1

TEAM CODE: IM/SLC/108

S.S. JAIN SUBODH LAW COLLEGE

INTRA COLLEGE MOOT COURT COMPETETION 2022

IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF REPUBLIC OF WINDIA

PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION

300 OF THE WNDIAN PENAL CODE,
1860

IN THE MATTER OF:

STEPHANIE ...................................................................................... PETITIONER

V.
REPUBLIC OF WINDIA ............................................................... RESPONDENT

MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF

REPUBLIC OF WINDIA

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONER

DRAWN AND FILED BY THE COUNCELS FOR THE PETITIONER

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER.

 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS...................................................................................................................... 3

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................................................. 4 – 5

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ........................................................................................................... 6

SYNOPSIS OF FACTS ................................................................................................................................ 7

STATEMENT OF ISSUES ………………………………………………………………………….…... 8

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ................................................................................................................. 9

ADVANCED ARGUMENTS ............................................................................................................ 10 - 15

PRAYER ……………………………………...……………………………………………………….. 16

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER.

 3

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVIATION EXPANSION

AIR All India Reporter

Anr. Another

Art. Article

& And

Const. Constitution

HC High Court

Hon’ble Honorable

WPC Windian Penal Code

No. Number

Ors. Others

SC Supreme Court

SCC Supreme Court Cases

Sec. Section

ROI Republic Of Windia

V. Versus

Bom. Bombay

Mad. Madras

Prof. Professor

b/w Between

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER.

 4

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

❖ CASES REFERRED :

➢ Supreme Court Cases :

1. Muthu V. State of Tamil Nadu [AIR 2008, SC 1].

2. K.M. Nanavati V. State of Maharashtra [AIR 1962, SC 605].

3. Reg V. Govinda [1876 ILR 1 Bom. 342].

4. Camila Vaz V. State of Goa [AIR 2000 SC 1374].

➢ High Court Cases :

1. Amarjit Singh V. State of Punjab & Haryana [AIR 1970, P H 279].

2. Boya Munigadu V. Queen [ILR 1881(3) Mad. 323].

3. Ajit Singh V. State of Punjab & Haryana [AIR 1970, P H 351, 1970 CriLJ
1119].

❖ STATUTES REFERRED :

1. The Const. of India, 1949.

2. The WPC, 1860.

3. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

❖ BOOKS REFERRED :

1. Dr. J.N. Pandey, Const. Law Of India, Central Law Agency, 56th Edition.

2. K.D. Gaur, IPC, 1860, Universal Law Publishing, Lexis Nexis, 5th Edition.

3. Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The IPC, Lexis Nexis, 35th Edition.

4. Prof. T. Bhattacharyya, The IPC, Central Law Agency.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER.

 5

❖ WEBSITE REFFERED :

1. www.manupatra.in

2. www.scconline.com

3. www.lawoctopus.com

4. www.indiankanoon.org

5. www.legallyindia.com

6. www.ipleaders.in

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER.

 6

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The hon’ble SC has jurisdiction to hear the petition under Art. 134 (1) (A)1 & Art. 134 A2 of the Const. of
The Republic Of Windia, 1949. The petitioner most humbly submits before the jurisdiction of the present
court, it has power and authority to preside over the present case and the petitioner has also submitted the
certificate for appeal to the SC under Art. 134 A.

1
Sec. 134. Appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court in regard to criminal matters.—(1) An appeal shall lie to the Supreme
Court from any judgment, final order or sentence in a criminal proceeding of a High Court in the territory of India if the High
Court— (a) has on appeal reversed an order of acquittal of an accused person and sentenced him to death.
2
Sec. 134A. Certificate for appeal to the Supreme Court.—Every High Court, passing or making a judgment, decree, final
order, or sentence, referred to in clause (1) of article 132 or clause (1) of article 133, or clause (1) of article 134,— (a) may, if it
deems fit so to do, on its own motion; and (b) shall, if an oral application is made, by or on behalf of the party aggrieved,
immediately after the passing or making of such judgment, decree, final order or sentence, determine, as soon as may be after
such passing or making, the question whether a certificate of the nature referred to in clause (1) of article 132, or clause (1) of
article 133 or, as the case may be, sub-clause (c) of clause (1) of article 134, may be given in respect of that case.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER.

