SAMEER VS.

THE TEACHER ANURAG AND CHOWKIDAR GAJANAN

ASSIGNMENT ON MOOT COURT PROBLEM NO. 2

FOR DEFENDANT

(THROUGH THE UNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI)

SUBMITTED BY

MS. KRUTI SHAH

(ROLL NO. 2223345)

SUBJECT TEACHER:

PROF. DIPAK PAWAR

THROUGH

LALA LAJPATRAI COLLEGE OF LAW

MUMBAI

SEPTEMPBER 2022

MOOT COURT CASE NO. 2 | MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT Page |1

 BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF INDIA

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION

IN THE MATTER OF

SUNIL SHAH ……..………APPELLANT

Versus

ANURAG MISHRA & OTHERS..............................DEFENDANT

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT ON INDIA

UNDER INDIAN PENAL CODE

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT

MOOT COURT CASE NO. 2 | MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT Page |2

SUNIL SHAH VS. ANURAG MISHRA & OTHERS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS........................................................................................4

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES..........................................................................................5

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION.............................................................................7

STATEMENT OF FACTS.............................................................................................9

STATEMENTS OF ISSUES........................................................................................12

ARGUMENTS...............................................................................................................13

PRAYER FOR RELIEF...............................................................................................22

MOOT COURT CASE NO. 2 | MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT Page |3

SUNIL SHAH VS. ANURAG MISHRA & OTHERS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVIATION FULL FORM

Anr. Another
Art. Article
& And
CPC Civil Procedure Code
Govt. Government
HC High Court

HCC High Court Cases

Hon’ble Honourable

HCR High Court Reporter

IPC Indian Penal Code
No. Number
Ors Others

Sec Section
v. or vs. Versus
Vol Volume

MOOT COURT CASE NO. 2 | MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT Page |4

SUNIL SHAH VS. ANURAG MISHRA & OTHERS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

LEGISLATIONS REFERRED

1. THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950

2. THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860

3. THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908

4. LAW OF TORTS

CASES REFERRED

Sr. No. NAME OF THE CASE

1 SUREN GURUNG VS STATE OF SIKKIM

2 PRABHAKARAN VS STATE OF KERALA
3 MAHADEV PRASAD KAUSHIK VS STATE OF U.P. & ANR
4 K.VEERARAGHAVAN VS THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
5 A. PAVADAI VS THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
6 MINOR MUTHULAKSHMI VS THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU
7 SOMABHAI MANGALBHAI DABHI V. STATE OF GUJARAT
8 SURESH GUPTA V. GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI AND ANR.
9 MATADIN VS THE NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

MOOT COURT CASE NO. 2 | MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT Page |5

SUNIL SHAH VS. ANURAG MISHRA & OTHERS

WEBSITES REFERRED

 www.indiankanoon.com

 www.legalserviceindia.com

 https://www.lawteacher.net

 www.livelaw.com

 www.indconlawphil.wordpress.com

 www.legalcrystal.com

 www.india-seminar.com

 www.bareactslive.com

 www.Indiacode.nic.in

BOOKS AND COMMENTARIES

 THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

 THE INDIAN PENAL CODE

 GEOFFREY’S SAMUEL’S CASES AND MATERIALS ON TORTS

 RAMASWAMY IYER’S THE LAW OF TORTS BY A LAKSHMINATH & M SRIDHAR

 TORT BY WINFIELD AND JOLOWICZ

 R.K. BANGIA, LAW OF TORTS (ALLAHABAD LAW AGENCY, FARIDABAD

 AKSHAY SAPRE, RATANLAL AND DHIRAJLAL, THE LAW OF TORT

 B.M. GANDHI, LAW OF TORTS

MOOT COURT CASE NO. 2 | MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT Page |6

SUNIL SHAH VS. ANURAG MISHRA & OTHERS

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

THE APPELLANT HUMBLY SUBMITS THIS MEMORANDUM FOR THE PETITION FILED
BEFORE THE HONOURABLE COURT. THE PETITION INVOKES THE WRONGFUL
CONFINEMENT AND DEATH CAUSED BY NEGLIGENCE BEFORE THE HONOURABLE SC
OF INDIA UNDER SECTION 304A OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860. IT SET FORTH THE
FACTS AND THE LAWS ON WHICH THE CLAIMS ARE BASED.

SECTION 304A: CAUSING DEATH BY NEGLIGENCE

“WHOEVER CAUSES THE DEATH OF ANY PERSON BY DOING ANY RASH OR NEGLIGENT ACT
NOT AMOUNTING TO CULPABLE HOMICIDE, SHALL BE PUNISHED WITH IMPRISONMENT OF
EITHER DESCRIPTION FOR A TERM WHICH MAY EXTEND TO TWO YEARS, OR WITH FINE, OR
WITH BOTH.”

ANY ACT UNDER SECTION 304A IS A BAILABLE OFFENCE UNDER THE INDIAN PENAL
CODE. IN SUCH A CASE, THE COURT ALLOWS THE DEFENDANT TO MAKE BAIL BY
PAYING A SURETY AMOUNT ALONG WITH A BAIL BOND AT THE POLICE STATION. THIS
OFFENCE IS ALSO COMPOUNDABLE WHICH MEANS THAT THE PLAINTIFF AND THE
DEFENDANT CAN REACH AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THEMSELVES THROUGH THEIR
COUNSEL AND AVOID TRIAL. THIS OFTEN OCCURS IN CASES INVOLVING POWERFUL
COMPANIES WHO WOULD SETTLE INSTEAD OF GOING THROUGH A PUBLIC TRIAL.

THE CASE WAS FILED BY SAMEER’S FATHER AGAINST THE SCHOOL AUTHORITIES, THE
TEACHER ANURAG AND CHOWKIDAR GAJANAN FOR NEGLIGENCE AND OTHER
DAMAGES THROUGH INDIAN PENAL CODE BEFORE THE HONOURABLE SC OF INDIA.

IN THE VERY FAMOUS CASE OF AMBALAL D. BHATT V. STATE OF GUJARAT THE

SUPREME COURT AGAIN EXPLAINED THE CONCEPT THAT A PERSON IS LIABLE UNDER

MOOT COURT CASE NO. 2 | MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT Page |7

SUNIL SHAH VS. ANURAG MISHRA & OTHERS

SECTION 304A OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE ONLY IF THE PRINCIPLE OF CAUSA
CAUSANS IS FULFILLED.

THE SECTION DEALS WITH HOMICIDAL DEATH BY RASH OR NEGLIGENT ACT. IT DOES
NOT CREATE A NEW OFFENCE. IT IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE OFFENCES OUTSIDE THE
RANGE OF SECTIONS 299 AND 300, INDIAN PENAL CODE AND COVERS THOSE CASES
WHERE DEATH HAS BEEN CAUSED WITHOUT `INTENTION' OR `KNOWLEDGE'. THE
WORDS "NOT AMOUNTING TO CULPABLE HOMICIDE" IN THE PROVISION ARE
SIGNIFICANT AND CLEARLY CONVEY THAT THE SECTION SEEKS TO EMBRACE THOSE
CASES WHERE THERE IS NEITHER INTENTION TO CAUSE DEATH, NOR KNOWLEDGE
THAT THE ACT DONE WILL IN ALL PROBABILITY RESULT INTO DEATH. IT APPLIES TO
ACTS WHICH ARE RASH OR NEGLIGENT AND ARE DIRECTLY THE CAUSE OF DEATH OF
ANOTHER PERSON.

MOOT COURT CASE NO. 2 | MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT Page |8

SUNIL SHAH VS. ANURAG MISHRA & OTHERS

STATEMENT OF FACTS

SUNIL SHAH……………..APPELLANT

VS.

ANURAG MISHRA & OTHERS……………..DEFENDANT

1) Sameer Shah is a student of class VIII studying in ABC English High School in the city of Mumbai.

On August 1, 2018, during the on-going class of English language, the class teacher Mr. Anurag

Mishra notice that Sameer was misbehaving in the class. Thus, to punish Sameer, Anurag sent him

to the adjoining classroom and asked him to write an essay on good behaviour.

2) Sameer was locked inside the room by Anurag, and was informed that the door will be opened as

soon as he completes his essay. Anurag left the school before the class hours after receiving an

emergency call without opening the adjoining classroom door where Sameer was locked for his

misbehavior.

3) Classes got over and the school was dismissed for the day at 2:30 p.m., but Sameer was still inside

the classroom who had fallen asleep while writing the essay, and was not woken up by Anurag who

had locked him inside the classroom.

MOOT COURT CASE NO. 2 | MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT Page |9

SUNIL SHAH VS. ANURAG MISHRA & OTHERS

4) That day, Chowkidar Gajanan Pandurang was responsible to clean all the classrooms, and then lock

them from outside. However, Chowkidar Gajanan did not perform his assigned duty and instead

asked peon Kashiram Bhosle to do that job for that day. The peon Kashiram, instead of cleaning

each of the classroom, simply locked all the rooms from the outside without opening them and

cleaning.

5) To escape himself, Sameer could have possibly climb on a chair and come out through a small

window in the room, but he rather fall asleep while writing the essay.

6) Soon the parents of Sameer started searching for him as he did not reach home after school. For

enquiry, they reached school and was informed by chowkidar Gajanan that all the students have left

and there was no child in the School.

7) After hours of searching, the parents contacted Sameer’s friends and found out that in the English

class of Mr. Anurag, the English teacher, he had punished Sameer for his misbehavior. However,

they didn’t know what happened after that as they had left. Parents tried connecting to the teacher

on call, but it went unanswered even though it was almost midnight.

8) Next day, when the school reopened, Sameer was found unconscious in the school. He was

immediately rushed to the hospital and his parents were informed about the said incidence. Upon

reaching the hospital, Sameer had died and Doctors informed his parents that the cause of death

given was due to suffocation.

9) On hearing the news of the death of her son, Sameer’s mother suffered nervous shock and had to be

hospitalised immediately and remained hospitalised for two months. The doctor informed the father

MOOT COURT CASE NO. 2 | MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT P a g e | 10

SUNIL SHAH VS. ANURAG MISHRA & OTHERS

that she has suffered permanent mental disorder because of the shock. To take care of his wife for

two months, Sameer’s father had to take leave due to which his temporary service in a private firm

was terminated.

10) In the backdrop of above facts and circumstances, Sameer’s father has filed a case against the

school authorities, the teacher Anurag and chowkidar gajanan for negligence and other damages

under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code for justice of his Son who died due to suffocation.

MOOT COURT CASE NO. 2 | MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT P a g e | 11

SUNIL SHAH VS. ANURAG MISHRA & OTHERS

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

I. DO THE ACTIONS OF THE TEACHER ANURAG AMOUNT TO NEGLIGENCE &

WRONGFUL CONFINEMENT OF THE DECEASED?

II. CAN CHOWKIDAR GAJANAN BE HELD GUILTY FOR THE DEATH OF THE

DECEASED BY NEGLIGENCE?

III. ARE THE SCHOOL AUTHORITIES LIABLE FOR PHYSICAL AND EMOTIONAL

DAMAGE AS WELL AS THE MINORITY LOSSES CAUSED TO THE PARENTS OF THE

DECEASED, BASED ON THE PRINCIPLE OF VICARIOUS LIABILITY?

MOOT COURT CASE NO. 2 | MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT P a g e | 12

SUNIL SHAH VS. ANURAG MISHRA & OTHERS

ARGUMENTS

ISSUE I

DO THE ACTIONS OF THE TEACHER ANURAG AMOUNT TO NEGLIGENCE &

WRONGFUL CONFINEMENT OF THE DECEASED?

According to Section 339 of the Indian Penal Code;

“Whoever voluntarily obstructs any person so as to prevent that person from proceeding in any

direction in which that person has a right to proceed, is said wrongfully to restrain that person.”

Further, the section also lays down an exception, which is that if a person in good faith believes himself

to have a lawful right to obstruct and so obstruct a private way over land or water, then it does not

amount to wrongful restraint.

