Faisal Ipc

8/11/2019 Faisal Ipc

1/23

LAW OF CRIMES

In the Honble Supreme Court of India

Case Concernin! Murder

Santo"h Sinh and Anr#

$Appellant%

'nion of India$Respondent%

On submission to the Honble Supreme Court

At (e) *elhi

Memorandum on behalf of the AppellantASI+ ,EHERA

Roll (o# -.

SEM I&


2/23

Table Of ContentsTable Of Contents.........................................................................................................................i

+A,LE OF CO(+E(+S

Table of Authorities...v

Table of Casesv

Supreme Court

Decisions.v

High Court Judgmentsix

International Decisions.......xi

Books and Articlesxi

Statutes.xi

i

ther documents.................xiii

Statement of Jurisdiction

xiv

Synopsis of Facts..xv

Issues

Raised..xviii

Summary of Arguments.xix

Pleadings.1

Admission Issue..1

erits..!

Prayer"#

MMEMORANDUMEMORANDUMOONN,,EHALFEHALFOOFF++HEHEAA//ELLA(+//ELLA(+


3/23

Table Of ContentsTable Of Contents.........................................................................................................................ii



4/23

Index Of AuthoritiesIndex Of Authorities......................................................................................................................v

I(*E0 OF A'+HORI+IES

Table of $ases

- Supreme Court Decisions -

A.K. Kraipak v. nion of India!AI! "#$% SC "&%......................................................................"&

Abdul "usein Ta#abali and Ors v. State of $u%arat and Ors!AI! "#'( SC )*+...........................$

Aflatoon v. &t. $overner Delhi!AI! "#$) SC +%$$......................................................................"%

AII'S Students( nion v. AII'S!,+%%+- " SCC )+(.....................................................................)

A%a# "asia v. Khalid 'u%ib!,"#("- " SCC $++ at $)"...........................*

Amar%it Sin)h Kalra v. *ramod $upta!AI! +%%* SC +&((...+

Amar%it Sin)h v. State of *un%ab!,"#$&- * SCC &%*...............................*

Amrit v State of *un%ab! ,"##+- + SCC )""..................................................................................."'

A* *ollution Control +oard v. ', a#udu!AI! "### SC ("+.................................................... $

AS $aura#a v. S Thakur!,"#('- + SCC $%#.................................................................................#

+A&CO mplo#ees nion /0e)d.1 v. nion of India and Ors. ,+%%+- + SCC ***"

+andhua 'ukti 'orcha v! nion of India ,"#()- * SCC "'"...."

+asheshar ath v. CIT! AI! "# SC ")#......................................................................................$

+hatinda Improvement Trust v. +al2ant Sin)h!"#(* /AC *%# at p. *") ,Supreme Court-........""

+' &akhami v. 'unicipal Committee!,"#$%- + SCC +'$..............................................................#

+okaro and 0ampur &td. v. State of +ihar AI! "#'* SC &"'"

Calcutta $as v. State of 3est +en)al AI! "#'+ SC "%)).."

C+ +oardin) 4 &od)in) v. State of '#sore!,"#'#- * SCC ().......................................................#



5/23

Index Of AuthoritiesIndex Of Authorities......................................................................................................................vi

Central Airmen Selection +oard v. Surinder Kumar Das ,+%%*- " SCC "&+.............................."'

Chairman! Indore ,ikas *radhikaran vs '5s *ure Industrial Coke 0A123SC3$)$'3+%%$......."$

Chairman! 0ail2a# +oard v. Chandrima Das AI! +%%% SC #((.."

Chameli Sin)h and Ors. v. State of ttar *radesh and Anr.!,"##'- + SCC &)#............................(

Chhetri#a *ardushan 'ukti San)harsh Samiti v. State of *!,"##%- ) SCC ))#.........................$

* 0o#appa v. State of T!,"#$)- ) SCC *...............................................................................*

6ertili7er Corporation Kam)ar nion /0e)d.1! Sindri and Ors. v. nion of India and others

,"#("- " SCC &'(" *

6ood Corporation of India v. Kamadhenu Cattle 6eed industries AI! "##* SC "'%"..............."(

$.. a#ak v. $oa niversit# ,+%%+- + SCC +#%........................................................................")

$aurav 8ain v. nion of India!AI! "##$ SC *%+"................................................................... ) &

$ullapalli a)er2ara 0ao v. AS0TC!AI! "# SC *%(............................................................."&

"ukum Chand 4 Others v. nion of India 4 Others!"#(( ,Supp- SCC )')...............................#

In the matter of Cauver# 3ater Disputes Tribunal!,"##*- Supp " SCC #'...................................#

Indian Aluminium Co. &td. v. Karnataka lectricit# +oard! AI! "##+ SC +"'#........................."'

Indian Council for nviro &e)al Action v. nion of India!,"##'- & SCC +("...............................$

8anta Dal v. "S Cho2dhar# ,"##+- ) SCC *%&."

Kasinka Tradin) v. nion of India! AI! "##& SC ($)................................................................."'

Kasturi &al v. State of 84K!,"#(%- ) SCC "..........................................*

Khedat 'a7door Chetna San)ath v. State of '*!AI! "##& SC *"...............................................#

&and Ac9uisition Collector v. Dur)a *ada 'uker%ee!AI! "#(% SC "'$#.................................."%

' Chha)alan v. $reater +omba# 'unicipalit#!,"#$)- + SCC )%+.......*

'.C.'ehta v. nion of India ,"#($- " SCC *#&..."



6/23

Index Of AuthoritiesIndex Of Authorities......................................................................................................................vii

'adras Cit# 3ine 'erchants: Assn. and Anr. v. State of Tamil adu! ,"##)- & SCC &%#.........."(

'a)anbhai v. nion of India AI! "#'# SC $(*"

'aneka $andhi v. nion of India!,"#$(- " SCC +)("

'C 'ehta v. nion of India 4 '5s. DDA!,+%%"- ) SCC &$$..............................................) ' $

'C 'ehta v. nion of India! ,+%%)- ' SCC &((........................................................................... '

'inerva 'ills &td.! v. nion of India!,"#(%- + SCC "...............................................................#

'K Sabha v. A 6ai7ullabhai!,"#$'- * SCC (*+ ,"#$'- * SCC (*+.............................................#

'ohd. "anif ;ureshi v. State of +ihar!AI! "#&( SC $*".............................................................#

'ohd. Ibrahim Khan v. State of 'adh#a *radesh AI! "#(% SC &"$"

'ohini 8ain v. State of Karnataka!,"##+- * SCC '''....................................................................*

'oti &al *adampath Su)ar 'ills v State of ttar *radesh! AI! "#$# SC '+"......................"& "'

'SI "ussain v. State of 'aharashtra!,"#$'- * SCC (...............................................................#

'unshi Sin)h v. nion of India! AI! "#$* SC ""&%...................................................................."+

ar Sin)h *al v. nion of India!,+%%%- * SCC &((.......................................................................$

ara#an $ovind $avate v. State of 'aharashtra!AI! "#$$ SC "(*.........................................."%

arendra 8it Sin)h v. State of ttar *radesh!AI! "#$" SC *%'.................................................""

armada +achao Andolan v. nion of India and Ors.!,+%%%- "% SSC '')...................................*

eelima 'ishra v. "arinder Kaur *aintal!,"##%- + SCC $)'...............*

e2 0eviera Co-operative "ousin) Societ# v. Special &and Ac9uisition Officer!,"##'- " SCC

$*"....................................................................................................................................................(

0 4 6 'ills v. T$ +ros. AI! "#$" SC +)'..."

*adma v. "iralal 'otilal Dearada! ,+%%+- $ SCC &')................................................................"&

*andit 8handulal v. State of *un%ab!AI! "#'" SC *)*..................................................................'

http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/SC/0815/1994','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/SC/0815/1994','1');


7/23

Index Of AuthoritiesIndex Of Authorities......................................................................................................................viii

*aradise *rinters v. nion Territor# of Chandi)arh!,"#((- " SCC ))%...*

*a2an Allo#s v. * State lectricit#! AI! "##$ SC *#%"............................................................"#

*rakash Sin)h and Ors. v. nion of India /OI1 and Ors!,+%%'- ( SCC "..................................*

*rem Chand $ar) v. xcise Commissioner AI! "#'* SC ##'..+

0am S2aroop v. District &and Ac9uisition officer! Ali)arh!AI! "#$+ SC ++#%...........................'

0ama Chandra a)o *atil v. Assistant Collector! Thana!AI! "#$) SC *(%..............................")

0atilal Shankarbhai v. State of $u%arat!AI! "#$% SC #()............................................................'

0D Shett# v. Intl( Airport Authorit#!,"#$#- * SCC )(#..........................*

0ural &iti)ation and ntitlement Kendra v. State of * ,"##"- * SCC *)$."

0ural &iti)ation and ntitlement Kendra v. State of *!AI! "#($ SC +)+'................................$

S 8a)annath v. nion of India!AI! "##$ SC (""...........................................................................$

S.*.$upta v. nion of India "#(" Supp SCC ($"

Sa%%an Sin)h v. State of 0a%asthan!AI! "#'& SC ()&....................................................................#

Sar2an Sin)h &amba v. nion of India!AI! "##& SC "$+#..........................................................#

Sheela +asre v. Secretar#! Children Aid Societ# ,"#($- * SCC &%"

Shri Sitaram su)ar Co. &td. v. nion of India!,"##%- * SCC ++*.........*

Smt. Somavanti and Ors. v. The State of *un%ab and Ors! AI! "#'* SC "&"........................& ' (

State of +omba# v. 0S an%i!AI! "#&' SC +#).............................................................................'

State of '* v. ,ishnu *rasad!AI! "#'' SC "*......................................................................."*

State of *un%ab v. $urdail Sin)h!AI! "#(% SC *"#....................................................................")

State of .*. v. 'ohd. ooh!AI! "#&( SC ('.............................................................................."&

State of 3est +en)al v. 'oti &al!AI! "#'' SC "#&*.....................................................................(

Sube Sin)h and Ors. ,. State of "ar#ana and Ors.!AI! +%%" SC *+(&........................................)



8/23

Index Of AuthoritiesIndex Of Authorities......................................................................................................................ix

Subhash Kumar v. State of +ihar and Ors. ,"##"- " SCC (..."

Supreme Court mplo#ees( 3elfare Association v. nion of India!,"#(#- ) SCC "($.................(

Sur#a arain


9/23

Index Of AuthoritiesIndex Of Authorities......................................................................................................................x

Chandra Kanta Sharma v. The Deput# Commr=AI! "#$" Assam ".............................................""

Chandra kanta Sharmah v. Deput# Commr. and collector of o2)an)!AI! "#$" Assam "......""

as2ara *illai v. State of Tamil adu!"#$+ ,II- 0ad. /.J.!. #+................................................."%

"aripada 'andal v. State of +ihar! "#(( 4./.J.!. ++*................................................................."%

8un%amma and Ors. v. The +an)alore Development Authorit#! represented b# its Commissioner

and Ors.!+%%) ,$- 9A!. /.J. '$$...............................................................................................) "+

'.*. Kuttappa Kurup v. Sub. Collector!AI! "#'+ 9erala +&+...................................................."+

'e)hanbhai ,anarashibhai *atel v. State of $u%arat! AI! "#$' :u5. ()...................................."*

'o)o a)i v. State of a)aland!AI! "##& :au '......................................................................."#

'oideen v. Special Tahsildar! &and Ac9uisition!"#(" 9;!A/A/A /&and Ac9uisition1! Ahmedabad!

"#(# ,"- :u5./!. "&*...................................................................................................................."%

*rasar +harati v. Deb#a%oti +ose AI! +%%% Cal )*."

Sachindra Kumar v. *atna 0e)ional Developmental Authorit#!AI! "##) 4at. "+(..................."#

Sat#a ara#an v. State of 3est +en)al!AI! "#&$ Cal. *"%...........................................................'

S+ *atil v. Director of 0esettlement"##+ /AC &) ,Bom-............................................................""

Shiva%i v. Special &and Ac9uisition Officer!,+%%*- "%& ,"- Bom /! '#"..+

Shri 'ahendra +al ,id#ala#a Societ# v. State of *!AI! "#$' All. "((...................................."%

To2n Improvement Trust v. Saha%i 0ao AI! "#$( 04 +"(..."

,.K. Kan)an v. State of '#sore!AI! "#'$ 06s. "**..................................................................."%



10/23

Index Of AuthoritiesIndex Of Authorities......................................................................................................................xi

". The Indian 4enal Code **rd;dn. !atanlal 8 Dheera5lal /e=is 1e=is.

+. Te=tbook on The Indian 4enal Code )th;dn. 9.D.:aur 2ni7ersal /a> 4ublishing Co.

- Statutes -

". Indian 4enal Code "('%.

+. Indian ;7idence Act "($+.

*. Criminal 4rocedure Code "#$*.



11/23

Statement of 8urisdictionStatement of 8urisdiction............................................................................................................xiv

S+A+EME(+ OF 1'RIS*IC+IO(

The appellant approaches the Honorable Supreme Court under Article "*)"of the Constitution of

India "#&%.

"Appellate 5urisdiction of Supreme Court in regard to criminal matters,"-An appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from an6 5udgment final order or sentence in a criminal proceeding of a High Court in the territor6

of India if the High Court has on appeal re7ersed an order of ac?uittal of an accused person and sentenced him to death@ or has >ithdra>n for trialbefore itself an6 case from an6 court subordinate to its authorit6 and has in such trial con7icted the accused person and sentenced him to death@ or

,c-certifies under Article "*)A that the case is a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court 4ro7ided that an appeal under sub clause ,c- shall lie

sub5ect to such pro7isions as ma6 be made in that behalf under clause , " - of Article ")& and to such conditions as the High Court ma6 establish

or re?uire

,+-4arliament ma6 b6 la> confer on the Supreme Court an6 further po>ers to entertain and hear appeals from an6 5udgment final order orsentence in a criminal proceeding of a High Court in the territor6 of India sub5ect to such conditions and limitations as ma6 be specified in such

la>

http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1050900/http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1050900/http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1461463/http://indiankanoon.org/doc/775776/http://indiankanoon.org/doc/775776/http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1050900/http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1461463/http://indiankanoon.org/doc/775776/


12/23

Statement of 8urisdictionStatement of 8urisdiction............................................................................................................xv



13/23

S#nopsis of 6actsS#nopsis of 6acts..........................................................................................................................xv

S2(O/SIS OF FAC+S

The t>o appellants in this Criminal Appeal ha7e challenged the 5udgment of the 4un5ab

and Har6ana High Court >hereb6 the High Court upheld the con7iction of the appellants

for the offence under Section *%++ read >ith Section *) I4C*sentencing them to undergo

imprisonment for life >ith a fine of !s. "%%%3 >ith a direction to further undergo !I for

si= months in case of default of pa6ment fine.

The deceased >as Secretar6 of an ;mplo6ees 2nion. He ho>e7er left the aforesaid

;mplo6ees 2nion. T>o da6s later he became the 4resident of I1T2C 2nion.

There >ere four accused in the case ,"- Santokh Singh 4resident of ;mplo6ees ,+-

Sa>arn 9umar ,4resident of ;mplo6ees 2nion- :; Amritsar ,*- Jagsher Singh Bhola

:eneral Secretar6 ,)- :urde7 Singh.

The place of the incident Hotel :enesis in the Cantonment area of Amritsar >as then

7isited b6 the Inspector along>ith other officials. The complainant !a5i7 9umar >as also

taken along>ith the police part6. Santokh Singh and Sa>arn 9umar >ere arrested from

the spot. /icensed pistol of San5a6 9umar >as found l6ing near the dead bod6. ne

empt6 one missed cartridge and three li7e cartridges >ere also reco7ered therefrom.

4rithipal Singh Sub Inspector ,Einger 4rints ;=pert- >as called at that place and the

pistol >as got e=amined from him. It >as opined b6 him that no decipherable finger print

impressions >ere found. Santokh Singh and Sa>arn 9umar ,hereinafter referred to as

Fthe appellantsF- >ere got medicall6 e=amined and it >as found that the6 had not

+ Section %#". Punishment for murder

ith death or 1Gimprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.

$&ASSIFI$ATI'( 'F 'FF)($)

4unishmentDeath or imprisonment for life and fineCogniable1onbailableTriable b6 Court of Session1oncompoundable.

Section %*. Acts done by se+eral persons in furtherance of common intention

*Acts done b6 se7eral persons in furtherance of common intention. ere done b6 him alone.



14/23

S#nopsis of 6actsS#nopsis of 6acts..........................................................................................................................xvi

consumed an6 drug or alcohol. The post mortem on the dead bod6 of San5a6 9umar >as

dul6 performed and the dead bod6 >as handed o7er to his relati7es. The other t>o

accused :urde7 Singh and Jagsher Singh K Bhola had thereafter surrendered in the

Court. The6 >ere formall6 arrested in this case on +&.$.+%%+. During the in7estigation

no >itness came for>ard to gi7e an e6e >itness account as to ho> the >eapon >as

snatched from San5a6 and ho> he >as shot >ith the same >eapon. The in7estigation

ho>e7er concluded that the four accused had called San5a6 9umar from his house. It

appears that e=tra 5udicial confession >as made b6 Jagsher Singh K Bhola and :urde7

Singh before one Lipin 9umar to the effect that the6 had killed San5a6 9umar.

The report of the Eorensic Science /aborator6 indicated that the pistol reco7ered from the

site of incident >as found to be in >orking condition. It also indicated that shots had been

fired from the 7er6 same pistol. A number of >itnesses >ere e=amined b6 the prosecution in support of its case. 2pon

closure of the prosecution e7idence the statements of the appellants >ere recorded under

Section *"* Cr.4.C.)All the allegations >ere denied b6 them. Jagsher Singh K Bhola and

:urde7 Singh stated that the6 >ere innocent and had been falsel6 implicated. Appellant

1o. " Santokh Singh stated thus

The allegations against us are totall6 false. Deceased >as of aggressi7e nature and also

li7ing under depression. He used to ha7e unpredictable s>ings of beha7ior. He >as drug

addict and >as facing criminal cases. He remained in hospital for treatment also. Theallegations of m6 along >ith other going to his house and to bring him are incorrect. He

met us in restaurant. All of a sudden he fired on his head ma6 be to sho> false 7alor. It

all is so sudden and sad >hich feelings in him culminated in this act is difficult to tell.

But he >as depressed and aggressi7e and possible drug influence. 4olice onsite

inspection also agreed >ith it but scenario of place of occurrence >as changed. ith Section *) I4C.

)Po,er to e-amine the accused.



15/23

S#nopsis of 6actsS#nopsis of 6acts..........................................................................................................................xvii

In default of pa6ment of fine the defaulter accused >ould further undergo !I& for a

period of ' months. The aforesaid 5udgment of the trial court >as taken in appeal b6 the

four con7icts.

The High Court upon ree=amination of the entire e7idence has confirmed the findings

recorded in the impugned 5udgment ?ua appellant 1o. " Santokh Singh and appellant

1o. + Sa>arn 9umar. Ho>e7er the coaccused Jagsher Singh K Bhola and :urde7 Singh

>ere ac?uitted of the charge under *%+ read >ith Section *) I4C. It is in these

circumstances that the t>o appellants ha7e challenged the aforesaid 5udgment in this

appeal.

&!I means regional inspector



16/23

Issues 0aised...............Issues 0aised.............................................................................................................................xviii

ISS'ES RAISE*

I.T) APP)&&A(TS S/0IT TAT T)IR $'(I$TI'( /(2)R S)$TI'( %#" IS

FA&S) A(2 3IT'/T A(4 PR''F.



17/23

Summar# of Ar)umentsSummar# of Ar)uments................................................................................................................xix

S'MMAR2 OF AR3'ME(+S

I.THE APPELLANTS SUBMIT THAT THEIR CONVICTION UNDER SECTION 302 IS

FALSE AND WITHOUT ANY PROOF.

The Con7iction of the accused in the Trial court and The High Court ha7e been made on some

loose ends of circumstantial e7idence. The case is not that of murder but that of suicide >hile the

prosecution has gone 7er6 far in framing the accused. There is no conclusi7e e7idence in this

case. The forensic in7estigation does not re7eal an6thing and moreo7er there are no e6e

>itnesses. The deceased suffered from an illness and had suicidal tendencies and he shot himself

in turn killing him. The accused ha7e >rongl6 been charged >ith the offence of murder.



18/23

*leadin)s.......................................................*leadin)s.....................................................................................................................................1

WRI++E( /LEA*I(3S

I# THE APPELLANTS SUBMIT THAT THEIR CONVICTION UNDER SECTION 302

IS FALSE AND WITHOUT ANY PROOF.

Section *%+' Mith death or imprisonment for life

and shall also be liable to fineN

Here in the immediate case the appellants ha7e been >rongl6 con7icted b6 the trial court and the

High Court respecti7el6 >ithout an6 conclusi7e proof.

5A6 Absence of any strong moti+e to lead to the con+iction of the appellants.

The deceased >as Secretar6 of an ;mplo6ees 2nion. He ho>e7er left the aforesaid ;mplo6ees

2nion. T>o da6s later he became the 4resident of I1T2C$2nion. It has been alleged that

Accused ,"- Santokh Singh 4resident of ;mplo6ees 2nion ,+- Sa>arn 9umar ,4resident of

;mplo6ees 2nion- :; Amritsar ,*- Jagsher Singh Bhola :eneral Secretar6 ,)- :urde7 Singh

came to the ?uarter of the deceased in the presence of the complainant. The6 said that the6

>anted to discuss something about the disputes of the 2nion. The6 therefore took San5a6

along>ith them. Thereafter Ar5inder 4al Singh K 4rince o>ner of a Hotel came to their house

and told them that San5a6 has been shot dead. In the complaint it is stated that the complainant

had full confidence that all the four persons >ho had called Shammi from his house had made

Shammi drink li?uor and >hile he >as under the influence of li?uor the6 had shot him dead

after snatching his pistol. Here the o>ner of the hotel thinks that the murder is committed b6 the

accused he has not seen an6thing through his e6es. 0oreo7er the prosecution has gone out of

the >a6 to fabricate the case against the appellants. The appellants had no moti7e >hatsoe7er to

kill the deceased. ;7en if there >as slight disagreement >ith regard to the 2nion acti7ities the

same >ould not pro7ide a moti7e strong enough to commit the murder of the deceased. The

appellants had also 7er6 cordial relations >ith the deceased.

'Indian 4enal Code "('%.$I1T2CI1DIA1 1ATI1A/ T!AD; 21I1 C1:!;SS

-MMEMORANDUMEMORANDUMOONN,,EHALFEHALFOOFF++HEHEAAPPELLANTPPELLANT


19/23

*leadin)s.......................................................*leadin)s.....................................................................................................................................2

The legal position regarding proof of moti7e as an essential re?uirement for bringing home the

guilt of the accused is fairl6 >ell settled b6 a long line of the decisions of the Court. These

decisions ha7e made a clear distinction bet>een cases >here prosecution relies upon

circumstantial e7idence on the one hand and those >here it relies upon the testimon6 of the e6e

>itnesses on the other. In the former categor6 of cases proof of moti7e is gi7en the importance it

deser7es for proof of a moti7e itself constitutes a link in the chain of circumstances upon >hich

the prosecution ma6 rel6. 4roof of moti7e ho>e7er recedes into background in cases >here the

prosecution relies upon an e6e>itness account of the occurrence. That is because if the Court

upon a proper appraisal of the deposition of the e6e>itnesses comes to the conclusion that the

7ersion gi7en b6 them is credible absence of e7idence to pro7e the moti7e is rendered

inconse?uential. Con7ersel6 e7en if prosecution succeeds in establishing a strong moti7e for the

commission of the offence but the e7idence of the e6e>itnesses is found unreliable or un>orth6

of credit e=istence of a moti7e does not b6 itself pro7ide a safe basis for con7icting the accused.

That does not ho>e7er mean that proof of moti7e e7en in a case >hich rests on an e6e>itness

account does not lend strength to the prosecution case or fortif6 the court in its ultimate

conclusion. 4roof of moti7e in such a situation certainl6 helps the prosecution and supports the

e6e>itnesses.(

It is >ell settled and needs no restatement at our hands that the principle for basing a con7iction

on the basis of circumstantial e7idence is that each and e7er6 incriminating circumstance must be

clearl6 established b6 reliable and clinching e7idence and the circumstances so pro7ed must

form a chain of e7ents from >hich the onl6 irresistible conclusion about the guilt of the accused

can be safel6 dra>n and no other h6pothesis against the guilt is possible. It is also >ell settled as

held b6 the Supreme Court that in more than one decision that the Courts ha7e to be >atchful

and a7oid the danger of allo>ing the suspicion to take the place of legal proof for some time

unconsciousl6 it ma6 happen to be a short step bet>een moral certaint6 and legal proof. MThat

there is a long mental distance bet>een Oma6 be true and Omust be true and the same di7ides

con5ectures from sure conclusionsN.#

(Shiva%i $enu 'ohite v. The State of 'aharashtra ,"#$*- * SCC +"#"ari Shanker v. State of .*. ,"##'- # SCC

)% and State of ttar *radesh v. Kishanpal ,+%%(- "' SCC $*#Tanviben *anka%kumar Divetia v. State of $u%arat ,"##$- $ SCC "&'

4MMEMORANDUMEMORANDUMOONN,,EHALFEHALFOOFF++HEHEAAPPELLANTPPELLANT


20/23

*leadin)s.......................................................*leadin)s.....................................................................................................................................3

506 The case is that of Suicide and not that of urder.

This is undoubtedl6 a case of suicide >hich has been deliberatel6 t>isted b6 the prosecution into

a case of murder. The deceased >as suffering from chronic Schiophrenia. He had been regularl6

recei7ing treatment for mental illness at the Bhatia 1euro 4s6chiatric Hospital Amritsar.

Deceased >as also a drug addict. Strong reliance has to be made on the statement made b6 Dr.

J.4.S. Bhatia ,Dings of beha7ior. He >as drug addict and >as facing criminal cases. He

remained in hospital for treatment also. He met us in restaurant. All of a sudden he fired on his

head ma6 be to sho> false 7alour. It all is so sudden and sad >hich feelings in him culminatedin this act is difficult to tell. But he >as depressed and aggressi7e and possible drug influence.

The 4olice onsite inspection also agreed >ith it.

5$6 (o conclusi+e e+idence against the appellants.

4rithipal Singh Sub Inspector ,Einger 4rints ;=pert- >as called at the restaurant >hich >as the

site of the incident and the pistol >as got e=amined from him. It >as opined b6 him that no

decipherable finger print impressions >ere found. Santokh Singh and Sa>arn 9umar ,hereinafter

referred to as Fthe appellantsF- >ere got medicall6 e=amined and it >as found that the6 had not

consumed an6 drug or alcohol.

"%Dinesh +orthakar v. State of Assam ,+%%(- * SCC '#'$""$hure# &al v. State of .*. ,+%%(- "% SCC )&%



21/23

*leadin)s.......................................................*leadin)s.....................................................................................................................................4

During the in7estigation no >itness came for>ard to gi7e an e6e >itness account as to ho> the

>eapon >as snatched from San5a6 and ho> he >as shot >ith the same >eapon.

It is also submitted that the prosecution had miserabl6 failed to collect an6 material e7idence

from the scene of the crime. !ather the6 ha7e tried to help the prosecution b6 literall6 shifting

the bod6 of the deceased. ;7en the prosecution >itnesses themsel7es ha7e said that the deceased

>as sitting on the table >ith the head on the table. Ho>e7er according to the police the bod6

>as l6ing on the floor and the pistol >as l6ing some distance a>a6. These t>o statements are in

themsel7es contradictor6.

Another golden thread >hich runs through the >eb of the administration of 5ustice in criminal

cases is that if t>o 7ie>s are possible on the e7idence adduced in the case one pointing to the

guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence the 7ie> >hich is fa7ourable to the accused

should be adopted. This principle has a special rele7ance in cases >herein the guilt of the

accused is sought to be established b6 circumstantial e7idence. !ule has accordingl6 been laid

do>n that unless the e7idence adduced in the case is consistent onl6 >ith the h6pothesis of the

guilt of the accused and is inconsistent >ith that of his innocence the court should refrain from

recording a finding of the guilt of the accused. It is also an accepted rule that in case the court

entertains reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the accused the accused must ha7e the benefit

of that doubt."+

526 (o reliance can be made on the )-tra Judicial $onfession.

It appears that e=tra 5udicial confession >as made b6 Jagsher Singh K Bhola and :urde7 Singh

before one Lipin 9umar son of 0ulakh !a5 resident of !am Tirath !oad Amritsar to the effect

that the6 had killed San5a6 9umar. 2nder the Indian ;7idence Act the admissibilit6 of

confessions is regulated b6 se7eral pro7isions."*The prosecutions abilit6 to use confessions is

se7erel6 limited. S. +)")adopts the ;nglish !ule that a confession is inadmissible if induced b6

fear of pre5udice or hope of ad7antage held out b6 a person in authorit6. S.+& states broadl6 that

Mno confession made to a police officer shall be pro7ed as against a person accused of an6

offence.N S.+' further pro7ides that all confessions made in custod6 of a police officer are

"+Burden of 4roof In Criminal Cases and the Supreme Court 1e> Trends ,+%%*- ( SCC ,Jour- )#"*S.") of Indian ;7idence Act "($+.")Indian ;7idence Act "($+.



22/23

*leadin)s.......................................................*leadin)s.....................................................................................................................................5

inadmissible unless made Min the immediate presence in a 0agistrateN. There is an e=ception in

S.+$ not material for our purpose.

Torture is such a terrible thing that >hen a person is under torture he >ill confess to almost to

an6 crime. ;7en Joan of Arc confessed to be a >itch under torture. Hence >here the prosecution

case mainl6 rests on the confessional statement made to the police b6 the alleged accused in the

absence of corroborati7e material the courts must be hesitant before the6 accept such e=tra

5udicial confessional statements."&In State of A.*. v. S. S2arnalatha?@M;=tra5udicial confessions

>ere found to be doubtful. The 7ie> taken b6 the High Court ac?uitting the respondents accused

being a plausible one the Supreme Court refused to interfereN.

Hence a decision cannot be made rel6ing on the e=tra 5udicial confession.

5)6 The case relies hea+ily on circumstantial e+idence.

In the immediate case there are no e6e >itnesses. If a case depends upon circumstantial e7idence

and as such as per the settled la> e7er6 circumstance >ould ha7e to be pro7ed be6ond

reasonable doubt and further the chain of circumstances should be so complete and perfect that

the onl6 inference of the guilt of the accused should emanate therefrom. "$

The circumstantial e7idence must be such also as to lead to Mreasonable e7idence of guiltN."(

A >ife met her death in the house itself at a time >hen onl6 her husband and minor children

>ere present. The Court said in such a case the husband has to pro7e as to ho> his >ife died."#

Here also the accused need to pro7e that ho> the deceased died the6 ha7e done so. He shot

himself in the head and killed himself.

The con7iction is not sustainable on circumstantial e7idence.+%An ac?uittal because last seen

together also does not >ork.+"Hence it cannot be concluded from such circumstantial e7idence

that the accused committed murder of the deceased.

"&Arup +hu#an v. State of Assam Criminal Appeal 1o,s-. ((# of +%%$."',+%%#- ( SCC *(* ,+%%#- * SCC Cri ($*"$0amesh v. State of 0a%asthan Criminal Appeal 1o. "+*& of +%%'"(Tukaram v.State of 'aharashtra ,"#$#- ) SCC"#&i#a9at v. State of ttaranchal ,+%%(- "' SCC ")(+%'ohd. A7ad v. State of 3.+. AI! +%%# SC "*%$+"A.


23/23

*ra#er for relief...............................................*ra#er for relief.............................................................................................................................+%

/RA2ER FOR RELIEF

In light of the facts stated arguments ad7anced and authorities cited the Appellant humbl6

pra6s before the Honorable Court to ad5udge and declare that

The con7iction of the accused under Section *%+ of Indian 4enal Code is >rongful and to ac?uit

them.

The Court ma6 also be pleased to pass an6 other order >hich the court ma6 deem fit in light of

5ustice e?uit6 and good conscience.

All of ,hich is most humbly prayed

$ounsel for Appellant

Faisal Ipc

Documents

Transcript of Faisal Ipc