TEAM CODE: E

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Special Leave Petition Filed Under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

MEMORIAL FILED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

State … Respondent

V.

Naveen … Petitioner 1

Ramesh … Petitioner 2

Suresh … Petitioner 3

Dinesh … Petitioner 4

Most Respectfully Submitted to the Hon’ble Judges of the Supreme Court of India.

COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ‘PETITIONERS’.

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................................ iii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ......................................................................................................... iv

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION............................................................................................... v

SUMMARY OF FACTS ............................................................................................................... vi

ISSUES ......................................................................................................................................... vii

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ................................................................................................. viii

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ........................................................................................................ 1

1. Undue and unreasonable delay of four days in lodging the FIR put facts provided by
Suneel under suspicion. .............................................................................................................. 1

1.1. Delay by natural causes is highly improbable in this case. .......................................... 1

1.2. There is no explanation for delay of 4 days in registration of the First Information
Report by Suneel. .................................................................................................................... 2

1.3. The undue and unreasonable delay shrouds the prosecution’s story with
untruthfulness. Thereby creating reasonable doubt. ............................................................... 3

2. Neither the names of the assailants are mentioned in the FIR nor is anything conclusive
proved regarding their identity.................................................................................................... 5

2.1. The facts of the case implicate that the assailants were known to either Suneel or the
prosecutrix............................................................................................................................... 5

2.2. The names of the assailants were purposely omitted. .................................................. 5

PRAYER ......................................................................................................................................... 8

ii
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Abbreviations Description

I.P.C Indian Penal Code

Cri LJ Criminal Law Journal

AIR All India Report

Hon’ble Honorable

Ors. Others

Anr. Anothers

J. Justice

pp Page Number

MLC Medico Legal Case

Ed. Edition

i.e. That is

iii
 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Apren Joseph vs. State of Kerala, 1 1973 SCR (2) 16. ................................................................... 1
Basudev Yadav and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Ors, 1988 Cri LJ 1408 ....................................... 4
Bathula Nagamalleswara Rao & Ors. v. State Rep. by Public Prosecutor, (2008) 11 SCC 722 ... 3
Bijoy Singh vs. State of Bihar, AIR 2002 SC 1949; State of Gujarat vs. Anirudh Singh, AIR 1997
SC 2780 ....................................................................................................................................... 1
Bishnu Deo v The State, 1982 Cri LJ 493; Thulia Kali vs The State of Tamil Nadu, 1973 AIR
501............................................................................................................................................... 1
C. V. Govindappa v. State of Karnataka, 1998 Cr. LJ 1107 (SC) .................................................. 2
Dilawar Singh v. State of Delhi, 2007 Cri LJ 4709 (SC). ............................................................... 2
Hallu vs. State of MP, 1974 AIR 1936 ............................................................................................ 1
Jagannath Narayan Nikam vs. State of Maharashtra, 1995 Cr LJ 1412 (Gau). ............................ 1
K. Ashokan & Five Ors v. State of Kerala, (1998) 3 SCC 570 ....................................................... 3
K. Ashokan & Five Ors vs. State of Kerala, (1998) 3 SCC 570 ..................................................... 4
Rambagas vs State of Madhya Pradesh, 1984 CriLJ 1068 ............................................................ 6
Rang Bahadur Singh v State of U.P., (2000) 3 SCC 454 ................................................................ 6
State of U.P. v. Anil Singh, AIR 1988 S.C. 1998 ............................................................................. 3
Sunder Singh v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, 2005 Cri LJ 2732 ................................................ 5

Statutes

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973................................................................................................... i

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 .............................................................................................................. 4
Indian Penal Code, 1860 ................................................................................................................. x

BOOKS

M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law,. ........................................................................................... 2

Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, the Code of Criminal Procedure, 17th Ed. .................................................... 7

iv
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

THE DEFENDANT SUBMITS TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF

INDIA UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.

ART. 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA WHICH READS HEREWITH AS UNDER:

136. (1)Notwithstanding anything in this chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion, grant
special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause
or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India.

