MOOT PROBLEM (CRIMINAL LAW)-

Roll No. 15 B.A.LL.B 03-18

The Democratic Republic of Amphissa is situated in Asian Subcontinent. Amphissa is a

quasi-federal country comprised of 35 states with strong central Government. The Laws of
Amphissa are in Pari-materia with the Laws of India. Pallaka is among one of the developed
states of Amphissa. Michael and Jenny are citizen of Amphissa. They are resident of
Flemingo, a small town of Pallaka.

On dated 25th feb.2008, Michael, aged 29, S/O- Late John, R/O- 54/3-New Ext. Apartment,
Flemingo, and Jenny, Aged 24 yrs, D/O- Defrado, R/O- Greater Ango Colony, Flemingo,
were married according to their religious rituals. Their marital life was going smoothly. On
some occasions they used to have few verbal quarrels with each other but they reconciled
soon after the verbal fight. Two years after the marriage Jenny gave birth to a baby girl on 4 th
September 2010. The girl was named as Jennifer. After few months of the birth of Jennifer,
Jenny observed certain changes in the behaviour of Michael. Michael started behaving in a
rude way and he usually becomes violent on every petty issue without any reason. Initially
Jenny did not took the matter in a serious way but when the violent character of Michael
continued Jenny took her husband Michael to the doctor Alfered (DW1), who was a
psychiatrist. The doctor advised Michael to have control over anger and to take certain
medicines. The doctor diagnosed him to be suffering from first stage of Bipolar Mood
Disorder (Bipolar disorder, also known as manic-depressive illness, is a brain disorder that
causes unusual shifts in mood, energy, activity levels, and the ability to carry out day-to-day
tasks. There are four basic types of bipolar disorder; all of them involve clear changes in
mood, energy, and activity levels).

In spite of the medical treatment the violent behaviour of Michael continued to exist. On
slight issues Michael becomes violent and he also started to fight with Jenny and he also use
to beat him without any reason. On dated 5th December 2010 at 11am, loud noise of fighting,
crying and shouting was coming from the house of Michael. On hearing the cry Daniel(PW3)
who was neighbour of Michael went in the house of Michael and found Jenny lying
unconscious on the floor pooled in blood with various injuries on her body. At that time
Daniel saw Michael hiding a 7 inch Iron Axe in the garden. Thereafter Daniel called the
police and Jenny was taken to government hospital whereby she was treated by Dr. Andrew
(PW2). Michael was arrested by police on the same day and was kept in police custody. On
6th December, 2010 Jenny regained her consciousness and her statement was recorded by
Jaison (PW1) SHO of Flemingo Police Station. In her statement she told to the police that on
5th December at 10 am Michael came home and started fighting with her in a violent way and
when she resisted Michael attacked him with axe kept in the garden. On 8 th December Jenny
died because of the injury in her lower abdomen which proved fatal. Jennifer the daughter of
Michael was sent to Government Child Care Centre.

On the basis of the statement of Daniel and the dying declaration of Jenny FIR was lodged
against Michael vide. 733/2010 in Flemingo police station. Michael was prosecuted under
Section 302 of IPC for the murder of Jenny. During interrogation Michael stated that he was
unconscious at the time when Jenny was attacked. He told to police that when he regained his
consciousness he found Jenny lying on the floor and axe in his hand. He told to the police
that he did not know from where the axe came and he also stated that he did not know how
Jenny died.

Final Report was submitted on 3rd Feb.2011 in which Michael was charged for murder of
Jenny under Section 302 of IPC. The case (State of Pallaka vs. Michael) was tried by the
Session Court vide Session Trial No-57/2011.

The prosecution examined the material witnesses in the court as under:-

Prosecution Witness 1 (PW1)- Jaison, SHO, Flemingo Police Station and Investigating
Officer of the case deposed before the Court that the deceased Jenny in her dying declaration
blamed Accused Michael for the attack over her. PW1 also deposed before the Court that the
axe used for attack was recovered from the garden of Michael on which there was finger print
of Michael as per forensic report.

Prosecution Witness 2 (PW)3- Dr. Andrew who treated the deceased deposed before the
Court that the cause of death was due attack of the axe and the injury on abdomen proved to
be fatal. He also deposed that Jenny was in a mentally fit condition at the time of making
dying declaration.

Prosecution Witness 3 (PW3)- Daniel who was neighbour of Michael and informant of the
case in FIR deposed that he saw the unconscious body of Jenny on the floor and Michael
trying to hide the axe in the garden.

The accused Michael took the plea that he was suffering from Bipolar Mood Disorder and for
which he was being treated. He also stated that at the time when Deceased Jenny was
attacked he was suffering from the disorder and he was out of his conscience and he did not
knew the nature of the act and therefore, he could not be made liable by virtue of Section 84
of IPC on ground of insanity.

The defence examined the material witnesses in the court as under:-

Defence Witness1 (DW1)- Dr. Alfered who was treating accused Michael for Bipolar Mood
Disorder stated before the Court that accused Michael was suffering from Bipolar Mood
Disorder and the disorder was sufficient to enable a person to do any violent act under its
influence.

Defence Witness 2 (DW2)- Mathew brother of Michael who stated before the Court that on
various occasions Michael was very much aggressive and violent even for slight reasons.

On 3rd September 2014 Michael was found guilty of intentional murder of Jenny and
convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment.

The accused feeling aggrieved by the said judgment preferred an appeal before the High
Court of Pallaka on dated 9th October 2014 vide Criminal Appeal No. 875/2014. The High
Court relying on the version of the doctor treating the accused for Bipolar Mood Disorder
found that the accused at the time of committing crime was suffering from both legal and
medical insanity and accordingly the Court acquitted the accused from the charge of murder
on dated 5th September 2016.

State of Pallaka preferred an appeal before the Supreme Court of Amphissa against the order
of acquittal by the High Court of Pallaka on 17th of November 2016.

The case of State of Pallaka vs. Michael is listed before the Divisional Bench of Supreme
Court of Amphissa for final hearing on 10th Jan.2017. The respective counsels are expected to
submit their considerations on the following issues:-

1. Whether sufficient ground of legal insanity exists so as to exonerate the accused from
liability of murder.
2. Whether the burden of proof of legal insanity on the part of Defence is at par with
burden of proof on part of Prosecution.
3. The parties may raise any other issue on the given facts to advance arguments upon.

MOOT PROBLEM--Roll No. 21-38

Lepat community is one of the minority communities in Rabet. People who belonged to this
community have been carrying on a prolonged desire for the inclusion of their community in
the OBC list to derive the benefits of reservation in government jobs and for admission in
reputed educational institutions. This desire of Lepat community was exploited by some
political parasites. Abhishek who is interested in politics identified this as the red carpet for
his entry into politics, the initial step he took was to win the hearts of the students who
belonged to Lepat community, who were quite a number in the presidency college, which he
executed with the support of Angad, his best friend and Dushyant, a local political leader.
Their evil plan got initial boost when Abhishek won the union election. Abhishek and Angad
started to flaunt their pride outside the college also. Being in continuous protest against the
government, was the suggestion which Abhishek was given by Dushyant, who knew the
pulse of the politics. They thought this will keep them in limelight. Police torture was the
easy method which Abhishek thought would gain him public support. For this he decided to
continuously target Dinesh, who was the son of MLA which he dreamt will result in the
police complaint and action against him which he can tag in the fame of police torture.
Dinesh realizing this as a sensitive issue decided not to make any written complaint and in
turn seeked help from Mr. Chaudhary. Mr. Chaudhary with an aim to solve this issue warned
Abhishek and Angad regarding this matter. After knowing about this Dushyant, who
belonges to a party which has openly proclaimed “war” against police instigated Abishek to
attack them if necessary and offered him his full support. On April 7 2016, when
Mr.Chaudhary saw Abishek and Angad attacking Dinesh and Peter he interfered immediately
in order to maintain public peace and to save those poor souls. Abishek used this opportunity
and threw a metal rod at Mr.Chaudhary which in turn resulted in his fatal death.

CHARGE I: Charges under section, 304 read with 34, 186 of Rabat Penal Code have been
charged against Mr .Abhishek Lepat to which the accused has pleaded not guilty.

CHARGE II: Charges under section, 304 and 107 read with 34, 186 of Rabat Penal Code
have been charged against Mr. Angad Lepat to which the accused has pleaded not guilty.

CHARGE III: Charges under section, 304 and 107 read with 34 of Rabat Penal Code have
been charged against Mr. Dushyant to which the accused has pleaded not guilty.

The accused was punished by Trial Court. The matter is pending before High Court.

The Indian Law is applicable.

Issues

1. WHETHER THE ACCUSED ARE LIABLE TO BE PUNISHED FOR OFFENCES

ALLEGED UNDER SECTION 304 OF RABAT PENAL CODE.
2. WHETHER THE ACCUSED ARE LIABLE TO BE PUNISHED UNDER SECTION
186 OF RPC.
3. WHETHER THE ACCUSED ARE LIABLE TO BE PUNISHED UNDER SECTION
107 OF RPC.

MOOT PROBLEM

Roll No.-40-49

John Murphy is a 21 year old engineering student. Since 2015 he has worked parttime as a
glass collector at Disko Risko, a popular Dublin city nightclub. He is outgoing, but
sometimes feels overwhelmed when trying to balance work, his studies and his active social
life. John has always enjoyed his part-time job and the social side of it in particular, but his
heavy workload, sometimes causes him stress. In addition to his role as glass collector in the
nightclub, he is often asked to help out doing odd jobs in the kitchen (the nightclub serves
late night burgers and pizzas). Over the past year, John has been obliged to work longer hours
to keep up with the hectic workload, which he mentioned to his manager that he was finding
difficult. Disko Risko’s motto is ‘work hard, play hard’, encouraging staff to stay on after
their shift is over to fraternise with patrons. Several other staff members at Disko Risko have
complained about the pressures of the job, but none have brought it to management’s
attention, though some have joked that they are being “worked to death”.

On the night of 24 July 2016, John was feeling particularly stressed and fed up with his job.
In an effort to relieve some of his stress and take a break from glass collecting in the busy
dance floor and bar areas, he walked into the kitchen. Upon entering the kitchen, John came
upon a distressing situation. As he opened the door, he saw that the Head Chef, Luigi, had
fallen into the pizza oven and was in distress. He immediately tried to turn the oven off, but
accidently pressed a switch to increase the heat in the oven. For several minutes he tried to
switch off the oven without success. Eventually he managed to switch it off and call for help.
The Chef suffered burn injuries. John initially believed the injuries to be life-threatening, but
the injuries were less severe on examination. Nevertheless, John was severely traumatised
after seeing the injuries to the chef and witnessing an accident of this nature.

Following this incident, John was given three days off work. On the 28 July, John returned to
work. He was not his jovial self, but continued to fulfil his tasks in a perfunctory way. John
felt guilty over potentially inflicting additional injury to the Chef by failing to switch off the
oven in time. This had a very negative impact on his mental health. As a result of his
heightened stress and anxiety levels, John noticed that he was also exhibiting some physical
symptoms: he lost a significant amount of weight and suffered from insomnia (as well as
nightmares). His social life and personal interactions were also under strain. John attended his
doctor on 20 August and was diagnosed with depression. He was prescribed with anti-
depressants. He went back to work, but became quite withdrawn and dispirited. Still, John
fulfilled his tasks to the best of his ability.

His distress escalated and he then suffered a nervous breakdown on 15 September, 2016.
When he attended a psychiatrist, a Dr. O’Flynn, the doctor advised that John’s psychiatric
illness was triggered by the shock of seeing the Chef fall into the oven. Additionally, Dr.
O’Flynn advised that John’s stress was exacerbated by his working environment, including
the heavy workload and staff shortages, which all contributed to his condition. The
psychiatrist recommended a course of treatment for John, which included stronger
medication. In addition, he recommended that John take a break from his employment at
Disco Risko. John approached his employer the next day, 16 September 2016, to inform them
of his health status and diagnosis. They responded with surprise and stated that although John
indicated that he was not happy with the workload, he did not indicate that he had been
suffering from anxiety or depression. They said that he should have been able to deal with the
stresses of everyday working life and that the breakdown was not reasonably foreseeable.
Further, they said that if they had been informed as to how serious his mental health
condition had been, they would have tried to help and avoid the manifestation of a more
serious condition. They also made reference to the fact that they operate a nightclub, where
late nights and long hours are part of the culture of the industry – they claimed that John
would have been very well aware of the nature of this nightclub industry.
Procedural history: John contacted his solicitors, a leading law firm, Brown, Power & Sons
and obtained legal advice. Following unsuccessful correspondence between John’s solicitors
and the solicitors for Disko Risko to settle the matter, proceedings were initiated on John’s
behalf in the Civil Judge, Senior Division against Disko Risko. John pursued an action in
employer’s liability and nervous shock. He claimed that his employer breached the duty of
care to the employee on a number of grounds. A full defence was entered by the defendant,
Disko Risko. The Trail Court dismissed the suit. The District Judge in an appeal dismissed
the suit. The Second appeal by John is pending before High Court. Argue

The Plaintiff claimed the following:

1. Damages for psychiatric injuries suffered, including ongoing stress and depression,
(culminating in a nervous breakdown), which ought to have been foreseeable to the
Defendant. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant breached the duty of care to the Plaintiff,
to provide a safe system of work, on the grounds of poor hours and heavy work load. The
Plaintiff claimed that there should have been a system in place regarding the long hours and
heavy workload.

2. Damages for nervous shock, on the grounds of witnessing the injury to Luigi and suffering
post traumatic stress. The Plaintiff claimed that the employer’s negligence and the resulting
accident left him exposed to suffering nervous shock, which was reasonably foreseeable in all
the circumstances. He further claimed that he was a participant in and not a mere observer of
the accident.

MOOT PROBLEM

Roll. No-51-62

The plaintiff, Mr. Heisenberg is a data analyst at Data Max. The defendant, Travel Solutions
Pvt. Ltd., is a highly reputed company based in Mumbai which provides travel services. Mr.
Heisenberg contacted Travel Solutions Pvt. Ltd. for arranging his trip to Australia with his
wife and two kids. Travel Solutions Pvt. Ltd. assured Mr. Heisenberg that visa issuance takes
10-15 days. Mr. Heisenberg got the flight booked to Sydney, from Chennai instead of
Mumbai on 08.09.2017 on the advice of Travel Solutions Pvt. Ltd and was asked to give the
documents for visa processing on 07.08.2017, as in the list given, to Mr. Tommen which
were submitted on 11.08.2017 but by that time Mr. Tommen had already left. The documents
were dispatched by the receptionist on 16.08.2017 which were received on 18.08.2017 and
verified on 21.08.2017 by the embassy. Mr. Heisenberg sent the missing document on
22.08.2017 which was received on 23.08.2017 by Travel Solutions Pvt. Ltd. On 06.09.2017,
Travel Solutions Pvt. Ltd. received the passports and sent its image to Mr. Heisenberg on
WhatsApp and also told Mr. Heisenberg that the passports shall be sent to Chennai airport
directly, due to less time. Mr. Heisenberg with his family, reached Chennai by 14:00 hrs on
08.09.2017.

The passports reached only by 21:00 hours by which Mr. Heisenberg had missed his flight.
Out of frustration he tweeted “Travel Solutions Private Limited – a bunch of liars, cheaters
and thieves with no ethics. The worst company ever”, along with a picture of his family on
Facebook with #TSPL sucks and logo of the company, which was widely condemned. Mr.
Heisenberg sued Travel Solutions Pvt. Ltd. before the High Court of Mumbai for negligence
for a sum of Rs. 1 crore. Travel Solutions Pvt. Ltd. filed a counterclaim for defamation. The
Trail Court found defendant guilty. The matter is heared by High Court

ISSUE 1:

WHETHER THE DEFENDANT IS LIABLE FOR NEGLIGENCE AND THE PLAINTIFF

ENTITLED TO DAMAGES?

(A): The negligence was contributory.

ISSUE 2:WHETHER THE PLAINTIFF IS LIABLE FOR DEFAMATION.

(A): The statement made was defamatory.

(B): The statement referred to the defendant.

(C): The statement was published.

MOOT PROBLEM

Roll No-63-14B.A.LL.B-31

1. Mr. X murdered his wife in a drunken rage at his house. The neighbours caught hold of
Mr. X and handed him to the police. Mr X was tried by the Court and convicted of offences
punishable under S.302 of IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment in 1984.

2. Mr. X was sent to the central prison in Purva Pradesh. While he was there, he became
close friends with his cellmate, Mr Y. With time, X and Y became friends and Y suggested
that X marry his daughter.
3. In the year 1987, X and Y obtained parole from the prison and the marriage between X and
Y‟s daughter was solemnized. X‟s wife delivered twin baby boys.

4. However, by the year 1990, X had started suspecting the fidelity of his wife. One night, X
was seized by rage. He seized an agricultural implement and hacked his wife to death. He
then killed his two children who were sleeping.

5. According to the neighbours who rushed in, X was trying to commit suicide by hanging
himself when they discovered him and overpowered him.

6. The lawyer did not cross examine witnesses of the prosecution nor did he produce any
evidence on behalf of the defence. The Sessions Court sentenced X under S.302 and 303 of
the IPC to death.

7. The matter was referred to a third judge of the High Court when division bench could not
come on consensus, third judge felt that there was no discretion in the matter and confirmed
the sentence of death. Mr X submitted a mercy petition to the President of Indica which came
to be rejected in the year 1996.

8. Due to oversight on behalf of the prison authorities, Mr X was not kept in the death row
cells at the prison, it is only in the year 2011, that the same was discovered and the prisoner
was sent to death row confinement.

9. On 01.01.2013, the black warrant for the execution of Mr X was issued by the appropriate
court. The very next day, lawyers representing a human rights organisation filed a writ
petition claiming that Mr X cannot be executed on the grounds that his trial is vitiated by
illegality and his execution would violate several provisions of the Constitution of Indica.

The following questions are presented before the Supreme Court for adjudication in the
instant matter:

I. WHETHER THE ACT OF MR. X FALLS UNDER THE CATEGORY OF

„RAREST OF RARE‟ CASES?
II. WHETHER THE TRIAL OF THE ACCUSED WAS VITIATED BY
ILLEGALITY?
III. WHETHER THE DELAY IN EXECUTION OF DEATH SENTENCE VIOLATES
ARTICLE 21 AND CAN BE A SOLE GROUND IN COMMUTING DEATH
SENTENCE OF MR. X?