TEAM CODE- P4

DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, LUCKNOW

MOOT COURT COMPETITION

Before,

THE COURT OF SESSIONS AT LUCKNOW, UTTAR PRADESH

S.C. NO. xxx OF 2019

THE STATE …PROSECUTION

ABHINANDAN …ACCUSED

FOR OFFENCES CHARGED UNDER:

SECTION 302 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE SESSIONS JUDGE

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES.........................................................................................................3

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS..........................................................................................................6

STATEMENT OF FACTS.............................................................................................................8

ISSUE RAISED.............................................................................................................................10

THAT ON EXAMINING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE ACT
DONE BY THE ACCUSED FALLS UNDER THE DEFINITION OF MURDER.................10

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED......................................................................................................12

I. THAT ON EXAMINING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE

ACT DONE BY THE ACCUSED FALLS UNDER THE DEFINITION OF MURDER........12

I. 1.1 ACTUS REUS OF MURDER IS PROVEN................................................................13

II. 1.2 MENS REA OF MURDER IS ESTABLISHED..........................................................13

III. 1.3 THE ACCUSED CANNOT AVAIL RIGHT OF PRIVATE DEFENCE...................15

PRAYER........................................................................................................................................17

2|Page
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Bakshish Singh v State of Punjab, AIR 1971 SC 2016.................................................................14

Bhanwar Singh v State of MP, (2008) 16 SCC 657.......................................................................16
Gopal Naidu v. Emperor AIR 1923 Mad 523................................................................................17
Hari Singh v State of Rajasthan, AIR 1997 SC 1505....................................................................16
Laxman v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1974 SC 1803....................................................................15
Md. Idrish v. State, 2004 Cr LJ 1724 (Raj); Md. Sharif And Anr. v. Rex, AIR 1950 All 380; Badri
v. State of U.P., AIR 19953 All 189; Dibia v. State of U.P., AIR 1953 All 373, State of
Maharashtra v. Bhairu Sattu Berad, AIR 1956 Bom 609...........................................................15
Mulakh Raj v. Satish Kumar, AIR 1992 SC 1175.........................................................................16
Santosh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1975 Cri LJ 602 (SC).........................................................15
Shajahan v State of Kerala, (2007) 12 SCC 96.............................................................................17
Son Lal v State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 1142, Chhotka v State of WB, AIR 1958 Cal 482.
...................................................................................................................................................16
State of Haryana v Mewa Singh, AIR 1997 SC 1407....................................................................17
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Digvijay Singh, 1981 Cri. LJ 1278 (SC)..........................................16
State of Maharashtra v Meyer Hans George, AIR 1965 SC 722...................................................14
State of Punjab v Sucha Singh, AIR 2003 SC 1471......................................................................16
State of UP v Ashok Kumar Srivastava, AIR 1992 SC 840..........................................................14
State v Dinakar Bandu (1969) 72 Bom LR 905............................................................................16
Sukhwant Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1995 SC 1601...............................................................14
Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1958 S.C. 465....................................................................13

Statutes

Sec 102, IPC..................................................................................................................................17

Sec 103 and 105, IPC.....................................................................................................................17
Sec 300, IPC..................................................................................................................................13

Other Authorities

Aiyar, P Ramanatha, The Law Lexicon, p. 49 (2nd ed 2006)........................................................14

3|Page
Moot Proposition, ¶ 8....................................................................................................................14
Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code, 33rd Ed. (2011)..................................................16

4|Page
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Counsel for the Prosecution humbly submits before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the
Memorandum on behalf of the Prosecution for offences charged under Section 302 of The Indian
Penal Code, 1860.

This memorandum sets forth the facts, contentions and arguments for the petitioner in the
given case.

5|Page
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVIATION FULL FORM

& And

§ Section

AIR All India Reporter

Anr. Another

Art. Article

Cr.P.C. Code of Criminal Procedure

Cri LJ Criminal Law Journal

DW Defence Witness

edn. Edition

HC High Court

Hon’ble Honorable

Ltd. Limited

PW Prosecution Witness

r/w Read with

SC Supreme Court

SCC Supreme Court Cases

u/s Under section

6|Page
V Versus

IPC Indian Penal Code

7|Page
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Abhinandan aged 35 Year is a graduate from Delhi University. He did his Masters from
London School of Economics and currently serving in TCS, Lucknow a popular MNC.
His wife Komalika is 32 years old and the family is residing in Vinamra Khand,
Lucknow.
2. Abhinandan has been raised in a middle class Brahmin Family and he is very religious
man and follows all rituals of Hindu Religion. Abhinandan is Head of TCS Lucknow.
Abhinandan keeps fasts and perform all prayers and puja.
3. Abhinandan is reported to come under spirit many times and being influenced and
hallucinated he gets up like a female and claim herself as goddess Durga. He sings,
dances and sometimes becomes violent.
4. On 26th July 2018 his CEO of company reviews his performance and says that his
working and performance is not good and recommends for pay cut accordingly being
upset to this he curses him that he is goddess Durga and CEO will die soon.

5. He comes back home and says to wife that the world is behaving like Asura and CEO is
Mahishasura. Komalika tries to calm him down but it goes in vain. That morning the
parents of the Abhinandan had gone out early in the morning to walk in park and there
was nobody else in the house besides the Abhinandan and his wife. At 8:00 AM and
about an hour later, the wife spread a mat on the floor in one of the rooms in the house
and lay down quietly being sad. Suddenly Abhinandan started chanting mantras and
shouted that he will eliminate all demons. Abhinandan at first struck her with a Chopper
causing a minor injury on her chest. Then he took up a sharp-cutting hasuli and gave her
three violent blows on the neck killing her on the spot.
6. He then ran out of the house with his bloodstained clothes in order to end his own life
when he was detected on the Crossroads , at a little distance from the house, by Sunant, a
boy aged 12 years (P. W. 1), who was selling fowers in the vicinity. Seeing his blood-
stained clothes the boy ran to the Abhinandan's house and saw the dead body of his wife
lying there in a pool of blood.

8|Page
7. He then rushed to the Abhinandan's father and informed him of the occurrence Sukesh (P.
W.2), the father of the boy, who also happens to be the choukidar of the Anant Towers,
asking Mahesh (P. W. 3), who was working nearby, to chase his son and catch him ran to
his house where he found his daughter-in-law lying dead with her neck cut.
8. The blood-stained chopper and hasuli were lying by the side of the dead body. Mahesh
and Rakesh (P. W. 4 & 5 ) had in the meantime chased the Abhinandan and brought him
under arrest to his house. Soon a large number of villagers collected there and the
Abhinandan made an extra-judicial confession admitting that he had killed his wife as she
was a Rakshas. Sukesh then went to Gomatinagar Police station which was at a distance
of 2 miles from the village and lodged the first information report which was recorded by
Assistant Sub-Inspector Iqbal Singh at 11 a.m. in the absence of the senior Police
officers. The blood-stained chopper and hasuli which had been carried to the thana by
Sukesh were taken charge of by the Assistant Sub-Inspector.
9. The Assistant Sub-Inspector reached the place of occurrence at 1-30 p.m. and found the
dead body lying flat on a mat on which a chadar had been spread. He held the inquest and
did other preliminary works. He examined the appellant who had been kept tied there.
There were bloodlike stains on his Jeans, Kurta and Vest. The Assistant Sub-Inspector
took charge of these clothes and prepared a seizure list in respect thereof (exhibit 5/1). He
then sent the dead body to the Civil Assistant Surgeon of KGMU for post-mortem
examination.
10. Abhinandan was kept at the thana lock-up at night and forwarded to the Subdivisional
Officer of Lucknow next morning at 7-30 a.m. On the 27th July, 2018 he made a
confession which was recorded by a Magistrate of the first class at Lucknow. In this
confession also he admitted that he had killed his wife and that as he was going to end his
own life he was caught by the people of vicinity.
11. The defence was a plea of innocence. Abhinandan denied that he had murdered his wife.
He further alleged at the trial that his wife had probably been raped by someone and then
killed by the miscreant. Defense also said that Abhinandan was not composed mentally
and killed wife in hallucination.

9|Page
 ISSUE RAISED

1. THAT ON EXAMINING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

THE ACT DONE BY THE ACCUSED FALLS UNDER THE DEFINITION OF
MURDER.

10 | P a g e
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

I. THAT ON EXAMINING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE

CASE THE ACT DONE BY THE ACCUSED FALLS UNDER THE
DEFINITION OF MURDER.
It is humbly contended by the counsel that the accused is guilty of murder. The accused cannot
take any defence as the nature of the act was so violent that the victim would have succumbed to
death. Means rea could be easily proven by the circumstances under which the accused had
acted. The accused at first started chanting mantras and shouted that he will eliminate all
demons.
Abhinandan then first struck her with a Chopper causing a minor injury on her chest. Then he
took up a sharp-cutting hasuli and gave her three violent blows on the neck killing her on the
spot. He ascertained that her wife is killed and then at the spur of moment he ran away from the
scene.
It is presumed that every sane person intends the result that his action normally produces and if a
person hits another on a vulnerable part of the body, and death occurs as a result, the intention of
the accused can be no other than to take the life of the victim.
Causing a serious injury on a vital part of the body of the deceased with a dangerous weapon
must necessarily lead to the inference that the accused intended to cause death or bodily injury
sufficient to cause death of the victim, and it answers to section 300 and is murder. Given that the
accused first struck her with a Chopper causing a minor injury on her chest. Then he took up a
sharp-cutting hasuli and gave her three violent blows on the neck, a vital part of the body, it is
logical to conclude that he intended to cause the death of the victim.
Therefore, absence of proof of motive, does not break the link in the chain of circumstances
connecting the accused with the crime, nor militates against the prosecution case and is not fatal
as a matter of law.1 When the circumstantial evidence on record is sufficient to prove beyond any
doubt to prove that it was the accused and no one else, who intentionally caused the death of the
accused then, motive of the crime need not be proved,2 as in the current case.

1 Mulakh Raj v. Satish Kumar, AIR 1992 SC 1175.

2 State of Madhya Pradesh v. Digvijay Singh, 1981 Cri. LJ 1278 (SC).

11 | P a g e
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

I. THAT ON EXAMINING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE

ACT DONE BY THE ACCUSED FALLS UNDER THE DEFINITION OF MURDER.
It is humbly contended that the accused is guilty for committing the offence of murder under Sec
302, IPC. Sec 302 prescribes the punishment for committing murder. In order to bring a
successful conviction under this charge, however, it is pertinent to refer to Sec 300, IPC which
elucidates the essentials of murder.

In Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab3 Vivian Bose, J. speaking for this Court, explained the meaning
and scope of clause (3), thus (at p. 1500):

“The prosecution must prove the following facts before it can bring a case under Section 300,
‘thirdly’. First, it must establish quite objectively, that a bodily injury is present; secondly the
nature of the injury must be proved. These are purely objective investigations. It must be proved
that there was an intention to inflict that particular injury, that is to say, that it was not accidental
or unintentional or that some other kind of injury was intended. Once these three elements are
proved to be present, the enquiry proceeds further, and fourthly it must be proved that the injury
of the type just described made up of the three elements set out above was sufficient to cause
death in the ordinary course of nature. This part of the enquiry is purely objective and inferential
and has nothing to do with the intention of the offender.”

A person is guilty of murder if he intentionally causes the death of a person or causes such
bodily injury as he knows, is likely to cause death of that person or causes such bodily injury,
which in the ordinary course of nature results into death or commits an act so dangerous that it
must, in all probability cause death of that person4. The Prosecution humbly contends that both,
the actus reus [1.1] and the mens rea [1.2] of the crime are established in the instant matter,
negating any claims of private defense [1.3].

3 Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1958 S.C. 465.

4 Sec 300, IPC

12 | P a g e
1.1 ACTUS REUS OF MURDER IS PROVEN
Actus reus is any wrongful act5. Thus, in a case of murder, actus reus would be the physical
conduct of the accused that causes death of the victim. In the instant case, the actus reus is
established by way of witness statement and an extra-judicial confession made by the accused
himself.6

A. Witness Statements

Bearing in mind that it is not for the prosecution to meet any and every hypothesis suggested by
the accused, howsoever extravagant and fanciful it might be,7 it is humbly submitted before this
Hon’ble Court that the circumstantial evidence in the instant matter shows that within all human
probability, the act must have been done by the accused. 8

On 26th July 2018, at 8:00 AM and about an hour later, the wife spread a mat on the floor in one
of the rooms in the house and lay down quietly being sad. Suddenly Abhinandan started chanting
mantras and shouted that he will eliminate all demons. Abhinandan at first struck her with a
Chopper causing a minor injury on her chest. Then he took up a sharp-cutting hasuli and gave
her three violent blows on the neck killing her on the spot.9

When the direct evidence is well corroborated by the circumstantial evidence and conforms to
the probabilities, there is no reason why it should not be accepted.10

1.2 MENS REA OF MURDER IS ESTABLISHED

Mens rea is considered as guilty intention, which is proved or inferred from the acts of the
accused11. It is submitted that the intention to kill is established in light of clear-cut motive of the
accused. Arguendo, absence of motive would not be a sufficient ground to dismiss the case.

A. The Accused had intention to kill

It is presumed that every sane person intends the result that his action normally produces and if a
person hits another on a vulnerable part of the body, and death occurs as a result, the intention of

5 Aiyar, P Ramanatha, The Law Lexicon, p. 49 (2nd ed 2006).

6 Moot Proposition, ¶ 8.
7 State of UP v Ashok Kumar Srivastava, AIR 1992 SC 840.
8 Bakshish Singh v State of Punjab, AIR 1971 SC 2016.
9 Moot Proposition, ¶5.
10 Sukhwant Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1995 SC 1601.
11 State of Maharashtra v Meyer Hans George, AIR 1965 SC 722.

13 | P a g e
the accused can be no other than to take the life of the victim and the offence committed amounts
to murder.12 Moreover, the intention to kill is not required in every case , mere knowledge that
natural and probable consequences of an act would be death will suffice for a conviction under s.
302 of IPC. 13

The intention to kill can be inferred from the murder and nature of the injuries caused to the
victim.14 Causing a serious injury on a vital part of the body of the deceased with a dangerous
weapon must necessarily lead to the inference that the accused intended to cause death or bodily
injury sufficient to cause death of the victim, and it answers to section 300 and is murder.15 Given
that the accused first struck her with a Chopper causing a minor injury on her chest. Then he took
up a sharp-cutting hasuli and gave her three violent blows on the neck, a vital part of the body, it
is logical to conclude that he intended to cause the death of the victim.

In the present case there has been significant injury that had been inflicted on a vital part of the
body, and the weapons used were not ordinary, so the accused could be said to have the intention
of causing death, and the offence would be “murder”. Because a direct causal connection
between the act of the accused and the death was established. The injuries were the direct cause
of the death of the wife. The expression “bodily injury” in clause thirdly includes also its plural,
so that the clause would cover a case where all the injuries intentionally caused by the accused
are cumulatively sufficient to cause the death in the ordinary course of nature, even if none of
those injuries individually measures up to such sufficiency. The sufficiency spoken of in this
clause, as already noticed, is the high probability of death in the ordinary course of nature, and if
such sufficiency exists and death is caused and the injury causing it is intentional, the case would
fall under clause thirdly of Section 300. All the conditions, which are a prerequisite for the
applicability of this clause, have been established and the offence committed by the accused, in
the instant case was “murder”.

B. The Accused had motive to kill

12 (1951) 3 Pepsu LR 635.

13 Santosh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1975 Cri LJ 602 (SC).
14 Laxman v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1974 SC 1803.
15 Md. Idrish v. State, 2004 Cr LJ 1724 (Raj); Md. Sharif And Anr. v. Rex, AIR 1950 All 380; Badri v. State of U.P.,
AIR 19953 All 189; Dibia v. State of U.P., AIR 1953 All 373, State of Maharashtra v. Bhairu Sattu Berad, AIR 1956
Bom 609.

14 | P a g e
Sec 8, Evidence Act stipulates that any fact is relevant which shows or constitutes motive or
preparation for any fact in issue or relevant fact. Thus, previous threats or altercations between
parties are admitted to show motive.16 It is further pertinent to note that if there is motive in
doing an act, and then the adequacy of that motive is not in all cases necessary. Heinous offences
have been committed for very slight motive.17

C. Arguendo, Absence of motive is irrelevant

Assuming for the sake of argument that the accused had no motive, it is humbly contended that
absence of motive is no ground for dismissing the case. Motive is immaterial so far as the
offence is concerned, and need not be established18 as the mere existence of motive is by itself,
not an incriminating circumstance and cannot take the place of a proof.19

Therefore, absence of proof of motive, does not break the link in the chain of circumstances
connecting the accused with the crime, nor militates against the prosecution case and is not fatal
as a matter of law.20 When the circumstantial evidence on record is sufficient to prove beyond
any doubt to prove that it was the accused and no one else, who intentionally caused the death of
the accused then, motive of the crime need not be proved,21 as in the current case.

1.3 THE ACCUSED CANNOT AVAIL RIGHT OF PRIVATE DEFENCE

In the given context, the accused claims to avail the right of private defence as per Sec 96 to 105,
IPC which may extend to causing death for the purpose of defending the body or property of
another person. However, one of the foremost principles to be kept in mind is that there must be
an imminent danger giving the signal to act in exercise of the right of private defence22 i.e. the
necessity must be a present necessity, whether real or apparent23 and thus, private defence does
not include the right to launch an offensive attack.24 Furthermore, the right of private defence is
available only till the apprehension to the body25 or property26 exists.

16 Son Lal v State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 1142, Chhotka v State of WB, AIR 1958 Cal 482.
17 State v Dinakar Bandu (1969) 72 Bom LR 905.
18 Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code, 33rd Ed. (2011).
19 State of Punjab v Sucha Singh, AIR 2003 SC 1471.
20 Mulakh Raj v. Satish Kumar, AIR 1992 SC 1175.
21 State of Madhya Pradesh v. Digvijay Singh, 1981 Cri. LJ 1278 (SC).
22 Hari Singh v State of Rajasthan, AIR 1997 SC 1505.
23 Bhanwar Singh v State of MP, (2008) 16 SCC 657.
24 Shajahan v State of Kerala, (2007) 12 SCC 96.
25 Sec 102, IPC
26 Sec 103 and 105, IPC

15 | P a g e
In the given case, instead of taking up a sharp-cutting hasuli and giving her three violent blows
on the neck, the accused could have attacked at some other part of the body, given that in
exercising the right to private defence, one of the most important caveats is that no more harm
than is necessary should be caused.27 It is thus apparent that the accused exceeded his right of
private defence and any defence of ‘necessity’ also cannot be claimed by him as an act of
necessity must be done with a bona fide intent and without any unnecessary force or violence.28

Therefore, it is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the accused is guilty for the
offence of murder, given that the requisite mens rea and actus reus is established from the facts
of the case, beyond a reasonable doubt.

27 State of Haryana v Mewa Singh, AIR 1997 SC 1407

28 Gopal Naidu v. Emperor AIR 1923 Mad 523.

16 | P a g e
 PRAYER

Wherefore in the light of the facts of the case, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities
cited, may this Hon’ble court may be pleased to adjudge and declare that:

1. The act committed by the accused amounts to murder and he shall be punished for the same
under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

And pass any other order that it may deem fit in the interest of justice, equity and good
conscience.

SD/-

Counsel for Petitioner.

17 | P a g e