M e m o r i a l f o r P r o s e c u ti o n Page |1

UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES,

PUNJAB UNIVERSITY, REGIONAL CENTRE,
LUDHIANA
2022-2023

MOOT COURT FILE

Submitted By: Nikhil Laddi

Course: Ll.B
Roll No.: 79
M e m o r i a l f o r P r o s e c u ti o n Page |2

IN THE HON’BLE SESSIONS COURT

STATE........................................................................................PROSECUTION

VERSUS

MOHIT & ANR...................................................................................ACCUSED

(Counsel for Prosecution)

M e m o r i a l f o r P r o s e c u ti o n Page |3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abbreviations...............................................................................................Page 4
Index of Authorities ....................................................................................Page 5
Cases............................................................................................................Page 6
Statement of Jurisdiction..............................................................................Page 7
Statement of Facts .......................................................................................Page 8
Statement of Issues……………………………….…………..……………Page 9
Summary Arguments ................................................................................Page 10
Arguments Advanced..........................................................................Pages 11-15
Prayer.........................................................................................................Page 16
M e m o r i a l f o r P r o s e c u ti o n Page |4

ABBREVATIONS

1. Para: Paragraph

2. No.: Number

3. Acc.: According

4. V.: Versus

5. IPC: Indian Penal Code

M e m o r i a l f o r P r o s e c u ti o n Page |5

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

 BOOKS:

1. Prof. S.N. Mishra, Indian Penal Code, Central Law Publication, 2020

2. Prof. S. N. Mishra, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Central Law Publication, 21-
2019

 WEBSITES:

1. Indian Law Watch, https://indianlawwatch.com/evidentiary-value-of-a-dying-

declaration-recorded-by-police-officer-is-admissible-allahabad-high-court/, lastly
visited on 29.10.2022

2. Legal Authority India, https://www.legalauthority.in/judgement/jasvinder-saini-

vs-state-govt-of-nct-of-delhi-6232, lastly visited on 29.10.2022

3. Main SCI Government,

https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2019/1384/1384_2019_9_1502_19135_Judg
ement_13-Dec-2019.pdf, lastly visited on 29.10.2022
M e m o r i a l f o r P r o s e c u ti o n Page |6

CASES

1. Paras Yadav and Others vs. State of Bihar, SCC 1999 (2) 126

2. Bhagwan Tukaram Dange vs. State of Maharashtra SCC 2014 (4) 270

3. Rajibir @ Raju & Anr. vs. State of Haryana AIR 2011 SC 568
M e m o r i a l f o r P r o s e c u ti o n Page |7

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Sessions Court has been invoked by prosecution under
Section 28 of Criminal Procedure Code.
M e m o r i a l f o r P r o s e c u ti o n Page |8

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Rajat (son) and Mohit (father) return to their house on 18/6/2014 at 7:00 p.m. fully
drunk. On reaching home they demanded Rs. 10,000/- from Rajat's wife, Seeta.

2. On refusal, she was severely beaten up and ask to bring it from her parental house.
Mohit then sprinkled kerosene from a plastic can over the body of Seeta and Rohit
then let a match stick and set her on Fire.

3. The deceased shouted for help and rolled down on the ground and ultimately
succeeded in extinguishing the fire but by the time she had suffered more than 80%
burns over the body.

4. On getting information of the disease came to the spot and took her to the nearby
public health centre full stop after first aid, just this is referred to the Civil Hospital
Patiala and on 19/06/2014 at around 3:10 AM she was admitted their Dr P. Khanna
treated her and informed head constable Sher Singh regarding the admission of an
injured lady.

5. The doctor found that she was fully conscious and was in a condition to give
statement. The head constable in the presence of the doctor recorded her statement
implicating both the accused.

6. Later, father of Seeta Rajram also met her and he was also narrated the same incident.
After that on 22/06/2014 at about 2:00 a.m. Seeta passed away. The investigating
officer came to the spot of the incident and prepare the spot panchnama he seized the
plastic can, matchstick and partially burnt clothes from the spot where the deceased
extinguished the fire by rolling on the ground.

7. The accused were charge sheeted accordingly.

M e m o r i a l f o r P r o s e c u ti o n Page |9

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

Issue I: Whether this Hon’ble Sessions Court has jurisdiction to try this case and
punish the accused accordingly?

Issue II: Whether Sita was under fit statement of mind to consider her statement as
dying declaration?

Issue III: Whether the acts of Rajat & Mohit sufficient to cause death of Seeta in the
normal course of action?

Issue IV: Whether both the accused made themselves criminally liable under Section
304B, 302, 498A & 34 of IPC?
M e m o r i a l f o r P r o s e c u ti o n P a g e | 10

SUMMARY ARGUMENTS

Issue I: Whether this Hon’ble Sessions Court has jurisdiction to try this case and
punish the accused accordingly?

That under Section 28 of Criminal Procedure Code, this court has fully competent to try and
punish the accused as per the law.

Issue II: Whether Sita was under fit statement of mind to consider her statement as
dying declaration?

That as per the statement of the doctor Seeta was fully competent and under her statement of
mind to record her statement to Head Constable. Therefore, the evidentiary value of dying
declaration cannot be ousted that too when the same was narrated to her father which
corroborates the same.

Issue III: Whether the acts of Rajat & Mohit sufficient to cause death of Seeta in the
normal course of action?

That the both accused were under voluntarily intoxication and therefore cannot be sheltered
under the general exceptions of Indian Penal Code. It is clear law that a person who
voluntarily intoxicates himself cannot run away from legal liability. It is also pertinent to
mention herein that both the accused in this case firstly beaten the deceased whereafter they
burnt her body which shows that they had enough time to recall their act and conduct.

Issue IV: Whether both the accused made themselves criminally liable under Section
304B, 302, 498A & 34 of IPC?

That the ingredients of 302 & 304B IPC gets completed herein and the act and conduct of the
both accused were as such which is sufficient to cause death in an ordinary manner and since
cruelty and dowry demand was there it automatically attracts 304B and 498A of Indian Penal
Code. Both the accused will be held liable together as per Section 34 of IPC because one of
the accused opened the kerosene and other lighting up the matchstick shows the common
intention of both the accused to kill the Seeta.
M e m o r i a l f o r P r o s e c u ti o n P a g e | 11

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

Issue I: Whether this Hon’ble Sessions Court has jurisdiction to try this case and
punish the accused accordingly?

It is respectfully here submitted before the Hon’ble Court:

1. That this Hon’ble Sessions Court has proper jurisdiction to entertain and try this case.

2. That the charges attracted under this case are classified as triable by Sessions Court
exclusively.

3. That even otherwise under Section 28 of Criminal Procedure Code, the Sessions
Court has full jurisdiction to try and punish both the accused in this case.

Hence, it is prayed before the Hon’ble Court that both the accused may be
framed together, tried and punished accordingly.
M e m o r i a l f o r P r o s e c u ti o n P a g e | 12

Issue II: Whether Sita was under fit statement of mind to consider her statement as
dying declaration?

It is respectfully here submitted before the Hon’ble Court:

1. That after getting 80% burns on the body, the parents of the Sita (now deceased) took
her to the nearby Public Health Centre and after the First Aid the Sita was referred to
Civil Hospital, Patiala and on 19/06/2014 at about 3.10 AM she was admitted and
called the Head Constable (Police) so as to take the statement of Sita.

2. That it is pertinent to mention herein that the doctor informed the Head Constable for
the statement of Sita only when he was confirmed that Sita is fully conscious and was
in condition to give the statement.

3. That it is yet again pertinent to mention herein that the Head Constable took the
statement of the Sita in the presence of the doctor, where the Sita clearly implicated
the both the accused namely Rajat & Mohit. That the Hon’ble Apex court in the case
of Paras Yadav and Others Vs. State of Bihar, 1999 2 SCC 126 had the occasion to
consider the contingency, wherein the statement so recorded by the Sub-Inspector, has
been treated as valid dying declaration.1

4. That, as such, the dying declaration recorded by the Head Constable in front of the
doctor implicating both the accused in this case which was again narrated by Sita to
her father not only corroborates the dying declaration but also is valid having
evidentiary value and was proves clearly that the same was made in fit state of mind.

1
Indian Law Watch, https://indianlawwatch.com/evidentiary-value-of-a-dying-declaration-
recorded-by-police-officer-is-admissible-allahabad-high-court/, last visited on 29.10.2022
M e m o r i a l f o r P r o s e c u ti o n P a g e | 13

Issue III: Whether the acts of Rajat & Mohit sufficient to cause death of Seeta in the
normal course of action?

It is respectfully here submitted before the Hon’ble Court:

1. That Rajat & Mohit on 18/06/2014, fully drunk demanded Rs. 10,000/- from Rajat’s
Wife (Seeta). When she refused to abide by, she was severely beaten up and asked to
bring it from parental house.

2. That the Mohit sprinkled kerosene from plastic can over the body of Seeta and Rohit
then lit a matchstick setting her on fire resulting in more than 80% of body burn.

3. That on refusal, they firstly beat the Seeta and then one of the accused put kerosene
and other accused burn her lighting the match stick. It is pertinent to mention herein
that they had sufficient time to recall their action under liquor. That even otherwise
voluntarily drinking is not a ground for general exception under IPC and a person is
prosecuted for the acts done thereby.

4. That it is pertinent to mention one judgment from Apex Court namely Bhagwan
Tukaram Dange vs State of Maharashtra (2014) 4 SCC 2702, upholding conviction of
the lower Courts where the deceased caused more than 80% burns.

Hence, the acts of Rajat & Mohit sufficient to cause death of Seeta in the normal
course of action.

2
Main SCI Gov, https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2019/1384/1384_2019_9_1502_19135_Judgement_13-
Dec-2019.pdf, last visited on 29.10.2022
M e m o r i a l f o r P r o s e c u ti o n P a g e | 14

Issue IV: Whether both the accused made themselves criminally liable under Section
304B, 302, 498A & 34 of IPC?

It is respectfully here submitted before the Hon’ble Court:

1. That both the accused Rajat & Mohit were voluntarily drunk when they returned back
to their house demanding money from the deceased. It is clear from the facts of the
case both the accused demanded money and not only played cruelty on the deceased
but also beat her severely making them liable under Section 498A of IPC.

2. That both the accused in common intention with each other put kerosene on the body
of Seeta and lit her up resulting more than 80% bodily burn which is itself grievous in
the nature, sufficient to cause death of any human.

3. That not only this there is dying declaration recorded by the Head Constable in the
presence of the Doctor which clearly implicates the both of the accused in this case.

4. That it is pertinent to mention here in that this case completes the all ingredients of
302, 304B of IPC and are liable to be prosecuted under 302 & 304B both. That the
apex court in Rajibir @ Raju & Anr. Vs State of Haryana, AIR 2011 SC 568 directed
all trial Courts in India to add Section 302 in every case alleging commission of an
offence punishable under Section 304B of the IPC.3

5. That it is again clear from the facts of this case that both the accused had common
intention to kill the Seeta as at first, they both have jointly beat the Seeta when she
refused to give them the money demanded by them. Thereafter, one of the accused

3
Legal Authority, https://www.legalauthority.in/judgement/jasvinder-saini-vs-state-govt-of-nct-of-delhi-6232,
last visited on 29.10.2022
M e m o r i a l f o r P r o s e c u ti o n P a g e | 15

open and out the kerosene on the body of the deceased and the other accused light the
matchstick and burn the body of the accused thereof resulting into more than 80%
burn, sufficient to cause death in an ordinary manner. Completing the one act of the
other shows the active intention of both the accused to kill the Seeta.

5. That it is pertinent to mention one judgment from Apex Court namely Bhagwan
Tukaram Dange vs State of Maharashtra (2014) 4 SCC 2704, upholding conviction of
the lower Courts under Section 302, 498A read with 34 where similar facts of the case
can be ascertained.

4
Main SCI, https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2019/1384/1384_2019_9_1502_19135_Judgement_13-Dec-
2019.pdf, last visited on 29.10.2022
M e m o r i a l f o r P r o s e c u ti o n P a g e | 16

PRAYER

In the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited it is humbly prayed
before the Hon’ble Court:

1. That both the accused be held liable under Section 302, 304B, 498A read
with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.

2. That both the accused be given imprisonment of life.

3. That Hon’ble Court may pass any other order as it deems fit in the interest
of the Harish.

(Counsel for Prosecution)