JAI NARAIN VYAS UNIVERSITY, JODHPUR

THE INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860

PROJECT

TOPIC:- MOOT FILE

SUBMITTED TO SUBMITTED BY
MISS NIDHI TIWARI PAWAN THANVI
B.A.LLB (5TH SEM)
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I Would Like To Express My Special Thanks Of Gratitude To My

Teacher MISS NIDHI TIWARI she Gave Me The Golden Opportunity To
Do This Wonderful Project On The Topic MOOT FILE Which Also Helped
Me In Doing A Lot Of Research And I Come To Know So Many New Thing.
I Am Really Thankful To Them.

Secondly, I Would Also Like To Thank My Parents And Friends and

there support, valuable information, time and guidance, which helped me in
completing this task through various stages and their encouragement without
which this a assignment would not be possible.

Thank you

PAWAN THANVI
 BEFORE THE COURT OF SESSION AT JODHPUR,
RAJASTHAN

S.C. NO.32 OF 2021

STATE OF RAJASTHAN
( APPELLANT )

V.

ANKIT
( RESPONDENT )

FOR OFFENCES CHARGED UNDER:

SECTION 302, 396 READ WITH SECTION 442 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE,
1860

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE SESSIONS JUDGE

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

 TABLE OF CONTENT

1. TABLE OF CONTENT

2. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

3. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

4. TABLE OF CASES

5. BOOKS

6. WEBSITES

7. STATUTES

8. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

9. STATEMENT OF FACTE

10. STATEMENT OF CHARGES

11. STATEMENT OF ISSUES

12. ARGUMENT ADVANCED

13. PRAYER

Memorandum On Behalf On Appellant

 LIST OF ABBRIVATION
Air All India Reporter
Crpc Criminal Law Procedure
H.C High Court
Ed. Edition
Ipc Indian Penal Code
Ic Indian Cases
Raj. Rajasthan
S.C. Supreme Court
S.C. Session Court
Sec. Section
V. Versus
W.B. West Bengal
Hon’ble Honorable

Memorandum On Behalf On Appellant

 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES:-
Table Of Cases:
1. N. Kesavan Nair & Others V. State Of Kerala & Others
2. Sanwat Khan And Kaloo Khan V. State Of Rajasthan;
3. Limbaji And Others V. State Of Maharashtra,
4. Matiullah Sheikh And Others V. State Of W.B.,
5. Emperor V. Chhadami.

BOOKS:

1. Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code, 34th Edition.

2. Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, Law of Crimes, Volume 2, 31st Edition.

3. Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Code of Criminal Procedure, 18th Edition.

WEBSITES:

1. http://www.findlaw.com

2. https://www.casemine.com/search/in/murder%2Bcases

3. https://indiankanoon.org/

4. https://www.livelaw.in/

STATUTES:

1. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act 2 of 1973)

2. The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860)

Memorandum On Behalf On Appellant

 STATEMENT OF JURISDITON
The Counsel For The Appellant, State Of Rajasthan, Hereby Humbly Submit To This
Hon’ble Court’s Jurisdiction To Try The Matter Under Section 2(c), 177 Read With
Section 209 Of The Code Of Criminal Procedure,1973
Section 2(C) :
‘Cognizable Offence –
Means An Offence For Which, And “Cognizable Case” Means A Case In Which, A
Police Officer May, In Accordance With The First Schedule Or Under Any Other
Law For The Time Being In Force, Arrest Without Warrant;

Section 177:
‘177. Ordinary place of inquiry and trial –
Every Offence Shall Ordinarily Be Inquired Into And Tried By A Court Within
Whose Local Jurisdiction It Was Committed.’

Read With Section 209:

‘209. Commitment Of Case To Court Of Session When Offence Is Triable
Exclusively By It-
When In A Case Instituted On A Police Report Or Otherwise, The Accused
Appears Or Is Brought Before The Magistrate And It Appears To The Magistrate That
The Offence Is Triable Exclusively By The Court Of Session, He Shall-
(A) Commit The Case To The Court Of Session;
(B) Subject To The Provisions Of This Code Relating To Bail, Remand The Accused
To Custody During, And Until The Conclusion Of, The Trial;
(C) Send To That Court The Record Of The Case And The Documents And Articles,
If Any, Which Are To Be Produced In Evidence;
(D) Notify The Public Prosecutor Of The Commitment Of The Case To The Court Of
Session.‟

Memorandum On Behalf On Appellant

 STATEMENT OF FACTS

Ankit Entered Rohit's House With The Intention Of Committing Theft. Rohit And

Other Members Of His Family Surrounded And Attacked Ankit With Lathis. Finding

His Life In Danger, Ankit Whipped His Knife And Stabbed Rohit In The Heart

Region. Rohit Died Immediately Thereafter. Ankit Is Being Tried For The Murder Of

Rohit. He Pleads That As He Apprehended Danger Of His Own Death He Was

Entitled To Defend His Body In Exercise Of Right Of Private Defense.

Memorandum On Behalf On Appellant

 STATEMENT OF CHARGES
Mr. Ankit has been charged under theft and murder of Mr. Rohit under section 396

with the section 302 of the Indian penal code.

Memorandum On Behalf On Appellant

 STATEMENT OF ISSUE
ISSUE: 1

WHETHER THE ACCUSE IS THE GUILTY OF THEFT ?

It Is Humbly Submitted Before This Hon’ble Court That The Accuse Ankit Is The
Guilty Of The Offence Of Robbery Under Section 378 With Red Section 380, 390 Of
IPC, As He Was Entered In The House Of Rohit That Had Taken Place, It Is Direct
Evidence To Link Him To The Crime. The Accused Is As He Was In The Charge Of
The Robbery, Furthermore He Had Intention Or Motive To Commit Such A Crime
And Thus, This Crime Can Stand Against The Accused.

ISSUE: 2

WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS THE GUILTY OF MURDER ?

It Is Humbly Submitted Before This Hon’ble Court That The Accused Is The Guilty
Of Murder As The Alleged Crime Which He Had Committed Under Section 302 Of
The IPC Read With Sections 396, 397 And 398, Thus This Section Simply Directs
That The Accused Had Committed The Offence With Robbery And Also It Is Found
That Accused Has A Deadly Weapon With Him, That Was Used By Him And Further
It Takes Places Of A Crime.

ISSUE: 3
WHETHER THE ACT IS HOUSE TRESPASS ?
It Is Humbly Submitted To Court That The Act Done By Accused Is House Trespass,
Accused Entered In House With Intension To Commit Theft And The Act Is Done By
Accused Is A Offence Of House Trespass Also Charges With The Offence Under
Section 442 Of The IPC. Accused Is Liable For The Punishment Of The Offence
Done By Him.

Memorandum On Behalf On Appellant

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
 Issue: 1

Whether The Accuse Is The Guilty Of Theft ?

It Is Humbly Contended Before This Hon’ble Court That Ankit (Hereinafter To Be

Referred To As The ‘Accused’) Is The Guilty Of The Offence Under Sec. 378 Read
With Section 380, 390 Of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( Hereinafter Referred To As
The ‘Ipc’ ). In The Matter At Hand, It Has Been Rightfully Alleged That The Accused
Has Committed Murder In Course Of Committing Theft. The Matter Of A Theft Will
Be Dealt With In The Present Issue (Issue1), While The Charge Of Murder Will Be
Dealt In The Issue (Issue2).

Theft In Dwelling House, Etc.—Whoever Commits Theft In Any Building, Tent Or

Vessel, Which Building, Tent Or Vessel Is Used As A Human Dwelling, Or Used For
The Custody Of Property, Shall Be Punished With Imprisonment Of Either
Description For A Term Which May Extend To Seven Years, And Shall Also Be
Liable To Fine.

Robbery, Theft Is “Robbery” If, In Order To The Committing Of The Theft, Or In

Committing The Theft, Or In Carrying Away Or Attempting To Carry Away Property
Obtained By The Theft, The Offender, For That End Voluntarily Causes Or Attempts
To Cause To Any Person Death Or Hurt Or Wrongful Restraint, Or Fear Of Instant
Death Or Of Instant Hurt, Or Of Instant Wrongful Restraint.

1.1 It Is Humbly Contended That The Accused Commit Or Attempt To Commit

Theft.

Memorandum On Behalf On Appellant

It Is Contended That The Accused Commit Or Attempt To Commit The Theft, He Did
This Act Individual ( Single ) Without Having Control Over Him.The Statement Made
By The Accused Is Clearly States That The Accused Entered In House Single With
Intension To Commit Theft.

That Is Also Alleged That The Accused Has Deadly Weapon With Him .

398. Attempt To Commit Robbery Or Dacoity When Armed With Deadly

Weapon.—If, At The Time Of Attempting To Commit Robbery Or Dacoity, The
Offender Is Armed With Any Deadly Weapon, The Imprisonment With Which Such
Offender Shall Be Punished Shall Not Be Less Than Seven Years.

Case Laws:-

N. Kesavan Nair & Others V. State Of Kerala & Others

In This Case Accused Of Offences Under Section 380, 451 And 34 Ipc, Were Held
Liable That The Person Who Is Committed Such Offence With Shall Be Punishable
Under This Section.

In This Following Statement It Is Clear That The Accused Is Entered In The House Of
The Rohit And The Intention Was Clearly States That He Had No Such Control Over
Him, Committed The Offence Single And Also Carry The Deadly The Weapon With
Him But Then Family Member Sew Him And Attack On Him With Lathis He
Stabbed The Knife On The Person Who Dead By Ankit’s Wrongful Act, He Also
Liable For The Intention To Commit Theft, House Trespass And Grievous.

Memorandum On Behalf On Appellant

Issue: 2

Whether The Accused Is The Guilty Of Murder ?

It Is Humbly Contended Before This Hon’ble Court That The Accused Is Guilty Of
Murder As The Alleged Crime Which He Had Committed Under Sec. 302 Of The Ipc
Read With Sec. 396, 397 And 398, Thus This Sec. Simply Directs That The Accused
Has Committed Crime Under Offence With Robbery And Theft.

Punishment For Murder.—Whoever Commits Murder Shall Be Punished With

Death Or 1 [Imprisonment For Life], And Shall Also Be Liable To Fine.

Dacoity With Murder.—If Any One Of Five Or More Persons, Who Are Conjointly
Committing Dacoity, Commits Murder In So Committing Dacoity, Every One Of
Those Persons Shall Be Punished With Death, Or 1 [Imprisonment For Life], Or
Rigorous Imprisonment For A Term Which May Extend To Ten Years, And Shall
Also Be Liable To Fine.

Robbery, Or Dacoity, With Attempt To Cause Death Or Grievous Hurt.—If, At

The Time Of Committing Robbery Or Dacoity, The Offender Uses Any Deadly
Weapon, Or Causes Grievous Hurt To Any Person, Or Attempts To Cause Death Or
Grievous Hurt To Any Person, The Imprisonment With Which Such Offender Shall
Be Punished Shall Not Be Less Than Seven Years.

Attempt To Commit Robbery Or Dacoity When Armed With Deadly Weapon.—

If, At The Time Of Attempting To Commit Robbery Or Dacoity, The Offender Is
Armed With Any Deadly Weapon, The Imprisonment With Which Such Offender
Shall Be Punished Shall Not Be Less Than Seven Years.

Case Laws:-

Sanwat Khan And Kaloo Khan V. State Of Rajasthan;

Memorandum On Behalf On Appellant

In This Both Person Were Convicted By The Session Judge For An Offence Under
Sec. 302 Ipc For The Murder And Sec. 396 Ipc For The Offence Of The Robbery
And Murder.
The H.C. Confirmed The Conviction But Commuted The Sentence Of Death Into One
Of Imprisonment For Life.

In The Case Of Limbaji And Others V. State Of Maharashtra, The Decision Was
Held By The Court Of Session For The Offence Of The Murder And Theft.

Memorandum On Behalf On Appellant

Issue: 3

Whether The Act Is House Trespass ?

It Is Humbly Contended Before This Hon’ble Court That The Accused Is Guilty Of
House Trespass, With The Intention Of The Theft, The Act Done By Accused Is A
Offence Of House Trespass Under Sec. 441 Read With 442 Of The Ipc And The Act
Is Done By Accused Is Punishable Under The Sec. 448 Of The Code. Acc. To The
Code For Such Offence The Accused Is Liable For The Punishment Of The Offence
Conduct By Him.

Criminal Trespass.—Whoever Enters Into Or Upon Property In The Possession Of

Another With Intent To Commit An Offence Or To Intimidate, Insult Or Annoy Any
Person In Possession Of Such Property, Or Having Lawfully Entered Into Or Upon
Such Property, Unlawfully Remains There With Intent Thereby To Intimidate, Insult
Or Annoy Any Such Person, Or With Intent To Commit An Offence, Is Said To
Commit “Criminal Trespass”.

House-Trespass.—Whoever Commits Criminal Trespass By Entering Into Or

Remaining In Any Building, Tent Or Vessel Used As A Human Dwelling Or Any
Building Used As A Place For Worship, Or As A Place For The Custody Of Property,
Is Said To Commit “House-Trespass”.

Punishment For House-Trespass.—Whoever Commits House-Trespass Shall Be

Punished With Imprisonment Of Either Description For A Term Which May Extend
To One Year, Or With Fine Which May Extend To One Thousand Rupees, Or With
Both.

Memorandum On Behalf On Appellant

Case Laws:-

Matiullah Sheikh And Others V. State Of W.B.,

In This Case Whoever Commits House Trespass In Order To Committing Offence
Punishable With Death And Imprisonment For Life With Rigorous Imprisonment.

In The Case Of Emperor V. Chhadami

In This Case It Was Held By The Court That Without Permission Entered In
Someone’s Home Is Also A Trespass And Can Be Punishable Under The IPC.

Memorandum On Behalf On Appellant

PRAYER
Wherefore, in the light of the issues raised, argument advanced and authorities
Citied, may this hon’ble court br pleased to:
1. Convict Mr. Ankit for the offence of committing theft with murder
under section 379/302 of the Indian penal code,
 2. Declare a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a term which may
extent to death sentence or life imprisonment, and also be liable to fine
under section 302/379 of the Indian penal code,1860.
AND/OR
Pass any other order it may deem fit, in the interest of Justice, Equity and Good
Conscience.

All of Which Is Most Humbly And Respectfully Submitted

Place: RAJASTHAN

DATE: 10 JULY, 2021

COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT

Memorandum On Behalf On Appellant