Amity Law School, Rajasthan

Moot Preposition

BEFORE THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF

RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 34/2019

In the matter of:

Suresh Sharma- Appellant 1
Vimla Devi- Appellant 2
Versus
State of Rajasthan
(Respondent)

Appeal under section 374(2) of

The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
 LIST OF REFERENCES

List of Statutes:
1. Indian Penal Code, 1860
2. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
3. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872

List of Books:
1. Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code
2. K.D Gaur, Textbook on Indian Penal Code
3. The Indian Penal Code, Bare Act
4. The Code of Criminal Procedure Bare Act
5. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Bare Act

Databases Referred
1. www.scconline.com
2. www.indiakanoon.org
3. www.maupatra.com
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

Whereas the present Appeal filed under section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure challenges the Judgement of the Learned Principal Sessions Judge,
Jaipur in S.C No. 149 of 2018 dated 26.10.2018.

Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as follows:

“374 Appeals from conviction (2): Any person convicted on trial held by a
Session judge or on a trial held by any other court in which a sentence of
imprisonment of more than 7 years [has been against him or any other person
convicted at the same trial]; may appeal to the High Court.
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

Ramesh Sharma, 50 years was a farmer living with his family in Dausa having 5
members in the family including him.
Wife: Vimla Devi, 45 years
Brother: Suresh Sharma, 40 years
Daughter: Komal Sharma, 22 years
Son: Shyam Sharma, 18 years
This family had a very meagre source of income and was completely dependent upon
farming. Ramesh worked hard for fulfilling the family needs. He was the only source of
income in the family.
Rahul was a son of a money lender living in the same village and in love with his
daughter, Komal.
Suresh had borrowed a loan on 50000 from Rahul and had a debt with interest on it. He
was unable to pay the amount so he collected the money and called Rahul home for the
payment of debt. When he searched for Rahul in the house he and Vimla Devi found him
in the backyard with Komal and in a fit of rage he bought a lathi from inside and hit him
on his head. Komal’s mother was aware of their love affair and has warned her daughter
a no. of times. And when they found them together in the backyard they couldn’t control
their anger.
After an hour, Ramesh returned and found out that Rahul was lying there and bleeding
was there. He took him to the hospital and after reaching, there doctors said he was dead
due to excessive bleeding from his head.
The sessions Court of Jaipur convicted the accused with life imprisonment under section
302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
They filled a criminal appeal in the Rajasthan High Court.
 ISSUES

1. Whether the accused should be charged with section 34 r/w 302 of Indian Penal
Code, 1860.

2. Whether the wounds were enough to cause death of the person.

 ARGUMENTS

1. Whether the accused should be charged with section 34 r/w 302 of Indian Penal
Code, 1860.
A) No, Vimla Devi and Suresh Sharma couldn’t be charged with common intention
as there was no pre planning and pre-meeting of minds among both the accused.
Suresh Sharma called Rahul with an intention to repay the loan and not to harm
him in any way.

CASE: Abdul Sayeed V. State of Madhya Pradesh

In this case the High Court had set aside the convictions of all appellants and other co-
accused under section 147/148 IPC, question of convicting them with the aid of Section
34 did not arise. And no such evidence has been found that showed that the act had been
committed in furtherance of common intention.
Similarly in this situation too no evidences have been found which lead the investigation
towards common intention and the accused had not committed the act in furtherance of
common intention.

B) The act committed was in fit of rage and grave and sudden provocation and there
was no intention to harm the deceased. It was done in the heat of the moment.
CASE: Mahmood V. State 1960
Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender while deprived of the power of self-
control by grave and sudden provocation causes the death of the person and gave the
provocation or caused the death of another person by mistake of accident.

Similarly in this case the accused should not be charged with murder but with culpable
homicide not amounting to murder as there was no intention of murder.

2. Whether the wounds were enough to cause death of the person.

In the case of Perana V. Emperor It was observed that “the use of lathi is certainly
dangerous but not that dangerous that one would suppose that anybody would be in
the ordinary course think that death is a probable cause of use of lathi. Our
experience is that lathis are frequently used and result in nothing more than injuries
which are simple hurts or at most grievous hurts.”

Here in this situation the use of lathi which is a very common thing kept in a village
household is quite normal and it cannot be foreseen that lathi wounds would be
enough to cause death of a person.
 PRAYER

Wherefore in the light of facts stated, issues raised, authorities cited and
arguments advanced, it is prayed that this Honourable Court may graciously
pleased to:-

1. Acquit Mr Suresh (Appellant 1) and Mrs Vimla Devi (Appellant 2) for murder
under section 302 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code ,1860

2. Reduce the sentence of life imprisonment of the Appellants.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE PETITIONER AS IN DUTY

BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY.
 AMITY UNIVERSITY RAJASTHAN
AMITY LAW SCHOOL

Indian Penal Code-I

Moot Preposition

Submitted By: Submitted To:

1. Kashvi Katewa Dr. Rajni Parmar
2. Pulkit Joshi Associate Professor
3. Himanshi Saraswat Amity Law School
BBA-LLB (H) Rajasthan
Semester 3