NMCC-305

3RD LAW FEST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

SHOOLINI UNIVERSITY , HIMACHAL PRADESH

BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF AGARKHAND

UNDER SECTION 415 (2) OF BNSS (BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA)

2023

IN THE MATTER UNDER RELEVANT SECTIONS OF BHARATIYA NYAYA

SANHITA, 2023

RAJNEESH KUMAR ................................................................................. (APPELLANT)

~VERSUS~

STATE OF AGARKHAND .................................................................. (RESPONDENT)

BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF AGARKHAND

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

TABLE OF CONTENT

Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................... 2

List of Abbreviations ......................................................................................................................... 4

Index of Authorities ........................................................................................................................... 5

Statement of Jurisdiction .................................................................................................................... 8

Statement of Facts.............................................................................................................................. 9

Issues Raised .......................................................................................................................................11

Summary of Arguments .................................................................................................................... 13

Written Submissions .......................................................................................................................... 15

ISSUE 1: WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS LIABLE UNDER SECTION 103 OF THE

BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA (BNS)? ................................................................................ 15-19
[𝟏. 𝟏] That the prosecution has failed to establish the essential elem ents required under
section 103 of the BN S

[1.1.1] That the prosecution has failed to establish the required mens rea

[1.1.2] That the evidence does not link Rajneesh to the criminal act under section 103

[1.1.3] That the evidence presented does not satisfy the legal definition of murder under section 101 of the BNS

[1.2] That the evidence presented is insufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt under
section 103 of the BNS
[1.2.1] That the presumption of innocence requires the prosecution to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt
[1.2.2] That the circumstantial evidence is inconsistent and insufficient
[1.2.3] That the trial court committed a misdirection in evaluating the evidence

2|P a ge
~MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT ~
 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

ISSUE 2: WHETHER THE AVAILABLE EVIDENCE WAS SUFFICIENT FOR THE

CONVICTION OF THE ACCUSED, RAJNEESH KUMAR? ..................................................... 20-24

[2.1] That there is an insufficiency of primary evidence for the conviction of Rajneesh Kumar
[2.1.1] That there is a Lack of Primary Evidence Linking Rajneesh to the Crime
[2.1.2] That the CFSL report and forensic evidence fail to establish Rajneesh’s guilt
[2.1.3] Rajneesh presents a strong alibi
[2.2] That the circumstantial evidence is insufficient to meet the burden of proof
[2.2.1] That the circumstantial evidence fails to establish an unbroken chain of events
[2.2.2] That the benefit of the doubt must be given in light of unresolved evidentiary conflicts

ISSUE 3: WHETHER INVESTIGATIVE LAPSES AND UNEXPLORED ALTERNATIVES

SUPPORT A REASONABLE POSSIBILITY OF FALSE IMPLICATION OF RAJNEESH
KUMAR…………………………………………………………………………………………….25-29
[𝟑. 𝟏] That the possibility of false implication arises due to investigative lapse
[3.1.1] That the focus on Rajneesh is erroneous and based on circumstantial factors
[3.1.2] That the incomplete investigation and unexplored leads demonstrate Rajneesh's false implication
[3.1.3] That the investigative lapses compromised Rajneesh's fundamental right to a fair investigation
[𝟑. 𝟐] That stronger motives and opportunities exist for other potential perpetrators
[3.2.1] That third parties had clearer and more immediate motives to commit the crime
[3.2.2] That the sufficient opportunities existed for alternative perpetrators to execute the crime

Prayer………………………………………………………………………………………………..30

3|P a ge
~MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT ~
 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

& AND

§ SECTION

¶ PARAGRAPH

A.I.R ALL INDIA REPOTER

BNS BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA

BNSS BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA

SANHITA
BSA BHARTIYA SAKSHYA ADHINIYAM

HC HIGH COURT

HON’BLE HONOURABLE

ORS. OTHERS

SC SUPREME COURT

SCC SUPREME COURT CASES

SCR SUPREME COURT REPORTER

U.O.I UNION OF INDIA

V. VERSUS

4|P a ge
~MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT ~
 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

1. Babu v. State of Kerala AIR 1999 SC2161

2. Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab 1996 AIR 607

3. Bhimsingh v. State of Uttarakhand (2015) 4 SCC 281

4. Budhsen v. State of Uttar Pradesh 1970 AIR 1321

5. Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakker v. State of Gujarat, 1964 AIR 1563

6. Gambhir v. State of Maharashtra 1982 SC 1157

7. Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1952 SC 343

8. Jaswant Gir v. State of Punjab (2005(12) SCC 438

9. Kali Ram v. State Of Himachal Pradesh 1973 AIR 2773

10. Sarwan Singh Rattan Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1957 SC 637

11. Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab 1994 SCC (3) 569

12. Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab 1994 SCC (3) 569

13. Laxmi Naryan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors. 1991 AIR 2001

14. Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi) AIR 2010 SC 2352

15. State Of Maharashtra v. Mayer Hans George 1965 AIR 722

16. Vijayee Singh & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh 1990 AIR 1459

17. Mulak Raj. Etc v. Satish Kumar & Ors. 1992 AIR 1175

18. Naryayan Govind Gavate Etc v. State of Maharashtra, 1977 AIR 183

19. Navaneethakrishnan v. State by Inspector of Police Suresh v. State AIR 2018 SC 2027

of U.P

5|P a ge
~MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT ~
 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

20. Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi v. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijjaya 1990 AIR 1962

21. Nirmal Singh Kahlon Pratap v. State of U.P AIR 2009 SC 984

22. Padala Veera Reddy v. State Of Andhra Pradesh AIR1990SC79

23. Paramjeet Singh @Pamma v. State of Uttarkhand 2011 SC 200

24. Dinubhai Boghabhai Solanki v. State of Gujarat &Ors. 2014 SCW 1722

25. Pratap v. State Of U.P 1973 AIR 786

26. Raj Kumar Singh @ Raju @ Batya v. State of Rajasthan AIR 2013 3150

27. Ram Singh & Ors v. Col. Ram Singh 1986 AIR (3) 1985

28. Ramanand Yadav v. Prabhu Nath Jha AIR 2004 SC 1053

29. Ramesh v. State 9 SCC 392

30. Ravula Hariprasada Rao v. The State 1951 AIR 204

31. Rishikesh Singh And Ors v. The State 1970 ALL51

32. Samaj Parivartan Samudaya and others v. State of Karnataka and AIR 2012 SC 2326
others
33. Shankarlal Gyarasilal Dixit v. State of Maharashtra 1981 AIR 765

34. Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra 1985 SCC (1) 88

35. Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade &Anr v. State of Maharashtra 1973 SCC (2) 793

36. Smt. Somavanti And Others v. State of Punjab & Ors 1963 AIR 151

6|P a ge
~MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT ~
 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

37. State Of Manipur v. Okram Jitan Singh 2005 CRILJ 1646

38. State Of Punjab v. Bhajan Singh 1978 AIR 1759

39. State Of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram AIR 2007 SC 144

41. State v. Raj Singh S/O Sh. Kehar Singh 1988 AIR 1883

42. Sudhakar v. State of Maharashtra 2000 AIR SCW 2630

43. Tomaso Bruno & Anr v. State of U.P 2015 CRI. L. J. 1690

44. Umedbhai Jadavbhai v. State of Gujarat 1978 SCC (1) 228

45. V. Ambi v. State of Kerala 1962 CRILJ 135

46. Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali (2013) 5 SCC 762

BOOKS
 Taxmann’s Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
 Bharat's Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (Part-1)
 Professional's New Criminal Laws Combo (BNSS, BNS, BSA)
 LexisNexis New Criminal Laws Series

WEBSITES
 www. scconline. in
 www.supremecourtofindia.nic.in
 www. airinfotech .in

7|P a ge
~MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT ~
 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The counsels for the Appellant humbly submit to the jurisdiction of Hon’ble High Court of

Agarkhand under section 415 (2)1 of BNSS (Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita) 2023

The counsels for the Appellant most respectfully submit to this jurisdiction of the Hon’ble High Court.

1
(2)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.

~MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT ~ 8|P a ge

 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

STATEMENT OF FACTS

BACKGROUND

 Vikram Yadav, a notorious criminal-turned-politician, commanded both fear and respect. Despite his political
legitimacy, he secretly ran a drug cartel and a criminal syndicate, leveraging his influence to maintain power.
His deep attachment to his reckless son, Jeetu Yadav, often clouded his judgment.

 Jeetu, a brash playboy, married Priya, the ambitious adopted daughter of Rajneesh Kumar, against her father’s
wishes. Pressured by financial struggles, Jeetu forced Priya to seek money from her father, Rajneesh. This
financial dependency sparked tension, leading Jeetu and Vikram to see Rajneesh’s wealth as the key
to their problems.

 Rajneesh Kumar, a self-made businessman, faced challenges in his personal and professional life. He was
dealing with labor unrest at his factory, driven by threats from union leader Amar Singh. Simultaneously,
Vikram discovered compromising details about Rajneesh’s relationship with Awantika, his trusted confidante,
and used this to blackmail him.

ON 2nd AUGUST  Rajneesh and Vikram met under a shroud of secrecy at Rajneesh’s factory
AT 10:00 PM guest house to discuss solutions for the labor unrest.

AT 3:00 PM  On a stormy night, Jeetu Yadav called Police Officer Dharam Prakash in a
panic, reporting a crash involving his father-in-law Rajneesh Kumar’s car.
Upon arrival, the police found the car crushed against a tree and engulfed
in flames. However, the body inside was identified as Vikram Yadav’s.

INVESTIGATION  Forensic experts revealed a significant development in the case: traces of

poison were discovered in Vikram Yadav's body, indicating that he was
poisoned either before or during the violent altercation that preceded his
death. Additionally, small footprints, likely belonging to a woman, were
found leading toward the scene, suggesting the possible involvement of a
third person.

~MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT ~ 9|P a ge

 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

 The police investigation led to Rajneesh Kumar, who claimed to be in

Haritanchal for a business meeting at the time of the incident.
However, his alibi was undermined when forensic analysis revealed
bloodstains matching his DNA on his clothes, casting doubt on his
claims and linking him to the crime scene.

 Rajneesh was subsequently arrested. The investigation took a darker

turn when, a week later, the decomposed body of Amar Singh, the
union leader, was discovered buried in the backyard of
Vikram Yadav's office.

THE TRIAL COURT PROCEEDINGS AND THE APPEAL:

 Based on the evidence collected, the police filed a challan under Section 103 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
(BNS) before the Learned Sessions Court in Sambal. The prosecution argued Rajneesh’s motive and
opportunity to commit the crime, while the defense failed to provide a credible alibi to refute these allegations.

SESSION COURT JUDGEMENT

 The Sessions Court convicted Rajneesh under Section 103 of the BNS, sentencing him to rigorous
life imprisonment.

~MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT ~ 10 | P a g e

 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

ISSUES RAISED

ISSUE 1: WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS LIABLE UNDER SECTION 103 OF THE BHARATIYA
NYAYA SANHITA (BNS)?

𝟏. 𝟏 That the prosecution has failed to establish the essential elem ents required under section
103 of the BNS

1.1.1 That the prosecution has failed to establish the required mens rea

1.1.2 That the evidence does not link Rajneesh to the criminal act under section 103

1 1.3That the evidence presented does not satisfy the legal definition of murder under section 101 of the BNS

1.2 That the evidence presented is insufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable dou bt under
section 103 of the BNS
1.2.1That the presumption of innocence requires the prosecution to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt
1.2.2 That the circumstantial evidence is inconsistent and insufficient
1.2.3That the trial court committed a misdirection in evaluating the evidence

ISSUE 2: WHETHER THE AVAILABLE EVIDENCE WAS SUFFICIENT FOR THE

CONVICTION OF THE ACCUSED, RAJNEESH KUMAR?

2.1 That there is an insufficiency of primary evidence for the conviction of Rajneesh Kumar
2.1.1 That there is a Lack of Primary Evidence Linking Rajneesh to the Crime
2.1.2 That the CFSL report and forensic evidence fail to establish Rajneesh’s guilt
2.1.3 Rajneesh presents a strong alibi
2.2 That the circumstantial evidence is insufficient to meet the burden of proof
2.2.1 That the circumstantial evidence fails to establish an unbroken chain of events
2.2.2 That the benefit of the doubt must be given in light of unresolved evidentiary conflicts

~MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT ~ 11 | P a g e

 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024
ISSUE 3: WHETHER INVESTIGATIVE LAPSES AND UNEXPLORED ALTERNATIVES
SUPPORT A REASONABLE POSSIBILITY OF FALSE IMPLICATION OF RAJNEESH
KUMAR

𝟑. 𝟏 That the possibility of false implication arises due to investigative lapses

3.1.1 That the focus on Rajneesh is erroneous and based on circumstantial factors
3.1.2 That the incomplete investigation and unexplored leads demonstrate Rajneesh's false implication
3.1.3 That investigative lapses compromised Rajneesh's fundamental right to a fair investigation
𝟑. 𝟐 That stronger motives and opportunities exist for other potential perpetrators
3.2.1 That third parties had clearer and more immediate motives to commit the crime
3.2.2 That sufficient opportunities existed for alternative perpetrators to execute the crime

~MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT ~ 12 | P a g e

 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE 1: WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS LIABLE UNDER SECTION 103 OF THE BHARATIYA
NYAYA SANHITA (BNS)?

It is respectfully submitted that the conviction of Rajneesh Kumar under Section 103 of the BNS is unwarranted
due to the absence of key elements establishing liability. Firstly, there is no credible proof of mens rea, as no
evidence demonstrates Rajneesh’s intent to commit the alleged offense. Furthermore, the prosecution has failed
to substantiate actus reus, given that no direct or physical act by Rajneesh is conclusively linked to the crime.
Additionally, the circumstantial evidence presented remains inconclusive, marred by inconsistencies that cast
significant doubt on Rajneesh's involvement. It is respectfully asserted that the trial court’s interpretation of these
elements was erroneous, leading to a prejudicial outcome for Rajneesh. As such, the evidence falls short of the
standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt, necessitating that the conviction under Section 103 be reconsidered
and overturned in the interest of justice.

ISSUE 2: WHETHER THE AVAILABLE EVIDENCE WAS SUFFICIENT FOR THE CONVICTION OF
THE ACCUSED, RAJNEESH KUMAR?

With utmost respect, it is contended that the evidence adduced by the prosecution fails to meet the threshold
required for conviction. The record lacks primary evidence, such as eyewitness accounts or direct forensic
connections to Rajneesh Kumar, thereby undermining the case's credibility. The circumstantial evidence, upon
close examination, fails to form a consistent and unbroken chain leading solely to the appellant’s guilt.
Furthermore, critical forensic analyses, including the CFSL report and recovery list, do not provide any conclusive
link to Rajneesh. Additionally, the appellant’s alibi, supported by verified documentation, was not given due
consideration, and unresolved contradictions in evidence cast substantial doubt on his alleged guilt. It is
respectfully submitted that the prosecution has not met the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt, and thus,
the conviction is unwarranted and should be set aside.

13 | P a g e
~MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT ~
 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

ISSUE 3: WHETHER INVESTIGATIVE LAPSES AND UNEXPLORED ALTERNATIVES SUPPORT

A REASONABLE POSSIBILITY OF FALSE IMPLICATION OF RAJNEESH KUMAR

It is most respectfully submitted that the prosecution’s investigative process was tainted by significant lapses,
leading to a prejudiced focus on Rajneesh Kumar and overlooking other viable suspects. The investigation
prematurely disregarded individuals with stronger motives and closer associations with the victim, failing to
pursue alternative leads thoroughly. This selective focus contravenes Article 21 of the Constitution, which ensures
a fair investigation as a fundamental right. Additionally, the absence of comprehensive inquiry into other suspects
raises a strong presumption of false implication, as several aspects of the evidence point towards alternative
perpetrators with clearer motives and greater opportunities. In light of these investigative failures, it is respectfully
urged that the conviction be reconsidered, as the possibility of Rajneesh’s false implication is not only reasonable
but also supported by critical evidentiary gaps in the prosecution’s case.

14 | P a g e
~MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT ~
 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

ISSUE 1: WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS LIABLE UNDER SECTION 103 OF THE BHARATIYA
NYAYA SANHITA (BNS)?

¶(1)It is most respectfully submitted before this Hon'ble Court that the appellant's conviction, Rajneesh Kumar,
under Section 103 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) cannot be sustained due to significant deficiencies in the
prosecution's case. The arguments challenging the appellant’s liability will be corroboratedin a two-fold manner.
First, under 1.1: That the prosecution has failed to establish the essential elements required under section 103 of
the BNS. Second, under 1.2 That the evidence presented is insufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt
under section 103 of the BNS. The submissions aim to establish thatthe case against Rajneesh is riddled with doubt,
warranting an acquittal in the interests of justice.

1.1 THAT THE PROSECUTION HAS FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS
REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 103 OF THE BNS

1.1.1 That the prosecution has failed to establish the required Mens rea

¶(2)It is most respectfully submitted that Section 103 of the BNS prescribes the punishment for murder, stating
that whoever commits murder shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to a
fine.2 However, for the provisions of Section 103 to apply, the prosecution must first establish that the accused
committed murder as defined under Section 101 of the BNS.3

¶(3)In the case of State of Maharashtra v. Suresh,4 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the absence of a
discernible motive significantly weakens the prosecution's case when the element of criminal intent is in question.
In the present case, the evidence presented by the prosecution fails to establish that Rajneesh possessedany criminal
intent (mens rea) to harm Vikram Yadav.5

2
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, § 103, No. 45, Acts of Parliament, 2023 (India).
3
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, § 101, No. 45, Acts of Parliament, 2023(India).
4
State of Maharashtra v. Suresh, AIR 1999 SC 169.
5
State of Maharashtra v. Mayer Hans George, 1965 AIR 722.

15 | P a g e
~MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT ~
 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

¶(4)It is humbly contended that the appellant had no history of animosity or personal grudge against Vikram
Yadav. On the contrary, the relationship between Rajneesh and Vikram was cordial, given that Vikram was his
"Samdhi ji" (father-in-law to his daughter).6 The lack of any preparation, planning, or evidence of Rajneesh’s
involvement in coercive actions unequivocally demonstrates the absence of the requisite mens rea under Section
101.

1.1.2 That the evidence does not link Rajneesh to the criminal act under section 103

¶(5)It is respectfully submitted that the evidence presented lacks the necessary probative value to establish
Rajneesh’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt under section 103 of BNS.7 The evidence presented by the
prosecution, including the recovered dagger and the small footprints near the scene,8 do not conclusively connect
Rajneesh to the commission of the crime. 9 This aligns with the Supreme Court's position in Sharad Birdhichand
Sarda v. State of Maharashtra,10 which mandates that circumstantial evidence must exclude every hypothesis
except the guilt of the accused.

¶(6)It is further submitted that the evidence pointing to the appellant’s innocence outweighs any purported links
to the crime.11 Both Rajneesh and Vikram left the factory Guesthouse together at 1:00 AM, 12 and Vikram
subsequently escorted Rajneesh to the airport for an urgent business meeting, as supported by his testimony. 13
Rajneesh then departed for Harithanchal, as corroborated by his boarding pass,14 which indicates a departure time
of 2:30 AM. This timeline makes it impossible for Rajneesh to have been at the crime scene when the incident
occurred at 3:30 AM.15 The Hon’ble Court is, therefore, humbly urged to conclude that the evidence does not
sufficiently establish Rajneesh's criminal liability under Section 103.

6
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, § 101, No. 45, Acts of Parliament, 2023 (India).
7
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, § 103, No. 45, Acts of Parliament, 2023 (India).
8
¶ 18 page 4 of fact sheet.
9
Ramesh v. State ,9 SCC 392.
10
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra,1984 AIR 1622, 1985 SCR (1) 88.
11
Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh,1952 SC 343.
12
¶ page 9 of fact sheet.
13
¶ page 6 of fact sheet.
14
¶ page 12 of fact sheet.
15
¶ 14 page 23 of fact sheet.

16 | P a g e
~MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT ~
 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

1.1.3 That the evidence presented does not satisfy the legal definition of murder under section 101 of the BNS

¶(7)It is humbly submitted that in examining the evidence presented, it becomes clear that it fails to meet the legal
requirements for establishing murder under Section 101 of BNS. The principle of actus reus mandates a voluntary
physical act leading to the crime.16 In the case of Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia Etc. v. State of Punjab,17 it was held by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the physical act must be a direct cause of the criminal outcome. In the present
case, there is no direct evidence indicating that Rajneesh was present at the crime scene or engaged in any act
leading to Vikram Yadav’s death.

¶(8)It is further submitted that the forensic evidence raises doubts about Rajneesh’s involvement, with multiple
injury marks on the deceased’s body and unidentified fingerprints on the dagger and car, none of which
conclusively leads to Rajneesh. This significant forensic gap casts reasonable doubt on Rajneesh’s direct
involvement. The Hon'ble Supreme Court. In Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab held that when circumstantial
evidence is insufficient to prove a physical act of the accused, the benefit of the doubt must favour the accused.
Therefore, given the insufficiency of the evidence, Rajneesh's defense remains credible and substantiated.19

1.2 THAT THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED IS INSUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH GUILT BEYOND

UNDER SECTION 103 OF THE BNS

1.2.1 That the presumption of innocence requires the prosecution to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt

¶(9)It is humbly submitted that the presumption of innocence is a fundamental principle enshrined in criminal
law, requiring the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.20 This principle,

16
Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab,1994 SCC (3) 569.
17
Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia Etc. v. State of Punjab,1980 AIR 1632.
18
Sarwan Singh Rattan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1957 SC 637.
19
Laxmi Naryan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors.,1991 AIR 2001.
20
Vijayee Singh & Ors. v. State Of Uttar Pradesh,1990 AIR 1459.

17 | P a g e
~MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT ~
 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, safeguards an individual's right to life and personal liberty.21
Additionally, Section 104 of the BSA mandates that when a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact,
the burden of proof lies on that person, thereby underscoring the obligation of the prosecution to conclusively
establish the accused's guilt.22.

¶(10)The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh23 reaffirmed that the presumption of
innocence places the onus squarely on the prosecution to establish the accused's guilt with conclusive evidence.
In the present case, the prosecution has failed to meet this requirement, thus failing to discharge the burden of proof
necessary to overcome the presumption of innocence. 24 Therefore it is respectfully contended that the presumption of
innocence must operate in favour of Rajneesh, requiring the Hon’ble Court to acquit himif any reasonable doubt remains.25

1.2.2 THAT THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS INCONSISTENT AND INSUFFICIENT

¶(11)It is respectfully submitted that the circumstantial evidence relied upon by the prosecution is inconsistent
and fails to form a coherent narrative pointing exclusively to the appellant's guilt. 26 The law requires that
circumstantial evidence must exclude all other reasonable possibilities and form a complete chain, 27 but in this
case, the evidence instead raises multiple unresolved questions that cast doubt on the appellant's alleged
involvement.

1.2.3 That the trial court committed a misdirection in evaluating the evidence

¶(12)It is humbly contended that the trial court erred by not adequately emphasizing the requirement of proving
guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to a misdirection in the court's assessment of the evidence. 28 The trial
court's approach to evaluating the circumstantial evidence failed to consider the necessity of excluding alternative

21
INDIA CONST. art. 21, amended by The Constitution (Eighty-sixth Amendment Act )2000.
22
Rishikesh Singh & Ors v. State ,1970 ALL 51.
23
Kali Ram v.State Of Himachal Pradesh,1973 AIR 2773.
24
Naryayan Govind Gavate Etc v. State of Maharashtra,1977 AIR 183.
25
Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakker v. State of Gujarat,1964 AIR 1563.
26
Paramjeet Singh @Pamma v. State of Uttarkhand ,2011 SC 200.
27
Umedbhai Jadavbhai v. State of Gujarat,1978 AIR 424.
28
Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr v. State of Maharashtra,1973 AIR 2622.
18 | P a g e
~MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT ~
 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

hypotheses.29 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Babu v. State of Kerala 30 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if a
lower court fails to address crucial inconsistencies or relevant evidence, the appellate court must intervene to
prevent a miscarriage of justice.

¶(13)In the present case, the lower court ignored the critical need for the prosecution's evidence to form a
conclusive and unbroken chain pointing only to the guilt of the accused. 31 Therefore, it is respectfully submitted
that the trial court’s oversight in addressing these prejudicial errors significantly impacted the jury’s verdict.

¶(14)In light of the foregoing submissions, it is humbly contended that the prosecution has failed to prove Rajneesh
Kumar’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt as required under Section 103 of the BNS. The absence of conclusive
evidence establishing the necessary elements of criminal liability, coupled with inconsistencies in the
circumstantial evidence and misdirection by the trial court, demonstrate that the conviction was not legally
tenable. It is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court set aside the conviction and acquit the appellant,
thereby upholding the standards of criminal justice.

29
State of Manipur v. Okram Jitan Sing,2005 CRILJ 1646.
30
Babu v. State of Kerala, 1996 SC 2161.
31
Smt. Somavanti And Others v. State of Punjab & Ors,1963 AIR 151.
19 | P a g e
~MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT ~
 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

ISSUE 2: WHETHER THE AVAILABLE EVIDENCE WAS SUFFICIENT FOR THE CONVICTION OF
THE ACCUSED, RAJNEESH KUMAR?

¶(15)It is most respectfully submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the available evidence presented
against Rajneesh Kumar is insufficient to sustain his conviction under the principles of criminal law. The
arguments challenging the sufficiency of the evidence will be demonstrated in a two-fold manner. First,
under 2.1: That there is an insufficiency of primary evidence for the conviction of Rajneesh Kumar.
Second, under 2.2: That the circumstantial evidence is insufficient to meet the burden of proof. These
submissions collectively establish that the evidence falls short of the legal standard required for a
conviction, warranting an acquittal.

2.1 THAT THERE IS AN INSUFFICIENCY OF PRIMARY EVIDENCE FOR THE

CONVICTION OF RAJNEESH KUMAR

2.1.1 That there is a Lack of Primary Evidence Linking Rajneesh to the Crime

¶(16)It is humbly submitted before this hon’ble court that primary evidence, as defined under Section 57
of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam , 2023, consists of the original documents or materials that directly
pertain to the case at hand.32 Primary evidence is crucial in establishing the facts of a case without relying
on secondary interpretations or assumptions.33 However, in the present case, no primary evidence has been
presented linking the appellant to the crime scene or the act of killing.

¶(17)The prosecution has not produced any eyewitness testimony or physical evidence definitively placing
Rajneesh at the crime scene during Vikram Yadav’s death. The lack of direct evidence weakens the
foundation of the prosecution’s case, relying solely on circumstantial evidence that requires an unbroken
chain of conclusive proof to sustain a conviction. 34 As emphasized by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab,35 the circumstances leading to guilt must be fully proven and

32
Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam , 2023, § 57, No. 47, Acts of Parliament, 2023 (India).
33
Budhsen v. State Of Uttar Pradesh,1970 AIR 132.
34
Mulak Raj. Etc. v. Satish Kumar & Ors,1992 SCW 1722.

20 | P a g e
~MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT ~
 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

conclusively connect the accused to the crime. However, in this case, the circumstantial evidence does not
meet this threshold due to numerous gaps and inconsistencies, preventing the formation of a conclusive
chain pointing solely to the appellant's guilt.36

2.1.2 That the CFSL report and forensic evidence fail to establish Rajneesh’s guilt

¶(18)It is humbly submitted that the recovery list37 and CFSL report 38
Fail to provide definitive evidence
linking Rajneesh to the crime. Section 30(I) of the BSA states that the opinion of experts such as those
from forensic scientists is admissible in court.39 In this case, the CFSL report identifies multiple
fingerprints on the dagger and the car, but none conclusively match Rajneesh's fingerprints, leaving
reasonable doubt about his involvement. In Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi v. Jitendra Bhimraj
Bijjaya, the Hon’ble Court emphasized that inconclusive forensic evidence is insufficient to establish guilt
beyond a reasonable doubt.40 Therefore, the unresolved conflicts in evidence should be carefully
considered, ensuring that Rajneesh is granted the benefit of the doubt as mandated by law.

¶(19)Arguendo, even if the forensic evidence pointed towards Rajneesh, expert opinions are not binding
and must be subjected to rigorous judicial scrutiny to exclude all reasonable doubts before forming the
basis of a conviction under Section 141 of BSA. 41 The Hon’ble Court in Balwinder Singh v. State of
Punjab42 absence of any ocular evidence, forensic evidence cannot be taken into account to establish the
guilt of the accused as the expert evidence is only considered as a corroborative piece of evidence.
Conviction of the accused merely on the basis of forensic evidence would be a dangerous proposition
particularly when the prosecutrix has not at all supported the case of prosecution. Therefore, direct
evidence is necessary to substantiate forensic findings, as forensic evidence is just corroborative and
cannot independently establish guilt.43

35
Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab,1996 AIR 607.
36
Shankarlal Gyarasilal Dixit v. State of Maharashtra,1981 AIR 765.
37
¶ page 6 of fact sheet.
38
¶ page 10 of fact sheet.
39
Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam , 2023, § 30(I), No. 47, Acts of Parliament, 2023 (India).
40
Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi v. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijjaya,1990 AIR 1962.
41
Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, § 141, No. 47, Acts of Parliament, 2023 (India).
42
Id at note 35.
43
Ram Singh & Ors v. Col. Ram Singh ,1986 AIR, 3 1985 SCR SUPL. (2) 399

21 | P a g e
~MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT ~
 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

2.1.3 Rajneesh presents a strong alibi

¶(20)It is most respectfully submitted that the appellant's alibi serves as compelling evidence of his
innocence. The testimony of Sundar Singh confirms that Rajneesh departed the guesthouse with Vikram
at approximately 1:00 AM,44 and there is no evidence placing him at the crime scene thereafter. This
timeline is corroborated by Rajneesh's continuous version of events, which suggests that he was on his
way to the airport when Vikram died, making it relevant under Section 9 of the Evidence Act. 45 The
absence of any contradictory evidence further supports the appellant’s claim of being elsewhere when the
crime occurred.

¶(21)Furthermore, the appellant’s strong alibi is substantiated by the boarding pass, 46 which is classified
as a document.47 The boarding pass, provides concrete proof of Rajneesh’s scheduled departure for a
business trip, reinforcing his defense that he was absent from the crime scene when the incident took place.
This documentary evidence is supported by the appellant’s strong alibi. In Ramanand Yadav v. Prabhu
Nath Jha,48 the Hon’ble Court held that a credible alibi supported by documentary evidence mustbe given
significant weight in favour of the accused. The boarding pass here acts as crucial evidence, that week the
claim of the appellant’s involvement.

2.2 THAT THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS INSUFFICIENT TO MEET THE BURDEN

OF PROOF

2.2.1 That the circumstantial evidence fails to establish an unbroken chain of events

¶(22)It is humbly submitted before this Hon'ble Court that, in circumstances where there is no primary
evidence, circumstantial evidence is used extensively. To prove circumstantial evidence, the five golden

44
¶ page 9 of fact sheet.
45
Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam , 2023, § 57, No. 45, Acts of Parliament, 2023 (India).
46
¶ page 12 of fact sheet.
47
Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam , 2023, § 2(d), No. 47, Acts of Parliament, 2023 (India).
48
Ramanand Yadav v. Prabhu Nath Jha, 2003 (6) SLT 531.

22 | P a g e
~MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT ~
 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

principles known as panchsheel must be fully followed that has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the landmark judgement of Sharad Bridhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra,49. The Hon’ble
Court emphasized that circumstantial evidence must form a continuous and unbroken chain that leads only
to the accused, excluding any other reasonable hypothesis.

¶(23)In the present case, the circumstantial evidence fails to meet this standard. The prosecution’s
sequence of events contains significant gaps and does not form a coherent narrative connecting Rajneesh
to the crime.50 The possibility of third-party involvement, such as a robbery attempt, remains unexplored.
The untouched cash in the car and the discovery of Amar Singh's body near Vikram's office suggest an
alternative narrative, that weakens the prosecution's claim of an unbroken chain of evidence.
Consequently, the evidence does not satisfy the legal definition of murder under Section 101 of the BNS,
as it fails to exclude other plausible explanations and does not conclusively point to Rajneesh's guilt.51

2.2.2 That the benefit of the doubt must be given in light of unresolved evidentiary conflicts

¶(24)It is humbly submitted that the principle of in dubio pro reo dictates that any doubt must be resolved
in favour of the accused, especially when significant evidentiary gaps exist. The Supreme Court in
Sudhakar v. State of Maharashtra ruled that when crucial evidentiary gaps remain, the benefit of the doubt
must favour the accused.52 In the present case, The CFSL report and recovery list do not conclusively
connect the dagger to Rajneesh, nor do they establish that the injuries occurred when Rajneesh could have
been involved. The absence of Rajneesh's fingerprints on key evidence further weakens the prosecution's
case. In State of Punjab v. Bhajan Singh, 53 it was held that if the prosecution's evidence raises questions
it cannot answer, the accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt. Therefore, these unresolved conflicts
in evidence warrant granting Rajneesh the benefit of the doubt as mandated by law.54

2.2.3 That the failure to meet the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt requires an acquittal

49
Id at note 10.
50
Tomaso Bruno & Anr v. State Of U.P , 2015 CRIlJ. 1690.
51
Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, Act, 2023, § 101, No. 45, Acts of Parliament,2023 (India).
52
Sudhakar v. State Of Maharashtra ,2000 AIR SCW 2630.
53
State Of Punjab v. Bhajan Singh ,1975 AIR 258.
54
Id at note 20.

23 | P a g e
~MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT ~
 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

¶(25)It is humbly submitted before this Hon'ble court that the prosecution has not met the rigorous
standards set out in Padala Veera Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh,55 which requires that circumstantial
evidence must conclusively establish guilt and preclude any reasonable alternative hypothesis. In the case
of State of Manipur v. Okram Jiten Singh,56 it was held that an accused cannot be convicted solely basedon
circumstantial evidence if there is a gap in the chain of events that fails to conclusively prove the
circumstances against the accused.

¶(26)In the present case, the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution is neither thorough nor
conclusive.57 The timeline from Rajneesh’s departure to the discovery of Vikram’s body leaves a
significant gap, and there is no direct evidence that connects Rajneesh to the injuries sustained by the
deceased.

¶(27)In conclusion, it is most respectfully submitted that the evidence presented in this case is insufficient
to sustain the appellant's conviction, Rajneesh Kumar, under Section 103 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
(BNS). The prosecution’s case lacks direct evidence linking the appellant to the crime, relying solely on
circumstantial evidence that fails to form an unbroken chain exclusively pointing to Rajneesh’s guilt.
Given these deficiencies and the principle that any doubt must favour the accused, it is humbly prayed
that this Hon’ble Court acquit the appellant, reaffirming the presumption of innocence and upholding the
standards of justice.

55
Padala Veera Reddy v. State Of Andhra Pradesh,1990 SC 79.
56
State of Manipur v. Okram Jiten Singh,2005 CRILJ 1646.
57
Raj Kumar Singh @ Raju @ Batya v.State Of Rajasthan,AIR 2013 3150.

24 | P a g e
~MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT ~
 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

ISSUE 3: WHETHER INVESTIGATE LAPSES AND UNEXPLORED ALTERNATIVES SUPPORT A

REASONABLE POSSIBILITY OF FALSE IMPLICATION OF RAJNEESH KUMAR

¶(28)It is respectfully submitted before this Hon'ble Court that there exists a reasonable possibility that
Rajneesh Kumar has been falsely implicated in this case due to significant investigative lapses and the
presence of other individuals with stronger motives and greater opportunities to commit the crime. This
issue is corroborated in a two-fold manner. First, under 3.1: That the Possibility of False Implication Due
to Investigative Lapses. Second, under 3.2: That Stronger Motives and Opportunities exists for Other
Potential Perpetrators. These arguments collectively highlight a substantial possibility of Rajneesh’s
wrongful implication, necessitating closer scrutiny by this Hon’ble Court.

3.1 THAT THE POSSIBILITY OF FALSE IMPLICATION ARISES DUE TO INVESTIGATIVE

LAPSES

3.1.1 That the focus on Rajneesh is erroneous and based on circumstantial factors

¶(29)It is respectfully submitted that Section 175 of the BNSS grants police officers the authority and duty
to conduct a comprehensive investigation of cognizable offences.58 In the present matter, the investigative
authorities prematurely fixated on Rajneesh due to circumstantial factors, which skewed the investigation
and resulted in his potential false implication.

¶(30)The Supreme Court in Samaj Parivartan Samudaya and others v. the State of Karnataka and others59
It emphasized the importance of evaluating circumstantial evidence without bias, ensuring that no link is
assumed without sufficient proof. The Hon'ble Court in the judgement held that withholding evidence or
failing to disclose all relevant evidence impacts the credibility of the investigation. The court stated that a
fair investigation includes the duty to collect and produce all evidence, regardless of its favorabilityto the
prosecution.

58
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, § 175, No. 46, Acts of Parliament, 2023 (India).
59
Samaj Parivartan Samudaya and others v. the State of Karnataka and others, AIR 2013 SC 3217.

25 | P a g e
~MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT ~
 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

¶(31)In this case, the investigating officers relied heavily on isolated pieces of circumstantial evidence,
rather than conducting a holistic examination of the case.60 In Navaneethakrishnan v. State by Inspector
of Police,61 the Supreme Court observed that an investigation based predominantly on assumptions and
circumstantial indicators can result in the misinterpretation of evidence, risking the wrongful implication
of the accused. Here, the investigating officers ignored potential gaps and inconsistencies in Rajneesh’s
alleged involvement, while unduly emphasizing circumstantial factors.62 This lack of investigative
neutrality compromised the integrity of the investigation and led to an erroneous focus on Rajneesh as the
sole suspect.63

3.1.2 That the incomplete investigation and unexplored leads demonstrate Rajneesh's false implication

¶(32)It is respectfully submitted before this Hon’ble Court that, the incomplete investigation and failure to
explore critical leads create a substantial possibility of Rajneesh’s false implication, as the authorities
overlooked multiple angles that could indicate alternative motives for the crime. It is respectfully
submitted that the investigation into the murder lacked thoroughness, with critical pieces of evidence, such
as Vikram’s missing belongings, left unaddressed. Notably, Vikram’s phone, wallet, and gold chain were
missing from the scene,64 raising the possibility of a robbery motive that the investigating authorities failed
to explore. Here, this angle was neither investigated nor ruled out, thereby weakening the case against
Rajneesh.

¶(33)The presence of multiple unidentified fingerprints at the crime scene suggests the investigation failed
to pursue potential third-party involvement. Forensic analysis revealed fingerprints on the dagger and
other objects that did not match Rajneesh's, yet the authorities did not attempt to identify these or connect
them to other suspects. Additionally, the unexplained presence of an earring, possibly indicating the

60
Gambhir v. State of Maharashtra,1982 SC 1157.
61
Navaneethakrishnan v. State by Inspector of Police,AIR 2018 SC 2027.
62
State v. Raj Singh S/O Sh. Kehar Singh ,1988 AIR 1883.
63
Dinubhai Boghabhai Solanki v. State of Gujarat & Ors,2014 SCW 1722.
64
¶ 16 page 3 of fact sheet.

26 | P a g e
~MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT ~
 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

involvement of an unknown individual, was ignored. Furthermore, the investigative failure to involve
Awantika as a witness or consider her role raises concerns about the investigation’s integrity.

¶(34)Section 180 of the BNSS65 mandates examining all persons acquainted with the case's facts, and
Section 348 requires the court to summon essential witnesses. Despite Awantika’s significant connection
to both Rajneesh and Vikram and the alleged conspiracy to harm Rajneesh, these procedural requirements
were disregarded, missing vital leads and compromising the investigation. In Suresh v. State of U.P,66 the
Supreme Court held that he failure to include relevant individuals with vested interests as witnesses or
persons of interest constitutes an incomplete investigation and weakens the prosecution’s case. Here,
Awantika’s absence as a witness creates a significant evidentiary gap, reinforcing the theory that Rajneesh
may have been falsely implicated due to investigative negligence.

3.1.3 That investigative lapses compromised Rajneesh's fundamental right to a fair investigation

¶(35)It is respectfully submitted that Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees the fundamental
right to life and personal liberty,67 including the right to a fair investigation.68 A fair investigation is crucial
to preventing false implications and ensuring justice. In Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi),69 the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that fair investigation is part of the constitutional rights under Articles 20 and
21, requiring investigations to be fair, transparent, and judicious as per the rule of law.

¶(36)Similarly, in Nirmal Singh Kahlon v. State Of Punjab And Ors,70 the Hon'ble Court held that fair
investigation and fair trial are essential to preserving the fundamental rights of the accused under Article
2170 In the present case, the investigative authorities failed to conduct a thorough investigation and
compromised the integrity of the process by prematurely focusing on Rajneesh without exploring other
plausible leads, violating his fundamental right to a fair investigation.71

65
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Act, 2023, § 180, No. 46, Acts of Parliament, 2023 (India).
66
Suresh v. State of U.P,1981 AIR 1122.
67
INDIA CONST. art. 21, amended by The Constitution (Eighty-sixth Amendment Act )2000.
68
Babubhai v. State of Gujarat & Ors, 2010 AIR SCW 5126.
69
Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi), AIR 2010 SC 2352.
70
Nirmal Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab and Ors, AIR 2009 SC 984.
71
V. Ambi v. State of Kerala,1962 CRILJ 135.
27 | P a g e
~MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT ~
 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

¶(37)Furthermore, the concept of motivated investigation, where authorities seek evidence to fit aparticular
theory rather than pursuing objective leads, is a significant source of wrongful implications. In Pratap v.
State of U.P, 72 the judgment warns against preemptive focus based on partial evidence, which can exclude
viable suspects. Here, investigative officers disregarded significant alternative motives and suspects by
focusing solely on Rajneesh. Given these gaps and the premature focus, Rajneesh’s fundamental rights
were compromised, necessitating judicial intervention to prevent injustice and support his plea for relief.

3.2 THAT STRONGER MOTIVES AND OPPORTUNITIES EXIST FOR OTHER

POTENTIAL PERPETRATORS

3.2.1 That third parties had clearer and more immediate motives to commit the crime

¶(38)It is respectfully submitted that individuals connected to Vikram’s criminal dealings and political
alliances had stronger and more immediate motives to harm him, establishing a credible basis for
alternative suspects. As a criminal-turned-politician with a history of operating a drug cartel and being a
drug addict,73 Vikram was vulnerable to conflicts with rivals in the drug trade, political adversaries, and
former associates, any of whom could have had motives to act against him. Despite this, the investigating
authorities failed to examine possible enemies within Vikram’s network or rival politicians who would
have benefited from his demise. By prematurely focusing on Rajneesh without considering these
alternative suspects, the investigation missed critical leads and neglected to scrutinize those with clearer
motives, creating a strong possibility of Rajneesh’s wrongful implication.

3.2.2 That sufficient opportunities existed for alternative perpetrators to execute the crime

¶(39)It is respectfully submitted before this Hon’ble Court that, given Vikram’s high-profile lifestyle and
extensive involvement in criminal activities, individuals familiar with his routine would have had ample
opportunity to target him on his way home from the guesthouse. Rivals, competitors, or enemies within

72
Pratap v. State Of U.P,1973 AIR 786.
73
¶ page 1 of fact sheet.

28 | P a g e
~MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT ~
 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

his criminal network could have been well aware of his likely route, using this knowledge to intercept him
at an opportune moment. The absence of eyewitnesses or surveillance along this route further supports the
notion that someone else, with precise information on his movements, had the chance to approach Vikram
and commit the crime without detection.

¶(39)Furthermore, the crime took place in a public, unmonitored setting, 74 allowing third parties to act
without restriction. This open and unprotected area, combined with the lack of security measures,
increased the likelihood of interference by individuals familiar with Vikram’s movements. It is reasonable
to infer that others, likely with deeper enmity or rival motives, may have exploited this unobserved
timeframe, seizing the moment to confront Vikram. The presence of such opportunities for others creates
reasonable doubt about Rajneesh's alleged involvement, underscoring the plausibility of his false
implication in this case.

¶(40)In conclusion, it is respectfully submitted that the evidence and circumstances surrounding this case
create a strong possibility of Rajneesh Kumar’s false implication. The investigative lapses, including an
undue focus on Rajneesh and the neglect of crucial leads, along with the plausible involvement of other
parties with far stronger motives and greater opportunities, cast serious doubt on the validity of Rajneesh’s
alleged culpability. It is therefore humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court considers these lapses and the
presence of alternative suspects, thereby upholding the principles of justice and granting relief to Rajneesh
Kumar.

74
¶ page 3 of fact Sheet.
29 | P a g e
~MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT ~
 Na

NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, IN LIGHT OF THE ISSUES RAISED, ARGUMENTS ADVANCED, AND AUTHORITIES

CITED IT IS MOST HUMBLY PRAYED THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO HOLD
THAT:

1. To declare that the evidence presented does not prove the guilt beyond all reasonable doubts.

2. To set aside the Appellant's Conviction under Sec. 103 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, (BNS) 2023.

OR\AND

Pass any other Order, Direction, or Relief as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the interest of Justice,
Fairness, Equity, and Good Conscience.
For this act of upholding justice, the appellate shall forever pray.

ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

COUNSELS for APPELLANT

~MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT ~ 30 | P a g e