BARGARH LAW COLLEGE , BARGARH

MOOT COURT EXERCISE FOR 2nd SEMESTER LL.B 2021

BEFORE THE COURT OF SESSION

BARGARH

C.C. NO. 111 OF 2020

IN THE MATTER

STATE OF ODISHA
(PROSECUTION)

V.
MANOHAR LAL

&

RAHUL GULATI
(DEFENSE)

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE SESSION JUDGE

SUBMITTED BY

NAME - SIDDHANT KUMAR NAIK

EXAM. ROLL NO- 1310521046
2nd SEMESTER LL.B - 2021

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENSE

 CERTIFICATE OF THE SUBJECT TEACHER

This is to certify that sri. Siddhant kumar naik a student of second semester 3years
LL.B -2021 has prepared and submitted the moot court memorial under my
supervision and guidance in partial fulfilment of the requirement for 3 years LL.B
second semester examination-2021 of madhusudan law university.

I wish all the success to him .

SIGNATURE OF THE SUBJECT TEACHER

 TABLE OF CONTENTS i

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ............................................................................................ ii

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION.................................................................................. v

STATEMENT OF FACTS............................................................................................. vi

STATEMENT OF ISSUES ........................................................................................... vii

SUMMERY OF ARGUMENTS..................................................................................... vii

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED......................................................................................... 1

ISSUE I: whether or not Mr. Manohar lal and Mr. Rahul gulati are guilty

of computer related offences and conspiracy?..................................................... 1

ISSUE II : whether or not Mr. Manohar lal is guilty of forgery?.................................. 5

ISSUE III: whether or not Accused No.1 committed the offence of murder

against deceased?................................................................................................... 8

ISSUE IV : whether or not Mr. Rahul gulati is guilty of abetment?.......................... 14

PRAYER..................................................................................................................... 16
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
LITST OF ABBREVIATIONS:

AIR All India Report

ii
ALL Allahabad high court
Cal Calcutta high court
CBI Central bureau of investigation
Cr.P.C. Code of criminal procedure
Cri LJ Cr LJ criminal law journal
Del Delhi high court
DW Defense witness
Ed. Edition
Guj Gujarat high court
IEA Indian Evidence Act
IPC Indian penel code
IT Act Information technology act
M.P Madhya Pradesh
Mad Madras high court
Mah Maharashtra high court
Ori Orissa high court
P Page no.
Para Paragraph
Pat Patna high court
PW Prosecution witness
r/w Read with
Raj Rajasthan high court
Sc Supreme court
Scc Supreme court cases
s. Section
v. Versus
 iii

CASE NAME CITATION

1. AdhiMullick v. State AIR 1955 Cal 473

2. AnantChintamanLagu v. State of Bombay, AIR 1960 SC 500: 1960Cri LJ 682
3. Ashiruddin v The King. AIR 1949 Cal 182
4. Bhagwat Singh v Balwant Singh, 1978 CrLJ (Raj) 279
5. Chandra Mohan Tiwari v. State of MP, AIR 1992 SC 891
6. DalbeerKaur v. State of Punjab,AIR 1977 SC 472
7. DayanbhaiChaganbhaiThakkar v State of Gujrat, AIR 1964 SC 1563
8. DharamdasLilaram v. Emperor, AIR 1932 Sind 169
9. EkabbanMondal v Emperor, AIR 1937 Cal 756
10. Empress v Mohammad SaeedKha,(1899) LR 21 All 113
11. Excel & co. v. AK Menon and Another, (2005) 13 SCC 93
12. Haffijuddi v Emperor, AIR 1934 Cal 678
13. Happu v. Emperor,AIR 1933 All 837
14. HaranbhaValibhaiQureshi v.State of Gujrat, 2004 (5) SCC 347
15. JibrialDiwan v. State of Maharastr,(1997) 6 SCC 499
16. Kehar Singh and ors. V. State (Delhi Administration),1968 (3) SCC 609
17. Leela Das v. Union of India&Ors, (1999) CILI 1807 (Cal)
18. M Ata Mohammad Khan v. Crown,AIR 1950 Lab 1999, p 221
19. Mohammad UrmanMahammadHumain, Manyar&Ors.v. State of Maharashtra,(1981)
2 SCC 443.
20. MonicaBedi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2011) 1 SCC 284
21. Murugan v. State,191CL16
22. Om PrakashNanang v. State (Delhi Administration), (1979) 2 SCC 323
23. Phino v. State of Punjab, AIR 1975 SC 1327
24. Pramatha Nark v. State, AIR 1951 Cal 581
25. Prem Narayan v. State, AIR 1957 All 177
26. Queen Empress v. GirdhariLal ,8 ILR All 653
27. Queen-Express v. Haradhan, 19 ILR Cal 380
28. R. Venkatakrishnan v Central Bureau of investigation, AIR 2010 SC 1812
29. Rajaram v. State of MP, (1992) 3 SCC 634 AIR 1994 SC 846
30. Ram Khelauws v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2014 SCC Online Chh 29 2014 Indlaw
CTH 36
31. Ram NarainPoply v. Central Bureau of Investigation, AIR 2003 SC 2748
32. RamakantRai v. Madan Rai CLI 2004 SC 36
33. Ramesh Chandra Das v. PremaraPatra, (1983)3 Crimes 87 (Ori)
34. Re Kodur Thimma Redi, AIR 1957 AndhPra 758
35. Re. M Gangandariah ,1967 CrLJ AIR 1967 Mys86
36. Reniger V. Fogosia, (1551), 1 Plowd. 1
37. Sachin Jagdish Joshi v. State of Maharashtra, (2008) 6 SCALE 469
38. Saju v. Stute of Kerala, 2001 (1) SCC 378
39. State of Bihar v. Ranen Nath and Ors, AIR 1958 Pat 259, 1957
 iv

