MOOT PROPOSITION (GROUP-I)

Rajni and Swati were two sisters who used to live along with their family in a small village
named Johan near Chandigarh. Rajni was a hardworking and ambitious girl. She wanted to be
a computer engineer and used to go to college regularly and help her father in his shop work
situated at Sector-17 Chandigarh. It is alleged that Ram (Accused No. 1) along with his friends
(Accused No. 2, 3 and 4) used to harass the elder sister, Rajni on the streets, market and in the
auto rickshaw while she was going to college. They used to make sexual advances towards her,
pass lewd comments. They terrorized her that if she did not heed to their demands and agree to
have sexual relations with them, they would damage and destroy her face. On 6th June, 2022,
while on her way to college, Ram and his friends again stopped her way and started
misbehaving with her, for which Rajni slapped Ram.

On 6th June, 2022 midnight, while both sisters were sleeping, 4 men with their faces covered
up, climbed upon the roof of the house of Rajni where both the sisters were sleeping. One of
the assailants covered Rajni’s mouth so that she could not scream and other two held her legs
so that she could not move. When assailant was pouring the acid on her body and face, the acid
also fell on Swati’s body and burnt her arm. After the attack, these men did not make any effort
to flee as they wanted to stay and enjoy the moment. As the acid started burning the girls, the
girls started screaming and crying waking up their parents, who rushed to the rooftop. Upon
this, the assailants fled. The victims were rushed to the nearest Hospital. There after two
surgeries Swati recovered but Rajni remained critical even after 4 Surgeries. On 20th December,
2022, while undergoing treatment, Rajni succumbed to death owing to her injuries. The
victims’ family was given Rs.25,00,000/- from the Government for the treatment of both the
girls. It has been contended that till 20th December, 2022 more than Rs. 15 lakhs had already
been spent on their treatment.

Ram along with his three friends is booked under various provisions of Indian Penal Code,
1860.

Argue on the behalf of Prosecution and Accused.

 MOOT PROPOSITION (GROUP-II)

The deceased Sharda D/O Vikram married to Suresh S/O Dinesh on 17.07.2022. Both of them
studied M.B.A. in same college where they fell in love with each other. Dinesh is a high-profile
industrialist and Vikram is a rich businessman, having chain of departmental stores. Both the
families knew each other. It is alleged that Dinesh demanded dowry of substantial value,
commensurate with his social status and also demanded to spend minimum of Rs. 1 crore on
the wedding apart from dowry. On 17.07.2022, the day of marriage agreed dowry was paid to
entire satisfaction of the Family. It is alleged that Sharda did not receive proper treatment from
her in laws. Shalini, mother-in-law of Sharda made continuous Dowry demand for Mercedes
Benz and for F.D. of Rs. 5 Crore. However, a F.D. of Rs. 50 Lakh in the name of Sharda was
given by Vikram. Sharda gave birth to a baby girl. Sharda was a sensitive girl. She was cursed,
rebuked and sent to parental house. On 20.05.2023 Suresh reached his in-laws. He sought
consent of Sharda and she returned to her matrimonial home. On 24.05.2023 Dinesh
purchased Organophosphorus from the nearest shopkeeper on the pretext that he required the
same to kill the flies. On 25.05.2023, according to allegations Shalini forcibly administered
poison to the deceased Sharda to kill her. Suresh also held the body of deceased physically and
forced her to drink. During the course of administration of poison deceased struggled as such
sustained injuries on her face, lips and neck. Sharda died at the Hospital. Doctors were of the
opinion that death of deceased was caused due to organophosphorus poisoning. Vikram lodged
a report at the Police Station mentioning the harassment caused by the three accused to the
deceased for dowry. He stated that all the three accused namely Dinesh, Shalini and Suresh had
forcibly administered poison with intention to kill his daughter for non-fulfilment of further
demand of dowry. The accused took plea that the deceased was never mal treated on any
account and was treated as daughter of the family only. Their submission was supported by the
testimony of the neighbouring family also.

Argue on the behalf of Prosecution and Accused.

 MOOT PROPOSITION (GROUP-III)

Aarohi, a twenty-year-old girl, belonging to a lower middle-class family, was pursuing her
studies in Chartered Accountancy in the City of Leebay. Her father used to work as a clerk in
a private firm and her mother was a housewife. She had always been a very bright and
ambitious student. To support her father, she used to take tuitions for school students. Akshay,
her Accounts teacher, secretly developed emotions for Aarohi. She had great admiration and
respect for Akshay as her teacher. On Aarohi’s birthday, Akshay organized a party, when he
gifted her an expensive watch. Unaware of his feelings, Aarohi accepted the same. On 11th
January, 2020 Akshay approached Aarohi’s parents and asked for her hand in marriage.
However, they rejected the offer and warned him not to contact her henceforth, as they did not
approve of him since he was her teacher. They warned Aarohi not to meet Akshay. Thereafter,
she started avoiding Akshay. On one occasion Aarohi also made it clear to Akshay that she
will not go against her parents’ wishes and asked him not to follow her anymore. Despite the
warning, Akshay continued to follow her and tried to contact her personally, through the phone
and the internet. He believed that Aarohi was avoiding him because she was pressurized into
doing so. Aarohi reported the same to her parents. Her parents gave an ultimatum to Akshay
that if he continued to repeat the unwarranted acts committed by him then they would be forced
to take stern action against him. But, despite the warnings, Akshay continued to harass her and
her parents by continuously asking their daughter’s hand in marriage. Enraged with the feeling
of constant rejection, Akshay went to Harish and confided in him the entire situation that
transpired between him and Aarohi’s parents. Harish, aged 52, had always treated Akshay as
his son, ever since Akshay’s parents died in a car accident in 2010. After Harish heard the
entire situation he could visualize the extent of attachment that Akshay had for Aarohi and felt
that he was depressed. So, he suggested that he should find Aarohi alone and take her to the
temple and marry her without informing Aarohi’s parents. If Aarohi resisted from getting
married to Akshay, Harish would threaten her with a bottle of acid to pressurize her to get
married to Akshay. Akshay, who was reluctant initially, agreed to the plan on the condition
that no harm will be caused to Aarohi and the bottle of acid will only be used as a tool to
threaten her for compliance to their wishes. On 3rd April, 2020 as per the plan, Akshay and
Harish found Aarohi walking alone on the road. On seeing her alone, they decided to get out
of their car. Akshay approached her and asked her to accompany him to the temple so that they
could get married. On Aarohi’s resistance, Harish decided to threaten her with the bottle of
acid. Akshay started dragging her towards their car. When Aarohi started screaming for help,
in the moment of panic, Akshay opened the bottle and threw the acid on her face. Harish and
Akshay ran away from the scene in their car and left Aarohi writhing in immense pain. She
was taken to the hospital by some passerby. The doctors immediately conducted the surgeries
on her as the injuries were severe in nature. A First Information Report was lodged and the
statement of Aarohi was recorded.

Argue on the behalf of Prosecution and Accused.

 MOOT PROPOSITION (GROUP-IV)

Mark and Jessica got married in 2018 by way of Hindu rites and ceremonies. The Couple was
a happily married couple till initial 6 months of their marriage. After 6 Months of marriage,
Mark on purpose left his job in an MNC in which he was employed on a remuneration of Rs.
70,000/- per month. Apart from that the Company had also provided accommodation to Mark
in a respectable locality of Mumbai. When Jessica confronted Mark on this, he said he wanted
to start his own business for extra income and their future safety. But Mark was not able to
start any business even for one year. Emma, a baby girl, also took birth out of this wedlock in
2019. During this time, Jessica took care of expenditure of household with her income as well
as with support of her parents. Due to such failure to start business as well as inability to
maintain family, Mark started drinking and his behaviour turned to be abusive towards his
family. Due to this, Jessica filed for divorce in 2022 and the same was granted by the Court
with primary custody of Emma awarded to Jessica. Mark was granted visitation rights every
other weekend. Subsequent to the divorce, Jessica has raised serious concerns about Mark's
behaviour, alleging incidents of domestic violence and a potential substance abuse problem.
She now seeks to limit Mark's visitation rights and, if necessary, restrict them altogether.

Argue on the behalf of Petitioner and Respondent.

 MOOT PROPOSITION (GROUP-V)

Rahul Kapoor was arrested during a routine police check, where a substantial amount of a
Schedule I narcotic substance, commonly known as 'Blue Bliss,' was found in his possession.
The accused, Rahul Kapoor, has been apprehended with a significant quantity of a controlled
substance. Upon further investigation, it is revealed that the controlled substance, 'Blue Bliss,'
is a potent psychotropic substance known for its hallucinogenic properties. The police, acting
on a tip, conducted a search of Rahul's residence where they discovered not only a substantial
quantity of 'Blue Bliss' but also packaging materials, scales, and ledgers suggestive of a small-
scale narcotics distribution operation. Rahul Kapoor is a 27-year-old college student majoring
in chemistry, and the defence asserts that his knowledge of chemistry is related to his academic
pursuits rather than any involvement in the illegal drug trade. The prosecution argues that the
sophisticated setup found at Rahul's residence indicates a level of involvement beyond mere
possession. The prosecution alleges that Rahul was involved in the trafficking of the controlled
substance. The defence contends that the search and seizure were conducted unlawfully,
challenging the admissibility of the evidence. Rahul has filed a bail application which is
pending before the Competent Court for hearing.

Argue on the behalf of Prosecution and Accused

 MOOT PROPOSITION (GROUP-VI)

An information was lodged at Mohali police station on 2.7.2022 regarding a murderous assault
on Kulwant Kaur (deceased) and infliction of injuries on Kulwinder Singh. On basis of
investigation, it came to the knowledge of the police that the Accused and the Complainant
party are in close relations, living in the same homestead with separate portions earmarked by
mutual agreement. Dildar Singh was the eldest member of one branch and Kulwinder Singh of
another branch. As per the prosecution, on the morning of 2.7.2022 the Accused conspired
together to erect a fence inside the homestead, and also to finish up all those who obstruct their
act. Around 6:00 a.m. Dildar Singh and Malkhan Singh started digging holes in the mid of the
courtyard to which Kulwinder Singh protested. Dildar Singh and Malkhan Singh ordered other
members Subeg Singh and Pritam Singh to finish Kulwinder Singh. Pritam Singh and Subeg
Singh, rushed to the first floor of the house. Subeg Singh brought his gun and Pritam Singh
came up with a sword in the balcony of the house. Subeg Singh shot at Kulwinder Singh, while
Pritam Singh started towards Kulwinder Singh with a sword. The shot missed the target and
another shot was fired by Subeg Singh which this time struck Kulwant Kaur (deceased) i.e wife
of Kulwant Singh who was working in the courtyard. Further Pritam Singh inflicted injuries to
Kulwinder Singh with a sword. Balkaran Singh and Jagdish (sons of deceased), came from
outside and raised hue and cry watching their mother in serious condition. Before the villagers
assembled, all except Subeg Singh, rushed out of house, who firstly threatened the villagers
with dire consequences, later finding the situation against him, left the place.

The villagers and two sons along with Kulwinder Singh took Kulwant Kaur to hospital where
Dying declaration was recorded by doctor from Kulwant Kaur who later on succumbed to her
injuries. The Defense pleaded that there was no scuffle between the parties and the fence was
already inside the courtyard and it was only the other party who initiated the scuffle as they
came to uproot the fence and during which shot was fired accidentally. On investigation, police
found that the deceased only affirmed to what was stated in response to the queries put up by
the doctor recording the dying declaration. The medical evidence shows that the injuries
suffered by Deceased point to the fact that it can be possible only when the gunshot is fired
from the close range and not otherwise.

The accused were charged u/s 302/34 and 307/34 of the IPC. The trial court acquitted the
accused on the basis of inconsistency in dying declaration and prosecution version on the one
and ocular and medical evidence on the other hand. An Appeal against acquittal has been
preferred before the Hon’ble High Court.

Argue on behalf of Appellants and Respondents.

 MOOT PROPOSITION (GROUP-VII)

Mr X is a resident of the state of Purva Pradesh in Indica. In the year 1985, Mr X, who was
married, murdered his wife in a drunken rage at his house. The neighbours, who heard the
screaming and shouting leading to her murder caught hold of Mr X and handed him to the police.
Mr X was tried by the competent Sessions Court, convicted of offences punishable under S.302,
IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment in 1989.

Mr X was sent to the central prison in Purva Pradesh, Charapanna Agrahara, to serve out his
sentence. While he was there, he became close friends with his cellmate, Mr Y. Mr Y was around
30 years older than Mr X was. He had an unmarried daughter who was around the age of Mr
X.With time, X and Y became friends and Y suggested that X marry his daughter. X agreed to
themarriage. In the year 1992, X and Y obtained parole from the prison and the marriage
between X and Y’s daughter was solemnised as per the rights and customs of their religion.
Both X and Y returned to the prison.

For around 30 days in a year, X would obtain parole and visit his wife in her village. In due
course of time, X’s wife delivered twin baby boys. However, by the year 1995, X had started
suspecting the fidelity of his wife. This seemed to be a more acute problem to him since he
was away in prison for most of the year. In October, 1995, X obtained parole and visited his
wife and two children. One night while he was with his family, and being extremely intoxicated
with liquor, X was seized by rage and started quarrelling with his wife over his suspicions on
her character and fidelity. Ultimately, he seized an agricultural implement and hacked his wife
to death. He then proceeded to kill his two children who were sleeping within the house with
the same weapon. According to the neighbours who rushed in, X was trying to commit suicide
by hanging himself when they discovered him and overpowered him. X was handed over to
the police, who accused him of having committed the murders of his wife and children. X
confessed in police custody that he had committed the murders. However, when X was
produced before the jurisdictional magistrate, he refused to make anystatement.

He was remanded to custody while the investigation went on. Ultimately, he was charged with
offences punishable under Section 302 and 303 of the IPC. X was represented by a government
appointed lawyer before the Court of Sessions where his trial commenced. The lawyer was
disinterested in the case and did not cross examine witnesses of the prosecution nor did he
produce any evidence on behalf of the defence. X was convicted. The Sessions Court sentenced
X under S.302 and 303 of the IPC to death. The sentence was pronounced in the year 1999.
Upon the matter being sent to the High Court of Purva Pradesh for confirmation of sentence, a
Division Bench split on the quantum of sentence to be awarded. While one judge felt that a life
sentence without possibility of parole, commutation or remission would be sufficient, the other
felt that only death would be an appropriate punishment since the convict was already under a
sentence of life imprisonment and some extra punishment had to be awarded for the new and
ghastly crime committed by him. The matter was referred to a third judge of the High Court
who felt that there was no discretion in the matter given the provisions applied and the nature
of the crime and confirmed the sentence of death. Mr X’s Special Leave Petition to the
Supreme Court of Indica was refused on grounds that it did not raise any issues of significant
legal importance. Mr X submitted a mercy petition to the President of Indica which came to be
rejected in the year 2001. Therefore, Mr X was due to be executed.

Due to oversight on behalf of the prison authorities, Mr X was not kept in the death row cells
at the prison, but was allowed to remain in the cells with other ordinary criminals, it is only in
the year 2016, that the same was discovered and the prisoner was sent to death row confinement.
On 01.01.2018, the black warrant for the execution of Mr X was issued by the appropriate
court. The very next day, lawyers representing a human rights organisation filed a writ petition
before the High Court of Purva Pradesh claiming that Mr X cannot be executed on the grounds
that his trial is vitiated by illegality and his execution would violate several provisions of the
Constitution of Indica. The state opposes the same and insists on execution. The laws, case law
and constitutional provisions of Indica are analogous to the ones in the Republic of India in the
year 2020.

On behalf of both the State and the Petitioners, draft petitions and make oral arguments based
on the above information.