MADHUSUDAN LAW UNIVERSITY MOOT MEMORIAL

MADHUSUDAN LAW UNIVERSITY MOOT MEMORIAL

EXAM ROLL NUMBER: 2431011048
CLAS ROLL NUMBER: 59
………………………………………………………………………………….........
MADHUSUDAN LAW UNIVERSITY
MOOT COURT MEMORIAL
SEMESTER II
……………………………………………………………………………………….
BEFORE THE HONOUR CITY SESSIONS COURT OF MUMBAI
AN APPEAL MADE UNDER THE SECTION 448(2) OF THE BNSS
AGAINST THE ORDER OF REMAND GRANTED BY THE JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

……………………………………………………………………………………….
ROHAN SINGH
(APPELLANT)
V.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
(RESPONDENT)
…………………………………………………………………………………….....
MORALIN BAGHA
APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE APPELANT
…………………………………………………………………………………….....
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELANT

1 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

 MADHUSUDAN LAW UNIVERSITY MOOT MEMORIAL

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. List of abbreviation
2. Index of authorities
3. Statement of jurisdiction
4. Statement of fact
5. Issues raised
6. Summary of arguments
7. Argument In Advance
ISSUE 1: WHETHER THE CONFESSION MADE BY THE ACCUSED UNDER
SECTION 180 OF THE BNSS IS INADMISSIBLE AS EVIDENCE, CONSIDERING
THAT IT WAS ALLEGEDLY OBTAINED UNDER DURESS AND COERCION?
ISSUE 2: WHETHER THE DETAIN FOR 14 DAYS IN POLICE CUSTODY WAS
KAWFUL, & WHETHER THE POLICE PROVIDED SUFFICIENT GROUNDS
FOR HIS REMAND AS PER THE LEGAL PROVISION?
ISSUE3: WHETHER THE BLOOD STAINED KNIFE RECOVERED FROM THE
ACCUSED POSSESSION WAS SUFFICIENT TO LINK HIM TO THE CRIME?
ISSUES 4: WHETHER THE PROSECUTION HAS FAILED TO ESTABLISH
GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT IN THE ABSENCE OF DIRECT
EVIDENCE, MOTIVE OR CREDIBLE CIRCUMSTANTIAL LINKAGE TO THE
ACCUSED?
8. Prayer

2 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

 MADHUSUDAN LAW UNIVERSITY MOOT MEMORIAL

LIST OF ABBREVIATION

ABBREVIATION FULL FORM

& And

Hon’ble Honourable

Vs. Versus

AIR All India Reporter

BNSS Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita

SC Supreme Court

SEC Section

Sec. Section

3 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

 MADHUSUDAN LAW UNIVERSITY MOOT MEMORIAL

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

LIST OF CASES

Sl No Case Name
1. Nandini Satpathy Vs P.L Dani (1978)
2. D.V Narayanswamy vs State of Karnataka (1997)
3. CBI vs Anupam J. Kulkarni (1992)
4. Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs Rajesh Ranjan (2004)
5. A.K Gopalan vs State of Madras (1950)
6. Hanumant Govind Nargundka vs State of Madhya Pradesh (1952
7. Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs State of Maharashtra (1989)
8. Kali Ram vs State of Himachal Pradesh
9. Sunmbramaniam vs State of Tamil Nadu

LIST OF BOOKS

Sl No Books
1. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,2023
2. Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita 2023
3. Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam,2023

LIST OF ONLINE DATABASE

Sl No Name of database
1. Manupatra.com
2. Scconline.com

4 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

 MADHUSUDAN LAW UNIVERSITY MOOT MEMORIAL

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The present appeal in the matter of Rohan Singh vs State of Maharashtra the appellant
respectfully summits this petition before The Hon’ ble City Sessions Court of Mumbai. This
Hon’ ble court has the jurisdictions to hear & decide this appeal U/S 448(2) of the BNSS as it
per to the challenge against the order of a remand granted by the Judicial Magistrate of First
Class. The appellant contends that the statement record U/S 180 of BNSS is inadmissible,
thereby violating the principle of fair trial & due process as in Article 21 of Constitution of
India. The Session Court is empowered to review the legality & maintainability of Lower
Court order & to ensure that the rights of the appellant are protected in accordance with the
law. Therefore, this Court is the appropriate forum to adjudicate upon the issues raised in this
appeal.

5 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

 MADHUSUDAN LAW UNIVERSITY MOOT MEMORIAL

STATEMENT OF FACT
1. Rohan Singh, a 25-year-old resident of Mumbai, was arrested by the Mumbai Police on
February 10, 2022, for allegedly murdering his business partner, Rahul Gupta. The
police claimed to have recovered a blood-stained knife from Rohan’s possession, which
was later sent for forensic examination.
2. During the investigation, the police recorded Rohan’s statement under Section 180 of
the BNSS in which he allegedly confessed to the crime. However, Rohan later retracted
his statement, claiming that it was obtained under duress.
3. The police filed a chargesheet against Rohan under Section 103 of the BNS and sought
his remand for further investigation. The Metropolitan Magistrate granted the police
custody of Rohan for 14 days.
4. Rohan’s counsel challenged the admissibility of the statement recorded under Section
180 of the BNSS, arguing that it was obtained through coercion and was therefore
inadmissible as evidence.

6 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

 MADHUSUDAN LAW UNIVERSITY MOOT MEMORIAL

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUE 1:
WHETHER THE CONFESSION MADE BY THE ACCUSED UNDER SECTION 180 OF
THE BNSS IS INADMISSIBLE AS EVIDENCE CONSIDERING THAT IT WAS
ALLEGEDLY OBTAINED UNDER DURESS AND COERCION?

ISSUE 2:
WHETHER THE DETAIN FOR 14 DAYS IN POLICE CUSTODY WAS KAWFUL ,&
WHETHER THE POLICE PROVIDED SUFFICIENT GROUNDS FOR HIS REMAND AS
PER THE LEGAL PROVISION?

ISSUE 3:

WHETHER THE BLOOD STAINED KNIFE RECOVERED FROM THE ACCUSED

POSSESSION WAS SUFFICIENT TO LINK HIM TO THE CRIME?

ISSUE 4:

WHETHER THE PROSECUTION HAS FAILED TO ESTABLISH GUILT BEYOND

REASONABLE DOUBT IN THE ABSENCE OF DIRECT EVIDENCE, MOTIVE OR
CREDIBLE CIRCUMSTANTIAL LINKAGE TO THE ACCUSED?

7 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

 MADHUSUDAN LAW UNIVERSITY MOOT MEMORIAL

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE 1: WHETHER THE CONFESSION MADE BY THE ACCUSED UNDER

SECTION 180 OF THE BNSS IS INADMISSIBLE AS EVIDENCE,CONSIDERING
THAT IT WAS ALLEGEDLY OBTAINED UNDER DURESS AND COERCION?
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the confession made by the accused
under Sec 180 of the BNSS is inadmissible as evidence. As Section 180(4) of BNSS
mandates that the magistrate must ensure that the confession made voluntary.
………………………………………………………………………………………………......

ISSUE 2: WHETHER THE DETAIN FOR 14 DAYS IN POLICE CUSTODY WAS

LAWFUL, & WHETHER THE POLICE PROVIDED SUFFICIENT GROUNDS FOR
HIS REMAND AS PER THE LEGAL PROVISION?
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the detention for 14 days in police
custody was unlawful, U/S 180(3) of the BNSS a magistrate may authorize police custody
only when adequate and specific grounds are made out by the investigation officer.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………..

ISSUE 3: WHETHER THE BLOOD STAINED KNIFE RECOVERED FROM THE

ACCUSED POSSESSION WAS SUFFICIENT TO LINK HIM TO THE CRIME?

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the blood stained knife recovered from
the accused possession was not sufficient to link him to the crime, it must be shown that the
weapon was used in the crime and that it was recovered under circumstances that meet the
standard of admissibility under section 23 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam.

………………………………………………………………………………………………......
ISSUE 4: WHETHER THE PROSECUTION HAS FAILED TO ESTABLISH GUILT
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT IN THE ABSENCE OF DIRECT EVIDENCE,
MOTIVE OR CREDIBLE CIRCUMSTANTIAL LINKAGE TO THE ACCUSED?

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the prosecution has failed to establish
guilty beyond reasonable doubt the prosecution has not produced any direct eye witnesses to
the alleged incidents .It is further submit that the prosecution has failed to establish clear
motive for the petitioner to commit the crime.

8 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

 MADHUSUDAN LAW UNIVERSITY MOOT MEMORIAL

ARGUMENTS IN ADVANCE

ISSUE 1- WHETHER THE CONFESSION MADE BY THE ACCUSED UNDER

SECTION 180 OF THE BNSS IS INADMISSIBLE AS EVIDENCE, CONSIDERING
THAT IT WAS ALLEGEDLY OBTAINED UNDER DURESS AND COERCION?

1. Section 180 of the BNSS allows for a statement to be recorded during an investigation,
provided it is done voluntarily. However, if a statement is obtained under duress, it
violates the principles of fairness, justice and the accused’s right to a fair trial. In such
cases, the statement must be treated with caution, and its adminisibility must be
questioned.
2. Section 180 (2) BNSS : Provides guidelines for recording statement, emphasising that a
person examined by a police officer in relation to a case is bound to answer truthfully all
questions, except those that might expose them to a criminal charge, penalty or forfeiture.
3. Sec. 184(4) of the BNSS mandates that the Magistrate must ensure that the confession is
made voluntarily, and a certificate to that effect must be recorded.
4. Sec. 23 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA): Confessions made to a police officer
are inadmissible and shall not be proved against an accused, unless there is an immediate
presence of a magistrate.
5. The Constitution of India, Article 20(3), guarantees protection against self- incrimination.
A coerced confession can amount to a violation of this right and cannot be used as
evidence in the court.

Landmark case Laws:

I. Nandini satpathy vs P.L Dani (1978): The Supreme Court held that confession
made under duress or threat cannot be admitted as evidence. The court
emphasized that the voluntariness of a confession is the key factor in determining
its admissibility.
II. D. V. Narayanswamy vs. State of Karnataka (1997): The Court held that a
confession made under threat or coercion is inadmissible and cannot be used as
evidence in court, reaffirming the principle that coerced statements violate an
accused person’ s constitutional rights.
6. Application to the present case:
I. The appellant has retracted his confession, claiming it was made under duress. If it
can be shown that the statement was coerced, it would violate section 180 (2) of the
BNSS and Article 20 (3) of the Indian Constitution, making the statement in
admissible as evidence. Additionally, the fact that the confession was retracted
strongly suggests that it may not have been voluntary, further casting doubt on its
adminisibility.
II. The retraction of the confession places an onus on the prosecution to prove that the
confession was made voluntarily and without any form of duress or coercion. Until
this is demonstrated, the statement cannot be used as evidence.

9 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

 MADHUSUDAN LAW UNIVERSITY MOOT MEMORIAL

ISSUE 2: WHETHER THE DETAIN FOR 14 DAYS IN POLICE CUSTODY WAS

LAWFUL, & WHETHER THE POLICE PROVIDED SUFFICIENT GROUNDS FOR
HIS REMAND AS PER THE LEGAL PROVISION?

1. Under section 187(2) of the BNSS, police custody remand can only be granted if the
investigation can not be completed within the given period of 24 hours and there are
valid and sufficient grounds for further custodial interrogation.
2. The Magistrate has a duty to apply judicial mind before granting police custody. In
this case, the Magistrate mechanically granted 14 days custody without recording
satisfaction or inquiring into the voluntariness of the accused’s statements.
3. The absence of such application of mind makes the remand order procedurally
defective and legally unsustainable.
4. Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, and
any deprivation of liberty must be strictly “procedure established by law.” Where the
custody is granted without compliance with procedural safeguards, it amounts to
illegal detention.
5. The accused has also alleged that coercion and duress were used during this custody
period, which raises serious doubts about the bona fide of the police action.
6. The object of remand is to aid investigation, not to extract confessions.
7. U/S 22 of BSA states that, “a confession made by an accused person is irrelevant in a
criminal proceeding, if the making of the confession appears to the court to have
been caused by any inducement, threat, coercion or promise.” This indicates misuse
of custodial powers, rendering the detention arbitrary and unlawful.
8. In the present case, the remand application lacks specific, cogent, and case – related
reasons justifying the need for 14 days of judicial interrogation.
9. The Hon’ ble Supreme Court in Central Bureau of Investigation CBI Vs. Anupam
J.Kulkarni (1992 SCC (3) 141), held that police custody should be an exception, not
the rule, and must be justified with strong reasons.
10. If no independent evidence is available, it may be argued that the remand is
unjustified. Remanding an accused without solid evidence violates principles of
justice and fairness.
11. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs. Rajesh Ranjan (2004):
The Court held that the Magistrate should carefully evaluate the circumstances before
granting remand. The Court emphasized that remand should not be granted on mere
suspicion or assumptions.
12. In A.K .Gopalan Vs. State of Madras (1950):
The Supreme Court held that a remand order should be based on reasonable grounds,
not merely on suspicion, and should be carefully scrutinized to ensure that it doesn’t
infringe on the accused’ s rights.

10 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

 MADHUSUDAN LAW UNIVERSITY MOOT MEMORIAL

ISSUE 3- WHETHER THE BLOOD STAINED KNIFE RECOVERED FROM THE

ACCUSED POSSESSION WAS SUFFICIENT TO LINK HIM TO THE CRIME?

1. Mere recovery of a blood-stained knife from the possession of the appellant is not
sufficient to conclusively link him to the commission of the offence. It must be
shown that the weapon was used in the crime scene and it was recovered under
circumstances that must meet the standards of admissibility U/S 23 of the BSA.
2. The respondent must demonstrate through forensic evidence that the blood on the
knife matches the blood group or DNA profile of the deceased. In absence of such
scientific corroboration, the recovery is weak and insufficient to establish guilt
beyond reasonable doubt.
3. In Hanumant Govind Nargundkar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh , AIR 1952 SC
343, in this case the court held that the circumstances must be fully established and
must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of accused.
4. There is a possibility that the knife was planted or that the recovery was manipulated,
especially if there is absence of independent witnesses. In the present case there’s no
eye witnesses testimony or other circumstantial evidence links the appellant to use of
the knife.
5. No eye witness has testified to seeing the accused using the knife. The knife was not
recovered from the scene of the crime .Absence of fingerprints or other direct
physical evidence further weakens the respondents case. In a criminal trial,
circumstantial evidence must from a complete chain pointing only to the guilt of the
accused. A single recovery without corroboration does not meet that standard.
6. In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116, the
Supreme Court held that circumstantial evidence must be conclusive in nature and
tendency.
7. In Kali Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, it was emphasized that suspicion,
however strong, cannot take the place of proof.

11 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

 MADHUSUDAN LAW UNIVERSITY MOOT MEMORIAL

ISSUE 4- WHETHER THE PROSECUTION HAS FAILED TO ESTABLISH GUILT

BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT IN THE ABSENCE OF DIRECT EVIDENCE,
MOTIVE OR CREDIBLE CIRCUMSTANTIAL LINKAGE TO THE ACCUSED?

1. The respondents has not produced any direct eye witness to the alleged incident. No
person has come forward to testify that they saw the appellant committing the alleged
murder. In criminal jurisprudence, when direct evidence is lacking, the court must
examine circumstantial evidence with heightened scrutiny.
2. The respondent has failed to establish a clear motive for the appellant to commit the
crime. In cases circumstantial evidence, motive plays a crucial role in connecting the
accused with the commission of the offence. Mere suspicions are not sufficient to
infer motive.
3. Subramaniam v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2009) 14 SCC 415
In this case the Court held that if the case based solely on circumstantial evidence, the
motive plays a significant role. Absence of motive may be fatal.
4. The recovery of blood stained knife from the appellants possession is not conclusive
unless:
I. It is forensically linked to the deceased (e.g, through DNA or blood group
matching.
II. The chain of custody of the weapon is properly established.
5. The mere possession of a blood-stained knife, even if blood stained , without forensic
conformation or linkage to the crime scene, cannot established guilt.
6. The burden lies squarely on the respondent to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

12 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

 MADHUSUDAN LAW UNIVERSITY MOOT MEMORIAL

PRAYER
In the light of the facts of the case, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited,
the petitioner humbly and respectfully prays before this Hon’ ble Court may be pleased to :

1. Set aside the remand order granted by the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC)
and order the release of appellant.
2. Declare the statement recorded under section 180 of the BNSS as inadmissible as
confession and evidence, because of the same being taken under duress.
3. Quash the charge sheet filed under section 103 of BNS due to the absence of
substantive evidence and independent corroborative evidence.
4. Recognize the violation of the Appellant’s right against self- incrimination under
Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India and provide compensation of Rs 10
lakhs for the unlawful arrest and mental harassment of the Appellant.
5. Departmental proceeding and disciplinary action be against the police officer
responsible for the arrest upon a mere suspicion.

AND/OR

Pass any other order or orders, as this Hon’ ble Court may deem fit in the interest of
justice, equity and good conscience. And for this act of kindness, the Appellant shall duty
bound pray.

Yours faithfully
Sd/-
…………………………………………..

13 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT