MAIMS 2nd NATIONAL MOCK TRIAL COMPETITION 2023

TC_24P

Maharaja Agrasen Institute of Management Studies 2nd National Mock Trial

Competition, 2023

IN HON’BLE COURT OF SESSION JUDGE, SUNNAR, DISTRICT ORIGINAL

JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 177 CRPC READ WITH 209 CRPC

In The matter of Session’s case no. 573/2023

STATE OF MERELA ………..Prosecution

V.

SAHIL YADAV & SAMAR BHARADWAJ …………..Defense

FOR OFFENCES CHARGED UNDER

SECTIONS 302, 341, 354A, 355 & 506 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE,1860

MEMORIAL FOR THE PROSECUTION

1|Page
MEMORIAL FOR THE PROSECUTION
 MAIMS 2nd NATIONAL MOCK TRIAL COMPETITION 2023

TABLE OF CONTENT

List of Abbreviations……………………………………………………………………………Page 3
Index of Authorities……………………………………………………………………….…..Page 4-5
Statement of Jurisdictions………………………………………………………………………Page 6
Statement of Facts……………………………………………………………………………….Page 7
Statement of Charges …………………………….......................................................................Page 8
Summary of Arguments………………………………………………………………...............Page 9
Argument Advanced……………………………………………………………………... Page 10 - 23

[1] That there exists any proposition which implicates, Samar and Sahil’s Mens-Rea and Actus-Reus
and they are not guilty of wrongfully restraining, assault, criminal intimidation and Murder of
Anirudh……………………………………………………………………………………Page 10 -20

[1.1] Presence of Mens-Rea…………………………………………………………………Page 10 - 12

[1.2] Presence of Actus-Reus……………………………………………………………………Page 12
[1.3] Guilty for wrongful restrain of Anirudh………………………………………………Page 12 - 13
[1.4] Guilty of Assaulting Anirudh………………………………………………………….Page 13 - 15
[1.5] Guilty of Criminal Intimidation……………………………………………………….Page 15 - 16
[1.6] Guilty of Murder……………………………………………………………………...Page 15- 19

[2] That the evidence of record is sufficient and conclusive to prove Samar Bhardwaj and Sahil
Yadav’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt……………………………......................................Page 20- 23

[2.1] Witnesses are competent to be relied upon……………………………………………… Page 21

[2.2] The Guilt of the accused is proved beyond reasonable doubt……………………….. Page 22 - 23

PRAYER………………………………………………………………………………………Page 24

2|Page
MEMORIAL FOR THE PROSECUTION
 MAIMS 2nd NATIONAL MOCK TRIAL COMPETITION 2023

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Abbreviation Expansion

IPC Indian Penal Code

CrPc Code of Criminal Procedure

Sec. Section

V. Versus

Pg Page Number

SCC Supreme Court Case

AIR ALL India Report

¶ Paragraph

SC Supreme Court

SCR Supreme Court Report

§ Section

3|Page
MEMORIAL FOR THE PROSECUTION
 MAIMS 2nd NATIONAL MOCK TRIAL COMPETITION 2023

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Indian cases

Sl. No. Case Name Citation/ Year Pg. No.

1. Fowler v. Padget 1798 10
2. Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab (1994) 3 SCC 569 (India) 10
3. Ashok Kumar Dixit v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1987All 235 10
4. Nathulal v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1966 SC 43 : 1966 Cr LJ 10
71
5. Raja Ram v. State of Haryana (1971) 3 SCC 945 12
6. Keki Hormusji Gharda v. Mehervan Rustom Irani (2009) 6 SCC 475 12

7. Jervasio Pereira v. State 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 956 12

8. Rohan Ashok Khaunte v. State of Goa 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 6047 12

9. Naresh Chauhan v. State of H.P. 2022 SCC OnLine HP 5828 12

10. Subramanian Swamy (Dr.) v. C. Pushparaj 1998 14
11. Shri Vasant Waman Pradhan vs. Dattatraya 2004 15
Vithal Salvi
12. Ghanshyam vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 1989 15
13. Jayaraj v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1976 SC 1519 : (1976) Cr 15
LJ 1186 (SC)
14. Gurjit Singh v. State of Haryana (2015) 4 SCC 380 : (2015) Cr 16
LJ 1955 (SC)
15. Ramanand v. State of Himachal Pradesh 1981 16
16. Sidhartha vashishtha @ manu sharma v. State 17
17. Sudama Pandey v. State of Bihar 2001 18
18. Rau Bhagwanta Hargude v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1979 SC 1224 : (1979) Cr 18
LJ 1022 (SC)
19. Ramesh durgappa hirekerur vs. State of Criminal Appeal NO.1324 of 20
Maharashtra 2013 (Bombay HC, Sept. 27,
2017)
20. Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda vs State Of 1984 AIR 1622, 1985 SCR (1) 21
Maharashtra 88
21. Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. v. State of 1973 AIR 2622, 1974 SCR (1) 21
Maharashtra 489
22. G. Krishta Goud and J. Bhoomaih v. State of (1976) 1 SCC 157 22
Andhra Pradesh
23. State of Andhra Pradesh v. Intha Ramana Reddy AIR 1977 SC 708 (India) 22

