Criminal Moot court problem, Slides of Procedural Law

Download Criminal Moot court problem and more Slides Procedural Law in PDF only on Docsity! TEAM CODE: A03 14™ DADA NARI GURSAHANI LAW COLLEGE — NATIONAL LEVEL MOOT COURT COMPETETION BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INIDA CRIMINAL PETETION NO: /202 UNDER ARTICLE = OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FARE EIGAIN leeeneeenientet ecient eet etiee cet aciaetienn ster ier cece ner cere ers ALOK KUMAR VERSUS RESPONDENT erennssnnctncesteneattestntenctrenestecsscaeseoateetisseetenssseeaenscties Surabhi Singh  MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF ABBREVATIONS……………………………………………… INDEX OF AUTHORITIES……………………………………………… I.BOOKS AND COMMENTARIES REFERRED………………………………………………………………… II.STATUTES REFERRED………………………………………… III.TABLE OF CASES…………………………………………………………… STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION……………………………………………… STATEMENT OF FACTS ………………………………………………………… ISSUES RAISED………………………………………………………… SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS…………………………………………………… ARGUMENTS ADVANCED……………………………………………………………… I.WHETHER THE APPEAL IS MAINTAINABLE? II.WHETHER THE DOCTRINE OF ‘RAREST OF RARE CASE’ IS APPLICABLE IN THIS CASE? III.WHETHER THE PUNISHMENT BASED ON CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS JUSTIFIED? IV.WHETHER THE TESTIMONY OF FORENSIC EXPERT IS ADMISSIBLE AS A SUBSTANTIVE EVIDENCE; AND IS SUFFICIENT TO INFLICT DEATH PENALTY UPON THE ACCUSED? PRAYER……………………………………………………………… o Mohan v. State, 2010 SCC Online Del 4856: Pertinent for the principle of proportionality in sentencing and its impact on death penalty. o Rameshbhai Chandubhai Rathod v. State of Gujarat, (2011)9SCC618: Applicable for the consideration of the accused’s psychological state in determining culpability. o Rajendra Pralhardo Wanik v. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 8 SCC 699: Relevant for evaluating the gravity of the crime and its impact on sentencing. o Bapu v. State of Maharashtra, (2013)3 SCC 56: Relevant for evaluating the concept of mens rea and criminal intent. o Hardevinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2004)11 SCC 399: Relevant for assessing the role of provocation in mitigating criminal liability. o Mohammed Ajmal Mohammed Amir Kasab v. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 9 SCC 1: Pertinent for evaluating the impact of evidence obtained during police custody on admissibility. o Nish Kant v. State of Bihar, (1977)3 SCC 698: Applicable for the considering the concept of grave and sudden provocation as a mitigating factor. o Om Prakash v. State of U.P., (2000) 5 SCC 745: Relevant for assessing the credibility of eyewitness testimonies and their weight. o Bhagwan Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2002) 6 SCC 1: Pertinent for the evaluation of admissibility and reliability of confessions made topolice officers. o Koli Alias Tamru v. State of A.P., (2010) 12 SCC 206: Applicable for considering the impact of mental illness on criminal responsibility. o State of Rajasthan v. Damodar, (2010) 9 SCC 724: Relevant for evaluating the concept of "last seen together" in circumstantial evidence. STATEMENT OF FACTS o Alok Kumar and Surabhi Singh met on a dating app. Kinder, and developed likeness towards each other. They started dating each other and decided to be in live-in relationship. Alok was a Chef by profession and Surabhi was employed in the Telecom department of a reputed Multinational Company. o Surabhi's parents were against her relationship with Alok and hence Surabhi took a flat on rent in Delhi and started living with Alok. Alok was temperamental and during arguments and oral fights, he used to hit Surabhi. The fights usually ensued due to expense sharing of the household and extravagant nature of Alok. o Surabhi who was looking after the expenses often entered into oral arguments with Alok. The fights increased with time and the physical abuse turned violent at times. On April 10, 2022 at around 9.00 pm, the couple got into argument over some money issue; the fight escalated and Alok strangulated Surabhi. o He stored the dead body of Surabhi in the bathroom overnight. The next day he went to buy a knife and a fridge. He then cut the dead body into 50 pieces, packed them in bags and stored them in the fridge. Thereafter, he kept disposing the body parts in the nullah, nearby forest over the next ten days. o Surabhi though estranged from the family was connected to her mother. She had on many occasions informed her mother about the physical abuse. After acouple of weeks, the mother got suspicious about her wellbeing and started calling her and eventually found her missing. She lodged an FIR against Alok. o The police officer of the concemed police station arrested Alok and interrogated him where Alok confessed to the commission of crime and narrated the whole instance of murder to the investigating officer. o During investigation, the officer found net banking transaction from Surabhi's bank account on the day of murder. Alok confessed that he was fed up of Surabhi's behaviour and was planning to kill her. He said that he watched web series on crimes and developed a way of getting rid of Surabhi and disposing her body without being caught. He revealed that being a chef, he knew the use of knife to cut meat. He used his knowledge to preserve her body and dispose it off accordingly. o The police officer during investigation discovered some body parts of Surabhi along with the weapon used for the commission of murder and sent it for DNA analysis to the forensic lab for identification of the body and also to the serologist for their report. o The Police Report (Chargesheet) was filed in the Sessions Court where the Court framed charges against Alok under sections 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 for murder and disappearance of evidence. The prosecution produced 14 witnesses to the court which included Surabhi's mother, her neighbour and an auto rickshaw driver and all the three witnesses had witnessed fights between the couple and their sour relationship. The forensic expert Dr. Dheeraj Shukla from Delhi FSL was also examined by the court. He confirmed that the body parts were of Surabhi. The whole prosecution case was based on circumstantial evidences to prove the guilt of accused. o The Sessions Judge appreciated the evidences adduced and passed death penalty against the accused which was confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Alok challenged the death penalty in appeal. The High Court relied upon the decision passed by the Session Judge upheld the death penalty SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS I. WHETHER THE APPEAL IS MAINTAINABLE? Yes, the appeal against the death penalty is maintainable. Under section 379 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the accused can appeal against conviction by high court in certain cases. – Where the High Court has, on appeal reversed an order of acquittal of an accused person and convicted him and sentenced him to death or to imprisonment for life or to imprisonment for a term of ten years, he may appeal to the Supreme Court. II. WHETHER THE DOCTRINE OF ‘RAREST OF RARE CASE’ IS APPLICABLE IN THIS CASE? No, the doctrine of Rarest of Rare Case is not applicable in this case. This concept is primarily governed by Section 354(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and its interpretation by the Supreme Court. In recent times, the court while confirming death penalty specifically shows that the case falls within the domain of the rarest of rare cases. Under Section 302 and 201 of Penal Code 1860, there is no fixed criteria or indices can be laid down for determining the rarest of the rare case. III. WHETHER THE PUNISHMENT BASED ON CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS JUSTIFIED? No, the punishment solely based on circumstantial evidence is not justified. Under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 the word circumstantial evidence’ has not been used directly but in Section 3 the definition of the word ‘Proved’ mentions that if the existence of any fact is so probable that the prudent man will believe it to exist then that fact is considered to be proved. It has been a fundamental point in numerous studies in the field of death penalty jurisprudence that cases, where the sole basis of conviction is circumstantial evidence, have far greater chances of turning out to be wrongful convictions, later on, in comparison to ones which are based on fitter sources of proof. Convictions based on seemingly conclusive circumstantial evidence should not be presumed as foolproof incidences and the fact that the same are based on circumstantial evidence must be a definite factor at the sentencing stage deliberations, considering that capital punishment is unique in its total irrevocability. Any characteristic of trial, such as conviction solely resting on circumstantial evidence, which contributes to the uncertainty in the culpability calculus, must attract negative attention while deciding maximum penalty for murder IV. WHETHER THE CONFESSSION GIVEN BY ALOK IS ADMISSIBLE IN THE CASE? No, The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, does not justify punishment solely based on circumstantial evidence. It states that if a fact is so probable that a prudent person would believe it to exist, it is considered proved. This approach increases the likelihood of wrongful convictions in death penalty cases. Circumstantial evidence is an indirect method of proof, drawing inference from facts closely connected to the issue. The standard of proof required for conviction on circumstantial evidence is established by Supreme Court decisions, and the circumstances relied upon must be fully established. V. WHETHER THE TESTIMONY OF FORENSIC EXPERT IS ADMISSIBLE AS A SUBSTANTIVE EVIDENCE, AND IS SUFFICIENT TO INFLICT DEATH PENALTY UPON THE ACCUSED? No, here; the forensic expert testimony alone should not be considered sufficient for imposing the death penalty. Relying solely on forensic evidence may lead to an incomplete understanding of the case. The case law of , State of Maharashtra v. Suresh (2000), State of U.P. v. Satish (2005), and Raja v. State of Karnataka (2011) support this argument. The other references the Supreme Court's rulings in Raja vs State of Karnataka (2011) can also be referred. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED I.WHETHER THE APPEAL IS MAINTAINABLE? The appellant Alok Kumar and deceased Surabhi Singh were dating each other and lived together in a rented flat in Delhi in a live-in relationship as Surabhi’s parents were against their relationship. The couple had fights and arguments due to expense sharing of household and Alok’s extravagant nature. According to Surabhi’s mother knew about the physical abuse happening to her daughter, her neighbour and an auto rickshaw driver were the witnesses who had witnessed their fights that increased with the time and the physical abuse turned violent at times. After a FIR was lodged against Alok Kumar by Surabhi Singh’s mother the police arrested officer arrested the appellant and interrogated him where Alok confessed to the commission of the crime and narrated the whole instance of the murder to the investigating officer. Yes, the appeal of the accused Alok Kumar against death penalty on the charges under section 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for murder and disappearance of evidence is maintainable under section 379 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the accused can appeal against conviction by high court in certain cases. – Where the High Court has, on appeal reversed an order of acquittal of an accused person and convicted him and sentenced him to death or to imprisonment for life or to imprisonment for a term of ten years, he may appeal to the Supreme Court.1 In other cases, appeal can be filed, if the High Court certifies that the case is a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court.2 According to section 56 of the Cr.P.C., A police officer making an arrest without warrant shall, 1 The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 2 Chandra Mohan Tiwari v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1992 SC 891: 1992 LJ 1091. The presence of the Magistrate secures free and voluntary nature of the confession and the confessing person has an opportunity of making a statement uncontrolled by police fear.8 The judgement passed by the session judge and the hon’ble high court of Delhi was entirely based on circumstantial evidence and the accused was given death penalty under the doctrine of ‘Rarest of rare case’. This judgement violates the fundamental rights of the a II. WHETHER THE DOCTRINE OF ‘RAREST OF RARE CASE’ IS APPLICABLE IN THIS CASE? In the present case, the doctrine of "rarest of rare" ought not to be applied due to a lack of circumstances justifying the imposition of the death penalty. While it is undeniable that the crime committed is deeply tragic and disturbing, the appellant asserts that the necessary criteria for invoking this stringent doctrine remain unfulfilled. As established in the landmark judgment of Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980), the Supreme Court held that capital punishment should only be meted out in the "rarest of rare" cases, thereby emphasizing the importance of striking a balance between aggravating and mitigating factors before arriving at such an extreme sentence. Furthermore, Section 354(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 further underscores this point by stipulating that special reasons must be provided by courts in order to award capital punishment. 3) When the conviction is for an offence punishable with death or, in the alternative, with imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of years, the judgement shall state the reasons for the sentence awarded, and, in the case of sentence of death, the special reasons for such sentence Consequently, it is crucial for the court to carefully weigh and assess all relevant factors before determining whether or not this case falls within the ambit of the "rarest of rare" doctrine and warrants imposing the ultimate penalty of death. For the Santosh kumar Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court decided that, the rarest of rare decree fills in as a rule in upholding section 354 (3) and sets up the arrangement that life detainment is the standard and demise discipline is an exception. While granting the discipline of capital punishment, it must be remembered that, in spite of the fact that, the charged has submitted a ruthless demonstration, if there is any opportunity that demonstrates that the blamed will not deliver further mischief to the general public, on this ground, he/she should not be given the death penalty. 8 Hiran Miya (1877) 1 CLR 21 In this case, the "rarest of rare" principle will not be applicable due to several factors: o Absence of Exceptional Circumstances: According to the "rarest of rare" criterion, the case must involve extraordinary and exceptional circumstances that distinguish it from other cases. The facts of the case are tragic, without a doubt, but they might not reach the standard of extraordinary brutality or heinousness that normally justifies the application of the concept. o Domestic Violence and Provocation: The victim, Surabhi, and the accused, Alok, have engaged in fights and altercations throughout the course of the case. These elements can imply that provocation and underlying tensions contributed to the sad incident. The "rarest of rare" rule typically applies in situations when there are no mitigating circumstances and the accused's actions shock the conscience. o Potential for Reform and Rehabilitation: The "rarest of rare" doctrine takes into account the accused's potential for change and rehabilitation. The circumstances leading up to the crime and Alok's confession in this case could point to underlying problems including rage, psychological suffering, and a potential lack of criminal intent. The appeals court could contend that applying the death penalty might prevent Alok from receiving any chance for reform and rehabilitation. o o Balancing Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances: The "rarest of rare" principle involves a careful weighing of aggravating and mitigating circumstances before imposing the death penalty. There are several mitigating factors, such as Alok's confession, his psychological state, and the history of violence in the relationship, need to be taken into account when determining the appropriateness of the death penalty.9 III.WHETHER THE PUNISHMENT BASED ON CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS JUSTIFIED? No, the punishment solely based on circumstantial evidence is not justified. Under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 the word ‘circumstantial evidence’ has not been used directly but in Section 3 the definition of the word ‘Proved’ mentions that if the existence of any fact is so probable that the prudent man will believe it to exist then that fact is considered to be proved. 9 Rattiram v. State of M.P., (1977) 3 SCC 465 It has been a fundamental point in numerous studies in the field of death penalty jurisprudence that cases, where the sole basis of conviction is circumstantial evidence, have far greater chances of turning out to be wrongful convictions, later on, in comparison to ones which are based on fitter sources of proof. Convictions based on seemingly conclusive circumstantial evidence should not be presumed as foolproof incidences and the fact that the same are based on circumstantial evidence must be a definite factor at the sentencing stage deliberations, considering that capital punishment is unique in its total irrevocability. Any10 characteristic of trial, such as conviction solely resting on circumstantial evidence, which contributes to the uncertainty in the culpability calculus, must attract negative attention while deciding maximum penalty for murder.11 Circumstantial evidence is an indirect mode of proof by drawing interference from facts closely connected to fact and issue. The standard of proof required to convict the person on circumstantial evidence is well established by a series of decisions of supreme court according to that standard the circumstances relied upon in support of the conviction must be fully established (Govinda Reddy v. state of Mysore, AIR 1960 SE 29, 1960 cr LJ) and the chain of evidence. Lets have a look the ways in which the use of circumstantial evidence is not justifiable under law; o Potential for Alternative Explanations: Circumstantial evidence can often be explained by multiple interpretations, and there might be alternative explanations for the observed facts. In this case, while there were arguments and altercations between the couple, Alok and Surabhi these could also be attributed to the strained nature of their relationship. The mere existence of disputes might not necessarily indicate a motive for murder o Reliability of Witness Testimonies: The credibility of witness testimony is frequently based on observations made of or interactions had with the accused. The validity and credibility of witness testimony, however, can be contested. Witnesses could be biased, have constrained viewpoints, or be swayed by outside forces. In this instance, the witnesses' statements of altercations and fights may have been impacted by their own perceptions and feelings 10 Rameshbhai Chandubhai Rathod v. State of Gujarat, (2011) 9 SCC 618 11 Mohan v. State, 2010 SCC Online Del 4856: In this case, Alok has made an extra judicial confession the Investigating officer, it is unsafe to base conviction on extra judicial conviction since extra judicial confession alone cannot be relied it needs support of other supporting evidence. The evidence of extra judicial evidence is a weak piece of evidence. It can relied upon only when it is clear, consistent and convincing.18 Thus, extra judicial confession is open to danger of mistake due to misapprehension of the witness before whom the confession was made, to the misuse of words19. Due to those reasons, it is very dangerous for the courts to base conviction on the sole basis of extra judicial confessions. Palvinder Kaur v. State of Punjab (1952): This case highlighted the principle that a confession must be free and voluntary, without any inducement or threat. The appellant could cite this case to emphasize the importance of ensuring that Alok's confession was made voluntarily and without coercion. Nand Kumar v. State of Rajasthan (2008): The Supreme Court in this case emphasized that confessions obtained under police custody, especially when they are not made before a magistrate must be approached with caution. The appellant might use this case to raise concerns about the circumstances under which Alok's confession was obtained. V.WHETHER THE TESTIMONY OF FORENSIC EXPERT IS ADMISSIBLE AS A SUBSTANTIVE EVIDENCE, AND IS SUFFICIENT TO INFLICT DEATH PENALTY UPON THE ACCUSED? The appellant contends that the testimony of the forensic expert alone should not be treated as substantive evidence sufficient for imposing the death penalty. Given that the case relies heavily on circumstantial evidence, the appellant asserts that a more comprehensive evaluation of the evidence is necessary. The case of State of Maharashtra v. Suresh (2000) is pertinent, as the Supreme Court emphasized that forensic evidence should be corroborated with other evidence to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The appellant maintains that reliance solely on forensic evidence may lead to an incomplete understanding of the case. 18 Sections 24 and 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 by Batuk Lal 19 State of Punjab vs Bhagwan Singh1975, Cr.L.J.282:AIR 1975, SC 258 Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 187220 , , deals with the opinion of experts. It states that when the court has to form an opinion upon a point of foreign law or science or art, or as to the identity of handwriting or finger impressions, the opinions of experts are relevant. In the case scenario provided earlier involving Alok and Surabhi, Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act could be applicable in various aspects of the trial: • Testimony of Forensic Expert (Dr. Dheeraj Shukla): In the case, Dr. Dheeraj Shukla from Delhi FSL (Forensic Science Laboratory) provided testimony regarding the identification of the body parts as belonging to Surabhi. His expertise and opinion regarding forensic analysis are relevant under Section 45. His testimony aids the court in forming an opinion on the identity of the body parts, which is crucial to establishing the fact that a crime has been committed. • Admissibility of Expert Opinion on Cause of Death: If the forensic expert provided an opinion on the probable cause of Surabhi's death, it could be relevant under Section 45. The expert's opinion on the cause of death, backed by scientific analysis, could assist the court in forming an opinion about how the crime was committed. • Expert Testimony on Weapon Used: If the forensic expert testified about the weapon used in the commission of the crime, whether it was the knife mentioned in the case, and how it could have been used, this could be relevant under Section 45. The expert's opinion on the weapon's involvement is crucial for the court to form an opinion about the modus operandi. • Instances exist where overreliance on forensic evidence has resulted in wrongful convictions. This underscores the need for a holistic assessment of the case, taking into account multiple aspects beyond forensic analysis. 21State of U.P. v. Satish (2005): The Supreme Court, in this case, stated that forensic evidence, though important, cannot be the sole basis for conviction. The appellant could refer to this case to argue that the forensic expert's testimony alone may not be sufficient to impose the death penalty. Raja v. State of Karnataka (2011): In this case, the Supreme Court held that the testimony of a forensic expert must be evaluated along 20 Indian Evidence Act 1872 by Batuk Lal 21 State of U.P.v. Satish SCC2005 with other evidence to arrive at a conclusion. The appellant could use this case to support the argument that a comprehensive assessment of all evidence is crucial before imposing the death penalty.