Moot Memorial For Respondent - IPC Sec 302 R/W Sec 34

M.P. LAW COLLEGEINTRA COLLEGE MOOT COURT 2019

Before
THE HONORABLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD
The Appeal filed under Section 302 read with Section 34 ofIndian Penal Code, 1860Criminal
Appeal No: _____/2017
In the matter of
Tatyasaheb
Appellant No. 1
Prince
Appellant No. 2
Nagraj
Appellant No. 3
Vs
The State of Maharashtra
Respondent
MEMORIAL SUBMITTED BY COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
00:00
00:00

MANIKCHAND PAHADE LAW COLLEGE INTRA COLLEGE MOOT COURT 2019

2
MEMORIAL
on behalf of
RESPONDENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................
.......... 2

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ......................................................................................................

............ 3

CASES ........................................................................................................................................
..... 3

CONSTITUTION AND STATUTE ...........................................................................................

......... 4

BOOKS & ONLINE REFERENCE ...........................................................................................

........ 4

LEXICONS .................................................................................................................................
...... 4

WEBSITES: ................................................................................................................................
..... 4

STATEMENT OF
JURISDICTION ...................................................................................................... 5

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

.......... 6

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

........... 7

ISSUES RAISED ........................................................................................................................

......... 8

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ................................................................................................

............ 9

DETAILED ARGUMENTS .......................................................................................................

.......... 10
Whether the Appellants can be prosecuted under section 302 read with Section 34 of the
INDIANPENAL CODE. 1860? ..................................................................................................
.................. 10

Whether the nature of the injuries and the nature of the weapon were such as to cause death
of
aperson? .......................................................................................................................................
... 15

Whether the act of the deceased amounted to grave and sudden

provocation? .......................... 17

Whether the Sessions Court was justified in sentencing the Appellants with life imprisonment
inconnection with the act committed by
them? ................................................................................. 19

PRAYER .....................................................................................................................................
....... 21

MANIKCHAND PAHADE LAW COLLEGE INTRA COLLEGE MOOT COURT 2019

3
MEMORIAL
on behalf of
RESPONDENT
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
1.

Gurdatta Mal AIR 1965 SC 2572.

Chikkarange Gowda AIR 1956 SC 7313.

Tukaram Ganpat Pandare AIR 1974 SC 5144.

Rambilas Singh AIR 1989 SC 15935.

Aiyar, P Ramanathan, The Law Lexicon, p. 49 (2nd ed 2006.)6.

Mohan Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1974 SC 11447.

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Patranu Dass Raja Ram Beri, AIR 1982 PH 1, 48.

State of Maharashtra v. Meyer Hans George, AIR 1965 SC 7229.

1951, 3 Pepsu LR 63510.

Santosh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1975 Cri LJ 602 (SC)11.

Laxman v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1974 SC 180312.

State v. Dinakar Bandu (1969) 72 Bom LR 905)13.

Nathulal AIR 1966 SC 4314.

Shamdasini P D AIR 1929 Bom 44315.

Atley AIR 1955 SC 8016.

Rajinder Kumar AIR 1966 SC 132217.

Gurcharan Singh AIR 1956 SC 46018.

RATANLAL AND DHIRAJLAL, The Indian Penal Code, (26thed., 2007)19.

State of Punjab v Sucha Singh, AIR 2003 SC 1471.20.

Mulakh Raj v. Satish Kumar, AIR 1992 SC 117521.

State of Madhya Pradesh v. Digvijay Singh, 1981 Cri. LJ 1278 (SC)22.

Pulicherla Nagaraju alias Nagaraja Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2006) 11 SCC44423.

State of MP v. Rammi,1999 (1) JLJ 49 (MP)24.

State of MP v. Dharkale, AIR 2005 SC 4425.

State of WB v. Orilal Jaiswal, AIR 1994 SC 1418

ADDownload to read ad-free.

ADDownload to read ad-free.

MANIKCHAND PAHADE LAW COLLEGE INTRA COLLEGE MOOT COURT 2019

5
MEMORIAL
on behalf of
RESPONDENT
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Appellants humbly approach the Hon’ble High Court under Section 374(2) of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which reads as follows:374. Appeals from convictions.-Any
person convicted on a trial held by a High Court in its extraordinary original
criminal jurisdiction may appeal to the Supreme Court.Any person convicted on a trial held
by a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge oron a trial held by any other Court in
which a sentence of imprisonment for more than seven years has been passed, may appeal to
the High Court.Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (2), any person,-Convicted on a
trial held by a Metropolitan Magistrate or Assistant Sessions Judge orMagistrate of the first
class, or of the second class, orsentenced under section 325, orIn respect of whom an order
has been made or a sentence has been passed under section 360 by any Magistrate, may
appeal to the Court of Session.The respondents humbly submit to the jurisdiction of this
Hon’ble Court.

MANIKCHAND PAHADE LAW COLLEGE INTRA COLLEGE MOOT COURT 2019

6
MEMORIAL
on behalf of
RESPONDENT
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Tatyasaheb (Appellant No. 1), an elderly farmer lived with his family consisting of his
wife(Sumitra), son Prince (Appellant No. 2), Daughter Aarchi & Brother Nagraj (Appellant
No3). Parshya, a boy who lived in the same village was in love with Aarchi. Tatyasaheb did
notlike Aarchi's closeness to Parshya and had publicly warned both Parshya and Aarchi to
stayaway from each other. On several occasions he publicly scolded Aarchi and asked her
torefrain from meeting
Parshya. Nagraj had borrowed Rs. 12000/- from Parshya and though he had promised to pay
himimmediately, he kept asking Parshya for time to repay the Rs. 12000/-.On 17th June
2017, Nagraj invited Parshya to collect 12000/-. Parshya reached Tatyasaheb'shouse around
9:15 pm, when the family had just finished their dinner, he saw Aarchi from thewindow and
signaled her to come into the backyard. Tatyasaheb, Nagraj and Prince onhearing the
whispers from the backyard went unarmed to investigate the matter. On seeingParshya and
Aarchi together Tatyasaheb lost his temper, asked Aarchi to return to the houseand started
abusing Parshya. Parshya replied back and there was a heated argument betweenthem. During
the course of the argument, Prince went into the house and broughtTatyasaheb's walking stick
and gave blows on Parshya's leg. Nagraj grabbed the walkingstick and started beating
Parshya
and gave blows on Parshya’s
head and chest.Parshya was taken to the civil hospital by the villagers, where he died four
days later. ThePost-mortem report confirmed that Parshya died due to injuries suffered by
him on his headand due to fracture of two ribs. However, none of the injuries independently
were sufficientto cause Parshya's death while they cumulatively were sufficient in the
ordinary course ofnature, to cause his death.The FIR was registered under section 307 read
with Section 34 of INDIAN PENAL CODE,1860 and after the death of Parshya; the charges
were altered to 302 read with Section 34INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860.The Sessions court
convicted the three Appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 &sentenced them to
life imprisonment for having committed the murder of Parshya.Aggrieved and dissatisfied by
the judgment of conviction passes by the learned Trial Judge,the Appellants have preferred
the present appeal.
ADDownload to read ad-free.

MANIKCHAND PAHADE LAW COLLEGE INTRA COLLEGE MOOT COURT 2019

7
MEMORIAL
on behalf of
RESPONDENT
STATEMENT OF CHARGES
The FIR was registered under section 307 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code,
1860and after the death of Parshya; the charges were altered to 302 read with Section 34
IndianPenal Code, 1860.The Sessions court convicted the three Appellants under Section 302
read with Section 34 &sentenced them to life imprisonment for having committed the murder
of Parshya.
ADDownload to read ad-free.

MANIKCHAND PAHADE LAW COLLEGE INTRA COLLEGE MOOT COURT 2019

8
MEMORIAL
on behalf of
RESPONDENT
ISSUES RAISED
A.

Whether the Appellants can be prosecuted under section 302 read with Section 34 of
theINDIAN PENAL CODE. 1860?B.

Whether the nature of injuries and the nature of the weapon, was such as to cause deathof a
person?C.

Whether the act of the deceased amounted to grave and sudden provocation?D.

Whether the Sessions Court was justified in sentencing the Appellants with lifeimprisonment
in connection with the act committed by them?
ADDownload to read ad-free.

MANIKCHAND PAHADE LAW COLLEGE INTRA COLLEGE MOOT COURT 2019

9
MEMORIAL
on behalf of
RESPONDENT
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
A.

Whether the Appellants can be prosecuted under section 302 read with Section 34 ofthe
INDIAN PENAL CODE. 1860?
It is humbly contended that the Hon’ble Sessions Court correctly held the Appellants as
guilty of murder of Parshya under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC. Section 302
readwith Section 34, IPC envisages commission of murder by two or more people in
furtheranceof a common intention. Section 300 of IPC gives the definition of murder and
enumerates theingredients of the offence.B.

Whether the nature of injuries and the nature of the weapon, was such as to causedeath of a
person?
It is most humbly submitted before this Hon’ble High Court that the nature of the injuries and
the nature of the weapon were indeed enough to cause death of the person. Resting on
thefacts given in this case, ante-mortem injuries acquired by the deceased was due to joint
and physically powerful assault by the aforementioned appellants. Deceased had injury on his
legs, chest and head.C.

Whether the act of the deceased amounted to grave and sudden provocation?
It is most humbly submitted before this Hon’ble High Court that the act of the deceased did
not amount to grave and sudden provocation rather it was a pre-mediated, orchestrated
andwith a well defined Modus Operandi of the AppellantsD.

Whether the Sessions Court was justified in sentencing the Appellants with lifeimprisonment
in connection with the act committed by them?
It is humbly contended that the Hon’ble Sessions Court correctly held the Accused as guilty
of murder of Parshya under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC. Section 302 read
withSection 34, IPC envisages commission of murder by two or more people in furtherance
of acommon intention. Section 300 of IPC gives the definition of Murder and enumerates
theingredients of the offence.
ADDownload to read ad-free.

MANIKCHAND PAHADE LAW COLLEGE INTRA COLLEGE MOOT COURT 2019

10
MEMORIAL
on behalf of
RESPONDENT
DETAILED ARGUMENTS
Whether the Appellants can be prosecuted under section 302 read with Section 34 of
theINDIAN PENAL CODE. 1860?
It is humbly contended that the Hon’ble Sessions Court correctly held the Appellants as
guilty of murder of Parshya under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC. Section 302
readwith Section 34, IPC envisages commission of murder by two or more people in
furtheranceof a common intention. Section 300 of IPC gives the definition of murder and
enumerates theingredients of the offence.Section 300 of Indian Penal Code contemplates that
a person is guilty of murder if heintentionally causes the death of a person or causes such
bodily injury as he knows, is likelyto cause death of that person or causes such bodily injury,
which in the ordinary course ofnature results into death or commits an act so dangerous that it
must, in all probability causedeath of that person.Section 34 of Indian Penal Code
contemplates the doing of an act by several persons infurtherance of common intention. The
constructive liability under this section would ariseonly if two conditions are fulfilled:a)
There must be common intention to commit the crime;
and b) There must be participation by all the persons in doing such act in furtherance of thatin
tention. If these two ingredients are established all the accused would be liable for the
saidoffence.
1
The leading feature of Sec 34 is the element of participation in action.
2
It is the essence of this section that the person must be physically present at the
actualcommission of the crime. Criminal sharing, overt or covert, by active presence or by
distantdirection, making out a certain measure of jointness in the commission of the act is
theessence of this section.
3

1
Gurdatta Mal AIR 1965 SC 257
2
Chikkarange Gowda AIR 1956 SC 731
3
Tukaram Ganpat Pandare AIR 1974 SC 514
ADDownload to read ad-free.

MANIKCHAND PAHADE LAW COLLEGE INTRA COLLEGE MOOT COURT 2019

11
MEMORIAL
on behalf of
RESPONDENTIn order to convict persons vicariously under Sec 34 it is not necessary to
prove that each andevery one of the accused had indulged in overt acts. Even so, there must
be material to showthat the overt act or acts of one or more of the accused was or were done
in furtherance of thecommon intention of the accused.
4
A perso
n may be “constructively liable”
for acts notcommitted by him by reason of Sec 34The terms
Actus Reus
and
Mens Rea

come from “
Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea
”,
which literally
means “an act does not make a person guilty unless
mind is also
guilty”.The "Burden of Proof‟ lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused
beyond
reasonable doubt. The Respondent-Prosecution contends that
Actus Reus
(1) and
Mens Rea
(2) had been proven successfully, thus The Accused are guilty of murder of Parshya
(1)
Actus Reus

Actus Reus
is any wrongful act
5
. Thus, in a case of murder,
Actus Reus
would be the physicalconduct of the accused that causes death of the victim. In the instant
case, it is contended thatthe deceased was assaulted
Circumstantial Evidence
It is a well settled principle that where the case is mainly based on circumstantial
evidence,the court must satisfy itself that various circumstances in the chain of evidence
should beestablished clearly and that the completed chain must be such as to rule out a
reasonablelikelihood of the innocence of the accused.
6
 It is the humble contention of the Respondent that the physical act of murdering Parshya
bygiving blows to him on his leg, chest and head had been established by well linked chain
ofcircumstantial evidence.
4
Rambilas Singh AIR 1989 SC 1593
5
Aiyar, P Ramanathan, The Law Lexicon, p. 49 (2nd ed 2006.)
6
Mohan Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1974 SC 1144
ADDownload to read ad-free.

MANIKCHAND PAHADE LAW COLLEGE INTRA COLLEGE MOOT COURT 2019

12
MEMORIAL
on behalf of
RESPONDENT
(2)
Mens Rea

Mens Rea
is considered as guilty intention,
7
which is proved or inferred from the acts of theaccused.
8
It is submitted that the intention to kill had been established in light of clear-cutmotive of the
accused.
Arguendo
, absence of motive would not be a sufficient ground todismiss the case.
Intention
It is presumed that every sane person intends the result that his action normally produces
andif a person hits another on a vulnerable part of the body, and death occurs as a result,
theintention of the accused can be no other than to take the life of the victim and the
offencecommitted amounts to murder.
9
Moreover, 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
section.302 of the Indian Penal Code.
10
The intention to kill can be inferred from the murder andnature of the injuries caused to the
victim.
11
It is humbly contended by the Respondent that the common intention of The Accused
ofmurdering The Deceased had been established by establishing a chain of
circumstantialevidenceSec 8, Indian Evidence Act stipulates that any fact is relevant which
shows or constitutesmotive or preparation for any fact in issue or relevant fact. It is further
pertinent to note that ifthere 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.
12

7
Commissioner of Income Tax v. Patranu Dass Raja Ram Beri, AIR 1982 PH 1, 4
8
State of Maharashtra v. Meyer Hans George, AIR 1965 SC 722
9
1951, 3 Pepsu LR 635
10
Santosh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1975 Cri LJ 602 (SC)
11
Laxman v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1974 SC 1803
12
State v. Dinakar Bandu (1969) 72 Bom LR 905)
ADDownload to read ad-free.

MANIKCHAND PAHADE LAW COLLEGE INTRA COLLEGE MOOT COURT 2019

13
MEMORIAL
on behalf of
RESPONDENTThe Supreme Court has held that
Mens Rea
is an essential ingredient of a criminal offence.
13
In a criminal court one often wants to test the alleged guilty mind by seeing what was
themotive of the alleged criminal in doing the particular act. It is not essential under IPC
for prosecution to establish motive. But as a matter of common sense, this is usually ofimport
ance, because an average man does not commit a criminal offence unless he has astrong
motive for doing it.
14
The absence of proof of motive has this effect only, that the other evidence bearing guilt
ofthe accused has to be very closely examined.
15
The motive behind the crime is a very relevant fact of which evidence can be given.
Theabsence of motive is also a circumstance which is relevant for assessing the evidence.
Thecircumstances which prove the guilt of the accused are, however, not weakened by the
factthat motive has not been established.
16
Where the positive evidence against the accused is clear, cogent and reliable, the question
ofmotive is of no importance.
17
It is the humbly contended that Appellant
’
s jealousy and sour relations, which had beenestablished by way of circumstantial evidence,
constitute the motive for the offence
13
Nathulal AIR 1966 SC 43
14
Shamdasini P D AIR 1929 Bom 443
15
Atley AIR 1955 SC 80
16
Rajinder Kumar AIR 1966 SC 1322
17
Gurcharan Singh AIR 1956 SC 460
ADDownload to read ad-free.

MANIKCHAND PAHADE LAW COLLEGE INTRA COLLEGE MOOT COURT 2019

14
MEMORIAL
on behalf of
RESPONDENT
Arguendo
, Absence of motive
Assuming for the sake of argument that the accused had no motive, it is humbly
contendedthat absence of motive is no ground for dismissing the case. Motive is immaterial
so far as theoffence is concerned, and need not be established
18
as the mere existence of motive is byitself, not an incriminating circumstance and cannot
take the place of a proof.
19
Therefore, absence of proof of motive, does not break the link in the chain of
circumstancesconnecting the accused with the crime, nor militates against the prosecution
case and is notfatal as a matter of law.
20
When the circumstantial evidence on record is sufficient to prove beyond any doubt to
provethat it was the accused and no one else, who intentionally caused the death of the
accusedthen, motive of the crime need not be proved.
21
The mere missing link of non-establishment of clear motive of accused 2 and accused 3
isimmaterial and is not a ground for dismissing the case, in light of the well-established
motiveof Accused 1 to commit the murder.Therefore, it is humbly submitted before this
Hon’ble
Court that The Accused were correctlyheld guilty for the offence of murder, given that the
requisite
Mens Rea
and
Actus Reus
had been established by the Prosecution from the facts of the case, beyond a reasonable
doubt.
18
RATANLAL AND DHIRAJLAL, The Indian Penal Code, (26thed., 2007)
19
State of Punjab v Sucha Singh, AIR 2003 SC 1471.
20
Mulakh Raj v. Satish Kumar, AIR 1992 SC 1175
21
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Digvijay Singh, 1981 Cri. LJ 1278 (SC)
ADDownload to read ad-free.

MANIKCHAND PAHADE LAW COLLEGE INTRA COLLEGE MOOT COURT 2019

15
MEMORIAL
on behalf of
RESPONDENT
Whether the nature of the injuries and the nature of the weapon were such as to causedeath of a
person?
It is most humb
ly submitted before this Hon’
ble High Court that the nature of the injuries andthe nature of the weapon were indeed
enough to cause death of the person. Resting on thefacts given in this case, ante-mortem
injuries acquired by the deceased was due to joint
and physically powerful assault by the aforementioned appellants. Deceased had injury on his
legs, chest and head.According to the post-mortem report, deceased succumbed due to
cumulative injuries of broken ribs and head impact.
Broken Ribs
Blunt chest trauma is associated with a high risk of morbidity and mortality. Rib
fracturesconstitute a major part of blunt chest trauma and each additional rib fracture is
associatedwith an increasing likelihood of developing complications. Each additional rib
fracture inadults increases the odds of mortality by 19% and of developing pneumonia by
27%.Respiratory complications develop with rib fractures as a consequence of splinting of
thethorax from pain and mechanical instability resulting in inadequate ventilation. Even
anisolated rib fracture is associated with significant consequences, particularly in the
older population. This causes decreased lung volumes, Atelectasis, and may progress to pneu
monia, respiratory failure, need for prolonged ventilation and possible death.
22

22
Abstract from Annalise Unsworth, Kate Curtis, and Stephen Edward Asha, Treatments for
bluntchest trauma and their impact on patient outcomes and health service delivery Published
online on 8
th
FEB 2015 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4322452/ last accessed on 28
th
FEB 2019.
ADDownload to read ad-free.

MANIKCHAND PAHADE LAW COLLEGE INTRA COLLEGE MOOT COURT 2019

16
MEMORIAL
on behalf of
RESPONDENT
Head injury
Head injuries include both injuries to the brain and those to other parts of the head, such asthe
scalp and skull. Head injuries can be closed or open. A closed (non-missile) head injury
iswhere the dura mater remains intact. The skull can be fractured, but not
necessarily.A penetrating head injury occurs when an object pierces the skull and breaches
the duramater
23
.Brain injuries may be diffuse, occurring over a wide area, or focal, located in a small,
specificarea. A head injury may cause skull fracture, which may or may not be associated
with injuryto the brain. Some patients may have linear or depressed skull
fractures. If intracranialhemorrhage occurs, a hematoma within the skull can put pressure on
the brain. Types
ofintracranial hemorrhage include subdural, subarachnoid, extradural, and intraparenchymalh
ematoma. Craniotomy surgeries are used in these cases to lessen the pressure by draining
off blood
24
.A contusion is a bruise to the brain itself. A contusion causes bleeding and swelling inside
ofthe brain around the area where the head was struck. Contusions may occur with
skullfractures or other blood clots such as a subdural or epidural hematoma. Bleeding that
occursinside the brain itself (also called intraparenchymal hemorrhage) can sometimes
occurspontaneously.
25
As per the Post-Mortem report, this concludes that the deceased had died due to
cumulativedamage of broken ribs and head injury, caused by an impulsive impact by a blunt
object, inthis case
–
a walking stick.Hereby it is most humbly and respectfully submitted to the court that there is
enoughliterature and co-relative evidence which proves that both nature of injury and nature
of theweapon was enough to cause death of Parshya.
23
Daisley A, Kischka U, Tams R (2008).
Head Injury
. Oxford: OUP Oxford
24
Macfarlane R, Hardy DG (1997).
Outcome after Head, Neck and Spinal Trauma: a medicolegalguide
. Oxford
25
Powell T (2004).
Head Injury: A Practical Guide
(2nd ed.). United Kingdom
ADDownload to read ad-free.

MANIKCHAND PAHADE LAW COLLEGE INTRA COLLEGE MOOT COURT 2019

17
MEMORIAL
on behalf of
RESPONDENT
Whether the act of the deceased amounted to grave and sudden provocation?
It is most humb
ly submitted before this Hon’
ble High Court that the act of the deceased didnot amount to grave and sudden provocation.It
is to be noted that according to the facts of the case, it looks like there was a conspiracy
tomurder Parshya. Parshya was in love with Aarchi and this fact was not hidden from
theappellants. Appellants in due course had also scolded Aarchi and had asked her not to
meetParshya.Even though after the known fact of Aarchi and Parshya
–
we later understand that theAppellant No.3 had purposely taken a hand loan of Rs. 12000/-
from Parshya. Appellant No.3was supposed to return the amount immediately however, he
refrained from doing so.Once the amount was arranged
–
Appellant No.3 asks Parshya to come to his home to collectthe amount. Parshya then reaches
the house on 17
th
June 2017 around 21:15 hrs to collect theloan amount. Here the motive was obvious that
Parshya was to come to collect money andwill be willing to talk to Aarchi. This will be a
good opportunity to prove a sudden spurt ofhate and hence a heated argument. Else Appellant
No.3 would have met Parshya elsewhere toreturn the loan amount.
ADDownload to read ad-free.

MANIKCHAND PAHADE LAW COLLEGE INTRA COLLEGE MOOT COURT 2019

18
MEMORIAL
on behalf of
RESPONDENTIt will be also useful here to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court
26
, wherein the Court hasobserved that:The intention to cause death can be gathered generally
from a combination of a few or severalof the following, among other, circumstances:(1)

Nature of the weapon used;(2)

Whether the weapon was carried by the accused or was picked up from the spot;(3)

Whether the blow is aimed at a vital part of the body;(4)

The amount of force employed in causing injury;(5)

Whether the act was in the course of sudden quarrel or sudden fight or free for allfight;(6)

Whether the incident occurs by chance or whether there was any pre- meditation;(7)

Whether there was any prior enmity or whether the deceased was a stranger;(8)

Whether there was any grave and sudden provocation, and if so, the cause for
such provocation;(9)

Whether it was in the heat of passion;(10)

Whether the person inflicting the injury has taken undue advantage or has acted ina cruel and
unusual manner;(11)

Whether the accused dealt a single blow or several blows.

26
Pulicherla Nagaraju alias Nagaraja Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2006) 11 SCC 444
ADDownload to read ad-free.

MANIKCHAND PAHADE LAW COLLEGE INTRA COLLEGE MOOT COURT 2019

19
MEMORIAL
on behalf of
RESPONDENT
Whether the Sessions Court was justified in sentencing the Appellants with
lifeimprisonment in connection with the act committed by them?
It is humbly contended that the Hon’ble Sessions Court correctly held the Accused as guilty
of murder of Parshya under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC. Section 302 read
withSection 34, IPC envisages commission of murder by two or more people in furtherance
of acommon intention. Section 300 of IPC gives the definition of murder and enumerates
theingredients of the offence.Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 reads:
302. Punishment for murder: - Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death,
or1[imprisonment for life], and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 reads:
34. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention: - When a criminal actis
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.
The Sessions Court, after considering the evidence on record adduced by the prosecution,was
pleased to convict Tatyasaheb - Appellant No. 1; Prince - Appellant No. 2 & Nagraj -
Appellant No. 3 for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of
theIndian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for life and by
itsJudgment, the said substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.The Police
Machinery was very accurate in altering the charges levied on the accused fromSection 307
(Attempt to murder) read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 to Section302
(Punishment for Murder) read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 because as perthe
post mortem report, deceased died due to cumulative assaults causing a head injury
andfractured ribs.
ADDownload to read ad-free.

MANIKCHAND PAHADE LAW COLLEGE INTRA COLLEGE MOOT COURT 2019

20
MEMORIAL
on behalf of
RESPONDENTThe criminal jurisprudence as has developed in the basis of the British
model is that the
offence alleged is required to be proved „beyond all reasonable doubt”. What is to
be noted isthat the doubt, which is required to be removed, is of a reasonable man and not
every kind ofdoubt based on surmise or guess
. “Reasonable doubt”, therefore,
does not mean a vague,speculative or whimsical doubt or uncertainty, nor a mere possible
doubt of the truth of thefact to be proved. It also does not mean proof of a mathematical
certainty nor proof beyondthe possibility of a mistake. The requirement
in criminal cases, of proof “beyond reasonabledoubt” to support conviction, therefore
does not mean proof beyond all possible doubts.
27
Doubts would be called reasonable if they are free from a zest for abstract speculation.
Lawcannot afford any favorite other than the truth. To constitute reasonable doubt, it must be
freefrom an over emotional response. Doubts must be actual and substantial doubts as to the
guiltof the accused person arising from the evidence or from the lack of it, as opposed to
merevague apprehension. A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely
possibledoubt, but a fair doubt based upon reason and commonsense.
28
Exaggerated devotion to the rule of benefit of doubt must not nurture fanciful doubts
orlingering suspicions and thereby destroy social defense. Justice cannot be made sterile on
the plea that it is
better to let hundred guilty escape than punish an innocent. Letting the guiltyescape is not
justice, according to law
29

27

State of MP v. Rammi
,1999 (1) JLJ 49 (MP)
28

State of MP v. Dharkale
, AIR 2005 SC 44
29

State of WB v. Orilal Jaiswal,

AIR 1994 SC 1418
ADDownload to read ad-free.

MANIKCHAND PAHADE LAW COLLEGE INTRA COLLEGE MOOT COURT 2019

21
MEMORIAL
on behalf of
RESPONDENT
PRAYER
Wherefore, in light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, may this
Hon’ble Court be pleased to:
1. Declare and adjudge that all three Appellants guilty of murdering Parshya.
2. Uphold the conviction of the Hon’ble Session
s Court.
AND/OR
Pass any other order, as it deems fit, in light of justice, equity and good conscience.All of
which is most humbly and respectfully
submittedPlace: S/d: _____________________Date: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

Reward Your Curiosity

Everything you want to read.

Anytime. Anywhere. Any device.
Read free for 30 days
No Commitment. Cancel anytime.

Share this document

 Share or Embed Document
Sharing Options

 Share on Facebook, opens a new window

 Share on Twitter, opens a new window
 Share on LinkedIn, opens a new window
 Share with Email, opens mail client
 Copy link

You might also like

 Emorial On The Behalf of Respondent

Document24 pages
Emorial On The Behalf of Respondent
prakash
No ratings yet
 Moot Court Respondent

Document15 pages
Moot Court Respondent
Clement Pandhare
No ratings yet
 Before The Hon'Ble Supreme Court of Amphissa Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction

Document15 pages
Before The Hon'Ble Supreme Court of Amphissa Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction
venkataramana teppala
No ratings yet

o

Magazines

Podcasts

o
 Sheet music

 An Appeal to Overturn an Ex-Parte Divorce Decree and Dismiss Claims of Desertion and
Cruelty

Document39 pages
An Appeal to Overturn an Ex-Parte Divorce Decree and Dismiss Claims of Desertion
and Cruelty
Taran Saini
71% (17)
 Class Moot 9th SemES

Document19 pages
Class Moot 9th SemES
mehak
100% (2)
 3RD Kiit Intra Mock Trial Competition PDF

Document26 pages
3RD Kiit Intra Mock Trial Competition PDF
archita nayak
No ratings yet
 Moot Proposition

Document27 pages
Moot Proposition
Prerak Raj
No ratings yet
 Joydeep Neogi Vs State of West Bengal

Document26 pages
Joydeep Neogi Vs State of West Bengal
Snigdha Mazumdar
No ratings yet
 Asmitha Moot-Final 1
 Document24 pages
Asmitha Moot-Final 1
Asmita Divekar
No ratings yet
 Memorial on Behalf of the Appellant Challenging Conviction Under Section 302 IPC for the
Offence of Murder

Document24 pages
Memorial on Behalf of the Appellant Challenging Conviction Under Section 302 IPC
for the Offence of Murder
Mir Ishrat Nabi
No ratings yet
 Respondents 2023 Rspondent Paul 2

Document21 pages
Respondents 2023 Rspondent Paul 2
Arnab Paul
No ratings yet
 Written Submissions on Behalf of the Respondents in the Matter of Maharani Peterjee, Sujay
Tanna & Ramvar Pai (Appellants) v. State of Maharashtra (Respondent)

Document36 pages
Written Submissions on Behalf of the Respondents in the Matter of Maharani Peterjee,
Sujay Tanna & Ramvar Pai (Appellants) v. State of Maharashtra (Respondent)
Kriti sharma
No ratings yet
Show more
Related titles
Skip carousel
Carousel Next

 Emorial On The Behalf of Respondent

Document

Emorial On The Behalf of Respondent

Added by prakash
 0 ratings

0% found this document useful

 Moot Court Respondent

Document

Moot Court Respondent

Added by Clement Pandhare

0 ratings

0% found this document useful

 Before The Hon'Ble Supreme Court of Amphissa Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction

Document

Before The Hon'Ble Supreme Court of Amphissa Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction

Added by venkataramana teppala

0 ratings

0% found this document useful

 An Appeal to Overturn an Ex-Parte Divorce Decree and Dismiss Claims of Desertion and
Cruelty

Document

An Appeal to Overturn an Ex-Parte Divorce Decree and Dismiss Claims of Desertion and
Cruelty
Added by Taran Saini

71%

71% found this document useful

 Class Moot 9th SemES

 Document

Class Moot 9th SemES

Added by mehak

100%

100% found this document useful

 3RD Kiit Intra Mock Trial Competition PDF

Document

3RD Kiit Intra Mock Trial Competition PDF

Added by archita nayak

0 ratings

0% found this document useful

 Moot Proposition

Document

Moot Proposition
Added by Prerak Raj

0 ratings

0% found this document useful

 Joydeep Neogi Vs State of West Bengal

Document

Joydeep Neogi Vs State of West Bengal

Added by Snigdha Mazumdar

0 ratings
 0% found this document useful

 Asmitha Moot-Final 1

Document

Asmitha Moot-Final 1
Added by Asmita Divekar

0 ratings

0% found this document useful

 Memorial on Behalf of the Appellant Challenging Conviction Under Section 302 IPC for the
Offence of Murder

Document

Memorial on Behalf of the Appellant Challenging Conviction Under Section 302 IPC for the
Offence of Murder
Added by Mir Ishrat Nabi

0 ratings

0% found this document useful

 Respondents 2023 Rspondent Paul 2

Document

Respondents 2023 Rspondent Paul 2

Added by Arnab Paul

0 ratings

0% found this document useful

 Written Submissions on Behalf of the Respondents in the Matter of Maharani Peterjee, Sujay
Tanna & Ramvar Pai (Appellants) v. State of Maharashtra (Respondent)
 Document

Written Submissions on Behalf of the Respondents in the Matter of Maharani Peterjee, Sujay
Tanna & Ramvar Pai (Appellants) v. State of Maharashtra (Respondent)
Added by Kriti sharma

0 ratings

0% found this document useful

 Moot Court Two

Document

Moot Court Two

Added by Aashna Sharda

100%

100% found this document useful

 Memorial For The Petitioner

Document

Memorial For The Petitioner

Added by surajshinde1058

0 ratings

0% found this document useful

 Memorial On Behalf of Appellant

Document

Memorial On Behalf of Appellant

Added by Sohaib Akhtar

100%
 100% found this document useful

 Challenging Discrimination: A Writ Petition Seeking to Decriminalize Homosexuality and

Adultery in India

Document

Challenging Discrimination: A Writ Petition Seeking to Decriminalize Homosexuality and

Adultery in India
Added by Asseem Gopal

0 ratings

0% found this document useful

 Fresh PETITIONER FORMT MEMORIAL Dept of Law, CU, Moot Court Competition

Document

Fresh PETITIONER FORMT MEMORIAL Dept of Law, CU, Moot Court Competition
Added by Aman

0 ratings

0% found this document useful

 NHRC - Gnlu Moot Court Competition, 2019: Before Honourable Supreme Court of
Omberlands

Document

NHRC - Gnlu Moot Court Competition, 2019: Before Honourable Supreme Court of
Omberlands
Added by Neeraj Kansal

0 ratings

0% found this document useful

 Finals RESPONDENT
 Document

Finals RESPONDENT
Added by aakash raghunath

0 ratings

0% found this document useful

 Memorial On Behalf of The Appellants

Document

Memorial On Behalf of The Appellants

Added by Harsh Srivastava

0 ratings

0% found this document useful

 fINAL MEM0 Appelleant

Document

fINAL MEM0 Appelleant

Added by Satyam Singh Suryavanshi

0 ratings

0% found this document useful

 T11P

Document

T11P
Added by Elaya Bharathi K

0 ratings
 0% found this document useful

 Application for quashing FIR in case of delayed filing motivated by property dispute

Document

Application for quashing FIR in case of delayed filing motivated by property dispute
Added by Tulip Joshi

0 ratings

0% found this document useful

 Memorial For Review Petiton

Document

Memorial For Review Petiton

Added by NEERAJ YADAV

40%

40% found this document useful

 KL University Respondent

Document

KL University Respondent
Added by raghuath

100%

100% found this document useful

 K32A

Document
 K32A
Added by Michael Dissuosia

0 ratings

0% found this document useful

 Winning Team MemoPetitioner

Document

Winning Team MemoPetitioner

Added by pururaj singh

0 ratings

0% found this document useful

 Reliable Moot Court

Document

Reliable Moot Court

Added by Sudhir Kochhar Fema Author

100%

100% found this document useful

 Petitioner Memorial

Document

Petitioner Memorial
Added by Gowthami Nalluri

0 ratings

0% found this document useful

 TC01 Prosecution
 Document

TC01 Prosecution
Added by esheeta

0 ratings

0% found this document useful

 Final Memorial On The Behalf of Respondentspdf

Document

Final Memorial On The Behalf of Respondentspdf

Added by Zeel Raval

0 ratings

0% found this document useful

 Team Penguin - Respondent Finalll

Document

Team Penguin - Respondent Finalll

Added by Shiny Churchill

0 ratings

0% found this document useful

 It Is Humbly Submitted Before The Hon

Document

It Is Humbly Submitted Before The Hon

Added by Akash A M

0 ratings
 0% found this document useful

 2nd Moot Petitioner

Document

2nd Moot Petitioner

Added by Akshay SS

0 ratings

0% found this document useful

 Memo Petitioner

Document

Memo Petitioner
Added by mintu sharma

0 ratings

0% found this document useful

 Gnlu Petioner Memo

Document

Gnlu Petioner Memo

Added by Devesh Shukla

0 ratings

0% found this document useful

 Memorial

Document
 Memorial
Added by nishant kumar

100%

100% found this document useful

 Asmitha Moot Final

Document

Asmitha Moot Final

Added by nilesh jain

0 ratings

0% found this document useful

 Memorial For The Respondents PDF

Document

Memorial For The Respondents PDF

Added by akshey bhardwaj

100%

100% found this document useful

 Respondent Memorial PDF

Document

Respondent Memorial PDF

Added by Nadia J

0 ratings

0% found this document useful

 CRPC Memo Sem 4 Final

 Document

CRPC Memo Sem 4 Final

Added by Harsh Mishra

0 ratings

0% found this document useful

 Memo Respondents Indore

Document

Memo Respondents Indore

Added by Kirithika Hariharan

100%

100% found this document useful

 Final Respondent Memorial

Document

Final Respondent Memorial

Added by Ashutosh Singh

0 ratings

0% found this document useful

 Kruti Shah - Moot Court No. 2 - Defendant

Document

Kruti Shah - Moot Court No. 2 - Defendant

Added by Kruti

0 ratings
 0% found this document useful

 35th BCI Moot Court Competition 2019 Respondent Memorial Problem 1 PDF

Document

35th BCI Moot Court Competition 2019 Respondent Memorial Problem 1 PDF
Added by Debashish Panda

0 ratings

0% found this document useful

 Analysis of the legal issues arising from criminal cases involving juveniles accused of murder

Document

Analysis of the legal issues arising from criminal cases involving juveniles accused of murder
Added by aman aggarwal

0 ratings

0% found this document useful

 Winning Memo For The Respondents

Document

Winning Memo For The Respondents

Added by Urvashi

100%

100% found this document useful

 Zeal Moot Final

Document
 Zeal Moot Final
Added by Jay Tamakuwala

100%

100% found this document useful

 Moot 1 Applealnt

Document

Moot 1 Applealnt
Added by Aman

0 ratings

0% found this document useful

 Zeal Moot Final

Document

Zeal Moot Final

Added by merlyn fernandes

0 ratings

0% found this document useful

 Amity Merged Peti

Document

Amity Merged Peti

Added by smrithy suresh

0 ratings

0% found this document useful

 Criminal Appeal Challenging Conviction for Sexual Assault of a Minor

 Document

Criminal Appeal Challenging Conviction for Sexual Assault of a Minor

Added by akanksha

0 ratings

0% found this document useful

 Judicial Activism in Post-Emergency Era

From Everand

Judicial Activism in Post-Emergency Era

byDr. Swapna Deka Mandrinath

Rating: 0 out of 5 stars

0 ratings

 Women's Law and Grassroots Justice in Uganda

From Everand

Women's Law and Grassroots Justice in Uganda

byOkumu Wengi

Rating: 0 out of 5 stars

0 ratings

 Trials of 1971 Bangladesh Genocide: Through a Legal Lens

From Everand

Trials of 1971 Bangladesh Genocide: Through a Legal Lens

 byTureen Afroz

Rating: 0 out of 5 stars

0 ratings

 Rule of Law vs. Rulers of Law. Justice Barnabas Albert Samatta's Road To Justice: Justice
Barnabas Albert Samatta's Road To Justice

From Everand

Rule of Law vs. Rulers of Law. Justice Barnabas Albert Samatta's Road To Justice: Justice
Barnabas Albert Samatta's Road To Justice

byAfrican Books Collective

Rating: 0 out of 5 stars

0 ratings

 Simple Guide for Drafting of Civil Suits in India

From Everand

Simple Guide for Drafting of Civil Suits in India

bySwetang Rataboli

Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

4.5/5

 Connecticut Constitution

From Everand

Connecticut Constitution

byThe Government of Connecticut

Rating: 0 out of 5 stars

 0 ratings

 Constitution of the Land of Brandenburg

From Everand

Constitution of the Land of Brandenburg

byGovernment of Brandenburg

Rating: 0 out of 5 stars

0 ratings

 The Constitution of Japan, 1946

From Everand

The Constitution of Japan, 1946

byJapan

Rating: 0 out of 5 stars

0 ratings

 Carlill V Carbolic Smoke Ball Company Case

Document

Carlill V Carbolic Smoke Ball Company Case

Added by Ahmed Siddiqui

0 ratings

0% found this document useful

 Mohori Bibee Vs Dharmodas Ghose

 Document

Mohori Bibee Vs Dharmodas Ghose

Added by Ahmed Siddiqui

100%

100% found this document useful

 Upholding High Standards of Conduct in the Legal Profession: The Supreme Court
Reinstates a Punishment of Permanent Disbarment for a Lawyer Found Guilty of Misconduct

Document

Upholding High Standards of Conduct in the Legal Profession: The Supreme Court
Reinstates a Punishment of Permanent Disbarment for a Lawyer Found Guilty of Misconduct
Added by Ahmed Siddiqui

0 ratings

0% found this document useful

 Himanshu Anil Patankar: Advocate Flat No.5, Neha Garden Apartment, Plot No. 1, New
SBH Colony, Jyoti Nagar, Aurangabad

Document

Himanshu Anil Patankar: Advocate Flat No.5, Neha Garden Apartment, Plot No. 1, New
SBH Colony, Jyoti Nagar, Aurangabad
Added by Ahmed Siddiqui

100%

100% found this document useful

Related titles
Click to expand Related Titles
























This document is...

78% found this document useful, Mark this document as usefulUseful
22% found this document not useful, Mark this document as not usefulNot useful
 Close dialog
Footer menu
Back to top
About

 About Scribd
 Everand: Ebooks & Audiobooks
 SlideShare
 Press
 Join our team!
 Contact us
 Invite friends
 Scribd for enterprise

Support

 Help / FAQ
 Accessibility
 Purchase help
 AdChoices

Legal

 Terms
 Privacy
 Copyright
 Cookie Preferences
 Do not sell or share my personal information

Social

 InstagramInstagram
 TwitterTwitter
 FacebookFacebook
 PinterestPinterest

Get our free apps


 Documents

Language:

English

Copyright © 2024 Scribd Inc.

vvv