(2) Nothing in clause (1) shall apply to any judgment, determination, and sentence or order passed or
made by any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces.

v
 SUMMARY OF FACTS
1. On evening of 16th December 2015, Sunita, age 22, and Suneel, both are the two medicos
in Delhi, were standing at Jawahar Circle.
2. Sunita was returning for girl’s hostel.
3. As claimed by the prosecutor, Naveen, Ramesh, Suresh and Dinesh (minor) came at the
circle with their classic Innova car which was driven by Naveen.
4. They offer them lift which was “readily accepted”.
5. Then they allegedly robbed Suneel and striped him naked and gave life threats.
6. They threw him in a dense forest beyond Jagatpura where he became unconscious.
7. Then the four raped Sunita brutally. Her private parts were ruptured. Her uterus, vagina
and other parts were damaged by iron-rod.
8. Then she was also thrown out of the car.
9. Suneel was found a passerby Raj Kumar who called the control room.
10. Suneel was taken to SMS hospital by a PCR van.
11. Sunita was searched by the Police and was found naked and unconscious.
12. Sunita was first taken to SMS Hospital and then to IIMS Hospital where she died.
13. FIR was lodged on 20th of December by Suneel.
14. The four accused were arrested after investigation.
15. Some items belonging to Suneel and Sunita were recovered from the accused.
16. The charge sheet is filed on 3rd of January 2016 in the Court of Sessions which convicts
all the four accused and gives death sentence in its order dated 10.09.2016.
17. The High Court vide judgment dated 13.3.2017, affirmed the conviction and confirme the
death penalty imposed upon the accused.

vi
 ISSUES

I. Undue and unreasonable delay of four days in lodging the FIR put facts provided by
Suneel under suspicion.
II. Neither the names of the assailants are mentioned in the FIR nor is anything conclusive
proved regarding their identity.

vii
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

I. Undue and unreasonable delay of four days in lodging the FIR put facts provided by
Suneel under suspicion.

There has been a delay of four days in lodging of the complaint and no reason for this
delay have been put forward for justification. There is no circumstances imaginable
which can stop anyone from reporting such a heinous crime and the delay is undue,
unusual and unreasonable. Even if we assume, Suneel was unable to file the FIR on
account of unconsciousness, there were other witnesses as well eligible for this purpose.
This puts the story unfurled by prosecution under doubts and suspicion. Courts in
numerous cases have exhorted the importance of expeditious lodging of FIR and held that
unexplained and unjustified delay shrouds the prosecution’s case with untruthfulness and
weakens it. Therefore, in this case, the version of the story presented by the prosecution
has not established beyond reasonable doubt and its benefit should be given to the
accused.

II. Neither the names of the assailants are mentioned in the FIR nor is anything
conclusive proved regarding their identity.

The names of the accused were not mentioned either in the dying declaration of the
victim or in the FIR filed by PW-1 Suneel. Furthermore, there is no material evidences
which may confirm the identity of the assailants. Also, uncertainty in the method adopted
by the police to arrest the accused gives rise to the possibility that the names of the
accused had been purposely not disclosed, so that, later on, after discussion, deliberation
and consultation, the names could be given. This creates a reasonable doubts which
cannot be ignored.

viii
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. Undue and unreasonable delay of four days in lodging the FIR put facts provided by
Suneel under suspicion.

It is most humbly submitted that delay in lodging the First Information Report1 quite often
results in embellishment which is a creature of afterthought of spontaneity, but danger creeps
in of the introduction of colored version, exaggerated account or concocted story as a result
of deliberation and consultation and for these reasons, it is essential that delay in lodging the
FIR should satisfactorily be explained.2 Criminal Courts attach great importance to the
lodging of prompt FIR because the same greatly diminishes the chances of false implication
of the accused as well as that of informant being tutored3.

It is most respectfully submitted that in Apren Joseph vs. State of Kerala4, this Court
observed, “Undue or unreasonable delay in lodging the FIR inevitably gives rise to suspicion
which puts the court on guard to look for the possible motive and the explanation and
consider its effect on the trustworthiness or otherwise of the prosecution version.”

1.1. Delay by natural causes is highly improbable in this case.

1.1.1. It is humbly submitted that the FIR gives information of the commission of a
cognizable crime. It may be made by the complainant or by any other person
knowing about the commission of such an offence.5 Section 154 does not require
that the Report must be given by a person who has personal knowledge of the
incident reported6. As a matter of fact, PW-72 Raj Kumar was the first person to
find Suneel who had claimed of getting unconscious at that time. The fact that PW-
72 did not lodge a FIR immediately puts suspicion over the truthfulness of the four-
day delayed FIR filed by PW-1 Suneel.

1
Hereinafter referred as FIR.
2
Bishnu Deo v. The State, 1982 Cri LJ 493; Thulia Kali v The State of Tamil Nadu, 1973 AIR 501.
3
Jagannath Narayan Nikam v. State of Maharashtra, 1995 Cr LJ 1412 (Gau).
4
Apren Joseph v. State of Kerala, 1 1973 SCR (2) 16.
5
Bijoy Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 2002 SC 1949; State of Gujarat v. Anirudh Singh, AIR 1997 SC 2780.
6
Hallu v. State of MP, 1974 AIR 1936.

1
 1.1.2. It is further submitted that it is highly improbable to assume that there was no one
eligible to lodge a complaint considering the fact that it is a Medico Legal Case and
even the hospital authorities had great duties regarding communicating with the
police as well as the kith and kin of the prosecutrix. This court in C. V. Govindappa
v. State of Karnataka7 held that the doctor must mention all the statements made to
him by the persons who brought the patient to him.

1.2. There is no explanation for delay of 4 days in registration of the FIR by Suneel.

1.2.1. It is humbly submitted that even after going through such a horrendous crime,
Suneel did not think it necessary to lodge a complaint expeditiously. It is a moral
and legal duty of a person to report a crime he/she witnesses as soon as possible, but
in this case, in spite of the seriousness of the crime, a delay of four days have been
made without any imaginable reason. As a friend of Sunita and one of the victims of
the crime, there cannot be thought of a task of higher priority than lodging a
complaint.

1.2.2. It is further submitted that in criminal trial, one of the cardinal principles for the
Court is to look for plausible explanation for the delay in lodging the report. Delay
sometimes affords opportunity to the complainant to make deliberation upon the
complaint and to make embellishment or even make fabrications. Delay defeats the
chance of the unsoiled and untarnished version of the case to be presented before the
Court at the earliest instance. That is why if there is delay in either coming before
the police or before the Court, the Courts always view the allegations with suspicion
and look for satisfactory explanation. If no such satisfaction is formed, the delay is
treated as fatal to the prosecution case8.

1.3. The undue and unreasonable delay shrouds the prosecution’s story with untruthfulness.
Thereby creating reasonable doubt.

7
C. V. Govindappa v. State of Karnataka, 1998 Cr. LJ 1107 (SC)
8
Dilawar Singh v. State of Delhi, 2007 Cri LJ 4709 (SC).

2
 1.3.1. It is further submitted that in State of U.P. v. Anil Singh9, the court held that,
“with regard to falsehood stated or embellishments added by the prosecution
witnesses, it is well to remember that there is tendency amongst witnesses in our
country to back up a good case by false or exaggerated version. It is also
experienced that invariably the witnesses add embroidery to prosecution story,
perhaps for the fear of being disbelieved.”

1.3.2. Lastly, it is submitted that in light of all the submissions made herein-above, it
can be said that the delay in registration of the FIR has not been properly explained
by the prosecution. Thus, this undue delay is to be looked with a certain amount of
suspicion.10 It creates a reasonable doubt on the involvement of the accused in the
incident whose benefit is to be given to them11.

9
State of U.P. v. Anil Singh, AIR 1988 S.C. 1998.
10
Bathula Nagamalleswara Rao & Ors. v. State Rep. by Public Prosecutor, (2008) 11 SCC 722.
11
K. Ashokan & Five Ors v. State of Kerala, (1998) 3 SCC 570.

3
2. Neither the names of the assailants are mentioned in the FIR nor is anything conclusive
proved regarding their identity.

It is most humbly submitted that neither the names of the accused are mentioned in the FIR,
nor have DNA results confirmed the identity of the assailants. Moreover, struggle marks was
not found on fourth accused. This proves that the involvement of the accused was not
confirmed and therefore, in this case conviction of the accused is not sustainable. The Hon’ble
High Court of Patna in Basudev Yadav and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors.12 held that
conviction shall not be sustainable unless prosecution proved identification of accused for
commission of offence.

2.1. The facts of the case implicate that the assailants were known to either Suneel or the
prosecutrix.

2.1.1. It is humbly submitted that it is highly improbable that Sunita along with her
friend Suneel would have “readily” accepted an unasked offer of lift by a group of
four youngsters unless either of them knew them beforehand. Thus, there has been
falsity in Suneel’s version of the story.

2.2. The names of the assailants were purposely omitted.

2.2.1. It is humbly submitted that PW-1 Suneel purposely did not disclose the
identities/names of the assailants, so that, later on, after discussion, deliberation
and consultation, the names could be given. This is not improbable given the fact
that MLCs13 of only first three accused showed injuries and struggle marks.

2.2.2. It is further submitted that in K. Ashokan & Five Ors v. State of Kerala14, this
Court gave the benefit of reasonable doubt to the petitioners whose names were
absent in the original copy of the FIR. The Court in the said case held that
disclosures of the names or identities of the offenders, if known, by a person who

12
Basudev Yadav and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Ors, 1988 Cri LJ 1408.
13
Medico Legal Case.
14
K. Ashokan & Five Ors vs. State of Kerala, (1998) 3 SCC 570.

4
 figures as an eye witness is one of the most material facts and such a fact cannot be
equated with narration of graphic details.

2.3. Suspicious and doubtful methods of investigation by the police creates probability of
arrest of wrong persons.

2.3.1. It is humbly submitted that neither the names nor identification of any of the
accused was mentioned in the FIR or the dying declaration of Sunita. Moreover,
there being no material evidences connected to the accused which can lead to their
tracking, puts suspicion over the method of investigation adopted by the Police.

2.3.2. It is further submitted that the accused are made the scapegoats of the rising
public and political pressure as no measures for identification of the assailants were
taken. It is pertinent to note that neither the content of the CCTV footage was used
nor were the result of the DNA tests ever published and no explanation of such
action was provided.

2.3.3. It is further submitted that the prosecution, having regard to the right of an
accused to have a fair investigation, fair inquiry and fair trial as adumbrated under
Art.21 of the Constitution of India, cannot at any stage be deprived of taking
advantage of the materials which the prosecution itself have placed on record15.

2.4. There are no independent witness or conclusive evidences available to prove the guilt or
involvement of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

2.4.1. It is humbly submitted that Suneel is a related witness of this case and therefore,
the statements made by him may be biased and his testimony cannot be relied upon.
Since it has already been submitted that facts provided by Suneel are doubtful and
untrustworthy and there are no independent witnesses or conclusive evidences

15
Sunder Singh v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, 2005 Cri LJ 2732.

5
 available to corroborate the version of the story claimed by him and this gives rise
to the possibility of embellishment and modifications of the facts.

2.4.2. It is further submitted that in Rambagas vs State of Madhya Pradesh 16, the High
Court of Madhya Pradesh held that testimony of sole eye witness without being
corroborated in the material particulars by any evidence from an independent
source, was unsafe for holding accused’s conviction and the Court would give him
the benefit of doubt and acquit him. Therefore, in this case also until the guilt of the
accused is corroborated and proved by other independent evidences or witnesses, it
is unsafe to hold the conviction of the accused.

2.4.3. Lastly, it is submitted that the court must guard against false and frivolous cases.
A criminal court cannot afford to deprive liberty of the accused persons, perhaps life
only liberty, without having at least a reasonable level of certainty that the accused
was the real culprit17.

16
Rambagas vs State of Madhya Pradesh, 1984 CriLJ 1068.
17
Rang Bahadur Singh v State of U.P, (2000) 3 SCC 454.

6
 PRAYER

WHEREFORE IN THE LIGHT OF ISSUES RAISED, ARGUMENTS ADVANCED,

REASONING GIVEN AND THE AUTHORITY CITED, IT IS HUMBLY PRAYED THAT
THIS COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO,

I. ACQUIT THE ACCUSED OF ALL CHARGES;

II. ACQUIT THE ACCUSED OF THE PUNISHMENT GIVEN BY THE SESSIONS
COURT AND UPHELD BY THE HIGH COURT.

AND ANY OTHER RELIEF THAT THIS COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO GRANT FOR
THE SAKE OF JUSTICE, EQUITY AND GOOD CONSCIENCE.

COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER