The autopsy report becomes important and controversial in cases where the cause of death must be determined. 37 Moreover, it is not possible for the prosecution to explain every prejudice committed by the witnesses. 38 However, for the sake of simplicity, the prosecution feels compelled to assist the honourable court in understanding the intricacies of the autopsy report. 35 Appendix 1, Case Details, p. 2 36 Bd. Badaruddin v. State of Assam, 1989 Cr LJ 1876 (Gau) 37 Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1988 SC 1883 38 Ravindra Shantaram Sawant v_. State of Maharashtra_ , AIR 2000 SC 2461. 6 Tota Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1987 SC 1083 7 Madhusundan Das v. Narayanbai , AIR 1983 SC 114, Krishna Pillai v.
State of Kerala, AIR 1981 SC 1237 8 Asha v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1997 SC 2828 9 Annex 8, Case Details, pp. 17 10 Annex 7 , Case Details, p. 14, paragraph 1 11 Ibid., paragraph 2 26 State of Rajasthan v. Kalki and Anr., 1981 CriLJ 1012 On the night of the 31st. December 2013, 4 well-dressed men pierced the Octavious vault of the Montecito d`Aurora hotel and casino, Post 11 p. According to PW 2`s confession, at approximately 11:30-12:00 p.m., the accused shot Brij Gopal (hereinafter referred to as the “victim”/”deceased”) in the head with his special edition Smith and Wesson Custom Engraved Model 60, .38 Revolver 35, confirmed by the testimony of DW 2, who heard the shot, as well as DW 3`s oral testimony, who saw the accused standing on his body. A. Entry to Montecito i) Confession – The defendant offered access to all the accused. ii) Testimony – PW1 and DW4 indicate that the accused made the last call on the guest list and should check the names on the list to ensure safety. B.
Breaking and entering the vault (i) Confession – The respondent shared information about when the guard station would change to ensure undetected entry. ii) Testimonial – The defendant himself confirms that he was responsible for the safety of the entire vessel, with DW 4, which states that the safety arrangements of the Octavious stage were managed exclusively by the defendant. C. Time of commission (i) Confession – After 11:30 p.m., the accused began to take custody. (ii) The testimony -F.I., filed by PW1, indicates that the fire broke out between 11.30 p.m. and 11.45 p.m., corroborated by DW 2`s statements about shots fired at about 12 noon. D. Number of persons As already indicated in point 1, PW 2`s confession is verified by the oral statements of other witnesses concerning the number of persons who committed the offence. Thus, the aforementioned chain of events indicated in PW2`s confession is consistent with oral testimony and clearly indicates the involvement of the accused.
24 State of Kerala v. Thomas, (1986) 2 SCC 411. There will inevitably be some discrepancy between the accounts of different witnesses due to errors of observation, errors of memory due to the passage of time, mental dispositions, etc. 26 Trivial discrepancies should not destroy otherwise acceptable eyewitness evidence 27 and are not fatal in the case of the prosecution28 because they do not go to the root of the prosecution`s history and do not to be too important 29. Therefore, the prosecution humbly submits that the trial court would be entitled to convict the accused if the evidence in the record shows that he participated in the deception. 30 13 Ibid., p. 14 See supra, No. 11, pp. 15-15 Deonandan Mishra v. State of Bihar (1955) 2 RCS 750; Harish Chandra Thange v.
State of Maharashtra, AIR 2007 SC 2957 16 State of Maharashtra v. Suresh, 2000 (1) SCC 471 17 Appendix 7, Case Details, p. 15-18 Ibid. Article 177: “177. Ordinary investigation and judicial procedure: any offence is normally investigated and tried by a court in whose jurisdiction it was committed. The prosecution admits that Bhaskar Sanyal (PW 2) is an interested witness, i.e. a person who wants to see the accused convicted for his own hostility or otherwise. 6 However, it is common ground that, where a witness is an interested witness, his testimony cannot be totally ignored.
7 Eyewitnesses who are friends of the victim cannot be discredited for this reason alone. 8 In conjunction with § 209: “209. Referral of the case to the Court of Session if the offence can be tried exclusively by the Court of Session – If the defendant is brought before the judge in a case brought on the basis of a police report or otherwise, and it appears to the judge that the offence can only be heard by the Court of Session, he must (a) refer the case to the Court of Session; (b) subject to the bail provisions of this Code, remand the accused in custody during and until the end of the proceedings; (c) communicate to the Court the minutes of the case and, where appropriate, the documents and objects to be adduced in evidence; (d) notify the Court of Session of the referral of the case to the Public Prosecutor`s Office. 27 Leela Ram v. State of Haryana AIR 1999 SC 3717; U. v. M. Anthony , 1985 CriLJ 493; Appabhai v. State of Gujarat, 1988 CriLJ 848; Sajjan Kumar v. MP State, 1999CriLJ 4561 28 Himachal State Pradesh v. Lekh Raj and Anr.
, 1999 (9) ST 155 29 Jagdish v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1981 CriLJ 630 30 Jugal Gope v. State of Bihar, AIR 1981 SC 612. Independent confirmation in the essential data for acceptance. 24 The confirmation need not necessarily constitute direct evidence, but is sufficient in the case of circumstantial evidence, 25 i. the entrance to Montecito [A], the break-in in the crypt [B], the date of entry into service [C] and the number of persons [D]. (Retired) J. S. Rana was charged under Section 396 in conjunction with Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 for the crime of Dacoity with murder.
The Hon`ble Court has jurisdiction in the present case under section 177 taken in conjunction with section 209 of the 1973 Code of Criminal Procedure. i) Wound size The entrance wound in this case is a 15 mm round wound, while the exit wound is a very irregular 33 mm star-shaped wound. This difference in size and appearance is due to the fact that when a bullet enters the human body, it first enters the skin and expands, and then, depending on the energy, enters and leaves the soft tissues and / or bones, resulting in an exit injury. After the entry of the bullet, the skin partially returns to its original position, and therefore the size of the entrance wound may be smaller than the size of the ball. 39.1 INCONSISTENCIES IN WITNESS STATEMENTS IRRELEVANT The defence argues that there are discrepancies between testimony and confessions as to when the offence was committed. In the present case, none of the statements relating to the manner in which the infringement was committed contradicts each other. Nor is there any contradiction in the chain of events recounted by the witnesses. Moreover, since the accused were in the aurora from 11am to 12pm. There can be no other alibi for them. It is therefore an intangible gap. List of Authorities iv Table of Cases iv Books vi Dictionaries vii Websites vii Statutes vii § 118, The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as the “Evidence Act”) requires that all persons be competing witnesses unless they are prevented from understanding or answering questions put to them because of their young age, of their extreme age, Illness, madness or any other cause of the same kind.
Since none of the witnesses in this case fall within the exceptions listed in § 118, it is logical to conclude that they are all competing witnesses. Therefore, it is the duty of the court to carefully consider the evidence and separate the good grain from the grain. 5 in the Octavious soil of the Aurora. In addition, the defendant was instructed to enforce security inside the Octavious floor. 12 The defendant was therefore aware of the details of the security arrangements, including the rotation of guards. 13 It should also be noted that when the Dacoits emptied the vault, they encountered no resistance from the guards, who claimed that some “guests” had lost their way. 14 A conviction based on circumstantial evidence is possible if it constitutes a sufficiently complete chain of evidence that there is no reasonable doubt as to a finding consistent with the innocence of the accused. 15 If the accused gives an erroneous answer when informed, an incorrect answer would be a missing link in the chain of evidence. 16 It is therefore argued before the Hon`ble Court that it is apparent from the evidence that the defendant concocted the plan and favoured others in order to commit fraud. 1 PERSONS AND ACCOMPANYING PERSONS PRESENT MUST BE AT LEAST FIVE YEARS OF AGE With the exception of the accused, it can be seen that there were four other participants in the crime on board the Aurora: i. Intercom security forces said they saw four men in suits carrying large bags heading towards deck 17 II. DW 4 saw four men in suits throwing bags off the ship 18 12 Ibid., p.
15 SURANA AND SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL COURT COMPETITION, 2013 V AUTHORITIES INDEX – 1. Amar Malla v. State of Tripura, AIR 2002 SC BUSINESS TABLE: – 2. Ambalal v. State of Rajasthan, 2003 Cr LJ – 3.