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 THE OF JUVENILE JUSTICE ACT, 2015

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

 AIL INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 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………………………………………………...9-14

1) CONTENTION 1- THAT THE ACCUSED SHOULD BE TRIED AS A

JUVENILE.
2) CONTENTION 2- THAT THE ACCUSED IS NOT LIABLE FOR MURDER
UNDER SECTION 302 OF IPC.

PRAYER………………………………………………………………………15

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

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) J.J. vs State of Haryana………………………... …CRR-1610 of 2022 (O&M)
ii) Gaurav Jain vs UOI………………………………….(1997) 8 SCC 114
iii) State of Maharashtra vs Punjaji Shah…… ………….AIR 1981 SCC 1675
iv) Gopalan Nair v. State of Kerala………………….. AIR 1973 SCC 806
v) King v. Aung Nyug……………………………… ……AIR 1940 259
vi) State of Maharashtra v. Mayer Hans George….. AIR 1965 SCC 722
vii) Bablu vs. State of Rajasthan………………………..(2007) Crlj 1160 SC
viii) Virsa Singh vs. State of Punjab……………………..AIR 1958 SC 465
ix) Gurpreet Singh vs. State of Punjab………………..AIR 2022 PNH 2109
x) Neha vs. State of Punjab……………………………2024 PHHC 033022.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

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 DEFENCE

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 DEFENCE

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 DEFENCE

6
 AIL INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUE 1
THAT THE ACCUSED SHOULD BE TRIED AS A JUVENILE.

ISSUE 2
THAT THE ACCUSED SHOULD NOT BE MADE LIABLE
UNDER SECTION 302 OF IPC.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

7
 AIL INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

THAT THE ACCUSED SHOULD BE TRIED AS A JUVENILE.

It is humbly submitted before the juvenile justice board that the accused should be tried
as a juvenile as per the section 2(13) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act, 2015. The accused is just 16 years and 6 days as on 24th July, 2023. Its
already presumed that even if a child commits a heinous crime he is not automatically
tried to be as an adult. Nothing is an offence which is done by a child who has not
attained the sufficient maturity of understanding to judge of the nature and
consequences of his conduct on that occasion.

THAT THE ACCUSED SHOULD NOT BE MADE LIABLE

UNDER SECTION 302 OF IPC.

That the accused had no intention of causing any injury to the deceased nor does his act
justify the injury occurred, since the accused was only holding the knife without any
motive to hurt his mother.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

8
 AIL INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

CONTENTION 1. That the accused should be tried as a juvenile.

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. The accused should be treated as a juvenile as he is still a child and children are
required to be treated differently from adults as there’s a presumption that they do
not have the mental faculties to form the same kind of intent that an adult does, and
that they lack a fundamental understanding of the nature and consequences of their
actions.
3. As per the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2000, a juvenile shall not be
treated as an adult even if he/she is involved in any criminal acts for the purpose of
trial and punishment in the court of law.
4. There have been several landmark cases in India that have shaped the jurisprudence
on juvenile delinquency. One such case is the J.J. vs State of Haryana4, in which
the Supreme Court held that a juvenile cannot be sentenced to death or life
imprisonment, even for the most heinous crimes. The court held that the purpose of
the juvenile justice system is not to punish but to reform, and that a child who

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
CRR-1610 of 2022 (O&M)

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

9
 commits a crime should be given an opportunity to reform and reintegrate into
society.

5. Another important case is the Gaurav Jain vs Union of India5, in which the Delhi
High Court held that the law should not discriminate against juvenile offenders
based on the nature of the crime. The court held that every juvenile offender should
be given an opportunity for rehabilitation and reintegration, regardless of the
severity of the crime.
6. Chapter II of the JJA 2015 provides certain fundamental principles of care and
protection of children that have to be observed by all agencies while dealing with
children. These principles are called the ‘general principles’ indicating that these
principles are to be read as being part of all the provisions of the act in the same
manner as general exceptions are read in IPC.
7. According to the principle of presumption of innocence, any child shall be
presumed to be an innocent of any mala fide or criminal intent up to the age of
eighteen years. State of Maharashtra v. Punjaji Shah6, The Supreme Court of
India reiterated the principle of presumption of innocence and held that the burden
of proving the guilt of the accused rests entirely on the prosecution, and the accused
is not required to prove their innocence.
8. According to the principle of best interest, all decisions regarding the child shall be
based on the primary consideration that they are in the best interest of the child and
to help the child to develop full potential.
9. However, the provision permitting transfer of children to the children’s court and
their trial as adults seem to be against the said principle because such transfer is
based on the principle o0f retributive justice and not best interest of the child.
10. The significant case concerning the principle of the best interest of juveniles is
Gopalan Nair v. State of Kerala7, where the Kerala High Court reiterated the

5
(1997) 8 SCC 114
6
AIR 1981 SCC 1675
7
AIR 1973 SCC 806

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

10
importance of considering the best interests of the child in custody disputes,
emphasizing the need to prioritize the child's welfare over the interests of the parents
or guardians. The judgment highlighted the duty of the court to act as a parens patriae
(parent of the nation) and make decisions that promote the overall well-being and
development of the child involved.

In the case of Jitendra Singh @ Babboo Singh v. State of U.P.8

In this case, Supreme Court, claimed that the accused was a minor, i.e., 14 years of
age, at the time of the commission of the offence. The Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld
the decision of lower courts to convict the accused in this case but also observed that
the accused falls into the category of juvenile under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000. In
order to determine the sentence, the case was referred to the Juvenile Justice Board
under the Act. The Court further opined that the objective of the criminal justice
system in this regard is to provide rehabilitative and restorative mechanisms to
juveniles.

8
2023 AHC 240819

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

11
 AIL INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

CONTENTION 1. That the accused is not liable for murder under

section 302 of IPC.
1. Section 300 of IPC defines murder as -
a. If the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death,
or
b. 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
c. 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
d. 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.9
e. The intention of the offender may not be to cause death, it would be sufficient if
he intended to cause such bodily injury which was likely to cause death. The
connection between the 'act' and the death caused by the act must be direct and
distinct, and though not immediate it must not be too remote10.

2.1 – That the accused did not have mens rea to commit the act.

Kartik, the said accused in the present case had strained relations with his mother
because she was always pre occupied with her work giving less time to him, which is
suggestive of the fact that he had a difficult upbringing because of poor parenting. As a
consequence he was also introduced to alcoholism and drugs at a young age.

9
State of Punjab v. Dalbir Singh
10
Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

12
On 24 July Kartik’s parents had a heated argument and while they were arguing Kartik
entered the house in an intoxicated state and did not interfere between the two. He was
not in a state to understand the consequences of his acts that unfolded later. This
suggests that he had no intention for the incident that took place.

As mentioned above the expression 'intention to cause such bodily injury as is likely to
cause death' merely means an intention to cause a particular injury, which injury is, or
turns out to be, one likely to cause death. It is not the death itself which is intended, nor
the effect of injury; King v. Aung Nyug11, It is not necessary that the consequences of
the injury are foreseen, it would be sufficient that there is an intention to cause injury,
which injury is likely to cause death.

2.1 – That the accused did not have actus rea to commit the act.

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 with the intention to hurt his wife and as already mentioned
Kartik initially did not interfere between his parents but when Sharadha yelled at him
he lost his temper and went towards his father and took the knife. He was just holding
the knife by pointing it towards Sharadha but did not do any act intentionally which
could have resulted in his mother’s death.

Hence, this shows that neither there was any direct link between his actions and
intention for which he could be made liable nor was any act that can constitute guilt
without a guilty mind.

In State of Maharashtra v. Mayer Hans George12, the Bombay High Court clarified
the principle of "actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea" (an act does not constitute guilt
unless done with a guilty mind). The court emphasized that the act itself, without the
requisite guilty intention (Mens rea), is not sufficient to establish criminal liability. This

11
AIR 1940 Rang 259.
12
AIR 1965 SCC 722

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

13
case played a crucial role in shaping the understanding of actus reus and mens rea in
Indian jurisprudence.

2.1 – That the accused comes under the exception of section 85 of IPC, thereby
exempting him from the charge of murder.

According to section 85 of IPC, A person incapable of judgment by reason of

intoxication caused against his will. Nothing is an offence which is done by a person
who, at the time of doing it, is, by reason of intoxication, incapable of knowing.

On 24 July 2023 the accused entered the house in intoxicated state and was not in is
consciousness to understand the consequences of his acts. When he took the knife from
his father and pointed it towards his mother it was Shradha herself who moved towards
the accused resulting in the rupturing of her abdomen. Hence, in the present case the
intoxication rendered the accused incapable of forming the specific intent to constitute
the crime thereby exempting him under the said exception.13

13
Babloo v. State of Rajasthan AIR 2007 SCC 697

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

14
 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 a juvenile only

ii)That the Accused is not 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 DEFENCE.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

15