SURANA

AND

SURANA

NATIONAL

TRIAL

ADVOCACY

MOOT

COURT

COMPETITION,

2015
SURANA AND SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURTCOMPETITION, 2015
BEFORE THE COURT OF SESSIONSAT DURGS.C. NO. 111 OF 2015

I
N THE MATTER OF

STATE OF XANADU
(PROSECUTION)
v.

MANOHAR LAL&RAHUL GULATI

(DEFENSE)

F
OR OFFENCES CHARGED UNDER
S
ECTIONS
302,

465
READ WITH
34,

120B
AND
109
OF
T
HE
I
NDIAN
P
ENAL
C
ODE
,

1860
AND
S
ECTIONS
66
AND
66C
OF
I
NFORMATION
T
ECHNOLOGY
A
CT
,

2000
UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE SESSIONS JUDGE

W
RITTEN
S
UBMISSION
O
N
B
EHALF
O
F
T
HE
P
ROSECUTION

[
i]
SURANA

AND

SURANA

NATIONAL

TRIAL

ADVOCACY

MOOT

COURT

COMPETITION,

2015

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ..................................................................................... iiSTATEMENT OF J

URISDICTION....................................................................... viiSTATEMENT OF FACTS
.................................................................................... viiiSTATEMENT OF CHARGES
................................................................................ ixSUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
............................................................................. xiARGUMENTS ADVANCED .......................................
............................................ 1
Issue I: Whether or not Mr. Manohar Lal and Mr. Rahul Gulati are guilty
ofComputer related offences and Identity Theft? ...................................................... 1 Issue II: Whether or
not Mr. Manohar Lal is guilty of Forgery? .......................... 4 Issue III: Whether or not Accused No. 1
committed the offence of
Murder against Deceased? ............................................................................................................... 7 Issue
IV: Whether or not Mr. Rahul Gulati is guilty of abetment? ......................14
PRAYER ................................................................................................................ xiii

[ii]
SURANA

AND
SURANA

NATIONAL

TRIAL

ADVOCACY

MOOT

COURT

COMPETITION,

2015
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION
INDEX

OF

AUTHORITIESL
IST OF
A
BBREVIATIONS
:
AIR All India
ReporterAll Allahabad High Court Cal Calcutta High Court CBI Central Bureau of InvestigationCr.P.C.
Code of Criminal Procedure Cri LJ Cr LJ Criminal Law Journal Del Delhi High Court DW Defense Witn
ess Ed.
Edition Guj Gujarat High CourtIEA Indian Evidence ActIPC Indian Penal CodeIT Act Information Techn
ology ActM.P Madhya PradeshMad Madras High CourtMah
MaharashtraOri Orissa High CourtP Page No.Para
ParagraphPat Patna High CourtPW Prosecution Witnessr/w Read withRaj Rajasthan High CourtSC Supre
me CourtSCC Supreme Court Casess. Sectionv. Versus

[iii]
SURANA

AND

SURANA

NATIONAL

TRIAL

ADVOCACY

MOOT
COURT

COMPETITION,

2015
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION
T
ABLE OF CASES
S.
NO

C
ASE
N
AME

C
ITATION

U
SED AT
P
AGE

1.

A.K. Khosla v T. S. Venkatesan

, 1992 CrLJ 1448
…04

2.

Abdul Sayeed v. State of Madhya Pradesh

, (2010) 10 SCC 259
…03

3.

Anant Chintaman Lagu v. State of Bombay

, AIR 1960 SC 500
…12

4.

Anwaruddin
v.
Shakoor
; (1990) 3 SCC 266
…13

5.
 Baby John v. State
,

1955 Cr. LJ 1273

…14

6.

Barikanoo v. State of Uttar Pradesh

,

(1997) 1 Crimes 500 (All)

…09

7.

Benjamin v. State
,

(2008) 3 SCC 745

…07

8.

Bhupinder Singh v. State of Punjab

(1988) 3 SCC 513
…10, 11

9.

Bikau Pandey v. State of Bihar

(2003) 12 SCC 616
…09

10.

Chandra Mohan Tiwari

v.
State of M.P
(1992) 2 SCC 105
…13

11.

Emperor v Amiruddin
, (1922) 24 Bom LR 534
…
14
12.

Freguson v Weaving
 (1951) 1 ALL ER 412
…
14
13.

Ganpat Kondiba Chavan v. State of Mah.

(1997) 2 Crimes 38 (Bom)
…
15
14.

Goura Venkata Reddy v State of A.P

(2003) 12 SCC 469
…
15
15.

Hardeo Singh v. State of Bihar & Ors

, 2000 CrLJ 2978
…
03
16.

J Ta Zwart v Indrani Mukherjee

, (1990) 1 Cal HN 62
…
04
17.

Jagdish Prasad v. State of Rajasthan,

1981 Raj Cr C 101
…
03
18.

Jale Singh v. State of Rajasthan

, 1996 Cr LJ 1177 (Raj)
…13

19.

Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab

, (1994) 3 SCC 569
…08

20.

Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Administration)

, AIR 1988 SC 1883
…03
 [iv]
SURANA

AND

SURANA

NATIONAL

TRIAL

ADVOCACY

MOOT

COURT

COMPETITION,

2015
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION
21.

Kumar v Whiteley
(2005) 2 SCC 235
…
02
22.

Lal Mohammad v. Emperor

, AIR 1931 Pat 317
…05

23.

M. Gangadhariah
(in
Re
), AIR 1967 Mys 86
…05

24.

Mahesh Chandra Prasad v Emperor

AIR (30) 1943 Pat. 393
…06

25.
 Mahuri Kishan and Ors. v. State
, 1996 Cri LJ 4017
…13

26.

Mohan v State of UP
AIR 1960 SC 659
…10

27.

Phino v. State of Punjab

,

AIR 1975 SC 1327

…12

28.

Ram Krishna v. Shivraj,

1974 Mad LJ 659
…01

29.

Ram Narain Poply v. CBI

, AIR 2003 SC 2748
…06

30.

Ramabatar Agarwalla v. State

,

1983 CrLJ 122

…15

31.

Ramesh Chandra Das v Premlata Patra

(1983) 3 Crimes 87 (Ori);
…0
6
32.

Ramsharanagat Singh v. State of Bihar

1966 Cr. LJ 856
…01

33.
 Ranjit Sinha v. State
,

AIR 1963 Pat 262

…04

34.

Re Badan Singh
,

(1922) 3 Lah 373

…05

35.

Salim and Ors v. State of Rajasthan

,

1999 CrLJ 1419 (Raj)

…07

36.

Sanjiv Ratnappa v. Emperor

AIR 1932 Bom 545
…03

37.

Sansar Singh v. Emperor

, AIR 1934 All 711
…05

38.

Shaik Saidulu v. State of A.P

1995 Cr LJ 2984
…11

39.

Shyama Charan Sri Ram Saran v. State

, AIR 1969 All 61
…07

40.

State of Mah. v. Kalu Shivram Jagtap & Ors.

1980 Supp. SCC 224.
…
07
41.

State v. Dinakar Bandu

, (1969) 72 Bom LR 905
…13, 15

42.

Swamy Shraddananda v State of Karnataka

, (2007) 12 SCC 331
…08

[v]
SURANA

AND

SURANA

NATIONAL

TRIAL

ADVOCACY

MOOT

COURT

COMPETITION,

2015
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION
43.

Thangraj v. Inspector of Police

, 2011 Cri LJ 103 (Mad).
…11

44.

Yunees v. State of Madhya Pradesh

, (2003) 1 SCC 429
…09

B
OOKS REFERRED
 S.N
O
N
AME OF THE BOOK

1. Gaur, K.D, Criminal Law: Cases and Materials, (6th Ed. 2012)2. Gupta, Apar,
Infromation Technology Act
, (2
n
Ed. 2011)3. I, Sarvaria, S.K,
The Indian Penal Code,
(10
t
Ed. 2008)4. II, Taylor,
Principles and Practice of Medical Jurisprudence
, (13
t
Ed. 1984)

5. II, Sarvaria,S.K,
Indian Penal Code
, (10th Ed. 2008)6. III, Sarvaria,S.K,
Indian Penal Code
, (10th Ed. 2008)7. IV, Sarvaria,S.K,
Indian Penal Code
, (10th Ed. 2008)8. Jhala & Raju,
Medical Jurisprudence
, (6
t
Ed. 1997)9. Kelkar, R.V.,
Criminal Procedure
, (5
t
Ed. 2009)10. Lal, Batuk,
Law of Evidence
, ( 5 E d . 2 0 1 1 ) 11. Mohir, M.,
Law of Evidence
, (5
t
Ed. 2010)12. Malik, Shailender,
The Code of Criminal Procedure
, (8
t
Ed. 2011)13. Modi, Medical Jurisprudence & Toxicology, (24
t
Ed. 2012)14. National Crime Reference Handbook, (V.11, 2015)15. Parikh, Medical Jurisprudence,
Forensic Medicines & Toxicology
, (6
t
Ed. 2011)16. Ratanlal & Dhirajlal,
The Code of Criminal Procedure
, (17
t
 Ed. 2010)17. Ratanlal & Dhirajlal,
The Indian Penal Code
(31
s
Enlarged Edn. 2006)

[vi]
SURANA

AND

SURANA

NATIONAL

TRIAL

ADVOCACY

MOOT

COURT

COMPETITION,

2015
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION18. Ratanlal & Dhirajlal,
The Law of Evidence
, (23
r
Enlarged Ed. 2011)19. Sarkar,
Law of Evidence
, ( 1 7 E d . 2 0 1 1 ) 20. The Indian Law Institute,
Essays on Indian Penal Code
, (1
st
Reprint, 2008)21. Verma, Amita,
Cyber Crimes and Law,
(1
st
Ed. 2009)22. Williams, Glanville,
Criminal Law
, (2
n
Ed. 2011)
S
TATUTES
:S.
NO
N
AME OF THE STATUTES
:
1. The
Code of Criminal Procedure
, 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974)2. The
Indian Evidence Act
,1872 (Act No. 1 of 1872)3. The
Indian Penal Code,
1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860)4. The
Information Technology Act
, 2000 (Act No. 21 of 2000)5. The
Drugs and Cosmetics Act
, 1940 (Act No. 23 of 1940)6. The
Drugs and Cosmetics Rules
, 1945

[vii]
SURANA

AND

SURANA

NATIONAL

TRIAL

ADVOCACY

MOOT

COURT

COMPETITION,

2015
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION
STATEMENT

OF

JURISDICTION
This
Hon’ble
Court has jurisdiction to try the instant matter under Section 177 read with Section209 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Section 177:
‘

177. Ordinary place of inquiry and trial:

Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into andtried by a Court within whose local
 jurisdiction it was committed.’

Read with Section 209:

‘

209. Commitment of case to Court of Session when offence is triable exclusively

by it:
Whenin a case instituted on a police report or otherwise, the accused appears or is brought

before the Magistrate and it appears to the Magistrate that the offence is triable exclusively

by the Court ofSession, he shall-

(a) commit the case to the Court of Session;(b) subject to the provisions of this Code relating to bail,
remand the accused to custody

during,and until the conclusion of, the trial;

(c) send to that Court the record of the case and the documents and articles, if any, which

are tobe produced in evidence;

(d)
notify the Public Prosecutor of the commitment of the case to the Court of Session.’

[viii]
SURANA

AND

SURANA

NATIONAL

TRIAL

ADVOCACY

MOOT

COURT

COMPETITION,

2015
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION
STATEMENT

OF
FACTS
Manohar lost his parents at the age of 10 and lived with his uncle Karan and aunt Devika, sincethen. They
had a son, Raghav. Mano took admission in TMC Medical College in 2013, and wasconsidered to be a
bright and sincere student. He was desirous to live an opulent life, like hisfriends. Such an influence made
him borrow money from Rahul (friend) at regular intervals.Mano accumulated a debt of more than
Rs.1,00,000/- against Rahul.Karan and Mano were very close to each other. On 21
st
May, 2014, Karan fell severely ill andinformed about his life insurance policy, worth Rs.2,00,00,000/-, to
Mano, for which he wasnominated as the benefactor. Rahul regularly pressurized Mano to repay the debt.
One day, when
Rahul came for a sleep over at Mano’s house, they both decrypted Karan’s bank account password and
transferred money to Mano’s bank account. This happened on a few occasions.
On 1
st
August, 2014, Mano was given a notice to pay the college fees with fine, as it was not paid on time.
Aggrieved by the defaulter notice, Mano had a heated conversation with Karan andDevika. On 2
nd

August, Karan told Mano to transfer money through Karan’s laptop, toward his
college fees. Mano transferred Rs.2,50,000/- which included college fees and pocket expenses.On 3
rd
August, Karan suddenly complained for chest pain and stomach pain, for which Manowrote
Angispan

on Dr. Choudhary’s prescription and asked Raghav to get t

he drug. Manoadministered
Angispan
to Karan through syringe. Karan was quiet for about half an hour, butsuddenly started moaning and
eventually collapsed.
After Karan’s death, Raghav and Devika found Karan’s life insurance policy worth 2 crores, in
which Mano was the sole benefactor. Police took Mano and Rahul under judicial custody on the basis of
an FIR done by Devika. The matter is before Durg Sessions Court for hearing.

[ix]
SURANA

AND

SURANA

NATIONAL

TRIAL

ADVOCACY

MOOT

COURT
COMPETITION,

2015
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION
STATEMENT

OF

CHARGES
This
Hon’ble
court has power to joint charges and hears the instant matter under Section 184read with Section 220 and
223 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Section 184:
‘184.Place of trial for offences triable together
-Where
-
(a) the offences committed
by any person are such that he may be charged with, and tried at one trial for, each such offence byvirtue
of the provisions of section 219, section 220 or section 221, or(b) the offence or offences committed by
several persons are such that they may be charged withand tried together by virtue of the provisions of
section 223,the offences may be inquired into or tried by any Court competent to inquire into or try and
ofthe offences
.’

Read with Section 220

‘220.Trial for more than one offence
-(1) If, in one series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction, more offences than one
are committed by the same person, he may be
charged with, and tried at one trial for, every such offence.’

Read with Section 223

‘
223.What persons may be charged jointly
-The following persons may be charged and triedtogether, namely:-(a) persons accused of the
same offence committed in the course of the same transaction;

[x]
SURANA

AND

SURANA

NATIONAL
TRIAL

ADVOCACY

MOOT

COURT

COMPETITION,

2015
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION
(b) persons accused of an offence and persons accused of abetment of, or attempt to commit, such
offence;
A
CCUSED
1:
Mr. Manohar Lal,
S/o
Late Mr. Jiwan Lal has been charged under
Sections 302, 120B
and
465read with 34
of
Indian Penal Code
for the act of
Murder, Forgery and Criminal conspiracy
.Charges have also been framed under
Sections 66
and
66C
, Information Technology Act for theact of
Computer related offences
and
Identity theft
.
A
CCUSED
2:
Mr. Rahul Gulati,
S/o
Jitender Gulati has been charged under
Sections 302, 120B, 109
and
465read with 34
of
Indian Penal Code
for the act of
Murder, Forgery, Criminal conspiracy
and
Abetment
. Further, charges have also been framed under
Sections 66
and
66C
, InformationTechnology Act for the act of
Computer related offences
and
Identity theft.

[xi]
SURANA

AND

SURANA

NATIONAL

TRIAL

ADVOCACY

MOOT

COURT

COMPETITION,

2015
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION
SUMMARY

OF

ARGUMENTS
I
SSUE
I:

W
HETHER OR NOT
M
R
.

M
ANOHAR
L
AL AND
M
R
.

R
AHUL
G
ULATI AREGUILTY OF
C
OMPUTER RELATED OFFENCES AND
I
DENTITY
T
HEFT
?
It is humbly submitted before
this Hon’ble Court that A
ccused persons, Mr. Manohar Lal andMr. Rahul Gulati are guilty of computer related offences and
identity theft as
(a)
they made anunauthorized access to the
(b)
computer system of Late Mr. Karan,
(c)
decrypted the passwordand transferred money using a
keylogger
device; hence fulfilling all the essentials under Ss. 66and 66C,
IT Act, 2000
I
SSUE
II:

W
HETHER OR NOT
M
R
.

M
ANOHAR
L
AL IS GUILTY OF
F
ORGERY
?
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the accused Mr. Manohar
Lal is guilty offorgery. Provided,
Angispan
is a Prescription drug, Manohar Lal forged the prescription of Dr.Chaudhary (DW 4) to easily get hold of
the drug from the pharmacist, hence liable under s.465of IPC.
I
SSUE
I I I :

W
HETHER OR NOT
A
CCUSED
N
O
.

1
COMMITTED THE OFFENCE OF
M
URDER AGAINST
D
ECEASED
?

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court

that Mr. Manohar Lal (Accused No. 1)committed the act of Murder as,
(a)
he had expert medical knowledge,
(b)
requisite
Mens Rea

[xii]
SURANA

AND

SURANA

NATIONAL

TRIAL

ADVOCACY

MOOT

COURT

COMPETITION,

2015
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTIONwith
(c)
commensurate
 Actus Reus
. Furthermore,
(d)
the motive to the crime proves thecommission of murder by Manohar Lal.
I
SSUE
IV:

W
HETHER OR NOT
M
R
.

R
AHUL
G
ULATI IS GUILTY OF ABETMENT
?

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court

that Mr. Rahul (Accused No. 2) is guilty ofabetment under s.109, IPC as
(a)
he instigated Accused No.1 for murder, as he was in urgentneed of money from Accused No. 1 and,
(b)
Accused No. 2 had knowledge of the insurance policy of Late Mr. Karan, with Accused No. 1 as the sole
benefactor. Furthermore,
(c)
presenceof intention of Accused No. 2, to abet Accused No. 1 to murder Deceased, fulfills all
theessentials mentioned under s.107,
IPC
.

[
1]
SURANA

AND

SURANA

NATIONAL

TRIAL

ADVOCACY

MOOT
COURT

COMPETITION,

2015

ARGUMENTS

ADVANCED

I
SSUE
I:

W
HETHER OR NOT
M
R
.

M
ANOHAR
L
AL AND
M
R
.

R
AHUL
G
ULATI AREGUILTY OF
C
OMPUTER RELATED OFFENCES AND
I
DENTITY
T
HEFT
?

It is humbly contended that Mr. Mahohar Lal (hereinafter referred to as

‘Accused No. 1’
) and Mr.Rahul Gulati (hereinafter referred to as
‘Accused No. 2’
and collectively referred to as
‘Accused persons’
) are guilty for committing offenses under Ss. 302, 120-B, 109 and 465 r/w 34, IPC

andSs. 66 and 66C of

IT Act.
Whilst proving a conviction under the aforesaid charges, it is pertinent to refer to s.43,
IT Act
,
which states for ‘
penalty for damages to computer systems
’. In order to prove a successful
conviction u/s.66C, it is essential to prove that a
person acting fraudulently or dishonestly

[1.1.]
makes
use of an electronic signature, password or any other unique identity
feature

[1.2.]
of
another person
[1.3.]
.
1

1.1

A
CCUSED PERSONS ACTED DISHONESTLY AND FRAUDULENTLY

Ss. 24 & 25,

IPC

elucidates the term ‘

Dishonestly’
and ‘
Frau
dulently’.
The definition in theaforesaid section will apply to wrongful gain or wrongful loss.
2
Fraud under legal lexes involvessome injury to the person deceived. Injury includes
“
injury to property
”, S.44,
IPC
viz. a personsuffers injury in respect thereto either by its destruction or damage or loss of possession, and
ifintention of a person is to deceive another, and thereby cause a wrongful loss of possession of property,
his intention is dishonest and his act is done, dishonestly.
3

1
Apar Gupta,
Commentary on Information Technology Act
233 (2
nd
ed. 2011)
2

Ramsharanagat Singh v. State of Bihar

1966 Cr. LJ 856;
Ram Krishna v. Shivraj,
1974 Mad LJ 659;
3

See,
Section 24,
Indian Penal Code
, 1860

[2]
SURANA

AND

SURANA

NATIONAL

TRIAL

ADVOCACY

MOOT

COURT

COMPETITION,

2015
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTIONIn the case, Accused persons, in the
absence of consent from Deceased, transferred money from
deceased person’s bank
account by decrypting his password fraudulently, on several occasions,via
keylogger
device.
4
This clearly points out their intention to defraud the Deceased. Accused persons transferred money
several times, causing a wrongful loss to Deceased u/s.24 IPC.
1.2

M
AKING USE OF AN
E
LECTRONIC SIGNATURE
,

P
ASSWORD OR ANY OTHER
U
NIQUE
I
DENTITY
F
EATURE

Identity theft has been defined as

‘
the unlawful taking and use of another person's identifyinginformation for fraudulent
purposes’
.
5

Unauthorized access, deleting or adding files, changingthe password are wrongful acts of hacking and
invite punishment under s.66,
IT Act
, 2000.
6
Moreover, collecting account information and transferring money through falsified identities arein nature
of unauthorized access involved to commit transactions under S.43,
IT Act
, 2000.
7
Accused persons made an unauthorized access to the computer system of Deceased anddecrypted the
password o
f deceased person’s bank account via
keylogger
device which wasrecovered during the investigation
8
, committing identity theft u/s 66C IT Act.
1.2.1.

A
CCUSED PERSONS
C
ONSPIRED TOGETHER TO COMMIT THE ACT

S.120B,
IPC
states for
‘
punishment for Criminal conspiracy
’
. In order to bring a successfulconviction under this charge, it is pertinent to establish an agreement
between two or more persons who agree to do, or cause to do, an illegal act, or a legal act by illegal
means. More so, if
4

See, Case Details, Para 16

,p3
5

Black’s Law Dictionary,

9
th
Edn. P. 814
6

Kumar v Whitley,
(2005) 2 SCC 235
7
Mphasis BPO Fraud
: 2005
8

See, Case Details

,
Para 16
,p3

[3]
SURANA

AND

SURANA

NATIONAL

TRIAL

ADVOCACY

MOOT

COURT

COMPETITION,

2015
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTIONa person voluntarily causes the
existence of an unlawful design to commit such offense
9
, he shall be sentenced under s.120B,
IPC
. Conspiracy is generally a matter of inference. Some connectinglink or connecting factor is enough for
framing a charge.
10
The evidence as to transmission ofthoughts, sharing the unlawful design, may be sufficient to prove the
commission of Criminalconspiracy.
11
Accused No. 1, in order to repay the debt of Rs.1,00,000/- to Accused No. 2, transferred moneyfrom
deceased perso
n’s bank account into his own bank account,
12
 by fraudulent means. The presence and aid of Accused No. 2 to commit the aforesaid illegal act
establishes the agreement between Accused persons.
The phrase ‘common i
ntention
’
13
implies a pre-arranged plan. Thecommon intention to bring about a particular result must develop prior to
commission of theoffence as between a number of persons, with reference to the facts of the case
andcircumstances existing thereto.
14
It is humbly submitted that Accused persons shared a commonintention to carry out an unlawful design
in the form of offense under s.120B read with s.34,IPC. Therefore, Accused persons must be held liable.
9

Ram Narayan Poply v. CBI,

AIR 2003 SC 2748
10

Hardeo Singh v. State of Bihar & Ors

, 2000 CrLJ 2978
11

Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Administration)

, (1989) CrLJ 1: AIR 1988 SC 1883
12

See, Case Details, Para 16

,p3
13

See
, Section 34,
Indian Penal Code
, 1860
14
Abdul Sayeed v. State of Madhya Pradesh
, (2010) 10 SCC 259

[4]
SURANA

AND

SURANA

NATIONAL

TRIAL

ADVOCACY

MOOT
COURT

COMPETITION,

2015
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION
I
SSUE
II:

W
HETHER OR NOT
M
R
.

M
ANOHAR
L
AL IS GUILTY OF
F
ORGERY
?
It is humbly submitted that Accused persons are guilty for committing offences under Section
465, IPC which describes ‘
punishment for forgery
’. It is pertinent to refer Ss.
463 and 464, IPCwhich elucidate the ingredients of forgery.A person is guilty for the act of forgery, if the
person makes any false document with intent tocause damage or injury to any public or person.
15
Essentials to prove the act of forgery includes
making of a false document

[2.1.]
, accompanied with
dishonest or fraudulent intention

[2.2.]
and,
execution of the document is false

[2.3.]
.
16

2.1. T
HAT THE FALSE DOCUMENT WAS MADE
:
S. 464, IPC lays down that who, without lawful authority
[A],
dishonestly or fraudulently
,
bycancellation or otherwise, alters a document
[B]
after it has been made, is said to make a falsedocument.
A.

W
ITH OUT LA WFU L A U TH ORITY

It is humbly contended that the word ‘makes’ means create or bring into existence.
17
The falsedocument was created with a view to make it appear that it was made by a person who,
theaccused knows, in-fact did not make it.
18
For a document to be false it has to lie about itself.
19

15

See
,
Section 463
, IPC
16
IV, Sarvaria, S.K ,
Indian Penal Code,
(10
th
Ed. p 4566)
17

Ranjit Sinha v. State

, 2 CrLJ 36 : AIR 1963 Pat 262
18

A.K. Khosla v T. S. Venkatesan

, 1992 CrLJ 1448
19

J Ta Zwart v Indrani Muherjee

, (1990) 1 Cal HN 62

[5]
SURANA

AND

SURANA

NATIONAL

TRIAL
ADVOCACY

MOOT

COURT

COMPETITION,

2015
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION
B.

T
HE DOCUMENT WAS ALTERED

A false document is made not only when the whole of it is made, but even when a person makesonly a
part of it.
20
It must either appear on the face to be one which, if true, possesses some legalvalidity, or, in other words,
must be legally capable of affecting the fraud intended.
21
Accused No. 1 wrote the name of the medicine on the prescription by DW 4, therefore, making afalse
document to make DW 5 falsely believe that the drug
Angispan
is in fact prescribed by DW4 himself.
2.2. D
ISHONEST AND
F
RAUDULENT INTENTION

It is humbly contented by the prosecution that the prescription so forged by Accused No.1 wasmade with
a dishonest intention.For the purpose of forgery, it is sufficient to show that there is a criminal intention to
causewrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another.
22
The test of wrongfulness as laid downin s.23,
IPC is ‘unlawfulness’.
23
T
o constitute ‘
wrongful
gain’ and ‘wrongful loss’, there must be
an unlawful acquisition by unlawful means. A dishonest intention may be presumed only if anunlawful
act is done, or if a lawful act is done by unlawful means.
24
Accused No.1 forged the prescription of DW 4 knowingly, so that he may get the drug withoutan actual
prescription. Accused no.1 had the knowledge that the drug
Angispan

is a ‘Prescription
20

M. Gangadhariah
(in
 Re
), AIR 1967 Mys 86
21

Re Badan Singh
, (1922) 3 Lah 373
22
IV, Sarvaria, S.K ,
Indian Penal Code,
(10
th
Ed, p. 4751)

23

See,
Ratanlal and Dhiraj Lal,
The Law of Crimes
, (23
rd
enlarged Ed p. 71)
24

Sansar Singh v. Emperor

, AIR 1934 All 711;
Lal Mohammad v. Emperor
, AIR 1931 Pat 317.

[6]
SURANA

AND

SURANA

NATIONAL

TRIAL

ADVOCACY

MOOT

COURT

COMPETITION,

2015
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION
Drug’.
The intention of Accused No.1 was to murder Deceased, so that he may get the benefitworth
Rs.2,00,00,000/- on the life insurance policy of Deceased. He wanted to attain a
‘
wrongfulgain
’
from the aforesaid life insurance policy, and thus forged the prescription.
2.3. T
HAT THE EXECUTION OF DOCUMENT WAS FALSE

To convert an illegal or doubtful claim into a legal one amounts to dishonest intention,
whichsubsequently amounts to forgery.
25
Prescription of DW 4 was forged by Accused No.1 to get hold of drug
Angispan,
which inordinary circumstances he could not have access to. The major component of drug
Angispan
isnitroglycerin, which cannot be obtained without a prescription of a medical practitioner.
26
Rule65(9)(a),
Drugs and Cosmetics Rule,
specifies that substances specified in
Schedule H
27
shall not be sold by retail, except in accordance with the prescription of a registered
Medical Practitioner.Aforesaid Rule makes it hard for Accused No.1 to get hold of the drug, which he
subsequentlyacquired by altering the prescription of DW 4.
Arguendo
, the drug
Angispan
is commonly used and is in market practice cannot be purchasedwithout prescription. It may be the stand
that the practice was a part of the accepted norm. Acommon prevailing practice, if unlawful, is termed to
be illegal. The subsequent clarifications donot in any way put seal to the approval of the practices adopted
in the past, on the other hand, itcondemns it.
28

25

Mahesh Chandra Prasad v. Emperor,

AIR (30) 1943 Pat. 393

26
See, Rule 65,
Drugs and Cosmetics Rules
, 1945
27

Ibid.

28

Ramesh Chandra Das v Premlata Patra,

(1983) 3 Crimes 87 (Ori);
Ram Narain Poply v. CBI
, AIR 2003 SC 2748
 [7]
SURANA

AND

SURANA

NATIONAL

TRIAL

ADVOCACY

MOOT

COURT

COMPETITION,

2015
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION
I
SSUE
I I I :

W
HETHER OR NOT
A
CCUSED
N
O
.

1
COMMITTED TH E O FF EN CE OF
M
URDER AGAINST
D
ECEASED
?
It is humbly submitted befo
re this Hon’ble Court that A
ccused No. 1 is guilty for committing theoffence of murder under Section 302,
IPC
. Sec. 302 prescribes the punishment for committingmurder.All four conditions enumerated under s.300
IPC may not necessarily co-exist, so as to prove anoffence of murder. It would be sufficient for the
prosecution to establish any one of theconditions enumerated under s.300,
IPC
against an offender, for punishing him for an offence ofmurder.
29
However, it must be noted that unless the act done constitutes a murder by reason ofthe intention, with
which it is found to be done, the court need not consider the exceptions.
30
3.1.

I
NTENTION TO CAUSE DEATH

Where intention to kill the deceased is established and medical evidence shows that injuriescaused by the
accused were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, the casesquarely falls under
section 302,
IPC
.
31

A.

M
ENS
R
EA

Intention to kill a person must be determined having regard to the factual scenario involved ineach case.
32
Any fact is relevant which shows or constitutes a motive or preparation for anyrelevant fact.
33

29

Salim and Ors v. State of Rajasthan

, 1999 CrLJ 1419 (Raj) (DB).
30

Shyama Charan Sri Ram Saran v. State

, AIR 1969 All 61.
31
State of Maharashtra v. Kalu Shivram Jagtap and Ors
, 1980 Supp. SCC 224
32

Benjamin v. State
, (2008) 3 SCC 745

[8]
SURANA

AND

SURANA

NATIONAL

TRIAL
ADVOCACY

MOOT

COURT

COMPETITION,

2015
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTIONIn the present case, the following
chain of events enunciates both
mala fide
intention and
motive
of Accused No. 1 to commit the aforesaid offence:

Accused No.1 had the knowledge of a policy worth Rs.2,00,00,000/- (Rupees two crores)made by
Deceased in favor of Accused No. 1. The Accused No.1 cannot wait for long to grabthe property of the
deceased.
34

Accused No. 2 abetted Accused No. 1 to murder Deceased

35
, so as to repay the debt ofRs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh).
36

On 2
nd
August, 2014, Accused No. 1 suffered ridicule in front of his classmates, due to thenon-payment of his
college fees on time.
37

On the same day, Accused No. 1 suffered insensitive abuse by Mrs. Devika, Raghav and theDeceased.
38

B.

A
CTUS
R
EUS

To constitute crime, the intent and act must concur.

39
The intent to commit the offence isfollowed by the act. In the present case, the Accused No. 1 knowingly
caused an air embolism
via
push intravenous in the artery of the Deceased, in the disguise of injecting Angispan liquid
33
Section 8,
Indian Evidence Act
, 1872
34

Swamy Shraddananda v State of Karnataka

, (2007) 12 SCC 331
35

See, Case Details, Para 16

,p3
36

See
,
Case Detail , Para 5
,p1
37

See, Case Details, Annexure 5

, p 13
38
See, Case Details

Para 18,
Pg. 3
39

Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab

, (1994) 3 SCC 569

[9]
SURANA

AND

SURANA

NATIONAL

TRIAL

ADVOCACY

MOOT

COURT

COMPETITION,

2015
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTIONdrug. The air embolism found in the
body of the deceased became the cause of death, asmentioned in the Forensic Report.
40
Keeping in view the injuries inflicted on the deceased as also the nature thereof and furthermorein view
of the opinion expressed by the doctor, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever, that theappellant did had
intention to kill the deceased.
41
Offense under s.300,
IPC
consists of both
Mens Rea
and
Actus reus
. However, it was held in
Bikau Pandey v. State of Bihar
42

that Absence of motive is of no consequence and pales intoinsignificance when direct evidence
establishes the crime. The Direct evidence is of significancein the present case.
3.2. C
ONSISTENCY WITH
O
CULAR
E
VIDENCE AND
M
EDICAL
E
VIDENCE

Where the ocular evidence is very clear and convincing and the role of the accused person in thecrime
stands clearly established, establishment of motive is not a sine qua non for proving the prosecution case.
43
It is of essence in the present case, that the
Medical evidence

[A]
and
Ocularevidence

[B]
are consistent and capable to prove a chain of events so as to prove beyondreasonable doubt, the offence
of murder committed by Accused No. 1.
A.

M
EDICAL
E
VIDENCE

Section 45,
IEA
 identifies the opinion of a doctor or medical practitioner as an expert opinion. Areport of post mortem or
a forensic examination is a valuable piece of information. It does not
40

See, Case Details, Annexure 4

, Pg. 11
41

Ibid.

42
(2003) 12 SCC 616;
See
also,
Barikanoo v. State of Uttar Pradesh
, (1997) 1 Crimes 500 (All)
43

Yunees v. State of Madhya Pradesh

, AIR 2003 SC 539 : (2003) 1 SCC 429

[10]
SURANA

AND

SURANA

NATIONAL

TRIAL

ADVOCACY

MOOT

COURT

COMPETITION,

2015
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTIONrequire any other formal proof.
44
The Forensic report prepared by

PW 5 concluded that,
“Deathwas caused due to air embolism in the artery…causing damage

to the heart”
45
In
Mohan v. State of Uttar Pradesh
,
46
the Deceased had not taken any other food or drug other
than ‘
peras
’ which contained arsenic poison that led to death of Deceased within half an hour.
Inthe matter in hand, Accused No. 1 injected the drug
Angispan
via push intravenous method
which caused deceased person’s death within few minutes
.
47
The cause of death, as mentionedabove, is due to air embolism in the artery of the deceased which
eventually created froths in hisheart, eventually causing cardiac arrest.
48

Administering Toxic substance

The substance inflicting a toxic effect may be a drug, an insecticide, a pesticide or any chemical
substances in the environment of an individual. A ‘poison’ is a substance which produces
toxicity. In fact, every substance is theoretically capable of producing toxicity and every drug
is potentially a poison for routine purposes.
49
In the present case, Accused No. 1 intentionallyadministered air embolism into the deceased body.Four
essential circumstances, as held under
Bhupinder Singh v. State of Punjab
50
, are to be
proved so as to justify a conviction of the offence of administering ‘poison’:

Motive of the
44

Bhupinder Singh v. State of Punjab

, (1988) 3 SCC 513
45

Ibid.

46
AIR 1960 SC 659: 1960 Cr LJ 1011
47

See, Case Details, Para 22

,p4
48

See, Case Details, Annexure 4

49
Modi,
A Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology
, (24
th
ed, 2011, p 3).
50
(1988) 3 SCC 513

[11]
SURANA

AND

SURANA

NATIONAL

TRIAL

ADVOCACY

MOOT

COURT

COMPETITION,

2015
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION
Accused

[A.1]
,
Deceased died of the said administered poison

[A.2]
,
Accused had the poison inhis possession

[A.3]
,
Accused had an opportunity to administer the poison to the deceased
[A.4]
.
51

A.1
Motive of the Accused
Accused No. 1 had the requisite
mens rea
so as to inject
air
through push intravenous methodinto the body of the deceased. The Accused No. 1 was entitled to a 2
crore worth policy, only
after Deceased person’s death. The contents of his
mala fide
 intentions are mentioned above indetail, under para
3.1(A),
and the same are not being reproduced herein again for the sake of brevity.
A.2

Deceased died of the said administered poison

A doctor’s opinion is considered as an expert’s opinion

52
, and does not require any formal proof.
53
The air embolism present in the body of the deceased is enunciated clearly in theForensic report.
54
It is contended that the air embolism is caused by Accused No. 1.
A.3
Accused had poison in his possession
In the present case, the cause of deceased person’s death is nothing but ‘air’. However, as
mentioned above, every substance is capable of producing toxicity and may act as a potential poison
for routine purposes.
55

Therefore, it is pertinent to mention that not only the ‘

air
’ inside
51
Shaik Saidulu v. State of A.P
, 1995 Cr LJ 2984;
Thangraj v. Inspector of Police
, 2011 Cri LJ (NOC)103 (Mad).
52
Section 45,
Indian Evidence Act
, 1872
53

Bhupinder Singh v State of Punjab,

(1988) 3 SCC 513
54

See, Case Details, Annexure 4

, Pg. 11
55
Modi,
A Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology
, (24
th
Ed, 2011 p. 3)

[12]
SURANA

AND
SURANA

NATIONAL

TRIAL

ADVOCACY

MOOT

COURT

COMPETITION,

2015
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTIONthe injection was in the possession of
Accused No. 1, but the Accused No. 1 also had the expertmedical knowledge of causing death by
injecting air embolism inside the body of Deceased.A case of murder by administration of poison is
almost always one of secrecy. The Accusedalways watches his opportunity and administers the poison in
a manner calculated to avoid itsdetection.
56
The greater his knowledge of poisons, the greater the secrecy; and consequently thegreater the difficulty
of proving the case against him.
57
It is pertinent in the present case that the Accused No. 1 had both theoretical as well as
practicalknowledge of medical science.
58

A.4
Accused had an opportunity to administer the air embolism to the deceased
In the present case, the cause of death is concluded to be embolism in the artery of theDeceased.
59
The Accused No. 1 not only had the opportunity of administering air embolism inthe body of deceased,
but he also availed the aforesaid opportunity in the disguise of injectingthe drug
Angispan
.
When a Forensic report prepared by a Medical examiner is coupled with the doctor’s opinion
who conducted the Post Mortem report, the same is sufficient to hold that it was a death by poisoning.
60

56

Anant Chintaman Lagu v. State of Bombay

, AIR 1960 SC 500
57
Ibid.

58

See, Case Details, Para 21

,p4
59
See, Case Details
, Annexure 4
60

Phino v. State of Punjab

, AIR 1975 SC 1327

[13]
SURANA

AND

SURANA

NATIONAL

TRIAL

ADVOCACY

MOOT

COURT

COMPETITION,

2015
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTIONFrom the essentials of administering
poison
61
proved above, it is humbly submitted that the deathso caused by injecting air embolism in the artery of
the deceased through push intravenousmethod, is caused by Accused No. 1.
B.

O
CULAR
E
VIDENCE

Where there is direct evidence of eye-witness regarding assault on the deceased by the accused,the
question of proving motive becomes pure academic question.
62
In the present case, Raghav
(PW 1)
is the sole ocular witness of the offence so committed by Accused No. 1, byadministering poison to the
Deceased.It is further pertinent to note that if there is motive in doing an act, then the adequacy of
thatmotive is not in all cases necessary. Heinous offences have been committed for very slightmotive.
63

Statement of Ocular Witness cannot be rejected

As dexterously emphasized by the Supreme Court on many occasions,
64
interested witnesses arenot necessarily false witnesses. The evidence of such witnesses must be subjected
to closescrutiny and the court must assess the testimony of each important witness and indicate reasonsfor
accepting or rejecting it and that no evidence should at once be disregarded simply because itcame from
interested persons.
65

61

Supra
note 50
62

Jale Singh v. State of Rajasthan

, 1996 Cr LJ 1177 (Raj)
63

State v. Dinakar Bandu

, (1969) 72 Bom LR 905
64

Chandra Mohan Tiwari

v.
State of M.P,
(1992) 2 SCC 105 also
Anwaruddin
v.
Shakoor
; (1990) 3 SCC 266
65
Mahuri Kishan and Ors. v. State
, 1996 Cri LJ 4017

[14]
SURANA

AND

SURANA

NATIONAL

TRIAL

ADVOCACY

MOOT

COURT

COMPETITION,

2015
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION
I
SSUE
IV:

W
HETHER OR NOT
M
R
.

R
A H U L
G
ULATI IS GU ILTY OF ABETMEN T
?
It is humbly contented that Accused No.2 is guilty for abetment u/s.109, IPC, which
prescribes punishment for abetment where no express provision is made for its punishment. In order to bri
ng a successful conviction under this charge, it is pertinent to refer s.107 IPC, whichelucidates the
essentials of abetment.In order to constitute a charge for Abetment, it is necessary to prove that, Accused
No. 2 aided,abetted, counselled or prosecuted the commission of the principal offense
[4.1]
; that the principaloffence was in fact committed
[4.2.]
; and that the abettor had intention to encourage thecommission
[4.3]
.
66

4.1.

A
CCUSED
N
O
.

2
AIDED
,
ABETTED
,
COUNSELLED OR PROSECUTED THE COMMISSION OF THEPRINCIPAL OFFENSE

A person is said to
‘instigate’
another to an act, when he actively suggests or stimulates him tocommit the act by means of language,
direct or indirect, whether it takes the form of expresssolicitation, or of hints, insinuation or
encouragement.
67
It is not necessary that express anddirect words be indicated, as to what exactly should be done.
68
 If an accused is alleged to have been an accomplice to the principal offence, the charge mayallege that he
aided, abetted, counselled or procured it and he will be convicted if he is proved tohave participated in
one or more of these four ways.
69
Accused No. 2 regularly reminded
66
Ratanlal and Dhirajlal,
Indian Penal Code,
(31
st
Enlarged Ed, 2006 p. 518)
67

Emperor v Amiruddin
, (1922) 24 Bom LR 534
68

Baby John v. State

, 1955 Cr. LJ 1273
69

Freguson v Weaving
(1951) 1KB 814: (1951) 1 ALL ER 412

[15]
SURANA

AND

SURANA

NATIONAL

TRIAL

ADVOCACY

MOOT

COURT

COMPETITION,

2015
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTIONAccused No. 1 of the insurance
policy worth Rs.2,00,00,000/-, the benefit of which will only beavailed by Accused No. 1, after the death
of Deceased. In the case in hand, Accused No. 2,though did not directly indicated Accused No. 1 to
commit the exact act, but regularly stimulatedhim to
send Deceased on a ‘
long journey
’.
70
4.2.

T
HE PRINCIPAL OFFENCE WAS IN FACT COMMITTED
.
The contents of the ‘principal offence being committed’ are mentioned above in detail, under
Issue III
, and the same are not being reproduced herein again for the sake of brevity.
4.3

A
CCUSED
N
O
.

2
HAD INTENTION TO ENCOURAGE THE COMMISSION
.
The offense is complete as soon as the abettor has incited another to commit a crime, the consentis
immaterial, and rather it is the intention of the person who abets the commission of the act.
71
Urgent need of Rs.1,00,000/- from Accused No. 1 and, knowledge of insurance policy
worthRs.2,00,00,000/- in the name of Deceased, together constitutes the motive and intention ofAccused
No. 2, respectively, to abet Accused No. 1 to murder Deceased. Accused No. 1 is thesole benefactor of
the aforesaid insurance policy. Heinous offences have been committed forvery slight motive.
72
Urgent need of money, in the present case, establishes motive. If motive
is proved, the case of prosecution becomes easier to connect accused to the alleged incident.
73
When a person is charged with the abetment of an offence, it is linked with an offence which has been
proved.
74

70

See, Case Details, Para 16

,p3
71

Ramabatar Agarwalla v. State

, 1983 CrLJ 122
72

State v. Dinakar Bandu,

(1969) 72 Bom LR 905
73

Ganpat Kondiba Chavan v. State of Maharashtra

, (1997) 2 Crimes 38 (Bom)
74

Goura Venkata Reddy v State of A.P

(2003) 12 SCC 469

[
xiii]
SURANA

AND

SURANA

NATIONAL

TRIAL

ADVOCACY

MOOT

COURT

COMPETITION,

2015

PRAYER
Wherefore, in light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, may this
Hon‘ble Court be pleased to:

T
O
H
OLD
:

That Manohar is guilty of

murder.

That Rahul is guilty of

abetment to murder.

That Manohar and Rahul are guilty of

criminal conspiracy.
That Manohar and Rahul are guilty of
committing computer related offence and identitytheft.
T
O
P
ASS
:

Convict
Mr. Manohar Lal and Mr. Rahul Gulati for the above mentioned offences
and punish them with the maximum punishment possible, as per the circumstances of thecase.
AND
Pass any other order it may deem fit, in the interest of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience.
All of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted
Place:
Durg
S/d___________
__
Date: / /2015

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR