Prosecution Memorial

1
DEPARTMENT OF LAWS, INTRA-DEPARTMENT MOOT COMPETITION, 2024
Team Code:
Department of Laws, Panjab University, Chandigarh
INTRA-DEPARTMENT MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024
IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTIONS 302
OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860
Criminal Appeal No. _____ of 2023
IN THE MATTER OF
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
(APPELANT)
V.
JATIN
(RESPONDENT)
UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT JUDGE
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELANT
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

2
Table of Contents
List of Abbreviations 4
Index of Authorities 5-7
 Table of Contents 5-7
 Books 7
 Websites 7
 Statutes 7
Statement of Jurisdiction 8
Statement of Facts 9
Statement of Charges 10
Summary of Arguments 11-12
Arguments Advanced 13-27
Issue-I: Whether Deven is guilty under Section 354D and 509 of Barat Penal Code? 13-17
Issue-II: Whether Deven is guilty under Section 307 BPC for attempting murder? 17-20
Issue-III: Whether Jeyant is an offender under Section 325 of BPC 20-23
Issue-IV: Whether Jeyant is guilty under Section 355 and 504 of BPC? 24-26
Issue V: Whether the mob that attacked Deven is an offender under Sec 358 of BPC? 26-27
Prayer 28
List of Annexures 29-57
 Annexure 1 30-32

3
List of Exhibits 59-81
 Exhibit-A 60
 Exhibit-B 61
 Exhibit-C 62
 Exhibit-D 63
 Exhibit-E 64-69
 Exhibit-F 70
 Exhibit-H 71-86
 Exhibit-G 87-88
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

4
& And

5
A.P. Andhra Pradesh

AIR All India Report
Anr. Another
Bom CR Bombay Criminal Reporter
BPC Barat Penal Code
Cr.P.C. Code of Criminal Procedure
Cri LJ / Cr. LJ Criminal Law Journal
Del Delhi
Hon’ble Honorable
IPC Indian Penal Code
M.P. Madhya Pradesh
No. Number
Ori. Odisha
Ors. Others
r/w Read with
Retd. Retired
S./Sec. Section
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
St. State
U.P. Uttar Pradesh
u/s Under Section
v. Versus
IN
DEX OF AUTHORITIES
TABLE OF CASES:

6
1. 1.
BOOKS:
1. Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code, 33rd Ed. (2011)
2. P.S.A. Pillai (13th Ed. 2017)
3. Gaur, KD, Criminal Law: Cases and Materials, (6th Ed. 2009)
4. Gupta and Dighe, Criminal Manual, (7th Ed. 2007)
5. Kelkar, R.V. Criminal Procedure, (5th Ed. 2011)
WEBSITES:
1. http://www.scconline.com
2. http://www.manupatrafast.com
3. http://www.findlaw.com
4. http://www.judis.nic.in
5. http://www.indiankanoon.com
STATUTES:
1. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act 2 of 1973)
2. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Act 18 of 1872)
3. The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860)
ST
ATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

7
The Hon’ble Court enjoys the right to preside over this matter by virtue of Sec. 377(1) in Chapter
XXIX of Appeals, of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731.
Section 377:
‘377. Appeal by the State Government against the sentence -
1. Save as otherwise provided in Sub-Section (2), the State Government may in any case of
conviction on a trial held by any Court other than a High Court, direct the Public
prosecutor to present an appeal against the sentence on the ground of its inadequacy-
1. to the Court of session, if the sentence is passed by the Magistrate; and
2. to the High Court, if the sentence is passed by any other Court”;
3. in Sub-Section (3), for the words “the High Court”, the words “the Court of
Session or, as the case may be, the High Court” shall be substituted
2. If such conviction is in a case in which the offence has been investigated by the Delhi
Special Police Establishment, constituted under the Delhi Special Police Establishment
Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), or by any other agency empowered to make investigation into an
offence under any Central Act other than this Code, the Central Government may also
direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal to the High Court against the sentence
on the ground of its inadequacy.
3. When an appeal has been filed against the sentence on the ground of its inadequacy, the
High Court shall not enhance the sentence except after giving to the accused a reasonable
opportunity of showing cause against such enhancement and while showing cause, the
accused may plead for his acquittal or for the reduction of the sentence.
4. When an appeal has been filed against a sentence passed under section 376, section
376A, section 376AB, section 376B, section 376C, section 376D, section 376DA, section
376DB or section 376E of the Indian Penal Code, the appeal shall be disposed of within a
period of six months from the date of filing of such appeal.
The Counsels for the Prosecution most respectfully submit to this jurisdiction of the
Hon’ble Sessions Court.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
BACKGROUND
1
The Code of Criminal Procedure, No. 2 of 1974

8
1. Mr. Jatin is an international celebrity athlete with huge physical disabilities who
has achieved great fame in both the Olympics and Paralympics. He was born with
deformed legs, consequently, both legs were amputated below the knees. Since
then, he has been relying on prosthetics.
2. Ms. Mamta was a 29-year-old woman of great natural beauty and a successful
model.
3. Jatin met Mamta on 4th November, 2022 and soon they entered into a romantic
and intimate relationship.
CONFLICTS
4. As evidenced by a transcript of text messages between them, their relationship
was filled with conflicts and tensions throughout their short-lived relationship.
5. In spite of these hiccups, they often slept over together at Jatin’s home in a
secured complex known as Oliver Estate in Mumbai, Maharashtra.
THE INCIDENT
6. On the night of 13th February 2023, Mamta slept over at Jatin’s home to celebrate
Valentine’s day.
7. In the early hours of following morning, Jatin fired four fatal shots with a 9mm
pistol through the door of toilet cubicle in the bathroom adjacent to his bedroom
and killed her.
8. After firing the shots, he went back to the bathroom and opened the door with its
key and found Mamta slumped with her weight on the toilet bowl.

9
9. Before the killing, Jatin woke up due to hot weather and realized that Mamta was
awake as she rolled over and spoke to him. He went outside to get two fans from
the balcony into the room.
ENSUING EVENTS
10. As per the witnesses, Mr. Raju and Dr. Deep, there heard screams, gunshots, loud
noises and cries for help coming from Jatin’s house.
11. Within minutes, they arrived at Jatin’s house and found him in highly emotional
state, kneeling alongside Mamta who was lying on the floor at the foot of the
stairs leading to the sleeping quarters of the house. She had been carried
downstairs by Jatin from an upstairs bathroom where the shooting took place.
12. She had been shot several times and was mortally wounded. The severity of her
injuries was such that she was not breathing and Dr. Deep who was a medical
practitioner was unable to find a pulse.
13. Soon after the incident, he had communicated his narrative that the deceased was
in the bedroom when he fired the shot into the toilet door while there were
intruders in the toilet.
14. In due course, a FIR was registered against Jatin under section 302 of IPC for
Murder of Mamta.
TRIAL COURT’S JUDGEMENT
15. The Court of Session convicted him for Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to
Murder holding that there was no intention to kill the person behind the door on
the basis of the Jatin’s pleading that he had an erroneous belief that is life was in
danger due to an intruder.

10
APPEAL
16. Aggrieved by the decision of the trial Court, the State has made an appeal to the
High Court of Bombay.
STATEMENT OF CHARGES
Charge-1
Mr. Jatin has been charged under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 for the murder of
Miss Mamta.

11
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
ISSUE 1: Whether Jatin is guilty of culpable homicide amounting to murder?
It is submitted before the Hon’ble court that the accused, Mr. Jatin is guilty of culpable homicide
amounting to murder, as dealt u/s 300 of IPC ‘firstly’ and ‘thirdly’.
ISSUE II: Whether there was scope for premeditation and calculation?
It is most humbly submitted that in the present case there was a complete scope for premeditation
and calculation in the situation which clearly indicates that the defense had carefully planned to
do the act. The accused’s act of fetching his gun from under his bed and walking down the
corridor toward the bathroom indicated premeditation. Firing as many as four shots is another
indication of premeditation of his act.
ISSUE 3: Whether the accused acted upon private defence?
It is submitted before the Hon’ble court that the accused, Mr. Jatin’s acts does not fall under the
right to private defence i.e. Exception 2 of S. 300 since the element of good faith is missing in
the instant case. It is contended that the accused has plotted a fake story regarding mistaking
Miss Mamta as an intruder. Moreover, if his plea is considered, merely on hearing a few noises
from the bathroom does not in any case warrant firing four shots at the alleged intruder. It is
submitted hat the force chosen by the accused for defence is irrational to what was apprehended.

12
There was no imminent danger to the life of the accused and there was no reasonable
apprehension of receiving injury. Injury inflicted in the instant case is not commensurate with
the injury with which he is threatened.
Issue 4: Whether the doctrine of transferred malice is applicable in the instant case?
It is submitted before the Hon’ble court that the accused’s plea of being innocent since he had
“no subjective intention” to cause Mamta’s death is rendered inefficient owing to the doctrine of
transferred malice, under S. 301 of the Indian Penal Code. Regardless of whether the accused
intended to cause the death of Miss Mamta or the presumed intruder, it falls under S. 300 of the
Code.
A
RGUMENTS ADVANCED
ISSUE 1: Whether Jatin is guilty of culpable homicide amounting to murder?

13
It is most humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that Mr. Jatin (hereinafter referred to as
the ‘respondent’) is punishable for the offence of murder under S. 302 of Indian Penal Code,
1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’). In order to bring a successful conviction under this
charge, however, it is pertinent for the prosecution to show that the act committed by the accused
is covered under S. 300, IPC2.
1.1 Ingredients for Culpable Homicide Amounting to Murder
As per S. 300, IPC, to prove the offence of culpable homicide amounting to murder, these two
ingredients need to be fulfilled -
(i) The act causes death: It is humbly submitted that the element of Actus Reus was present in
the act of the accused. The first ingredient is fulfilled since it’s a well-established fact that the
accused fired four shots from his 9mm pistol at the deceased which led to the death of
Mamta.
(ii) Intention to murder: The essential ingredient to constitute an offence under this section is
having the intention or knowledge. The intention or knowledge can be understood as
explained under the four clauses Section 300 of the Code 3. Law gives a lot of importance on
2
Sec. 300, INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860, “Murder. —Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is
murder:
(Firstly) — If the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or—
(Secondly) — If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause
the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or—
(Thirdly) — If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be
inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or—
(Fourthly) — If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all
probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse
for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.”

14
proving the intent of the accused; there have been some tests to determine the murderous
intent of the accused.
In the case of Phulia Tudu & Anr. v. State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) 4, the Court noticed that
confusion is caused if courts, losing sight of the true scope and meaning of the terms used by the
legislature in these sections, allow themselves to be drawn into minute abstractions. The safest
way of approach to the interpretation and application of these provisions seems to be to keep in
focus the keywords used in the various clauses of these sections.
It is contended that the act of the accused is covered under clauses one and three of S. 300, IPC.
“300. Murder.—
Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the
death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or
—(Secondly)— If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender
knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or
—(Thirdly)— If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the
bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death,
or
—(Fourthly)— If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it
must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits
such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.”
4
AIR 2007 SC 3215

15
1.1.1 Firstly Clause of S. 300 -
In the case of Pulicherla Nagaraju (supra) 5, the Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the
case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and the intention to cause death. It was
observed and held by this Court that the intention to cause death can be gathered generally from
a combination of a few or several of the following, among other, circumstances:
(i) nature of the weapon used;
(ii) whether the weapon was carried by the accused or was picked up from the spot;
(iii) whether the blow is aimed at a vital part of the body;
(iv) the amount of force employed in causing injury;
(v) whether the act was in the course of sudden quarrel or sudden fight or free for all
fight;
(vi) whether the incident occurs by chance or whether there was any premeditation;
(vii) whether there was any prior enmity or whether the deceased was a stranger;
(viii) whether there was any grave and sudden provocation, 14 and if so, the cause for such
provocation;
(ix) whether it was in the heat of passion;
(x) whether the person inflicting the injury has taken undue advantage or has acted in a
cruel and unusual manner;
(xi) whether the accused dealt a single blow or several blows.
In the case of Singapagu Anjaiah (supra) 6, the Supreme Court concluded that the accused
intended to cause death of the deceased. In paragraph 16, it was observed as under:
5
AIR 2006 SUPREME COURT 3010
6
AIRONLINE 2010 SC 441

16
“16. In our opinion, as nobody can enter into the mind of the accused, his intention has to be
gathered from the weapon used, the part of the body chosen for the assault and the nature of the
injuries caused. Here, the appellant had chosen a crowbar as the weapon of offence. He has
further chosen a vital part of the body i.e. the head for causing the injury which had caused
multiple fractures of skull. This clearly shows the force with which the appellant had used the
weapon. The cumulative effect of all these factors irresistibly leads to one and the only
conclusion that the appellant intended to cause death of the deceased.”
The same has been reiterated in a recent Supreme Court case of State of Uttarakhand v.
Sachendra Singh Rawat7.
It is humbly submitted that the facts of the instant case fulfill the test laid down by the Supreme
Court regarding intention for causing death -
1. Nature of the weapon used is highly dangerous; the weapon being a 9mm pistol.
2. The weapon was carried by the accused from under his bed, all the way to the toilet
door, which is separated from his bedroom by a corridor.
3. Despite the fact that the respondent was residing in a secure complex known as Oliver
Estate in Mumbai, Maharashtra, he kept a loaded gun under his bed for an easy
access. This clearly indicates his preparation to cause the death of Miss Mamta and is
a relevant fact under Sec 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
4. The amount of force employed can be gauged by the number of shots fired. Firing 4
shots in a small cubicle toilet is indicative of the intent of Respondent to cause the
death of Mamta.
7
(2022) 4 SCC 227

17
5. It is contended by the prosecution that on that fateful night, the Respondent had
threatened the deceased during an argument, which lead the deceased to lock herself
in the toilet cubicle to escape from him. Following which he fired four shots at her,
causing her death.
6. It is contended that Miss Mamta was a very beautiful and successful model which
consequently ignited feelings of jealousy, insecurity, and anger in the respondent.
7. They faced conflicts and tensions as evidenced by a transcript of text messages that
had passed between the respondent and deceased although they had been in a
relationship for a very short duration of approximately three months.
8. There was clear premeditation as shown by …… (add premeditation points)..
1.1.2. Thirdly Clause of S. 300
S. 300 ‘thirdly’ elucidates the following essentials as laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court8 :
1) First, it must establish, quite objectively, that a bodily injury is present,
2) Secondly, the nature of the injury must be proved; these are purely objective investigations,
3) Thirdly, it must be proved that there was an intention to inflict that particular bodily injury,
that is to say, that it was not accidental or unintentional, or that some other kind of injury was
intended. Once these three elements are proved to be present, the enquiry proceeds further and,
4) Fourthly, it must be proved that the injury of the type just described made up of the three
elements set out above is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. This part of
8
Virsa Singh vs. State of Punjab AIR 1958 SC 465

18
the enquiry is purely objective and inferential and has nothing to do with the intention of the
offender.
It was observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court that once the above mentioned four elements are
established by the prosecution the offence is murder under Section 300, "3rdly".
Therefore, it is asserted that in the pertinent case, the accused has caused the death of Mamta by
intentionally causing particular bodily injury i.e. by firing four shots through the door of the
small cubicle toilet [1.1.2.1] and the injury caused is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary
course of nature [1.1.2.2].
[1.1.2.1] THAT THE ACCUSED HAS INTENTIONALLY CAUSED THE PARTICULAR
BODILY INJURY:
It is humbly submitted that at the onset of the case it is very essential to prove that bodily injury
was caused and the nature of the injury must be established. It is submitted that in the present
case, as per the eye witnesses Mr. Raju and Dr. Deep, Mamta had been shot several times and
was mortally wounded.
It is asserted that the next question comes as to the intention to cause the alleged injury and when
it comes to the question of intention, that is subjective to the offender then it must be proved that
he had an intention to cause the bodily injury that is found to be present. It was held by Hon’ble
Supreme Court that what needs to be proved is not that the accused had an intention to inflict the
injury that was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature but that he had an intention
to cause the same bodily injury that is found to be present on the body of the deceased. 9
9
Kesar Singh v. State of Haryana (2008) 15 SCC 753

19
It was held that the initial words of second part of S.300(3) is descriptive of the earlier part of the
section, namely, the infliction of bodily injury with the intention to inflict it, that is to say, if the
circumstances justify an inference that a man's intention was only to inflict a blow on the lower
part of the leg, or some lesser blow. In that case, the first part of the clause does not come into
play. But once it is proved that there was an intention to inflict the injury that is found to be
present, then the earlier part of the clause - "and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted" is
merely descriptive.10
It was further observed by court in considering whether the intention was to inflict the injury
found to have been inflicted, the enquiry necessarily proceeds on broad lines as, for example,
whether there was an intention to strike at a vital or a dangerous part of the body, and whether
with sufficient force to cause the kind of injury found to have been inflicted. It is, of course, not
necessary to inquire into every last detail as, for instance, whether the accused intended to blow
the head. It is broad based and simple and based on common sense: the kind of enquiry that "an
ordinary man" could readily appreciate and understand.11
Therefore, it was concluded by court that the question, so far as the intention is concerned, is not
whether he intended to kill, or to inflict an injury of a particular degree of seriousness, but
whether he intended to inflict the injury in question; and once the existence of the injury is
proved the intention to cause it will be presumed unless the evidence or the circumstances
warrant an opposite conclusion.12
[1.1.2.2] THAT THE INJURY CAUSED IS SUFFICIENT TO CAUSE DEATH IN THE
ORDINARY COURSE OF NATURE:

10
Dhupa Chamar v. State of Bihar (2002) 6 SCC 506
11
Kesar Singh v. State of Haryana (2008) 15 SCC 753
12
Jai Prakash vs State (Delhi Administration) 1991 SCC (2) 32

20
It is humbly submitted that once it is established that the injury is caused and the accused has the
intention to cause the injury inflicted on the person of the deceased then comes the later part of
the enquiry which is objective in nature to find out that whether the injury was sufficient in the
ordinary course of nature to cause death or not. Thus, intention is only linked up and is restricted
to the causing of the bodily injury and not to the knowledge or intention of causing such bodily
injury that is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.
It was observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court that what needs to be proved is that the accused had
an intention to cause the same bodily injury found to be present on the person of deceased, which
was later found to be sufficient to cause death. Such a principle is based on broad lines of
common sense because if intention is considered to be of causing an injury which is sufficient to
cause death; then any person could always plead that he never had an intention to cause such a
injury and it would have been very difficult to prove him wrong.13
In the present case the accused has fired four shots from his 9mm pistol through the door of a
small toilet cubicle. It is humbly submitted that given the size of the toilet cubicle, the bullets
were bound to hit Mamta and the Respondent fired as many as four shots from such a small
distance to make sure that they hit the Respondent.
This clearly shows that the bodily injury is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause
death. Any rational man would have the knowledge that firing four shots would be so dangerous
that it must in all probability is to cause death. As per Dr. Deep, she had been shot several times
and was mortally wounded. The severity of her injuries was such that she was not breathing and
Dr. Deep was unable to find her pulse.
13
Virsa Singh vs. State of Punjab AIR 1958 SC 465; Kesar Singh v. State of Haryana (2008) 15 SCC 753r

21
It is humbly submitted that according to the rule laid down in Virsa Singh 14's case, even if the
intention of accused was limited to the infliction of a bodily injury sufficient to cause death in
the ordinary course of nature, and did not extend to the intention of causing death, the offence
would be murder. Illustration (c) appended to Section 300 clearly brings out this point.
It was observed by the court that no one has a license to run around inflicting injuries that are
sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and claim that they are not guilty of
murder. If they inflict injuries of that kind, they must face the consequences; and they can only
escape if it can be shown, or reasonably deduced that the injury was accidental or otherwise
unintentional.
It is most humbly submitted that the accused has caused the death of Mamta by by firing four
shots on the deceased and the nature of injury was such that it was sufficient to cause the death
of a person in ordinary course of nature and the accused can be held liable for the offence of
culpable homicide amounting to murder u/s 302 IPC.
Therefore, the instant case falls under both the firstly and thirdly clauses of S. 300, IPC.
ISSUE II: Whether there was scope for premeditation and calculation?
14
Ibid

22
Premeditation can be defined as the active intent to anticipate future events and the planned
consequential reaction to those events. In this case the accused intentionally landed a blow on the
back portion of the head of the deceased and never thought of reviving or complaining of the
incident to someone. It is very well clear from the fact that the accused’s friends stated that on
finding her nervousness, her friends questioned her persistently about what was wrong but she
refused to answer instead she showed a very careless behavior and went to sleep; this clearly
state that the accused never thought of premeditation and calculation, if she would have shown a
little concern the deceased could have been saved.
As far as the reaction of the accused towards the deceased is concerned, there does not seem to
be any level of premeditation involved, the accused simply lost possession of self-control and
landed a blow on the back portion of the head and left him there to bleed till he succumbed to
death.
This very fact makes it crystal clear that the accused did premeditate his attack and purely did
not acted on her consciousness.

23
ISSUE 3: Whether the accused acted upon private defence?

24
1. It is submitted that the right of private defence to the accused is not applicable. That the
accused without apprehension of imminent danger to life took the stick and hit the deceased
and knowingly left him to die.
2. It is submitted that the right of private defence as granted under IPC is a defensive right and
not a punitive or retributive right. It is submitted that the right of Private defence as
provided under section 100 of IPC runs as follows:
The right of private defence of the body extends, under the restrictions mentioned in the last
preceding section, to the voluntary causing of death or of any other harm to the assailant, if the
offence which occasions the exercise of the right be of any of the descriptions hereinafter
enumerated, namely: —
(First) — Such an assault as may reasonably cause the apprehension that death will otherwise be
the consequence of such assault;
(Secondly) —Such an assault as may reasonably cause the apprehension that grievous hurt will
otherwise be the consequence of such assault;
3. It is submitted that there was no assault from the part of the deceased. Irrespective of the
behavior of the deceased, the accused, from a pre-meditated mindset, hid behind the door in
order to hit the deceased with the stick.

25
4. It is submitted that it was neither reasonable nor necessary that the accused acted in such a
manner that she had blown with the wooden stick on the head of the deceased. As soon as
she heard someone approaching the door, she hid behind the door, holding a wooden stick
she found in the auditorium. This reveals her pre-meditated state of mind which she has
made and was ready to hit whoever comes from the door. If instead of the deceased,
someone else had come to the auditorium, the action of the accused and the result of it
would have been the same.
5. In Mano Dutt v. State of UP, i it was held that the right of self-defence has to be exercised
directly in proportion to the extent of aggression.
6. It is submitted that the right of self-defence of accused is way more than what is
apprehended. There have been previous instances of quarrel between the accused and the
deceased and on one occasion, she had slapped the deceased as well. She acted the way she
did out of her short temper issues and retaliation which she was seeking against the
deceased.
7. It is submitted that after inflicting blow with the wooden stick to the deceased, when she
went back, her friends questioned her persistently about what was wrong. However,
ignoring all the questions, she chose to sleep. Even on the subsequent day, when she had the
opportunity to seek help or confess to her crime, she chose to remain silent and conceal the
incident happened. The accused had the time and opportunity to save the deceased but she
did not even attempt to do so.

26
8. It is further submitted that it was until 8 pm on the subsequent day that the body of deceased
was found lying in a pool of blood in the auditorium by a group of students.
9. According to the post mortem report, he gradually bled to his death due to the wound at the
back of his head. The accused had the opportunity but she chose to let him die due to her
grudge against the deceased.
10. In Gopal and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan, ii under Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872, the burden of proof is on the accused, who sets up the plea of self-defence, and, in the
absence of proof, it is not possible for the court to presume the truth of the plea of self-
defence. The court shall presume the absence of such circumstances.
11. It is submitted that the onus of proving the plea of self-defence is upon the accused-
defendant and that the prosecution has set forth a strong case that the accused did not
exercise her right of private defence in a just manner.
Issue 4: Whether the doctrine of transferred malice is applicable in the instant case?

27
It is submitted before the Hon’ble court that the accused’s plea of being innocent since he had
“no subjective intention” to cause Mamta’s death is rendered inefficient owing to the doctrine of
transferred malice, under S. 301 of the Indian Penal Code. Regardless of whether the accused
intended to cause the death of Miss Mamta or the presumed intruder, it falls under S. 300 of the
Code.
PRAYER
Wherefore, in light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, may this
Hon‘ble Court be pleased to:
1. Convict - Mr Jayant for the offence of culpable gomicide amounting to murder under
section 307 of Indian penal code 1860.
2. Declare- Sentence of life imprisonment as the court may deem fit.
AND/OR
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

28
Place: Mumbai S/d_________________
Date: Counsel for the Prosecution
LIST OF ANNEXURES
S. No. Particulars of Documents
D-1 FIR No. 110/2017 dated 12.06.2017
D-2 Statement of witnesses
D-3 Report of Investigating Officer u/s 173 Cr.P.C. dated 20.02.2018
D-4 Panchnama
D-5 Arrest Memo
D-6 Final Report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. dated 07.08.2017
D-7 Call records of Deven and Pooja
D-8 Certificate u/s 65B of the Rabat Evidence Act, 1872
D-9 All Exhibits in Photographic format

29

i
ii

Prosecution Memorial

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

Prosecution Memorial

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

DEPARTMENT OF LAWS, INTRA-DEPARTMENT MOOT COMPETITION, 2024

Department of Laws, Panjab University, Chandigarh

INTRA-DEPARTMENT MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024

IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTIONS 302

OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860

Criminal Appeal No. _____ of 2023

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT JUDGE

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELANT

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

Index of Authorities 5-7

 Table of Contents 5-7

Summary of Arguments 11-12

Arguments Advanced 13-27

Issue-III: Whether Jeyant is an offender under Section 325 of BPC 20-23

List of Annexures 29-57

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

List of Exhibits 59-81

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

A.P. Andhra Pradesh

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

2. P.S.A. Pillai (13th Ed. 2017)

4. Gupta and Dighe, Criminal Manual, (7th Ed. 2007)

5. Kelkar, R.V. Criminal Procedure, (5th Ed. 2011)

1. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act 2 of 1973)

2. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Act 18 of 1872)

3. The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860)

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

XXIX of Appeals, of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731.

‘377. Appeal by the State Government against the sentence -

Hon’ble Sessions Court.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

then, he has been relying on prosthetics.

and intimate relationship.

4. As evidenced by a transcript of text messages between them, their relationship

secured complex known as Oliver Estate in Mumbai, Maharashtra.

and killed her.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

the balcony into the room.

noises and cries for help coming from Jatin’s house.

practitioner was unable to find a pulse.

intruders in the toilet.

TRIAL COURT’S JUDGEMENT

danger due to an intruder.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

High Court of Bombay.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

ISSUE 1: Whether Jatin is guilty of culpable homicide amounting to murder?

amounting to murder, as dealt u/s 300 of IPC ‘firstly’ and ‘thirdly’.

indication of premeditation of his act.

ISSUE 3: Whether the accused acted upon private defence?

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

the injury with which he is threatened.

ISSUE 1: Whether Jatin is guilty of culpable homicide amounting to murder?

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

is covered under S. 300, IPC2.

1.1 Ingredients for Culpable Homicide Amounting to Murder

ingredients need to be fulfilled -

having the intention or knowledge. The intention or knowledge can be understood as

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

intent of the accused.