P – TEAM CODE*

2ND PROF. (DR.) BASANT K. SHARMA MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION
(VIRTUAL)

BEFORE THE HON’BLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. :- _ OF 2022

IN THE MATTER OF

STATE

VERSUS

MEGHA MITTAL & ORS.

1
 P – TEAM CODE*

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CONTENT PAGE NO.

Table of Contents

List of abbreviations

Index of Authorities

Statement of jurisdiction

Statement of facts

Issues raised

Summary of arguments

Arguments advanced

Prayer

2
 P – TEAM CODE*

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AIR All India Reporter

Cri LJ/ Cr LJ Criminal Law Journal

Cr.P.C. Code of Criminal Procedure

Del Delhi High Court

IPC Indian Penal Code

P&H Punjab and Haryana High Court

SC Supreme Court

SCC Supreme Court Cases

3
 P – TEAM CODE*

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

 Case laws
1. Anil Kr. Agawal Vs. State of U.P and another
2. Jeet Singh (Deceased) Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
3. Arun Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1989 SC 1445
4. State of Maharashtra Vs. Meyer Hans George, AIR 1965 SC 722
5. Santosh Vs. state of Madhya Pardesh, 1975 Cri LJ 602 (SC)
6. Macchi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983)
7. Pillu Prahlad and another V. The state of Madhya Pradesh
8. Son Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 1142,
9. Chottka v. State of WB, AIR 1958 Cal 482
10. State Vs. Dinakar Bandu (1969) 72 Bom LR 905
11. State of Punjab v. Sucha Singh, AIR 2003 SC 1471
12. Mulakh Raj v. Satish Kumar, AIR 1992 SC 1175
13. Nathual AIR 1966 SC 43
14. Mohan Lal v. State of UP AIR 1974 SC 1144
15. Pillu @ Prahlad vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh, CrAppeal 1331/2011
16. Mohan Singh vs State Of Bihar
17. Yogesh alias  Sachin Jagdish Joshi v. State of Maharashtra
18. Mohd. Khalid vs State Of West Bengal 
19. Pulicherla Nagaraju alias Nagaraja Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2006) 11 SCC 444

 Books
1. Indian Penal Code (With the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2018 – S.N.
th
2. BATUK LAL, THE LAW OF EVIDENCE (7 ed., Thomson Reuters, 2017).
3. Criminal Procedure - R.V. Kelkar's
4. Criminal Law: Incorporating the Criminal Law - PSA Pillai's.

 Statues
1. Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2. Code of Criminal procedure, 1973
3. Indian Evidence Act, 1872
4. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
5. 4. Indian Evidence Act,
6. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
7. 4. Indian Evidence Act, 1872
8. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
9. 4. Indian Evidence Act, 1872

4
 P – TEAM CODE

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The appellant in the present case has approached the Hon’ble P&H at Chandigarh to initiate the appeal under section
378 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1908. The appellant most humbly submits to the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble
High Court in the present matter.

SECTION 378. APPEAL IN CASE OF ACQUITTAL

(1) Save as otherwise provided in sub- section (2) and subject to the provisions of sub- sections (3) and (5), the State
Government may, in any case, direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal to the High Court from an original
or appellate order of acquittal passed by any Court other than a High Court  2 or an order of acquittal passed by the
Court of Session in revision.]

(2) If such an order of acquittal is passed in any case in which the offence has been investigated by the Delhi Special
Police Establishment constituted under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946 ), or by any
other agency empowered to make investigation into an offence under any Central Act other than this Code, the
Central Government may also direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal, subject to the provisions of sub-
section (3), to the High Court from the order of acquittal.

(3) No appeal under sub- section (1) or sub- section (2) shall be entertained except with the leave of the High Court.

(4) If such an order of acquittal is passed in any case instituted upon complaint and the High Court, on an
application made to it by the complainant in this behalf, grants special leave to appeal from the order of acquittal,
the complainant may present such an appeal to the High Court.

