Moot Problem NO.

01
Constitutional Case
Ruhani Naaz, 7 years old, lives in Mendi Bazaar in Numbai city of Zindia. She belongs to Dohra
community, a subsect of Islam. One morning, while Ruhani was on her way to school, her grandmother
lured to treat her with chocolates and took her to a small dimly lit room at the back of a decrepit building
near Mendi Bazaar. On reaching there, Ruhani was asked to lie down, her hands and legs were held by
her grandmother. A woman who was present in the room pulled her pants down and with a blade cut off
her clitoris. Ruhani experienced excessive bleeding and excruciating pain between her legs. She did not
know what had happened with her and why she had to experience such an inhuman treatment. Her
grandmother had told her this was a tradition which every girl had to follow. After some days, Ruhani
developed an infection into her vagina, had genital sores and also experienced post traumatic stress
disorder. She kept sick for a long time.
After a month, Sulekha, a renowned advocate and child rights activist was invited as a chief guest at
Ruhani‟s school function where she got to interact with Ruhani. Ruhani saw a friend in her and shared
what she had been going through and how its repercussions have been haunting her day and night. After
hearing the incident, Sulekha researched and read articles on the internet where she got to know that this
practice of female genital mutilation was prevalent amongst the Dohra community. She decided to stand
up for the women who experienced such cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and filed a PIL in the
Supreme Court of Zindia. The matter is pending before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of Zindia.

Note: Female genital mutilation (henceforth referred to as FGM) also called “khatna” or “khafz” involves
the removing of all or a part of female genitalia without any medical reason.It does not have any mention
in Quran. The practice is prevalent amongst the Dawoodi Bohra community, a subsect of Islam. The
practice of FGM originated in the African countries. Many countries like Australia, USA, UK and parts of
Africa have banned the practice of FGM, but there is no law in India banning FGM or Khatna to declare it
illegal.
The Laws Of Zindia are in Pari Materia With India.
Issues-
1. Whether the practice of Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) or „ Khatna‟ is in violation of the principles
of UDHR, Convention on Rights of Child and the United Nations General Assembly resolution passed
in December 2012 regarding rights of the Child banning FGM?
2. Whether the practice of FGM is in violation of Fundamental Rights including Article 14 and 21 and
Article 39 of Constitution of India?
3. Whether the practice of FGM attracts punishment under the provisions of Indian Penal Code, 1860?
4. Whether the practice should be declared as illegal and be made a punishable offence across the
countries?
*****
 Moot Problem NO. 02
United National Congress Party and Others
Vs.
Union of Bharath Nadu and Others
Constitutional Case
1. Bharath Nadu is a federal country with a multiparty system and has adopted parliamentary form of
government. The Country is technologically growing faster and is a favourite destination for many
developed countries for investment. Though the literacy rate is less than world average, 75 percent of the
people have access to internet and cell phones. On the other hand, farmer‟s suicide is on the rise and has
become a national ignominy. From the last two decades, the Country is facing political instability due to
defections, corruptions, split in the political parties, etc. Many political scientists, economists, jurists,
and international organizations have opined in the recent times that Bharath Nadu is a country with
highest potential to become a world leader provided it effectively addresses its political crises.
2. On reading a newspaper editorial about the political instability and factors responsible for the same and
on understanding several of such limitations that plague the system, a prison inmate wrote a letter to the
Supreme Court of Bharath Nadu expressing that the law of the land that permits the accused to contest
elections from the prison but prohibits the inmate of a prison from exercising his franchise is unfair. He
sought the direction to the Union of Bharath Nadu to bring reforms in the Electoral Law to address the
concerns including criminalization of politics, and unjustified burden on the exchequer due to multiple
unsynchronized elections.
3. The Supreme Court of Bharath Nadu, though expressed the constitutional limitations on its powers,
nevertheless stressed on the need for reforms in the Electoral Law. It constituteda
committeeunderthechairmanshipofformerJusticeRadhakrishnan(hereinafterreferredto as “The
Committee”) to review the Electoral Law and submit a report to the Court. In its report, the Committee
opined that the present Electoral Law is not in tune with the
constitutionalvaluesandprinciples,hencethere isanurgentneedforreformandinter-alia the Committee
suggested following broad objectives for reform in the ElectoralLaw:
 To reduce the burden on the exchequer by synchronizing the elections to the State Assemblies
with the Parliamentary elections.
 To curb the ill practices of making enticing promises in party manifestos like giving of freebies
and loan waivers.
 To make political parties more accountable and promote internal democracy within the political
parties.

4. On 1st November 2018, the Supreme Court of Bharath Nadu sent the Committee‟s report to the
Union Government, State Governments, and all the political parties for their consideration.
5. Meanwhile, parliamentary elections were declared in Bharath Nadu and the Bharath Nadu Janata
Party (BNJP) promised in its manifesto that if it comes to power, it will bring reforms in the
Electoral Law in line with the recommendations of Radhakrishnan Committee.
6. In the parliamentary election, BNJP came to power with a thumping majority and initiated reforms
in the Electoral Law. It initiated an online referendum seeking the opinion of the people on the
proposed reforms in the Electoral Law and got huge response in its favour and published it on print
and digital media.
7. To bring the proposed reforms in the Electoral Law, the Parliament enacted the Constitution (104th
Amendment) Act, 2019 inserting the following provision:

1. Article 172 (3): The Parliament may extend or curtail the term of any of the state assemblies for a
period it deems necessary, strictly for the purpose of synchronization of elections to the legislative
assemblies of the states with the Lower House of the Parliament.

8. Further, the Parliament inserted the following provisions in the Representation of the People Act,
1951 (hereinafter referred to as “The Act”):
1. Section 29D: Leadership of a political party shall, at all levels, be duly elected by the members of
the political party.

2. Section 29E: The supervision of the elections to all the leadership positions of a political party shall
be vested in the Election Commission.

3. Section 123 (9): Promise by a political party of any gainful benefits like freebies, loan waivers,
etc., in its election manifesto solely with a view to secure votes.

4. Section 168A: Any Member of Parliament or Legislative Assembly who resigns

fromhisofficeandintendstocontestelectionfromanotherpartybeforecompletion of the term shall be
liable to pay an exemplary cost as may be determined by the Election Commission.

9. The United National Congress Party (UNCP) challenged the 104th Constitutional
AmendmentasviolativeofthebasicstructureoftheConstitutionofBharathNadu.Further, it challenged
Section 123 (9) of the Act on the ground that it is violative of Article 19 (1)(a).

10. The Bharath Nadu Youth Party (BNYP) challenged the constitutional validity of Section 29D of
the Act on the ground that it violates Article 19 (1) (c) of the Constitution.

11. Mr. Belliyappa who is known for shifting sides for political benefits and to become a member of the
cabinet in successive governments challenged Section 168A of the Act as violative of his freedom
of conscience.
12. Raith Mitra, a farmers‟ association is a crucial game changer in the Assembly Elections of
Karunadu State. It is successful in getting farm loan waived from every government in Karunadu
State. The Association challenged Section 123 (9) of the Act as anti-farmer and violative of
fundamental rights of thefarmers.
13. Nation Builder, an income taxpayers‟ association, welcomed Section 123 (9) of the Act and filed an
intervening application supporting the Union of Bharath Nadu. It was submitted that the idea of farm
loan waiver is economically and legally ill-founded though sociologically there maybe differences. In its
support, they cited an empirical research that revealed the misuse of farm loan waiver schemes by
different governments failing to abate the farmer suicide. Its application was allowed and it was
arraigned as respondent.
14. Supreme Court admitted all the petitions and clubbed them together for a common hearing. The
matter is posted for final hearing.
Note: Laws and Constitution of Bharath Nadu are similar to India. Supreme Court of Bharath Nadu
considers the precedents of Supreme Court of India as binding.

****
 Moot Problem NO. 03
Constitutional case
1. Aryavarta is a developing country situated in the continent of Asiaasia. Aryavarta has been a British
Colony for approximately 190 years. It is one of the biggest countries of Asiaasia having diversity in its
population in terms of language, culture and geography. Aryavarta became independent in the year 1947
from the British Empire and the people of Aryavarta gave to themselves their own Constitution in the
year 1950. The Constitution makers, after referring to the Constitutions of different countries, gave to its
people one of the most unique Constitutions keeping in mind the population, demography, cultural and
linguistic diversity of Aryavarta.
2. Vijay-rashtra is one of the most developed states in Aryavarta. In the year 1978, a person called
Paschim Patel initiated a movement of co-operative society in Vijay-rashtra. He stayed in a small village
called “Dariya” from where he opened a small co-operative dairy which today has become the country‟s
biggest co-operative society. His colleague Purab Shyam who was the village mukhiya helped him in
connecting with the local people and with the technological and management supervision of Paschim
Patel, the co-operative society “Grandmother Dairy” became the biggest co-operative society in
Aryavarta.
3. In the year 1986, Vijay-rashtra assembly elections had taken place wherein for the first time, the
Government of Poora Vijay-rashtra Apna (“PGA”) political party came into power. The ruling party of
Aryavarta Kutch-Saurashtra-Bhuj (“KSB”) was thrown out of power form Vijay-rashtra. Purab Shyam,
who belonged to KSB was out of power in his constituency and his control over the people and the co-
operative society had reduced. Meanwhile “Grandmother Dairy‟s” governing body‟s term which was
supposed to be over on 23.6.2012, was to face elections for the new governing body.
4. In backdrop of these events, the Parliament of Aryavarta brought about the constitutional amendment
in the co-operative society sector, inserting certain provisions in the constitution called the 97th
amendment. Due to the provisions of the new constitutional amendment, the term of the governing body
of “Grandmother Dairy” which was supposed to be over on 23.06.2012, got extended for another two
years. The Constitutional amendment also mandated the states of Aryavarta including the state of Vijay-
rashtra to amend their local acts pertaining to co-operative societies in conformity with the new
constitutional amendment. Mr. Paschim Patel, the pioneer in bringing the co-operative society reform in
Vijay-rashtra, felt that the said amendment was brought about only to save the representation of KSB
political party in “Grandmother Dairy”. He filed a petition in the High Court of Vijay-rashtra under
Article 226 of the Constitution of Aryavarta seeking a prayer inter alia for holding elections in
“Grandmother Dairy” in conformity with the local co-operative society act of Vijay-rashtra. He also
prayed for quashing and setting aside of the 97th Constitutional Amendment on several grounds, one of
them being non-conformity with the procedure laid down under Article 368 (2) of the Constitution of
India.
5. The Hon‟ble High Court of Vijay-rashtra dismissed the petition on all grounds and directed
“Grandmother Dairy” to hold elections after two years in conformity with the new constitutional
amendment. The said judgment was received well by the State of Aryavarta and surprisingly Mr. Paschim
Patel did not challenge the decision before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court. However, another co-operative
banking society called “ANMOL” wanted to challenge the same before the Hon‟ble Court. Hence,
“ANMOL” through its Managing director filed a petition under Article 136 of the Constitution in the
Hon‟ble Supreme Court of Aryavarta. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court of Aryavarta issued notice to the
Attorney General and to other concerned parties. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court was pleased to issue notice
keeping all the questions of law open for arguments including the maintainability of the petition.