40. State v. Naresh chand, 1975 SC 195

41. Suresh Chandra Bihari v. State of Biher, AIR 1994 SC 2420
42. Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. The Wellcome Foundation Ltd, 2002 (24) PTC 580
Guj
43. Union of India v. Ranbir Singh,JT 2011 (11) SC 339
44. Vijayan Alias Rajan v. State of Kerala, (1999) CLJ 1638 (SC)
45. Yash Pal Mittal v. State of Punjab,[1977] SCC 540

BOOKS REFERRED

NAME OF THE BOOK

1. Gaur, K.D, Criminal Law Cases and Materials, (6th Ed. 2012)
2. Gupta Apar, Infromation Technology Act (2nd Ed 2011)
3. I,Sarvaria, S.K, The Indian Penal Code. (10th Ed. 2008
4. Taylor, Principles and Practice of Medical Jurisprudence, (13th Ed 1984)
5. II, Sarvaria S.K Indian Penal Code, (10th Ed. 2008)
6. III,Sarvaria S.K Indian Penal Code, (10th Ed. 2008)
7. IV, Sarvaria S.K Indian Penal Code, (10th Ed. 2008)
8. Jhala&Raju, Medical Jurisprudence, (6th Ed. 1997)
9. Kelkar, R.V, Criminal Procedure, (5th Ed. 2009)
10. Lal, Batuk, Law of Evidence, (5th Ed. 2011)
11. M. Mohir, Law of Evidence, (5th Ed. 2010)
12. Malik, Shallender, The Code of Criminal Procedure,(8th Ed. 2011)
13. Modi, Medical Jurisprudence & Toxicology, (24th Ed. 2012)
14. National Crime Reference Flandbook, (V.11, 2015)
15. Parikh, Medical Jurisprudence, Forensic Medicines &Tasicology, (6tyh Ed. 2011)
16. Ratanial&Dhirajlal, The Code of Criminal Procedure, (17th Ed. 2010)
17. Ratanial&Dhirajal, The Indian Penal Code (31st Enlarged Ed. 2006)
18. Ratanial&Dhirajlal, The Law of Evidence, (23rd Enlarged Ed. 2011)
19. Sarkar, Law of Evidence, (17th Ed 2011)
20. The Indian Law Institute, Essays on Indian Penal Code,(1st Reprint, 2008)
21. Verma, Amita, Cyber Crimes and Law,( 1st Ed 2009)
22. Williams, Glanville, Criminal Law, (2nd Ed 2011)
STATUTES

NAME OF THE STATUTES:

1. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974)

2. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Act No. of 1820)
3. The Indian Penal Code ,1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860)
4. The Information Technology Act, 2000 (Act No 21 at 2000)
5. The Drugs and Cosmetics act, 1940 (A No 23 of 1940)
6. The Drugs and Cosmetics Rule, 1945
 v

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

This Hon'ble Court has jurisdiction to try the instant matter under Section 177, read with
Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Section 177

“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.”

Read with Section 209

“209. Commitment of case to Court of Session when offence is triable exclusively by

it:When in a case instituted on a police report or otherwise, the accused appears or is brought
before the Magistrate and it appears to the Magistrate that the offence is triable exclusively
by the Court of Session, he shall

(a) commit the case to the Court of Session;

(b) subject to the provisions of this Code relating to bail, remand the accused to custody
during, and until the conclusion of the trial;

(c) send to that Court the record of the case and the documents and articles, if any, which are
to be produced in evidence;

(d) notify the Public Prosecutor of the commitment of the case to the Court of Session.
 vi

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Manohar lost his parents at the age of 10 and lived with his uncle Karan and aunt Devika,
since then. They had a son 'Raghav' who disliked Mano. Mano took admission in TMC
Medical College in 2013. Prof. Deshpande considered Mano to be a bright and sincere
student. Mano borrowed money from his friend 'Rahul' which accumulated to Rs. 1,00,000/-.
Karan and Devika had quarrels due to his drinking habits. Though, Mano too did not support
Karan's dinking activity, but provided him with emotional support. Karan and Mano were
very close to each other. On May 21, 2014, Karan got severely ill and informed Mano about
the life insurance policy, to which Mano was the sole benefactor. Mano showed no interest in
the matter.
On 1 August, 2014, Karan, Devika and Mano had a heated discussion as Mano found his
name in the defaulter list for college fee payment. On 2nd August, Karan gestured his
apology to Mano and told him to transfer money for his college fees as well as his pocket
expenses and even allowed him to transfer more, if needed. On 3rd August, while Mano was
leaving for his college, Karan started moaning heavily and complained of chest pain.
Mano searched for pain killer and tried to call Dr. Choudhary, but was unable to contact him.
He wrote Angispan on Dr. Choudhary's prescription and yelled at Raghav to get the
medicine. Mano had seen and practiced the procedure of administering medicine via syringe
during his training at Altis Hospital, while treating alcoholics. He administered Angispan to
Karan through push intravenous method. Karan was quiet for about half an hour but,
suddenly collapsed. After Karan's death, Raghav and Devika found his life insurance policy,
which displayed Mano as the sole benefactor and got suspicious about Karan's death. The
case is in Durg Sessions Court for hearing.
 Vii

STATEMENT OF ISSUE

ISSUE I: whether or not Mr. Manohar lal and Mr. Rahul gulati are guilty of
computer related offences and conspiracy?

ISSUE II : whether or not Mr. Manohar lal is guilty of forgery?

ISSUE III: whether or not Accused No.1 committed the offence of murder against
deceased?

ISSUE IV : whether or not Mr. Rahul gulati is guilty of abetment?

 Viii

SUMMERY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE I: WHETHER OR NOT MR. MANOHAR LAL AND MR. RAHUL GULATI
ARE GUILTY OF COMPUTER RELATED OFFENCES AND CONSPIRACY?

It is humbly submitted before this Hon'ble Court that Accused persons are not guilty of
computer related offences and criminal conspiracy. The alleged offence done by them was for
experimenting a trick related to technology. (a) Neither, they conspire to commit an unlawful
act, (b) nor the act was done with a dishonest intention. Moreover, (e) there are no material
evidences to substantiate the guilt of Accused persons.
ISSUE II: WHETHER OR NOT MR. MAHOHAR LAL IS GUILTY OF FORGERY?

It is humbly submitted before this Hon'ble Court that Accused No.1 is not guilty of forgery as
the act committed by him was, (a) done in good faith, and; (b) there is no fraudulent or
dishonest intention to commit the crime. Furthermore, the alleged crime for which Manohar
is charged, is (c) an act of necessity in order to save Deceased from dying. There was no
intention to cause any injury to the deceased.
ISSUE III: WHETHER OR NOT ACCUSED No.1 COMMITTED THE OFFENCE OF
MURDER AGAINST DECEASED?

It is humbly submitted before this Hon'ble Court that Mr. Manohar Lal (Accused No.1) is not
guilty of murder as the alleged crime (a) lacks the presence of mens rea. Accused No.1, (b)
acting in good faith administered the drug, for he wanted to save Karan's life. (e) The
prosecution has paid heavy reliance on uncorroborated evidences, as Raghav and Devika are
interested witnesses. Furthermore, (d) the investigation report is faulty; and (e) have not been
backed up with evidence to substantiate the charge.
ISSUE IV: WHETHER OR NOT MR. RAHUL GULATI IS GUILTY OF
ABETMENT?
It is humbly submitted before this Hon'ble Court that Mr. Rahul Gulati (Accused No. 2) is not
guilty of abetment, as he had no possible reason to abet the commission of the alleged crime.
(a) He did not incite or instigate or provoke Mr. Manohar to commit the crime; and (b) the
crime was, in fact, not committed. Moreover, there was (c) no intention of Mr. Rahul to abet
Manohar to murder Late Mr. Karan, as there was no material benefit which he could derive
from his death.
 1

ARGUMENTS ADVANCE

ISSUE 1: WHETHER OR NOT MR. MANOHAR LAL AND MR. RAHUL GULATI
ARE GUILTY OF COMPUTER RELATED OFFENCES AND CONSPIRACY?

It is humbly contented before this Hon'ble court that Mr. Manohar Lal (hereinafter referred to
as 'Accused No. 1') and Mr. Rahul Gulati (hereinafter referred to as 'Accused No. 2'
collectively referred as 'Accused persons') are not guilty of the offence under Sec. 66 and
Sec. 66C of IT Act, and Sec. 302, 465 t/w 34, 120B and 109 of IPC.