(5) No application under sub- section (4) for the grant of special leave to appeal from an order of acquittal shall be
entertained by the High Court after the expiry of six months, where the complainant is a public servant, and sixty
days in every other case, computed from the date of that order of acquittal.

(6) If in any case, the application under sub- section (4) for the grant of special leave to appeal from an order of
acquittal is refused, no appeal from that order of acquittal shall lie under sub- section (1) or under sub- section (2).

5
 P – TEAM CODE*

STATEMENT OF FACTS

 BACKGROUND
 For the last 20 years, Mamta Karia, a lawyer, and Ramesh Karia, a prominent businessman, had been married.
Asmin Sharma, the couple's 8-year-old daughter, was born out of wedlock. Since their marriage, she had been
residing in the marital home with her husband and daughter. They moved lately and have been residing in
Sunrise Villa in South City for just over a year. She was one of the youngest partners in India's emerging law
firm, 'Khanna & Khanna Associates.' Everyone adored Mamta, who was known for her gentle and soft-spoken
demeanour.
 Mamta's cousin, Megha Mittal (Accused No.1), was her Mother's Sister's daughter. Pankaj Mittal, a fashion
designer, was her husband. Megha and Mamta had friendly relations because they had grown up together. Over
time, this sisterly relationship evolved into a fiduciary one, with Mamta lending money to her sister to assist her
in her garment business, 'MD Knitwears.'

 RELEVANT FACTS
 As part of the transaction between Megha and Mamta on June 12, 2001, Megha borrowed Rs. 40 lakhs from
Mamta and promised to repay it within 5 months. Accordingly as per the facts of the case, Megha demanded
and even persuaded Mamta to invest an additional Rs. 30 lakhs in the business, promising to repay it as soon as
possible.
 Due to the existence of fiduciary relation between Megha and Mamta, there were disagreements and agreements
between Mamta and Ramesh and they decided that this would be the last time they would led money to Megha.
On 01.08.2020, at family dinner a final deadline was given to Megha to pay the unoaid amount by October as
they also require funds for their own personal use for constructing and remodelling of house.
 When Megha received the final ultimatum from Mamta and Ramesh, she took it negatively and wanted to
retaliate. Megha called Mamta on September 9, 2020, and asked her to come to her house. Megha stated over
the phone that her business had begun to improve and that a meeting had been scheduled, and Mamta then
informed Ramesh of the meeting. Mamta and Ramesh both admitted that they had been too harsh on Megha
during the dinner and that she was a pleasant person.
 On the date of the meeting, Mamta left her office and called Ramesh to inform him of the same. She also
expressed her concern about the money she had given to Megha and stated that she hopes to receive it now that
Megha's business has picked up. This was the last phone call made from Mamta's number that the phone
company recorded. When Mamta did not return home, Ramesh became concerned and contacted Megha to
inquire about her whereabouts. Megha stated that Mamta had never arrived at her residence, so she assumed the
meeting had been cancelled.
 When no information could be gathered about Mamta even from her parents, Ramesh decided to file a
complaint but a strange behaviour shown by Megha as she kept on insisting not to file complaint as she stated
that Mamta must have been stuck in some important work. But later on, Ramesh filed a missing complaint of
Mamta on 11/09/2020 and even informed about her missing car which was driven by her.

6
 Then investigation started on 12.09.2020 and police started questioning the family and even Ramesh was
considered a suspect but he was ruled out, once he established his alibi. On questioning, Megha and Pankaj
clearly denies and stated to police that Mamta never visited them at that evening.
 As police continued their investigation, Mamta's missing car was discovered on September 25, 2020, and a
police team recovered some documents from her office almirah. Police determined that Megha was the only
person with the strongest motive to eliminate Mamta.
 When police arrived at Megha's apartment for further investigation, they discovered that Megha and Pankaj
were not present. As their domestic help Hemraj was available, the police escorted him for further interrogation,
and it was revealed by him that Megha and Pankaj had gone to Kasauli on 06/10/2020, even after presurrizing
him, Hemraj confessed that he had helped Megha and Pankaj strangle Mamta on 09/09/2020, and even stated
that he is ready to cooperate with police officials, and even told the police officials about the exact location.
 The investigation team excavated the site and discovered the highly decomposed body of a woman in her late
thirties. The body was taken to the Civil Hospital in Ludhiana for a post mortem, which revealed that the death
was not natural. as a result of asphyxiation caused by hyoid bone fracture The hair from the decomposed body
was extracted and sent for DNA testing.The body was identified as Mamta's after a comparison with a sample
taken from Mamta's hairbrush. The level of decomposition indicated that she had been dead for about a month.
 On 10/10/2020, a First Investigation Report was filed against Megha, Pankaj, and Hemraj for the murder of
Mamta Karia. On October 13, 2020, a team of police officers went to Kasuli, arrested Megha and Pankaj, and
escorted them back to Ludhiana. On 08/12/2020, a charge sheet was prepared in which each of the accused was
charged under the relevant provisions.

 ACQUITTAL FROM SESSION COURT

The Sessions Court acquitted Accused No. 1 Megha Mittal, Accused No. 2 Pankaj Mittal, and Accused No. 3
Hemraj on the basis of the witnesses and evidence in the case. The judgement was issued on August 30, 2022. All
three of the accused have been released.

 APPEAL BEFORE THE HON’BLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH

Dissatisfied with this order, the State has filed an appeal with the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in
Chandigarh, which is currently pending for hearing.

7
 P – TEAM CODE

ISSUES RAISED

1. WHETHER THE APPEAL BROUGHT BEFORE THIS COURT IS MAINTAINBLE?

2. WHETHER MEGHA, PANKAJ AND HEMRAJ GUILTY OF MURDER?
3. WHETHER THE SESSION COURT WAS JUSTIFIED IN ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENTS IN
CONNECTION WITH THE ACT COMMITTED BY THEM?

8
 P – TEAM CODE

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. WHETHER THE APPEAL BROUGHT BEFORE THIS COURT IS MAINTAINABLE?

It is humbly submitted before this court is that the present appeal filed is maintainable as per sec. 179 of Crpc which
states that offence triable where act is done or consequence ensues. Sec. 179 states that when an act is an offence
by reason of anything which has been done and of a consequence which has ensued, the offence may be inquired
into or tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction such thing has been done or such consequence has ensued.

Also the appellant has aptly approached the Hon’ble P&H at Chandigarh to initiate the appeal under section 378 of
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1908.

2. WHETHER THE SESSION COURT WAS JUSTIFIED IN ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENTS IN

CONNECTION WITH THE ACT COMMITTED BY THEM?

Section 2(n) of the Crpc talks about the term offence and states that any act or omission made punishable by any law
for the time being in force and includes any act in respect of which a complaint may be made under section 20 of the
Cattle- trespass Act, 1871 (1 of 1871 ).

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble High Court that the nature of an act performed by all of them was indeed
enough to cause death of the person i.e strangulation. As per the facts of the case it has been shown that Megha
wanted to revenge the insult and took that incident in a negative way and also she had full intention of defrauding
her sister Mamta by not returning the borrowed amount. During the investigation some of the documents were found
and one of such documents consisted of the financial transactions with other people which also revealed that Megha
was the only person with strongest motive to eliminate Mamta. And while committing said crime, all of them had
conspired together and committed murder, thus fulfilling all of the elements of sec. 300 and 120Aof the IPC.
In a dire want of taking revenge, Megha has conspired with her husband and her domestic help Hemraj to set aside
Mamta so that she can get escape herself from returning the unpaid amount and to take vengeance from Mamta and
her husband.

3. WHETHER MEGHA, PANKAJ & HEMRAJ GUILTY OF MURDER?

Megha and Pankaj had the necessary mensrea to commit said crime, and they even had a reason to do so. As Megha
strangled Mamta, Pankaj and Hemraj assisted her in pinning Mamta down, and they only let her go once she stopped
moving. The postmortem report revealed that the death was caused by asphyxiation caused by the hyoid bone
fracturing. As a result, it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Megha, Pankaj, and Hemraj committed the crime
of murder in the case at hand.

9
It is humbly submitted before this court that the act committed by the above-mentioned individuals highlights
essential elements of crime such as preparation and motive. When several people commit a criminal act in
furtherance of a common intention, each of them is liable for that act in the same way as if he did it alone. The fact
that there was a prior meeting of minds and then the said act was committed clearly shows that there was a prior
meeting of minds and then the said act was committed.

P – TEAM CODE

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. WHETHER THE APPEAL BROUGHT BEFORE THIS COURT IS MAINTAINABLE?

It is humbly submitted that the appeal against the judgement of session court is maintainable under section 378 of
Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Section 378(1)(b) gives power to state government that it may in any case,
direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal to the High court from an original or appellate order of an acquittal
passed by any court other than a high court {not being an order under clause (a) or an order of acquittal passed by
the court of session in revision}.

In a case of Anil Kr. Agawal Vs. State of U.P and another, Para 33 states that In any case instituted on complaint,
Section 378 (4) (5) CrPC expressly provides for an appeal against the acquittal. As a result, it can be safely deduced
that the legislature has created a dichotomy between appeals against acquittal in any case instituted on the basis of a
police report/case and appeals against acquittal in any case instituted on the basis of a complaint. Section 372
contains no mode, procedure, or limitation. It is simply an enabling provision that grants the victim the right to file
an appeal against the orders outlined in the proviso to Section 372 CrPC. If an appeal is filed against acquittal in a
case based on a 'police case/report,' the victim for a lesser offence, or imposing adequate compensation, such appeal
shall lie to the Court to which an appeal against the order of conviction of such count ordinarily lies. Meaning that if
the acquittal order is passed by the Magistrate in a police case, the appeal would lie before the Sessions Judge, and if
the order of acquittal is passed by the Sessions Judge in its original jurisdiction or as an appellate court, the appeal
would lie before the High Court, but if the order of acquittal is passed in any case instituted against the complainant,
the appeal would lie before the High Court. The proviso to Section 372 is only an enabling provision that grants the
victim the right to file an appeal; however, if the appeal is filed against an acquittal in a complaint case, the
procedure and conditions set out in Section 378 (4)(5) CrPC will apply. As a result, an appeal against a Magistrate
or Sessions Court order acquitting the accused in a complaint case would be limited to the High Court.

In Jeet Singh (Deceased) Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), Para 19 states that Section 378, Subsection (4),
provides for an appeal from an order of acquittal in a case instituted on complaint. It states that if the complainant
files an application with the High Court and the High Court grants special leave to appeal, the complainant may file
an appeal with the High Court. This sub-section refers to'special leave,' as opposed to sub-section (3), which refers
to 'leave.' As a result, a complainant's appeal against an acquittal order is in its own category. The complainant could
be a private citizen or a government employee. This is clear from sub-section (5), which refers to the complainant's
application for "special leave." It allows a complainant who is a public servant six months to file an application, and
everyone else has sixty days. Subsection (6) is crucial. It states that if the complainant's application for "special
leave" under Section (4) is denied, no appeal from the order of acquittal shall lie under Section (1) or Section (4).

10
(2). Thus, if the complainant is not granted'special leave' to appeal an acquittal order, the matter must end there.
Neither the District Magistrate nor the State Government can appeal the acquittal order.

Also, it has been observed that when the view taken by Session judge was found by High Court to be manifestly
wrong and that it had let to miscarriage of justice, High Court was entititled to set aside the acquittal. In Arun
Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1989 SC 1445, it was held that after considering the opposing arguments,
this Court concludes that a case has been filed against the applicant. It is impossible to predict when the police will
apprehend him. The arrest can be made by the police at any time after the F.I.R. is filed. There is no time limit for
police to arrest an accused against whom an F.I.R has been filed. The courts have repeatedly ruled that arrest should
be the police's last resort, and that it should only be used in exceptional cases where arresting the accused or
interrogating him in custody is necessary. Arrests that are irrational and indiscriminate are a flagrant violation of
human rights. Without expressing an opinion on the merits of the case, and taking into account the nature of the
accusations and antecedents of the applicant, as well as the possibility of the pandemic spreading further, he may be
entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail under the Constitution Bench judgement of the Apex Court in the case of
Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98.

2. WHETHER MEGHA, PANKAJ AND HEMRAJ GUILTY OF MURDER?

It is humbly contended that all the three accused are guilty for committing the offence of murder under sec 302,
120B, and sec 34 of IPC, 1860. Section 302 prescribes the punishment for murder. In order to bring a successful
conviction under this charge, however, it is pertinent to refer to Section 300, IPC which elucidates the essential of
murder.

A person is guilty of murder if he intentionally causes the death of person or causes such bodily injury as he knows ,
is likely to cause death of that person or causes such bodily injury, which in the ordinary cause of nature results into
death or commits an act so dangerous that it must, in all probability cause death of that person. 1 The prosecution
humbly submits that both actus reus and the mensrea of the crime are established in the instant matter.

 ACTUS REUS OF MURDER - Actus reus refers to the act or omission that comprise the physical elements of

a crime as required by statute. Actus reus includes only a voluntary affirmative act, or an omission (failure to
act), causing a criminally proscribed result. 2
In case of murder, actus reus would be the physical conduct of the accused that causes death of the victim. In
this case the actus reus is proved by way of forensic report. The forensic report which includes postmortem
report is an essential document for the case as it reveals so many crucial elements which are important and one
of the ingredients in deciding factor of the case.
In the instant case the body was sent to Civil hospital, Ludhiana for a post mortem which concluded that death
was an unnatural death, due to asphyxiation caused by the fracturing of the hyoid bone.

Asphyxia occurs when your body does not receive enough oxygen to prevent you from passing out. It could be
a potentially fatal situation. When you normally breathe, you first take in oxygen. Your lungs deliver oxygen to
your blood, which then transports it to your tissues. Your cells then use it to generate energy. Any disruption in
the process of breathing in oxygen and exhaling carbon dioxide can cause you to pass out or even die. There are
basically 2 types of asphyxia ‘physical’ and ‘chemical’. In the instant case strangulation is one of the type
which has been used by Megha over Mamta.
 MENSREA OF MURDER IS ESTABLISHED – “It has always been a principle of the common law
that mens rea is an essential element in the commission of any criminal offence against the common law In the
case of statutory offences it depends on the effect of the statute...... There is a presumption that  mens era is
an essential ingredient in a statutory offence, but this presumption is liable to be displaced either by the works
of the statute creating the offence or by the subject matter with which it deals.” 3 It is a principle of the Common
Law that mens rea is an essential element in the commission of any criminal offence against the Common Law.

1
Sec 300, IPC
2
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/actus_reus
3
Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice", 35th edn
11
 This presumption that mens rea is an essential ingredient of an offence equally applies to an offence created by
statute, though the presumption is liable to be displaced by the words of the statute c reating the offence, or by
the subject-matter dealt with by it.4
 The accused had intention to kill – It is implied that every sane person intends the result that his action
normally produces, and if a person hits another on a vulnerable part of the body and death results, the accused's
intention can only be to take the victim's life, and the offence committed amounts to murder. Furthermore, the
intention to kill is not required in every case; mere knowledge that the natural and probable consequences of an
act would be death is sufficient for a conviction under Sec. 302 of the IPC,1860. 5 The murder and the nature of
the injuries inflicted on the victim indicate a murderous intent.
 The accused had motive to kill – Sec 8 of Evidence Act stipulates that any fact is relevant which shows or
constitutes motive preparation for any fact in issue or relevant fact. Thus, previous threats, arguments or any
such incidents between parties are admitted to show motive. 6 It is further pertinent to note that if there is motive
in doing an act, then the adequacy of that motive is not in all cases necessary. Heinous crimes have been
committed for very slight motive.7
In this instant case it can be observed from the facts that Megha has a very clear motive of escaping from paying
the borrowed amount as months passed and even despite of several reminders and follow ups, there was no
mention of the borrowed amount. Also as she took that conversation which held on dinner in a negative way and
wanted to take revenge of that insult. It clearly shows that Megha was the active participant and the one who has
clear motive and intention to set aside Mamta from the picture. After the Bachan Singh landmark verdict, the
death penalty under Section 302 is strictly awarded according to the doctrine of rarest of rare cases. In the case of
Macchi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983), the court went a little deeper to determine the rarest of the rare cases. It
laid down certain guidelines relating to how the murder was committed, the motive for murder, the intensity of
the crime, and the anti-social nature of the crime. In a recent judgment in 2018 (Channulal v State of
Chattisgarh), the Court observed that as the punishment of the death penalty was upheld in the Bachan Singh
case in 1980, there is no need to re-visit or re-examine it. It is necessary to use the death sentence as a form of
punishment.
 Absence of motive is irrelevant – assuming for the sake of argument that the accused had no motive, it is
humbly contended that absence of motive is no ground for dismissing or acquitting the persons. Motive is
immaterial so far as the offence is concerned and need not to be established, 8as the mere existence of motive is
by itself, not an incriminating circumstance and cannot take the place of proof. 9Therefore absence of proof of
motive does not break the link in the chain of circumstances connecting the accused with the crime, nor
militates against the prosecution case and is not fatal as a matter of law. 10

The Supreme Court has held that Mens Rea  is an essential ingredient of a criminal offence 11. In a criminal court one
often wants to test the alleged guilty mind by seeing what was the motive of the alleged criminal in doing the
particular act. It is not essential under IPC for prosecution to establish motive. But as a matter of common sense, this
is usually of importance, because an average man does not commit a criminal offence unless he has a strong motive
for doing it.

It is a well settled principle that where the case is mainly based on circumstantial evidence, the court must satisfy
itself that various circumstances in the chain of evidence should be established clearly and that the completed chain
4
State of Maharashtra Vs. Meyer Hans George, AIR 1965 SC 722
5
Santosh Vs. state of Madhya Pardesh, 1975 Cri LJ 602 (SC)
6
Son Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 1142, Chottka v. State of WB, AIR 1958 Cal
482
7
State Vs. Dinakar Bandu (1969) 72 Bom LR 905
8
Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code, 33rd Ed. (2011).
9
State of Punjab v. Sucha Singh, AIR 2003 SC 1471
10
Mulakh Raj v. Satish Kumar, AIR 1992 SC 1175
11
Nathual AIR 1966 SC 43

12
must be such as to rule out a reasonable likelihood of the innocence of the accused. 12It is the humble contention of
the Respondent that the physical act of murdering Mamta by strangulated her and had been established by well
linked chain of circumstantial evidence.

In a case namely Pillu Prahlad and another V. The state of Madhya Pradesh 13, appellants have been convicted
under section 302/34 of IPC, 1860 for committing murder of Sanju @ Sanjay and sentenced to life imprisonment
with fine of Rs. 3000 each in default of rigorous imprisonment for six months by the impugned judgement. In this
case appellants have preferred the appeal challenging their conviction and order of sentence passed by Additional
Session judge, Narsinghpur in S.T NO. 26/2000, decided on 16.04.2001. After due investigation appellants and co-
accused Govind were prosecuted under Section 307, 324, 302, 294/34 of IPC and were put to trial. Appellants and
co-accused Govind denied the charges brought against them under Sections 302/34 and 323 of the Indian Penal
Code, and pleaded false implication due to animosity. Learned Additional Sessions Judge after trial and after
considering the evidence presented, the judge acquitted co-accused Govind of the charges under Sections 302/34
and 323 of the IPC, as well as the appellants of the charge under Section 323, but found them guilty under Section
302/34 of the IPC, convicted and sentenced them as aforesaid by the impugned judgement, which has been
challenged in this appeal. The ocular evidence also clearly shows that appellant Guddu @ Rajesh was pressing or
overpowering the deceased while he was being assaulted with scissors by appellant Pillu @ Prahlad, and he thus
actively participated in and accelerated the commission of the crime. According to the evidence on record, both
appellants, who are the real brothers, went to the deceased's betel shop at night hours with ill-intent, got into an
altercation with him, and then one of them, appellant Pillu @, Prahlad, assaulted him with scissors, while the other
appellants facilitated him, resulting in several incised injuries, including a stab wound on his chest, resulting in his
instantaneous death. The courts are of the considered opinion that the trial court correctly convicted the appellants
under Section 302/34 of the I. P. C. and that the appeal lacks merit. They uphold the appellants' convictions and life
sentences with fines of Rs.3,000/- each, as imposed by Section 302 of the IPC,1860.

3. WHETHER THE SESSION COURT WAS JUSTIFIED IN ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENTS

IN CONNECTION WITH THE ACT COMMITTED BY THEM?

It is humbly contended that the Hon’ble Sessions Court wrongly acquitted the appellants murder of Mamta, under
Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC. Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC envisages commission of murder by
two or more people in furtherance of a common intention. Section 300 of IPC gives the definition of murder and
enumerates the ingredients of the offence.

Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC envisages commission of murder by two or more people in furtherance of a
common intention. Section 300 of IPC gives the definition of murder and enumerates the ingredients of the offence.
Section 300 of Indian Penal Code contemplates that a person is guilty of murder if he intentionally causes the death
of a person or causes such bodily injury as he knows, is likely to cause death of that person or causes such bodily
injury, which in the ordinary course of nature results into death or commits an act so dangerous that it must, in all
probability cause death of that person. Section 34 of Indian Penal Code contemplates the doing of an act by several
persons in furtherance of common intention. The constructive liability under this section would arise only if two
conditions are fulfilled:

a) There must be common intention to commit the crime; and 

b) There must be participation by all the persons in doing such act in furtherance of that intention. If these two

ingredients are established all the accused would be liable for the said offence. 14

The leading feature of Sec 34 is the element of participation in action. It is the essence of this section that the person
must be physically present at the actual commission of the crime. Criminal sharing, overt or covert, by active

12
Mohan Lal v. State of UP AIR 1974 SC 1144
13
Pillu @ Prahlad vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh, CrAppeal 1331/2011
14
Gurdatta Mal AIR 1965 SC 257

13
 presence or by distant direction, making out a certain measure of jointness in the commission of the act is the
essence of this section.15

In a case namely Mohan Singh vs State Of Bihar, learned counsel for the appellant also relied upon the decision of
this Court in the case of Yogesh alias Sachin Jagdish Joshi v. State of Maharashtra reported in (2008) 10 SCC
394. In paragraph 25 at page 402 of the report this Court laid down the following principles:-"Thus, it is manifest
that the meeting of minds of two or more persons for doing an illegal act or an act by illegal means is sine qua non
of the criminal conspiracy but it may not be possible to prove the agreement between them by direct proof.
Nevertheless, existence of the conspiracy and its objective can be inferred from the surrounding circumstances and
the conduct of the accused. But the incriminating circumstances must form a chain of events from which a
conclusion about the guilt of the accused could be drawn. It is well settled that an offence of conspiracy is a
substantive offence and renders the mere agreement to commit an offence punishable, even if an offence does not
take place pursuant to the illegal agreement." Reliance was also placed by the learned counsel for the appellant on
the decision of this Court in the case of Mohd. Khalid v. State of West Bengal reported in (2002) 7 SCC 334. In that
case, this court held that offence of conspiracy can be proved by either direct or circumstantial evidence. In
paragraph 24 at page 354 of the report the following observations have been made:-"Conspiracies are not hatched in
the open, by their nature, they are secretly planned, they can be proved even by circumstantial evidence, the lack of
direct evidence relating to conspiracy has no consequence." In this case the appeal is dismissed and the conviction of
the appellant under Section 120B of IPC for life imprisonment is affirmed.

 Act of the Mamta amounted to grave and sudden provocation or not – It is most humbly submitted before this
Hon’ble P&H court that the act of the Mamta (deceased) of giving final ultimatum to Megha did not amount grave
and sudden provocation. It is to be noted that according to the facts of the case, it looks like there is a conspiracy to
murder Mamta. Mamta had lent Rs. 70 lakhs in total to Megha and and Megha promised to return the said amount
within the time period and as she decided to give a final warning to Megha with regard to repayment of the unpaid
amount and she does not have the idea that this incident will took her life away. The motive here was clear to
arrange a meeting with Mamta so that she can set aside her and can easily escape from the liability of paying Rs. 70
Lakhs which were pending. Megha arranged a meeting with Mamta and even Mamta has informed her husband that
she would be going to meet Megha and even expressed her concern regarding the money and even stated to her
husband that she is in a hope of receiving money considering that Megha’s business had picked up as stated by her.

It will be also useful here to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court, wherein the Court hasobserved that:The
intention to cause death can be gathered generally from a combination of a few or severalof the following, among
other, circumstances:
(1) Nature of the weapon used;
(2) Whether the weapon was carried by the accused or was picked up from the spot;
(3) Whether the blow is aimed at a vital part of the body;
(4) The amount of force employed in causing injury;
(5) Whether the act was in the course of sudden quarrel or sudden fight or free for allfight;
(6) Whether the incident occurs by chance or whether there was any pre- meditation;
(7) Whether there was any prior enmity or whether the deceased was a stranger;
(8) Whether there was any grave and sudden provocation, and if so, the cause for such provocation;
(9) Whether it was in the heat of passion;
(10) Whether the person inflicting the injury has taken undue advantage or has acted ina cruel and unusual
manner;
(11) Whether the accused dealt a single blow or several blows.16

It is humbly contended that the Hon’ble Sessions Court wrongly acquittal the respondents of murder of Mamta
under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC. Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC envisages commission of

15
Tukaram Ganpat Pandare AIR 1974 SC 514

16
Pulicherla Nagaraju alias Nagaraja Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2006) 11 SCC 444

14
murder by two or more people in furtherance of a common intention. Section 300 of IPC gives the definition of
murder and enumerates the ingredients of the offence. Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 reads:

302. Punishment for murder: - Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or [imprisonment for life],
and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 reads:
34. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention: - When a criminal act is done by several
persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner
as if it were done by him alone.
The Sessions Court, should have convict them for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for life and by its Judgment, the said
substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.
The criminal jurisprudence that has developed on the basis of the British model requires that the alleged offence be
proven beyond all reasonable doubt." It should be noted that the doubt that must be removed is that of a reasonable
man, not any doubt based on speculation or guesswork. "Reasonable doubt" does not, therefore, refer to a vague,
speculative, or whimsical doubt or uncertainty, nor does it refer to a mere possibility of doubting the truth of the fact
to be proved. It also does not imply mathematical certainty or proof beyond the possibility of error. In criminal
cases, the requirement of proof "beyond reasonable doubt" to support conviction does not imply proof beyond all
reasonable doubt.17
Reasonable doubts are those that are free of a desire for abstract speculation. The truth is the only favourite of the
law. It must be free of an overly emotional response to qualify as reasonable doubt. Doubts must be actual and
substantial doubts about the accused's guilt arising from evidence or lack thereof, as opposed to mere apprehension.
A reasonable doubt is not an irrational, trivial, or merely possible doubt, but rather a fair doubt founded on logic and
common sense. Excessive adherence to the rule of benefit of the doubt must not breed fanciful doubts or lingering
suspicions, destroying social defence. Justice cannot be rendered sterile on the grounds that it is better to let it be. 18

 
 

17
State of MP v. Rammi ,1999 (1) JLJ 49 (MP) 28  
18
State of MP v. Dharkale, AIR 2005 SC 44

15
 

P – TEAM CODE

PRAYER

Wherefore, in light of issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is most humbly and respectfully
prayed by the petitioners, may this Hon’ble court pleased to:

1. Declare and adjudge that all three appellants guilty of murdering Mamta.
2. Convict all the acquits against all the charges framed against them.

AND/OR

Pass any order it may deem fit, in the interest of justice, Equity and Good conscience.

All of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted

Place: S/d:

Date Public Prosecutor

16