TCO1
COMPENDIUM
ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE IN THE CASE
STATE OF PANDYA NADU ………………….………………………… (PROSECTION)
V.
GUNA & ANR ………………………………………………………….………… (DEFENCE)
Honorable Judge,
This compendium has been prepared to provide a clear, organized overview of the key
documents to assist in the presentation of the case at hand and to provide a comprehensive
collection of relevant documents, legal precedents, and arguments that support our position.
It includes critical case law, statutory provisions, and other evidentiary materials that are
pertinent to the issues under consideration It is intended to assist the Court in understanding the
issues at hand and in making a fair and informed decision.
It is respectfully submitted that the documents contained herein will assist the Court in arriving
at a just and fair decision in the present case.
I humbly request that the Court kindly take note of the contents of this compendium as we
proceed with the hearing.
Thank you, Your Honor.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
On September 17, 2024, the accused Guna (A-1) and Senthil (A-2) visited the deceased Rajan at
his home to resolve a financial dispute. Later that evening, the three went out for dinner and
drinks at a bar, where Rajan became aggressive and confrontational due to intoxication. To avoid
further conflict, they left in A-1’s auto-rickshaw.
During the ride, Rajan continued provoking and physically attacking A-1, making it difficult to
drive. A-2 restrained Rajan to prevent further aggression. In an attempt to calm the situation,
they stopped at a semi-isolated location. However, Rajan became even more violent, leading A-2
to instinctively push him away in self-defense. Due to his intoxicated state, Rajan lost his
balance, fell out of the vehicle, and hit his head on a stone. Believing he would recover and
return home, A-1 and A-2 left the scene.
The next morning, September 18, 2024, Rajan was found dead, and an FIR was registered. The
police arrested A-1 and A-2 on September 23, 2024, charging them under Section 103 r/w 3(5)
of the Tianzhu Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, for murder. The prosecution relied on last seen evidence,
forensic reports, and witness testimony to establish guilt. However, the defense argues that the
death was accidental, that the accused had no mens rea or actus reus, and that they acted in
private defense to prevent further harm. Additionally, forensic inconsistencies, the lack of direct
evidence, and gaps in the prosecution’s case create reasonable doubt regarding their guilt.
1
CHARGES:
The Accused Guna S/O of Arumugam and Senthil S/O Sankar has been charged under Sec.103
r/w section 3(5) and Sec. 61 of Tianzhu Nyaya Sanhitha 2023 (TNS) for the offence of Murder.
CITED CASE LAWS:
CASES ON MENS REA AND CRIMINAL INTENT:
1. Saddik & Ors. V. State of Gujarat (2016) 10 SCC 663
Rampal Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2012) 8 SCC
Virsa Singh V. State of Punjab, AIR 1958 SC 465:
“ The fundamental tenet of the mens rea principle is that the accused must have known
that his action constitutes the offense for which he is charged “
2. Fowler V. Padget, (1798) 7 T.R 509:
“An act in order to be punishable by law must be a willed act or a voluntary act and at the
same time must have done with a criminal intent.”
3. Crisholm V. Doulton 22 QBD 739:
“In a criminal proceeding, no one could be punished until unless it could be demonstrated
that he has a guilty mind”
4. Fowler V. Padget (1789) 7 T.R. 514:
“The intent and act must both concur to constitute a crime.”
5. Mahaboob Shah V. Emperor AIR 1945 PC 118:
“Mere presence or involvement in an incident does not establish
common intent unless there is proof of prior agreement or shared participation in the
offense.”
2
CASES ON CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY:
1. Re Mendekar (1972) Cr LJ 978:
“The inference of an agreement to commit an offence can be drawn from the act or
conduct of the person charged under criminal conspiracy.”
2. Kehar Singh & Ors V. State(Delhi Administration), 1988 AIR 1833, 1988 SCR SUPL,
(2) 24:
“Mens rea, or criminal intent, and an overt act demonstrating a conscious intention to
commit a crime are necessary for a conspiracy accusation to be upheld.”
3. Kehar Singh & Ors V. State ( Delhi Administration ) ( 1988 ) SC:
“An agreement between two or more people to commit an illegal act is the most crucial
component of the conspiracy charge.”
CASES ON PRIVATE DEFENCE:
1. Vidya Singh V. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1971 SC 1857:
“Right to self-defence is a very valuable right that serves a social purpose and should not
be interpreted narrowly”
2. Sitaram V. Emperor AIR 1973 SC 473:
“The right to private defence begins when a reasonable apprehension emerges and lasts
until the apprehension is resolved”
3. State of Orissa V. Rabindranath Dalai 1973 Cr LJ 1686 (Ori) FB
“The right to private defence is available only to one who is suddenly
confronted with the necessity of averting an impending danger and not of self-creation”
4. Mahandi V. Emperor ( 1930 ) 31
“Every free democratic, and civilised nation acknowledges the right to
individual defence, provided that it is kept within appropriate bounds.”
5. Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr 2010 1 S.C.R.642
The court provides guidelines for Citizens Right to Private defence that were established
by the Supreme Court. The court established these rules when a citizen has the right to
self-defence, but it also cautioned that one cannot use this right to threaten or imperil the
lives and property of others or to exact personal retribution. In its conclusion, the
Supreme Court stated that an individual who is in immediate danger is not expected to
3
use the precise amount of force necessary to oppose the attack, and his actions cannot be
evaluated using "golden scales".
6. Raghavan Achari V. State of Kerala 1993 Supp (1) SCC 719, AIR 1993 SC 203
“If the right to private defence is not employed, it suffices that the accused be aware that
such an offence is being considered and is likely to be committed.”
7. Emperor V. Jamunia Singh AIR 1945 Pat 150:
The following requirements must be met in order to invoke the protection ( Private
Defence )
(a) the individual exercising the right of private defence must not have been at fault for
starting the encounter;
(b) there must be an imminent threat to life or serious bodily harm;
(c) there must be no safe or reasonable means of retreat; and
(d) there must have been a need to take the life.
8. Mahabir Chaudhary V. State of Bihar (1996) 5 SCC 107, AIR 1996 SC 1998
“The accused need not want to prove the exercise of private defence beyond reasonable
doubt.”
9. Mohd Remzani v. State of Delhi AIR 1980NSC 1341
“The Supreme Court held that the Penal Code's right to private defence was
fundamentally one of self-defence or defence rather than a right to punishment or
retaliation.”
CASES ON RECKLESSNESS:
1. R v. Cunningham [1957] 2 QB 396 at 399 per Byrne LJ
“....subjective recklessness is confirmed only if the accused is conscious of the risk of a
specific type of harm resulting from his actions. This indicates that recklessness focuses
not merely on a careless disregard for any negative outcomes stemming from his
behaviour but instead on a careless disregard for a specific kind of harm.”
2. R v. Mowatt [1968] 1 QB 421
“Expecting the accused to anticipate a specific type of harm, such as grievous bodily
harm, was excessively limiting. Instead, a defendant qualifies as reckless if he anticipates
that his actions may result in some form of harm, albeit if it is not as severe as the actual
harm that occurred.
4
CASES ON BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT:
1. Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2010) 6 SCC 1:
Principle of Beyond Reasonable Doubt emphasized
The Supreme Court emphasized the "beyond reasonable doubt" standard in criminal
trials, stating:
(i) The prosecution must establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, meaning no
reasonable alternative hypothesis should exist.
(ii) A conviction can be based on circumstantial evidence if it forms a complete
chain ruling out any possibility of innocence.
(iii) Despite hostile witnesses, the court relied on corroborative evidence like
forensic reports and eyewitness accounts.
(iv) The court reiterated that mere presumption cannot replace proof and that
conviction must be based on solid and convincing evidence.
2. State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram (2006) 12 SCC 254:
“The prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal
trials and that, when using circumstantial evidence, it must create a comprehensive chain
of events that precludes the possibility of other interpretations.”
3. Suresh Budharmal Kalani v State of Maharashtra, AIR 1998 SC 3258:
“The presumption of facts cannot be based on other presumptions. In other words, a
presumption can only be derived from facts- and not from other presumptions”
4. Tufail (Alias) Simmi v. State of UP (1969) 3 SCC 198: 1970 SCC (Cri) 55; also ref.
Ramgopal v. State of MH (1972) 4 SCC 625: AIR 1972 SC 656:
“There must be a chain of evidence that is sufficiently complete to demonstrate that the
accused must have committed the conduct within all reasonable doubt and to leave no
room for a judgement that would support the accused's innocence.”
5. Sahabrao Bobade v. State of MH (1973) 2 SCC 793: 1973 SCC (Cri) 1033: 1973 Crl LJ
1783 :
“....Exclude all feasible hypotheses except the one to be proven, and chain of evidence
must be so thorough that it leaves no room for a conclusion that supports the accused's
innocence and that it proves the accused was responsible for the act under all reasonable
circumstances”
6. Balaka Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1975 SC 1962:
5
“When the ocular evidence is uncertain and the eyewitness did not actually see the event
unfold, any mistake made by the Investigating Officer become important, and the benefit
of the doubt should be given to the accused in these situations.”
7. Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam, (2013) 12 SCC 406”
“A mere suspicion, no matter how serious it may be, cannot take the place of proof, and
there is a large difference between something that ‘may be’ proved and something that
‘will be proved.”
RELEVANT STATUTES AND PROVISIONS:
1. TIANZHU NYAYA SANHITA, 2023
(THE BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023):
Sec 3(5) - When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common
intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were
done by him alone.
Sec 4 - The punishments to which offenders are liable under the provisions of this
Sanhita are:
(a) Death;
(b) Imprisonment for life, that is to say, imprisonment for remainder of a person’s
natural life;
(c) Imprisonment, which is of two descriptions, namely:
(1) Rigorous, that is, with hard labour;
(2) Simple;
(d) Forfeiture of property;
(e) Fine;
( f) Community Service.
Sec 34 - Nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private
defence.
Sec 35 - Every person has a right, subject to the restrictions contained in section 37, to
defend:
(a) his own body, and the body of any other person, against any offence affecting the
human body;
(b) the property, whether movable or immovable, of himself or of any other person,
against any act which is an offence falling under the definition of theft, robbery,
6
mischief or criminal trespass, or which is an attempt to commit theft, robbery,
mischief or criminal trespass.
Sec 61-
(1) When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done,
(a) an illegal act; or
(b) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement
is designated a criminal conspiracy;
Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall
amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by
one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof.
(2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy,
(a) to commit an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or
rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no
express provision is made in this Sanhita for the punishment of such a
conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such
offence;
(b) other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as
aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both.
Sec 100 - 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 or
with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of
culpable homicide.
Sec 101 - Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder,
(a) if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death; or
(b) if the act by which the death is caused is done 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
7
(c ) if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing bodily
injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the
ordinary course of nature to cause death; or
(d) if the person committing the act by which the death is caused, knows that it is so
imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death, or such bodily injury as
is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of
causing death or such injury as aforesaid.
Exception 1: Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, whilst deprived of the
power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person
who gave the provocation or causes the death of any other person by mistake or accident;
Provided that the provocation is not,
1. sought or voluntarily provoked by the offender as an excuse for killing or doing
harm to any person;
2. given by anything done in obedience to the law, or by a public servant in the
lawful exercise of the powers of such public servant;
3. given by anything done in the lawful exercise of the right of private defence.
Exception 2: Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender in the exercise in good faith
of the right of private defence of person or property, exceeds the power given to him by
law and causes the death of the person against whom he is exercising such right of
defence without premeditation, and without any intention of doing more harm than is
necessary for the purpose of such defence.
Exception 3: Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, being a public servant or
aiding a public servant acting for the advancement of public justice, exceeds the powers
given to him by law, and causes death by doing an act which he, in good faith, believes to
be lawful and necessary for the due discharge of his duty as such public servant and
without ill-will towards the person whose death is caused.
8
Exception 4: Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in
a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender's
having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.
Exception 5: Culpable homicide is not murder when the person whose death is caused,
being above the age of eighteen years, suffers death or takes the risk of death with his
own consent.
Sec 105 - Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder, shall be
punished with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description for a term
which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to ten years, and shall also
be liable to fine, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of
causing death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death; or with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and with
fine, if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any
intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.
2. TIANZHU NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA,2023
( BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA,2023)
Sec 173 - (1) Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence,
irrespective of the area where the offence is committed, may be given orally or by
electronic communication to an officer in charge of a police station, and if given— (i)
orally, it shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read over to the
informant; and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as
aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it; (ii) by electronic communication, it
shall be taken on record by him on being signed within three days by the person giving it
Sec 175 - 1) Any officer in charge of a police station may, without the order of a
Magistrate, investigate any cognizable case which a Court having jurisdiction over the
local area within the limits of such station would have power to inquire into or try under
the provisions of Chapter XIV: Provided that considering the nature and gravity of the
9
offence, the Superintendent of Police may require the Deputy Superintendent of Police to
investigate the case. (2) No proceeding of a police officer in any such case shall at any
stage be called in question on the ground that the case was one which such officer was
not empowered under this section to investigate. (3) Any Magistrate empowered under
section 210 may, after considering the application supported by an affidavit made under
sub-section (4) of section 173, and after making such inquiry as he thinks necessary and
submission made in this regard by the police officer, order such an investigation as
above-mentioned. (4) Any Magistrate empowered under section 210, may, upon
receiving a complaint against a public servant arising in course of the discharge of his
official duties, order investigation, subject to— (a) receiving a report containing facts and
circumstances of the incident from the officer superior to him; and (b) after consideration
of the assertions made by the public servant as to the situation that led to the incident so
alleged.
Sec 181 - No statement made by any person to a police officer in the course of an
investigation under this Chapter, shall, if reduced to writing, be signed by the person
making it; nor shall any such statement or any record thereof, whether in a police diary or
otherwise, or any part of such statement or record, be used for any purpose, save as
hereinafter provided, at any inquiry or trial in respect of any offence under investigation
at the time when such statement was made: Provided that when any witness is called for
the prosecution in such inquiry or trial whose statement has been reduced into writing as
aforesaid, any part of his statement, if duly proved, may be used by the accused, and with
the permission of the Court, by the prosecution, to contradict such witness in the manner
provided by section 148 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023; and when any part
of such statement is so used, any part thereof may also be used in the re-examination of
such witness, but for the purpose only of explaining any matter referred to in his cross-
examination.
Sec 197 - Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within
whose local jurisdiction it was committed.
Sec 232 - When in a case instituted on a police report or otherwise, the accused appears
or is brought before the Magistrate and it appears to the Magistrate that the offence is
triable exclusively by the Court of Session, he shall— (a) commit, after complying with
the provisions of section 230 or section 231 the case to the Court of Session, and subject
to the provisions of this Sanhita relating to bail, remand the accused to custody until such
commitment has been made; (b) subject to the provisions of this Sanhita relating to bail,
remand the accused to custody during, and until the conclusion of, the trial; (c) send to
10
that Court the record of the case and the documents and articles, if any, which are to be
produced in evidence;(d) notify the Public Prosecutor of the commitment of the case to
the Court of Session: Provided that the proceedings under this section shall be completed
within a period of ninety days from the date of taking cognizance, and such period may
be extended by the Magistrate for a period not exceeding one hundred and eighty days for
the reasons to be recorded in writing: Provided further that any application filed before
the Magistrate by the accused or the victim or any person authorised by such person in a
case triable by Court of Session, shall be forwarded to the Court of Session with the
committal of the case.
Sec 255 - If, after taking the evidence for the prosecution, examining the accused and
hearing the prosecution and the defence on the point, the Judge considers that there is no
evidence that the accused committed the offence, the Judge shall record an order of
acquittal.
3. TIANZHU SAKSHYA ADHINIYAM, 2023 ( BHARATIYA SAKSHYA ADHINIYAM,
2023)
Sec 23 - (1) No confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against a person accused
of any offence. (2) No confession made by any person while he is in the custody of a police
officer, unless it is made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate shall be proved against him:
Provided that when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received
from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such
information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact discovered,
may be proved.
Sec 103 - Whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent
on the existence of facts which he asserts must prove that those facts exist, and when a person is
bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person.
Sec 105 - The burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies on that person who would fail if no
evidence at all were given on either side.
Sec 143 - (1) Witnesses shall be first examined-in-chief, then (if the adverse party so desires)
cross-examined, then (if the party calling him so desires) re-examined. (2) The examination-in-
chief and cross-examination must relate to relevant facts, but the cross-examination need not be
confined to the facts to which the witness testified on his examination-in-chief. (3) The re-
examination shall be directed to the explanation of matters referred to in cross-examination; and,
11
if new matter is, by permission of the Court, introduced in re-examination, the adverse party may
further cross-examine upon that matter.
Sec 146 - (1) Any question suggesting the answer which the person putting it wishes or expects
to receive, is called a leading question. (2) Leading questions must not, if objected to by the
adverse party, be asked in an examination-in-chief, or in a re-examination, except with the
permission of the Court. (3) The Court shall permit leading questions as to matters which are
introductory or undisputed, or which have, in its opinion, been already sufficiently proved. (4)
Leading questions may be asked in cross-examination
EXHIBITS : 1
MO-1 Stone of dimension - 20x7x8
Found traces of blood belonging to
the deceased. No traces of
fingerprints connecting the accused
to the stone presumed to be the
murder weapon.
No brain matter found.
EXHIBIT 2:
MO- 2 Shirt worn by the
deceased
12
Covered with blood. No fingerprints found. Only DNA attached to the shirt belongs to the
deceased. pair of pants were also recovered.
EXHIBIT 3:
Phone belonging to the deceased. It was found at
the crime scene. No sign of damage. All messages
and phone records were recovered.
Brand: VIVO Y50, Blue IMEI- 245371893689
13
EXHIBIT 4:
Auto seized from Senthil’s (A2)
Garage belonging to Guna (A1)
Bajaj Auto Rickshaw,
License Plated: TN 24 AR 1327
Price estimated to be 50000Rps
EXHIBIT 5:
Screenshot recovered from the phone
belonging to the deceased. Exhibit shows call
record of vitim and his wife, Chandra
14
EXHIBIT 6:
Call record between the deceased and A1
Shows consistent calls
15
EXHIBIT 7:
Call record between the deceased and A2
16
EXHIBIT 8:
Screenshot recovered from the
deceased’s phone.
17
Exhibit 9:
Scene
of
occurence
Showcases nearby locations, being- Railway Station, Open field with the main road nearby.
18
