RCL MOOT COURT

BEFORE

DISTRICT COURT OF CRIMINAL JUDGE,

OF CHANDIGARH

STATE

(PROSECUTION)

V.

RAMESH AND NITA

(DEFENCE)

CASE CONCERNING GRIEVIOUS HURT

SUBMITTED TO THE REGISTRY OF THE DISTRICT

COURT MEMORIAL FOR THE PROSECUTION

Page 1 of 9
 TABLE OF CONTENT

S. No. Content Pg. No.

1. List of Abbreviations 3

2. Index of Authorities 4

3. Statement of Jurisdiction 5

4. Statement of Facts 6

5. Statement of Issues 7

6. Arguments Advanced 8

7. Prayer 9

Page 2 of 9
 LIST OF ABBREVATIONS

AIR All India Reporter

& And
Anr. Another
Co. Company
Ltd. Limited
Or. Others
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
Hon’ble Honorable
CPC Code of Civil Procedure
V. Versus
No. Number
HC High Court
R/w Read With
U/s Under Section
SCR Supreme Court Reports

Page 3 of 9
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

BOOKS AND DIGEST

STATUTORY COMPILATIONS

THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973

INDIAN PENAL CODE

WEBPAGES

1. INDIAN KANOON

2. SCC ONLINE, HTTP:/WWW.SCCONLINE.CO.IN

3. LIVE LAW

4. CASE MINE

5. MANUPATRA ONLINE RESOURCES

HTTP:/WWW.MANUPATRA.COM

Page 4 of 9
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
It is humbly submitted that the Prosecution has approached the Hon’ble District Court of
Chandigarh has inherent jurisdiction to try, entertain and dispute off the present case by
virtue of Section 177 r/w Schedule I of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

177. Ordinary place of inquiry and trial. Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into
and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed.

CrPC Schedule 1 – The First Schedule

Classification Of Offences

Explanatory Notes—

1. In regard to offences under the Indian Penal Code, the entries in the second and third
Columns against a section the number of which is given in the first column are not
intended as the definition of, and the punishment prescribed for, the offence in the
Indian Penal Code, but merely as indication of the substance of the section.

2. In this Schedule,

(i) the expression “Magistrate 1st Class” and “Any Magistrate” include
Metropolitan Magistrates but not Executive Magistrate;

(ii) the word “cognizable” stands for “a police officer may arrest without
warrant”; and

(iii)the word “non-cognizable” stands for “a police officer shall not arrest
without warrant”.

The following tables lists the offences that come under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)
and their punishments. Whether the offence is cognizable or non-cognizable, bailable or non-
bailable and which Court has jurisdiction to try it.

According to these Sections and Schedule this case of grievous hurt can be presented before
any magistrate.

Page 5 of 9
 STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. That, Dinesh (herein referred as husband of the Victim) and Ramesh (herein referred as
Accused No.1) were brothers living in joint family. They had joint business earning huge
profits.

2. That, Mrinalini (herein referred as the Victim) was an MBA. The Victim suggested the
family to expand the business and suggested to start business of selling and purchasing of
trash.

3. That, Accused No. 1 was not ready for this business. But when all the family members
gave their consent, Accused No. 1 also got ready unwillingly.

4. That, the Victim was appointed as CEO of that business at initial stage. And her business
earned huge profits.

5. That, Accused No. 1 was not happy from the success earned by the Victim. As the
Victim was also getting huge respect in the family, Accused No. 1 and Accused No. 2
(Nita w/o Ramesh) got jealous of her.

6. That, dispute started among the family members.

7. That, one day out of jealousy Accused No. 1 failed the breaks of Victim’s car due to
which the Victim got seriously injured and lost her memory.

8. Criminal complaint filed against both the Accused for grievous hurt to the Victim.

Page 6 of 9
 STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1. Whether the both the Accused be held liable for grievous hurt?

Page 7 of 9
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
1. Whether both the Accused be held liable for grievous hurt?

Yes, both the Accused shall be held liable for causing grievous hurt. The Accused should
be held liable under Section 325 of IPC r/w Section 34 which says:-

Section 325 Punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt.—

Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 335, voluntarily causes grievous
hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Section 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.

Section 335 Voluntarily causing grievous hurt on provocation.—

Whoever [voluntarily] causes grievous hurt on grave and sudden provocation, if he

neither intends nor knows himself to be likely to cause grievous hurt to any person other
than the person who gave the provocation, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to four years, or with fine which may extend to
two thousand rupees, or with both. Explanation.—The last two sections are subject to the
same provisos as Explanation 1, section 300.

As stated in the facts, both the accused got jealous from the success and respect which
was being given by their family to the Victim, hence, they cause the failure of breaks of
the Victim’s car knowing the outcome of their act.

The jealously occurred when the Victim started contributing in the joint business ran by
the family all together as the Victim’s new business which she proposed earned huge
profits

Failing the breaks of a car leads to grievous hurt to the Victim and caused loss of her
memory. The accident was so impactful that it damaged the neurological system of the
Victim.

PRAYER
Wherefore in the light of the facts of the case, charges framed, arguments advanced,

Page 8 of 9
statutes referred and authorities cited, the plaintiff most humbly prays and implore before
the hon’ble court.

That it may be pleased to declare that:-

“Punish both the Accused in accordance to Section325 i.e., imprisonment of

both the Accused for seven years and fine of ₹10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lac
only).”

The court may pass any other order and grant any other remedy that this hon’ble court
deems in the interest of justice, faith and good conscience fit in.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE PROSECUTION SHALL AS DUTY

BOUND EVER

HUMBLY PRAY.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

(COUNSEL OF THE PROSECUTION)

Page 9 of 9