COMMON INDUCTION MOOT 2017

MOOT COURT SOCIETY, CAMPUS LAW CENTRE

HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CENTRAL PROVINCE

IN THE MATTER OF

THEON GREYJOY……………………………..APPELLANT NO.1

SANDOR CLEGANE……………………………APPELLANT NO.2

GREGOR CLEGANE……………………………APPELLANT NO.3

V.

STATE OF CENTRAL PROVINCE………………….RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL FILED ON BEHALF OF: APPELLANT

COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF: APPELLANT

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................................................................ 3

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ..................................................................................................................... 3
STATEMENT OF FACTS .................................................................................................................................. 6
STATEMENT OF ISSUES ................................................................................................................................. 7
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ......................................................................................................................... 8
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED .............................................................................................................................. 9
PRAYER ........................................................................................................................................................ 12

2
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

1. Statutes

1.1 The Westerosi Penal Code, 1860.

1.2 The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

1.3 The Westerosi Evidence Act, 1872

2. Judicial Decisions

2.1 Hari Singh v. Shish Ram, A.I.R. 2003P. & H. 150

2.2 Mausam Singha Roy v. State of W.B., (2003) 12 S.C.C. 377

2.3 Hardyal And Prem v. State Of Rajasthan , 1991 Cr LJ 345(SC).

2.4 Chandubhai Shanabhai Parmar v. State Of Gujarat AIR 1982 SC 1022,(1981). SCC(Cr) 682.

2.5 Brajendra Singh v. State of M.P., AIR 2012 SC 1522.

2.6 Chittartatemal v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2003SC796.

2.7 Hari Om v. State of U.P. ,(1993) 1 Crimes294(SC)

2.8 Lallan bhai v. State of Bihar, AIR 2003 SC 333

3. Books

3.1 K D Gaur’s Indian Penal Code, 6th edition

3.2 Bare Act of IPC

4. Other Sources

3
4.1 https://www.scconline.com

4.2 Manupatra

4
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Appellant has submitted an appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 challenging the order of trial court. Memorandum on behalf of appellant is submitted to the
jurisdiction of the Honorable High Court of Central Province to deal in the present matter.

Section 376(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure

Any person convicted on a trial held by a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge or on a
trial held by any other Court in which a sentence of imprisonment for more than seven years
[has been passed against him or against any other person convicted at the same trial], may appeal
to the High Court.

5
 STATEMENT OF FACTS
Little Birdies Private limited, a company registered under the Companies Act of Westeros, 2013
deals in business of property. Mr. Varys and Mr. Joffrey are the two directors of the company. In
the year 2016, Mr. Varys approached one Mr. Theon Greyjoy from the North province and
offered an offer to purchase a huge chunk of land from him for a consideration of sum of Rubles
thirty eight lacs only. Mr. Theon accepted the offer.

Mr. Theon Greyjoy received the sum of amount of 38, 00,000 rubles, for the transfer of
ownership of his property, from Mr. Varys. Furthermore, he promised to return the paid amount
in full, in case the transfer fails to go through.

Mr. Peter Baelish, a rich businessman of Central Province, shown the interest to purchase the
land of Mr. Theon through the company, but went back on his words and informed the company.
So Mr. Varys in July2016 informed Theon that the deal is off and asked his money back.

On 15th august, 2016, Mr. Varys was shot dead by pillion rider. Both riders were wearing
helmets. People screamed for justice and investigation began. Night Watchers (investigating
agency) not able to find any evidence. Two months after the incident, Mr. Joffrey approached
agency and shown original receipt of deal with Mr. Theon. Watchers took a photocopy of
receipt. And began their investigation in new direction including Theon as prospective suspect.

Call records between Theon and Mr. Varys at that day and between Mr. Theon and one Mr.
Sandor Clegane before the 40 seconds before shooting and immediately after 110 seconds of
shooting. Meanwhile original copy of receipt was lost in shifting office by Mr. Joffrey, based on
these evidences Mr. Theon, Mr. Sandor Clegane, and one Mr. Gregor Clegane charged by
watchers and convicted by session court, under Section 302 read with Section 34of the Westerosi
Penal Code, 1860.

Atmosphere around Westeros, during investigation grew more and tenser with each passing day.
No eye-witness to the crime was. Court held the photocopy to be substantive proof and also took
on record call details as provided by service provider, establishing Mr. Sandor’s location within
2km of radius of crime scene. Court awarded the Cleganes with life imprisonment while Mr.
Theon was sentenced to death. The convicted individuals preferred an appeal to the Hon’ble
High Court of Central Province

6
 STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1. Whether photo- copy of Receipt signed by Mr. Theon Greyjoy, submitted by Mr. Joffrey
Baratheon to Night watchers (investigating agency) is admissible in court of law, and its
relevance to the present case?

2. Whether the circumstantial evidences are beyond reasonable doubt to convict an accused for
the charges leveled against him?

3. Whether the accused has been falsely implicated and had motive?

7
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. Photostat copy of the Original Receipt cannot be admissible in the Court of Law in the light of
the section 63 and the section 65 of The Westeros Evidence Act, 1872. The decision of the
Session Court based on considering photocopy to be substantive proof is flagrant miscarriage of
justice.

2. Circumstantial evidences cited by the Night Watchers (the peacekeeping and investigating
agency of Westeros), lacks substance, and it cannot prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Suspicion cannot take the place of proof or moral belief of the judge in the guilt of accused.

3. Appellant has been falsely implicated. As there is no evidence of existence of motive for the
crime charged on the Appellants. Prosecution totally failed to proof any charge substantially and
beyond the reasonable doubt. So, Appellants are innocent.

8
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. Photocopy of the Receipt is inadmissible, and it is not relevant to the case.

Photocopy of receipt comes under the definition of Section 63 clause 2 of the Westeros Evidence
Act,1872, which states that Secondary evidence also includes Copies made from the original by
mechanical processes which in themselves insure the accuracy of the copy, and copies compared
with such copies. But section 65 of above Evidence Act (deals with the Cases in which
secondary evidence relating to documents may be given) cannot be applied in the present
criminal case as there is no scope of the present case to be fit into the scope of section 65.

Where secondary evidence in the shape of a Photostat copy of original is produced, then it was
held that it was necessary for the party to show that the original is in existence. The Photostat
copy was not allowed to be produced by way of secondary evidence.1

In criminal matter of this serious nature, taking secondary evidence, which is still in doubt to be
considered as evidence, and on the basis of this convicting Appellant, is the flagrant miscarriage
of justice.

In the light of principle, GRAVER THE OFFENCE, STRICTER SHOULD BE THE DEGREE
OF PROOF2, held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, either Receipt or its copy can never be a
substantial proof against the Appellants to convict them. It is inadmissible in court of law and
needs to be strike down from the list of evidences.

1
Hari Singh v. Shish Ram, A.I.R. 2003P.& H. 150
2
Mausam Singha Roy v. State of W.B., (2003) 12 S.C.C. 377

9
2. Cirumstantial evidences are not beyond Reasonable Doubt.

 In case where facts and circumstances from which conclusion of guilt was sought to be
drawn by prosecution was not established beyond reasonable doubt the conviction under
section 302 read with section34 of Westeros Penal Code had to be quashed; Hardyal And
Prem v. State Of Rajasthan , 1991 Cr LJ 345(SC).
 When ocular evidence in murder case is unreliable benefit of doubt be given to all
accused; Chandubhai Shanabhai Parmar v. State Of Gujarat AIR 1982 SC 1022,(1981).
SCC(Cr) 682.
 Circumstances from which conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established
and should also be consistent with only one hypothesis, i.e., the guilt of the accused. The
circumstances should be conclusive and proved by prosecution; Brajendra Singh v. State
of M.P., AIR 2012 SC 1522.

From the various precedents and Westeros Penal Code ,1872, it is held that in case of
criminal matters the proof of evidences should be beyond reasonable doubt , burden of proof
is on the prosecution, evidences should not be based on the flimsy ground and mere
suspicion.

The Receipt of accepting 38 lakh roubles by the Appellant No.1 (Mr. Theon Greyjoy ) and
latter Mr. Theon was informed by Mr. Varys that the deal is off and asked for his(Mr. Varys)
money back is not unusual .And location of Mr. Sandor within 2km of crime scene is usual in
a densely populated areas of Central Province. So these facts never complete the chain of
events as claimed by investigating agency, Night Watchers.

No post- mortem of the dead body of Mr. Varys, no weapon recovery from the Appellants
depict the holes in the investigation of agency . Night watchers even could not able to find
motive of Appellant behind the murder, and after they could not find anything substantial in
two months, they resorted to forge and baseless evidences like Receipt under public pressure.

Appellants cannot be made scapegoat for allaying the public anger because of the
inefficiency of investigating agency and administration to crack down on the real criminals.
On the basis of suspicion, and ignorance of the Session courts towards the above issues
Appellants were convicted, which is the grave injustice to them.

10
3. Accused has been falsely implicated and had no motive.

Section 8 of Westeros Evidence Act, 1872, says that facts which show a motive for any
facts in issues or facts are relevant. Motive is the moving power which impels one to do an act. It
is an inducement to do an act. Evidence of motive is always relevant, for men do not act wholly
by motive. Where the case is based on circumstantial evidence, the evidence of motive provides
foundational materials.

The entire allegation against Appellants is false. Because no motive on the part of
Appellant lies, and prosecution failed to proof so. Little Birdies Pvt. Ltd., was one of the biggest
companies in the business of property dealing with huge turnover. Conflict regarding relatively
less amount between Mr. Theon and Mr. Varys (one of director of company) is immaterial.

Accused would gain nothing from the death of Mr. Varys, so there can be no motive
behind killing Mr. Varys and involvement of accused in that. Position of Accused vis-à-vis
company is remained unaltered. So question of their participation should be ruled out. Balance of
probability cannot be basis of conviction of the Appellants. Therefore, the conviction deserved to
be declared as null and void.

11
 PRAYER

THEREFORE, in the light of issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is most
humbly prayed that this Hon’ble court may be pleased to hold, adjudge and declare that:

 The present appeal is maintainable.

 The conviction of the Appellant No.1 to 3 be set aside.

AND PASS ANY ORDER, DIRECTION, OR RELIEF THAT HONORABLE COURT MAY
DEEM FIT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, FAIRNESS, EQUITY AND GOOD
CONSCIENCE.

All of which is humbly prayed.

Counsel for the Appellant

12