Mr. Prosecutor, the witnesses were strangers to the appellants, yet no Test Identification Parade was conducted. Why not?

My Lord, TIP is not mandatory. It is a rule of prudence, not a rule of law. The witnesses identified the appellants in Court, and that is admissible evidence. The law does not require a TIP in every case. Here, the witnesses had sufficient opportunity to see the appellants in the forest. Their testimony is consistent and credible. The failure to conduct a TIP does not automatically vitiate the prosecution case.

Neha, the granddaughter of the deceased, was present but was not examined. Why was she withheld?

My Lord, the prosecution examined the key witnesses: Anusuiya (PW-2) and Alka Chauhan (PW-4). Their evidence is sufficient. The non-examination of Neha is not fatal. She may have been a minor or may not have been considered necessary. The prosecution has discretion to choose which witnesses to examine. No adverse inference should be drawn.

The FSL expert admitted that the shirt pocket did not appear to have been torn forcibly because the stitching was intact. How do you explain this?

My Lord, the expert's opinion is not conclusive. Even if the stitching was intact, the pocket could have been detached during a scuffle without tearing the fabric. The overall evidence — the matching of the pocket with the shirt, the recovery of the shirt from Accused No. 1-Mehtab, and the blood group matching — is sufficient. The expert's opinion does not rule out the possibility that the pocket was detached during the incident.

Dr. B.S. Aswal (PW-12) deposed that Accused No. 1-Mehtab had a medical condition that made sexual intercourse impossible. How do you reconcile this with the charge of rape?

My Lord, the medical opinion is not binding on the Court. It is based on the examination conducted years after the incident. Even if Accused No. 1-Mehtab had a medical condition, the other accused (Accused No. 2-Sushil @ Bhura) could have committed the rape. The charge is under Section 376(2)(g) for gang rape. The participation of both accused is required. However, even if one accused could not participate in the sexual act, the other could have. The medical evidence does not exonerate Accused No. 2-Sushil @ Bhura.

For RespondentCriminal Premium

Chain of Circumstances Complete, Conviction Deserves to Be Upheld — (2026) INSC 578

Mehtab v. State of Uttarakhand — (2026) INSC 578

Core Argument

The prosecution has established a complete chain of incriminating circumstances: the appellants were seen enquiring about the deceased and proceeding towards the forest; the dead body was recovered shortly thereafter; the torn shirt pocket matched the shirt of Accused No. 1-Mehtab; the salwar and ornaments of the deceased were recovered at the instance of Accused No. 2-Sushil @ Bhura; and forensic evidence confirmed blood group matching. The courts below have concurrently found the appellants guilty, and this Court should not interfere.

This framework covers the complete step-by-step argument structure, opening submissions, key precedents to cite, how to distinguish adverse cases, and the exact prayer to draft. Subscribe to access the full courtroom argument framework with precedent mapping...

Premium Argument FrameworkSubscribers Only

Subscribe to unlock the full argument structure — precedent mapping, bench questions, opposition rebuttals, and court-ready prayer clauses.

Already subscribed? Sign in

Argument SimulatorPaid Plans Only

BENCH QUESTION

What distinguishes this case from earlier precedents on the same point?

OPPOSITION COUNTER

The ratio in this case was expressly limited to its facts by the bench itself...

Unlock the Argument Simulator

4 probable bench questions with suggested answers.
4 opposition counters with rebuttal strategies.

Available on Monthly, Annual, 2-Year & 3-Year plans.

Subscribe to Unlock →

Simulated Content — Not Legal Advice: This courtroom argument and all associated bench questions, judicial responses, and simulator outputs are entirely simulated and hypothetical, created for educational and professional training purposes only. They do not represent actual court proceedings, real judicial opinions, or the positions of any judge or party. Do not cite or use this content in any court, tribunal, or legal proceeding without independent verification and adaptation by a qualified advocate. © 2026 Agarawal Associates — apexdigest.in