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

IN THE MATTER OF:

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

V.

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

MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF

REPUBLIC OF WINDIA

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

DRAWN AND FILED BY THE COUNCELS FOR THE RESPONDENT

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OH THE RESPONDENT.

 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 – 13

PRAYER …………………………………………………………………………………………………… 14

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OH THE RESPONDENT.

 3
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVIATION EXPANSION

AIR All India Reporter

Anr. Another

Art. Article

& And

Const. Constitution

HC High Court

Hon’ble Honorable

IPC Indian Penal Code

No. Number

Ors. Others

SC Supreme Court

SCC Supreme Court Cases

Sec. Section

UOI Union Of India

V. Versus

Bom. Bombay

Mad. Madras

Prof. Professor

b/w Between

WPC Windian Penal Code

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OH THE RESPONDENT.

 4

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

❖ CASES REFERRED :

➢ Supreme Court Cases :

1. Inder Singh Bagga Singh V. State of Pepsu [AIR 1955, SC 439].

2. Virsa Singh V. State of Punjab [AIR 1958, SC 465].

3. Anada V. State of Rajasthan [AIR 1966, SC 148].

4. Rajwant Singh V. State of Kerala [AIR 1966, SC 1874].

5. Willie (William) V. State of Madhya Pradesh [AIR 1956, SC 116].

6. Ruli Ram V. State of Haryana [AIR 2002, SC 3360].

❖ STATUTES REFERRED :

1. The Const. of WIndia, 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 OH THE RESPONDENT.

 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 OH THE RESPONDENT.

 6
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The petitioner has filed the petition before the hon’ble SC of the Republic of Windia, in the matter of
Stephanie V. Republic of Windia, under Art. 1341 & 134 A2 of the Const. of the Republic Of Windia. The
respondent reserves the right to challenge the same.

The present memorandum sets forth the facts, contentions & arguments.

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 OH THE RESPONDENT.

 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 OH THE RESPONDENT.

 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 had any other option on the night of the incident?

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OH THE RESPONDENT.

 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, no, the petitioner had not killed her child and her
husband in sudden and grave provocation, because the time gap between the fight and killing is five
and a half hours which is a big time gap. Stephanie had enough time to cool down her mind and to take
some legal action but she has done this act in full of her senses that’s why she chose the iron rod for the
killing her husband and her child.

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

➢ It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that, yes, the HC of Shilpa rightly held Stephanie for
the murder of her husband and her child, because according to sec. 300, thirdly, if a body part is
sufficiently injured which ordinary course of death by a sufficient weapon for causing death then it is a
murder. In this present case, Stephanie doing the same thing which mentioned in sec 300, thirdly.

Issue 3: Whether Stephanie had any other option on the night of the incident?

➢ It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that, yes, the petitioner has many more options
available on the night incident other that killing, but she had not chosen any other option and she chose
only one option to kill her husband and child, which is wrongful act and it's punishable offence in law.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OH THE RESPONDENT.

 10
ADVANCED 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, no, Stephanie did not acted under grave
and sudden provocation, she was is full of her senses, hence she killed her husband while he
was sleeping. The act wasn’t done instantly, she took her time and then acted, according to the
facts, there was a huge time gap between the fight of the couple and the heinous crime of
killing of her husband, in fact there was also a certain time gap b/w the killing of her husband
and her child. According to facts, Stephanie got five and a half hours for planning the murder
of her husband and two hours for her child. She also chose the dangerous weapon, iron rod,
and gave several hits on the vital body parts like head of her husband and her child while they
both were sleeping peacefully, which also shows that she intentionally wants to cause death.
According to the sec. 300 (3) of WPC3, 1860, says that if it is done with intention of causing
bodily injury to any person and bodily intends to be inflicted is sufficient in ordinary course of
nature to cause death.
▪ In this case the weapon which is used was iron rod, that is very hard and heavy in weight and
Stephanie has chosen his head which is a vital and a sensitive body part and it is a sufficient
weapon to kill any person by hitting him/her with the iron rod on his/her head. According to
the facts her husband and child died on the spot right after hitting on the head and caused
bodily injury signifies that she did this intentionally and the multiple blows were sufficient to
kill any person on the spot.
▪ In the case of Inder Singh Bagga Singh V. State of Pepsu, the hon’ble SC held that even
though the blows were inflicted by the appellant on the head of the deceased with the force,
with lathi not with the rod. That clearly means that if the weapon would be iron rod then the
accused was held liable for murder for sure. In this present case, Stephanie used iron rod and
caused bodily injury on which further resulted into death, so thus the petitioner is liable for
murder.
▪ In the case of Virsa Singh V. State of Punjab, the hon’ble SC held that whether the injury
intended by the accused and actually inflicted by him is sufficient for the ordinary course of
nature to cause death or not, it must determine in each case on the basis of the facts and
circumstances of the case under clause (3) of sec. 300 of WPC, that culpable homicide is
murder, if both of the following conditions area satisfied :-
1. that the act which causes death is done with intention of causing bodily injury; and
2. that the injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to
cause death.

3
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.
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OH THE RESPONDENT.
 11

Stephanie has inflicted injury on the vital body parts of the deceased, therefore, the case can
establish under clause (3) of WPC.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OH THE RESPONDENT.

 12

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

▪ It is humbly submitted before this honb'le court that, yes, Shipla high court rightly held
Stephanie for murder because according to clause (3) of section 300 of WPC, if bodily injury
intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, and
according to the facts of the case Stephanie had injured vital body parts of her husband and her
child with a weapon which is hard and sufficient to cause death of any person and there were
facts that both the father and the child died on the spot after getting blows of the iron rod.
▪ According to medical experts it is proven that the head is vital and sensitive body part if any
amount of injury on head caused then the possibility of the death is very high and Stephanie
had known this, hence, she had chosen the iron rod for hitting, and there was no exception of
murder because Stephanie had her time to do this act and murdered both her husband and her
child one by one.
▪ In the case of Ananda V. State of Rajasthan the Supreme Court held that the nature of weapon
used and the part of the body on which injury is caused is also relevant circumstances to
determine the intention of the person but the determinant factor is intentional injury which is
must be sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature would be bring under clause
(3) of section 300 of WPC, in this present case Stephanie hits blow on the head of both her
husband and her child with iron rod which is sufficient to death in ordinary course of nature to
cause death. The same judgment has held in a another similar case "Rajawant Singh V. State of
Kerala", AIR 1966. The court held that the case is covered by third clause of sec. 300 of WPC.
All the acts were deliberate acts which were pre-planned and they thus satisfied the subjective
test involved in the clause. Also the acts considered objectively were sufficient to cause death
in ordinary course of nature. The ordinary course of nature was not interrupted with any
intervening act of another and whatever happened was the result of the acts of assailants and
nothing else. It was hardly necessary to prove more than the acts themselves and the causal
connection between the acts and the end result. The sufficiency of the injury was objectively
established by the nature and quality of the acts taken with the consequence which was
intimately related to the acts, In this case Stephanie has also pre-planned and premeditation of
killing her husband and her child which all the acts were deliberate and satisfy clause (3) of
WPC. Thus, the Shipla HC rightly held Stephanie for murder.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OH THE RESPONDENT.

 13

Issue 3: Whether Stephanie had any other option on the night of the incident?

▪ It is humbly submitted before this honb'le court that, Yes, Stephanie had so many other options
but she chose the wrong way and did a heinous offense, But she must had reach her family and
authorities to consult her problems.
▪ The Stephanie shouldn't have taken the law in her hands and decide to punish her husband by
herself. According to the facts, when she had reached her family and in laws with her problems
they helped her out so this time she had options of going to reach authorities and family if she
was suffering any kind of cruelty, the Stephanie had crossed all the lines of morality by doing
this terrific act. She had killed her innocent baby boy with iron rod that is heinous and
unbelievable.
▪ Thus, she is completely liable for the murder of her husband and her child.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OH THE RESPONDENT.

 14
PRAYER

Therefore in the light of facts stated, issue raised, authorities cited and arguments advanced, it is humbly
requested that this honorable court may be pleased to adjudge and declare that

Petitioner shall be held liable for murder under sec 300 of WPC, 1860, and shall be punished under sec 302 of
WPC, 1860.

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 OH THE RESPONDENT.