Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 14

-

MO O T CO U R T -

Page |

TABLE OF CO N TENTS INDEX OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................................... LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS.................................................................................................... STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION...................................................................................... STATEMENT OF FACTS ........................................................................................................ STATEMENT OF ISSUES ....................................................................................................... ARGUMENTS ADVANCED .................................................................................................

MO O T CO U R T -

Page |

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
A. INDIAN CASES In state of U.P Vs Virendra Prasad, 2004 cri. L.j. 1373 (SC) Haricharan v. State of Rajasthan A.I.R 1998 SC 244 Nandu Rastogi v. State of Bihar 2002 Cri. L.J 4698 (SC) State of Maharashtra v Balram Bama patil, 1983 Cri. L.J 330 (SC) State of M.P V. Kashi ram and others (2009)2 Cri. L.J. 1530 (SC) Venu alias Venugopal & Ors. V. State of Karnataka 2008 Cri.L.J. 1634 Exhil V. State of Tamil Nadu 2002 Cri.L.J. 2799 (SC) Nisar khan @ Guddu & ors. V. State of Uttaranchal (25.1.2006) JT 2006 (2) SC 262 [H.K. SEMA & Dr. A.R. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.] Bilal ahmed kaloo V. State of A.P AIR 1979 SC 3483 Lella Srinivasa rao, Apellant V. State Andhra Pradesh, Respondent AIR 2004 SC 1720 B. BOOKS 1. THE INDIAN PENAL CODE BY K.D. GAUR (UNIVERSAL LAW PUBLISHING CO., 4TH EDITION, REP. 2010) 2. THE LAW OF EVIDENCE BY BATUK LAL (CENTRAL LAW AGENCY,19TH EDITION, REP. 2012) 3.
THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE,1973 BY S.N MISRA

C. DICTIONARIES 1. BLACK, HENRY CAMPBELL: BLACKS LAW DICTIONARY, 6TH EDN., CENTENNIAL ED. (1891-1991). 2. CURZON. L. B: DICTIONARY OF LAW, PITMAN PUBLISHING, 4TH EDN. NEW DELHI (1994). 3. JUSTICE DESAI, M.C.
ND

AND

AIYAR, SUBRAMANYAM: LAW LEXICON & LEGAL MAXIMS,

2 EDN., DELHI: DELHI LAW HOUSE (1980). 4. MITRA, B.C. & MOITRA, A.C., LEGAL THESARUS, UNIVERSITY BOOK, ALLAHABAD (1997). 5. PREM, DAULATRAM, JUDICIAL DICTIONARY, 1ST EDN., JAIPUR: BHARAT LAW PUBLICATION (1992).

MO O T CO U R T -

Page |

D. STATUTORY COMPILATIONS 1. INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 2. 3. 4.


THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE,1973 THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 THE ARMS ACT,1959

E. INTERNET SITES 1. http://www.findlaw.com 2. http://www.indiankanoon.com 3. http://www.indlawinfo.org/ 4. http://www.lawsofindia.org 5. http://www.manupatra.com 6. http://www.scconline.com 7. http://www.supremecourtcaselaw.com

MO O T CO U R T -

Page |

L IST OF A BBREVIATIO N S
A.I.R. All R.C.R Bom Cri.L.J. U.P. A.P. Del e.g. LR MANU PC p. Para. Pun SC SCC SCN W.L.R. ALL INDIA REPORTER ALLAHABAD
RECENT CRIMINAL REPORT

BOMBAY CRIMINAL LAW JOURNAL UTTAR PRADESH ANDHRA PRADESH DELHI


EXEMPLUM GRATIA (FOR EXAMPLE)

LAW REPORTER
MANUPATRA

PRIVY COUNCIL PAGE PARAGRAPH PUNJAB AND HARYANA SUPREME COURT SUPREME COURT CASES SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WEEKLY LAW REPORTS

MO O T CO U R T -

Page |

S TAT E M E N T O F J U R I S D I C T I O N
The Petitioner humbly submits this petition filed before this Honourable Court . This Criminal petition is filed U/s 307,302,392,34 of Indian penal code, 1860 and Sec25 of Arms act,1959 by the State Public Prosecutor for the state praying that this Honble court may punish the accused and pass any other judgement court may deem fit __________________________________________

MO O T CO U R T -

Page |

S TAT E M E N T O F FAC T S
1. Vikas and manish were friends and were residents of village modipur, which falls in District Vilaspur. They used to work together at the shop of aman arora . 2. On 8th January, 2005, Aman Arora sent both of them to the bank situated in outskirts of the village for withdrawing a sum of Rs three lacs (3,00,000/-) 3. They kept the amount of Rs 3 lakh in the dikky of the motorcycle .Manish then started the motorcycle and both of them started their journey.While on the their way back to the shop of Aman Arora, two persons riding on a white scooter came from behind .The persons driving came adjacent to the motorcycle and the pillion rider of the scooter fired at Manish which hit him on his left arm. Then a second shot was fired which hit vikas in the chest.Third shot was fired which missed both Vikas and Manish. However, both of them fell from the Motorcycle . Immediately, the two persons on the scooter stopped and got down from the scooter , the pillion rider then at gun point took out the cash from the Dikky of the motorcycle. Both the persons then fled away on their scooter, with the entire cash. Both the persons who took away the cash were wearing masks. 4. 15 min after the persons had fled on the scooter a car came and stopped. Both Manish and Vikas who were badly injured were picked up and were taken to a private hospital which was a at a distance of 5 km from the site of the incident. 5. On 11 january 2005, Manish got his statement recorder with the police and on his statement FIR u/s 307,302,392,34 of IPC read with section 25 Arms act was registered against unknown persons .On 10th January 2005 vikas died. 6. On 11th january 2005, the investigation officer went to the site and got prepare a rough site plan. 7. On 14 th june of 2005, one abhishek got recorded his statement before the investigating officer that two persons namely Sushant and Manu had made an extra judicial confession before him that they had committed an offence on 8th January 2005 and had looted Rs 3 Lakh from two persons. Abhishek in his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. told that he knew Sushant as he was a distant relative 8. On 19th December 2005, accused Sushant was arrested .As per the version of the prosecution Sushant made a disclosure statement before the investigation officer and on the basis of his disclosure statement Rs 25000 were recovered from his house which were wrapped in polythene bag allegedly the same polythene bag in which full amount of 3

MO O T CO U R T -

Page |

lacs was being used by Vikas and Manish. Later on the same polythene bag was identified by manish at trial. Sushant had hidden the same in a pit five(5) Meter deep. However, the investigating officer associated no independent witness when the alleged recovery was made 9. On 19th feb 2006, accused Manu was arrested. As per version of prosecution Manu made a disclosure statement before the investigating officer and on the basis of his disclosed statement Rs 30,000 were recovered from is house which he had hidden in a box of his bed. According to prosecution version Manu also got recovered a 12 bore country made pistol from the back side of the lake. Which was also hidden in a pit 3 meter deep. 10. On 20th November 2006 , Vaibhav was also arrested and a scooter allegedly used was recovered from him. As per the version of the prosecution the scooter which was used by manu and sushant for committing the offence was owned by Vaibhav. 11. During the trial of the case, Abhishek resiled from his earlier statement recorded u/s 161 of Cr.P.C.and deposed that Sushant was not known to him and in fact Vikas was known to him as he was related to him. He was accordingly declared hostile .During cross examination could not explain as to how he was related to vikas 12. During the cross examination of Manish he identified the accused Sushant and Manu and deposed that a test identification parade was conducted by the investigating agency on 19th april 2006

MO O T CO U R T -

Page |

S TAT E M E N T O F I S S U E S
THE APPELLANTS RESPECTFULLY PRESENTS TO HONBLE COURT , THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:

ISSUE I
WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS LIABLE FOR THE PUNISHMENT OF OFFENCE FOR MURDER U/S 302 READ WITH SEC 34 OF IPC OR NOT ?

ISSUE-II
WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS LIABLE FOR PUNISHMENT OF ATTEMPT TO MURDER U/S 307 READ WITH SEC 34 OF IPC OR NOT ? ISSUE-III WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS LIABLE FOR ROBBERY U/S 392 READ WITH SEC 34 OF IPC OR NOT ? ISSUE-IV WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS LIABLE FOR THE PUNISHMENT U/S 25 OF ARMS ACT READ WITH SEC 34 OF IPC OR NOT ? ISSUE-V WHETHER THE EXTRA-JUDICIAL CONFESSION DONE IS ADMISSIBLE OR NOT ?

~moot court~

A R G U M E N T S A D VA N C E D
1 . WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS LIABLE FOR THE PUNISHMENT OF
OFFENCE FOR MURDER U/S 302 READ WITH SEC 34 OF IPC OR NOT ?
It is contended before the Honble court that accused fired shot in the chest of vikas and the injury no. 2 caused by accused as per Post mortem report of Vikas clearly states that death of deceased [which was due to haemorroage and shock due to injury ,On dissection the skin, sub/c muscles, underlying rib, diapharam liver, intestines were injured ] was caused by injury no.2 i.e. fire in the chest . Accused had knowledge that the injury inflicted by them was sufficient to cause death in ordinary cause of nature. Since all accused committed Murder with aid of arm and common intention to commit the crime liable to be punished u/s 302 and 34 of I.P.C According to section 300(3), Act done with intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is insufficient in ordinary cause of nature to cause of death. Following authorities Referred in this context:1. In state of U.P Vs Virendra Prasad, 2004 cri. L.j. 1373 (SC) it was held by supreme court that under clause (3) of section 300 IPC two thing must be proved (a) That the act which causes death is done with intention of causing death or is done with the intention of causing bodily injury (b) That the injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in ordinary cause of nature to cause death. 2. Haricharan v. State of Rajasthan A.I.R 1998 SC 244 it was held that where persons come arm together, do the act of committing murder, and runaway together ,the murder can be said to have been committed in furtherance of common object and such person are liable U/S 302 , read with section 149 , Indian Penal Code 3. Nandu Rastogi v. state of Bihar 2002 Cri. L.J 4698 (SC) It was held that to attract section 34 ,Indian Penal Code it is not necessary that each one of the accused must assault the deceased. It is enough if it is shown that they shared a common intention to commit the offence and in furtherance thereof each played hiss assigned role by role

~moot court~ doing separate acts , similar or diverse .The facts of this case are eloquent and the role played by appellant accused of preventing the prosecution witnesses from going to rescue of the deceased was the role played by him with the view to achieve ultimate object of killing the diseases

Thus it is requested to punish the accused u/s 302 read with section 34 of IPC in the larger interest of fair justice.

2 . WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS LIABLE FOR PUNISHMENT OF ATTEMPT TO MURDER U/S 307 READ WITH SEC 34 OF IPC OR NOT ?
It is contended before Honble court that although manish received severe injury for which he was treated at the private hospital but his MLR was not prepared. However, the fair remain that the accused has fired upon him with an intention to kill him. It is not necessary that a person must have received injuries for the accused to be liable u/s 307 what has to be seen is the actual intention of accused to kill manish which is fully proved as the accused had fired at him. However, He escaped unharmed therefore the accused is liable to be punished u/s 307 and 34 of IPC

Following authorities Referred in this context :-

1. State of Maharashtra v Balram Bama patil, 1983 Cri. L.J 330 (SC) It was held by supreme court that to justify a conviction under section 307 it is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted.

2. State of M.P V. Kashi ram and others (2009)2 Cri. L.J. 1530 (SC) It was held that it is sufficient to justified a conviction u/s 307 of I.P.C, If there is present and intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof. It is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted. The section makes a distinction between the act of accused and its result if any. The court has to see whether the act ,irrespective of its result, was done with intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the section. Therefore, an accused charged u/s 307 I.P.C cannot be aquitted merely because injury inflicted

~moot court~ as the victim were in the nature of simple hurt


Thus it is requested to punish the accused u/s 307 read with sec 34 of IPC in the larger interest of fair justice.

3. WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS LIABLE FOR ROBBERY U/S 392 READ WITH SEC 34 OF IPC OR NOT ?
Its is contended before Honble court that both of the persons stopped and got down from scooter, and at gun point took out the cash from dikky of Motorcycle and took away the entire cash. On arrest of accused Sushant and Manu made a disclosure statement before investigating officer and rupees 25000 were Recovered from his house which were wrapped in a polythene bag allegedly the same polythene bag in which full amount of 3 Lacs was being used by Vikas and Manish. And an arrest of accused Manu made a disclosure statement before investigating officer and on the basis of his disclosure statement rupees 30000 were recovered from his house. Since all the accused committed robbery with aid of Arm and the common intention to comiit the crime liable to be punished u/s 392 and 34 of Indian Penal Code The Following case laws referred in this context :1.Venu alias Venugopal & Ors. V. State of Karnataka 2008 Cri.L.J. 1634 S.390- Robbery-Proof-Apellants allegedly intercepted victim and robbed gold and cash by threatening with knife .evidence of victim , her husband, factum of recovery of vehicle used clearly established commission of offence by appellant . offence was committed on the public road, it was not the highway, the offence was committed at night-Conviction of appellants is proper 2. Exhil V. State of Tamil Nadu 2002 Cri.L.J. 2799 (SC) It was held that keeping in the views the proximity of time within which act of murder was supposed to have been committed and body found and the article recovered from possession of accused presumption can be drawn not only of fact that they were in possession of stolen articles after committing robbery but also committing a murder of deceased. Therefore ,the conviction of accused perons u/s 302 and 392 read with section 34 of IPC was proper

Thus it is requested to punish the accused u/s 392 read with sec 34 of IPC in the larger interest of fair justice.

~moot court~

4. WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS LIABLE FOR THE PUNISHMENT U/S 25 OF ARMS ACT READ WITH SEC 34 OF IPC OR NOT ?
It is contended before Honble court that on arrest of accused Manu he Made a disclosure statement before the investigating officer and on the basis of his statement got recovered a 12 bore country made pistol from back side of the lake and during cross examination of investigating officer deposed that the pistol was recovered on basis of disclosure statement of Manu and Arm is used in crime Since all accused committed crime u/s 25 of arms act to be liable for punishment and section 34 of IPC

1. Nisar khan @ Guddu & ors. V. State of Uttaranchal (25.1.2006) JT 2006 (2) SC 262 [H.K. SEMA & Dr. A.R. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.] Section 149 and 302 IPC , section 25 of Arms act,1959 , section 27 of evidence act,1872 Murder case-conviction based on recovery of arms-death sentence imposed by trial courtaccused appellants impeaching the recovery of arms as these were recovered from public placehigh court disbelieving the recovery-while confirming the conviction high court converting the sentence of life imprisonment whether disclosure statement u/s 27 of evidence act admissible in evidence missing the appeal held that high court erred in holding the recovery as not being proved as the arm were recovered from place frequently by the public. It is the well settled principle of law that recovery pursuant to the disclosure statement made by accused is admissible in evidence 2. Bilal ahmed kaloo V. State of A.P AIR 1979 SC 3483 Section 25 of Arms act-illegal possession of arms-proof-revolver and cartridges alleged to be seized from the possession of accused particularly of weapon in seizure memo tallied with the weapon on examination by ballistic expert-no challenges to seizure memo prepared at the time of recovery of weapon-said revolver and cartridges found to be in working condition-conviction of accused u/s 25 of arms act is proper.
Thus it is requested to punish the accused u/s 25 in Arms act in the larger interest of fair justice.

~moot court~

5. WHETHER THE EXTRA-JUDICIAL CONFESSION DONE IS ADMISSIBLE OR NOT ?

Its is contended before the Honble court that sushant and manu made an extra-judicial confession before abhishek and of disclosure statement of abhishek following Sushant and Manu was arrested, On the disclosure statement of accused sushant , Rs 25000 were recovered from accused in same polythene bag which was used by vikas and manish, and from the disclosure statement of Manu Rs 30000 were recovered from his house and 12 bore country made pistol from the back side of lake which was hidden in a pit 3 meter deep and scooter was recovered from vaibhav which is used in crime. So it is sufficient to show that on extra-judicial confession made to abhishek , all the allegations regarding accused shall be admissible and the following supreme court decisions comes in support of this :

1. Lella Srinivasa rao, Apellant V. State Andhra Pradesh, Respondent AIR 2004 SC 1720

Section 154 of evidence act 1872-hostile witness-evidence of-fact that the witness were declared hostile by prosecution does not result in automatic rejection of their evidence-even the evidence of hostile witness if it finds corroboration from facts of case may be taken into account while judging guilt of accused.

~moot court~

P R AY E R

HEREFORE IN THE LIGHT OF THE ISSUES RAISED, ARGUMENT ADVANCED, REASONS GIVEN AND AUTHORITIES CITED, THIS

HONBLE COURT

MAY BE PLEASED TO PUNISH THE ACCUSED AND

GIVE ANY OTHER JUDGEMENT WHICH COURT MAY DEEM FIT.

ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. COUNSELS FOR THE VIKAS AND MANISH

Похожие интересы