Final Memo Respondent 1 2

TEAM CODE: ……

IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF HINDIA APPEALLATE JURISDICTION (Under Article 134 of the Constitution of Hindia) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO……/2016

CASE CONCERNING HIT AND RUN

STATE OF SAMRASHTRA........................................................................APPELLANT V. SHAHID KHAN..........................................................................................RESPONDENT

ON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF HINDIA

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT SHAHID KHAN

Memorial on behalf of respondent

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Abbreviations

2

Index of Authorities

5

Statement of Jurisdiction

8

Statement of Facts

9

Statement of Issues

11

Summary of Arguments

12

Arguments Advanced Prayer

Institute of Law, Jiwaji University National Moot Court Competition, 2016

14-26 27

Memorial on behalf of respondent

3

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

¶

Paragraph

& Air

And All India Reporter

Annex.

Annexure Art.

SCC

Supreme Court Cases

SCR

Supreme Court Reports

Doc.

Document

Sec.

Section

Govt.

Government

i.e

That Is

Vol.

Volume

IPC.

Indian Penal Code

LOE.

Law Of Evidence

Const.

Constitution

Ed.

Edition

SC

Supreme Court

Institute of Law, Jiwaji University National Moot Court Competition, 2016

Memorial on behalf of respondent

4

v.

Versus

Pg.

Page

No.

Number

AIR

All India Reporters

COI.

Constitution Of India

Institute of Law, Jiwaji University National Moot Court Competition, 2016

Memorial on behalf of respondent

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

1.

Cases Referred 

Alister Anthony Pareira v. State Of Maharashtra1



Empress of India v. Idu Beg



Amar Singh vs Chhaju Singh And Anr.2



State Of Bihar vs Ramesh Singh3



Yogesh V. State of Mahrashtra4



Dilwar balu kurane v. state of Maharashtra5.



Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal6



State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh7

1

(2012) 2 SCC 648

2

AIR 1973 P H 213

3

1977 AIR 2018, 1978 SCR (1) 257

4

AIR 2008 SC 2991

5

AIR 2002 SC 564

6

AIR 1979 SC 366

7

AIR 1977 SC 2018

Institute of Law, Jiwaji University National Moot Court Competition, 2016

5

Memorial on behalf of respondent

6

2. Statutes Referred 

The Indian Penal Code, 1860



The Evidence Act, 1872



The motor vehicles Act,

3. Books and Digests 

Sengupta, D., Commentary on the Motor Vehicle Act and rules, 6 th Edition 2015, Press:- Dwivedi Law Agency



Dr. Gour, H.S., Penal Law of India, 11th Edition [Update] reprint 2008, Press:Law Publishers (India) Pvt. Ltd.



Aiyar, P.R., Concise Law Dictionary, 3rd Edition reprint 2010, Press:- Lexis Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa, Nagpur



Sarkar, S.C., Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sec. 1 to 299, 2 nd Edition, 2008, Vol. 1, Press:- Dwivedi Law Agency



Sarkar, S.C., Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sec. 303 to 408, 2 nd Edition 2008, Vol. 3 Press:- Dwivedi Law Agency



Sarkar, S.C., Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sec. 409 to End, 2 nd Edition 2008, Vol. 4, Press:- Dwivedi Law Agency

4. Website Referred Institute of Law, Jiwaji University National Moot Court Competition, 2016

Memorial on behalf of respondent 

http://www.crim.cam.ac.uk/8



http://www.arsipso.com/9



https://www.icrc.org/10

8

research/beyond_reasonable_doubt/ “last accessed 2016 march-2”

9

PROOF-BEYOND-REASONABLE.asp “last accessed on 2016,feburary-29”

10

customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_rul_rule100_sectionc “last accessed on 2016, march-02”

Institute of Law, Jiwaji University National Moot Court Competition, 2016

7

Memorial on behalf of respondent

8

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION The Respondents respectfully submit to the Appellate Jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court invoked by the Appellant under Art.134 of the Constitution of Hindia.11

11

Appellate Jurisdiction of Supreme Court in regard to criminal matter

Art 134(1) An appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgement, final order or sentence in a criminal proceeding of a high court in the territory of Hindia if the High court has on appeal reversed an order of acquittal of an accused person and sentenced him to death; or has withdrawn from trial before itself any case from any court subordinate to its authority and has in such trial convicted the accused person and sentence him to death.

Institute of Law, Jiwaji University National Moot Court Competition, 2016

Memorial on behalf of respondent

9

STATEMENT OF FACTS 

Samrashtra is a state in Hindia which is democratic country located in south East Asia.



Being as a actor was provided with police security and one Rajesh Kadam was

appointed as security guard of Shahid . On 7th August 2003 around 10:30 p.m., along with his friend Mr. Abdul Khan and Rajesh Kadam took out his Toyota land Cruiser and drove towards a Hotel Blue Heaven. About 1:30 a.m. all of them left for the city center where Shahid Khan resides. 

While the car was taking a right turn from the M.G Road, the control of the car was lost

and mounted into a showroom called Ethnic Touch where on the Staircase people were sleeping and one of them died and other four were injured. 

As a result accident many people gathered and started pelting stone on Shahid Khan and

due to this they were forced to run away. 

Thereafter Rajesh went to the police Station and lodged an F.I.R against Shahid on 8th

August 2003 and a case of negligence and reckless driving was registered as a result of which he came to be arrested. 

After getting the bail on same day Shahid was again arrested on 17 th September 2003 by

police as they added provision of Sec 304(A) of Hindian Penal Code. 

Session convicted him under Sec 304(II), 279, 357, 338, 427of Hindian Penal Code read

with 130(1), 134(a) & (b), 177, 181(3) of Motor Vehicle Act for 5 year of the imprisonment and fine of Rs. 50 thousand. 

Aggrieved by the decision of the session Court, Shahid Appealed before the Hon’ble

High Court of Samrashtra where the court decided that the burden of establishing of guilty of an accused which is be proved beyond reasonable doubt lies with the prosecution. Hence the order passed the Session Court framing charge under Section 304(II) against applicant is Institute of Law, Jiwaji University National Moot Court Competition, 2016

Memorial on behalf of respondent

10

quashed and set aside. 

Against this order of the Hon’ble High court of Samrashtra, the state has appealed

before the Supreme Court of Hindia.

Institute of Law, Jiwaji University National Moot Court Competition, 2016

Memorial on behalf of respondent

11

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1.

Whether, the Evidence laid by the prosecution has proven its case

beyond reasonable doubt.

2.

Whether, Minor discrepancies occurred in the prosecution witnesses’

testimony can form the basis of acquittal and on the discrepancy of such nature, the story of prosecution could said to be doubtful.

3.

Whether, the high court of Samrashtra in the exercise of its appellate

jurisdiction was right in setting aside the order of conviction when the order of conviction passed by the learned trial court based on due consideration of the evidence on record.

Institute of Law, Jiwaji University National Moot Court Competition, 2016

Memorial on behalf of respondent

12

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1.

Whether, the Evidence laid by the prosecution has proven its case

beyond reasonable doubt. Evidence provided by or laid by prosecution does not prove that Shahid Khan was guilty of that offence because there are many loopholes in the investigation by the investigation authorities. In P.W 7 the manager of blue Heavens Bar and Restaurant MR. Shammi Aslam in his evidences, approved the bills but your lordship the bills was not provided into the court in proper manner i.e. panchnamma.

2.

Whether, Minor discrepancies occurred in the prosecution witnesses’

testimony can form the basis of acquittal and on the discrepancy of such nature, the story of prosecution could said to be doubtful. Your lordship the minor discrepancies occurred by the prosecution witnesses were form the basis of acquittal, because there were no proper and fully defined witnesses and proves. The witnesses PW-5 to PW-11 and PW-13 were not proper maintained the prosecutor in this case. Then why your lordship the prosecution said that shahid khan was guilty of this offence, according to university of Cambridge: legal academics and judges have expressed that the undefined version of BRD (“the defendant is presumed innocent unless the prosecution has proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt”).12

3. 12

Whether, the high court of Samrashtra in the exercise of its appellate http://www.crim.cam.ac.uk/research/beyond_reasonable_doubt/ “last accessed 2016 march-2”

Institute of Law, Jiwaji University National Moot Court Competition, 2016

Memorial on behalf of respondent

13

jurisdiction was right in setting aside the order of conviction when the order of conviction passed by the learned trial court based on due consideration of the evidence on record. The session Court is a learned court as we all know but your lord ship in proceedings of session court the investigation authority does not investigate in a proper manner and not give pure and quality evidences to the session court that’s why your lord ship the session court give its decision in favor of state of Samrashtra. That is the main motive of appealing in Hon’ble High court by Shahid Khan. All courts always work in good conscience and equity but because of default of investigation authority and lack quality evidences the decision of session court goes against Shahid Khan.

ARGUMENT ADVANCED Institute of Law, Jiwaji University National Moot Court Competition, 2016

Memorial on behalf of respondent

1.

14

Whether, the Evidence laid by the prosecution has proven its case

beyond reasonable doubt. Evidence provided by or laid by prosecution does not prove that Shahid Khan was guilty of that offence because there are many loopholes in the exploration by the investigation authorities. 

In P.W 7 the manager of Blue Heavens Bar and Restaurant Mr. Shammi Aslam in his evidences, approved the bills but your lordship the bills was not provided into the court in proper manner i.e. Panchnamma.



The RTO inspector Mr. Rakesh Pilgaonkar who inspected the vehicle involved in the accident and submitted his report was also default as he not inspected the vehicle properly because Toyota land Cruiser come with Vehicle Stability Control system which detects lateral skidding cornering, and automatically controls engine output as well as braking force on each tyre, helping the driver to maintain control and also this car comes with multi- terrain ABS uses control logic that instantly detects off road driving conditions such as sand and dirt, and automatically switches to the optimum ABS for the surface conditions that stops it form skidding. Also there was a default on part of investigation Officer who added Section 304(II) of Penal Code as he didn’t investigated or questioned Mr. Abdul Khan and the valet parking executive and also in F.I.R Rajesh Kadam didn’t mentioned that Shahid Khan was Intoxicated, so what was the need of taking blood sample. Hence your lordship in criminal case beyond reasonable doubt lies with prosecution it means the burden of proof is on prosecution.

According to equity, justice, and good conscience where we follow the reformative Institute of Law, Jiwaji University National Moot Court Competition, 2016

Memorial on behalf of respondent

15

practice a person cannot be convicted when the case is not proof beyond reasonable doubt. According to European Convention on Human Rights:- Article 6(2) of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights provides: “Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.” According to International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights:-Article 14(2) of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides: “Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall have the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.” According to American Convention on Human Rights :-Article 8(2) of the 1969 American Convention on Human Rights provides: “Every person accused of a criminal offence has the right to be presumed innocent so long as his guilt has not been proven according to law.” Then hence your lordship how can be Shahid Khan can be held convicted as there are no proper evidences against him.

The Committee on Criminal Justice Reforms constituted under the Chairmanship of Justice V.S. Malimath, former Chief Justice of Karnataka and Kerala High Courts, has made a number of important recommendations for revamping of the Criminal Justice System so as to restore the confidence of the common man in it by protecting the innocent and the victims and punishing unsparingly the guilty and criminals. It has also examined some of the fundamental principles of criminal Jurisprudence and recommended that in criminal case the standard of proof should be clear and convincing proof and not proof beyond reasonable doubt. This alongwith some other recommendations of the committee has sparked off animated debates and created differences of opinion among the jurists, lawyers and members of the public. 13 13

http://www.arsipso.com/PROOF-BEYOND-REASONABLE.asp “last accessed on 2016,feburary29”

Institute of Law, Jiwaji University National Moot Court Competition, 2016

Memorial on behalf of respondent

16

Proof beyond reasonable doubt has not been defined. Prof. Wigmore in his classic Treatise on Evidence highlights the difficulties in ascertaining how convinced one must be to become convinced beyond a reasonable doubt. He says that “the truth is that no one has invented or discovered a mode of measurement for the intensity of human belief. Hence, there can be as yet no successful method of communicating intelligibly a sound method of selfanalysis for one’s belief. And yet the choice of the standard of proof makes the difference”. In courts of law, civil cases are governed by the standard of proof prescribed by Section 3 of Indian Evidence Act, namely, preponderance of probabilities while the criminal cases are governed by higher standard of “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” as laid down by judicial decisions. Presumption of the innocence of the accused is a cardinal principle of AngloSaxon adversarial criminal justice system. Every person accused of crime is presumed to be innocent unless his guilt is established beyond reasonable doubt. 14

Your lordship there are other international conventions15 also said:According to Additional Protocol I:- Article 75(4)(d) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I provides: “Anyone charged with an offence is presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.” According to Additional Protocol II:- Article 6(2)(d) of the 1977 Additional Protocol II provides: “Anyone charged with an offence is presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.”

14

Indian Evidence Act, 1872

15

https://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_rul_rule100_sectionc

Institute of Law, Jiwaji University National Moot Court Competition, 2016

Memorial on behalf of respondent

17

According to African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights:-Article 7(1) of the 1981 African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights provides: “Every individual shall have the right to have his cause heard. This comprises: … the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty by a competent court or tribunal.” According to Convention on the Rights of the Child:-Article 40(2)(b)(i) of the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child provides: “Every child alleged or accused of having infringed the penal law has at least the following guarantees: (i) to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to the law”.

In case of State Of Bihar vs Ramesh Singh16, The Sessions Judge discharged the accused under S. 227 of Cr. P. Code 1973 on the ground that there was

not

sufficient

ground for proceeding with the trial against respondent and he was discharged in accordance with section227. According to S. 227 of Cr.PC: Discharge of Accused. If, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing. In Yogesh V. State of Mahrashtra17, It is trite that the words ‘no sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused’ appering in S. 227 postulate exercise of judicial mind on the

16

1977 AIR 2018, 1978 SCR (1) 257

17

AIR 2008 SC 2991

Institute of Law, Jiwaji University National Moot Court Competition, 2016

Memorial on behalf of respondent

18

part of the judge to the facts of the case in order to determine whether a case for trial has been made out by the prosecution. See also Dilwar balu kurane v. state of Maharashtra18. In Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal19 However, if two views are equally possible and the judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him gives rise to suspicion only as distinguished from grave suspicion, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused. In State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh20, if the evidence which the prosecutor purposes to adduce to prove the guilt of the accused even if fully excepted before it is challenged in crossexamination or rebutted by the defence evidence, if any, cannot show that the accused committed the offence, then there will be no sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial.

HELD : (1) Under s. 226 of the Code the prosecutor while opening the case has got to describe the charge against the accused and State by what evidence he proposes to prove the guilt of the accused. Thereafter, comes it the initial stage,

the duty of the Court to

consider the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith. The Judge

has then

to pass an order either u/s. 227 or u/s. 228 of Code. [259C, D] If the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing as enjoined by s. 227. If on the other hand, the Judge is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence.

18

AIR 2002 SC 564

19

AIR 1979 SC 366

20

AIR 1977 SC 2018

Institute of Law, Jiwaji University National Moot Court Competition, 2016

Memorial on behalf of respondent

2.

19

Whether, Minor discrepancies occurred in the prosecution witnesses’ testimony

can form the basis of acquittal and on the discrepancy of such nature, the story of prosecution could said to be doubtful.



Your lordship according to PW-5:- Chitransh Singh who is a waiter in the blue

heavens bar and restaurant witness the presence of Shahid khan in restaurant but your lordship only the presence of Shahid does not prove that Shahid Khan was intoxicated.



According to PW-6:- Ramadhar Dayahnand shukla first visitor at the site of accident.

Saw the accused getting out from the right side of the car. But your lordship was he able to see clearly at 1:30 a.m that the person he saw is Shahid Khan.



According to PW-7:- Shammi Aslam who is the manager of the blue heavens bar and

restaurant , and in his evidence he approved the bills but your lordship he doesn’t give conclusive proof that Shahid Khan drank alcohol, which means it might happen that only Abdul Khan has drunk alcohol and the bills were paid by Shahid Khan.



According to PW-8:- Nitin Dayal Verma he had seen one big car coming which went

over the persons sleeping on the staircase of Ethnic Touch but your lordship he didn’t mention that the car he saw was of Shadhid Khan. Your lordship after giving the statement he become hostile and mentioned only of a big car. In case of Amar Singh vs Chhaju Singh And Anr.21 Oral evidence must, in all cases, whatever, be dirt; that is to say-22 21

AIR 1973 P H 213

Institute of Law, Jiwaji University National Moot Court Competition, 2016

Memorial on behalf of respondent

20

If it refers to a fact which could be seen, it must be the evidence of a witness who says he saw it; If it refers to a fact which could be heard, it must be the evidence of a witness who says he heard it; If it refers to a fact which could be perceived by any other sense or in any other manner, it must be the evidence of a witness who says he perceived it by that sense or in that manner;



According to PW-10:- Rakesh Pilgaonkar the RTO inspector who inspect vehicle

involved in the accident and submitted his report. Your Lordship as according to the specification by the company(Toyota) of car it includes Vehicle Stability Control system which detects lateral skidding cornering, and automatically controls engine output as well as braking force on each tyre, helping the driver to maintain control and also this car comes with multi- terrain ABS uses control logic that instantly detects off road driving conditions such as sand and dirt, and automatically switches to the optimum ABS for the surface conditions that stops it form skidding. That’s why your lordship car cannot skid. 

According PW-11:- Dr. SurendraNath- who is medical officer in the Govt. Hospital

who extracted blood from Shahid for the alcohol test. According to the Motor Vehicle Act, 22

Section 60 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 :- Oral evidence must be direct.—Oral evidence must, in all

cases whatever, be direct; that is to say— If it refers to a fact which could be seen, it must be the evidence of a witness who says he saw it; If it refers to a fact which could be heard, it must be the evidence of a witness who says he heard it; If it refers to a fact which could be perceived by any other sense or in any other manner, it must be the evidence of a witness who says he perceived it by that sense or in that manner; If it refers to an opinion or to the grounds on which that opinion is held, it must be the evidence of the person who holds that opinion on those grounds: Provided that the opinions of experts expressed in any treatise commonly offered for sale, and the grounds on which such opinions are held, may be proved by the production of such treatises if the author is dead or cannot be found, or has become incapable of giving evidence, or cannot be called as a witness without an amount of delay or expense which the Court regards as unreasonable: Provided also that, if oral evidence refers to the existence or condition of any material thing other than a document, the Court may, if it thinks fit, require the production of such material thing for its inspection.

Institute of Law, Jiwaji University National Moot Court Competition, 2016

Memorial on behalf of respondent

21

1988 it was said in Section 203 Breath tests.—1 (1) A police officer in uniform or an officer of the Motor Vehicles Department, as may be authorised in this behalf by that Department, may require any person driving or attempting to drive a motor vehicle in a public place to provide one or more specimens of breath for breath test there or nearby if such police officer or officer has any reasonable cause to suspect him of having committed an offence under section 18523: Provided that requirement for breath test shall be made (unless, it is made) as soon as reasonably practicable after the commission of such offence. According to Section 20424 (b) such person, when given the opportunity to submit to a breath test, has refused, omitted or failed to do so: Provided that where the person required to 23

Driving by a drunken person or by a person under the influence of drugs.—Whoever, while driving, or

attempting to drive, a motor vehicle,— 1[(a) has, in his blood, alcohol exceeding 30 mg. per 100 ml. of blood detected in a test by a breath analyser, or](b) is under this influence of a drug to such an extent as to be incapable of exercising proper control over the vehicle, shall be punishable for the first offence with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both; and for a second or subsequent offence, if committed within three years of the commission of the previous similar offence, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to three thousand rupees, or with both. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, the drug or drugs specified by the Central Government in this behalf, by notification in the Official Gazette, shall be deemed to render a person incapable of exercising proper control over a motor vehicle.

24

Laboratory test.—(1) A person who has been arrested under section 203 may, while at a police station be

required by a police officer to provide to such registered medical practitioner as may be produced by such police officer, a specimen of his blood for a laboratory test if,—(a) it appears to the police officer that the device, by means of which breath test was taken in relation to such person, indicates the presence of alcohol in the blood of such person, or(b) such person, when given the opportunity to submit to a breath test, has refused, omitted or failed to do so: Provided that where the person required to provide such specimen is a female and the registered medical practitioner produced by such police officer is a male medical practitioner, the specimen shall be taken only in the presence of a female, whether a medical practitioner or not.

Institute of Law, Jiwaji University National Moot Court Competition, 2016

Memorial on behalf of respondent

22

provide such specimen is a female and the registered medical practitioner produced by such police officer is a male medical practitioner, the specimen shall be taken only in the presence of a female,whether a medical practitioner or not. But your lordship the medical officer directly examined the blood without asking for breath test.



Your lordship intention is mandatory in case of murder but there is no intention of

murdering people. According to Sec. 299 of Hindian Penal code “Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death” Illustration :(a) A lays sticks and turf over a pit, with the intention of thereby causing death, or with the knowledge that death is likely to be thereby caused. Z believing the ground to be firm, treads on it, falls in and is killed. A has committed the offence of culpable homicide. Illustration :(b) A knows Z to be behind a bush. B does not know it A, intending to cause, or knowing it to be likely to cause Z’s death, induces B to fire at the bush. B fires and kills Z. Here B may be guilty of no offence; but A has committed the offence of culpable homicide. In case of Alister Anthony Pareira v. State Of Maharashtra25, Section 300 deals with murder and also provides for exceptions. The culpable homicide is murder if the act by which the death is caused is done: (1) with the intention of causing death, (2) with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or (3) with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, The exceptions provide that the culpable homicide will not be murder if that act is done with the intention or knowledge in the circumstances and

25

on 12 January, 2012

Institute of Law, Jiwaji University National Moot Court Competition, 2016

Memorial on behalf of respondent

23

subject to the conditions specified therein. In other words, the culpable homicide is not murder if the act by which death is caused is done in extenuating circumstances and such act is covered by one of the five exceptions set out in the later part of Section 300. In case of Empress of India v. Idu Beg, Straight J., explained the meaning of criminal rashness and criminal negligence in the following words: criminal rashness is hazarding a dangerous or wanton act with the knowledge that it is so, and that it may cause injury but without intention to cause injury.

3. Whether, the high court of Samrashtra in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction was right in setting aside the order of conviction when the order of conviction passed by the learned trial court based on due consideration of the evidence on Institute of Law, Jiwaji University National Moot Court Competition, 2016

Memorial on behalf of respondent

24

record.

The session Court is a learned court as we all know but your lord ship in proceedings of session court the investigation authority does not investigate in a proper manner and not give pure and quality evidences to the session court that’s why your lordship the session court give its decision in favor of state of Samrashtra. That is the main motive of appealing in Hon’ble High court by Shahid Khan. All courts always work in good conscience and equity but because of default of investigation authority and lack quality evidences the decision of session court goes against Shahid Khan.

"The court is expected to be impervious of pressure from public and media. It is for good reason that law of evidence has no place for general public opinion to be a factor while deciding a case. The perception of truth in public is required to be proved before a court of law and in which the established principles of law and evidence must be adhered to. Even the cardinal principle of jurisprudence and burden of prosecution must not be forgotten and any strong suspicion cannot be considered as material to convict a person.

The Samrashtra High Court found that Shahid Khan was not guilty because the prosecution had: a) Failed to establish beyond doubt that the actor was driving and was drunk at the time of the accident. b) Not proven the credibility of Khan's bodyguard, the only key witness who died on 23/12/2008.

Institute of Law, Jiwaji University National Moot Court Competition, 2016

Memorial on behalf of respondent

25

c) Presented evidence like bar bills, collected in a manner that 'suggested fabrication'. d) Not examined singer AbdulKhan, who was also in Salman Khan's car that night. Your lordship the Hon’ble High Court held that is true because there might be many circumstance according to the held by of High court:In the first held by Hon’ble High Court Your lordship there might be other



circumstance like Abdul khan was driving and Shahid was sit besides Abdul khan, Abdul khan was drunk. In the second held by Hon’ble High Court Your lordship the key witness in no



more than how it can be proof that Shahid Khan was guilty of this offence. According to “equity, justice and good conscience where we follow the reformative practice a person cannot be convicted when the case is not proof beyond reasonable doubt”, and also the international conventions said that “everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.” In the third held by Hon’ble High Court your lordship Presented evidence like



bar bills, collected in a manner that 'suggested fabrication 26’ because only the bills does not proves that shahid drunks the alcohol, bills only prove that the alcohol were purchase it does not prove who drinks it.

26

To invent or produce something false in order to deceive someone

Institute of Law, Jiwaji University National Moot Court Competition, 2016

Memorial on behalf of respondent

26

In the fourth held by Hon’ble High Court your lordship the investigation



authority only take the statement of Rajesh kadam who was also with the police, your lordship it is a trick to dirt an actor’s reputation, why investigation authority not examine Abdul khan, he was also in the car according to the facts, investigation authority take evidence from persons whether they are not fully aware about the incidents, a (Abdul khan) person who is fully aware with the circumstances then why not take his evidences by authority.

Institute of Law, Jiwaji University National Moot Court Competition, 2016

Memorial on behalf of respondent

27

PRAYER

Therefore, in light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is humbly Prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to hold, adjudge and declare that: 1. To dismiss the criminal appeal filed by the Appellant. 2. To acquittal Shahid Khan from this case. 3.

To give any other relief to the Respondents which the Hon’ble Supreme Court may deem fit in the light of justice, equity and good conscience.

All of which is most humbly prayed.

Counsel for Respondents Shahid khan

Institute of Law, Jiwaji University National Moot Court Competition, 2016