MOCK TRIAL NO. 1
End semester exams at the law school commenced on 13 April 2012. Aman had his evidence on 19 April. A student of 9th semester, this was his last chance to clear Law of crime. Failure to pass in this paper would have meant not only a year back but his not able to join a prestigious LLM at a European University where he was quite hopeful of securing admission.
Aman and Robin were not in good terms. They both hailed from the same city where there had been traditional rivalry between their schools. Further, they had both been on the opposite sides at a football match that had turned ugly.
The examination seating plan saw Aman seating in the last row in the extreme right seat. Jyoti occupied a seat in his from whereas Robin was on his left.
15 minutes after the paper started, Dr. Radha, the Exam Superintendent came for a round. As she entered the class exam hall, she noticed Aman talking to Jyoti. Dr. Radha scolded Aman and warned him to behave. Aman remained silent.
About 10 minutes later, three or four students in the front two rows got up and complained that the question paper was very tough and two questions were out of syllabus. The invigilator tried to control the commotion and asked them to sit down. Dr Misra, the invigilator saw Aman bending down to pick up something from ground. Dr Misra went to Aman to equire. Aman explained that he had to retrieve his question paper that had flown away (EXHIBIT 1). The question paper was found to have some material written on it in capital letters and then smudged. It was not clear in whose handwriting was the material. However, the handwriting experts report was of the view that it matched the style of Jyoti. Aman later found out that Mr Khan, handwriting expert, has had no formal education in the science.
One hour later, when the University checking squad came for round, Aman was blamed for incriminating material lying on the ground a couple of feet away from his chair. The documents were six pages (EXHIBITT 2) torn from a text book on Criminal Law. He protested that he had nothing to do with the documents. A case was however, initiated against him for use of unfair means.
The matter was brought before the UFM Committee. Aman requested that he be allowed to make a statement and lead his evidence as also cross examine the witnesses.
The case against Aman was that he was quite desperate to clear the Law of Crimes paper. This was his last chance. He had fared poorly in the internals. Jyoti was on friendly terms with him. She had tried to help him by enumerating the points regarding one question by whispers.
It was Jyoti who wrote answer in point form on the question paper in capital letters.
The pages torn from the text book were from a library book that had once been issued to Aman.
The defence version as discernible from the statement of Aman highlighted that:
He had prepared adequately for the exam.
He had not spoken anything to Jyoti.
The nothings on the question paper where in his own hand writing. These were rough notes he had jolted down.
The incriminating printed pages did not belong to him. These could have been deliberately thrown by Robin, or someone else, to falsely implicate him.
Dr. Radha was prejudiced again him since she had earlier taught him in a previous semester and felt that he had given a negative feedback.
Further , it is necessary to state that the matter is now before the University Authorities for appropriate action.
The Chargesheet issued to Aman reads as under:-
Use of unfair means at the examination , in that he, at Noida, on 13th April 2012 while appearing for the end semester examination for Law of Crime, was found in improper possession of incriminating material which is contrary to the promulgated norms.
Prepare for the examination of Jyoti as a defence witness whereas Dr. Radha and Robin are the prosecution witness.
Aman may offer himself as a defence witness.
Any facts that do not contradict or are not inconsistent with above narrative may be assumed.
The mock trial team would consist of Aman, Jyoti, Robin, Dr Radha, Judge, Prosecutor and Defence Counsel.
The provisions of Indian Evidence Act would apply.
The time for examination in chief allowed for each witness is not to exceed 10 minutes and 30 minutes for the cross examination.
The provisions of Indian Evidence Act are applicable to the above proceedings. The charge if proved, may attract the penalty of expulsion from the University or suspension for a period to be specified or/and fine not exceeding Rs. 5000/-.