In the present matter, it has been wrongfully alleged that the Accused persons have
dishonestly and fraudulently accessed to computer system without permission u/s 66, IT Act
and decrypted the password of deceased person's bank account, committing the offence of
identity theft u/s 66C, IT Act. It has also been alleged that Accused persons are guilty for the
offence under Section 120B r/w Section 120A, IPC. It is contended that the act was not done
dishonestly or fraudulently [1.1.]; that there is no substantial evidence of transactions from
Karan's account
[1.2.], and that Accused persons did not conspire together [1.3].

1.1 THE ACT WAS NOT DONE DISHONESTLY OR FRAUDULENTLY

A. TEST OF DISHONESTY

The determining factor of a dishonest act is the intention with which was done. 1 The test of
dishonesty is the mental element of belief.2 The Accused persons having a keen interest in
technology used the trick of decrypting the deceased persons' bank account password during
the

1.
experimentation procedure of their skills and thus, the allegation of decryption is frivolous as 2
Dharamdas
they Lilaram v.intention
had no dishonest EmperortoAIR 1932 Sind 169
doth so.
2.
11, Halsbury's Laws of England, (4 Ed. p 675, para 1263)
B. PRIMARY INTENTION
In considering Sec 24, IPC, it is the primary and not the remote intention of the Accused that
must be looked at.3 The word 'intent' implies 'aim' and does not connote a 'merely possible'
result. The one object for which the effort is made is to be foreseen; and thus has reference to
what has been called the dominant motive, without which the action would not have been
taken.4 Primary intention of Accused persons was to check whether the trick of decryption
works or not. "Primary intention', being the experimentation shall be taken in consideration,
and not the 'mere possible result' of decryption for transferring money from Deceased's
account.
1.2 NO SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF KARAN'S ACCOUNT TRANSACTIONS
The defendant humbly contends that there were no unlawful transactions done from the
deceased person's bank account. There is no documentary evidence to conclude any
transactions from the deceased person's bank account. Even the investigation report is not
annexed with any record of the transaction. The decrypted password was not used for identity
theft as it has not been used dishonestly or fraudulently, and there is no evidence to
substantiate the aforesaid allegation. Therefore, the Accused persons do not attract the charge
under Sections 66 and 66C, IT Act.

1.3 ACCUSED PERSONS ARE NOT GUILTY FOR CONSPIRACY

3
Queen-Empress v. Haradhan, 19 ILR Cal 380; Queen-Empress v. Girdhari Lal, 8 ILR All
653
3
4.I, Sarvaria, S.K, Indian Penal Code, (10th Ed. p146)
5.Excel & co. v. A.K. Menon and Another, (2005) 13 SCC 93
Conspiracy has been defined, "An agreement by two or more persons to commit an unlawful
act, coupled with an intent to achieve the agreement's objective." 6It is contended that the
Accused persons did not conspire with each other [A] and motive does not constitute
conspiracy [B]."7
A. ACCUSED PERSONS DID NOT CONSPIRE TO COMMIT THE OFFENSE

The Accused persons did not have any agreement between them in order to do an illegal act
or to do a legal act by illegal means, which is a sine qua non to commit an offence. In case of
conspiracy what is to be proved is an agreement and common design." The evidence as to the
transmission of thoughts sharing the unlawful act is not sufficient. 10Guilt for a charge of
criminal conspiracy must, therefore, be considered on the anvil of a fact which must be
established by the prosecution,viz.,meeting point of two or more persons for doing or causing
to be done an illegal act or an act by illegal means.11
'Agreement' is essential,mere knowledge or even discussion ofthe plan is not,per se, enough. 12
Mere discussion and knowledge is not enough, there shall be execution to it

The Deceased person, on several occasions, transferred the requisite amount by the Accused
No.1 for his semester fees and daily expenses, which clearly enunciates the satisfaction of the

6
"Black's Law Dictionary, 9th Edn. p 351
7
Leela Das v Union of India & Ors, (1999) CrLJ 1807 (Cal)
8
Suresh Chandra Bihari v State of Bihar, AIR 1994 SC 2420, Sachin Jagdish Joshi v. State of
Maharashtra, (2008)

6 SCALE 469
9
Re Kodur Thimma Redi, AIR 1957 Andh Pra 758, Yash Pal Mittal v. State of Punjab, [1977]
SCC 540
10
I,Sarvaria, S.K., Indian Penal Code, (10th Ed. p. 1007)
11
4
R. Venkatakrishnan v. Central Bureau of Investigation, AIR 2010 SC 1812.
12
Kehar Singh and Ors. v. State (Delhi Administration), 1988 (3) SCC 609
Accused No.1 for basic needs. Now his ambition and small borrowings cannot be equalized
intention of stealing from the man he respects. It is of essence that there be some material
showing a connection between the alleged conspiracy and the act done is pursuant of that
conspiracy13, which stands missing in the prosecution's story.
B. MOTIVE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE CONSPIRACY

In absence of any other evidence of conspiracy, mere evidence to motive is not sufficient to
connect a man with conspiracy14.What may be sufficient is motive for an individual may or
may not be sufficient motive for others, and it is, therefore, necessary to give importance to
the occurrence itself.15The manner and circumstances in which the offences have been
committed and the level of involvement of the Accused persons therein are relevant factors.
For the said purpose, it is necessary to prove that the Accused persons have expressly agreed
to, or caused to, do an illegal act. 16

Therefore, it is humbly submitted that the Accused persons did not conspire together to
commit an illegal act. It is a case where motive and intention of Accused No. 2 had been
wrongly misinterpreted as enmity between Accused persons. In the case, the unsatisfied need
has been interpreted into a criminal act by the prosecution, and even the alleged act is being
tried by law on Non-Merit Grounds. The law protects the one deceased for the offences
which had been committed, not for the offences which were never intended.

13
Vijayan Alias Rajan v State of Kerala, (1999) CrLJ 1638 (SC)
14
Ekabban Mondal v Emperor, AIR 1937 Cal 756
15
Haffijuddi v Emperor AIR 1934 Cal 678
16
5
Mohammad Usman Mohammad Hussain Maniyar & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, (1981) 2
SCC 443.
ISSUE II: WHETHER OR NOT MR. MAHOHAR LAL IS GUILTY OF FORGERY?

It is humbly contended before this Hon'ble court that Accused No.1 is not guilty for
committing the offence of forgery u/s. 465, IPC. The facts under consideration are that the
Accused No. 1 did not act in fraudulent or dishonest manner [2.1], and there was no intention
to cause damage to any person or to support any claim or title [2.2] 17.The burden of proof lies
on the prosecution to prove the offense of forgery beyond all reasonable doubt.18

2.1 THE ACT WAS NOT COMMITTED IN FRAUDULENT OR DISHONEST MANNER

To prove an offense under section 465, the false document needs to be made dishonestly and
fraudulently without lawful authority, by cancellation or otherwise. 19 The basic ingredient of
S. 465 is that the act should be done in "dishonest" and "fraudulent" manner.20

The expression 'fraudulent' u/s s.25, IPC includes any kind of harm or injury to body, mind or
reputation21.It is contended that Accused No. 1 was acting in good faith 22when, in a fit of
rush, he wrote 'Angispan' on Dr. Choudhary's (DW 4) prescription paper. 23The conviction
cannot stand if the intention, to cause harm or any kind of injury to Deceased, is absent.24

17
Ramesh Chandra Das v. Premlata Patra, (1983) 3 Crimes 87 (Ori); See also, Ram Narain
Poply v. Central Bureau of Investigation, AIR 2003 SC 2748
18
M Ata Mohammad Khan v Crown, AIR 1950 Lah 1999, p 221
19
Section 464,Indian Penal Code, 1860; See also, Empress v Mohammad Saeed Khan, (1899)
ILR 21 All 113
20
Jibrial Diwan v. State of Maharastra, (1997) 6 SCC 499
21
Union of India v. Ranbir Singh, JT 2011 (11) SC 339
22
Section 92, Indian Penal Code, 1860
23
6
Re. M Gangandhariah 1967 CrLJ 787, AIR 1967 Mys 86
24
Adhi Mullick v State AIR 1955 Cal 473
2.2 NO INTENTION TO CAUSE DAMAGE OR TO SUPPORT ANY CLAIM

It is humbly contended that the drug Angispan is a commonly used drug [A], and is the
Accused No. 1 was acting in good faith [B]. Therefore the possible intention of committing
the act i.e. to cause injury to person or claim title is ruled out [C].

A. Commonly used drug

Accused No.1 is a third year medical student. In the opinion of Prof. Deshpande, Accused
No.1 is a bright and sincere student.25DW 4, who had been treating the Deceased person since
1995 confirmed that the Accused No.1, administered the same drug which any other medical
practitioner would administer during a severe chest pain situation.26

B. Good Faith
The medicine which was administered via intravenous was harmless. 27Though, it is a
common practice of the pharmacist selling prescription drugs without prescription. 28Accused
No.1, having knowledge of what being followed commonly, accidently made prescription for
Angispan over DW4's prescription. The accused cannot be held liable for the act done in
good faith, with no criminal intent and with the knowledge he possess. Arguendo, if Accused
No.1 had intention to commit the act, he would have had administered Deceased with such a
drug which makes death certain, and not a mere matter of chance.

C. There was no intention to cause damage or to claim title over something

25
See,Case Details, p 1, para 5
26
See, Case Details, p 15, DW4's confessional statements
27
See, Case Details, p. 5
28
7
Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs The Wellcome Foundation Ltd, 2002 (24) PTC 580 Guj

Forgery is an act committed with intent to cause injury, whereas, the intent of the act, does
not satisfy any of the essentials given out in S.463, IPC. Mere preparation for the commission
cannot amount to forgery.29The sole intention was to revive the Deceased person, for whom
the Accused No. 1 had utmost care and affection.

