MOOT COURT

IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

UNDER ARTICLE 132 AND 134 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF

INDIA, 1950.

THE STATE........................(APPELLANT)

V.
RAMESH………………………..
(RESPONDENT)

MEMORIAL SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF RAMESH.

1|Page
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 3-4

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 5-7

 LEGISLATION 5
 CASES REFERRED 5
 BOOKS REFERRED 6
 LEGAL DATABASES 6
 IMPORTANT DEFINATIONS 7

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 8

STATEMENT OF FACTS 9-10

ISSUE RAISED 11

ISSUE CONCERNED 12

SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS 13

PLEADINGS 14-17

1. Whether there exist common intention between the accused Ramesh and Mahesh ? 14

2. Whether the state is justified for seeking permission for addition of charge u/s 366 of IPC? 17

PRAYER 18

2|Page
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AC Appeal Cases

A.I.R All India Reporters

All Indian Law Reports Allahabad series

A.P Andhra Pradesh

Art. Article

BLJ Bombay Law Journal

Bom LR Bombay Law Reporter

Cr. LJ Criminal Law Journal of India

CrPC Criminal Procedure Code

DPs Directive Policy

Edn. Edition

FRs Fundamental Rights

Guj Gujrat

Hon’ble Honorable

IPC Indian Penal Code

Jul July

Ors. Others

QBD Queen’s Bench Division (Eng)

pat Indian Law Reports Patna series

3|Page
 r/w Read with

S Section

SC Supreme Court

SCR Supreme Court Reporters

Sec. Section

TLR Times Law Reports (Eng)

U.P Uttar Pradesh

u/s Under section

V. Versus

4|Page
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

LEGISLATION

1. THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION ACT, 1950.

2. INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860.
3. CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973.

CASES REFERRED

 Dharam Pal v. State of Haryana, AIR 1978 SC 1492.

 Garib Singh v. State of Punjab, 1972 Cr LJ 1286.

 Nandu & Dhaneshwar Naik v. The State, 1976 CrLJ 250.

 Oswal Danji v. State, (1960) 1 Guj LR 145

 Pandurang v. State of Hyderabad, AIR 1955 SC 216

 Ramchander & Ors. v. The State of Rajasthan, 1970 CrLJ 653.

 Shaik China Brahmam v. State of A.P., AIR 2008 SC 610.

 Sohan Lal v. State of Rajasthan, 1990 Cr LJ 2302: AIR 1990 SC 2158.

 Veer Singh v. State of U.P., 2010 (1) A.C.R. 294 (All.).

 State of Bihar v. Lala Mahto A.I.R 1955 pat. 161.

 T.J.Edward v. C.A. Victor Immanuel, 2002 Cr LJ 1670 (ker).

 Uma Dutta v. State of Rajasthan, 1990 Cr LJ 2302: AIR 1990 SC 2158.

 Lala Ram vs State of M.P.AIR 1994 SC 1452

5|Page
 BOOKS REFERRED

 V.N. SHUKLA, CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (12TH ED., 2013).

 DR. D.D. BASU, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA, (8TH ED., 2009).
 P.M. BAKSHI, THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA, (14TH ED., 2017).
 DR. J.N. PANDEY, THE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA, (51ST ED., 2014).
 H.M. SEERVAI, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA, (4TH ED., 2010).
 R.S. BEDI, THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA, (10TH ED., 2013).
 DR. S.C. KASHYAP, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA, (1ST ED., 2008).
 DR. J. N. PANDEY, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA,54TH EDITION, 2017.
 C.K TAKWANI, LECTURES ON ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, FOURTH EDITION, 2007.
 K D GAUR, TEXTBOOK ON INDIAN PENAL CODE, SIXTH EDITION, 2018.
 UNIVERAL’S CRIMINAL MANUAL, 2017 EDITION.
 SHAILENDER MALIK, THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, TWENTY FIFTH EDITION, 2011.
 RATANLAL AND DHIRAJLAL, THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, THIRTHY FOURTH
EDITION, 2012

LEGAL DATABASES

 WWW.YOURARTICLELIBRARY.COM
 WWW.LEGALSERVICEINDIA.COM
 WWW.INDIANKANOON.ORG
 WWW.LAWRATO.COM
 WWW.MANUPATRA.COM
 WWW.INDIANCASELAWS.ORG
 WWW.INDLAW.COM
 WWW.JUDIC.NIC.IN
 WWW.LEXISNEXIS.COM
 WWW.SCCONLINE.CO.IN
 WWW.WESTLAW.COM
 WWW.NCBI.NLM.NIH.GOV

IMPORTANT DEIFINITION:
1. The appellant for the purpose of this memorandum shall be the State.
2. The respondents for the purpose of all the issue shall be Ramesh .

6|Page
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Petitioner has approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India under Article 132 and 134 of
the Constitution of India,1950.

The respondents have appeared to the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in response to the
petitions filed by the petitioners.

7|Page
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

For the sake of brevity and convenience of the Hon’ble Court the facts of the case are
summarized as follows:

A. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE.

1) That Reema an 18 year old girl was a student of 12th class.
2) That Ramesh, a maths teacher of Reema in her school, secretly developed emotions for
her and also Reema admired him.
3) That on Reema’s 18th birthday Ramesh organized a birthday party for her at his house and
gifted her an expensive watch which was happily accepted by Reema.

B. HATE INCITED BETWEEN REEMA’S PARENTS AND RAMESH.

4) That on 14th Feb, 2013 Ramesh proposed to Reema for marriage and since Reema also
admired him she asked Ramesh to speak to her parents regarding the same.
5) That on 20th Feb, Ramesh approached her parents with the marriage proposal as asked by
Reema. However Reema’s parents rejected his offer and also strongly admonished Reema
and threatened that they will discontinue her studies.
6) However out of love Ramesh tried contacting Reema believing that all her actions were
under undue influence of her parents.
7) That as a responsible man Ramesh again tried to convince Reema’s parents for their
marriage but her parents strongly revoked his proposal and also beat him brutally and
asked him to leave.

C. ACTION ABETTED BY MAHESH

8) That enraged with the feeling of dejection when Ramesh went to Mahesh for seeking
advice, Mahesh insisted Ramesh that he should find Reema alone and take her to the
temple for marrying her. And also Mahesh misleaded Ramesh that incase Reema resisted
the offer due to parental pressure Mahesh would threaten her with a bottle of acid.
9) That since Ramesh parents died in a road accident, Ramesh always confided him and
looked upon Mahesh as his father. Ramesh, who was initially reluctant agreed to the plan
on the condition that no harm will be caused to Reema and the bottle of acid will only be
used as a tool to convince her for compliance to their wishes.

8|Page
 10) That on 23rd March 2013 when Ramesh and Mahesh saw Reema passing on a lonely road,
they approached Reema to accompany them to the temple so that they can get married. On
Reema’s refusal, Mahesh carrying the bottle of acid threatened Reema.
11) That when chaos was created, Mahesh accidentally spilled acid on Reema.
12) That the Session Court convicted Ramesh under Section 326 A r/w Section 34 of IPC,
1860 and sentenced him to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment. He was also asked to pay
compensation to Reema to the sum of Rs. 200000/- to be paid immediately. He was also
awarded rigorous imprisonment for 2 years under section 345D, IPC, 1860. Both the
sentences were to run concurrently.

D. MATTER BEFORE THE COURT

13) That since Ramesh was aggrieved by the decision of the District Court, he filed an appeal
to the High Court.
14) That the High Court acquitted Ramesh and since the State was aggrieved by the Decision
of the High Court, it filed an appeal to the Supreme Court.

9|Page
 ISSUE RAISED

ISSUE I

WHETHER RAMESH HAD COMMITTED AN OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 326A R/W

SECTION 34 OF IPC, 1860?

ISSUE II

WHETHER RAMESH HAD COMMITTED AN OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 354D OF

IPC?

ISSUE III

WHETHER THERE EXIST COMMON INTENTION BETWEEN ACCUSED RAMESH

AND MAHESH AS PER THE SECTION 34 OF IPC, 1860 ?

ISSUE IV

WHETHER THE STATE IS JUSTIFIED FOR SEEKING PERMISSION FOR

ADDITION OF CHARGE U/S 366 OF IPC?

10 | P a g e
 ISSUE CONCERNED

 WHETHER THERE EXIST COMMON INTENTION BETWEEN ACCUSED RAMESH

AND MAHESH AS PER THE SECTION 34 OF IPC, 1860 ?

 WHETHER THE STATE IS JUSTIFIED FOR SEEKING PERMISSION FOR

ADDITION OF CHARGE U/S 366 OF IPC?

11 | P a g e
 SUMMARY OF PLEADING
 WHETHER THERE EXIST COMMON INTENTION BETWEEN
RAMESH AND MAHESH AS PER THE SECTION 34 OF IPC, 1860?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that there existed no
common intention between Ramesh and Mahesh as per Section 34 of IPC, 1860 as,
(3.1) Ramesh had no intention of committing such an act and he did not agree to that
and, (3.2) the act was not done in furtherance of the common intention under
Section 34 which is important to attract the Section.

 WHETHER THE STATE IS JUSTIFIED FOR SEEKING

PERMISSION FOR ADDITION OF CHARGE U/S 366 OF IPC.

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the present matter has already
been tried before the Sessions Court. The Magistrate, at the time of committal
proceedings under Section 209, CrPC did not charge the accused with Section 366,
IPC, 1860, and the State is not justified for seeking permission for addition of
charge U/S 366 of IPC as the late framing of the charge would cause prejudice to
the accused and no injustice would be caused to the complainant by refusal.

12 | P a g e
 PLEADING

I. WHETHER THERE EXIST COMMON INTENTION BETWEEN

RAMESH AND MAHESH AS PER THE SECTION 34 OF THE IPC, 1860?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that there existed no
common intention between Ramesh and Mahesh as per the Section 34 of the IPC,
1860.

SECTION 34 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE,1860

The Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 states; “When a criminal act is
done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such
persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.”1

This section is intended to meet cases in which it may be difficult to distinguish

between the acts of the individual members of a party or to prove what part was
exactly taken by each of them in furtherance of the common intention of all. The
reason why all are deemed guilty in such cases is that the presence of accomplices
gives encouragement, support and protection to the person actually committing an
act.

The essential ingredients of Sec. 34 of IPC as stated and restated by law Courts
in plethora of cases are:

(i) Common intention to commit a crime, and

(ii) Participation by all the accused in the act or acts in furtherance of the
common intention. These two things establish their joint liability2.

This provision is only a rule of evidence and does not create a substantive offence. It
lays down the principle of joint liability. To charge a person under this section, it
must be shown that he shared a common intention with another person or persons to
commit a crime and subsequently the crime was perpetrated.3The Apex Court held
in a case4, that in the case of Sec. 34 it is well established that a common intention
presupposes prior concert. It requires a pre-arranged plan because before a man can
be vicariously convicted for the criminal act of another, the act must have been done
in furtherance of the common intention of them all.
1
Section 34, Indiana Penal Code. Mepa Dana, (1959) Bom LR 269.
2
Shaik China Brahmam v. State of A.P., AIR 2008 SC 610.
3
Garib Singh v. State of Punjab, 1972 Cr LJ 1286.
13 | P a g e
 4
Pandurang v. State of Hyderabad, AIR 1955 SC 216

14 | P a g e
 To constitute common intention it is necessary that the intention of each one of the
accused was known to the rest of them and was shared by them. The test to decide if
the intention of one of them is common is to see whether the intention of one was
known to the other and was shared by that other. In drawing the inference the true rule
of law which is to be applied is the rule which requires that guilt is not to be inferred
unless that is the only inference which follows from the circumstances of the case and
no other innocuous inference can be drawn.5

Each can individually cause a separate fatal blow. Yet, there may not exist a
common intention if there was no prior meeting of the mind. In such a case, each
would be individually liable for the injuries, he causes.6

ABSENCE OF COMMON INTENTION

It is humbly submitted that the accused Ramesh is being dragged into the picture
for no justifiable cause and for no fault, participation or involvement of his in the
alleged act in question. It is submitted that neither the accused had any intention
with Mahesh nor did he act in concert with Mahesh to commit such act.
‘Common intention’ implies a pre- concerted plan and acting in concert pursuant
to the plan. Common intention comes into being prior to the commission of the
act in point of time, which need not be a long gap.7

There was no evidence that prior to the incident there was any common intention
shared by both the accused. The said intention did not develop at the time of the
incident as well and therefore, it was held that Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code
cannot be resorted to hold accused guilty of any crime.8

Therefore, it is humbly submitted that there was no common intention between

Ramesh and Mahesh, in fact he did not have any knowledge of any such
intention of Mahesh of throwing acid on Reema as Ramesh strictly said no for
the use of acid to which Mahesh agreed. Hence, in absence of common intention
he must not be held liable under S.34 of the IPC.

5
Oswal Danji v. State, (1960) 1 Guj LR 145.
6
Nandu & Dhaneshwar Naik v. The State, 1976 CriLJ 250.
7
Ramchander & Ors. v. The State of Rajasthan, 1970 CrLJ 653.

15 | P a g e
 8
Veer Singh v. State of U.P., 2010 (1) A.C.R. 294 (All.).

16 | P a g e
 THE ACT WAS NOT IN FURTHERANCE OF COMMON INTENTION

In view of the phraseology of S.34 existence of common intention is not enough,

the criminal act impugned to attract S.34 must be committed in furtherance of
common intention. The section operates only when it is found that the criminal
act done by an individual is in furtherance of the common intention and not
without it.9 The words ‘in furtherance of the common intention of all’ in S.34,
IPC do not require that in order that the section may apply, all participants in the
joint acts must either have common intention of committing the same offence or
the common intention of producing the same result by their joint act be
performed.

It is true that no concrete evidence is required to prove a common intention

between two people to commit an act. It is however key here to understand that
such evidence must be such that it does not leave any room for doubt against
such an intention.10

Moreover, to sustain a charge under s. 34, active participation in the commission

of the criminal act is required which is clearly absent in the present case.

It is humbly submitted to honorable Court that the Accused-1 can’t be punished

under the principle of joint liability because he had no intention to bring about
grievous hurt or even knowledge of that such degree of hurt was a likely
consequence. Similar situation was observed in Lala Ram vs State of M.P.11

Hence, it is humbly submitted that there was no presence of common intention

on the part of Ramesh in the act of throwing acid on the face of victim and hence
the Accused-1, Ramesh can’t be charged under section 34 The counsel submits
that since the aforementioned two essential conditions have not been met with in
the present. It is further submitted that the accused must not be held liable under
S.34 of IPC.

9
State of Bihar v. Lala Mahto A.I.R 1955 pat. 161.
10
Dharam Pal v. State of Haryana, AIR 1978 SC 1492.
11
AIR 1994 SC 1452.
17 | P a g e
 II. WHETHER THE STATE IS JUSTIFIED FOR SEEKING

PERMISSION FOR ADDITION OF CHARGE U/S 366 OF IPC?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the present matter has already
been tried before the Sessions Court. The Magistrate, at the time of committal
proceedings under Section 209, CrPC did not charge the accused with Section 366,
IPC, 1860.

An application for addition or alteration of the charge should be made immediately

after the charge has been read out and explained by the Magistrate.12 It is submitted
that the prosecution had the opportunity to get the new charge of Section 366, IPC
added against the accused. But the prosecution did not do so.

It is further submitted that the High Court having inherent power to do so, did not
find any ground to add a charge under Section 366, IPC against the accused.

The late framing of a charge would cause prejudice to the accused and no injustice
would be caused to the complainant by refusal.13

It is to be noted that the High Court has acquitted the accused from all the charges
and has dismissed the appeal of the State. When the accused was discharged of all
the charges and no charge existed against him, an application by prosecution under
Sec 216, CrPC was not maintainable.14 The addition of a new charge will amount to
re-opening of the trail and will dissipate the valuable time of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court.

Hence, it is humbly requested from the Hon’ble Court not to maintain the
permission of the State to add a charge under Sec 366, IPC against the accused.

12
T.J.Edward v. C.A. Victor Immanuel, 2002 Cr LJ 1670 (ker).
13
Uma Dutta v. State of Rajasthan, 1990 Cr LJ 2302: AIR 1990 SC 2158.

18 | P a g e
 14
Sohan Lal v. State of Rajasthan, 1990 Cr LJ 2302: AIR 1990 SC 2158.

19 | P a g e
 PRAYER

IN THE LIGHT OF THE ISSUES RAISED, ARGUMENTS ADVANCED AND

AUTHORITIES CITED, THE COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT HUMBLY PRAYS THAT
THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT BE PLEASED:

1. To declare that Mr. Ramesh is not guilty of the crime of causing grievous hurt by use of
acid and Kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel her marriage, etc

2. To declare that the High Court’s acquittal order of Mr. Ramesh should be reserved.

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

COUNSELS FOR THE RESPONDENT AS IN DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY.

20 | P a g e