Note:

The Constitution of Aryavarta is pari materia to the Constitution of India. All the laws of the State of
Aryavarta are pari materia to the law of the India and the local acts of the state of Vijay-rashtra are pari
materia to the laws of the state of Maharashtra.The 97th Amendment in the Constitution of Aryavarta is
pari materia to the provisions of the 97th Constitutional Amendment. (Concerned laws of co-operative
societies Acts of state of Maharashtra should be referred).

*****
 Moot Problem NO. 04
COLOURS vs. Union of India

Constitutional Case
Mr. Ramesh and Mr. Dinesh are citizens of India. Both had gone to Ireland to pursue higher education
and subsequently started working in Ireland. They were already into a relationship and eventually got
married according to the Irish Laws during their stay in Ireland. They were in marital relationship for two
years and were residing in Ireland. On 15th February, 2018 they shifted to India and both started staying
in an apartment at Bandra, Mumbai.
On 10th September, 2018, Mr. Ramesh left the apartment and went to stay separately without informing
Mr. Dinesh. Despite several attempts of contact from Dinesh, Mr. Ramesh did not respond. Mr. Dinesh
tried filing a case but was not allowed to do it.

Aggrieved by this Mr. Dinesh approached an NGO named Colours who works and fights for the rights to
LGBTQI (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Intersex) section of society in India. Colours filed
a writ petition after consultation with their panel of legal experts who through their research on the recent
landmark Judgement dated 6th September, 2018 on decriminalization of sec. 377 of Indian Penal Code,
where the Supreme Court held that Section 377 violates the right of members of the LGBTQI community
to dignity, identity and privacy, all covered under Article 21 & 19 (1) (a). Due to plethora of issues
related with recognition of same sex marriage like Domestic Violence, Cruelty, and Maintenance, Raging
modesty.

Colours filed a writ Petition against Union of India in the Hon. Supreme Court seeking the recognition &
Validity of same sex marriage & gender Equality.

Argue on behalf and against the Petitioner.

****
 Moot Problem NO. 05
Criminal case
1. The Sovereign Republic of Indox is an independent country located in the territory of Asia.
Krishnanagar a town in the State of Uttari Pradesh in the northern part of Indox, is a landlocked town
with favourable climatic conditions thus, having vast sugarcane plantations spread across the land. The
majority of the plantations are owned by the family of Lalji along with his wife, Padmavati and his
daughter, Shilpa who is 16 years old. They undertake the activity of transporting sugarcane to various
parts of Indox. Whereas, Surendra along with his two brothers, Narendra and Amrendra undertake the
activity of making gur(jaggery) from the produced sugarcane. At last, Mitthi is a local goon with a strong
political background, who lives in the eastern part of the town along with his wife and two children
namely, Stalin who is 32 years old and Patrick who is 17 years old. Mitthi undertakes the sowing,
harvesting and segregating the produce on the field.
2. Mitthi and Stalin have been earlier convicted and sentenced for a term of 10 years respectively for the
offence of dacoity with murder and were charged with various offences ranging from criminal
intimidation to murder, many of which are still pending in the court, Whereas Patrick has been convicted
for dacoity with murder along with his father and brother and was sent to the Juvenile Detention where he
served for two years. He has also been charged with robbery and sexual harassment on multiple
occasions. On 10/12/18, a delegation of foreign sugarcane traders came to Krishnanagar and visited
Lalji‟s field much to the area‟s startle. The news of Lalji grabbing the whole business deal from those
traders spread across the town like fire, as the rumour spread around that he had sealed a deal worth
₹7 Cr which was enough to set up his own plantation is an urban settlement. On 26/12/18, Lalji withdrew
₹1.5 Cr with all the legal requirements and took it back home and kept it in his safe to pay for all the
necessities in the sugar mill production. On 28/12/18, early in the morning, around 5:00 AM, the locals
heard a huge explosion sound that came from Lalji‟s house and the police was alerted immediately. After
the police arrived, they discovered the whole house was on fire and there was no chance of survival. The
early cause of the incident was speculated by police as a gas leak leading to subsequent explosion and
death.

3. On further investigation and postmortem report, it was revealed that Lalji, Padmavati and Shilpa died
of gunshot wounds and infliction of injury due to sharp edged weapon(s). Also, it was revealed that there
were signs of sexual assault on Shilpa‟s body. The report further revealed the recovery of the footage of a
working CCTV camera near the main entry gate of the house. The footage revealed that five assailants
sneaking out of the house around the estimated time of the death, out of which one of the assailant was
unmasked who was identified as Patrick. The police arrested Patrick on 31/12/18 near a liquor shop.
Patrick confessed to the police, that on 26/12/18, Surendra saw Lalji withdrawing approximatelya Crore
rupees from the bank, who then followed him till his house and saw him keeping the money in his safe.
He then went to Mitthi and narrated the above story to him and subsequently they decided to extort the
money from Lalji.

4. On 27/12/18, around 10:00 AM, Mitthi along with the three brothers and Patrick went to Lalji‟s
godown to threaten him and extort the money from him in front of his employees, but Lalji did not
concede to his demands and was firm in not giving them any money, to which Mitthi threatened him for
dire consequences before leaving the godown, which was confirmed by the workers of the godown.
5. Mitthi then decided to steal the money from the safe before it was appropriated for payments. He
chalked out a plan of dacoity, where he decided to send Patrick and Stalin along with them, he enlisted
the help of three brothers to carry on the heist at Lalji‟s house. Mitthi also gave Patrick and Stalin
9.00mm Pistols with silencers and khanjars to the three brothers in case things go south and instructed
them that if they happen to use it, they should burn the house afterwards and make it look like an
accident. On 28/12/18, around 12:00 AM all the five assailants broke into the house wearing masks. The
moment they broke into the house, they found Lalji and his wife awake and were carrying a cake in their
hands, in haste, Surendra and Stalin knocked them down and tied them. While Patrick instructed the three
brothers to break open the safe and collect the money. Meanwhile, Shilpa arrives after hearing the noise
and discovers them in the midst of the act in the living room. Patrick instantly grabbed her and tried to
restrain her, also at the same time sexually assaulted her, and in the middle of the brawl Shilpa managed
to unmask Patrick and identified him. Then with the help of Stalin, he was able to control her and tie her
as well. Subsequently, the whole group gathered around with the money taken out from the safe.
Meanwhile, Patrick, afraid of being identified by Shilpa takes the khanjar and in haste starts slashing her
body ruthlessly and eventually decides to shoot her in the head, without realising that the parents
witnessed Patrick shooting their daughter. Startled by this new revelation, Stalin exhorted the rest of the
crew to kill them so as to eliminate all the eyewitnesses. Patrick shot Lalji and his wife thrice in cold
blood. Stalin suggested the three brothers to carry the dead bodies to the kitchen and turn on the gas stove
so that the gas spreads all over the house and one of them lights up a curtain so that when the fire reaches
the kitchen, the gas explosion looks like an accident. Afterwards everyone exited the house and went to
Mitthi.
6. From the confessional statement made by Patrick, the guns matching the caliber of the bullet that was
used to kill them along with the khanjarand the money was recovered from Mitthi‟s house. Bloodstained
clothes matching with the blood sample of all the deceased were recovered from the three brothers house
buried under their garden. The police initially charged the accused with Sec. 396, sec. 201 and sec. 34 of
IPC, 1860. The matter was placed before the Sessions Court which after examining all the evidences,
considering the confessional statement u/s 27 & 30 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and the
circumstantial evidence henceforth the Court convicted all the accused u/s 396 and u/s 201 for the three
brothers, and awarded life sentences to Stalin and the three brothers, citing Stalin‟s previous criminal
convictions and the propensity to commit crimes again aligned with their involvement in the murder and
ten years imprisonment sentence to both Patrick (considering him as a minor and being lenient) and
Mitthi (for his involvement).
7. Lalji‟s brother, Mehmood, aggrieved by the decision of the Sessions Court filed a Special Leave
Petition to the Supreme Court of Indox, stating the insufficiency of sentence imposed on Patrick by
categorically stating that; Firstly, Patrick having killed all the three deceased and inflicted knife wounds
on Shilpa was given a lenient sentence. Secondly, Patrick had previously been convicted for a similar
offence, thus the repetitive criminal act suppresses the aspect of him being an innocent minor and rather a
threat to the society. Lastly, the cumulative acts show his mental capabilities are more likely of a ruthless
adult criminal and not possibly of a minor. Thus, guidelines set by precedents providing for death penalty
are truly irregular in nature, also revisiting the aspect of inflicting death sentence to a minor, who has the
sufficient capabilities and understanding to commit a horrendous crime, is unreasonably protected by the
Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 and therefore, a review of the above contentions made are required.
8. The State also filed an SLP after going through the High Court where they contended the unjust
provisions of Section 396 IPC, 1860, which firstly gives a ten year sentence for a crime that involves
murder and goes divergent with the punishments provided for murder. The petition challenged this
specific punishment u/s 396 IPC, 1860 as draconian and against the nature of punishment given in case of
death by voluntary homicide. Moreover, the requirement of active participation creates a lacunae
considering the mastermind behind the dacoity and providing the remaining accused with weapons was
Mitthi himself who was granted only a 10 year sentence. This creates a moral vacuum in Section 396
where the punishment given to a person convicted for murder along with dacoity can also be given a ten
year sentence along with that the requirement of active participation in the given section. The verdict and
the petitions garnered a lot of media attention panIndox, where it was opined that the guidelines
regulating death penalty need to be reviewed as them being only a „judge centric‟ provision which has an
irregular and ambiguous application of it in practice. Further, the aspect of a Juvenile death sentence was
a lacunae in the judicial fora of the country, which unreasonably barred the sentencing of the juveniles
who were the main perpetrators of heinous crimes.
The Supreme Court clubbed all the petitions and matters in hand, considering the nature of the cases,
before a special Constitutional Bench and stayed all the High Court proceedings in the above matter till
the judgement is passed. Prepare relevant issues in this regard with various Articles, Sections and
Judgements and cite relevant precedents from Constitutional and Criminal Law in order to secure ends of
justice.
*Note:The Laws of Indox are para materia to the laws of India

*****
 Moot Problem NO. 06

Criminal Appeal case

Anjali, aged 21 years, was working with FDH Bank in Lumbai. She was engaged to one Bharat who was
also working in the same bank. Life was going great and their marriage was scheduled for 04 thMarch,
2019. Bharat along with his family members was scheduled to visit Anjali‟s place at Dune for marriage
ceremony. Consequently, on 02nd March, 2019, at about05.30 p.m. Anjali boarded the Lumbai-Dune-
Passenger Train from Lumbai Railway Station to reach her home at Dune for marriage ceremony. Anjali
boarded the ladies‟ division of the last compartment. There were other passengers in the ladies‟ division
of the compartment along with her. When the train reached Ponawala, all other lady passengers in the
ladies‟ division of the compartment had alighted and, therefore, Anjali also got down along with them and
hurriedly entered the ladies coach attached just in front of the last compartment. To her surprise there was
no body except her in the ladies‟ coach. All of sudden she saw a boy (named Alok) around 17 years of
age, standing in the passage and constantly gazing at her. She sat there quietly for some time but felt
uncomfortable and decided change the compartment on the next station. But as the fate had its own
course, Alok pounced on her and repeatedly hit her head on the walls of the compartment. It is further
alleged that Anjali was crying and screaming and that she was dropped/pushed by Alok from the running
train on the track and that the side of her face hit on the crossover ofthe railway line. Further, it is alleged
that in order to satisfy his lust, Alok also jumped down from the other side of the running train and after
lifting Anjali to another place by the side of the track he sexually assaulted her. Thereafter he ransacked
her belongings and went away from the place with her mobile phone. Eventually, Anjali was found in a
badly injured condition lying by the side of the railway track and Alok was also apprehended soon
thereafter. Anjali was removed to the Hospital where she succumbed to her injuries on 05th March,
2019.PW-1 Robin and PW-2 Akbar were also travelling in the general compartment attached in front of
the ladies compartment. Said witnesses heard the cries of the deceased. PW-3 Chhotu wanted to pull the
alarm chain to stop the train but he was dissuaded by a middle-aged man who was standing at the door of
the compartment by saying that the girl had jumped out from the train and escaped and that in these
circumstances he should not take the matter any further as the same may drag all of them to Court.
However, when thetrain reached Dune Railway Station within a span of 15 minutes, PW-1 and PW-2
rushed to PW-4 Ganpat, the guard of the train and complained about the incident. It triggered a search,
both, for the deceased and the accused. ThePostmortem and D.N.A. profiling of the deceased were done
and the FIR was registered. Charge sheet filed under Sections 302, 376, 394, 397, 447 of the IPC.

The opinion as to the cause of death mentioned in the postmortem report is as follows: Injury No.1 is
sufficient to render Anjali dazed and insensitive. It is capable of creating dizziness to head and rendering
her incapable to respond. These wounds may not be of the nature of exclusive cause of death. This injury
will be caused only if the head is forcefully hit to backward and forward against a hard-flat surface. This
might not lead to total unconsciousness but can result into numbness. The injury described in No.1 is
caused by hitting 4-5 times against a flat surface holding the hair from back with a right hand.

Injury No.2. It is the injury sustained from beneath the left eye up to chin bone further below and on lips.
There were fractures on maxilla and mandible. About 13 teeth have gone severed. The left cheek bone is
pulverized. A vertically long mark of rubbing chin bone and cheek is seen. The gliding mark on lower
chin is seen 5 cm. (Gliding movement). Post mortem report reveals that the deceased was pushed down
from running train. However, it was a running train, it had only negligible speed. The consequence of
speed is minuscule in inflicting this injury. Since she was rendered insensitive as a result of injury No.1 in
the absence of natural reflex the face had to bear the full force of the descent. There were no injuries of
fall on elbows, wrists and inner boarders of forearms. There were no reflexes in this fall. Injury No.2
consist of the injuries that may have been caused by fall of a person having the weight of the deceased (42
kg.) from a height of 5 to 8 feet. These injuries will be sustained if this portion (left cheek bone
crosswise) hits against train tract. Left cheek bone has been thoroughly pulverized. “The decedent had
died due to blunt injuries sustained to head as a result of blunt impact and fall and their complications
including aspiration of blood into air passages (during unprotected unconscious state following head
trauma) resulting in anoxic brain damage. She also showed injuries as a result of assault and forceful
sexual intercourse. The aspiration of blood into the air passage could have been due to the victim being
kept in a supine position, probably, for sexual intercourse. She had features of multiple organ dysfunction
at the time of death. Vaginal introitus and wall showed contusion all around, most prominent just behind
urethral meatus. Hymen showed a recent complete tear and a natural indentation. (Remark–recent sexual
intercourse)”. As per the DNA typing the seminal stains on Item No.1(a), 2(b) (the vagina swabs of the
victim), 2(a) (vaginal smear collected from the victim), 3(a) (cut open garment) belonged to the accused
to whom theblood sample in Item No.8 (the blood sample of the accused) belongs. The blood of the
victim [Item 1(b)] was found in the clothing of the accused i.e. pants, underwear, Shirt.

Trial Court:

After the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, the accused was charged. The prosecution
examined the witnesses and thereafter, the statement of the accused was recorded and he adjured his guilt.
Accused also took the plea that he is a juvenile. However, the Learned Session‟s Judge tried the accused
as an adult referring the Juvenileand vide judgment dated 11.08.2019 has convicted the accused under
Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and sentenced him to death. He has additionally been
convicted under Sections 376, 394, 397 and 447 of the IPC.

High Court:
The High Court vide judgment dated 02.01.2020, maintained the conviction under Sections 376 IPC, 394
read with Section 397 IPC and Section 447 IPC and the sentences imposed for commission of said
offences. The conviction under Section 302 IPC was set aside and altered to one under Section 325 IPC.
The reasoning accorded by the High Court was that the accused had neither intention nor the knowledge
to cause death.The fact that the deceased survived for a couple of days after the incident and eventually
died in Hospital would also clearly militate against any intention of the accused to cause death. Similarly,
in keeping the deceased in a supine position, intention to cause death or knowledge that such act may
cause death, cannot be attributed to the accused.Criminal appeal was filed before the Supreme Court by
the State. The appeal is listed for final hearing. Argue the case on behalf of Appellant or Respondent.

The laws applicable on the moot proposition are in pari-materia with laws of India.

****
 Moot Problem NO. 07
Criminal Appeal Case

Mr. A is arrested and tried for offences punishable under S.376, IPC and S.5(i) r/w S.6 of the POCSOA.
As per the first information report, the offence occurred six months prior to the complaint being made.
This was due to the fact that the victim had been too afraid to complain against the accused. After his
arrest, the police investigating the case sent him for medical examination. Medical examination suggested
that Mr A was capable of having sexual intercourse. He also had simple injuries on his arm which might
have been caused by human nails. The victim girl was also examined medically. Medical examination
suggested no evidence of recent sexual assault on the victim. However, the statement of the victim was
recorded under Section 164, Cr.P.C. which was consistent with the complaint that led to the FIR. Further,
statements of the parents of the victim were recorded under S.161, Cr.P.C. which also stated that the
victim had been sexually assaulted by the accused. Upon submission of the chargesheet, the accused filed
for discharge in the present case. The said application was rejected by the court which then proceeded to
frame charge against the accused for offences punishable Section 5(i) read with 6 of the POCSOA. The
charge under S.376, IPC was dropped. The accused entered a plea of not guilty and claimed to be tried.
Thereafter, trial commenced.

Opening the trial for the prosecution, the Special Public Prosecutor refused to lead any evidence before
the trial court and instead submitted that the court was to presume the accused guilty of having committed
the offences charged under POCSOA unless he proves otherwise. Therefore, he submitted, that the
prosecution had already discharged its burden, and the accused would have to lead evidence. The accused
led evidence of mutual enmity between himself and the parents of the victim over a property dispute to
prove that the complaint was falsely and maliciously made. Neighbours and family members of the
accused were examined as witnesses who testified to the existence of such enmity. Thereafter, final
arguments were made and the judgment was reserved. In its verdict, the trial court held that the accused
had been unable to rebut the presumption against him under the POCSOA of having committed the
offences as evidence of enmity did not in fact prove that the allegations were falsely made. Thereafter, the
trial court proceeded to convict the accused for the offences charged and sentence him to ten years
imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000.

Mr.A appeals his conviction in the High Court. He simultaneously challenges the constitutionality of S.29
and S.30 of the POCSOA as depriving him of rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. Notice is issued
on the constitutional challenge to the Union of India. Prepare pleadings and argue on both sides on the
constitutionality of the said provisions.

*****
 Moot Problem NO. 08
Criminal case
In the trial before the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Imaginary City, the prosecution alleged that on
26.07.2018 at about 1:15 am, the accused committed the murder of his wife,Sheela, in his house in
Varthur by stabbing her with a knife. The prosecution alleged that the motive of the crime was that the
accused doubted the chastity of his wife.

The case of the prosecution is that on the night of the incident, the deceased, the accused along with their
two sons, were sleeping inside their house in Varthur in the sameroom. At about 1:15 am, the accused
started stabbing the deceased Sheela and when she cried out for help, both the children got up and saw
that the accused was there and that their mother had already been stabbed.

The prosecution has alleged that on being stabbed, the deceased started moving toward the front door,
which was open, but she could not go out of the house. The prosecution case is that the children rushed to
the house of their maternal uncle, Shankara, who is the complainant and resides in the immediate vicinity
of the house of the accused.

However, the children also stated in their testimony that one of them had gone directly to the beat police
stationed around 500 metres away from their house and alerted them. The complainant, along with other
relatives, came to the scene and saw the deceased lying in a pool of blood in front of the neighbour‟s
house. The beat police were also present at the scene by the time the complainant came there. The
deceased was shifted by the complainant and the police in an injured condition to the hospital, where she
died at 6:20 am while undergoing treatment.

The statement of Shankara was recorded by the police at the hospital on the basis of which the first
information report was prepared at 5:30 am. The accused was arrested and investigation was conducted
by the police into the said incident. The police completed investigation and submitted the charge sheet
with 42 witnesses.

The accused was charged with the offence punishable u/s 302 IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and
claimed to be tried. The appellant was tried before the court of the learned Principal District & Sessions
Judge.

Recording of evidence started exactly two years after the occurrence of the crime. Shankara was
examined as PW1 and stated that the accused had stabbed the deceased thereby killing her. He also
testified that the FIR was registered upon his complaint given at the hospital where his sister was
undergoing treatment. Shankara further states that after the death of hiswife, her two children are living
with him and his family. He further states that on the night of the murder, the two children came running
to his house at around 1:30 am and said that their mother had been murdered.
The prosecution examined the two children as PW2 and PW3. At the time of examination in court, the
two children were aged 9 and 11 years respectively. PW3 was questioned by the judge prior to his
evidence being recorded. The judge asked him as follows, “Do you understand the difference between
truth and false?” PW3 replied that he did. Thereafter, his testimony was recorded without the
administration of the oath. The witness stated that his father and mother used to live harmoniously.
However, the witness also stated that the accused murdered the victim.

PW2 was questioned by the judge prior to his evidence being recorded as follows, “Do you know why
Jana Gana Mana is sung in the school everyday?” PW2 replied that he did not. Thereafter his testimony
was recorded by the judge without the administration of the oath. The witness stated that his father and
mother used to live harmoniously. However, the witness also stated that the accused murdered the victim.

It is also seen from the records that just before the cross examination of the witnesses PW2 and PW3, the
judge administered the oath to them.

The prosecution got marked MO6 and MO7 which are two knives recovered from the house of the
accused. Prosecution introduced these as the murder weapon. At the time the police seized MO6 and
MO7 from the scene of the crime, a seizure mahazar Ex P4 was drawn up. One of the witnesses to the
seizure, PW11, who also signed the mahazar, on his cross examination, states that he did not read the
contents of the mahazar. He also stated that he was illiterate and only knew how to write his name
(signature).

PW7 is the driver of the police jeep which was parked at the beat police check post 500 metres away from
the scene of the crime. He testifies that one child aged around 6 years came running to him on the night of
the murder. He said that the child was crying and managed to tell him to come to his house because his
mother had been murdered. Thereafter, PW7 immediately left with the child to reach the scene of the
crime, where some people had already assembled. He states that the murder victim was lying in a pool of
blood in front of a house. Thereafter, he immediately contacted the jurisdictional police station, Varthur
and informed the SHO on duty of the occurrence of a cognisable offence within the police station limits.
This was around 1:45 am.

PW8 is the SHO on duty at the time the murder was committed. He admits to having received the
wireless communication from PW7 and states that he immediately despatched 2 police constables and
another police jeep to go to the murder scene and guard the area. Thereafter, at around 4:30 am, he
himself proceeded to the hospital to record the dyingdeclaration of the victim and the complaint.

PW12 is the treating doctor at the hospital who treated the victim, He testifies that the victim was in a fit
condition to make a statement till around 4 am and after that shelost consciousness until she died at
around 6:20 am. He states that the cause of the death was excessive haemorrhage and trauma due to
lacerated cuts which had penetrated portions of the colon, stomach and liver of the victim. His version is
verified by the post mortem report, Ex P 3.

No evidence is produced on behalf of the defence. Accused was examined under S.313 Cr.P.C. and his
defence was one of total denial to the offences alleged against him.

Based on the above information only, and assuming that the recording of the evidence has been
completed, argue for the defence and the prosecution.

*************
 Moot Problem NO. 09
Criminal Appeal Case
A young woman named Seema, (22) succumbed to injuries at a private hospital in Guwahati on June 1,
2018 due to multiple organ failure as she had developed severe health issues due to swallowing acid. The
incident leading to the death of Seema occurred at Guwahati Railway Station on 1st May, 2018. The
gruesome incident had set the local police on their heels as the man who threw acid had concealed his
face at the time of the attack. However, investigation by Police, Guwahati Crime Branch, led to one
Sanjay Sharma (26) and his accomplice Mahesh Yadav (28) who were both neighbours of deceased
Seema. Sanjay allegedly flung acid on Seema at the Guwahati Railway Station when she was getting
down from Rajdhani Express from Siliguri. Thereafter, Sanjay boarded the same train back to his home at
Siliguri.

According to the police, Seema had secured a nursing job with the Gauhati Medical College and Hospital
(GMCH) in Guwahati. Sanjay Sharma was a Hotel Management Graduate and despite his best efforts was
unemployed. Sanjay's parents often used to taunt him about his failure to get a job despite completing his
education and always praised Seema because of her education and career.

Sanjay used to confide in Mahesh, who was his childhood friend and used to tell him about how Seema
once rejected his marriage proposal and also how his parents had ill-treated him for not being able to
secure a job. Apart, they were in all praises for Seema as she could fetch a very good job in a government
hospital. Mahesh treated Sanjay as his younger brother and therefore could not bear the pain of Sanjay
and suggested him that he should find Seema alone and pressurise her not to accept the job offer and to
accept his marriage proposal. He, further, suggested Sanjay to threaten Seema with a bottle of acid in
order to pressurise her for the same. Sanjay wanted to disfigure Seema's face so as to destroy her career.
To teach her a lesson, Sanjay procured a bottle of acid on April 30, 2018 as soon as he came to know
that Seema was leaving for Guwahati to join her new nursing job and he boarded, along with Mahesh, the
same train taken by Seema and her family members to Guwahati. On May 1, 2018, when Seema was
getting down from Rajdhani Express fromSiliguri at the Guwahati Railway Station, Sanjay allegedly
flung acid on her. It was Mahesh who helped Sanjay in opening the bottle and Sanjay allegedly threw the
acid on her face. Subsequently, both Mahesh and Sanjay fled away easily covering their faces. Seema was
taken to the hospital by her family members. The doctor immediately conducted the surgeries and opined
that the injuries were grievous.

FIR was lodged. Statement of Seema was recorded. A case was registered against both the accused under
Sections 302, 326B r/w section 34 IPC, 1860. Mahesh absconded and was declared a proclaimed offender
while Sanjay was arrested by police from his home at Siliguri and the bottle of acid used in the crime,
were seized from his possession. After investigation, he was put to trial before the Sessions Court, at
Guwahati where he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. As per the charge sheet, Sanjay threw
concentrated Sulfuric Acid at Seema as he envied her career growth. The Sessions Court held that Sanjay
could not explain the scars which he had suffered as few drops of acid fell on his hands.

The Sessions Court convicted Sanjay for the offences punishable under sections 302 and 326B of Indian
Penal Code 1860 and awarded him life imprisonment and seven years imprisonment and a fine of
Rs.5000/- respectively for the offences. Both the sentences were to run concurrently.

Sanjay, aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, appealed before the High Court seeking acquittal from the
charges. Under the circumstances of the case, the Sessions Court had wrongly held Sanjay liable under
Sec. 326B, IPC, by invoking Section 34 IPC,1860 as no common intention to commit the offence of acid
attack under Sec. 326B could be proved, whereas, State filed appeal for demanding death penalty as the
case is one of the “rarest of rare cases”

The case is listed for arguments before High Court.

*****
 Moot Problem NO. 10
Criminal Appeal
Mohit Srivastava and Vritika are both residents of Dwelhi, a State in Indiana. Indiana is a country located
in subcontinent of Asia with a glorious and rich heritage where multifarious religious groups co-exist.
The country of Indiana consists of 29 States and 7 union territories in which Dwelhi is one of the States.
The social, legal and cultural conditions of Indiana are pari materia to that of India.

Mohit and Vritika used to work at “Today My Trip Pvt. Ltd.”, Dwelhi. The duo met during the first
meeting of the company. They both worked for the marketing team and somehow they exchanged their
phone numbers and started talking afterwards on regular basis and developed a healthy relationship. After
working in the company for more than 10 months Mohit left the job. Vritika soon left the job too.
Afterwards, they both started working together at “Voyageworldblog Pvt. Ltd.”, Dwelhi.

After joining the new company, viz. “Voyageworldblog Pvt. Ltd.”,Dwelhi. They both were happy and
enjoying the company of each other. On one fine day Mohit proposed Vritika in the office itself and
Vritika accepted his proposal too. After the proposal they both started hanging together frequently. On
25.02.2019, Mohit informed Vritika that today is his birthday. They had a long conversation over the
phone and they decided to celebrate it together at “Hurugram”. Vritika went to meet Mohit at the Central
Gate metro station and then they both went to Hurugram. They checked into “7 wonders Guest House”
situated at Hurugram to cut the cake on the occasion of his birthday.

On the occasion of his birthday, Mohit assured Vritika that he wanted to marry her and on that ground he
solicited sexual favours from Vritika. Vritika relying upon the veracity of Mohit‟s assurance to marry her
consented for the sexual intercourse. After this incident they did not meet for 4-5 days. Afterwards, Mohit
went to Tranglore for 2 months. Vritika called him on his cell phone and learnt from Mohit‟s brother that,
“Mohit is already married and has a son. However, the wife and son do not reside with him”.

On 02.05.2019, Mohit met Vritika at Silk Nagar and confirmed that he is married and his marriage is
registered as per the provisions of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and he also affirmed the existence of
the child begotten out of the wedlock and he sought pardon from Vritika for the concealment of this
material information. On 20.06.2019, when Vritika went for her routine medical check-up there she was
informed by her doctor that she is pregnant and this information was expeditiously forwarded to Mohit.
Latter after receiving this information assured former that his subsisting marriage has been irretrievably
broken down and sooner or later he would obtain divorce from his wife and then he would marry former.

Days went by but Mohit never paid any attention to the messages sent by Vritika. She tried her best to
communicate but all of her efforts went in vain. Vritika after making all futile attempts decided to lodge
an F.I.R. against Mohit and subsequently lodged anF.I.R. under Section 376 and Section 493 of IPC.
The Police on the basis of their investigation framed the charge sheet and submitted it to the Court. On
the basis of the charge sheet, trial was conducted in the Court of the District and Session Judge. The Court
Convicted Mohit under Section 376 and Section 417 of IPC. Thereafter, Mohit filed an appeal against the
decision of the Court of the District and Session Judge, in the Dwelhi High Court. The Hon‟ble High
Court of Dwelhi acquitted Mohit under Section 376 of IPC and convicted him only under Section 417 of
IPC. Being aggrieved with the decision of the Hon‟ble High Court of Dwelhi, Vritika filed the Special
leave petition under Article 136 of Constitution of Indiana. The case is pending for adjudication before
the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of Indiana. Prepare memorials and argue from both sides.

Notes:

1. The Laws, case laws and Constitutional provisions of Indiana are analogous to the ones in India.
2. Petitions to be drafted on behalf of both the Appellant and the Respondent and oral arguments to
be limited and based on the above information.

****
 Moot Problem NO. 11
Criminal Case
A young Software Engineer Nalini working with one BPO Company Pune, 28 years old Married woman,
in the prime her youth, having bright career lying ahead. She used to travel to her workplace and back by
her company transport or Public Transport of by an Auto Rickshaw. On the evening of 07/10/2018 i.e. the
day of the incident as she was working till late she missed the company transport and therefore near
Reliance Mall on Nagar road she accepted the offer of lift by Sachin Mishra – Accused no. 1 in the cab
driven by himself and in which the other two accused viz. Vikram Jadhav Accused no. 2 (Security Guard)
and Aniket Salwi Accused no. 3 were already sitting and present in the cab. They promised to take her to
her house in Katraj whereupon she placed total trust in these strangers. However, the brutes took
advantage of the fact of her being the only woman in the cab, they abducted her to satisfy their insatiable
lust. She was stripped naked and kept in that condition for hours committing gang rape on her repeatedly.

They picked up Nalini from Reliance Mall and subsequently drove her to Hadapsar by Magarpatta and
from there onwards to Manjari Phata and then to Abalwadi. There onwards accused took her to Shankar
Parvati Mangal Karyalaya on Nagar Road where they raped her. In mean time T. Ramlinga (Approver)
joined them and he too raped Nalini. Then they drove to Dargah at Chandan Nagar where the four and
further to Vadu Fata by Markal Road where they raped her again. Thereafter they drove her to Zarevedi
Fata where the accused Sachin Mishra, Vikram Jadhav, aniket Salwi brutally killed her by first
strangulating her by dupatta and then by crushing her face and head with heavy stones to camouflage her
identity in order to destroy the evidence.

Trial took place against all these accused in the Trial Court, Pune. Trio accused in this case held guilty for
the Gang Rape and murder and all the three accused were sentenced to death U/S 376 (A), 397, 302, 404,
120(B) of IPC for this horrific crime. But T. Ramalinga (Approver) was acquitted. All the three accused
filed an appeal in the Bombay High Court against the decision of the Trial Court Pune to set aside the
conviction and sentence.

Issues are as follows -

1. Whether the accused conspired to commit the said crimes and in pursuance of this conspiracy they
carried out the criminal acts as charged by the prosecution?
2. Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt the common intention of the accused
by bringing on record that the said acts were committed by several persons in furtherance of their
common intention?
3. Whether any other charge can be tried.

******
 Moot Problem NO. 12
Criminal Case
A young woman named Seema (22) succumbed to injuries was admitted at a private hospital in Guwahati on
1st May, 2018 due to multiple organ failure as she had developed severe health issues due to swallowing acid.
The incident leading to the death of Seema occurred at Guwahati Railway station on 1st Junw, 2018. The
gruesome incident had set the local police on their heels as the man who threw acid had concealed his face at
the time of attack. However, investigation by police, Guwahati crime branch, led to one Sanjay sharma (26) and
his accomplice Mahesh Yadav (28) who were both neighbours of deceased Seema. Sanjay allegedly flung acid
on Seema at the Guwahati railway Station when she was getting down from Rajdhani Express from Siliguri.
Thereafter, Sanjay boarded the same train back to his home at siliguri.

According to the police, Seema had secured a nursing job with the Guwahati Medical College and Hospital
(GMCH) in Guwahati. Sanjay Sharma was a hotel management graduate and despite his best efforts was
unemployed. Sanjay‟s parents used to taunt him about his failure to get a job despite completing his education
and always praised Seema because of her education and career.

Sanjay used to confide in Mahesh, who was his childhood friend and used to tell him about how Seema once
rejected his marriage proposal and also how his parents had ill – treated him for not being able to secure any
job. Apart from this, they were in all praises for Seema as she could fetch a very good job in a government
hospital. Mahesh treated Sanjay as his younger brother and therefore could not bear the pain of Sanjay and
suggested him that he should find Seema alone and pressurize her not to accept the job offer andto accept his
marriage proposal. He, further, suggested sanjay to threaten Seema with a bottle of acid in order to pressurize
her for the same. Sanjay wanted to disfigure Seema‟s face so as to destroy her career. To teach her a lesson,
Sanjay procured a bottle of acid on 30th April, 2018 as soon as he came to know that Seema was leaving for
Guwahati to join her new nursing job and he boarded, along with Mahesh, the same train taken by Seemaand
her family members to Guwahati on 1st May, 2018, when Seema was getting down from Rajdhani Express
from Siliguri at the Guwahati railway station, Sanjay in opening the bottle and Sanjay allegedly threw acid on
her face. Subsequently Mahesh and Sanjay fled easily covering their faces. Seema was taken to the hospital by
her family members. The doctor immediately conducted the surgeries and opined that the injuries were
grievous.

F.I.R. was lodged, statement of Seema was recorded. A case was registered against both the accused under
sections 302, 326 B r/w 34 IPC, 1860. Mahesh absconded and was declared a proclaimed offender, while
Sanjay was arrested by police from his home at Siliguri and the bottle of acid used in the crime, was seized
from his possession. After investigation, he was put to trial before the sessions court, at Guwahati where he
pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. As per the charge sheet Sanjay threw concentrated sulfuric acid at Seema
as he envied her career growth. The session court held that Sanjay could not explain the scars which he had
suffered as few drops of acid fell on his hands.
The Sessions court convicted Sanjay for the offences punishable under sections 302 and 326 B of IPC 1860 and
awarded him life imprisonment for the offences. Both the sentences were to run concurrently.

Sanjay, aggrieved by the aforesaid judgement, appealed before High Court seeking acquittal from the charges.
Under the circumstance of the case, the sessions court had wrongly held Sanjay liable under Sec. 326 B IPC, by
invoking Sec. 34 IPC, 1860 as no common intention to commit the offence of acid attack under sec. 326 B
could be proved. Whereas, the state also filed an appeal against the decision of the Sessions Court, for
demanding death penalty as the case is one of the „rarest of rare cases‟.

The case is listed for arguments before High Court. Argue for both sides.

Issues:

1. Whether the judgment of Session‟s Court punishing accused no.1 under section 302, Section 326-B of IPC
is correct?
2. Whether Punishment given by Session‟s Court to Sanjay (Accused no.1) u/s 326B of IPC by invoking
Section 34 IPC is correct?
3. Whether the case is fit to be considered as rarest of rare?

*****
 Moot Problem NO. 13
Criminal Appeal case
Karim worked as a system operator at a computer Centre in Jajhhar Dist., Haryana and lived in the town. His
village was at a distance of 12 kms. from his workplace which he ordinarily visited on Saturdays and
Sundays.Sher Shah was a farmer who lived with his family consisting of his wife, Sobti, son Gajendar Shah and
a daughter Naina. Sher Shah‟s brother, Suri Shah, also lived in the same household. He was used to drinking
and gambling and owed a debt of Rs. 20,000 to Karim. Whenever Karim demanded his money, Suri Shah
showed his helplessness but never denied to pay off his debt. Karim was in love with Naina and used to meet
Naina on the weekends when her father was not at home on the pretext that he had come to collect the money.
Sher Shah did not like it and told Karim many a times not to visit his home in his absence. He also scolded his
daughter for meeting Karim but Karim did not stop visiting Naina.

During the day on Monday, 8th August 2018, Karim received a phone call from Suri Shah inviting him to come
that evening to collect his debt. Karim went to their house around 8.30 P.M. The members of Naina‟s family
had finished their dinner and were preparing to go to sleep. On hearing some whispering voices coming from
the backyard of their house, Sher Shah with his brother Suri Shah and son Gajendar Shah went there to
investigate.

They saw Karim talking with Naina. Sher Shah lost his temper and started abusing Karim. Gajendar Shah
brought a lathi from inside and gave a blow to Karim on the leg. Then Suri Shah grabbed the lathi from
Gajendar Shah and started beating Karim mercilessly giving blows on his head and chest.

On hearing the hue and cry, other villagers came to the scene. They found Suri Shah giving blows to Karim
while the other two were shouting abuses on Karim. Karim was bleeding from the head and became
unconscious. He was taken to the hospital by the villagers where he died three days later without regaining
consciousness. The post-mortem report confirmed that Karim suffered injuries on the head and fractures of
three ribs. There were many concussions on different parts of his body. There was much loss of blood. While
none of the injuries independently was sufficient to cause death, the cumulative result was sufficient in the
ordinary course of nature to cause death.

FIR was registered against Suri Shah, Gajendar Shah and Sher Shah under Section 307 read with S. 34 of the
Indian Penal Code. Three days later when Karim died, it was changed to Section 302 r/w 34 IPC. The session
court charged and convicted all the three accused persons under Section 302 r/w 34 of the IPC and sentenced
them to life imprisonment for the murder of Karim. The accused persons pleaded grave and sudden provocation
in their defence. They also pleaded that the prosecution had failed to prove existence of common intention of all
the three accused to kill Karim. In the absence of proof of common intention, they cannot be convicted under
Section 302 r/w 34 IPC.The three accused have filed separate appeals to the High Court against the order of
conviction and sentence. Plead from both the sides

*********
 Moot Problem NO. 14
Criminal Appeal case
Reema, an eighteen year old girl was a student of 12th class. She belonged to a lower middle class family. Her
father used to work as a clerk in a private firm. She had always been an ambitious and a very bright student. To
support her father she used to give tuitions. Ramesh, Accused No.1, math‟s teacher of Reema in her school
secretly developed emotions for her. Reema had always admired him as her teacher. On Reema‟s 18th birthday
Ramesh organised a birthday party for her at his house and gifted her an expensive watch. Unaware of
Ramesh‟s feelings Reema accepted the same.
On 14th Feb 2013, Ramesh proposed to Reema for marriage. Reema, however, told him to speak to her parents
regarding the same. On 20th Feb Ramesh approached her parents with the proposal. However, they rejected his
offer and warned him not to contact her anymore as they did not want that there should be any kind of
distraction to their daughter as her XII boards were approaching. They strongly admonished Reema and
threatened that they will discontinue her studies.

Thereafter she started avoiding Ramesh. On one occasion Reema also made it clear to him that she will not go
against the wishes of her parents and asked him not to follow her anymore. Despite the disinterest shown by
Reema, Ramesh continued to follow Reema to her tuition classes and contacted her personally, on phone and
through internet, believing that all her actions were under pressure from her parents.

Reema reported the same to her parents. The parents rebuked him for his unwarranted acts. He, however, tried
to convince them about his feelings for her and further stated that he wanted to marry her. They beat him and
asked him to leave.

Enraged with the feeling of dejection, Ramesh went to Mahesh in whom he always confided and narrated the
whole thing. Mahesh, aged 45, has always supported Ramesh, who was residing with him, ever since his
parents died in a road accident in 2000. Mahesh, who had always treated Ramesh as his son, could not bear the
pain of Ramesh. Mahesh suggested to Ramesh that he should find Reema alone and take her to the temple for
marrying her without information to her parents. In case Reema would offer any resistance due to parental
pressure, Mahesh will threaten her with a bottle of acid to pressurise her to come with them to the temple.

Ramesh, who was initially reluctant, agreed to the plan on the condition that no harm will be caused to Reema
and bottle of acid will only be used as a tool to threaten her for compliance to their wishes.

On 23rd march, 2013 as per the plan, finding Reema passing on a lonely road, Ramesh and Mahesh, who were
waiting for Reema, got out of the car. Ramesh approached Reema and asked her to accompany him to the
temple so that they can get married. On Reema‟s refusal, Mahesh carrying the bottle of acid, threatened Reema.
Ramesh started dragging her into the car. Reema started shouting loudly. To teach a lesson to Reema, Mahesh
opened the bottle and threw the acid on her face and then both Mahesh and Ramesh fled away in the car
belonging to and driven by Mahesh leaving the girl in immense pain. The girl was taken to the hospital by some
passerby. The doctor immediately conducted the surgeries and opined that the injuries were grievous. FIR was
lodged. Statement of Reema was recorded. A case was registered against both the accused under Sec 326A r/w
Sec 34 IPC, 1860 and Ramesh was also charged under Sec 354D, IPC, 1860. Mahesh absconded and was
declared a proclaimed offender while Ramesh was arrested by police from his home and the bottle of acid and
car, used in the crime, were seized from his possession. After investigation, he was put to trial before the
Sessions Court, where he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

Sessions Court convicted Ramesh under section 326A r/w section 34 of IPC, 1860 and sentenced him to 10 yrs
of rigorous imprisonment. He was also asked to pay compensation to Reema to the tune of Rs 2,00,000/- to be
paid immediately. He was also awarded rigorous imprisonment for 2 years under Section 354D, IPC, 1860.
Both the sentences were to run concurrently.

Accused, aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, appealed before the High Court seeking acquittal. Whereas,
State filed appeal for demanding life imprisonment and also the enhancement of the amount of compensation
taking into account the following facts:

• Rs 6.5 lakh have already been spent on the 6 major surgeries done till date;
• 10-15 surgeries still need to be done;
• Despite various surgeries Reema has permanently lose her left eye vision;
• Permanent scars not only on the skin of her face and hands will remain but also deep inside her memory
which will adversely affect her future prospects;
• Her father was a clerk in a private firm which dismissed him after he went on a leave for her treatment. Now
he is jobless. There are two other sisters of Reema who also need to be supported.
High court adjudicated in favour of the accused by acquitting him from the charges under Secion 326A r/w
Section 34 and Sec 354D IPC, 1860 and dismissed the appeal of the state, being bereft of any substance by
holding that under the circumstances of the case the trial court had wrongly held the accused liable under
Section 326A, IPC 1860, by invoking Section 34 IPC, 1860 as no common intention to commit offence of Acid
Attack under Section 326A could be proved. The High Court held that the offence of stalking under Section
354D was also not made out against the accused. The High Court, however, recommended the District Legal
Services Authority to decide upon the quantum of compensation to be awarded by the State Government to the
victim as per Section 357A, Cr PC within one month.

Aggrieved by the said judgment of the High Court acquitting the accused, the State filed an appeal before the
Supreme Court on the ground that High Court has failed to take notice of the fact that common intention was
present as Ramesh and Mahesh have agreed to the use of bottle of acid in their plan of abduction. Acid was
thrown in furtherance of that common intention. The state appealed for considering the offence as heinous and
to award life imprisonment under Sec 326A r/w Section34 and Section 354D and also to enhance the
compensation awarded by the Sessions Court to be paid by the accused to the victim under Section 326A, IPC,
1860 in addition to the compensation to be paid by the State Government under Sec 357A Cr PC. The State also
sought permission for addition of charge under Sec 366 IPC.

Prepare memorandum from both the sides.

***
 Moot Problem NO. 15
Criminal Appeal to Supreme Court
On 3.11.2003 in the evening, Raj Preet Kaur @ Guddi, who was about eight years old, and a student of IInd
Standard went to the house of her classmate and cousin, Amarpreet Kaur. At about 5.00 p.m., she left from
there to return to her house. She was accompanied to some distance by Amarpreet. When she crossed pakka
water house, Amarpreet left her on her own. Raj Preet Kaur was last seen with Amrit Singh, a 30 year old
neighbour. She was seen walking holding his finger. When Raj Preet Kaur did not reach her house, search was
carried on. Some persons then found her dead body in the agricultural field belonging to Amrit Singh situated
in front of his house. The dead body was found near a tree and some cotton crop was found near the dead body.
Some dry leaves were found in her hair. In her hand some strands of human hair were also noticed. It was fully
smeared with blood. There was bleeding from vulva and the legs were also stained with blood. Body was in
state of rigor mortis. There were multiple marks of contusions and abrasions on the neck. Face also had some
abrasions. Abrasions over elbows and knuckle were present. There were impressions of teeth on the lips. These
were all ante mortem in nature. Although external injuries were found on the neck which were said to be the
cause of death of the deceased, according to the doctor, the death took place because of loss of blood. It was
stated by him:-
“20% loss of blood may cause shock and death. Normally in a child of 6-7 years age there may be about 2 litres
blood in body. On examination of injuries it was found that more bleeding from the injury has caused the death.
In this case more than half litre blood had oozed…”

Amarjit was prosecuted for rape and murder. The lower court convicted him on both the counts and sentenced
him to death penalty which was confirmed by the High Court. On appeal, the Supreme Court upheld the
conviction but reduced the sentence to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court noted that

Appellant, a neighbour and known to her was a person of trust. She was seen to be holding Appellant‟s finger.
It is clear that she was allured by Appellant to accompany him to his own field which was near his house….
Offence of rape took place on an agricultural field. She might have suffered a lot of pain. She might have
resisted also. She might have been gagged. Possibilities of some assault on her person cannot be ruled out. It
would, however, be improper to hold that he killed her intentionally…. The death occurred not as a result of
strangulation but because of excessive bleeding. The death occurred, therefore, as a consequence of and not
because of any specific overt act on the part of Appellant.

Imposition of death penalty in a case of this nature, in our opinion, was, thus, improper. Even otherwise, it
cannot be said to be a rarest of rare cases. The manner in which the deceased was raped may be brutal but it
could have been a momentary lapse on the part of Appellant, seeing a lonely girl at a secluded place. He had no
pre-meditation for commission of the offence. The offence may look heinous, but under no circumstances, it
can be said to be a rarest of rare cases.

The judgement was delivered by the Supreme Court on 10-11-2006. The media reports decried the judgement
for condoning the ghastly rape as „a momentary lapse‟ especially when the offence was committed on a very
young girl by a person in the relationship of trust with the victim and it caused uproar among women‟s
organisations across the country. Fourteen national level women organisations came together and filed a
petition in the Supreme Court under the banner of „Network Against Gender Bias‟ (NAG B) on 11-12-06 and
sought review of the aforementioned judgement. They are praying for deletion of the sentence “The manner in
which the deceased was raped may be brutal but it could have been a momentary lapse on the part of Appellant,
seeing a lonely girl at a secluded place” from the judgement as being unreasonable justification for the most
horrendous and unacceptable behaviour of the convict. They are also praying that death penalty to Pritam Singh
should be restored as it is a rare of the rarest case involving murder of a very young girl of only eight years after
diabolically and brutally raping her by a person who was in a relationship of trust with the victim child.

Prepare memorandum from both the sides.

*****
 Moot Problem NO. 16
Criminal Case
Arundhati Kumar was a 22-year-old girl who was pursuing her degree from Geeta college of engineering,
Naultha. A bright career awaited her as not only was she the topper of her class, but also had interned with
some acclaimed MNC‟s of the country. In her fourth year at college, she came close with a friend and
batchmate, Shikhar Singh, who also was a brilliant student. Shikhar was into a luxurious lifestyle, while
Arundhati was a somber girl from a middle-class background. In 2009, their families were introduced to each
other, and on 9th of November 2010, they got married according to Hindu rites. Arundhati moved into her
matrimonial home with Shikhar‟s parents, sister and grandmother, and started a life as well as her career along
with Shikhar in Panipat city. She had some differences with her in laws on many occasions, but the matter was
mostly settled amicably. With the passage of time their practice was not going as expected. Shikhar wanted to
maintain his high life style, which saw the family in a near financial crisis. Arundhati gave birth to a baby girl
on 11th December 2012. Shikhar then took a loan from Arundhati‟s parents of Rs. 5,00,000 which he later
refused to return. Due to which Arundhati‟s relation with him deteriorated and on many occasions, fights turned
physical also. When in drunken state, Shikhar used to blame Arundhati for being from a family of beggars. This
remark hurt her a lot and once she even tried to slit her wrists and end her life butwas saved by her sister in law.
After the incident, the physician did prescribe some medicines for Arundhati and also advised her to consult a
psychiatrist.She went to her parent‟s home and told Shikhar that she would never return. But her parents
convinced her to return to her in laws.On 10th April 2014Arundhati gave birth to a baby boy which lead the
family to a financial mess. Shikhar was very disturbed because of these financial complications, and in turn he
used to vent his frustration on Arundhati. She in turn became more agitated and started suffering from
depression as well as mood swings. On 4th January 2015, neighbours saw Arundhati running out of the house
with her sari on fire. Her mother in law was running after her shouting that Arundhati was out of her mind to do
something like this. She collapsed on the road, from where she was taken to hospital and admitted with 88%
burns, where doctors declared her unfit to record her statement immediately. Her condition improved briefly on
the morning of January 5, when the police was called. She gave her dying declaration before Sohan Lal sub
Inspector of police, on the same day at 11.00 hours. In the declaration she accused her mother-in-law Sarda and
Shikhar of setting her on fire and died at 12.30 hours on the same day. The police sent the body for post mortem
examination. Police also conducted a search of the house. Arundhati‟s mother in law and husband were arrested
from the house and were sent to judicial custody.
Prepare memorandums from both the sides.

****
 Moot Problem NO. 17
Civil Cases
Mohd. Siddique and Inayati Begum were the owners in possession of the house, the suit property. They lived in
the aforesaid house during their lives and after their death, Smt. Tahira Begum, the Petitioner, being the legal
heir of them, was continuously residing in the said house. The petitioner‟s predecessors in their life time
borrowed a loan of Rs. 8, 000/- on interest from one Mr. Bashir Khan S/o Mr. Nazeer Khan on dated
17.06.1943 by mortgaging the suit property to Bashir Khan with the condition to re-sale the suit property to the
Predecessors of the Petitioner within the period of five years on the payment of Rs. 8, 000/- with interest to Mr.
Bashir Khan and thus, the transaction was ostensible sale.
That as the term of 5 years was about to lapse and the loan was not paid back by the predecessors of the
petitioner, one Mr. Syed Rahman Ali, the Respondent No. 01 here who was closely related to Mohd. Siddique
and Inayati Begum came to their rescue and paid back the loan of Bashir Khan and got a similar deed
(ostensible deed) in his favour, with a condition to resale the suit property to them within the period of 10 years
on repayment of loan amount with interest of Rs. 9, 000/- paid by him. The said deed was executed by Mohd,.
Siddique, Smt Inayati Begum and also Bashir Khan in favour of Mr. Rahman Ali on dated 16.10.1947.

Mohd. Siddique and Smt. Inayati Begum remained in exclusive possession of the suit property during their life
time over the said property and neither Bashir Khan, nor Rahman Ali, the Respondent No. 01, ever got the
possession over the said house.

Subsequently, the Respondent No. 01, on account of having the said deed in his favour in respect of the suit
property, got his name mutated in Municipal records in pursuance of the deed executed on dated 16.10.1947
and later on, the House Tax and Water Tax receipts were issued in his name. He issued a registered legal notice
dated 06.05.1950 on Inayati Begum asserting himself to be the absolute owner with possession of the suit house
by virtue of deed dated 16.10.1947 and demanded damages for illegal occupancy of the said house and asked
her to vacate the same. The said notice had been duly replied by Inayati Begum claiming herself to beexclusive
owner in possession of the house and thereby she refused to vacate the house denying the title of the Rahman
Ali. After this, Mr. Rahman Ali remained silent for more than 16 years until Inayati Begum and Mohd.
Siddique died.

After the death of the predecessors, the present petitioner Smt. Tahira Begum filed a suit vide O.S. No. 241 of
1965 for Redemption of mortgage, but the suit was dismissed by II Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)
Agra through its judgment and decree dated 20.05.1967 holding therein that the deed dated 16.10.1947 is not a
mortgage deed, but is an outright sale deed.

Aggrieved by the dismissals order of II Additional Civil Judge (S.D.), Agra, the Petitioner preferred the first
appeal before the District Judge, Agra vide Civil Appeal No. 625 of 1967, which was also rejected by the First
Addl. District Judge, Agra on dated 06.12.1967. Then, the Second Appeal was preferred by the Petitioner vide
second Appeal No. 1425 of 1967 before the High Court of Allahabad. The Hon‟ble High Court through its
judgment and order dated 25.02.1970 dismissed the II Appeal and upheld the decision of the First Appellate
Court of Agra.

On the other hand, after passing of almost two decades, the present Respondent Mr. Rahman Ali filed a suit No.
1473 of 1976 before Judge Small Causes Court (JSCC), Agra for eviction of the present Petitioner and recovery
of arrears of rent, mesne profit/compensation against use and utilization of the house by the present Petitioner
thereby claiming himself as the absolute owner of the said house by virtue of having the deed of 16.10.1947
executed by the predecessors of the petitioner and by relying upon a unregistered Qabuliyatnama dated
17.10.1947 said to have been executed by the predecessors of the Petitioner admitting the tenancy in the suit
house. Mr. Rahman Ali also produced and relied upon the rent receipt and counter foils allegedly bearing the
signatures of Smt. Inayati Begum.

That suit was contested by the present Petitioner by filing the written statement dated 16.07.1997 on the ground
that since the house was never sold to the Rahman Ali, Therefore, there was no relationship of tenant and
landlord between the parties and thus the question of title did not involve and therefore, the JSCC, Agra had
nojurisdiction to try the suit. The petitioner also denied the authenticity of the unregistered Qabuliyatnama and
the signature of Smt. Inayati Begum inscribed on the rent receipt as she was an illiterate lady and was incapable
of doing signatures, which is also evident from the deed wherein she had put her thumb impression only. The
petitioner also claimed that she had matured her right by being in adverse possession of the suit house. The
Trial Court decreed the suits for eviction on dated 22.02.1986 against the Petitioner relying on the documentary
evidences available on record, holding thereby that Mr. Rahman Ali became the owner of the suit house
through the deed dated 16.10.1947. The Petitioner being aggrieved from this filed SCC Revision U/s 25 of
SCC, Act before the District Judge, Agra. Then the Tenth ADJ, Agra dismissed the Revision of the petitioner
on dated 26.7.1993 and upheld the decision of JSCC, Agra. The petitioner after that filed one writ petition
against the decision of the Tenth ADJ, Agra dated 26.07.1993. But during pendency, of the Writ petition, Mr.
Rahman Ali died on 19.02.2001 and legal heirs of the deceased were substituted in place of the deceased party.
After hearing both the parties, the writ petition was dismissed by the Hon‟ble High Court of Allahabad on dated
17.07.2014 holding that the issue whether respondent became owner of the suit house after execution of the
deed dated 16.10.1947 has already been adjudicated between the parties and therefore, has attained finality and
shall operate as Res-Judicata against the Petitioner also.

Against such dismissed order dated 17.07.2014 passed by Hon‟ble High Court of Allahabad in aforesaid writ
petition, the Petitioner preferred the present special leave petition before the Supreme Court of India.

***
 Moot Problem NO. 18
Civil Case
Mr. Swaroop, a Hindu and Ms. Honey, a Christian married in April, 2003 under Special Marriage Act, 1954.
As they did not have any child till 2006, Swaroop proposed to adopt a girl child of one year old, in January
2007, who was none other than Swaroop‟s own sister‟s daughter, who was already having two daughters and
Honey reluctantly agreed for it. The girl was given in adoption by her natural father to Swaroop. The child was
named as Kranti. But post-adoption, Honey was very much particular that they should have a child of their own
genes. So they planned to have a child through surrogacy and in consultation with Dr. Morris in Delhi a
surrogacy agreement was entered with Ms. Neeta and they got a surrogated boy child, born on 1st September,
2008. As Honey wanted to name the child as James and Swaroop wanted to name him as Rahul, the naming
ritual was postponed for some time. Unfortunately Mr. Swaroop was involved in an accident and died on
15thOctober, 2008. Honey started calling the child as James and got the name registered as James in the birth
certificate.
When Swaroop‟s father, Ashok Lal, expressed that Kranti was entitled to a share in the property of Swaroop,
Honey and her father replied that the said adoption was not valid as Honey was a Christian who could not adopt
under Christian law and hence Kranti would not get any share in Swaroop‟s property. Swaroop‟s father filed a
suit on behalf of his grand-daughter, Kranti, for a share in Swaroop‟s property in the District Court and for a
declaration that James is not entitled to any share in his father‟s property as he is neither the natural or adopted
son of Swaroop. The court through its order dated 1st April, 2009 held that there was a valid adoption and the
adopted child, Kranti, would be entitled to a share in Swaroop‟s property as Swaroop was entitled to adopt as
per Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 and his Christian wife‟s consent was irrelevant as per proviso
to S.7 of the said Act. The District Court refused to declare that James was not entitled to a share in Swaroop‟s
property. Honey preferred an appeal before the High Court of Mumbai challenging the validity of adoption on
the ground that since their marriage was performed under Special Marriage Act, 1954, Swaroop had lost his
right of adoption as a Hindu. She also has requested the Court to declare that James has the same rights
available to a natural born child as he was conceived with Honey‟s egg and Swaroop‟s sperm.

Plea from both the sides.

*****
 Moot Problem NO. 19
Civil Case
Arohi was a middle-class, upper caste Hindu. He married Aruna in the year 1977. Aruna gave birth to a
daughter Mala in 1978, and a son in 1980. They were happy at the thought that their family was complete.
However, in unfortunate turn of events, their son died in an accident at home when he was two years old. They
were very upset but tried to have another child and with God‟s grace, Aruna gave birth to another son in the
year 1983. Looking at his horoscope, the pandit suggested special ritual to be followed every month for the
welfare of this son till the age of five as there was danger to his life till that time. Despite observance of the
ritual with full reverence by the couple, this son also died in a road accident just as he turned five years old. The
couple was completely devastated. They were apprehensive that another child may meet the same fate if they
tried for another child. However, they tried and yet another son was born to them third time in the year 1990.
On his naming ceremony, they consulted the astrologers and were advised to give away that child in adoption to
a person of the lower caste if they wanted this child to live. They named him Kaushal and decided to give him
in adoption. Their sweeper, Maina Devi, a 50 year old widow with no children agreed to take the child in
adoption and to give him back to them for his bringing up as she did not have the means to bring him up.
In a formal ceremony Kaushal was given to Maina Devi by Arohi and Aruna and was taken by Maina Devi.
Thereafter, she gave him back to the couple for bringing him up on her behalf. Maina Devi kept visiting them
regularly and gave something for Kaushal every month till he was ten years old when she died. In the
meanwhile, in the year 1994 another son was born to Arohi and Aruna and he was named Balraj.

The fact of adoption of Kaushal was treated by Arohi and Aruna as a formality to save his life and he was
brought up by Arohi and Aruna as their son with Mala and Balraj. Arohi died intestate in the year 2012. Aruna
decided to divide the property in four equal shares, one each for herself, Mala, Kaushal and Balraj. Mala and
Balraj objected to it and demanded 1/3 share in the property as Kaushal had no right having been given in
adoption to Maina Devi. Aruna‟s pleas that the adoption was a mere ritual carried out on the advice of the
astrologer to save Kaushal‟s life but without any intention actually to give him up, had no effect on them. They
maintained that the adoption was legal and complete when Kaushal was given and taken in adoption with a free
will. Unable to resolve their dispute, Mala and Balraj filed a suit for division of property and declaration that
Kaushal was not an heir to any property of Arohi in the absence of a will.

The lower court decreed in favour of the plaintiffs. Aruna and Kaushal filed an appeal against the order asking
for an equal share to Kaushal in the suit properties being the natural born son. They pleaded that the adoption
was not valid in the absence of the intention to really give him in adoption. Alternatively, they pleaded that the
adoption was bad as Aruna‟s consent was vitiated having been given under the mistaken belief that it was a
religious ceremony aimed at saving the life of her son. In addition, it was submitted that an adoption that put the
child in situation of deprivation cannot be held valid and binding being contrary to the principle of best interest
of the child.
Plead from both the sides.
*****
 Moot Problem NO. 20
Civil Case

Sunita and Mahesh (a Major in Indian Army), both resident of Jalandhar, belonging to Ravidasia community of
Punjab, who are Hindus by religion, got married in 2007 in Anand Karaj form of marriage, which is the
marriage ceremony of Sikhs. The couple got their marriage registered as per the provisions of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 and in effect a marriage certificate was issued by the authorities. Out of this wedlock two
children were born in the year 2008 and 2011 respectively.

In 2008, after taking retirement from Indian Army, Mahesh went to England for higher studies and stayed there
for two years. Then in April 2010, he moved to Canada and called his wife to join him along with their first
child. In January 2011, their second child was born in Canada. In February 2011, he went to New York.
Thereafter he asked Sunita to go back to India. In March 2011, Sunita along with her children came back to
Punjab (India). After moving to New York, Mahesh severed all his contacts with Sunita. He has developed an
extra marital affair with a lady named Elizabeth Prescott. In January 2012, Sunita wrote a letter to Mahesh
expressing her willingness to join Mahesh in New York. Mahesh in reply wrote to Sunita that she should not
come to New York, as he was interested in getting their marriage dissolved. In April 2012, he filed a petition
for divorce in Trial Court of New York on the ground that his marriage has irretrievably broken down.

Sunita could not contest these proceedings, she having no means to go to New York. Meanwhile in July 2012,
the Trail Court of New York granted a divorce decree in favour of Mahesh. Further, the court ordered that the
husband would pay to the wife and children an amount of Rs. 50,000 per month for their maintenance. Since
Mahesh failed to pay maintenance to wife and children, Sunita approached the Trial Court of New York
through a letter and prayed that she be provided legal aid. Thereafter, proceedings were initiated and warrants
of arrest were issued against Mahesh. She further said that the ex parte decree of divorce obtained by the
husband was not binding on her and was illegal and that she continues to be the wife of Mahesh. She further
asserted that as per the provisions of Hindi Marriage Act, 1956, the grounds of divorce (on the basis of adultery,
cruelty and desertion) under Section 13 of the Act are available to the wife under the given set of
circumstances. In fact, she is the actual victim, who was being further victimized by the order of the New York,
Trial Court. In April 2013, Sunita filed a petition under Section 9of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for
Restitution Of Conjugal Rights in the District Court, Jalandhar, Mahesh appeared in the court and filed an
application for dismissal of petition. He did not file any written statement and he referred to the decree of
divorce granted by the Trial Court of New York and said that despite of notice, Sunita did not consent the same
and by not raising any objection she is deemed to have accepted the jurisdiction of Foreign Court in trying the
petition and thus making the decree nisi-absolute by the Foreign Court and is thus stopped from filing the
present petition (Under Section 11 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908). The case is
pending for adjudication in District Court, Jalandhar. Prepare memorials and argue from both the sides.

Legal Issues
1. Whether the marriage of Sunita and Mahesh is valid as per the provisions of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955?
2. Whether non-contest by wife of divorce petition filed by the husband in a Foreign Court implied that she had
conceded to the jurisdiction of the Foreign Court?

3. Whether the principle of Res-Judicata under Section 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is applicable to the
proceedings being initiated in District Court, Jalandhar?

Statutes to be referred
1. The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
2. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

*****
 Moot Problem NO. 21
Civil Case

1. A Company “R D” in the name of R D Parmanandka Pvt. Ltd operates in ladies ware . It earned huge
profits over the years and eventually decided to expand its business by introducing a number of varieties in
kids wear.

2. In order to achieve the above objective , they approached the Sapatrangi Pvt. Ltd ., a large manufacturer of
garments in kids wear garments. “R D” entered into a contract for the purchase of kids wear garments . The
contract price was Rs.6,00,000 / and both the parties agreed upon a payment schedule . R D Parmanandka
Pvt. Ltd agreed to pay Rs.4,00,000/ partially upon the delivery of kids wear clothes on 1 January 2017 and a
full and final payment of Rs.2,00,000 on 1 st March 2017 .

3. Sapatrangi Pvt. Ltd delivered the garments to R D Parmanandka Pvt. Ltd on the agreed date i.e. 1st January
2017 as per the contract. However , shortly after taking the delivery of the clothes , R D Parmanandka Pvt. Ltd
looses a profitable contract with its large booking agents which resulted in a significant down in the demand
for their kids wear garments. Sapatrangi Pvt. Ltd , was also suffering from financial difficulties due to a number
of legal actions brought against it.

4. It was realised by Sapatrangi Pvt. Ltd that R D Parmanandka Pvt. Ltd would be unable to pay the remaining
amount of Rs.2,00,000 on 1 March 2017 , Sapatrangi Pvt. Ltd agreed to accept Rs. 50,000 in full satisfaction of
the debt. R.D Parmanandka Pvt. Ltd duly paid such amount on 1st March 2017.

5. On 3rd March 2017 Sapatrangi Pvt. Ltd delivered the rest of the clothes to R.D Parmanandka Pvt. Ltd.

6. On delivery it was found that the clothes were of poor quality . On 4 March a notice was sent to the to
Sapatrangi Pvt. Ltd., to exchange the clothes .the notice was acknowledged and accepted by Sapatrangi Pvt.
Ltd. However , no exchange took place . On 20th march second notice was sent which was neither
acknowledged nor replied.

7. Hence R.D Parmanandka Pvt. Ltd filed a suit against Sapatrangi Pvt. Ltd and claims Rs. 1,50,000 for breach
of contract . Sapatrangi Pvt. Ltd contended that it was not bound to pay the amount claimed in the suit because
the clothes were of good qualities.

ISSUES

1. Whether the acceptance of a sum different than that in the contract was valid and if it was then what
was the effect of it on the original contract.
2. Whether there was any breach of contract by Sapatrangi Pvt. Ltd.
3. Whether losses were accrued to the plaintiff due to the breach.
4. Whether the losses accrued to the plaintiff amounted to Rs. 1,50,000.
******
 Moot Problem NO. 22
Civil Case

Sri Gautam Ganguly, aged 62, is a retiredgovernment employee drawing about Rs. 10,000/-per month as
pension. His first wife died in 2010. In January 2011, when Mr. Gautam expressed his wish to Mr. Arjun
Ganguly (Son) and Mrs. Saara (daughter-in-law ) that he is going to have live in relationship with Ms. Neelima
(aged 45), both son and daughter-in-law were rudely shocked to listen to the father‟s wish.

But later they relented and requested the father that half share in the property (House, the value of which was
estimated to be Rs. 10,00,000/-, Rupees Ten lakhs) in Hooghly Estates should be transferred to them.

To maintain peace in the family, Gautam Ganguly transferred half sharein the property to his son in May, 2011
through a Registered Gift Deed. However, thereafter, the son and daughter-in-law started insulting his live in
partner. Unbearable to that ill-treatment towards Ms. Neelima by both his son and daughter in law for more
than one year, Gautam and Neelima shifted their residence to other premises.

Subsequently in 2013, Mr. Gautam Ganguly lodged a complaint to the Sub-Collector, City of Kolkata seeking
an order to revoke the Gift Deed executed in favour of his son under Sec. 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of
Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

In the Tribunal, Sub-Collector passed an order that „elderly parents can take back property gifted to a son, if he
ill-treats them‟. This order permits the Complainant- Father to withdraw the gift deed from his son, since his
son is not providing basic needs of both parents.

In the Appellate Tribunal, the Dist. Collector reversed the order of the Tribunal on „accepting the argument of
son that an accepted gift through registered deed cannot be revoked‟ under the provisions of Transfer of
Property Act, 1882 read with the Registration Act, 1908.

The father got relief from Calcutta High Court when the High Court restored the order of the Tribunal.

As a last resort, the son preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court.

Argue and also Prepare Moot Court Memorials, on behalf of the Appellant and the Respondents.

****
 Moot Problem NO. 23
Constitutional Case
The Republic of Hindikaala is located in the South Asian Region of Asia. It is one of the ancient nations in the
world. Till 1947, Republic of Hindikaala was a British colony for about 150 years. It achieved independence in
1947. Now the Republic of Hindikaalais a democratic country with a written Constitution which came into
force in 1950. It has 29 States and 7 Union Territories. The Constitution has adopted Parliamentary system
wherein President is the executive Head of the government. The majority of the population of the country
belongs to Hindu religion. Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, Jainism and Sikhism are the other major religions
followed by the people of Republic of Hindikaala. The Republic of Hindikaala is characterized by a diversity of
religious beliefs and practices, dressing, cultural outlook, food-habits etc. Some religion like Jainism strictly
follow the principle of non-violence and therefore stressed upon vegetarian food habit. This is not so in case of
other religions. Under Hindu religion some are vegetarians and some are non-vegetarians. Throughout the
Republic of Hindikaala‟s history, religion has been an important part of the country‟s culture. The history of
Republic of Hindikaala has witnessed some prominent instances of religious disharmony amongst various
religious groups.

The Constitution of Republic of Hindikaala declares various rights as fundamental rights. Some of the
fundamental rights are the right to freedom of religion, freedom to carry on any trade, profession and business,
right to life and personal liberty etc. The fundamental rights are mostly enforceable against the „State‟. The
concept of „State‟ is defined by the Constitution of Republic of Hindikaala. The Constitution also incorporates
some features of secularism. The Supreme Court of Republic of Hindikaala, in its few landmark judgments has
expanded the meaning of „right to life and personal liberty‟. Almost everything which has connection with
person‟s meaningful life has been held as integral part of this right. Recently the Supreme Court of Republic of
Hindikaala held that right to privacy is a part of „right to life and personal liberty‟.

The Constitution on Hindikaala also laid down some Directive Principles of State Policy. These directives are
not enforceable in the court of law, nevertheless these principles are to be looked into while formulating any
policy and enacting any law. One of those directives laid down that the “State shall endeavor to organize
agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific line and shall take steps in particular for preserving
and improving the breeds, and prohibiting the slaughter, of cows and calves and other milch and draught
cattle‟‟. This directive was inserted in the Constitution of Hindikaala after a long-heated debate. On the one
hand the economy of the Republic of Hindikaala is largely based upon agriculture and on the other hand cow is
treated as „Holy‟ under Hindu religion. Therefore, the above-mentioned directive was perceived to be an
outcome of a compromise between the scientific rationality and religious sentiments of the majority Hindu
citizens.

The Constitution on Hindikaala also laid down some fundamental duties for its citizens. One of the fundamental
duty of the citizens is to protect and improve the natural environment and to have compassion for living
creatures.
Since 1950 Republic of Hindikaala and various States enacted laws for the protection of Cows. Some of these
laws are enacted with specific object of protection of cow whereas some of them were enacted in the name of
„protection of animals from cruelty‟.

State of Mahakaala is situated in western region of Republic of Hindikaala and second most populous state of
the Republic of Hindikaala. In 1978 it enacted the Mahakaala Animal Preservation Act, 1978. In 1995,
amendments were made in 1978 Act and Amendment Act of 1995 was reserved for the assent of the President.
(Under the Constitution of the Republic of Hindikaala, if on a subject-matter both the Republic as well as state
legislature enacted a law, then the state law will prevail over the Republic Law only if it has been reserved for
the President‟s assent and received such assent). These amendments sought to make following changes in the
Act of 1978- It sought to extend the bans on the slaughter of cows and calves to bulls and bullocks. It sought to
prohibit the transport (from the State of Mahakaala to another state), the export, as well as purchase, sale and
disposal of cows, bulls and bullocks for the purpose of slaughter. It sought to prohibit the possession of the
flesh of the cow, bull or bullock slaughtered in contravention of the provisions of the Act. It also criminalizes
the possession of beef per se, whether or not this was obtained through lawful slaughter from another state.

The amendment sought to put the burden on the accused that he/she was not in contravention of provisions of
the Act. The amendment also stipulated punishment for the contravention of the Act. The Amendment Act,
1995 received the assent of the President in 2015 and came into force immediately. Meanwhile there was a
political turmoil throughout the Republic of Hindikaala. Various religious organizations started large scale
mobilization against slaughter of cows. Few individuals were attacked on the accusation that they stored cow-
flesh in their home. It created the tension between those who were beef-eater and those who were not. More
particularly, a minority community „X‟ was affected drastically as beef eating was their common food habit.
Moreover, beef was less costly as compared to other non-vegetarian food. As the degree of poverty is higher in
community „X‟, beef eating was an easy source of protein for them. But with the new amended law by the state
of Mahakaala, they were deprived of this source.

In this background, writ petitions were filled by various associations and individuals before the Hon‟ble High
Court of State of Mahaakala challenging the constitutional validity of the Amendment Act of 1995.Mahakaala
Butchers‟ Association, a Registered Society is one of the petitionerworking for the protection of the interest of
minority community „X‟.

Note: The candidates have to frame the issues and make submissions by presuming that the Constitution of
India and all other laws applicable in India are applicable in Republic of Hidikaala. With reference to the Act of
1978 and amendment of 1995, the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act, 1978 along with the amendments
made to it from time to time should also be referred.

*****