MOOT COURT

CHANDIGARH UNIVERSITY, UILS

Before

THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1 OF 2024

IN THE MATTER OF

HARISH
............ ..........................................................................................
...APPELLANT

V.

STATE OF PUNJAB ..
…………………………………………………….....RESPONDENT

APPEAL U/SEC. 374(2) of CrPC

Memorial for the Respondent

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Abbreviations 03

Index of authorities 04

Statement of Jurisdiction 05

Statement of facts 06

Statement of charges 08

Issues raised 09

Summary of arguments 10

Arguments Advanced 11

Prayer 20
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVIATIONS EXPANSION
SEC. SECTION
IPC INDIAN PENAL CODE
HC HIGH COURT

INDEX OF AUTHORITES
TABLE OF CASES
 Case name Citation

STATUTES, RULES, REGULATIONS and CIRCULATIONS

INDIAN PENAL CODE,1860
CRIMINAL PROCEDURAL CODE,1973

BOOKS, JOURNALS AND REPORTS

WEBSITES REFFERED
INDIAN KANOON
MAUPATRA
SCC

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
 It is most humbly submitted that the petitioners have approached the hon’ble
HC of Punjab and Haryana under section 374 of CrPC.
Section 374 of CrPC

(1) Any person convicted on a trial held by a High Court in its extraordinary original criminal
jurisdiction may appeal to the Supreme Court.
(2) Any person convicted on a trial held by a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge
or on a trial held by any other court in which a sentence of imprisonment for more than seven
years has been passed against him or against any other person convicted at the same trial,
may appeal to the High Court.
(3) Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (2), any person,—
(a) convicted on a trial held by a Metropolitan Magistrate or Assistant Sessions Judge or
Magistrate of the first class, or of the second class, or
(b) sentenced under section 325, or
(c) in respect of whom an order has been made or a sentence has been passed under section
360 by any Magistrate,
may appeal to the Court of Session.

STATEMENTS OF FACTS
For the sake of brevity, the material facts are placed herewith in the chronological
order.
1. That Madan Lal Malhotra (48 years), a professional singer, resident of 34 sector,
Chandigarh was living in his family his wife shanti (45 years), one daughter Mohini
(26 years) and two sons Rahul and Harish (23years) and a servant Ramesh (26 years)
at his resident.
2. That Harish and Rahul (deceased) were twins. Rahul was good in studies and had got
good job in a corporate firm with a high pay packet. Harish on the other hand, had
completed his studies in 2010. A bachelor’s degree in arts, he got a job in a
construction company as an assistant supervisor at a salary of Rs 27,000 per month. It
is enough for him as he stayed with his mother and father. They were a happy family.

3. That Rahul’s behaviour was weird ever since his early years and used to scare
everyone at night, and threatened to kill Harish one day. harish had informed his
parents about this but they never paid much attention, saying that children do often
fight between themselves and tend to imagine things.

4. That on 18th sep 2019 Rahul woke up the entire house by screaming uncontrollably at
about 2.30 am. When his parents came to comfort him, he confessed that Harish had
tried to put a pillow on his face and suffocate him. The next morning when asked,
Rahul remembered nothing and denied that such a thing had never happened.

5. That the similar instances were repeated a few times, Rahul’s parents decided to take
him to a doctor. After consultations and diagnosis, the doctor felt that Rahul had Bi-
Polar disorder. They were advised to keep a strict vigil on him, especially during the
late hours of the day. He was also advised some mild medication.

6. That on 18th October 2018, Rahul started screaming during the night again. When
Their parents rushed to their room, they found both of them grappling on the floor.
Rahul had tried to strangle me. With great effort our parents separated us. I had seen a
knife in his hand and he was about to stab me. The very next day Rahul also got a
huge present for me and posted on his social media that Harish was the best brother
anyone could ask for.

7. That As per Harish, condition of Rahul deteriorated and his medication was increased.
His altercations with Harish became more regular and physical and, on many
occasions, violent. Rahul blamed his mother for always protecting Harish and never
loving him.

8. That On 2nd March, 2019, at about 7.30 AM Mahender Kumar, the milkman came to deliver
milk at the Malhotra’s residence , no one answered the bell. After trying for about 3-4
mins, he pushed the main door and found it open. On reaching inside, he was horrified
to see the bodies of Rahul and his mother on the floor lying in a pool of blood. Their
throats were slit. The house was in a bit of a mess. He raised an alarm and the
neighbours rushed in who then called the police.

9. That ‘The Police reached the spot and found a gruesome crime scene. On searching
the house, they found the dead body of a girl whose hands were tied with a rope and
her throat were slit with knife.

10. That Soon Harish came back from the backyard and showed surprise to see the police.
On being questioned, he said that he had just woken up and had gone to the backyard
 to get himself some fresh air as his head was heavy and paining. During investigation
he informed that his father was away for his music concert to Mumbai for two weeks.
The Police immediately informed him, and he said that he would take the next flight
in.

11. That Harish mentioned about the domestic help Ramesh who stays with them.
Ramesh was originally from Bihar and had joined their employment only a few weeks
ago. On being asked by the police about police verification, Harish said that it was
pending. Some of the household valuables were also found missing as per the
statement of Harish but later found in his cupboard. Also, a lot of medicines were
recovered from Harish’s bed side drawer. These also included stronger versions of the
same medicines prescribed to Rahul. On inspection of servant’s house photos of
mohini were also recovered from the bag which narrated that the ramesh was the
classmate of mohini and living in her house just to be close with her by giving fake
name and fake address to mr. Malhotra.
12. That After the Charge sheet the Court framed the Charge against Harish and Ramesh
under Sections 302 read with 120B of the Indian Penal Code. On his written consent,
two NARCO tests were conducted on Harish. Both test results were diametrically
opposite to each other. The forensic psychologist believed the results were taken
from two people. On questioning by the police, father confirmed that Rahul was
taking treatment for his mental state, but also mentioned about the behaviour therapy
Harish was taking for the mild bipolarism.

13. That Harish gave a detailed confession under Section 161 of the CrPC stating that he
Had not killed his brother and mother. It is the handiwork of Ramesh as he was aware
of the fights between me and my brother, and made use of that. In fact, he told me to
act against my brother many times.

14. That On searching the house and compound, the police recovered a blood-stained
knife hidden in a plastic bag from the garage. The phone belonging to Ramesh was
last used the previous evening on a number registered to Sirsa, but was un reachable.
In Court Harish said that he remembered nothing from that night as he claimed that he
had taken some medicines and slept after watching television. He stated that this is the
act of Ramesh as wanted cash and killed my family.

15. That The police also caught Ramesh after ten days from Sirsa, Haryana and found
money from his bag which he claimed that he has saved. He stated that murder has
been committed by Harish to take revenge from the brother. As per him Harish is
always under the influence of drugs. He told to the police that he is in one sided love
with mohini since his childhood therefore he cannot kill his own love as it was her
only for whom He was so scared when the incident took place, and thus ran away.

16. That After the trial the Hon’ble Court convicted Harish and Ramesh and punished
both with life imprisonment. Ramesh was also convicted for theft and both sentences
were to run concurrently. Harish challenged the order in appeal. Harish additionally
stated that since he was not mentally stable, so he is entitled to the benefit under
Section 84 of the IPC which was not given in his favour.
 ISSUES RAISED

ISSUES NO. 1
Whether there was a criminal conspiracy between harish and
Ramesh or not?

ISSUES NO. 2
Whether conviction of Harish under section 302 and 120B is justified
or not?
ISSUES NO. 3
Whether harish can get community from immunity from criminal
liability under section 84 of IPC or not?

SUMMARY OF PLEADING

1. Whether there was a criminal conspiracy between harish

and Ramesh or not?
It is humbly submitted before the honourable HC of Punjab & Haryana that

2. Whether conviction of Harish under section 302 and 120B is

justified or not?

3. Whether harish can get immunity from criminal liability under

section 84 of IPC or not?
 With regard to this issue the respondent humbly averts before this hon’ble court that Harish
is to be given benefit under section 84 of IPC because, section 84 of IPC says that , Nothing is
an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness
of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either
wrong or contrary to law.” So the accused was not aware of the circumstances and
consequences of his action he was of unsound mind at the time of the offence .he was
totally in capable of having knowledge of the nature of the act as it can be established by the
facts that he is suffering from mild bipolarism (cyclothymia). and taking
therapy for that.

