B E FO R E

T HE H O N B L E H I G H C O UR T

OF

J HA R K HA ND

A T R AN C H I

Writ Petition no.____ of 2016

(Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950)

IN THE MATTER OF
KARTIK

PETITIONER
Versus

STATE OF JHARKHAND

RESPONDENT

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

DRAWN AND FILED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER

Counsel for the Petitioner

Rajiv Ranjan
Roll-455
Sem- V, Sec-B

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................................. 1
INDEX OF ABBREVIATIONS .......................................................................................................... 3
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES .............................................................................................................. 4
A.

List of Books and Commentaries ................................................................................... 4

B.

Statutes ........................................................................................................................... 4

C.

List of Cases ................................................................................................................... 4

D.

Online databases ............................................................................................................ 5

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ..................................................................................................... 6

STATEMENT OF FACTS ................................................................................................................ 7
QUESTIONS PRESENTED .............................................................................................................. 9
SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS ......................................................................................................... 10
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED .......................................................................................................... 11
1.

That the petition is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950.
11
O

ILLEGAL DETENTION .............................................................................................. 11

EXTRAORDINARY JURISDICTION OF HIGH COURT TO QUASH FIR UNDER ARTICLE 226

............................................................................................................................... 11

2.

That the first information report and the investigation wrongly implicates the petitioner

and should be quashed under Article 226 of the Constitution. ............................................ 13

1.1

That the Circumstantial Evidence in the present case is insufficient to prove guilt

beyond reasonable doubt.................................................................................................. 13

O

TEST FOR REASONABLE DOUBT.............................................................................. 14

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

Page | 1

o FACTS WHEN NOT RELEVANT (U/S 11 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT) ............................... 15

3.

That the illegal detention violates the fundamental right of the petitioner guaranteed

under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950. ............................................................ 17

PRAYER..................................................................................................................................... 18

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

Page | 2

INDEX OF ABBREVIATIONS

&

And

AIR

All India Reporter

ALL.

Allahabad

Art.

Article

Bom

Bombay

Corp.

Corporation

Edn.

Edition

GOI

Government Of India

Govt.

Government

HC

High Court

ILR

Indian Law Review

Kant.

Karnataka

Ltd.

Limited

Ors.

Others

SC

Supreme Court

SCC

Supreme Court Cases

Sec.

Section

UOI

Union of India

v.

Versus

Vol.

Volume

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

Page | 3

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
A. LIST OF BOOKS AND COMMENTARIES
1. Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, Law of Crimes, 23rd Edition, Bharat Law House, New Delhi
2. S.C. Sarkar, Code of Criminal Procedure, 9th Edition, Lexis Nexis Butterworths
Wadhwa, Nagpur.
3. R.V. Kelkar, Criminal Procedure, 5th Edition, Eastern Book Company, Lucknow
4. PSA Pillai, Criminal Law, 12th Edition, Lexis Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa,
Gurgaon
5. Mathiharan K, Patnaik A.K. Modis Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology. 23rd
edition Lexis Nexis India, 2008
6. Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The law of Evidence, Lexis Nexis, 24th Edition, 2013.
7. Dr V Nageshwara Rao, The Indian Evidence Act, 2nd Edition.
8. C. D. Fields, commentary on Law of Evidence, 13th Edition.
9. M. Monir, The law of Evidence, 9th Edition.
B. STATUTES
1. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
2. Constitution of India, 1950
3. Indian Evidence Act, 1872
C. LIST OF CASES
1. A.S. Bindra v. Senior Superintendent Of Police, 1998 CriLJ 3845 ................................... 11
2. Ashok Kumar Chatterjee v. State of M.P., AIR 1989 SC 1890. ........................................ 14
3. Babboo v. State of M.P., AIR 1979 SC 1042 ..................................................................... 16
4. Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1987 SC 350..................................................... 14
5. Bhagat Ram v. State of Punjab, AIR 1954 SC 621. .......................................................... 15
6. C. Chenga Reddy and Ors. v. State of A.P. (1996) 10 SCC 193. ...................................... 15
7. Chattar Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 2009 SC 378. ..................................................... 14
8. D.B.Deshmukh v. State, AIR 1970 Bombay 438 ............................................................... 16
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

Page | 4

9. Earabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1983 SC 446 ................................................ 14

10. Eradu and Ors. v. State of Hyderabad, AIR 1956 SC 316 ................................................ 14
11. Harish Natwarlal Mistry and ors. Etc. v. State of Gujarat, 1993 (1) Crimes 451............. 16
12. Hukam Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1977 SC 1963 ................................................... 14
13. Janta Dal v. H. S. Chauhan, AIR 1993 SC 892 ................................................................ 11
14. Manivel and Others v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2008 INDLAW SC 1239............................. 13
15. Meera Nireshwalia v. State of Tamil Nadu and others, MANU/TN/0128/1990. .............. 17
16. Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P. And Ors., AIR 1990 SC 79. .................................... 14
17. Prashant Gaur v. State of U.P.. 1986 (25) All Cri C 276 .................................................. 11
18. Radhakrishnan v. Circle Inspector Of Police, Crl. Appeal No.639 of 2005. .............. 13, 14
19. Ram Pal Yadav v. State of U.P., (1989 Cri LJ 1013) ......................................................... 11
20. Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill, AIR 1996 SC 309. ..................................... 12
21. State of Haryana v. Ram Kumar, (1997) 3 SCC 321. ........................................................ 11
22. State of Maharashtra v. Champalal Punjaji Shah, 1981 SCC (Crl) 762........................... 15
23. State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava ,1992 Crl. L.J 1104 .......................................... 15
24. State of U.P. v. Sukhbasi and Ors., AIR 1985 SC 1224 .................................................... 14
25. Venkateswara v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1966 SC 828. ............................. 11

D. ONLINE DATABASES
1. www.manupatra.com
2. www.lexisnexis.com/in/legal
3. www.westlawindia.com
4. www.scconline.com
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

Page | 5

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

It is humbly submitted that the Petitioner has filed this Petition before the Honble High
Court under Article 2261 of the Constitution of India, 1950.

The Present Memorial sets forth the facts, contentions and arguments.

226. Power of High Courts to issue certain writs

(1) Notwithstanding anything in Article 32 every High Court shall have powers, throughout the territories in
relation to which it exercise jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any
Government, within those territories directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus,
mandamus, prohibitions, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights
conferred by Part III and for any other purpose
(2) The power conferred by clause ( 1 ) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority or person
may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the
cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such
Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories
(3) Where any party against whom an interim order, whether by way of injunction or stay or in any other manner,
is made on, or in any proceedings relating to, a petition under clause ( 1 ), without
(a) furnishing to such party copies of such petition and all documents in support of the plea for such interim order;
and
(b) giving such party an opportunity of being heard, makes an application to the High Court for the vacation of
such order and furnishes a copy of such application to the party in whose favour such order has been made or the
counsel of such party, the High Court shall dispose of the application within a period of two weeks from the date
on which it is received or from the date on which the copy of such application is so furnished, whichever is later,
or where the High Court is closed on the last day of that period, before the expiry of the next day afterwards on
which the High Court is open; and if the application is not so disposed of, the interim order shall, on the expiry of
that period, or, as the case may be, the expiry of the aid next day, stand vacated
(4) The power conferred on a High Court by this article shall not be in derogation of the power conferred on the
Supreme court by clause ( 2 ) of Article 32.
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

Page | 6

STATEMENT OF FACTS

BACKGROUND
Kartik, the accused, his deceased wife Sudha and the child Manohar were staying together. The
Kartik married Sudha about four years ago. Kartik suspected that his wife was infidel to him.
Prosecution case is that the accused due to his suspicious nature and inferiority complex and
since his wife could not satisfy his sexual urge, decided to do away with her. There was an ugly
scar on the body of Sudha, which causes aversion in the mind of the accused. There is evidence
to show that he had compelled Sudha to get money from her house. The finding is that Kartik
had no liking for his wife and child. He also doubted the paternity of the child. The accused
runs business in jewellery.
FACTS
According to the prosecution, the accused had schemed to kill his wife. As part of the scheme
he was in search of a house situate in a place far away from the main stream. He located the
house, in which the couple along with the child were staying at the time of the incident. That
is a short distance away from the main road.

INCIDENT LEADING TO THE CASE

The allegation is that on 17.8.2015, Kartik came to his house in the noon, stabbed his wife
Sudha to death and smothered his child also to death. The further allegation is that the accused
caused disappearance of the evidence by throwing away the jewellery of Sudha into a river.
SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER
First Information Report was filed before Ranchi Sadar Police Station. Investigation took place
thereafter. As the case was one of unnatural death, the body was sent for autopsy. The Forensic
Surgeon conducted autopsy over the body of the lady and the child. He issued autopsy report
relating to Sudha and autopsy report relating to Mnohar. Report indicated that Sudha died due
to the injuries sustained on the neck and as per report is seen that the child had been smothered
to death. Police recorded statements of witnesses and they produced the articles seized during
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

Page | 7

investigation before court. They seized the treatment records relating to Kartik from Laxmi
Nursing Home, Ranchi showing that he had taken treatment from a General Physician and also
from Psychologist. He also seized the case sheet of Central Hospital, Ranchi. On search of
premises, where Jewellery Shop was run by the accused, they were able to seize the Knife
Murder weapon .Police filed report. Kartik denied all circumstances and maintained that he is
innocent. He went on to say that on the date of the incident he closed his shop at 9.30 p.m.
According to him, while he was on his way to drop an employee of his, he found that there was
a light on the rear portion of the house. He knocked at the door and called out his wife.
According to him there was no response. He would say that soon thereafter the two persons
who had come along with him also entered the house along with Kartik. According to Kartik,
in the light available, he found his wife lying on the floor in a pool of blood. He switched on
the light. He did not see the child near its mother. Later he found his child dead on the bed.
Hearing his wails, the neighbours rushed to the place. He was asked to inform the police. He
did so. He also informed the family of his wife. Police had come on the same night itself. He
says that he overheard a conversation that Vijay, a close friend of his had come to his house on
the same day. He also stated that he came to know that Vijay was leaving by 11'o clock train
on the same date. Even though he along with the police officers reached the Railway station,
the train had left. According to him, he was illegally detained for a long period and he filed a
petition before the High Court. Then he was arrested and remanded to custody. He would say
that he is innocent and had been falsely implicated.

Hence, the present petition.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

Page | 8

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

I.

WHETHER THE PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF

INDIA, 1950?

II.

WHETHER

THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT AND THE INVESTIGATION DONE THEREAFTER

WRONGLY IMPLICATES THE PETITIONER AND SHOULD BE QUASHED?

III.

WHETHER THE ILLEGAL DETENTION VIOLATES THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT OF THE PETITIONER
GUARANTEED UNDER ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950?

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

Page | 9

SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS
I.

THAT THE PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA,
1950.
It is most humbly submitted that the petition filed before this Honble Court by the
petitioner is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950. The
petitioners fundamental right of right of liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the
Constitution has been violated because of illegal detention which was on the basis of
wrongly implicated FIR.

II.

THAT THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT WRONGLY IMPLICATES THE PETITIONER AND SHOULD
BE QUASHED.

It is most humbly submitted that the Honble Court should quash the wrongly implicated
FIR by exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The
FIR as well as the investigation does not show any conclusive proof and the chain needed
to be proved for circumstantial evidence is not completed.
III.

THAT

THE ILLEGAL DETENTION VIOLATES THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT OF THE PETITIONER

GUARANTEED UNDER ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950.

It is most humbly submitted that the detention was illegal as it was based on a wrongly
implicated First Information Report. Such illegal detention are in direct violation of Article
21 of the Constitution of India which guarantees the Right to Life and Personal Liberty.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

Page | 10

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. THAT THE PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF

INDIA, 1950.
It is humbly submitted the petition is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India as the Fundamental Right of Right to Life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution
of India, 1950 of the Petitioner is infringed by illegal detention.
o ILLEGAL DETENTION
The Constitution of India mentions the writ of habeas corpus in Articles 32 and 226. The writ
ordinarily issued is habeas corpus, ad subjiciendum, whose object is to secure the release of a
person found to be detained illegally.2 One of the principal grounds for challenging the legality
of detention is if the order of detention is based on irrelevant or extraneous considerations.3
It is most humbly submitted that the detention of the Petitioner was illegal as it was based on
irrelevant and extraneous considerations and therefore the Honble High Court has the writ
jurisdiction to declare such order of detention illegal under Article 226 of the Constitution.
o EXTRAORDINARY JURISDICTION OF HIGH COURT TO QUASH FIR UNDER ARTICLE 226
The writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution can be invoked
either for quashing the First Information Report or for staying the investigation.4 If the first
information report does not disclose the commission of an offence the investigation on the basis
of such a report is liable to be quashed under Article 226 of the Constitution.5
It is humbly submitted that the FIR doesnt disclose the commission of any offence since the
ingredients of the offence are not fulfilled and therefore should be quashed.
Moreover, the only remedy before filing of the charge-sheet, at the stage of lodging the F.I.R.
or during the investigation (prior to the submission of the charge-sheet) available is under

State of Haryana v. Ram Kumar, (1997) 3 SCC 321.

Venkateswara v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1966 SC 828.
4
Janta Dal v. H. S. Chauhan, AIR 1993 SC 892; A.S. Bindra v. Senior Superintendent Of Police, 1998 CriLJ
3845.
5
Ram Pal Yadav v. State of U.P., (1989 Cri LJ 1013); Prashant Gaur v. State of U.P.. 1986 (25) All Cri C 276.
3

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

Page | 11

Article 226 of the Constitution of India and one cannot invoke the inherent power of the High
Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 at such a stage.6
It is most humbly submitted that since the petitioner is left with no other remedy, therefore has
invoked the writ jurisdiction of the Honble High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution
for quashing of the FIR that falsely implicates the petitioner and furthermore violates his Right
to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution by illegally detaining the petitioner.
Therefore in the light of the above mentioned grounds, the petition is maintainable under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950.

Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill, AIR 1996 SC 309.
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

Page | 12

2. THAT THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT AND THE INVESTIGATION WRONGLY IMPLICATES
THE PETITIONER AND SHOULD BE QUASHED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION.

It is most humbly submitted before the Honble High Court that the First Information Report
filed and the investigation done by the Police in furtherance of the wrongly implicated FIR
should be quashed as the evidences put forward are not enough to proceed against the
petitioner.
1.1

THAT THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS INSUFFICIENT TO PROVE

GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.

Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 defines Evidence as:

Evidence Evidence means and includes
1. all statements which the Court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses, in
relation to matters of fact under inquiry, such statements are called oral evidence;
2. all documents including electronic records produced for the inspection of the Court,
such documents are called documentary evidence.
Indian Evidence Act takes circumstantial evidence within its purview. In the instant matter, the
entire case is based on circumstantial evidence.
While dealing with circumstantial evidence, it has been held that onus is on the prosecution to
prove that the chain is complete and the infirmity of lacuna in prosecution cannot be cured by
false defence or plea.7
The courts have been cautioned that while appreciating circumstantial evidence, the court must
adopt a very cautious approach and should record the conviction only if all the links in the chain
are complete, pointing to the accused and every hypothesis of evidence is capable of being
negated on evidence. Great care must be taken in evaluating the circumstantial evidence and if
the evidence relied on is reasonable to enable two inferences, one in favour of the accused must
be accepted. The circumstantial evidence relied on must have been fully established and must
be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt.8

7
8

Manivel and Others v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2008 INDLAW SC 1239.

Radhakrishnan v. Circle Inspector Of Police, Crl. Appeal No.639 of 2005.
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

Page | 13

o TEST FOR REASONABLE DOUBT

There are three tests which are applied to ensure whether there is reasonable doubt or not. They
are:
i.

The circumstances from which the inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be
cogently and fully established.
In the instant matter, the circumstances from which guilt is drawn has not been fully
established as there is no noteworthy evidence to show that the Petitioner was at the
place of incident and not at his shop as claimed by him.

ii.

Those circumstances should be of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the

guilt of the accused.
It is most humbly submitted that the case of the prosecution is that if someone didnt
like his wife and bought a home a little far away from main road, he wishes to kill his
wife. Not only is this absurd but is indefinite and nowhere points to the guilt of the
accused. Moreover, the fact that the murder weapon was found near his shop can also
be because the real killer might have hidden it there to falsely implicate the Petitioner.

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 no one else.9
The chain formed is not complete and as such the conclusion is not concrete that in all
probability the crime was committed by the petitioner and no one else.

It is most humbly submitted that there is a reasonable which any reasonable person would
entertain.
In Chattar Singh v. State of Haryana10, the court held It has been consistently laid down by
this Court that where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt
can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be
incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person.11

Radhakrishnan v. Circle Inspector of Police, Crl. Appeal No.639 of 2005; Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P.
And Ors., AIR 1990 SC 79.
10
Chattar Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 2009 SC 378.
11
Hukam Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1977 SC 1963; Eradu and Ors. v. State of Hyderabad, AIR 1956 SC
316; Earabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1983 SC 446; State of U.P. v. Sukhbasi and Ors., AIR 1985 SC
1224; Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1987 SC 350; Ashok Kumar Chatterjee v. State of M.P., AIR 1989
SC 1890.
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

Page | 14

In the case of Bhagat Ram v. State of Punjab12, it was laid down that where the case depends
upon the conclusion drawn from circumstances, the cumulative effect of the circumstances
must be such as to negate the innocence of the accused and bring the offences home beyond
any reasonable doubt.
In the case of C. Chenga Reddy and Ors. v. State of A.P.13 also it was held that 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 such circumstances must be conclusive in nature.
Moreover, all the circumstances should be complete and there should be no gap left in the
chain of evidence.
In the instant matter, merely because there are findings that the petitioner was of suspicious
nature, had an inferiority complex, and had no liking for his wife and child, does not in itself
give rise to a reasonable apprehension that he would have killed his wife for this reason.
In the case of State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava14, it was pointed out that great care must
be taken in evaluating circumstantial evidence and if the evidence relied on is reasonably
capable of two inferences; the one in favour of the accused must be accepted.
In the instant matter, the petitioner was in his jewellery shop when the incident occurred and
he saw the dead bodies of his wife and child when he entered his home at 9:30 at night along
with his two employees. He was at his jewellery shop at the time of incident and as such in the
light of available evidences, this inference in favour of the petitioner must be relied on to.
Therefore, it is most humbly submitted before the Honble Court that the circumstantial
evidence in the present case does not prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
o FACTS WHEN NOT RELEVANT (U/S 11 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT)
Section 11 of the Evidence act says:
11) When facts not otherwise relevant become relevant.Facts not otherwise relevant are
relevant
1.

if they are inconsistent with any fact in issue or relevant fact;

12

Bhagat Ram v. State of Punjab, AIR 1954 SC 621.

C. Chenga Reddy and Ors. v. State of A.P. (1996) 10 SCC 193.
14
State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava ,1992 Crl. L.J 1104; State of Maharashtra v. Champalal Punjaji
Shah, 1981 SCC (Crl) 762.
13

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

Page | 15

2.

if by themselves or in connection with other facts they make the existence or nonexistence of any fact in issue or relevant fact highly probable or improbable.

One fact is inconsistent with the other when it cannot co-exist with the other. Under this clause
facts are relevant only because they cannot co-exist with fact in issue or relevant fact. Alibi is
one such case which shows this inconsistency.
It is a rule of evidence recognized by Section 11 of the Evidence Act that facts inconsistent
with fact in issue are relevant. In the instant matter, the petitioner was at his shop when the
incident occurred and he came home only at 9:30 pm along with his two employees. There is
nothing to show, that the petitioner was at home when his wife and her child met with death.
No one had seen the accused coming to his house or going out of his house before and after the
incident.
It is alleged that the petitioner had no liking for his wife as she was not able to satisfy his sexual
urges and an ugly scar on her body had caused aversion in his mind. But to say that that is the
cause of the murder is going too far. May be that he also had a suspicion about his wife
regarding the paternity of the child, there is no evidence in that regard.
Further, the allegation against the petitioner that he was in search of a house far away from the
main stream as a part of the scheme to kill his wife and child has no basis. There are no
evidences to prove that the petitioner had chosen the house with an ill-motive.
Further, as far as the knife, the murder weapon is concerned, it is settled position of law that
recovery is not substantive evidence. It is corroborative evidence as held in the case of Babboo
v. State of M.P.15 and in none of the recoveries the authorship of concealment is established.
Further, it is alleged that after stabbing Sudha to death, the petitioner in order to wipe off any
evidence against him, collected her jewellery and threw it into a river. It is inconceivable that
a person, who wanted to destroy all the evidences of his act would retain the weapon of offence.
The first attempt will be to get rid of that weapon rather than throw away the jewellery.
Therefore, it is most humbly submitted that in light of all the above contentions, First
Information Report and the investigation done thereafter do not disclose commission of any
offence beyond reasonable doubt and must be quashed.

15

Babboo v. State of M.P., AIR 1979 SC 1042; D.B.Deshmukh v. State, AIR 1970 Bombay 438; Harish
Natwarlal Mistry and ors. Etc. v. State of Gujarat, 1993 (1) Crimes 451.
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

Page | 16

3. THAT

THE ILLEGAL DETENTION VIOLATES THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT OF THE

PETITIONER GUARANTEED UNDER ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950.

It is humbly submitted that since the First Information Report and the investigation done after
itself has been wrongly implicated, therefore any detention done in furtherance based on such
erroneous reasons and facts would be illegal and that any such illegal detention is violative of
Article 21 of the Constitution.
Illegal detention is a direct violation of Article 21 of the Constitution. Moreover, such
deprivation of liberty needs to be dealt strictly by the Court as there is severe misuse of power
by the Police.
In a case where a woman was illegally detained, the Court ordered the release of the woman,
compensated her for the inconvenience and then quashed the wrongly implicated FIR.16
In the present case the Petitioner has been illegally detained after a FIR was filed on extraneous
considerations and fallacious presumptions. Therefore, it is humbly submitted before the
Honble Court the detention was illegal and such illegal detention has Petitioners Fundamental
Right of Right to Life and Liberty under Article 226 of the Constitution.

16

Meera Nireshwalia v. State of Tamil Nadu and others, MANU/TN/0128/1990.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

Page | 17

PRAYER

Wherefore in the light of the facts stated, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities
cited, it is humbly requested that this Honble Court may graciously be pleased to adjudge and
declare that:
I.

Firstly, the Petition is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
1950.

II.

Secondly, the First Information Report filed in the Ranchi Sadar Police Station
against the petitioner and the investigation done thereafter are wrongly implicated
against the petitioner and therefore should be quashed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, 1950.

III.

Lastly, the detention was illegal and violated the Petitioners Right to Life and
Liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950.

AND / OR
Pass any order and relief in favour of the Petitioner which is in conformity to the principles
of Justice.

All of which is most humbly prayed.

Sd/Counsel on Behalf of the Petitioner

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

Page | 18