DR BASANT K SHARMA MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2024

TEAM CODE: TC-13

Dr. Basant K. Sharma 3rd NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF UTTAR PRADESH

PETITION

IN THE MATTER OF:

Dr. Rahul Kapoor &Dr. Akansha Kapoor

(Petitioner)

Versus

State of Uttar Pradesh

(Respondent)

Appeal No. __/_2024_

ON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF UTTAR PRADESH

UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION

READ ALONG WITH

S. 374(2) OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Written Submission on behalf of Respondent

Counsel on behalf of the Respondent

~1~
 DR BASANT K SHARMA MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2024

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS ....................................................................................................…2

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .............................................................................................…4

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES...............................................................................................….5

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION..................................................................................….7

FACTS OF THE CASE........................................................................................................…9

ISSUES RAISED................................................................................................................…12

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS.......................................................................................….13

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED............................................................................................….14

ISSUE I. WHETHER THE APPEAL IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE HON’BLE

HGH COURT OR
NOT....................................................................................................................................…..14

1.1. Section 375 of CrPc “no appeal in certain cases when accused pleades
guilty”……………14
1.2. Not within Article 112 of schedule of the Limitation Act,
1963………………………………………………………………………………………14

ISSUE II. WHETHER RAHUL KAPOOR IS LIABLE U/S 302 AND 325 OF IPC OR
NOT..............................................……………………………………………………………15

2.1. Section 300 in Indian Penal Code murder……………………………………………15

2.2. Section 325 of Indian Penal Code murder……………………………………………16

2.3. Section 8 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872……………………………………………….17

2.4. Section 6 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872……………………………………………….18

2.5. Section 46 of Indian Penal Code murder……………………………………………..19

~2~
 DR BASANT K SHARMA MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2024

2.6. Section 65b of Indian evidence Act……………………………………………………20

ISSUE III. WHETHER AKANSHA KAPOOR IS LIABLE U/S 34 OF IPC OR

NOT?..........................……………………………………………………………………….21

3.1.Section 34 of Indian Penal Code……………………………………………………….21

PRAYER FOR THE RELIEF……………………………………………………………...27

~3~
DR BASANT K SHARMA MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2024

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVATIONS EXPANSION
AIR All India Report
Anr. Another
Crim Lj Criminal Law Journal
Cr.P.C Code of Criminal Procedure
DW Defence Witness
HC High Court
IEA Indian Evidence Act
IPC Indian Penal Code
Ors. Others
Pg. Page Number
PW Prosecution Witness
r/w Read With
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
Sec. Section
v. Versus
u/s Under Section

~4~
 DR BASANT K SHARMA MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2024

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES REFERRED

S. Case Title Citation Pg No.

No.
1. Ravindra Trimbak Chouthmal v. State of 1996 SCC (4) 148 14
Maharashtra (2014)
2. Tandoori Mithaiwala vs. State of Haryana SCC OnLine Raj 249 16
(2008)
3. Shambulal vs. State of Rajasthan 1(1973) SCC OnLine Raj 249 17

4. State of Kerala vs. Pappa2 (2012) SCC OnLine Ker 17

15601
5. Mohd. Ibrahim vs. State of Haryana 3(2020) SCC OnLine P&H 17
7339
6. Rameshwar vs. State of MP4 (2010) SCC OnLine MP 506 17

7. Bhamara v. State of M.P. (1978) MCRC 08798/201 18

8. Ramesh v. State of Maharashtra (1980) 1962 AIR 1980 18

9. State of Rajasthan v. Harjit Singh (2000) AIR 1980 SUPREME 19

COURT 680
10. Isht Kaur vs. Union of India (2014) AIR1989SC1445 20

11. Stone v. Powell (1976) SCC OnLine US SC 20

176
12. R (on the application of Gillan) v Crown 1 WLR 804 20
Prosecution Service (2016)

~5~
 DR BASANT K SHARMA MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2024

13. Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer & Ors. (2014) 10 SCC 473 21

14. Gurbachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1997) SCC OnLine P&H 27 21

15. State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Yakub 3 SCC 57 22

(1980)
16. Selvi v. Sate of Karnataka (2015) SCC OnLine Kar 3315 22

17. State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Praful B. Desai AIR 2003 SC 2059 22

(2003)
18. Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of AIR 1984 SC 1622 22
Maharashtra
19. Bhagwan Singh . State of Haryana AIR 1952 SC 369 22

20. Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer 10 SCC 473 23

BOOKS REFERRED

S. No. Name of the Name of the book

Author
1. Ratanlal and The Code of Criminal Procedure
Dhirajlal
2. Ratanlal and The Indian Penal Code
Dhirajlal
3. Ratanlal and Indian Evidence Act
Dhirajlal

WEB RESOURCES REFERRED

S. No. Web resources Websites

1. SCC online https://www.scconline.com/
2. Live Law https://www.livelaw.in/
3. Lexis Nexis https://www.lexisnexis.com/
4. Manupatra https://www.manupatrafast.com/?

~6~
 DR BASANT K SHARMA MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2024

t=desktop

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

THE COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT, HEREBY HUMBLY SUBMIT TO THIS

HON’BLE COURT’S JURISDICTION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE INDIAN

CONSTITUTION AND S. 374 of CrPc.

THE RESPONDENT MOST HUMBLY AND RESPECTFULLY SUBMITS BEFORE THE

JURISDICTION OF THE PRESENT COURT AND ACCEPTS THAT IT HAS THE

POWER

AND AUTHORITY TO PRESIDE OVER THE PRESENT CASE.

Article 227, Constitution of India 1950

(1) Every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout
the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction.

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision, the High Court may—

(a) call for returns from such courts;

(b) make and issue general rules and prescribe forms for regulating the practice and
proceedings of such courts; and

(c) prescribe forms in which books, entries and accounts shall be kept by the officers of any
such courts.

(3) The High Court may also settle tables of fees to be allowed to the sheriff and all clerks
and officers of such courts and to attorneys, advocates and pleaders practising therein:

Provided that any rules made, forms prescribed or tables settled under clause (2) or clause
(3) shall not be inconsistent with the provision of any law for the time being in force, and
shall require the previous approval of the Governor.

~7~
 DR BASANT K SHARMA MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2024

(4) Nothing in this article shall be deemed to confer on a High Court power of
superintendence over any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the
Armed Forces.

Article 374, Code of Criminal Procedure

Any person convicted on a trial held by a High Court in its extraordinary original criminal
jurisdiction may appeal to the Supreme Court.

Any person convicted on a trial held by a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge or
on a trial held by any other Court in which a sentence of imprisonment for more than seven
years has been passed against him or against any other person convicted at the same trial;
may appeal to the High Court.

Save as otherwise provided in Sub-Section (2), any person;

1. convicted on a trial held by a Metropolitan Magistrate or Assistant Sessions Judge or

Magistrate of the first class or of the second class, or
2. sentenced under section 325, or
3. in respect of whom an order has been made or a sentence has been passed under
section 360 by any Magistrate,
may appeal to the Court of Session.

When an appeal has been filed against a sentence passed under section 376, section 376A,
section 376AB, section 376B, section 376C, section 376D, section 376DA, section 376DB or
section 376E of the Indian Penal Code, the appeal shall be disposed of within a period of six
months from the date of filing of such appeal1.

~8~
 DR BASANT K SHARMA MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2024

FACTS OF THE CASE

1. On 16th January 2012, India witnessed the release of the movie "AdiYogi: The Final
Semester". Director Kabir Kapoor even received the 'National Award for Best Director' for
his work on the film.

2. Kabir threw a huge party on 17 th January 2012 at his Pune residence to celebrate the
film's success. Ms Preeti Pandey, was determined to land a role in Kabir's next project and
mustered the courage to initiate a conversation with Kabir and managed to turn it into a
professional proposal. At one point, Kabir jokingly stated that she would bag the role if she
could clear his impromptu audition at that very instant. Surprisingly, Preeti agreed to this
proposal and they commenced this audition in Kabir's studio after all other guests had left the
party.

