1

TC- 19D

MAHARAJA AGRASEN INSTIUTE OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES

NATIONAL MOCK TRIAL COMPETITION 2023-2024

BEFORE THE COURT OF SESSIONS

AT SUNNAR, MERELA

STATE OF MERELA (PROSECUTION)

V.
MR. SAHIL YADAV AND MR. SAMAR BHARADWAJ (DEFENCE)

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE SESSIONS JUDGE

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE
 2

SR. NO. CONTENTS PAGE NO.

1 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 3

2 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 4

3 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 5

4 STATEMENT OF FACTS 6

5 STATEMENT OF ISSUES RAISED 7

6 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 8

7 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED 9-18

8 PRAYER 19
 3

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AIR All India Report

All Allahabad High Court

Cal Calcutta High Court

Cri LJ / Cr LJ Criminal Law Journal

Cr.P.C. Code of Criminal Procedure

Del Delhi High Court

DW Defence Witness

Ed. Edition

Guj Gujarat High Court

IPC Indian Penal Code

IC Indian Cases

P&H Punjab and Haryana High Court

PW Prosecution Witness

SC Supreme Court

SCC Supreme Court Cases

SCJ Supreme Court Journal

SCR Supreme Court Reporter

Sec. Section

v. Versus
 4

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES REFERRED:

I. Ram Bilas Yadav v. State of Bihar AIR 2002 SC 530

II. Rafiq Ahmed v. State of U.P. (AIR 1981 SC 1225)
III. State of Haryana v. Mehar Singh (2009 CriLJ 1277)
IV. K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1962 SC 605)
V. Shabnam v. State of Maharashtra (1992 CriLJ 1445)
VI. Sooraj Devi v. State of Haryana (2016) 6 SCC 614
VII. Mohammed Ibrahim v. State of Bihar (2012) 6 SCC 446:
VIII. K. Balakrishnan v. State of Kerala (2000) 1 SCC 98
IX. Mukesh v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2020) 13 SCC 89
X. State of Punjab v. Jagir Singh (2011) 3 SCC 77
XI. Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana (2013) 9 SCC 90
XII. State of U.P. v. Satish (2005) 3 SCC 114
XIII. Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana (2018) 8 SCC 602

LEXICONS:
1. Aiyar, P Ramanatha, The Law Lexicon, (2nd Ed. 2006)
WEBSITES:
1. http://www.findlaw.com
2. http://www.judis.nic.in
3. http://www.manupatra.co.in/AdvancedLegalSearch.aspx
4. http://www.scconline.com
STATUTES:
1. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act 2 of 1973)
2. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Act 18 of 1872)
3. The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860)
 5

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Hon’ble Court has jurisdiction to try the instant matter Sunder Section 177 read
with Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Section 177:

177. Ordinary place of inquiry and trial-

Every offense shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local
jurisdiction it was committed.’

Read Section 209:

‘209. The commitment of case to the Court of Session when the offense is triable
exclusively by it-

When in a case instituted on a police report or otherwise, the accused appears or is brought

before the Magistrate and it appears to the Magistrate that the offence is triable exclusively

by the Court of Session, he shall-

(a) Commit the case to the Court of Session;

(b) Subject to the provisions of this Code relating to bail, remand the accused to custody

during, and until the conclusion of, the trial;

(c) Send to that Court the record of the case and the documents and articles, if any, which

are to be produced in evidence;

(d) Notify the Public Prosecutor of the commitment of the case to the Court of Session
 6

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Background of Mr. Anirudh:

Anirudh was an exceptional software engineer who graduated with honors from Global
Engineering College in Deli, Indiana. His academic prowess earned him a gold medal from
the college. After joining Vesalius Technology Pvt. Ltd. as a software engineer in Wenglore,
Indiana, Anirudh exhibited exemplary dedication and hard work in his role. However, he was
also known to be introverted and socially reserved, struggling to engage in social interactions
with his colleagues.

The Company Trip:

Vesalius Technology Pvt. Ltd. organized a four-day trip to Sunnar in Merela from 11th to
15th February 2023 for its employees. The trip aimed to foster a sense of camaraderie and
encourage social interactions among the team members. All employees, including Sahil,
Samar, and Anirudh, were invited to participate in the trip.

During the trip, Samar a Sahil tried to engage Anirudh in the trip activities. They played a
prank on him to light up the atmosphere for him. They wanted to cheer his mood up and were
trying to engage him in the trip activities but because of Anirudh’s introverted nature, he kept
himself reserved.

Anirudh complained about the prank to his senior and Sahil and Samar were scolded by
Mr.Sanjay Nair the Director of the company. The Accused realized their mistake and went to
Anirudh’s room to blow off steam and to be friends with Anirudh.

They resolved their personal grudges and had a few drinks of alcohol Anirudh started
behaving very strangely. He started dancing like crazy and started to take off his clothes.
Samar and Sahil told him to stop this immediately, but he ignored them and went out of the
room completely naked. They physically pulled him back into the room, but he pushed them
so hard. They tried to stop him but he was in no mood to listen to anyone.

Samar and Sahil were also in an inebriated state, so unfortunately slept in the room, hoping
that Anirudh will soon come back to his sense and return to the room. The next morning,
Samar and Sahil woke up and heard someone screaming so both of them immediately went
out to see what was going on and found Anirudh lying face down in the colleagues left him
alone. Hotel Compound with blood everywhere.
 7

STATEMENT OF ISSUES RAISED

ISSUE-I
Whether the accused is guilty of the offense of “Assault” under section 355
of I.P.C. And of “Criminal Intimidation” under section 506 I.P.C. And
“Wrongful Restraint” under section 341 of I.P.C.?

ISSUE-II
Whether the accused is guilty of the offense of “Sexual Harassment” under
section 354a of I.P.C and of “Murder” under section 302 of I.P.C?
 8

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE-I

Whether the accused is guilty of the offense of “Assault” under section 355 of I.P.C.
And of “Criminal Intimidation” under section 506 I.P.C. And “Wrongful Restraint”
under section 341 of I.P.C.?

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the accused Mr. Samar and Mr. Sahil
are not guilty of the offense “Assault” under section 355. The defence categorically denies
any intention on the part of the accused to dishonor or humiliate Mr. Anirudh. Their
interactions with him during the trip were characterized by genuine attempts to include him in
social activities. “Criminal Intimidation” under section 506. The defence asserts accused had
no intention of intimidating Mr. Anirudh or threatening him. Their interactions with him
during the trip were driven by genuine concern and efforts to befriend him and “Wrongful
Restraint” under section 341 of I.P.C.The defense contends that any physical restraint, if any,
exercised by the accused was solely aimed at preventing Mr. Anirudh from engaging in
erratic behavior that could have caused harm to himself or others. Their actions were in
response to a situation that escalated unpredictably and was driven by genuine concern for
Mr. Anirudh's well-being.

ISSUE-II

Whether the accused is guilty of the offense of “Sexual Harassment” under section 354a
of I.P.C and of “Murder” under section 302 of I.P.C?

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the accused Mr. Samar and Mr. Sahil
are not guilty of the offense Section 354a “Sexual Harassment” The defence maintains that
there is no credible evidence to suggest that the accused, Sahil and Samar, engaged in any act
of sexual harassment towards Mr. Anirudh. Their interactions during the trip were driven by
genuine attempts to befriend him, not to harass or humiliate him. Section 302 “Murder” The
defence firmly denies any intent on the part of Sahil and Samar to cause harm to Mr.
Anirudh. The incident leading to his death was an unfortunate accident, resulting from
unforeseen circumstances and Mr. Anirudh's erratic behavior under the influence of alcohol.

No Premeditation: There is no evidence to support the claim that the accused planned or
premeditated the tragic outcome. The events leading to Mr. Anirudh's demise were
spontaneous and unintended.
 9

ARGUMENT ADVANCED

ISSUE I - Whether the accused is guilty of the offense of “Assault” under section 355 of
I.P.C. And of “Criminal Intimidation” under section 506 I.P.C. And “Wrongful
Restraint” under section 341 of I.P.C.?

It is humbly contended that Sahil and Samar (hereinafter referred to as the ‘accused’) are
guilty of unlawful offenses under Sec. 355,506 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) as all the conditions are being fulfilled.

Section 355 of I.P.C states “Assault”:

Assault or criminal force with intent to dishonor person, otherwise than on grave
provocation.—Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person, intending thereby to
dishonor that person, otherwise than on grave and sudden provocation given by that person,
shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to
two years, or with fine, or with both1.

Lack of Malicious Intent: The accused did not harbor any malicious intent to dishonor or
humiliate Mr. Anirudh. Their actions during the trip were driven by a genuine desire to
befriend him and include him in social activities. Any unintended consequences that occurred
were an unforeseen outcome. The tragic incident leading to Mr. Anirudh's demise was a
result of unforeseen circumstances and his own erratic behavior under the influence of
alcohol. The accused did not anticipate or plan such an outcome, and there was no indication
of criminal force or assault with intent to dishonor. When Mr. Anirudh's behavior became
erratic, Sahil and Samar were genuinely concerned for his well-being. Their attempts to
restrain and prevent any harm were motivated by a sense of responsibility towards their
colleague and not by a desire to assault him2.

No Evidence of Dishonorable Acts: a. Lack of Substantiated Claims: The prosecution has

failed to provide concrete evidence or eyewitness testimonies and forensic evidence that
establish any dishonorable acts committed by the accused3.

Forensic Evidence- Confirms that they used force against Anirudh, the forensic examination
explains that scratches were visible on the victim’s palms, arms, and back 2-5 cm. The marks

1
Section 355, Indian Penal Code,1860
2
Ram Bilas Yadav v. State of Bihar AIR 2002 SC 530
3
Rafiq Ahmed v. State of U.P. (AIR 1981 SC 1225)
 10

on the body are there because Mr.Sahil and Mr. Samar made attempts to restrain and prevent
any harm and were motivated by a sense of responsibility towards their colleague and not by
a desire to Assault him4.

Mere speculation or assumptions should not form the basis for convicting the accused of such
a serious charge.

Innocent Intentions: The defence asserts that Mr. Sahil and Mr. Samar did not have any
ulterior motives or ill intentions toward Mr. Anirudh. Their actions during the trip were
consistent with friendly, and any misunderstanding should not be misconstrued as criminal
intent.

Section 506 of I.P.C. states “Criminal Intimidation”:

Whoever commits, the offense of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment
of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both; If
the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc.—And if the threat be to cause death or
grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offense
punishable with death or 1[imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment for a term which
may extend to seven years, or to impute, unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine,
or with both5.

It is humbly submitted to the Hon’ble Court that the accused had no intention to intimidate
the victim. The defence asserts that Mr.Sahil and Mr.Samar did not issue any threats or
engage in behavior that could be construed as criminal intimidation toward Mr. Anirudh.
Their interactions during the trip were driven by genuine concern and efforts to befriend him,
not to intimidate or harm him. Miscommunication, Any actions or words that may have been
misinterpreted as intimidating were the result of miscommunication or misunderstandings6.
The accused never intended to cause distress or fear in Mr. Anirudh. The defence contends
that any discomfort experienced by Mr. Anirudh during the trip was unintended and not a

4
State of Haryana v. Mehar Singh (2009 CriLJ 1277)
5
Section 506, Indian Penal Code, 1860
6
K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1962 SC 605)
 11

result of deliberate criminal intimidation.7 It was an unfortunate outcome of

misunderstandings that could have been resolved with clearer communication.

Lack of Supporting Evidence: a. Burden of Proof: The prosecution has failed to provide
concrete evidence that demonstrates criminal intimidation on the part of Mr. Sahil and Mr.
Samar. The burden of proof lies with the prosecution, and they have not met the required
standard to convict the accused.

No Corroborating Witnesses: There are no eyewitness testimonies or other evidence that

supports the claim of criminal intimidation. The prosecution relies on circumstantial evidence
and assumptions, which are insufficient to establish guilt.

In conclusion, the defence firmly refutes the charge under Section 506, as there is no credible
evidence to support the claim that Sahil and Samar engaged in criminal intimidation towar
Mr. Anirudh.

Section 141 of I.P.C States (Wrongful Restraint):

Section 341. Punishment for wrongful restraint.—Whoever wrongfully restrains any person
shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or
with a fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both8.

The defence strongly challenges the charge under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code
against the accused, Mr. Sahil and Mr. Samar. The defence contends that Mr.Sahil and Mr.
Samar did not engage in any forceful restraint or confinement of Mr. Anirudh. Their
interactions during the trip were driven by a genuine attempt to include him in social
activities. At no point did the accused intend to wrongfully restrain Mr. Anirudh or cause him
any harm. Their actions were motivated by friendly intentions, and there was no criminal
motive to restrict his movement or freedom9.

Unforeseen Circumstances: The tragic outcome leading to Mr. Anirudh's demise was an
unforeseen and unintended consequence. Sahil and Samar did not restrain him in any manner

7
Shabnam v. State of Maharashtra (1992 CriLJ 1445)
8
Section 341, Indian Penal Code, 1860
9
Sooraj Devi v. State of Haryana (2016) 6 SCC 614
 12

that could be construed as wrongful, and they did not have any control over his subsequent
actions.

Genuine Concern: When Mr. Anirudh's behavior became erratic under the influence of
alcohol, Mr.Sahil and Mr. Samar were genuinely concerned for his well-being. Their attempts
to prevent any harm were motivated by a sense of responsibility towards their colleague and
not by a desire to wrongfully restrain him10.

Lack of Supporting Evidence: The prosecution has failed to provide concrete evidence that
demonstrates wrongful restraint on the part of Sahil and Samar. There are no eyewitness
testimonies or corroborating evidence to support the claim of forceful restraint.

Misinterpretation: Any actions or words that may have been misinterpreted as wrongful
restraint were the result of misunderstandings and miscommunication. The accused never
intended to restrain Mr. Anirudh against his will11.

10
Mohammed Ibrahim v. State of Bihar (2012) 6 SCC 446:
11
K. Balakrishnan v. State of Kerala (2000) 1 SCC 98
 13

ISSUE-II

Whether the accused is guilty of the offense of “Sexual Harassment” under section 354a
of I.P.C and of “Murder” under section 302 of I.P.C?

Section 354A of I.P.C states “Sexual harassment and punishment for sexual
harassment”

(1) A man committing any of the following acts--

(i) physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures; or

(ii) a demand or request for sexual favors; or

(iii) showing pornography against the will of a woman; or

(iv) making sexually coloured remarks,

shall be guilty of the offence of sexual harassment.

(2) Any man who commits the offence specified in clause (i) or clause (ii) or clause (iii) of
sub-section (1) shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to
three years, or with fine, or with both.

(3) Any man who commits the offence specified in clause (iv) of sub-section (1) shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or
with fine, or with both

It is humbly submitted to the hon’ble court that the prosecution failed to provide any
substantial evidence to prove the offense of Sexual harassment. The claim that the accused
made sexually colored remarks over the victim is baseless. Anirudh’s introverted nature and
unsocialized lifestyle made him the topic of gossip in the office. This reserved nature kept
Anirudh aloof, statement of the witness will prove that there was no sexually coloured
remarks over him but only gossips because of his reserved nature12.

12
Mukesh v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2020) 13 SCC 89
 14

WITNESSES STATEMENT:

Defence witness [3] Mr.Mayank

In his statement mentioned his own personal incident with Anirudh “Once I specially went to
Anirudh for inviting him on my birthday but he seemed even in accepting my invite. I
remember he didn't even wish me and didn't come to the party also. But I already knew that
he was very reserved to himself so his behavior didn't bother me and I never asked him about
this.”

Defence Witness [4] Dr. Sushil Kapoor (Psychologist)

Mr. Anirudh was my regular patient. He used to visit me once a month. Based on my
professional assessment and interactions with Anirudh I found him obsessed with his work.
He dedicated an excessive amount of time and energy to his work and neglected other aspects
of his life. He was a sensitive person, showed hesitancy to engage in social interactions, and
demonstrated discomfort when faced with social situations. His reluctance to socialize
seemed to be related to a deep-rooted fear of judgment and rejection. It became apparent
during therapy sessions that he experienced significant stress and anxiety related to his office
work. The pressure to meet high expectations, coupled with his obsessive tendencies, resulted
in chronic stress levels that negatively impacted his mental well-being. The workplace
environment appeared to contribute significantly to his overall distress. He also shared
accounts of being bullied during his school years which lead to the building up of suicidal
tendencies in him. The traumatic incidents he experienced have had a lasting impact on his
emotional and psychological state which resulted in his diminished self-esteem, increased
vulnerability, and difficulties in socializing and establishing trust in interpersonal
relationships. In order to make his life easier I recommended him to a renowned psychiatrist
who in turn prescribed him anti-depressants.

Above mentioned defence statement leave no room for doubt that the victim did not suffer
any sexually colored remarks from the accused but because of the past experiences in his life
made him insecure. Mr.Sahil and Mr. Samar tried to communicate with him again and again
to engage him in office activities but because of Anirudh’s reserved nature, this led to self-
isolation and ended up with a tragedy that cost him his life. Even during the trips accused
tried to befriend Anirudh but it didn’t work13.

13
State of Punjab v. Jagir Singh (2011) 3 SCC 77
 15

Respectful Conduct: The defence emphasizes that Mr.Sahil and Mr.Samar conducted
themselves with utmost respect towards Mr. Anirudh and other colleagues during the trip.
There were no incidents of indecent behavior or inappropriate gestures.

No Inappropriate Language: The defence contends that the accused did not use any
inappropriate or offensive language that could be deemed as sexual harassment. Their
conversations with Mr. Anirudh were no different from their conversations with other
colleagues.

Misinterpretation of Actions: Any actions or words that may have been misinterpreted as
sexual harassment were the result of miscommunication or misunderstandings. The accused
never intended to harass or cause distress to Mr. Anirudh.

Innocent Intent: The defence argues that any discomfort experienced by Mr. Anirudh during
the trip was unintended and not a result of deliberate sexual harassment. It was an unfortunate
outcome of misunderstandings that could have been resolved with clearer communication.

Lack of Supporting Evidence: The prosecution has failed to provide concrete evidence that
demonstrates sexual harassment on the part of Mr.Sahil and Mr.Samar. The burden of proof
lies with the prosecution, and they have not met the required standard to convict the accused.

No Corroborating Witnesses: There are no eyewitness testimonies or other evidence that

supports the claim of sexual harassment. The prosecution relies on circumstantial evidence
and assumptions, which are insufficient to establish guilt.

Section 302 of the I.P.C States “Murder and its Punishment”

Punishment for murder.—whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or

1[imprisonment for life], and shall also be liable to a fine14.

It is humbly contended that the accused is guilty of committing the offense of murder under

Sec 302, IPC. Sec 302 prescribes the punishment for committing murder. In order to bring a

Successful conviction under this charge, however, it is pertinent to refer to Sec 30015, IPC

14
Section 302 of Indian Penal code,1860
15
Section 300 of Indian Penal code,1860
 16

Which elucidates the essentials of murder.

A person is guilty of murder if he intentionally causes the death of a person or causes such

bodily injury as he knows is likely to cause the death of that person or causes such bodily
injury, which in the ordinary course of nature results into death or commits an act so
dangerous that it must, in all probability cause the death of that person.

The Defence humbly contends that both, the “actus reus” and the “mens rea” of the crime are
not present.

Actus Reus Of Murder Is Not Proven

Actus reus is any wrongful act16. Thus, in a case of murder, actus reus would be the physical

conduct of the accused that causes the death of the victim. In the instant case, the actus reus
is not present prosecution does not have any concrete evidence or eye-witness testimony to
prove the Actus Reus.

Circumstantial evidence17 does suggest that the Accused were there with the victim but it is
not sufficient to establish Actus Reus (Wrongful Act). The mere presence of the accused
cannot be taken as a ground for committing murder or for Actus Reus.

The defence argues that Mr.Sahil and Mr.Samar were not directly involved in the events
leading to Mr. Anirudh's death. They had no control over his actions or decisions, and they
did not cause or contribute to his death. When Mr. Anirudh's behavior became erratic under
the influence of alcohol, Mr.Sahil and Mr.Samar were genuinely concerned for his well-
being. They attempted to stop him from causing harm to himself, but they were not
responsible for the tragic outcome.

Mens Rea Of Murder Is Not Proven

Mens Rea is considered as guilty intention18, which is proved or inferred from the acts of the
accused. It is submitted that the intention to kill is established in light of the clear-cut motive
of the accused19.

16
Aiyar, P Ramanatha, The Law Lexicon, p9 (2nd ed . 42006)
17
Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana (2013) 9 SCC 90
18
State of U.P. v. Satish (2005) 3 SCC 114
19
Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana (2018) 8 SCC 602
 17

The defence asserts that there is no evidence to suggest that Sahil and Samar had any malice
or ill will towards Mr. Anirudh. They did not harbor any motive or grudge that could lead
them to commit murder.

The prosecution used Anirudh’s complaint as a motive to kill but The defense contends that
Mr.Sahil and Mr.Samar did not pre-plan any act that could lead to the death of Mr. Anirudh.
Their interactions with him during the trip were motivated by a desire to socialize and
befriend him, not to cause him harm.

The tragic outcome resulting in Mr. Anirudh's death was unforeseen and unintentional.
Mr.Sahil and Mr.Samar did not have any motive or intention to murder him, and his death
was a result of unfortunate circumstances.

WITNESSES STATEMENT

Defence Witness [4] Dr. Sushil Kapoor (Psychologist)

Dr. Sushil Kapoor statement “Mr. Anirudh was my regular patient. He used to visit me once a
month. Based on my professional assessment and interactions with Anirudh I found him
obsessed with his work. He dedicated an excessive amount of time and energy to his work
and neglected other aspects of his life. He was a sensitive person, showed hesitancy to engage
in social interactions, and demonstrated discomfort when faced with social situations. His
reluctance to socialize seemed to be related to a deep-rooted fear of judgment and rejection. It
became apparent during therapy sessions that he experienced significant stress and anxiety
related to his office work. The pressure to meet high expectations, coupled with his obsessive
tendencies, resulted in chronic stress levels that negatively impacted his mental well-being.
The workplace environment appeared to contribute significantly to his overall distress. He
also shared accounts of being bullied during his school years which lead to the building up of
suicidal tendencies in him. The traumatic incidents he experienced have had a lasting impact
on his emotional and psychological state which resulted in his diminished self-esteem,
increased vulnerability, and difficulties in socializing and establishing trust in interpersonal
relationships. In order to make his life easier I recommended him to a renowned psychiatrist
who in turn prescribed him anti-depressants.”

Leave no room for doubt that Anirudh was depressed and had suicidal tendencies. The
defence contends that any physical altercation between Mr. Anirudh and Sahil and Samar was
not premeditated. It was an unplanned and unforeseen scuffle that occurred as a result of Mr.
 18

Anirudh's erratic behavior and his aggressive response to their concern. In the event of a
physical confrontation, Sahil and Samar may have acted in self-defence to protect themselves
from harm. Their actions were not intended to cause lethal harm to Mr. Anirudh.

Lack of Supporting Evidence:

The burden of proof is on prosecution bears the burden of proving beyond reasonable doubt
that the accused committed murder under Section 302. The defence contends that the
prosecution has not provided sufficient evidence to establish guilt20.

No Witnesses: There are no eyewitnesses or direct evidence linking Sahil and Samar to the
murder of Mr. Anirudh. The prosecution relies on circumstantial evidence, which is not
conclusive enough to secure a conviction.

In conclusion, the defence firmly refutes the charge under Section 302, as there is no credible
evidence to support the claim that Sahil and Samar committed murder. Their interactions with
Mr. Anirudh during the trip were driven by friendly intentions, and they did not have any
premeditated plan to cause him harm. The tragic outcome leading to his death was unforeseen
and not a result of their direct actions. We urge this honorable court to carefully consider the
evidence presented and grant acquittal to the accused on this charge.

20
State of U.P. v. Satish (2005) 3 SCC 114
 19

PRAYER

Defence, humbly submit this prayer before this Honorable Court. We come before you
seeking justice and fairness in the trial of the present case.

1. Acquittal on Section 506 IPC (Criminal Intimidation): We pray for the acquittal of the
accused under Section 506 IPC.

2. Acquittal on Section 341 IPC (Wrongful Restraint): We humbly pray for the acquittal
of the accused under Section 341 IPC.

3. Acquittal on Section 355 IPC (Assault): We seek the acquittal of the accused under
Section 355 IPC as there is no concrete evidence to support the charge of assault.

4. Acquittal on Section 354A IPC (Sexual Harassment): We pray for the acquittal of the
accused under Section 354A IPC.

5. Acquittal on Section 302 IPC (Murder): Lastly, we implore this Honorable Court to
consider all the evidence presented before it impartially and objectively. We humbly
request the court to grant an acquittal to the accused under Section 302 IPC.

6. Grant any other Relief as it deems with, in the interest of Justice, Conscience, Good
Faith, and Equity.

PLACE: Merela S/D__________________

Date: COUNCIL FOR THE DEFENCE