MADHUSUDAN LAW UNIVERSITY

MADHUSUDAN LAW UNIVERSITY, CUTTACK

INTERNAL ASSIGNMENT

BEFORE THE SESSION COURT, BHUBANESWAR

UNDER SECTION 378(1)(a), CRPC,1973

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO._______/2023

IN THE MATTER OF
STATE OF ODISHA___________________ APPELLANT
VS.
MR. RAVI_______________________RESPONDENT

UPON SUBMISSION BEFORE THE HON’BLE SESSION

JUDGES.

NAME: MAHANANDA MOHANTY

CLASS: 5TH SEM, BALLB(H)
SEC: A
ROLL: 5510121046

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

TABLE OF CONTENT
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT 1|Page
MADHUSUDAN LAW UNIVERSITY

1. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 03
2. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 04-05
a. STATUTES REFFERED 04
b. CASES REFFERED 04
c. BOOKS REFFERED 05
d. ONLINE DATABASE 05
3. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 06
4. STATEMENT OF FACTS 07
5. ISSUES RAISED 08
6. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 09
7. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED 10-16
8. PRAYER 17

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT 2|Page

MADHUSUDAN LAW UNIVERSITY

SL.N ABBREVIATIONS USED FULLFORMS

O
1. AIR ALL INDIA REPORTER
2. V. VERSUS
3. HON’BLE HONOURABLE
4. NO. NUMBER
5. SC SUPREME COURT
6. SCC SUPREME COURT CASES
7. HC HIGH COURT
8. CRPC CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
9. IPC INDIAN PENAL CODE
10. & AND
11. ORS OTHERS
12. I.E THAT IS
13. ANR ANOTHER
14. SEC SECTION
15. ACC. ACCORDING

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT 3|Page

MADHUSUDAN LAW UNIVERSITY

a. STATUTES REFERRED
 CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE , 1973
 INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860
 INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT , 1872
 CONSTITUTION OF INDIA,1950

b. CASES REFERRED
 state of Maharastra vs. Joseph Mingle koli1997
 State of Punjab vs. Ajaib Singh 1967
 Sitaram AIR 222 Rama Barbes AIR 1944 p 228 , Hiralal 1935 L 237, Emperor vs.
 Mohammad Shah AIR LAH 456 , Investment vs. State AIR 1981 CAL 157
 Asandas AIR 1933 SC 240
 State v. Santprakash 1976 CrLJ FB.
 NAGRAJ PATODIA V. R.K. BIRLA

 State of Kerla vs. Alasserry Mohammad

 King Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad (1944) 71 IA 203).

 State of Gujarat v. Kishanbhai (2014) 5 SCC 108.

 S.M. Datta v. State of Gujarat (2001) 7 SCC 659.

 Mithilesh Kumar Singh v. State Of Rajasthan (2015) 9 SCC 795.

 Sidhartha Vashisht v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2010)6 SCC 1.

 H.N. Rishbud v. State of Delhi 1955 SCR (1)1150.

 Sundar Singh v. State of U.P. AIR 1956 SC 411 (415).

 State of Karnataka v. K. Yarappa Reddy 1999 (3) SCR 359.

 Mohamed Maraikkayar v. The Director General of Police and ors. 2014 SCC Mad 9759.

 Major Gurjinder Singh Benipal v. State Of Punjab (2011) 3 SCC 530.

 Michale cooper v. National Crime Agency 2019EWCA Civ 16

 Kuruma s/o kaniu vs. The Queen 1955 1 AELR 236.

 K. Balakrishnan v. S. Dhanasekar 2018 (2) CTC 859

 Asst. Commissioner v. M/S.Shukla& Brothers SLP No. 16466 of 2009.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT 4|Page

MADHUSUDAN LAW UNIVERSITY

c. BOOKS REFERRED
 Ratanlal and Dhirajlal Indian penal code
 M.P. Jain Indian constitutional law(2018 edition)
d. ONLINE DATABASE
 www.manupatra.com
 www.ssconline.com

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT 5|Page

MADHUSUDAN LAW UNIVERSITY

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
It is humbly submitted that the appellant has approached the Hon’ble session court of
Bhubaneswar under sec 378(1)(a).

Sec 378: Appeal in case of acquittal

1. Save as otherwise provided in Sub-Section (2) and subject to the provisions of Sub-Sections (3)
and (5),
a. the District Magistrate may, in any case, direct the Public Prosecutor to present an
appeal to the Court of Session from an order of acquittal passed by a Magistrate in
respect of a cognizable and non-bailable offence;

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT 6|Page

MADHUSUDAN LAW UNIVERSITY

STATEMENT OF FACT
1. A jewelry store located in Bhubaneswar was broken into on the evening of June 1,
2023. The proprietor of the business, reported the robbery to the nearby police station
on the June 2, 2023, in the morning. He said that a masked burglar broke into his shop,
bound him, and stole expensive jewelry valued at millions of rupees.
2. After conducting an investigation, the police discovered fingerprints at the location of
the crime. Additionally, they stumbled upon a security camera next to the store that
recorded an ominous-looking person wearing a mask coming and going from the
establishment at the time of the alleged robbery.
3. On June 5, 2023, the police arrested the accused, a 28-year-old resident of the same
neighborhood, based on the evidence they had obtained. The accused has prior felony
convictions, including ones for robbery and theft. He stated that he was at home on the
night in question and denied having any part in the robbery during questioning.
4. The defense attorney claimed that since there was no warrant for the accused arrest, it
was illegal. The arrest was justified by the police as being made in accordance with
Criminal Procedure Code Section 41.
5. The accused's attorney argues that since the fingerprints and surveillance footage were
taken without a valid search warrant, they shouldn't be allowed to be used as evidence.
6. Thus, claiming that the accused is entitled to bail under Section 436 of the Criminal
Procedure Code, the defense asked for bail on his behalf. The prosecution said that Mr.
Ravi might tamper with evidence and had a history of theft convictions, which is why
they opposed bail. However, the trial judge cleared the accused due to a lack of
evidence and approved the bail motion under CRPC secton 436.
7. Aggrieved by the order of the trial court the prosecution has appealed in this hon’ble
court.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT 7|Page

MADHUSUDAN LAW UNIVERSITY

ISSUES RAISED
1. WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY OF
COMMITING ROBBERY?

2. IS THERE A TAINTED CRIMINAL PROCEEDING

AGAINST THE ACCUSED?

3. WHETHER THE EVIDENCE COLLECTED BY THE

POLICE IS ADMISSIBLE OR NOT?

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT 8|Page

MADHUSUDAN LAW UNIVERSITY

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY OF

COMMITING ROBBERY?
It is respectfully submitted to this Honorable court that the trial court erred in granting
the respondent bail application under Section 436 of the CrPC and in finding him not
guilty due to a lack of evidence, since the robbery was fully committed by him and
was amply confirmed by the investigation. As stated in the fact, during their
investigation, the police discovered some fingerprints at the crime scene that subtly
matched the accused fingerprints. Furthermore, they found a security camera next to
the store, which recorded a person in a mask entering and leaving the establishment at
the same time as the robbery. Following a thorough police investigation, the accused
was taken into custody, demonstrating unequivocally that the accused is guilty of
committing robbery.

2. IS THERE A TAINTED CRIMINAL PROCEEDING

AGAINST THE ACCUSED?
It is humbly submitted to the Hon’ble Court that accused criminal prosecution is
legitimate and not tainted. This is due to the fact that the offense is cognizable and not
subject to bail, hence the arrest did not require a warrant. Additionally, video and
fingerprint evidence were discovered after a thorough investigation. The investigative
team had to move quickly because they feared that the accused would destroy the
evidence. Free, impartial, and prudent inquiry was conducted. Following the
investigation, the accused was questioned in a way that was compliant with the law.
Therefore, the accused is not being treated unfairly.

3. WHETHER THE EVIDENCE COLLECTED BY THE

POLICE IS ADMISSIBLE OR NOT?
The evidence gathered by the police during their investigation is humbly offered to
the honorable court as admissible proof. As it is a cognizable and non-bailable
offence, police can search for evidence without a formal search warrant in accordance
with sections 41 and 93 of the CrPc, and they can also make an arrest without one.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT 9|Page

MADHUSUDAN LAW UNIVERSITY

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
1. WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY OF
COMMITING ROBBERY?
It is respectfully submitted to the Honorable Court that the following allegations
warrant the accused's conviction for the commission of robbery:
(a).A robbery has been conducted in accordance with IPC 390
(b). The defendant possessed a prior criminal history
(c). The evidence that was gathered led to the accused's arrest.

a) A robbery has been conducted in accordance with IPC 390:-

Section 390: Robbery
Every robbery involves some form of theft or extortion.
When theft is robbery : Theft is considered "robbery" if, in the process of
committing the theft, carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained
through the theft, the perpetrator intentionally causes or attempts to cause any person
to suffer harm, death, or wrongful restraint, or if the perpetrator is afraid that someone
will suffer harm, death, or wrongful restraint at any time.
When extortion is robbery :Extortion is classified as "robbery" if the perpetrator is
present when the victim is being threatened with immediate death, immediate injury,
or immediate wrongful restraint. By instilling this fear, the perpetrator extorts the
victim and forces them to surrender the object of their fear on the spot.
Illustration: If the offender is close enough to cause the victim to fear immediate
harm, death, or unjust restraint, then it is considered that the perpetrator is present.
REASONABLE HURT ON THE PART OF ACCUSED
To convict someone of robbery, the most important requirement is that they
intentionally cause harm to others1.When theft is combined with robbery, meaning
that it is done to commit the theft, carry it out, or attempt to carry it out with the stolen
property. The perpetrator must intentionally cause or attempt to cause the death of
another person ,injuries or unjustifiable limitations, or the worry of sudden demise.

1.State Of Maharastra vs. joseph Mingle Koli 1997

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT 10 | P a g e

MADHUSUDAN LAW UNIVERSITY

In this case, the appellant said that a masked thief stormed into his establishment,
bound him, and stole expensive jewelry valued at millions of rupees. This situation
shows that the perpetrator thought through the consequences of the theft before tying
proprietor up and intentionally hurting him and instill a fear of dying instantly.
Therefore, robbery under section 390 of the IPC has occurred.

b) The defendant have a prior criminal history.

According to the facts, the accused, a 28-year-old resident of the same neighborhood,
was taken into custody by police using the information they had collected from the
inquiry. Additionally, it was known that the accused had a criminal history, having
been found guilty of robbery and theft in the past. Therefore, the defendant is not new
to this offense.
The accused stated during the interrogation that he was at home, but there isn't enough
evidence to support his allegation. The store's security camera also recorded a man
who appeared suspicious and was wearing a mask; this man's image somewhat
matched that of the accused, who was identified after the inquiry.
According to section 41(1)(d) when a reasonable suspicion exists against a person that
he has committed a cognizable offence, such police officer may arrest him.
The State of Punjab v. Ajaib Singh2 case noted that an arrest is a legal measure taken
by the police to place someone in custody when they are suspected of committing a
crime. This is because the arrest puts a person who has been abducted under restraint.

(c) The evidence that was acquired led to the accused's arrest:
The facts state that there are two pieces of evidence: the fingerprints and the security
camera footage of the suspicious person. The defendant was detained based on these
pieces of evidence, which conclusively demonstrate that the defendant committed the
robbery.

2. State of Punjab vs Ajaib Singh 1967

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT 11 | P a g e

MADHUSUDAN LAW UNIVERSITY

Since the defendant's attorney argues that the evidence from the surveillance camera
and the fingerprints should not be allowed because they were taken without a valid
search warrant, it is humbly submitted to the court that gathering the evidence is a
necessary part of the investigation, and that the court's prior approval is not required
for the investigation itself because it is a step that follows the filing of the F.I.R.
Furthermore, in accordance with section 41, there is no need for a warrant to arrest the
offender because the crime of robbery is both cognizable and not subject to bail. As a
result, the arrest was conducted legally.
There are two ways to respond to the question of whether police need a warrant in
order to access a surveillance camera. If the security camera is owned by the
government, a valid search warrant is not required to view it. However, access to a
camera that is a part of a private property requires the owner's permission. A warrant
will be required if it is denied; otherwise, it won't.
Under section 65B of the Evidence Act, CCTV footage may be submitted with an
affidavit and used as evidence in court.
It is evident from the aforementioned reasons and case laws that the defendant
committed robbery.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT 12 | P a g e

MADHUSUDAN LAW UNIVERSITY

2. IS THERE A TAINTED CRIMINAL PROCEEDING

AGAINST THE ACCUSED?
It is respectfully submitted that the police authority conducted the investigation in this
matter legitimately and without harming the accused in any way.
(A): The defendant was lawfully arrested and the evidence was legally searched.
(B): The inquiry was impartial, fair, and judicious.

(A): The defendant was lawfully arrested and the evidence was legally searched:
The responsible officer may conduct a search of a location without a warrant if there
is a good reason to believe that something is important for additional investigation 3.
This justifies the lawfulness of evidence searches4, provided that the purpose of the
search is documented beforehand5. The investigating team made a valid argument
when they mentioned that the accused might destroy the evidence.
The officer has the authority to investigate because the ability to search is incidental
to the inquiry6. Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution is not broken by the
warrantless search. The fingerprints and surveillance camera footage from the evening
of June 1, 2023, can be searched here by the investigating authorities.
The defendant was taken into custody in accordance with CrPC 1973, section 41. The
defendant is allegedly guilty of robbery, a crime for which there is no bail. Thus, no
warrant is required in this case.
Section 2(C) defines a cognizable offence as an offense for which a police officer may
make an arrest without a warrant in compliance with the first schedule or under any
other currently in effect law.
Any offense other than one that is subject to bail is considered a non-bailable offense
under section 2(a).

3. Sitaram AIR P 222; Ram Parbes AIR 1944 P 228 ; Hiralal AIR 1935 N 237; Emperor v. Mohammad
Shah AIR Lah 456; SanchaitaInvestment v. State AIR 1981 Cal 157.
4. Asandas AIR 1933 SC 240
5. State v. Santprakash 1976 CrLJ FB.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT 13 | P a g e

MADHUSUDAN LAW UNIVERSITY

It was decided in NAGRAJ PATODIA V. R.K. BIRLA that a document obtained

through an unlawful or improper search may not be excluded from administration if
its authenticity and applicability could be demonstrated.
It was decided in State of Kerla v. Alasserry Mohammad that the investigating
officer's disregard for the protocol of the investigation could not undermine the
accused's trial and conviction.
(B): The inquiry was impartial, fair, and judicious:
"Investigation" refers to all the procedures under this Code for the gathering of
evidence carried out by a police officer or by any anyone not affiliated with the
magistrate who has been given permission to do so8. The investigative team has the
authority to look into cases where they believe an offense has been committed9 and to
uncover the whole, unvarnished truth10. Furthermore, the court ought not to impede
the investigating team's work under normal circumstances11. A thorough inquiry
should reveal the truth so that justice is served both throughout the investigation and
during the trial stages12. The investigating officer alone has the authority to conduct an
investigation and determine how it will be carried out13.
The investigating team in this case is conducting the proper investigation procedure
for a cognizable offense14.Any anomaly, if any, cannot undermine the reliability of
any evidence15, and the court needs to carefully review it16. The complainant, should
be won over to the investigating officer's probe. The appellants fundamental right to a
fair investigation was upheld and carried out by the investigating team17. Additionally,
Ravi was subjected to an interrogation in accordance with the law18 , demonstrating
the independence, justice, and judgment of the investigation.

8.Code of Criminal Procedural 1973, s.2(h).

9. KingEmperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad (1944) 71 IA 203).
10. State of Gujarat v. Kishanbhai (2014) 5 SCC 108.
11. S.M. Datta v. State of Gujarat (2001) 7 SCC 659.
12. Mithilesh Kumar Singh v. State Of Rajasthan (2015) 9 SCC 795.
13. Sidhartha Vashisht v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2010)6 SCC 1.
14. H.N. Rishbud v. State of Delhi 1955 SCR (1)1150.
15. Sundar Singh v. State of U.P. AIR 1956 SC 411 (415).
16. State of karnatakav. K. Yarappa Reddy 1999 (3) SCR 359.
17. Mohamed Maraikkayar v. The Director General of Police and ors. 2014 SCC Mad 9759.
18. Major Gurjinder Singh Benipal v. State Of Punjab (2011) 3 SCC 530.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT 14 | P a g e

MADHUSUDAN LAW UNIVERSITY

WHETHER THE EVIDENCE COLLECTED BY THE

POLICE IS ADMISSIBLE OR NOT?
We respectfully propose to the Honorable Court that the evidence gathered by the
police during their investigation is admissible due to the following allegations:
(a) The evidence was obtained in accordance with the proper procedure.
(b) The evidence that was presented to the court is acceptable.
(c) As a result, the Trial Court erred in rendering a well-reasoned decision.
a) The evidence was acquired in accordance with the proper protocol:
No infraction of Article 20(3) has occurred. Any inquiry must include the gathering of
fingerprints, and the police are not required to request this from the magistrate.
Therefore, it does not violate someone's right under Article 20(3) when a court or
other investigative authority orders someone to provide their biometric for the
purpose of corroboration of evidence. Furthermore, nothing in Article 20(3) prevents
the investigator from using that information to support a fact that they already know .
The policeman had good cause to examine the security camera next to the jewelry
store, and it was not inadmissible—rather, it was necessary19. This type of evidence
can also be used to prove the connection between the information and the offense20.
As a result, the evidence was gathered through an investigation in compliance with
the legal process.
b)The evidence that was presented in court is acceptable.
An original document may be presented in court as evidence if its certified copy is
allowed by the Indian Evidence Act. The authenticity of such duplicates must be
confirmed by comparison with the original documents, which in this case matched the
fingerprints found throughout the investigation, as the simple production of them does
not establish their legitimacy. The court will then assume that the certified copy is
legally admissible following this guarantee that it was executed in accordance with
the law. Surveillance camera footage can be presented in the same way as other
secondary sources of evidence.

19. Michale cooper v. National Crime Agency 2019EWCA Civ 16

20. Kuruma s/o kaniu vs. The Queen 1955 1 AELR 236.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT 15 | P a g e

 MADHUSUDAN LAW UNIVERSITY

The police have to give a copy of the document in their possession to the person who has a
right to inspect them but such a copy can be given only of a public document. Private
documents when filed, are kept as evidence of something written or done and thus, become a
public record and certified copies of such documents are very well admissible in the court of
law. Furthermore, Section 77 of the Indian Evidence Act provides for the production of
certified copies as proof of the contents of the public document. Hence, the production of
certified copies of the fingerprints and footage obtained from the investigation fulfil the
criteria laid down in the Act114 and is therefore admissible in the court of law.

c)As a result, the Trial Court erred in rendering a well-reasoned decision.

A trial court's decision is deemed unreasoned if it disregarded relevant evidence and provided
vague justification for its ruling. Both procedural law and the fundamental rule of law involve
the idea of a reasoned judgment21. The rationale need to be clear and connect the evidence in
the file to the ruling reached by the court 22. The facts that have been presented to a court 23
need the application of the law, which has not been done. Therefore, the trial court's irrational
decision must be reversed.

23. K. Balakrishnan v. S. Dhanasekar 2018 (2) CTC 859

24. Asst. Commissioner v. M/S.Shukla& Brothers SLP No. 16466 of 2009.
25. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Surendra Singh Pahwa AIR 1995 All. 259.
26. Swaran Lata Ghosh v. H.K. Banerjee (1969) 1 SCC 709.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT 16 | P a g e

MADHUSUDAN LAW UNIVERSITY

PRAYER
Wherefore in light of the facts stated, issues raised, arguments advanced and the references
cited including the guidelines from the Apex Court in related matters it is most humbly
prayed and implored before the Session Court that it may be graciously pleased to adjudge
and declare that:

a. The accused is guilty of robbery under Section 390 of Indian Penal code,1860

b. The investigation was free, fair and judicious.

c. The evidences collected from the investigation are admissible in the court of law.

d. The bail granted shall be revoked.

AND/OR

Pass any other order or make directions as the Hon’ble court may deem fit to meet the interest
of justice, equity and good conscience in the instant case.

Place: S/d_________________

Date: (Counsel on behalf of the

Appellants)

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT 17 | P a g e