Petitioner Geeta

TEAM CODE:TC-31
GEETA INSTITUTE OF LAW, PANIPAT
8TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2018
IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF TAXILA
(SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL JURISDICTION)
--IN THE MATTER OF--
STATE OF TAXILA ............PETITIONER
Versus
VIR BAHADUR .........RESPONDENT
(UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA)
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
DRAWN AND FILED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER

GEETA INSTITUTE OF LAW, PANIPAT 8TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT TC-31
COMPETITION, 2018
TABLE OF CONTENTS
S.NO PARTICULARS PAGE NO.

1. LIST OF ABBREVIATION AND ACRONYOMS II
2. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES III-IV
3. LIST OF CASES REFERRED V-VI
4. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION VII
5. STATEMENT OF FACTS VIII-IX
6. ISSUES RAISED X
7. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS XI
8. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
1. WHETHER VIR BAHADUR IS GUILTY OF 1-7
COMMITTING OF MURDER OF GEETA MAHI?
a) Vir Bahadur had full knowledge of the consequences of
his act.
b) Absence of good faith on part of the respondent.
c) He didn’t perform this act under a mistake of fact.
2. WHETHER VIR BAHADUR IS GUILTY FOR CAUSING 8-14

GRIEVOUS HURT TO GANGA MAHI AND SUNAHRI
MAHI UNDER § 326 I.P.C AND FOR CAUSING HURT
TO RAVI KRISHAN UNDER § 324 I.P.C?
a) Vir Bahadur is Guilty under § 326 of I.P.C.
i) Vir Bahadur has Voluntarily Caused Grievous Hurt.
ii) The Instrument used is Deadly and Likely to cause
Death
b) Vir Bahadur is Guilty under § 324 of I.P.C.
i) The Accused caused Hurt.
ii) It is caused Voluntarily with the Knowledge Or
Intention to cause death.
iii) It is caused with Instrument Likely to cause Death.
10. PRAYER 15

15
COMPETITION, 2018
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
S.NO ABBREVATIONS FULL FORM

1. & And
2. ¶ Paragraph
3. A. P. Andhra Pradesh
4. AIR All India Reporter
5. All Allahabad High Court
6. Anr. Another
7. Art. Article
8. Bom. Bombay
9. Bom. LR Bombay Law Reporter
10. Cr.P.C. Code of Criminal Procedure
11. Cal Calcutta High Court
12. Cri LJ / Cr LJ Criminal Law Journal
13. Del Delhi High Court
14. Ed. Edition
15. Govt. Government
16. Guj Gujarat High Court
17. HC High Court
18. i.e. that is
19. IC Indian Cases
20. ILR Indian Law Reports
21. I.P.C Indian Penal Code
22. Kan. Karnataka

15
COMPETITION, 2018
23. Ltd. Limited
24. Mad Madras High Court
25. Ori Orissa High Court
26. Ors. Others
27. SC Supreme Court
28. SCC Supreme Court Cases
29. SCJ Supreme Court Journal
30. SCR Supreme Court Reporter
31. Sec. Section
32. U.O.I. Union of India
33. V. Versus
34. vol. Volume

15
COMPETITION, 2018
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
COMMENTARIES REFERED:
Books on Indian Penal Code:
1. RATANLAL & DHIRAJLAL’S LAW OF CRIMES – A Commentary on The Indian
Penal Code, Vol I, Bharat Law House, Delhi, 27th Edn. 2013.
2. RATANLAL & DHIRAJLAL’S LAW OF CRIMES – A Commentary on The Indian
Penal Code, Vol II, Bharat Law House, Delhi, 27th Edn. 2013.
3. JUSTICE V. V. RAGHVAN, LAW OF CRIMES, India Law House, New Delhi, 5th Edn.
2001.
4. K I VIBHUTI, P.S.A PILLIA'S CRIMINAL LAW, Lexis Nexis, 12th Edn. 2014.
5. DR. (Sir) HARI SINGH GOUR, PENAL LAW OF INDIA, Law Publishers (India) Pvt.
Ltd., 11th Edn. 2014.
6. J C SMITH, SMITH AND HOGAN CRIMINAL LAW – Cases and Materials,
LexisNexis Butterworths, 8th Edn. 2002.
7. BASU'S INDIAN PENAL CODE (Law of Crimes), Vol I., Ashoka Law House, 11th
Edn. 2011.
8. S.K. SARVARIA, R.A. NELSON’S INDIAN PENAL CODE (9th ed. Lexis Nexis
Butterworths Gurgaon 2002).
9. M.P. TANDON, THE INDIAN PENAL CODE (23th ed. Allahabad Law Agency,
Faridabad 2005).
10. RAM JETHMALANI & D.S. CHOPRA, 2 THE INDIAN PENAL CODE (1st ed.
Thomson Reuters, Legal, New Delhi 2014).
Books on Constitutional Law:

1. M.P. JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (6th ed. Lexis Nexis Butterworths
Wadhwa, Nagpur 2010).
2. DURGA DAS BASU, 1 COMMENTARY ON CONSTITION OF INDIA (8th ed.
Wadhwa and Company Nagpur 2007).
3. DR. SUBHASH C. KASHYAP, 2 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA (Universal
Law Publishing Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi 2008).

15
COMPETITION, 2018
STATUTES REFERRED:
1. INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860.

2. THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1949.
3. THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872.
4. THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973.
LEXICONS/DICTIONARIES REFERRED:
1. BRYAN A. GARNER, BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (8th ed. 2001).
2. OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY (2nd ed. 2009).
3. WEBSTER’S NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY.
LEGAL DATABASES:
1. MANUPATRA.
2. SCC ONLINE.
3. CASEMINE.
4. AIR.
5. LAW FINDER.
WEBSITES REFERRED:
1. http://www.manupatra.com
2. http://www.judis.nic.in
3. http://ncrb.nic.in
4. http://www.scconline.com
5. http://www.airwebworld.com
6. http://www.jstor.com
7. http://www.lexusnexus.com/in/legal

15
COMPETITION, 2018
LIST OF CASES REFERRED:
S.NO CASE NAME CITATION PG NO.

Abdul Waheed Khan alias Waheed
1. 2002 7 SCC 175 2
And Ors vs State of Andhra Pradesh
2. Abu Thakir v. State of T.N. (2010) 5 SCC 91 1
3. Anbum Ani v. State AIR 1981 (NOC) 115 (Mad) 14
Anwarul Haq v. State of Uttar
4. AIR 2005 SC 2382 14
Pradesh
5. Basdev vs The State of Pepsu 1956 AIR 488, 1956 SCR 363 1
6. Beckford v. The Queen [1988] AC 130 Privy Council 7
7. Bhikubhai Vastabhai vs State 2008 Cri LJ 1467 Guj 10
Bhupendrasinh A. Chudasama vs
8. [1997] INSC 810 5
State of Gujarat
9. Bonda Kui v. Emperor AIR 1943 Pat 64 7
10. Budhi Lal v. State of Uttarakhand AIR 2009 SC 87 2
11. Chhallu v. Emperor , I.L.R. AIR 1941 All. 288 at p. 288: 10
Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakker vs 1964 AIR 1563, 1964 SCR (7)
12. 11
State of Gujarat 361
Director of Public Prosecutions v. [1920] AC 479
13. 1
Beard
Gurdeep Singh vs Jaswant Singh
14. AIR 1992 SC 987 1
And Others
1966 AIR 97, 1965 SCR (3)
15. Harbhajan Singh vs State of Punjab 12
235
16. Hari Kishan vs Sukhbir Singh AIR 1988 SC 2127 13
17. Jagtar Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1983 SC 463 2
Jose Reyes, Appellant v. The State NO.14–14–01002–CR
18. 6
of Texas, Appellee Decided: March 15, 2016
K. M. Nanavati vs State of 1962 AIR 605, 1962 SCR
19. 11
Maharashtra Supl. (1) 567
Kailas Sizing Works v. Municipality
20. AIR 1969 Bom 127 5
of Bhivandi
Kesar Singh & Anr vs State of
21. [2008 (6) SCALE 433
Haryana
Mani Kumar Thapa v. State of
22. 1
Sikkim
Mrs. Veeda Menezes vs Yusuf Khan
23. SCR 1966 AIR 1773 13
And Anr
24. Prabhu vs State of M.P. AIR 1991 SC 1069 14
25. R v. Downes 1875 1 QBD 25 CCR 2,6
26. R v. Gladstone Williams (1984) 78 Cr. App. R. 276 7
27. R v. Prince (1683) 2 Ch. C. 154 6
28. Raghubir v. State 10
29. Ramdas v. State of Maharastra 1981 Bom. C.R. 27 at p. 32. 9
30. Ramdev And Ors vs State of 13
15
COMPETITION, 2018
Rajasthan
31. Ravi Kapur vs State Of Rajasthan (2012) 9 SCC 284 4
32. Re SK Sundaram (2001) Cri LJ 2932 (SC) 4
33. Rex v. Meade [1909] 1 K.B. 895 1
34. Ruli Ram v. State of Haryana 2002CriLJ4337 2
35. Satish Sah v. State of Bihar 1995 CriLJ 213 3
36. Sehaj Ram v. State of Haryana AIR 1983 SC 614 2
Sewakram Sobhani v. R.K. Karanjia,
1981 AIR 1514, 1981 SCR (3)
37. Chief Editor, Weekly Blitz and 12
627
Others
38. Sheikh Abdul Hamid v. State of MP 1998 SC 942 3
39. Shyam Behari v. State AIR 1953 ori 308 14
State of Andhra Pradesh vs 1977 AIR 45, 1977 SCR (1)
40. 2
Rayavarapu Punnayya & Another 601
State of Madhya Pradesh vs Ram AIR 1968 881, 1968 SCR (2)
41. 2
Prasad 522
42. State of Orrisa v. Bhagaban Barik 1987 cri LJ 1115 SC 5,6
State of U.P. v. Indrajeet Alias
43. (2000(7) SCC 249) 14
Sukhatha
State Uttar Pradesh vs Nahar Singh
44. AIR 1998 SC 1328 2
(Dead) & Ors
45. Thangaiya vs State of Tamil Nadu (2005) 9 SCC 650 2
The King Emperor v. Tustipada
46. AIR 1951 Ori 284 6,7,10
Mandal
47. Tholan vs State of Tamil Nadu AIR 1984 SC 759 1
48. Vijayee Singh And Ors vs State 1990 AIR 1459 11
49. Yunis v. State of MP AIR 2003 SC 539 1
50. Zamil Hasan v. State 1974 Cr Lj 867 14

15
COMPETITION, 2018
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Petitioner has approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court under Article 1361 of the Indian
Constitution. Since there are special circumstances which have occurred, and hence the
matter requires due consideration from the Supreme Court the respondent submits to the
special leave to appeal jurisdiction of the Honourable Supreme Court.
1
Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court
(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion, grant special leave to
appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or made by
any court or tribunal in the territory of India
(2) Nothing in clause ( 1 ) shall apply to any judgment, determination, sentence or order passed or made by any
court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces
15
COMPETITION, 2018
STATEMENT OF FACTS
I.
-----BACKDROP OF THE CASE-----
Bahadurgarh is a village in the district of Virganj where most of the inhabitants are tribals
belonging to Mahi tribes who have a strong belief in ghosts. An event occurred in the middle
of the night when two visitors who had visited Bahadurganj namely Dushyant Singh and his
servant Vir bahadur persuade two others along with them to see ghosts. While they were
passing through the Aerodrome the mis-interpret a flickering light to be ghosts and Vir
Bahadur Stabs that light with his ‘Khukhri’. But they were actually some women who were
collecting Mohua flower at midnight.
II.
------VISIT TO VILLAGE BAHADURGARH FOR BUYING AERODROME-----
Dushyant Singh and his servant Vir Bahadur visit Bahadurgarh for the purpose of purchasing
the aerodrome and they stayed in the house of Ravi Kishan a tea seller. Meanwhile one
Chand Mahi from village Rajgarh stops mid-way and takes shelter at Ravi Kishan’s house as
he was afraid of travelling alone at midnight back to his village for fear of ghosts. Chand
Mahi had a conversation with Dushyant Singh and Vir Bahadur and he tells them about the
notoriety of the Ghosts and their activeness on the full moon night
III.
------ANXIOUSNESS TO SEE THE GHOSTS------
Dushyant Singh and Vir Bahadur show their anxiousness to see the ghosts and also persuade
Ravi Krishan and Chand Mahi to see the Ghosts with them and ensured that Chand Mahi to
drop him back to his village while this process. While all four of them initiated their journey
with torch in their hand they saw a flickering light at a distance of 500 meters and since
strong wind was blowing they misinterpreted it to be ‘will-o-the-wisp’. They thought that
ghosts were dancing around the light and they all ran towards that place.

15
COMPETITION, 2018
IV
---------DEATH AND GRIEVOUS INJURIES CAUSED BY VIR BAHADUR--------
Vir Bahadur began to attack the ghosts indiscriminately with his Khukhri and didn’t even see
Ravi Kishan reaching at that spot and striked a blow to him also. When everybody cried in
distress Vir Bahadur stopped and came to know that the ghosts he had been attacking were
actual ladies who had been collecting Mohua flowers which was a common practice and was
done by ladies of mahi tribe on every full moon night. One Geeta Mahi died and two others
namely Ganga mahi and Sunahri mahi were grievously hurt. F.I.R is registered and he is
charged under S. 302 I.P.C for murder of Geeta Mahi, S. 326 I.P.C for causing grievous hurt
to persons injured and S. 324 I.P.C for simple hurt to Ravi Krishan.
V
------APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT BY THE STATE-------
The learned Sessions judge held the accused guilty on the ground that Vir Bahadur didn’t act
with ‘Due care and attention’. The accused went on appeal before the Taxila High Court
where he was held not guilty on the ground that the actions of Vir Bahadur was consequence
of bona fide mistake of fact as he thought he was attacking ghosts and not human beings and
was acquitted relying on S.79 I.P.C. The state has filed an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme
Court challenging the judgement of Hon’ble Taxila High Court.

15
COMPETITION, 2018
ISSUES RAISED
ISSUE NO.1
WHETHER VIR BAHADUR IS GUILTY OF COMMITTING OF MURDER OF

GEETA MAHI?
ISSUE NO.2
WHETHER VIR BAHADUR IS GUILTY FOR CAUSING GRIEVOUS HURT TO

GANGA MAHI AND SUNAHRI MAHI UNDER § 326 I.P.C AND FOR CAUSING
HURT TO RAVI KRISHAN UNDER § 324 I.P.C?

15
COMPETITION, 2018
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
1. WHETHER VIR BAHADUR IS GUILTY OF COMMITTING MURDER OF

GEETA MAHI?
 It is most humbly submitted before the Honourable Supreme Court that Vir Bahadur is
guilty of murder of Geeta Mahi and the respondent has utterly failed to prove the case
beyond reasonable doubt.
 Vir Bahadur had full knowledge of the consequences of his act.
 Absence of good faith on part of the respondent.
 He didn’t perform this act under a mistake of fact.
 Therefore, Vir Bahadur should be held guilty for committing murder of Geeta Mahi.
2. WHETHER VIR BAHADUR IS GUILTY FOR CAUSING GRIEVOUS HURT TO

GANGA MAHI AND SUNAHRI MAHI UNDER § 326 I.P.C AND FOR CAUSING
HURT TO RAVI KRISHAN UNDER § 324 I.P.C?
 It is most humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that Vir Bahadur
is guilty of causing grievous hurt to Ganga Mahi and Sunahri Mahi and also of causing
hurt to Ravi Kishan .
 Vir Bahadur has clearly and explicitly caused grievous hurt to Ganga Mahi and Sunahri
Mahi through his Khukri blows and has caused bodily pain to them with his sharp
weapon.
 Therefore, Vir Bahadur should be held guilty for causing grievous hurt to Ganga Mahi
and Sunahri Mahi and also of causing hurt to Ravi Kishan.

15
COMPETITION, 2018
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

I. WHETHER VIR BAHADUR IS GUILTY OF COMMITTING MURDER OF
GEETA MAHI?
1. It is most respectively submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that Vir
Bahadur is guilty of committing Murder of Geeta Mahi under §.302 I.P.C respectively.
A. VIR BAHADUR HAD FULL KNOWLEDGE OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF
THE ACT:
2. It is humbly submitted before the Honourable Supreme Court that Vir Bahadur is guilty
of murder of Geeta Mahi, and that the Sessions Court was completely correct in
convicting the accused on the ground that he didn’t act with due care and attention. The
offence of murder tends to place an importance on the requirement of mens rea2 and
actus reas3 but it also provides for the term “knowledge”4 that is most of the times left
unattended. Here under this case the respondent was guilty of murder of Geeta Mahi
because of the knowledge he had.
3. Motive is something which prompts a man to form an intention and knowledge is an
awareness of the consequences of the act. It is also not an essential element for murder. 5
In many cases intention and knowledge merge into each other and mean the same thing
more or less and intention can be presumed from knowledge6.When an act is done by a
person, it is presumed that he must have been aware that certain specified harmful
consequences would or could follow.7
4. Similarly, under this case, the respondent was habitual of using the weapon as he carried
it along with him to Bahardurgarh. Since the respondent had the knowledge that weapon
that he is carrying is capable of causing death of someone, he should have thought twice
before using it in an indiscriminate manner. It shows that he was not only behaving in a
2
Mens rea is a legal phrase used to describe the mental state a person must have been in while committing a
crime for it to be intentional. It can refer to a general intent to break the law or a specific, premeditated plan to
commit a particular offense.
3
An actus reus consists of more than just an act. It also consists of whatever circumstances and consequences
are recognised for liability for the offence in question - in other words all the elements of an offence other than
the mental element.
4
Gurdeep Singh vs Jaswant Singh And Others AIR 1992 SC 987;Tholan vs State Of Tamil Nadu AIR 1984 SC
759
5
Mani Kumar Thapa v. State of Sikkim; Yunis v. State of MP AIR 2003 SC 539; Abu Thakir v. State of T.N.,
(2010) 5 SCC 91
6
Basdev vs The State Of Pepsu 1956 AIR 488
7
Basdev vs The State Of Pepsu1956 AIR 488 ; Rex v. Meade [1909] 1 K.B. 895; Director of Public
Prosecutions v. Beard [1920] AC 479
15
COMPETITION, 2018
rash manner but also he had the knowledge that in all probability such a weapon would
kill whatsoever comes in its way.
5. It is sufficient to say that clause (4) of § 300 would be applicable where the knowledge of
the offender as to the probability of death of a person or persons in general as
distinguished from a particular person or persons being caused from his imminently
dangerous act, approximates to a practical certainty.
6. Such knowledge on the part of the offender must be of the highest degree of probability 8,
the act having been committed by the offender without any excuse for incurring the risk
of causing death or such injury as aforesaid9. Merely knowledge on part of the accused
that he was likely to cause an injury which was likely to cause death has to be inferred.10
7. The act done by the respondent falls under the 4 th clause of § 30011 of I.P.C. This can be
proved on the basis of the following chain of events from the fact sheet itself:
8. The four men (Dushyant Singh, Vir Bahadur, Chand Mahi and Ravi Kishan) had all with
their consent gone to see ghosts 12 and only to see them and not to attack and capture or
here in this case murder them13.
9. It was a full moon night 14, which means that the visibility would be clearer than the one
15
on a new moon night. However the respondent spotted the apparent apparitions and
began to run towards them with the other three following them.
10. All four of them had torches in their hands16 however no attempt was made to use them
for identification. In fact the torches were not used at all. Thus there was no attempt to
even identify or confirm the alleged ghosts.
11. The distance between them and the apparitions was about 500 meters 17 which clearly
indicates the distance was too great for the apparitions to be identified as "ghosts" or
8
Thangaiya vs State Of Tamil Nadu (2005) 9 SCC 650 Budhi Lal v. State of Uttarakhand : 2009 Cr.L.J. 360
9
Budhi Lal v. State of Uttarakhand AIR 2009 SC 87; Ruli Ram v. State of Haryana 2002CriLJ4337; State Of
Andhra Pradesh vs Rayavarapu Punnayya & Another 1977 AIR 45, 1977 SCR (1) 601; Abdul Waheed Khan @
Waheed And Ors vs State Of Andhra Pradesh 2002 7 SCC 175; State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Ram Prasad 1968
AIR 881, 1968 SCR (2) 522
10
Jagtar Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1983 SC 463; Sehaj Ram v. State of Haryana 1983 SC 614
11
Murder.—Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death
is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or—
(Secondly) —If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to
cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or—
(Thirdly) —If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended
to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or—
(Fourthly) —If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all
probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any
excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.
12
¶ 6 of the fact sheet.
13
R v. Downes 1875 1 Q.B.D. 25
14
¶ 6 of the fact sheet
15
State Uttar Pradesh vs Nahar Singh (Dead) & Ors AIR 1998 SC 1328
16
17
15
COMPETITION, 2018
anything else. In fact the respondent could have paused and identified from a closer
distance as opposed to the reckless stabbing of the deceased and the injured.
12. On the basis of an assumption, none with any validity, that these apparitions are ghosts,
they all ran towards them.18 The act was clearly not that of a prudent and reasonable man.
Further, Chand Mahi had the knowledge about the auspicious night for the Mahi tribe
and would be aware of the presence of the victims.19
13. When the respondent reached closer to these “apparitions” he would have been able to
discern that they are actually humans and not ghosts, which he would have known when
he actually struck with his khukuri and it must have felt like a human body that would
have also bled. It is not that the distance was very less that he haphazardly went and
attacked and didn’t get the opportunity and time to see or think.
14. The respondent was fully aware once he started attacking that these apparitions were
actually humans as is evidenced by the cries of pain. The respondent, out of all the four
of them20 went and attacked with his sharp edged weapon (khukuri). This behaviour of
the respondent shows that he didn’t have a fear of ghosts, because had he seen the ghosts
which he thought those apparitions to be, he wouldn’t have run unilaterally in that
direction and would have refrained from attacking anyone.
15. Therefore, when the link of circumstances is complete the respondent shall be subject to
conviction21 under § 300(4) I.P.C, 1860. It is humbly submitted to the Honourable
Supreme Court that, the act so committed by the respondent was so imminently
dangerous that in all probability it was capable of causing death or such bodily injury as
is likely to cause death, of Geeta Mahi and he has committed such act without any
excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as states under § 300 (4) of
I.P.C1860.
16. The respondent cannot further take the plea of § 79 of I.P.C as will be proved hereunder.
B. ABSENCE OF GOOD FAITH ON THE PART OF RESPONDENT:

17. It is humbly submitted to the Honourable Supreme Court that the respondent didn’t
commit the offence under good faith. Good faith as per § 5222 of I.P.C 1860.
18. One of the essential ingredients required by the respondent to get the protection of § 79 is
that his act was done in good faith. A thing shall be deemed to be done in “good faith”
18
19
20
Satish Sah v. State of Bihar 1995 CriLJ 213
21
Sheikh Abdul Hamid v. State of MP 1998 SC 942
22
“Nothing is said to be done or believed in “good faith” which is done or believed without due care and
attention.”
15
COMPETITION, 2018
where it is in fact done honesty, whether it is done negligently or not. 23 However, under
the Code, the emphasis is on whether the person had acted with due care and caution or
not. Thus, if a person has an honest intention and commits a blunder he cannot get a
protection under I.P.C because apart from honest intention he is also expected to act with
due care and caution. The due care must depend upon the nature of the act, its magnitude
and importance and the facility a person has for exercise of care and attention.
19. Due care denotes the degree of reasonableness in the care sought to be exercised. The
enquiry must be of such a depth as a reasonable and prudent man would make with the
genuine desire to know the truth.24 It is not enough that he does just a make believe show
for an enquiry.
20. Good faith depends upon 3 factors namely:
i. Nature of the act done by the accused.
ii. Magnitude and importance of that act done by the accused.
iii. Due care and caution used by the accused.
21. The respondent didn’t behave as a reasonable and prudent man25which means that he is
guided by the considerations which ordinarily regulate human affairs would do or doing
something which a prudent and reasonable person guided by similar considerations
would not do. He acted under the impression that no ordinarily prudent person would
have acted and also murdered Geeta Mahi under full knowledge of what he is doing and
what would be consequences of his act.
22. The plea of good faith so raised by the respondent goes in vain as all the factors tend to
go against him. The nature of the act done by the respondent is murder under § 300(4)
I.P.C, which is considered to be the most cruel of all crimes by the humanity and under
this particular case the respondent didn’t act with due care and caution because had he
done so he would have got to know that it was not a ghost that he was attacking but a
human being (Geeta Mahi).
23. In the case law of Kailas Sizing Works v. Municipality of Bhivandi 26 it was held that for
an accused to act under good faith he must have acted honestly.
24. In the case of Bhupendrasinh A. Chudasama vs State Of Gujarat27 the appellant, an
armed constable of SRPF28 shot at his immediate supervisor while the latter was
inspecting the dam site in dusk hours. The appellant took the plea that it was dark at that
time and he saw someone moving near the dam with fire. He thought that there was a
miscreant. He shouted to stop the person but upon getting no response he fired the shot.
23
General Clauses Act 1897
24
Re SK Sundaram (2001) Cri LJ 2932 (SC)
25
Ravi Kapur vs State Of Rajasthan (2012) 9 SCC 284
26
AIR 1969 Bom 127
27
[1997] INSC 810
28
Special Reserve Police Force
15
COMPETITION, 2018
However, it was proven that the shot was fired from a close range and it was held that he
did not take enough precaution before firing the shot and was convicted.
25. The respondent also should have checked before attacking anyone and running
carelessly, in a negligent manner towards those apparitions. Firstly, the circumstances
indicate that there was enough light to deduce that it was a human and not a ghost.
Secondly, once he attacked in that manner he must have heard the cry of the deceased but
he failed to stop then, he stopped only after he grievously injured the other three29
C. HE DIDN'T PERFORM THIS ACT UNDER MISTAKE OF FACT.

26. It is humbly submitted to the Honourable Supreme Court that the respondent didn’t
commit this offence under any mistake of fact. As enshrined under § 79 30 of the Indian
Penal Code 1860.
27. “Mistake of fact” as put succinctly in by noted jurists Ratanlal and Dhirajlal’s31 means:
"'Mistake' is not mere forgetfulness. It is a slip 'made, not by design, but by mischance'.
Mistake, as the term is used in jurisprudence, is an erroneous mental condition,
conception or conviction induced by ignorance, misapprehension or misunderstanding of
the truth, and resulting in some act or omission done or suffered erroneously by one or
both of the parties to a transaction, but without its erroneous character being intended
or known at that time”.32
28. Mistake can be admitted as a defence provided:
i. That the state of things believed to exist would, if true, have justified the act done,
ii. The mistake must be reasonable and,
iii. That the mistake relates to fact and not of law.33
29. The second condition is that the mistake must be a reasonable one. Superstitious belief
will be no defence. Even people who break law in consequence in the belief that they are
obeying the divine command, have been regarded as actuated by a mistake which is
unreasonable. There have also been successful prosecutions of ‘peculiar people’ in
England for withholding medical aid from sick children.34
30. In Jose Reyes, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee 35, the appellant raped and
murdered a 15 year old girl and stated in his defence that the devil had asked him to do
this. It was held that, Based on the evidence and reasonable inferences drawn from the
29
Ravi Kishan, Ganga Mahi and Sunahri Mahi.
30
Act done by a person justified, or by mistake of fact believing himself justified, by law.—Nothing is an
offence which is done by any person who is justified by law, or who by reason of a mistake of fact and not by
reason of a mistake of law in good faith, believes himself to be justified by law, in doing it.
31
Law of Crimes, 23rd edition p. 199
32
State of Orissa v. Bhagaban Barik 1987 AIR 1265, 1987 SCR (2) 785
33
Jethmalani & Chopra’s THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, first edition 2014 by Ram Jethmalani and Prof. D.S
Chopra
34
R v. Downes 1875 1 QBD 25 CCR
35
NO. 14–14–01002–CR Decided: March 15, 2016
15
COMPETITION, 2018
evidence, the jury reasonably could have found that appellant was guilty of capital
murder because legally sufficient evidence supports the jury's finding that appellant
intentionally or knowingly caused.
31. In the case of The King Emperor v. Tustipada Mandal36 it was held that the mistake
must be of material facts. The accused must be absolutely ignorant of those material
facts.37 However, where the act of the accused is in itself wrong although not criminal,
the ignorance on his part of the circumstances which makes the act criminal is no
defence.
32. In the case of law State of Orrisa v. Bhagaban Barik 38 it was seen in the present case,
was not the one where a person being ignorant of the existence of the relevant facts or
mistaken as to them is guilty of conduct which may produce harmful result which he
never intended. There was complete absence of good faith on the part of the respondent.
But the level of knowledge that he has was lesser to convict him under § 302, so he will
be liable to be convicted under § 304(II).
33. When the offence depends upon the existence of certain circumstances, in this case for
murder under 300(4) I.P.C, and the knowledge thereof, by the accused, a consideration as
to whether the accused was bound to enquire into, and acquaint with, those
circumstances becomes imperative. And if he was bound to do so, his failure to make due
enquiries would make him guilty of want of good faith and thereby deprive him of
protection under §s 76 and 79 of I.P.C.39
34. In R v. Gladstone40, it was held that the prosecution have the burden or duty of proving
the unlawfulness of the defendant's actions; Secondly, if the defendant may have been
labouring under a mistake as to the facts, he must be judged according to his mistaken
view of the facts; Thirdly, that is so whether the mistake was, on an objective view, a
reasonable mistake or not.41
35. It is hereby humbly submitted to the Honourable Supreme Court that from the above
stated argument that the respondent didn’t act under a mistake of fact. The respondent
however has the knowledge and wasn’t under any belief as to the presence of ghosts, has
he the same he would have refrained from attacking from a distance of 500 meter and
using such a sharp weapon (khukri), which wasn’t a blessed weapon that could kill
ghosts.
36
AIR 1951 Ori 284
37
R v. Prince (1683) 2 Ch. C. 154
38
1987 cri LJ 1115 SC
39
The King Emperor v. Tustipada Mandal AIR 1951 Ori 284; Bonda Kui v. Emperor AIR 1943 Pat 64
40
(1984) 78 Cr. App. R. 276
41
Beckford v The Queen [1988] AC 130 Privy Council

15
COMPETITION, 2018

15
COMPETITION, 2018
II. WHETHER VIR BAHADUR IS LIABLE TO BE CONVICTED FOR CAUSING

GRIEVOUS HURT TO GANGA MAHI AND SUNAHRI MAHI UNDER § 326
I.P.C AND FOR CAUSING HURT TO RAVI KRISHAN UNDER § 324 I.P.C?
36. It is most humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that Vir Bahadur
is guilty of causing grievous hurt to Ganga Mahi and Sunahri Mahi and also of causing
hurt to Ravi Kishan and shall be convicted under § 32642 and § 324 I.P.C respectively.
A. VIR BAHADUR IS GUILTY UNDER § 326 OF I.P.C.
a) VIR BAHADUR HAS VOLUNTARILY CAUSED GREVIOUS HURT.
37. Grievous hurt has been defined under § 320 43 Indian Penal Code, 1860 which clearly
provides specific types of hurt which fall under the category of grievous hurt. Further
Hurt has been defined under § 319 I.P.C44.
38. In the instant case Vir Bahadur has clearly and explicitly caused grievous hurt to Ganga
Mahi and Sunahri Mahi through his Khukri blows and has caused bodily pain to them
with his sharp weapon.
39. Further if we refer to § 322 45 I.P.C, it clearly illustrates that a person be charged for
grievous hurt if he had the knowledge that his act is going to cause an aggravated hurt to
a person. In the instant case Vir Bahadur was carrying a khukri 46 which is a sharp-edged
weapon. Now Vir Bahadur had the khukhri with him and knew how to use it and was
aware of what harm it can do. However, Vir Bahadur relentlessly attacked the ladies even
when he had a chance to confirm if they were human beings or apparitions.
42
326. Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means—Whoever, except in the case
provided for by section 335, voluntarily causes grievous hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing
or cutting, or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or
any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive
substance, or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to
receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with 1[imprisonment for life], or with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
43
320. Grievous hurt.—The following kinds of hurt only are designated as “grievous”:—
(First) — Emasculation.
(Secondly) —Permanent privation of the sight of either eye.
(Thirdly) — Permanent privation of the hearing of either ear,
(Fourthly) —Privation of any member or joint.
(Fifthly) — Destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any member or joint.
(Sixthly) — Permanent disfiguration of the head or face.
(Seventhly) —Fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth.
(Eighthly) —Any hurt which endangers life or which causes the sufferer to be during the space of twenty days
in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits.
44
"Whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt.”
45
322. Voluntarily causing grievous hurt.—Whoever voluntarily causes hurt, if the hurt which he intends to
cause or knows himself to be likely to cause is grievous hurt, and if the hurt which he causes is grievous hurt, is
said “voluntarily to cause grievous hurt.”
46
The kukri or khukri is a Nepalese knife with an inwardly curved blade, similar to a machete, used as both a
tool and as a weapon in Nepal.
15
COMPETITION, 2018
40. It will appear from § 326, read with § 322, I.P.C that the essential ingredients of offence
voluntarily causing grievous hurt are;
i. Grievous hurt as described in § 320 must first be cause.
ii. The offender intended or knew himself to be likely to cause grievous hurt
iii. The hurt was caused voluntarily. 47
To establish an offence under this section, it is necessary to prove that the grievous hurt,
as described in § 320, has been caused by the accused and was caused voluntarily48
b) THE INSTRUMENT USED IS DEADLY AND LIKELY TO CAUSE DEATH.
41. Where the accused has voluntarily hurt by means of an instrument viz., a stick which is
likely to cause Death he will be guilty under Sec. 326 of the I.P.C. 49 Vir Bahadur has
voluntarily caused grievous hurt to the ladies owing to the knowledge he had that there
will be a grave and a serious consequence because the khurki is a dangerous weapon.
42. Where an accused caught by a constable inflicted a wound on his chest with a Knife, he
should be convicted under § 326 for causing grievous hurt with a dangerous weapon.50
43. In this Case, the accused person struck a man one blow on the head with bamboo Yoke
and the injured man died afterwards in hospital, principally from the excessive use of
opium surreptiously administered by his friend. Held that as there was no intention to
cause death and as the blow in itself was not of such a nature as was likely to cause
death, still the offence committed was that of voluntarily causing hurt and was convicted
for causing voluntary grievous hurt to that person. 51 So in this case even when there was
no intention still he was convicted for causing grievous hurt.
44. A person must at least know that he is likely to thereby cause some harm through hid act.
Even if there is a lack of intention to cause such an injury to the person concerned but he
shall be convicted for the offence of causing grievous hurt52
45. The petitioner did not intend to strike deceased and it was by Accident that he was
intervening in separating the person who were fighting with one another. Held that he
must therefore be held guilty under the provisions of § 326 of the Indian Penal Code. 53
And be convicted thereafter.
46. In Raghubir v. State, the accused aimed a lathi blow at a certain person but the
unexpected Intervention of a woman with a child in her lap, made the blow fall on the
child causing its death. Having regard to the cumulative effect of the data, it was held
that the only reasonable inference was, that had the blow struck the person aimed at, it
47
AIR 1958 Pat 452 ; 1958 BLJR 88 ; 1958 Cr Lj 1077.
48
12 WR Cr 25 ; 21 PR 1889 Cr.
49
Ramdas v. State of Maharastra. 1981 Bom. C.R. 27 at p. 32.
50
AIR 1943 Nag 145 : 44 Cr Lj 512 : ILR 1943 Nag 411: 206 IC 382
51
LBR (1872)-(1892),179
52
157 Ind Cri 370
53
Chhallu v. Emperor , AIR 1941 All. 288 at p. 288: I.L.R. [1941]All. 441: 1941 A.L.J.326 : 194 I.C. 794.
15
COMPETITION, 2018
would in all probability have caused him grievous hurt, the accused was, Therefore,
convicted under § 326 of the I.P.C.
47. Some guidelines were brought up in the Indian law in the case of The King vs Tustipada
Mandal54. Five rules were laid down which guidelines are whenever a question of
mistake of fact or mistake of law arises: -
i. When an act is in itself plainly criminal and is more severely punishable if certain
circumstances coexist, ignorance of the existence is no answer to a charge for the
aggravated offence.
ii. When an act is prima facie innocent and proper unless certain circumstances co-exist,
the ignorance of such circumstances is an answer to the charge.
iii. The state of the mind of the defendants must amount to absolute ignorance of the
existence of the circumstance which alters the character of the act or to a belief in its
non-existence.
iv. When an act in itself is wrong, and under certain circumstances, criminal, a person
who does the wrongful act cannot set up as a defence that he was ignorant of the facts
which would turn the wrong into a crime.
v. When a statute makes it penal to do an act under certain circumstances, it is a question
upon the wording and object of the statute whether responsibility of ascertaining that
the circumstances exist is thrown upon the person who does the act or not. In the
former case, his knowledge is immaterial.
48. In Bhikubhai Vastabhai vs State 55 accused inflicted sword blow on the victim and as a
result there were wounds and he was liable to be convicted under § 326 as there was
grievous hurt with a weapon and the offence falls under § 322 i.e. voluntarily causing
grievous hurt.
49. § 105 of The Indian Evidence Act56 clearly provides for the burden of proving that the
case comes under the exceptions in the Indian penal Code lies on the accused and it is his
responsibility to prove that the circumstances were such that his act was justified in
nature.
50. In the case of K. M. Nanavati vs State Of Maharashtra57 on 24 November, 1961 it was
held that onus to prove exceptions is on accused. The accused is presumed to be
innocent until his guilt is established by the prosecution. But when an accused relies
upon the General Exceptions in the Indian Penal Code or on any special exception or
54
AIR 1951 by Ori HC
55
2008 Cri LJ 1467 Guj
56
Burden of proving that case of accused comes within exceptions.—When a person is accused of any offence,
the burden of proving the existence of circumstances bringing the case within any of the General Exceptions in
the Indian Penal Code, (45 of 1860), or within any special exception or proviso contained in any other part of
the same Code, or in any law defining the offence, is upon him, and the Court shall presume the absence of such
circumstances.
57
1962 AIR 605, 1962 SCR Supl. (1) 567
15
COMPETITION, 2018
proviso contained in any other part of the Penal Code, or in any law defining an
offence, 105 of the Evidence Act raises a presumption against the accused and also
throws a burden on him to rebut the said presumption. Under that section the Court shall
presume the absence of circumstances bringing the case within any of the exceptions,
that is, the Court shall regard the non-existence of such circumstances as proved till they
are disproved.
51. In the case of Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakker vs State Of Gujarat 58 on 19 March,
1964 The accused has to prove by placing material before the court such as expert
evidence, oral and other documentary evidence, presumptions, admissions or even the
prosecution evidence, satisfying that he was incapable of knowing the nature of the act or
of knowing that what he was doing was either wrong or contrary to law.
52. In the case Of Uttar Pradesh on 20 April 1990, Vijayee Singh And Ors vs State59 if the
accused want to claim the benefit of the general or special exception of the right of
private defence then they should plead and discharge the burden by establishing that they
are entitled to the benefit of exception as provided under § 105 of the Evidence Act. In
other words, the burden of proof of the existence of such a right is on the accused and
that in the instant case the accused have not discharged the burden and that mere
presence of simple injuries on the accused cannot necessarily lead to an inference that
they had a right of self-defence
53. Referring to all the cases above it is proven that it is the duty of the accused to prove to
the court beyond reasonable ground that he shall be entitled to the defence under general
exceptions of I.P.C and further that his act was done under certain circumstances and the
act which was done could not be avoided in any circumstance. Hence in the instant case
also the burden of proving is on the accused that is Vir Bahadur.
c) DEFENCE UNDER § 79 I.P.C SHOULD NOT BE GIVEN.
54. Further referring to § 79 of the I.P.C 60 an important essential which is required to take the
defence of this section is presence good faith in the act done by the accused. Good faith
has been further defined in § 52 of I.P.C61, which provides for a negative definition.
55. If a person of average prudence in that situation can ascertain the facts with average
intelligence, a person taking the defence of mistake of those facts cannot be said to have
taken due care and thus, is not excusable.
58
1964 AIR 1563, 1964 SCR (7) 361
59
1990 AIR 1459, 1990 SCR (2) 573
60
79. Act done by a person justified, or by mistake of fact believing himself justified, by law.—Nothing is an
offence which is done by any person who is justified by law, or who by reason of a mistake of fact and not by
reason of a mistake of law in good faith, believes himself to be justified by law, in doing it
61
“Good faith”.—Nothing is said to be done or believed in “good faith” which is done or believed without due
care and attention.
15
COMPETITION, 2018
56. In the case of Sewakram Sobhani v. R.K. Karanjia, Chief Editor, Weekly Blitz and
Others62 it was held that "Nothing is said to be done or believed in 'Good faith' which is
done or believed without due care and attention". The insistence is upon the exercise of
due care and attention. Recklessness and negligence are ruled out by the very nature of
the definition. The standard of care and attention must depend on the circumstances of
the individual case, the nature of the imputation, the need and the opportunity for
verification, the situation and context in which the imputation was made, the position of
the person making the imputation, and a variety of other factors.
57. Relying on the above case which clearly specifies if there is an opportunity for
verification that shall be used otherwise the person shall not be called to have exercised
due care and attention.
58. Harbhajan Singh vs State Of Punjab 63 on 2 March, 1965 If it appears that before
making the statement the accused did not show due care and attention, that would defeat
his plea of good faith.
B. VIR BAHADUR IS GUILTY FOR HURT UNDER § 324 OF I.P.C.

59. It is Humbly Submitted to the Honourable Supreme Court of India that Vir Bahadur has
committed Hurt under Sec. 324 I.P.C. to Ravi Krishan with Khukhri 64 which is used as
Weapon of Offence.
a) THE ACCUSED CAUSED HURT.
60. According to § 319 I.P.C, "whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any
person is said to cause hurt."
61. The phase "causing bodily pain" means imparting of pain direct to the Body ,by the sense
of Touch ,as by the use of force.
62. It was Observed in the Case of Mrs. Veeda Menezes vs Yusuf Khan And Anr65, the
expression “harm” has not been defined in the ‘Indian Penal Code: in its dictionary
meaning it connotes hurt, injury; damage; impairment, moral wrong or evil.
63. As was held in Ramdev And Ors vs State Of Rajasthan (2010), even if a simple injury
has been caused, a simple injury does lead to the causing of hurt as defined in § 319 I.P.C
The expression ‘bodily pain’ means that the pain must be physical as opposed to any
mental pain.
62
1981 AIR 1514, 1981 SCR (3) 627
63
1966 AIR 97, 1965 SCR (3) 235
64
A curved knife broadening towards the point, used by Gurkhas.
65
SCR 1966 AIR 1773=1966 123
15
COMPETITION, 2018
64. In the present case Vir Bahadur striking of one of his Khukuri blows to Mr. Ravi Kishan
causing severe injury66 and Ravi Krishan cried loudly that Vir Bahadur has injured him 67
but the respondent didn't stop and hurt him badly.
b) IT IS CAUSED VOLUNTARILY i.e. WITH KNOWLEDGE OR INTENTION TO

CAUSE.
65. When the voluntarily hurt is caused by means of any instrument for stabbing or cutting
by any instrument which is used as a weapon of offence is likely to cause death.
The nature of the weapon used, the manner in which it is used, motive for the crime,
severity of the blow, the part of the body where the injury is inflicted is all taken into
consideration to determine the intention. 68
c) IT IS CAUSED WITH THE INSTRUMENT LIKELY TO CAUSE DEATH.

66. In the case of Prabhu vs State Of M.P (2008) 69, the Apex court held that the expression
“any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death”
67. As was noted by this Court in State of U.P. v. Indrajeet Alias Sukhatha70,there is no such
thing as a regular or earmarked weapon for committing murder or for that matter a hurt.
68. Any instrument which as the weapon of offence is likely to cause death. --There are
certain instruments which are meant for causing injuries, such as instruments of shooting,
cutting or piercing. Besides them instruments not designed to cause bodily injury which
as a weapon of offence is likely to cause death. The instrument must be one, not which
is” liable” but which is” likely" to cause death seems that the instrument used must be
one of which one can predicate that the probable result of its use will be by virtue of its
very nature, death. It must be inherent in the nature of the instrument that death is likely
to ensue. In various no. of cases injuries caused by Broken Soda Bottle 71,by Burning Fire
Wood72 ,by Teeth 73are Considered as Hurt.
69. Expression 'an instrument' which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death
should be construed with reference to nature at instrument and not manner of its use74
66
Fact Sheet, ¶8, Line 3.
67
Fact Sheet, ¶9, Line 1.
68
Hari Kishan vs Sukhbir Singh, AIR 1988 SC 2127
69
AIR 1991 SC 1069, 1991 CriLJ 1373, 1991 Supp (2) SCC 725
70
(2000(7) SCC 249)
71
Anbum Ani v. State , AIR 1981 (NOC) 115 (Mad)
72
Shyam Behari v. State, AIR 1953 ori 308
73
Zamil Hasan v. State, 1974 Cr Lj 867
74
Anwarul Haq v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 2005 SC 2382 at 2383 : 2005 01'. L]. 2602 : 2005 AIOL 236 :
(2005)10

15
COMPETITION, 2018
70. Therefore, In the Instant Case, Vir bahadur has caused Hurt to Ravi Krishan and Hence
Liable for causing Hurt under § 324.

15
COMPETITION, 2018
PRAYER
Wherefore in the light of facts stated, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited,
it is most humbly prayed before this Hon’ble Supreme Court, that it may graciously be
pleased to-
1) Vir Bahadur should be Held Guilty for Murder of Geeta Mahi.
2) Vir Bahadur should be Held Liable for Grievous hurt to Sunahri Mahi and Ganga
Mahi and Hurt to Ravi Krishan.
3) The Benefit of § 79 of I.P.C should not be given.
Pass any other order, which the court may deem fit in light of the facts of the case, evidences
adduced and justice, equity and good conscience.
And in this premise shall the Petitioner forever pray.
Sd/-
Counsels for the Petitioner

15

Petitioner Geeta

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Petitioner Geeta

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TEAM CODE:TC-31

GEETA INSTITUTE OF LAW, PANIPAT

8TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2018

IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF TAXILA

(SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL JURISDICTION)

--IN THE MATTER OF--

STATE OF TAXILA ............PETITIONER

VIR BAHADUR .........RESPONDENT

(UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA)

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

DRAWN AND FILED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER

S.NO PARTICULARS PAGE NO.

2. WHETHER VIR BAHADUR IS GUILTY FOR CAUSING 8-14

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

S.NO ABBREVATIONS FULL FORM

4. AIR All India Reporter

5. All Allahabad High Court

9. Bom. LR Bombay Law Reporter

10. Cr.P.C. Code of Criminal Procedure

11. Cal Calcutta High Court

12. Cri LJ / Cr LJ Criminal Law Journal

13. Del Delhi High Court

14. Ed. Edition

15. Govt. Government

16. Guj Gujarat High Court

17. HC High Court

18. i.e. that is

19. IC Indian Cases

20. ILR Indian Law Reports

21. I.P.C Indian Penal Code

22. Kan. Karnataka

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

24. Mad Madras High Court

25. Ori Orissa High Court

26. Ors. Others

27. SC Supreme Court

28. SCC Supreme Court Cases

29. SCJ Supreme Court Journal

30. SCR Supreme Court Reporter

31. Sec. Section

32. U.O.I. Union of India

34. vol. Volume

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

Books on Constitutional Law:

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

1. INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

LIST OF CASES REFERRED:

S.NO CASE NAME CITATION PG NO.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

WHETHER VIR BAHADUR IS GUILTY OF COMMITTING OF MURDER OF

WHETHER VIR BAHADUR IS GUILTY FOR CAUSING GRIEVOUS HURT TO

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

1. WHETHER VIR BAHADUR IS GUILTY OF COMMITTING MURDER OF

2. WHETHER VIR BAHADUR IS GUILTY FOR CAUSING GRIEVOUS HURT TO

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

B. ABSENCE OF GOOD FAITH ON THE PART OF RESPONDENT:

C. HE DIDN'T PERFORM THIS ACT UNDER MISTAKE OF FACT.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER