Memorial National Moot Court Competition 070223 1 461021

11TH RLC SAQUIB RIZVI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2022-23
RIZVI EDUCATION SOCIETY’S
Rizvi Law College
11TH SAQUIB RIZVI MEMORIAL

NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION
2022-23
MOOT PROPOSITION
Disclaimer: This case is purely fictional. Any resemblance to names, properties and associations
is purely coincidental.
1|Page
INDEX
SR. NO. CONTENT PAGE NO.
1. Brief facts 3-4
2. F.I.R. 5-6
3. Charge 7
4. Post-Mortem Report 8
5. F.S.L Report 9
6. Evidence: 10-33
a) PW-1 10
b) PW-2 14
c) PW-3 16
d) PW-4 18
e) PW-5 21
f) PW-6 23
g) PW-7 25
h) PW-8 27
i) PW-9 29
j) DW-10 32
2|Page
BRIEF FACTS
1. Prakash Mane, a farmer in the village of Chiplun, Maharashtra lived alone in House no. 183.
His son Raghav Mane along with his wife Smt. Supriya Mane and her 10-year-old daughter
Anju Mane lived in the adjacent House No.184.
2. On 08.03.2022 at 7:30 pm, Raghav along with his friend his father Prakash and Ramakant
Shinde, a fellow villager, the Aangan (courtyard) outside the house no. 184 discussing the
upcoming village election. At that time, Ashok Mane came near their house and accused
Prakash Mane of destroying his crops. Ashok is the brother of Prakash Mane who separated
from the family of Prakash Mane owing to the constant family conflicts and quarrels.
Upon further questioning, Prakash Mane denied the allegation and advised Ashok Mane to
resolve the issue peacefully. However, he started abusing Prakash Mane and walked towards
assaulting him. Ramakant Shinde and Raghav Mane stopped him to avoid tussling over a trivial
issue. While leaving Ashok threatened Prakash Mane of taking revenge soon.
3. At about 8:30 pm on the same day, Prakash Mane as per his everyday routine had dinner at
Raghav’s home along with Raghav’s family. At around 9:00 pm Raghav went to meet the
Sarpanch of the village Govind Parab to express his concern and to take action against his
uncle Ashok Mane. Sarpanch assured him that he will talk to Ashok Mane the next morning.
4. At about 11:00 pm when Raghav was returning, he went to check on his father at House No.183
where he found his father Prakash Mane dead in a pool of blood.
5. Raghav informed Sarpanch about the death of his father at around 3:00 am He travelled to
Chiplun Police Station which is 20 km away from his house at 4:00 am in the morning and
narrated the incident to P.S.I. Dinesh Mahadik and lodged an FIR. Based on the information
given, an FIR bearing number 194/22 was filed which mentioned Ashok’s name as the accused
for an offence punishable under section 302 I.P.C.
6. P.S.I. Dinesh Mahadik, carried out Spot panchanama at the place of occurrence of the crime.
The said panchanama was carried out in the presence of two panchas. From the spot of
incidence, he seized articles nos. 1 & 2 namely:
3|Page
i. Blood from the place of incident; and
ii. One Gamcha
On further examining the place around the house of Prakash, an axe was recovered at the
backside of Prakash’s home which had the fingerprints of the accused but the forensic report
postulated that the blood stains on the axe did not belong to the deceased. The recoveries were
duly made in the presence of two panch witnesses.
7. P.S.I. Dinesh Mahadik investigated the case and evaluated the statements of the witnesses.
After completing the investigation, on 15.07.2022, a charge sheet was filed against the
present appellant. In due course, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions at Ratnagiri.
8. During the trial before the Sessions court, a total of 9 Prosecution Witnesses were examined.
The appellant in order to prove his innocence, examined a Defence Witness. The statement of
the accused was recorded under section 313 of C.r.P.C., wherein the accused denied all the
allegations. The defence of the appellant was that of total denial, false implication and absence
of motive. The learned trial Judge on the basis of circumstantial evidences adduced by the
prosecution proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, passed the impugned
judgment, convicting the accused under section 302 of IPC and penalizing him with life
imprisonment.
9. The accused being aggrieved by the judgment of the Ld. Sessions Court has now preferred an
appeal before the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay to challenge the judgment of conviction. The
matter is now posted for final hearing.
4|Page
FIRST INFORMATION REPORT
(Under Section. 154 C.r.P.C.)
1. District: Ratnagiri Police station: Chiplun Year: 2022 FIR No: 194
Date:09/03/2022.
2. Act: I.P.C Sections: 302
3. Occurrence of Offence:
Day: Tuesday Date: 08/03/2022
Time: 9:00 pm to 11:00 pm
Information received at Police Station:
Date: 09/03/2022 Time: 4:00 am
General Diary Reference:
Entry No. 13/22 Time: 4:15 am
Type of Information: Oral
4. Place of occurrence:
Address: House No 183, Chiplun, Ratnagiri, Maharashtra
Name of P.S.: Chiplun District: Ratnagiri
5. Complainant / Informant:
(a) Name: Raghav Mane
(b) Date / Year of Birth: 34 years
(c) Nationality: Indian
(d) Occupation: Farmer
(e) Address: House No 184, Chiplun, Maharashtra
5|Page
(f) Details of the accused: Ashok Mane residing at House no. 190, Tilak Chowk, Ratnagiri
District, Maharashtra.
6. FIR Brief contents:
On 08.03.2022 at around 11:00 pm, Raghav Mane while returning home after visiting the Sarpanch
of the village found Prakash Mane dead at his house i.e. House no. 183. Raghav Mane suspecting
Ashok Mane to have committed the crime due to past civil disputes and a verbal argument in the
evening of 08.03.2022 at around 7:30 pm has lodged the present FIR.
FIR read over to the complainant/informant admitted to be correctly recorded and a copy given to
the complainant/informant free of cost.
R.O.A.C.
Sd/-
Signature of Officer in Charge, Police Station
Name: Dinesh Mahadik
Rank: Police Sub Inspector
7. Thumb Impression / Signature of the Complainant / Informant
Date and Time of Dispatched to the court: 10th March, 2022 at 10:45 am
6|Page
AT THE HON'BLE COURT OF SESSION AT RATNAGIRI
SESSIONS CASE NUMBER: 56/2022
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ...PROSECUTION
V/s.
ASHOK MANE …ACCUSED
THE CHARGE
That you accused on 08.03.2022, in between 09:00 pm to 11:00 pm within the jurisdiction
of Chiplun Police Station at Ratnagiri killed Prakash Mane at House no. 183, due to past civil
disputes and verbal argument in the evening at around 7:30 pm of 08.03.2022 at House no. 184,
with an axe on his head and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 302 of the
Indian Penal Code and within the cognizance of this Court.
Dated this 15th of July, 2022
Sd/-
Additional Session Judge Sessions Court at Ratnagiri
7|Page
Memorandum of Post Mortem Examination held at K.K. Hospital
District: Ratnagiri State: Maharashtra
General Particulars –
1. By whom was the corpse sent? - Chiplun Police Station

