Welcome to the Land of Cholas, Tiruchirappalli!
In a significant move to bridge theory with practice, the Trial Advocacy Committee of TNNLU, established in 2019, has equipped law students with in-depth knowledge of criminal law and trial procedures while rigorously preparing them for inter-university, intra-university competitions, and mock trials. The committee’s initiatives, including hands-on advocacy competitions and expert-led workshops, enable aspiring legal professionals to sharpen their legal reasoning, strategic articulation, and courtroom dynamics.
Continuing with this objective, this year the 3rd National Tamil Trial Advocacy Competition is being conducted at TNNLU. The event will empower Tamil-speaking law students by holding the competition entirely in Tamil, highlighting the importance of regional languages in Indian courts. With 20 teams, each made up of two speakers and one witness, the competition focuses on key courtroom skills such as opening statements, witness examinations, and closing arguments. It offers a unique chance for students, especially those from Tamil-medium backgrounds, to learn Tamil legal terms and gain valuable real-world litigation experience without needing memorial submissions.
This year’s case revolves around the death of Meghna Varadarajan, a 16-year-old student at St. Mary’s High School. On January 1, 2025, Meghna was found hanging in her bedroom by her father, Varadarajan, at 12A, Emerald Towers Apartment, Chennai. Initial reports suggested suicide, but further investigation raised concerns of sexual assault, coercion, and psychological distress leading to her death. Meghna had confided in her parents about an incident on December 9, 2024, when she visited her aunt Sneha’s house. She alleged that Michael Vasanth, Sneha’s husband, gave her a drink laced with an intoxicant, leading to memory loss. She later woke up naked and confused, suspecting sexual abuse. Michael allegedly threatened to leak intimate videos if she disclosed the incident. The post-mortem report confirmed ligature marks on the neck, traces of alcohol in the system, and mild bruising, suggesting distress before death. A suicide note was recovered later, accusing Michael and Sneha of mental torture. Michael and Sneha claim Meghna fabricated the allegations to deflect from personal misconduct.
The case involves charges under the Indian Penal Code (BNS), POCSO Act, and IT Act, addressing sexual offenses, cyber threats, and abetment to suicide. The trial will focus on whether Meghna’s death was a result of coercion and abuse or a personal decision fueled by family tensions. So get ready to witness the future legal luminaries shine as they navigate the intricacies of criminal law and IT law.
22nd February, 2025 (Day-1)
9:30 AM | Registration | Multi-Purpose Hall
The event kicked off with registration, marking the beginning of an exciting gathering. Participants were warmly welcomed by the Organizing Committee, spreading positivity and encouragement. As registration wrapped up, it was clear that students from all over Tamil Nadu had come together, ready to make the competition a success.
10:00 AM| Training Session | Multi Purpose Hall
Mr. Anish Mishra, the Student Ambassador of Eastern Book Company from Tamil Nadu National Law University, warmly welcomed everyone. He raised a question about the role of legal research and the practical benefits of using tools like SCC Online. Teams and participants eagerly shared their creative ideas on how such resources could enhance performance in moot court and trial competitions.
Mr. Mishra then shared the inspiring journey of Eastern Book Company, highlighting its vision and the significant contributions it has made to the legal community. He provided a detailed overview of EBC’s innovative digital platforms including SCC Online, EBC Reader, EBC Learning, EBC Webstore, and SCC Times. He also invited everyone to tune in to the live coverage by his team at SCC Times for an insightful look at the competition.
Following his presentation, Mr. Vikram, a fourth-year law student from TNNLU, addressed the audience in Tamil. He offered a hands-on demonstration of the SCC Online Database, using the IT Act as a relatable example to demystify the research process. Drawing from his own internship experience at the High Court of Madras, Mr. Vikram illustrated how SCC Online can deliver immediate access to crucial case law materials. He walked the audience through the different search functionalities such as “Find Content by Sections” and “Browse Curated Topics” and even showed how to pinpoint state-specific legislation using the Red Tile Option (Browse Legislation). The session wrapped up with a question-and-answer segment, leaving everyone with a clearer understanding and renewed enthusiasm, as the event concluded at 11:00 AM.
11:oo AM | Inaugratration Ceremony | Multi-Purpose Hall
The inauguration began with a Tamil recitation of the Preamble led by Ms. Dhanpriya, a final-year member of the Trial Advocacy Committee (TAC). The opening ceremony was honored by the presence of the Chief Guest, Prof. (Dr.) Amirthalingam S, Professor of Law, who was accompanied by Ms. Vedavalli, Assistant Professor of Law.
Ms. Shanti Samandha, Faculty-in-charge of TAC, and Assistant Professor of Law at TNNLU delivered the welcome address, expressing her great pleasure in organizing the National Trial Advocacy Competition (NTTAC) for the third consecutive year. In a gesture of appreciation, she presented saplings to the chief guests for gracing the event with their valuable presence.
Following the welcome, Professor Amirthalingam S. addressed the audience, emphasizing the pivotal role of trial courts in the legal system. He encouraged students to actively participate in such competitions, highlighting that these events are essential for refining advocacy skills. This, he noted, not only prepares students to serve their future clients effectively but also reinforces the principles of justice. In an era when many law schools focus primarily on corporate law competitions, he expressed deep appreciation for TNNLU’s commitment to prioritizing trial court competitions through its TAC.
The ceremony concluded with a vote of thanks delivered by Ms. Lakshya Leo (Senior Member TAC), followed by the national anthem.
3:00 PM | Preliminary Round-I| UG Block
Court Hall-I
The prosecution completed the chief examination of the Investigation Officer. The defense counsel begins cross-examining the Investigation Officer, aggressively questioning inconsistencies in the submitted documents. The defense counsel points out the witness’s demeanor and highlights inconsistencies in their testimony. The defense counsel begins the chief examination of D.W.1, the victim’s class teacher. The prosecution begins cross-examining D.W.1, the victim’s class teacher. The chief examination of D.W.2, the accused, has commenced with questions on the relationship between him and the victim. The prosecution has commenced the cross-examination of D.W.2. The judges cautioned the prosecution to either question the witness or make a suggestion to the court, refraining from statements on the witness’s character.
Court Hall-II
The prosecution opened with their opening statement outlining the key facts of the case. The judges questioned the prosecution on the provisions of BNS under which the case is registered. The defense side presented their opening statement, setting the stage for their argument. The judges instructed the defense to focus only on the disputed facts in light of the FIR. With the court’s permission, the prosecution started the chief examination of the Investigation Officer(IO). The cross-examination of the Investigation Officer begins, with the defense questioning the specifics of the inquest.
They suggest the officer was not present at the crime scene but still signed the inquest report and is now testifying in court. The judges posted questions on their power to question the witness deposing before them. The chief examination and cross-examination of the autopsy doctor was done by the prosecution and defence respectively. The prosecution has commenced the chief examination of the victim’s father and posted questions on the character of the victim. The defense cross-examines the victim’s father, questioning the allegations made during the chief examination and suggesting concerns about his credibility to the court. The defense suggested that the victim’s father is accusing the accused out of vengeance. The defense counsel started the chief examination of the accused, with the judges instructing them to avoid leading questions. The prosecution conducted the cross-examination, questioning the accused extensively about their antecedents. The chief and cross-examination of the last defense witness, the victim’s grandfather, have been completed with judges warning the counsels not to lead the witness during the chief examination.
The prosecution started their final arguments, highlighting contradictions in D.W.3’s testimony. However, the judges instructed them to focus only on relevant inconsistencies, not minor ones. The prosecution cites a section under the POCSO Act that was not mentioned in the FIR or final report. The judges clarified that a new charge cannot be introduced at this stage. The judges asked the counsel to argue on whether a letter discovered five days after the death can be considered a dying declaration under the BSA. The judges inform the prosecution that exhibits must be marked through witnesses, which the prosecution has failed to do.
The defense started final arguments, stating that the accused is charged under both BNS and POCSO. They argued that the same offence cannot be tried under two acts, especially when a special statute applies, citing case laws in support. Further they argued that the victim was intoxicated at the time of suicide, claiming intoxication as the cause. They cited an apex court judgment supporting this view, but the judges rejected the precedent, stating it does not apply to the facts of this case. The judges asked the defense counsel to argue why reliance cannot be placed on the victim’s dying declaration. They concluded the arguments by stating that the prosecution has failed to prove the chain of circumstances.
Court Hall-III
The defence cross-examined the investigation officer, questioning the charges filed in the FIR and alleging mistakes in the charge sheet. He also scrutinized a letter written by the victim, arguing that the mere mention of the term “video” could not be interpreted to imply any additional meaning, thereby highlighting alleged shortcomings in the investigation. Furthermore, the defence questioned PW1 about the events of the incident day, revealing that the witness’s account contradicted statements recorded in the FIR and suggesting that the victim’s reported alcohol consumption was corroborated by a liquor bottle found in her room. The defence also cross-examined PW2 regarding the character of the accused, pressing him on why the accused would be trusted with dropping their daughter at school or caring for her if his character were in doubt.
Next, the defence examined DW1, the victim’s school teacher, who testified that the victim habitually lied about trivial matters. DW1 cited an incident where the victim denied copying from another student, a claim that the judge dismissed as a common occurrence among students. The defence then called DW2, the victim’s grandfather, who similarly argued that the victim’s statements were unreliable. He maintained that the accused would not have committed the alleged mistake and further contended that the handwriting on the suicide note did not belong to the victim.
Finally, DW3 testified that the victim had been involved in a relationship with a classmate and questioned her overall character. In response, DS2 asserted that the accused had taken excellent care of the victim, implying that he would not have committed the crime. The judge later questioned DS2 about the reliability of the character witness under the BSA, to which DS1 provided clarification, reinforcing the defence’s contention regarding the accused’s good character.
Court Hall-IV
Prosecution Speaker 1 commenced the opening statement by highlighting the charges detailed in the FIR and investigation report. The accused, Michael, is charged under Sections 64 and 107 of the BNS, as well as Sections 4 and 12 of the POCSO Act. PS1 then began chief examining the victim’s father, and during the cross-examination of PW1, it emerged that his testimony contradicted the statements recorded in the FIR. Further questioning focused on the victim’s behavior on the day of the incident, while the defense’s chief examination of DW1 was undermined during the prosecution’s cross-examination. The judge also noted that the defense side had exceeded the allotted time.
Subsequently, DS2 chief examined DW2 regarding his personal and family background and the impact of the victim’s death. PS2 then cross-examined DW2, questioning why he had not attempted to resolve the dispute among his daughters. DW2 offered statements in favor of the accused, characterizing him as a man of good character and recounting the events of the day when the victim’s parent confronted both the accused and DW1. Later, DS2 called DW3, the victim’s teacher, to introduce herself and address questions about the victim’s character and her peer group, including doubts about a supposed romantic relationship with a classmate.
In the closing statements, PS1 asserted that the accused had admitted to taking an intimate video of the victim with her boyfriend, thereby implicating both him and his co-accused under Section 134 of the BNS, along with Sections 4 and 12 of the POCSO Act. In response, the defense claimed that the video was taken solely to correct the victim’s behavior and lacked any ulterior motive. DS2 supported the defense’s argument by citing a relevant judgment and contended that the victim’s parents had fabricated the case against Michael due to existing property disputes.
Court Hall-V
The Prosecution Advocate opened her speech by presenting well-structured arguments supported by factual evidence and key legal provisions from the new criminal law, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. In response, the Defence Speaker delivered his opening remarks, rebutting the prosecution’s claims by arguing that critical evidence had not been submitted to the court. Following the opening statements, the Prosecution Advocate conducted the chief examination of PW‑1, Varadarajan, the victim’s father, questioning him about her suicide and the complaint filed with the police. The Defence Speaker then cross-examined him, probing into the details of the crime scene and the habitual behavior of his daughter.
Next, the Prosecution Advocate shifted her focus to PW‑2, the Investigating Officer, asking a series of basic questions to establish the foundation of the investigation. In his cross-examination, the Defence Speaker challenged the officer’s account, raising concerns about the handling of evidence, the condition of the deceased, and the credibility of the witnesses involved. Soon after, the Prosecution Advocate proceeded with the chief examination of PW‑3, Post Mortem Doctor Kalidas, who provided details regarding the cause of death. The Defence Speaker then cross-examined Dr. Kalidas, questioning the nature of the victim’s death and the presence of traces of sexual assault on Meghna Varadarajan’s body.
Subsequently, the Prosecution Advocate examined PW‑4, the best friend of Meghna, to ascertain his awareness of the incident and to gather his perspective on what had transpired. During the cross-examination, the Defence Speaker pressed the best friend for further clarification on the details of the incident as Meghna had described them to him. This comprehensive approach by both sides ensured that every facet of the case, from the investigation and autopsy findings to the personal accounts of those close to the victim—was thoroughly scrutinized in the courtroom.
Court Hall-VII
The preliminary rounds in Court Hall 7 began with the court clerks briefing both teams on the procedures and allocating time for opening statements, chief examinations, cross-examinations, and closing statements. The proceedings commenced precisely at 3:00 pm with opening statements from both the prosecution and the defense. The prosecution presented three key witnesses: PW1, Varadarajan (the victim’s father); PW2, Sangeetha (the victim’s mother); and PW3, Balakrishnan (the medical examiner).
During the examination phase, the judges cross-verified with PW2 regarding any marks on the victim’s body that might indicate assault or sexual activity. In addition, during the defence’s cross examination, DW2—Meghna’s teacher—asserted that she maintained a friendly relationship with the victim’s friend, challenging the defendant’s account. The questioning of the witnesses continued seamlessly through both the chief and cross examinations, ensuring that every aspect of the case was thoroughly scrutinized. When the defence speaker requested to present arguments for a witness who was not present, Arjun, one of the victim’s close friends, the judges firmly declined his repeated requests, citing the rules of the round. The defence further contended that the suicide letter was fabricated, arguing that if it were genuine, the victim would have placed it in an easily accessible location.
Court Hall-VIII
The rounds started with the Court Officer addressing the teams to the Judge and the court officer further explained their respective team splits for Opening Statement, Chief Examination, Cross Examination and Closing statement. The Prosecution side started with their opening statement while addressing the bench as the Special sessions court. The Cause title of the present is referred to as The State v. Michael Vasanth & Sneha. From the Prosecution side, a claim for conviction of the Accused under Section 107 and Section 64 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. From the Defence, the counter for the claim has been presented in their Opening statement claiming that the accused is one of the Close relative and well-wisher of the Victim.
Following the opening Statement, Chief Examination and Cross Examination of the Prosecution witness, Varadharajan (Father of the Victim). From the prosecution side, Medical Examiner was Examined further, then Mr. Arjun Das, who is one of the close friends of the Victim was examined. The Fourth witness from the Prosecution side. With the completion of Both Chief and Cross Examination for the Prosecution witnesses, Mr. Sadagopan was brought for Examination from the defense side. Following his witness, Meghna’s teacher was produced as Defense witness and questions related to the relationship between Arjun Das and Meghna in their School, were asked towards the teacher. She has witnessed that Meghna was having a Love relationship with Arjun.
With the completion of the Examinations, the Prosecution proceeded with their closing statement, where they added that the defense is liable for creating defamatory remarks against the victim and they also cited the Attorney General for India Vs. Satish and Another [2021] as a POCSO case. And claimed the Accused to be liable for Rape and Abetment for Suicide. After the completion of their Closing statement, the Defense side went ahead with their Closing Statement, citing the case A O Thomas v. State of Kerala [2009] and claiming that the accused is in no way related to the suicide of the Victim. With this, both sides have completed their arguments.
Court Hall-IX
The court hall was in the proceedings of the Chief Examination of the Defence witness, Thara the teacher of Meghna ( DW – 2). The interrogation allowed the Defence speaker to prove his arguments about the habits of Meghna. Next, the Prosecution Speaker started asking questions to the witness regarding the character and behaviour of Meghna. The Defence Speaker, thereupon commenced the Chief Examination of Sadagopan, the grandfather of Meghna ( DW – 3), where the witness was asked about Meghna and the relationship between her and Michael (her uncle, alleged molester). The cross-examination was initiated by the Prosecution Speaker where he questioned the trust he had in Meghna and Michael.
The examinations of witnesses came to an end. Consequently, The Prosecution Speaker started with her closing statement where she mentioned the legal provisions under which Michael has been charged with rape under Protections of Children from Sexual Offences, abetment of suicide and she supplemented her arguments with the witness’s testimony where she aims to prove that Michael is the perpetrator in the case and pleads to the court to take punitive actions on Michael. Then, the Defence Speaker commenced with his closing statement where he used the argument of family issues as the basis for this case and the sexual assault is the baseless claim as the family was not in a situation to think rationally owing to the loss of Meghna Varadarajan. The judge raised the question of whether the accused can be interrogated without the permission of the court and under what provision the interrogation has been done. The Defence Speaker ended his statement with the claim that the Prosecution’s arguments were false and the evidence provided was not enough and requested the court to dismiss the case.
5:00 PM | Preliminary Round-II| UG Block
Court Hall-I
The court proceedings began with the Prosecution Speaker delivering an emotional opening statement, in which he supported his arguments with relevant case facts. The Defence Speaker then denied the allegations and pleaded with the court to declare Michael innocent. The session moved into the examination of witnesses with the Prosecution calling its first witness, Varadarajan—the father of Meghna Varadarajan—to describe the scene where Meghna recounted the sexual assault and detailed the crime scene. During the subsequent cross-examination, the Defence questioned the basis on which Meghna was sent alone to Michael’s house, why Michael did not take her to the hospital, and other issues concerning the behavior and evidence at the scene.
Next, the Prosecution proceeded with its second witness, Sangeetha, the mother of Meghna Varadarajan, questioning her about the suicide note and Meghna’s condition after the assault. In cross-examination, the Defence probed into Meghna’s behavior and suggested that the account of the sexual assault originated from Meghna’s friend, Arjun Raj. The Prosecution then called the Investigative Officer to provide details about the crime scene and the evidence collected. The Defence’s cross-examination focused on the video evidence taken by Michael, questioning its relevance to the charge of rape, the method by which it was procured, and the validity of the legal provisions under which Michael was charged.
Subsequently, the Defence presented its witnesses. The first witness, Sneha—Michael’s wife and Meghna’s aunt—testified in support of Michael amid the allegations. During her cross-examination, the Prosecution raised issues regarding a family property dispute, questioned her husband’s relationship with Meghna, and examined her behavior in school, along with the confrontations between Meghna’s parents and her husband. The next witness, Sadagopan, Meghna’s grandfather, was questioned by the Defence about his stance on the allegations; however, the Prosecution highlighted that his favorable opinion of Michael might have been influenced by a property dispute. Finally, the Defence called Thara, Meghna’s teacher, who was questioned about Meghna’s actions before and after the event, her relationships at school, and her knowledge of Michael, whom she described as responsible. In her cross-examination, the Prosecution challenged Thara on why she did not report concerns about Meghna’s behavior to her parents and questioned the authenticity of the handwriting on the suicide note. The proceedings concluded with the Prosecution’s closing statement, which reinforced her case through evidence, legal provisions, and judicial precedents, followed by the Defence’s closing remarks, in which she alleged Meghna’s drinking habits, criticized the Investigative Officer’s conduct, and argued that the evidence was insufficient to prove Michael’s guilt.
Court Hall-II
The round started with the prosecution delivering its opening statement where they presented the facts of the case. The judges asked which section and statute mandate that the prosecution must open the case. The defense presented its opening statement and listed the witnesses they intend to call for evidence. The judge asked whether an accused could be called as a witness to give evidence before the court. The prosecution conducted the chief examination of P.W.1, the autopsy doctor, and the defence counsel marked the autopsy report as Ex.B.1 through the witness during cross-examination. The defense counsel questioned the autopsy doctor about the victim’s time of death and the absence of bone fractures despite hanging for 6 hours. The defense counsel mentioned to the court that the doctor lacked the requisite qualifications to perform the autopsy, arguing that she was not well-versed in medical terminologies. The counsel also pointed out that the doctor had disregarded the toxicology report in her observations in the autopsy report.
Court Hall-III
During the chief examination of the victim’s father, he stated that the victim had been sexually abused by the accused before her death and that he was aware of it. In response, the judge questioned the prosecution counsel, citing Section 21 of the POCSO Act, which criminalizes the failure to report such incidents, and asked whether the father could be prosecuted for the same. During the chief examination, the defense counsel emphasized the fact that the sexual abuse was not reported to the police even after he was aware of the incident. The defense counsel stated that the handwriting in the suicide note did not belong to the victim. In response, the judges asked how handwriting could be authenticated under the BSA. The same question was posed to the prosecution, and the judges further inquired whether they could independently analyze the handwriting in the suicide note without any handwriting experts. The autopsy doctor was called as P.W.2, and the prosecution conducted the chief examination and the defence conducted the cross examination. The victim’s friend was examined as P.W.3 by both the prosecution and the defense. The defense began calling witnesses from their list. The defense called the victim’s grandfather as D.W.1, and the prosecution subsequently cross-examined the witness. The victim’s class teacher was called as D.W.2 and was examined by both the defense and the prosecution. During the cross-examination, the prosecution counsel stated to the court that the teacher had a preconceived and judgmental view.
The prosecution presented its final arguments, asserting that the case is based on solid evidence and not based on assumptions or circumstantial evidence. They argued that the burden of proof had been shafted to the defense. But the judges questioned the position of law in shifting the burden of proof and asked the counsel to argue on when the burden of proof be considered as shifted to the defendant by applying it to the instant case. Further, they argued about the extent of reliance that should be placed on the victim’s dying declaration. The judges accepted that the prosecution had successfully shifted the burden of proof under the POCSO Act by establishing the foundational facts. They then asked the counsel to argue on the ingredients of the charges under the BNS.
The defense side presented their final arguments, with the counsel pointing out inconsistencies between the facts in the final report and the deposition of P.W.1. The prosecution counsel intervened during the defense’s arguments and objected to assertions made about the victim’s character. Through their arguments, the defense prayed for the dismissal of the case and the acquittal of the accused from all charges.
Court Hall-IV
The trial began with both the prosecution and defense delivering their opening statements consecutively. The prosecution’s first speaker (PS1) initiated the proceedings by conducting a chief examination of the first prosecution witness—the Investigative Officer (IO). The defense’s first speaker (DS1) then cross-examined the IO, questioning him about when he received information about the crime, the filing time, and the duration of the witness interrogations. PS1 further inquired about the specific charges against the accused, while the prosecution’s second speaker (PS2) contended that in cases of sexual assault against a girl, the investigation should be conducted solely by a female IO. She also sought details regarding the evidence collected at the crime scene.
Next, the prosecution called its second witness, Varadharaj, the father of the victim. PS1 asked him to recount what his daughter had told him about the crime and to confirm his familiarity with her handwriting, which was then submitted to the court for reference. During cross-examination, PS2 questioned him about the victim’s behavior and her circle of friends, seeking to shed further light on the circumstances surrounding the case.
The defense proceeded with its examination by calling its first witness, the victim’s grandfather (DW1). DS1 led the chief examination, and PS2 later questioned him about his residence, occupation, and his assessment of the accused Michael’s character. DW1 testified that Michael is a good human being—a supportive figure who not only helped the victim with her studies but also cared for her as if she were his own daughter. After cross-examining DW1, PS2 delivered the prosecution’s closing arguments, asserting that the evidence demonstrated Michael’s guilt. The judge noted that although Michael’s phone had been marked as evidence, the prosecution failed to designate the video contained within it as secondary evidence under the BNSS Act. Additionally, while the prosecution alleged that both Michael and Sneha were accused, the judge asked under which sections they sought to impose punishment. PS2 replied that Michael should be punished under Sections 64 and 107, relying on the post-mortem report as supporting evidence. The judge then questioned why the medical officer had not been examined, despite the post-mortem report being submitted as evidence.
Court Hall-V
When the defense sought permission to begin cross-examination, the judge asked under which section of the BNSS Act such an examination could be conducted. The defense then challenged the credibility of the prosecution’s allegations by noting that no DNA report had been submitted to prove that Michel had raped the victim. DS further inquired of PW1, the Investigative Officer, whether the suicidal note had been sent for expert analysis to verify that the handwriting belonged to the victim. The IO responded that the note had indeed been sent for expert opinion and that, in the meantime, they had confirmed that the handwriting matched the sample provided in the notebook given by the victim’s mother.
Following this, the defense began the chief examination of DW1, the victim’s grandfather. During this examination, the judge asked whether an accused individual could be admitted as a witness, and the counsel replied that it was permissible under Section 151 of the BNSS Act. DW1 explained that the victim’s parents trusted him enough to leave her in his care when they were not at home, and he lamented that they were now accusing him of a crime that no one would commit against their own child. Becoming emotional, DW1 (Michel) stated that he considered Meghna as his daughter and maintained that he had done nothing wrong. During cross-examination, PS1 accused DW1 of being a drunkard—a charge that DW1 firmly denied.
Next, DW2—Seneha, the victim’s aunt—was examined by DS2, who asked her to present her side of the story. DW2 testified that she and her husband had seen the victim with her boyfriend and had questioned her about the matter, urging her not to repeat such behavior. She further claimed that Michel had been absent from home between 4:00 and 7:00 PM, having left for church on work-related duties, thereby contending that the allegations of rape and blackmail using a video were completely false. Finally, PS2 conducted the chief examination of DW3, the victim’s teacher, who testified that the victim’s statements were unreliable, citing her tendency to lie even about trivial matters, and provided an account of the victim’s conduct at school. PS2 then proceeded with a cross-examination of DW3.
Court Hall- VIII
The proceedings commenced with the prosecution’s opening statement, during which they briefly presented the facts of the case and explained the legal provisions guiding the investigation. They detailed the charges to be imposed on the accused and highlighted key pieces of evidence. The defense then delivered its opening statement, countering the prosecution’s claims and firmly denying the allegations.
The trial then moved on to the examination of the prosecution witnesses. The first witness, the Investigation Officer, was questioned about the investigation process and the legal framework under which the charges were framed. He was also asked about the suicidal note recovered from the scene and the video evidence related to Meghna and Arjun. Following this testimony, Mr. Varadharajan, the victim’s father, was examined, and the prosecution subsequently called Arjun Das, a close friend of Meghna, to provide additional context.
After the prosecution witnesses had been examined, the defense presented their own case. Their first witness was the accused, Michael Varadharajan, followed by the testimony of Sneha, the second accused in the case. The defense then sought permission to call their third witness, Ms. Thara, the victim’s school teacher. The proceedings concluded with both parties delivering their respective closing statements, summarizing their arguments and reinforcing their positions.
Court Hall-IX
The trial opened with both the prosecution and defense presenting their opening statements. The prosecution briefly narrated the facts of the case in a structured manner and explained the relevant legal provisions. The defense speaker then cited Section 8(1) and Section 64 in support of her position; however, the judge interrupted, emphasizing that opening statements should be limited to stating the facts without delving into arguments.
The prosecution subsequently called its witnesses. First, Inspector Kalidas (PW1) was presented, and during his chief examination—despite the use of leading questions by the prosecution, which the defense failed to object to in time—he was cross-examined under Section 143 of the BNSS Act. The defense questioned whether forensic reports had been obtained to verify the victim’s handwriting and inquired about the referenced video evidence. Next, Sangeetha (PW2), the victim’s mother, was examined with the ‘suicide letter’ being introduced as evidence; she was later cross-examined by the defense, and an objection was raised when the prosecution’s speaker appeared to badger her. Dr. Balakrishnan (PW3), the doctor who produced the postmortem report, was then examined by the prosecution and subsequently cross-examined. Fourth, Arjun (PW4), a friend of the victim, testified that he had not spoken to her properly because she appeared distraught and had only discussed the incident four days later. When the defense speaker persisted in her questioning, both the prosecution and the judges objected, criticizing the defense for excessive badgering.
On the defense side, the first witness, Michael, was examined by the defense and later cross-examined by the prosecution. During his testimony, questions arose regarding the filing of a petition and why he had not addressed the issue with the boy he claimed was intimate with the victim; Michael responded that he had no right to interfere in that matter. The defense then called Sangeetha (a different witness with the same name), whose lengthy explanations led the judges to ask her to be more concise. She was subsequently cross-examined by the prosecution, with questions probing, for example, the purpose behind hitting the victim. The defense’s second witness, Sadagopan, was then examined. He asserted that Michael, being a businessman, would have no concern over family property and noted that the victim frequently mentioned her friend Arjun, a point he believed strongly supported their defense. Later, the prosecution revisited the opening statement, during which the judges raised concerns about the de facto complaint and questioned PS1, who was unable to provide a satisfactory answer. In her further argument, PS1 invoked POSCO Section 4 to substantiate her claim that the victim had been sexually harassed by the accused. The session concluded with the defense delivering their closing statements.
TEAMS QUALIFYING FOR SEMI-FINAL ROUNDS ARE-
- Government Law College, Madurai
- Government Law College, Coimbatore
- School of Law, Sastra University, Thanjavur
- Crescent School of Law, Chennai
23rd February, 2025 (Day-2)
11:00 AM | Semi-Final Rounds| UG Block
Opening Statement – The semi-final round commenced with the prosecution counsel delivering a structured opening statement. They began by laying out the key facts of the case, providing a clear narrative of the alleged events. The judges questioned the prosecution on the final report and the charges, seeking clarity on the legal provisions invoked. The defense presented its opening statement, denying all charges against the accused. The defense presented a counter-narrative, arguing that the case was filed against the accused out of vengeance.
Examination of PW1 – In the chief examination, the autopsy doctor was called as P.W.1 and questioned about the cause of death and findings in the autopsy report. The doctor stated before the court that it was a case of suicide. With the court’s permission, the defense counsel began the cross-examination, questioning the autopsy doctor about the time of death and the method used to determine it. The defense counsel further questioned the autopsy doctor about their observations on the bruises found on the body and the presence of alcohol. Referring to a wound on the back of the victim’s head, the counsel asked about its possible cause and suggested to the court that the doctor had overlooked this detail in their report. After the cross-examination, the witness, with the court’s permission, reiterated that the case was one of suicide and not murder.
Examination of P.W.2 – Mr. Varadarajan, the victim’s father, was called as P.W.2. The prosecution counsel questioned him about the statement he had given to the police, seeking to establish consistency in his account of the events. The defense began the cross-examination by questioning Mr. Varadarajan about his relationship with the accused’s family. The defense further questioned Mr. Varadarajan about his previous statements regarding the alleged sexual harassment and abuse by the accused. They also asked why he did not report the incident to the authorities despite being aware of it. The prosecution sought permission to re-examine the witness, which was granted by the court.
Examination P.W.3 – The mother of the victim was called as P.W.3, During the chief examination, the prosecution asked her to describe the events on the day of the victim’s death. They also questioned her about any prior conflicts between their family and the accused’s family. In the cross-examination, the defence counsel questioned the witness about the long-standing property dispute between their family and the accused’s family. The counsel attempted to establish that the allegations against the accused were motivated by personal enmity rather than facts. Also questioned the witness about the incidents on the day of the victim’s death, seeking clarification on the sequence of events and any inconsistencies in the witness’s statements. The counsel aimed to challenge the credibility of the witness and establish alternative possibilities regarding the circumstances of the death.
Examination of P.W.4 – The Investigation Officer (IO) was called as P.W.4. The prosecution began the chief examination by questioning the officer about how they received information regarding the victim’s death on the day of the incident. While the prosecution was conducting the chief examination of the witness, the judges instructed them not to ask any leading questions. With the court’s permission, under Section 164 of the BSA, the judges allowed the witness to refer to the final report while answering questions during the chief examination. The defense began the cross-examination by questioning the IO about the ambiguities in the final report. The counsel specifically asked how the police charged the accused under POCSO when the autopsy report indicated no penetration. They further inquired why the video mentioned in the final report was not sent for forensic analysis under the BSA. The defense counsel questioned the IO about the suicide note, which was found five days after the victim’s death. They specifically asked why the police had not conducted a handwriting analysis as mandated under the BSA. Ultimately, the IO admitted that he had relied on the suicide note without any forensic verification.
Examination of D.W.1 – The victim’s grandfather was called D.W.5. During the chief examination, the defence asked him to describe the events on the day of the victim’s death. The judges intervened and instructed the witness to answer only the questions asked without providing unnecessary details. Then, during cross-examination, the defense questioned the witness about his possible bias toward the accused, pointing out that he referred to the accused as “my son-in-law” during the chief examination.
Examination of D.W.2 – The victim’s class teacher was called as D.W.2. In the chief examination, The defense counsel asked her to describe the victim’s character. They also attempted to verify the victim’s handwriting in the suicide note through the teacher. However, the prosecution strongly objected, arguing that she was not qualified to verify handwriting. The judges upheld the objection, stating that the teacher was not the right person for this task, as she handled numerous students’ handwriting regularly. The defense counsel then questioned the teacher about the victim’s relationship with a boy at school. The prosecution began the cross-examination by questioning the teacher about the relationship she mentioned during the chief examination. They asked how she came to a conclusion that it was a love relationship rather than just a friendship. After continuous questioning from the prosecution, the witness admitted that the relationship might have been just a friendship and that she may have misjudged it.
Examination of D.W.3 – The accused, Michael, was called as D.W.3. During the chief examination, the defense asked him to describe his relationship with the victim and respond to the accusations against him. The prosecution began the cross-examination by questioning the accused about the video he had recorded. As the prosecution counsel repeatedly asked questions that could lead to self-incrimination, the judges intervened and instructed them to refrain from doing so, emphasizing that it is the accused’s fundamental right not to incriminate himself. The prosecution questioned the accused about the specifics of the video and the reason for recording it.
Examination of D.W.4 – Accused 2, Sneha, was called as D.W.4. During the chief examination, the defense asked her to introduce herself and describe her relationship with the victim and her family. She stated that she and her husband had always considered the victim as their own daughter. The defense counsel asked the witness to describe the impact of the accusation and the victim’s death. She explained how both had deeply affected her and her family. The prosecution began the cross-examination by questioning the witness about her husband’s relationship with the victim and his character. They then asked about the video recorded by Michael and inquired about her response after seeing it. The counsel further questioned why she did not inform the victim’s parents about the video despite knowing about it. Additionally, the prosecution asked about the character of Meghana and pressed the witness to describe the contents of the video and the reason behind Michael’s decision to delete it.
Closing statements of Prosecution – The prosecution delivered its closing statement by summarizing the facts of the case, asserting that this was a case of sexual harassment and abuse of a 16-year-old girl. The counsel highlighted that similar cases have occurred in Tamil Nadu, where young girls have suffered abuse within their own families. He argued that this case could be proven through circumstantial evidence, stating that the victim had gone to the accused Michael’s house when he was alone, and he took advantage of the situation, misbehaved with her, recorded the act, and later blackmailed her. The counsel emphasized that under the POCSO Act, the burden of proof shifted to the accused. He cited Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan to argue that a woman could also sexually harass another woman, which is why the second accused, Michael’s wife, was also charged. However, the judges questioned whether a woman could be charged under Section 64 of the BNS. The prosecution conceded to the judges’ contention that Section 64 did not apply to women. The counsel then addressed the charge of abetment of suicide, citing Gurucharan Singh v. State of Punjab, where the Supreme Court held that if an action taken as a corrective measure mentally affects someone to the extent of suicide, it could be considered abetment. At this point, the judges questioned the prosecution on the contents of the suicide note, pointing out that the victim had not mentioned the accused in it. The counsel, citing the autopsy report, argued that the doctor had confirmed the presence of traces of recent sexual activity and no substantial bruises on the victim’s body. He contended that the absence of bruises did not negate the occurrence of sexual abuse, suggesting that any bruises might have faded over time.
Closing Statement of the Defence – The defence counsel began the closing statement by asserting that there was no prima facie case against the accused based on the prosecution’s evidence. He argued that bail should be granted and cited relevant case laws to support this claim. The counsel further contended that the prosecution had failed to establish mens rea and stated that the victim’s death was not a suicide but a murder. He pointed out that the autopsy doctor had mentioned an injury on the back of the victim’s head, which was disregarded by the police in their final report. The judges then directed the counsel to argue on the charge under Section 66E of the IT Act. The defence maintained that the video was taken for the well-being of the victim and not with any malicious intent, as the accused had seen the victim as his own daughter. In response, the judges questioned whether mens rea was necessary to prove the offence under Section 66E. They also asked why, if the video had been taken for the victim’s well-being, the accused had not informed the victim’s parents about it. Addressing the issue of the suicide note, the defence argued that the note was discovered only after seven days and was not subjected to handwriting analysis. The counsel further pointed out that the police had failed to conduct any forensic analysis of the crime scene. Additionally, he stated that the accusations by the victim’s parents were motivated by a longstanding property dispute between the families. The counsel concluded by arguing that the chain of circumstantial evidence had not been proven, and the medical evidence was unreliable. He, therefore, prayed for the court to grant bail and release both accused from all charges.
Court Hall-II
The semifinals of the NTAC commenced at 11:10 AM, with the court clerk briefing the teams on the time split and other procedural rules. Ensuring a smooth proceeding, the clerk outlined the allocated speaking time for each side, clarified key competition guidelines, and addressed any last-minute queries. Following this, the clerk formally introduced the speakers from both teams, setting the stage for an intense round of arguments.
Prosecution – The counsel (Speaker-1), representing the state, commenced the opening statement by briefing the judges on the facts of the case. The counsel emphasized key provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act relevant to the matter. During the arguments, the judge questioned the counsel on the application of Section 64 of BNS in charging the accused. Whether it could be applied to the same offence, given that the accused were already charged under Section 4 of the POCSO Act. The counsel pleaded that her co-counsel will argue on the same.
Defense – The defense counsel (Speaker 1) contended that the primary evidence, specifically the video recorded by Michael, had not been presented before the court. They further argued that the suicide note lacked any conclusive proof establishing that it was authored by Ms. Meghana. Additionally, the defense highlighted the absence of any other supporting evidence to substantiate the prosecution’s claims. As a result, they asserted that the case was merely a property dispute being framed under a different pretext. The judge questioned the defense counsel on whether they had any doubts regarding Meghana’s death—whether it was a case of suicide or murder. The defense acknowledged that they indeed had doubts. In response, the judge stated that if there were doubts, an inquiry was necessary to determine the truth. The judge further emphasized that it was the court’s role to decide the matter and instructed the defense to focus on arguing their case rather than opposing the inquiry itself.
PW 1–
Chief Examination -Investigation Officer – Mr. Kalidas – The prosecution asked all the basic facts and details and the time at which they went to the spot. The witness said that they received the info at 7:00 Am. And the IO went immediately.
Cross-examination, the Investigating Officer (IO) admitted that the primary evidence, the video recorded by Michael, had not been produced before the court. When questioned about whether any such video was found on Michael’s phone, the IO responded in the negative. Further, the IO confirmed that no suicide letter was discovered at the scene and that it was only Meghana’s mother who found it six days later. When asked whether the letter underwent forensic examination to verify its authenticity, the IO admitted that no such examination had been conducted.
The defense also questioned whether the IO had produced Meghana’s chat history or even reviewed her call and chat records, to which the IO responded with a clear “No.” Upon being asked if there was any evidence apart from the letter, the IO mentioned the existence of a video taken by Michael but conceded that it had not been presented in court. The IO further admitted that, while he had shown the video to Meghana’s parents, it later vanished. The court took note of this statement. Additionally, the IO confirmed that no complaint regarding Meghana was filed with the police on either December 9 or 12.
Judge questioned the IO – If you accept that there is no evidence, then how to proceed further? – Prosecution intervened and said we’ll answer in the final arguments.
PW 2 –
Chief Examination – Varadarajan – Father of Meghana – During the chief examination, Varadarajan, the father of Meghana, provided his basic details, including his name, his wife’s name, and their daughter Meghana’s name. He stated Meghana’s age and confirmed that she was a student, specifying her field of study. He then proceeded to narrate all the relevant facts concerning the case, detailing the events leading up to the incident and any interactions Meghana had prior to her death.
Cross-examination – During the cross-examination, Varadarajan stated that on the day before his daughter’s death, he had attended a family get-together. He admitted that he frequently traveled out of town and, during his absence, Michael would sometimes drop Meghana at school. When questioned about Meghana’s social circle, he acknowledged that she had many male friends and saw no issue with that.
When asked whether Meghana had ever complained about Michael, he firmly responded with a “No.” He also confirmed that Sneha and Sangeetha had an ongoing property dispute. The defense then suggested that Meghana had been affected because her father did not believe her, but he denied this assertion. At this point, the defense pointed out a contradiction in Mr. Varadarajan’s testimony by referring to paragraph 4 on page 23 of the witness statement, highlighting inconsistencies between his current and earlier statements.
PW -3 –
Chief examination – Sangeetha – During the chief examination, Sangeetha provided her basic details, including her name, educational background, address, and information about her daughter, such as her name and the school she attended. She stated that she and her sister had ongoing property disputes for many years. Recalling the events, she mentioned that on December 9, they attended a function while Meghana went for tuition. Two days later, her daughter narrated an incident to her, prompting them to visit her sister’s house to discuss the matter. However, her sister supported her husband, Michael. Sangeetha then stated that following this confrontation, her daughter committed suicide. When presented with the suicide letter, she confirmed that it was in her daughter’s handwriting. At this point, the judge questioned where the letter was found, to which she responded that it was discovered in her daughter’s room, hidden inside a toy.
Cross-examination – During the cross-examination, Sangeetha stated that she had a good relationship with her husband. When asked whether she knew that Meghana went to Michael’s house on December 9, she responded that it was a reasonable assumption, as Meghana would typically go there after tuition if she was not at home. The defense then questioned whether she was aware of Michael’s alleged inappropriate behavior toward Meghana. She firmly denied any prior knowledge, stating, “I didn’t know he was such a perverted person.” When asked whether Meghana consumed alcohol, she categorically denied it. The defense further pressed on the origin of the alcohol bottle found in Meghana’s room, to which she replied that she did not know. Lastly, when questioned about whether her husband or father consumed alcohol, she stated that her husband did not, but she was unsure about her father.
DW 1 –
Chief Examination – Michael – During the chief examination, Michael provided a brief introduction about himself. He stated that on December 9, their family attended a function and acknowledged that both families had ongoing property disputes. When questioned about his relationship with Meghana, he mentioned that he did not have any children of his own and viewed Meghana as his daughter. He further stated that Meghana would frequently visit his house.
Cross-Examination – During the cross-examination, Michael confirmed that he had only one phone. When asked if he knew Mr. Sadagopan identified him as his father-in-law. When questioned about the evidence submitted by the police before the court, Michael stated that he did not know. At this point, the judge intervened and asked whether he had received a copy of the evidence. Michael admitted that he had but claimed he had not reviewed it. The defense then questioned whether he had recorded a video of Meghana with her male best friends, to which he denied. However, the prosecution pointed out that this contradicted his Section 180 statement under BNSS. The prosecution further suggested that Michael had blackmailed Meghana, which he denied. Additionally, the prosecution suggested that the sole reason for his arrest was the suicide note and put forth the claim that he was responsible for Meghana’s suicide. Michael strongly denied both
DW 2
Chief examination – During the chief examination, Mr. Sadagopan provided a brief introduction, stating that he was an army officer. When asked about the dispute between his daughters, he explained the details of the ongoing property disputes between them. Recalling the events of December 9, he mentioned that he was at Sangeetha’s house when they went out, so he decided to visit Sneha’s house instead. He stated that they had cake as part of the celebrations, after which he went to sleep. When asked about Meghana, he identified her as his only granddaughter. He was then questioned about whether she had any bad habits, to which he firmly responded, “No.”
Cross-examination – During the cross-examination, Mr. Sadagopan confirmed that he was present at Sneha’s house for the celebrations. However, when asked whether Meghana had come there, he stated that she had not. The prosecution then suggested that he was defending Michael because his daughter’s life was at stake, which he denied. When further pressed that this was the reason for his lack of cooperation in the case, he again denied the allegation. Finally, when asked whether he had stated to the police regarding the matter, he admitted that he had not.
DW 3 –
Chief Examination – Tara – During the chief examination, Tara, a teacher at St. Mary’s Higher Secondary School, introduced herself and stated that she had been working there for 11 years. She mentioned that she had known Meghana for 7-8 years and described her as a very attentive student. When presented with the suicide note, Tara examined it and firmly stated that it was not Meghana’s handwriting.
Cross-Examination – During the cross-examination, the witness was asked whether they could recognize every student’s handwriting. They responded that they could identify only specific students with good handwriting. When asked about Arjun Raj, the witness confirmed that he was their student. The prosecution then presented an unmarked document and asked the witness to identify the handwriting. The witness stated that they did not know. At this point, the defense intervened, objecting to the use of an unmarked document, pointing out that it was not officially submitted as evidence.
Final Arguments –
After presenting its case, the prosecution argued that Michael should be punished under Section 64 of the BNS, as the evidence pointed to his involvement in the alleged offense. Additionally, the prosecution contended that Sneha should be held liable under Section 45 of the BNS for aiding the offense. They emphasized that after examining the witnesses, all leads pointed toward Michael and Sneha’s culpability. The prosecution further highlighted the contradictions in the testimonies given during the chief and cross-examinations, arguing that these inconsistencies ultimately worked in their favor, strengthening their case.
On the other hand, the defense strongly denied all allegations and countered the prosecution’s claims by pointing out contradictions in the prosecution witnesses’ statements, which supported their case. They emphasized that the entire prosecution case relied on a suicide note, which they argued was unreliable and not supported by any other concrete evidence. With both sides having presented their arguments, the case was left for the court’s final deliberation.
TEAMS QUALIFYING FOR FINAL ROUNDS ARE-
- School of Law, Sastra University, Thanjavur
- Crescent School of Law, Chennai
03:00 PM | Final Rounds| Moot Court Hall
The court proceedings began with the opening statements from both the Counsel for the Defense and the Counsel for the State.
PW-1 The State then called the first witness, Kalidass, the Investigating Officer (IO) of the case, to the stand. During his chief examination, the IO provided a brief overview of the case, stating that the child had reported being drugged and raped by her uncle (Accused No. 1). The child’s parents informed the IO, who subsequently conducted a search of the crime scene, collecting evidence such as cell phones and alcohol bottles. Later, the child’s mother informed the IO about a toy with a secret locker containing a note allegedly written by the child, Meghna, which stated that her uncle and aunt’s actions led to her suicide. The note was signed, and the IO submitted it along with a notebook for handwriting analysis. When questioned about delays in the investigation, the IO attributed them to his involvement in other cases. During cross-examination, the Defense questioned the basis of the chargesheet, the timing of the investigation, and the handling of evidence, including the delay in sending the note for handwriting analysis. The IO clarified that his conclusions were based on reasoned analysis of the evidence, including the note and other findings.
PW-2 The second witness, Varadarajan, the father of the child, was then called to the stand. During his chief examination, he explained that his daughter had told him about being drugged and assaulted by her uncle. When confronted, the uncle and aunt allegedly abused both the child and the parents. The State presented the note found in the toy, and Varadarajan confirmed that the handwriting matched his daughter’s. During cross-examination, the Defense questioned Varadarajan about the timeline of events, his decision not to seek medical examination for the child, and his reasons for leaving the child with the uncle and aunt despite suspicions. Varadarajan, an auditor by profession, stated that he was unaware of any bad habits his daughter had and maintained his belief in the uncle’s guilt.
PW-3 The third witness, Dr. Balakrishnan, the medical examiner, provided details of the post-mortem examination during his chief examination. He noted that the child’s legs were partially suspended, with uneven ligature marks on the neck, blueness in the eyes, and saliva coming from the mouth. There were no major fractures in the trachea, but congestion was observed in the lungs and heart. Undigested food was found in the stomach, and the brain showed signs of weakness. The cause of death was determined to be breathlessness, consistent with suicidal hanging. Traces of alcohol were found in the brain, but the levels were too low to have caused any significant bodily or mental changes. During cross-examination, the Defense questioned Dr. Balakrishnan’s conclusion of suicide, to which he responded that while there were some oddities, they did not alter the overall findings of his report.
PW-4 The fourth witness, Arjun, a classmate and friend of Meghna, testified during his chief examination that Meghna had confided in him about being drugged and assaulted by her uncle. He also confirmed that the handwriting on the note matched Meghna’s. During cross-examination, the Defense questioned Arjun about the last time he saw Meghna and the circumstances under which she shared the incident with him. Arjun stated that Meghna had mentioned going to meet her grandfather, who lived with her uncle, and that she had shared the incident with him at the indoor stadium.
Examinations from the Defense Begin:
DW-1: Sadagopan (Grandfather of the Child) – The Defense called Sadagopan, the grandfather of the child, to the stand. During his examination, the Defense asked, “Do you think there could be suicide?” The State raised an objection, stating that the question was leading. The objection was sustained by the court. During cross-examination by the State, Sadagopan was questioned about the child’s behavior. He stated, “The kid lies a lot,” implying that her credibility could be questioned.
DW-2: Michael Vasanth (The Uncle) – Michael Vasanth, the uncle and one of the accused, was called as the second witness for the Defense. He denied all allegations against him, claiming that he was elsewhere at the time of the incident. When questioned about a video he had mentioned earlier, Michael stated, “The kids were kissing and doing some inappropriate things. I told them not to tell anyone, and I deleted the video.” This statement was intended to shift the focus onto the child’s behavior rather than the allegations against him.
DW-3: Sneha (The Aunt) – Sneha, the aunt and co-accused, was the third witness for the Defense. She testified that there was an ongoing property dispute between the families and that she and her husband had no children of their own, leading them to raise Meghna as their own. When asked about the allegations against her and her husband, Sneha responded, “Meghna had an unhappy childhood. We only threatened her with the video because she was doing bad stuff.” During cross-examination by the State, Sneha was asked if the blackmail was for the child’s benefit. She replied, “It was not for her benefit.” The State further questioned whether she and her husband had judged the child, to which Sneha did not provide a clear response.
DW-4: Teacher of Meghna – The Defense called Meghna’s teacher as the fourth witness. When asked about Meghna’s behavior, the teacher described her as a “smart student earlier but lazy and very angry nowadays.” The teacher also mentioned that the parents had rarely come to meet her at school. During cross-examination, the State attempted to challenge the teacher’s credibility by asking questions aimed at proving that the witness was not actually a teacher. The Defense raised an objection, arguing that the relevance of the teacher’s testimony would be removed if her identity as a teacher was disproven. The court sustained the objection, and the examination continued.
Submission by the Counsel for the State: The Counsel for the State emphasized the seriousness of the allegations, pointing to the consistent testimonies of the Investigating Officer (IO), the father, and Meghna’s classmate, which collectively implicated the uncle and aunt in the child’s sexual assault and subsequent suicide. They highlighted the note found in the toy, along with the handwriting analysis, as direct evidence of the child’s trauma and state of mind. The State underscored the medical examiner’s findings, which confirmed the cause of death as suicide, consistent with the emotional and psychological impact of the alleged assault. They countered the Defense’s attempts to discredit the child’s character by arguing that her behavioral changes were a direct result of the abuse she endured. The State urged the court to hold the accused accountable, stressing the need for justice for the child and the importance of sending a strong message against such crimes.
Submission by the Counsel for the Defense: The Counsel for the Defense focused on creating reasonable doubt by challenging the credibility of the evidence and witnesses presented by the State. They argued that the note found in the toy lacked proper authentication, as the handwriting analysis was delayed and inconclusive. The Defense highlighted the grandfather’s testimony about the child’s tendency to lie and the aunt’s claim about a property dispute, suggesting that the allegations may have been fabricated due to familial tensions. They also pointed to the uncle’s testimony about the deleted video, implying that the child’s behavior was problematic and that the accusations against the accused were baseless. The Defense questioned the thoroughness of the investigation, particularly the delay in collecting evidence and the failure to conduct a timely medical examination of the child. They concluded by urging the court to acquit the accused, arguing that the State had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
AND THE WINNER IS-
