INTRA COLLEGIATE MOOT COURT COMPETITION -2024

TEAM CODE: IMC02

KRISTU JAYANTI COLLEGE OF LAW

INTRA COLLEGIATE MOOT COURT COMPETITION-2024

BEFORE THE HON’BLE

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

UNDER ARTICLE 134 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

RAMAMURTHY
(APPELLANT)
V.
UNION OF INDIA
(RESPONDENT)

MEMORIAL SUBMITTED TO THE REGISTRY OF THE HON’BLE

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT Page | 1

 INTRA COLLEGIATE MOOT COURT COMPETITION -2024

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SL.NO CONTENTS PAGE

NO.
1. COVER PAGE 1

2. TABLE OF CONTENTS 2

3. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 3

4. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 4

5. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 6

6. STATEMENT OF FACTS 7

7. ISSUES RAISED 8

8. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 9

9. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED 10

10. PRAYER 19

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT Page | 2

 INTRA COLLEGIATE MOOT COURT COMPETITION -2024

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

SL.NO ABBREVIATIONS FULL FORM

1. AIR All India Reporter

2. SCC Supreme Court Cases

3. IPC Indian Penal Code

4. UP Uttar Pradesh

5. Hon’ble Honourable

6. & And

7. Ors. Others

8. Anr. Another

9. i.e., That is

10. Dr. Doctor

11. M.P Madhya Pradesh

12. SC Supreme Court

13. SCR Supreme Court Reports

14. v. Versus

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT Page | 3

 INTRA COLLEGIATE MOOT COURT COMPETITION -2024

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

I. TABLE OF CASES:
1. Atmaram and Ors v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2012 SC 1956………………11
2. Basthi Kasim Saheb v. Mysore State Road Transport Corporation, 1991
AIR 487…………………………………………………………………………..16
3. Bhagwan Singh v. State of Haryana, 1976 AIR 202…………………………......10
4. Donoghue v. Stevenson, 1932 AC 562……………………………………….......14
5. Fardon v. Harcourt Rivington, (1932) 146 LT 391……………………………….16
6. Kalyan Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Criminal Appeal no. 447 of 1988.......12
7. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. Krishnan, AIR 1981 Kant 11…...14
8. Lachmeshwar Prasad Shukul v. Keshwar Lal Chaudhuri, AIR 1941 FC 5….……17
9. Maharaja Chintamani Saran Nath Shahdeo v. State of Bihar & Ors., AIR
1999 SC 3609………………………………………………………………….....18
10. Parveen v. State of Haryana, AIR 1997 SC 310…………………………………..12
11. Ravi Kapur v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2012 SC 2986……………………..……..15
12. Sarla Verma and Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr., (2009) 6
SCC 121……………………………………………………………………….....18
13. Shyam Sunder v. State of Rajasthan, 1974 AIR 890…………………...………....17
14. State of Maharashtra v. Mayer Hans George, 1965 AIR 722……………...….......16
15. State of Maharashtra v. Preetam Singh, 1950 AIR 169……………………......….18
16. State of Punjab v. Barkat Ram and Anr., 1962 AIR 276…………………….........12
17. State of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram, (2003) 8 SCC 180……………………………….12
18. State of Rajasthan v. Smt. Kalki and Anr., 1981 SCR (3) 504…………………….15
19. State of Uttar Pradesh v. M.K Anthony, AIR 1985 SC 48…………………...........16
20. Suresh Gupta v. Government of NCT of Delhi, AIR 2004 SC 4091………….......14
21. Syad Akbar v. State of Karnataka, 1979 AIR 1848………………………….........17

II. STATUTES REFERRED:

1. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT Page | 4

 INTRA COLLEGIATE MOOT COURT COMPETITION -2024

2. Indian Penal Code, 1860

3. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
4. Constitution of India, 1950

III. BOOKS REFERRED:

1. R.K Bangia’s Law of Torts, 26th Edition (2021)
2. Durga Das Basu’s Commentary on Constitution of India, Volume 2, 2007
3. Dr. S.R Myneni’s Law of Crimes, 3rd Edition (2018)
4. Ratanlal & Dhirajlal’s The Law of Evidence, 27th Edition (2019)
5. V. Nageswara Rao’s The Indian Evidence Act, 3rd Edition (2019)
6. Ratanlal & Dhirajlal’s The Law of Torts, 28th Edition (2019)
7. Lexis Nexis’s Criminal Manual (2023)
8. B.M. Gandhi’s Law of Torts, 4th Edition (2011)

IV. WEB SOURCES:

1. legalserviceindia.com
2. indiankanoon.org
3. scconline.com
4. indiankanoon.org
5. legalserviceindia.com
6. freelaw.in
7. lawsisto.com
8. ksbc.org.in
9. jstor.org
10. uianet.org
11. lawyersclubindia.com

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT Page | 5

 INTRA COLLEGIATE MOOT COURT COMPETITION -2024

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Appellant has approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India under Article 134 of the
Constitution of India,1950.
Article 134 of the Indian Constitution reads as follows:
134. Appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court in regard to criminal matters

(1) An appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgment, final order or sentence in a
criminal proceeding of a High Court in the territory of India if the High Court-

(a) has on appeal reversed an order of acquittal of an accused person and sentenced him to
death; or

(b) has withdrawn for trial before itself any case from any court subordinate to its authority
and has in such trial convicted the accused person and sentenced him to death; or

(c) certifies under article 134A that the case is a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court:

Provided that an appeal under sub-clause (c) shall lie subject to such provisions as may be
made in that behalf under clause (1) of article 145 and to such conditions as the High Court
may establish or require.

(2) Parliament may by law confer on the Supreme Court any further powers to entertain and
hear appeals from any judgment, final order or sentence in a criminal proceeding of a High
Court in the territory of India subject to such conditions and limitations as may be specified
in such law.

The respondents have appeared to the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in response to the petitions
filed by the appellant.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT Page | 6

 INTRA COLLEGIATE MOOT COURT COMPETITION -2024

STATEMENT OF FACTS
Parties to the case:
Ramamurthy ... Appellant v. Union of India …Respondent
Cause of Action:
On 15th July 2022, Ramamurthy, a driver for ABC Travels, was operating a bus on the Bengaluru-
Malur Road, which passed through a village flanked by deep ditches on both sides. Shanti, residing
in the nearby village of Upparahalli, was crossing the road with her four-year-old daughter, Ammu.
Prior to crossing, Shanti halted on the left side, instructing Ammu to return home. After Shanti
safely crossed to the right side, she went out of sight. During this time, the bus driven by
Ramamurthy had slowed down as it approached a narrow bridge a few feet away. Despite
hesitation, she suddenly dashed across the road. In an attempt to avoid a collision, Ramamurthy
blew the horn and swerved the bus to the right. Unfortunately, Ammu came under the left front
wheel and was fatally crushed. Later, a complaint was filed by the village Patel, Basmal Gowda,
at the Upparahalli Police Station. The station house officer registered a case, conducted an on-site
investigation, and gathered statements from witnesses, including passengers on the bus.
Ramamurthy was arrested, and the case proceeded to the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class in
Bengaluru.

Action taken by the Parties:

1. The Appellant of the Case:

Even though the Appellant herein argued that the accident was unavoidable, the
Appellant was convicted. He appealed to the sessions court as well as the High Court,
where the conviction was upheld. Hence, Ramamurthy has preferred this appeal to the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
2. The Respondent of the Case:
The Respondent herein focused on alleged discrepancies in the witnesses' statements,
which made them hostile. Ramamurthy was ultimately convicted under Section 304-A
of the IPC, with 6month simple imprisonment and Rs. 500 fine. The Case was appealed
to the High Court, which upheld the Sessions Judge's view that the principle of res ipsa
loquitur was applicable to the circumstances of the case.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT Page | 7

 INTRA COLLEGIATE MOOT COURT COMPETITION -2024

ISSUES RAISED

1. WHETHER THE COURTS BELOW WERE RIGHT IN DISCARDING THE

EVIDENCE OF THE EYEWITNESSES ON THE GROUND THAT THEY WERE
TREATED HOSTILE BY THE PROSECUTION AND CROSS-EXAMINED?

2. WHETHER THE PRINCIPAL RES IPSA LOQUITUR WAS APPLICABLE IN

CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AND, IF SO, WHETHER IT COULD BE INVOKED IN
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE TO PRESUME RASHNESS AND
NEGLIGENCE ON THE APPELLANT'S PART?

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT Page | 8

 INTRA COLLEGIATE MOOT COURT COMPETITION -2024

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE 1

WHETHER THE COURTS BELOW WERE RIGHT IN DISCARDING THE EVIDENCE

OF THE EYEWITNESSES ON THE GROUND THAT THEY WERE TREATED
HOSTILE BY THE PROSECUTION AND CROSS-EXAMINED?

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the lower courts were right in discarding the
evidence of the eyewitnesses on the ground that they were treated hostile under Section 154 of the
Indian Evidence Act.

ISSUE 2

WHETHER THE PRINCIPLE RES IPSA LOQUITUR WAS APPLICABLE IN

CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AND, IF SO, WHETHER IT COULD BE INVOKED IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE TO PRESUME RASHNESS AND NEGLIGENCE ON
THE APPELLANT’S PART?

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the principle of Res Ipsa Loquitur is
applicable in criminal proceedings. Whenever an accident or an injury occurs, the doctrine of res
ipsa loquitur may come into play to demonstrate that the nature or the manner of the injury or the
accident raises a presumption of negligence against the wrongdoer.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT Page | 9

 INTRA COLLEGIATE MOOT COURT COMPETITION -2024

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE-1 WHETHER THE COURTS BELOW WERE RIGHT IN DISCARDING THE

EVIDENCE OF THE EYEWITNESSES ON THE GROUND THAT THEY WERE
TREATED HOSTILE BY THE PROSECUTION AND CROSS-EXAMINED?

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the lower courts were right in discarding the
evidence of the eyewitnesses on the ground that they were treated hostile under Section 154 of the
Indian Evidence Act. Under Section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, if a witness is adverse
or hostile to the party that called them, which is usually the prosecution in criminal cases, the party
can request the court to the witness as hostile. Once treated as hostile, the party can cross- examine
the witness and even impeach their credibility.

A hostile witness is a witness who testifies against the party who has called them to testify. When
the party’s own witness denies giving a statement in his favor before the court, then it is said that
the witness has become hostile. Section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act talks about the hostile
witness. This section enables the court to permit the party to cross-examine his own witness, who
has become hostile. The general rule is that a party can cross-examine opposite-party witnesses,
but it is an exception to this rule. If the witness becomes hostile, then the party may cross-examine
its own witness with the permission of the court. It is the discretionary power of the court to permit
the party to cross-examine its own witness.

There are instances where the courts have refused to rely on the testimony of hostile witnesses due
to the concerns regarding credibility, consistency & could not be relied upon to establish the guilt
of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. It is important to note that each case is unique, and the
court's decision regarding the admissibility and reliability of witness testimony will depend on the
specific facts and circumstances of the case.

In the case of Bhagwan Singh v. State of Haryana1, the Supreme Court upheld that if a witness
resiles from his previous statement made to the police or during the investigation, the court can
declare him hostile.

1
1976 AIR 202

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT Page | 10

 INTRA COLLEGIATE MOOT COURT COMPETITION -2024

There are cases where the courts have heavily discounted or rejected the testimony of witnesses
deemed hostile and later discarded their evidence due to their lack of credibility or reliability.

The Supreme Court, in the case of Atmaram and Ors v. State of Madhya Pradesh2, very clearly
stated that if the whole of the testimony of a hostile witness stands in contradiction to every
statement made earlier and is impugned, then such a statement can be treated as evidence in a court
of law, also, the judge may, in his opinion, discard the evidence.

While a witness may be declared hostile, their testimony is not automatically discarded solely on
that basis. Instead, the court evaluates the witness’s testimony in light of the circumstances,
including their demeanor, consistency, and overall weight of the evidence. If the witness’s
testimony contains significant contradictions or inconsistencies, the court may question its
reliability and choose to disregard the same. When witnesses display hostility or bias, it may
suggest underlying motives or conflicts of the interest that compromise their ability to provide
reliable testimony.

It is humbly submitted that the Courts must uphold the integrity of the legal process and ensure
that justice is served. Allowing unreliable or biased testimony to influence the outcome of a case
undermines the fairness and efficacy of legal proceedings. Courts must weigh the probative value
of the testimony given by the witness against the concerns about bias, motive, and reliability.
Moreover, discarding the testimony of the hostile witnesses is crucial for maintaining public
confidence in the justice system.

When individuals perceive that courts are fair, impartial, and committed to upholding the rule of
law, they are more likely to trust in the outcomes of legal proceedings. Upholding the integrity of
legal proceedings by discarding unreliable testimony including that of hostile witnesses, is
essential for preserving the public trust and confidence. Ultimately, the decision to discard the
testimony of hostile witnesses serves to protect the rights of all parties involved in the case. By
prioritizing reliable and credible evidence, courts uphold the principle of justice, fairness and due
process of law.

2
AIR 2012 SC 1956

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT Page | 11

 INTRA COLLEGIATE MOOT COURT COMPETITION -2024

The High Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v Raja Ram3, the issue of unreliable testimony
provided by hostile witnesses. The court emphasized the importance of scrutinizing witness
testimony, especially when witnesses exhibit hostility or bias. The court held that when witness
testimony is inconsistent, contradictory, or lacks credibility, it should be discarded or given little
weight in the determination of the case. In this particular case, the court found significant
inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimony of hostile witnesses, leadings to the conclusion
that their testimony lacked reliability and credibility. As a result, the court chose to discard their
testimony in its decision-making process, highlighting the importance of upholding the integrity
and fairness of legal proceeding by prioritizing reliable evidence.

In the case of State of Punjab v. Barkat Ram & Anr4, the Supreme Court discarded the testimony
of a hostile witness due to material contradictions and omissions, deeming the testimony unreliable
for establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

When it comes to the admissibility or discarding of the witnesses’ testimony, it’s more pertinent
to consider other sections of the evidence act, deal with impeachment of witnesses, including the
examination of witnesses to credit and discredit them based on their conduct, demeanor, and
consistency of their statements. For evidence introduced and to be made admissible in courts
requires a degree which should exclude falsity and help expose the correct facts in a trial. So, while
Section 154 allows for cross-examination about previous statements, the decision to discard a
witness’s testimony would involve a broader an analysis of the witness’s credibility and the
consistency of their statements with other evidence presented in the case.

In Parveen v. State of Haryana5 it was held by the Hon’ble Court that the witness of the fact, when
they turned hostile and were cross examined by the prosecution, their evidence cannot be relied by
the defense.

The Supreme Court, in the case of Kalayan Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh6, upheld that the
evidence of a hostile witness can be discarded if it is found to be inconsistent and unreliable, and
if there is no corroborative evidence to support it.

3
(2003) 8 SCC 180
4
1962 AIR 276
5
AIR 1997 SC 310
6
Criminal Appeal no. 447 of 1988

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT Page | 12

 INTRA COLLEGIATE MOOT COURT COMPETITION -2024

In the instant case, there were considerable discrepancies in the statements of the eye-witnesses,
between what they stated to the police and what they stated at the trial. According to the statement
given by the eyewitnesses to the police, the accident took place due to the negligence of the
accused, while at the trial, they were saying something to the contrary. Hence it is submitted that
the evidence given by the witnesses were not reliable and the courts below were right in discarding
the evidence given by them.

ISSUE-2 WHETHER THE PRINCIPLE RES IPSA LOQUITUR WAS APPLICABLE IN

CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AND, IF SO, WHETHER IT COULD BE INVOKED IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE TO PRESUME RASHNESS AND NEGLIGENCE ON
THE APPELLANT’S PART?

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the principle of res ipsa loquitur is applicable
in criminal proceedings relating to the matter of accidents where the burden of proof falls on the
defendant. Whenever an accident or an injury occurs, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur may come
into play to demonstrate that the nature or the manner of the injury or the accident raises a
presumption of negligence against the wrongdoer.

Provided that the accident occurs in a situation where the driver’s control is evident, such as on a
clear road with no external factors contributing to the crash, this element of res ipsa loquitur can
be satisfied. The maxim is related to the negligence of a person and is generally applied to such
cases where the act has been caused due to the negligence of a person.

Res Ipsa Loquitur is a Latin phrase that means the thing speaks for itself. In cases, where the
evidence is itself sufficient to prove the guilt of the defendant, this maxim is used. It shows that if
the defendant was not negligent, the accident would not have happened. To understand the doctrine
of res ipsa loquitur, we need to know a rule of evidence regarding the burden of proof of
negligence, whether it is in civil or criminal court. The rule is that, at the beginning stage, the
prosecution should prove the case of criminal negligence, or at least the prime facie of it, on the
part of the accused person. Once the prosecution is proved as required by the law, the burden of
disproving the criminal negligence or proving any defenses is on the accused.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT Page | 13

 INTRA COLLEGIATE MOOT COURT COMPETITION -2024

The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur provides an exception to the general rule. The doctrine does not
mandate the prosecution to prove the existence of the negligence on the part of the accused and,
indeed, the burden of proof shifts from the prosecution to the accused. In cases where the event
itself provides the existence of the criminal negligence of the accused and the happening of such
circumstances is completely under his or her control, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies and
the accused is allowed to disprove the same.

The Delhi High Court, in the case of Suresh Gupta v. Government of NCT of Delhi7, held that the
principle of res ipsa loquitur could be applied when circumstances strongly suggest negligence,
even in the absence of direct evidence.

This maxim is also applied in cases of road accidents where there are several incidents of
negligence committed by drivers or passengers which leads to the accidents. Res ipsa loquitor is
only applied to cases where the injury that occurred could only have been caused by negligence.
There are two conditions which are to be looked in matters of res ipsa application to any case of
road accidents. These are as follows:

a) The type of accident that occurred must be usually a result of negligence.

b) The defendant had sole control over the conditions that led to injury. This means that the
defendant was in the best position to prevent the harm that occurred.

In the instant case, the accused had control over the accident, and it would not have occurred if he
had taken reasonable care. While the child’s sudden dash was unexpected, a driver should always
be prepared for unforeseen events, especially when operating a vehicle in potentially hazardous
conditions. A reasonably prudent driver would have anticipated the possibility of pedestrians near
the road. In Donoghue v. Stevenson8, Lord Atkin established the “neighbor principle,” emphasizing
that one must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions that could reasonably be foreseen to
cause harm to their neighbor.

In the case of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. Krishnan9, it was held that the mere
occurrence of the accident itself could raise an inference of negligence on the part of the carrier,

7
AIR 2004 SC 4091
8
1932 AC 562
9
AIR 1981 Kant 11

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT Page | 14

 INTRA COLLEGIATE MOOT COURT COMPETITION -2024

unless the carrier could provide a reasonable explanation to rebut such inference, also the validity
of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was upheld.

Criminal cases often rely on circumstantial evidence to establish guilt, res ipsa loquitur provides a
framework for considering evidence and drawing reasonable inferences regarding the defendants
conduct or culpability. If the circumstances strongly indicate negligence on the part of the
defendant, res ipsa loquitur may be used to support the prosecution’s case. If the circumstances of
the accident strongly suggest that it would not have occurred in the absence of the negligence, the
principle of res ipsa loquitur maybe invoked.

In the case of State of Rajasthan v. Smt. Kalki and Anr10, the Supreme Court held that when the
cause of death is not known and the circumstances surrounding the death raise a strong
presumption of negligence, the principle of res ipsa loquitur may apply, and the burden shifts to
the defendant to prove they were not negligent. While the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur may not
always be explicitly invoked, the courts consider the underlying principles of inference and
burden-shifting in assessing the liability in such cases.

‘Negligence’ means omission to do something which a reasonable and prudent person guided by
the considerations which ordinarily regulate human affairs would do or doing something which a
prudent and reasonable person guided by similar considerations would not do. Negligence is not
an absolute term but is a relative one; it is rather a comparative term. It is difficult to state with
precision any mathematically exact formula by which negligence or lack of it can be infallibly
measured in a given case. Whether there exists negligence per se or the course of conduct amounts
to negligence will normally depend upon the attending and surrounding facts and circumstances
which have to be taken into consideration by the Court. In a given case, even not doing what one
was ought to do can constitute negligence.

Just because the accused drove the vehicle at a low speed, it is not conclusive proof of the non-
existence of negligence. In this regard, Ravi Kapur v. State of Rajasthan11 is one of the leading

10
1981 SCR (3) 504
11
AIR 2012 SC 2986

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT Page | 15

 INTRA COLLEGIATE MOOT COURT COMPETITION -2024

cases. In this case, the Court noted that even if a person rashly and negligently drives at a slow
speed, it would still fall under the category of “rash and negligent act”.

Even if the child’s actions were sudden, a more cautious approach or earlier warning might have
averted the tragedy. In Fardon v. Harcourt Rivington12, the court held that even if a plaintiff’s
actions contribute to an accident, the defendant may still be held liable if they were negligent in
their own right.

In the case of Basthi Kasim Saheb v. Mysore State Road Transport Corporation 13, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has observed that “if the accident is admitted and the driver is not able to explain
the accident, the principle of Res Ipsa Loquitur' can be applied”.

There are various cases which were upheld by the Court where the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur
was not explicitly mentioned, but the judgments were passed on only by the presumption of
negligence.

In the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. M. K. Anthony14, the Supreme Court held that in criminal
cases, circumstantial evidence can be relied upon to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt if
the chain of circumstances is complete and points to the guilt of the accused. Furthermore, the
Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Mayer Hans George 15 sustained that the accused’s
negligent driving amounted to gross negligence under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code,
1860.

Res ipsa loquitur can be invoked in cases of rash and negligent driving to establish a prima facia
case of negligence. As a professional bus driver, the accused is held to a higher standard of care
due to the nature of his occupation. He should have been more vigilant and proactive in assessing
potential risks, particularly in challenging road conditions.

12
(1932) 146 LT 391
13
1991 AIR 487
14
AIR 1985 SC 48
15
1965 AIR 722

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT Page | 16

 INTRA COLLEGIATE MOOT COURT COMPETITION -2024

In the case of Syad Akbar v. State of Karnataka16, it was held that the material on the record is
sufficient to hold that the accused was both rash and negligent in driving the vehicle at that point
and thus the principle of res ipsa loquitur was attracted to the facts of the case. In cases of harsh
and negligent driving, the driver clearly has control over the vehicle. Therefore, this element of
the doctrine is typically satisfied. In cases of death or injury caused due to the act of rash and
negligent driving, this maxim of res ipsa loquitur can be relevant in criminal proceedings.

Res ipsa Loquitor is applied in all prima facie cases, where at the first instance the negligence on
the part of the defendant is evident and without which the injury would not have occurred. In such
case, it is presumed that the defendant is negligent, and it is on him to prove why he is not negligent.
So, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur directly proves the act committed by the defendant and helps
in proving a person liable.

In the case of Shyam Sunder v. State of Rajasthan17, it was held that the maxim res ipsa loquitur is
resorted to when an accident is shown to have occurred and the cause of the accident is primarily
within the knowledge of the defendant. The mere fact that the cause of the accident is unknown
does not prevent the plaintiff from recovering damages, if the proper inference to be drawn from
the circumstances which are known is that it was caused by the negligence of the defendant. The
fact of the accident may, sometimes, constitute evidence of negligence and then the maxim res
ipsa loquitur applies.

Res ipsa loquitur requires that the defendant had control over the instrumentality that caused the
harm. By invoking the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, the plaintiff shifts the initial burden of proof
to the defendant. The defendant must then provide evidence to rebut the presumption of negligence
or demonstrate that they were not negligent. While criminal cases require proof beyond a
reasonable doubt, the doctrine can still be used to establish a prima facie case of negligence, which
the defendant must then rebut with defence to the contrary.

The Privy Council applied the principle of res ipsa loquitur in a motor accident case of
Lachmeshwar Prasad Shukul v. Keshwar Lal Chaudhuri18. The court held that if the circumstances

16
1979 AIR 1848
17
1974 AIR 890
18
AIR 1941 FC 5

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT Page | 17

 INTRA COLLEGIATE MOOT COURT COMPETITION -2024

suggest that such injury could not have occurred without negligence, then the burden shifts to the
defendant to prove that there was no negligence on their part.

The Supreme Court discussed the concept of res ipsa loquitur in the context of Sarla Verma &
Ors. V. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr19. While the court did not explicitly apply the doctrine,
it acknowledged that the principle may be relevant in cases where the circumstances of the accident
indicate negligence on the part of the defendant.

Even though the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor is primarily being used in civil law concept, the court
20
in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Preetam Singh held that the negligence can be inferred
from the circumstances can also be relevant in criminal cases as well, especially when the
prosecution presents evidence showing that the accused had exclusive control over the
circumstances leading to the death.

The application of res ipsa loquitor involving a fatal accident was discussed by the Supreme Court
in the case of Maharaja Chintamani Saran Nath Shahdeo v. State of Bihar & Ors21. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court held that when the cause of an accident is unknown and the circumstances suggest
negligence, the principle of res ipsa loquitur may apply, shifting the burden to the defendant to
prove they were not negligent.

19
(2009) 6 SCC 121
20
1950 AIR 169
21
AIR 1999 SC 3609

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT Page | 18

 INTRA COLLEGIATE MOOT COURT COMPETITION -2024

PRAYER

Wherefore, in light of the facts stated, issues raised, arguments advanced, and authorities cited, it
is most humbly prayed before this Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, to adjudge, declare and hold
the following:

1. Uphold the conviction of the Hon’ble High Court.

2. The principle of Res Ipsa Loquitur is applicable in criminal proceedings.

AND/OR pass any such further or other order/orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper
in the interest of Justice, Equity, and good conscience and thereby render justice.

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

Place: Bengaluru

Date: February 22, 2024 Counsel for the Respondent

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT Page | 19