 7

SYNOPSIS OF FACTS

For the sake of brevity, the material facts are placed herewith in the chronological order.
➢ Jones & Stephanie got married on 23rd Oct., 2000.
➢ After two years of marriage, in 2002, the couple got a baby boy with special needs. Due to
which the financial expenses of the family got increased.
➢ After some time, Jones got addicted to liquor, because he had not able to cope up with stress
of increased financial expenses.
➢ This lead to the constant and aggressive arguments b/w the couple.
➢ On 2nd Jan., 2003, Jones came home after a heavy consumption of liquor and had a very
aggressive argument with Stephanie and after that started beating her, and left her with
bruises on the leg and swollen left cheek.
➢ After all this, Stephanie told everything to her parents and in-laws.
➢ Due to efforts of both sides of the family and because of the promise of financial aid, Jones
vowed to quit drinking and will concentrate on his family.
➢ In May, 2005, Jones changed his job with a promotion and improved his financial condition,
hence the financial support of the couple from the family has stopped.
➢ In Dec, 2005, Jones again got addicted to alcohol and the relationship b/w the couple has
started effecting and the history got repeated.
➢ On 5th Jan., 2006, Stephanie decided to tell everything to her parents and in-laws again but got
stopped by Jones and assaulted physically & threatened that if she tells anything to her
parents and in-laws, he will kill the child.
➢ After that day beating became a usual practice and Jones has also had sexual intercourse with
Stephanie without her consent.
➢ On the night of 21st March, 2006, Jones came home drunk heavily and started beating
Stephanie till 11: 00 PM and after that Jones went to sleep in his room. Due to which,
Stephanie got injured and had bruises on her body. After all this, Stephanie was not able to
sleep the entire night, she was thinking and weeping on her situation.
➢ In the early morning of 22nd March, 2006, around 4:00 AM, she took iron rod in her hand and
went to his room and inflicted injuries on Jones head and vital body parts which resulted into
death of Jones on the spot.
➢ At 6:30 AM of the same morning, Stephanie went to her child’s room and inflicted a hit on
the head of her child which resulted into the death of the child on the spot.
➢ Around 8:00 AM, house maid came and saw everything, she immediately called the police
and Stephanie got arrested.
➢ Case was filed against Stephanie.
➢ In the session court Stephanie was held not liable for murder on the grounds that she acted
under grave & sudden provocation and is thus liable for culpable homicide.
➢ However, the Shipla HC convicted Stephanie for murder.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER.

 8

ISSUES RAISED

Issue 1: Whether Stephanie killed Jones and her child under grave or sudden provocation?
Issue 2: Whether Shipla HC rightly held Stephanie for murder or not?
Issue 3: Whether Stephanie was bound to do this act or she had any other option?
Issue 4: Whether Stephanie had any prior intention and premeditation of killing her husband and child?

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER.

 9

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

Issue 1: Whether Stephanie killed Jones and her child under grave or sudden provocation?
It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that, yes, the petitioner has killed her child and
her husband in sudden and grave provocation after getting sick and tired with constant harassment and
cruelty. Thus, the petitioner is not liable for murder [Sec. 300 of WPC, 1860]3.
Issue 2: Whether Shipla HC rightly held Stephanie for murder or not?
It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that, no, Shipla high court not rightly held
petitioner for murder because the act was done in grave and sudden provocation which is also defined as
culpable homicide under the exception (1) Sec. 300 of WPC, 18604.
Issue 3: Whether Stephanie was bound to do this act or she had any other option?
It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that, yes, the petitioner doesn’t had any other
option because she was under threat by her husband that if she tells anything to anyone then he will kill
their child then & there. Therefore she has done this act under boundation.
Issue 4: Whether Stephanie had any prior intention and premeditation of killing her husband and
child?
It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that, no, petitioner had not any prior intention
and premeditation of doing this act, she got beaten up for several hours by her husband on the night of the
incident, this made her out of her senses. Hence, the act has got done.

3
Sec. 300, Murder.—Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is
caused is done with the intention of causing death, or— 2ndly.—If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as
the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or— 3rdly.—If it is done with the
intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary
course of nature to cause death, or— 4thly.—If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it
must, in all probability, cause death, or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse
for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.
4
Sec. 300, Exception 1.—When culpable homicide is not murder.—Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, whilst
deprived of the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the
provocation or causes the death of any other person by mistake or accident.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER.

 10

ADVANCED ARGUMENTS

Issue 1: Whether Stephanie killed Jones and her child under grave or sudden provocation?
▪ It is humbly contended before this hon’ble court that the petitioner has done this act under
grave & sudden provocation (exception of murder) as she has constantly got harassed by
her husband after the birth of their child who had special needs, due to that the husband
of the petitioner, that is Jones, assaulted her physically and also tortured her mentally
hence the petition has reached the situation of provocation by constant harassment and
extreme tolerance.
▪ Cruelty against the wife is the offence under sec. 498 A5 of WPC, 1860, and the husband
of the petitioner had beaten & harassed the petitioner on the regular basis, according to
the facts, on the night of 2nd January, 2003, the husband of the petitioner, who was a
drunkard, came home drunk and started beating the petitioner, and the beating continued
till 11:00 PM, and left her with bruises on the leg and swollen left cheek that is
accountable as domestic violence and violation of Article 216 of the Const. of the
Republic Of Windia, in addition to, the cruelty can leads to grave and sudden
provocation, as in the case of Amarjit Singh V. State of Punjab, it was held that the
drinking habits of the husband and coming home late and beating his wife is cruelty,
which leads to grave & sudden provocation.
▪ According to the facts, the husband of the petitioner had been constantly harassed her and
also assaulted her multiple times and on the night of the incident he came home drunk
and started beating her and continued till 11:00 PM, after getting beaten for several hours
she lost all of her senses and her mental & physical strength too, which anyone can lose
after getting beaten for hours, so after that she acted under grave and sudden provocation
and done this act. In the case of Mutha V. State of Tamil Nadu it was held that constant
harassment might deprive the power of self-control and compelled to do so.
▪ The petitioner had not any premeditation & prior intentions, she had lost her senses after
getting mentally and physically tortured for such a long period of time, and after the act
she also didn’t tried to escape & change the crime scene, it’s just that she got fed up with
the things happening in her life and acted under grave & sudden provocation.
▪ So often, it is seen that if one got any child with special needs then the mother of the
child frequently get taunting of that in our patriarchal societies, in this case the same
thing has happened with the petitioner, after getting a baby boy with special needs his
father got disturbed because of the increased financial expenses of the family and he
didn’t able to cope up with his responsibilities as a father and the only bread earner of the
family. So as an escape to his responsibilities he chose drinking as his escape world and
considered his wife responsible for all this and harassed her on the regular basis, and the

5
Sec. 498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.—Whoever, being the husband or the
relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which
may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
6
Art. 21. Protection of life and personal liberty.—No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according
to procedure established by law.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER.

 11

constant quarrels damaged the married life of the couple, hence the petitioner has reached
the state of mind in which she was thinking that the reason of all the mess around her life
has happened due to his child, so after injuring her husband to death she also gave a hit to
his child’s head which resulted to the death of the child on the spot, under grave &
sudden provocation.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER.

 12

Issue 2: Whether Shipla HC rightly held Stephanie for murder or not?

▪ It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that, no, Shipla High Court not rightly
held the petitioner for the murder because there was no premeditation and prior intention
of killing her husband and child, she didn’t even thought, planned and prepared herself for
this, it was all happened under grave & sudden provocation which is exception (1) of
murder in the sec. 3007 of WPC, the petitioner had not used any special weapon, which is
used as with the intention of murder, as she had lost her senses to decide anything, she had
suddenly done the act with whatever she got first in her hands, hence it was the iron rod
she got first and iron rod is the kind of thing which is generally kept by peoples at home,
and it can be found in every household out there. In the case of K.M. Nanavati V. State of
Maharashtra the incident was held as grave & sudden provocation even when the weapon
used by the accused was a gun, and in the present case there was not such a dangerous
weapon as gun and there was no such preplanning of killing her husband and child, it was
all happened under grave & sudden provocation.
▪ In the case of Camila Vaz V. State of Goa the SC held that when the accused person,
armed with sticks, bottles and cycle chains went to the complaint for sound beating only,
no intention on the part of the accused to kill anyone could be inferred, accordingly, when
accused hits the with danda on his vital part of the body namely held with force causing
his death and not with intention to kill, knowledge has to be imputed to the accused, in
such situation the case would fall under sec. 304 of WPC8 and not under sec. 302 WPC9.
In this case Stephanie used iron rod that is a basic thing which could be kept at home, so
after getting beaten up she had lost her state of mind by continuously thinking about her
life and what she has suffered in her married life, according to the facts Stephanie had not
slept the whole night on the night of the incident which indicates that how much she was
disturbed. So after all this she had done this act under grave and sudden provocation.
▪ In the case of Reg V. Govinda the prisoner, the young man of 18years, kicked his wife (a
girl of 15) and struck her several time with his fist on her back, this blows seemed to have
caused her no serious injury, she however fell on the ground and then accused put one
knee on her breast and struck her two or three times in the face, the skull was not fractured
but blow caused extravasation of blood in the brain and the girl died in the consequences

7
Sec. 300, Exception 1.—When culpable homicide is not murder.—Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, whilst
deprived of the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the
provocation or causes the death of any other person by mistake or accident. The above exception is subject to the following
provisos:— First.—That the provocation is not sought or voluntarily provoked by the offender as an excuse for killing or doing
harm to any person. Secondly.—That the provocation is not given by anything done in obedience to the law, or by a public
servant in the lawful exercise of the powers of such public servant. Thirdly.—That the provocation is not given by anything
done in the lawful exercise of the right of private defence.
8
Sec. 304. Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.—Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting
to murder, shall be punished with 1 [imprisonment for life], or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend
to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death,
or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death; or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to ten years, or with fine, or with both, if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without
any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.
9
Sec. 302. Punishment for murder. — Who ever commits murder shall be punished with death or 1 [imprisonment for life],
and shall also be liable to fine.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER.

 13

either on the spot. In this case HC differentiate between sec. 29910 and 300 of WPC. The
HC held that the accused had committed not a murder but culpable homicide under sec. of
WPC. In this present case Stephanie has not highly injured her husband and her child
sufficiently for causing death.

10
Sec. 299. Culpable homicide.—Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the
intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause
death, commits the offence of culpable homicide.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER.

 14

Issue 3: Whether Stephanie was bound to do this act or she had any other option?

▪ It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that, no, the petitioner doesn’t had any
other option because she was under threat by her husband that if she tries to reach the
authorities or tried to tell anything to her parents and her in laws then he will kill the child.

▪ Under section 506 of WPC11, 1860, threatening to kill someone is punishable offense and
for several times the petitioner tried to convince his husband to understand his
responsibilities whenever he was in his senses but there was no improvement and all she
got is continue harassment and cruelty. When someone reach this kind of instability of
mind they couldn't think or decide properly so the petitioner was compelled from
everywhere, she was unable to find a way and as a mother she would not give up her child
like that and she was afraid by her husband's threat, because of that she continued
tolerating things like marital rape, physical torture, cruelty and she gave on her mental
peace for saving his family in hoping that it would be better one day but the things
continued as it was before, then the petitioner has reached the state of mind to do this act.
According to the facts, if the petitioner has tried to tell everything to her parents she got
beaten up by her husband and there was also a threat to lose her child, hence she was afraid
by her husband's threat, The petitioner knows that her husband could do anything as he
was a drunkard, so the petitioner doesn’t had any other option or to reach the authorities or
her family for sharing what she is suffering from. That time of suffering lonely made her
frustrated which causes this act.

11
Sec. 506. Punishment for criminal intimidation.—Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished
with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both; If threat be to
cause death or grievous hurt, etc.—and if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any
property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or 8 [imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment for a term
which may extend to seven years, or to impute unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER.

 15

Issue 4: Whether Stephanie had any prior intention and premeditation of killing her husband

child?

▪ It is humbly submitted before this hon'ble court that, no, Stephanie did not had any
premeditation and prior intention of killing her husband and child. According to the facts,
Stephanie had tried several times to convince her husband to understand his
responsibilities and sort things out, whenever he was in his senses, she was also under
threat by her husband that if she tried to tell anything to anyone then he will kill their
child, and also tolerated cruelty to save his child, and according to the facts, she didn't
cleaned the crime scene and she didn't even tried to escape from the police.

▪ Even, the petitioner, didn't chosen any specific weapon to cause the death, It's just that the
petitioner was suffering from mental disorders exacerbated by her husband and she hits
her husband with a rod after suffering years of sexual, physical and psychological torture
that is main cause of provocation to do this act, The petitioner has reached the state of
mind in which she were started thinking that all the mess happening is because of her
child (with special needs) and all the problems began with the birth of the child. She
thought that if she would not get that baby boy with special needs then she would most
probably had a peaceful life and as we all know that no mother in this entire world could
cause harm to her child when she is in all of her senses. Hence the petitioner had hit his
child and husband under grave and sudden provocation. There were no premeditation and
prior intention of causing death.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER.

 16

PRAYER

Therefore in the light of the facts stated, issues raised, authorities cited and arguments advanced, it is
humbly requested before this hon’ble court that this honorable court may be pleased to adjudge and
declare that
Stephanie shall be held liable for culpable homicide under sec. 299 of WPC.
AND/OR
Pass any other order, it may deem fit, in the interest of justice. Equality and good conscience. All of
which is most humbly and respectfully submitted.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER.