IMS Law College National Moot Court Competition, 2016

4TH KIIT NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION
TEAM CODE: IMSMC-1615
IMS Law College National Moot Court

Competition, 2016
IN THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF YANGISTAN
In the matter of
STATE OF KAUSATI
(Appellant)
V.
PETER
(Respondent)
____________
__________
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
IMS LAW COLLEGE NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016
TABLE OF CONTENTS
V
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
VI
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
X
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
XI
STATEMENT OF FACTS
XII
STATEMENT OF CHARGES
XIII
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
XIV
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
1
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
1
[1] THE APPEAL UNDER ARTICLE 136 IS MAINTAINABLE
[2] THAT DAINA WAS CRIMINALLY INTIMIDATED BY PETER
UNDER SECTION 506
of IPC
3
[2.A] That the accused threatened Daina which caused

alarm.
4
[2.B] That the accused had intention to avoid Daina
from filing complaint against him.
5
[3] ACCUSED COMMITTED AN ACT LEADING TO DAINAS
DEATH
[A]Peter Committed An Act Leading To Dainas Death,

Coupled With A Guilty Intention To Do The Same
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

Page ii
[A.1] That the accused had motive to get rid of

Daina
[A.1.1] That there was motive behind the act

committed by the accused.
[A.1.2] That the pre conduct of the accused held

relevant
[A.1.3] That there was no suicide note hinting towards
the death of the accused
[A.2] That the act was done with an intention of

causing death and the knowledge that such act
is likely to cause death

[A.2.1] That the accused intended to kill Daina
[A.2.2] That such act was premeditated.
[A.2.3]That the death is a direct result of the

accuseds act
[A.2.4] That the accused had exclusive opportunity.
10
[A.3] Post conduct of the accused after Murder.
11
[A.3.1] That the accused failed to appear.
11
[A.3.2] That the accused Gave inconsistent and false

statement regarding the offence.
12
[A.3.3] That there was no Suicide note hinting

towards the death of Daina.
12
[4] T HAT PETER VOLUNTARILY CAUSED

UNDER S ECTION 323 OF IPC
HURT TO
DAINA
[4.A] That the accused had required intention to

cause hurt
[4.B] That the accused caused hurt leading to
Dainas death

P a g e | iii
13
13
14
15
PRAYER

P a g e | iv
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
SR. NO.
1
ABBREVIATIONS EXPANDED FORM

&
And
Paragraph
A.P.
Andhra Pradesh
AIR
All India Reporter
All.
Allahabad
Anr.
Another
7
8
Bom
Bom CR
Bombay
Bombay Cases Reporter
Cal.
Calcutta
10
Cri LJ
Criminal Law Journal
11
Ed.
Edition
12
Etc.
Et Cetera
13
H.P.
Himachal Pradesh
14
Honble
Honourable
15
ILR
Indian law Reports
16
Mad.
Madras
17
M.P.
Madhya Pradesh
18
Nag.
Nagpur
19
No.
Number
20
Ori.
Orissa
P.&
H.
Pat.
Punjab and Haryana
21
22
23
Pg.
Page
24
Raj.
Rajasthan
25
26
S.C.
Supreme Court
27
S.C.C
Supreme Court Cases
28
S.C.J.
Supreme Court Journal
29
30
31
32
33
Sec.
U.P.
u/s
v.
Vol.
Section
Uttar Pradesh
Under Section
Versus
Volume
Patna
Section

Page |v
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
C ONSTITUTION
Constitution of India
S TATUES
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Evidence Act,1872
JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS
S No.
1.
2.
Case Name
A.K. Gopalan
A.I.R. 1950, Mad. 233
A.N. Venkatesh & Anr. v. State of

Karnataka
2005 SCC (Cri) 1938
3.
Appu v State
A.I.R. 1971 Mad 194
4.
Arjun v. Virendra Nath
A.I.R. 1971 All.29
5.
Basdev v. State of Pepsu
1956CriLJ919
6.
Bipin Kumar Mondal v. State

of West Bengal
7.
Bishwanath v. Dhapu
8.
Biswanath Ghosh v. State of West

Bengal
Page
Citation
No.
3
11
11
AIR 2010 SC 3638
A.I.R. 1960 Cal 494
A.I.R. 1987 SC 1155
9.
Bodhraj v. State of J & K
(2002) 8 SCC 45
10.
Chhotka v. State
A.I.R. 1958 Cal 482
8,10
11.
Deva Shayam
(1962) 1 M.L.J. 161
9,13
A.I.R. 1969 Pat 82.
11
A.I.R. 1938 Sind 63
12.
13.
Ganesh Narain Singh V.

Jadunandan Singh
Ghulam Hyder Inram Baksh Vs.

P a g e | vi
Emperor
14.
15.
16.
Habibullah v. State
Hanumant Govind Nargundkar &
Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Haryana State Industrial Corpn. v.
Cork Mfg. Co.
1961 M.P.L.J. 1190
1952 Indlaw SC 89
(2007) 8 SCC 120
17.
Hem Raj v. State of Ajmer
1954 SCR 1133
18.
Hyder Inram Baksh Vs. Emperor
A.I.R. 1938 Sind 63
19.
Indian Airlines V. Madhuri
A.I.R. 1965 Cal 252
10
20.
Joseph Cheriyan v. State
A.I.R. 1953 P.C. 129
13
21.
Kalang v.State of Madhya Pradesh
CriLJ 3437
14
(2008) 15 SCC 430
22.
Krishnan v. State represented by

Inspector of Police
23.
Kuldip Sham v. State of Punjab
1980 Cri LJ 2364
7,11
24.
Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala
A.I.R. 2000 SC 2587
25.
Mohammad Ishaq v. State
A.I.R. 1961 All. 522
26.
Naqli v. State of Uttar Pradesh
1991, Cri.L.J. 2468 (All)
27.
Nga Ba Gyaw
(1911) 1 UBR 105
13
1972 A.I.R. 2077
10
(2003) 5 SCC 488
1989 Cr.L.J. 669 (Mad.)
2010 (10) SCC 439
28.
29.
30.
31.
Nika Ram v. State of Himachal

Pradesh
Narendanath Khanare v. Parasnath
Khanare
Noble Mohandas v. State
Paramjeet Singh v. State of
Uttarakhand
32.
Parmeshwar Din v. Emporer
AIR 1941 Oudh 517 at 519
12
33.
People v. Tuczkewitz
149 N.Y. 240
2016ALLMR(Cri)3104
(1950) SCR 453
34.
35.
Praful Sudhakar Parab v. State of

Maharashtra
Pritam Singh v. the State

P a g e | vii
36.
37.
38.
Rajwant Singh Vs. State of Kerala

Rakesh Kumar Damodarji v. State
of Gujarat
RamKripal v. State of Madhya
Pradesh
A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 1874
(2014)3GLR2334
10
AIR 2007 SC (SUPP) 49
39.
Ranagavyar v. Innasenulla Mudali
(1959) 2 M.L.J. 68
40.
Ranjit v State
A.I.R. 1952 HP 81
12
A.I.R. 2015, Bom 64.
12
AIR 1954 SC 271
195(2012)DLT452
14
1984CriLJ1738
41.
42.
43.
Ratan Pundlik Salunkhe and Ors.

v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Sadhu Singh Harnam
Singh v.
State of Pepsu
Satpal v State
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
of Maharashtra
Sheonandan Paswan v.State of
Bihar
Shivaji Sahabrao Bubade v. State
of Maharashtra
Singapagu Anjaiah v. State of
Andhra Pradesh
State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar
Shrivastava
State of U.P. v. Ram Swarup
State of West Bengal v.
Mohammad Khalid
AIR 1983 SC 194
1973, 2 SCC 793
(2010) 9 SCC 799
13
1992 CrLJ 1104.
AIR 1974 SC 389
AIR 1995 SC 785
51.
State v. Hunter
118 Iowa 686
52.
State v. Manoj Yadav
2012, CriLJ 456 (Raj)(DB)
10
(2006) 10 SCC 681.
10
A.I.R 1957 AP 595
11
2008CriLJ1907
A.I.R. 1970 Goa 96
53.
54.
55.
56.
Trimukh Maroti Kirkan V. State

of Maharashtra
Vadlamudi Kutumba Rao
Vinay D. Nagar v. State of
Rajasthan
Vinayak Datta v. State

P a g e | viii
57.
58.
59.
Wakkar and another v. State of

Uttar Pradesh
Yusuf v. State of West Bengal
Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh v.
State of Guajarat
(2011) 3 SCC 306
AIR 2011 SC 2283
2004 4 SCC 158
LEGAL DICTIONARIES
BLACKS LAW DICTIONARY (10TH ED. 2014)
MERRIAM WEBSTER, LEGAL DICTIONARY (11TH. ED.), 2015
BOOKS REFERRED
CHITTALEY & RAO, THE INDIAN PENAL CODE (3RD ED1974)
KRISHNAMACHARI, V., LAW OF EVIDENCE (5TH ED. 2004)
GAUR, HARI SINGH, INDIAN PENAL CODE, (14TH ED. 2013)
GAUR, KD, CRIMINAL LAW: CASES AND MATERIALS, (6TH ED. 2009)
JETHMLANI, RAM, THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, (1ST ED. 2014)
KELKAR, R.V. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, (5TH ED. 2011)
RATANLAL AND DHIRAJLAL, LAW OF CRIMES, (27TH ED. 2013)
BISHOP, JOEL PRENTISS, COMMENTARIES ON THE CRIMINAL (6TH ED. 1877)
VIBHUTE, K I, PSA PILLAIS CRIMINAL LAW (11TH ED. 2012)

P a g e | ix
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Appellant approaches the Honble Supreme Court of India under Article 136 of the
Constitution.
Article 136:
136. Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court.
1) Notwithstanding anything in this chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion,
grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or
order in any cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of
India.
2) Nothing in clause (1) shall apply to any judgment, determination, sentence or order
passed or made by any court or tribunal constituted by or under ant law relating to the
Armed Forces.

Page |x
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. Diana was a celebrity, in a live-in relationship with Peter. Her body was found hanging
from the ceiling of her house on 1st April 2015.Peter was the first to find her body and
upon being taken to the hospital she was declared dead by the authorities, who
informed the police about this, as Peter had run away.
2. The Post-Mortem report revealed suffocation as cause the cause of death, also
mentioning asphyxia and ligature marks around her neck. Marks were also found on
her body, cheeks and nose area.
3. Peter used Dianas pass book and debit card. It was found that the account was swiped
out to zero balance and a close investigation into the records of the account showed a
few major credit transactions. Peter also dealt in drugs. He had a history of cheating
several women and defrauding them of their money. Among others, Peter had also
defrauded his ex-girlfriend Margrate of Rs. 30 lakhs in the form of a loan, under the
guise of setting up of a company.
4. Diana had informed her friends of being physically assaulted, also that Peter
persistently threatened her of killing her if she informs the police. He also never let her
talk to her parents. Also, Diana refused an offer made by producer Henry for a show
citing trouble in her personal life as the reason for the same.
5. Peter was put to trial before the sessions court and was convicted under Sections 302,
323 and 506 of The Indian Penal Code. He was sentenced to life imprisonment. He was
also sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 2 years under Section 506 and
imprisonment for 1 year under Section 323 of The Indian Penal Code. Both these
sentences were to run concurrently. Aggrieved by this decision, he appealed before the
High Court. The High Court adjudicated in his favor and acquitted him. It also
dismissed the appeal of the state, being bereft of any substance.
6. The State was aggrieved by this decision of the Honble High Court and filed a appeal
before the Supreme Court pleading to consider this heinous offence and to award Peter
with life imprisonment.

P a g e | xi
STATEMENT OF CHARGES
[Accused] Mr. Peter has been hereby charged as follows:

Firstly That he, on the 1st day of April, 2015 at Kausat Nagar, committed murder causing
death of Daina and thereby committed an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 and within the cognizance of this court.
Secondly- That he, voluntarily caused hurt to Daina & thereby committed an offence under
Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, and within the cognizance of this court.
Thirdly- That he, criminally intimidated the deceased, Diana and thereby committed an
offence under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, and within the cognizance of this court.

P a g e | xii
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
1.
WHETHER TH E A P P E A L
2.
WHETHER DAINA
U N DER
A R T IC LE 136
IS
M A IN TA I N AB LE ?
WAS CRIMINALLY INTIMIDATED BY
PETER UNDER SECTION 506
OF
IPC?
3.
WHETHER PETER COMMITTED AN ACT LEADING TO DAINAS DEATH?
4.
WHETHER PETER VOLUNTARILY CAUSED
HURT TO
DAINA
IPC?

P a g e | xiii
UNDER
SECTION 323
OF
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
1. THAT
THE APPEAL IS MAINTAINABLE UNDER ARTICLE 136-
It is most humbly submitted that the impending suit is maintainable under Article 136 of the
Constitution of Yangistan. Article 136 can be invoked in the criminal matters when gross
injustice has been done and important circumstantial evidence has been neglected. The High
Court acquitted Peter of all the charges and this has led to a huge miscarriage of justice. It is the
duty of Supreme Court to correct the judgment and not restrict it. So by acquitting Peter the High
Court erred in judgment and now its the duty of Supreme Court to ratify it.
2. THAT DAINA WAS CRIMINALLY INTIMIDATED BY PETER UNDER SECTTION

506
It is most humbly submitted that, Peter had threatened Daina that he would kill her if she
revealed any of his secrets to the police. This had caused an alarm to Daina. The act of physically
abusing her and persistently threatening to kill her fulfills the essentials required for Section 506
of IPC.
3. THAT PETER COMMITTED AN ACT LEADING TO DAINAS DEATH
It is humbly submitted that, the accused with a criminal intention committed an act which led to
Dainas death. The said act was murder which is obvious from the chain of events, which were all
part of the same transaction. The intention of the accused to commit such an act can be derived
from the chain of events. Peter had motive, intention and opportunity to kill Daina. He murdered
Daina and portrayed it as suicide. Hence Peter is liable for this offence under Section 302 of IPC.

P a g e | xiv
4. PETER
VOLUNTARILY CAUSED HURT TO DAINA AND HENCE HE IS LIABLE
UNDER SECTION 323 OF IPC
It is most humbly submitted that, the accused, Peter is guilty of voluntarily causing hurt. Daina
had informed her friends that Peter used to physically assault her and marks found on her body
further approve the same. The act of causing hurt with the knowledge of the same fulfils all the
essentials required for Section 323 of IPC.

P a g e | xv
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
1.
THAT THE APPEAL IS MAINTAINABLE UNDER ARTICLE 136
Article 136 of the Constitution of India,1 provides a self-contained scheme with a definite aim
and object. The scheme provides that when a party approaches the Honble Supreme Court
under this provision, the court is to determine, in its discretion whether or not to grant special
leave to appeal on a consideration of all the facts and circumstances surrounding the issue. In a
criminal case, the Supreme Court will grant special leave to appeal where it is shown that
exceptional and special circumstances exist or that substantial and grave injustice has been
done or that the case in question presents features of sufficient gravity to warrant a review of
the decision appealed against.2
In the matter before this Honble Court, the High Court acquitted Peter due to lack of any
substantial evidence against him, but the petitioner would beg to differ from the view taken by
the Honble High Court. It is humbly contended that there is enough evidence against Peter
which states in unequivocal terms that Peter murdered Diana, criminally intimidated her and
caused her hurt, which the petitioner is going to present before this Honble Court, while
dealing with the subsequent issues. Also, if Special Leave to appeal is not granted, it would
amount to grave injustice for Daina.
In State of U.P. v. Ram Swarup,3 Special leave was granted to the State where the High Court,
reversing a conviction, acquitted the accused. In the instant matter as well, the Honble High
Court, on an appeal by the accused, acquitted him of all charges. Also, the matter before this
Honble Court, presents features of sufficient gravity to warrant a review of the same, because
of the stark difference between the decisions of the Honble Sessions Court and the Honble
High Court. Thus, Special leave may be granted in the instant matter.
The Honble Supreme Court of India, while discussing the scope of interference, has held that
the Supreme Court can interfere only if there has been a grave miscarriage of justice, upon a
Article 136 of The Constitution of India, 1950.

