FIRST INTERNAL MOOT COURT ROUND

VAIBHAV PAWAR

BALAJI LAW COLLEGE’S

FIRST INTERNAL MOOT COURT ROUND

BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

(CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

IN THE MATTER OF:

AMAR SHARMA ...APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA …RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT

1
 FIRST INTERNAL MOOT COURT ROUND

NAME: VAIBHAV NITIN PAWAR

SUBJECT: MOOT COURT – I

ROLL NO.: LC2023187

CLASS: LLB III

2
FIRST INTERNAL MOOT COURT ROUND

MEMORIAL I

3
 FIRST INTERNAL MOOT COURT ROUND

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CONTENTS PAGE NO.

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 5
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 6
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 7
STATEMENT OF FACTS 8
ISSUES RAISED 11
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 12
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED 13
PRAYER 18

4
 FIRST INTERNAL MOOT COURT ROUND

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

& And
Sec Section
AIR All India Reporter
Anr. Another
Art. Article
Hon’ble Honourable
i.e. That is
Ors. Others
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Case
U/S Under section
P/ Punishment

5
 FIRST INTERNAL MOOT COURT ROUND

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Table Of Cases

Sr. No. Cases Foot Note No.

1. U. Suvetha v. State4 1
2. Reema Aggarwal v. Anupam 2
3. A. Subash Babu v. State of A.P. 3
4. Gananath Pattnaik v. State of Orissa 4
5. G.V. Siddaramesh v. State of Karnataka 5
6. State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Harjeet Singh and another 6
7. R. Prakash v. State of Karnataka 7
8. Ram Babu v. State of M. P. 8

Sr.No. Indian Books

1. P. S. A. Pillai’s Criminal Law, 14th Edition
2. R. V. Kelkar’s Criminal Procedure, 5th Edition

Sr.No. Legislations Referred

1. The Indian Penal Code, 1860
2. The Code of Criminal Procedure

Sr.No. Legal Database

1. http://www.scconline.com
2. http://manupatrafast.com

6
 FIRST INTERNAL MOOT COURT ROUND

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Hon'ble High Court of Bombay exercises Appellate Jurisdiction to hear the matter
under. The respondent humbly submits to jurisdiction of the Hon'ble Court which has
been invoked by the appellant.

7
 FIRST INTERNAL MOOT COURT ROUND

SUMMARY OF FACTS

1. Disha Gupta was a 22-year-old girl from Delhi. Disha wanted to pursue her acting career
therefore she moved to Mumbai. Disha was alone in the new city and had no friends or
financial support from her family, because family opposed her move to Mumbai. She
auditioned for a number of projects but faced rejections in all. Frustrated by her failures,
she tried to commit suicide twice but was unsuccessful in her attempts.

2. In September 2018, she decided to attend a party graced by a number of Bollywood stars
and industry bigwigs, in the hope of meeting a few directors. There she met Amar Sharma,
one of the most renowned film directors of contemporary times. At the age of 40, Amar
had already directed numerous super hit movies and was known as the ‘career builder’ for
young actresses. Disha and Amar got talking at the bar and eventually exchanged numbers.
They talked and met frequently for a few months post which Disha confessed her love for
Amar and moved into his house. Amar was in a relationship with Disha after three failed
marriages.

3. The Media Agencies posted the latest updates about ‘the newest couple in B town’. Blind
items also began circulating on social media about Disha using Amar to get into the film
industry. The constant media scrutiny and trolling on social media made Disha vulnerable.
Her parents and friends too boycotted her, citing embarrassment over her actions. All this
took a toll on Disha and she pleaded Amar to cast her in his upcoming dream project soon
so that she could showcase her talent. Amar had already casted the actors and invested
huge amount in his dream project but Disha’s constant pleading along with her negative
publicity in the industry adversely affected Amar to such an extent that he could not focus
on his project which gave a huge career set back to him. The fights between the two
increased day by day.

4. Three months later, Amar demanded Disha to leave his house. He claimed that girls like
her come begging to him every day and he can get anyone he wishes. Disha begged him
not to force her to leave the house and promised that she would stop nudging him. She told
Amar that she was not in a fit state of mind and would like to seek medical help for the

8
 FIRST INTERNAL MOOT COURT ROUND

same. Amar immediately dismissed her idea, telling her that if the Media Agencies found
out about her psychiatrist visits, they would label her crazy and she could effectively bid
goodbye to her career then. He advised her to rest at home and meditate instead. The
relationship between the two continued to worsen and Disha had socially withdrawn,
confining herself to the house, whereas Amar was still socially active and was seen cosying
up to young women at parties. In November 2019, a picture of him and a young debutante
actress, holidaying at a secluded island in the Maldives, went viral on social media and got
the rumour mills churning about his separation with Disha. A week later, he released a
statement, clarifying that ‘all is well’ between them and that they were one in their heart
and soul.

5. On 5th February 2020, at around 2 am, a call was received at Shivajinagar Police station
stating that a woman with 75% burn injuries was brought to their hospital. The police
rushed to the hospital where the victim was identified as Disha. Post regaining
consciousness after a week, she gave a statement to the Police. According to her, on that
fateful night, Amar returned home from a party, visibly inebriated. Upon unlocking the
door, he saw Disha standing near the stove, holding a can of a blue coloured liquid. He
immediately realized that the liquid was kerosene and he rushed towards her, fuming with
rage. He called her crazy and said that she had ruined all the fun in his life. He attempted
to kill her by pouring kerosene on her exclaiming that if she was so firm on ending her
life, he would make things easier for her. Immediately after Amar threw kerosene on her,
she was soon engulfed in flames as her dress caught fire from the stove right behind her.

6. She said that over the past year, he denied her psychiatric help and mentally manipulated
her while cheating on her with several other girls. Disha went on to state that both of them
had gotten married at a small temple near Mumbai in October 2019 and Amar had also
gifted her a flat in Bandra as her ‘wedding gift’. However, Amar was adamant that they
do not reveal the factum of their marriage to anyone as it would affect their careers. It was
only last month when she found out that Amar’s divorce proceedings with his previous
wife were still pending before the court. Based on her statement, the Police filed charges
under Section 307 and Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against Amar.
7. During the course of the trial at Sessions Court, Mumbai, Amar denied all charges of
cruelty and claimed that he could not be held liable under Section 498A as he was not the
victim’s ‘husband’ as contemplated under the section. He stated that there was no valid

9
 FIRST INTERNAL MOOT COURT ROUND

marriage between him and Disha. The fact that his previous divorce proceedings were sub
judice was never hidden and was reported in a number of newspapers as well. His act of
merely putting sindoor and mangalsutra on Disha at the temple, upon her persistence,
could not be construed as ‘marriage’ as it was only done for Disha’s happiness. With
respect to the charge of attempt to murder, Amar claimed that when he entered the room
on that fateful night and saw Disha ending her life yet again, he was in a state of utter
shock. He admitted that in a fit of uncontrollable rage, he did pour the kerosene on her but
never intended to kill her. He was unaware that the stove behind was lit which actually led
to Disha’s clothes accidentally catching fire and before he could react, she was completely
engulfed in flames.

8. The Sessions Court rejected Amar’s plea that the incident was a mere unfortunate accident
and convicted him U/s 307 of IPC for attempting to murder Disha. The court also held that
a person who enters into a relationship in the nature of marriage cannot be allowed to take
the plea that he cannot be held liable U/s 498A of IPC as there was no valid marriage;
thereby convicting him U/s 498A of IPC for subjecting her to cruelty over the course of
their relationship. He was sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment. Aggrieved by the
conviction, Amar appealed against the order of the Sessions Court before the Hon’ble High
Court of Bombay.

10
 FIRST INTERNAL MOOT COURT ROUND

ISSUES RAISED

THE RESPONDENT VERY RESPECTFULLY PUTFORTH BEFORE

THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT THE FOLLOWING QUERIES.

ISSUE 1
Whether Amar can be held liable U/s 498A of IPC?

ISSUE 2
Whether Amar can be held liable U/s 307 of IPC?

11
 FIRST INTERNAL MOOT COURT ROUND

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. Issue 1: Whether Amar is guilty of subjecting Disha to cruelty?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon'ble High Court that the accused is guilty of
the offence of subjecting his wife to cruelty where any wilful conduct of a nature to
drive the woman to commit suicide or cause danger to life is very much highlighted
in this case. Ergo, the essential element of the section is fulfilled there by him guilty.

2. Issue 2: Whether Amar is guilty under Section 307 of The Indian Penal Code,
1860 for attempting murder?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon'ble High Court that the accused is guilty
under Section 307 of IPC for attempting to murder as the ‘mens rea’ or the intention
of offender to cause death is present and hurt is caused too. Ergo, the accused is
guilty.

12
 FIRST INTERNAL MOOT COURT ROUND

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

Issue 1: Whether Amar is guilty of subjecting Disha to cruelty?

It is humbly submitted before this Hon'ble Court that Amar be charged for the offence of
subjecting Disha to cruelty under section 498A of The Indian Penal Code.

Section 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. Explanation. —For the purpose of this section, “cruelty” means—
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit
suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical)
of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any
person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is
on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.

Contents of Section 498A:

In the case of U. Suvetha v. State1, the court stated that for the commission of an offence under
Section 498A, following necessary ingredients are required to be satisfied:
(a) The woman must be married;
(b) She must be subjected to cruelty or harassment; &
(c) Such cruelty or harassment must have been shown either by husband of the woman or by
the relative of her husband.

In the case of Reema Aggarwal v. Anupam2 the Supreme court stated that:
Husband - Who is
The expression "husband" covers a person who enters into a marital relationship and under the
colour of such proclaimed or feigned status of husband subjects the woman concerned to

1
[(2009) 6 SCC 757
2 Appeal (crl.) 25 of 2004

13
 FIRST INTERNAL MOOT COURT ROUND

cruelty in the manner provided under Section 498A, whatever be the legitimacy of the marriage
itself for the limited purpose of Section 498A. The absence of a definition of "husband" to
specifically include such persons who contract marriages ostensibly and cohabit with such
woman, in the purported exercise of their role and status as "husband" is no ground to exclude
them from the purview of 498A IPC. The court need to interpret the expression ‘husband’,
‘wife’, and ‘marriage’ beyond its literal meaning.

Woman - Second wife

A Two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court has held that even a second wife can file a complaint
under Section 498-A. In this connection, following words of Justice Arijit Pasayat, (talking
in terms of Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC and Section 113-B Evidence Act, 1872) assumes
importance:
"... The legislature has taken care of children born from invalid marriages. Section 16 of the
Marriage Act deals with legitimacy of children of void and voidable marriages. Can it be said
that the legislature which was conscious of the social stigma attached to children of void and
voidable marriages closed its eyes to the plight of a woman who unknowingly or unconscious
of the legal consequences entered into the marital relationship? If such restricted meaning is
given, it would not further the legislative intent ...................................................... " (para 18).

The above said para was quoted with approval in A. Subash Babu v. State of A.P3., (2011) 7
sec 616 wherein the Supreme Court held that Section 498-A is attracted even in the case of
allegation of cruelty to second wife.

Also, the cruelty can be of various kinds- mental, physical, etc. Cruelty can either be mental or
physical. It is difficult to straitjacket the term cruelty by means of a definition because cruelty
is a relative term.

In the case of Gananath Pattnaik v. State of Orissa4, the court stated that the concept of
cruelty and its effect varies from individual to individual, also depending upon the social and
economic status to which such person belongs.

3
(2011) 7 SCC 616
4 Appeal (crl.) 1 of 1995

14
 FIRST INTERNAL MOOT COURT ROUND

In the case of G.V. Siddaramesh v. State of Karnataka5, the court stated that what constitutes
cruelty for one person may not constitute cruelty for another person.

To prove the charges, the council put its arguments as follows:

To explain cruelty in the section, state that any wilful conduct that is likely to drive the woman
to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to the woman’s life, limb, or health
(whether mental or physical) will be considered cruelty. In light of the facts, Amar's behaviour
towards Disha completely supports the definition of cruelty. For example, Amar cheated on
Disha by denying her access to basic medical care, which clearly led to Amar’s wilful conduct
driving Disha to commit suicide or cause danger to her life.

Issue 2: Whether Amar is guilty under Section 307 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 for
attempting murder?
It is humbly submitted before this Hon'ble Court that Amar has committed an offence u/s 307
IPC and should be charged with attempt to murder of Disha.

Section 307: Attempt to murder.—Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge,
and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder,
shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten
years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the
offender shall be liable either to 1[imprisonment for life], or to such punishment as is
hereinbefore mentioned. Attempts by life convicts. —2[When any person offending under this
section is under sentence of 1[imprisonment for life], he may, if hurt is caused, be punished
with death.]

The act must be capable of causing death:

In order to prove the crime u/s 307, analysis of different stages of crime is important. The first
stage is the intention to commit the crime, secondly, the preparation to commit the Crime;
and thirdly, an attempt to commit it. It is to be noted that the essential elements of Sec. 307
are as follows:

5 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 160 OF 2006

15
 FIRST INTERNAL MOOT COURT ROUND

• The act must be capable of causing death,

• The existence of the intention of the offender to cause death.

With the exception of the final action, it is not essential for the accused to carry out every step
of the actual offence in order to be found guilty under this clause. It suffices if he took a step
toward committing the crime while making the effort.
The pre-requisite of an act to be capable of causing death will be dealt with in the first part of
this issue while the intention of causing death will be dealt with in the subsequent part.
It is humbly submitted before this Hon'ble court that the act of Amar was capable of causing
death. To justify a conviction under Sec 307 IPC, it is necessary that bodily injury capable of
causing death should have been inflicted.

In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Harjeet Singh and another6, the court stated
that Section 307 uses the term "hurt" which has been explained in Section 319, I.P.C.; and not
"grievous hurt" within the meaning of Section 320 I.P.C. If a person causes hurt with the
intention or knowledge that he may cause death, it will attract Section 307.

In the case of R. Prakash v. State of Karnataka7 the court stated that the first blow was on
a vital part, that is on the temporal region. Even though other blows were on nonvital parts, that
does not take away the rigor of Section 307 IPC....... It is sufficient to justify a conviction
under Section 307 if there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof.

In the case of Ram Babu v. State of M.P8., the court stated that in order for an offence to fall
under the ambit of Sec. 307, the injury has to be caused on a vital part of the body.

Presence of the ‘Intention’ of the offender to cause death:

The essential ingredient to constitute an offence under this section is having the intention or
knowledge. The intention or knowledge can be understood as explained under Section 300 of

6 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1190 OF 2009

7 Appeal (crl.) 1179 of 1997

8 CRR No.1032/2018

16
 FIRST INTERNAL MOOT COURT ROUND

IPC. An act, though sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, it would not
constitute an offence under this Section, if necessary, intention or knowledge is lacking.
It is humbly submitted that Amar had the intention or knowledge to commit murder of Disha.
It is evident that such an intention or mens rea was never there, as Amar was only concerned
about his own reputation. In order to prove the presence of intention, the counsel would request
the bench to refer to the statement given by Amar himself wherein he clearly admits that he
poured the kerosene himself on Disha when he knew she was holding it to commit suicide
which is an act sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
If the accused intended that the natural consequence of his act should the court in determining
the intention of murder observed, "as far as the part of proving his intention the nature of the
wound, type of weapon used, can be taken into account."

17
 FIRST INTERNAL MOOT COURT ROUND

PRAYER

Wherefore, in light of the facts stated, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited,
the counsel humbly pleads to dismiss this appeal in Amar Sharma v. State of Maharashtra
which the court may deem fit in the light of justice, equity and in good conscience to which the
counsel shall forever be duty bound to.

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: Mumbai. Sd/-

_______________________________

Date: COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT

18