TC

BEFORE HON’BLE BOMBAY

HIGH COURT

APPELLATE JURISDICTION U/S 374 (2) r/w 386 (b)

APPEAL NO. 3 OF 2023

CLUBBED WITH

APPEAL COMBINATION NO. 11/47523 OF 2023

IN THE MATTER OF

ARIA
APPELLANT
versus

THE STATE
RESPONDENT

AS SUBMITTED HUMBLYM EMORIAL

AND ON BEHALF
RESPECTFULLY OFTHE JUDICIAL MEMBERS OF
BEFORE
THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT.
APPELLANTS
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF
RESPONDENT
 List TAB
Of LE OF CONTENTS

Abbreviations. (ii)

Index Of Authorities (iii)

Statement Of Jurisdiction (vi)

Statement Of Facts (vii)

Issues Raised (ix)

Summary Of Arguments (x)

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE I: Whether the Petition is maintainable before this Hon’ble Court?

1

ISSUE II: Whether the Appellant’s mens rea and criminal intent
has been proved in the current case? 6

ISSUE III: Whether the Appellant has been convicted merely on

the basis of circumstantial evidence? 11
 ISSUE IV: Whether the Appellant fulfills the essential elements to be
convicted under the following sections of the Indian Penal Code - S. 300, S.
302, S. 306 & S. 307 Indian Penal Code? 15

PRAYER 20
 LIS
T OF ABBREVIATIONS

S. ABBREVI DESCRIPTION
NO. ATION
1 & And
2 Sec Section
3 ¶ Paragraph
4 FIR First Information Report
5 AIR All India Reporter
6 Art Article
7 CriLJ Criminal Law Journal
8 Etc Etcetera
9 Govt. Government
1 Hon’ble Honourable
1 IEA Indian Evidence Act
1 IPC Indian Penal Code
1 SC Supreme Court
1 SCC Supreme Court Cases
1 CrPC Code of Criminal Procedure
1 PW Prosecution Witness
1 DW Defense Witness
1 R.I. Rigorous Imprisonment
1 u/s Under Section
2 UOI Union of India
2 v. Versus
LIST OF IND
CASES EX OF AUTHORITIES
S. No. NAME OF THE CASES Pg
.
1 Vijay Kumar v. State of Haryana (2008)

2 State of Rajasthan v. Prem Singh (2013)

3 Rajesh v. State of Haryana (2014)

Dinesh v. State of Haryana

4 (2013)

5 Gaya Din v. Hanuman Prasad

6 Parry's Employees' Union v. Parry & Co.

7 M.S. Narayanagouda v. Girijamma

8 Kuldeep Singh v. The Commissioner of Police

9 Ghurey Lal v. The State of Uttar Pradesh

10 The State of Rajasthan v. Naresh

11 K. Chinnaswamy Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

12 The State of Karnataka v. Bheemappa

13 The State of Maharashtra v. Damu

14 Indresh Kumar v. Ram Phal

15 The State of Rajasthan v. N.K.

16 Nallaboth Venkaiah v. The State of A. P.

17 B.N. Mutto v. Dr. T.K. Nandi

Yogesh Singh v. Mahabeer Singh

18

The State of U.P. v. Krishna Gopal

19

Smt. Shamim v. The State of NCT Delhi

20

Bokhshish Singh v. State of Punjab

21

Tulshiram Sahadu Suryawonshi and Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra

22

Trimukh Maroti Kirkan vs. State of Maharashtra

23
 State of Maharashtra v. Zarar Mohd. Hissain Momin (1987)
24
 STATUTES

S NAME

BOOKS, REPORTS, GUIDELINE

S NAME OF THE BOOKS, REPORTS, GUIDELINES, REGULATIONS

1 Ratanlal Dhirajlal, IPC

2 Ratanlal Dhirajlal, Evidence Act

3 https://blog.ipleaders.in/

1
 The STA
TEMENT OF JURISDICTION

appellants have approached the Hon’ble Bombay High Court u/s. 374
(2) r/w 386 (b) against the order of conviction of learned Sessions
Court under Section 302 (Murder) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The counsel for the Appellate humbly submits this memorandum of
appeal before this Hon'ble High Court of Bombay.
 STA
1. Aria
TEMENT OF FACTS

Mehra, an architect, and Roshan Sachdeva, a marketing professional, got

married on March 10, 2017, in Mumbai. Aria, dedicated to her architectural
career, was involved in prestigious projects across Maharashtra, supported by
Roshan.
2. The couple had a harmonious relationship with their in-laws, especially Aria
with Roshan's father, Mr. Kaushal. To fulfill Mr. Kaushal's dream of an eco-
tourism resort, Aria took a loan of INR 25 lakhs, and the project flourished.
3. Roshan lost his job during the COVID lockdown due to the gift of a paush flat by
Mr. Kaushal, leading to financial strain. Aria was nominated in the property
insurance, ensuring financial security in case of Roshan's absence.
4. Roshan developed alcohol and anger issues, affecting their marriage. Pooja
Chopra supported the couple emotionally and financially. Despite Aria losing a
prestigious project, Mr. Kaushal secured a new project for her in Pune.
5. Roshan enrolled in anger management counseling, indicating efforts to mend
his personal and professional life. Roshan helped Aria's father during his illness,
showing commitment despite personal challenges.
6. During this tough time, Aria found support from her friend and colleague, Pooja
Chopra. Pooja played an important role in helping the couple navigate through
 their hardships through emotional and financial support.
7. She also assisted Roshan in securing a new job through her links and contacts.
Pooja, having become a close acquaintance, frequently visited the couple's
home, maintaining an amicable relationship with both Aria andRoshan.
8. Aria, feeling strained, went on a 7-day trip to Pondicherry with Pooja. Upon her
return, Roshan suspected infidelity. Roshan, discovering objectionable texts and
pictures between Aria and Pooja, confronted Aria, leading to physical violence.
9. Aria left, seeking refuge with Pooja, and filed for divorce on grounds of cruelty.
Roshan attempted reconciliation, but Aria declined, leading to drunk calls and
texts.
10. On March 10, 2022, Roshan, in a state of intoxication, threatened self-
harm. Aria responded harshly. Aria visited Roshan's home, finding it locked. The
next day, Roshan was found dead in his apartment.
11. Aria was accused of murder, and evidence, including CCTV footage and
forensic reports, led to her conviction. Aria appealed the conviction to the
Bombay High Court, challenging maintainability, mens rea, circumstantial
evidence, and relevant IPC sections.
 ISS
UES RAISED

ISSUE I:

Whether the Petition is maintainable before this Hon’ble Court?

ISSUE II:
Whether the Appellant’s mens rea and criminal intent has been proved in
 the
current case?

ISSUE III:
Whether the Appellant has been convicted merely based on

circumstantial evidence?

ISSUE IV:
Whether the Appellant fulfills the essential elements to be convicted
under the following sections of the Indian Penal Code - S. 300, S. 302, S.
306 & S. 307 Indian Penal Code?

SU
MMARY OF ARGUMENTS
 ISSUE 1: Whether the Petition is maintainable before
this Hon’ble Court?

The respondent's counsel opposes the appellant's criminal appeal,

asserting the validity of the conviction under section 302 of the Indian Penal
Code. They argue that the Sessions Court's judgment lacks contrariness or
perversity, emphasizing the need for substantial reasons for appellate
interference.

The counsel contends that substantial justice has been served, cautioning
against altering convictions without due regard for the trial court's reasoning.
They underscore the negative impact of unmerited acquittals on the judicial
system and public confidence.

In conclusion, the counsel maintains that the appeal lacks merit, citing the
absence of perversity in the trial court's judgment and the dispensation of
substantial justice. They stress the importance of reasonable doubt and
exceptional circumstances for invoking appellate jurisdiction.

ISSUE II: Whether the Appellant’s mens rea and criminal intent
has been proved in the current case?

Aria's culpability in Roshan's death is strongly supported by a sequence of

damning evidence. From a heated argument and objectionable content
discovery to Roshan's subsequent mental distress, the case against Aria is
substantial. Forensic findings, including Roshan's fingerprints on a knife and
the presence of broken glass, align with the injuries leading to his demise.
The CCTV footage identifies Aria as the last visitor to Roshan's house, and
her two-day disappearance further raises suspicions. Aria's continuous
instigation, despite Roshan's thoughts and therapy, indicates a deliberate
effort to drive him to suicide. Collectively, the evidence paints a compelling
picture of Aria's intention to cause Roshan's death and her significant role in
its tragic outcome.

ISSUE III: Whether the Appellant has been convicted merely

based on circumstantial evidence?

The respondent argues that the appellant's conviction is well-founded on

circumstantial evidence. Quoting several legal precedents, including Bodhraj
@Bodha vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir and Trimukh Maroti Kirkan vs. State of
Maharashtra, the respondent emphasizes that circumstantial evidence must
form a cogent and firm chain pointing towards the guilt of the accused. The
respondent contends that the appellant, being the last person seen with the
deceased, has the burden to explain the events thereafter, as per Section
106 of the Evidence Act. Reference is made to State of Rajasthan v. Kashi
Ram, where the burden was placed on the accused last seen with the
deceased. The respondent disputes the appellant's argument against the
"last seen theory," asserting that Aria's visit to Roshan's flat is relevant to the
direct causation of the murder. The respondent challenges the appellant's
assertion regarding the security guard's observation, arguing that Aria's
recorded visit supports the case against her. Moreover, the respondent
addresses the absence of marks of resistance on the deceased's body,
maintaining that it does not negate the evidence presented.

ISSUE IV: Whether the Appellant fulfills the essential elements to

be convicted under the following sections of the Indian Penal Code -
S. 300, S. 302, S. 306 & S. 307 Indian Penal Code?
 The respondent, representing the prosecution, presents a compelling case
against Aria. The prosecution argues that Aria had clear motives for murder,
citing the discovered infidelity and ongoing provocations as factors
contributing to a volatile relationship. The prosecution asserts that Aria's
actions were not spontaneous but calculated, intending to cause harm to
Roshan. The evidence, including forensic reports detailing the nature of
injuries, CCTV footage indicating Aria as the last recorded visitor, and witness
testimony, establishes a direct and immediate connection between Aria's
actions and Roshan's death. Legal precedents, such as Vijay Kumar v. State
of Haryana and State of Rajasthan v. Prem Singh, are referenced to
strengthen the case for Aria's conviction under the relevant sections of the
Indian Penal Code. The prosecution also highlights the two-day
disappearance of Aria after Roshan's murder as a significant piece of
evidence pointing to her involvement in the events leading to his death.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

It is humbly ISSUE I: Whether the Petition is maintainable before this Hon’ble

submitted Court?
by the counsel for the respondent that the criminal appeal filed by the appellant against
the order of conviction passed by the learned Sessions Court under section 302 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 is not tenable in the eyes of law and thereby is not
maintainable because [1.1] there is no contrariness/perversity as such in the judgment
of the learned Sessions Court and [1.2] substantial justice has been delivered by the
court.
THERE IS NO CONTRARINESS/PERVERSITY AS SUCH IN THE JUDGEMENT OF THE
LEARNED SESSIONS COURT.
The phrase 'perverse' means that the findings of the lower authority are not uphold by
the evidence brought on record or they are against the law or suffer from the vice of
procedural irregularity. The 'perverse findingmeans a finding which is not only against
the weight of evidence but is altogether against the evidence itself.* Any order made in
the conscious violation of pleading and law is a perverse order.
Normally the High Court would not interfere with the findings of fact recorded at the
domestic enquiry but if the finding of "guilt" is based on no evidence, it would be a
perverse finding and would be amenable to judicial scrutiny.perverse finding and would
be amenable to judicial scrutiny.
A broad distinction has, therefore, to be maintained between the decisions which are
perverse and those which are not. If a decision is arrived at on no evidence or evidence
which is thoroughly unreliable and no reasonable person would act upon it, the order
would be perverse. But if there is some evidence on record which is acceptable and
which could be relied upon, howsoever compendious it may be, the conclusions would
not be treated as perverse and the findings would not be interfered with. 1 2 3

1Gaya Din v. Hanuman Prasad, (2001) 1 SCC 501.

2Parry's Employees' Union v. Parry & Co., AIR 1966 Cal. 31.
3 M.S. Narayanagouda v. Girijamma, AIR 1977 Kar. 58.
The appellate court should always keep in mind that the trial court had the distinct
advantage of watching the demeanour of the witnesses. The trial court is in a better
position to evaluate the credibility of the witnesses. The appellate court may only
overrule orotherwise disturb the trial court's acquittal if it has "very substantial and
compelling reasons" for doing so.
The trial court judgment cannot be set aside because the appellate
court's view is more probable. The appellate court would not be justified in setting aside
the trial court judgment unless it arrives at a clear finding on marshalling the entire
evidence on record that the judgment of the trial court is either perverse or wholly
unsustainable in law. 4 5 6 7
The appellate jurisdiction should be exercised by the High Court only in exceptional
cases, when there is some glaring defect in the procedure or there is a manifest error
on a point of law and consequently there has been a flagrant miscarriage of justice. In
the instant case the prosecution has adduced all the relevant evidences and the
learned trial court has also taken into account all the materials while passing its order. It
is free from perversity.
SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE HAS BEEN DELIVERED BY THE SESSIONS COURT.
An appeal against conviction may be preferred if there is any arguable or substantial
point. The High Court can, in a criminal appeal against conviction, dismiss it, if it is of
opinion that there is no sufficient ground for interference after examining the various
grounds urged to challenge the decision of the lower Court. The High Court may not
examine the entire record for purpose of arriving at an independent conclusion. A
conviction could be supported by the prosecution on all items of evidences including
those considered and rejected as well as grounds not considered. The High Court while
allowing
the appeal must be cautious. It must not alter the conviction of accused without having
regard for the reasoning of the trial Court in convicting the accused.! If the High Court
side steps all the reliable and relevant circumstances proved by the prosecution and
orders acquittal by interfering with the well-considered conclusion of the trial Court,
such instances maul the judicial system and impair public faith in its efficacy.!
It is true that the golden thread which runs throughout the cobweb of criminal
jurisprudence is that nine guilty may escape but one innocent should not suffer. But at
the same time guilty should not escape unpunished once the guilt has been proved to
the hilt.
An unmerited acquittal does no good to the society. If the prosecution has succeeded
inmaking out a convincing case for a finding as to the accused being guilty, the Court
should not by giving weight to irrelevant or insignificant circumstances or resorting to
technicalities or by assuming doubts and giving benefit thereof where none exists.
A doubt, as understood in criminal jurisprudence, has to be a reasonable doubt and not
an excuse for a finding in favour of acquittal. The Court has to show a greater sense of
responsibility.
Wrong acquittal has its chain reactions, the law-breakers would continue to break the
law with impunity, and people would lose the confidence in the criminal justice system.
It stems out of the fundamental principle of our criminal jurisprudence that the accused
is entitled to the benefit of any reasonable doubt. If two reasonably probable and evenly
balanced views of the evidence are possible, one must necessarily concede the
existence of a reasonable doubt. But fanciful and remote possibilities must be left out of
account.

4Kuldeep Singh v. The Commissioner of Police, (1999) 2 SCC 10.

5Ghurey Lal v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, (2008) 10 SCC 450.
6The State of Rajasthan v. Naresh, 2009 (11) SCALE 699.
7K. Chinnaswamy Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1962 SC 1788.
To entitle an accused person to the benefit of a doubt arising from the possibility of a
duality of views, the possible view in favour of accused must be as nearly reasonably
probable as that against him. If the preponderance of probability is all one way, a bare
possibility of another view will not entitle the accused to claim the benefit of any doubt.
It is, therefore, essential that any view of the evidence in favour of the accused must be
reasonable even as any doubt, the benefit of which an accused person may claim, must
be reasonable. 8 9
"A reasonable doubt", it has been remarked, "does not mean some light, airy,
insubstantial doubt that may flit through the minds of any of us about almost anything
at some time or other, it does not mean a doubt begotten by sympathy out of
reluctance to convict; it means a real doubt, a doubt founded upon reasons.
It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that the guilt of the accused must be
proved beyond all reasonable doubts. However, the burden on the prosecution is only to
establish its case beyond all reasonable doubts and not all doubts. IS Doubts would be
called reasonable if they are free from a zest for abstract speculation. Law cannot afford
any favourite other than truth. 10 11
To constitute reasonable doubt, it must be free from an overly emotional response.
Doubts must be actual and substantial doubts as to the guilt of the accused person
arising from the evidence, or from lack of it, or opposed to mere vague apprehensions.
A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely possible doubt 12 13
It is undoubtedly deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as
a whole and evaluate them necessary for the Court to scrutinise the evidence more
particularly keeping in view the to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the
evidence and whether earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken as to render it
unworthy of belief. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the
case, hyper-technical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here or there
from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error without going to the
root of the matter would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole. 14 15

8The State of Karnataka v. Bheemappa, 1993 Cr LJ 2609 (SC).

9 The State of Maharashtra v. Damu, AIR 2000 SC 1691; Indresh Kumar v. Ram Phal, AIR 2010 SC 1.
10The State of Rajasthan v. N.K., AIR 2000 SC 1812.
11Nallaboth Venkaiah v. The State of A. P., AIR 2002 SC 2945.
12 B.N. Mutto v. Dr. T.K. Nandi, (1979) 1 SCC 361.
13Yogesh Singh v. Mahabeer Singh, (2017) 11 SCC 195.
14The State of U.P. v. Krishna Gopal, (1988) 4 SCC 302
15Smt. Shamim v. The State of NCT Delhi, (2018) 10 SCC 509.
 ISSUE II: Whether the Appellant’s mens rea and criminal intent has been
Aria had
proved in the the
intention
to cause Roshan's death. The evidence such as the heated argument between Aria and
Roshan on the night of the incident, the discovery of objectionable texts and pictures
with Pooja and the subsequent mental stress to Roshan due to her behaviour. Aria in
order to get rid of Roshan and his mental distress and argument intent to kill Roshan.
Based on the nature of the injuries inflicted, the presence of a knife, broken glass and
the resulting severe blood loss due to injury that caused Roshan's death.
Aria had the motive to kill Roshan.
Relying on forensic evidence, such as the fingerprint report matching Roshan's hand on
the knife, the forensic report indicating the cause and time of death, and the presence
of broken glass near the wound. These pieces of evidence support the claim that Aria's
actions resulted in Roshan's demise.
The CCTV footage shows Aria as the last recorded visitor to Roshan's house and the
subsequent disappearance of Pooja is the evidence that Aria was involved in the events
leading to Roshan's death.
Aria had the intention to cause Roshan's death.
The camera, security guard's testimony, time of death, broken glass and knife and most
importantly, Aria was missing for 2 days after Roshan's murder.
Here, Aria had the intention and Roshan's injury clearly explains the bodily damage on
Roshan's body.
There was proper intent on Aria's part to abet Roshan's suicide. Roshan finding
objectionable texts and pictures on Aria's phone, Aria causing mental distress to her
husband and even when Roshan told her about taking his life, Aria was not bothered.
The series of event provoked Roshan to commit suicide.
Aria, even after knowing about Roshan's therapy did not care about him and kept on
instigating which led to Roshan's death.
Aria's intent and actions clearly show she didn't want to be with Roshan. There is a
series of events that shows Aria's intention to murder Roshan. Injuries sustained by
Roshan were consistent with clear intentions to cause his death.
Forensic report and investigation clearly mentioned the injuries and proof that Aria
intended to kill Roshan
According to the forensic report, Roshan's injuries are clear proof how badly he was
harmed and the effect was so dangerous that he lost his life.
State of Maharashtra v. Zarar Mohd. Hissain Momin (1987) - India (Supreme Court):
In this case, the Supreme Court of India emphasized the significance of mens rea in
murder cases. The court held that for an offense under Section 302 of the Indian Penal
Code (IPC), it is essential to establish the accused's intention to cause death or bodily
injury likely to cause death.
State of Maharashtra v. Zarar Mohd. Hissain Momin (1987)
 ISSUE III: Whether the Appellant has been convicted merely based
The
on circumstantial evidence? counsel
humbly
submits that in light of the facts and circumstances surrounding this case, every minute
detail points towards the guilt of the appellant. The counsel fully agrees with the verdict
of the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court's proceedings were justified and after
thoroughly evaluating the evidence on record and appreciating the circumstantial
evidence, the Sessions Court arrived at the conclusion of the guilt of the accused. The
principal fact or factum probabdum may be proved indirectly by means of certain
inferences drawn from factum probans, that is, the evidentiary facts. 16 17
To put it differently circumstantial evidence is not direct to the point in issue but
consists of evidence of various other facts which are so closely associated with the fact
in issue that taken together they form a chain of circumstances from which the
existence of the principal fact can be legally inferred or presumed.
In Pawon Kumar @ Monu Mittal vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ant it was observed as
under:
Where direct evidence is scarce, the burden of proving the case of the prosecution is
bestowed upon motive and circumstantial evidence. It is a chain of events that acquires
prime importance in such cases. 18
Before analysing the factual aspects, it may be stated that for a crime to be proved it is
not necessary that the crime must be seen to have been committed and must, in all
circumstances be proved by direct ocular evidence by examining before the court those
persons who had seen its commission. The offence can be proved by circumstantial
evidence also.
The principal fact or factum probandum may be proved indirectly by means of certain
inferences drawn from factum probans, that is, the evidentiary facts. To put it
differently, circumstantial evidence is not direct to the point in issue but consist of
evidence of various other facts which are so closely associated with the fact in issue
that taken together they form a chain of circumstances from which the existence of the
principal fact can be legally inferred or presumed.
According to Halsbury's Laws of England, the word 'corroboration' is not a technical
term of art; it means by itself no more than evidence tending to confirm, support or
strengthen, other evidence. Circumstantial evidence is freely admitted and inferences
are allowed to be drawn if the facts and circumstances lead to the proof of a conclusive
nature. 19
One of the illustrations given is, that if a person was seen coming out from an
unoccupied house in fear and anxiety with a knife covered with blood in his hand and in
the house a dead body was found with its throat cut, these facts could be regarded as
proof that the person coming out of the house murdered the person found dead. 20
Indirect evidence may be either conclusive or presumptive. These are evidence of
relevant facts, from which one can, by process of intuitive reasoning, infer about the
existence of facts in issue or factum probandum. As evidence there is no difference
between direct and circumstantial evidence the latter established the proof by placing
circumstances which lead to irresistible inference of guilt. Human agency may be faulty
in expressing picturization of actual incident, but the circumstances cannot fail.
Therefore, many times it is aptly said that "men may tell lies, but circumstances do

16X v. The State of Maharashtra, (2008) 7 SCC 561: (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 193.
17Ashok Kumar v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1989 SC 1890.
18Pawan Kumar v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, 2015 (7) SCC 148;
19HALSBURY LAWOF ENGLAND 268 (4th ed., Vol II).
20RATANLAL& DHIRAJLAL, THE LAWOF EVIDENCE(24th ed., Lexis Nexis 2016).
not"S "
The following briefly are the circumstances the counsel relies on in supporting the guilt
of the appellant. It is humbly submitted that in the instant case, there is a complete
chain of evidence as all the circumstances can be very well connected. In the instant
case, guilt is being proved by circumstantial evidence after justification of incriminating
facts and circumstances? and there is no doubt that conviction can be based on solely
on circumstantial evidence in the instant case, the chain of link starts from the fact that
the roshan discovered the relation between pooja and Aria from the private texts and
picture exchanged between them on january 16 ,2022 which led to heated argument
and roshan resorted to physical violence. 21
This was start of the separation of Aria and Roshan after this Aria left the house and
started living with pooja and Aria filed for divorce on the ground of cruelty and rohan
tried to restore by invoking the restitution of conjugal rights
Roshan tried to amend the relationship despite multiple efforts Aria declined the
reconciliation and after this Roshan started making drunk class and text for hurling
abuses , On the day of their 5th anniversary 10 March 2022 Roshan threaten Aria that
if she does not come back he will commit suicide then Aria said that Roshan you are the
one who ruined every thing and she cannot be held responsible for his mistake
Then after getting concerned about Roshan Arian with Pooja visited the Roshan home ,
Aria got into the apartment and after spending 70 minutes from 11:30 to 12:40 she got
out of the apartment this whole entry was seen by the security guard and was there in
register and CCTV also recorded them which saw aria was very disturbed
The roshan parents cannot reach him for two days and Aria did not respond to it and
after when the 4. Upon entering Roshan's apartment, the security professionals found
Roshan lying dead in his bedroom. There were pieces of wine glasses that had been
broken and lying around. There were 3 broken glasses along with a knife. The knife had
no stains of blood but was lying on the pool of blood. They informed both Roshan's
family and the local police about Roshan’s mysterious death.
In the instant case, the evidence adduced by the prosecution as discussed above,
clearly proves the chain of events connecting the accused to the guilt of the
commission of the offence. The entire evidence brought on record by the prosecution, is
not only convincing, but is also trustworthy. The above-mentioned chain of link is
complete from which the existence of the principal fact can be legally inferred or
presumed.
In drawing the inference, the true rule of law, which is to be applied, is the rule, which
requires that guilt not to be inferred unless that is the only inference, which follows from
the circumstances of the case, and no other innocuous inference can be drawn.'
If after bearing in mind this rule of the appreciation of circumstantial evidence, on the
facts of a particular case, the Court can reach the conclusion that the events as they
developed indicated a common intention, then, there is no reason why, in law, the Court
should be deterred from drawing such an inference". Herein under in the instant case
after analysing ballistic reports and forensic reports, the accused guilt is the only
interference which the court can relied upon, there is no room for any other inference
other than the guilt of the accused.
Supreme Court of India in Bokhshish Singh v. State of Punjab, observed that "in a case
resting on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances put forward must be satisfactorily
proved and those circumstances should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the
guilt of the accused. Again, those circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and
tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed
to be proved." There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any

21Wakkar v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, (2011) 3 SCC 306; Sahadevan v. The State of Tamil Nadu, (2012) 6
SCC 403; Hanumat v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1952 SC 343.
reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and
must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused,
the evidence produced by the prosecution should be of such nature that it makes the
conviction of the accused sustainable. 22 23
A. Circumstances are fully established:
The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully
established. The circumstances must be or should and not may be established. It is
contended that there is a well-established chain of circumstantial evidence proved by
the respondent-prosecution. In this instant case the chain of circumstance is fully
established. 24 There is no break in the chain of circumstances established by the
prosecution. 25
B. Circumstances are consistent with the hypothesis of the Guilt of only the
accused
The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the
accused; that is to say, they should not be explained on any other hypothesis except
that the accused is guilty. In cases dependent on circumstantial evidence, in order to
justify the inference of guilt, all the incriminating facts and circumstances must be
incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person and
incapable of explanation upon any other reasonable hypothesis than that of his guilt?
In the instant case we can infer the guilt of the accused, as the ballistic report and
forensic report clearly shows that, the accused shot deceased with his revolver straight
into his head, other than this is no other explanation came forward in the favour of the
accused. The facts taken as a whole lead to only one conclusion, i.e., the accused is
guilty.
C. Circumstances are of a conclusive nature:
The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. In a case based on
circumstantial evidence the settled law is that the circumstances from which the
conclusion
of guilt is drawn, should be fully proved and such circumstances must be conclusive in
nature"S In the instant case, the circumstances pointed out by the prosecution like
forensic report, ballistic report, witness statement and post-mortem report are
conclusive in nature.
D. Other hypotheses not reasonably possible
956. Any other hypothesis except the one to be proved, provided by the Appellants that
is imaginary and trivial, cannot be the basis of an acquittal. The effort of the criminal
court should not be to prowl for imaginative doubts'
The circumstances must be complete and conclusive to be read as an integrated whole
and not separately and must indicate guilt of the accused with certainty"
".Coming to the fully established circumstantial evidences of the instant case, any other
hypotheses is not reasonably possible, there is no way in all human probabilities and it
is not possible at all that the bullet coming out of accused's revolver will automatically
went straight into the head of the deceased, there is only one way possible i.e. the
accused himself shot him because apart from the fingerprints of accused, there were no
fingerprints on the revolver, not even of the deceased himself. So it can be inferred that
suicide note is a well-crafted story in order to escape conviction. Therefore, the
hypotheses of suicide cannot be a basis for acquittal.
There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground
for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in

22Hukam v. The State of Rajasthan, AIR 1977 SC 1063.

23C. Chenga Reddy v. The State of A.P, (1996) 10 SCC 193.
24The State of Rajasthan v. Tej Ram, (1999) 3 SCC 507.
25Kartik Sahu v. The State of Orissa, 1994 Cri.L.J. 102 (Ori).
all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. The prosecution has
already completed the fully established chain of circumstantial evidences. 26 27 28
In Tulshiram Sahadu Suryawonshi and Ors. vs. State of Mahorashtra' the Court
observed: It is well settled law that presumption of fact is a rule in law of evidence that
a fact otherwise doubtful may be inferred from certain other proved facts. When
inferring the existence of a fact from other set of proved facts, the court exercises a
process of reasoning and reaches a logical conclusion as the most probable position.
The above principle has gained legislative recognition in India when Section 114 is
incorporated in the Evidence Act. It empowers the court to presume the existence of
any fact which it thinks likely to have happened. In that process the court shall have
regard to the common course of natural events, human conduct etc. in relation to the
facts of the case. 29 30 31

26 The State of West Bengal v. Mir Mohammad Omar, 2000 C Cr. LR (SC) 469.
27he Evidence Act, 1872, § 114, Acts of Parliament, 1949.
28The State of West Bengal v. Mir Mohammad Omar, 2000 C Cr. LR (SC) 469.
29Tulshiram Sahadu Suryawanshi v. The State of Maharashtra, (2012) 10 SCC 373.
30 RAM JETHMALANI & D S CHOPRA, THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 (Thomas Reuters 2015).
31RATANLAL & DIRAJLAL, THE LAW OF EVIDENCE (24th ed., LexisNexis 2016).
In the instant case it is pertinent to note that the circumstances established by the
respondent's counsel are of common course of natural events, human conduct and the
court must take into consideration that there is no one other than the accused who
could have killed Roshani. The accused has failed to offer any explanation as to how the
situation inside the apartment unfolded in her presence so it can be inferred from the
crime scene that she was responsible for the death of the victim. In the circumstances,
the onus clearly shifted on the appellant to explain the circumstances and the manner
in which the deceased met his death.
We make it clear that this section is not intended to relieve the prosecution of its
burden to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, but it would apply to
cases where the prosecution has succeeded in proving facts from which a reasonable
inference can be drawn regarding the existence of certain other facts, unless the
accused by virtue of his special knowledge regarding such facts, failed to offer any
explanation which might drive the court to draw a different inference. Herein under in
the instant case the accused failed to offer any explanation that how her presence
affected the crime scene due which Roshan was killed. In the circumstances, the onus
clearly shifted on the appellant to explain the circumstances and the manner in which
the deceased met his death.

In Saravanabhavan v. State of Madras by Wanchoo J., observed. "This is not to say that
the evidence of an approver has to be dealt with in two water tight compartments; it
must be considered as a whole along with other evidence. Even so, the court has to
consider whether the approver's evidence is credible in itself and in doing so it may
refer to such corroborative pieces of evidence as may be available."
In deciding the sufficiency of the circumstantial evidence for the purpose of conviction,
the Court has to consider the total cumulative effect of all the proven facts, each one of
which reinforces the conclusion of guilt and if the continued effect of all these facts
taken together is conclusive in establishing the guilt of the accused, the conviction
would
be justified even though it may be one or more of these facts by itself or by themselves
is/are not decisive!
In Trimukh Maroti Kirkan vs. Stateof Mahorashtra, this Court was considering a similar
case of homicidal death in the confines of the house. The following observations are
considered relevant in the facts of the instant case. *14. If an offence takes place inside
the privacy of a house and in such circumstances where the assailants have all the
opportunity to plan and commit the offence at the time and in circumstances of their
choice, it will be extremely difficult for the prosecution to lead evidence to establish the
guilt of the accused if the strict principle of circumstantial evidence, as noticed above,
is insisted upon by the courts. A judge does not preside over a criminal trial merely to
see that no innocent man is punished A judge also presides to see that a guilty mon
does not escape. 32
Where an offence like murder is committed in secrecy inside a house, the initial burden
to establish the case would undoubtedly be upon the prosecution, but the nature and
amount of evidence to be led by it to establish the charge cannot be of the same
degree as is required in other cases of circumstantial evidence. The burden would be of
a comparatively lighter character.
In view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act there will be a corresponding burden on the
inmates of the house to give a cogent explanation as to how the crime was committed.

The inmates of the house cannot get away by simply keeping quiet and offering no
explanation on the supposed premise that the burden to establish its case lies entirely

32Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. The State of Maharashtra, 2006 (10) SCC 681.
upon the prosecution and there is no duty at all on an accused to offer any explanation.
In the Instant case there is no explanation offered by the accused as to how the bullet
from his gun on which his fingerprints were engraved, hit Kranthi in his head thereby
causing his death.33 It is a robust circumstance which indicates that Accused is solely
responsible for commission of the crime. 34
It is the final submission on the behalf of the respondent that the prosecution has
clearly established a prima facie case; the precedents cited on behalf of the appellant
are not considered relevant in the facts of the instant case. Once the prosecution
established a prima facie case, the appellant was obliged to furnish some explanation
under Section 313, CrPC. with regard to the circumstances under which the deceased
met an unnatural death inside the house. His failure to offer any explanation
whatsoever therefore leaves no doubt for the conclusion of his being the assailant of
the deceased. 35
So, the conviction based thereon together with other circumstantial evidence is
sustainable$. Therefore, we find no merit in the appeal.

33Kalu v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No. 1677 of 2010 (Supreme Court, 07/11/2019).
34Bishnu Prasad Sinha v. The State of Assam, AIR 2007 SC 848.
35The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, § 313, Acts of Parliament, 1973.
ISSUE IV: Whether the Appellant fulfills the essential elements to be
Section
convicted under the following sections of the Indian Penal Code - S. 300 -
300, S. 302, S. 306 & S. 307 Indian Penal Code? Murder:
Aria had the intention to cause Roshan's death. The evidence such as the heated
argument between Aria and Roshan on the night of the incident, the discovery of
objectionable texts and pictures with Pooja and the subsequent mental stress to Roshan
due to her behaviour. Aria in order to get rid of Roshan and his mental distress and
argument intent to kill Roshan.
Aria, had the knowledge that her actions were likely to cause Roshan's death. Based on
the nature of the injuries inflicted, the presence of a knife, broken glass and the
resulting severe blood loss due to injury that caused Roshan's death
Aria had the motive to kill Roshan. Roshan discovered objectionable texts and pictures
in her phone with Pooja. The alleged infidelity discovered by Roshan during the
argument acted as a provocation, leading to the physical violence that resulted in
Roshan's death.
Relying on forensic evidence, such as the fingerprint report matching Roshan's hand on
the knife, the forensic report indicating the cause and time of death, and the presence
of broken glass near the wound. These pieces of evidence support the claim that Aria's
actions resulted in Roshan's demise.
The CCTV footage shows Aria as the last recorded visitor to Roshan's house and the
subsequent disappearance of Pooja is the evidence that Aria was involved in the events
leading to Roshan's death.
Aria either had the intention to cause Roshan's death or, at the very least, had the
knowledge that her actions were likely to result in his death.
Vijay Kumar v. State of Haryana (2008) - Punjab and Haryana High Court:
Vijay Kumar was convicted of murder in Haryana. The case emphasized the importance
of establishing a direct link between the accused's actions and the victim's death for a
murder conviction. The court clarified that speculative or indirect connections would not
suffice.
Section 302 - Punishment for Murder
Murder is a punishable offence and Aria must be convicted under section 302 of IPC.
Aria had all the reasons to murder her husband Roshan. Aria had the intention to kill her
husband. She used to provoke him in fights, causing mental stress to Roshan and her
relation with Pooja which Roshan knew through her phone.
All the evidences indicate that Aria murdered Roshan due to the arguments and
differences between them. The camera, security guard's testimony, time of death,
broken glass and knife and most importantly, Aria was missing for 2 days after Roshan's
murder.
Aria was the last person spotted with Roshan and relying on the evidence, Aria should
be convicted under section 302, IPC
State of Rajasthan v. Prem Singh (2013): The Supreme Court held that for a person to
be convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, it is essential to establish that
the accused had the intention to cause death or bodily harm likely to cause death. The
judgment reiterated the need for a direct connection between the act and the death.
Vijay Kumar v. State of Haryana (2008)
State of Rajasthan v. Prem Singh (2013)
Here, Aria had the intention and Roshan's injury clearly explains the bodily damage on
Roshan's body.
Section 306 - Abetment of Suicide:
There was proper intent on Aria's part to abet Roshan's suicide. Roshan finding
objectionable texts and pictures on Aria's phone, Aria causing mental distress to her
husband and even when Roshan told her about taking his life, Aria was not bothered.
The series of event provoked Roshan to commit suicide.
Aria instigated Roshan to take his own life.
There is direct link between Aria's actions and Roshan's decision to end his life.
Roshan's suicide was a consequence of the strain on their relationship and Aria's
objectionable texts and pictures shared with Pooja.
Aria, even after knowing about Roshan's therapy did not care about him and kept on
instigating which led to Roshan's death.
Rajesh v. State of Haryana (2014) - Punjab and Haryana High Court:
Rajesh was accused of abetting his sister-in-law's suicide in Haryana. The judgment
underscored that the accused's behavior should have had a direct impact on pushing
the victim towards suicide.
Here, Aria's behaviour towards her husband had a direct impact on pushing him
towards suicide and even instigating him.
Section 307- Attempt to murder.
Aria's intent and actions clearly show she didn't want to be with Roshan. There is a
series of events that shows Aria's intention to murder Roshan. Injuries sustained by
Roshan were consistent with clear intentions to cause his death.
Forensic report and investigation clearly mentioned the injuries and proof that Aria
intended to kill Roshan so she must be convicted under section 307, IPC
Dinesh v. State of Haryana (2013) - Punjab and Haryana High Court:
The court emphasized that for a conviction under Section 307, it is essential to prove
the accused's intention to cause death or grievous bodily harm. The judgment
highlighted that the act must have created an immediate and imminent danger to the
victim's life. The court also considered the extent of injuries caused during the attempt.
According to the forensic report, Roshan's injuries are clear proof how badly he was
harmed and the effect was so dangerous that he lost his life in 2 hours.
Rajesh v. State of Haryana (2014)
Dinesh v. State of Haryana (2013)
 PRAYER
Whereof in the light of the facts presented, issues raised, arguments advanced and
authorities cited, it is most humbly prayed before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court
that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to adjudicate and declare that:

.
And/Or pass any other order, direction, or relief that the Hon’ble Court may deem
fit and proper in the light of justice, equity and good conscience.
All of which is respectfully and humbly submitted
For this act of kindness, the appellant shall be duty-bound forever.
DATED: 15/01/2024 SD/-
PLACE: BOMBAY COUNSELS on behalf of the RESPONDENT
.