1

MOOT COURT PRACTICLE (February 2020)

Before the Honourable High Court of Delhi,

New Delhi

In the matter of

Mr Deepchand and others ………………………Appellant

Versus
Government of NCT of Delhi…………Respondent

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION 1

 2

Table of Contents

 Table of Cases 5-7

 Websites 7

 Statutes 7

Statement of Jurisdiction 8

Statement of Facts 9

Statement of Charges 10

Summary of Arguments 11-12

Arguments Advanced 13-27

Issue-I: Whether Deven is guilty under Section 354D and 509 of Barat 13-17
Penal Code?

Issue-II: Whether Deven is guilty under Section 307 BPC for attempting 17-20
murder?

Issue-III: Whether Jeyant is an offender under Section 325 of BPC 20-23

Issue-IV: Whether Jeyant is guilty under Section 355 and 504 of BPC? 24-26

Issue V: Whether the mob that attacked Deven is an offender under Sec 26-27
358 of BPC?

Prayer 28

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION 2

 3

CASE LAWS:

1. Mohd.Haroon & Ors vs Union Of India & Anr, 2014- On Muzaffar Nagar Communal
riot, The Supreme Court held that victims of mob violence cannot be discriminated
on the basis of community or religion. The relief of rehabilitation and compensation
given to Muslim community is directed to be extended to victims of other
communities as well.
2. Archbishop Raphael Cheenath S.V.D. v. State of Orissa, (2009) 17 SCC 90, the Court
had emphasized on the creation of atmosphere where there shall be complete
harmony between the groups of people and the duty of the State to have
discussions with the various groups to bring about peace and give possible help to
the victims
3. Anti Sikh Riots, 1984
4. Sajjan Kumar vs C.B.I. on 19 July, 2010- In this case, the court commented on the
unsatisfactory manner in which the Delhi Police conducted itself in controlling the
communal violence, and thereafter handled the investigation in the 1984 anti-
Sikh riot cases is demonstrated by the fact that, from time to time various
commissions including Justice Nanavati Commission, were constituted to examine
the role of politicians and other players in the said riots.

WEBSITES:
1. https://indiankanoon.org
2. https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/tag/communal-violence/
3.
STATUTES:
1. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
2. Explosive Substances Act, 1908
3. The Indian Penal Code, 1860

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION 3

 4

The Petitioner humbly submits this memorandum for the petition filed before this
Honourable Court. The petition invokes its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. It sets forth the facts and the laws on which the claims are based.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION 4

 5

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. On 18 July 2015, communal riots broke out in the city and continued unabated for 2
days.
2. During these two days 14 persons including old people, women and children were
killed and hundreds of people suffered knife, burn and other injuries.
3. The rioters used knives, swords, dangerous acids and petrol bombs. Property worth
crores of rupees was gutted and looted.
4. Curfew was imposed for 2 days, on 18th and 19th and a few hundred policemen were
deployed to control the situation
5. On the night of 18th and again on the night of 19th July 2015, Deepchand made
phone calls to police informing to them that his shop was attacked and gutted by the
rioters and property worth nearly rupees ten lakh in total was looted.
6. In the early hours of 22nd July 2015, a police search party while combing the area for
weapons and rioters, entered into the house and shop of the accused and found six
spears, a sword, three half litter containers of Sulphuric Acid and ten petrol bombs.
7. It was then that the Amaravati police arrested the accused and have charged
Deepchand, aged 35 for the offences under Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive
Substances Act, 1908.
8. Deepchand and his family members, wife aged 32 , two brothers, aged 30 and 25
years and mother aged 55 years, were charged for the offences under Sections 120B,
143 and 144 IPC.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION 5

 6

STATEMENT OF CHARGES

Charge-1
Deepchand – has been charged for the offences under Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive
Substances Act, 1908
Sect 4 states : Punishment for attempt to cause explosion, or for making or keeping
explosive with intent to endanger life or property.- Any person who unlawfully and
maliciously—
1. (a) does any act with intent to cause by an explosive substance, or conspires to
cause by an explosive substance, an explosion in 1*[India] of a nature likely to
endanger life or to cause serious injury to property; or
2. (b) makes or has in his possession or under his control any explosive substance with
intent by means thereof to endanger life, or cause serious injury to property in
1*[India], or to enable any other person by means thereof to endanger life or cause
serious injury to property in 1*[India];
shall, whether any explosion does or does not take place and whether any injury to person
or property has been actually caused or not, be punished with transportation for a term
which may extend to twenty years, to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment for a
term which may extend to seven years, to which fine may be added.
5. Punishment for making or possessing explosives under suspicious circumstances.- Any
person who makes or knowingly has in his possession or under his control any explosive
substance, under such circumstances as to give rise to a reasonable suspicion that he is not
making it or does not have it in his possession or under his control for a lawful object, shall,
unless he can show that he made it or had it in his possession or under his control for a
lawful object, be punishable with transportation for a term which may extend to fourteen
years, to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to
five years, to which fine may be added.

Charge-2
Deepchand and his family members, wife aged 32 , two brothers, aged 30 and 25 years and
mother aged 55 years, have been charged for the offences under Sections 120B, 143 and
144 IPC.
Section 120B
120B. Punishment of criminal conspiracy
(1) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with
death, 51[imprisonment for life] or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or
upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such
a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence.
(2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit
an offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both.]

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION 6

 7

Section 143 states that Punishment

Whoever is a member of an unlawful assembly, shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.
144. Joining unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapon
Whoever, being armed with any deadly weapon, or with anything which, used as a weapon
of offence, is likely to cause death, is a member of an unlawful assembly, shall be punished
with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with
fine, or with both.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION 7

 8

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE 1: Whether Deepchand is guilty possessing explosives substances under section 4

and 5 of Explosive substance Act, 1908?
It is submitted before the Hon’ble court that the accused, Mr. Deepchand, is not guilty of
the offense of keeping explosive with intention to endanger life or property but a mere
precautionary effort taken to protect himself from further damage. Deepchand’s measures
of self defence and protection of lives of his family were plainly intended to be carved out
from Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
Article 21 reads as: “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except
according to a procedure established by law.” ... This right has been held to be the heart of
the Constitution, the most organic and progressive provision in our living constitution, the
foundation of our laws.

ISSUE II: Whether Deepchand and his family members including his wife, aged 32, two
brothers, aged 30 and 25 years and mother aged 55 years, are guilty for the offences under
Sections 143 and 144 IPC.
It is submitted before the Hon’ble court that the accused, Mr. Deepachand and his family
are not guilty under Sections 143 and 144 of IPC due to a simple fact that the “family” lives
together at the place in question and had not assembled for the purpose of carrying out
any criminal act.

ISSUE III: Can the first younger brother’s previous account imply a malicious intention of
Deepchand.
It is humbly submitted to the court that Mr Deepchand and his family cannot be presumed
to be guilty of malicious intentions because his first younger brother was in an earlier case
prosecuted for attacking the other community in communal riots

ISSUE IV: Whether the conviction by the Sessions Court should be altered
It is submitted before the Hon’ble court that the accused, Mr. Deepchand and his family
have been wrongly framed. The act of attacking Accused no. 1 proves the presence of
criminal force and the personal hatred for the accused proves the intent to dishonor. Also,
the intentional insult was caused by the conduct of attacking Deven (accused). Ergo, the
essential ingredients of both the sections are fulfilled.
ISSUE V: Whether the mob that attacked Deepchand’s shop should be charged under
Section 358 of BPC?
It is submitted before the Hon’ble court that the law recognises moral policing wrong. Since
in the present case, the mobs attacked Accused no. 1, leaving him bruised and unconscious,
they are to be charged under this section. The act involved an assault and that assault was a
result of provocation. Ergo, both the ingredients of the section are fulfilled.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION 8

 9

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE 1: Whether Deepchand should be held guilty possessing explosives substances

under section 4 and 5 of Explosive substance Act, 1908?
It is submitted before the Hon’ble court that the accused, Mr. Deepchand, is not guilty of
the offense of keeping explosive with intention to endanger life or property. Deepchand was
forced to take every precautionary measure to protect himself and probably his entire life’s
possession and future from further damage. Deepchand’s measures of self defence and
protection of lives of his family were plainly intended to be carved out from Article 21 of the
Indian Constitution:
“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to a procedure
established by law.” ... This right has been held to be the heart of the Constitution, the most
organic and progressive provision in our living constitution, the foundation of our laws.
1. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that Deepchand (hereinafter
referred to as A1) should not be charged with Punishment for attempt to cause
explosion, or for making or keeping explosive with intent to endanger life or
property.
2. It must be noted by the honouable court that communal riots had broken out in the
city which continued for 2 days ie 18th and 19th July 2015. In addition to this, isolated
acts of communal rioting and looting continued till 25 th July 2015. Deepchand and his
family were victims like many others of rioters
3. There 14 people including old people, women and children who were killed while
hundreds of people suffered from knive wounds, burns and other injuries
4. It is humbly submitted before the court that Deepchand’s shop which was on ground
floor of his residence was twice attacked, looted and gutted. A1 and his family
members feared for their lives and reacted most instinctively in the face of life-
threatening situations.
5. It is humbly submitted before the court that the rioters were armed with weapons
like knives, swords, dangerous acids and petrol bombs indiscriminately. This clearly
shows that the intention of the mob was not to scare people under attack but to kill
them. The court must take notice of the fact that under mob attack there were no
other option for A1 but to either submit to his fate or to be prepared with any
protective measures with which he could protect his and is family’s life.
6. It must be noted by the court that A1 first and foremost step towards saving himself
and his family was to call police and seek help and protection. Since the police failed
in complying with their duty to serve and protect, A1 was forced to take measures
best known to him if faced with adverse circumstances.
7. It is humbly submitted to the court that the rioter had injured hundreds of people.
To control this huge mob hundreds of police personnel had to be deployed to
control the situation. Under the circumstances, the protective measures taken by A1

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION 9

 10

cannot be considered as acts of intentionally causing harm to others. They were

honest measures taken by a grief and fear stricken family to save their lives.
8. It must be noted by the honourable court that A1’s shop was already looted twice
and he had lost worth 10 lacks of property, he had informed the police immediately
but he could not get any help from them. Remaining of his property which was
worth another rupees ten lakh was in his stock room, which is adjacent to the shop.
In fear of further attacks on his property and family members he equipped himself
with the spears, sword, acid and petrol bombs and had his shop protected by fire
resistant paint and bought 10 fire extinguishers
9. It is submitted to the court that A1 had protected the remaining of his shop and its
assets by using fire resistant paint and had also bought 10 fire extinguishers. This
clearly proves that the intention of A1 was not to endanger anyone else’s life or
property but to merely protect his against the mob attack.
10. Victims of communal violence in India suffer a range of violations of internationally
recognized human rights. These include the right not to be arbitrarily deprived of
life, [ICCPR, Article 6] the right to equal treatment before the law without
discrimination,[ ICCPR, Article 26.] and the right not to be subject to coercion which
would impair the freedom to have or adopt a religion.[ ICCPR, Article 18]

ISSUE 2: ISSUE II: Whether Deepchand and his family members should be held guilty for
the offences under Sections 143 and 144 IPC.
It is submitted before the Hon’ble court that the accused, Mr. Deepachand and his family
including his wife, aged 32, two brothers, aged 30 and 25 years and mother aged 55 years,
are not guilty under Sections 143 and 144 of IPC .
The section 143 ad 144 state that “whoever is a member of an unlawful assembly, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six
months, or with fine, or with both.
144. Joining unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapon
Whoever, being armed with any deadly weapon, or with anything which, used as a weapon
of offence, is likely to cause death, is a member of an unlawful assembly, shall be punished
with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with
fine, or with both.
The honourable court may note that there was no unlawful assembly of people due to a
simple fact that the “family” lives together at the place in question and had not assembled
for the purpose of carrying out any criminal act.

ISSUE III: Can the first younger brother’s previous account imply a malicious intention of
Deepchand.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION 10

 11

It is humbly submitted to the court that Mr Deepchand and his family cannot be presumed
to be guilty of malicious intentions because his first younger brother was in an earlier case
prosecuted for attacking the other community in communal riots.
A1’s first younger brother was acquitted on benefit of doubt by the court hence he cannot
be treated or presumed to be guilty without evidence.
Similarly, Deepchand and his other family members cannot be presumed hence treated as
rioters.
ISSUE IV: Whether the conviction by the Sessions Court should be altered
It is submitted before the Hon’ble court that the accused, Mr. Deepchand and his family
have been wrongly framed. The court has failed to consider facts and the circumstances
under which A1 had to take measures for protection of his family.
The petitioner submits that the decision taken by the sessions court is in violation of Article
21 of Indian Constitution which guarantees right to life.
The circumstances in the given situation are not of the kind which occurs every day. This
was dangerous and extreme situations were A1 reacted and took protective measures.
None of the items recovered by the police were used or had malicious intentions behind
them.

ISSUE V: Whether the mob that attacked Deepchand’s shop should be charged under
appropriate sections?
It is submitted before the Hon’ble court that in the present case, the mobs attacked A 1’s
shop, leaving him fearing for his life and future of his family. These rioters must be arrested
and charged under relevant sections.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION 11

 12

PRAYER

Wherefore, in light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, may this
Hon‘ble Court be pleased to:
1. Acquit.
A. Mr Deepchand from charges of punishment for attempt to cause explosion,
or for making or keeping explosive with intent to endanger life or property
under 4 and 5 of Explosive Substance Act 1908
B. Mr Deepchand and his family members, wife aged 32 , two brothers, aged 30
and 25 years and mother aged 55 years, from charges of the offences under
sections 143 and 144 IPC.
2. Declare- To reverse the decision of the subordinate court.

All of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted

Place: Delhi S/d_________________

Date: 22 February 2020 Counsel for the Prosecution

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION 12