Problem 1 Appellant

XIX NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION-2018
XIX NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION - 2018
IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
IN THE MATTER OF
MRS. SRIPAKSHI
(APPELANT)
V.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
(RESPONDENT)
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELANT
ON SUBMISSION TO THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Page 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS…………………………………………………….. 3
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES………………………………………………………….5
BOOKS………………………………………………………………………..5
JUDICIAL DECISIONS………………………………………………………5
STATUTES……………………………………………………………………6
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION……………………………………………….....7
STATEMENT OF FACTS……………………………………………………………8
ISSUES RAISED…………………………………………………………………..…12
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS……………………………………………………..13
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED………………………………………………………..15
ISSUE ONE…………………………………………………………………...15
i.
ISSUE TWO…………………………………………………………………..20
ISSUE THREE………………………………………………………………..24
PRAYER………………………………………………………………………………27
Page 2
TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
& : And
AIR : All India Report
Anr. : Another
CrLJ : Criminal Law journal
CrPC : Code of Criminal Procedure
Ed. : Edition
Fact sheet : Statement of Facts, 19th National Moot Court Competition problem
Hon’ble : Honorable
IPC : Indian Penal Code
Ors. : Others
P.M. : Post Meridiem
Para : Paragraph
SC : Supreme Court
SCC : Supreme Court Cases
Page 3
SCR : Supreme Court Reports
V. : Versus
Vs. : Versus
Vol. : Volume
Page 4
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
BOOKS AND DIGEST
 K.D. Gaur Textbook on Indian Penal Code, 1860, 6th Edition, Universal Law Publishing
Company.
 Sarkar’s Commentary on The Indian Penal Code, 1860, 3rd Ed. In 4 Volumes, Dwivedi
Law Agency.
 K.D. Gaur Commentary on the Indian Penal Code, 1860, 2nd Edition, Foreword by Justice
P.V. Reddi, Universal Law Publishing Company.
 Ram Jethmalani & D.S. Chopra Commentary on the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Vol.-II
 Ratanlal & Dhirajlal Commentary on the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Justice K T Thomas
& MA Rashid, 33rd Edition, LexisNexis.
 Sarkar The code of Criminal procedure, SC Sarkar, 11th Edition, LexisNexis.
JUDICIAL DECISIONS
 Alister Antony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 2 SCC 648
 Ayanmar v. State of Tamil Nadu
 Babulal v. State, 1961 AIR 884, 1961 SCR (3) 423
 Boya Manigadu v. The Queen, ILR 3 MAD 3
 Brijlalapd Sinha v. State of Bihar, (1998) 5 SCC 699
 Indra dev v. State of U.P, 1991 CRLJ 2598(II)
Page 5
 In Re C Narayan, 1958 CriLJ 476
 Jai Prakash v. State, 1991 2 SCC 32
 Nirbhay Singh & Anr. vs The State of Madhya Pradesh, (1972 CrLJ 1474 MP)
 R v. Marth, (2001) EWCA Crim 2245(CA)
 Sayambakkani v. state of Tamil Nadu, 1974 AIR 2271, 1975 SCR (2) 356
 State of U.P v Lakhmi, 1998 (4) SCC 336
 X v. State of NCT of Delhi, CRL A 1308/2015 & CRL M (B) 8293/2015
STATUTES
 The Indian Penal Code, 1860
 The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
 Mental Health Care Act, 2017
Page 6
STATEMENT OF JUSRISDICTION
The Appellant has filed an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India to review the
judgment of conviction passed by the High Court.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court has the jurisdiction to hear the matter under Section-374(1) of the
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
Section 374(1) Appeal against the conviction by High Court, states-
“Appeals from convictions-
(1) Any person convicted on a trial held by a High Court in its extraordinary original
criminal jurisdiction may appeal to the Supreme court”
Page 7
STATEMENT OF FACTS
For the sake of brevity and convenience of the Hon’ble Court the facts of the present case are
summarized as follows:
Introduction
1. Mrs. Virupakshi and Mrs. Sripakshi are childhood friends who shared all their happiness and
sorrows with each other. Both of them lived in the same locality.
2. Mrs. Sripakshi was married to Mr. Viresh Patel, who runs a business, currently which is not
going well and causing financial problems for them. Because of which, Sripakshi got into
depression.
3. Mrs. Virupakshi was also married to a wealthy businessman, Naresh Patel. Due to which,
Sripakshi asked her friend Virupakshi to ask her husband to help her getting out of her
financial crisis. But, Virupakshi denied saying that she is unable to do so as she has no
control in her house.
The Cause of Trifle
4. Knowing about the stress and mental dilemma Sripakshi is going through, Virupakshi
suggested her for an outing to a nearby resort, to lift her spirits.
5. According to their plan, both of them went to the “Ajanta Paradise Amusement Park and
Resort” which was 32 kms far from their house. They spent a great time together there after
Page 8
which, Virupakshi paid all the bills. On her way back to home, Virupakshi dropped Sripakshi
at home in her car at 5:00 p.m.
6. After coming back, Virupakshi checked her purse and found that her Diamond ring and her
Gold bangles which was kept in the purse during the time they were at the Resort, is nowhere
to be found.
Cause of Action
7. Without any second thought, Virupakshi suspected that Sripakshi stole those jewelleries. So,
she called Sripakshi for asking about the missing jewelleries and asked her to come at her
place.
8. Hearing those accusations, Sripakshi was heartbroken by the fact that her childhood friend
suspected her of stealing. Virupakshi was so firm on believing the fact that Sripakshi stole
them that she was in no place to listen her side.
9. Sripakshi came to Virupakshi’s house at 7:00 p.m. At entrance, she met and greeted Naresh
Patel who told her to go to balcony of Virupakshi’s room to meet her. On arrival of
Sripakshi, Virupakshi started accusing her of stealing and started threatening her by saying
that she’ll call the police if she doesn’t return those jewelleries.
10. Sripakshi, who was already in lot of mental pressure because of her situation, couldn’t think
of anything else at that moment and takes out a sharp knife from her purse and lurched it at
Virupakshi, giving a single blow on her neck. Virupakshi was so startled by this act that in
fight to avoid another attack, she stepped backwards because of which she lost her balance
and fell down from the balcony.
Page 9
11. Naresh Patel heard all that commotion and came running up the stairs where he saw
Sripakshi running away towards the door frightfully. When he asked her about Virupakshi,
she started weeping inconsolably and said, “I was just threatening her, I didn’t mean to kill
her.”
12. Within the span of two minutes, Sripakshi, terribly frightened by the whole situation, bolted
the main door and ran away because of which the precious time which could’ve been utilised
for Virupakshi’s first aid, was wasted.
Medical and Post-mortem Report
13. Virupakshi was taken to the hospital by her husband and remained there for one day but the
doctors couldn’t save her life. She died of excessive bleeding from the cut in the neck and the
head because of the fall.
14. Although the Post Mortem revealed that the death was caused because of the injury caused
by falling and the injury in the neck was not serious.
Session’s Court
15. The trial goes to Session’s court which convicted Sripakshi for the offence of Murder of
Virupakshi under Section- 302 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced her to Life
Imprisonment. Sripakshi then Appealed before the High Court to set aside the conviction for
murder.
Page 10
High Court
16. The High Court convicted Sripakshi under section- 304-II (Para) of Indian Penal Code, 1860
and sentenced her to 10 years of rigorous Imprisonment.
Now, the appellant has filed an appeal before this Hon’ble Supreme for exemption.
Page 11
ISSUES RAISED
The following questions have been placed before this Hon’ble Court to be considered:
ISSUE I: WHETHER THE CONVICTION BY THE HIGH COURT UNDER SECTION-
304-II (PARA), IPC WAS JUSTIFIED IN CONNECTION WITH THE ACT COMMITTED
BY THE APPELLANT?
ISSUE II: WHETHER THE ACT OF THE APPELLANT FALLS WITHIN THE AMBIT
OF SECTION-84, IPC?
ISSUE III: WHETHER THE ACT OF THE DECEASED AMOUNTED TO GRAVE AND
SUDDEN PROVOCATION?
Page 12
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
ISSUE I: WHETHER THE CONVICTION BY THE HIGH COURT UNDER SECTION-
304-II (PARA), IPC WAS JUSTIFIED IN CONNECTION WITH THE ACT COMMITTED
BY THE APPELLANT?
The counsel wants put forth the appellant Mrs. Virupakshi cannot be prosecuted under Section-
304-II of IPC as section- 304-II of Indian Penal Code states the punishment for Culpable
Homicide not amounting to murder. But, in this case, this constitutes neither murder nor,
culpable homicide as the elements of culpable homicide is clearly absent in the present case.
The sub issues to be dealt are:
1.1 The prosecution has failed absolutely to prove that the accused has committed the alleged
crime.
1.2 There is not enough material to frame a charge under section 304 of ipc.
1.3 there was no intention or, knowledge on part of the appellant to cause death
ISSUE-II: WHETHER THE ACT OF THE ACCUSED FALLS WITHIN THE AMBIT OF
SECTION-84 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE?
The appellant, according to the facts of the case, was suffering from Depression and was in no
condition to take reasonable decisions. As we can see, her act of lurching the knife at her friend
Page 13
during the heated argument was totally because of her threat of Virupakshi calling the police and
accusing her of theft she didn’t commit. And she immediately regretted her action as we can see
from the facts, she was crying inconsolably when she met Virupakshi’s husband and ran away
frightfully within a span of two minutes.
SUDDEN PROVOCATION?
In this case, Mrs Virupakshi immediately suspected Sripakshi without any second thoughts and
blamed her by calling her, in spite of knowing the fact that Sripakshi is not in good state of mind.
Also, she blamed Sripakshi and told her that if she doesn’t give her jewelleries back, she’ll call the
police, which actually works as a provocation to Sripakshi as she took out her knife on hearing
this.
Page 14
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
ISSUE I: THE CONVICTION BY THE HIGH COURT UNDER SECTION-304-II (PARA),
IPC WAS JUSTIFIED IN CONNECTION WITH THE ACT COMMITTED BY THE
APPELLANT
1) The edifice of the judicial system in India rests on the principle, ‘it is better and more
satisfactory to acquit a thousand guilty than to condemn a single innocent’. This sacred
principle is unimpeachably embedded in the criminal laws of India so that the rule in its
sublime semantics does not become a rope of sand losing it righteous meaning and moral
quintessence, causing a miscarriage of justice.
2) The counsel on therefore humbly submits that the appellant Mrs. Virupakshi cannot be
prosecuted under Section- 304-II of IPC as section- 304-II of Indian Penal Code states the
punishment for Culpable Homicide not amounting to murder. But, in this case, this constitutes
neither murder nor, culpable homicide as the elements of culpable homicide is clearly absent
in the present case.
3) According to section-299 of Indian Penal Code, the definition of culpable homicide is-
“Culpable homicide1—whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing
death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with
the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable
homicide.”
1
Indian Penal Code, 1860 32 Jai Prakash v. State 1991 2 SCC 32
Page 15
1.1 THE PROSECUTION HAS FAILED ABSOLUTELY TO PROVE THAT THE ACCUSED
HAS COMMITTED THE ALLEGED CRIME.
4) Homicide is the killing of a human being by a human being. Section 304 which deal with
culpable homicide not amounting to murder proposes intention or knowledge regarding the
injury or death as an essential to constitute the crime. In the present case, the prosecution could
neither make out the presence of these ingredients nor could they point out any acts from the
part of the accused which leads to the death of Virupakshi.
5) For punishment under Sec. 304 of Indian Penal Code. the prosecution must prove the death of
the person in question; that such death was caused by the act of the accused that the accused
intended by such act to cause death or to cause such bodily injury as was likely to cause death.
In Brijlalapd Sinha v. State of Bihar2 it has been clearly laid down that where the act is not
established without any room for doubt against the accused, the accused shall be rather
presumed innocent.3
6) In the post-mortem report, it was stated that the stab-injury in the neck was nominal and the
death caused because of the head injury due to fall and the fall was a mere accident because of
Virupakshi’s loss of balance. Therefore, it can be contended that the appellant can not be held
liable for the fall and cannot be punished neither under section 304-II, nor section 302. In this
case, the prosecution has completely failed to prove that the appellant has committed culpable
homicide.
2
(1998) 5 SCC 699
3
. Alister Antony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra (2012) 2 SCC 648
Page 16
1.2 THERE IS NOT ENOUGH MATERIAL TO FRAME A CHARGE UNDER SECTION 304
OF IPC.
7) So, we can see that section- 299 of IPC not only explains Culpable Homicide, but also put
forth the following ingredients as essential to constitute Culpable Homicide-2. Such death
must have been caused by doing an act
 With the intention of causing death; or
 With the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death; or
 With the knowledge that the doer is likely by such act to cause death.
In the present case there is neither any intention nor knowledge from the part of accused to
cause death or any kind of injury to the victim.
1.2.1. There was no intention from the side of appellant to cause death
8) Intention as the willingness to bring about something planned or foreseen which is
completely absent in the present case.4 The fact that the death is caused is not enough to feed
the appetite of Indian Judicial system which proudly flaunts the principle of presumption of
innocence even for the brutish criminal. According to the case of Nirbhay Singh & Anr. vs
The State of Madhya Pradesh5, Death cannot amount to Culpable Homicide unless one of the
mental states mentioned in ingredient is present. It is the burden of the prosecution to prove
the guilt of the accused and in this instant case, the prosecution has completely failed to point
4
Black’s Law Dictionary
5
(1972 CrLJ 1474 MP)
Page 17
out criminality of the accused and they could not even prove that the death of the victim
occurred due to the acts of the accused. Prosecution even failed to make out the basic
ingredients of culpable homicide.
1.2.2. Charge of this offense is based on circumstancial evidence
9) The Prosecution has failed to provide any evidence in favour of the alleged crime as there was
no one else besides the appellant and the deceased in the room. So, the evidences presented by
the prosecution is circumstantial in nature.
10) It is a well settled principle that where the case is mainly based on circumstantial evidence, the
court must satisfy itself that various circumstances in the chain of evidence should be
established clearly and that the completed chain must be such as to rule out a reasonable
likelihood of the innocence of the accused.6 In the absence of clear and cogent evidence
pointing to the guilt of the accused, the proof of motive however adequate cannot by itself
sustain a criminal charge.7 When even a link breaks away, the chain of circumstances gets
snapped and other circumstances cannot in any manner establish the guilt of the accused
beyond all reasonable doubts.8
1.3. THERE WAS NO KNOWLEDGE ON PART OF THE APPELLANT TO CAUSE DEATH
11) Both the expressions “intent” and “knowledge” postulate the existence of a positive mental
attitude which is of different degrees. The mental element in culpable homicide i.e. mental
attitude towards the consequences of conduct is one of intention and knowledge. If that is
6
Mohan Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1974 SC 1144
7
Padam Pradhan v State, 1982 Cri.LJ. 534
8
Janar Lal Das v. State of Orissa, 1991 (3) SCC 27
Page 18
caused in any of the aforesaid three circumstances, the offence of culpable homicide is said
to have been committed.
12) As a matter of fact, the word “Knowledge” in IPC appears in Part-II which mentions that if
the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, he’ll be punished under
part-II. In the case of Indra dev v. State of U.P 9where the deceased move his head to the left
side to avoid the fall of Kudal, an equipment used for digging on head region and therefore,
the blow landed on soft and delicate part of the body, namely, neck, causing grievous injury
resulting into the death, it follows that the injury on neck region was not intended to be
caused by the accused. This fact takes the matter out of the ambit of clause (b) of Part-I of
Section-304, IPC. In such a situation, the provisions of section-304-II do not stand attracted
regard being had to the nature of the weapon used by the accused, the knowledge that
grievous injury could be caused by giving blow can be attributed to him. The accused was
held liable to be convicted under section-326, IPC.
13) According to the facts of the present case, it is crystal clear that Mrs. Sripakshi had no
intention or, knowledge of causing the death of her childhood friend. She only wanted to
threaten Mrs. Virupakshi in order to get out of her problem, but all the subsequent actions are
mere accidental as we can see from the facts, that Mrs. Sripakshi lurched the knife or, we can
say unsteadily threw the knife which unfortunately hit the neck of Virupakshi. But, as the
post mortem report clarifies, the knife injury wasn’t serious. So, we can assume a brief idea
about the fact that Sripakshi had no intention of causing even a grievous hurt to her friend.
Also, we can collect from the facts that Virupakshi only stepped in order to avoid any other
9
1991 CRLJ 2598(II)
Page 19
injuries, neither Sripakshi made any other attempt nor, she pushed her. So, it is a mere
unfortunate accident, not a culpable homicide and therefore, the judgement by high court is
not justified.
Page 20
ISSUE-2: THE RESPONDENT IS OF UNSOUND MIND AND THEREFORE FALLS