To establish the offence of wrongful restraint the complainant must prove all the following essential:

 That there was an obstruction;

 That the obstruction prevented the complainant from proceeding in any direction;

 That the person/complainant so proceeding must have a right to proceed in the direction

concerned.

The teacher had a duty to take care of Sameer, however there was a breach of duty by Chowkidar and

not by the teacher.

MOOT COURT CASE NO. 2 | MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT P a g e | 13

SUNIL SHAH VS. ANURAG MISHRA & OTHERS

According to Section 340 of the Indian Penal Code;

“Whoever wrongfully restrains any person in such a manner as to prevent that person from proceeding

beyond certain circumscribing limits is said to have committed the offence of wrongful confinement.”

The essential ingredients of the offence of wrongful confinement are:

 The accused should have wrongfully restrained the complainant (i.e. all ingredients of wrongful

restraint must be present)

 Such wrongful restraint was to prevent the complainant from proceeding beyond certain

circumscribing limits beyond which he or she has the right to proceed.

In the case of State of Gujarat vs. Keshav Lai Maganbhai Gujoyan, it was discussed by the court that

“For a charge of wrongful confinement, proof of actual physical restriction is not essential. It is

sufficient if the evidence shows that such an impression was produced in the mind of the victim, a

reasonable apprehension in his mind that he was not free to depart. If the impression creates that the

complainant would be forthwith seized or restrained if he attempts to escape, a reasonable apprehension

of the use of the force rather than its actual use is sufficient and important.”

Section 304A: Causing Death by Negligence

“Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable

homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two

years, or with fine, or with both.”

The essential ingredients of the section are as follows:

 There must be death of person in question;

MOOT COURT CASE NO. 2 | MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT P a g e | 14

SUNIL SHAH VS. ANURAG MISHRA & OTHERS

 The death must be caused by the accused;

 The death must be caused due to rash or negligent act of accused; and

 Act of the accused must not amount to culpable homicide.

The section applies when there is a direct connection of the rash or negligent act of accused to the death

of the person in question. The act must lead to the immediate cause for the death.

‘Negligent Act’ refers to a breach of duty imposed by law or omission of anything which a man of

ordinary prudence should have done.

Criminal negligence was defined in the case of Bala Chandra v. State of Maharastra, where it was

defined as complete or partial negligence or failure in exercising reasonable and proper care and

precaution in protecting any particular person or public in general, which would have been essential

duty of the accused keeping in mind the circumstances.

In this case, the punishment of writing an essay on good behaviour was an act done in good faith, and

taking the student to adjoining classroom and then locking of the classroom door did not prevent the

deceased person from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits. He could have escaped from the

window, however, he slept.

The teacher did not cause the death of the deceased person, as he did not commit any negligent act, not

amounting to culpable homicide, and actions of the teacher Anurag to punish the deceased was an act

done in good faith.

MOOT COURT CASE NO. 2 | MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT P a g e | 15

SUNIL SHAH VS. ANURAG MISHRA & OTHERS

ISSUE II

CAN CHOWKIDAR GAJANAN BE HELD GUILTY FOR THE DEATH OF THE

DECEASED BY NEGLIGENCE?

No, Chowkidar Gajanan shall not be held guilty for the death of the deceased by negligence. Had the

teacher Anurag not punished the deceased, he would have survived and not be suffocated.

Section 304A: Causing Death by Negligence

“Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable

homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two

years, or with fine, or with both.”

The essential ingredients of the section are as follows:

 There must be death of person in question;

 The death must be caused by the accused;

 The death must be caused due to rash or negligent act of accused; and

 Act of the accused must not amount to culpable homicide.

‘Negligent Act’ refers to a breach of duty imposed by law or omission of anything which a man of

ordinary prudence should have done. As per the law, negligence is any act of ignorance that can cause

injury to the person or his property. It is an act marked by the carelessness of any person.

Chowkidar Gajanan did not committ a breach of his duty as he had delegated the work to peon Kashiram

who had to clean the classrooms.

MOOT COURT CASE NO. 2 | MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT P a g e | 16

SUNIL SHAH VS. ANURAG MISHRA & OTHERS

There are four basic elements that a person has to fulfill in order to do a negligent act. These elements

are as follows:

 Duty: For committing a negligent act, there must be some duty on the part of the defendant. Here it

is important to understand whether the defendant has taken legal duty of care towards the plaintiff.

 Breach of Duty: After fulfilling the first criteria the plaintiff must prove that the defendant has

breached the legal duty imposed on him/her. It talks about the breach of duty on the part of the

defendant which he/ she is expected to do as he/ she has some legal duty towards the plaintiff.

 The action of causing something: It means that the damage caused to the plaintiff is due to the act

of the defendant. Here the defendant may do an act which is not expected from him/her or the

defendant may be negligent in not doing an act which was expected from him/ her.

 Damages: At last what matters is, there must be some damage/injury that is caused to the plaintiff

and this damages should be the direct consequence of the defendant’s act.

Thus, considering the above four basic elements, Chowkidar Gajanan had not committed a negligence as

per below:

 Breach of Duty on the part of the defendant which he was expected to do as he had some legal duty

towards the plaintiff - Here, the watchman had performed his duty by delegating the work to the

peon Kashiram to handle his work. The watchman worked in a reasonable and prudent manner in

any circumstance which fulfils the second parameter and indicates that the act done wasnot

negligent in nature.

MOOT COURT CASE NO. 2 | MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT P a g e | 17

SUNIL SHAH VS. ANURAG MISHRA & OTHERS

 Damage/injury that is caused to the plaintiff - Chowkidar Gajanan did not cause the death of the

plaintiff’s son, not simultaneously caused permanent damage to the plaintiff’s wife and the

plaintiff himself. Therefore, the defendant is not liable to pay compensation. Chowkidar Gajanan

cannot be held guilty as he was unaware of the same and held delegated his work.

In criminal law, mens rea means the state of mind required for the commission of a crime. Mens rea

is typically divided into four categories, as different crimes require different levels to apply:

 The first level, intent, requires that the defendant intend for the specific result. First-degree murder

and most theft crimes often require this level of mens rea, though most crimes do not.

 The second level, knowingly, requires that the defendant know the likely result of the act. Second-

degree murder and most assaults require this level of intent.

 The third level, recklessness, requires that the defendant knew of the risk and consciously ignored

it. Involuntary manslaughter, such as when drunk driving results in a death, is an example.

 The fourth level is negligence, which requires that the defendant should have perceived a risk but

failed to do so. While negligence is a common civil standard, most crimes require something more

than negligence.

Chowkidar Gajanan did not have a guilty mind to cause any harm to the deceased person.

MOOT COURT CASE NO. 2 | MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT P a g e | 18

SUNIL SHAH VS. ANURAG MISHRA & OTHERS

ISSUE III

ARE THE SCHOOL AUTHORITIES LIABLE FOR PHYSICAL AND EMOTIONAL

DAMAGE AS WELL AS THE MINORITY LOSSES CAUSED TO THE PARENTS OF
THE DECEASED, BASED ON THE PRINCIPLE OF VICARIOUS LIABILITY?

There has been no legal violation of Education and rules by the management of school. For the benefit

of the students, a punishment was given to the student. The school authorities were not negligent in

performing their duty and therefore there was no to the breach of the same.

In this particular case the defendant i.e., the school authorities were not negligent in performing the duty

of care which they owed towards the students. They wanted to protect the students and ensure their

growth. At first, the teacher locked the plaintiff to teach him a lesson, then the watchman who was

required to perform his assigned duty of checking & cleaning all the classrooms and then locking them

was delegated to peon.

The plaintiff son who was an immediate victim got locked in the classroom and suffered dehydration

and suffocation which lead to his son’s death. However, he could have escaped from the window, if he

had slept. The mother i.e., the secondary victim who had a close relationship of love and affection with

the immediate victim, suffered permanent mental disorder due to shock, that was not due to negligence

of the school authorities. Therefore, the school authorities cannot be liable for physical, emotional and

compensatory damages caused as a consequence thereof.

In the case of Shaw v. Commonwealth, the court found the defendant was negligent in two ways, Firstly,

MOOT COURT CASE NO. 2 | MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT P a g e | 19

SUNIL SHAH VS. ANURAG MISHRA & OTHERS

it was vicariously liable for the negligence of the teacher as an employee for not taking reasonable care

of the child. Secondly, the defendant was also in breach of a non-delegable duty of care to students at a

school it had established to ensure there was adequate supervision for the student at the time.

Therefore, the school authority cannot be liable to pay the plaintiff for the negligence of the teacher and

the watchman. As we know school authorities have a non-delegable duty towards students to ensure that

reasonable care is taken for the safety of children at school.

The doctrine of mens rea is not abstruse. The principle is stated in the maxim: “actus non facit reum, nisi

mens sit rea” or “an act does not make one guilty unless the mind is also guilty”. One of the types of

mens rea as mentioned talks about intention, which in this case is clearly shown that neither the school

authorities, nor the teacher or peon had any intention to cause harm to the plaintiff’s child.

Res Ipsa Loquitor – It means “the thing speaks for itself”, it is a legal theory wherein the facts &

circumstances surrounding an injury allow the court to presume that negligence has occurred. Three

conditions must be fulfilled to apply this doctrine:

 the defendant must be exclusive control of the situation or instrument

 the accident would not have ordinarily occurred but for the defendant's negligence

 Plaintiff’s injury was not due to his actions or contribution

In our case, the defendant was not in exclusive control of the situation and the accident that happened

was unpredictable and wouldn’t have happened if the plaintiff had escaped from the window and did not

sleep while writing the essay or had shouted seeking help from people to open the door. As facts of the

case suggest and the arguments advanced all the above conditions are fulfilled.

MOOT COURT CASE NO. 2 | MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT P a g e | 20

SUNIL SHAH VS. ANURAG MISHRA & OTHERS

MOOT COURT CASE NO. 2 | MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT P a g e | 21

SUNIL SHAH VS. ANURAG MISHRA & OTHERS

CONCLUSION

The provision of Section 304(a) under the Indian Penal Code is important to offer a measure of justice to

the claimants. It might give them some closure or at the very least compensate them if there has been a

breach of duty that led to irreversible damage or loss of life/property.

Section 304A is quite good addition by the policymakers in the Indian penal Code, 1860 as it separates

the cases in which neither the intention nor the knowledge of the accused was there but the act causes

death. The present punishment under this section is often subject to criticism because of its weaker

nature. The Supreme Court, on several instances favoured a harder punishment and at it has also asked

the legislature to amend the provision. In the present scenario, there is a need of harsher punishment up

to a minimum imprisonment of five years as suggested by Law Commission Report.

The number of cases of medical negligence is increasing day by day. Although the Supreme Court has

framed guidelines for a case of medical negligence to come until 304A, there needs to be a clear and

concise provision for medical negligence; medical courts need to be established where the medical

experts should be appointed to assist the judges.

Wrongful confinement is in a Circle, this means that it involves all sorts of restraints that happen in a

circumscribed limit such as restriction from leaving a room or building or a park etc.

If in the light of the above facts and circumstances, proceedings have been initiated against the appellant

for an offence punishable under Section 304A, IPC, it cannot be said that no such action could be taken.

MOOT COURT CASE NO. 2 | MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT P a g e | 22

SUNIL SHAH VS. ANURAG MISHRA & OTHERS

PRAYER

In the light of the arguments presented, cases referred and authorities cited, the counsel for the

Defendant humbly pray this Honourable Court to:

 Shouldn’t allow the appeal filed;

 Memorandum filed under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code before the SC is not
maintainable;

 The negligence by teacher Anurag Mishra, watchman Gajanan Pandurang does not violates the
Section 304A and 340 of the Indian Penal Code as they did not have guilty mind;

 Pass any other order, other order that it deems fit in the interest of Justice, Equity and Good
Conscience.

For This Act of Kindness, the Defendant Shall be Duty Bound Forever Pray.

Place:

Date: --/--/--

(COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT)

MOOT COURT CASE NO. 2 | MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT P a g e | 23