TEAM CODE:

TEAM CODE:- 0

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

APPELLATE JURISDICTION UNDER ARTICLE 134 OF INDIAN

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

IN THE MATTER OF:

STATE

{PROSECUTION}

V.

RHEA AND OTHERS

RHEA CHOMBESHWAR………………………………(ACCUSED NO. 1)

NIRAV MALLAYA………………………………………(ACCUSED NO. 2)

{DEFENSE}

UNDER THE SUBMISSION OF THE HON’BLE JUDGES OF THE

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

MEMORIAL OF THE BEHALF OF APPELLANT

 1

TABLE OF CONTENT

1. Table of contents………………………………………………….1
2. Index of Authorities……………………………………………….2
3. Statement of Jurisdiction…………………………………………4
4. Statement of Facts…………………………………………………5
5. Statement of Issues…………………………………………………6
➔ WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY UNDER SECTION 302, 120 B AND 201 OF
INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860?
➔ WHETHER THERE EXIST COMMON INTENTION BETWEEN RHEA (ACCUSED
NO.1) AND NIRAV (ACCUSED NO. 2) UNDER SECTION 34 IPC 1860?

6. Summary of Arguments……………………………………………7
7. Arguments Advanced……………………………………………….8-11
8. Prayer………………………………………………………………12

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF APPELLANT

 2

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATUES

INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 6

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE 1973 7

EVIDENCE ACT 1872 8

WEBSITES

INDIAN KANOON https://indiankanoon.org/search/?formInput=302%20ipc%20 8

cases (last accessed 9 July)

CASEMINE https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5e96b39a4653d0536457f71a 9
(last accessed 10 july)

The SUPREME COURT OF INDIA https://main.sci.gov.in/ (last accessed 12 july) 11

BRITANNICA https://www.britannica.com/topic/circumstantial-evidence (last 8

accessed 3 july)

BOOKS

PSA PILLAI’S, CRIMINAL LAW , 14 EDITION, LEXISNEXIS 8

CASES

Ramesh Singh Alias Photti v. state of Andhra Pradesh, (2004) 11 scc 305 8

Thangiya v State of Tamil Nadu, (2005) 9 Scc 650: (2000) Cr LJ 684 (SC) 9

Suresh Chandra Bahri v. State of Bihar, AIR 1994 SC 2420: (1994) Cr LJ 3271 (SC) 10

Mahboob Shah v. Emperor, AIR 1945 PC 118 11

Goudappa v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2013 SC 1595: (2013) Cr LJ 1762 (SC): 11

(2013) 3 SCC 675.

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF APPELLANT

 3

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS:-

A.I.R ALL INDIA REPORTER

D.W. DEFENSE WITNESS

P.W. PROSECUTION WITNESS

SCC SUPREME COURT CASES

HCC HIGH COURT CASES

AC APPEAL CASES

ART. ARTICLE

CrPC CRIMINAL PROCEDURE COURT

IPC INDIAN PENAL CODE

ORS. OTHERS

HON’BLE HONORABLE

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF APPELLANT

 4

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The hon’ble court has jurisdiction to try the instant matter under Article 134 of Indian
Constitution.

ARTICLE 134 OF INDIAN CONSTITUTION

An appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgement, final order or sentence in a
criminal proceeding of a High Court in the territory of India if the High Court has on appeal
reversed an order of acquittal of an accused person and sentenced him to death; or has
withdrawn for trial before itself any case from any court subordinate to its authority and has
in such trial convicted the accused person and sentenced him to the death or (c) certifies under
Article 134A that the case is a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court:

(2) Parliament may by law confer on the Supreme Court any further powers to entertain and
hear appeals from any judgement, final order or sentence in a criminal proceeding of the High
Court in the territory of India subject to such conditions and limitations as may be specified in
such law.

The respondents have appeal to the Hon’ble court of India in response to the petition filed by
the petitioner.

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF APPELLANT

 5

STATEMENTS OF FACTS

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH,

BACKGROUND:-

1. Nirav Mallaya was the son of a prolific artist named Han Gogh.
2. Nirav Mallaya and Karan Chombeshwar are two famous artists who jointly own the
Renaissance Gallery in Lolpur. The gallery was known to host the auctions.

TIMELINE OF EVENTS LEADING TO THE PRESENT CASE:-

Karan married Rhea (31 years at that time) *Karan married Geetha Devi, and they had a breakdown of marriage,
she was upset with his work even after office and consuming certain drugs which made him unstable.
2015

2016 Karan was diagnosed with the heart condition, thus he had a pacemaker embedded and was assisted by Rhea since
she was a doctor.

Karan announced that all proceeds from his paintings will go to charitable organizations which specially dealt with
the underprivileged children. He also announced that he along with his sister Shakira were starting a new
foundation to financially support struggling artists belonging to the LGBTQ community.

(Rhea was the nominee for his life insurance claim before.However, he wished to donate his property towards
charity after his death.)
2018

17th The next Auction date, Karan’s painting “Mariposa under a spell” and Nirav’s painting “To father, with love”
Dec. and “Golden Poison” were announced as the signature paintings.
2020

16th Rhea gifted a limited edition “Plont Manc Tech Pen” to commemorate Karan’s successful 30 years in the field.
Dec. Detail of the Pen:- The Pen was embedded with the initials ‘The Greatest Samaritan’ with Karan’s caricature
2020 embossed towards the nib. *Rhea went to Karan’s cabin at around 9p.m. and was later joined by Nirav Mallaya.
They both left the cabin within 30 minutes.

3. Rhea and Nirav started to meet on a regular basis and discuss their personal lives.
4. The next morning i.e., 17th dec 2020, on the same day, the curator arrived at 7 a.m. to
the gallery and found the lights of his cabin still switched on. He was not reacting, and
the Karan’s Signature piece was spilled with paint. Mr Devdas immediately called
the police and informed them.

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF APPELLANT

 6

MATTER BEFORE COURT:

a. That since Mrs Rhea and Mr. Nirav was aggrieved by the decision of the District
Court, they filed an appeal to the High Court.
b. That the High Court acquitted Mrs Rhea and Mr. Nirav Mallaya and since the State
was aggrieved by the Decision of the High Court, it filed an appeal to the Supreme
Court.

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF APPELLANT

 7

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY UNDER SECTION 302, 120 B AND

201 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860?

WHETHER THERE EXIST COMMON INTENTION BETWEEN RHEA

(ACCUSED NO.1) AND NIRAV (ACCUSED NO. 2) UNDER SECTION 34 IPC
1860?

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF APPELLANT

 8

SUMMARY OF THE FACTS

ISSUE:-1 WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY UNDER SECTION 302, 120 B OF

INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860?

It is respectfully submitted to the Hon’ble Court on the behalf of the counsel of the Appellant
that there is a gross failure in justice by Hon’ble the High Court. The Accused are being
examined by the evidences and statement of the witnesses and should be in a charge of
accusation and are alleged for the offence of the murder. The accused should be held Guilty
under the Section 302 and 120B of IPC1860.

ISSUE:- 2 WHETHER THERE EXIST COMMON INTENTION BETWEEN RHEA

(ACCUSED NO.1) AND NIRAV (ACCUSED NO. 2) UNDER SECTION 34 IPC 1860?

It is respectfully submitted on the behalf of Appellant that the principle of criminal liability is
that the person who commits an offence is responsible and he can only be held guilty. However,
the IPC, through Section 34 makes an exception to the rule by imposing criminal liability on
the perpetrator and his associates who in “furtherance of common intention” or “prosecution
of common object” participated in the commission of the crime. in such situation, each one of
them becomes jointly liable1. Out of hatred and Aggression Rhea chombeshwar and Nirav
Malliya accumulated the common intention for committing the offence of murder. Though
section 34 of IPC is invoked by the prosecution for gathering the motive of both the accused.

1 Ramesh Singh Alias Photti v. state of Andhra Pradesh, (2004) 11 scc 305

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF APPELLANT

 9

ARGUMENT ADVANCED

ISSUE:-1 WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY UNDER SECTION 302, 120 B OF

INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860?

In the Facts and Circumstances highlighted, it is humbly submitted on the behalf of the
Appellants that the accused is being held guilty in the offence of 302, 120B and 201 IPC.

1. The first clause of Section 300 stipulates that when an act (including legal omission) is
done with the intention of causing death, then it is culpable homicide amounting to
murder. It is the simplest and at the same time, the most gravest of the species of murder.
The definition in this clause is direct and without any subtleties about it. It is the action
of the person with the clear intention of killing the person.
2. clause 4 of the section 300 contemplates that generally, commission of acts which are
so imminently dangerous that it is likely to cause death. under this clause the act need
not be directed at any particular individual nor need there be an intention to be
imminently dangerous.

Clause 1 and 4 of section 300 constitutes that Rhea intentionally committed the action
of gifting him the Electric Pen Evidence marked as 1A/516/2020 knowing the fact that
the deceased is diagnosed with the heart disease and embedded with pacemaker, which
can attract the electric wave of the electric pen and can stop working.

3. Annexure-6 (Postmortem Report) the medical report shows that there is possibility of
death is arrest of heart caused by the sudden surge of shock and malfunction of
pacemaker which did not stimulate the energy required for the deceased’s frailing heart
rhythms which proves that Rhea knowing the fact of effects of electric pen gifted the
electric pen to the deceased . here the intention of the accused no. 1 is clear and
transparent. As she was the doctor of the deceased, keeping in knowledge about the
Electric waves will affect the pacemaker’s raiditions and will cause death of the person.
4. In the case Thangaiya v. State of Tamil Nadu 2 The Supreme Court categorically ruled
that the clause (4) of section 300 would be applicable where the knowledge of the

2 thangiya v State of Tamil Nadu, (2005) 9 Scc 650: (2000) Cr LJ 684 (SC)

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF APPELLANT

 10

offender as to the probability of death of a person approximates to a practical certainty.

such knowledge on the part of the offender must be of the highest degree of probability.

hence the Accused should be held guilty and punish them under section 302 IPC for
life imprisonment

5. In the case of Suresh Chandra Babri V. State of Bihar3

“When the conspiracy alleged is with regard to committing a serious crime of the nature
contemplated in section 120B read with the proviso to section 120A, IPC, then, in that
event, mere proof of agreement between the accused for commission of sucha crime
alone is enough to bring about conviction under section 120B and the proof of an overt
act by the accused or by any one of them would not be necessary. There is no
requirement that each and every one of the conspirators must commit some overt act
towards the fulfillment of the object of the conspiracy. Since, in most cases, a
conspiracy is conceived and hatched in complete secrecy, and only in rare cases is
direct evidence available, circumstantial evidence leads to an inference that an
agreement between two or more people to commit an offence may be drawn.”

Hence the Accused should also be liable under the section 120B of IPC.

ISSUE 2;- WHETHER THERE EXIST COMMON INTENTION BETWEEN RHEA

(ACCUSED NO.1) AND NIRAV (ACCUSED NO. 2) UNDER SECTION 34 IPC 1860?

That it is humbly submitted by the Counsel on the behalf of the Appellant that the accused
no.1 and no.2 is constituting the common intention to commit offence of murder under the
agression, hatred, bitterness, jealousy and grudges.supporting my above allegation by the
statement of P.W. 1. In her statement she stated that Rhea was unhappy and got disturbed by
the decision of Karan after he announced to donate his property towards the charity after her
death, Due to the particular reason that Rhea was the nominee for his life insurance claim
during the initial days of marriage. Accused no. 2 out of jealousy his paintings receive less
bids compared to the paintings of Karan's paintings. The Grudges shows the common
intention of both the accused behind the murder of Accused.

Section 344: - ACTS DONE BY SEVERAL PERSONS IN THE FURTHERANCE OF

COMMON INTENTION: When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of

3 Suresh Chandra Bahri v. State of Bihar, AIR 1994 SC 2420: (1994) Cr LJ 3271 (SC)
4 INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860, NO. 45, CRIMINAL CODE OF INDIA.

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF APPELLANT

 11

the common intention of al, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as
if it were done by him alone.

1. In the case Mahboob Shah v. Emperor, AIR 1945 PC 1185 the Privy Council,
referring to proof of common intention observed:-

“it is difficult if not impossible to procure direct evidence to prove the intention of an
individual, in most cases it has been inferred from his act or conduct or other relevant
circumstances of the case….. the inference of common intention within the meaning of
the term of section 34 should never be reached unless it is a necessary inference
deducible from the circumstances of the case.”

2. The Accused no.1 and no.2 have started meeting regularly and shared their personal
lives. They have been seen in the office of the Deceased before the murder taken placed
and left the office together by holding hands according to the statement of the P.W-3 .
This Fact inference the love affair between both the accused and out of their hatred
towards Deceased due their own particular personal reasons and their (accused no. 1
and 2) love among each other has accumulated the common intention and knowledge
for the offence.
3. P.W. 4 the ex-wife Geethadevi stated in her statement that the Accused no. 1 is more
attached to my ex-husband’s money and assets than the man himself which proves that
Rhea is fond of Money and when Karn announced to donate his property Rhea
overturned. In the same statement she stated that Nirav mallaya was not a very talented
artist. He harboured a certain level of resentment and jealousy towards Karn which
constitutes that his jealousy agitated him towards karan.
4. Meeting regularly and sharing their personal lives made Rhea and Nirav come close
and generated love feelings among both of them. Rhea was having an affair with Nirav,
both came together with the common intention to kill the deceased. The Evidence
marked as 1E/516/2020 itself is a proof of their affair.
5. In Goudappa v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2013 SC 15956 the apex court, admitting
that common intention is the premise if joint Liability embodied in section 34 of the
code and addressing to the manner of gathering common intention, observed thus:-

5 Mahboob Shah v. Emperor, AIR 1945 PC 118

6 Goudappa v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2013 SC 1595: (2013) Cr LJ 1762 (SC): (2013) 3 SCC 675.

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF APPELLANT

 12

“How to gather common intention is gathered from the manner in which the crime has
been committed, the conduct of the accused soon before and after the occurrence, the
determination and concern with which the crime was committed, the weapons carried
by the accused and from the nature and injury caused by one or some of them.
Therefore, for arriving at a conclusion whether the accused had the common intention
to commit an offence of which they could be convicted, the totality of circumstances
must be taken into consideration.”

6. In the case Rajesh Govind Jagesh v. State of Maharashtra7 the supreme court held that
no direct evidence for common intention is necessary. it can be inferred from the
attendant circumstances of the case and conduct of parties.

Hence The Accused no. 1 and no. 2 should be held guilty under section 34 of IPC 1860.

7 Rajesh Govind Jagesh v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2000 SC SC 160: Cr LJ 380 (SC)

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF APPELLANT

 13

PRAYER

IN THE LIGHT IS ISSUE RAISED, ARGUMENTS ADVANCE AND AUTHORITIES

CITED, THE COUNSEL ON THE BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT HUMBLY
SUBMITTED AND REQUEST THAT THE HON’BLE COURT ADJUDGE AND
DECLARE THAT:

a. The charges framed against the accused by the prosecution are more than
sufficient enough to convict them under section 302 along with the
section 34, 120-B of Indian Penal Code 1860.
b. Since the charges framed against the accused by the prosecution are
enough, should reverse the order of Hon’ble High Court.

AND/ OR

PASS ANY ORDER THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT IN THE INTEREST
OF JUSTICE, EQUITY, AND GOOD CONSCIENCE. AND FOR THIS ACT OF
KINDNESS, THE COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT AS IN DUTY BOUND SHALL
EVER PRAY.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
COUNSEL OF APPELLANT.

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF APPELLANT