SCC 786 (India).
5
Rajendra Singh v. State of Bihar, (2000) 4 SCC 298 (India).
6
K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1382 SC 605 (India).
Memorial for the Prosecution
Forensic and Circumstantial Evidence Under BSA, 2023

The BharatiyaSakshyaAdhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) provides for the admissibility and strength of
circumstantial evidence under Section 101 (proof by preponderance) and Section (facts especially
within knowledge).

Here:

I. The accused had exclusive knowledge of the body’s location.

II. Their actions showed guilt-oriented behavior.

III. Their coordination and flight from the scene are admissible under Section 6 BSA (res gestae).

The evidentiary burden also weighs heavily against the accused, as per the provisions of the
BharatiyaSakshyaAdhiniyam, 2023 (BSA). Section of the BSA mandates that facts particularly within the
accused's knowledge must be substantiated by them. The accused maintained exclusive knowledge of
Rohan's death and the subsequent disposal; they were in physical possession of the scene and the victim's
body. Additionally, the doctrine of res gestae under Section 6 of the BSA permits the entire sequence—from
entry into the house to the murder and disposal—to be treated as part of the same transaction. The landmark
ruling in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra7, governs this area of law, affirming that a
comprehensive chain of circumstantial evidence that eliminates every hypothesis except that of guilt is
adequate for a conviction.

In summary, the prosecution asserts that the actions of the accused were neither isolated nor innocent;
instead, they reflected a premeditated plan and a conscious decision to commit and subsequently conceal a
vile crime. This murder was executed in furtherance of a common intention, thereby attracting criminal
liability under Section 103(1) in conjunction with Section 3(5) of the BNS. The collective intent,
coordinated action, and unified motive leave no doubt that each accused bears equal responsibility for the
murder of Rohan.

7
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 (India).
Memorial for the Prosecution
ISSUE II: WHETHER THE DISPOSAL OF ROHAN’S BODY BY THE INTERNS, AND KOMAL’S
INSTRUCTION FOR THE SAME, AMOUNTS TO DESTRUCTION OF EVIDENCE UNDER
SECTION 238, UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY 190 AND ABETMENT UNDER SECTION 61(2) OF THE
BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023

The prosecution respectfully asserts, taking into account the facts, the applicable statutory framework, and
pertinent judicial pronouncements, that the actions taken by the interns in disposing of Rohan’s body—
under the explicit directive of Komal Chauhan—constitute a clear violation of Section 238 of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS)

Section 238, BNS:

“Whoever causes the disappearance of evidence of an offence, with the intention of screening the
offender from legal punishment, shall be punished…”

Section61(2), BNS:
“A person abets the commission of an offence if he instigates, engages in conspiracy to commit it, or
intentionally aids the commission of the offence.”

These sections pertain, respectively, to the destruction of evidence and the abetment of an offence. It is
crucial to emphasize that these actions were executed not in a state of panic or confusion, but rather with a
calculated, conscious, and deliberate intention to suppress material evidence pertinent to a capital offence.
Komal Chauhan's involvement was not incidental; she played a pivotal and supervisory role, rendering her
culpable not only as an abettor but also as an instigator, facilitator, and intentional aid in the concealment of
Rohan’s body and the subsequent destruction of evidence related to his murder.

Section 238 of the BNS imposes penalties for causing the disappearance of evidence of an offence or
providing false information with the intent to shield the offender from legal repercussions. Therefore, both
the intention and the act must be substantiated. The evidence drawn from the records unequivocally
illustrates that following Rohan's death, the five interns became acutely aware of the legal ramifications of
their actions. Instead of reporting the offence to the appropriate authorities or voluntarily surrendering, they
sought guidance and intervention from Komal. Rather than adhering to her professional responsibilities as a
criminal lawyer and officer of the court, Komal not only neglected to report the crime but actively instructed
the interns to dispose of the body. The disposal, as subsequently revealed by police investigations, was not a
spur-of-the-moment reaction but a methodical and coordinated execution of a plan.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently affirmed that the concealment or disposal of a dead body with
the intent to shield the offender constitutes a serious aggravating circumstance, often indicative of a broader
criminal conspiracy or culpable conduct.

 Destruction of Evidence: Intention and Action

Memorial for the Prosecution
To constitute an offence under Section 238, two components must be present:

I. Existence of a criminal offence (here, murder under S.103(1)).

II. An act to destroy or hide evidence with intent to protect the offender.

In the landmark case of State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram 8, the Court noted that post-crime concealment is a
significant factor that can establish both mens rea and the broader criminal liability of accomplices.
Similarly, in the case of Sanatan Naskar v. State of West Bengal 9, the Supreme Court held that actions taken
immediately following the offence—especially acts of concealment and evidence suppression—are not only
probative but also independently punishable acts under analogous provisions of the Indian Penal Code.

 Komal's Criminal Liability as Abettor

I. Komal was informed of the killing and not only failed to report it, but actively orchestrated its
concealment.

II. Her legal training and role as a professor aggravate her liability — the act is not merely passive
complicity, but active abetment.

Komal Chauhan’s actions unequivocally fall within the purview of Section 61(2) BNS, which delineates
abetment to encompass instigation, conspiracy, or intentional assistance in the commission of an offence.
While she may not have directly participated in the murder, her professional obligations, training, and
authoritative position imposed upon her a heightened duty to uphold the rule of law. Upon becoming aware
of the crime, her response was not to notify the police or advise legal compliance; rather, she directed the
accused to physically remove and dispose of the deceased's body, thus eliminating the primary corpus delicti
of the offence. Her conduct exemplifies active abetment through instigation and facilitation, as emphasized
in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra 10, where the Supreme Court underscored that even
indirect involvement or suggestions can constitute abetment if they further the commission of an offence.

 Whether the accused interns were under duress or acted voluntarily

The role of the interns must also be scrutinized independently under Section 238 BNS. As individuals with
legal literacy and involvement in the criminal justice system, their participation in concealing a murder
constitutes an intentional act aimed at thwarting the legal process. This is not a scenario where they were
unaware of the consequences or misinterpreted the nature of their actions. The systematic disposal of the
body, concealment of the weapon, and subsequent silence collectively indicate a willful and informed intent
to interfere with the administration of justice. In Narayana Swamy v. State of Karnataka 11, the Supreme

8
State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram, (2006) 12 SCC 254 (India)
9
Sanatan Naskar v. State of W.B., AIR 2010 SC 158 (India)
10
Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 9 SCC 608 (India).
11
Narayana Swamy v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2005 SC 3276 (India).
Memorial for the Prosecution
Court determined that such actions, even when committed after the primary offence, are punishable in their
own right as acts of material suppression.

 Whether general exceptions under Chapter IV BNS can be invoked

The actions of all five interns in disposing of the body, therefore, clearly fall within the prohibitions outlined
in Section 238 BNS, while the instructions issued by Komal Chauhan constitute abetment as per Section
61(2) BNS. The term “intentional aiding” as defined in Section 61(2) is sufficiently broad to encompass
direct orders to destroy or remove pivotal evidence, as demonstrated in this case. Komal's decision to remain
behind to "take care" of the rape victim while instructing the others to carry out the disposal reveals a
calculated division of labor aimed at evading the reach of the criminal law.

In evaluating Komal’s liability, it is essential to recognize that she holds a position of power and authority,
not only over her interns but within the broader legal framework. Her conduct violates not only specific
provisions of the BNS but also the foundational principle of fidelity to law that is central to criminal
advocacy. The prosecution contends that such a betrayal of professional ethics, coupled with criminal
instigation, warrants not just moral condemnation but full penal accountability.

 Komal’s mental condition—being distraught or traumatized by her fiancé’s involvement in

rape—mitigates her culpability

The defense may contend that Komal's mental state—being distraught or traumatized by her fiancé's
involvement in the rape—mitigates her culpability. However, the exceptions delineated in Chapter IV of the
BNS (General Exceptions) are explicit in their requirement for demonstrable absence of mens rea, insanity,
or lack of criminal intent. In the absence of psychiatric evidence, a claim of legal insanity under Section 14
BNS cannot be substantiated. Moreover, “good faith” as outlined in Section 19 BNS necessitates due care
and attention. As a lawyer, Komal cannot feign ignorance regarding the consequences of destroying
evidence and, thus, cannot assert “good faith” in directing her interns to conceal a body.

Similarly, the interns may argue that they acted under duress or emotional distress, a defense that holds no
legal merit unless it amounts to compulsion under threat of immediate harm—circumstances that are entirely
absent in this case. Their actions were deliberate, collective, and sustained. They had the opportunity to
deliberate, opt out, or inform authorities, yet they consciously chose not to. In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v.
State of Maharashtra 12, the Hon’ble Court emphasized that a chain of circumstantial evidence, including the
destruction or suppression of material facts by the accused, directly points to their culpability and cannot be
dismissed by vague claims of trauma.

 Burden of proof

12
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 (India).
Memorial for the Prosecution
Furthermore, the BharatiyaSakshyaAdhiniyam, 2023 (BSA), provides a legal framework for evaluating the
conduct of the accused. Under Section 101 BSA, the burden of proof in criminal matters lies with the
prosecution to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. However, Section BSA shifts the burden of
explanation to the accused regarding facts “especially within their knowledge”—such as the location of the
body, details of the disposal, and actions taken to eliminate evidence. The doctrine of adverse inference,
which is both codified and accepted in judicial precedents, suggests that unexplained possession of material
facts or failure to disclose information known only to the accused may substantiate the prosecution's claims.
The silence or insufficient explanation offered by the accused in this case further reinforces the inference of
guilt.

Moreover, the coordination among all five interns and their communication before and after the act
demonstrate a well-orchestrated effort not only to commit but also to conceal the offence. Under the legal
doctrine of “accessory after the fact,” their post-crime conduct constitutes an independent criminal offence
punishable under Section 238 BNS and is attributable to Komal's guidance under Section 61(2). The Court
in State of Tamil Nadu v. Nalini 13, established that participation in a conspiracy does not necessitate active
involvement in the primary act; it may consist of subsequent actions that further the objectives of the
conspiracy.

In conclusion, the prosecution submits that the conduct of the accused—both individually and under Komal
Chauhan’s direction—fulfills the statutory and evidentiary criteria for prosecution under Section 238 BNS
for destruction of evidence and Section 61(2) BNS for abetment. Their actions were conscious, coordinated,
and in direct contravention of the law. There exists no exculpatory justification for their conduct, and their
actions reflect a deliberate effort to obstruct the administration of justice.

Whether the Gathering of the Five Interns Constituted an Unlawful Assembly Punishable Under
Sections 187 and 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

The Prosecution respectfully asserts that the five accused interns—Himanshu, Siddhanth, Vartika, Karan,
and Sonal—constituted an unlawful assembly as defined under Section 187(1) of the BNS. Furthermore,
their collective actions following the killing of Rohan invoke criminal liability under Section 190 of the
BNS.

The series of events leading up to the confrontation, the deliberate gathering at a predetermined location
(Pari Chowk), and the coordinated movement toward Komal Chauhan’s residence are not indicative of mere
coincidence or impulsive behavior. Instead, they reflect a unified intention to confront and intimidate Rohan.
Evidence obtained from private group chats and witness testimonies illustrates a conscious and collaborative
effort by the accused—elements that fulfill the statutory criteria for an unlawful assembly.

13
State of Tamil Nadu v. Nalini, (1999) 5 SCC 253 (India)
Memorial for the Prosecution
 Applicability of Section 187(1) BNS – Definition of Unlawful Assembly

Section 187(1) BNS delineates:

“An assembly of five or more persons is designated an ‘unlawful assembly’ if the common object of the
persons composing that assembly is—
(a) to overawe by criminal force...
(c) to commit any offence;
(d) to obtain possession of property by force;
(e) to compel any person to do what he is not legally bound to do...”

The five interns came together with the explicit intent of confronting Rohan, who had recently been accused
by Komal of rape and was subsequently caught in the act of sexual assault. Their aggression was not
defensive but retaliatory and premeditated, fueled by emotional outrage and a desire to rectify perceived
injustices for their mentor. Rather than seeking recourse through legal means, they opted to take matters into
their own hands, culminating in the confrontation, attack, and concealment of Rohan’s murder—actions that
unequivocally fall within the scope of clauses (c) and (e) of Section 187(1).

The Supreme Court in Queen Empress v. Hanmantappa,14 established that when individuals unite with a
common object to perpetrate an unlawful act, the assembly is deemed unlawful, even if only a subset of the
members executes the offence. This principle is further reinforced by Mahadev Sharma v. State of Bihar 15,
which clarified that a common object may spontaneously develop, provided it is collectively recognized.

 Participation, Planning, and Conduct of the Accused Indicate Common Object

The accused engaged in coordinated actions:
 They convened at Pari Chowk upon learning of Rohan’s actions.
 They proceeded to Komal’s residence as a unified group.
 Upon entering, Siddhanth initiated the assault on Rohan, followed by Himanshu stabbing him.
 The remaining members either facilitated, observed, or failed to resist the violence that ensued.

After the killing, the accused collectively devised and executed a plan to dispose of Rohan’s body, thus
prolonging their unlawful association.

In K. R. Purushothaman v. State of Kerala 16, the Hon’ble Court ruled that even passive participants in an
unlawful assembly can be held liable if they are aware of the common object and remain present during the

14
ILR 21 Bom 129 (1897)
15
AIR 1966 SC 302
16
K.R. Purushothaman v. State of Kerala, AIR 2006 SC 35 (India).
Memorial for the Prosecution
commission of the offence. Therefore, those who did not physically assault Rohan—such as Vartika, Sonal,
and Karan—are still culpable due to their involvement in the group’s overall actions.

 Liability under Section 190 BNS – Continuation of Unlawful Assembly Leading to Destruction
of Evidence

Section 190 BNS categorically criminalizes the acts of aiding, abetting, or facilitating the commission of an
offence by members of an unlawful assembly, including the concealment of evidence intended to shield the
offender.

The disposal of Rohan’s body, allegedly ordered by Komal, was executed by the same group of interns who
had previously engaged in the unlawful assembly to confront and kill Rohan. This establishes a continuous
chain of criminal conduct under Section 190.

The Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Dan Singh 17, underscored that subsequent actions, such as hiding a
body or destroying evidence by the same group involved in the primary offence, create an unbroken chain of
liability and invoke constructive criminal responsibility.
Thus, the Prosecution contends that Section 190 must be interpreted conjunctively with Section 187 in this
context, as the unlawful assembly did not simply disband after the act of violence; it perpetuated its illegality
by concealing the crime.
 Common Object Need Not Be Pre-Existing—It May Develop Instantly
The defense may argue that the group did not premeditate the killing. However, as established in Masalti v.
State of U.P18., the common object does not necessitate long-term planning; it can manifest spontaneously,
particularly when participants share a collective aim.
The convergence of the interns, their silent complicity in support of Siddhanth and Himanshu, their failure to
de-escalate the situation, and their joint action in disposing of the body clearly illustrate their alignment with
the unlawful objective, even if not all were actively engaged in wielding force.

CONCLUSION
In light of the aforementioned arguments, the Prosecution respectfully submits:
1.The accused were indeed part of an unlawful assembly under Section 187 BNS, having gathered with the
shared intent to confront and retaliate against Rohan.
2. Their subsequent actions in disposing of Rohan's body demonstrate a continuation of unlawful assembly
under Section 190 BNS.

17
State of U.P. v. Dan Singh, (1997) 3 SCC 747 (India).
18
Masalti v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1965 SC 202 (India).
Memorial for the Prosecution
3. Each member is constructively liable for the offences committed in furtherance of the common object.
Accordingly, the charge of unlawful assembly and the associated liability under Sections 187 and 190 BNS
is thoroughly substantiated and must be upheld

ISSUE III: Whether the collective acts of the accused, including concealment and coordination post-
incident, amount to wrongful restraint under Section 126(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

The prosecution respectfully contends that, after considering the facts and taking into account the facts that
the applicable statutory framework and judicial pronouncements, that the actions taken by the accused
constitute an offence punishable under Section 126(2).Section 126(2) of the BNS,2023.The facts present that
the act was a result of a shared culpable mindset and unified conduct.
According to BharatiyaNyaySanhita,SChapterVI, Section 126: "Wrongful Restraint" reads as follows::
(1)Whoever voluntarily obstructs any person so as to prevent that person from proceeding in any
direction in which that person has a right to proceed is said to have wrongfully restrained that person.
Exception: The obstruction of a private way over land or water by a person in good faith believes himself
to have a lawful right to obstruct, is not considered an offence within the meaning of this section.
Illustration: A obstructs a path that Z has a right to use, but A does not believe in good faith that he has a
right to stop the path. Z is thereby prevented from passing. A wrongfully restrains Z.
(2) Whoever wrongfully restrains any person shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term
which may extend to one month, or with a fine that may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both.
The essential components of wrongful restraint include:

1. Intentional Obstruction of a person

The hindrance must be voluntary and intentional in nature, it cannot refer to an accidental/incidental
impediment it must always be a conscious act to prevent the other person from leaving
2. Prevention of a legal right to proceed
The word "voluntary" is very significant. “Obstruction should be direct and physical in nature, and must
have a common intention to cause obstruction” Keki Hormusji Gharda & Ors vs Mehervan Rustom Irani
&Anr.19
3. Right to Proceed
The victim must have a legal right to proceed in the direction from which they were obstructed 20.

The presence of assault is not necessary for it to amount to wrongful restraint even mere use can cause
obstruction of path, however in light of the essentials of the wrongful constraint we can observe that ‘use of
force’ is a part of wrongful restraint we can observe from the facts that when Siddhant observed that Rohan
19
Keki Hormusji Gharda v. Mehervan Rustom Irani, (2009) 4 SCC 217 (India).
20
Alla Rama Krishna Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Civil Appeal No. 1568 of 2021, (Decided on Apr. 15, 2021) (India).
Rohith Thammana Gowda v. State of Karnataka, Civil Appeal No. 4987 of 2022, decided on July 29, 2022 (India).
Memorial for the Prosecution
husband of Komal was assaulting the victim Meenakshi again hit him with a vase. All the 5 interns had
interned with a common intention to talk to Rohan so that they could absolve the issues between Komal and
Rohan, however knowing that it was a sensitive situation, we cannot rule out the fact that they had not come
prepared to let Rohan leave the property without talking to them if he tried to leave.

They communicated this matter via private messaging without the permission of the Komal from whom they
gained knowledge about the subject, so they did not have permission from either of the owners to enter the
property, The were not gaining a way of easement on private property but went inside the property where
after Siddhant assaulted him on the head with a vase restricted his right to proceed after which he was
stabbed with a knife by Himanshu.

Voluntarily Causing Grievous Hurt (Section 117 of BNS):

Section 117(1) defines voluntarily causing grievous hurt as causing hurt with the intention or knowledge
that grievous hurt is likely to be caused. Wrongful Restraint arose from voluntarily causing hurt after he
had hit him on the head and incapacitated him to make decisions for himself or leave.

In summary, the prosecution asserts that the action of the accused was a conscious and mutual decision to
wrongfully restrained a man in his own home, which escalated further after the initial attack and the
subsequent murder of Rohan under 126(2) BNS,2023

ISSUE IV : Whether the accused took the law into their own hands instead of approaching lawful
authorities, thereby committing an offence under Section 3(5) BNS, 2023.

Common Intention Under Section 3(5) BNS

Section 3(5), BNS, 2023 retains the established understanding of common intention, akin to Section 34 of
the IPC. The doctrine of common intention is not merely about simultaneous action but is defined by a
prearranged plan and a concerted effort to commit the offence.

The concept is very important in criminal law when multiple individuals are involved in the commission of
an offence enshrined under section3(5) BNS,2023- General explanations - Acts done by several persons in
furtherance of common intention BNS, 2023

The essentials include

1. Shared Criminal Purpose : It implies a shared common objective or purpose beyond mere presence
at the scene of crime or passive participation.It may be expressed or implied.
2. Prior Agreement - while it is not always explicitly required, the existence of a pre arranged plan or
conspiracy among the individuals can be a strong evidence.However [S.34 IPC] Common Intention
Memorial for the Prosecution
And Pre-Meeting Of Minds Can Take Place AtThe Spur Of Moment.The State of Karnataka V.
Battegowda& Ors.21 “The case of the defence is that when the Accused Nos.2 & 3 had arrived at the
spot, they had no intention to inflict the nature of injuries on the injured persons. Even if it is
assumed it is true, it cannot be denied that common intention and the pre-meeting of minds can take
place at the spur of the moment itself during the course of the incident.”In view of this, the Court
allowed the State's appeal and convicted the accused no. 2 for grievous hurt.
3. Active association: When common intention is established every person is held liable for the acts of
others, even if they did not directly commit those acts. Every party is responsible for the acts
committed by the others, either foreseeing the possibility that the others might perform an act in
order to further their common purpose, and ‘was not indifferent to such acts and their consequences.

Interpretation of “taking the law into one’s own hands” under Section 3(5) BNS.
"taking the law in your own hands" refers to when a group of individuals acts in furtherance of a common
criminal intention. This means each person is equally liable for the entire criminal act, as if they committed
it alone, regardless of their individual role or contribution.
In Ashish Singha, In re, (2021)22 The court opined that , “Time has come that every dutiful citizen of the
country must realize their duties and accountability to the society and must refrain from taking the law in
their own hands”
The 5 interns had decided to take the matters entirely in their own hands the moment they entered Rohan’s
house which further implied their common intention, regardless of their contribution, Himanshu’s act of
stabbing Rohan and Siddhant’s assault has made them all equally liable in this matter

Whether the act of planning and disposing of a body constitutes assumption of roles legally reserved
for law enforcement.
The prosecution contends that act of planning and disposing of a body especially in the aftermath of a death
arising from a criminal act - murder of Rohan - which constitutes an illegal assumption of the roles that are
solely reserved for law enforcement - the police.
Only police and similar authorities are empowered to
● Investigate a crime scene
● Recover and secure a body
● Conduct inquest proceedings
● Preserve and present evidence before the court
However the interns present at the scene of the crime interfered knowingly with the chain of custody and
instead of informing the authorities they proceeded to dispose off the body which is a clear overstep into law
enforcement’s exclusive legal foresight

21
State of Karnataka v. Battegowda, Criminal Appeal No. 1694 of 2014, decided on Jan. 9, 2025 (India).
22
Ashish Singha, In re, (2021) SCC Online Cal 2913 (India).
Memorial for the Prosecution
Is collective conduct relevant to establish the offence?
Yes the collective conduct is relevant to establish the offence since after Komal gave them the instructions
to dispose of the body of Rohan and began to comfort Meenakshi whose whereabouts were unknown until
the arrival of Komal. She gave them the clear instruction to dispose off Rohan’s body after understanding
the gravity of the situation herself , attempting to erase evidence and attempting to conceal the name of the
interns and thus becoming an accessory for obstruction of justice
● Section 238 BNS Disappearance of evidence of offence- The accused caused teh evidence to
disappear via disposal of the body.
● Section 61(2) BNS Common Intention - The act was furthered jointly and in coordination, liability
is shared to conceal the evidence.
● Criminal Conspiracy their involvement itself amounted to post-facto criminal conspiracy
Conclusion
The prosecution submits that the coordination among all five interns and their communication before and
after the act demonstrate a well-orchestrated effort not only to commit but also to conceal the offence. This
not only implies that collective acts of the accused, including concealment and coordination post-incident,
amount to wrongful restraint under Section 126(2) of the BharatiyaNyay Sanhita, 2023 and further that due
to their trials to conceal and destroy evidence also amounts to Post-Facto Criminal Conspiracy which also
implies their common intention and thus, committing an offence under Section 3(5) BNS, 2023.. Their
actions were conscious, coordinated, and in direct contravention of the law. There exists no exculpatory
justification for their conduct, and their actions reflect a deliberate effort to obstruct the administration of
justice.

PRAYER
Memorial for the Prosecution
In light of the aforementioned facts, arguments advanced, statutory provisions, and judicial precedents, the
Prosecution most respectfully prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:

1. Hold that the accused—Himanshu, Siddhanth, Sonal, Vartika, and Karan—committed the offence of
murder punishable under Section 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, in furtherance of a common
intention under Section 3(5) BNS;

2. Hold that the accused persons, by assembling with a shared unlawful object, constituted an unlawful
assembly within the meaning of Section 187 BNS, and are thereby liable under Section 190 BNS for the
offence committed in prosecution of that common object;

3. Hold that the disposal of the body by the accused amounts to destruction of evidence under Section 238
BNS, and that the same was carried out with the deliberate intent to screen the offenders from legal
punishment;

4. Hold that Komal Chauhan, by directing the disposal of the body, committed the offence of abetment as
defined under Section 61(2) BNS, and is equally liable for facilitating the concealment of evidence;

5. Reject the plea of private defence and grave and sudden provocation advanced by the defence, as the
actions of the accused were neither immediate responses to imminent threats nor proportionate under law;

6. Hold that the chain of circumstantial evidence presented by the Prosecution satisfies the evidentiary
standard under the BharatiyaSakshyaAdhiniyam, 2023, and establishes the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt;

7. Convict the accused for all the offences charged, and award appropriate sentences in accordance with the
gravity of the crimes committed and the mandate of justice;

8. Pass such other order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interests of justice and
equity.

And for this act of justice, the Prosecution shall ever remain grateful.