Pritam Singh v. the State, (1950) SCR 453; Hem Raj v. State of Ajmer, 1954 SCR 1133; Sadhu Singh Harnam
Singh v. State of Pepsu, AIR 1954 SC 271.
3
AIR 1974 SC 389.
2

Page |1
wrong application of the law.4 In the case at hand, the Honble High Court erred in law while
giving the impugned judgment and by acquitting Peter caused grave injustice to Daina because
despite committing offences of grave nature, by virtue of such impugned judgment, Peter ran
scot free.
The jurisdiction conferred under Article 136,5 on the Honble Supreme Court is a corrective
one and not a restrictive one.6 In the case at hand, it is imperative to use such corrective
jurisdiction to ensure that the ends of justice are met and there is no miscarriage of justice.
This jurisdiction is a special jurisdiction of a sweeping nature not fettered by the provisions of
Article 132 to Article 135,7 and is not subject to any limitation except the wisdom and good
sense of the judge.8
The Honble Supreme Court of India has held that where a judgment of acquittal by the High
Court has led to serious miscarriage of justice, The Supreme Court cannot refrain from doing
its duty and abstain from interfering on any ground.9 If the acquittal is unmerited, no sanctity
or credibility can be attached to it. It is nothing but the travesty of truth and fraud on justice. In
such cases, the court will interfere.10 Where the High Court has not given any cogent or
sufficient reason for disagreeing with the findings of guilt by the trial court, the acquittal will
be interfered under Article 136.11
Therefore, in the light of the above mentioned judicial precedents and other authorities, The
Honble Supreme Court is duty bound to interfere in the instant matter to meet the ends of
justice and prevent its miscarriage. The petitioners humbly plead before this Honble court to
grant Special Leave to appeal so that Daina can get justice as promised to her by the Law of
the Land.
Sheonandan Paswan v. State of Bihar, AIR 1983 SC 194 (Para 55); Sheonandan Paswan v. State of Bihar, AIR
1987 SC 877.
5
Article 136 of The Constitution of India 1950.
6
Haryana State Industrial Corpn. v. Cork Mfg. Co., (2007) 8 SCC 120.
7
Article 132 to Article 135 of The Constitution of India 1950.
8
Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala, A.I.R. 2000 SC 2587.
9
Biswanath Ghosh v. State of West Bengal, A.I.R. 1987 SC 1155; Narendanath Khanare v. Parasnath Khanare
(2003) 5 SCC 488.
10
Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh v. State of Guajarat, 2004 4 SCC 158.
11
Durga Das Basu Commentary on The Constitution of India, Vol. 5, 8 th Ed. 2009.

Page |2
2. THAT DAINA WAS CRIMINALLY INTIMIDATED BY PETER UNDER SECTION

506 OF IPC
According to Webster Dictionary12, Intimidate refers to (a) make payment, make afraid,
overawe: (b) force or deter with threats or violence, cowdown. Intimidation may be
accompanied by the violence or threat of violence but can be committed without them.13
Section 50314 comprehensively defines Criminal Intimidation. Section 50315 provides
penalty for it. Criminal Intimidation as under Section 50316 means:
Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or
to the person or reputation of anyone in whom that person is interested, with intent
to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not
legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to
do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal
intimidation.
It is most humbly submitted that Criminal Intimidation in one word can be referred to as a
threat, which is of the kind and given with the intent specified in the above mentioned
section.17
[2.A] That the accused threatened Daina which caused alarm

It is most humbly contended that in the instant case as Daina came to know recently that
Peter had many illicit relationships in the past, because of which she was depressed and
wanted to file a case against Peter. Peter was afraid of this and wanted to do away with it.
Hence, he started persistently threatening her and assaulting her physically as well as
mentally. In addition to the facts stated above, Peter was also a drug addict and a coward,
because of which he was not in his senses and became aggressive and often yelled at her,
threatening to kill Daina if she informed the police regarding the same.
12
Marriam Webester, Legal Dictionery (11th. ed.), 2015.

Mohammad Ishaq v. State, A.I.R. 1961 All. 522.
14
503 of The Code.
15
503 of The Code.
16
503 of The Code.
17
A.K. Gopalan, In re A.I.R. 1950, Mad. 233.
13

Page |3
In Habibullah v. State,18 the Honble Madhya Pradesh High Court held that there should
be a clear indication as to what the accused was going to do and the complainant must feel
as a reasonable man that the accused was going to convert his words into action.
[2.B] That the accused had intention to avoid Daina from filing
complaint against him.
In the light of the above mentioned facts regarding Peters intention as well as his cruel
behaviour with Daina he should be punished under Section 506(2)19 which is an
important offence ..., the threat should be a real one and not just a mere word when the
person uttering it does exactly mean what he says and also when the person at whom the
threat is launched does not feel threatened actually. It should appear that the complainant
was feeling fear for his life.20
It is most humbly submitted, as per Section 821 threat to do a criminal act is relevant when
one threatens an injury to another, that or a similar injury afterwards happen, the fact of
the threat is relevant. In the instant case Peter threatened and assaulted Daina which has
been clearly stated by Dainas friends, acting as direct evidence under Section 60.22 The
motive of Peter to get rid of Daina is self -evident by the cruel conduct and inappropriate
behaviour of Peter, as per Section 11.23
It is most humbly submitted that, according to Section 11(2),24 collateral facts, which make
the existence of a fact in issue or a relevant fact possible or highly probable or which by way
of corroboration are consistent with the existence of the fact in issue or a relevant fact, tend to
render the existence of a fact in issue or a relevant fact highly probable are themselves made
relevant by the section.25 In the instant case Peter had a deceitful history he had many illicit
relationships in the past and also duped around 55 lakhs, these things were earlier not
dominant but after the happening of the certain event, his history becomes highly probable
under section 11(2).26 Thus, gives an upper edge to fall under the crime of Section 506.27
18
1961 M.P.L.J. 1190.

506(2) of The Code.
20
Noble Mohandas v. State, 1989 Cr.L.J. 669.
21
8 of The Act.
22
60 of The Act.
23
11 of The Act.
24
11 of The Code.
25
Ranagavyar v. Innasenulla Mudali, (1959) 2 M.L.J. 68.
26
11 of The Act.
27
506 of The Code.
19

Page |4
3. THAT THE ACCUSED COMMITTED AN ACT LEADING TO DAINAS DEATH
Section 30028 of the Indian Penal Code29 talks about murder, which inter alia suggests that if
the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, it would
amount to murder. A bare perusal of this Section, suggests two important factors in
determining whether an act amounts to murder or not. These two factors are, the act causing
death and the intention of causing death by commission of the same.
[A] PETER COMMITTED AN ACT LEADING TO DAINAS DEATH, COUPLED

WITH A GUILTY INTENTION TO DO THE SAME.
It is a well settled law that despite the absence of an eyewitness an accused can be punished on
the basis of circumstantial evidence, if it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused
committed an act or a chain of acts and events which point towards his guilt. The events or
chain of events pointing towards the guilt of the accused must be of a conclusive nature and
consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused.30 Also, the circumstances must not
point to any other explanation which saves the accused by creating a reasonable doubt
regarding his guilt.
The Honble Supreme Court of India, speaking through J. Mahajan, in the matter of Hanumant
Govind Nargundkar & Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh31 has held that:
It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of circumstantial
nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn
should in the first instance be fully established, and all the facts so established
should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused.
A similar view has been taken by Sir Alfred Wills.32The Supreme Court of India in various
cases has held and explained the guidelines to ascertain the cases against an accused
pertaining to circumstantial evidences. In Shivaji Sahabrao Bubade v. State of Maharashtra33
300 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860. (Hereinafter referred to as The Code).
The Code.
30
Vinay D. Nagar v. State of Rajasthan, 2008CriLJ 1907; Yusuf v. State of West Bengal, AIR 2011 SC 2283.
31
1952 Indlaw SC 89; State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Shrivastava, 1992 CrLJ 1104.
32
Wills Principles of Circumstantial Evidence, 6th Edition, 1937, Chapter 6.
33
1973, 2 SCC 793.
28
29

Page |5
and in plethora of cases34 the Supreme Court observed the following observations with regard
to circumstantial evidence35:
1. Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely
may be guilty.
2. The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the
guilt of the accused.
3. The Circumstances should be of conclusive nature and tendency,
4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved,
and
5. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable
ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and
must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the
accused.
These Five Golden Principles constitute the panchsheel of the proof of the case
based on circumstantial evidences.
In view of the aforesaid principle governing the case based on circumstantial evidence leading
to culpable homicide amounting to murder the circumstances which brings home the guilt of
the accused are:
[A.1] That the accused had motive to get rid of Daina.

The Honble Supreme Court in Ram Kripal v. State of Madhya Pradesh36 held that motive is
in the mind of the accused and can seldom be fathomed with any degree of accuracy. Motive
may be defined as that which leads or tempts the mind to indulge in a criminal act or as the
moving power which impels to act for a definite result37.
[A.1.1] That there was motive behind the act committed by the accused.
In the instant case, motive played a very crucial role which compelled the accused to do a
heinous act, as the case is entirely based on circumstantial evidence, there are no eye-
34
Bodhraj v. State of J & K, (2002) 8 SCC 45.

Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra , 1984CriLJ1738; Krishnan v. State represented by Inspector
of Police, (2008) 15 SCC 430; Wakkar and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2011) 3 SCC 306.
36
AIR 2007 SC (SUPP) 49.
37
State of West Bengal v. Mohammad Khalid AIR 1995 SC 785.
35

Page |6
witnesses of the crime. Motive plays a very important role in such cases as it has played in the
instant case. It is often said, men may lie but circumstances do not.
38
A man is not supposed
to take the life of another just for the fun of it.39 In Paramjeet Singh v. State of Uttarakhand,40
the Supreme Court held that if motive is proved that would supply a link in the chain of
circumstantial evidence but the absence thereof cannot be a ground to reject the prosecution
case.41
Motive is something which prompts a man to form an intention and knowledge is an
awareness of the consequences of the act. In many cases, intention and knowledge merge into
each other and mean the same thing more or less and intention can be presumed from
knowledge. The demarcating line between knowledge and intention is no doubt thin, but it is
not difficult to perceive that they connote different things. Even in English decisions, the three
ideas are used interchangeably and this has led to a certain amount of confusion."42
[A.1.2] That the pre-conduct of the accused held relevant.
The act of an accused prior to the incident, contemporaneous with it or subsequent with is
relevant under section 8 of Evidence Act43According to the facts it is well established that
Peter was liar, impatient and aggressive as he used to persistently threaten and assault Daina
as she came to know about his illicit relationships in past. . Under Section 844 of the Evidence
Act45 threat to do a criminal act is relevant when one threatens an injury to another, or a
similar injury afterwards happens, the fact of the threat is relevant. 46 He lied on various
occasion as he did not inform Margarate about he being married for 3years in there 5year
relationship. Even on the night before Dainas death he revealed regarding partying with
Daina along with their mutual friend Sara, but the CCTV footage of the pub reveals absence of
Daina and his aggressive nature as he fought with Sara in such a short span of timeIn A.N.
Venkatesh & Anr. v. State of Karnataka47, it was held that:
38
Bipin Kumar Mondal v. State of West Bengal, AIR 2010 SC 3638.

Naqli v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1991, Cri.L.J. 2468 (All): 1991 All LJ 840.
40
2010 (10) SCC 439.
41
Praful Sudhakar Parab v. State of Maharashtra, 2016ALLMR(Cri)3104.
42
Basdev v. State of Pepsu, 1956 CriLJ 919.
43
Kuldip Sham v. State of Punjab, 1980 Cri LJ 71
44
8, Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
45
Indian Evidence Act, 1872. (Hereinafter referred to as The Act).
46
VinayakDatta v. State, A.I.R. 1970 Goa 96.
47
2005 SCC (Cri) 1938.
39

Page |7
By virtue of section 8 Evidence Act48, the conduct of the accused person is

relevant if such conduct influences or is influenced by any fact in issue or relevant
fact.
Evidence of incidents which took place sometime ago is relevant as motive49. Corollary as per
Section 1150 of Evidence Act, says that collateral facts in connection of the facts sought to be
proved with facts in issue which makes the heinous act highly probable is relevant.
Peter duped around 25lakh in the past51 and had taken Rs.30lakh from Margarate for the
company they had set up together.52 This clearly shows that Peters motive for the crime was
his greed for money. Moreover, Dainas passbook and debit card was used by Peter.53He even
swiped Dainas bank account to zero balance and the last transaction was on March 30th,
201554 that is two days before the murder.
[A.1.3] The death caused to Daina is Murder Not Suicide.
Peter perfectly executed the murder by suffocation leading to asphyxia, which was caused by
closing the external respiratory orifices either by the hand or by other means which led to
bruising on her body. In Taylor's Principles and Practice of Medical Jurisprudence, 55 it is
stated that mechanical asphyxia includes suffocation where the interference with the process
of breathing is at the level of the nose or mouth. The term suffocation embraces the causes by
which death is produced by impediment to respiration, not due to pressure externally and
immediately applied to the windpipe. It does not, therefore, include deaths by hanging,
strangulation, or throttling. All this is admissible evidence under Section 8 of the Evidence
Act.56 Thus under the instant case motive is relevant considering the act of the accused of
which evidence can be given.
[A.2] That the act was done with an intention of causing death and the
knowledge that such act is likely to cause death
48
8 of The Act.
Chhotka v. State A.I.R. 1958 Cal 482; Bishwanath v. Dhapu, A.I.R. 1960 Cal 494.
50
Section 11 of The Act.
51
4 of the moot proposition.
52
53
54
55
13th Edition, 1984 by Keith Mant, Vol. 1 at p. 282.
56
8 of The Act.
49

Page |8
Section 300 of The Indian Penal Code57 defines Murder and its various essentials; clause 1 of
the same is most relevant to the case at hand, which is, if the act by which the death is caused
is done with the intention of causing death. An intention to kill a person brings the matter so
clearly within the general principle of mens rea as well as actus reus as to cause no difficulty.
Once the intention to kill is proved, the offence is murder unless one of the exceptions applied,
in which case the offence is reduced to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.58
[A.2.1] That the accused intended to kill Daina
In Re: Devasahayam,59 Honble Madras High Court observed that the ingredient of intention
or that of knowledge must be essentially present in order to constitute a criminal offence. In
the instant case the intention of killing Daina is apparent on the face of records, as the accused
very systematically and perfectly executed the plan of the murder. Section 106 of Evidence
Act60 lack of any authentic explanation on the part of accused of such death itself would be a
circumstantial evidence against him.
[A.2.2] That such act was premeditated.
Premeditation means thought of beforehand for any length of time, however short. It is
immaterial whether or not the accused was in a fit of passion at the time of the occurrence if
the killing was unjustifiable and premeditated.61
[A.2.3] That the death is a direct result of the accuseds act.
According to the post-mortem report, the cause of Dainas death was asphyxia due to
suffocation, caused by closing the respiratory orifices either by the hand or by other means, or
blocking of the cavities of the nose and mouth by the introduction of foreign substance which
provides the element of intention.
In Rakesh Kumar Damodarji v. State of Gujarat,62 the Honble Gujarat High Court dealt with
the definition of Asphyxia and suffocation leading to murder.
57
300 of The Code.

Rajwant Singh Vs. State of Kerala, A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 1874 at p. 1877 ; Ghulam Hyder Inram Baksh Vs.
Emperor, A.I.R. 1938 Sind 63.
59
(1962) 1MLJ 161.
60
Burden of Proving Fact especially within knowledge. When any fact is especially within the knowledge of
any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.
61
State v. Hunter, 118 Iowa 686; People v. Tuczkewitz, 149 N.Y. 240.
62
(2014)3GLR2334.
58

Page |9
Asphyxia may be defined as primarily a state, or series of states, induced by an

oxygen supply short of tissue needs.
The post mortem report of Dainas body reveals suffocation as the cause of death. 63 The
term suffocation embraces the causes by which death is produced by impediment to
respiration, not due to pressure externally and immediately applied to the windpipe. It does
not, therefore, include deaths by hanging, strangulation, or throttling, but comprises deaths by
smothering. Death by suffocation may be caused by obstruction to the entrance of air through
the mouth and nostrils or by inhalation of irrespirable gases etc.64
Corollary, the death would amount to murder when the body of the deceased is found
inside the flat and the flat was locked from outside, and also the medical evidence showed
that the death of deceased was a result of asphyxia.65
[A.2.4] That the accused had exclusive opportunity
It is most humbly submitted that Daina died under mysterious circumstances. According to
Section 7,66 the facts which are the cause or effect of the fact or which afford an opportunity
for the occurrence of the fact in issue are relevant.67 It is already established that Daina and
Peter were living in the same flat which gave him an exclusive opportunity to murder her and
these facts are relevant to explain the fact in issue as per Section 9.68 Similarly held in Nika
Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh,69 it was observed that the fact that the accused alone was
with his wife in the house when she was murdered and the fact that the relations of the
accused with her were strained would, in the absence of any cogent explanation by him, point
to his guilt.
In Trimukh Maroti Kirkan V. State of Maharashtra70, the Honble Apex Court observed:
When an offence like murder is committed in secrecy inside a house, the initial
burden to establish the case would undoubtedly be upon the prosecution but the
nature and amount of evidence be led by it to establish the charge cannot be of the
63

Rakesh Kumar Damodarji Acharya and 2 Ors.v. State of Gujarat, (2014)3 GLR 2334.
65
State V. Manoj Yadav, 2012, CriLJ 456 (Raj) (DB).
66
7 of The Act.
67
Chhotka V. State, A.I.R. 1958 Cal 482: 1958 CriLJ 1170; Indian Airlines V. Madhuri, A.I.R. 1965 Cal 252.
68
9 of The Act.
69
1972 A.I.R. 2077.
70
(2006) 10 SCC 681.
64

P a g e | 10
same degree as is required in other cases of circumstantial evidence. The burden

would be of comparatively lighter character.
As per Sections 59 and 60 of the Act71, every fact except the contents of a document may be
proved by oral evidence and that evidence will be direct evidence and if it refers to a fact
which could be heard, it must be the evidence of the witness who heard it. The basic rule of
the above mentioned Section is to bring the best available evidence before the court. 72The
statements of Suzen and a few other friends of Daina, regarding Peter being married, his illicit
relationships in past and his cruel behaviour towards Daina are admissible as oral evidence
and provide insights of Peters conduct with Daina.73Thus, it can be very well stated that the
inmates of the house cannot get away by simply keeping quiet and offering no explanation on
the supposed premise.
[A.3] Post conduct of the accused after Murder

It is most humbly submitted and established that the accused very perfectly executed the
murder of Daina. Since, the accused had the fear of his reputation being shattered in the
society. Therefore he portrayed the murder as suicide. As per Section 8,74 subsequent attempts
to commit the crime shall also amount to a conduct75. In Appu v. State,76 the Honble Madras
High Court stated that, a formal attempt by the accused to perpetrate the same crime in the
same or different manner is relevant.
The following are the instances of the accused subsequent conduct:[A.3.1] That the accused failed to appear.
A partys failing to appear when he had strong motive to appear would be evidence against
him. It is the bounden duty of a party personally knowing the fact and circumstances to give
evidence on his own behalf, and his non-appearance as a witness will give rise to an inference
to the fact that his case is not true.77 In the instant case Peter being the first person to discover
Dainas body as stated by him, and he being the partner of Daina had the duty to inform the
71
Section 59 and Section 60 of The Act.

In re: Vadlamudi Kutumba Rao, A.I.R 1957 AP 595.
73
Ganesh Narain Singh V. Jadunandan Singh, A.I.R. 1969 Pat 82.
74
8 of The Act.
75
Kuldip Sham v. State of Punjab, 1980 Cri LJ 2364.
76
A.I.R. 1971 Mad. 194.
77
Arjun v. Virendra Nath, A.I.R. 1971 All.29.
72

P a g e | 11
police as well as to be present and provide all sorts of need and help to the authorities. On the
contrary, Peter ran away and even didnt inform the police which is an evidence against him78.
[A.3.2] That the accused Gave inconsistent and false statement regarding the offence
The accused being perturbed by the incident gave incorrect statement, as stated by Peter that
he was the first person to discover Dianas body after entering the bedroom and finding
Dianas body hanging from the ceiling. When interrogated by Sam later on, it stated that he
was the first to have entered the locked flat in the apartment from the neighboring flat by
opening the sliding doors of balcony and upon reaching the hall he saw Daina hanging from
the ceiling fan. Subsequently, he opened the door of flat from inside and let in Peter. The fact
that the accused has given false, inconsistent or contradictory accounts of the circumstances of
the crime of his relation to the act is relevant,79 which comes under the purview of Section
11(1).80
[A.3.3] That there was no Suicide note hinting towards the death of Daina
In Ratan Pundlik Salunkhe and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors,81 the Honble Bombay
High Court held that, it is required to take note of the fact that, there is no suicide note left
behind by the deceased pointing out fingers towards the commission of offence by the
petitioners. In the instant case there was no suicide note pointing towards the reason behind
Dainas unnatural death.
Therefore, in the light of above stated instances and facts of the subsequent conduct of Peter
reasonably infer the motive and intention of committing such heinous crime and portraying it
as suicide.
78
Parmeshwar Din v. Emporer, AIR 1941 Oudh 517.

Ranjit Singh v. State, A.I.R. 1952 HP 81.
80
11 of The Act.
81
A.I.R. 2015, Bom 64.
79

P a g e | 12
4. THAT PETER VOLUNTARILY CAUSED HURT TO DAINA UNDER SECTION

323 OF IPC
According to s. 319 of The Indian Penal Code,82 hurt is the causing of bodily pain, disease
or infirmity. In order to constitute the offence of hurt the ingredient of intention or that of
knowledge must necessarily be present.83 The Honble Supreme Court in Singapagu Anjaiah
v. State of Andhra Pradesh84:
As nobody can enter into the mind of the accused, its intention has to be gathered
from the weapon used, the part of the body chosen for the assault and the nature of
the injuries caused.
According to Section 323,85 the following two conditions are to be fulfilled to convict the
accused for the offence, That the accused by his act caused bodily pain, disease or infirmity to
the victim, That he did such an act intentionally or with knowledge that it would cause the
hurt.
[4.A] That the accused had required intention to cause hurt

It is most humbly pleaded that in the instant case the circumstances of the offence are self
sufficient to point towards the fact that the accused had intention as well as knowledge to
cause bodily injury to the victim. To infer the mental element regard shall be had to the part of
body chosen for inflicting violence and the severe internal injury that the violence left
behind.86 The intent to cause hurt may be presumed from the nature of hurt caused and the
circumstances under which it was caused.87
Intention to cause hurt, or knowledge that an act is likely to cause hurt, is the most decisive
factor to decide whether a person can be held guilty of voluntarily causing hurt. It is not the
extent of injury which is relevant, but the intention with which hurt was caused which is
82
319 of The Code.

Deva Shayam, In re (1962) 1 M.L.J. 161.
84
(2010) 9 SCC 799.
85
323 of The Code.
86
Joseph Cheriyan v. State, A.I.R. 1953 P.C. 129 at p. 129: (1952) Ker. L.T. 656.
87
Nga Ba Gyaw (1911) 1 UBR 105.
83

P a g e | 13
relevant. There may be cases where the act may even result in death but what has to be
gathered from the facts is the intention of the accused.88
[4.B] That the accused caused hurt leading to Dainas death

In the present case Peter had the motive to get rid of Daina, as he wanted to save his image
from being shattered so he perfectly planned the murder of Daina. Taking into consideration
the post mortem report, the marks were found on her body (cheeks and nose area) leading to
suffocation. Author Dr. C. K. Parikh in "Parikh's Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence, Forensic
Medicine and Toxicology"89, differentiated suicide from murder as in suicide, the ligature
should be found in situ and the body should be free from other signs of violence or marks of
struggle but in the instant case the facts are totally corollary.
According to Dr. K.S. Narayana Reddy,90 death due to suffocation is caused by closing the
respiratory orifices either by the hand or by other means, or blocking of the cavities of the
nose and mouth by the introduction of foreign substance which provides the element of
intention. In Taylor's Principles and Practice of Medical Jurisprudence, 91 it is stated that
mechanical asphyxia include suffocation where the interference with the process of breathing
is at the level of the nose or mouth. It is most humbly submitted that the accused closed the
orifices by using his hands and the ensuing defence led to scratches, distinct nail marks, or
laceration of the soft parts of the victims face, which is nose and cheeks leading to
establishment of all the necessary elements required in causing hurt as defined in section
319.92
The offence under section 323 can be proved by medical evidence and oral statement as well.
On consideration of the oral, documentary and medical evidence on record it was held that the
accused had assaulted his grand-mother, mother and sister so he was convicted under Section
323, IPC in relation to assault.93
88
Satpal v State, 195(2012) DLT452.

Parikh's Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence, Foresic Medicine and Toxicology, 6 th Ed. 2007
90
Jaypee Brothers, Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology.
91
13th Edition, 1984 by Keith Mant, Vol.1.
92
319 of The Code.
93
Kalang v.State of Madhya Pradesh, CriLJ 3437.
89

P a g e | 14
PRAYER
Wherefore, in the light of facts of the case, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities
cited, this Honble Court may be pleased to adjudge and declare that:
A. The Appeal is maintainable under Article 136 of the Constituion.
B. The Accused caused an act l eadi ng to Dainas deat h. He murdered her
and portra yed it as suicide , hence liable under Section 302 of IPC.
C. Peter voluntarily caused hurt to Daina and hence he is liable under Secion 323 of IPC.
D. Peter threatened Daina and criminally intimidated her and so the offence falls within the
ambit of Section 506 of IPC.
Or, Pass any other order as it deems fit in the interest of equity, justice and good conscience.
For This Act of Kindness, the Appellant Shall Duty Bound Forever
Pray.
Respectfully Submitted
S/d________________
Place: Yangistan
Counsel(s) for the Appellants
Date: 15th October, 2016
(Public Prosecutor)

P a g e | 15

P a g e | 16

IMS Law College National Moot Court Competition, 2016

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

IMS Law College National Moot Court Competition, 2016

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

4TH KIIT NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

TEAM CODE: IMSMC-1615

IMS Law College National Moot Court

IN THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF YANGISTAN

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

IMS LAW COLLEGE NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

[2.A] That the accused threatened Daina which caused

[A]Peter Committed An Act Leading To Dainas Death,

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

IMS LAW COLLEGE NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

[A.1] That the accused had motive to get rid of

[A.1.1] That there was motive behind the act

[A.1.2] That the pre conduct of the accused held

[A.1.3] That there was no suicide note hinting towards

the death of the accused

[A.2] That the act was done with an intention of

is likely to cause death

[A.2.2] That such act was premeditated.

[A.2.3]That the death is a direct result of the

[A.3] Post conduct of the accused after Murder.

[A.3.1] That the accused failed to appear.

[A.3.2] That the accused Gave inconsistent and false

[A.3.3] That there was no Suicide note hinting

[4] T HAT PETER VOLUNTARILY CAUSED

[4.A] That the accused had required intention to

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

IMS LAW COLLEGE NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

IMS LAW COLLEGE NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

ABBREVIATIONS EXPANDED FORM

All India Reporter

Criminal Law Journal

Indian law Reports

Punjab and Haryana

Supreme Court Cases

Supreme Court Journal

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

IMS LAW COLLEGE NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

Indian Penal Code, 1860

A.I.R. 1950, Mad. 233

A.N. Venkatesh & Anr. v. State of

2005 SCC (Cri) 1938

A.I.R. 1971 Mad 194

Arjun v. Virendra Nath

A.I.R. 1971 All.29

Basdev v. State of Pepsu

Bipin Kumar Mondal v. State

Biswanath Ghosh v. State of West

AIR 2010 SC 3638

A.I.R. 1960 Cal 494

A.I.R. 1987 SC 1155

Bodhraj v. State of J & K

A.I.R. 1958 Cal 482

(1962) 1 M.L.J. 161

A.I.R. 1969 Pat 82.

A.I.R. 1938 Sind 63

Ganesh Narain Singh V.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

IMS LAW COLLEGE NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

1961 M.P.L.J. 1190

(2007) 8 SCC 120

Hem Raj v. State of Ajmer

1954 SCR 1133