BEFORE THE SESSION COURT,

Memorial Filed on Behalf of the Prosecution.

IN THE MATTER OF
A…………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………...PROSECUTION
B…………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………DEFENCE
IN THE MATTER OF CASE FILED UNDER SECTION 302 read with Section 114 & 302/34 Of
IPC.
Most Respectfully submitted Before the Session Court,
COUNSELS APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ‘RESPONDENT’

TEAM 02
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Abbreviations……………………………………………………………………….
List Of Authorities………………………………………………………………………….
(1) Acts and Statutes……………………………………………………………………...
(2) List Of Cases………………………………………………………………………….
(3) Books Referred……………………………………………………………………….
(4) Websites Referred…………………………………………………………………….
Statement Of Jurisdiction……………………………………………………………………
Statement Of Facts………………………………………………………………………….
Charges Framed……………………………………………………………………………...
Summary Arguments…………………………………………………………………………
Arguments Advance………………………………………………………………………….
Prayer…………………………………………………………………………………………
 LISTS OF ABBREVIATIONS
AIR All India Reporter
Cr.P.C. Code Of Criminal Procedure
IPC Indian Penal Code
SC Supreme Court
Sec. Section
v. Versus
r/w Read with
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

TABLE OF CASES

Ambika S. Nagal. V. State of

Himachal Pradesh
BOOKS:
 Prof. S.N. Mishra, Indian Penal Code (with Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2018),
Central Law Publications, 21st Edition 2018.

 Pillai PSA, Criminal Law, Lexis Nexis, 11th Edition 2012.

 Gaur KD, Indian Penal Code, 5th Edition 2015.

WEBSITES:

 http://www.findlaw.com
 http://www.judis.nic.in
 http://www.scconline.com
 http://www.blog.ipleaders.in
 http://www.legalserviceindia.com
 http://www.casemine.com

STATUTES:
1. THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 (ACT 2 OF 1973)
2. THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 (ACT 45 OF 1860)
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The defence has submitted the Written Submissions to the Hon’ble District Court, that it has
jurisdiction to try this case under Sec. 177 r/w Sec. 209 of Cr.P.C.
Section 177 of Cr.P.C. states Ordinary place of inquiry and trial-
“Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired and tried by a goat within whose jurisdiction it
was committed.”
Section 209 of CRPC states- Commitment of a case to court of session when offences 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 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 comment until the conclusion of, the trial;
c) Send to that go to 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.
The court also has a power to take cognizance of the matter as per the Sec 26(a)(ii) two of
Cr.P.C., which reads as “Courts by which offences are tribal, subject to the other
provisions of the code,
(a) Any offence Under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) may be tried by-
(ii) the court of session.”

This is also requested to determine the consequences, including the rights and obligations of
the parties arising from its judgment on the charges raised in the instant case. The present
memorandum sets forth the facts contention and arguments from the prosecution stand point.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS:
1. Rani gave up her studies due to continuous failure in matriculation examination.
2. Shanti (mother) efforts failed, Hence, adopted adverse attitude.
3. Shanti consulted a leader from the neighbourhood. And was suggested to take Rani to Kawal
ram, Kala and Munshi.
4. They used to hold Kirtan Darbar on full moon.
5. Rani was brought to the temple when Ketan was going on, and the fire was kept smouldering.
In it or Chimta was kept Shanti asked Kabul ran to get out of the negative spirit, bothering her
daughter.
6. Kala was instructed by Kawal ram to hold Rani by her long hair. Munshi took the chimta
from Kamal Ram. Munshi aggressively stuck Rani on the back with chimta blows before
Kawal ram grabbed hold of Rani by her long hair and threw her to the ground.
7. After that Kawal ram exclaimed that he understood why the bad spirit had not really
appeared. Also, he asked Munshi to use the chimta to hit Rani’s hand.
8. She got scared and shouted, “I am Kali” and “I am Ramo” as Munshi stuck the hot Chimta
on her right heel. In order to face her towards the burning fire, Kala once more held her by her
long hair.
9. Rani then cried for water. The water could only be provided, shouted Kawal Ram, if the evil
spirit that was trapped inside Rani was released. Rani got three more Chimta blows from
Munshi.
10. Rani was given the smoke from the chillies that Kawal Ram had thrown into the Kadhai. She
received this treatment till she passed out.
11. After that, Kawal Ram shouted that the bad spirit had left.
12. To take Rani home, Shanti called for rickshaw.
13. Rani was discovered dead when Shanti and the Rickshaw puller tried to lift her.
14. In accordance with the Sections 302, read with Section 34 of the IPC, the police filed a
complaint against Kawal Ram, Kala and Munshi. The doctor who performed post-mortem
examination concluded that the patient died as a result of shock brought on by several
wounds.
 STATEMENT OF ISSUES.

 WHETHER KAWAL RAM, KALA, AND MUNSHI ARE LIABLE UNDER

SECTION 302/34 OF IPC?
 WHETHER SHANTI WAS LIABLE UNDER SECTION 302 R/W 114 OF IPC?
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

It is clear from the implicit facts of the above case that Kawal Ram, Munshi and Kala had no
intention nor the required motive to lead to the death of Rani. As Rani was facing difficulty in
clearing her matriculation examinations, they thought that there is some negative spirit in
Rani’s body and they only wanted her to freed from it.
They had no idea that their practices could lead to the death of Rani. Since, there was no
direct refusal, they got misled about the bearing capability of Rani.
Since, there was no intention, mens rea cannot be brought into action, and the charges against
them under Section 302/34 should not be held on them.
Moreover, mother acted in the good faith of her daughter and wanted for her a better future,
therefore, the intention and motive is again missing. She in no way, has shown that she
wanted Rani’s death. Therefore, the charges of abetment of murder under Section 302 r/w 114
should not be held on her.
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED.
WHETHER KAWAL RAM, KALA, AND MUNSHI ARE LIABLE UNDER
SECTION 302/34 OF IPC?
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, states that :
Punishment for murder- whoever commits murder, shall be punished with death or
imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code,

Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention. —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.]

 Section 302 Deals with the punishment for murder. In order to constitute an offence
under the Section 300, which defines murder,
 Intention: Must be intended to cause death
 Cause of Death: The act has to be done with the knowledge that the act may cause the death of
another.
 Bodily injury: There must be intent to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.

In order to constitute an offence under section 300. Two elements are essential. First, the
intention and knowledge to commit murder. Secondly, the actual act of trying to commit the
murder. Thus it may both have the necessary mens ria and Actus reus. In other words, for
offences under this section, all the elements must be satisfied.
But, in the present case, both these elements are absent as there is intention to cause death.
Moreover, the act was done in good faith.

Section 87 - Nothing which is not intended to cause death, or grievous hurt, and which is
not known by the doer to be likely to cause death or grievous hurt, is an offence by reason
of any harm which it may cause, or be intended by the doer to cause, to any person, above
eighteen years of age, who has given consent, whether express or implied, to suffer that
harm;
Or by reason of any harm which it may be known by the doer to be likely to cause to any
such person who has consented to take the risk of that harm.
Since, there was no direct refusal by Rani, so the implied consent can be taken into
account.

Section 88- Act not intended to cause death, done by consent in good faith for person’s benefit.
—Nothing which is not intended to cause death, is an offence by reason of any harm which it may
cause, or be intended by the doer to cause, or be known by the doer to be likely to cause, to any
person for whose benefit it is done in good faith, and who has given a consent, whether express or
implied, to suffer that harm, or to take the risk of that harm. Illustration A, a surgeon, knowing that a
particular operation is likely to cause the death of Z, who suffers under a painful complaint, but not
intending to cause Z’s death and intending in good faith, Z’s benefit performs that operation on Z,
with Z’s consent. A has committed no offence.
Since, there was no direct refusal by Rani and all the acts were performed on her in good faith.

In the leading case of, Ambika S. Nagal. V. State of Himachal Pradesh on 10th June 2020, the
school teacher was made safe under Section 88, where, in Sankunni’s case, the Madras High Court
concluded that the school master may inflict reasonable corporal punishment keeping in mind the
good faith.
 WHETHER SHANTI WAS LIABLE UNDER SECTION 302 R/W 114 OF IPC?
Sec. 114. Abettor present when offence is committed. —Whenever any person,
who is absent would be liable to be punished as an abettor, is present when the act or
offence for which he would be punishable in consequence of the abetment is
committed, he shall be deemed to have committed such act or offence.

SECTION-89
IPC Section 89 - Act done in good faith for benefit of child or insane person, by or by
consent of guardian

For the mother, it is clear that she had acted in good faith and had no intention to let
her daughter killed. From the facts of the case, Rani cried out I am Kali and I am
Ramo, due to which, Shanti thought that the acts of the priests are acting on the right
path.

Her intention was only towards the betterment of her daughter’s and wanted her to
excel in matriculation examinations.
The mother, Shanti should not be held liable for abetment as the requirement for intention is not
fulfilled.
MENTAL STATE OF RANI
Mental state of Rani is to brought in question her statement when she was getting acts dpne “
I am Kali , I am Ramo.” In normal circumstances, a prudent person would not say such
words. She did not cry for help or refused for further acts, but stated the above mentioned
words.
This should be taken into account that she was not in her best state and due to this couldnot
bare the acts done in good faith.
She must have been under the pressure to excel in the matriculation examinations, which lead
to making her mentally ans emotionally less stable.

Exception 5 to Section 300 which holds that culpable homicide is not murder if a person
above 18 years of age is giving consent for these risks.

Exception 1 to Section 300 holds for—When culpable homicide is not 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.
302 r/w Section 114 of IPC and Sec. 302/34 of IPC.

Section 302 0f IPC states the Punishment for Murder-

Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be
liable to fine.

Section 114 0f IPC states the abetter present when offence is committed-

Whenever any person, who is absent would be liable to be punished as an abettor, is present when
the act or offence for which he would be punishable in consequence of the abetment is committed,
he shall be deemed to have committed such act or offence.
PRAYERIn the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced, authorities citied, it is humbly prayer
before the Hon’ble Court to adjudge and declare

That the Section 87,88,89 and Exceptions 1 and 5 under Section 300 should make All of them free
from charges incurred on them.

Any other order as a deems fit in the interest of equity, justice and good conscience for this act of
kindness, the defence shall duty bound for every pray.