LAW CENTRE-I

FACULTY OF LAW, UNIVERSITY OF DELHI

MOCK TRIAL WRITTEN SUBMISSION, 2022

IN THE MATTER OF:

STATE
V.
MUKESH

Submitted by:
VAIBHAV SINGH (PROS. COUNSEL)
SECTION B
ROLL NO. 226182
Page 1 of 8
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
S.No. PARTICULARS PAGE NO.
1. Particulars of the Case 3
2. Opening Statement of the Prosecution 4
3. Examination in chief of Monika (PW-1) 5
4. Cross Examination of Mukesh (DW-1) 6
5. Summary by Prosecution Counsel 7
6. Closing argument of the Prosecution 8

Page 2 of 8
 PARTICULARS OF THE CASE:

PROSECUTION COUNSEL- Vaibhav Singh (226182)

DEFENCE COUNSEL- Arti Yadav (226737)

WITNESS FOR THE PROSECUTION

PW-1: Monika (Victim) represented by Sachin Malik (226022)

WITNESS FOR THE DEFENCE

DW-1- Mukesh (Accused) represented by: Rajshree (226575)

RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860

Section 96: Acts done in private defense

Section 97: Right of private defense of the body and of property
Section 319: Hurt
Section 320: Grievous hurt
Section 322: Voluntarily causing grievous hurt
Section 325: Punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt

Page 3 of 8
 OPENING STATEMENT FOR THE PROSECUTION
REPRESENTED BY VAIBHAV SINGH

Good morning everyone.

Your honour my name is Vaibhav Singh and the counsel for Ms. Monika the
prosecution. This case relates the day of new year when the accused Mr.
Mukesh, age 38, resident of 678, Hauz Khas, New Delhi, lost his cool in front
of his children and gave a heavy blow to his ex wife and the victim, Monika,
age 35, outside 345, Green Park, New Delhi at her home on her eyes which
knocked her down after which she was in severe bodily pain for next 20 days.

Today we come before this Hon'ble Court to seek justice not just on behalf of
my client, but also on behalf of all the women who despite being committed
partners, devoted mothers and upright citizens, go through domestic violence,
the pain of their husband's infidelity and as if all this was not enough, also
undergo gruesome acts of violence publicly.

Ms. Monika a strong willed woman who wants for a best for her children even
if it costs her physical abuses from her husband and conviction for shop lifting
to feed her children. On the other hand Mukesh was always troubled financially
and has a history of bad temper not only with the victim but also has a previous
conviction over another incident at a bar.

Your honour the defense may claim that the accused acted in self defence but
the prosecution based on statements of all the witnesses would attempt to prove
beyond reasonable doubt that it was a voluntary act, intentionally carried out
and would ask the court at the end to hold the accused guilty as charged.

Your honour, with your due permission, prosecution will like to call upon its
first witness Ms. Monika.

Page 4 of 8
 EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF OF MONIKA (P.W. -1)
(REPRESENTED BY VAIBHAV SINGH 226182)
Ms Monica, kindly repeat after me
OATH: I will speak the truth, only the truth and nothing but the truth.
Q1. Would you please Identify yourself for the records of the court?
A1: Monica Myself Monica, live at 345 green park with my two children and
Mukesh is their father

Q2. Ms. Monica, tell me about your married life and how did it end with a
divorce?
A2: We got married 10 years ago and have two children Sanjay and Sonia, aged
8 and 5 years respectively. Mukesh was never financially stable, I had to steal
food to feed my children for which had to face conviction and guilt. We fought a
lot due to it and many times Mukesh had hit me as well and had to lodge a
complaint everytime. But I never gave a formal statement to police, thinking
about my children, our marriage ended when Mukesh told me that he would
leave me for Roshni a wealthy woman) and he was having an affair with her.

Q3: Can you describe that what led to the incident after which you were in
severe pain for 20 days?
A3: Mukesh was already annoyed when children were with me for the
Christmas, hence I told him that he could take children for the new year eve but
as children were very tired that day I asked Mukesh to take them only for 3 hrs.
after it got very late that evening and Mukesh didn't answer any of my calls, I
got terribly worried. When they came the next morning, I straight away ran
towards them and stood by Mukesh to get Sonia who was in Mukesh's arms
when I reached to get Sonia, without warning about anything, he punched me on
my right eye with the car keys on his hands and was knocked down, got up and
tried to hit him but could just pull his hair, then both Mukesh and Roshni fled
away in their car and immediately called police.

Q4: Has Mukesh faced previous conviction for any other crime?
A4: Yes, He faced one-year detention for a fight in a bar.

Q5: How would you describe your ex-husband Mukesh as a person?

A5: He is an ill tempered man and often engaged himself in such scuffles with
other people. He is an irresponsible person who left me for another woman.

Thank you Monica

Your honour, that's all regards Monica.

Page 5 of 8
 CROSS EXAMINATION OF MUKESH (D.W.-1)
Q1. You have a history of scuffle/violence with your ex-wife and you have also been
convicted in the past. Do you accept?

A1. No, there is no history of scuffle with my ex-wife. I have never hit her; rather I have
never hit women. These are all calculated likes to assist her scheme to show me in bad light
and prevent my access to my children.

Q2. Is it true that you did not abide by the timings allocated by Monika (mother of the
children concerned) on the 31st evening, and to add to it, you were not receiving her calls?

A2. No. This is again a manufactured lie. It was not me but Monika who did not abide by the
scheduled, pre-decided timings. She went back from what she had said and later informed me
that I could only take them at 2 PM. Monika never told me that the children had to go back
home at 5 PM, the same day. This is another manufactured lie. And as far as not taking any
calls is concerned, it was merely for the fact that I did not want anyone to interrupt my
precious time with my children.

Q3. Were you annoyed by the fact that the children were with Monika on the day of
Christmas?

A3. Yes, that incident did annoy me.

Q4. Were you convicted for a fight at a Bar and imprisoned for one month?

A4. Yes, but that was an odd incident which has nothing to do with Monika.

Q5. Synchronizing with your history of violence, you are charged with voluntarily causing
hurt to Monika (your ex-wife). Do you accept the charge?

A5. I have stated earlier that there is no history of violence. I agree that I did strike Monika,
but it was not voluntary. It was in self- defence. My strike was just one blow, and was meant
to calm her down. It was not pre-determined. I did not intend to hurt her. There is no question
of poking her eye. It was a mere accident that the car keys struck her eye.

Q6. Why did you flee from the spot without offering any medical assistance to your ex-wife
after you hit her? How has divorce made things so bitter that for trivial reasons, you poked
her eyes with your car keys which could have turned her blind and escaped from the spot?
How would you justify that?

A6. I have no justification for leaving her in that condition.

Page 6 of 8
 SUMMARY BY PROSECUTION COUNSEL
I would like to draw the attention of the court to the fact that the tendency of a
bad behavior and temper has been displayed by the Accused. He has been
previously convicted for a fight in a bar and penalty of one-month detention for
his behavior and in that particular case which had no consisting relation with
Monika, which shows that accused leads a violent and short-tempered life and
makes decisions impulsively and without thinking of consequences.

Despite knowing that Ms. Monika was suffering from depression and was on
medication for quite some time, the accused didn't return the children at
scheduled time and not even felt courteous enough to respond to her calls to
inform in case of any delay. That amounts to voluntarily causing mental torture.
After voluntarily causing grievous hurt to Ms. Monika, the accused didn't
provide any medical assistance to the victim and instead fled from the spot. This
clearly indicates the ill intention of the accused.

Thank you, your Honor. I have no further question to ask.

Page 7 of 8
 CLOSING ARGUMENT OF THE PROSECUTION
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, In my opening statement, I
mentioned that I would call my witnesses to testify as to the defendant's guilt.
My witness testified and we have established the following facts beyond a
reasonable doubt:
1) that on the evening of Jan 1st, the defendant did intentionally strike the
victim,
2) that the intention of grievous hurt was present, and
3) that the defendant acted without self-defence.
4) that the accused is a person with basic instinct for violence and rage as he
portrayed by allegedly hitting the complainant. The condition of complainant
was so severe that she had to be hospitalised for 20 days.

Prosecution requests the court to reject the theory of self-defence made by

defence counsel, And to substantiate my request I would like to quote Kashi
Ram & Others vs State Of Rajasthan on 28 January, 2008, wherein the
Supreme Court observed that "The right of private defense cannot be used as a
shield to justify an act of aggression and no aggressor can claim a right of
private defense." The complainant acted as any other mother would do in care
of her ward and aggressor should not be allowed to take the plea of self-defense.

In the light of all the evidences, examination and cross examination of

witnesses, it was clearly evident that the act of the Accused was a deliberate act
which induced out due to the non-control anger which he had against his
ex-wife.

In conclusion, the prosecution thereby requests this honorable court to reject the
testimony of the accused and hold the accused guilty under Section 322 along
with Section 320 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code.
THANK YOU, YOUR HONOUR.
Page 8 of 8