TEAM CODE 09

INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

BEFORE THE JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD OF MUMBAI

IN THE MATTER OF

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ……………………PROSECUTION

V.

KARTIK…………………………………………………DEFENCE

ON SUBMISSION TO THE JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD OF MUMBAI

UNDER SECTION 8 OF JUVENILE JUSTICE ACT , 2015

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

 AIL INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETION 2024

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES…………………………………………………3

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION………………………………………….4

STATEMENT OF FACTS……………………………………………………5-6

STATEMENT OF ISSUES…………………………………………………...7

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS……………………………………………..8

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED………………………………………………...9-12

i) CONTENTION 1 -THAT THE ACCUSED HAD COMMITTED A HENIOUS

OFFENCE AND IS LIABLE TO BE TRIED AS AN ADULT.
ii) CONTENTION 2 -THAT THE ACCUSE SHOULD IS LIABLE UNDER
SECTION 302 OF IPC.

PRAYER……………………………………………………………………..13

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

2
 AIL INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETION 2024

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATUTES PREFERRED
• Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015
• Indian Penal Code, 1860
• The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
BOOKS REFERRED
• Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code, 36th Edition.
• Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Code of Criminal Procedure, 27th Edition.
• R.N. Chaudhry, Law Relating to Juvenile Justice in India, 3rd Edition.

TABLE OF CASES

i) Mukesh v. State of Delhi AIR 2017 SUPREME COURT 2161

ii) Bholu vs CBI CRR-452-2023
iii) Barun Chandra Thakur vs Master Bholu SC 593
iv) Gaurav Kumar vs State of Haryana AIR 2019 SC 537
v) Vipin Kumar Mallah v. State of Bihar AIR 2018 PHC 547
vi) Budiya Parmar v. State of MP AIR 1967 SC 1326
vii) State of Punjab v. Dalbir Singh 1979 AIR 1384
viii) Hamid Ahmad V. State of Bihar AIR 2017 PHC 95
ix) Pulicherla Nagaraju v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2006) 11 SCC 444

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

3
 AIL INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

THE PROSECUTION ABOVE NAMED HAS APPEARED BEFORE THE

JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD UNDER SECTION 81 OF THE JUVENILE
JUSTICE (CARE AND PROTECTION OF CHILDREN) ACT, 2015 IN ORDER TO
SAFEGUARD AND PROTECT AGAINST THE MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE.

1
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, s. 8.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

4
 AIL INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Om and Shradha have been married for 20 years. They are living in Bandra. Shradha
was working as a Financial Analyst with JP Morgan, while Om was employed as
Marketing Manager with Ola in Mumbai only. Their son, Kartik born on 18 July, 2007.

2.In April, 2020, Om lost his job but Shradha’s work was not affected. She continued
to work from home. Shradha contributed to the household expenditure and Om was
also contributing to the same from his savings.

3. Om went into depression, as was not able to get a job as per his qualifications and
refused to work for anything less. He used to do the household work and took care of
their son, while Shradha was always occupied with her office work all day.

4. Om often failed to control his temper and thus consulted a psychiatrist for the same.
The doctor prescribed him medicines that would help him recover.

5. Kartik is studying in NMIMS School, Mumbai. He was having a good friend circle.
He never got much affection and care at home. He spent most of the time with his
friends. However, his parents made sure to provide him regular money. They often went
out together and partied till late. He was introduced to alcoholism and drugs at a tender
age by his friends. They got addicted to this lifestyle and focused less on studies.

6. In Aug 2021, Kartik was charged for the offence of theft at supermarket in Mumbai.
He tried to steal a medicine, an anti-depressant, used by drug addicts, as an intoxicant.
On being caught, he was taken to the police station, where his parents were also called.
However, later, he was allowed to go home after admonition by Juvenile Justice Board.

7. After the incident, the attitude of his parents towards him changed and he faced many
restrictions. His pocket money was reduced and he was not allowed to go out with his
friends. His mother (Shradha) was stricter than his father (Om). Kartik used to have
petty arguments every now and then with Shradha.

8.Not only Kartik but even Om argued with Shradha. They had an argument and Om

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

5
accused Shradha that she is busy with her work and does not take care of anything.

9. In 2022, Om started his own Digi Marketing Website. However, he was incurring
losses. Shradha got promotion. With promotion, responsibilities increased and started
coming late. Initially Om was happy but became insecure that she is better earning.

10. Kartik believed Om, when he accused Shradha. Kartik was not fond of his mother,
as she was stricter. He thought her as more work oriented. This led to strained relations
with mother. He started consuming alcohol and drugs, even after the restrictions on him.

11. On 24th July, 2023, around 11:30 pm, the couple had a heated argument, where
Shradha called Om a Jobless person, who is jealous of her career. She claimed to be the
only earning member of the family and that she has been working even after having
medical condition of enlarged spleen, for which she had been on medications. After
which Om got furious and he rushed towards Shradha with the intention of hurting her.

12. While they were arguing, Kartik entered the house in an intoxicated state. Initially,
he did not interfere between them. When Shradha saw Kartik, she yelled at him for
always being drunk and asked him what else he had consumed. To which, Kartik
responded with anger that she should not be concerned about him and just worry about
her work. He also started accusing his mother and took his father’s side.

13. Om went to the kitchen and picked a knife with blade of 6.5 inches from the shelf.
Kartik saw his father with the knife and went towards him to take the knife. After
grabbing the knife from his father, he pointed it towards his mother, and said ‘I have
had enough of this’. At the same time, Om grabbed a glass vase from the table and
threw it towards Shradha. The vase hit Shradha and injured her forehead. After being
hit, Shradha moved towards Kartik and the knife struck her and ruptured her abdomen.
Shradha fell on the ground unconscious. The floor got smeared with blood. Kartik and
Om had blood all over their clothes and hands.

14. Om got frightened. He was shocked and was not able to take action. Kartik showed
no emotions. After some time, Om rushed Shradha to the hospital, where she was
declared brought dead. 15. Kartik has been charged under Section 302 of IPC.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

6
 AIL INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUE 1

WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS LIABLE TO BE TRIED AS AN

ADULT?

ISSUE 2

WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS LIABLE FOR MURDER UNDER

SECTION 302 OF IPC?

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

7
 AIL INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1.That the accused has committed a heinous offence and is liable to

be tried as an adult.

It is humbly submitted before the juvenile justice board that the accused
should be tried as an adult as per the provisions of section 15 of the Juvenile
Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. The accused has
committed the heinous offence and is above the age of 16 years as date on
24th July, 2023.

2. That the accused has committed murder under section 302 of IPC.

It is humbly submitted that the accused has caused bodily injury to the
deceased and had the necessary intention which caused the death of the
deceased.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

8
 AIL INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

CONTENTION 1. That the accused has committed a heinous offence

and is liable to be tried as an adult.

1. That the accused in the present case, Kartik is a juvenile of 16 years and 6 days
and is liable to be tried under juvenile justice board. According to section 2(35)
of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015,
JUVENILE2 means a child below the age of 18 years and section 2(13) of the
same act defines CHILD IN CONFLICT WITH LAW3 as a child who is
alleged or found to have committed an offence and who has not completed 18
years of age on the date of commission of such offence.
2. According to section 15 of JJA4–“In case of a heinous offence alleged to have
been committed by a child, who has completed or is above the age of sixteen
years, the Board shall conduct a preliminary assessment with regard to his
mental and physical capacity to commit such offence, ability to understand the
consequences of the offence and the circumstances in which he allegedly
committed the offence”.
3. .According to section 2(33) -HEINOUS OFFENCE includes the offences for
which the minimum punishment under the IPC or any other law for the time
being enforce is imprisonment for 7 years or more.

2
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, s. 2(35).
3
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, s. 2(13).
4
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, s. 15.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

9
 4. In the case of Mukesh v. State of Delhi 5 ,an amendment was brought to the
prior legislation and the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act 2015 was
approved which tried children of age 16-18 years as an adult in case of a heinous
crime committed by them
5. Bholu a 'Juvenile in Conflict with Law' vs CBI6 The age of minor accused
was around 16 years and 5 months, thus, he was between the age bracket of 16
to 18 and despite being a minor, given the legislative mandate under Sec 15 of
the J.J. Act the offence being heinous i.e. of murder and child having completed
sixteen years of age. The Board was under a legal obligation on to conduct
preliminary assessment with regard to the child's mental and physical capacity
to commit such offence and his ability to understand its consequences and also
circumstances of such commission of the offence. Considering the Social
Investigation Report (SIR), mental assessment report, physical report and
interaction with the child, the Board found an opinion that the child needed to
be tried as an adult and consequently transferred the matter under Sec on 18(3)
to the Children's Court which had the jurisdiction on Court.

5
AIR 2017 SUPREME COURT 2161
6
CRR-452-2023
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

10
 CONTENTION 2. That the accused is liable for murder under
section 302 of IPC.

1. The question to be answered is whether the act done by the accused was with the
intention of causing such bodily injury as he knew “to be likely to cause death of
the deceased.” It is inconceivable that the accused would not have known that
pointing a knife with blade of 6.5 inches would cause his mother’s death as the type
of bodily injury resulting therefrom would at least be “likely” to cause her death (if
not, they are sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause her death).
2. The essentials of murder were discussed is State of Punjab v. Dalbir Singh
(2012)7. In this case, the Supreme Court of India reiterated the essentials of murder
as defined under Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
3. The court emphasized that for an act to amount to murder under Section 300 IPC,
it must satisfy the following essential elements:
A). Intention to cause death or knowledge that the act is likely to cause death: This
intention or knowledge can be inferred from the circumstances surrounding the act.
B). Act done with the intention of causing bodily injury: This intention to cause
bodily injury must be present for the act to amount to murder.
C). Bodily injury must be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death:
This means that the injury must be capable of causing death without the intervention
of any other external factors.
2.1 – That the accused had the intention to cause bodily injury to his mother

4. In case of Pulicherla Nagaraju @ Nagaraja Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh8

: the circumstances from which the intention of causing death was inferred

1) nature of the weapon used.

2) whether the weapon was carried by the accused or picked up from the spot.

7
1979 AIR 1384
8
(2006) 11 SCC 444
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

11
3) whether the blow is aimed at a vital part of the body.

4) whether there was any prior enmity.

2.1.1 That the accused had the mental capacity to understand the consequences of
his actions.

Kartik was introduced to alcoholism and drugs at a tender age by his friends and got
addicted to this lifestyle voluntarily and performed poorly in studies. The incident that
took place on august 2021, where he was charged for the offence of theft at supermarket
for stealing an anti-depressant often used as an intoxicant. But was admonished by the
Juvenile Justice Board. This proves that he was a habitual offender and had the mental
capacity to understand the consequences of his actions.

2.1.2 That the nature of the weapon showed intention to cause death.

It was Kartik’s father Om who went to the kitchen and picked up a knife with blade of
6.5 inches from the shelf but Kartik went towards his father and took the knife which
is evident of his intention to cause harm to his mother. Kartik’s gesture of pointing the
knife at his mother and exclaiming that “I have had enough of this” clearly substantiate
his intention.

2.1.3 That the actions were sufficient to cause bodily injury resulting in death.

Kartik, the said accused enter the home in intoxicated state and initially did not interfere
between his parent’s argument but when his mother yelled at him for being drunk, he
responded with anger and started accusing his mother. Moreover, pointing of knife at
his mother is evident enough to show that his actions were likely to cause injury which
resulted in rupturing her abdomen.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

12
 AIL INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

PRAYER

Wherefore in the light of the facts of the case, issues raised, arguments advanced
and authorities cited, it is humbly pled and requested that the Juvenile Justice
Board of Mumbai may be pleased to adjudge and declare:

i)That the Accused should be tried as an adult in the court of competent jurisdiction

ii)That the Accused is liable under Section 302 IPC

And pass any such order, judgement or direction that the Hon’ble Board deems
fit and proper in the interest of Justice.

For this act of kindness, the Counsel for the prosecution as in duty bound shall
forever pray.

ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

____________________________________________
Sd/-
COUNSEL FOR THE PROSECUTION.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

13