2. The date, hour and time of receipt? - 10:55 a.m., 09.03.2022
3. The date, hour and minutes of - 11:15 am – 12:30 pm on 09.03.2022
beginning the examination?
4. Injuries:
Continuous lacerated wound on the left side of the face below the left eye
at the lower margin of the left orbit. Dimension was 1 inch × 1/2 inch. There
External Injuries was a fracture of the bone, injury was grievous.
Abrasion on both sides of the angle of the mouth direction posteriorly and
upward, 2 inches, wound incised.
Fracture of the anterior cranial fossa on the left side Antero posteriorly about
Internal Injuries
1 inch in length and the orbital plate of the left orbit fractured irregularly.
Injury to the frontal lobe and occipital lobe, of the brain.
5. Opinion as to the probable cause of death-

The injury was attributable to a blow by a hard and blunt object to the frontal lobe and
occipital lobe, of the brain.
Sd/-
Department of Forensic Medicine

K.K. Medical College, Ratnagiri
8|Page
DIRECTORATE OF FORENSIC SCIENCE LABORATORIES

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, HOME DEPARTMENT, RATNAGIRI
Date: 11.03.2022
Examination Report
To
The Senior Police Inspector,
Chiplun, Ratnagiri District
Maharashtra.
Date of Incident 08.03.2022
P.S.: Chiplun Police Station
u/s.: 302
Date of Receipt: 16.03.2022
Condition of the Parcel / Seal:

--- One sealed envelope, Exh. 1
--- One unsealed envelope, seal opened, Exh.2
Description of articles contained in the parcel:

Exhibit No.1: Blood-stained Gamcha, put in a polythene bag, again put in an envelope and marked
as 1
Exhibit No.2: Blood-stained Axe in a polythene bag, put in an envelope and marked as 2
Results of Analysis
Positive, blood of the deceased, Exh. 1
Negative, the blood present on the axe not of the deceased, Exh. 2
Analysis started on: 14.03.2022

Analysis completed on 18.03.2022
9|Page
EVIDENCE
Deposition of Witness No. 1 for the Prosecution 26/07/2022
Name: Raghav Prakash Mane, Age 35 years, residing at Matoshree, House No. 184, Chandurkar
wadi, Chiplun, Ratnagiri, Maharashtra.
Examination in Chief
1. I am residing with my daughter named Anju and my wife Supriya. I worked with my father
who lived at House no. 183. We jointly run a fruit farming and selling business. Ashok Mane
and his family used to reside with us but separated in 2010 due to constant family conflicts
and an ongoing civil property dispute.
2. On 08.03.2022 at around 7:30 pm I, my father i.e., Prakash Mane and my father’s good friend,
Ramakant Shinde were sitting in the Aangan (courtyard) of my house (House no. 184) when
Ashok, who is my uncle, came near the Aangan (courtyard) and started accusing and abusing
my father Prakash for destroying his crops for gaining unfair profit. My father denied the
same and advised me to solve the issue peacefully. However, when Ashok advanced towards
my father there was a tussle between the two and my father slapped Ashok Mane. Ramakant
then shoved him away and urged him to leave. As he was leaving, he threatened to kill my
father and warned him that he would take revenge soon.
3. At around 8:30 pm, my father and I as per our everyday practice had dinner at my place, after
which he left for his house (House no. 183). Being disturbed by the incident, I decided to
meet the Sarpanch of the village to express my concern and to take action against my uncle
Ashok Mane. I narrated the incident to him and he assured me that he would talk to Ashok
Mane the next morning.
4. I returned home between 10:00 pm to 11:00 pm when on my way decided to check on my

father. When I reached, I noticed that the door of his house was open and on entering, I saw
that he was smeared in blood and was lying dead in his living room. I called my wife who
10 | P a g e
was sleeping at our house. She came running along with my daughter and was shocked to see
my father dead. I went to Sarpanch’s home and told him about the death of my father.
Sarpanch and I came back to my father’s place where Ramakant, Ashok and Chaya
(neighbour) were already present. I had a strong suspicion that Ashok Kaka must have killed
my father to take revenge for his destroyed crops.
5. I went to the police station at around 4:00 am and reported the incident; An FIR was reported
against Ashok. A copy of the FIR was given to me. FIR bearing No. 194/22 dated 09/03/2022
now shown to me bears my signature. It is marked as ‘Exhibit-1’.
11 | P a g e
Cross-Examination
1. I am educated up to 11th Std. I can read and write in Hindi Language. It is true that the house
(House No. 184) in which I reside with my wife and daughter was owned by my father. He
used to handle the finances related to both the houses and fields. I used to help my father in
the business that he started in 2010. It is not true that my father and I had disputes regarding
ownership of the family business and property. It is true that me and my father had an
argument last week in relation to business decisions but the same was resolved instantly. It is
true that I did not mention this in my statement as I did not find this important to be disclosed.
2. It is true that my father has been living in a separate house since I got married to Supriya in
2011. I was blessed with a daughter in 2012 since then he often used to visit our home to play
with Anju and for occasional dinner and lunch. It is true that the area in which we live is
isolated and we are surrounded by 4 to 5 houses on either side. It is true that my house and
my father’s house is hardly 5 steps away.
3. It is true that my father i.e., Prakash Mane slapped Ashok. It is true that Ashok that evening
not only assaulted my father during the tussle but also specifically threatened to kill him. It is
not true that I failed to mention in my statement about this specific threat of killing by Ashok.
I cannot assign any reasons as to why this is not mentioned in the statement given to the
police. The accused is in constant fights with me and my father due to the ongoing civil
property dispute.
4. It is not true that at 8:30 pm I left the dinner in the middle and left the house as I had an
argument with my father at the time of dinner. It is true that Sarpanch’s house is only 10
minutes away from our place. It is not true that I reached early from Sarpanch’s house. I was
at Sarpanch’s place and then came back home walking.
5. It is true that the door of the house was already opened where my father was lying dead. It is
not true that I have stated in my statement that I opened the door. I cannot assign any reason
as to why the same is mentioned in my statement. It is true that the room was intact.
12 | P a g e
6. It is true that I informed the Sarpanch and at 3:00 am., I reported an FIR at Chiplun Police
station which is 20 km away from my place. Police started the investigation and my statement
was recorded by the police. I named Ashok as the accused for the killing of my father as
Ashok had already warned my father, of taking revenge for his destroyed crops which he
believed was done by him.
7. It is not true that I informed Ashok about my father’s death. After returning from the police
station with Sarpanch, I saw that Ashok was already present near my father’s home. It is true
that Ashok lives at a distance of 15 minutes from my father’s home.
8. It is not true that I murdered my father to acquire the business, field and house that he owned.
It is not true that I am falsely accusing Ashok Mane of my personal gains.
13 | P a g e
Name: Ramakant Shinde Age: 49 years residing at Rameshwar, House No. 186, Khotkar wadi,
Chiplun, Ratnagiri,
1. I am a teacher at a government college which is located about 5 km from my house. I have

been employed there for 10 years. Additionally, I also provide tuition to the village kids who
cannot afford private tuition. I and the deceased, Prakash Mane were good friends. We used to
meet occasionally and even go for walks after dinner.
2. On 08.03.2022, I along with Prakash and Raghav were sitting in the Aangan of Raghav’s house
at House No.184. At around 7:30 p.m., Ashok, entered the Aangan and started abusing and
accusing Prakash of destroying his crops. He even tried to assault Prakash but Raghu and I
separated them and advised them to solve the dispute peacefully. Ashok after threatening
Prakash with dire consequences left the place. Shortly after that even I headed for my place.
3. Later at around 9:30 p.m. on the same day after having dinner, I went out for a walk and saw
Prakash taking a walk near his house. I went near his house and asked him whether he would
accompany me for a walk towards the mandir. Prakash denied the same citing the reason that
he would sleep in some time. On the way back home from a walk, I saw Ashok Mane (accused)
smoking cigarettes at a 5-minute distance from Prakash’s house having worn a ghamcha.
4. At around 4:00 a.m. in the morning, Raghav informed me that his father was murdered and
was lying dead in his living room. I told him that I would reach in some time.
5. During the investigation, I was called to the police station to give my statement regarding the
incident.
14 | P a g e
Cross-Examination
1. It is true that I and Prakash were good friends. Prakash used to invite me occasionally to his
place to have dinner or for any advice. It is true that after dinner Prakash and I used to go for
a walk occasionally.
2. It is true that I have contested in the Gram Panchayat elections. Prakash had advised me to
take up the responsibility of participating in elections. It is not true that Prakash was
campaigning for the elections. Apart from me, Prakash’s brother, Ashok (i.e., the accused) is
contesting in the elections. It is true that there have been verbal disputes between me and
Ashok during the election campaign.
3. It is true that Raghav and Prakash used to have occasional quarrels with respect to business
decisions. Last week he discussed with me that he had an argument with Prakash with respect
to their business. He was unhappy that his opinion on the business decision was not
considered and he was always disrespected before other employees. However, the issue
between them was resolved like every other time within 1 or 2 days.
4. It is true that on 08.03.2022 at around 7:30 p.m., Ashok visited the place of Raghu to question
whether he had destroyed his crops. Ashok abused his brother and threatened him of facing
dire consequences.
5. It is true that Prakash was alone while he was roaming around his house. He usually preferred
walks towards the village mandir but denied it on 08.03.2022. I completed the walk and
reached home by 9:45 p.m. It is not true that I did not see Ashok at a 5 minutes distance from
Ashok’s house while returning from my walk.
6. It is not true that I am falsely deposing Ashok Mane for my own political gain.
15 | P a g e
Deposition of Witness No. 3 of the prosecution 13/08/2022
Name: Anju Raghav Mane, age 10 years, residing at Matoshree, House No. 184, Chandurkar wadi,
Chiplun, Ratnagiri, Maharashtra.
1. I am in class fifth. I live with my mother (Supriya Mane) and father (Raghav Mane) in House
no. 184. Grandfather (Prakash Mane) was very fond of me and often used to come to our house
to play with me.
2. On 08.03.2022 after returning from school in the evening, I was playing in the Aangan when
Ashok came to our house and started shouting. My mother told me to go inside the house I did
not see what happened next.
3. That day on 08.03.2022 when we were having dinner, my father left his food halfway and went
somewhere. When my mother asked him where he was going, he did not reply. He was very
angry. After he left, we finished our dinner and grandfather went to his own house. He did not
go for a walk.
4. On the same day at around 9:30 pm I saw Ashok entering grandfather’s house. He looked very
angry and he had an axe in his hand. I do not recall the time when Ashok left. I can identify
the axe. It is marked as ‘Art. A’
5. My mother woke me up in the night and told me that my grandfather is no more. I was very
sad.
6. I can identify Ashok. He is present in court today.
16 | P a g e
Cross-Examination
1. It is true that my grandfather (Prakash Mane) used to live with us initially, but my mother,
grandfather and my father used to fight a lot so he left us and started living separately in the
adjacent house i.e., House No. 183.
2. It is true that when my grandfather used to come to play with me, there were occasional quarrels
between my mother, grandfather and my father.
3. It is not true that on 08.03.2022 at 7:30 pm I saw Prakash assaulting Ashok as my mother had
told me to go inside the room. It is true that I answered it differently i.e. I saw Prakash
assaulting Ashok when the same was asked of me by police officials as a mistake.
4. That day when we were having dinner, my grandfather and my father got into an argument
over something. My father was so angry that he did not even finish his food and left it half-
eaten and went somewhere. It is true that he was so angry that he did not even answer my
mother about where he was going.
5. It is true that I did not see Ashok leaving grandfather’s house. I only saw him entering.
6. It is true that it is very dark outside the house. It is true that one cannot clearly see the face of
a person in such a dark area.
7. It is true that I do not remember the time when Baba informed us about the murder of my
grandfather. It was late at night.
8. It is not true that my mother, my father or the Police have threatened, influenced, tutored or
coerced me to give any statement.
17 | P a g e
Deposition of Witness No. 4 of the Prosecution 24/08/2022

Name: Supriya Raghav Mane, age 30, residing at Matoshree, House No. 184, Chandurkar wadi,
Chiplun, Ratnagiri, Maharashtra.
1. I am a housewife. I stay with my husband Raghav and my daughter Anju in House no. 183
and my father-in-law stays in House no. 184 which is adjacent to our house. My family has
been living in this village for ages. My husband and his father are born and brought up in this
village wherein our farming and business are established. My father-in-law’s brother also stays
in the same locality as we stay in.
2. Yes, it is true that there is an ongoing property dispute between my father-in-law and Ashok
kaka even before my marriage to Raghav and it was because of this property dispute that Ashok
and Kamla started living separately. It is true that there was always a tense situation in the
house related to property disputes but we always used to advise my father-in-law to solve the
dispute peacefully without any quarrels.
3. On the night of 08.03.2022 at around 7:30 pm, my husband and my father-in-law i.e. Prakash
Mane along with Ramakant were having a conversation in the aangan of our house when I
heard Ashok creating a brawl and accusing my father-in-law of destroying the crops from his
farm. Meanwhile, my daughter was playing in the aangan so to keep her away I told her to go
inside.
4. Even though my husband and Ramakant advised him to solve the issue peacefully he started
shouting. At that instance, my father-in-law (Prakash) became very angry and slapped Ashok
Mane. Thereafter, there was a tussle between them and while leaving Ashok warned my father-
in-law of dire consequences to the extent of killing him. After everything was settled and the
situation was calm we all sat for dinner at around 8:30 pm. Thereafter my husband went
somewhere and he looked very disturbed.
18 | P a g e
5. At around 11:30 pm my husband called me to my father-in-law’s house so I took my daughter

and went to my father-in-law’s house. What I saw was my father-in-law lying dead on the floor
smeared in blood and my daughter Anju got scared seeing the situation of her grandfather.
Soon my husband went to the police station to report what has happened. Meanwhile,
Ramakant, Chaya and Ashok came to the place where the incident had taken place. Soon my
husband along with sarpanch and police officers came to investigate the matter.
19 | P a g e
Cross-Examination
1. I am educated till 10 standard and I married Raghav mane in the year 2011 ever since then I
yh
am residing with his family.
2. Yes, it is true that I along with my husband and my daughter live in a separate house and my
father-in-law doesn’t stay in the same house. The house in which we live is managed by my
father-in-law.
3. It is not true that we have frequent quarrels with my father-in-law. We always insisted him to
stay with us in one house. But he always denied the same citing that he doesn’t want to invade
our privacy. Hence, we stay in a separate house but most of the time we all have our meals
together.
4. It is true that at the time of dinner, my husband and my father-in-law had an argument related
to the business and because of this my husband walked out of the house in the middle of the
dinner. I asked him twice as to where he was going but he was so angry that he didn’t even
reply.
5. As the dinner got over my father-in-law as usual wished us good night and went for his night
walk in his aangan. Meanwhile, my daughter and I went to sleep. Later that night my husband
called us outside and Anju and I were devastated to see my father-in-law dead in his house.
We suspected that the murder was committed by Ashok when I saw the Gamcha at the spot.
Meanwhile Ramakant, Chaya-our neighbour and Ashok everyone came to see what had
happened.
6. It is not true that I am deposing falsely at the instance of my husband.
20 | P a g e
Deposition of witness no. 5 for the Prosecution 01/09/2022
Name: Govind Parab, Age: 56, residing at Mangala Sadan, Chandurkar wadi, Chiplun, Ratnagiri,
Maharashtra.
1. I have been living in this village since my birth and I have been the Sarpanch of this village
for the past five years. Before being the Sarpanch, I used to manage my farmlands and we
have a business of supplying agricultural produce to the city and other factories outside the
village.
2. I do not personally know the family of Prakash Mane (deceased) and Ashok Mane (accused)
but as a Sarpanch, I am aware of their business and have heard that the two brothers do not
share a very cordial relationship with each other. I am aware that the family of both brothers
used to live together however have separated a few years back.
3. On 08/03/2022 at around 9:00 pm Raghav came to my residence and complained that he was
very disturbed by the constant accusations and disputes with his uncle Ashok Mane. I told him
that since it is their family matter there is not much that I can do to help him. He then narrated
the incident to me which took place at 7:30 pm that day at his place. He told me that his uncle
Ashok Mane came to his house and started accusing and abusing his father Prakash Mane
(deceased) of his destroyed crops. He told me that there was a tussle between Prakash and
Ashok. On hearing the same I insisted Raghav that he should file a complaint at the nearby
police station which was vehemently denied by him. Thereafter I told him that as a Sarpanch
I will talk to Ashok Mane the next morning.
4. Later at around 3:00 am Raghav informed me that somebody has murdered his father Prakash
Mane and he has strong suspicion on his uncle Ashok Mane. We then went to the Chiplun
Police Station to lodge an FIR at around 4:00 am. Likewise, an inquiry was made.
Consequently, I was called to Chiplun Police Station and my statement was recorded with the
police.
21 | P a g e
Cross-Examination
1. It is not true that I have personal enmity with Ashok Mane as he is contesting for the Gram
Panchayat election and hence, I am giving a false statement against him. Due to my ill health, I
am not contesting the Sarpanch election. I do not have any personal score with Ashok Mane.
2. It is true that I am not supporting any of the contestants in the upcoming elections. It is true that
I was made aware of the internal conflicts between Prakash and his son, Raghav. It is true that
till date, none from the family of Prakash has ever asked to solve the dispute and the ongoing
civil dispute.
3. It is true that Raghav on the night of 08.03.2022 came to meet me at around 9:00 p.m. He
explained to me the situation at his house and Ashok having threatened his father with dire
consequences. It is true that I suggested Raghav to report the incident to the police and Raghav
denied the same. Raghav left my home between 9:30 pm to 10:00 pm, It is true that Raghav’s
house is at a distance of 10 minutes from my house.
4. It is true that Raghav refused to go and register a complaint and I am unaware of the reason for
the same. It is true that at around 3:00 a.m., Raghav called him and told me that his father was
murdered. I told him that I would arrive at his house in some time. When I reached Prakash’s
home, I saw Raghav, his wife and his daughter crying outside the house.
5. It is true that I told him to report an FIR. It is true that at around 4:00 a.m., we left for Chiplun
police station which is about 20 km from his house.
6. It is true that at around 5:30 a.m., I and Raghav along with Police personnel reached Prakash’s
home. The police started the investigation. It is true that Ashok was present at the place of
occurrence of the crime. It is true that I was called to the Police station to give a statement
regarding the incident.
7. It is not true that I am deposing falsely at the instructions of the Police.
22 | P a g e
Deposition of witness no. 6 for the Prosecution 16/09/2022

Name: Chaya Nhavkar, Age: 32, residing at Sumukhi, House 181, Chandurkar wadi, Chiplun,
Ratnagiri, Maharashtra.
1. I am educated till the 7th standard. I reside with my husband and 2 sons in the village of
Chiplun. My husband and I work on the farms all day and in the evening to earn a livelihood
for my family I do household work at the Sarpanch's house.
2. I know Prakash ever since I got married to my husband. He was very lovable and used to treat
me like his daughter. Sometimes I brought him meals and served him dinner. We used to have
long conversations on varied subjects. He and his son did not share a very cordial relationship.
After his marriage, he neglected his father and decided to live separately along with his wife
and daughter. There were frequent quarrels between Raghav, his wife and Prakash. The family
had a dispute regarding their property with Ashok who is Prakash’s brother and because of
constant fights in their house and all the villagers were aware of Prakash not being happy with
the family. The disputes in their home are frequently the subject of talk among the villagers.
3. I say that occasionally when we farm workers sit for lunch together few of our friends who
come to work on their farm told us that Raghav is desperately after his father’s property.
4. I say that on the night of the incident, we were asleep when between 3:00-4:00 am we heard a
commotion from outside and we came to know that Prakash was no more.
23 | P a g e
Cross-Examination
1. I am not literate and can read and write any other language apart from Hindi. I am a working
woman and I work as a house help at different places, one such being the Sarpanch’s place.
We stay in the same locality as Prakash, barely 2 houses away.
2. I say that my family and Prakash’s family are acquaintances as my husband works on the farm
for the whole day and I do household work at different places. Due to frequent quarrels
between the families of Prakash Mane and Ashok Mane, they had a major property dispute
and regarding that Prakash’s son Raghav used to come to meet the sarpanch at regular
intervals.
3. Raghav and his wife took care of his father. They both handled their business and were doing
well for their living. Raghav was the one who used to tell his father to settle the property
dispute peacefully.
24 | P a g e

Name: Ganesh Acharya, Age: 49 residing at Narayan Baug, Chiplun, Ratnagiri.
1. I run a hotel which is situated at a 10 minutes distance from the house of Prakash Mane on the
opposite side of the road.
2. Early morning 5:00 a.m. on 09.03.2022, I was present at the hotel to start the business when
two police personnel called me to act as a Pancha. When I reached the place Police had already
sealed the place and the deceased’s family members and some neighbours were present near
the site. At the site, one other Pancha was also present. We were informed by PSI Dinesh
Mahadik that one Prakash Mane was found dead at his house and the prime suspect in the case
was Ashok Mane.
3. A spot panchanma was carried out in our presence by P.S.I Dinesh Mahadik, where Prakash
Mane was murdered. Blood samples which were present on the floor were collected. One
gamcha was found. The sample and the articles were taken into possession and affixed labels
on them. Our signatures were obtained thereupon. A Pachamama was prepared of these and
was signed by both the panchas along with PSI Dinesh Mahadik. Police obtained my signature
on a paper label as well as on Panchanama. The spot panchanma was drawn between 5:30 a.m.
and 7:30 a.m.
4. Accordingly, seizure panchanama was carried out wherein an axe was recovered behind the
house of the deceased. The I.O. collected the sample, wrapped them and affixed labels in our
presence. A seizure panchanma was prepared on which our signatures were obtained along
with the signature of PSI Dinesh Mahadik.
25 | P a g e
Cross-Examination
1. I was present at my hotel early in the morning as on that very day I was expected to deliver
food for 200 people in the nearby village for a wedding. It is not true that I have never opened
the hotel so early. When the orders at the hotel are more, I start the preparation early in the
morning. It is true that I have an NC in my name at the local Police Station but the same had
been registered by a business rival against me to hamper the profits of my hotel. It is not true
that I know PSI Dinesh Mahadik from before and I am a routine visitor to the Police Station in
relation to my NC. It is true that I am devoid of any knowledge related to the family of the
deceased or the accused. I am unaware of their family issues.
2. It is true that I do not remember the name of another Pancha who was present while drawing
the Spot and Seizure Panchanama. It is not true that I have not been to the spot. It is true that
the articles seized by the police constables were wrapped and labelled but not sealed. It is true
that the two houses were alongside each other and located in an isolated area.
3. It is not true that the police obtained my signature on the ready-made Panchanama. It is not
true that I am deposing falsely on the instructions of the police.
4. It is true that the spot from where the axe was seized is accessible to the public. It is true that
the axe and gamcha are easily available in the market.
26 | P a g e
Name: Dr Sunil Prabhu Age: 43 years, residing at the campus of K.K. Hospital, Ratnagiri
Maharashtra.
1. In the year 2010, I was attached to the K.K. Hospital, Ratnagiri as an Assistant Professor of
the Forensic Medical Department. On 09.03.2022, Chiplun Police officials brought a dead
body of a person named Mr. Prakash Mane. I myself conducted the Post-Mortem on
09.03.2022 between 4.15 p.m. to 5.15 p.m.
2. On external examination of the dead body, the following injuries:
i. Continuous lacerated wound on the left side of the face below the left eye at the lower
margin of the left orbit. Dimension was 1 inch × 1/2 inch. There was a fracture of the
bone, injury was grievous.
ii. Abrasion on both sides of the angle of the mouth direction posteriorly and upward, 2
inches, wound incised.
3. According to the examination, injury and fracture of maxillary bone were antemortem. On
internal examination, I found a fracture of the anterior cranial fossa on the left side Antero
posteriorly about 1 inch in length and the orbital plate of left orbit fractured irregularly. The
internal injuries were corresponding to injury
4. In my opinion, Mr Prakash Mane died on account of injury to the frontal lobe and occipital
lobe, of the brain. The aforesaid injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to
cause Prakash's death and the injury was attributable to a blow by a hard and blunt object like
Axe.
5. I am shown a copy of my report. It bears my signature and it is sealed. The report of the same
is marked as Exhibit-2. Its contents are true.
27 | P a g e
Cross Examination
1. It is true that I am working at K.K. Hospital, Ratnagiri for the last twelve years. It is true that
I have examined many such witnesses.
2. The injury to the frontal lobe and occipital lobe, of the brain. In my opinion, the aforesaid
injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause Prakash's death and were
attributable to a blow by a hard and blunt object like an axe. It is true that the injury mentioned
in column no. 1 can be caused by any other weapon other than an axe.
3. It is not true that the accused or the complainant is known to me. It is not true that I am deposing
falsely in court today on the instructions of the police.
28 | P a g e

Name: Dinesh Mahadik, age 47, residing at Chiplun Police Quarters, Ratnagiri, Maharashtra-
1. I am attached to Chiplun Police Station as PSI. On 08/03/2022 I was on night duty as Thane
Amaldar from 08:00 pm to 08:00 a.m. On the next date at about 04:00 a.m. I received a
complaint from Raghav Mane that at around 10:30 pm, Raghav found his father Prakash Mane
dead at his house at House No. 183, Chiplun, Ratnagiri, Maharashtra. Raghav Mane suspected
Ashok Mane to have committed the crime due to an ongoing civil property dispute and verbal
argument in the evening at around 7:30 p.m. As per this narration I have recorded his detailed
statement and registered an offence u/s. 302 of IPC bearing FIR no. 194/2022.
2. As per the information provided to me, I registered the FIR which was read over to the
complainant. Thereafter on obtaining the signature of the complainant on the FIR, I signed it
myself and handed over one copy of the FIR to the complainant. The FIR shown to me by the
counsel is the same bearing my signature. The content mentioned therein is correct and in
relation to what was stated by the complainant. The same has been marked as ‘Exhibit-1’.
3. Thereafter I visited the spot and proceeded with the inquest and Spot Panchanama. I was
accompanied by constable Mr More, the complainant and two panchas who were present at the
time of panchanama. During the said inquest we recovered one Gamcha and collected the
blood samples in and around the deceased’s body. Thereafter during the search, we seized an
axe found at the backside of the deceased’s house. After the completion of the panchanama,
we attested the same by obtaining the signature of the two panchas who were present. The
panchanama now shown to me is the same. The content mentioned therein is true and correct
to the best of my knowledge. It bears my signature and the signature of two panchas. On the
basis of the content mentioned in the FIR, Ashok was arrested on 09.03.2022 and was presented
before the Magistrate the next day. Ashok was granted Police Custody for the purpose of
investigation.
29 | P a g e
4. On 09.03.2022 at around 10:30 a.m. the body was sent for Post-mortem investigation to K.K.
Hospital. The recoveries in the form of axe and Gamcha were sent to Forensic Investigation
on 16.03.2022. The report of the same is marked as ‘Exhibit-3’
5. The statements of Ramakant and Supriya were recorded on 11.03.2022. On 12.03.2022,

statements of Sarpanch i.e., Mr Govind Parab, Chaya Nhavkar and Kamla Mane were
recorded. The statement of Anju was recorded on 15.03.2022.
6. On 11.03.2022, Post Mortem Report was received by the Chiplun Police Station which
elaborated upon the cause of death of the deceased. The recoveries in the form of axe and
Gamcha which were sent for forensic investigation were received on 18.03.2022. On the basis
of the investigation, a chargesheet was filed on 15.07.2022
7. The accused is present in the court today.
30 | P a g e
Cross-Examination
1. I have served in the police department for about 35 years. I have been investigating this case right
from the lodgement of the FIR.
2. It is true that the statement made by the complainant i.e., Raghav included the words dire
consequences when he came to the police station to report the incident. He failed to mention his
father being threatened with killing by Ashok after the fight in the evening on 08.03.2022. It is
true that I did not proceed with a further enquiry regarding the ongoing civil property dispute
between Ashok and Prakash and family conflicts in the Mane family as I found the same irrelevant
to the present case.
3. I have inquired with Raghav about where he was between 10:00 pm – 11:00 pm. No statement
about it came to be recorded. It is true that I subsequently enquired about the delay in FIR but no
statement about the same came to be recorded.
4. It is true that Anju mentioned in her statement that she saw Prakash assaulting Ashok in the
courtyard. It is true that the same is being denied by her statement before the court.
5. I have not recorded the statement of the panchas by showing them the accused at the police station.
It is not true that the panchas were not independent and were known to me. It is not true to say that
the spot panchanama was not prepared on the spot in the presence of panchas.
6. It is true that statement of Anju was recorded at the Police Station and not at her place of residence.
7. It is true that there has been a delay of 8 days in sending the recoveries made during the spot
panchanama for forensic investigation. It is not true that the recoveries which were sent for
Forensic investigation were not sealed. I cannot state any reason why the report mentions the
recoveries being unsealed. It is true that the said recoveries when made at the place of occurrence
of the crime and the backside of Prakash’s house, the same were sealed and labelled in the presence
of panchas.
31 | P a g e
Deposition of Witness No. 1 for the Defence 10/11/2022

Name: Kamla Mane, Age- 37 years, residing at House no. 190, Tilak Chowk, Ratnagiri District,
Maharashtra
1. On 08.03.2022 at about 7:00 p.m. my husband Ashok Mane and I discovered that someone has
destroyed all our crops. My husband and I suspected that this was done by his brother, Prakash
and subsequently he went to his house to enquire about the same. My husband returned home
at about 8:30 p.m. after visiting his brother Prakash. He was with me between 08:30 p.m. to
11:00 p.m. on the night of 08.03.2022.
2. My husband has been farmed in this case by Raghav and Ramakant. Ramakant Shinde is giving
a false statement against my husband as he is standing in opposition to my husband in the Gram
Panchayat election. He has a history of enmity with my husband for a very long time. Last
week when he was campaigning for his election, he had a fight with my husband Ashok Mane.
3. Additionally, Raghav is falsely implicating my husband to take revenge on the property dispute
that we have. On 20.02.2022 Raghav came to our house and threatened us to withdraw the
property suit and warned us about dire consequences.
4. Raghav and his wife did not have a very good relationship with my brother-in-law Prakash
Mane. Both of them wanted the entire estate to be transferred in their name, which was refused
by my brother-in-law Prakash. They were often conflicts between Prakash and Raghav about
business decisions. Shortly after we partitioned, Prakash was forced to leave the house of the
couple (Raghav and Supriya) and reside alone. House No. 184 where Raghav and his wife
reside as well as House No.183 where Prakash resides alone was owned by my brother-in-law
Prakash Mane which was the root cause of all conflicts in their house.
32 | P a g e
Cross Examination
1. It is true that as it was very dark, I could not identify the person who destroyed our crops but
we suspected this was done by my brother-in-law Prakash Mane as their family always used
to compete with us in business.
2. It is not true that my husband killed Prakash Mane to take revenge for destroying our crops.
There was no tussle between my husband and Prakash on the night of 08.03.2022, he is of calm
and composed nature. He went to resolve the issue peacefully.
3. It is true that we started living separately from the family of the deceased due to constant family
conflict. It is true that we have an ongoing property dispute with the family of the deceased.
4. My husband was not wearing a Gamcha on the night of 08.03.2022. I did not recognise the
Gamcha when shown by the police to me during the investigation.
5. It is not true that I am deposing falsely to save my husband.
33 | P a g e

Memorial National Moot Court Competition 070223 1 461021

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Memorial National Moot Court Competition 070223 1 461021

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Memorial National Moot Court Competition 070223 1 461021

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

11TH RLC SAQUIB RIZVI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2022-23

RIZVI EDUCATION SOCIETY’S

Rizvi Law College

11TH SAQUIB RIZVI MEMORIAL

1. Brief facts 3-4

i. Blood from the place of incident; and

ii. One Gamcha

FIRST INFORMATION REPORT

(Under Section. 154 C.r.P.C.)

2. Act: I.P.C Sections: 302

Day: Tuesday Date: 08/03/2022

Time: 9:00 pm to 11:00 pm

Information received at Police Station:

Date: 09/03/2022 Time: 4:00 am

General Diary Reference:

Entry No. 13/22 Time: 4:15 am

Type of Information: Oral

Address: House No 183, Chiplun, Ratnagiri, Maharashtra

Name of P.S.: Chiplun District: Ratnagiri

(a) Name: Raghav Mane

(b) Date / Year of Birth: 34 years

(c) Nationality: Indian

(d) Occupation: Farmer

(e) Address: House No 184, Chiplun, Maharashtra

6. FIR Brief contents:

evening of 08.03.2022 at around 7:30 pm has lodged the present FIR.

the complainant/informant free of cost.

Signature of Officer in Charge, Police Station

Name: Dinesh Mahadik

Rank: Police Sub Inspector

7. Thumb Impression / Signature of the Complainant / Informant

AT THE HON'BLE COURT OF SESSION AT RATNAGIRI

SESSIONS CASE NUMBER: 56/2022

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ...PROSECUTION

ASHOK MANE …ACCUSED

Dated this 15th of July, 2022

Additional Session Judge Sessions Court at Ratnagiri

Memorandum of Post Mortem Examination held at K.K. Hospital

District: Ratnagiri State: Maharashtra

1. By whom was the corpse sent? - Chiplun Police Station

Injury to the frontal lobe and occipital lobe, of the brain.

5. Opinion as to the probable cause of death-

Department of Forensic Medicine

DIRECTORATE OF FORENSIC SCIENCE LABORATORIES

Date of Incident 08.03.2022

P.S.: Chiplun Police Station

Date of Receipt: 16.03.2022

Condition of the Parcel / Seal:

Description of articles contained in the parcel:

Analysis started on: 14.03.2022

Deposition of Witness No. 1 for the Prosecution 26/07/2022

4. I returned home between 10:00 pm to 11:00 pm when on my way decided to check on my

Deposition of Witness No. 2 for the Prosecution 05/08/2022

1. I am a teacher at a government college which is located about 5 km from my house. I have

Deposition of Witness No. 3 of the prosecution 13/08/2022

6. I can identify Ashok. He is present in court today.

Deposition of Witness No. 4 of the Prosecution 24/08/2022

5. At around 11:30 pm my husband called me to my father-in-law’s house so I took my daughter

am residing with his family.