ITM SCHOOL OF LAW - MOOT COURT EXERCISE

IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

AT NEW DELHI

THE APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 2(a) OF THE SUPREME COURT

(ENLARGEMENT OF CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION) ACT, 1970

IN DB CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: ____/ 2015

IN THE MATTER OF

K. GOPAL REDDY ...APPELLANT

VS

STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH ...RESPONDENT

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

The Respondents humbly

Submits a reply

To the Jurisdiction of this court.

COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT

SAKSHI JI

13LLB064

ITM SCHOOL OF LAW - MOOT COURT EXERCISE

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT Page 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS................................................................................................................. 3

2. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES................................................................................................................... 4

A. STATUES REFERRED........................................................................... 4

B. CASES REFERRED................................................................................ 5

C. BOOKS REFERRED............................................................................... 5

D. WEBSITE................................................................................................. 6

3. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION..................................................................................................... 7

4. STATEMENT OF FACTS.....................................................................................................................8

5. ISSUES RAISED................................................................................................................................... 10

6. SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS............................................................................................................. 11

7. WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS.................................................................................................................. 12

8. PRAYER FOR RELIEF....................................................................................................................... 21

ITM SCHOOL OF LAW - MOOT COURT EXERCISE

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT Page 3

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

& And

AC Appeal Cases

AIR All India Reporter

AP Andhra Pradesh

BOM Bombay

DEL Delhi

HON’BLE Honourable

KER Kerala

MAD Madras

Ors. Others

SCC Supreme Court Cases

Sec. Section

Vs. Versus

www World Wide Web

ITM SCHOOL OF LAW - MOOT COURT EXERCISE

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT Page 4

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Statutes Referred:-

1. Indian Penal Code, 1860

2. Indian Evidence Act, 1872

3. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

Cases Referred:-

1. Tirupati Balaji Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State Of Bihar And Ors1

2. K R Easwaramurthi Goundan Vs. Emperor2

3. State of Punjab & Others Vs. Jagdev Singh Talwandi3

4. Sanwat Singh and Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan.4

5. Sheo Swamp vs. Emperor5

6. Ramabhupala Reddy and Ors. vs. The State of A.P.6

7. Bhim Singh Rup Singh vs. State of Maharashtra7

8. R. vs. Fantle8

9. Lord Denning in Miller vs. Minister of Pensions9

10. Khem Karan and Ors. vs. State of U.P. and Anr.10

11. S.D. Usman vs. State11

12. Aher Pitha Vaajshi vs. State of Gujarat12

13. Ravinder Singh vs. State of Haryana13

14. State vs. Des Raj14

1 (2004) Supp(1) SCR 494

2 (1994) 2 5 PRIVY COUNCIL

3 1984 (1) SCC 596

4 MANU/SC/0078/1960 : 1961CriLJ766

5 61 I.A. 389

6 MANU/SC/0178/1970 : 1971CriLJ422

7 MANU/SC/0088/1973 : 1974CriLJ337

8 Reported in paragraph 584 of Criminal Law Review, 1959.

9 [1947] 2 All

10 MANU/SC/0158/1974 : 1974CriLJ1033

11 1982 Cri LJ 255, 260

12 1983 SCC (Cri) 607

13 (1975) 3 SCC 742

ITM SCHOOL OF LAW - MOOT COURT EXERCISE

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT Page 5

15. State of M.P. vs. Bacchudas15

16. V.N. Ratheesh vs. State of Kerala16

17. Lal Mandi vs. State of W. B.17

18. Dharma vs. Nirmal Singh18

19. Satbir vs. Surat Singh19

20. Madan Lal vs. State of J &K20

Books Referred:-

1. Civil Court Procedure & Criminal Proceedings in India by S.K.Garg (Advocate)

2. Code of Criminal Procedure (Universal Law Series) by Abhinav Prakash

3. Commentaries on Code of Criminal Procedure (in 2 Vols.) by Sir John Woodroffe

4. Commentary on Law of EVIDENCE by C.D.Field

5. Commentary on the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by K.K.Iyengar, revised by

R.M.Tufail (Advocate) & Manzar Saeed (Advocate)

6. Commentary on the Indian Penal Code by K.D.Gaur, with a Foreword by Justice P.V. Reddi

7. Criminal Evidence: Principles and Cases by Thomas J. Gardner and Terry M. Anderson

8. Criminal Manual (Cr. P.C., I.P.C. and Evidence) (Model Forms) by Universal's Legal

Manual

9. Digest of Indian EVIDENCE Act, 1872 (1950-2010) by R.Ramachadran (Advocate)

10. Electronic Evidence: Law and Practice (Electronic Evidence: Law & Practice) by Paul R.

Rice

11. Essays on the Indian Penal Code by Prof. K.N.Chandrasekharan Pillai & Shabistan Aquil, for

Indian Law Institute (ILI)

12. Evidence in Law by Speedy Publishing LLC

13. Evidence Law: A Student's Guide to the Law of Evidence As Applied in American Trials

(Hornbook Series) by Roger C. Park and David P. Leonard

14. Evidence Law: The Quick Guide by Vook

14

1979 Cri. LJ 558

15 2007 Cri LJ 1661

16 2006 Cri Lj 3634(SC)

17 (1995) 3 SCC 603

18 (1996) 7 SCC 471

19 (1997) 4 SCC 192

20 (1997) 7 SCC 677)

ITM SCHOOL OF LAW - MOOT COURT EXERCISE

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT Page 6

15. Evidence Laws: Report to the 1983 General Assembly of North Carolina by North Carolina

General Assembly Legislature

16. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872): (With Exhaustive Case Law) by Universal Law

17. Law Commission of India - 156th Report on the Indian Penal Code (Vol.1) by Ministry of

Law, Justice & Co. Affairs

18. Law of Crimes - A Commentary on the Indian Penal Code (in 2 Vols.) by Ratanlal &

Dhirajlal, revised by Srinivas Gupta, Foreword by Justice P.Sathasivam

19. Law of Evidence by Rosedar S R A

20. Law Series 3 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 by Abhinav Misra

21. LexisNexis Quick Reference Guide – Criminal Procedure Code by Abhilash T G

22. Proof of Documents - Civil & Criminal (Including Digital Singnature and Electronic

Records) by V.K.Dewan (Advocate)

23. Textbook on the Law of Evidence by Chief Justice M. Monir

24. The Indian Penal Code by Ratanlal & Dhirajlal

25. The Law Of Evidence by Ratanlal and Dhirajlal

Websites:-

1. www.asialaw.com

2. www.indiankanoon.org

3. www.legalight.com

4. www.lexisnexis.com

5. www.manupatra.com

6. www.vakilno1.com

ITM SCHOOL OF LAW - MOOT COURT EXERCISE

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT Page 7

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA has an inherent jurisdiction to try, entertain and dispose off

the present case by virtue of Section 2(a) of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate

Jurisdiction) Act, 1970.21

The Appellant has approached the Court under Section 2(a) of the said Act. It sets forth the facts and laws

on which the claims are based, the response to which is herby submitted

21

Section 2: Enlarged appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court in regard to criminal matters :-

Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clause (1) of Article 134 of the Constitution, an appeal shall lie to

the Supreme Court from any judgment, final order or sentence in a criminal proceeding of a High Court in the territory of India if the

High Court—

(a) has on appeal reversed an order of acquittal of an accused person and sentenced him to imprisonment for life or to imprisonment

for a period of net less than ten years;

ITM SCHOOL OF LAW - MOOT COURT EXERCISE

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT Page 8

STATEMENT OF FACTS

I Background Facts:

The deceased Subhadramma was the wife of the appellant. They were married about one and a half years before

the occurrence. About three months before the occurrence the deceased gave birth to a female child in the house

of the accused at Cherlopalle. After the ninth day the mother and child, according to customary practice, were

taken by the mother of the deceased to her house at Krishna Kalva. Cherlopalle is about 25 miles from Krishna

Kalva. The accused used to visit his wife and often used to stay in the house of the deceased's mother. After

about one and a half months the accused asked his mother-in-law and brother-in-law to send his wife to his

place. They replied that she had delivered the child recently and that she would be sent to her husband's house

in the fifth month.

II Outline of Incident:

On 18th December, 1972, requested his mother-in-law to send his wife to his house. This time he also brought

an elderly gentleman from his village with him. His mother-in-law told him that she would send the girl in the

fifth month as she had not yet regained her health after delivery. The accused and that old man went away. That

evening the accused again came to the house of his mother-in-law. After dinner all of them went to sleep. The

house consisted of only one room.

The accused, the deceased, her brother, her mother and her grand-mother were all sleeping in one room. In the

middle of the night all of them were awakened by the cry "Amma" raised by Subhadramma. On waking up they

saw the accused sitting by the side of the deceased with a knife in his hand. They found the deceased bleeding

profusely from the left side of her chest. Her brother put his foot on the hand in which the accused was holding

the knife. The accused dropped the knife which was then picked up by the grand-mother.

Attracted by the cries raised by them, the neighbourers others came there. They caught hold of the accused and

tied him to a pole in front of the house by means of a rope. Some of the villagers who had gathered there also

gave a beating to the accused. The brother of the deceased proceeded to the house of the Village Munsif and

reported the occurrence to him. He affixed his thumb impression on the report prepared by the Munsif. They

then proceeded to the house and the knife was handed over to him.

Thereafter, he prepared his own report and sent it to the Police Station at Renigunta. The Sub Inspector of

Police registered the First Information Report at 5 A.M. on 19th December, 1972 and went ahead with the

further investigation which was later taken over by the Inspector of Police.

ITM SCHOOL OF LAW - MOOT COURT EXERCISE

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT Page 9

III Charges Framed

When the Police Officers went to the village, they found the accused tied to a pole and arrested him. They got

him examined by a Doctor. After holding the inquest the dead body was sent for post mortem examination.

There was no fracture. After completing the investigation the Police laid a charge-sheet against the accused and

he was duly tried.

IV Trial by Session Court

The learned Sessions Judge held that the prosecution had failed to establish any motive and that the evidence of

the prosecution witnesses was 'discrepant, conflicting and improbable.' He commented on the failure of the

Police to seize the mat or bedding on which the deceased was sleeping. He referred to the evidence of the

Doctor who stated that the injury found on the deceased could have been caused even if she was standing. The

learned Sessions Judge thought that when there were two divergent versions given by the prosecution and the

defence and when two views were possible, the benefit of doubt should be given to the accused. He, therefore,

acquitted the accused. The appellant was thus acquitted by the learned Additional Sessions judge, Chittoor of

offence under Section 302, Indian Penal Code.

V Appeal to High Court

The High Court reversed the finding of acquittal. The learned Judges pointed out that there was no reason to

doubt the testimony of the family members and that the discrepancies noticed by the learned Sessions Judge

were of a minor character. The High Court observed that the learned Sessions Judge had magnified the

importance to be attached to minor discrepancies. The High Court also concluded from the medical evidence

that it was more probable that the deceased was stabbed when she was lying down. Accepting the evidence of

prosecution High Court convicted the accused under Section 302 and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for

life.

VI Order of High court

The acquittal was reversed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and the appellant was convicted under Section

302 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life.

VII Appeal by State to Supreme Court

Aggrieved by the said judgment of the High Court convicting the accused, the Accused filed an appeal before

the Supreme Court on the ground that High Court was not right in holding the prosecution version and not the

defence version. Therefore, on 16th

March, 2015, we are here before the Division Bench of the Supreme Court.

ITM SCHOOL OF LAW - MOOT COURT EXERCISE

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT Page 10

ISSUES RAISED

Procedural Issue:

1. Whether the Hon’ble Supreme court has Jurisdiction over this case?

Substantial Issue:

2. Whether in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, Accused is guilty u/s 302

IPC, 1860?

ITM SCHOOL OF LAW - MOOT COURT EXERCISE

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT Page 11

SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS

Decision of the High Court must upheld and the appeal must be dismissed:-

Respondent most humbly submits before this Hon’ble Court that decision of High Court in convicting the

accused stands good, thus same must be upheld by this Court.

This submission is twofold-

Firstly: accused view is also possible cannot be the ground for his acquittal from the charges

Secondly: evidence supporting the deceased view is strong then that of the accused

Thus, the appeal merits dismissal.

ITM SCHOOL OF LAW - MOOT COURT EXERCISE

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT Page 12

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

It is humbly submitted that,

1. THE INSTANT APPEAL IS MAINTAINABLE

With respect to the first submission, the counsel humbly submits before this Hon’ble Court that the instant

appeal is maintainable as filed under Section 2(a) of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate

Jurisdiction) Act, 1970.

A) The right under Section 2(a)

1.1 Section 2 of Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970; bearing the

heading –

Enlarged appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court in regard to criminal matters :-

Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clause

(1) of Article 134 of the Constitution, an appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court

from any judgment, final order or sentence in a criminal proceeding of a High

Court in the territory of India if the High Court—

(a) Has on appeal reversed an order of acquittal of an accused

person and sentenced him to imprisonment for life or to

imprisonment for a period of net less than ten years;

1.2 This Section has a plenary jurisdiction exercisable on the appellate jurisdiction against any kind of

judgment or order made by any Court or Tribunal and in any cause or matter has been embodied and

vested in the Supreme Court.22

22

Tirupati Balaji Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State Of Bihar And Ors (2004) Supp(1) SCR 494

The right

to

approach

the

Supreme

Court

ITM SCHOOL OF LAW - MOOT COURT EXERCISE

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT Page 13

1.3 The same is said to have happened in the present case, the High Court reversed the order of acquittal of

the accused of the alleged charges and ordered to suffer life imprisonment to him.

1.4 Justice K.K. Mathew, an eminent Judge of this Court, in an article in Supreme Court Journal23

has

referred to the opinion of Mr. Justice Frankfurter, the renowned Judge of the U.S. Supreme Court as

follows :

"The function of the Supreme Court, according to Justice Frankfurter, was to expound

and stabilize principles of law, to pass upon constitutional and other important questions

of law for the public benefit and to preserve uniformity of decision among the

intermediate courts of appeal.”

1.5 Justice Mathew24

is of the opinion that –

“It is high time we recognize the need for the Supreme Court to entertain

and to decide only those cases which present questions of law whose

resolution will have immediate importance and which measure up to the

significance of the national or general public importance.”25

1.6 Chief Justice, M.C. Mahajan in the case of Dhakeswari Cotton Mills26

he said- 'It is not possible to

define with any precision the limitations on the exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction vested in this

Court. The whole intent and purpose of it is that it is the duty of the Court to see that injustice is not

perpetuated or perpetrated by decisions of courts and tribunals because certain laws have made the

decisions of these courts or tribunals final and conclusive.”

1.7 In a lecture on 25.7.196327

, Motilal C. Selavad - the great Indian jurist dealt with the role of the

Supreme Court and said – ‘the exercise by the court of its jurisdiction bears witness to the wisdom and

foresight of the court. That jurisdiction confers on the court has an overriding power to examine the

23

(1982) 3 SCC (Jour) 1

24 He was a Supreme Court Judge from 3 January 1911 to 2 May 1992

25 The same was upheld in Jamshed Hormusji Wadia Vs. Board of Trustees, Port of Mumbai AIR 2004 SC 1815 (para 33)

26 Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, West Bengal - 1955 AIR (SC) 65

27 In Centenary Lecture Series organized on the occasion of Centenary Celebration of the Advocates Association of Western India

Support

with

case

laws

and

articles

ITM SCHOOL OF LAW - MOOT COURT EXERCISE

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT Page 14

decision of all courts and tribunals in the country, a power which is larger than the Crown prerogative

exercised by the Privy Council and which is not capable of being restricted by ordinary legislation.’

1.8 In K R Easwaramurthi Goundan Vs. Emperor28

, Lord Wright observed that in a criminal appeal,

‘their Lordships are not concerned with formal rules, but only with the question whether there has been

a miscarriage of justice.’ Sir George Rankin said that, for them (Indian judiciary) to interfere with a

criminal sentence there must be something so irregular or so outrageous as to shock the very basis of

justice and that there must be something which in the particular case deprives the accused of the

substance of fair trial and the protection of the law.29

1.9 There is no argument on the jurisdiction of the case, but the counsel for respondent

would later like to contest the interest of the accused as it conflicting with the interest

of deceased and moreover justice. The consideration of appeal will lead to miscarriage

of justice & will cause gross and grievance injustice. Hence, merits dismissals.

1.10 The present case is a criminal case and that to a case of a heinous crime i.e.

Murder. The matter needs an immediate intervention from the Supreme Court to set

guidelines for the proper control and execution of the law – 302 of IPC. The Supreme

Court would be justified to interfere in an appeal against the conviction by the High

Court.30

1.11 Hence, the aggrieved appellant gets a right to approach the present court for seeking justice and

thus appeal lies before the Supreme Court and thus the respondent is here standing before this

honourable Court to seek dismissal of the said appeal on merits.

B) This Hon’ble court is subject to the appellate jurisdiction under against the

order passed by the High Court

1.12 We are inclined to extract and reproduce a very instructive passage, from the judgment by a

Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice Chandrachud in the case of State of Punjab & Others Vs.

Jagdev Singh Talwandi31

The excerpt is self explanatory of factual backdrop and is as under –

28

(1994) 2 5 PRIVY COUNCIL

29 In Otto George Gfeller Feller Vs. The King, (1943) Privy Council Appeal No. 57 of 1942 (From West African Court; similar

observations were made by Viscount Dunedin in Md. Afdal Khan Vs. Abdul Hahman.

30 Anvaruddin Vs. Shakoor AIR1990SC1242; (1990) 3 SCC 266

No issue

with the

jurisdiction

but merits

dismissal

ITM SCHOOL OF LAW - MOOT COURT EXERCISE

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT Page 15

“We would like to take this opportunity to point out that serious difficulties arise on

account of the practice increasingly adopted by the High Courts. We would like to point

out respectfully that the orders passed by this Court are final and no appeal lies against

them. The Supreme Court is the final court in the hierarchy of courts in India. Orders

without a reasoned judgment are passed by this Court very rarely, under exceptional

circumstances; Orders passed by the High Court are subject to the appellate

jurisdiction of this Court under constitution and the other provisions of the concerned,

statues. We thought it necessary to make these observations in order that a practice

which is not very desirable and which achieves no useful purpose may not grow out of its

present infancy."

31

1984 (1) SCC 596

ITM SCHOOL OF LAW - MOOT COURT EXERCISE

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT Page 16

2. ACCUSEDIS GUILTY FOR THE OFFENCE OF

MURDER U/S 326A OF IPC

2.1 Appellant most humbly submits before this Hon’ble Court that decision of High Court in convicting the

accused under the charge of Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 stands good, thus same must be

upheld by this Court.

2.2 This submission is twofold :-

Firstly: accused view is also possible cannot be the ground for his acquittal from the

charges

Secondly: evidence supporting the deceased view is strong then that of the accused

Thus, the appeal merits dismissal.

2.3 In this appeal the learned Counsel for the respondent would like to argue that the accused had a motive

to kill his wife and that the deceased’s version is more probable than the version of the accused. The

counsel would like to take this opportunity to also contend that just because the two views are possible

on the evidence doesn’t entitle the accused for the benefit of doubt.

2.4 The High Court was well justified in commenting the discrepancies on the basis of which:

The rejection of evidence by the Trial Court of deceased brother, her mother and her

grand-mother mother, were of a minor character and that they had been unduly magnified

by the learned Sessions Judge.

The discrepancies were in regard to:

Which of them woke up first,

Where the lantern was and

Which of the neighbours came first to the scene on hearing their cries?

ITM SCHOOL OF LAW - MOOT COURT EXERCISE

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT Page 17

The High Court rightly helded the medical evidence supporting the defendant’s version and not the

accused version.

2.5 The plea taken by the accused was one of denial. In the High Court the accused was content with a bare

denial but in the Court of Sessions he stated that he went to the house of his mother-in-law at about 10

p.m. on 18th December, 1972. The deceased’s brother and her mother taunted him saying "we are

maintaining you and your wife, yet you come at any time you like". They insulted him. There was an

altercation. Her grandmother hit him with a stone near his left eye. Her brother beat him with a stick two

or three times. He felt giddy and was about to lose consciousness. Her brother then came upon him with

a knife to stab him. The deceased intervened and interposed herself between her brother and the

accused. She received a stab injury. Seeing his wife injured, he fell down unconscious. He regained

consciousness next morning.

2.6 Merely because the Medical Officer stated that the victim could have received the injury if she was

standing, it did not follow that the injury could have been received in the circumstances mentioned by

the accused. The injury was inflicted with great force and its direction was upward. The location of the

injury was 6 cms. below the arm pit on the left side. According to the accused the deceased received the

injury when she placed herself between her brother and himself.

2.7 An injury of the nature received by the deceased could have been caused in the manner suggested by the

accused. The injury must have been caused in the manner suggested by deceased that is, when the

deceased was lying on her right side.

2.8 It is true that the accused did not have any deep motive to kill the deceased. It is obvious that he must

have been upset by the persistent refusal of the brother and mother of the deceased to send her with him

to his house. He probably attributed the refusal to reluctance on the part of his wife to accompany him

straightaway. Also, deceased grandmother stated in her evidence that she saw the accused who was

sitting by the side of the deceased on the cot make a gesture as if he was stabbing the deceased and that

the deceased cried out 'Amma.'

2.9 The learned Sessions Judge allowed himself to be assailed by airy and fanciful doubts but the High

Court was justified in interfering with the order of acquittal.

ITM SCHOOL OF LAW - MOOT COURT EXERCISE

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT Page 18

2.10 The principles are now well settled. At one time it was thought that an order of acquittal could

be set aside for "substantial and compelling reasons" only and Courts used to launch on a search to

discover those "substantial and compelling reasons". However, the 'formulae' of "substantial and

compelling reasons", "good and sufficiently cogent reasons" and "strong reasons" and the search for

them were abandoned as a result of the pronouncement of this Court in Sanwat Singh and Ors. vs. State

of Rajasthan.32

In Sanwat Singh's case, this Court harked back to the principles enunciated by the Privy

Council in Sheo Swamp vs. Emperor33

and re-affirmed those principles. After Sanwat Singh vs. State of

Rajasthan, this Court has consistently recognised the right of the Appellate Court to review the entire

evidence and to come to its own conclusion, bearing in mind the considerations mentioned by the Privy

Council in Sheo Swarup's case. Hence, the present court can review the complete process of evidence

again.

2.11 Occasionally phrases like 'manifestly illegal', 'grossly unjust', have been used to describe the

orders of acquittal which warrant interference. But, such expressions have been used more, as flourishes

of language, to emphasise the reluctance of the Appellate Court to interfere with an order of acquittal

than to curtail the power of the Appellate Court to review the entire evidence and to come to its own

conclusion. In some cases Ramabhupala Reddy and Ors. vs. The State of A.P.34

, Bhim Singh Rup

Singh vs. State of Maharashtra35

it has been said that to the principles laid down in Sanwat Singh's

case may be added the further principle that "if two reasonable conclusions can be reached on the basis

of the evidence on record, the Appellate Court should not disturb the finding of the Trial Court". This,

of course, is not a new principle. It stems out of the fundamental principle of our criminal jurisprudence

that the accused is entitled to the benefit of any reasonable doubt. If two reasonably probable and evenly

balanced views of the evidence are possible, one must necessarily concede the existence of a reasonable

doubt. But, fanciful and remote possibilities must be left out of account.

2.12 To entitle an accused person to the benefit of a doubt arising from the possibility of a duality of

views, the possible view in favour of the accused must be as nearly reasonably probable as that against

him. If the preponderance of probability is all one way, a bare possibility of another view will not entitle

the accused to claim the benefit of any doubt.

2.13 It is, therefore, essential that any view of the evidence in favour of the accused must be

reasonable even as any doubt, the benefit of which an accused person may claim, must be reasonable.

32

MANU/SC/0078/1960 : 1961CriLJ766

33 61 I.A. 389

34 MANU/SC/0178/1970 : 1971CriLJ422

35 MANU/SC/0088/1973 : 1974CriLJ337

ITM SCHOOL OF LAW - MOOT COURT EXERCISE

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT Page 19

"A reasonable doubt", it has been remarked, "does not mean some light, airy, insubstantial doubt that

may flit through the minds of any of us about almost anything at some time or other, it does not mean a

doubt begotten by sympathy out of reluctance to convict; it means a real doubt, a doubt founded upon

reason Salmon J. in his charge to the jury in R. vs. Fantle reported in paragraph 584 of Criminal Law

Review, 1959." As observed by Lord Denning in Miller vs. Minister of Pensions36

in paragraph 372 :

"Proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond a shadow of a doubt. The law

would fail to protect the community if it admitted fanciful possibilities to deflect the course of justice. If

the evidence is as strong against a man as to leave only a remote possibility in his favour, which can be

dismissed with the sentence 'of course it is possible but not in the least probable' the case is proved

beyond reasonable doubt, but nothing short of that will suffice".

2.14 In Khem Karan and Ors. vs. State of U.P. and Anr.37

, this Court observed:

Neither mere possibilities nor remote possibilities nor mere doubts which are not

reasonable can, without danger to the administration of justice, be the foundation of the

acquittal of an accused person, if there is otherwise fairly credible testimony.

2.15 Also, in the cases of S.D. Usman vs. State38

, Aher Pitha Vaajshi vs. State of Gujarat39

,

Ravinder Singh vs. State of Haryana40

, State vs. Des Raj41

, State of M.P. vs. Bacchudas42

, V.N.

Ratheesh vs. State of Kerala43

; the Supreme Court held that:

“When the trial court allows itself to be beset with fanciful doubts, rejects creditworthy

evidence for slender reasons and takes a view of the evidence which is but barely

possible, it is not only open to the High Court but it is also its duty to interfere with the

order of acquittal in the interest of justice, lest the administration of justice be brought to

ridicule.”

36

[1947] 2 All

37 MANU/SC/0158/1974 : 1974CriLJ1033

38 1982 Cri LJ 255, 260

39 1983 SCC (Cri) 607

40 (1975) 3 SCC 742

41 1979 Cri. LJ 558

42 2007 Cri LJ 1661

43 2006 Cri Lj 3634(SC)

ITM SCHOOL OF LAW - MOOT COURT EXERCISE

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT Page 20

2.16 Also, it has been held by the Supreme Court that:

“In matters of appreciation of evidence the powers of the appellate court are as wide as

that of the trial court. If the trial court has resorted to perverse application of the

principals of evidence or show lack of appreciation of evidence the appellate court may

re-appreciate the evidence and reach its conclusion.”

This was held in the case of Lal Mandi vs. State of W. B.44

, Dharma vs. Nirmal Singh45

2.17 Also, in the case of Satbir vs. Surat Singh46

and in the case of Madan Lal vs. State of J &K47

it

has been held by the Supreme Court that:

“The Supreme Court may re-appreciate evidence in cases where the High Court reverses

conviction/acquittal and records acquittal/conviction.”

2.18 It is the obvious duty of the High Court to interfere in the interest of justice, lest the

administration of justice be brought to ridicule. That is what the High Court has done in this case. The

appeal is dismissed.

44

(1995) 3 SCC 603

45 (1996) 7 SCC 471

46 (1997) 4 SCC 192

47 (1997) 7 SCC 677)

ITM SCHOOL OF LAW - MOOT COURT EXERCISE

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT Page 21

PRAYER

Therefore in the light of facts presented, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, the

counsel for respondent humbly submits that the Honourable Court may be pleased to hold, adjudge and

declare that:

TO HOLD

1. The contentions of the deceased.

2. Appeal must be dismissed.

3. The accused liable of the charge u/s 302 of IPC.

TO SET ASIDE

1. The decision of The Trial Court.

M I S C E L L A N E O U S

1. The court may also be pleased to pass any other order, which this Honourable Court may

deem fit in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience.

Date: - 24th

September, 2014 All of which is humbly prayed & respectfully submitted,

Place: - Gurgaon Sakshi Ji (13LLB064),

Counsel for the Responedent

ITM SCHOOL OF LAW - MOOT COURT EXERCISE

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT Page 22