3. Kabir woke up with a heavy head and had very little recollection of what happened the
previous night. At around 2 PM, he was shocked to see three policemen at his doorstep. He
was arrested by the police on the charge of molestation under a complaint filed by Ms
Preeti.Subsequently, he was granted bail.

4. The Kesari Times (TKT), a national daily, reported this incident in its print and online
version within hours of Kabir's bail application being granted. The piece, titled 'AdiYogi
Director in Tatters, Accused of Molestation, saw a huge number of hits on the online version
of the article ("the Online Article"). Eventually, the link to the online version of the piece
became so popular that a search for the words 'Kabir Kapoor' on the search engine Daily.com
would always yield the link to this piece as the first result.

5. 10 years later, this phenomenon still caused immense distress to Kabir Kapoor due to
which he started taking therapy sessions. Even today, any search for 'Kabir Kapoor’ leads
first to the link for the Online Article despite the fact of his acquittal. When he approached
the concerned persons from Daily.com, they directed him to communicate with TKT to take
the link down. However, TKT refused to take it down since every detail in the Online Article
was true to their knowledge.

~9~
 DR BASANT K SHARMA MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2024

6. Aggrieved, Kabir has now moved the Supreme Court against the Union of India,
Daily.com and TKT. He has filed a writ under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution to seek a
redressal for the violation of his right to be forgotten under Article 21.

TIMELINE

15th May 2008, 10:00 pm Dr. Rahul, Dr. Akansha, and Sneha Kapoor,
along with Garvesh, have dinner after
returning from work.
15th May 2008, 11:30-12:00 pm Rahul gifts Sneha a laptop in her room.

16th May 2008, 6:15 am Housemaid Kamala Devi rings the doorbell,
awakening Akansha. Garvesh is missing,
and Rahul finds the whiskey bottle empty
with two glasses on the living room table.
16th May 2008, 6:25 am Akansha and Rahul discover Sneha's lifeless
body in her room, covered in blood Kamala
Devi accuses Garvesh of killing Sneha and
fleeing, attracting a crowd.
16th May 2008, 7:15 am Police arrive at the crime scene. The
Kapoors accuse Garvesh and Police attempt
to investigate the terrace but are initially
stopped by Rahul.
Rahul and Akansha replace their former
servant with Garvesh.
Rahul catches Sneha with the former servant
in a compromising situation.
Rahul suspects Sneha thinks he's having an
affair with his business partner's wife.
Rahul witnesses Garvesh and Sneha in an
objectionable situation.
Forensic team finds Garvesh dead on the
terrace in a decomposed state.
Rahul is active online till 12:30 am
according to the internet router.

~ 10 ~
DR BASANT K SHARMA MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2024

Post-mortem examination reveals Sneha and

Garvesh died between 1:30 and 2:30 am
from head injuries caused by a blunt U/V
shaped object. Sneha's vagina appears to be
cleaned after her death.
Police suspect parents as prime suspects,
leading to a conviction under Sec. 302, 325,
34 of IPC.
An appeal is filed in the High Court by the
Kapoors.

~ 11 ~
 DR BASANT K SHARMA MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2024

Issues Raised

Issue I

Whether the appeal is maintainable before the Hon’ble High court or not?

Issue II

Whether Rahul Kapoor is liable u/s 302 and 305 of IPC or not?

Issue III

Whether Akansha Kapoor is liable u/s 34 of IPC or not?

~ 12 ~
 DR BASANT K SHARMA MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2024

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE I. WHETHER THE APPEAL IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE HON’BLE

HIGH COURT?

It is most humbly submitted before this Hon’ble High Court that the argument is about a legal
rule, Section 375, that says if someone admits they are guilty in court and gets convicted,
they can't appeal the decision, except in certain situations. The point is about time limits for
filing appeals. The law says you have 60 days to appeal certain decisions in a High Court.
But in this case, the appeal was filed after 63 days, so it is not be allowed based on the time
limit.

ISSUE II. WHETHER RAHUL KAPOOR IS LIABLE U/S 302 AND 325 OF IPC OR
NOT?

It is most humbly submitted before this Hon’ble High Court that the murder case of Sneha
Kapoor, circumstantial evidence strongly points to her father, Rahul Kapoor, as the likely
culprit. Sections 300 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code highlight the importance of intent and
knowledge in murder cases. Circumstantial evidence includes Rahul's presence as the last
person awake, possession of Sneha's room keys, being the first to discover the crime scene,
and knowledge of his extramarital affair.

ISSUE III. WHETHER AKANSHA KAPOOR IS LIABLE U/S 34 OF IPC OR NOT?

It is most humbly submitted before this Hon’ble High Court that Section 34 of the IPC holds
individuals jointly liable for a criminal act done with a common intention. In Akansha
Kapoor's case, the prosecution challenges the lower court's decision, presenting evidence of
her active participation and shared common intention. The focus is on her role, failure to
prevent harm, concealed intent, involvement in secrecy, connection with previous incidents,
timing of online activity, and actions after the crime.

~ 13 ~
 DR BASANT K SHARMA MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2024

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE I. WHETHER THE APPEAL IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE HON’BLE

HIGH COURT OR NO?

[¶1.]It is most humbly submitted before this Hon’ble High Court that the argument is about a
legal rule, Section 375, that says if someone admits they're guilty in court and gets convicted,
they can't appeal the decision, except in certain situations. The point is about time limits for
filing appeals. The law says you have 60 days to appeal certain decisions in a High Court.
But in this case, the appeal was filed after 63 days, so it is not be allowed based on the time
limit.

[¶2.]Section 375 of CRPC "No appeal in certain cases when accused pleads guilty5"

Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 374, where an accused person has pleaded
guilty and has been convicted on such plea, there shall be no appeal:-

(a) if the conviction is by the High Court or;

(b)if the conviction is by a Court of Session, Metropolitan Magistrate or Magistrate of the

first or second class, except as to the extent or legality of the sentence.

[¶3.]The section is based on the principle that a plea of guilty by an accused person operates
as a waiver of right to question the legality or his conviction on such a plea. It must be stated
that a person when pleading guilty, does not commit himself to accept the punishment that
would be passed against him irrespective of its nature and legality. Therefore, there is no
reason to deny him the right to challenge the extent or legality of the sentence by way of
appeal. However, this Section denies the accused who has pleaded guilty right to appeal

[¶4.]In the case of Ravindra Trimbak Chouthmal v. State of Maharashtra (2014)67 the
Court clarified that an acquittal by a lower court cannot be set aside solely because of a
different view taken by the High Court. There must be strong evidence of perversity or
glaring errors in the appreciation of evidence to justify interference.

5
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, §375, Acts of Parliament, 1973(India)
6
Ravindra Trimbak Chouthmal v. State of Maharashtra (2014), 1996 SCC (4) 148.
7

~ 14 ~
 DR BASANT K SHARMA MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2024

Not within Article 112 of Schedule of the Limitation Act, 19638

[¶5.]Article 112 states that For an appeal to be filed against any other sentence or order (not
being an order of acquittal), when such appeal is to be filed in a High Court, the limitation
period is 60 days. Whereas, in the current case 63 days have passed to file the case I.e from
17th december, 2008 to 17th february, 2009. thus, their appeal does not fall within the
Limitation Period,1963.

ISSUE II. WHETHER RAHUL KAPOOR IS LIABLE U/S 302 AND 325 OF IPC OR
NOT?

It is most humbly submitted before this Hon’ble High Court that the murder case of Sneha
Kapoor, circumstantial evidence strongly points to her father, Rahul Kapoor, as the likely
culprit. Sections 300 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code highlight the importance of intent and
knowledge in murder cases. Circumstantial evidence includes Rahul's presence as the last
person awake, possession of Sneha's room keys, being the first to discover the crime scene,
and knowledge of his extramarital affair.
Section 300 in the Indian Penal Code Murder.—9

[¶6.]Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by
which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or—(Secondly)— If it
is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to
cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or—(Thirdly)— If it is done with
the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be
inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or—(Fourthly)— If the
person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all
probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such
act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.

[¶7.]Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code10

302. Punishment for murder.—Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or
1[imprisonment for life], and shall also be liable to fine.

1.1 There are several essential ingredients of murder :-

8
The Limitation Act,1963, art. 112 of sched., Acts of Parliament, 1949( India)
9
Indian Penal Code, 1860, §300, Acts of Parliament, 1860(India)
10
Indian Penal Code, 1860, §302, Acts of Parliament, 1860 (India)

~ 15 ~
 DR BASANT K SHARMA MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2024

(a) The act must be done with the intention to kill someone and cause death. An intentional
omission is also included here. For example, A stabs B with a knife, with an intention to kill
him. B dies, A has committed murder.

(b) The act is done with the intention to cause bodily injury and such bodily injury is likely to
result in death.

(c) If the act is done having proper knowledge that it will cause death, such an act shall be
termed as murder.

Section 325 of The Indian Penal Code11

[¶8.]Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 335, voluntarily causes grievous
hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend
to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Circumstantial evidence available

(a) Rahul Kapoor was the last person who was awake till 12.30 a.m. as the router depicted
that he was online and just one hour later, the murder had been committed.

(b) The keys of Sneha’s room were with the parents and every night they used to keep the
keys on Akansha’s night stand.

(c) Mr. Rahul Kapoor was the first one to enter Sneha’s room and notice the crime scene.

(d) Rahul’s concealed bar was also open.

(e) Rahul also caught his daughter in a compromising situation with Garvesh, the servant.

(f) neha was also aware of her father’s affair with his business partner’s wife.

[¶9.]In the case of Tandoori Mithaiwala vs. State of Haryana (2008)12 it was stated that
despite lacking direct eyewitnesses, the prosecution meticulously established a strong chain
of circumstantial evidence linking the accused to the crime scene, weapon, and motive,
11
Indian Penal Code, 1860, §325, Acts of Parliament, 1860( India)
12
Tandoori Mithaiwala vs. State of Haryana (2008) SCC OnLine Raj 249.

~ 16 ~
 DR BASANT K SHARMA MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2024

resulting in his conviction. This case highlights the significance of a cohesive chain of events,
even in the absence of direct evidence.

[¶10.]In the landmark case of Shambulal vs. State of Rajasthan 13(1973) it emphasized the
importance of considering motive and opportunity alongside circumstantial evidence. The
court upheld the conviction based on a combination of these factors, demonstrating how
circumstantial evidence can be sufficient when supplemented by additional elements.

[¶11.]In the case of State of Kerala vs. Pappa14 (2012) it was stated that while reiterating the
importance of direct evidence, the Kerala High Court acknowledged that strong
circumstantial evidence backed by a convincing motive can justify a conviction. This case
showcases how a thoughtful combination of circumstantial and supporting evidence can lead
to successful prosecution.

15
[¶12.]In the case of Mohd. Ibrahim vs. State of Haryana (2020) the Supreme Court
acquitted the accused due to an incomplete chain of circumstantial evidence. This case
illustrates the challenges associated with relying solely on circumstantial evidence and the
need for a robust chain of events devoid of significant gaps.

[¶13.]In the case of Rameshwar vs. State of MP16 (2010) the Madhya Pradesh High Court
emphasized the burden of proof lying with the prosecution. In this case, the lack of strong
circumstantial evidence and a clear motive led to the accused's acquittal, demonstrating the
principle of benefit of doubt in the absence of conclusive evidence.

Motive to kill - Section 8 in The Indian Evidence Act, 187217

Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct.

[¶14.]Any fact is relevant which shows or constitutes a motive or preparation for any fact in
issue or relevant fact.The conduct of any party, or of any agent to any party, to any suit or
proceeding, in reference to such suit or proceeding, or in reference to any fact in issue or
relevant thereto, and the conduct of any person an offence against whom is the subject of any

13
Shambulal vs. State of Rajasthan1973 SCC OnLine Raj 249.
14
State of Kerala vs. Pappa 2012 SCC OnLine Ker 15601.
15
Mohd. Ibrahim vs. State of Haryana 2020 SCC OnLine P&H 7339.
16
Rameshwar vs. State of MP (2010) 2010 SCC OnLine MP 506.
17
Indian Evidence Act, 1872, §8, Acts of Parliament, 1860 (India)

~ 17 ~
 DR BASANT K SHARMA MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2024

proceeding is relevant, if such conduct influences or is influenced by any fact in issue or

relevant fact, and whether it was previous or subsequent thereto.

[¶15.]In the case of Bhamara v. State of M.P. (1978)18 the accused, caught cultivating land
he wasn't authorized to, argued he was merely crossing through. However, witness testimony
revealed he had repeatedly claimed ownership of the land previously. This prior conduct,
according to Section 8, established his motive and contradicted his defense, leading to his
conviction.

[¶16.]In the present case, Sneha was aware of Rahul Kapoor’s extra marital affair and did not
tell her mother. Also, Rahul had caught Sneha with the servants of the house several times in
objectionable positions inlcuding the former one and Garvesh.

Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, 187219 ; Chain of Evidence

Relevancy of facts forming part of same transaction.

[¶17.]Facts which, though not in issue, are so connected with a fact in issue as to form part
of the same transaction, are relevant whether they occurred at the same time and place or at
different times and places.

[¶18.]In the landmark case of Ramesh v. State of Maharashtra (1980)20 itestablished the
connection between Section 6 and the doctrine of Res Gestae. It emphasizes that statements
made spontaneously and closely connected to the main event can be relevant even if hearsay.

[¶19.]In the present case, there creates a chain of evidence that leads to the suspicion landing
directly to Rahul Kapoor being the one who is responsible for his daughter’s murder.

Medical Report

[¶20.]Section 164A of CrPC 197321 :- 164-A. Medical examination of the victim of rape -(1)
Where, during the stage when an offence of committing rape or attempt to commit rape is
under investigation, it is proposed to get the person of the woman with whom rape is alleged
or attempted to have been committed or attempted, examined by a medical expert, such
18
Bhamara v. State of M.P. (1978), MCRC 08798/2015.
19
Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
20
Ramesh v. State of Maharashtra (1980), 1962 AIR 1980.
21
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, §164A, Acts of Parliament, 1973 ( India).

~ 18 ~
 DR BASANT K SHARMA MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2024

examination shall be conducted by a registered medical practitioner employed in a hospital

run by the Government or a local authority and in the absence of such a practitioner, by any
other registered medical practitioner, with the consent of such woman or of a person
competent to give such consent on her behalf and such woman shall be sent to such
registered medical practitioner within twenty-four hours from the time of receiving the
information relating to the commission of such offence.

[¶21.]There was a medical evidence that stated that Sneha’s vagina had been cleaned after the
crime. As, Garvesh was already dead, it must’ve been Rahul Kapoor who had cleaned her
daughter’s vagina after finding her in an objectionable position with Garvesh as earlier found.

Section 46 of the Indian Evidence Act, 186222- Facts bearing upon opinions of experts.

Facts, not otherwise relevant, are relevant if they support or are inconsistent with the
opinions of experts, when such opinions are relevant.

[¶22.]In the case of State of Rajasthan v. Harjit Singh (2000)23 the Rajasthan High Court
applied Section 46 in a case related to poisoning. The fact that other people poisoned by the
same substance exhibited similar symptoms, as confirmed by experts, was held relevant to
support the expert's opinion about the cause of death in the main case.

[¶23.]In the present case, after the body had been sent for post-martem examination, it was
found that-

1. The blood stain on Sneha’s pillow cover matched with that of Garvesh.

2. Sneha’s vagina was cleaned after her death.

3. Both Garvesh and Sneha were killed with a similar U/V shaped object resulting in their
death.

4. Garvesh being found on the terrace in a decomposed state show that his body was tried to
be ridden of by Rahul.

All these points lead to the suspicion against Rahul Kapoor

Concealment of facts & not allowing police to investigate

22
Indian Evidence Act, 1872, §46, Acts of Parliament, 1862( India).
23
State of Rajasthan v. Harjit Singh (2000), AIR 1980 SUPREME COURT 680.

~ 19 ~
 DR BASANT K SHARMA MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2024

[¶24.]Mr. Rahul Kapoor did not allow the police to conduct the investigation fairly and were
stopped by Rahul. This created a suspicion.

[¶25.]In the case of Isht Kaur vs. Union of India (2014)24 the Supreme Court of India
acknowledged the right to a fair investigation and highlighted the need for proper procedures
and documentation during police investigations.

[¶26.]In the landmark case of Stone v. Powell (1976)25US Supreme Court case established
the exclusionary rule, which holds that illegally obtained evidence cannot be used in court
proceedings. This ensures that police adhere to proper procedures during investigations.

[¶27.]In the landmark case of R (on the application of Gillan) v Crown Prosecution
Service (2016)26 the UK court emphasized the importance of investigating potential lines of
inquiry, even if they might favor the accused, to ensure a balanced and thorough
investigation.

Suspicion leading to Rahul’s prosecution

[¶28.]When the police was investigating, Rahul Kapoor stopped them from going to the
terrace. When Rahul Kapoor was stopping the police from going on the terrace, later the
forensics team and the police found out Garvesh in a decomposed state on the terrace which
was traced by blood stains on the stairs leading to terrace. This also creates a sense of doubt
against Rahul.

Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act27

[¶29.]65B. Admissibility of electronic records. –– (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in

this Act, any information contained in an electronic record which is printed on a paper,
stored, recorded or copied in optical or magnetic media produced by a computer (hereinafter
referred to as the computer output) shall be deemed to be also a document, if the conditions
mentioned in this section are satisfied in relation to the information and computer in question
and shall be admissible in any proceedings, without further proof or production of the

24
Isht Kaur vs. Union of India (2014), AIR1989SC1445.
25
Stone v. Powell (1976) 1976 SCC OnLine US SC 176.
26
R (on the application of Gillan) v Crown Prosecution Service (2016) [2016] 1 WLR 804.
27
Indian Evidence Act, 1872, §65B, Acts of Parliament, 1862 ( India).

~ 20 ~
 DR BASANT K SHARMA MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2024

original, as evidence or any contents of the original or of any fact stated therein of which
direct evidence would be admissible.

[¶30.]In the landmark case of Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer & Ors. (2014) 28it was established
that Section 65B is a complete code in itself for electronic evidence and supersedes other
provisions of the IEA.

[¶31.]In the present case, Rahul Kapoor was online till 12.30 a.m. and the crime scene had
occurred at 1.30 a.m. This indicates that Rahul Kapoor was awake at the crime scene and was
well aware about the events occurred in his house.

Lack of any urgency to report the matter to the police

[¶32.]No urgency was shown by the parents to report the matter to the police. It was the
watchman that reported the matter to the police.

ISSUE III. WHETHER AKANSHA KAPOOR IS LIABLE u/s 34 OF IPC OR NOT?

It is most humbly submitted before this Hon’ble High Court that Section 34 of the IPC holds
individuals jointly liable for a criminal act done with a common intention. In Akansha
Kapoor's case, the prosecution challenges the lower court's decision, presenting evidence of
her active participation and shared common intention. The focus is on her role, failure to
prevent harm, concealed intent, involvement in secrecy, connection with previous incidents,
timing of online activity, and actions after the crime.

[¶33.]Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) deals with acts done by several persons in
furtherance of a common intention. It states:

[¶34.]"When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention
of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him
alone."

[¶36.]In the case of Gurbachan Singh v. State of Punjab29 it emphasizes the duty of parents
to prevent harm to their children. The failure to intervene or take steps to prevent a
foreseeable harm can be considered evidence of shared responsibility.
28
Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer & Ors. (2014) (2014) 10 SCC 473.
29
Gurbachan Singh v. State of Punjab 1997 SCC OnLine P&H 27.

~ 21 ~
 DR BASANT K SHARMA MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2024

[¶37.]In the case of State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Yakub 30 it discusses the importance of
considering acts post-crime, such as concealing evidence. If Akansha Kapoor had access to
the keys used to lock.

[¶38.]In the case of Baij Nath Singh v. State of Punjab it underscores the significance of
circumstantial evidence in establishing guilt. Inconsistent statements or actions that don't
align with the innocence of the accused can be considered as factors against the accused.

[¶39.]In the case of Selvi v. State of Karnataka31 it discusses the admissibility of electronic
evidence. If the defense questions the timing of online activity, this case could be referred to
emphasize the admissibility and reliability of internet router data as evidence.

[¶40.]In the case of Arun Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh it highlights the duty of
individuals to report suspicious activities to the authorities. Akansha Kapoor's failure to
report unusual events or intervene could be considered as a factor against her.

[¶41.]In the case of State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Praful B. Desai32 it involves the
interpretation of Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, dealing with dowry death. The
Supreme Court emphasized that for an offense under this section, there must be evidence to
show that the death of the woman was caused by burns or bodily injury and occurred within
seven years of marriage. The case clarified the evidentiary burden on the prosecution in
dowry death cases.

[¶42.]In the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra 33 the Supreme
Court provided guidelines for the evaluation of circumstantial evidence. The Court
highlighted that each incriminating circumstance must be firmly established, and the chain of
circumstances must lead to a conclusion that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
The case is often cited in criminal trials involving circumstantial evidence.

[¶43.]In the case of Bhagwan Singh v. State of Haryana34 the principles of joint liability
and common intention under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code has been signified. The
Court emphasized that for Section 34 to apply, the criminal act must be done by several
persons in furtherance of a common intention, and the participation of each accused must be
proved.

30
State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Yakub (1980) 3 SCC 57.
31
Selvi v. State of Karnataka - 2015 SCC OnLine Kar 3315
32
State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Praful B. Desai AIR 2003 SC 2059.
33
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra - AIR 1984 SC 1622.
34
Bhagwan Singh v. State of Haryana AIR 1952 SC 369.

~ 22 ~
 DR BASANT K SHARMA MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2024

[¶44.]In the case of Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer35 it deals with the admissibility of electronic
evidence, particularly electronic records produced by a computer. The Supreme Court
clarified the conditions under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act for the admissibility of
electronic evidence. The case established that certification requirements must be met for the
admissibility of electronic records.

THE PRAYER

WHEREFORE IN THE LIGHT OF ISSUES RAISED, ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

AND AUTHORITIES CITED, IT IS HUMBLY PRAYED THAT THIS HON’BLE
COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO ADJUDGE AND DECLARE:

(1) That the judgement is not to be set aside which has been given by the Hon ble Sessions
Court against the Appellant.

(2) That the appeal filed by the Appellant is not maintainable before the Hon’ble High Court.

35
Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014) 10 SCC 473.

~ 23 ~
 DR BASANT K SHARMA MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2024

(3) That not to acquit the Appellant from charges under S. 302, S.325 and S. 34 of IPC for the
offence of murder.

AND PASS ANY OTHER ORDER, DIRECTION, OR RELIEF THAT IT MAY DEEM
FIT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, FAIRNESS, EQUITY AND GOOD
CONSCIENCE.

And for this act of kindness and justice, the Respondent shall be duty-bound and forever pray.

All of which is submitted with utmost reverence

Counsels for the Respondents

~ 24 ~