With a grand success for consecutively 2 years, National University of Study and Research in Law, Ranchi is back with the third edition of National Trial Advocacy Competition. The Competition is conceived with an aim of testing the students on the intricacies of a Criminal Trial and Criminal Law. NTAC is a flagship event of NUSRL, which provides a real-life experience of a criminal trial proceedings (witnesses, recording of statements, oath etc.) in close association with intriguing intricacies of the criminal law. We are committed to meet the best standards in all respects.

 The moot problem can be found here

With a student participation from all around the country, this time we are all geared up to host 14 teams from various colleges.

The following colleges will be participating in the current edition:

• Institute of Law, Nirma University
• National Law Institute University, Bhopal
• Department of Law, University of North Bengal
• University Law College, Utkal University
• The Law College, Utkal University
• Damodaram Sanjivyya National Law University, Vishakhapatnam
• KLE Society’s Law College, Banglore
• Government Law College, Mumbai
• South Calcutta Law College, Kolkata
• School of Excellence in Law, Chennai
• Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad
• Chotanagpur Law College, Ranchi
• National Law University and Judicial Academy, Assam
• National Law School of India University, Banglore.

Unfortunately, due to unavoidable circumstances, National Law School of India University, Banglore will not be able to make it to the competition.

The competition is all set to begin from the 17th of May, 2018 starting with the inaugural ceremony which is followed by draw of lots, memorial exchange, and a brain scratching researchers'  test. The real fun begins from the 18th of May with the Judges and Witness briefing followed by the Preliminary rounds.

Worrying that you are not here and would miss on to all the fun? Well then, we have another piece of good news for y'all- stay tuned to legally India for all the LIVE UPDATES of the competition. From the opening statement to the final judgment, we won't let you miss a single thing.

 

Hoping to make your weekend a fun filled one.

*Curtains up from 3rd NUSRL National Trial Advocacy Competition*

DAY 1- INAUGURATION, REGISTRATION, DRAW OF LOTS & RESEARCHERS' TEST

Grab your popcorn box(and bare acts) and get in the best of your couch, you can’t afford to miss a single update.

REGISTRATION- The first step to glory!

4: 30 PM-  The teams have arrived and the registration has begun. Even after traveling for hours, enthusiasm is flashing from all the happy faces. 8 teams have got themselves registered, 6 are still in the process.

4:58 PM- All the teams have registered themselves and are waiting for the inauguration ceremony to commence.

   Teams registering themselves for 3rd NUSRL National Trial Advocacy Competition, 2018

INAUGURATION

5:25 PM- The guests have arrived and the inauguration has begun with full swing.

For the inauguration ceremony, we have with us Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.T. Sankaran, former judge, High Court of Kerala and director academics, Kerala Judicial Academy, Sri Gautam Kumar Choudhary, vice chancellor- in charge of National University of Study and Research in Law, Dr. M.R. Sreenivasa Murthy, assistant registrar in charge of National University of Study and Research in Law,and Dr. Rabindra Kumar Pathak, Convenor Moot Court Committee of National University of Study and Research in Law, Ranchi.

6:15 PM- The participants have moved for the draw of lots and memorial exchange as the researchers brace themselves for the researchers' test.

The draw of lots and memorial exchange.

6:30 PM- The researcher test has begun. Researchers can be seen trying their best to solve the brainstorming question in the most effective manner.

Researchers' test.

7:30 PM- The Researchers' test is over. As the sun sets, the participants move for the dinner.

This was all for the day. Further updates will be available from 9 AM onwards tomorrow.

DAY 2- PRELIMINARY ROUNDS

9:00 AM- Good morning, readers!

Glad to see you all here with us. The budding lawyers clad in black have arrived. The whole of the academic block is embraced in enthusiasm as everyone waits for the rounds to begin.

Witnesses peped up by the teams waiting for the trial to begin.

 

Court Room 1-NTAC-02 v. NTAC-09

Bench- Mr. Shubham Srivastav and Ms. Ankita Sharma

9:51 AM- The teams have been handed over the witnesses and they already look nervous. The anxious teams are briefing their respective witnesses.

9:55 AM- All looks fine here as the witnesses nod as if they have comprehended the big picture. Well, we’ll find out soon enough.

10:03 AM- 6 more minutes for briefing. This already looks interesting as the teams are pacing around the courtroom revising the key points with their witnesses.

10:10 AM- All Rise! The judges are in the Court. The teams put their best faces on to warmly welcome the judges. The teams are seated and the witnesses are asked to leave the Courtroom. The speakers are collecting their final notes.

10:17 AM- The court is now in session. The prosecution seeks permission to approach the podium. He calmly introduces the team and opens the case for the prosecution.

10:22 AM The counsel for the Defence explains the charges and subsequently denies the same charged on the accused. The Judges inquire about some of them. He is done with his opening statement.

10:26 AM- The prosecution starts with the trial and the witness is called upon for examination. The emotional father of the deceased is the first to take the solemn oath.

10:34 AM- The 2nd prosecution witness is called upon. It’s the mother of the deceased. She is dealing with the timeline of the events.

10:37 AM- That was quick. The speaker for the Prosecution is precise and looks what she is hunting for here. The 3rd PW is taking the oath.

10:53 AM- The prosecution keeps on calling their countless witnesses. The briefness of the witnesses was only brief as the ballistic expert, the doctor who did the autopsy and the friend of the deceased appear as witnesses. The panchnama is exhibited before the court.

10:59 AM- The prosecution is done with their witnesses. The defense approaches the podium to begin cross-examination.

11:02 AM- PW1 tries to explain how he belongs to an "orthodox family" and how that justifies his actions. The defense is taking its time to frame questions.

11:20 AM- The prosecution is still explaining the motive. The cross-examination is put to a halt.

11:25 AM- The judges are trying to comprehend the timeline and is engaged continuously with the prosecution. The defence stays mute.

11:29 AM- Finally, the defence is given the chance to speak and he immediately calls upon PW2. The cross-examination resumes. The interval has given the defence to re-strategise and the cross-examiner is bombarding the witness with numerous questions as the witness is stunned. It's the witness's time to stay mute.

11:47 AM- The cross-examination of the PWs have finished. The defence approaches the podium. The prosecution raises the objection of the researcher being the speaker. The speaker cum researcher states that the court has the discretion. The prosecution demands that if the 2nd speaker is not feeling well, the 1st speaker may continue. He cannot surely go on speaking after that grilling cross examination session. After a brief discussion, the "not feeling well speaker" decides to begin the chief examination.

11: 50 AM- The DW 1 is called in for examination. The speaker tries to establish his points confidently and makes sure that the points are duly noted. The prosecution is seen smiling as if they know exactly what the defence is trying to establish. Well, they seem really confident or they have a good poker face.

11: 59 AM- The defence is questioned by the Judges to explain the lack of mens rea. The defence speaker calmly explains in detail taking his time as the DW is excused. The next witness, the mother of the accused, is called. She explains how his son is the best in the world and how every mother deserves a son like him. Emotional Much?

12:05 AM- The mother further states certain conservative features of the "orthodox family of PW1". After a very touching appeal to emotions, she is excused.

12:09 AM- The first accused is called in the stands. He stutters whilst stating how he proposed the girl of his dreams. The accused needs to be careful here as everything he says is immediately being noted by the prosecution. He seems to have noticed the same and surely is warned of what awaits him. The next accused is requested to come for his examination.

12:12 AM- DW 4 is called. The doctor states before the court her qualifications. She explains the cause of death. She seems confused as the defence abruptly says "that's all" and is asked to leave. The researcher passes a note to the speaker. Did he forget to ask something essential? Well, the witness has already been excused and the defence is done with their examination.

12:20 PM- The judges take a short break before the prosecution begin with their cross-examination. The first accused is called. The prosecution leaves the podium and goes directly to the accused and throws questions. The defense raises the objection that the questions are irrelevant. The objection is allowed and the cross examiner is asked to return to the podium.

12:26 PM- The prosecution asks the defense to show the summon orders. The defense exhibiting their witness, asks the prosecution's registration certificate. BOOM! the prosecution passes something that is supposed to be their advocate registration id. Was that a prepared move? Meanwhile, the defense is continuously raising objections upon the relevancy of the questions. The objection is sustained and the defense is warned by the Judges to stop interrupting the proceedings.

Tension is rising in the courtroom.

12:36 PM- The prosecution tries to establish that the accused lacks a sharp memory as the accused fails to recollect what was he wearing on the day of the event! The accused in an unprecedented move questions the cross-examiner what was he wearing on the day of the event. Offense taken! The judges meanwhile fail to understand the relevance of the questions.

12:45 PM- After almost half an hour of fiery grilling session, the first accused is excused. He seems discontent, maybe he really wanted to know what the cross-examiner was wearing on the day. A good hustle comes to an end. The second accused is called in for some action. This seems promising.

12:51 PM- The accused is excused from the witness box and the prosecution seems to have made his point. The teams are now preparing their final notes for closing statements. This is it. Final Showdown.

12:59 PM- The prosecution goes first. She opens boldly establishing monetary reasons as the motive behind the murder. Further, she reiterates the point made by the doctor and the ballistic expert illustrating the probable cause of death. The prosecution is trying to fulfill the elements of the crime and consequently rebutting the points made by the defense. The judges are listening carefully.

1:08 PM- The judges ask for the relevant cases on the point of "interested witness". His statement is surely essential and its validity needs to be established. The speaker is being passed numerous notes as she tries to satisfy the doubts of the Judges.

1:12 PM- The prosecution is done with their closing statement. The prosecution team stands and prays before the judges for the accused to be adjudged guilty. The defense begins with its closing statement.

1:15 PM- The defense is trying hard to establish that there was no mens rea. The judges question the defense on certain points and seem unsatisfied with the answers. The defense now relies on certain cases to prove the innocence of the accused. The defense is done with their closing statement and reads the prayer before the hon'ble judges.

1:22 PM- The teams are asked to wait outside as the judges make their decision.

1:30 PM- Everyone moves for the lunch.

 

Court Room 2- NTAC-10 v. NTAC-14

Bench- Mr. Anubhav Kumar & Ms. Swarnmala Singh.

9:25 AM - The teams commence with the briefing of the witnesses with a reflection of sincerity on their faces.

9:30 AM - The witnesses garner their way of testifying from the participants themselves in consonance of the provided exhibits.

9:53 AM- The briefing by the participants rests on its last legs with the judges' arrival only a couple of minutes away.

10:08 AM- The witnesses have left the courtroom and the judges have arrived. All rise!

10:16 AM - The 1st speaker on behalf of the defense initiates her arguments with a brief note of introduction.

10:21 AM - The PW1 is summoned and he expresses his grief with some substantive statements from the death of his daughter.

10:26 AM - The PW 2 embraces the courtroom and being the mother of the deceased gave in to the flowing emotions of her loss.

10:28 AM- The PW3 being the deceased's childhood friend was called to substantiate the accusations against the deceased being played on by the accused.

10:32 AM - The PW4 stated briefly his observances in favor of the deceased.

10:35 AM- The PW5 testified briefly in favor of the deceased.

10:38 AM- The PW6 being the surgeon showered the courtroom with the essential technicalities of the matter and shreds of evidence.

10:40 AM - The PW 7 also being a stalwart of technicalities focussed on the weapon and mode used for the probable murder.

10:42 AM - The PW 8 also testified briefly and indicated towards the injustice committed against the deceased.

10:44 AM - The PW 9 being the sub-inspector laid down his observances from the scene.

10:47 AM - The defense speaker begins her arguments with the examination of the PW1 especially on the registered FIR.

The judges listening vigilantly to the arguments advanced.

 

10:53 AM - PW1 is excused after being subjected to some fiery round of question.

10:55 AM - PW 2 is subjected to some fundamental questions by the counsel on behalf of the defense. However, the witness stood by her stand calmly.

11:02 AM- PW2 defends her daughter uprightly though she has to face several rounds of rectification of the provided documents

11:08 AM - PW3 is called upon by the cross-examiner and the friend of the deceased is whirled upon by the flurry of questions.

11:12 AM - The PW 9 is called upon for cross-examination and followed by verification dates and circumstances due to their apparent contradictions.

11:18 AM - The cross-examination by the defense ended with an argument of the presence of the requisites relating to intoxicants.

11:20 AM - The counsel on behalf of the defense begins with her opening statement and the arrival of DW1.

11:23 AM - The DW1 is chief examined briskly by the counsel with the periodic interruption by the prosecution.

11:29 AM - The DW2 is called upon and is showered with questions relating to his relationship with the deceased. The witness made several interesting revelations regarding action scene.

11:34 AM - The DW3 being the mother of the prime accused is subjected to a flurry of questions about her son to which she replied without an ounce of hesitance.

11:41 AM- The DW4 elucidated upon the intentions behind the acts during the respective scene. The chief examiner steadily bridges the points to be proven with a touch of serenity.

11:46 - The DW5 articulates her testimony efficaciously and the counsel subsequently concludes the chief examination in a pretty smooth manner.

10:48 AM - The counsel on behalf of the prosecution begins the chief examination by calling upon the DW1.

11: 51 AM - The witness is bamboozled with the tricky queries of the counsel.

11:57 AM - The counsel highlights the contradictions of facts and circumstances and even the testimonies of the witnesses.

12:01 PM - The next witness is called upon and asked to elaborate upon the timeline of the day. The testimony also included a pinch of humor owing to the wit of the witness.

12:06 PM - The subsequent witness is questioned about the psyche of the prime accused and whether he could commit such a thing or not.

12:10 PM - The DW4 is called upon and she answers the sharp queries of the counsel without any substantive problems.

12:15 PM - The DW5 addresses the ultimate queries of the counsel in an effortless manner. Subsequently, the cross-examination ends.

12:24 PM - With the closing statement the trial is at its last legs.

Court Room 3- NTAC-07 v. NTAC-03

Bench- Ms. Sonam Singh and Mr. Vaibhav Kumar

9:50 AM- The participants have arrived and are briefing the witnesses about the intricacies of the trial. The participants are making ardent efforts to resolve every inkling of doubt that the witnesses might have.

10:09 AM- With a few minutes left to the beginning of the trial, the teams have geared up to put up a tough competition. The Prosecution side is wishing luck to all the witnesses.

10:18 AM- The Prosecution takes the dais to deliver the opening statement. She proceeds with a brief statement of the facts of the trial, emphasizing the points that can strengthen her line of argument.

10:27 AM -The Prosecution intends to call upon its first witness, but the judges insist on altering the chronology of the witnesses, the Prosecution looks perplexed and expresses her wish to confer with the team.

10:40 AM- The judges are very alert. They are critical while examining the Investigation Officer, and carefully underline the infirmities in his testimony.

10:54 AM- The deceased's father, PW 1, gets emotional during the cross-examination, remembering the bond shared between his children. He is disturbed to see the insensitivity exhibited by the Defendant towards the death of his children.

11:10 AM- The counsel for the defense is carefully cross-examining the PW 6. The Medical expert cautiously explains the complexities of the reports filed by him. However, when questioned on an intricate detail of the autopsy by the judges, he struggles to find an absolute reply.

11:25 AM- The judges are trying to comprehend the timeline and is engaged continuously with the prosecution. The defense stays mute.

11:29 AM- Finally, the defense is given the chance to speak and he immediately calls upon PW2. The cross-examination resumes. The interval has given the defense to re-strategize and the cross-examiner is bombarding the witness with numerous questions as the witness is stunned. It's the witness's time to stay mute.

11:40 AM- The Case of the Defense starts! A good start until the Judges are a little irked by the casual attitude exhibited by the DW 1. His smiling demeanor attracts a sharp comment by the judges who question his sincere understanding of the gravity of the situation.

11:48 AM- DW 1 is trying hard to present that he and the deceased shared a loving relationship, but the Judges seem far from being convinced.

11:55 AM- While the Judges confer among themselves, the defense calls upon its second witness-DW 2. The statements made by the witness display a lack of confidence in what he was asserting, giving the Prosecution an opportunity to contest the testimony.

12:08 PM- The judges are critical of the sequence of information presented by the DW 2. The witness is clearly unsure of the state of events and is unable to reaffirm the assertions made by her.

12:15 PM- The counsel on behalf of the prosecution is very sharp and confident. He listens to the testimony with utmost insight and tactfully presents the fundamentals of the defense's testimony to be in favor of the prosecution.

12:30 PM- The medical expert is being thoroughly cross-examined. The judges reproach the witness for being forgetful and not deriving an analytical conclusion when scrutinizing the medical reports submitted by the prosecution.

The counsel leaves no stone unturned.

 

12:38 PM- DW 5 walks to the witness box. The Prosecution, through a subtle cross-examination, led the witness against a statement made by the other witnesses. The judges question the portrayal of the existence of a familiar relationship between the accused and the DW 5.

12:52 PM- While the Judges take some time to confer among themselves, the teams are scanning through their memorials with cursory eyes, seeking the essence of their arguments to come to a close of the trial.

1:15 PM- The Prosecution attempts to appeal to the emotions of the Judges by evoking the fond memories of the deceased, but is asked to adhere to the law point and not get “swayed with emotions.

1:32 PM- A fair trial is one in which the rules of evidence are honoured, the parties have a competent counsel, and the judges ensure a trial in which every assumption can be challenged. On this note, the first preliminary rounds of today’s trial were concluded and the courtroom is again left in silence until further arguments begin.

 

Court Room 4- NTAC-01 v. NTAC-04

Bench- Ms. Akriti Gutam and Ms. Kriti Sahoo

9:55 AM- The teams are briefing their respective witnesses and waiting for the Preliminary Round 1 to begin. As the time for briefing is going to end the chit chat becomes a bit faster.

10:10 AM- As the briefing session concludes the teams and the witnesses from both the sides have taken their respective seats. And the arrival of the judges embarks the 1st round of the National Trial Advocacy Competition 2018!!

The team is all geared up to steal the show.

10:12 AM- The judges are going through the documents provided to them and as soon as they settle down the speaker 1 from the side of the prosecution will take hold of the dais.

10:35 AM- The Examination-In-Chief of PW-3 takes the oath. According to her Farhan -the boyfriend of the deceased is not a good person and used the deceased only for getting money. With the end of PW3’s chief examination here comes the turn of the examination of PW5. As the prosecution skipped the introduction of the PW4, the Hon’ble Judges reminded the prosecution that this will eliminate the chance of cross examination as well. The judge also asked some questions from the PW5 for clearing the statement as stated by the witness.

10:44 AM- The Judges advised the prosecutor to concentrate on facts and not on things less useful. Till then the PW6  has taken his position in the witness box. The Prosecution asks him to describe the body of the deceased and with the help of some clinical terms he explained the whole situation.  PW7 is called and she explains the structure of the weapon used.

10:49 AM- the prosecution counsel told the judges about the Witnesses who were not examined. Here arrived the last witness- the investigating officer.. He was asked by the prosecutor to describe the crime scene. As the witness was not clear with the question and was confused with what to say and on being helped by the prosecutor, the Judges instructed him not to pose leading question. It marks the end of the Chief examination from the side of the prosecution.

10:57 AM- Now the defense Counsel calls upon the PW - the investigation officer for the Cross examining. The prosecution raised its objection regarding the Cross Examination. The judges advised the defense to concentrate only on attacking points and not deviate from the main points.

11:00 AM-The Defense calls upon the PW1 for examination. The 1st question asked by the defense was regarding his thinking and belief on life and his mentality- whether he is open minded or not? Objection was raised regarding by the prosecution. The witness seems confused with his own statements. The Judges also cleared some facts for the witness.

11:45 AM- Without much queries or objections the examination is going on quiet smoothly with the advice of the judges to stick only to the most important questions. The doctor explained the cause of the death of the deceased. Here ends the Examination-In Chief from the Defense’ side.

11:53 AM- The cross examination of the prosecution started with the DW3. The prosecution with very confidence asked the questions and requested to answer on point. The environment of the court room becomes a bit tense and exciting in the light of the series of questions and answer.  

12:22 PM- With the permission for an extension of time the prosecutor calls DW4 for examination. The judges demanded for the cross examination of the post mortem report. With a lot of clinical terms and explanation ended the examination of the DW4( The Doctor).

1:42 PM- With this ends the Preliminary Round 1 of the National Trial Advocacy Competition 2018.

 

Court Room 5- NTAC-08 v. NTAC-05

Bench- Srishti Pathak and Amit Gupta

9:50 AM – Both prosecution and defence are trying their level best to prepare the witnesses for the henceforth proceedings. They are referring to the sheets and covering every nook as there’s no room for error. Rigorous elucidation is being given by both the teams.

10:13 AM -The court setting is thus in place, the teams on the sides of Prosecution and the defense are shuffling through there papers and seem prepared to deliver their best. The teams shall now begin.

10:14 AM-Most reverent judges have arrived and taken their seats.

10:18 AM- The counsel for prosecution starts off with the basic details and opening statements and hence asked by the judges to highlight the important facts of the case. The judges interrupted the prosecution asking whether the counsel is sure using the controversial word which could lead to application of a section.

10:35 AM- The prosecution counsel firm in her actions states her point and names all the witnesses and calls upon PW1 in the witness box to start the trial initiating witness examination.

10:38 AM- The witness explains what happened in the heat of the moment and he couldn’t do anything for his daughter.

10:42 AM- The defense objected when the prosecution asked PW1 a leading question, the judges agreed that it was a leading question and welcomed the objection.

10:47 AM- The prosecution invites PW3 to witness box, while examining the prosecution again asked a question which was deemed to be leading in nature by the defense, this lead to mild verbal scuffle between the defense and the prosecution.

10:58 AM: The defense takes the podium to cross examine witnesses of the prosecution, prosecution raise objection that defense is asking leading question which was overruled by the judges, they said it’s a cross examination, the defense has the authority to ask leading questions.

11:09 AM- The judges asked the defense to summarise their main points after the examination. The defense pointed out difference between the statements of both the witnesses.

11:34 AM- The second counsel on behalf of the defence approaches the dais and calls upon DW1 for the chief examination. The defence is reminded by the bench that he has only 10 min left.

11:54 AM: The counsel has been splattered by the bench with so many intriguing questions to which the counsel replies with utmost confidence and calm.

11:58 AM- The counsel on the behalf of prosecution approaches the dais to cross examine the witnesses of the defense. The counsel firmly established her case and clearly makes her point.

12:17 PM- The judges and the counsel for the prosecution  indulge in a little disagreement on the deductions drawn by the prosecution.

12:53 PM- the counsel on the behalf of defense is up with her closing statements and subsequently highlights the points that strengthens her case.

1:05 PM- The Court is now officially adjourned.

 

Court Room 6- NTAC-13 v. NTAC-06

Bench- Mr. Abhijeet Kumar and Mr. Rishi Kumar

9:30 AM- At the signal of the court clerk the advocates have left their seats and are flurrying around the Courtroom to brief their witnesses. And so begins the 3rd edition of NUSRL NTAC, 2018.

9:45 AM- The court is a mixed bag of smiles, serious faces and the occasional eyeing the other party.

10:00 AM- The witnesses seem to be cooperating well with the advocates and listen patiently as the advocate describe the facts and circumstances that led to this hearing today.

10:05 AM- With the last 5 minutes of the witness briefing time, the advocates are putting in their last efforts to update the witnesses and make them well versed with the content and objective of their testimony.

10:15 AM- The honorable judges have now occupied their places and are perusing the memorials of both the teams. It is evident that one of the teams has made a blunder as the judges refer to a book and chuckle at the memorial.

10:20 AM- The prosecution finishes their opening statement and hits it out to the stands. It was a mix of brilliant monologue embedded with the relevant facts and statutes along with emotional undertones.

10:26 AM- On the other hand the defence lawyer is a bit rusty at start, but picks up her pace and ends it confidently. The judges keep a poker face. It is still early to be inclined towards any one of the side.

10:35 AM- The servant who is a witness claims that he was washing clothes while he heard 2 gunshots and rushed to the crime scene, where he saw Mr Bhavani too. The judges are grilling him furthermore with factual questions and the witness is perspiring recollecting those moments.

10:55 AM- As the last PW starts to leave the judges remind the advocate that the same witness cannot be called again, adhering to the procedure, the prosecution poses some more questions in an attempt to establish favourable facts.

The counsel establishing her contentions.

11:00 AM- The defense has initiated cross examination at the judges’ indication. The defense is trying to prove the witnesses unreliable by stating facts, statutes and pointing out the fragile links in the prosecution’s chain of arguments in an attempt to shatter it.

11: 06 AM- Finally some action! The defense accuses PW1 of differing from his statements. The prosecution raises an objection that the statement is in line with what he is stating before the court. The judges take the matter into their own hands and question the witness.

11:15 AM- The judges interrupt the cross examination and give the defense a piece of their mind. The advocate seems to be taken aback and takes a few moment to gather her thoughts and answer the judges.

11:18 AM- The grill is hot and the fire is flaming, seems as if the judges fancy grilled advocates for a light brunch.

11:29 AM- In the cross examination, a witness claims that his son was shot, the defense breaks into a fit of laughter and exclaims that the witness’ son, the victim was punched with a Knuckle Buster, the judges seem to satisfied with the establishment of the facts but are displeased and make it evident that the uncourteous mannerisms of the advocate shall not be tolerated. The defense is let off with a warning.

11:33 AM- In a bizarre twist, the defence lawyer pleads ignorance for the witness in the cross examination proceedings. The judges are as perplexed as all other present in the Court Room.

11:36 AM- Chief Examination for the prosecution begins and the first witness is called. One of witness – owner of a café and employer of the accused testifies that he decided to play cupid on 14th February when he planned a secret date for Farhan with the girl he loved. All was perfect, the lights, the food, and the mood, but things went awry when the girl’s brother came and thrashed the accused. A bit too dramatic, if I may!

11:48 AM- The judges are consistently posing questions and also advising the defence advocates to structure their arguments properly.

12:00 PM- The prosecution begins cross examination of DWs. The advocate aggressively proceeds and goes on to establish that the accused earned handsomely and was in no need to borrow money from Avni and he is a greedy deviant who was taking advantage of the innocent girl.

12:15 PM: In the cross examination the prosecution tries to establish or rather clarify as to who had brought the weapons. The judge points out that the claim with respect to the firearm can’t be admitted as the prosecution hasn’t approached under the relevant statutes. The advocate assertively replies, the judges seemingly admit the assertion and continue with a further barrage of queries which are in turn dexterously answered by the advocate.

The advocates seem tensed but look towards the judges with hopeful eyes.

12:50 PM- The judges have come back while the advocates are preparing their closing statements. The court room is filled with nodding heads, squinting eyes, mumbling lips and throbbing hearts.

01:40 PM- The prosecution initiates the closing statement and gives the judges a potion of the condensed facts and argument proved in the court. It is followed by the defence’s closing statement is a collection of major highlights of their arguments.

01:50 PM- That’s the end of both closing statements. The judges now are now deciding the case and the participants are uncertain yet quite confident. Both the teams argued well but now their fate is in the hands of these judges. The smallest slip-up could cost them their hopes of qualifying for NUSRL 3rd National Trial Advocacy Competition quarter finals.

 

Court Room 7- NTAC 12 v. NTAC 11

Bench: Mr. Abhishek Krishna and Mr. Gautam Rakesh

9:55 AM- Briefing of the witness has started. Both the Prosecution and the Defence are prepping their witnesses consistently.

10:09 AM- The Judges have arrived and all rise!

10:11AM- The Speaker 1 for the prosecution has approached the dais. Prosecution is waffling and the judge asked him to brief the facts.

The defense polishing their arguments.

 

10:15 AM- The speaker for the defence has approached the dais and addresses the bench confidently. Emotional appeal can be observed too as the speaker claims that the case is of ‘Honour Killing’. The judge asked him to be brief and 'honour time'.

10:20 AM- Mother of the deceased, Mrs. Bhavani (Witness) has approached the dais and she very fluently claims that Farhan (Accused no. 1) had barged into the house with a metal object. She states that despite her effort she failed to stop him and there is tinge of helplessness on her face. The judges questioned if she gave them the “permission” to enter into the house to which she clarified that such was not the case.

10:28 AM- The judge questions another witness if she has seen the incident taking place, to which she says ‘No’ while nodding her head.

10:30 AM- Amisha Singh, friend of the deceased has approached the court and after being asked about her doubt, she says that the boy (Farhan) was a “gold-digger”. The judges ask, if she was such a well-wisher, why had she not told her family about it? She states that due to some political disturbances which has affected the family, she decided to keep mum.

10:45 AM- The witnesses state how they are sure about the desi-katta being used and some have also stated that the knuckles were used to attack, which were found stained in blood later.

10:51 AM- Unparallel confidence has been exhibited by the witnesses and still the defense is incessantly questioning the witness, the mother, Mrs Bhavani. He threw a question at her as to why she deterred Avni from taking admission at the management college to which she contiguously replies-“Are you a father?” The defense is baffled. She says that only a father can know the apprehensions of a father.

10:59 AM- The father of the deceased is well versed with the incidents and the defense is constantly trying to confuse the witness by posing similar questions and word-gaming could be sensed.

11:03 AM- Continual attempts to perplex the witness by the defense, the witness, being a father, is playing the emotional card and claims that due to the instant nervous shock, he might have forgotten some facts.

11:07 AM- defense asked the witness if her daughter's relationship with Farhan was shameful to which she replies with circular statements.

11:10 AM- Friend, Ayesha is questioned if it is a mere inference or was she told that Farhan was after Avni’s (deceased) wealth? She replies that it is a logical inference.

11:14 AM- Ballistic expert who has been practising for 30 years is in the witness box. Incessant questions about ‘desi kattas’ and ‘revolvers’ being thrown at her. The witness seems to be entangled in the circular arguments of the defense. The expert claims she has prepared such reports several times before.

11:20 AM- Though the time is up for the defence’s cross examination, still the judges don’t mind the continuance. The medical expert is in the witness box and both the judges are inquisitive.

11:27 AM- The servant is being cross-examined by the defence. The defence put forth an inference deduced by joining the sequence of factual elements laid out by the servant. By bringing the time factor into account, and stating the relevance of 10 seconds or 15 seconds taken by the servant to reach the crime scene, the defence seems to be successful in putting forward combative and cogent evidence.

11:35 AM- The accused Farhan is called to the witness box. He is putting forward relevant facts which indicate that he was forced to sign a blank paper and also that he got threats from Avni’s Family. Just after him, Salim, his friend, is called to the witness box, he claims that his friend is of “good character”. He testifies to the fact that Farhan was threatened by Avni’s (deceased) brother. Judges are frowning after they questioned Salim about self-defence and the need to go to Avni’s house.

11:40 AM- The next defence witness is the mother of Farhan. She tries to emotionally appeal but the judges are only woodenly observing.

11:45 AM- The defence witnesses are quickly answering and bearing witness. The affair seems to be steady.

11:50 AM- The prosecution is conducting cross-examination. Farhan is questioned about some money borrowing. The prosecution is perusing his case file.

11:53 AM- Salim, the close friend of Farhan is questioned about the duration of their association. The witness answers “2 years” but due to undertone appears to have answered “2 days”. He is also contradictory to the point where he asserts that he went to the deceased’s house for “self-defence”.

11:55 AM- The medical expert is called to the witness box. She is questioned if 'knuckles' could be used to kill a person. She answers in the negative but points out that they could cause 'grievous hurt'.

12:00 AM- The chief-examination and cross-examination of witnesses hereby stands concluded. Presentation of closing statement shall take place shortly.

12:05 PM- The counsels are indulged in the preparation of the closing statement. This is the last chance for both the prosecution and the defense to prove their mettle.

12:30 PM- Both the parties are indulged in improving the upcoming presentation of their discourse.

12:40 PM- The prosecution is presenting their closing statement in a flow, more on the argumentative side, sotto voce. They are throwing light on logical conclusions and laws and are not relying much on the factual contentions.

12:50 PM- The defense has approached the dais and the arguments presented appear to be well presented as the arguments are segregated into three parts. The defense seems successful in sewing various gems of facts together to form a coherent string of arguments. Concluding their arguments dauntlessly, the counsel pray humbly.

12:53 PM- The defense deliberated on actus reus and mens rea which they claim that the prosecution has failed to prove.

1:05 PM- Mr. Abhishek Krishna, a member of the bench, puts forward his views about the two teams. He felicitated both the teams for their performance, extraordinaire. He pointed out the laws posited by the two teams and shared his knowledge on the legal aspects of the same. The court proceedings concluded on a positive note.

After a satisfying lunch, we are back again with the second preliminary rounds. The witnesses have been briefed. As the sun takes over the clouds, the partcipants proceed to their respective court rooms.

Court Room 1-NTAC-11 v. NTAC-13

Bench- Ms. Shrishti Pathak & Ms. Akriti Gautam

2:48 PM- The teams have arrived in the courtroom and have started briefing their witnesses.

3:39 PM- ALL RISE! The Judges have arrived and this could be the start of something really promising as both the teams look really sharp and focused. The prosecution seeks permission to begin the proceedings. He gives the opening statement explaining the charges and the essential facts of the case.

3:43 PM- The defence begins with a very strong opening statement. She catches the emotions explaining how the accused was guilty, guilty of loving a person. The judges don’t appreciate the emotive arguments at this point and instruct the speaker to precisely state the facts.

3:47 PM- The teams are finished with their opening statements. The prosecution seeks the court's permission to call PW1, the father of the deceased. The witness is directed to not refer to a paper whilst answering. The counsel is warned continuously by the Judges to not ask any leading questions. The witness is excused.

All ears to the statements being given.

 

3:53 PM- The next witness is called into the witness box. The mother briefly explains the events on the day of the murder. The next witness is the friend of the deceased. She is asked to explain the character of the accused.

3:59 PM- The next witness takes the solemn oath and is requested to introduce himself before the court. The prosecution then asks the witness to explain the events of the fateful day. The prosecution is again warned to not ask any leading questions.

4:04 PM- PW 6 is the next witness. The doctor explains the autopsy report and the cause of death. The subsequent chief examination of the ballistic expert points out the weapon of murder.

4:09 PM- PW 8 introduces himself after taking the oath. The prosecution is trying to establish the validity of the requisite evidence. The last prosecution witness is called.

4:15 PM- The prosecution is done with their chief examination. The defence calls upon PW1 for cross examination.

4:20 PM- The defense calmly starts with the questions. The cross-examiner is not giving any scope of discrepancies. The witness is clearly feeling the heat but the speaker is asked by the Judges to take it slow. The prosecution might have dodged a bullet there. The judges take the matter into their own hands and ask the witness certain questions.

4:30 PM- After a slow and steady examination of the first witness, the mother of the deceased i.e. PW2 is called in for cross-examination and is quickly excused. PW5 is the next witness called for cross-examination.

4:35 PM- The witness is excused quickly again. The next witness is bombarded with a plethora of questions. He stutters and fails to explain the timeline and this may have jeopardized the prosecution's case as the prosecution looks worried.

4:40 PM- PW9, the last witness for the defense to cross-examine stands in the witness box. The discrepancy in time of the prosecution's case has given the defense to pounce upon the witness. She looks confused and really nervous as the judges again instruct the speaker to take it a down a notch. The witness is excused.

4:45 PM- The judges allow the defense to call one more witness for cross-examination. The doctor is the chosen one. He comes into line of fire immediately but the judges quickly question the relevancy of certain points. The defense is now finished with the cross-examination.

4:50 PM- The defense now will begin with their chief examination. DW1, the first accused is called into the witness box. He is asked to explain his career details - why is he a waiter and what awaits him further after just having a UG degree.

4:56 PM- The accused further explains the relationship that has caused his so much trouble and reiterates how he is just "a simple man". Ummmm ... Not really sure whether he was listening to Lynyrd Skynyrd before the proceeding!!! He is questioned by the judges too but he calmly satisfies the doubts. The witness is excused.

5:00 PM- DW2 is called in for chief examination. He explains how his best friend is innocent because.....well because they are best friends. The witness repeatedly presses upon "his friend" and how his friend is the victim of this case. Well, my friend - that's true friendship. The judges ask him more questions about his friend.

5:05 PM- The witness is excused. The next witness is the doctor and she helps the defence to establish a cause of death that should help the 'best friends' to prove their innocence.

5:09 PM- DW4 is called for examination. The owner of the Cafe where the accused works. He tries to explain how good a person the accused is and how he has faced multitudes of harassment from the father of the girl he was in love with. Now, that's tragic. He is excused after he recited that tragic story.

5:13 PM- The mother of the accused is called before the court to further highlight the character of the accused-the kind of son every mother hopes and deserves i.e. Shravan. This has certainly become more emotional. The defence is finished with their chief.

5:15 PM- DW1 is called for his cross-examination. The prosecution inquires the wages he earned while working at the Cafe. Uh-oh! DW4, the owner of the cafe, might be in some trouble as the accused fails to come up with a straight figure (Payment of Minimum Wages Act). Is he worried that his best friend will come to know he earns more than him? Or it could be something else. The prosecution tries to extract further details on his relationship. Does no-one see how tragic it is to ask him that again and again? Well, the accused musters all his courage and answers the question calmly without shedding a single drop of tear. Stone-hearted.

5:32 PM- This seems to be going on forever and ever. The accused still standing tall answering all the questions calmly. The prosecution is struggling here to make a point. The judges remark the defence on how they have missed upon a very significant point - the murder weapon.

5:37 PM- Finally, the accused is excused. His best friend, DW2 is called into the witness box. He is bombarded with questions about his best friend's relationship with the deceased. The judges question the witness in order to settle certain clarifications.

5:42 PM- The judges inform that the prosecution will not be granted extra time since the defence managed their time really well. The next witness, the mother is examined for 10 seconds. That was really quick.

5:46 PM- The doctor is called in for cross-examination. The point is well made but the sacrifice of crossing the time limit is duly noted and remarked by the Judges. The prosecution begs for one more minute. The judges seem adamant but in the name of justice, allows the same. DW4 is asked just one question and surprisingly it had nothing to do with the wage of the accused. Major bullet Dodged!!

5:49 PM- The teams are done with their examination and are now preparing their final notes for the closing statement.

6:00 PM- The prosecution approaches the podium and seeks permission to begin with his closing statements. The judges directed the teams to keep it precise and on point. The prosecution begins with its closing showing the big picture by connecting the dots - circumstantial evidence.

6:04 PM- The prosecution claims that they have fulfilled the essentials of the crime beyond reasonable doubt. The judges listen carefully and remark how he has failed on to establish a point beyond reasonable doubt.

6:10 PM- The judges and the prosecution speaker engage in a discussion whereby the prosecution is constantly trying to satisfy and convince the judges.

6:15 PM- The defence begins with their closing statement. She outrightly rebuts the points made by the prosecution and how it has failed to prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

6:18 PM- The defence cites different cases in order to prove the innocence of the accused. The defence reads the prayer. The judges still have some doubts though which the speaker is struggling to answer. She is helped by her team-mate with an aid of a note.

6:25 PM- The judges are taking their time to clear all the doubts and questioning all the reasonable possibilities.

6:34 PM- The teams have finished their closing statements.

Court Room 2- NTAC-06 v. NTAC-12

Bench- Mr. Gourang Jajodia and Ms. Kriti Saboo

3:45 PM - The proceedings commence in the courtroom with the briefing of the judges by both the parties.

3:51 PM - The PW1 is summoned and is directed to narrate the series of events.

The judges listening to the series of events.

 

3:54 PM - The father of the deceased is baffled by emotions on describing the relationship between the deceased and the prime accused.

3:56 PM - The order of the witnesses is altered and the servant of the deceased's family is called upon first.

4:00 PM - Subsequently as per the line of arguments of the counsel for the prosecution the investigating officer is summoned.

4:03 PM - The investigating officer lists his findings from the case. The deceased's childhood friend is summoned and is asked upon to elucidate the relation of accused and deceased.

4:10 PM - The medical expert is summoned who describes the injuries suffered by the deceased prior to her death.

4:12 PM - PW8 is called upon and is asked to describe the nature of the weapon used.

4:17 PM - PW 4 is called upon who is the family doctor of the deceased and is asked about the day of the incident. Next PW 1 is re-examined for a detailed examination regarding the scene. The cross- examination of the prosecution witness commences.

4:19 PM - PW 1 is recalled for a detailed examination regarding the scene. PW1 is showered with questions but the father of the deceased stands still.

4:28 PM - PW2 is summoned for chief examination to lay down her observances and defend her stand over her daughter's relationship.

4:31 PM - PW3 is called upon to describe the nature of the deceased and her relation with the accused.

4:38 PM - The PW5 is summoned is subjected to questions from the counsel as well as the the judges regarding his testimony. .

4:50 PM - The PW 8 is called upon and is asked about the exact condition and location of things derived from the crime spot.

4:17 PM - PW 4 is called upon who is the family doctor of the deceased and is asked about the day of the incident. Next PW 1 is re-examined for a detailed examination regarding the scene. The cross- examination of the prosecution witness commences.

4:19 PM - PW 1 is recalled for a detailed examination regarding the scene. PW1 is showered with questions but the father of the deceased stands still.

4:28 PM - PW2 is summoned for chief examination to lay down her observances and defend her stand over her daughter's relationship.

4:31 PM - PW3 is called upon to describe the nature of the deceased and her relation with the accused.

4:38 PM - The PW5 is summoned is subjected to questions from the counsel as well as the the judges regarding his testimony. .

4:50 PM - The PW 8 is called upon and is asked about the exact condition and location of things derived from the crime spot.

4:54 PM- The family doctor is called upon and asked about the exhibits attached and the registered FIR.

4:58 PM - The chief examination of the defense witnesses commences.

5:00 PM - The DW1 was subjected to some fundamental queries by the counsel.

5:02 PM - The DW2 was pretty quick in answering all the queries of the counsel.

5:05 PM - The DW3 was asked to lay down the condition of her relationship with the deceased.

5:08 PM - The DW4 was asked about the technicalities of the scenario.

5:10 PM - The DW5 was questioned about the nature of the accused and his general behaviour.

5:25 PM - The DW1 stands still and unaltered by the continuous verbal attacks of the counsel.The DW1 is subjected to more questions but he faces them gracefully.

6:10 PM- The counsel on behalf of the prosecution summarises his arguments in the closing statement with efficient articulation and interpretation.

6:19 PM- The counsel on behalf of the defense sumarises his arguments in the closing statement by answering the additional queries of the judges.

6:32 PM- With the advisory words of of the judges, the trial ends.

Court Room 3- NTAC-05 v. NTAC-01

Bench- Mr. Vaibhav Kumar and Ms. Swarnmala Singh

3:22 PM- Teams who have learned from the previous rounds , are in a better position to brief the witnesses. They are, to an extent, aware of the points where the opponent could strike. Undoubtedly, they are better armed for this round.

3:45 PM- All set! The Court proceedings begin in full swing. The Judges are seated and the teams are stealing glances, speculating the next move of their opponents.

3:48 PM- Wait! The proceedings are brought to a halt owing to the ill health of one of the counsels on the defendants’ side. And the benevolent Judges allow for the court to be adjourned until the Counsel regains health.

3:52 PM- Against all the set-backs, the proceedings resume. The defense counsel, not deterred by his ill health, is all the more alert and conscious of the proceedings. He listens intently to the opening statement of the prosecution.

4:00 PM- With the opening statements made and the judges briefed with an unbiased narration of facts, the Prosecution proceeds with the examination of the PW 1.

4:08 PM- The Counsel for the Defense skillfully interrogates the Investigating officer, and carefully brings forth the inconsistencies in the report submitted.

4;17 PM- The confidence, the Defence counsel has over his arguments is much evident from his skilful interplay of words and smooth demeanour.

4:08 PM- The Counsel for the Defense skillfully interrogates the Investigating officer, and carefully brings forth the inconsistencies in the report submitted.

4;17 PM- The confidence, the Defence counsel has over his arguments is much evident from his skilful interplay of words and smooth demeanour.

4:29 PM- The counsel on behalf of the defense was objected by the judges for asking incoherent questions to the medical expert. Nonetheless, it was reflected that the Medical expert was indeed inexperienced because he pleaded ignorance with questions pertinent to the medical arena.

4:38 PM- The deceased's father, PW 1, breaks down when his sincerity towards his children was put to question. His words had a strong touch of emotive forces when he was asserting his caring attitude and careful upbringing.

4:45 PM- The defense highlights the prosecution's ignorance of the relevant changes in the proposition, and thus gain a brownie point before the judges.

4:56 PM- To maintain the balance of justice, the judges allow the prosecution to take some time off to familiarize themselves with the change.

5:04 PM- The PW 3 expresses her reservations against the relationship the deceased had with the accused. The Judges, sensing hesitation in the mannerism of the prosecution, encourages the Counsel to proceed with confidence.

5:12 PM- “Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” With these lines, the PW 3 was exhorted to speak and seek justice for her deceased friend.

5:19 PM- The Counsel for the defense tactfully seeks a narration of facts from the DW 1, trying to tilt the balance in defense favour.

5:27 PM- The counsel on behalf of the prosecution is making sharp comments against DW 1. The Counsel deals with the accused in an uptight manner which is an eloquent expression of her absolute disapproval of the accused’s testimony.

5:41 PM- The prosecution objects to the line of questioning of the defense counsel. But the judges, conscious of the ongoing affair, over-rule the same.

6:09- The judges question the relevance of the questions posed by the prosecution. Also, the prosecution is reproached for making an attempt to mislead the court with a false representation of facts.

6:15 PM- The Defence rests the case and seeks permission to proceed with the closing statement.

6:37 PM- The Judges advise the prosecution to logically derive her line of arguments from the facts of the matter and not jump the gun and decide the matter.

6:55 PM- In spite of the turbulent beginning, the proceedings concluded smoothly, and the teams appear satisfied with their respective arguments and thus the trial concludes.

Court Room 4- NTAC-09 v. NTAC-08

Bench- Ms. Khalida Haya Rashmi and Ms. Sonam Singh

3:36 PM - The honorable bench consisting of Ms. Ankita Sharma and Mr Harsh kumar have taken their seats. Here we go ahead with the proceedings.

3:44 PM-With the arrival of the Hon’ble judges the court room has become silent and the participants are eagerly waiting for the competition to start. The environment is full of excitement as after this round the fate of the teams will be decided for the further rounds.

3:48 PM- With the due permission of the judges the Speaker 1 from the side of the prosecution is ready to take hold of the dais. Overcoming the anxiousness the speaker is very well stating his opening statement.

3:55 PM- The Prosecution has arrived on the dais for the chief examination. The Judges laid down the structure for the chief examination. The cross examination of PW1 was to be done simultaneously.

Judges explaining the intricacies of a trial.

 

4:13 PM- While the PW2 was being examined by the prosecution his counsel members seemed a bit tensed. The cross examination was very powerful. The defense was able to confuse the witness to a large extent.

4:30 PM- The PW8 seemed very much confused while giving his statement and his statement even made the judges laugh. The defence didn’t find the need to cross examine the witness and waived off his right.

4:40 PM- The doctor as witness proved to be helpful for the prosecution as his statements were supported the prosecution case.

4:13 PM- While the PW2 was being examined by the prosecution his counsel members seemed a bit tensed. The cross examination was very powerful. The defense was able to confuse the witness to a large extent.

4:30 PM- The PW8 seemed very much confused while giving his statement and his statement even made the judges laugh. The defence didn’t find the need to cross examine the witness and waived off his right.

4:40 PM- The doctor as witness proved to be helpful for the prosecution as his statements were supported the prosecution case.

4:50 PM- the defense very beautifully uses the minute details like finger prints to prove her point. These points enhanced the beauty of the arguments presented by the defense.

5:12 PM-  DW1- Farhan, very nicely kept his point and his love for the deceased was visible in his voice. His voice seemed to be chocked; he was just on the verge of crying but controlled himself.

5:12 PM-  DW1- Farhan, very nicely kept his point and his love for the deceased was visible in his voice. His voice seemed to be chocked; he was just on the verge of crying but controlled himself.

5:25 PM- The judges grilled the DW1 to a different extent as he started contradicting his own statements.

6:00 PM- The judges posed question on the strong choice of words by the doctor in her report and wanted to know the reason of such choice. She was grilled by the judges a lot and the doctor found it difficult to prove her points.

6:15 PM- The Defence rests the case and seeks permission to proceed with the closing statement praying to the court to provide the needed relief to the accused.

Court Room 5- NTAC-03 v. NTAC-10

Bench- Mr. Harsh Kumar and Ms. Ankita Sharma

3:36 PM- The honorable bench consisting of Ms. Ankita Sharma and Mr Harsh kumar have taken their seats. Here we go ahead with the proceedings.

3: 39 PM: The counsel on the behalf of prosecution approaches the podium and briefs about the case; when the defense reaches the podium he is welcomed by overwhelming questions by the judges.

3:45 PM: the defense graciously objected the leading question asked by the prosecution but the objection was overruled by the judges, they allowed the prosecution’s question.

3:51 PM : PW2 seems timorous while answering the question, even the judge asked her to be loud enough so that she is audible. Although the advocate was humble in his approach while examining the witness.

3:56 pm- It appears as if the counsel on the behalf of prosecution is well aware of the points to be established while examining the witnesses’. Hence being clear in his approach and without taking much time he excuses the witnesses’ pretty fast.

4:10 PM: The defence is all set to cross examine the witnesses. PW1 is intimidated by the recurrent thrashing questions asked by the counsel. The witness answers the question anxiously.

4:15 PM: The defence asks the PW1 to identify the guns, answering to which the witness stumbles but the judges come to his rescue, exclaiming that he cannot ask leading questions.

4: 23 PM: Everyone in the court room is listening intently to the dialogue carried out between PW6 and the counsel. Woaah!! What a whack! The counsel puzzled the doctor (PW6) about the injury and the weapon used to injure the person.

4:32 PM : Ohkayy!! We can see some grave tension building here between the counsel and the ballistic expert.

4:44 PM: The counsel on the behalf of defence seeks permission to initiate the chief examination. Permission granted.

4:47 PM: The counsel requests the judges to make note of certain points. Also the counsel asks the bench to refer the exhibit of autopsy report.

4:58 PM- The counsel was humble and soft-spoken while examining DW3. The counsel once again is reminded by the judges that only 6 minutes are left, it will be better if he winds up quickly or they won’t allow further examination.

5:03 PM - DW5 elucidated the unfortunate events that occurred on 14th Feb. Then the counsel rests this exhaustive examination, the counsel on behalf of prosecution takes the dais to continue the cross examination.

5:11 pm: The defence raises objection on the questions asked by prosecution, judges allow the objection and ask the prosecution to rephrase the question.

5:34 PM judges asked the witness about the tussle, but his reply didn’t seem to satisfy the judges. The counsel also now swarms the witness with tricky questions. The witness leaves the witness box without answering.

6:03 PM- Here the grilling starts, the judges are asking captivating questions to the prosecution, the prosecution tries his best to suffice the bench. Everyone in the courtroom is enlightened by incalculable questions by the bench which unmask untouched nooks of the case.

6:18 PM- The prosecution humbly submits the prayer. 6:18pm: The prosecution humbly submits the prayer.

6:20 PM- The defence presents the closing statements before the court, enumerating all the exhibits and important heads.

6:38 pm : The defence thus concludes with the prayer. This marks the end of arduous exchange between the teams and the court is thus adjourned.

Court Room 6- NTAC-14 v. NTAC-02

Bench- Ms. Amrita Singh and Mr. Amit Gupta

3:30 PM- The second preliminary round has started, the judges are seated, the witnesses have been prepared and the advocates are ready.

3:35 PM- The prosecution has presented their opening statement. The advocate was composed and put through her thoughts in the form of a well-structured argument, leaving the judges impressed.

3:40 PM- The defence followed through with their opening statement and in a distinctive manner the defense’s researcher stood right beside the first advocate at the dais and held up a sheet of chart paper. To the best of my judgment it was a fact sheet and the advocate was reiterating the important facts and statutes.

3:45 PM- Chief examination from the prosecution’s side has begun. The advocate has tried to rely on the eyewitness and establish certain facts related to the matter. In a turn of events the judges have asked the cross examination to be done right after the chief examination has finished.

3:52 PM- The defence in its cross examination poses some immaterial questions to the witness. The judges look upon smiling slyly; the defence may be headed to a moment of “enlightenment”. Indeed the judges do not leave anything unnoticed.

3:55 PM- The defence advocate tries to cross examine the witness incorporating bits of ‘humor’ as is evident by his frequent laugh and taunts targeted at the prosecution. The judges, however, not surprisingly, stare dead into the defence advocate's eye keeping a straight face. Their humour cant pear them through so easy!

3:56 PM- "Enlightenment" impending! "Contempt of Court" impending?

4:04 PM- And here it is, our favorite the “enlightenment bomb”. The judges sternly ask the defense advocate not to comment on his counterparts and call them “clever”. They ask him to either ask relevant and “clever” questions or be seated.

4:14 PM- The prosecution has examined its second witness and the defense approaches the dais. The judges’ faces light up.

4:20 PM- The defense advocate has riddled the prosecution witness – a doctor, with questions. The doctor tries to keep a straight face and answer the questions as the judges with a smirk on their face observe while the prosecution tries to object on the grounds of irrelevancy.

4:34 PM- The prosecution has examined the next witness – a ballistics expert. The expert stated from how far the gun was shot from and which gun was shot. In cross examination the defense tried to prove the witness unreliable by asking the description of a gun and stating its part by looking at photo. The witness claims that she won’t be able to do the same as she recently had an eye surgery.

4:36 PM- The courtroom is witnessing regular turn of events. The scales of shifting with each second.

4:50 PM- Now, the defence has started chief examination. The first witness is also one of the accused. The well-structured questions are replied to with crisp and precise answers. As of now the witness seems to be of no fault in the crime.

4:55 PM- Following chief examination the prosecution takes charge and initiates the cross examination. The witness is perplexed by sheer barrage of factual questions, he tries to deflect and dodge but is left speechless pointing towards lack of clarity and may be even lying but that is best left to the judges in their infinite wisdom to decide.

5:09 PM- The court is still in session. The judge’s face now sports a 5pm shadow. It’s been a long day and one can clearly see the signs of exhaustion on everyone’s face. These are the deciding moments that will filter out our quarter finalists.

5:15 PM: Another DW has been examined and he has indeed put through his side of the story unmistakably. But his memory and judgment seemed clouded at every question posed by the prosecution during cross examination. It is clear before the court that the witness is the accused’s best friend and can’t explain why he took and ran with the bag that contained money. In the cross examination the witness stumbled and mumbled, the prosecution grinnned, the defence, well, prayed!

5:30 PM: Time has now taken its toll. The advocates’ speech is muffled and the court room feels dry. The zealous and exhilarated faces at the beginning have now given way to fatigued and gloomy expressions.

5:40 PM: The interplay between examination and cross examination is still very much in process. The witness seems to have a serious case of dry mouth as he keeps sipping water after every sentence.

6:10 PM: Now the time has come for the closing statement. The prosecution went first and put forward a lucid summary of all the proceedings including establishment of facts and the testimonies of the witnesses. The judges pose some minor questions to her and seem to be satisfied with her statements.

5:15 PM: Another DW has been examined and he has indeed put through his side of the story unmistakably. But his memory and judgment seemed clouded at every question posed by the prosecution during cross examination. It is clear before the court that the witness is the accused’s best friend and can’t explain why he took and ran with the bag that contained money. In the cross examination the witness stumbled and mumbled, the prosecution grinned, the defence, well, prayed!

5:30 PM: Time has now taken its toll. The advocates’ speech is muffled and the courtroom feels dry. The zealous and exhilarated faces at the beginning have now given way to fatigued and gloomy expressions.

5:40 PM: The interplay between examination and cross examination is still very much in process. The witness seems to have a serious case of dry mouth as he keeps sipping water after every sentence.

6:10 PM: Now the time has come for the closing statement. The prosecution went first and put forward a lucid summary of all the proceedings including establishment of facts and the testimonies of the witnesses. The judges pose some minor questions to her and seem to be satisfied with her statements.

6:15 PM: The defence follows suit. The advocate is rushing with her statement and the judges are apparently not able to comprehend her, but they don’t interrupt her implying they are able to understand her. Her speed makes the advocate’s statement incomprehensible to my ‘regular’ ears, but the judges ‘adept’ auditory organs seem to cognize the statement.

6:25 PM: With the end of closing statements it has dawned upon the preliminary rounds of the 3rd edition of NUSRL National Trial Advocacy Competition. The tabulation of results is underway and they will be announced shortly.

Court Room 7- NTAC-04 v. NTAC-07

Bench- Mr. Abhishek Krishna Mr. Rishi Kumar

3:00 PM- The prosecution and the defence are briefing there witnesses, for the grilling that awaits! Though a bundle of nerves, both the teams are quite confidently masking it, constantly going through their case files and gearing themselves up. The drama is ready to unfold.

3:35 PM- The prosecution has approached the dais, though fluent, the prosecution is elaborative while delivering her opening speech. The judge interrupts her and asks her to wrap up the facts due to the paucity of time.

3:40 PM- The defence confidently wraps up his opening statement just after which the witness of the prosecution arrives. Lo and behold! The father who is the first witness is almost in tears, standing in the witness stands. He has lost both his children and the sorrow drips off his face. But it must be taken into account that the loss of the apple of his eyes has not deterred him from confidently delivering what he witnessed on that black day.

4:00 PM- The judges eagerly ask the prosecution to pass the case file to one of the witnesses to show how he hit an axe on his own feet while testifying. As if it was any less, another witness seems to have forgotten his own name! The defence smartly draws curtain on his fallacy and one of the judges grin.

4:05 PM- The prosecution is directly examining his witness when one of the Hon’ble judges interrupts the servant to extract more testimony. All this while, the prosecution is patiently listening to him, fingers crossed!

4:10 PM- The defence approaches the dais to cross examine the witness. Though solemn, both in demeanor and speech, her cross examination is hitting the witness right where it hurts! The defence has left the witness flabbergasted more than once now. The defence very politely asks the witness to take his time. Solemn indeed!

4:10 PM- The defense approaches the dais to cross examine the witness. Though solemn, both in demeanor and speech, her cross examination is hitting the witness right where it hurts! The defense has left the witness flabbergasted more than once now. The defense very politely asks the witness to take his time. Solemn indeed!

4:15 PM- Some serious talks about the house being double-storeyed, and the knuckle-duster, and all the other minor things seems to be going on between the defense and the witness but just as another witness (Mr. Bhawani the father of the deceased) arrives, we realise that the chit-chats were so not minor!

4:25 PM- The defense posited similar questions to him and to her surprise the father presented similar facts. The defense and the witness appear to be having a light banter. They argue upon the ‘holding’ of the ‘katta’ and ‘snatching’ of the revolver and much more, all through this time the judges are constantly questioning the witness and clarifying the testimony.

4:30 PM- The cross-examination is pulsating and the judges are captivated! The defense claims that the father is a “defensive father”, to which the father raised eyebrows! The witnesses’ cries seem to echo in the entire courtroom, the sense of loss and shock stuck on his face without a moment's break.

4:37 PM- The second counsel for the defense proceeds for direct examination. Though the ambience of the courtroom is humdrum, the deportment of the defense is unwavering.

4:45 PM- The judges are constantly nodding at each other while the defense is directly examining the witness.

4:55 PM- The judges and defence are questioning the witness and the witness appears to be suffering from common cold as he is constantly taking the handkerchief to his mouth. The judge questions him if he is in a trauma! The witness is mum and the judge take his silence to be a "yes".

5:03 PM- The owner of the café stands in the witness box. He is all sugar-coated about Farhan (the accused). After the direct examination by the defence is over, the prosecution assuredly approaches the dais for cross examination.

5:10 PM- The counsel for the prosecution is ceaselessly cross-examining the witness. She often appears to be stupefied by the testimony of the witness while quickly jotting down points to counter examine. She appears to be shocked when the boyfriend Farhan is unable to answer about the educational qualifications of his girlfriend who he has been dating for three years!

5:15 PM- A question is raised by the prosecution which the defence strongly assert to be irrelevant. The prosecution with composure submits to the bench that in the succeeding points, she shall refer to the same.

5:20 PM- Witness Salim, when asked if his friend was using the cab for his personal use answers in the affirmative even though the prosecution appears to be constantly hinting that it is against the rules. The judges laugh away at it!

5:30 PM- The prosecution while cross examining the witness, the doctor, is attempting to negate the verbal ambiguity by clarifying that earlier she had mentioned that she was a “medical practitioner”, while now she claims to be a “medical expert”.

5:37 PM- The prosecution is firing questions one after the other at the witness! This seems to affect the witnesses, and they are faltering.

5:45 PM- The prosecution and defence are now preparing for the closing statement. The judges are studying the memorandum of both the teams while their hands are continuously penning the scores.

6:00 PM- The prosecution is submitting her closing statements in full swing. The judges are observing the speaker serenading in a perfect rapture. Just when the closing statement is about to terminate, the judges interrupt the speaker on behalf of the prosecution and enquire about the ‘intention’ and ask her to prove if there was any.

6:10 PM- The speaker on behalf of the defence approaches the dais with equal vim and vigour. Just as she starts delivering her closing statement, both the judges put forward questions regarding trespass committed by her client. The defence proves her point by citing a relevant case. She submits her contentions regarding the ‘intention’ and contests that her client is indeed innocent as there is absence of mens rea!

6:17 PM- The judges are sharing their feedbacks with the teams. One of the judges points out that there is no major lacuna in their arguments but by virtue of being humans, there is always a scope for improvement for us. He said that working hard could be the ‘Sone Pe Suhaga’. The other judge commends both the teams for their hard work and the teams are nodding in agreement with a sense of satisfaction and a wide smile is plastered on their faces.

With this, we come to an end of the first day. It has been a long day and it's going to get bigger each day.

Stay connected with us to get the updates about the results and subsequent rounds tomorrow from 8:30 AM onwards.

Thank you for joining us today!

DAY 3- QUARTER FINALS AND SEMI FINALS

A very happy morning readers!

We are back again with another rounds of NTAC'18. The teams have taken their respective courtrooms.

The teams that qualified for the Quarters are:

• NTAC 01
• NTAC 11
• NTAC 02
• NTAC 13
• NTAC 10
• NTAC 05
• NTAC 07
• NTAC 08

The witnesses have been briefed up last evening and are waiting anxiously for the judges to arrive.

Let's begin with the Quarters of NTAC'18.

 

COURT ROOM 1- NTAC 05 v. NTAC 01

Bench - Mr. Prashant Kumar & Mr. Rupesh Singh.

9:26 AM - The judges arrive and the prosecution addresses the court with the opening statement.

9:33 AM - The defense briefs the judges with their set of facts with some elegant oratory skills.

9:49 AM - PW 7 is summoned and is asked to state about the materials derived from the crime scene.

10:04 AM - PW3 is summoned and is asked about her relationship with the deceased. Subsequently, she also addressed the selfish acts which the deceased was subjected to.

10:10 AM - PW 8 is summoned and the cross examination begins. The counsel on behalf of the defense shoots the witness with sharp arrows of queries and the witness is baffled.

10:23 AM - PW1 is called upon for chief examination and the counsel is attacking the witness from all directions but the witness stands firm without a pinch of hesitance.

10:33 AM - PW 3 is summoned for cross examination and the counsel is busy bamboozling the witness.

10:38 AM - PW 6 is called and the conversation turns into argument into seconds with counsel portraying all the wits in possession.

10:43 AM - DW 1 is called for the chief examination and is subjected to some brisk but crucial questions.

10:23 AM - PW1 is called upon for chief examination and the counsel is attacking the witness from all directions but the witness stands firm without a pinch of hesitance.

10:33 AM - PW 3 is summoned for cross examination and the counsel is busy bamboozling the witness.

10:38 AM - PW 6 is called and the conversation turns into argument into seconds with counsel portraying all the wits in possession.

The witness had a hard time while being examined.

 

10:43 AM - DW 1 is called for the chief examination and is subjected to some brisk but crucial questions.

10:51 AM - DW 2 is summoned and is asked for the description of the timeline of events prior and post the crime scene.

11:03 AM - DW 3 is called upon and lays down the description of her son's character and his probabilities of committing a crime,

11:08 AM - The cross examination on behalf of the prosecution begins and DW1 is summoned to appear before the court. The counsel attempts to confuse the witness but the witness is unaltered.

11:26 AM - DW 2 is summoned for cross examination and is momentarily subjected to a flurry of questions.

11:36 AM - DW 3 embraces the court amidst the pertinent silence in the court and answers some fundamental and tricky questions by the counsel.

11:42 AM - DW 4 is summoned and asked some basic medical questions.

11:45 AM - The proceedings pause and the parties wait for the closing statement

12:20 PM - The closing statement commences by the counsel of prosecution summarises her arguments and also provided substantial precedence.

12:32 PM - The counsel on behalf of defense begins his part of the closing statement by highlighting the lack of evidence to prove the accused guilty.

12:45 PM - The trial ends on an advisory note of the respective judges.

COURT ROOM 2- NTAC 02 v. NTAC 08

Bench- Mr. Kumar Sundaram and Mr. Vishal Trivedi

9:30 AM: And it begins, the third day of 3rd NUSRL National Trial Advocacy Competition. There shall be two rounds today, the quarter-finals and the semi-finals. The best teams of the lot have been sieved through, by the preliminary rounds that were conducted yesterday. The teams have burnt their midnight oil and are confident in their resolve. The zeal, exhilaration and a pinch of nervousness is quite distinguishable in their aura.

9:40 AM: Both the sides have wrapped up their opening statements. The advocates’ faces radiated with confidence and gleamed with passion. They presented their side of the facts with conviction. So engrossed in their demeanor, they even took jabs at the contending side in the process. The heat is on!

9:49 AM: The prosecution has started the examination of PW1, the father of the two deceased persons. The witness was asked to summarize the events that took place on that uneventful night. The witness narrated the incident and teared up remembering the night he lost his precious children.

9:59 AM: The prosecution continues to examine its witnesses, and tries to establish facts and series of unfortunate events that led both the sides into the court. One of the witnesses - the doctor, reiterated the cause and manner of death of the victims.

10:05 AM: The defence raised an objection while the prosecution was examining its witness. The judges sternly remark that they should wait for their time to cross examine. Law School surely doesn’t teach that to you!

10:20 AM: The defence has initiated its cross examination and a barrage of questions targeted at the witness follows. The witness is perplexed by the sheer apathy and coldness in the question and has an emotional breakdown in front of the whole courtroom.

10:45 AM: The defence has now begun its chief examination of witnesses. One of the accused is called up and he recollects the events that led him to this place.

11:05 AM: The defence continues with examination of its witnesses. The advocate is moving forward in a calm and composed manner. The prosecution tries to raise multiple objections, but the judges seem to be appreciating the advocate’s approach.

The judges analysing the arguments.

 

11:20 AM: Chief examination by the defence has been concluded. The procedure was droning, with establishment of facts and stating statutes. The judges too declared a short break of personal privileges.

11:35 AM: This marked the end of chief examination and the genesis of cross examination. The prosecution tried to prove the witness unreliable by pointing out minor blunders in the witness’ testimony to which the witness replies “If I had such good command over language or grammar, I wouldn’t have been a steward in a café”. The whole courtroom chuckled at the counsel’s wit, they may have even hooted and whistled in their head. Feels good, this change of ambience, an escape from monotony.

11:40 AM: The prosecutor continuing the trend asks the witness who is also an accused, “From which hand of Avni did you snatched the bag?” to which the witness in an angry undertone replies “I used my left hand to snatch the bag”! The advocate then claims “Your honor! This witness is unreliable and is not answering my questions. He instead telling Avni’s hand is saying I took the bag by the hand of my left hand.” The judges sport a confused look, even their infinite wisdom can’t make sense of the learned advocate’s contention. P.S. The account does not contain any typographical error. Words contained in the quotes are exactly as spoken in the courtroom.

12:00 PM: Cross examination has been concluded by the prosecution, the judges looked displeased as the advocate put forward unstructured and confusing arguments. This shall be followed by the closing statements of both the sides.

12:20 PM: Both the parties have now been provided their copies of the court transcript. Preparation for the final push that we’ll witness, in their closing statements, is underway. Advocates are reading the transcript carefully and trying to figure out the nuances that will give them the upper hand. There is an abundance of suspense in the atmosphere.

12:35 PM: The parties have studied the court transcript and prepared their final statements in a span of 10 minutes. A difficult task indeed but our student advocates are talented 'beyond reasonable doubt’.

01:00 PM: Both the teams have now presented their final statements. The advocates tried to sum up all theirs contentions and arguments in a lucid way. The common idea was that their respective evidences and witnesses have proved their case beyond reasonable doubt. We’ll get to know who was able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt after the judges tabulate the results and the same are declared. What we know is that these advocates have proved their mettle by surviving this far in the competition.

COURT ROOM 3- NTAC 07 v. NTAC 13

Bench- Mr. Amirkar Parwar and Mr. P. N. Pandey

9:10 AM- Both the respective teams have arrived in the courtroom. They are skimming through their case files and today the atmosphere of the courtroom is incomparable!

9:15 AM- The judges enter the courtroom and all rise!

9:20 AM- First Speaker of the prosecution has approached the dais. He is well-versed with his opening statements and the judges are sure of a speculative disposition!

9:25 AM- First speaker of the defence has now approached the dais to deliver her opening statement. She is slowly but steadily delivering the same. The judges are actively going through the memorandums and the defence team is observing their team member with a curio!

9:30 AM- The prosecution has again approached the dais and their first witness arrives. As soon as the witness begins, the judge disrupts him as his voice is imperceptible. The witness abides by the order and soon alters his sound and it is definitely counterpointing!

9:35 AM- While the witness is delivering his statement without any conviction, the prosecution is moving to and fro from the dais to the witness box to corroborate the factual evidence. One of the judges question the prosecution about the statutes and the provisions but the prosecution seeks apology as she is unaware of the same.

9:45 AM- Another witness arrives and the necessary “sugar and spice and everything nice” already seems to be sprinkled over the prevalent courtroom drama. She claims that she was the “soul-sister” of the deceased and further talks about her disfavour with the boyfriend of her friend. She mistakenly calls her best friend by her own name “Aisha”, but when a judge points that out, she alters her previous statement in a flash!

9:53 AM- While the prosecution is directly examining the witness, the judges are leaving no stone unturned in their enquiry about the provisions. The prosecution goes on to tell the procedure instead of the provision, and the judge immediately points that out!

10:01 AM- One of the judges enquires the witness sub-inspector about the police diary which the witness is unheard of! The judges grimace and there is stir amongst the prosecution team.

10:06 AM- The defence has approached the dais and she is cross-examining the witness of the prosecution. The witness is answering with a conviction but that is not deterring the speaker for the defence. The voices seem to have risen!

10:15 AM- The father of the deceased is in the witness box. It appears that the speaker for the defence wants no deficiency on her part. She is constantly rummaging through the statements submitted by the witness in search of that one loophole which could tilt the case in her favour! She is urging the witness to answer in a ‘Yes’ or a ‘No’, but the witness is sure a tough nut to crack.

10:22 AM- The judges are very considerate and this can be said as they are asking the prosecution if they want to conduct a rebuttal. The judges then point out that the prosecution should have been alert for the same. The judges are grilling the defence regarding the ‘relevancy of facts’ and ‘protection of Hinduism’. One of the judges also asked the defence if she is carrying the criminal manual to substantiate the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act. The defence answers in the affirmative.

The judges impressed by the arguments being put forth.

 

10:28 AM- The defence is raising leading questions however no objection is being raised by the opponents, i.e. the prosecution. The judges hint the prosecution that they must raise objections if there are any! The judges then proceed to enquire the defence if they’ll have to infer the provisions applicable herein on their own; the defence clarifies that she will deal with them shortly.

10:35 AM- One of the judges is clearly interested in the statements submitted by the sub-inspector. He is throwing several questions at the witness and the witness, baffled, tells the judges at first that he wants to “refresh his mind” and then proceeds to say that he wants to “refresh his memory”. The opponent counsels pass the relevant documents to aid him.

10:42 AM- The atmosphere of the courtroom has suddenly become wearisome. The defence is cross-examining the witnesses. The judges have directed twice now to the prosecution to raise objections but no objections are being raised and it appears as if the prosecution has become immune to the statement.

10:51 AM- The prosecution raises an objection! The arguments have ignited. The prosecution accuses the defence of creating new facts and requests the counsel for the defence to clarify the hypothesis speculated by her. The defence states that the burden of proof lies on the prosecution. Prosecution submits to the bench a statement which the judges ask the defence to explain then and there.

11:03 AM- The defence passes on the criminal manual to the bench to prove the intricacies and nuances of a ‘bruise formation’. The prosecution doesn’t budge from their submission that the defence is creating new facts. Heated debates are going on between the witness of the prosecution and the defence. The prosecution is now raising objections.

11:10 AM- The judge clarifies that the bench is taking into consideration the statements submitted by the witness. He then directs the defence to make a logically coherent inference of the laws and points out that there is a difference between a “Law man” and a “layman” and so the burden lies on the defence to distinguish between the two.

11:15 AM- The second speaker for the defence has approached the dais. The first and the main witness for the defence, Farhan, the accused enters the witness box. He swears in the name of Allah and states that he will state the truth and nothing else. He is fluently submitting his testimony and the defence is smoothly questioning him. It appears that another confidential judge has taken entry from the secondary door and is observing the two teams covertly.

11:23 AM- The witness, the friend of Farhan (the accused) is explaining the incidents of the 'Valentine’s Day' to the judges with remorse. He explains how the lovers were mercilessly beaten up by the parties against their love. The audience is intrigued and some are smirking. The witness moves on to talk about some “bag” and “desi katta”.

11:29 AM- The defence is questioning the witnesses without a break and they are bearing witness with a strong belief. The opponents, i.e. the prosecution are constantly jotting down points which can make their case and break the defence’s case.

11:36 AM- The judges ask the prosecution counsels if they want to cross-examine the witnesses. The Prosecution starts with the main accused (Farhan). The prosecution points out a pertinent fact that the accused was carrying a metal object at the time of incident. The prosecution asks the witness the colour of dress the accused was wearing on the day of the incident, to which the witness expresses his inability to recollect taking the plea of his distressed mental condition after the incident.

11:43 AM- The prosecution continues to cross-examine the main accused. The prosecution pointed out the fact that the main accused was very hostile at the time of the incident. The judges throw a question out of the blue at the speaker of the defence. The judge states that if he is unsatisfied by the testimony of the witness, could he infer the same on his own? He then questions about the provisions regarding the same. The prosecution seeks a moment of indulgence and discusses it with his team.

11:57 AM- The judge then questions the defence regarding the same. The defence referred to one of the sections of the criminal manual to satisfy the bench. The judge continued questioning the defence regarding the nature of their witness. The judge appears to be astounded by the statement of the defence which points that carrying a “knuckle-duster” habitually is normal.

12:17 PM- The defence and the prosecution are directly throwing questions at each other while the judges are enquiring in between. The witness is using hand gestures to explain the “pulling out of the pocket” and “actually holding” the gun. After a prolonged enquiry, the judge orders the witness to take a moment’s rest. It seems that the judge is not fully satiated by the submission of the parties and he proceeds to grill them some more!

12:29 PM- The defence raises an objection and the judges have understood their contention as one of him explicitly mentions it. The judges point out to the prosecution that their time for cross examination is up!

12:35 PM- The prosecution as well as the defence are gearing up for the deliverance of their closing statement. They are having mild discussions while one is noting the statements to trap the other party taking into account the lacunas which crept in during the course of heated argumentation.

12:50 PM- The advocate for the prosecution is at the dais. She proceeds to submit her closing statement. She is of spirited kidney but the judge impedes in and throws questions related to the eye-witness and the facts and other relevant nitty-gritty. The counsel proceeds and addresses the answers with zest addressing each judge one at a time. The judges also ask about the F.I.Rs and the prosecution is a bit wobbly now. The prosecution is stable on the enquiries about the witness being a ‘natural witness’. The judges have now proceeded to grill the counsel on the facts of one of the cases which they have mentioned. The counsel submits her closing statement and proceeds to join the counsels for the prosecution.

12:50 PM- The advocate for the prosecution is at the dais. She proceeds to submit her closing statement. She is of spirited kidney but the judge impedes in and throws questions related to the eye-witness and the facts and other relevant nitty-gritty. The counsel proceeds and addresses the answers with zest addressing each judge one at a time. The judges also ask about the F.I.Rs and the prosecution is a bit wobbly now. The prosecution is stable on the enquiries about the witness being a ‘natural witness’. The judges have now proceeded to grill the counsel on the facts of one of the cases which they have mentioned. The counsel submits her closing statement and proceeds to join the counsels for the prosecution.

1:05 PM- The counsel for the defence after a break for the preparation of closing statement has arrived to the dais all bright and breezy. She has noted the points submitted by the opponent team and has prepared weighty counter-arguments. The judge is clearly the most vigorous person in the room, he is indefatigable. After a few minutes of accelerated submissions by the counsel, the judge puts a halt to it and begins cross questioning. When she scurries through her memorandum, the judge clarifies that he doesn’t wish to hear a reading from the memorial. Questions regarding factual ambiguity are clarified and provisions are discussed yet again. The judge is posing some statements to which both the teams are concurring and nodding heads.

1:30 PM- Alright people, that’s it for the quarter finals. After being grilled by the judges for hours and even being questioned in their closing statements the student advocates are burnt to a crisp. They survived rounds of hellfire and volleys of missiles and put up a brilliant show of sheer determination and willpower. Now they wait in the agony of suspense for the much awaited results.

 

COURT  ROOM 04- NTAC 11 v. NTAC 10

Bench- Mr. Sourav Kumar Gautam and Mr. Sourav Kumar

9:14 AM- The courtroom is set. The teams are seated. The judges with an eye for absolute detail, carefully review the arguments put forth by the teams.

9:18 AM- The Prosecution begins with its opening statement. A crisp narration of facts followed by an assurance to forward the deceased’s misfortune, the prosecution strives to seek justice for the deceased.

9:27 AM- The testimony of the deceased’s father was an eloquent exhibition of emotions. The PW1, brings authenticity to the trial, his demeanor genuinely indicative of the loss of a father.

9:35 AM- The PW3 expresses strict reservations against the accused, her disapproval is clearly evident in her testimony.

9:42 AM- With a lot to document, the stenographer is in a haste. She is trying her best not to miss any significant statement made in the courtroom while the investigating officer is enlisting the things found at the crime scene.

10:01 AM- The defense is tactfully cross-examining the PW1. He was smoothly delivering his arguments until the prosecution’s voice resonates in the courtroom, “Objection!”.

10:07 AM- The PW 1 is a perfect fit for the shoes of the deceased’s father. His state of misfortune is unquestionable. The witness’s testimony is a true appeal to emotions.

10:15 AM- The deceased’s mother. PW2, refrained from using emotive language. In spite of her loss, she is taking all possible efforts to seek justice for her children.

10:27 AM- The Defense is weighing the plausibility of the testimonies. When the expertise of the ballistic expert-PW 9, is contested, she resolves all the queries of the defense counsel. Her patience is noteworthy.

10:35 AM- The Defense calls upon its first witness, the accused. He narrates the magical relationship, he and the deceased shared. The honest disposition of DW 1 somehow bars us from even raising a finger at him.

10:48 AM- Listening intently to the chief examination of the defence witnesses, the prosecution is brainstorming to come up with strong points for the cross examination.

10:56 AM- Relevance of the arguments put forward by the defence is under careful scrutiny of the judges. The Judges are engaged in a serious discussion, leading us to speculate their opinion of the case.

The judges vigilantly scrutinise the loopholes.

 

11:29 AM- The defence alleges that the prosecution is badgering the witness. This results in a mild verbal scuffle between the counsels, which is resolved by an indirect intervention of the judges.

11:34 AM- The judges share a light moment between themselves, they whisper something and a smile comes over their face.

11:43 AM- The air between the Prosecution and the defendants heats up, owing to yet another objection raised by the defence. The counsel for the defence rests and the teams prepare for the closing statements.

11:52 AM- The judges are taking a final review of the memorials submitted by the teams, while the teams are refining the scribbling on their notepads to collect the essence of the trial.

12:07 PM- The teams are allotted a few minutes to frame their closing statements on the basis of the assertions made during the trial. The teams are running cursory eyes over the transcripts provided to them in a final attempt to extract all that is within.

12:20 PM- The prosecution proceeds with the closing statement. The Counsel’s intonations are intense as if he was making the ultimate dive in the quest of justice for the deceased.

12:32 PM- The counsel for the defence, while delivering its closing statement, has utmost faith in his assertions. He concludes by quoting the much admired Benjamin Franklin, “That it is better that a hundred guilty persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer.”

12:44 PM- The trial comes to an end with the Judges complimenting the dedication of the teams and witnesses, making a special mention of the PW 1, the deceased’s father.

 

With this we come to the end of the Quarter Finals. The results will be uploaded shortly. It's time everyone grabs lunch and brace up for semi finals.

 

We are back with the results. The teams that have qualified for the semi finals are:

• NTAC 05
• NTAC 11
• NTAC 13
• NTAC 08

Anxiousness is in the air as the teams wait biting their nails for the round to begin. The witnesses have been briefed, courtroom set, teams decked.

Let the show begin!

COURT ROOM 1- NTAC-13 V NTAC-08

The bench consists of esteemed personalities from the legal fratarnity. We have with us Mr. Trideep Pais, a graduate of 3rd batch from National Law School of India University, Banglore and is an advocate in Delhi High Court and Supreme Court. He was the lawyer for Delhi Chief Minister, Mr. Arvind Kejriwal, in Nitin Gadkari's Defamation case.

Mr. Rishabh Sancheti who is a graduate from National Law University, Jodhpur and finished his post graduation from University of Hamburg and is a practising advocate in Supreme Court of India along with being a law trainee under Jusrice N. Santosh Hegde.

Mr. Pandey Neeraj, advocate in High Court of Ranchi.

2:55 PM- A bit of chit chat, nervousness, excitement and a valour to win, this is what which constitutes the environment here in the court hall while the briefing session right now. It seems that the team which holds its nerves till the end will win this thing. May the deserving team clears its way to the finals.

3:08 PM- With the arrival of the judges the courtroom becomes silent and the level of excitement and nervousness is just incomparable. Judges are shuffling through the documents and with their permission here start the semi-finals of the NUSRL 3rd National Trial Advocacy Competition 2018.

3:14 PM- The prosecution takes hold of the dais and went ahead with the opening statement. With a correct balance of confidence and clarity in her voice she narrates the facts of the case, which narrated the pain of a father who lost both of his children. The Judges clear some of the queries which they had and also posed some questions to check the much required knowledge of law of the speaker 1 of the prosecution.

3:21 PM- The question and answer series of the judges with the prosecution is followed by the defense narrating the facts and trying to convey that how his client is not guilty of the charges which has been posed on him. Her gestures clearly show her confidence and how she is determined to prove her client’s innocence. It seems that the judges’ wants to be very sure about how much the Participants are clear with the facts as well as the law.

3:27 PM- The statement of the father of the deceased very clearly portrayed the grief of a person who lost both of his children. “My whole world shattered in front of my eyes, and I was unable to do anything” this was what the sorrowful father kept on saying. This stirred the emotional sentiments of everyone present in the courtroom.

The judges listening intently before delivering justice.

 

3:35 PM- With the judges taking hold of the witness, the grilling starts! Not one or two but a series of questions one by one are being hurled at the witness which at times is becoming difficult for him to tackle. He is getting confused with his very own recorded statement.

3:40 PM- The Quarter Final round is over and now we are half-way through the semi finals but the participants as well as every other person present in the courtroom is as enthusiastic  as ever as to what will happen next . The judges with their witty remarks and the comebacks of the witnesses keep the show going.

3:46 PM- The prosecution goes on with examination of its witnesses, a struggle to prove their side stronger in order to win the case is persistent. The judges seem very vigilant regarding the correct use of law and took note of each and every happening in the court.

4:15 PM- The tension in the courtroom grows as the cross examination of the father of the deceased starts with her statements. The intensity grows to another level as the ‘supposed’ examination turns into a tussle between the witness and the advocate.

4:50 PM- Saving the precious time of the court, the defence is completing the cross examination is trying to hurry through the examination.

5:00 PM- Chief examination of the defence begins. The advocate from the side of the defense is shooting tactical questions on the witness to make out important points from his testament. She is calm and composed with firm determination to prove her client innocent.

A lot of drama is happening in the courtroom.

5:16 PM- The examination of Farhan- the deceased’s boyfriend filled people with a tornado of emotions as his pain for the love of her life being not in this world anymore can be seen clearly. A twist comes as the judges points out about one of the formality which the defense missed to perform. This results in a tension among the members of the defense counsel. But they handled it well.

5:23 PM- The chief examination is on and the prosecution is engaged in brainstorming to gather some strong points for the cross examination session. The pages are being shuffled and the glances are being exchanged as the examination continues.

5:30 PM- The judges are very particular and are paying attention to each and every word of the witnesses as well as the advocate. They do not want to miss any point which can help in imparting justice to the innocent.

5:36 PM- The chief examination of last witness- the doctor is full of medical and clinical terms which most of the people present in the courtroom are not very familiar. With this the chief examination of the defense ends.

5:36 PM- The chief examination of last witness- the doctor, is full of medical and clinical terms which most of the people present in the courtroom are not very familiar. With this the chief examination of the defense ends.

5:50 PM- The matter becomes a bit tense as the defense raises two objections one after the other. The speaker from the side of the prosecution is trying her level best to prove that what she asked was relevant. On the other hand the questions of the judges to the witness are confusing him. The judges want everything to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

5:59 PM- The witness faces a warning from the judges as he becomes aggressive during the process of examination. Court etiquettes are a must, which should be maintained and The courts of justice have been given the stature of not less than temples- pure and unbiased.

Law school does teaches you this!

6:14 PM- The prosecution with the help of elaborate action and the images of the crime scene is trying to prove its point and make each and every thing clear. It’s just like a train of questions and answers one after the other. But none of them is giving upon the other.

6:24 PM- With a lot of tensed situation and a continuous throwing of accusations the cross examination of the prosecution ends. The teams can be seen struggling through books and preparing for their arguments

6:55 PM- The prosecution approaches the dais to present the closing statement. It being the final stage of the proceeding and as well as the semi- finals holds a lot of importance and it clearly reflects from the voice of the prosecutor. She seems a bit nervous but it is nowhere affecting her confidence. She is putting each and every intricacy and the argument gathered till point to prove her case correct.

7:35 PM- After so much of discussions and debate the closing statement ends. The judges are providing a food of knowledge to the teams. And with this ends the semi-finals of the competition.

A very healthy completion has been presented. Kudos to the teams!!

COURT ROOM 2- NTAC 05 v. NTAC 11

The bench comprises of Mr. Shri Singh, is a graduate of National Law School of India University, Bangalore and is currently practising as an advocate in Supreme Court of India. Mr. Sajjan Dubey is a retired District Judge. The above two Judges are accompanied on the bench by Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel who is a graduate of Symbiosis Law School, Pune and has been practising in Jharkhand for over 15 years.

2:53 PM - We can smell the fervor in the courtroom. Both the teams are employing their finest tricks explicating the witnesses’ about the forthcoming proceedings and their related roles.

3: 05 PM -Our most esteemed judges Mr. Shri Singh, Mr. Sajjan Dubey, Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel have taken their seats. We’re all good to go, to witness this astonishing encounter.

The esteemed bench.

 

3: 13 PM- The prosecution seeks permission to approach the lectern and starts briefing the facts to the honorable bench.

3: 17 PM- Prosecution’s counsel was about to finish his opening statement but was barraged by bench’s questions and was asked to elucidate all the facts and charges imposed on the accused.

 

3:24 PM- PW1 is extremely emotional while elucidating the past incidents, even the judges’ asked him to calm down and first have some water before speaking.

3:34 PM – During the examination-in-chief of PW2 the judges objected to the questions that were asked by the counsel and enquired into the relevancy of the same.

3:39 PM- As the trial proceeds judges share a little inside joke. Totally the bench seems to be in high spirits while enjoying the dramatic testimonies of the witnesses.

3:53 PM – The bench objects to the leading questions put forward by the counsel for the prosecution. With a general note of caution regarding the time management, the judges allow the counsel for the defense to proceed with the cross- examination of  PW1.

4:14 PM – PW3 is flabbergasted in sheer exasperation when the counsel asks’ her about the credibility of her relationship with the deceased. She replies emotionally, how important her best friend was to her.

4:20 PM – While cross examining PW5, judges instruct the witness to be a bit lauder so that he is audible to everyone (as the court room is full of spectators). The prosecution raised an objection about the statement of the witness and the bench replied that they have already taken note of the said point.

4:30 PM- The prosecution raises an objection regarding the statement of the witness and the bench takes a note of the same. The objection is followed by a trivial verbal tussle between the opposite counsels, which is ultimately resolved by the judges, as they allow the objections raised by the prosecution.  

4:59 PM – The counsel on behalf of prosecution seeks permission to approach the dais for cross examination. The prosecution points out the contradiction in witness’s statement and both the teams indulge in a verbal encounter regarding the objection. At the end of the examination of DW1, the counsel states that his statement was very flimsy. The judges exchange a grin on this.

5:11 PM – The counsel while examining DW2 seems very confident about the questions put forward, as the witness struggles to answer the prosecution team  smirk on the point well made.

5:52 PM – The counsel on the behalf of Defense approaches the podium for his submissions and firmly establishes his case. The lordships ask the counsel to unveil points on the basis of eyewitnesses’. The counsel is now splattered by the imperative questions of the honorable bench. The counsel tries his best to answer all the queries.

6:02 PM – The counsel for the defense concludes his statements. With this the session comes to an end.

We are now waiting for the results to be announced. 

 

DECLARATION OF RESULTS

The results are out for the semi-finals. The teams making their way through the cutting edge competition are:

• Government Law College, Mumbai
• Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad 

Thus another long day at NUSRL, Ranchi comes to an end. Everyone heads back early because tomorrow is the D-DAY- the Grand Finale!

DAY 4- THE JUDGMENT DAY!
Good Morning Readers.

After three days of intense competition, the qualifying teams are all geared up for the finals. Both the teams don't want to leave any stone unturned, as it's THE JUDGEMENT DAY. We here at Judicial Academy, Ranchi bring you the live courtroom drama and proceedings so LET THE TRIAL BEGIN.

FINALS- Government Law School, Mumbai ( NTAC 08) v. Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad (NTAC11).

9:56 AM- The Courtroom is set. The witnesses are being intensively briefed. The participants have a big win at stake, there must not be an iota of ambiguity left while preparing the witnesses for the trial.

Teams surely understand, "Witnesses are the key to success".

10:12 AM- All the participants of the competition are seated in the courtroom, to absorb the arguments of their peers so that they can ameliorate their arguments and hone their future trials skills.     

10:25 AM-  The trainee judges of the Judicial Academy also mark their presence in the courtroom. They appear to be laced with enthusiasm, perhaps in an endeavour to “smarten their skills of adjudication.”

 

For them also it can be a life time experience.

 

10:28 AM- The judges are on their way. The Prosecution and the Defence for today’s trial are seated, with their anxious demeanour betraying their confident expressions.

For the Final's, the bench is presided by Hon'ble Justice Mr. A.B Singh who is a sitting Judge of Jharkhand High Court. The fellow brother/sister judges accompanying him, include-

Ms. Rebecca M. John is a renowned name in the criminal law fraternity; associated with leading cases like 2G and Aarushi Talwar Murder case. Currently, she is practicing as a senior advocate at the Supreme Court of India. 

Ms. Geeta Luthra, is a senior advocate of the Supreme Court of India. It was under her guidance that the moot proposition of the 3rd NUSRL National Trial Advocacy Competition 2018.

Mr. Munawwar Naseem, is a practising advocate at Supreme Court of India and also a partner at Dua Associates.

Mr. Gautam Chaudhary, is a former District Judge and is currently the Vice-Chancellor (In-charge) of the National University of Study and Research in Law, Ranchi

All Rise! Silence in the courtroom, the court is in session.

Shhhh...! The Court is in session.

The Counsel for the Prosecution proceeds to deliver his opening statement.

10:47 AM- The Judges are attentive to the arguments being put forward. As the PW1 approaches the witness box, the judges ask a series of question to him, in order to establish the credibility of the witness, the courtroom is enveloped in silence for a brief moment as the stenographer is guided by the judges to update the record.

10:59 AM- The Judges, earnest in their approach to deliver justice, direct the prosecution to confine their arguments to their case and not counter the probable accusations that might be relied upon or put forward by the defence during the course of their argument..

The counsel for the prosecution trying to make a point. (Well the judges are all ears!)

11:12 AM- The defence is refining the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, making ardent efforts to seize any opportunity to counter an assertion made by the prosecution witness.

11:23 AM- The testimonies are being carefully recorded by the stenographer, who is swift in his job. The Judges exhort the Defence to show some spirit and raise objections whenever necessary. Obedient in their approach defence takes a note of the advise coming from the bench and raises two back to back objections.

11:31 AM- The Judges take up an “activist role” and examine the submissions of the PW 6, sifting the intricacies of the medical report made under the guidance of the medical examiner.

11:43 AM-  The medical examiner  was set to leave the witness box when the Judges insist upon a detailed review of the autopsy report. The doctor analytically elaborates the complexities associated with the medical reports.

11:50 AM- The Counsel for the Prosecution comes to the witness’s rescue by drawing the attention of the Judges to the exhibits submitted to the Court. The defense’s objection is put aside on account of being a question pertinent to be of relevance during the cross-examination.

11:58 AM-  PW 7, the Ballistic expert is in the witness box. The judges are clarifying the highlights of the ballistic report. The witness is well informed and smooth in delivery while answering queries relating to his area of expertise. The judges are intently listening to the witness’s review of the fingerprints on the “desi katta”, when the courtroom echoes with “Objection!”

"Objection!"-The defense on alert mode.

12:05 PM- The Judges allow the objection raised by the defence and yet again reproach the prosecution to confine the witness’s testimony to the reports made under his own supervision. The counsel seeks permission to discharge the witness, but a question is forwarded to PW 7 relating to the meaning of “Intermediate Range”. (Whoo! This can be a deciding point.)

12:11 PM- PW 8, the Investigating Officer, takes the stand. He narrates the events of the fateful day, enlisting the things he prima facie saw in the crime scene. He is also asked to recount and identify the people present in house no. 30, Ram Niwas, Kranchi. The Judges hint an ambiguity in his statement, which the prosecution attempts to corroborate by forwarding the statement of PW 8.

12:18 PM- The witness is labeled to be forgetful, to which he takes the plea of his busy schedule where he has a number of investigations lined up on a single day. The whereabouts of the “black duffle bag” is raised. The contents of the bag are accounted for. With this, the examination-in-chief of the prosecution witnesses comes to an end and the prosecution briefs the judges with the summary of the same.  

12:24 PM- The cross examinations of the prosecution witnesses by the uptight defence counsel begins. The Counsel for the defence cross examines the deceased’s father, PW 1. The witness is being questioned on the “assumptions” he made about the character of the accused. The witness’s commitment towards his social standing is emphasized upon.

12:32 PM- The defence counsel is provided with a transcript of the chief examination. The Judges advise the counsel to elucidate his case first and give secondary importance to disproving the prosecution’s case. In spite of repeated suggestions to not prove the prosecution’s case, the defence counsel pays no heed, and is finally given  few minutes to organize his contentions.

The Court is adjourned for 10 minutes so that the defence can go through the statements of the prosecution witnesses during the examination-in-chief.

12:48 PM- The proceedings begin with a renewed zeal. The judges are seated. And the defence Counsel, now equipped with sharper arguments takes the dais to extract the truth from the prosecution witnesses through his tactful cross examination.  

12:59 PM- The Counsel for the defence is complimented for his question to the Chauhan’s house help, PW 5. This gives the counsel a push and the changed intonation of his voice is reflective of his awakened enthusiasm. He launches a series of confrontations against the medical examiner, PW 6.

1:09 PM- The medical examiner reiterates the fact that the hemorrhage, caused due to the lacerated wound was the primary cause of the death. However, the witness appears to be slightly annoyed on being asked the same set of questions multiple times, but being a dutiful citizen, he keeps his patience and resolves all the queries raised.  

The prosecution doctor trying hard to explain the cause of death.

1:15 PM- The judges register inadequacy in PW 8, the investigating officer’s testimony. When they underline the same, the witness seeks an apology, post which, the judges share a light moment. On being discharged, the witness leaves the stand, upholding the charm of his office with a “Jai Hind!”

1:20 PM- PW 7, The Ballistic expert offers a plausible explanation for his inference that the bullet was fired from the “desi katta.” Raising no further contentions against the witnesses, the defence ends the cross examination and now, it is the defence’s turn to prove their case.

1:24 PM- The judges seek a cut down on the number of defence witnesses to be examined in the trial and defense is directed to call upon only those witnesses that are relevant for the case. The defence abides by the request and gives up the examination of DW 3, the accused’s mother. However, the Prosecution raises an objection and solicits a prior written application regarding the examination of defence witnesses.

The Defence Counsel thinks on his feet and offers an oral request to forego the examination of DW 3.  

1:32 PM- The prime accused, DW 1, Farhan Qureshi, is a bold man with a heavy voice. His demeanour, is not reflective of his sorry state. The Judges suggest him to let the court be aware of the pain in his heart on losing his love and being accused of the murder of the significant half of his life. The witness in an attempt to fit in the shoes of a dejected lover, undergoes a change of heart on the stand and brings a change in his attitude.

1:38 PM- But, the sincerity could not last for long, and contrary to the expected desolation on his face, a smile adorns the accused’s face. The Courtroom bursts into a fit of laughter. This is followed by a series of humorous comments from the Hon’ble Justice A.B Singh. The defence Counsel, also, is not left out while the judges engage in a string of witty remarks. The atmosphere in the courtroom is lightened.

1:46 PM- Hon’ble Justice A.B. Singh engages in a conversation in Gujarati, with the owner of Royal Café, Jignesh Bhai Patel. This left a few in the courtroom astounded. Jignesh Bhai, expresses his misfortune over the loss of customers in his café.

The Cross examination of the defence witnesses begin.  

1:54 PM- “It is the art of not asking through which you can earn accolades in advocacy.” With these words, Ms. Rebecca M John, provided a significant piece of advice to the advocates in making.

2:15 PM-The medical report submitted by the DW 4, is challenged on grounds of being derived from a secondary source. The line of examination conducted by the Counsel for the prosecution earns her a compliment from Ms. Rebecca M John.

With this, the examination-in-chief and cross-examination of the prosecution and defence witnesses come to an end and teams are given time to prepare their closing statements.

2:34 PM- The Prosecution, in its closing statement, substantiates the assertions forwarded, by citing few landmark judgments. Coherence between the facts and the charges levied on the accused was established. The Prosecution, after an artful display of tact, rests the case.  

2:42 PM- While delivering its closing statement, the Defence suggests the existence of a proximate relationship between PW 4, the medical examiner, and PW 1, the deceased’s father. The bench declines to accept the submission unless the same had been contended by the Defence while examining the witnesses.

2:49 PM- Dismissing the contentions raised by the Prosecution on account of being tainted and based on assumptions, the defence counsel reasserts the absence of actus reus and mens rea in the case under consideration.

2:53 PM- Seeking an absolute acquittal for the clients, the Defence rests the trial with their prayer.

 

 RESULTS- HARD WORK FINALLY PAYS OFF

Winners- Government Law College, Mumbai

Runner-up- Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad.

Best Memorial-  Institute Of Law Nirma University, Ahmedabad

Best Speaker-  Mohit S. Kumar, Institute Of Law Nirma University, Ahmedabad.

Best Researcher- Arun Kumar School of Excellence in Law (SOEL), Chennai.

With this the 3rd NUSRL National Trial Advocacy Competition, 2018 officially concludes. We thank the esteemed legal luminaries for taking time off from their busy schedule in order to judge the competition, participating teams for making the competition a success, the versatile witnesses, and the students for their valuable contribution. 

 

Bloggers for the Finals. 

Picture Credits- Somesh Choudhary & Lokesh Mewara.

Special thanks to the blogging team comprising of Niharika Salar, Rishabh Mishra, Shambhavi Shrivastava, Indraneil Chakravorty, Lavanya Pathak, Anumeha Smriti, Rajiv Rajan, Supriya Pandey, Vanshika Sarwan, Meenakshi Sinha, and Mervin for the live updates of the competition.

This is not the end but the beginning. We will be back next year with yet another exciting and thrilling edition of NTAC. Till then NUSRL bloggers team signing off.

Happy Reading!

PS- For the pictures of the competition and other future updates kindly follow the NUSRL MCC Facebook Page.