WITHIN THE AMBIT OF SECTION-84 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE
1) It is humbly submitted by the counsel on behalf of the appellant that the act of the accused falls
within the ambit of Section-84 of IPC. The appellant, according to the facts of the case, was
suffering from Depression and was in no condition to take reasonable decisions. The act of
lurching the knife by the appellant at the deceased during the heated argument was totally
because of her threat of Virupakshi calling the police and accusing her of theft she didn’t
commit.
2) The appellant immediately regretted her action as we can see from the facts, she was crying
inconsolably when she met Virupakshi’s husband and ran away frightfully within a span of
two minutes. Her actions do not seem to be reasonable enough which constitutes the fact that
her depression caused her to act in this unreasonable manner, which is clearly out of her
character and which caused this unfortunate death of Virupakshi without any intention of
causing such on part of the appellant.
3) Section-84 of IPC deals with the acts of a person who is of unsound mind. According to the
section- “Act of a person of-unsound mind: Nothing is an offence which is done by a person
who, at the time of doing it, by reason of, unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the
nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law.”
2.1. THE RESPONDENT WAS SUFFERING FROM DEPRESSION
4) The respondent was suffering from Depression due to the downfall in her husband’s business
and the financial crisis because of that. Mrs. Virupakshi knew this fact and in order to lift her
Page 21
spirits, they went to the resort.10 So, when she came to know about the fact that Virupakshi is
suspecting her of stealing those jewelleries, she was heartbroken and it also invoked her
depressing mind. When, she went to Virupakshi’s house, Virupakshi threatened her to call the
police if she doesn’t return the jewellery, which hammered the last nail in the coffin.
2.1.1. Depression also comes within the ambit of the definition of unsound mind
5) The counsel hereby submits that depression contemplates a situation where the person
committing the crime may not at the time of such commission of crime, be aware of what he
is doing. Therefore, the respondent, Sripakshi, who was suffering from Depression for a long
period, is entitled to get protected under the ambit of section-84.
6) Also, according to section- 2(s) of the Mental Healthcare act, “mental illness” means a
substantial disorder of thinking, mood, perception, orientation or memory that grossly impairs
judgment, behaviour, capacity to recognise reality or ability to meet the ordinary demands of
life, mental conditions associated with the abuse of alcohol and drugs, but does not include
mental retardation which is a condition of arrested or incomplete development of mind of a
person, specially characterised by subnormality of intelligence;
7) In the case of State of U.P v Lakhmi11, the exception was discussed and the Court held in favour
of the accused who proved to be of unsound mind. The law is that burden of prove lies on the
accused. The mere fact that the accused adopted another alternative defense during his
examination under section-313 under IPC without referring to exception no.-1 of Section-300
of IPC is not enough to deny him of the benefit of the exception, if the court can cull out
10
Moot Proposition, Para 1
11
1998 (4) SCC 336
Page 22
materials from evidence pointing to the existence of circumstances leading to that exception.
It is not the law that failure to set up such a defense would foreclose the right to rely on the
exception once and for all. It is axiomatic that burden on the accused to prove any fact can be
discharged either through defense, evidence or even through prosecution evidence by showing
a preponderance of probability.
8) In the case of The purposes of provocation rely on the fact that he was suffering from a
psychiatric disorder which affected the power of self-control and that could reasonably be
expected of him but he couldn’t plead that he had used reasonable force in self-defense.12,
Therefore, the defendant’s physical characteristics would be taken into account and in the light
of the fresh evidence relating to diminished responsibility, the conviction for murder was
quashed and a conviction for manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility was
substituted and the period of sentence was also reduced.
9) Further, in the case of X v. State of NCT of Delhi13, the court held acquittal of the accused who
murdered his wife as there were sufficient elements to prove that the person was suffering from
depression.
10) To commit a criminal offence, mens rea is generally taken to be an essential element of crime.
A person who is suffering from a mental disorder cannot be said to have committed a crime as
he does not know what he is doing. For committing a crime, the intention and act both are
taken to be the constituents of the crime, actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea. Every normal
12
R v Marth, (2001) EWCA Crim 2245(CA)
13
CRL A 1308/2015 & CRL M (B) 8293/2015
Page 23
and sane human being is expected to possess some degree of reason to be responsible for
his/her conduct and acts unless contrary is proved. But a person of unsound mind or a person
suffering from mental disorder cannot be said to possess this basic norm of human behavior.14
11) In the depressive phase, symptoms include feeling sad and hopeless, lack of energy, difficulty
concentrating, loss of interest in everyday activities, difficulty sleeping, feelings of
worthlessness and despair, and suicidal thoughts. In the manic phase, which usually comes
after several periods of depression, symptoms may include feeling elated and full of energy,
talking very quickly, and feeling self-important with great ideas not known to others, but also
being easily distracted, irritated or agitated, not sleeping or eating, and doing things that bring
negative consequences, such as over spending and dominating others. Delusions stemming
from these disorders can lead the individuals concerned to become violent, for example if they
believe that the lives of their families have become intolerable (depressive phase), or where
they believe that no one must stand in the way of their important plans (manic phase).
2.2. THE DECEASED HAD PRIOR KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE CONDITION OF THE
APPELLANT
12) The Court should take consideration of the fact that the deceased had prior knowledge about
the fact that the respondent was mentally unstable and even after knowing that, She invoked
her into an unpleasant situation and threatened her to call police, which led to the actions done
by the appellant.
14
State of Rajasthan v. Shera Ram @ Vishnu Datta (2012) 1 SCC 602
Page 24
13) The mental disorder can contribute directly to serious violence, e.g. multiple homicide of loved
family members. As with schizophrenia, the precise cause of bipolar disorder is unknown,
although it is thought to involve physical, environmental and social factors, with about 10-15%
of sufferers nearest relatives also being affected.”
14) It is the totality of the circumstances seen in the light of the evidence on record which would
prove that the Appellant in that case was suffering from the said condition. The unsoundness
of mind before and after the incident is a relevant fact. 15 In Boya Manigadu v. The Queen16,
the Madras High Court held that, "the state of mind of the accused, having regard to the earlier
conduct of the deceased, may be taken into consideration in considering whether the
subsequent act would be sufficient provocation to bring the case within the exception of section
300 of IPC.
15) Further, In In Re C Narayan17, it was held that “The mental state created by an earlier act may
be taken into consideration in ascertaining whether a subsequent act was sufficient to make the
assailant to lose his self-control.” In the present case, the mental state of the appellant was
disturbed because of the false allegations imposed by the deceased, which ultimately invoked
her to act in such a manner. Therefore, it is submitted before the court that the acts of the
appellant can fall within the ambit of section-84 and also exceptions of section- 300 of IPC.
15
Anandrao Bhosale v. State of Maharashtra, (2002) 7 SCC 748
16
ILR 3 MAD 3
17
1958 CriLJ 476
Page 25
SUDDEN PROVOCATION?
1) It is most respectfully submitted by the counsel to the Hon’ble Court that the actions of the
deceased amounted to grave and sudden provocation. Culpable homicide is not murder if the
offender, whilst deprived of the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation,
causes death of the persons who gave the provocation or causes the death of any other person
by mistake or accident.
2) In this case, Mrs Virupakshi immediately suspected Sripakshi without any second thoughts
and blamed her by calling her, in spite of knowing the fact that Sripakshi is not in good state
of mind. Also, she blamed Sripakshi and told her that if she doesn’t give her jewelleries back,
she’ll call the police, which actually works as a provocation to Sripakshi as she took out her
knife on hearing this.
3) Provocation is some act, or series of acts, done by the dead man to the accused which would
cause in any reasonable person, and actually causes in the accused, a sudden and temporary
loss of self-control, rendering the accused to subject to passion as to make him or her for the
moment not master of his mind.18 There are two things, in considering it, to which the law
attaches great importance. The first of them is, whether there was what is sometimes called
time for cooling, that is, for passion to cool and for reason to regain dominion over the mind.
Secondly, in considering whether provocation has or has not been made out, you must
18
Defined by Lord goddard, C.J, in R. DUFFY
Page 26
consider the relation in provocation that is to say, whether the mode of resentment bears
some proper and reasonable relationship to the sort of provocation that has been given.
3. THE DECEASED HAD FALSELY ACCUSED THE APPELLANT OF STEALING
4) Further, In In Re C Narayan19, it was held that " The mental state created by an earlier act
may be taken into consideration in ascertaining whether a subsequent act was sufficient to
make the assailant to lose his self-control.
5) Under the English law, the provocation must be grave as well as sudden. But by way of
judicial thinking, the Indian Criminal law has gone ahead. In our system, there is a concept of
sustained provocation. It is concerned with the duration of the provocation. There may be
incidents/occurrences, which are such that they may not provoke the offender suddenly to
make his outburst by his overt act. However, it may be Lingering in his mind for quite some
time, torment continuously and at one point of time erupt, which would lead to loss of self-
control, make his mind to go astray, the mind may not be under his control/command and
results in the offender committing the offence. The sustained provocation/frustration nurtured
in the mind of the accused reached the end of breaking point, under that accused causes the
murder of the deceased.
6) In the case of Ayanmar v. State of Tamil Nadu, it was held that courts in the decisions of
Babulal v. State 20and Sayambakkani v. state of Tamil Nadu 21have added one more
exception, known as sustained provocation. Therefore, while considering whether there are
materials to indicate that there is a grave and sudden provocation is contemplated under
19
1958 CriLJ 476
20
1961 AIR 884, 1961 SCR (3) 423
21
1974 AIR 2271, 1975 SCR (2) 356
Page 27
exception 1 to section 300 IPC, sustained provocation, on account of a series of acts more or
less grave spread over a certain period of time, would undoubtedly stand added to exception
1 to section 300 IPC. It is evident from bare and apparent facts on record that the conduct of
the appellants was not predetermined and there was no time to cool down therefore the
offence of murder is not made out as it was truly grave and sudden.
7) The counsel would like to refer the case of Meera Puri v State of Nagaland22, where on a
sudden quarrel, the accused that dealt sudden blows on the abdomen of another person
without having any knowledge or intention of doing so. The court held that the accused is
guilty under section 325, IPC, not under section- 304-II.
8) So, following the above-mentioned cases, it can be said that the words of deceased and threat
of calling police worked as a grave and sudden provocation which caused Sripakshi losing
her mind in spur of the moment and act like that.
22
1971 CrLJ 539 (Ass).
Page 28
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, in light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited the Counsel
for the Appellants most humbly and respectfully requested that this Hon’ble Court to adjudge and
declare that:
1. The present appeal is maintainable.
2. That the act of the appellant falls within the ambit of section-84, IPC
3. That the injury inflicted by the appellant was not likely to cause death.
4. That the death occurred in a sudden fight was without any intention or knowledge on the
part of the appellant.
5. The appellant shouldn’t be prosecuted under section-304-II, IPC and should be exempted
from her charges.
The court may also be pleased to pass any other order, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in
light of justice, equity and good conscience.
Page 29

Problem 1 Appellant

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Problem 1 Appellant

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

XIX NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION-2018

XIX NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION - 2018

IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELANT

ON SUBMISSION TO THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELANT

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELANT

AIR : All India Report

CrLJ : Criminal Law journal

CrPC : Code of Criminal Procedure

IPC : Indian Penal Code

P.M. : Post Meridiem

SCC : Supreme Court Cases

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELANT

SCR : Supreme Court Reports

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELANT

BOOKS AND DIGEST

P.V. Reddi, Universal Law Publishing Company.

& MA Rashid, 33rd Edition, LexisNexis.

 Sarkar The code of Criminal procedure, SC Sarkar, 11th Edition, LexisNexis.

 Alister Antony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 2 SCC 648

 Ayanmar v. State of Tamil Nadu

 Babulal v. State, 1961 AIR 884, 1961 SCR (3) 423

 Boya Manigadu v. The Queen, ILR 3 MAD 3

 Brijlalapd Sinha v. State of Bihar, (1998) 5 SCC 699

 Indra dev v. State of U.P, 1991 CRLJ 2598(II)

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELANT

 In Re C Narayan, 1958 CriLJ 476

 Jai Prakash v. State, 1991 2 SCC 32

 R v. Marth, (2001) EWCA Crim 2245(CA)

 State of U.P v Lakhmi, 1998 (4) SCC 336

 X v. State of NCT of Delhi, CRL A 1308/2015 & CRL M (B) 8293/2015

 The Indian Penal Code, 1860

 The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

 Mental Health Care Act, 2017

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELANT

judgment of conviction passed by the High Court.

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

Section 374(1) Appeal against the conviction by High Court, states-

“Appeals from convictions-

criminal jurisdiction may appeal to the Supreme court”

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELANT

control in her house.

The Cause of Trifle

suggested her for an outing to a nearby resort, to lift her spirits.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELANT

at home in her car at 5:00 p.m.

them that she was in no place to listen her side.

and fell down from the balcony.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELANT

for Virupakshi’s first aid, was wasted.

Medical and Post-mortem Report

head because of the fall.

by falling and the injury in the neck was not serious.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELANT

and sentenced her to 10 years of rigorous Imprisonment.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELANT

ISSUE I: WHETHER THE CONVICTION BY THE HIGH COURT UNDER SECTION-

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELANT

ISSUE I: WHETHER THE CONVICTION BY THE HIGH COURT UNDER SECTION-

The sub issues to be dealt are:

SECTION-84 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE?

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELANT