MOOT COURT

MEMORIAL – I
FOR DEFENCE
SUBMITTED TO

Law Department

Punjabi University

Patiala

SUBMITTED BY

Anu Yadav

LL.B 3rd Year, 6th Semster

Roll No – 21241076
 CERTIFICATE
I, Anu Yadav, student of LL.B. IIIrd year, semester VIth heraby
certify that with the able guidance of our teachers and
advocates and in accordance with the practical guidance as
per the syllabus of Punjabi University, Patiala submits this
assignment of proposed moot memorandum appearing on
behalf of Accused to Department of Law.
I am very thankful for guidance given by our respected
teachers.

Your Sincerely
Anu Yadav
LL.B. IIIYear (Sem-VI)
NAME OF THE PARTIES

State of Haryana
Prosecution

Verus

Shanu
Defendant-1
Sham
Defendant-2
Ganesh
Defendant-3
STATEMENT OF JURISDICATION
The defense counsel humbly submits this memorandum
before the Hon’ble Court of Session. The jurisdiction of
Hon’ble court under section 26 and first Schedule of Code of
Criminal Procedure code, 1973

It is respectfully submitted that the offences charges U/S 302

of IPC are triable by the Hon’ble court under all the
subsequent relevant provisions of fisrt schedule of Code of
Criminal Procedure code, 1973
 Statement of Facts
 That Anand worked as a system operator at a computer center in
Hisar District, Haryana, and lived in the town.
 That Anand's village was located 12 kilometers away from his
workplace, which he typically visited on Saturdays and Sundays.
 That Sham, a farmer, lived with his family consisting of his wife Rani,
son Ganesh, daughter Roma, and his brother Shanu in the same
household.
 That Shanu had a habit of drinking and gambling and owed a debt of
Rs. 20,000 to Anand.
 Whenever Anand demanded his money, Shanu claimed helplessness
but never denied owing the debt.
 That Anand was in a relationship with Roma who is daughter of Sham
and used to meet her on weekends when her father Sham was not at
home, under the pretext of collecting the debt from Shanu.
 That Sham disapproved and not like to Anand's visits to his home
and warned him not to visit in his absence, scolding both Anand and
his daughter Roma.
 On Monday, 8th August 2022, Shanu called Anand and invited him to
come that evening to collect his debt.
 Anand visited Sham's house around 8:30 PM, where the family had
finished dinner and was preparing to sleep.
 Sham, Shanu, and Ganesh heard whispering voices from the backyard
and went to investigate.
 They found Anand talking with Roma, which enraged Sham.
 Ganesh struck Anand with a lathi on the leg, followed by Shanu
beating Anand mercilessly on the head and chest with the lathi.
 Anand sustained severe injuries and became unconscious, bleeding
profusely.
 Other villagers arrived at the scene upon hearing the commotion and
found Shanu continuing to assault Anand while Sham and Ganesh
shouted abuses.
 Anand was rushed to the hospital by the villagers but remained
unconscious and succumbed to his injuries three days later.
 The post-mortem report confirmed injuries to Anand's head,
fractures of three ribs, concussions on different parts of his body, and
significant blood loss.
 While none of the injuries individually caused death, the cumulative
effect was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
 An FIR was registered against Shanu, Ganesh, and Sham under
Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Later, the
charges were changed to Section 302 r/w 34 IPC after Anand's death.
 ISSUE RAISED

1. Whether the accused are liable under section IPC 302 ?

2. Whether there is a common intention of accused U/S IPC 34 or not?
3. Whether the nature of injuries and of weapon was such as to cause the
death of person or not?
4. Whether the act of deceased amounting to grave and sudden provocation
U/S 300 exception 1 .

Legal provision add to all sections and their punishments

Lathi – Kushal Rao v/s state of Bombay
AIR1958SC22,

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
ISSUE -1
Whether the accused are liable under section 302 of IPC or not?
Argument-
 The case does not fall in any of the clauses of Section 300 IPC, 1860
and there was no intention of the accused person’s to kill the
deceased.
 Accused namely (Shanu, Ganesh, Sham) did not use any lethal
weapon and no particular injury was sufficient to cause death and the
act was not premeditated.
 The case falls under the exception 1 of Section 300 IPC, 1860 as the
act of the act was grave and sudden and the death was caused by
mistake or accident.

ISSUE- 2

Whether there is any common intention of accused persons U/S IPC 34 or

not?
Argument

 No, there is not a common intention of accused because prior mens-

rea doesn’t exist. A common intention is a pre-arranged plan or a
previous meeting of mind before the offence committed.

 In addition, there was no evidence neither any statement which

shows that accused Shanu, Sham & Ganesh were planning anything
together. Because after finishing their dinner all family members
were preparing to go to sleep.

ISSUE- 3

Whether the nature of injuries and of weapon was such as to cause the
death of person or not?

Causing the death of a person by hitting him with a lathi or stick does not
necessarily imply intent to cause death and thus may count because it not a
danger and sharp weapon.

ISSUE- 4

Whether the act of deceased amounting to grave and sudden provocation

U/S 300 exception 1 .

Yes, the act of deceased is amounting to provocation for the accused

persons. Because Anand visits the Sham’s house on the pretext that he had
come to collect the money but his intention to meet Roma due to love
relation which is not acceptable to Roma’s Father. After scolding his
daughter and Anand but he did not stop visiting Roma.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE -1
Whether the accused 1,2 & 3 are liable under section IPC 302 or not?
Argument-

It is most respectfully submitted to this Hon’ble court-

1. That taking into consideration the statement of facts, it cannot be said
that accued 1,2 & 3 had intention to kill the Anand it is clear from the
facts of the case.
2. That such an act in the spur of the moment does not attract heavy
punishment & penalty under the section 302.

 No Mens – Rea
To commit an offence, the first step towards it is mens rea.
But after analysing the enteir facts in the preposition it is conculed that
there was no mens amoung the accued.

Anand was in love with roma and used to meet roma on the weekands
when her father was not at home. On the pretext that he had come to
collect money and her father didn’t like it. And he had told Anand not to
visit his home in his absence. He also scolding his daughter for meeting
Anand but he did not stop visiting her.

Case Law : Realed to Mans – Rea

Actus Rea-

On 8th Aug 2022, anand recvied a phone call from shanu inviting him to
come that eveving to collect his debt. But Anand went therir house
around 8:30 Pm. It is to be assumed that anand without collecting the
debt he went to meet Roma at the backyard of their house while the
member of family were preparing to go to sleep. On hearing ……..
As per the provide proposition the case falls under the Legal Provision of
Sec 300 Exception 1

When Culpable Homicide is not amounting to Murder: Culpable homicide

is not murder if the offender, whilst deprived of the power of self- control
by grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who gave
the provocation or causes the death of any other person by mistake or
accident.

Case Laws :

ISSUE- 2

Whether there is any common intention of accused persons U/S IPC 34 or

not?

 No, there is not a common intention of accused because prior mens-

rea doesn’t exist. A common intention is a pre-arranged plan or a
previous meeting of mind before the offence committed.

Legal Provison of Sec 34 of IPC states that When a criminal act is done by several
persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in
the same manner as if it were done by him alone.]

Elements Elements:

1. A criminal act

2. Involvement of two or more people

3. Shared intent

4. Act to be committed in furtherance of common intention

It was not shared intention of accused rather on hearning whisping voice from backyard to
their house and they immediately went to investigate and saw Anand taking to roma then he
lost his temper. And let to such situation. Hence it shows that their no shared intent.Along
with it 4th essseial is detined. As there is no commmen intention so act cant be commited
infuthrance of common intention.
Case Law: