Memorial respondent

dont ever try todownload it, if u r trying to download it, thn risk lies totally on u. we dont have any ulterior motive.

1. 1 | P a g e
Memorial on behalf of the Respondent


TABLE OF CONTENTS
Index of Abbreviations……………………………………………………… Page 4
Index of Authorities………………………………………………………….Page 5
Statement of Jurisdiction…………………………………………………….Page 6
Statement of Facts……………………………………………………………Page 7
Statement of Issues……………………………………………………….. ...Page 9
Summary of Arguments…………………………………………………….Page 10
Arguments Advanced……………………………………………………….Page 11
Prayer…………………………………………………………… ..………...Page 22
Bibliography………………………………………………………………..Page 23

INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION
ICFAI LAW SCHOOL, THE ICFAI UNIVERSITY, DEHRADUN
Before
THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
NEW DELHI
Filed under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, 1950

State of Maharashtra …Appellant

v.

K. Singh …Respondent

Humbly submitted by the counsels appearing on the behalf of the Respondent

2. 2 | P a g e
Memorial on behalf of the Respondent

INDEX OF ABBREVIATIONS
CBI – Central Bureau of Investigation
IPC – Indian Penal Code
MHC- Mumbai High Court
SC- Supreme Court of India
SCC- Supreme Court Cases
A.I.R- All India Reporter
Bom- Bombay
All- Allahabad
U.S- United States
S.C.R- Supreme Court Report
Crim LJ- Criminal Law Journal

3. 3 | P a g e
Memorial on behalf of the Respondent

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Council of Scientific and Industrial Research v K. G. S. Bhatt (1989) AIR
1972 (SC)
11
Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v CIT West Bengal (1955) AIR 65 (SC) 12
State of U.P. v Ram Manorath (1972) 3 SCC 215 (SC) 12
Raghunath G. Pauhale v Chagan Lal Sundarji & Co.(1999) 8 SCC 1 (SC) 12
Union of India v Rajeshwari & Co. (1986) 161 ITR 60 (SC) 12
Gurbakhsh Singh v State of Punjab (1955) AIR 320 (SC) 12
CIT v Maganlal Chaganlal (P) Ltd. (1997) 11 SCC 557 (SC) 13
Amarchand Sobhachand v CIT (1971) AIR 720 (SC) 13
CIT v Orissa Corp ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 0078 (SC) 13
ONGC Ltd. v Sendhabhai Vastram Patel (2005) 6 SCC 454 (SC) 13
Hero Vinoth (minor) v Seshammal (2006) AIR 2234 (SC) 13
Sir Chunilal Mehta & Sons Ltd. v Century Spinning & Mfg. Co. Ltd. (1962)
AIR 1314 (SC)
14
Santosh Hazari v Purushottam Tiwari (2001) 3 SCC 179 (SC) 14
C. Chenga Reddy and Ors. v. State of A.P. (1996) 10 SCC. 193 14
Matru Alias Girish Chandra vs State Of Utttar Pradesh 1971 AIR 1050 (SC) 15
Bhupinder Singh vs State Of Punjab 1988 AIR 1011 (SC) 15
Hanurnant v. The State of Madhya Pradesh [1952] 3 SCR 1091 15
Harendra Narain Singh Etc vs State Of Bihar 1991 AIR 1842 (SC) 16
Bodh Raj v State of Jammu & Kashmir 2002 Supp(2) SCR 67 16
State of U.P. v Satish 2005 (3) SCC 114 17
Sahadevan & Anr. Vs State of Tamil Nadu 2012 (2) RCR (Criminal)899 17
Arunj Marik v. State of Bihar 1994 Supp. (2) SCC 372 17
Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P AIR (1990) SC 79 18
Jaharlal Das vs State Of Orissa 1991 SCR (2) 298 19
Surinder Pal Jain vs Delhi Administration 1993 SCR (2) 226 19

4. 4 | P a g e
Memorial on behalf of the Respondent

Himachal Pradesh Administration v. Om Prakash (1972) 1 SCC 249 20
R.K.Gupta v. Union of India and Ors. 2005 (3) AISLJ 20
H.D. Sikand (D) Th:Lrs vs C.B.I.&amp Anr Criminal Appeal No.729 Of 2011
(SC)
20
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra(1984) 4 SCC 116 21

5. 5 | P a g e
Memorial on behalf of the Respondent

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The counsel humbly submits to the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court under Article
136 of The Constitution of India, 1950. This Article mentions the Appellate
Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in regard to Criminal Matters by the way of
Special Leave from the High Courts under its jurisdiction who have reversed the
judgment of a trial court in a matter. This case presents a chance before the court to
hear a man out who might be having a slight chance to get justice.

6. 6 | P a g e
Memorial on behalf of the Respondent

STATEMENT OF FACTS
 Rani was a lady, married to Pritam with two daughters. A while after the marriage,
Pritam passed away and she started living in South Colaba, Mumbai where she had
acquaintance with K.Singh. On 31.3.1971, Rani and K.Singh got married and had one
daughter out of this wedding. The wedding couldn’t work harmoniously, so Rani started
living separately with her parents at Lokhandwala from May 1976.
 K.Singh continued to harass Rani even after she started living separately, so she filed a
petition for divorce under Section 13(1)(1a) of the Hindu Marriage Act in the court of
District Judge, Mumbai and on 06.12.1979, an ex-parte decree was granted in her favour.
After gaining knowledge about the decree, K.Singh filed an appeal before the Bombay
High Court on 05.03.1980. He also filed 2 petitions in the Court of Additional District
Judge, Mumbai, one for setting aside the decree for divorce and other for restraining Rani
from remarriage. A restraint order for marriage was passed and on 06.01.1981 the
Additional District Judge dismissed the petition for divorce and also vacated the
injunction for marriage.
 On 09.01.1981, K.Singh got another order from the Bombay High Court
restraining Rani from remarriage until further orders which was vacated by the
Bombay High Court on 17.03.1981 while dismissing the appeal against the ex-
parte decree. Since K.Singh had already gone in appeal before the Bombay High
Court, the said appeal was admitted and Rani was restrained from remarriage by
the Bombay High Court and then this appeal was disposed on 14.09.1981 while
setting aside the decree of divorce and asking the parties to reappear before the
District Judge for a fresh hearing of this case. Rani filed an appeal before this
court against the High Court’s order and the court set aside the High Court’s order
and restored the ex-parte decree of divorce granted in favour of Rani and finally
the litigations coming to an end.
 After the things got settled, Kisna proposed to marry Rani to which she readily
accepted and decided to marry after the divorce is granted and they started living
together in Kisna’s home. K.Singh started threatening Rani and lodged police

7. 7 | P a g e
Memorial on behalf of the Respondent

complaints on 29.09.1981 and 30.09.1981 against Kisna for illegally keeping his
wife with him to which Rani gave in writing that she had taken divorce from
K.Singh and she is living as a paying guest out of her own free will and Kisna has
not detained her illegally.
 The prosecution submitted that K.Singh, failing to win back his wife, sought revenge and
made a bobby trap bomb from the parts of a hand grenade and converted it into a parcel
addressed to Kisna. On 02.10.1982, the said bomb was kept on Kisna’s staircase and
when he opened it, it triggered off instantly killing him. The cause of death according to
Post-Mortem was Haemorrahage, shock and injury to vital organs caused by explosive
device of hand grenade which were fatal. F.I.R. was registered on the same date as the
incident and the case was ultimately entrusted to CBI on 19.03.1983. Rani was in Shimla
on the day of the incident but she returned the very next day. Her statement was taken on
03.10.1982 where she informed the police about her failed marriage and the divorce and
also about the threats she and Kisna have been receiving from K.Singh asking her to
return. CBI also examined 76 witnesses on their behalf and 8 on the behalf of the
defence. Thereafter, judgment was served.
 On 28.04.2008, the Additional Sessions Judge, Mumbai, delivered the judgment,
convicting K.Singh under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3 and
Section 4 of the Explosives Substances Act, 1908, sentencing him to life along with Rs.
5000 as fine under IPC and 10 years of rigorous imprisonment under Explosives
Substances Act, 1908. Being aggrieved about this judgment, K.Singh filed an appeal
before the Mumbai High Court stating that he was convicted only on the basis of
circumstantial evidence and could be entitled to the benefit of doubt. The father of Kisna
was allowed to intervene by the court but he died on 12.03.2009 on 15.05.2009, the
Bombay High Court acquitted him from the charges of committing murder and also from
the charges of Section 3 and 4 of Explosives Substances Act. These appeals, by the way
of Special Leave, have been filed against K.Singh.

8. 8 | P a g e
Memorial on behalf of the Respondent

STATEMENT OF ISSUES
1. Whether this Special Leave Petition is maintainable in the court of law or not?
2. Whether the accused can be solely convicted on the basis of circumstantial
evidence or not?

9. 9 | P a g e
Memorial on behalf of the Respondent

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
ISSUE 1
This issue focuses on the whether this appeal could be maintained in the court of law or not.
Stating that no special circumstances have appeared in this case itself and substantial justice has
already been done in the case by the HC that is why this appeal shouldn’t be maintainable.
Further, the argument focuses on the violation of natural justice or irregularity of general
procedure which also hasn’t been seen anywhere in the case. Lastly the issue focuses on that
even if there is a question of law, the question of law is not a substantial one as well as there is a
question of fact and not of law. Focusing on all the above mentioned points, the counsel submits
that this appeal should not be maintainable in the court of law.
ISSUE 2
This issue completely focuses on the conviction of a person solely on the basis of circumstantial
evidence. It deals that how a person can be convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence and
what are the general rules to follow while convicting a person. Various cases have been stated
and guidelines mentioned on which a person can be convicted for circumstantial evidence. The
Argument also focuses upon how the person can be entitled to the benefit of doubt and how such
benefit would help him. It also lays down the guidelines from certain cases on the entitlement of
Benefit of Doubt. Finally with the basis of a very similar case, the argument is plead that the
Supreme Court should not maintain this appeal.

10. 10 | P a g e
Memorial on behalf of the Respondent

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
ISSUE 1: Whether this Special Leave Petition is maintainable in the Court of
Law or not?
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Supreme Court that the special leave petition filed by
the revenue is not maintainable as Special Leave cannot be granted when substantial justice has
been done and no exceptional or special circumstances exist for case to be maintainable. Also in
the present case, no substantial question of law is involved and interference is based on pure
question of fact which is entitled to be dismissed.
[1.1] NO SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST IN THIS CASE AND
SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE HAS ALREADY BEEN DONE
It is contended by the respondent that the appellant must show that exceptional and special
circumstances exists and that if there is no interference, substantial and grave injustice will result
and the case has features of sufficient gravity to warrant review of the decision appealed against
on merits. Only then the court would exercise its overriding powers under Article 136.
1
Special
leave will not be granted when there is no failure of justice or when substantial justice is done,
though the decision suffers from some legal errors.
2

In the case at hand, no exceptional and special circumstances have been shown by the appellant.
Substantial Justice has already been done by the High Court itself and the appellant is unable in
presenting the flaws in the present case. This shows that the law is well-settled in this regard and
the present case is not an exception.
It was also observed that, it is not possible to define the limitations on the exercise of the
discretionary jurisdiction vested in this Court under Art. 136. It being an exceptional and
overriding power, naturally, has to be exercised sparingly and with caution and only in special

1
M.P Jain-Indian Constitutional Law
2
Council of Scientific and Industrial Research v K. G. S. Bhatt (1989) AIR 1972 (SC)

11. 11 | P a g e
Memorial on behalf of the Respondent

and extraordinary situations.
3
Article 136 does not give a right to a party to appeal to the SC
rather it confers a wide discretionary power on the SC to interfere in suitable cases.
4

1.1.1 No irregularity of procedure of violation of principle of natural justice is
being done
In plethora of cases, it has been held that except that where there has been an illegality or an
irregularity of procedure or a violation of principle of natural justice resulting in the absence of a
fair trial or gross miscarriage of justice, the SC does not permit a third review of evidence with
regard to question of fact in cases in which two courts of fact have appreciated and assessed the
evidence with regard to such questions.
5

It is contended that this court is not bound to go into the merits and even if it were to do so, and
declare the law or point out the error, still it may not interfere if the justice of the case on facts
doesn’t require interference or if it feels that the relief could be molded in a different fashion.
6

Hence, it is humbly submitted that the case should be dismissed because the principles of natural
justice are not being harmed in any way and the above grounds make it clear.
[1.2]THAT THE APPEAL IS A QUESTION OF FACT AND NOT A
QUESTION OF LAW AND HENCE IS NOT MAINTAINABLE
It is contended by the Respondent that the appeal doesn’t involve any substantial question of law
rather it involves pure question of fact and hence, is not maintainable. Questions of fact cannot
be permitted to be raised unless there is material evidence which has been ignored by the high
court or the finding reached by the court is perverse.
7
The SC cannot consistently with its
practice convert itself into a court of facts.
8


3
Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v CIT West Bengal (1955) AIR 65 (SC)
4
ibid
5
State of U.P. v Ram Manorath (1972) 3 SCC 215 (SC)
6
Raghunath G. Pauhale v Chagan Lal Sundarji & Co.(1999) 8 SCC 1 (SC)
7
Union of India v Rajeshwari & Co. (1986) 161 ITR 60 (SC)
8
Gurbakhsh Singh v State of Punjab (1955) AIR 320 (SC)

12. 12 | P a g e
Memorial on behalf of the Respondent

Generally on finding of fact, no interference will be made.
9
Even in cases where conclusions are
reached without proper discussion, yet if it involves finding on fact, no interference of SC is
called for.
10
If the conclusion is based on some evidence on which a conclusion could be arrived
at, no question of law as such arise.
11

It is now well-settled that the superior courts while exercising their jurisdiction under Article 136
may not exercise the same in appropriate cases.
12

It is submitted that the Hon’ble High Court is a court of law itself and the High Court, after a lot
of analysis only, would’ve passed such an appeal. Now the appellant is appealing before this
Hon’ble Court without any stable grounds for the appeal. There hasn’t been any strong
substantial question of law which might allow this appeal to be heard. It is thereby humbly
submitted that this appeal should not be maintainable in this court of justice.
1.2.1. Assuming the involvement of a “question of law”, there is still no
“substantial question of law” in the present case”
It has to be kept in mind that the right of appeal is neither a natural nor an inherent right attached
to the litigation.
13
Being a substantive statutory right, it has to be regulated in accordance with
law in force at the relevant time.
In Sir Chunilal Mehta & Sons Ltd. v Century Spinning & Mfg. Co. Ltd
14
., 26 this Court had
laid down the following tests to determine whether a substantial question of law is involved. The
tests are: (1) whether directly or indirectly it affects substantial rights of the parties, or (2) the
question is of general-public importance, or (3) whether it is an open question in the sense that
there is no scope for interference by the High Court with a finding recorded when such finding
could be treated to be a finding of fact.

9
CIT v Maganlal Chaganlal (P) Ltd. (1997) 11 SCC 557 (SC)
10
Amarchand Sobhachand v CIT (1971) AIR 720 (SC)
11
CIT v Orissa Corp ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 0078 (SC)
12
ONGC Ltd. v Sendhabhai Vastram Patel (2005) 6 SCC 454 (SC)
13
Hero Vinoth (minor) v Seshammal (2006) AIR 2234 (SC)
14
(1962) AIR 1314 (SC)

13. 13 | P a g e
Memorial on behalf of the Respondent

If the question is settled by the highest Court or the general principles to be applied in
determining the question are well settled and there is a mere question of applying those
principles the question would not be a substantial question of law.
15

To be ‘substantial’ a question of law must be debatable, not previously settled by law of the land
or a binding precedent, and must have a material bearing on the decision of the case, if
answered either way, insofar as the rights of the parties before it are concerned.
16

Re-appreciation of evidence and substitution of the findings by the High Court is
impermissible.
17
Hence, it is submitted that no substantial question of law is involved in the
present case.
Hence, after examining the case, it is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that
this Petition is not maintainable in the court.
ISSUE 2: Whether the accused can solely be convicted on the basis of
circumstantial evidence?
The Supreme Court has again and again reiterated that the circumstances should be of a
conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the
one proposed to be proved. It was held that, in other words, there must be a chain of evidence so
far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion with the innocence of the
accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been
done by the accused.
18

When proof of guilt depended solely on circumstantial evidence, it was incumbent on the courts
to properly consider and scruitinise all the material factors and circumstances for determining

15
Sir Chunnilal (cit. 14)
16
Santosh Hazari v Purushottam Tiwari (2001) 3 SCC 179 (SC)
17
Commissioner of Income Tax v P. Mohanakala (2007) 210 CTR 20 (SC)
18
C. Chenga Reddy and Ors. v. State of A.P. (1996) 10 SCC. 193

14. 14 | P a g e
Memorial on behalf of the Respondent

whether the chain of circumstantial evidence is so complete as to lead to the only conclusion of
guilt.
19


In the present case, the appellant has to prove whether there is a chain of circumstantial
evidence’ which leads to the guilt of the defendant without any doubt. The appellant, till now has
failed to do that. The above mentioned cases clearly state that we have to prove the guilt through
circumstantial evidence in such a way that there is no chance of leaving a doubt or any other
hypothesis. There was a lot of doubt in the case of the Appellant which lead the High Court in
allowing the appeal.

Doubtless, before a person can be convicted on the strength of circumstantial evidence, the
circumstances in question must be satisfactorily established and the proved circumstances must
bring home the offence to the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
20


"It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the
circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be
fully established and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of
the guilt of the accused. Again the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency
and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In
other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable
ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to
show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused."
21


There is yet another basic rule of criminal jurisprudence that if two views are possible on the
evidence adduced in a case of circumstantial evidence, one pointing to the guilt of the accused
and the other to his innocence, the Court should adopt the latter view favourable to the accused.

19
Matru Alias Girish Chandra vs State Of Utttar Pradesh 1971 AIR 1050 (SC)
20
Bhupinder Singh vs State Of Punjab 1988 AIR 1011 (SC)
21
Hanurnant v. The State of Madhya Pradesh [1952] 3 SCR 1091

15. 15 | P a g e
Memorial on behalf of the Respondent

We have reminded ourselves of these principles with a view to ascertain as to whether the High
Court has correctly applied these principles in convicting and sentencing the appellants.
22


In the present case itself, there is no clear circumstantial evidence linking K.Singh to the crime.
The High Court had acquitted K.Singh from the Crime while the trial court had convicted him
for the crime. Following the rule of Harendra Narain Singh, if one is pointing towards the
crime and other towards the guilt, then the innocence is to be considered.
It is thereby humbly submitted before this honourable court that there is no clear evidence of
linking him as well as there is a reasonable amount of doubt in the conviction, therefore, the
respondent should not be held guilty of this crime.
[2.1]That a person can be solely convicted on the basis of circumstantial
evidence
In the famous case of Bodh Raj v State of Jammu & Kashmir
23
, court held that circumstantial
evidence can be a sole basis of conviction provided that the conditions as stated below are fully
satisfied. Conditions are:-
1. The Circumstances from which guilt is established must be fully proved;
2. That all the facts must be consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused;
3. That the circumstances must be of a conclusive nature and tendency;
4. That the circumstances should, to a moral certainty, actually exclude every hypothesis
except the one proposed to be proved.
In the present case, the circumstances of the guilt have not been fully proven in any of the courts.
The facts are in a reasonable doubt to be consistent with the facts of the case, this lead to the HC
acquitting K.Singh. As well as the evidence does not exclude every hypothesis because if it
did,the HC won’t have acquitted him of the crime.
There is no doubt that conviction can be based solely on circumstantial evidence but it should be

22
Harendra Narain Singh Etc vs State Of Bihar 1991 AIR 1842 (SC)
23
2002 Supp(2) SCR 67

16. 16 | P a g e
Memorial on behalf of the Respondent


tested by the touchstone of law relating to circumstantial evidence laid down by this Court as far
back in 1952.
24

Our case has a lot of doubts involved in it so convicting a person of solely on the basis of
circumstantial evidence won’t be morally correct when there is a reasonable doubt for
considering his guilt. So even though he can be convicted just because law allows it, doesn’t
mean we should because he’s entitled to the benefit of doubt.
With the development of law, the theory of last seen has become a definite tool in the hands of
the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused. This concept is also accepted in various
judgments of this Court. The Court has taken the consistent view that where the only
circumstantial evidence taken resort to by the prosecution is that the accused and deceased were
last seen together, it may raise suspicion but it is not independently sufficient to lead to a finding
of guilt.
25

In Arunj Marik v. State of Bihar
26
, this Court took the view that the where the appellant was
alleged to have gone to the house of one Sitaram in the evening of 19th July, 1985 and had
stayed in the night at the house of deceased Sitaram, the evidence was very shaky and
inconclusive. Even if it was accepted that they were there, it would, at best, amount to be the
evidence of the appellants having been last seen together with the deceased. The Court further
observed that it is settled law that the only circumstance of last seen will not complete the chain
of circumstance to record a finding that it is consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt of the
accused and, therefore, no conviction, on that basis alone, can be founded.
2.1.1. That in the present case, the Respondent cannot be solely convicted on the
basis of circumstantial evidence.

24
State of U.P. v Satish 2005 (3) SCC 114
25
Sahadevan & Anr. Vs State of Tamil Nadu 2012 (2) RCR (Criminal)899
26
1994 Supp. (2) SCC 372

17. 17 | P a g e
Memorial on behalf of the Respondent

In Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P
27
., it was laid down that when a case rests
upon circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the following tests:
(1) The circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently
and firmly established;
(2) Those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the
accused;
(3) The circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no
escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the
accused and none else;
(4) The circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of
explanation of any other hypothesis than that of guilt of the accused and such evidence should
not only be consistent with the guilty of the accused but should be inconsistent with his
innocence.
Rule (1) itself isn’t sufficiently fulfilled in our case because the facts of the case presented by the
prosecution aren’t themselves firmly established.
The circumstances of the case are only pointing towards the guilt of the defendant because the
appellant has presented the facts in such a way and the HC has subsequently denied that.
Therefore the facts aren’t unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused. With the
dissatisfaction of these rules laid down by the SC, how can we necessarily convict the person of
this crime when there is reasonable doubt?
The Court had observed that though the offences shocking, the gravity of the offence cannot by
itself overweigh the requirements of legal proof. In para 7 of the judgment, the Court ruled that it
was well settled that circumstantial evidence, in order to sustain the conviction, must satisfy
three conditions, viz.

27
AIR (1990) SC 79

18. 18 | P a g e
Memorial on behalf of the Respondent

(i) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be congently
and firmly established;
(ii) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of
the accused; and
(iii) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no
escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the
accused and none else, and it should also be incapable of explanation on any other hypothesis
than that of the guilt of the accused.
28

Regarding rule (iii) of this case, there is no possible chain which is completed regarding the facts
which relate to the guilt of the Respondent. Plus, there is a possibility of reasonable doubt which
points towards the innocence of the respondent.
In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the settled law is that the circumstances from which
the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and those circumstances must be
conclusive in nature. Moreover, the established facts should be consistent only with the
hypothesis of the guilt of the accused alone and totally inconsistent with his innocence.
29

[2.2]Whether the defendant is entitled to the benefit of doubt?
Relying upon Article 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the learned
counsel also contends that by such (doubtful) acquittals, the human rights of individuals are
affected, as they cast a stigma upon the person, who is acquitted only on benefit of doubt. The
learned counsel further contended that if "benefit of doubt acquittal" is unknown to
law, it should also be unknown to Criminal Courts. So long as the Trial Courts use such
phraseology, there is no alternative for persons affected thereby, to challenge the same.
It is nearly impossible in any criminal trial to prove all the elements with a scientific precision. A
criminal court could be convinced of the guilt only beyond the range of a reasonable doubt. Of
course, the expression "reasonable doubt" is incapable of definition. Modern

28
Jaharlal Das vs State Of Orissa 1991 SCR (2) 298
29
Surinder Pal Jain vs Delhi Administration 1993 SCR (2) 226

19. 19 | P a g e
Memorial on behalf of the Respondent

thinking is in favour of the view that proof beyond a reasonable doubt is the same as proof which
affords moral certainty to the Judge.
30

The Apex Court in Himachal Pradesh Administration v. Om Prakash
31
, while considering
“benefit of doubt” observed as follows:
“The benefit of doubt to which the accused is entitled is reasonable doubt- the doubt which
rational thinking men will reasonably, honestly and conscientiously entertain and not
the doubt of a timid mind which fights shy- though unwittingly it may be -or is afraid of the
logical consequences, if that benefit was not given. Or as one great Judge said it is „ not
the doubt of a vacillating mind that has no moral courage to decide but shelters itself in a vain
and idle skepticism.”
Where, in a criminal trial an accused is acquitted for want of evidence, it would be treated to be
an honourable acquittal.
32

In the present case as well, there is an actual want of evidence because expect for the made up
case of the prosecution, there are no actual facts connecting the respondent to the crime.
Therefore, using the RK Gupta’s principle, there was be an honourable acquittal for the
respondent and it should be hereby maintained.
Finally, in the case of H.D. Sikand (D) Th:Lrs vs C.B.I.& Anr
33
, which has almost
similar facts as compared to our case, the High Court acquitted the person who had been
convicted of crime by the trial court, for the simple reason of lack of evidence and benefit of
doubt. This was then appealed to the Supreme Court and even the SC held:-
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records of this
matter, including the evidence, as analyzed by the High Court as well as the Trial Court, it
appears that the case in hand is totally dependent upon the circumstantial evidence. We have
examined the evidence laid in course of the arguments and have specifically considered the tests

30
M.V.Krishnan v. State
31
(1972) 1 SCC 249
32
R.K.Gupta v. Union of India and Ors. 2005 (3) AISLJ
33
Criminal Appeal No.729 Of 2011 (SC)

20. 20 | P a g e
Memorial on behalf of the Respondent

which have to be met by the prosecution to get success in the matter as laid down by this Court
in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra
34
, wherein the tests have been
specifically given and it appears to us after analyzing the facts and evidence in this case, that the
prosecution has failed to pass such tests to bring home the guilt of the accused. Accordingly, I
our opinion, the High Court has correctly come to the conclusion after analyzing the facts and
the evidence. In our opinion, the arguments which have been put forward in the matter by Mr.
D.N. Ray, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2, are much more acceptable in
the facts and circumstances of this case. The findings recorded by the High Court are plausible,
logical and persuasive, reached by the materials on record and command for affirmation. Thus,
we do not have any hesitation to hold that the High Court has correctly come to the conclusions
with the reasons given therefore. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in these appeals which
are hereby dismissed.
Thereby, in reference to this case, the counsel pleads before this court that as the Supreme Court
dismissed the appeal because they held that the findings of the HC are correct and thereby their
decision is correct, this Honourable Court should, dismiss this appeal on the grounds that there is
reasonable doubt in the favour of the defendant.
2.2.1 That the defendant is not liable for murder under Section 300 and Sections 3
& 4 of the Explosives Substances Act
Given that all the fact and circumstances clearly point towards a doubt in the whole case, it is
clear that we cannot convict a person of such horrendous crimes. Therefore the counsel pleads
that the respondent should not be held liable for such crimes.


34
(1984) 4 SCC 116

21. 21 | P a g e
Memorial on behalf of the Respondent

PRAYER
Wherefore, in the light of facts stated, issues raised, arguments advanced and
authorities cited, the counsel humbly pleads before your lordship to dismiss this
appeal or to pass any other such order which the court may deem fit in the light of
justice, equity and in good conscience to which the counsel shall forever be duty
bound to.
Sd/-
(Humbly submitted by the counsels
appearing on behalf of the
Respondent)

22. 22 | P a g e
Memorial on behalf of the Respondent

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books Referred:-
Constitution of Indian by M.P.Jain
Law of Evidence by Avatar Singh
Indian Penal Code – LexisNexis Butterworths Wadhwa
The Constitution of India (Bare Act)
The Law of Evidence (Bare Act)
Hindu Laws (Bare Act)
The Code of Criminal Procedure (Bare Act)
Websites Referred:-
www.westlawindia.com
www.indiankanoon.com
www.scconline.com