SURANA AND SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT

COMPETITION, 2015

BEFORE THE COURT OF SESSIONS

AT DURG, XANADU, BHARAT

S.C. NO.111 OF 2015

STATE OF XANADU (PROSECUTION)

v.

MANOHAR AND ANR. (DEFENCE)

FOR OFFENCES CHARGED UNDER: SECTION 302, 465, 120B, 34 and 107 OF THE

INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 read with SECTION 66A AND 66C of the Information

Technology Act, 2000

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE SESSIONS JUDGE

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

Memorandum on Behalf of Prosecution Page |2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBRIVIATIONS AND INDEX OF AUTHORITITES ............................................... 4

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION............................................................................................... 7

STATEMENT OF FACTS ............................................................................................................. 9

STATEMENT OF CHARGES ..................................................................................................... 10

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ...................................................................................................... 11

I. Whether the accused are liable under Section 465 of the Bharat Penal Code, 1860? ........... 11

1.1 Actus Reus of forgery is proved: .................................................................................... 11

1.2 Mens Rea of the crime is proved: ................................................................................... 11

II. Whether the accused are guilty under Section 302? ............................................................ 12

2.1 Actus Reus of murder is proven...................................................................................... 13

Forensic Report: .................................................................................................................... 13

Witness Statements: .............................................................................................................. 14

2.2 Mens Rea of murder is proven ........................................................................................ 15

A. The accused had intention to kill ..................................................................................... 15

III. Whether the accused are guilty under Section 120B, 34 and 109 of the Bharat Penal Code?

................................................................................................................................................... 17

3.1 Accused are guilty under Section 120B read with Section 34 ........................................ 17

3.2 Accused Rahul is guilty of abetment under Section 109 ................................................ 18

SURANA AND SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2015
Memorandum on Behalf of Prosecution Page |3

3.3 Accused not entitled to benefit of doubt ......................................................................... 19

PRAYER ....................................................................................................................................... 23

SURANA AND SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2015
Memorandum on Behalf of Prosecution Page |4

LIST OF ABBRIVIATIONS AND INDEX OF AUTHORITITES

AIR All India Reporter

All Allahabad High Court

Cal Calcutta High Court

Cri LJ / Cr LJ Criminal Law Journal

Cr.P.C. Code of Criminal Procedure

Del Delhi High Court

DW Defence Witness

Ed. Edition

Guj Gujarat High Court

IPC Indian Penal Code

IC Indian Cases

Mad Madras High Court

n. Foot Note no.

Ori Orissa High Court

p. Page No.

P&H Punjab and Haryana High Court

Pat Patna High Court

PW Prosecution Witness

Raj Rajasthan High Court

SC Supreme Court

SCC Supreme Court Cases

SCJ Supreme Court Journal

SURANA AND SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2015
Memorandum on Behalf of Prosecution Page |5

SCR Supreme Court Reporter

Sec. Section

v. Versus

Cases

Jyotilal v. Dipak Dutta 1995 Cr LJ 930 ........................................................................................ 14

Amiruddin, (1922) BomLR 534, 542. .......................................................................................... 17

Andalammal v. Rajeswari Vedachalam AIR 1985 Mad 321 ........................................................ 14

Bakshish Singh v State of Punjab, AIR 1971 SC 2016 ................................................................. 12

Commissioner of Income Tax v Patranu Dass Raja Ram Beri, AIR 1982 PH ............................. 13

Dayanidhi Bisoi v. State of Orissa, AIR2003SC3915 .................................................................. 14

Devender Pal Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi), AIR 2002 SC 161 ................................................. 16

Emperor v. Abdul Hamid, AIR 1944 Lah 380............................................................................. 10

Hardeep Singh v. State of Haryana, (2008) 12 SCC 39................................................................ 16

Haripada Parul v. State (1988) 1 Crimes 772 (cal) ....................................................................... 13

Inder Singh v, State, AIR 1978 SC 1091. ..................................................................................... 17

Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1988 SC 1883 ......................................... 11, 18

Mahbub Shah v. Emperor, (1945) 47 Bom LR 941 ...................................................................... 18

Malan v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1960 Bom 393 .................................................................... 17

Mulakh Raj v. Satish Kumar, AIR 1992 SC 1175 ........................................................................ 15

Parichhat v. State of M.P., AIR 1972 SC 535............................................................................... 16

Ramesh Harijan v. State of U.P AIR 2012 SC 1979 .................................................................... 17

Ranganayaki v . State by Inspector of Police, AIR2005SC418 .................................................... 16

Samundar Singh v. State, AIR 1965 Cal 598................................................................................ 18

SURANA AND SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2015
Memorandum on Behalf of Prosecution Page |6

Santosh v.State of Madhya Pradesh, 1975 Cri LJ 602 (SC) ......................................................... 13

Satyavir Singh Rathi, Asst. Commissioner of Police & Ors. v. State through CBI, (2011)6 SCC 1

................................................................................................................................................... 17

State of Madhya Pradesh v. Digvijay Singh, 1981 Cri. LJ 1278 (SC) ......................................... 15

State of Maharashtra v Meyer Hans George, AIR 1965 SC 722 .................................................. 13

State of Punjab v Sucha Singh, AIR 2003 SC 1471 ..................................................................... 15

State of UP v Ashok Kumar Srivastava, AIR 1992 SC 840 ......................................................... 12

State v Dinakar Bandu (199) 72 Bom LR 905 .............................................................................. 14

Ujagar Singh v. State of Punjab, (2007) 13 SCC 90 ..................................................................... 14

Yogesh v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2008 SC 2991 ................................................................... 16

Statutes

Indian Penal Code, 1860 ......................................................................................................... 11, 13

Books

Klaus-Juergen Lackner, Kathrin Barbara Krug, Avoiding Errors in Radiology: Case-Based

Analysis of Causes and Preventive Strategies, Thieme, 2011 .................................................. 12

Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code, 33rd Ed. (2011) ................................................. 15

Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code, 36th Ed. (2014), .................................................. 9

Richard C. Dart, Medical Toxicology, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2004 ........................... 12

Dictionary

Aiyar, P Ramanatha, The Law Lexicon (2nd ed 2006).................................................................. 11

SURANA AND SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2015
Memorandum on Behalf of Prosecution Page |7

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Hon’ble Court has jurisdiction to try the instant matter under Section 177 read with Section

209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Section 177:

‘177. Ordinary place of inquiry and trial- Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried

by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed.’

Read with Section 220:

‘220.Trial for more than one offence.-

(1) If, in one series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction, more offences

than one are committed by the same person, he may be charged with, and tried at one trial for,

every such offence.

(2) When a person charged with one or more offences of criminal breach of trust or dishonest

misappropriation of property as provided in sub-section (2) of section 212 or in sub-section (1)

of section 219, is accused of committing, for the purpose of facilitating or concealing the

commission of that offence or those offences, one or more offences of falsification of accounts,

he may be charged with, and tried at one trial for, every such offence.

(3) If the acts alleged constitute an offence falling within two or more separate definitions of any

law in force for the time being by which offences are defined or punished, the person accused of

them may be charged with, and tried at one trial for, each of such offences.

SURANA AND SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2015
Memorandum on Behalf of Prosecution Page |8

(4) If several acts, of which one or more than one would by itself or themselves constitute an

offence, constitute when combined a different offence, the person accused of them may be

charged with, and tried at one trial for the offence constituted by such acts when combined, and

for any offence constituted by any one, or more, of such acts.

(5) Nothing contained in this section shall affect section 71 of the Indian Penal Code(45 of

1860).’

SURANA AND SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2015
Memorandum on Behalf of Prosecution Page |9

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Manaohar (Mano) and Rahul, the accused, are third year medical students. Rahul lent Manohar

money in college, and was pressurizing him to return the money. Manohar found it hard to ask

his uncle for money. One night Rahul came for a sleep over to Mano’s place. Rahul connected a

small USB look-a-like into Karan’s computer which enabled them to decrypt his uncle’s online

banking password and transferred money to his account. This happened on a few occasions.

Rahul came to know about the insurance policies of Karan for 2 Cr. that were in Mano’s name.

Rahul always reminded how rich Mano could be if his uncle had to go on a ‘long journey’.

On August 2, 2014, Mano opened the lap top as he has done many times on earlier occasions. He

tried to open Karan’s bank account to transfer money. But he could not as the password was not

appropriate. He opened a folder where he found a file containing his account and password

details. He opened (Bharat Bank) the bank account of Karan and transferred Rs. 2.50 lakhs to his

account towards college fees and towards his pocket expenses. Normally Karan used to transfer

2.25 lakhs to his account every semester.

On August 3, 2014 the deceased Mr. Karan experienced sudden abdominal and chest pain. He

was administered by Mr. Mano his brother’s son who is a medical student. As the drug was

administered to the deceased, the deceased recovered but in a matter of a few minutes he

collapsed. Mano wrote a medication on a piece of paper which happened to Dr. Choudhary’s

prescription and asked Ragahav to get it from the nearest pharmacy i.e. Mohan Pharmacy.

Thereafter, Mano administered the drug to his uncle through an intravenous. Immediately after

administering the drug his uncle revived and he was lifted from the ground and seated on a couch

in the living room. But within a matter of a few minutes his father collapsed again and died.

SURANA AND SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2015
Memorandum on Behalf of Prosecution P a g e | 10

STATEMENT OF CHARGES

The Prosecution, State of Xanadu, most respectfully asks this Hon’ble Court of Sessions at Durg

to consider the following charges as framed by it in accordance with Chapter XVII of the Code

of Criminal Procedure, 1973: -

-CHARGE-I-

Manohar has been charged with Section 465 of the Bharat Penal Code, 1860.

-CHARGE-II-

Manohar and Rahul have been charged with Section 302 along with Section 120B read with

Section 34 of the Bharat Penal Code, 1860.

-CHARGE-III-

Rahul has been charged with of Section 107 of the Bharat Penal Code, 1860.

-CHARGE-IV-

Manohar and Rahul have been charged with Section 66 and Section 66C of the Information

Technology Act, 2000.

SURANA AND SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2015
Memorandum on Behalf of Prosecution P a g e | 11

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

I. Whether the accused are liable under Section 465 of the Bharat Penal Code, 1860?

It is humbly submitted that the accused are guilty for committing the offence of forgery as as

defined in Section 464, made punishable under Section 465, BPC. Section 464 goes on to define

a false document. The two elements of a false document are that it must be a document

dishonestly or fraudulently made and it should have been made with the intention of causing a

belief that it was made or executed by or by the authority of a person who did not make or

execute it and with the knowledge that it was not so made or executed.1The Prosecution humbly

contends that both, the actus reus [2.1] and the mens rea [2.2] of the crime are established in the

instant matter, negating any claims of innocence.

1.1 Actus Reus of forgery is proved:

Under Section 464, what is essential is that the accused must make a document with the intention

of making it to be believed that it was signed by or by the authority of someone else while he

knows that it was not so made or authorized by that person.2As per the witness statement of

PW1, the report of the investigating officer, and the accused Manohar admitted to writing the

name of the medicine on Dr. Chaudhary’s prescription. Hence, the actus reus of forgery is

proved.

1.2 Mens Rea of the crime is proved:

1
Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code, 36th Ed. (2014), p. 2605.
2
Id.

SURANA AND SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2015
Memorandum on Behalf of Prosecution P a g e | 12

It is submitted that in case of forgery, what is essential is that the accused must make a document

with the intention of making it to be believed that it was signed by someone else, while he knows

that it was not made or authorized by that person. Intent to cause injury is not an essential

ingredient in the offence of forgery.3It is submitted that in the present case, Manohar knew that

the drug Oxycontin is a controlled drug under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances

Act, 1985 which cannot be bought without the prescription of a qualified doctor.4As the accused

was not a certified medical practitioner, it was impossible for him to obtain the drug without the

prescription of a qualified doctor. This coupled with the fact that it is most unnatural for the

accused to have the prescription of Dr. Chaudhary in his house strongly points towards

premeditation of the crime and the guilt of the accused.

II. Whether the accused are guilty under Section 302?

It is humbly contended that the accused are guilty for committing the offence of murder under

Sec 302, BPC. Sec 302 prescribes the punishment for committing murder. In order to bring a

successful conviction under this charge, however, it is pertinent to refer to Sec 300, BPC which

elucidates the essentials of murder.

A person is guilty of murder if he intentionally causes the death of a person or causes such bodily

injury as he knows, is likely to cause death of that person or causes such bodily injury, which in

the ordinary course of nature results into death or commits an act so dangerous that it must, in all

3
Emperor v. Abdul Hamid, AIR 1944 Lah 380.
4
In exercise of the powers conferred by clauses (viia) and (xxiiia) of section 2 of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985) and in supersession of Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue
Notification S.O. 527 (E) dated 16th July, 1996

SURANA AND SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2015
Memorandum on Behalf of Prosecution P a g e | 13

probability cause death of that person5. The Prosecution humbly contends that both, the actus

reus [3.1] and the mens rea [3.2] of the crime are established in the instant matter.

2.1 Actus Reus of murder is proven

Actus reus is any wrongful act6. Thus, in a case of murder, actus reus would be the physical

conduct of the accused that causes death of the victim. In the instant case, the actus reus is

established by way of witness statements [A], forensic report [B].

Forensic Report:

The post mortem and forensic report becomes important in cases where the cause of

death is to be established and is a matter of controversy. 7 In the present case, as per the

post mortem report8 and the forensic report9, the death was caused by an air embolism in

the heart and drug overdose. As per the panchnama10, 4 used syringes along with 7 units

of Oxycontin were recovered from the scene of death. As per the statement of PW1, only

one intravenous injection was administered in front of him. It is submitted that the

accused was left alone with the deceased, during which, the accused administered

intravenously a lethal dose of Oxycontin to the deceased as well as injected air into the

bloodstream of the deceased, which resulted in the air embolism causing death. It is

5
Sec 300, Indian Penal Code, 1860.
6
Aiyar, P Ramanatha, The Law Lexicon, p. 49 (2 nd ed 2006)
7
Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1988 SC 1883.
8
Annexure 3, page 10
9
Annexure 4, page 11
10
Annexure 2, page 8

SURANA AND SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2015
Memorandum on Behalf of Prosecution P a g e | 14

submitted that Oxycontin overdose can result in hypotension, bradycardia and death.11

Additionally, when large amounts of air are introduced through the venous system, the air

bubble obstructs the right ventricular outflow tract, interrupting the blood flow from the

right ventricle into the pulmonary artery.12 In the present case, the heart was arrhythmic

and there was froth formation in the artery. Hence it can be concluded that the death was

caused due to the intravenous injection by accused Manohar.

Witness Statements:

Bearing in mind that it is not for the prosecution to meet any and every hypothesis

suggested by the accused, howsoever extravagant and fanciful it might be,13 it is humbly

submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the circumstantial evidence in the instant matter

shows that within all human probability, the act must have been done by the accused.14

As per the admission of accused Manohar and the statement of PW1 Raghav15, on August

3rd, 2014, the accused Manohar injected intravenously into the bloodstream of the

deceased a medicine which he had procured after forging Dr. Chaudhary’s medical

prescription, soon after which the deceased collapsed. Additionally, the accused was left

alone with the deceased, giving him ample opportunity to inject air into the bloodstream

11
Richard C. Dart, Medical Toxicology, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2004, page 771.
12
Klaus-Juergen Lackner, Kathrin Barbara Krug, Avoiding Errors in Radiology: Case-Based Analysis of Causes and

Preventive Strategies, Thieme, 2011, page 345.

13
State of UP v Ashok Kumar Srivastava, AIR 1992 SC 840
14
Bakshish Singh v State of Punjab, AIR 1971 SC 2016.
15
Annexure 5, page 14.

SURANA AND SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2015
Memorandum on Behalf of Prosecution P a g e | 15

of the deceased, thereby causing an air embolism in the artery which resulted in the death

of Karan.

2.2 Mens Rea of murder is proven

Mens rea is considered as guilty intention16, which is proved or inferred from the acts of the

accused17. It is submitted that the intention to kill is established [A] in light of clear-cut motive of

the accused [B]. Arguendo, absence of motive would not be a sufficient ground to dismiss the

case [C].

A. The accused had intention to kill

It is submitted that when an act is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as

the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is

caused, it would amount to intention to kill.18Moreover, the intention to kill is not

required in every case, mere knowledge that natural and probable consequences of an act

would be death will suffice for a conviction under s. 302 of BPC.19 The Prosecution

respectfully submits before this Court that ‘Evidence’ should not be considered on the

basis of stray pieces of evidence in an isolated manner, but on the basis of the total effect

of the entire evidence on record.20 The reasonable course is to read the evidence of all the

16
Commissioner of Income Tax v Patranu Dass Raja Ram Beri, AIR 1982 PH 1, 4
17
State of Maharashtra v Meyer Hans George, AIR 1965 SC 722
18
Section 300, Indian Penal Code, 1860.
19
Santosh v.State of Madhya Pradesh, 1975 Cri LJ 602 (SC)
20
Haripada Parul v. State (1988) 1 Crimes 772 (cal)

SURANA AND SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2015
Memorandum on Behalf of Prosecution P a g e | 16

witnesses as a whole and find out whether on the material aspect, which alone will have

an impact on the issue concerned, was there corroboration.21 It is contended that the

accused Manohar was a medical student of the third year, having studied pharmacology,

and was aware that a fatal dose of Oxycontin and an air embolism will result in the death

of Karan. The accused admitted to administering medicine to Karan, soon after which

Karan died. In the present case, the used syringes and the Oxycontin found by the police

point unerringly towards the guilt of the accused.

B. The accused had motive to kill

Sec 8, Evidence Act stipulates that any fact is relevant which shows or constitutes motive or

preparation for any fact in issue or relevant fact. In the present case, the accused were in the

urgent need of money and were aware of the insurance policy of Rs. 2 Cr. in the favor of

Manohar. Potential financial gain is sufficient motive to kill 22 in the present case. It is further

pertinent to note that if there is motive in doing an act, then the adequacy of that motive

is not in all cases necessary. Heinous offences have been committed for very slight

motive.23The Prosecution contends that the circumstances taken cumulatively, cogently

and firmly24 establishes the guilt of the accused.

C. Arguendo, absence of motive is irrelevant

21
Andalammal v. Rajeswari Vedachalam AIR 1985 Mad 321 at p. 337; Jyotilal v. Dipak Dutta 1995 Cr LJ 930
(Cal).
22
Dayanidhi Bisoi v. State of Orissa, AIR2003SC3915
23
State v Dinakar Bandu (199) 72 Bom LR 905
24
Ujagar Singh v. State of Punjab, (2007) 13 SCC 90

SURANA AND SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2015
Memorandum on Behalf of Prosecution P a g e | 17

Assuming for the sake of argument that the accused had no motive, it is humbly

contended that absence of motive is no ground for dismissing the case. Motive is

immaterial so far as the offence is concerned, and need not be established25 as the mere

existence of motive is by itself, not an incriminating circumstance and cannot take the

place of a proof.26 Therefore, absence of proof of motive, does not break the link in the

chain of circumstances connecting the accused with the crime, nor militates against the

prosecution case and is not fatal as a matter of law.27 When the circumstantial evidence

on record is sufficient to prove beyond any doubt to prove that it was the accused and no

one else, who intentionally caused the death of the accused then, motive of the crime

need not be proved,28 as in the current case.

III. Whether the accused are guilty under Section 120B, 34 and 109 of the Bharat Penal

Code?

3.1 Accused are guilty under Section 120B read with Section 34

Combining the elements of ss. 120A & 34, it is evident that the following will form the basis for

holding the accused jointly liable for the charge of criminal conspiracy:

(a) There should be two or more persons;(b) There should be an agreement between themselves;

(c) The agreement must be to do or cause to be done: an illegal act (or) a legal act by illegal

25
Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code, 33rd Ed. (2011)
26
State of Punjab v Sucha Singh, AIR 2003 SC 1471
27
Mulakh Raj v. Satish Kumar, AIR 1992 SC 1175
28
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Digvijay Singh, 1981 Cri. LJ 1278 (SC)

SURANA AND SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2015
Memorandum on Behalf of Prosecution P a g e | 18

means; (d) A criminal act must be done by the persons; (e) The criminal act must be to further

the common intention of all; and (f) There must be participation of all persons in furthering the

common intention.29

It is a matter of common experience that direct evidence to prove conspiracy is rarely available.

It is therefore, impossible to adduce direct evidence of the same. The offence can only be proved

largely from inferences drawn from acts or illegal omissions committed by the conspirators in

pursuance of a common design.30 The Prosecution will therefore, rely on the evidence of acts of

various parties to infer that they were done in reference to their common intention.31Accused

Manohar and Rahul were in acute financial need and were aware of the insurance policy in

Manohar’s favor. Additionally, they were medical students well versed with the effect that a fatal

dose of Oxycontin and an air embolism would have on the Karan in his already failing health. It

is submitted that the accused conspired together to murder Karan in order to obtain access to the

2 Cr. insurance money, and are guilty under Section 120B.

3.2 Accused Rahul is guilty of abetment under Section 109

Under Section 109 the abettor is liable to the same punishment which may be inflicted on the

principal offender; (1) if the act of the latter is committed in consequence of the abetment and (2)

no express provision is made in the IPC for punishment for such an abetment.32Abetment, as

provided for under Section 107, constitutes of (1) instigating a person to commit an offence; or

29
Parichhat v. State of M.P., AIR 1972 SC 535; Hardeep Singh v. State of Haryana, (2008) 12 SCC 39
30
Devender Pal Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi), AIR 2002 SC 161
31
Yogesh v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2008 SC 2991
32
Ranganayaki v . State by Inspector of Police, AIR2005SC418

SURANA AND SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2015
Memorandum on Behalf of Prosecution P a g e | 19

(2) engaging in a conspiracy to commit it; or intentionally aiding a person to commit it.33 A

person is said to ‘instigate’ another to an act when he actively suggests or stimulates him to the

act by any means of language, direct or indirect, whether it takes the form of express solicitation,

or of hints, insinuation or encouragement.34In the instant case, Manohar owed Rahul money and

Rahul was pressurizing Manohar to return it. Additionally, both accused were aware of the

insurance policy of Karan which named Manohar as the benefactor. Lastly, Manohar

administered Karan the injection which resulted in Karan’s death. It is humbly submitted that in

the present case, accused Rahul instigated accused Manohar into murdering the deceased and

criminally conspired to do the same.

3.3 Accused not entitled to benefit of doubt

Proof beyond reasonable truth is a guideline not a fetish and the guilty cannot get away with it,

because truth suffers some infirmity when projected through human process. 35 A reasonable

doubt is not an imaginary trivial or merely possible doubt based upon reason and common sense.

When it is said that the prosecution has to prove a case beyond doubt, it means proof beyond

‘reasonable’ doubt36 and not fanciful doubts or lingering suspicion.37 In the present case, all facts

point towards the guilt of the accused. Furthermore, there is no need to have a prior

communication to hatch a plot as a conspiracy and can be done at the spur of moment in order to

33
Malan v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1960 Bom 393.
34
Amiruddin, (1922) BomLR 534, 542.
35
Re Ramaswami (197() MLJ (Cr) 423l Inder Singh v, State, AIR 1978 SC 1091.
36
Satyavir Singh Rathi, Asst. Commissioner of Police & Ors. v. State through CBI, (2011)6 SCC 1
37
Ramesh Harijan v. State of U.P AIR 2012 SC 1979

SURANA AND SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2015
Memorandum on Behalf of Prosecution P a g e | 20

attain a common object.38 It is a well settled principle that the evidence as to transmission of

thought sharing the unlawful design may be sufficient to prove the accused guilty.39 Section 10

of the Indian Evidence Act 1872, states that anything said, done or written by any one of the

conspirators in reference to their common intention as a relevant fact not only as against each of

the conspirators but for proving the existence of the conspiracy itself. Further, the said act can be

used for showing that a particular person was a party to the conspiracy. Under the principle

contained in Section 10 of the Evidence Act, once a conspiracy to commit an illegal act is

proved, act of conspirator becomes the act of others.40 Accused Manohar seized the first

opportunity to inject Karan with the fatal dose of Oxycontin along with air intravenously,

thereby resulting in immediate death. The absence of Rahul at the time of commission of the

crime is immaterial and by way of previous conduct, it is conclusively proved that Rahul and

Manohar conspired together to murder the deceased.

IV. Whether the accused are guilty under Section 66 and 66C of the Information

Technology Act, 2000?

It is humbly submitted that the Accused Manohar and Rahul are guilty of committing the

offenses of hacking with computer system [1] and identity theft [2].

4.1 The accused are guilty under Section 66 of Information Technology Act, 2000

38
Mahbub Shah v. Emperor, (1945) 47 Bom LR 941
39
Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Admin.), (1989) Cr LJ 1
40
Samundar Singh v. State, AIR 1965 Cal 598

SURANA AND SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2015
Memorandum on Behalf of Prosecution P a g e | 21

It is he Accused Manohar and Rahul have accessed or secured access to Karan’s computer, or

computer network41 without his permission and additionally, dishonestly introduced a computer

contaminant into his computer, which is an offense under Section 66 of the Information

Technology Act. Computer contaminant is a set of computer instructions that is designed to

record, transmit data residing within a computer42. The term ‘dishonestly’ has been defined in the

Indian Penal Code as anything done with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or

wrongful loss to another person43, with ‘wrongful gain’ being gain of property by unlawful

means to which the person gaining is not legally entitled44.

Rahul had accessed Karan’s laptop as he knew about the insurance policies that Karan had taken

in favour of Manohar. Karan’s laptop had both a software and a hardware key-logger which were

dishonestly introduced by Rahul and Manohar with the intention of recording personal data

including his net banking passwords that they subsequently used to transfer money from Karan’s

bank account. It is humbly contended that the Manohar was able to transfer money on August 3,

2014 because of the key-logger software that he had installed. Key-logger software generally

stored the keystrokes or the data in a folder on the computer itself and hence Manohar gained

access to Karan’s account and password details by way of a folder. Further, it is submitted that

Rahul, with his expertise of computers, had also transferred funds from Karan’s laptop, which he

could easily access as he used to stay over at his place, on a number of occasions. Thus, Manohar

41
Section 2(k), INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2000 (Central).
42
Section 43, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2000.
43
Section 24, Bharat Penal Code, 1860.
44
Section 23, Bharat Penal Code, 1860.

SURANA AND SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2015
Memorandum on Behalf of Prosecution P a g e | 22

and Rahul dishonestly introduced a computer contaminant in Karan’s laptop and therefore

committed an offense under Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

4.2 The accused are guilty under Section 66C of Information Technology Act, 2000

Under Section 66C 66C of Information Technology Act, 2000, dishonestly making use of an

electronic signature or password is termed to be an offense. Manohar and Rahul have used

Karan’s net banking password which was also unlawfully procured to transfer money from his

account to theirs. It is humbly submitted that the fact that Manohar transferred Rs. 2.5 lakhs

which is more than the usual money transferred for college fees and his pocket expenses points

towards his dishonest intention. Further, Manohar did not inform Karan about the excess money

transferred, the next day. Rahul had further been transferring money from Karan’s account to his

account without Karan’s knowledge. Thus, there was a wrongful gain to both Manohar and

Rahul.

SURANA AND SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2015
Memorandum on Behalf of Prosecution P a g e | 23

PRAYER

Wherefore, in light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, may this

Hon‘ble Court be pleased to:

1. Convict Manohar for the offences of under Sections 302, 465, 120B, 34 of the Indian Penal

Code, 1860.

2. Rahul for the offences of under Sections 302, 465, 120B, 34 and 107 of the Indian Penal Code,

1860.

2. Declare a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to life

imprisonment, and also be liable to fine under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

AND/OR

Pass any other order it may deem fit, in the interest of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience. All

of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted

Place: Xanadu S/d_____________

Date: August 10, 2015 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

SURANA AND SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2015