FRESHER INDUCTION MOOT 2022

LAW CENTRE-1

IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF VORMIR

MRS. STELLA

(APPELLANT)

STATE OF VORMIR

(RESPONDENT)

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

 TABLE OF CONTENT

SL NO. TITLE PAGE NO.

1 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 1

2 CASES CITED 2

3 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 3

* LEGISLATION AND STATUTES 3

* JOURNALS 3

* BOOKS REFERRED 3

* LEGAL SITES REFERRED 3

4 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 4

5 STATEMENT OF FACTS 5

6 STATEMENT OF ISSUES 8

7 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 9

8 ADVANCED ARGUMENTS 10

9 PRAYER 14
 LIST OF ABBREVIATION

SL NO. ACRONYM DETAILED

1 Hon’ble Honourable

2 & And

3 V./Vs. Versus

4 Co. Company

5 Govt. Government

6 UOI Union Of India

7 SC Supreme Court

8 HC High Court

9 Ex. Example

10 ILR Indian Law Report

11 VPC Vormis Penal Code

1
 CASE CITED

1. Vidhya Singh versus the State of Madhya Pradesh (1971)

2. Amjad Khan versus the State (1952)
3. Ramjam Mistey Vs Emperor (1929)
4. Nabia Bai v State of Madhya Pradesh (1991)
5. Baljit Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh (1976)
6. Amjad Khan v State
7. Puran Singh v State of Punjab

2
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

LEGISLATIONS AND STATUTES

1. The Vormir Penal Code, 1860

2. The Vormir Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
3. The Vormir Evidence Act, 1872

JOURNALS

1. AIR (All India Report)

2. SCC (Supreme Court Cases)
3. India Law Journal
4. The Gazette of India

BOOKS REFERRED

1. PSA Pillai: Criminal Law, 12th Edition

2. Law Relating to Right of Private & Self Defence by Ramachandran

LEGAL SITES REFERRED

1. www.manupatra.com
2. www.scconline.in
3. www.lawyerservices.in
4. www.casemine.com

3
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

THE APPELLANTS HAVE APPROACHED THE HONOURABLE COURT OF VORMIR

AND FILED APPEAL UNDER SECTION 96-106 OF PRIVATE DEFENCE OF THE
VORMIR PENAL CODE AND FOR DROPING DOWN CHARGE UNDER SECTION 302
OF VORMIR PENAL CODE AND TO PROTECT HER RIGHT TO DIGNITY AND LIFE
UNDER ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION ALSO AT THE SAME TIME
CONSIDER DECEASED OFFENCE OF CRIMINAL TRESPASSING UNDER SECTION
441 of VORMIR PENAL CODE.

Section 96- Nothing is an offence that is done in exercise of the right of private defence.
Section 97- Right of private defence of body and property
Every person has rights subject to the restriction contained in section 99 to defend
(1) his own body and body of another person against any offence effectively the human body.
(2)The property, whether movable or immovable of himself or any other person against any
act which is an offence falling under the definition of theft, robbery, mischief, criminal
trespass or which is an attempt to commit theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass.
Section 98- Right of private defence against the act of a person of unsound mind etc
When an act which would otherwise be a certain offence is not that offence by reason the
youth they want of maturity of understanding the Unsoundness mind or the intoxication the
person doing that act or by reason of misconception on the part of a person. Every person has
the same right of private defence against the act which be would have in the act were the
offence.
Section 99- Act against which there is no right of private defence
According to section 99 of the Indian penal code, there is no right to private defence
(1) Against the act of a public servant acting in good faith.
(2) Against the act of the person who acts under the authority or direction of a public servant.
(3) where there is sufficient time for a resource to public authority.
(4) The quantum of harm that may be caused shall no case be in excesses.
Section 100- When the right of private defence of the body extends to causing death
4
To invoke section 100 of the Indian penal code following four conditions must exist.
(1) The person exercising the right of private defence must be free from fault in bringing
about the encounter.
(2) There must be present impeding harm, rape, unnatural lust, kidnapping or abduction,
wrongful confinement etc.
(3) There must be no state or reasonable mode of escape by retreated etc.
(4) There must have been a necessity for taking the life.
Section 101- When such right extends to causing any harm other than death.
If the offence is not of any of the description Enumerated in the last preceding section, the
right of the private body does not extend to the voluntarily causing death to the assailants but
does extend under restriction mention in section 99 to the voluntarily causing to the assailants
of any harm other than death.
Section 102- Commencement and continuance of the right of private defence
The right of private defence of the body commence as soon as the reasonable apprehension of
danger to the body arise from an attempt or threat to commit the offence through the offence
that may not have been committed. It continues as long as the apprehension of danger to the
body continues.
Section 103- When the right of private defence of property extends to causing death
The right of private defence of property extends to causing death under the restrictions
mention in section 99 In the following cases
(1) robbery
(2) house-breaking by night
(3) mischief by fire in building, tent, vessel.
(4) theft, mischief, house-trespass.
Section 104 -When such right to causing harm other than death
If the offence are not any of the as define under section 103 then the right of private defence,
subject to restriction mention in section 99 extends to cause any other harm, not to the death.
Section 105-Commencement and continuance of the right of private defence of property
The right of private defence of property commence as soon as a reasonable apprehension of
danger to the property.
5
In case of theft right of private defence continue till the offender has retreated with property,
or till he obtains public authority.
In case of robbery right of private defence of property continue till the apprehension of death
or hurt or wrongful restrain continue.
In case of mischief or trespass as long as the offender continues in the commission of
criminal trespass or mischief.
Section 106 -Right of private defence against deadly assault when there is risk of harm to an
innocent person
Also ,
ARTICLE 21 Of The Vormir constitution
Section 302 :- punishment for murder - whoever commits murder shall be punished with
death , or imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine …….
Section 441 - criminal tresspasss is defined as whoever enters into or upon property in
possession of another person with the 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 will be called as criminal trespassing

6
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Walter, a businessman resides in Woods of Russel’s Park,Mosac which is the capital of

Vormir with his pregnant wife Stella who was on maternity leave from the job of being
forensic expert.
2. Walter started his own printing press in Mosac with the help of his family friend Hector
who loaned him Rs 3 crores.
3. Hector lived in Vormir with his wife Claire who is close friend of Stella, wife of Wlater.
4. Walter promised to return money in span of two years through installments.
5. But unfortunately Walter missed paying installment twice once in August 2017 an
December 2017
6. In August 2017, Hector created a scene on occasion of non payment and defamed Walter
and Stella in society.
7. But during December 2017, Hector who is short tempered reached Walter’s house to teach
him lesson and asked Stella about Walter’s whereabouts and his money.
8. Stella did not appreciated Hector’s short tempered behaviour and informed him on door
about Walter’s absence but Hector forcibly entered and refused to leave unless he meets
Walter.
9. On one hand ,Stella repeatedly informed him that Walter is not at home but on other hand
Hector kept on waiting and thought of Stella being conniving and had an oblique motive and
malafide intention of not paying remaining money of Hector.
10. At 3:30 pm, Hector angrily and impatiently howled at Stella and asked her to disclose
Walter’s whereabouts and full amount of Rs 2.50 crores in order to save her husband from
Hector.
11. Stella repeatedly told Hector that she hasn’t hid him nor she has any idea of her
husband’s whereabouts.
12. Stella told Hector that she doesn’t have money in the house but Hector refused to accept
and pushed the centre table hardly which hit Stella’s knee and injured her.
13. Stella was mortified and ran towards her bedroom but Hector got a hold of her hair` right
outside the bedroom and struggle ensued between Hector & Stella.
7
14. Struggle took Stella and Hector near railing and to save herself and her unborn baby she
pushed Hector with all her might which leads to Hector’s body lying on ground with blood all
around it.
15. Stella informed Walter about the incident and after reaching Walter called an ambulance
and Hector was taken to TATA memorial hospital where doctors diagnosed that multiple
fractures in his spinal coed which were fatal to his life.
16. Hospital informed Police . Therefore Mr. Clayton, Sub Inspector reached and met the
doctor treating Hector and found out Hector is criminal.
17. Mr. Clayton also met Hector where he recorded Hector’s dying statement , They wanted
to kill me and Stella pushed me”. He died soon after telling this.
18. After leaving patient Mr. Clayton informed Mosac Police Station where he was stationed
and asked for a lady constable tp reach the hospital.
19. Mr. Clayton noted death of Hector at 8 pm and arrested Stella along with her husband
Walter after getting her done with Medico Legal Certificate around 9:30 pm
20. Now FIR was filed against Stella under Sec 3012, 120A and 120B and against Walter
under sec 120A and 120B of the Vormir Penal Code
21. Thereafter Stella was sent to 7 days police custody by magistrate. During interrogation
Stella told Mr. Clayton that she pushed Hector out of her will but Hector was a threat to her,
her husband and her unborn child and she would have done anything to get rid of him.
22. Acc to Stella’s MLC report there was an injury on her right knee and patches of hair
missed on her scalp out of a pull with jerk.
23. Therefore session court decided to drop the charges of criminal conspiracy against Stella
and Walter and charged Stella with sec 302 under VPC while discharging Walter from all
charges and Stella was granted bail during the trial.
24. During trial,Stella admitted that she pushed him out of Private defense and to protect
herself and her family. She stated it was accident and not a murder.
25. Trial court after consideration found Stella guilty of murder of Hector and punished with
simple life imprisonment under sec 302 of VPC.
26. This Judgement passed by session court in view of the dying declaration of Hector which
was recorded at the time Hector was alive and doctor testified the injuries sustained by
8
Hector were fatal in nature.
27. HC of Mosac concurred with the findings of Ld. Session court.It converted life
imprisonment to 10 years of simple imprisonment on the basis of the surrounding
circumstances
28. Aggrieved by order of HC, Stella decided to seek justice in SC of Vormir by filing an
appeal before the SC.in the SC,Stella has pleaded that she was covered of Right to Private
Defense.

9
 STATEMENT OF ISSUES
Issue 1:
Whether the dying declaration given by the prosecutor is admissible and acceptable?

Issue 2:
Whether Stella who is accused can use her private defense?

Issue 3:
Whether Stella and Hector were accused of criminal conspiracy under sec 120A and
120B of Vormir Penal Code?

Issue 4:
Whether the charge under sec302 of VPC on accused is proved?

Issue 5:
Whether Hector has done criminal trespass into accused’s house?What is criminal
trespass?

10
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

Issue 1: Whether the dying declaration given by the prosecutor is admissible and
acceptable?
It has been humbly submitted that dying declaration given by the deceased is corroborating
with the other evidences and thus, can form the sole basis of conviction of the accused
persons.

Issue 2: Whether Stella who is accused appellant can use her private defense?
It is most respectfully submitted that there was ongoing tussle b/w Hector ans Stella and
Stella’s hair were pulled by Hector and her knee was injured.It has been assured by Medico
Legal Certificate.Also, according to section 441 VPC, victim has done criminal trespass into
accused’s house to insult, to intimidate the couple.

Issue 3: Whether Stella and Hector were accused of criminal conspiracy under sec 120A
and 120B of Vormir Penal Code?
It is humbly submitted that as per judgement of session court both Walter and Stella has no
intention of criminal conspiracy under sec 120A and 120B of Vormir Penal Code.

Issue 4: Whether the charge under sec302 of VPC on accused is proved?

It is not respectfully submitted that Stella,the accused admitted that she pushed Hector out of
her will as Hector was a threat to her, her husband and her unborn child.

Issue 5: Whether Hector has done criminal trespass into accused’s house? What is
criminal trespass?
Trespass is defined as, whosoever enters into or upon or property in possession of another
person with the intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoyany person in
possession of such property or having lawfully entered into or upon such.

11
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

Issue 1 : Had Stella, accused appellant exercised her right to private defense ?
Issue 1.1: What kind of a right private defense is and which section of Vormir penal
code gives this right ?
The Human instinct is to protect one’s self, and the law does not expect a person to submit
passively but to defend his/her life or the property in peril. The right to self-defense is a
natural right of resistance and self-preservation, and has been enacted in the criminal
jurisprudence of democratic countries. No legal forum expects citizens to get assaulted
without having a chance to defend themselves, especially when they have already suffered
grievous injuries.

Under the criminal law in Vormir, Sections 96 to 106 of the Vormir Penal Code of
1860 (VPC) deal with the right of private defense relating to persons and property.

Sec 97 of VPC states that every citizen is having this right subject to certain restrictions
(mentioned in sec 99) to defend his own body or body of any other person, against; any
offence affecting to the human body; the property whether immovable or movable, of himself
or of any other person, against any act, which is an offence falling under the definition of
robbery, theft, mischief, criminal trespass or which is an attempt to commit theft, robbery,
mischief or criminal trespass.

This implies that Self help is the first principle i.e. it is the duty of a person to help himself
and then arises a social duty to help other members of the society. The social duty arises out
of the Human sympathy to protect others and their property.

As per sec 98 of VPC when an act which would otherwise be a certain offence, is not that
offence, by reason of the youth, the want of maturity of understanding, the unsoundness of
mind or the intoxication of the person doing that act, or by reason of any misconception on
the part of that person, every person has the same right of private defence against that act
which he would have if the act was that offence

12
 And according to sec 106 of Vormir penal code If, in the exercise of the right of private
defence against an assault which reasonably causes the apprehension of death, the defender
be so situated that he cannot effectually exercise that right without risk or harm to an innocent
person, his right of private defence extends to the running of that risk.

In the case of Vidhya Singh versus the State of Madhya Pradesh (1971)¹, the Court
observed that the right of self-defense is a very valuable right, serving a social purpose and
should not be construed narrowly. Situations have to be adjudicated from the subjective point
of view of the accused concerned in the surrounding excitement and confusion of the moment,
confronted with those exact circumstances of peril and not by any minute and pedantic
analysis of the situation by objectivity which would be natural in a courtroom, or would seem
absolutely necessary to a perfectly relaxed bystander. The person facing a reasonable
apprehension of threat to himself cannot be probable to modulate his defenses tier by tier,
similar to a man in ordinary times or under normal circumstances.
The right of self-defense initiates as soon as reasonable apprehension occurs and it is
co-terminus with the extent of such apprehension. Here in this case Stella was in
apprehension that Hector will harm Stella and her unborn baby .

Issue 2: The right of self-defense where causing death is justifiable ?

In this case accused appellant had no intention to cause death instead she was
defending herself and her child from the aggression of the deceased and in the virtue of
struggle he was pushed .
Section 100 of the Vormir Penal Code deals with situations in which the right of private
defense of the body extends to voluntarily causing death or any other harm to the assailant, if
the offence which occasions the exercise of the right is one of the seven kinds enumerated
under the Section. The offence specified under the said provision include offence like causing
death, grievous hurt, assault with the intention of committing rape, of gratifying unnatural

13
Vidhya Singh versus the State of Madhya Pradesh (1971)¹ 13
lust, of kidnapping or abducting, or of wrongful confinement when no recourse is available,
or an act or apprehension of acid attack.

honourable court can also refer to the present case to justify causing death when one is
exercising their right to private defense

The Supreme Court, in Amjad Khan versus the State (1952)², held that the accused had
reasonable grounds for apprehending that either death or grievous hurt would be caused to
himself or his family. The circumstances in which he was placed were quite sufficient to give
him a right of private defense of the body even to the extent of causing death.

Issue 3: Whether hector has done criminal trespass into accused s house ? whether
he has been punished or his offence is taken into account ?What is criminal
trespass in vormir penal code ?
According to section 441 of VPC criminal trespass is defined as whoever enters into or
upon property in possession of another person with the 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 but remains there with an intent to commit offence is said
to commit criminal trespass. Thus it can be deduced that criminal trespass occurs when a
person unlawfully without any right or an express or implied license enters into the private
property of another person or remains into such property with a criminal intention .the object
of making criminal trespass an offence is to ensure that people can enjoy their private
property without any kind of interruption from outsiders punishment for criminal trespass as
prescribed in section 447 of VPC is either imprisonment which may extend to three months
or fine which may extend to EURO 500 OR both.

Therefore we have observed because Hector has been deceased so his share of crime has not
been taken in account of as he has violated my clients right to enjoy her private property as
we have learned that Stella tried refusing Hector at the door informing Walter is not at home
still he forcibly entered and kept sitting for sometime and later pulled hair of the appellant

14
Amjad Khan versus the State (1952)² 14
when she was rescuing herself and tried to go to her room after getting injured by centre table
pushed by the Hector out of anger which could have harmed Stella and her unborn baby .Also
court must take into consideration that Hector was a short tempered man and gets very
impatient and angry when his installments are not paid on time . Here court can
take consideration of eye witnesses who were present in society when in august 2017 on non
payment of installments by the couple they were defamed and insulted by Hector .

In RAMJAM MISTRY VS EMPEROR³ case court laid down principles where one needs
to prove that trespasser had intention to commit an offence ,or intimidate ,insult or annoy
such person for an offence of criminal trespass to take place .

In this case Stella who is pregnant with a child in absence of her husband is threatened by
Hector and injured on knee along with pulling her hair in a struggle juncture . caused an
offence of criminal trespassing into her property.

Issue 4: Whether dignity of a pregnant woman is harmed ? Can fighting during

pregnancy harm the baby ?

In this case we have seen Stella is pushed and intimidate and insulted by the deceased again
and again her right to dignity under article 21 of Vormir constitution is violated .yes fighting
during pregnancy could increase chance of complications like premature birth ,death , low
birth rate because body gets into fight mode and there is secretion of stress hormones which
is not healthy for a pregnant woman ....!

15
RAMJAM MISTRY VS EMPEROR³ 15
 PRAYER

PRAYER WHERE FROM ,IN THE LIGHT OF ISSUES RAISED , ARGUMENTS

ADVANCED & AUTHORITIES CITED , MAY THIS HONOURABLE COURT BE
PLEASED TO GRACIOUSLY CONSIDER , ADJUDGE &DECLARE THAT :

* THE APPEAL IS MAINTAINABLE UNDER SECTION 96-106 OF PRIVATE

DEFENSE IN VORMIR PENAL CODE 1860

* THE HONOURABLE SESSION CORT WAS RIGHT IN DROPING CHARGES OF

CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY AGAINST STELLA AND WALTER

*THE CONVICTION OF STELLA UNDER SECTION 302 OF VPC 1860 MUST BE

DROPPED DOWN AND HER RIGHT TO PRIVATE DEFENSE AND RIGHT TO LIFE
ALONG WITH RIGHT TO DIGNITY MUST BE INSURED
PRAYER WHERE FROM ,IN THE LIGHT OF ISSUES RAISED , ARGUMENTS
ADVANCED & AUTHORITIES CITED , MAY THIS HONOURABLE COURT BE
PLEASED TO GRACIOUSLY CONSIDER , ADJUDGE &DECLARE THAT :

* THE APPEAL IS MAINTAINABLE UNDER SECTION 96-106 OF PRIVATE

DEFENSE IN VORMIR PENAL CODE 1860

* THE HONOURABLE SESSION CORT WAS RIGHT IN DROPING CHARGES OF

CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY AGAINST STELLA AND WALTER

*THE CONVICTION OF STELLA UNDER SECTION 302 OF VPC 1860 MUST BE

DROPPED DOWN AND HER RIGHT TO PRIVATE DEFENSE AND RIGHT TO LIFE
ALONG WITH RIGHT TO DIGNITY MUST BE INSURED

16