Moot Problem - 3 (Respondent)

LIST OF ABBRIVATIONS
S.No. ABBRIVATION TITLE
1) App.No. Application Number
2) AIR All India Reporter
3) Cr.P.C. Criminal Procedure Code
4) Para Paragraph
5) Prin Principle
6) Art. Article
7) CL Clause
8) E.g. Exemplum Gratia (For Example)
9) Hon’ble Honorable
10) i.e. That is
11) Ltd. Limited
12) Ors. Others
13) Bom. Bombay
14) Cal. Calcutta
15) SCC Supreme Court Citation
16) P&H Punjab & Haryana
17) SCR Supreme Court Reports
18) V. Verses
19) O.S. Original Suit
20) @ At the rate
21) Sec. Section
22) SCN Show Cause Notice
23) TG Telangana State
1
1) CODE OF CRIMINA PROCEDURE, 1973
2) INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860
3) INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872
4) PROTECTION OF WOMEN FROM DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT, 2005
24) UOI Union of India
25) % Percentage
2
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
S.No. BOOKS, AUTHORS & CASE LAWS
BOOKS
1) Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Published by Eastern Book Company, 5 th
Edition 2018
2) Indian Penal Code, 1869 – Published by Eastern Book Company, 5th Edition 2017
3) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Published by Eastern Book Company, 5th Edition 2018
4) Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 downloaded from website
5) Black’s Law Dictionary
6) Law Forum – Vikaspedia (https://www.vikaspedia.in/)
7) Legal Service of India (https://www.legalserviceindia.com/)
8) The Indian Kanoon (https://www.indiankanoon.org/)
3
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The petitioner humbly submits this memorandum for the petition filed before this Hon’ble District &
Sessions Court, at Hyderabad U/s 177 of Indian Penal Code. The petition invokes the punishment for
murder Under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Punishment for Murder. It sets forth the facts
and the laws on which the claims are based.
4
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1) Mr.Jay Kumar was the Chief Executive Officer of a leading multinational company, M/s Arin
Technologies who was a citizen of India, residing in Hyderabad City, State of Telangana.
2) On 05/01/2021, Mr. Kumar had left home in his car at 9.00 a.m. for his office. But he never
reached there. Instead, at about 1.00 p.m., his wife, Ms. Jaya, received a call from the Station
House Officer, Lingampally Police Station, informing here that Mr. Kumar had been killed.
3) Ms. Jaya lodged a complaint and the Station House Officer registered a First Information Report
at Lingampally Police Station (F.I.R. No.13/2021 was filed under Section 302 and 201 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860).
4) She informed the police that her husband was wearing a white shirt, black trouser and a blue
sweater. She also mentioned that Mr. Kumar was carrying his laptop when he left home.
5) Inspector, Mr. Bahadur prepared the seizure memo of items recovered from the place where Mr.
Kumar was found murdered.
6) No laptop was recovered and the deceased was wearing white shirt and black trouser when his
body was found. Sub-Inspector, Mr. Vijay prepared the inquest report under the instruction of
Inspector, Mr.Bahadur. Thereafter, he sent the dead body for a post-mortem with a constable.
7) Dr. John conducted the post-mortem of the body and found that the death of the deceased was a
result of ante-mortem injuries. The injuries were three gunshot wounds and two incised wounds.
8) On 06/03/2021, Sub-Inspector, Mr. Vijay along with other police officers, apprehended a car after
a informer told him that a vehicle perceived to be stolen by the informer would come from the
direction of Strand Road.
5
9) The person driving the car told Sub-Inspector, Mr.Vijay that his name was Rambo. When he was
searched, the police recovered a .32 caliber pistol with four live cartridges in a seven shot
magazine from the pocket of his trousers. The police arrested Rambo.
10) On 08/03/2021, Ms. Jaya identified the car as the one her husband owned and was driving on the
day he was killed. As described by her, the aluminium stick was also found in the car that Mr.
Kumar used to keep underneath his seat for self-defence. Ms. Jaya produced a copy of the
Registration Certificate of the Car.
11) After seven-eight days, when Rambo visited Austin’s house, Mr.Austin told him that the car
belonged to one Mr. Jay and that he along with Simon had murdered Mr. Jay. Though looking
furious, looking deep into the eyes of Rambo, Austin laughed.
12) On 16/03/2021, Inspector, Bahadur and his team went to Austin’s house to arrest him. But Austin
was not there. One Mr.Robin (Austin’s next-door neighbour) told the police that he saw Ms. Lily,
Austin’s sister burning a laptop in the outdoor fire place established in the garden of Austin’s
house. Inspector, Bahadur found the charred remains of what were perceived to be some
electronic components from the spot indicated by Mr. Robin.
13) Austin and Simon were arrested a day later. Both were interrogated separately.
14) Simon stated in his statement recorded by the police that he had neither committed any murder
nor did he give any car to Rambo. On the other hand, Austin took the police to his house and
showed a finger in the direction of his cupboard, stating, “The pistol my brother owns is in that
cupboard. Yes, we killed Mr. Jay and took his money. He had a lot of money”, Inspector,
Bahadur prepared the recovery memo of the .32 caliber pistol recovered from the house of Austin.
15) On the day of his arrest, Austin’s school principal also handed over the attendance register of his
class to the police. Austin was marked absent in the register on 05/01/2021.
6
16) On 17/03/2021, Renowned Forensic Science expert Dr. James from Central Forensic Science
Laboratory stated in his report that the burnt remains might be those of laptop. One of the
components found burned was a batter cell, which is used in the batteries of laptop, but same may
also be found in power bank.
17) The police filed the charge-sheet against Simon and Austin under Section 302, 397, 201 R/w 34 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Ms. Lily under Sections 201 and 202 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860.
18) Austin was declared a juvenile, and his trial is still going on in the juvenile court of Hyderabad.
19) In the statement Simon and Rambo said, “I don’t know”, in reply to all the questions put to them.
20) In the statement Ms. Lily stated that she had not burned any laptop as claimed by Mr. Robin. She
said Mr. Robin used to pass lewd remarks towards her, and since she did not respond to his
advances, he lied to the police.
21) The case State of Telangana V. Simon & Anr. Is now listed before the Hon’ble Sessions Court,
Hyderabad.
7
LIST OF ISSUES RAISED
1) Whether Mr. Simon, Rambo and Ms. Lily had common intention to commit Robbery and Murder
Mr. Jay?
2) Whether Mr.Simon, Mr.Rambo and Ms.Lily are guilty of causing disappearance of evidence,
dishonest, misappropriation of property and receiving stolen property?
3) Whether the offenses against Mr.Simon, Mr. Rambo and Ms. Lily is proved beyond reasonable
doubt?
8
SUMMARY OF AURGUMENTS
1) Whether Mr. Simon, Rambo and Ms. Lily had common intention to commit robbery and murder
of Mr. Jay?
The accused Mr. Simon, Mr. Rambo and Ms. Lily never had any intention to commit any robbery or to
murder Mr. Jay Kumar. The series of incidents clearly states that they are innocent and have been framed
in the current murder case of Mr. Jay Kumar only due to the mere coincidence of some actions or
situations.
On the day of incident, Mr. Austin who happened to encounter the accident of Mr. Jay Kumar felt greedy
and wanted to commit robbery of the laptop from Mr. Jay Kumar’s car. Unfortunately, the death of Mr.
Jay Kumar happened by accident and since the death of Mr. Jay Kumar was an accident and not murder
and also due to the Respondents namely Mr. Simon, Mr. Rambo and Ms. Lily was minors. It becomes an
excusable homicide under section 80 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and cannot be treated as murder.
2) Whether Mr. Simon, Mr, Rambo and Ms. Loly are guilty of causing disappearance of Evidence,
Dishonest and Misappropriation of Property and receiving stolen property?
The respondents by name Mr. Simon, Mr. Rambo and Ms. Lily is not guilty of causing
disappearance of evidence, dishonest, misappropriation of property and receiving stolen property
as they are not even aware that using someone else’s car or property without their permission is a
heinous offence.
Further, they are not conscious enough by age and maturity to understand that they are
accountable for their acts of mischief. Hence, the Sections 397, 404 and 411 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 are not applicable considering the minority as well as maturity of the respondents for
their age.
3) Whether the offenses against Mr. Simon, Mr. Rambo and Ms. Lily is proved beyond reasonable
doubt?
The offenses and acquisitions made against the respondents are not made beyond reasonable doubt. It is
because there is no prima facie for the defendants to attempt robbery or murder of Mr. Jay Kumar.
9
Also, the petitioner failed to prove the acquisitions beyond reasonable doubt through the corroborative
evidence although the burden of proof is on the petitioner.
In conclusion, Mr. Simon, Mr. Rambo, and Ms. Lilly, who are respondents, being absent from school,
being at the scene of the crime, or using the deceased person’s vehicle does not amount to making them
murderers but only causes a reasonable doubt. Since there is no evidence against the respondents to prove
the offence, the punishment cannot be imposed just on the grounds of doubt, which happened due to mere
coincidence.
10
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
1) Whether Mr. Simon, Rambo and Ms. Lily had common intention to commit robbery and murder
of Mr. Jay?
The respondents — Ms. Lily, Mr. Simon, and Mr. Rambo—all explicitly said that they had no
desire to kill Mr. Jay Kumar or carry out any kind of heist. The sequence of events makes it quite
evident that they are innocent and that they are only being falsely accused in the ongoing murder
trial of Mr. Jay Kumar because of the coincidental nature of some events or behaviours.
When Mr. Austin saw Mr. Jay Kumar in an accident on the day of the occurrence, he became
envious and wanted to steal the laptop from Mr. Jay Kumar's vehicle. Sadly, Mr. Jay Kumar
passed away in an accident. Since Mr. Jay Kumar's death was accidental rather than murderous,
and because Mr. Simon, Mr. Rambo, and Ms. Lily were minors at the time, it can be classified as
an excused homicide under Section 80 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, rather than a murder.
Accidental or excusable homicide can be covered under sections 80, 82, 83, 84, 85, 87, 88, and
92 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2) Whether Mr. Simon, Mr. Rambo and Ms. Lily are guilty of causing disappearance of Evidence,
Dishonest, Misappropriation of property and receiving stolen property?
Since none of the respondents—Mr. Simon, Mr. Rambo, and Ms. Lily—know that using
someone else's vehicle or property without that person's consent is a serious crime, they cannot be
found guilty of causing evidence disappearing, being dishonest, misappropriating property, or
receiving stolen goods.
Also, they are not conscious enough of their age and maturity to understand that they are accountable for
their acts of mischief. Hence, sections 397, 404, and 411 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, are not
applicable considering the minority as well as the maturity of the respondents for their age.
11
Presumption of innocence principles are included into Section 3(i) of the Juvenile Justice Act,
2015; these principles state that children are deemed innocent by nature and cannot be punished
for mischief or robbery acts that result in any offences since they are committed unwittingly.
3) Whether the offenses against Mr. Simon, Mr. Rambo and Ms. Lily are proved beyond reasonable
doubt?
The offences and accusations made against the respondents are not beyond reasonable doubt. It is because
there is no prima facie for the respondents to attempt robbery or murder of Mr. Jay Kumar.
In a prima facie case, the prosecution must provide sufficient evidence to prove the respondents' guilt of
the crime. If the prosecution cannot support each component, the case cannot proceed to trial.
The petitioner failed to prove the accusations beyond reasonable doubt through corroborative evidence,
despite the burden of proof falling on them. This principle is outlined in Section 106 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860.
In conclusion, Mr. Simon, Mr. Rambo, and Ms. Lily, i.e., respondents being absent from school, being at
the scene of the crime, or using the deceased person’s vehicle, do not make them murderers but only cause
a reasonable doubt. Since there is no evidence against the respondents to prove the offence, the
punishment cannot be imposed just on the grounds of doubt, which happened due to mere coincidence,
and it is as per Section 62 of the Indian Evidence Act that corroborate evidence cannot be treated if there
is no concrete, provable primary evidence during the criminal trial.
12
PRAYER
IN LIGHT OF THE ISSUES RAISED, THE AUTHORITIES CITED, AND THE

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED, IT IS THEREFORE PRAYED THAT THIS
HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE KINDLY PLEASED TO:
1) The accused, Mr. Simon, cannot be punished under sections 302, 397, and 201 read with 34 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860, and against Mr. Rambo under sections 201, 202, 404, and 411 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860, as the primary evidence is missing to prove the offence as per Section
62 of the Indian Evidence Act.
2) Also, Mr. Rambo and Ms. Lily cannot be punished with any imprisonment as the primary
evidence is missing to prove the offence, and it is evident that the respondents did not commit any
of the accusations as per Section 3(i) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, presuming the innocence
of the respondents, and that the petitioners have failed to abide by the burden of proof beyond
doubt.
3) They should be let go of all the criminal charges against them and must receive compensation of
₹ 5,00,000 for each person from the Government of Telangana for mental harassment and
criminal defamation under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Date: XX / XXX / XXXX

Place: Hyderabad
ADVOCATE
COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS
13

Moot Problem - 3 (Respondent)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Moot Problem - 3 (Respondent)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LIST OF ABBRIVATIONS

S.No. ABBRIVATION TITLE

1) App.No. Application Number

2) AIR All India Reporter

3) Cr.P.C. Criminal Procedure Code

8) E.g. Exemplum Gratia (For Example)

10) i.e. That is

11) Ltd. Limited

12) Ors. Others

13) Bom. Bombay

14) Cal. Calcutta

15) SCC Supreme Court Citation

16) P&H Punjab & Haryana

17) SCR Supreme Court Reports

S.No. BOOKS, AUTHORS & CASE LAWS

5) Black’s Law Dictionary

6) Law Forum – Vikaspedia (https://www.vikaspedia.in/)

7) Legal Service of India (https://www.legalserviceindia.com/)

8) The Indian Kanoon (https://www.indiankanoon.org/)

IN LIGHT OF THE ISSUES RAISED, THE AUTHORITIES CITED, AND THE

Date: XX / XXX / XXXX

You might also like