Prosecution Memorial PDF

[TEAM CODE-E]
SURANA AND SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2015
SURANA AND SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT

COMPETITION, 2015
BEFORE THE COURT OF SESSIONS

AT DURG
S.C. NO. 111 OF 2015
IN THE MATTER OF
STATE OF XANADU
(PROSECUTION)
v.
MANOHAR LAL
&
RAHUL GULATI
(DEFENSE)
FOR OFFENCES CHARGED UNDER

SECTIONS 302, 465 READ WITH 34, 120B AND 109 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860
AND SECTIONS 66 AND 66C OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2000
UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE SESSIONS JUDGE
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

[i]
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES..................................................................................... ii
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION....................................................................... vii
STATEMENT OF FACTS .................................................................................... viii
STATEMENT OF CHARGES ................................................................................ ix
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ............................................................................. xi
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ...................................................................................1
Issue I: Whether or not Mr. Manohar Lal and Mr. Rahul Gulati are guilty of
Computer 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]
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS:
AIR All India Reporter
All Allahabad High Court
Cal Calcutta High Court
CBI Central Bureau of Investigation
Cr.P.C. Code of Criminal Procedure
Cri LJ Cr LJ Criminal Law Journal
Del Delhi High Court
DW Defense Witness
Ed. Edition
Guj Gujarat High Court
IEA Indian Evidence Act
IPC Indian Penal Code
IT Act Information Technology Act
M.P Madhya Pradesh
Mad Madras High Court
Mah Maharashtra
Ori Orissa High Court
P Page No.
Para Paragraph
Pat Patna High Court
PW Prosecution Witness
r/w Read with
Raj Rajasthan High Court
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
s. Section
v. Versus

[iii]
TABLE OF CASES
USED AT
S.NO CASE NAME CITATION
PAGE
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]
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); …06
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]
43. Thangraj v. Inspector of Police, 2011 Cri LJ 103 (Mad). …11
44. Yunees v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2003) 1 SCC 429 …09
BOOKS REFERRED
S.NO NAME OF THE BOOK

1. Gaur, K.D, Criminal Law: Cases and Materials, (6th Ed. 2012)
2. Gupta, Apar, Infromation Technology Act, (2nd Ed. 2011)
3. I, Sarvaria, S.K, The Indian Penal Code, (10th Ed. 2008)
4. II, Taylor, Principles and Practice of Medical Jurisprudence, (13th 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, (6th Ed. 1997)
9. Kelkar, R.V., Criminal Procedure, (5th Ed. 2009)
10. Lal, Batuk, Law of Evidence, (5th Ed. 2011)
11. Mohir, M., Law of Evidence, (5th Ed. 2010)
12. Malik, Shailender, The Code of Criminal Procedure, (8th Ed. 2011)
13. Modi, Medical Jurisprudence & Toxicology, (24th Ed. 2012)
14. National Crime Reference Handbook, (V.11, 2015)
15. Parikh, Medical Jurisprudence, Forensic Medicines & Toxicology, (6th Ed. 2011)
16. Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Code of Criminal Procedure, (17th Ed. 2010)
17. Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code (31st Enlarged Edn. 2006)

[vi]
18. Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Law of Evidence, (23rd Enlarged Ed. 2011)
19. Sarkar, Law of Evidence, (17th Ed. 2011)
20. The Indian Law Institute, Essays on Indian Penal Code, (1st Reprint, 2008)
21. Verma, Amita, Cyber Crimes and Law, (1st Ed. 2009)
22. Williams, Glanville, Criminal Law, (2nd Ed. 2011)
STATUTES:
S.NO NAME 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]
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
This Hon’ble Court has jurisdiction to try the instant matter under Section 177 read with Section
209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Section 177:
‘177. Ordinary place of inquiry and trial: Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and
tried 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: When
in 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 of
Session, 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 to
be produced in evidence;
(d) notify the Public Prosecutor of the commitment of the case to the Court of Session.’

[viii]
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Manohar lost his parents at the age of 10 and lived with his uncle Karan and aunt Devika, since
then. They had a son, Raghav. Mano took admission in TMC Medical College in 2013, and was
considered to be a bright and sincere student. He was desirous to live an opulent life, like his
friends. 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 21st May, 2014, Karan fell severely ill and
informed about his life insurance policy, worth Rs.2,00,00,000/-, to Mano, for which he was
nominated 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 1st 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 and
Devika. On 2nd 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 3rd August, Karan suddenly complained for chest pain and stomach pain, for which Mano
wrote Angispan on Dr. Choudhary’s prescription and asked Raghav to get the drug. Mano
administered Angispan to Karan through syringe. Karan was quiet for about half an hour, but
suddenly 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]
STATEMENT OF CHARGES
This Hon’ble court has power to joint charges and hears the instant matter under Section 184
read 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 by
virtue 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 with
and 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 of
the 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 tried
together, namely:-
(a) persons accused of the same offence committed in the course of the same transaction;

[x]
(b) persons accused of an offence and persons accused of abetment of, or attempt to commit,
such offence;
ACCUSED 1:
Mr. Manohar Lal, S/o Late Mr. Jiwan Lal has been charged under Sections 302, 120B and 465
read 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 the
act of Computer related offences and Identity theft.
ACCUSED 2:
Mr. Rahul Gulati, S/o Jitender Gulati has been charged under Sections 302, 120B, 109 and 465
read 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, Information
Technology Act for the act of Computer related offences and Identity theft.

[xi]
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
ISSUE I: WHETHER OR NOT MR. MANOHAR LAL AND MR. RAHUL GULATI ARE
GUILTY OF COMPUTER RELATED OFFENCES AND IDENTITY THEFT?
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that Accused persons, Mr. Manohar Lal and
Mr. Rahul Gulati are guilty of computer related offences and identity theft as (a) they made an
unauthorized access to the (b) computer system of Late Mr. Karan, (c) decrypted the password
and transferred money using a keylogger device; hence fulfilling all the essentials under Ss. 66
and 66C, IT Act, 2000
ISSUE II: WHETHER OR NOT MR. MANOHAR LAL IS GUILTY OF FORGERY?
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the accused Mr. Manohar Lal is guilty of
forgery. 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.465
of IPC.
ISSUE III: WHETHER OR NOT ACCUSED NO. 1 COMMITTED THE OFFENCE OF
MURDER AGAINST DECEASED?
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]
with (c) commensurate Actus Reus. Furthermore, (d) the motive to the crime proves the
commission of murder by Manohar Lal.
ISSUE IV: WHETHER OR NOT MR. RAHUL GULATI IS GUILTY OF ABETMENT?
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that Mr. Rahul (Accused No. 2) is guilty of
abetment under s.109, IPC as (a) he instigated Accused No.1 for murder, as he was in urgent
need 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) presence
of intention of Accused No. 2, to abet Accused No. 1 to murder Deceased, fulfills all the
essentials mentioned under s.107, IPC.

[1]
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
ISSUE I: WHETHER OR NOT MR. MANOHAR LAL AND MR. RAHUL GULATI ARE
GUILTY OF COMPUTER RELATED OFFENCES AND IDENTITY THEFT?
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 and
Ss. 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 ACCUSED PERSONS ACTED DISHONESTLY AND FRAUDULENTLY
Ss. 24 & 25, IPC elucidates the term ‘Dishonestly’ and ‘Fraudulently’. The definition in the
aforesaid section will apply to wrongful gain or wrongful loss.2 Fraud under legal lexes involves
some injury to the person deceived. Injury includes “injury to property”, S.44, IPC viz. a person
suffers injury in respect thereto either by its destruction or damage or loss of possession, and if
intention 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 (2nd 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]
In 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 MAKING USE OF AN ELECTRONIC SIGNATURE, PASSWORD OR ANY OTHER UNIQUE IDENTITY
FEATURE
Identity theft has been defined as ‘the unlawful taking and use of another person's identifying
information for fraudulent purposes’.5 Unauthorized access, deleting or adding files, changing
the 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 are
in 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 and
decrypted the password of deceased person’s bank account via keylogger device which was
recovered during the investigation8, committing identity theft u/s 66C IT Act.
1.2.1. ACCUSED PERSONS CONSPIRED TOGETHER TO COMMIT THE ACT
S.120B, IPC states for ‘punishment for Criminal conspiracy’. In order to bring a successful
conviction 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, p 3
5
Black’s Law Dictionary, 9th Edn. P. 814
6
Kumar v Whitley, (2005) 2 SCC 235
7
Mphasis BPO Fraud: 2005
8
See, Case Details , Para 16, p 3

[3]
a person voluntarily causes the existence of an unlawful design to commit such offense9, he shall
be sentenced under s.120B, IPC. Conspiracy is generally a matter of inference. Some connecting
link or connecting factor is enough for framing a charge.10 The evidence as to transmission of
thoughts, sharing the unlawful design, may be sufficient to prove the commission of Criminal
conspiracy.11
Accused No. 1, in order to repay the debt of Rs.1,00,000/- to Accused No. 2, transferred money
from deceased person’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 intention’13 implies a pre-arranged plan. The
common intention to bring about a particular result must develop prior to commission of the
offence as between a number of persons, with reference to the facts of the case and
circumstances existing thereto.14 It is humbly submitted that Accused persons shared a common
intention 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
13
See, Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860
14
Abdul Sayeed v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2010) 10 SCC 259

[4]
ISSUE II: WHETHER OR NOT MR. MANOHAR LAL IS GUILTY OF FORGERY?
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, IPC
which elucidate the ingredients of forgery.
A person is guilty for the act of forgery, if the person makes any false document with intent to
cause 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. THAT THE FALSE DOCUMENT WAS MADE:
S. 464, IPC lays down that who, without lawful authority [A], dishonestly or fraudulently, by
cancellation or otherwise, alters a document [B] after it has been made, is said to make a false
document.
A. WITHOUT LAWFUL AUTHORITY
It is humbly contended that the word ‘makes’ means create or bring into existence. 17 The false
document was created with a view to make it appear that it was made by a person who, the
accused 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, (10th 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]
B. THE DOCUMENT WAS ALTERED
A false document is made not only when the whole of it is made, but even when a person makes
only a part of it.20 It must either appear on the face to be one which, if true, possesses some legal
validity, 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 a
false document to make DW 5 falsely believe that the drug Angispan is in fact prescribed by DW
4 himself.
2.2. DISHONEST AND FRAUDULENT INTENTION
It is humbly contented by the prosecution that the prescription so forged by Accused No.1 was
made with a dishonest intention.
For the purpose of forgery, it is sufficient to show that there is a criminal intention to cause
wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another.22 The test of wrongfulness as laid down
in s.23, IPC is ‘unlawfulness’.23 To constitute ‘wrongful gain’ and ‘wrongful loss’, there must be
an unlawful acquisition by unlawful means. A dishonest intention may be presumed only if an
unlawful 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 without
an 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, (10th Ed, p. 4751)
23
See, Ratanlal and Dhiraj Lal, The Law of Crimes, (23rd enlarged Ed p. 71)
24
Sansar Singh v. Emperor, AIR 1934 All 711; Lal Mohammad v. Emperor, AIR 1931 Pat 317.

[6]
Drug’. The intention of Accused No.1 was to murder Deceased, so that he may get the benefit
worth Rs.2,00,00,000/- on the life insurance policy of Deceased. He wanted to attain a ‘wrongful
gain’ from the aforesaid life insurance policy, and thus forged the prescription.
2.3. THAT THE EXECUTION OF DOCUMENT WAS FALSE
To convert an illegal or doubtful claim into a legal one amounts to dishonest intention, which
subsequently amounts to forgery.25
Prescription of DW 4 was forged by Accused No.1 to get hold of drug Angispan, which in
ordinary circumstances he could not have access to. The major component of drug Angispan is
nitroglycerin, which cannot be obtained without a prescription of a medical practitioner.26 Rule
65(9)(a), Drugs and Cosmetics Rule, specifies that substances specified in Schedule H27 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 subsequently
acquired by altering the prescription of DW 4.
Arguendo, the drug Angispan is commonly used and is in market practice cannot be purchased
without prescription. It may be the stand that the practice was a part of the accepted norm. A
common prevailing practice, if unlawful, is termed to be illegal. The subsequent clarifications do
not in any way put seal to the approval of the practices adopted in the past, on the other hand, it
condemns 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]
ISSUE III: WHETHER OR NOT ACCUSED NO. 1 COMMITTED THE OFFENCE OF
MURDER AGAINST DECEASED?
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that Accused No. 1 is guilty for committing the
offence of murder under Section 302, IPC. Sec. 302 prescribes the punishment for committing
murder.
All four conditions enumerated under s.300 IPC may not necessarily co-exist, so as to prove an
offence of murder. It would be sufficient for the prosecution to establish any one of the
conditions enumerated under s.300, IPC against an offender, for punishing him for an offence of
murder.29 However, it must be noted that unless the act done constitutes a murder by reason of
the intention, with which it is found to be done, the court need not consider the exceptions.30
3.1. INTENTION TO CAUSE DEATH
Where intention to kill the deceased is established and medical evidence shows that injuries
caused by the accused were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, the case
squarely falls under section 302, IPC.31
A. MENS REA
Intention to kill a person must be determined having regard to the factual scenario involved in
each case.32 Any fact is relevant which shows or constitutes a motive or preparation for any
relevant 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]
In 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 grab
the property of the deceased.34
 Accused No. 2 abetted Accused No. 1 to murder Deceased35, so as to repay the debt of
Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh).36
 On 2nd August, 2014, Accused No. 1 suffered ridicule in front of his classmates, due to the
non-payment of his college fees on time.37
 On the same day, Accused No. 1 suffered insensitive abuse by Mrs. Devika, Raghav and the
Deceased.38
B. ACTUS REUS
To constitute crime, the intent and act must concur.39 The intent to commit the offence is
followed 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
36
See, Case Detail , Para 5, p 1
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]
drug. The air embolism found in the body of the deceased became the cause of death, as
mentioned in the Forensic Report.40
Keeping in view the injuries inflicted on the deceased as also the nature thereof and furthermore
in view of the opinion expressed by the doctor, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever, that the
appellant 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 Bihar42 that Absence of motive is of no consequence and pales into
insignificance when direct evidence establishes the crime. The Direct evidence is of significance
in the present case.
3.2. CONSISTENCY WITH OCULAR EVIDENCE AND MEDICAL EVIDENCE
Where the ocular evidence is very clear and convincing and the role of the accused person in the
crime 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 Ocular
evidence [B] are consistent and capable to prove a chain of events so as to prove beyond
reasonable doubt, the offence of murder committed by Accused No. 1.
A. MEDICAL EVIDENCE
Section 45, IEA identifies the opinion of a doctor or medical practitioner as an expert opinion. A
report 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]
require any other formal proof.44 The Forensic report prepared by PW 5 concluded that, “Death
was 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. In
the 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 mentioned
above, is due to air embolism in the artery of the deceased which eventually created froths in his
heart, 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 intentionally
administered air embolism into the deceased body.
Four essential circumstances, as held under Bhupinder Singh v. State of Punjab50, 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
48
See, Case Details, Annexure 4
49
Modi, A Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, (24th ed, 2011, p 3).
50
(1988) 3 SCC 513

[11]
Accused [A.1], Deceased died of the said administered poison [A.2], Accused had the poison in
his 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 method
into 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 in
detail, 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 opinion52, and does not require any formal
proof.53 The air embolism present in the body of the deceased is enunciated clearly in the
Forensic 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, (24th Ed, 2011 p. 3)

[12]
the injection was in the possession of Accused No. 1, but the Accused No. 1 also had the expert
medical 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 Accused
always watches his opportunity and administers the poison in a manner calculated to avoid its
detection.56 The greater his knowledge of poisons, the greater the secrecy; and consequently the
greater 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 practical
knowledge 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 the
Deceased.59 The Accused No. 1 not only had the opportunity of administering air embolism in
the body of deceased, but he also availed the aforesaid opportunity in the disguise of injecting
the 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
59
See, Case Details, Annexure 4
60
Phino v. State of Punjab, AIR 1975 SC 1327

[13]
From the essentials of administering poison61 proved above, it is humbly submitted that the death
so caused by injecting air embolism in the artery of the deceased through push intravenous
method, is caused by Accused No. 1.
B. OCULAR EVIDENCE
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, by
administering poison to the Deceased.
It is further pertinent to note that if there is motive in doing an act, then the adequacy of that
motive is not in all cases necessary. Heinous offences have been committed for very slight
motive.63
Statement of Ocular Witness cannot be rejected
As dexterously emphasized by the Supreme Court on many occasions,64 interested witnesses are
not necessarily false witnesses. The evidence of such witnesses must be subjected to close
scrutiny and the court must assess the testimony of each important witness and indicate reasons
for accepting or rejecting it and that no evidence should at once be disregarded simply because it
came 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]
ISSUE IV: WHETHER OR NOT MR. RAHUL GULATI IS GUILTY OF ABETMENT?
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
bring a successful conviction under this charge, it is pertinent to refer s.107 IPC, which
elucidates 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 principal
offence was in fact committed [4.2.]; and that the abettor had intention to encourage the
commission [4.3].66
4.1. ACCUSED NO. 2 AIDED, ABETTED, COUNSELLED OR PROSECUTED THE COMMISSION OF THE
PRINCIPAL OFFENSE
A person is said to ‘instigate’ another to an act, when he actively suggests or stimulates him to
commit the act by means of language, direct or indirect, whether it takes the form of express
solicitation, or of hints, insinuation or encouragement.67 It is not necessary that express and
direct 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 may
allege that he aided, abetted, counselled or procured it and he will be convicted if he is proved to
have participated in one or more of these four ways.69 Accused No. 2 regularly reminded
66
Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, Indian Penal Code, (31st 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]
Accused No. 1 of the insurance policy worth Rs.2,00,00,000/-, the benefit of which will only be
availed 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 stimulated
him to send Deceased on a ‘long journey’.70
4.2. THE 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 ACCUSED NO. 2 HAD INTENTION TO ENCOURAGE THE COMMISSION.
The offense is complete as soon as the abettor has incited another to commit a crime, the consent
is 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 worth
Rs.2,00,00,000/- in the name of Deceased, together constitutes the motive and intention of
Accused No. 2, respectively, to abet Accused No. 1 to murder Deceased. Accused No. 1 is the
sole benefactor of the aforesaid insurance policy. Heinous offences have been committed for
very 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
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]
PRAYER
Wherefore, in light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, may this
Hon‘ble Court be pleased to:
TO HOLD:
 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 identity
theft.
TO PASS:
 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 the
case.
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

Prosecution Memorial PDF

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

Prosecution Memorial PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

[TEAM CODE-E]

SURANA AND SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT

BEFORE THE COURT OF SESSIONS

S.C. NO. 111 OF 2015

FOR OFFENCES CHARGED UNDER

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE SESSIONS JUDGE

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION....................................................................... vii

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

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

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

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ...................................................................................1

Computer related offences and Identity Theft? ......................................................1

PRAYER ................................................................................................................ xiii

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

41. State v. Dinakar Bandu, (1969) 72 Bom LR 905 …13, 15

42. Swamy Shraddananda v State of Karnataka, (2007) 12 SCC 331 …08

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

S.NO NAME OF THE BOOK

2. Gupta, Apar, Infromation Technology Act, (2nd Ed. 2011)

3. I, Sarvaria, S.K, The Indian Penal Code, (10th Ed. 2008)

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, (6th Ed. 1997)

9. Kelkar, R.V., Criminal Procedure, (5th Ed. 2009)

10. Lal, Batuk, Law of Evidence, (5th Ed. 2011)

11. Mohir, M., Law of Evidence, (5th Ed. 2010)

13. Modi, Medical Jurisprudence & Toxicology, (24th Ed. 2012)

14. National Crime Reference Handbook, (V.11, 2015)

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

19. Sarkar, Law of Evidence, (17th Ed. 2011)