24. R. Balakrishna Pillai v. State of Kerala AIR 2003 SC 1012 (India) 22

25. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Krishna Gopal (1988) 4 SCC 302 (India) 22
26. Perla Somasekhara Reddy v. State of Andhra (2009) 16 SCC 98 (India) 22
Pradesh

4|Page
MEMORIAL FOR THE PROSECUTION
 MAIMS 2nd NATIONAL MOCK TRIAL COMPETITION 2023

Books

1. Jeremy Bentham, supra note 32, at 226 Page no

-18
2. Halsbury’s Laws of england 507 (Hailsham ed. 1974) Page no
-21
3. David Ormerod, Smith And Hogan’s Criminal Law 50 (13th ed. 2011) Page no
-13
4. Ace Lynch, The Mental Element in the Actus-Reus, 98 LQR 109 (1982) Page no
-13
5. Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Code of Criminal Procedure, Pg. 256, (K. Kannan & Page no
Anjana Prakash in collaboration with specialist Editors, 2020) -
14,16,17
6. P S A Pillai, Criminal Law, Pg. 832, (K I Vibhute, 2019 Ratanlal & Dhirajlal. Page no
-15

LEXICONS

1. Catherine Soanes, Oxford DictionaryThesaurus,40thEd.,2006, Oxford University Press.

2. Collin’sGemEnglishThesaurus,8thEd, 2016.Collins.

3. Garner Bryana, Black’slawDictionary,7th Ed.1981, West Group.

4. WBSaunders, Dorland’sIllustratedMedicalDictionary,32nd Ed.2018, Dorland.

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

2. TheIndianEvidenceAct,1872 (Act No.1 of1872).

3. TheIndianPenalCode,1860(Act No.45of1860).

Internet Sources
1. www.jstor.org (JSTOR)
2. www.manupatrafast.com (MANUPATRA)
3. www.scconline.com (SCC ONLINE)
4. www.westlaw.india.com (WEST LAW INDIA)

5|Page
MEMORIAL FOR THE PROSECUTION
 MAIMS 2nd NATIONAL MOCK TRIAL COMPETITION 2023

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTIONS

The prosecution has approached the Hon’ble Sessions Court at Merela under §302,
§341, §354A, §355, §506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860

§177 of Code of Criminal Procedure,1973: Ordinary place of inquiry and trial

Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within its local jurisdiction.

§209 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Commitment of case to Court of Session when
the 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.

6|Page
MEMORIAL FOR THE PROSECUTION
 MAIMS 2nd NATIONAL MOCK TRIAL COMPETITION 2023

STATEMENT OF FACTS

BACKGROUND

Anirudh, a gold medalist in Software Engineering from Global Engineering College, Deli, Indiana, got
hired as a software engineer by Vesalius Technology Pvt. Ltd. in Wenglore, Indiana. He earned Rs.
12,00,000 per year plus perks and housing.
A psychologist helped Anirudh cope with the mental trauma of being bullied in college.

FAMILY&FRIENDS
Anirudh's mother, Tejaswi, was anxious to let him work in a different city as Anirudh was her only son
and was fully dependent on her. Yet, Anirudh’s mother let him go to Wenglore, Indiana for a software
job. He worked hard but failed to impress his boss or make friends. Many of his colleagues tried to be
friends with him, but he constantly avoided them. He felt lonely and miserable, so his mother moved
in with him. His co-workers gossiped about his aloofness.

TRIP TO SUNNAR, MERELA

Anirudh’s co-workers, Samar, Sthir and Sahil, teased him for being unsocial and visiting a psychologist.
They dared him to join a company trip to Sunnar in Merela, which was paid by the company. Anirudh
accepted the challenge and went with them. He shared a room with Rohan and Mayank. The next day,
they went sightseeing and Samar and Sahil made fun of Anirudh’s nervousness. Samar, Sthir and Sahil
decided to prank Anirudh by making him sleep alone in his room and making scary noises at night.
They scared Anirudh so much that he wanted to leave the trip. He told his boss what happened and his
boss scolded Samar, Sthir and Sahil for their childish behaviour. He promised Anirudh that they would
not bother him again.

THE NIGHT OF 13TH FEBRUARY 2023

Sahil and Samar were angry at Anirudh for telling the boss about their prank. They got drunk and went
to his room to confront him. They stopped him from going to his senior and made him drink alcohol.
They shouted at him for being a coward and a loner. They fought with him and stripped him naked.
They left him outside the room for the night.

F.I.R&FINAL REPORT
Anirudh’s co-workers discovered his naked and bloody corpse outside the hotel on 14th February
2023. They called the police who investigated the case and filed an FIR against Sahil and Samar for
murder, wrongful restraint, sexual harassment, assault, and criminal intimidation under IPC sections
302, 341, 354A, 355, and 506.

7|Page
MEMORIAL FOR THE PROSECUTION
 MAIMS 2nd NATIONAL MOCK TRIAL COMPETITION 2023

STATEMENT OF CHARGES

The charge has been framed by The Magistrate, Sunnar District u/s 228 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 against the accused people namely Samar Bhardwaj and Sahil Yadav under the
following sections:
 Charge 1: That the accused is charged with section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for
committing the murder of Anirudh.
 Charge 2: That the accused has wrongfully restrained Anirudh from leaving his room and
therefore charged with section 341 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
 Charge 3: That the accused has been charged for assaulting Anirudh under sections 354 A
and 355 of the Indian Penal Code.
 Charge 4: That the accused has been charged for criminally intimidating Anirudh under
section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

8|Page
MEMORIAL FOR THE PROSECUTION
 MAIMS 2nd NATIONAL MOCK TRIAL COMPETITION 2023

SUMMARY OF ARGUEMENTS

Issue 1: Whether there exists any proposition that implicates, Samar and Sahil mens-rea and actus-
reus and should be held guilty of wrongful restrain, assault, criminal intimidation and murder of
Anirudh.

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that there exists a certain proposition which implicates
Samar and Sahil men’s rea and Actus-Reus and they are guilty of wrongful restrain, assault, criminal
intimidation and murder of Anirudh. The accused had a bad intention towards Anirudh. The general
conduct of them bullying Anirudh continuously from the beginning of the work trip, and after they are
scolded by their senior they wrongfully restrain, assault, criminal intimidated and at last killed Anirudh
brutally by throwing him off the terrace.
Therefore, this general conduct and guilty mind proves that there was bad intention, coupled with the
prior motive for the commission of the crime.

Issue 2: That the evidence on record is sufficient and conclusive enough to prove the guilt of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt.

It is humbly submitted before the honourable court that the evidence is sufficient to prove the guilt of
the accused beyond reasonable doubt as the circumstantial evidence as adduced by the Prosecution is
conclusive and it shows in all reasonable hypothesis that the act was done by Samar and Sahil. This is
duly corroborated with the statements made by the prosecution witnesses under section 161 of CrPC,
post-mortem report which shall be corroborated during the examination in chief and cross-examination
of the witness and the only conclusion to be arrived at will be the conviction of the accused under the
charges of section 341, 354 A, 355, 505 and 302 under the Indian Penal Code. There is also no break
in the chain of circumstantial evidence, which is duly corroborated with the other oral and documentary
evidence on record proves within all probable hypotheses the act was done by the accused.

9|Page
MEMORIAL FOR THE PROSECUTION
 MAIMS 2nd NATIONAL MOCK TRIAL COMPETITION 2023

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

Issue 1: Whether there exists any proposition that implicates Samar’s and Sahil’s Mens-Rea and
Actus-Reus of bullying and causing the death of Anirudh?

(¶ 1.) Lord Kenyon stated, “Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea is a tenet of natural justice and our
law.” To be a crime, both the intent and the act must be present. It is humbly submitted before the
Hon’ble court that there exist certain propositions that implicate Samar’s and Sahil’s Mens-Rea and
Actus-Reus of bullying, causing mental torture and death of Anirudh. Actus-Reus and Mens-Rea are
both required for the commission of a crime.1 In the case of Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab,2 the
Hon’ble Court held that “If the two elements of crime, Actus-Reus and Mens-Rea are proved beyond a
reasonable doubt, the conviction is absolute.” In the present case, we see that Samar and Sahil
(hereinafter mentioned as accused) bullied Anirudh to a severe extent instead of having the knowledge
that Anirudh was undergoing psychiatric treatment further killing him due to the complaint made by
Anirudh to his senior which they got angry and killed him.

1.1 Presence of Men’s Rea

(¶ 2.) That Mens-Rea is a legal term, which is meant as Guilty Mind. As laid in the case of Ashok
Kumar Dixit v. State of Uttar Pradesh,3 the Hon’ble Court held that, “Mens-Rea denotes Mental
Element in the definition of any crime.” This is an important element of crime which should be fulfilled,
then only a person will be criminally liable for the act. As laid in the case of Nathulal v. State of Madhya
Pradesh,4 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “Mens-Rea is an important element of criminal offence
and it must be read into statutory panel provision unless a statute, either expressly or by necessary
implication, rules it out.” That similarly, in the matter in hand we see from the facts that the accused
had a guilty mind or malicious intention, firstly Sahil and Samar made fun of Anirudh for his unsocial
behaviour calling him chickenhearted and crazy as they found out Anirudh was visiting a psychiatrist,
this shows that how insensitive, cruel, cold hearted towards someone who was undergoing psychiatric
treatment from a psychiatrist.

1
Fowler v. Padget (1798)
2
Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab (1994) 3 SCC 569 (India)
3
Ashok Kumar Dixit v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1987All 235
4
Nathulal v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1966 SC 43 : 1966 Cr LJ 71
10 | P a g e
MEMORIAL FOR THE PROSECUTION
 MAIMS 2nd NATIONAL MOCK TRIAL COMPETITION 2023

(¶ 3.) It is recorded under the statement under section 164 of Crpc when Sanjay Nair who is PW2 and
the boss of Anirudh holds the position of director at Vesalius technology pvt. Ltd. That Samar and

Sahil were involved in bullying Anirudh on the day before his death. They were angry with Anirudh
because he complained about the incident to his boss, and further sexually and mentally harassed him
thereafter pushing him from the terrace. This clearly justifies their mala-fide intention towards Anirudh.

1.2 Presence of Actus-Reus

(¶ 4.) Actus-Reus refers to the physical act of commission or omission. Actus in Latin means ‘act’ and
reus means ‘guilty’ hence, the term Actus-Reus means ‘guilty act’. In the matter in hand, we see that
the accused had a guilty mind of harming Anirudh from the day, they arrived on this office trip which
has been elaborated above, and by wrongfully restraining him from leaving the room, by assaulting him
by stripping off his clothes, insulting and abusing him by further criminally intimidating him proves
the prima facie Actus-Reus and the death of Anirudh is the result of the Mens-Rea and actus rea of the
accused’s.

(¶ 5.) This act can be further corroborated by the statement given by the prosecution witness Rohan,
under section 164 Crpc and the medical evidence which is in the form of a post-mortem report.

(¶ 6.) It is humbly submitted to the Learned Court that the accused’s have the requisite Actus-Reus. All
the events and facts in the case clearly justify it.

1.3 Guilty of wrongfully restraining Anirudh

(¶ 7.) Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code states that Whoever wrongfully restrains any person shall
be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with a fine which
may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.

(¶ 7.) To constitute the crime of committing wrongful restraint, the person who was deprived of their
liberty must face an obstruction. Other than that, the person who faced the obstruction must feel that
they are deprived or not given access to proceed towards the direction they desired to proceed in the
first place. The last and main component which is required for it to be called a crime is that the victim
must have the right to proceed towards the desired direction in the first place. The fear of immediate
harm restraining a man out of place where he wishes to be and has a right to be is sufficient to constitute
an offence under Sections 341 IPC.

11 | P a g e
MEMORIAL FOR THE PROSECUTION
 MAIMS 2nd NATIONAL MOCK TRIAL COMPETITION 2023

(¶ 8.) In the instant case, Anirudh was deprived of his liberty to leave the room and go to his senior to
report the activities of his colleagues and their ill intentions, but Sahil and Samar restricted him from
proceeding further. Anirudh faced obstruction on his way to go to his boss and was deprived of access
to leave the room since he was deprived to leave the room due to which he was forced to face
humiliation.

(¶ 9.) In the cases like, Raja Ram v. State of Haryana5, Keki Hormusji Gharda v. Mehervan Rustom
Irani6, Jervasio Pereira v. State7, Rohan Ashok Khaunte v. State of Goa8, Naresh Chauhan v. State of
H.P9 the accused were punished for wrongfully restraining the victim under section 341 IPC and the
judges elaborated the expression “wrongful restrainment” stating: To support the charge
of wrongful restraint meant, there is at least such an impression produced in the mind of the person
confined, as to lead him, reasonably to believe, that he was not free to depart and that he would be
forthwith restrained if attempted to do so. Thus, whoever obstructs a person from proceeding in a
direction from which the person has a right to proceed, commits an offence of wrongful restraint, which
is punishable under Section 341 of IPC.

1.4 Guilty for assaulting Anirudh

(¶ 10.) In the case of State vs. Anjan Baishya and Others 2019 whether the accused persons at the time
and day of the occurrence assaulted Pranab Dutta by using criminal force to dishonour him and thereby
committed the offence under section 355 of IPC. I have perused the provisions laid down under section
355 of IPC. The same is reproduced verbatim for the sack of convenience –

“355. Assault or criminal force with intent to dishonour person, otherwise than on grave provocation.
Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person, intending thereby to dishonour that person,
otherwise than on grave and sudden provocation given by that person, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with
both.” Thus, to bring home the accused persons under this offense, the prosecution side must establish
the following ingredients –

5
Raja Ram v. State of Haryana, (1971) 3 SCC 945
6
Keki Hormusji Gharda v. Mehervan Rustom Irani, (2009) 6 SCC 475
7
Jervasio Pereira v. State, 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 956
8
Rohan Ashok Khaunte v. State of Goa, 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 6047
9
Naresh Chauhan v. State of H.P., 2022 SCC OnLine HP 5828
12 | P a g e
MEMORIAL FOR THE PROSECUTION
 MAIMS 2nd NATIONAL MOCK TRIAL COMPETITION 2023

1. The accused assaulted or used criminal force 2. The accused intended thereby to dishonour the
person assaulted, or against whom criminal force was used. 3. The accused did so otherwise than
on sudden and grave provocation.
(¶ 11.) The facts as per the case are that there took place a quarrel between the accused persons and the
informant in the public meeting organized by Gaon Panchayat, which was conducted to find out the
real beneficiaries of the PMAJ. It is not disputed by the defence side. While the names of the
beneficiaries were pronounced, some persons including the names of the accused persons were not
included in the list. Therefore, the accused persons created a noisy environment in the public meeting.
At that time the informant tried to pacify them at the request of the president in the meeting for which
a quarrel was taken place between the accused persons and the informant. In the quarrel, there may be
twisting or pushing each other. That the accused persons pushed the informant in the quarrel, cannot
be said that he did it so as to dishonour the informant in the public meeting. Every pushing may not
result in the offence under section 355 of IPC, a similar case had been cited in Babul vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh, (1980) MPWN 236 – “In every case of assault or use of criminal force, the victim
may feel dishonoured but that does not bring the assault or use of criminal force within this section.
To come within this section, the assault or criminal force must have been committed with specific
intent to dishonour the victim. “

(¶ 12.) Here in our case, Anirudh was a victim of assault or criminal force with an intention to dishonour
his colleagues (Sahil and Samar) as they were furious with him because he was an introvert and couldn’t
take their pranks as “funny” and complained about their actions to the senior authority.

(¶ 13.) They not only forcefully made Anirudh stay in the room but also intoxicated him forcefully,
they yelled at him for complaining and even threatened him. thus to teach him a lesson they stripped
Anirudh and made him stand outside the room for the whole night. All the ingredients for sec 355 is
matching in this case according to the case of State vs. Anjan Baishya and Others (2019)

1. The accused assaulted or used criminal force – Here the accused (Sahil and Samar) used
criminal force on Anirudh, they forcefully stopped him from going out initially and also
forcefully made him drink alcohol outside of his will and it wasn’t enough they stripped him
and made him stand outside of him room naked, it this wasn’t an act of dishonouring then what
would be? It was clear that poor Anirudh was helpless and a victim of their ugly crime and their
ego.

13 | P a g e
MEMORIAL FOR THE PROSECUTION
 MAIMS 2nd NATIONAL MOCK TRIAL COMPETITION 2023

2. The accused intending thereby to dishonour the person assaulted, or against whom criminal
force was used – making him strip and then if it wasn’t enough, making him stand naked outside
his room
3. The accused did so otherwise than on sudden and grave provocation- they abused Anirudh for
his cowardness and anti-social behaviour which lead to a scuffle.
1.5 Guilty for Criminally Intimidating Anirudh

(¶ 14.) Section 506 of Indian Penal Code states that “Whoever commits the offence of criminal
intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to
two years, or with fine, or with both; If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc — and if the threat
be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an
offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may
extend to seven years, or to impute unchastely to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.

To constitute criminal intimidation, there has to be:

Threat to cause injury to;

a) a person, his property, reputation; or

b) any other person in whom he is interested.

Intention to cause fear or alarm that causes the person to do or omit to do any act to avoid the execution
of the threat.

(¶ 15.) The second part of Section 506 is attracted if a person threatens to cause death or grievous injury
or destruction of any property by fire, then the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term
which may extend to seven years or fine or with both. The High Court of Madras held that part two of
Section 506 IPC was attracted over here only if the criminal intimidation included a threat to cause
death or grievous hurt.10

(¶ 16.) In the instant case, it’s clearly mentioned in the facts that Samar and Sahil on the night of 13th
February 2023, yelled at Anirudh for complaining about the incident to his senior and said that he

10
Subramanian Swamy (Dr.) v. C. Pushparaj, (1998)
14 | P a g e
MEMORIAL FOR THE PROSECUTION
 MAIMS 2nd NATIONAL MOCK TRIAL COMPETITION 2023

should be ready to face the repercussions of his action, which indicates a threat to cause injury to
Anirudh and comes under the definition of criminal intimidation under section 503 of the Indian Penal
Code and the punishment for it is prescribed in section 506 of the Indian Penal Code. Thus Samar and
Sahil should be punished as per section 506 of the IPC.

(¶ 17.) In Shri Vasant Waman Pradhan vs. Dattatraya Vithal Salvi (2004) 11, it was held that intention
is the soul of criminal intimidation. It needs to be gathered by the surrounding circumstances and in the
instant case as well the intention of the accused’s was clear that they were threatening to harm Anirudh
as they were infuriated with anger as Anirudh had a complaint about their bullying habits to his senior
as a result they received a scolding and a warning from the senior. Thus, these instances gather the
circumstantial ambience required for establishing the elements to prove criminal intimidation. In Shri
Vasant Waman Pradhan v. Dattatraya Vithal Salvi12, the Bombay High Court, in this case, emphasized the
importance of Mens-Rea (the guilty mind) in criminal intimidation cases. It clarified that the core of
criminal intimidation lies in the accused’s malicious intentions or malafide motives. The court
highlighted that determining the intention behind the act should consider the surrounding facts and
circumstances associated with the incident. Even In the case, Ghanshyam vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
(1989)13, the accused entered a house in the middle of the night, carrying with him a knife and
threatening to kill the residents. This was held by the Madhya Pradesh HC to be criminal intimidation
under part two Section 506 of IPC. In the ongoing case as well, as per the facts, the accused’s entered
Anirudh’s room in an inebriated state and threatened him to be ready for the repercussions.

1.6 Guilty of Killing Anirudh

(¶ 18.) Section – 299 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC) defines Culpable
Homicide. Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the
intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. Or with the knowledge, that he is
likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide. As laid in the case of
Jayaraj v. State of Uttar Pradesh,14 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “There are three species of
Mens-Rea, as far as culpable homicide is concerned, namely: (i) an intention to cause death; (ii) an

11
Shri Vasant Waman Pradhan vs. Dattatraya Vithal Salvi (2004)
12
Shri Vasant Waman Pradhan v. Dattatraya Vithal Salvi (2004)
13
Ghanshyam vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (1989)
14
Jayaraj v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1976 SC 1519 : (1976) Cr LJ 1186 (SC)
15 | P a g e
MEMORIAL FOR THE PROSECUTION
 MAIMS 2nd NATIONAL MOCK TRIAL COMPETITION 2023
intention to cause dangerous bodily injury as is likely to cause death and (iii) knowledge that the act is
likely to cause death.”

(¶ 19.) Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code clearly prescribes punishment for murder, it clearly states
that “Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also
be liable to fine.” The essential ingredients of murder include:

 Intention: There should be an intention of causing death;

 Causing Death: The act must be done with the knowledge that the act is likely to cause the death
of another.

 Bodily Injury: There should be an intention to cause such bodily injury that is likely to cause
death;

(¶ 20.) In the instant case the accused’s i.e. Samar and Sahil had the intention to cause death because
they wanted to take revenge on Anirudh for being scolded by their boss on the basis of his complaint
and as mentioned above the Mens-Rea and Actus-Reus have been established as the threatening given
by them and then the ultimate decease of Anirudh indicates the interlinking of both the events clearly
on the basis of evidence recovered and Prosecution witness statement recorded under section 164 Crpc.
Thus, all the ingredients are attracted under section 302 IPC to punish someone for committing Murder.

(¶ 21.) As quoted by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Ramanand v. State of Himachal
Pradesh (1981)15 that ‘Perfect proof is seldom to be had in this imperfect world and absolute certainty
is a myth’. The concept of circumstantial evidence arises because in each case the direct evidence could
not be found so the Court has to rely on circumstantial evidence for deciding upon the matter. The last
seen theory is also based on the same lines as in some criminal cases when there is no direct or tangible
evidence regarding how the offence has been committed or who committed the offence then the last
resort for deciding the case is this theory based on circumstances of the case. According to this theory,
if a person is last seen with the deceased just before his death or within a reasonable period of his death
that no other person could have intervened between them then the presumption can be taken that he
(the person who was last seen) is the author of the crime. And thus the burden of proof shifts on

15
Ramanand v. State of Himachal Pradesh (1981)

16 | P a g e
MEMORIAL FOR THE PROSECUTION
 MAIMS 2nd NATIONAL MOCK TRIAL COMPETITION 2023

him to negate this fact and if he is not able to give a lucid and sufficient explanation about his innocence
then the presumption becomes even stronger.

(¶ 22.) Last seen theory derives its relevance from Section 7 of the Indian Evidence Act which is called
the “Doctrine of Inductive Logic” in which it is stated that if any fact related to the occasion, cause, or
effect leads to the circumstance in which that thing occurred or it provided an opportunity for the
occurrence of that thing then those facts will be relevant. And in the last seen theory also the person
who was the last present with the victim would have a reasonable opportunity to commit the crime. As
we can see in the instant case as well, Rohan who is the prosecution witness saw Samar and Sahil
coming from the terrace from where Anirudh fell from and was killed. This presumption of fact is taken
under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act under which the court can presume that certain facts exist
if some other facts are proven to be existing in the cases of natural events, human conduct, and public
and private business

(¶ 23.) Therefore, in the instant case as well as the circumstantial sequence of events and last seen
theory the fingers are directly pointing towards the accused as they have been with Anirudh before and
during his death. Rohan i.e the Prosecution witness (PW4) has clearly mentioned in his statement
recorded under section 164 Crpc that he has seen Sahil and Samar coming down from the stairs and
entering their room around 2PM and as mentioned in the facts that Sahil and Samar went to Anirudh’s
room to take revenge in an inebriated state to scold him for complaining about the prank to their boss.
Thereafter they yelled at him and even stated that “he should be ready to face their repercussions
of his actions”, this statement expresses an aggressive and revengeful attitude of the accused and
indicates that they can reach up to a maximum vengeful state to fulfil their ill deeds and that’s what
eventually occurred. This statement also indicates the relevant “Mens-Rea” to commit the crime which
led to the killing of Anirudh.

(¶ 24.) Circumstantial evidence has been defined by Peter Murphy which was also referred in the case
of Sidhartha Vashishtha @ Manu Sharma v. State16 as “evidence from which the desired conclusion
may be drawn but which requires the tribunal of fact not only to accept the evidence presented but also
draw an influence from it”. As decided in the case of Sudama Pandey v. State of

16
SIDHARTHA VASHISHTHA @ MANU SHARMA v. STATE
17 | P a g e
MEMORIAL FOR THE PROSECUTION
 MAIMS 2nd NATIONAL MOCK TRIAL COMPETITION 2023
Bihar (2001)17 as well, the following pointers should be kept in mind for proving the matter with the
help of circumstantial evidence:

 The circumstances from which the inferences are being drawn should be fully proved that they
existed.

 All the facts that are being proved should support the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused.

 The chain of circumstances should be well connected and complete so that it is conclusive.

 The circumstances should toss out every possibility of the accused being innocent.

(¶ 25.) As mentioned in the instant case as well as the statement given by PW4 of him seeing the accused
on the night of Anirudh being killed coming from the terrace, and the traces of skin tissues of the
accused’s recovered from the deceased nails which have been provided in the post mortem report all
these evidence can draw out the conclusion as the accused’s were agitated and mindful of taking
revenge in inebriated state for being scolded by their bosses and them going to Anirudh’s room, then
subjecting him to harassment by stripping off his clothes and making him stand naked outside the room
for the whole night and him being killed the same night as mentioned in the fact-sheet draw out the
conclusion that Samar and Sahil killed Anirudh.

(¶ 26.) That, in the matter in hand, we see Clause (1) of Section 300 of IPC and 1st species of Mens-
Rea, in relation to Culpable Homicide which stipulate that when an act is done with the intention of
causing death, then it is culpable homicide amounting to murder. The definition is direct and this is the
simplest, yet the gravest of the species of murder. It is action of a person which clearly states that there
was intention of causing death or killing the person. As laid in the case of Gurjit Singh v. State of
Haryana,18the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that, “When injuries are inflicted on vital parts of the body
with sharp edged instruments than the intention to kill can be attributed to the offender.”

(¶ 27.) Similarly, in the case of Rau Bhagwanta Hargude v. State of Maharashtra, 19 the Hon’ble
Supreme Court held that when the accused hit the deceased on a vital part of the body, the chest, with
the blade of a sword, two feet in length with such force as to impair the liver and the aorta, it was held
the offence was plainly one of murder.

17
Sudama Pandey v. State of Bihar (2001)
18
Gurjit Singh v. State of Haryana (2015) 4 SCC 380 : (2015) Cr LJ 1955 (SC)
19
Rau Bhagwanta Hargude v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1979 SC 1224 : (1979) Cr LJ 1022 (SC)
18 | P a g e
MEMORIAL FOR THE PROSECUTION
 MAIMS 2nd NATIONAL MOCK TRIAL COMPETITION 2023

(¶ 28.) That, in the matter in hand with reference to the medical report under we can state that contusion
has been formed and is observed near the eye sockets and left side of the head, scratches are found on

the palms, arms and back which are of 2 cm and indicates that are caused in the hustle, red marks around
the neck is also present. This state of the deceased proves that the accused have left no stone unturned
to punish him and kill him first by strangulation and then pushing him from the terrace. They made him
consume alcohol forcefully so that he becomes unconscious and becomes easy for them to take him to
the terrace and kill him by pushing him from the terrace. This was how the accused fulfilled his bad
intention against Anirudh. Therefore, it is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the accused
is guilty of murder.

19 | P a g e
MEMORIAL FOR THE PROSECUTION
 MAIMS 2nd NATIONAL MOCK TRIAL COMPETITION 2023

Issue 2: That the evidence on record is sufficient and conclusive enough to prove the guilt of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt.

(¶ 29.) The prosecution urges that the accused’s is behind the cruel death of Anirudh because they were
angry with Anirudh that he complained about their ruthless behaviour to his senior and they wanted to
take revenge on him.

(¶ 30.) In the instant matter, the accused has been charged under section 302, 341, 354, 354 A and 506
of IPC for the murder of Anirudh. The prosecutions submit that the accused’s committed the crime of
wrongfully restrain, Assault, criminal intimidation and murder, the evidence on record is sufficient and
conclusive to convict the accused’s beyond reasonable doubt.

(¶ 31.) There was a two-fold motive of the accused’s i.e. revenge against Anirudh for complaining and
the other was to teach him a lesson. Revenge can invoke an individual to execute a wrong against the
other.20

(¶ 32.) Circumstantial evidence is a very important part of criminal cases since in criminal cases it is to
prove the probable Actus-Reus and Mens-Rea. In the case of Ramesh Durgappa Hirekerur vs. State of
Maharashtra21, the Bombay High Court held that to convict an accused on circumstantial evidence
alone, the prosecution needs to establish the chain of circumstances that points at the accused only and
is inconsistent with their innocence. It is also important on the part of the prosecution to establish the
chain of circumstances from which the guilt of the accused can be drawn. Then these circumstances
need to be taken into consideration. Thus, in the instant case as well Samar and Sahil have been
constantly bullying Anirudh at a very low level from the beginning of the trip only and after Anirudh
complaint about one such bullying incident to his senior, they became angry and in order to teach him
a lesson, they went inside Anirudh’s room in an inebriated state and yelled at him, in a way of verbal
assault which subsequently changed into physical assault where Anirudh’s clothes were stripped off
from his body and he was subjected to stand naked outside the room whole night and then the next
morning he was found dead in naked outside the hotel. And as per the prosecution witness statement
which is recorded under section 164 Crpc Rohan has clearly affirmed that around 2 in the night he heard
some voices coming from the terrace of the hotel and when he went to check out, he saw Samar and
Sahil coming down from the stairs and entering their room and by that time the noise were no longer

20
Criminal Appeal No. 103 of 2016 (Bombay HC, May 05, 2016)
21
Criminal Appeal NO.1324 of 2013 (Bombay HC, Sept. 27, 2017)
20 | P a g e
MEMORIAL FOR THE PROSECUTION
 MAIMS 2nd NATIONAL MOCK TRIAL COMPETITION 2023

there. And the next day subsequently Anirudh’s dead body was found outside the hotel. Thus, this
cannot be just a clear coincidence of facts but is a clear sequence of chain of events occurring which
clearly; points out that Samar and Sahil have committed the murder of Anirudh. Thus, the prosecution
counsel urges the learned court to serve justice for the deceased.

(¶ 33.) This case is based on circumstantial evidence, as well as the Lordships of the Apex Court in the
case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda .vs. State of Maharashtra22

It will be appropriate to refer to the following observations of Their Lordships;

"A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a
case against an accused can be said to be fully established:

(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. It
may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not
'may be' established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between 'may be proved'
and 'must be or should be proved' as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. v. State
of Maharashtra (1973)23; where the following observations were made :

(2) "Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a
Court can convict and the mental distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is long and divides vague
conjectures from sure conclusions." (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the
hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other
hypothesis except that the accused is guilty,

(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency.

(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and

(5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the
conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability,
the act must have been done by the accused."

22
Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda vs State Of Maharashtra, 1984 AIR 1622, 1985 SCR (1) 88
23
Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra, 1973 AIR 2622, 1974 SCR (1) 489
21 | P a g e
MEMORIAL FOR THE PROSECUTION
 MAIMS 2nd NATIONAL MOCK TRIAL COMPETITION 2023
(¶ 34.) These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case
based on circumstantial evidence."

2.1 Witnesses are competent to be relied upon

(¶ 35.) Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act mandates that all persons shall be competent witnesses
unless they are prevented from understanding the questions put to them by virtue of tender years,
extreme old age, diseases, lunacy, or any other cause of the same kind. Given that none of the witnesses
in the given matter fall within the exceptions enumerated under Section 118, it is logical to conclude
that all are competent witnesses. Therefore, it is the duty of the court to scrutinize the evidence carefully
and separate the grain from the chaff. In the instant case, all the witnesses are competent which makes
it evident for the court to carefully scrutinize their deposition in relation to the evidence produced to
determine the actual merits of the case.

(¶ 36.) There exist material propositions to implicate the accused. As, the commission of an offence
has five stages, i.e. motive, intention, preparation, attempt and commission. These stages can be proved
through each other’s existence and the cumulative proof of all of the above conclusively proves the
commission of the offence by the accused.

(¶ 37.) Motive by definition, is something that moves or impels a man to do something that manifests
an external act.24 It is relevant to proof; the prosecution may prove the motive for a crime if it helps
them to establish their case, as a matter of circumstantial evidence. 25Also, Mens-Rea is a state of mind
indicating culpability.26

(¶ 38.) It is most respectfully submitted that in the present case, there is a very clear indication of the
existence of a motive. The act of the accused was an act of enmity and an act of vengeance against the
deceased.

2.2 The Guilt of the accused is proved beyond reasonable doubt

(¶ 39.) It is submitted that it is the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that the burden of proof
lies on the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. A reasonable
doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or fanciful doubt but a doubt based on reason and logic.27 If the

24
G. Krishta Goud and J. Bhoomaih v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1976) 1 SCC 157 (India); see also, State of Andhra
Pradesh v. Intha Ramana Reddy, AIR 1977 SC 708 (India).
25
State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 2001 SC 2677 (India).
26
3 R. Balakrishna Pillai v. State of Kerala, AIR 2003 SC 1012 (India)
27
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Krishna Gopal, (1988) 4 SCC 302 (India); see also, Perla Somasekhara Reddy v. State of
Andhra Pradesh, (2009) 16 SCC 98 (India).
22 | P a g e
MEMORIAL FOR THE PROSECUTION
 MAIMS 2nd NATIONAL MOCK TRIAL COMPETITION 2023

evidence is so strong against a person that to leave only a remote possibility in his favour which can be
dismissed with the sentence ‘of course it is possible, but not in the least probable’, the case is proved
beyond reasonable doubt.

(¶ 40.) The burden of proof on the prosecution does not include proof of facts, which are only within
the knowledge of the accused, as then the onus of explanation of those facts falls on the accused. The
other cardinal principle having an important bearing on the incidence of the burden of proof is that
sufficiency and weight of the evidence are to be considered. Since it is exceedingly difficult, if not
absolutely impossible, for the prosecution to prove facts which are especially within the knowledge of
the opponent or the accused, it is not obliged to prove them as part of its primary burden.

(¶ 41.) Therefore, it is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that the evidence is sufficient to
prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt as the circumstantial evidence as adduced by
the Prosecution is conclusive and it shows in all reasonable hypothesis that the act was done by Samar
and Sahil. This is duly corroborated with the statements made by the prosecution witnesses under
section 161 Crpc, post-mortem report shall be corroborated during the examination in chief and cross-
examination of the witness and the only conclusion to be arrived at will be the conviction of the accused
under the charges of section 302, 341, 354 A, 355, 506 under the Indian Penal Code.

23 | P a g e
MEMORIAL FOR THE PROSECUTION
 PRAYER

In the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authority cited, may this Hon’ble Court be
pleased to:

Convict Samar Bhardwaj and Sahil Yadav for the offences of wrongful restrain, assault, criminal
intimidation and murder under section 341, 354 A, 355, 506 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code
respectively.

Declare life imprisonment under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

AND /OR
Pass any other order as the Court may deem fit in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience.
All of which is most humble and most respectfully submitted.

All of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted and for this act of kindness the
counsel for the Petitioner(s) shall duty bound forever pray

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION