Mr. Sirajudeen, Anusuiya (PW-2) and Alka Chauhan (PW-4) identified the appellants in Court. Dock identification is admissible evidence. Why is a TIP necessary when the witnesses have identified the accused in Court?

My Lord, dock identification is admissible, but its evidentiary value is substantially diminished when the accused were shown to the witnesses in police custody before the identification. In this case, the witnesses identified the appellants on 3 January 2013 while the appellants were in police custody. The police had already shown the appellants to the witnesses before they testified in Court. Moreover, the sketches were not properly proved, and the sketch artist was not examined. In such circumstances, the dock identification loses all credibility. This Court has consistently held that where the accused are strangers to the witnesses, failure to conduct a TIP is a serious infirmity.

Neha was the granddaughter of the deceased and was present. She was not examined. Can the Court draw an adverse inference against the prosecution?

My Lord, yes. Neha was a material witness. Her statement was recorded by the police under Section 161 CrPC. She was available. The prosecution has offered no explanation for not examining her. Under Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the Court may presume that if she had been examined, her evidence would have been unfavourable to the prosecution. The withholding of a material witness is a serious infirmity that casts doubt on the fairness of the investigation and the prosecution case.

The FSL report shows that blood group 'O' was found on the shirt and the torn pocket, and the deceased also had blood group 'O'. Is that not incriminating?

My Lord, the blood group of the appellants was never determined. Blood group 'O' is the most common blood group. The mere presence of blood of group 'O' on the articles cannot link the appellants to the crime. In Allarakha Habib Memon, this Court held that mere matching of blood group is not sufficient to connect the accused with the crime. Moreover, the chain of custody of the forensic samples was not established. The shirt and pocket were sent to the FSL after a delay of 21 days, with no explanation. The seized bundles did not bear dates. The sanctity of the samples is doubtful.

Dr. B.S. Aswal (PW-12) deposed that Accused No. 1-Mehtab had a medical condition making sexual intercourse impossible. Does that not completely exonerate him?

My Lord, yes. The prosecution's case is that the appellants committed rape on the deceased. If Accused No. 1-Mehtab was medically incapable of sexual intercourse, the entire theory of motive collapses. The prosecution has led no evidence to contradict this medical opinion. This is a powerful circumstance in favour of the appellants and further demonstrates that the prosecution case is false.

For PetitionerCriminal Premium

No TIP Conducted, Witnesses Strangers, Identification Doubtful — (2026) INSC 578

The appellants were not previously known to the witnesses. No Test Identification Parade was conducted.

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

Core Argument

The appellants were not previously known to the witnesses. No Test Identification Parade was conducted. The sketches were not properly proved, the sketch artist was not examined, and the originals were not produced. The identification of the appellants is highly doubtful and cannot sustain a conviction in a death penalty case.

Key Precedents

Prakash Nishad @ Kewat Zinak Nishad v. State of Maharashtra (2023) 16 SCC 357 — Held that chain of custody of forensic samples must be established; failure to do so renders forensic reports unreliable.
Allarakha Habib Memon v. State of Gujarat (2024) 9 SCC 546 — Held that mere matching of blood group is not sufficient to connect accused with crime.

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