The circumstances rendered the Accused No.1 insane and rendered him incapable of
understanding the nature and consequence of his actions. Insanity under S.84, IPC, signifies
the reasoning capacity of the man, to such an extent as to render him incapable of
understanding the nature and consequences of his actions.30To claim defense u/s 84 the court
must consider the circumstances which preceded, attended, and followed the crime. 31To
enable the accused to avail the benefit, he should be able to establish that the act was not
known by him to be wrong32,which is the present situation in the above case.

QUOD NECESSITAS NON HABET LEGEM

It is a common proverb, which means 'necessity knows no law'.A man may break the words
of the law and yet not break the law itself. Such things are exempted out of the penalty of
law.The law privileges them, although, they are done against the letter (not the spirit) of it.
Breaking the words of law is not breaking the law, so long as the intent of the law is not
broken.33
In the absence of any conclusive evidence, the ingredients of S.463 34are not satisfied.35

29
Pramatha Nath v State, AIR 1951 Cal 581
30
Gaur, K. D, Indian Penal Code, (6th ed. p. 134)
31
Dayanbhai Chaganbhai Thakkar v State of Gujarat, AIR 1964 SC 1563
32
Ashiruddin v The King, AIR 1949 Cal 182
33
Reniger v.Fogosia (1551), 1Plowd 1
34
8
Monica Bedi v State of Uttar Pradesh, (2011) 1SCC 284

ISSUE III: WHETHER OR NOT ACCUSED No.1 COMMITTED THE OFFENCE OF

MURDER AGAINST DECEASED?

It is most humbly contented before this Hon'ble Court that the Accused No.1 is not guilty for
committing the offense of murder under s.302 read with s.300, IPC. The matter which needs
to be taken under consideration in the present case is that the accused was acting in good faith
[3.1.].To prove the charge under s.300, mens rea needs to be established [3.2.], which is a
sine qua non of conviction for the aforesaid offense. The prosecution's story paid heavy
reliance on uncorroborated evidence [3.3.] and failed to consider the items took in possession
[3.4.].Moreover, the improper investigation [3.5.] on the part of Investigating Officer, created
a large cloud of reasonable doubt [3.6.], which shall only be considered as a false allegation
against Accused No.1.

3.1 THE ACCUSED WAS ACTING IN GOOD FAITH

Herein, the circumstances under Section 92, IPC stands fulfilled. The aforesaid section states
for the acts done by a person in good faith for benefit of a person without consent.

A. The accused acted in good faith

Intention or knowledge is necessary for offence of murder (s. 302 IPC).. or injury by
administering poison (s. 328, IPC). Nothing is an offence, if the act was done in good faith
for benefit of the victim36.It is well evident in the case that Accused No.1 administered drug.
Angispan, which was done to revive the deceased person's body 37,therefore done in good
faith.

35
Excel and Co. v. A.K. Menon and Anr., (2005) 13 SCC 93 9
36
Ram Khelawan v. State of Madhya Pradesh,2014 SCC OnLine Chh 29:2014 Indlaw CTH36
37
See, Case Details, Para 25, p 5.
In addition, neither Raghav (PW 1) showed his dissent when Accused No.1 was about to
administer the drug to Deceased, nor when Accused No.1 asked PW 1 to purchase the drug.
The aforesaid scenario enunciates the consent of PW 1 at that time. 38It is not to mention that,
Accused No. 1 and PW 1 had the implied consent of the Deceased in order to revive him.
B. Accused No. 1 made a Difficult decision

Accused No.1 has seen as well as practiced the procedure of administering painkiller via
intravenous before.39 It is evident from the present case that Accused No. 1 tried calling
Dr. Choudhary (DW 4) on phone before administering the drug. However, DW 4 did not
reply as he was out of station on vacations. It must be adhered to that the act of administering
Angispan drug was a difficult decision undertaken by Accused No. 1.

3.2. MEANS REA STANDS TO BE ABSENT

In Indian penal law, mens rea is inbuilt in the statute 40.Therefore, in order to prove a
conviction under s.302 IPC, mens rea is to be established. Arguendo, Accused No.1
committed the offense of murder against the Deceased then also there is no presence of mala
fide intention.
A. Possible intention ruled out

Arguendo, Accused No.1 did murder the Deceased in order to hide the transfer of Rs
2,50,000/ from the Deceased person's bank account into his own bank account. No material
case of mens rea arises as Accused No.1 took the consent of Deceased before transferring the
aforesaid

38
Ibid
39
See, Case Details, Para 21, p4, 10
40
Ram Khelawan v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2014 SCC OnLine Chh 29
Amount.41Moreover, the non-filing of any bank statement or a document as an Annexure,
which may prove the aforesaid transaction of Rs.2,50,000/- proves that Accused No.1 has not
committed the actus reus as well.

B. Abetment of Murder is frivolous

To avoid redundancy the counsel with the permission of this Hon'ble court, moves forth to
the next argument.
3.3PROSECUTION PAID HEAVY RELIANCE ON UNCORROBORATED
EVIDENCES
A. Enmity makes a witness interested
A witness is normally considered to be an independent witness unless he springs from the
sources which are likely to be tainted such as enmity or relationship and which make him
inclined to implicate the accused falsely.42In the case, the enmity of PW 1 and PW 2 against
Accused No.1 is evident;43the court must tread lightly when taking into account their
statements.

B. Raghav (PW 1) and Devika (PW 2) are interested witness

It is further contended that PW 1 and PW 2 fall within the category of "interested witness".
An interested witness is one who postulates that the person concerned must have some direct
interest in seeing that the accused is somehow convicted, due to the fact that he has an animus
or ill will

41
See, Case Details, Para 19, p3
42
Rajaram v. State of M.P., (1992) 3 SCC 634: AIR 1994 SC 846
11
43
See, Case Details, Para 4, p. 1; see also, Case Details, Para 18, p. 3,
with the accused or for any other reason 44, seeing PW 2 and PW 1 fall within this category,
the court must tread lightly when taking into account their statements. 45

3.4 THE ITEMS TOOK IN POSSESSION

The defense humbly pleads that the items discovered from home Anti-Depressants, used
syringe and drug oxycontin needs to be taken into consideration

Serious problems, including both inadvertent errors as well as deliberate and conscious acts
of wrongdoing, have arisen in crime laboratories, medical examiner offices, and forensic
service providers around the country. This not only undermines the public trust in the
criminal justice system, but can contribute significantly to erroneous verdicts in death penalty
cases.46The medical exhibits47 such as Prozac, Oxycontin and used syringes etc. cannot be
disregarded. However, the Investigating Officer (PW 6), in the case disregarded the aforesaid
list of exhibits, thereby acting in a callous manner48.

3.5 FAULTY CONCLUSION:

It is humbly contended that the conclusion derived by the prosecution story, from medical
examination do not back any evidence [A]; making the investigation improper and faulty [B].

A. Conclusion that does not back evidence, shall be disregarded

44
Dalbeer Kaur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1977 SC 472
45
Chandra Mohan Tiwari v. State of MP, AIR 1992 SC 891
46
Report on the Governor's Council on Capital punishment, 80 Ind. LJ. 1, 23 (2005)
47
See, Case Details, Annexure 2
48
Murugan v. State, 1991 CrLJ 1680
 12

In Chemical analysis, the Chemical analyzer may be unsuccessful for various reasons. Taylor
in his Principles and Practice of Medical Jurisprudence, Vol. II, p. 228 gives three possible
explanations for negative findings, one of which says that "the case may have been of disease
only...”49
which includes Cirrhosis in liver and Arthosclerosis, and are capable of causing cardiac
In the case, Dr. Bhatia's (PW 5) report50concluded the death of deceased to be air embolism in
arrest in the same manner as in the present case. The possibility of death due to any other
the artery. However, the prosecution's story disregarded the medical illness of the deceased
disease other than the one attributable to poisoning cannot be ruled out.51

The Apex Court maintains that if two views are possible, benefit is given to the accused,
thereby acquitting him/her from the charge of s.302.52

B. Faulty and Improper Investigation

When a report is received from the Chemical Examiner containing a quantitative analysis, it
should be presented to the medical examiner who conducted the post mortem examination so
that he will be in a position to state before the Committing Magistrate what are the medico-
legal inferences to be drawn from their report. 53In the present case, neither the Investigation
report54is proper, nor is the Forensic report presented to PW 5 as mentioned in the aforesaid
precedent.

49
Anant Chintaman Lagu v. State of Bombay, AIR 1960 SC 500: 1960 Cri LJ 682
50
See, Case Details, Annexure 4
51
Phino v. State of Punjab, AIR 1975 SC 1327
52
Ibid.
53
Happu v. Emperor, AIR 1933 All 837 13
54
See, Case Details, Annexure 6

It has been observed by the Supreme Court that when defective investigation comes to light
during course of trial further investigation of circumstances are so permitted under Section
173(8).55Therefore, it is humbly submitted that the aforesaid reports are improper and require
further investigation under Section 173(8).56

3.6 REASONABLE DOUBT:

In light of all the aforementioned arguments, the accused humbly submit s that there exists
reasonable doubt and hence he should be acquitted of the alleged crime. A reasonable doubt
must not be imaginary, trivial or merely possible doubt; but a fair doubt based upon reason
and common sense arising out of the evidence of the case.57

The prosecution's arguments are leaning towards the fact that the crime 'may have been
committed by the accused', however they have failed to make the link between 'may have
committed the crime' and 'must have committed the crime' and that gap must be filled by the
prosecution by legal, reliable and unimpeachable evidence before a conviction can be
sustained 58.

Therefore, it is humbly submitted before the Hon'ble Court that Accused No. 1 must be
exempted from the charge under s.302,IPC, as the said charge is not more than a mere
allegation in the absence of any authoritative as well as corroborative evidences.

55
Om Prakash Narang v. State (Delhi Administration), (1979) 2 SCC 323, See also,
Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi v.State of Gujrat, 2004 (5) SCC 347 14
56
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
57
Ramakant Rai v. Madan Rai Cr LJ 2004 SC 36
ISSUE
58 IV:WHETHER
IV, Nelson, ORPenal
R. A., Indian NOTCode,
MR.RAHUL
(10th Ed. GULATI IS GUILTY OF ABETMENT?
2008, p. 2905)

It is humbly contented before this Hon'ble court that the Accused is not guilty for the offence
of abetment under s.109 r/w s.107, IPC. Abetment of a thing is when a person instigates,
conspires or intentionally aids an illegal act or an illegal omission. In order to convict a
person as an accomplice, it is necessary for the prosecution to prove 59 that the Accused aided,
abetted, counselled or prosecuted the commission of the principal offense; [4.1.], that the
principal offence was in fact committed; [4.2.] and the accused did not had intent to
encourage the commission60 [4.3.]

4.1. ACCUSED NO. 2 DID NOT ABET OR ATTEMPT TO ABET ACCUSED NO. 1

To attract an offense under s.109, IPC, mere association of the Accused person with those
who are charged for an offense is not enough. Unless there is existing material evidence
which enunciates the instigation by Accused No. 2, either in aiding or in the commission of
the offense committed by Accused No. 1, the charge under abetment stands disproved.

Accused No. 2, being a friend of Accused No. 1 does not relate him to the instigation for
committing the offence. A mere association of the Accused with the Accused No. 1 does not
depict any intention to abet or instigate the Accused No. 1 for the commission of any crime.
There is no material evidence which leads to the conclusion that there was any abetment for
commitment of the offence of murder. It depends on the particular facts of each case 61that the
words 'Instigation and Incitement "should be read to signify something deeper than a mere

59
Saju v. State of Kerala, AIR 2001 SC 175: 2001 (1) SCC 378
60
15
Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, Indian Penal Code, (31st Edn., 2006 p. 518).
61
State of Bihar v. Ranen Nath and Ors, AIR 1958 Pat 259, 1957.
asking of a person to do a particular act." There was nothing which was urged or encouraged
or provoked by Accused No. 2 in any way, to abet Accused No. 1 to murder Deceased. No
material or circumstantial evidences are present so as to conclude abetment of the offense
committed by Accused No. 2.

4.2. THE OFFENSE WAS ACTUALLY NOT COMMITTED

The contents of 'the offence was actually not committed' are mentioned above in detail, under
Issue III, and the same are not being reproduced herein again for the sake of brevity.

4.3. ACCUSED HAD NO INTENTION TO ENCOURAGE THE COMMISSION

In order to constitute abetment, the abettor must be shown to have "intentionally' aided to the
commission of the crime.62In the present case, Accused No.2 use to tease Accused No.1 of
him being rich if his uncle would go on a 'long journey', hearing which both of them would
have a good laugh.63In order to ascertain the meaning of the words conveyed, the 'immediate
reaction" of the Accused persons is to be noticed and relied upon 64, which in the present case
is 'a good laugh', which certainly cannot be taken as a mala fide intention on the part of
Accused No.2. Accused No.2 himself belongs to an affluent family 65.Moreover, the
insurance policy taken up by Deceased had Accused No. 1 as the sole benefactor. There was
no benefit for Accused No. 2 in abetting to murder Deceased. Therefore, it is humbly
submitted that there cannot be any intention of the Accused for the commission of the
offence.

62
State v. Naresh Chand AIR 1975 SC 195
63
See, Case Details, Para 16, p 3
64
Prem Narayan v. State, AIR 1957 All 177; See also, Bhgwat Singh v. Balwant Singh, 1978
16
CrLJ (Raj) 279 PRAYER
65
See, Case Details, Para 3, p l

Wherefore, in light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authoritics cited, may this
Hon'ble Court be pleased to:

TO HOLD:

 That Mr. Manohar Lal is not guilty of committing murder.

 That Mr. Rahul Gulati is not guilty of abetment to commit murder.
 That Mr. Manohar Lal and Rahul Gulati are not guilty of criminal conspiracy.
 That Mr. Manohar Lal and Rahul Gulati are not guilty of Identity theft and Computer
related offences.

TO PASS:
  Acquit Mr. Manohar and Mr. Rahul Gulati of all the charges.

AND

Pass any other order it may deem fit, in the interest of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience.

All of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted

Place :
Date : s/d

COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENSE