SEMI FINAL -- PLOT MURDER 28

 · Kali mishra , the eldest of the three, is a hardworking farmer struggling to

support his aging parents. Vikram jadhav, a young and aspiring student,
dreams of lifting his family out of poverty through education. Anikit, a
skilled craftsman, is known in his village for his dedication to his trade and
his willingness to help others.
 A1, A2, and A3, all cousins from a in Uttar Pradesh (UP), found themselves
entangled in a series of unfortunate events that led to their wrongful
implication in a murder case. On a particular day, they attended a party in
their village, which was abruptly raided due to a narcotic bust. In fear and
panic, A1, A2, and A3 fled the scene and decided to move to Hyderabad to
escape the turmoil, hoping that things would settle down in their absence.

 · In Hyderabad, the trio faced numerous challenges. Despite their best

efforts to find stable jobs, they lived in constant fear of being tracked down
for a crime they did not commit. They worked as daily wage laborers, barely
making ends meet.

. One late night, while searching for food after 11:30 PM, they were stopped
by a Sub-Inspector (SI) from Gachibowli police station during his patrol as they
were asking everyone where the food might be availble . The SI, due to their
way of apperence upon checking their Aadhar cards, recognized them as the
suspects from the narcotic bust in UP, having received a forwarded case file and
alert.

 Meanwhile, the murder of Nalini had created a massive media outrage and
immense pressure on the local police to solve the case quickly. The SI,
aiming to resolve the case expediently and under duress, decided to frame
A1, A2, and A3. Without their consent, he secretly collected their DNA
samples and planted them on Nalini's body to fabricate evidence against
them.

 The lack of thorough investigation and reliance on the manipulated
evidence led to their arrest. The trial in the Sessions Court was rushed,
ignoring key inconsistencies and procedural violations, resulting in A1, A2,
and A3 being wrongfully convicted and sentenced to death. However, the
real perpetrators of Nalini's murder remained free, while the innocent trio
faced the gravest injustice.

· · Refining the Opening Statement

Introduction: "My name is [Your Name], and I am here to represent the appellants,
A1, A2, and A3, who stand wrongfully convicted and sentenced to death for a crime
they did not commit. Our appeal seeks to rectify this miscarriage of justice and
restore their freedom.
Humanizing the Appellants: "A1, A2, and A3 are not just names on a charge sheet.
They are hardworking, honest individuals from a socially disadvantaged
background, striving to make a better life for themselves and their families."

Detailed Narrative: "On a fateful night in their village, amidst a chaotic narcotic
bust, they fled to avoid wrongful persecution. In Hyderabad, they faced immense
hardships, yet remained law-abiding. However, due to a series of procedural lapses
and the unethical actions of a pressured SI, they were wrongfully implicated in a
murder case."

Evidence and Legal Violations: "We will present irrefutable evidence, including alibi
witnesses, expert testimonies on the improper handling of DNA, and digital
records, to demonstrate their innocence. We will also highlight the procedural
lapses and legal violations that tainted the investigation."

Conclusion: "We implore this Honorable Court to recognize the grave injustice that
has occurred and to acquit A1, A2, and A3, ensuring that justice prevails and their
lives are restored.

7777777

Opening Statements

May it please the Court,

Introduction: "I am [Your Name], representing the appellants, A1, A2, and A3, who
have been wrongfully convicted and sentenced to death for a crime they did not
commit. This case is a stark reminder of how innocent lives can be caught in the
web of a flawed legal process, exacerbated by external pressures and procedural
lapses.

"Ladies and Gentlemen of the Court, today we stand before you not only to seek
justice for the accused, A1, A2, and A3 but to uphold the integrity of our judicial
system. Our clients, three young men from a socially backward caste, were caught
in a web of false accusations and police misconduct. The evidence presented
against them is not only fabricated but also tainted by the prejudice and undue
pressure faced by the investigating officers. We will demonstrate through
compelling evidence and witness testimonies that these young men are innocent
and victims of a grave miscarriage of justice. This case, if unaddressed, will set a
dangerous precedent, jeopardizing the very fabric of our legal system."

Humanizing the Appellants: "A1, A2, and A3 are not just defendants in this case.
They are cousins, belonging to a socially backward caste from a small village in
Uttar Pradesh. A1 is a hardworking farmer, A2 an aspiring student, and A3 a skilled
craftsman. On a day like any other, they attended a party in their village, unaware
that their lives were about to be turned upside down."

Incident Description: "During the party, a sudden narcotic raid created chaos.
Fearing wrongful arrest due to their disadvantaged status, A1, A2, and A3 fled the
scene and sought refuge in Hyderabad, hoping to rebuild their lives away from the
turmoil.

Encounter with Law Enforcement: "In Hyderabad, while striving to make an honest
living, they were stopped by a Sub-Inspector (SI) during a late-night patrol. The SI,
recognizing them from an alert related to the narcotic bust, saw an opportunity to
solve another high-profile case—the murder of Nalini. Under immense media
pressure and public outrage, the SI unlawfully collected their DNA samples without
their consent and planted them on Nalini's body."

Highlighting Procedural Lapses: "The investigation was marred by egregious

procedural lapses and a blatant disregard for legal protocols. The DNA evidence,
unlawfully collected, became the linchpin of their wrongful conviction. The
Sessions Court, swayed by fabricated evidence and the urgency to deliver a verdict,
sentenced A1, A2, and A3 to death.

Key Arguments: "Your Lordships, we will demonstrate through irrefutable evidence

and legal precedents that A1, A2, and A3 are innocent. We will show that:

The DNA samples were collected without consent, violating Article 21 of the
Constitution and Sections 45 and 165 of the CrPC.

Witnesses and digital evidence will establish their alibi.

The prosecution's case is built on coerced and fabricated evidence."

Emphasizing the Right to a Fair Trial: "This case highlights the dangers of a rushed
judicial process driven by external pressures. Every individual, regardless of their
social status, has the right to a fair trial and due process. The procedural lapses and
unlawful actions in this case have denied A1, A2, and A3 these fundamental rights.

Conclusion and Prayer: "We respectfully implore this Honorable Court to

recognize the grave miscarriage of justice that has occurred and to acquit
A1, A2, and A3. We seek not only the commutation of their death sentences
to life imprisonment without parole but also a full exoneration to restore
their freedom and dignity."

Thank you, Your Lordships.

Presenting the Miscarriage of Justice and Pressure on

Police and Trial Court Judge
Introduction: "Your Lordships, this case is a glaring example of how external
pressures and procedural violations can lead to a grave miscarriage of
justice, affecting innocent lives. Allow me to take this Honorable Court
through the series of events that underscore the undue pressures faced by
the police and the trial court."

1. External Pressures on Law Enforcement:

a. Media Outrage and Public Pressure:

"The murder of Nalini caused significant media outrage and public pressure
on the police to quickly solve the case. This high-profile nature of the crime
created an environment where the police were under immense scrutiny to
deliver immediate results."

b. Police Under Pressure:

"Faced with intense media scrutiny and the demand for swift action, the
police resorted to unlawful and unethical means to close the case. The Sub-
Inspector (SI) in Gachibowli, recognizing the appellants from an alert related
to a narcotic bust, saw an opportunity to link them to Nalini's murder
without substantial evidence."

c. Unlawful DNA Collection:

"In an attempt to fabricate evidence, the SI unlawfully collected DNA

samples from A1, A2, and A3 without their consent, in direct violation of
Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and
personal liberty, and Sections 45 and 165 of the CrPC."

2. Procedural Lapses and Investigative Flaws:

a. Violation of Legal Protocols:

"The DNA samples were not only collected without consent but also
without adherence to the mandatory legal procedures. These actions
represent a significant procedural lapse that taints the integrity of the
investigation."

b. Fabrication of Evidence:

"The fabricated DNA evidence became the cornerstone of the prosecution's

case, leading to the wrongful conviction of A1, A2, and A3. The SI's actions
were driven by the urgent need to show progress in the case, regardless of
the truth."

3. Judicial Pressures and Hasty Trial:

a. Trial Court Under Pressure:

"The trial court, influenced by the media frenzy and public demand for
quick justice, conducted the trial with undue haste. The pressure to deliver
a verdict swiftly compromised the thoroughness and fairness required in
such serious matters."

b. Lack of Thorough Examination:

"The trial court failed to thoroughly examine the evidence and procedural
irregularities, resulting in a verdict that was based more on external
pressures than on solid legal foundations. The court overlooked critical
evidence that could have exonerated the appellants."

4. Evidence of Miscarriage of Justice:

a. Alibi and Contradictory Evidence:

"We will present credible alibi witnesses and digital records that place A1,
A2, and A3 in Hyderabad at the time of the murder, proving their innocence
beyond doubt. This evidence was either overlooked or dismissed during the
trial."

b. Expert Testimonies:

"Forensic experts will testify to the improper handling and collection of the
DNA evidence, highlighting the significant procedural lapses that invalidate
the prosecution's key evidence."

5. Legal Precedents:

a. Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980):

"In Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 898, the Supreme Court
laid down the 'rarest of rare' doctrine, emphasizing that the death penalty
should only be awarded in exceptional cases. This case does not meet that
threshold."

b. Swamy Shraddananda v. State of Karnataka (2008):

"In Swamy Shraddananda v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2008 SC 3040, the

Supreme Court commuted a death sentence to life imprisonment without
parole, acknowledging the possibility of judicial errors and emphasizing the
need for caution in awarding the death penalty."

Conclusion: "Your Lordships, the wrongful conviction of A1, A2, and A3 is a

result of a deeply flawed investigation influenced by external pressures and
procedural lapses. We urge this Honorable Court to recognize the grave
miscarriage of justice that has occurred and to acquit the appellants,
ensuring that justice prevails and their innocence is restored."

Prayer: "We respectfully pray that the wrongful conviction and death
sentences of A1, A2, and A3 be overturned, and they be acquitted of all
charges. This will not only restore their freedom and dignity but also uphold
the integrity of our judicial system."

Key Points to Emphasize

Highlight Media Pressure:Emphasize how media scrutiny and public outrage

can create an environment of undue pressure on law enforcement and the
judiciary.

Detail Procedural Violations: Clearly outline the procedural lapses, such as

the unlawful collection of DNA evidence, and how these violations have
compromised the integrity of the investigation.

Stress Judicial Responsibility:Emphasize the court's

responsibility to ensure a fair trial and the importance of upholding legal
protocols to prevent miscarriages of justice.

Present Credible Evidence: Introduce strong alibi evidence and expert

testimonies to challenge the prosecution's case and prove the innocence of
the appellants.

By presenting these points effectively, you can make a compelling case that
highlights the miscarriage of justice and the undue pressures that
influenced the investigation and trial, thereby seeking the rightful acquittal
of A1, A2, and A3.

1. Miscarriage of Justice

Relevant Sections:CrPC Section 386: Powers of the Appellate CourtThis

section allows the appellate court to alter the finding or reduce the
sentence if a miscarriage of justice is evident.

CrPC Section 391: Appellate Court's Power to Take Further Evidence .The
appellate court can admit new evidence that may demonstrate a
miscarriage of justice in the original trial.

2. Procedural Irregularities

Relevant Sections:CrPC Section 386(b)(i): Altering the FindingIf procedural

irregularities are found, the appellate court can alter the finding of the
lower court.CrPC Section 401: High Court's Powers of Revision .This section
 empowers the High Court to correct any procedural irregularities during the
trial.

3. Mitigating Circumstances

Relevant Sections: IPC Section 302: Punishment for Murder .While this section
prescribes the punishment for murder, it allows the court to consider mitigating
circumstances when determining the appropriate sentence.

.CrPC Section 235(2): Hearing on Sentence .This section requires the court to hear
the accused on the question of sentence, allowing the presentation of mitigating
circumstances.

4. Re-evaluation of Evidence :Relevant Sections:

CrPC Section 386: Powers of the Appellate Court Allows the appellate court to re-
evaluate the evidence presented during the trial.

CrPC Section 391: Appellate Court's Power to Take Further Evidence

.Permits the appellate court to take or direct the taking of additional evidence
necessary for a just decision.

5. Unreliable or Tampered Evidence :Relevant Sections:CrPC Section 386(b)(i):

Altering the Finding

o If the evidence is found to be unreliable or tampered with, the

appellate court can alter the finding of the lower court.

CrPC Section 391: Appellate Court's Power to Take Further Evidence Allows
the appellate court to admit new evidence to challenge the reliability of the
original evidence presented.

Detailed Argument Support

1. Miscarriage of Justice

Section 386 and 391 of CrPC: Argue that the conviction of A1, A2, and A3 was a
result of a miscarriage of justice due to the framing by the SI. Presenting new
evidence under Section 391 will support this argument.

2. Procedural Irregularities

Section 386(b)(i) and 401 of CrPC: Highlight procedural violations in the collection
and handling of DNA evidence. These sections allow the appellate court to correct
such irregularities.

3. Mitigating Circumstances
Section 302 of IPC and 235(2) of CrPC: Emphasize the socio-economic background
of the accused and the lack of prior criminal records. These sections allow the court
to consider these factors in sentencing.

4. Re-evaluation of Evidence

Section 386 and 391 of CrPC: Present the new evidence and witness testimonies
that were not considered during the original trial. These sections empower the
appellate court to re-evaluate all the evidence.

5. Unreliable or Tampered Evidence

Section 386(b)(i) and 391 of CrPC: Argue that the DNA evidence was tampered with
and present expert testimony to support this claim. These sections enable the
court to take additional evidence and alter the finding based on the new evidence.

CASE LAWS RELEVANT TO THE THIS CASE RELVANCE AND APPLICATION

Key Case Laws to Introduce

1.

Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 898

Relevance: This landmark case established the "rarest of rare" doctrine for
awarding the death penalty.

Application: Argue that the case of A1, A2, and A3 does not meet the "rarest of
rare" criteria, as their involvement in the crime is highly questionable and the
evidence against them is tainted.

Swamy Shraddananda v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2008 SC 3040

Relevance: The Supreme Court commuted a death sentence to life imprisonment

without parole, emphasizing judicial caution in death penalty cases.

Application: Highlight the potential for judicial errors and argue for the
commutation of the death sentence to life imprisonment without parole, given the
procedural irregularities and unlawful evidence collection.

Krishna Govind Patil v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1963 SC 1413

Relevance: This case emphasizes the importance of proper legal procedures in the
collection of evidence.

Application: Use this case to argue that the unlawful collection of DNA samples
without consent violates procedural safeguards and should render the evidence
inadmissible.
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622

Relevance: This case outlines the principles of circumstantial evidence and the
requirement for the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Application: Argue that the circumstantial evidence against A1, A2, and A3 is
insufficient and tainted, failing to meet the standard of proof beyond a reasonable
doubt.

Pandurang v. State of Hyderabad, AIR 1955 SC 216

Relevance: Emphasizes the need for a fair trial and adherence to legal protocols.

Application: Use this case to highlight the procedural lapses in the investigation
and trial, arguing that these lapses compromised the fairness of the trial.

Ramaswami Ayyangar v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1976 SC 2027

Relevance: This case discusses the importance of corroborative evidence in proving

guilt.

Application: Argue that the lack of corroborative evidence and the reliance on
unlawfully obtained DNA samples weaken the prosecution's case.

CASE LAWS RELATING TO THE PLOT OF U.P

In India, there have been cases where individuals were falsely implicated by the
police in murder cases, leading to wrongful convictions. Here are a few notable
instances:

1. *Satyamurthi vs. State of Maharashtra (2015)*: The Supreme Court acquitted a

man who was falsely implicated by the police in a murder case. The court criticized
the investigating officers for fabricating evidence and highlighting the dangers of
relying solely on circumstantial evidence.

2. *Umesh Chandra vs. State of Rajasthan (2013)*: The Rajasthan High Court
acquitted Umesh Chandra, who had been falsely implicated in a murder case. The
court noted serious lapses in the police investigation and highlighted the need for a
fair trial and proper scrutiny of evidence.

3. *Nisar Ali vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2011)*: The Allahabad High Court acquitted
Nisar Ali, who had been falsely implicated in a murder case. The court criticized the
police for framing an innocent person and emphasized the importance of thorough
investigation and adherence to legal procedures.

These cases highlight the importance of due process, fair investigation, and the
dangers of relying solely on police allegations without sufficient evidence.
Wrongful convictions due to police misconduct underscore the need for reforms in
police practices and the criminal justice system to prevent such
miscarriages of justice.

Structured Argument for the media outrage

1. Introduction: "Your Lordships, the intense media coverage surrounding this case
played a pivotal role in shaping public opinion and pressuring law enforcement and
the judiciary to act swiftly, ultimately leading to a miscarriage of justice."

2. Intense Media Coverage: "This case received unprecedented media attention,

with sensational headlines and round-the-clock coverage. The media portrayed the
crime in a manner that stirred public emotions and created a narrative of urgency
and outrage."

3. Impact on Public Opinion: "The relentless media coverage fueled public outrage,
leading to widespread demands for swift and decisive action. Social media
platforms were flooded with calls for justice, protests were organized, and opinion
polls showed a near-unanimous demand for severe punishment."

4. Pressure on Law Enforcement: "Faced with this media-driven public outcry, law
enforcement agencies were under immense pressure to deliver quick results. This
pressure led to a rushed investigation that targeted A1, A2, and A3, who were
vulnerable and easily scapegoated due to their socio-economic background."

5. Influence on Judicial Process: "The media's portrayal of the case created a

prejudicial environment that influenced the judicial process. The trial court, under
the weight of public scrutiny and media expectations, may have felt compelled to
deliver a harsh verdict without thoroughly examining the evidence and ensuring a
fair trial."

6. Specific Instances: "We can point to specific instances where the media coverage
directly influenced the proceedings:

 Statements by police officials in press conferences claiming they had 'caught

the culprits' before a thorough investigation was completed.
 Comments by public figures and opinion leaders, widely reported in the
media, calling for the death penalty without due consideration of the facts."

7. Judicial Precedents: "In landmark judgments such as Bachan Singh v. State of

Punjab and Swamy Shraddananda v. State of Karnataka, the Supreme Court has
emphasized the need for caution and thoroughness in death penalty cases,
recognizing the potential for judicial errors exacerbated by external pressures."

8. Conclusion: "Your Lordships, the undue influence of media outrage has

compromised the fairness of the investigation and trial in this case. It is imperative
that the court rectifies this miscarriage of justice by ensuring that A1, A2, and A3
are acquitted based on a fair reassessment of the evidence, free from media and
public pressure."

Supporting Evidence and Sections.

Media Coverage Analysis:

o Present examples of sensational media coverage, including

headlines, news articles, and editorials.
o Use social media analysis tools to show the extent of online
discussions and campaigns

Public Opinion Data:

o Cite opinion polls, social media trends, and records of public protests
demanding swift justice and severe punishment.

Judicial and Law Enforcement Statements: Include statements made by

police officials and judicial comments that reflect the influence of media
coverage.

Legal Provisions: Article 21 of the Constitution of India: Right to a fair trial.

o Sections 45 and 165 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC):

Procedures for collecting evidence and conducting fair
investigations.

Opening Statement for Appellant Side Arguing Miscarriage of

Justice

Highlighting Police Misconduct

 Emphasize the unauthorized collection of DNA and the planting of evidence.

Cite cases where police misconduct led to wrongful convictions, such as the
case of Babloo Chauhan @ Dabloo v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi.

 Lack of Concrete Evidence

 Stress the absence of credible evidence linking A1, A2, and A3 to the crime
scene. Use the precedent set by Sharad Birdhichand v. State of Maharashtra
which emphasizes that conviction must be based on clear, cogent, and
unimpeachable evidence.

 Impact of Media Outrage

 Argue that the media frenzy surrounding the case led to undue pressure on
the police and judiciary, resulting in a rushed and biased investigation and
trial.
 Conclusion
 Revising your narrative to include the aforementioned points and evidence
will provide a compelling and strong case for the innocence of A1, A2, and
A3. Ensure that your memorial includes detailed accounts of police
misconduct, supported by affidavits and character witnesses, and
references to key case laws that support your arguments. By presenting a
robust narrative of wrongful conviction, you can effectively argue for the
acquittal of your clients and highlight the systemic issues within the criminal
justice system.