WRITTEN PLEADINGS

1. Whether there was a criminal conspiracy between harish and

Ramesh or not?
It is humbly submitted before the honourable HC of Punjab & Haryana that
 2. Whether conviction of Harish under section 302 and 120B is
justified or not?
With regard to this issue the appellant humbly averts before this hon’ble court that
appellant is guilty of murder of his sister, brother and mother under section 302 and
120B of IPC
Section 300 of IPC gives the definition of murder and enumerate the ingredients of
the offence.
Section 300 of IPC contemplates that the person is guilty of murder if he intentionally
causes death of that person or causes such bodily injury, which in the ordinary course
of nature results into death or commits an act so dangerous that it must, in all
probability cause death of a person.
Section 120A of IPC defines criminal conspiracy as an agreement of two or more
persons to do or cause to be done

3. Whether harish can get community from immunity from

criminal liability under section 84 of IPC or not?
With regard to this issue the respondent humbly averts before this hon’ble court that
Harish is not to be given benefit under section 84 of IPC because, section 84 of IPC says that,
nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of
unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what
is either wrong or contrary to law.” So, the accused was not aware of the circumstances and
consequences of his action he was of unsound mind at the time of the offence. he was
totally capable of having knowledge of the nature of the act as it can be established by the
facts that he is suffering from only mild bipolarism (cyclothymia) and taking
therapy for that which is not to be considered symptom of unsoundness.

To invoke the benefit of section 84 it must be proved that at the time

of the commission of the offence the accused was (insane) non
compos mentis and that the soundness of the mind was of degree
and nature as so fulfil one of the tests laid down in the section. The
ingredient of this section are as follows;

1) That the accused was incapable of knowing the nature.

 2) That the accused was precluded by reason of unsoundness
of mind from understanding that what he was doing either
wrong or right.
The first ingredient covers two situations namely automatism and
mistake of fact due to circumstances and unsoundness as a defence.
The second ingredient cover those cases wherein a man by reason of
delusion is unable to appreciate the distinction between right or
wrong.
It is only unsoundness of the mind which emperors the cognitive
facilities of the mind that can form a ground of exemption from
criminal responsibility. the nature and the extent of the unsoundness
of mind is required being such as food make the offender in capable
of knowing the nature of the act and that he is doing what is either
wrong or contrary to law.
Such act of the accused fulfils the ingredients required to be
protected under the Ambit of section 84 of IPC. The accused was
suffering from mild bipolarism only and for which he is taking
behaviour therapy. If it would be so dangerous then doctors would
have provided him high dose for bipolarism as of Rahul and not just
providing behaviour therapy. Also, by the facts it is clear that
deceased was only gets violent and physical many times but not
appellant.
In Case of Dayabhai Chhanganbhai Thakkar versus state of Gujarat
supreme court help that in determine whether accused has
established that this case comes within the purview of section 84 the
court has to consider circumstances which precious attended and
follow the crying the crucial state of mind of these used is the time
when the offence committed that element sets are the Moti for the
condition of the accused the state of mind at time of the events
immediately after the incident which throws a light on the state of
his mind. the events which work preceded the crime was the fights
between the accused and the deceased.
The murder was committed in the absence of his father and even he
has removed the eye witness which is considered to be the prep and
act the facts clear prove that the accused was in the right state of
mind preceding the crime as he understood his feelings and
surroundings which is difficult for persons suffering from bipolarism.
Also, mere fact that appeal and didn't make any attempt to run away
or that he committed the crime in the daylight and he don't try to
hide it or that the motive to kill was very big would not indicate that
at the time of the commission of the act the appellant was suffering
from unsoundness or he did not have requisite Mens rea for the
commission of the offences.
In the case of Hari Singh Gond v. state of Madhya Pradesh, the apex
court rejecting the defence plea of unsoundness of mind under sec.
84 IPC on the ground of unusual behavior of the accused , as
reported by witnesses. The supreme court held that , the standard to
be applied for deciding applicability of section 84 is whether
according to standards adopted by reasonable man , the act was
right or wrong. The mere fact that an accused is conceited
(exaggerated opinion) odd traceable ( peculiar person ) and his brain
is not quite at all right or that the physical and mental ailments from
which he suffered had rendered his intellect weak and had affected
his emotions and will , or that he had commited certain unusual
acts , in the past or that he was liable ton recurring fits of insanity at
short interval , or that he was subject to getting epileptic insanity fits
but there was nothing abnormal in his behaviour , or that he was his
behaviour was queer ( strange) cannot be sufficient to attract the
application of this section . It was held on facts of the case that
section 84 had no application .
In the case of Ram Lal vs State of Rajasthan , the Supreme Court held
that to take protection of section 84, the person must be non-
compos mentis at the time of the commission of the crime . The law
presumes every person of the age of discretion to be sane unless the
contrary is proved and even if a lunatic has lucid intervals the law
presumes the offences to have been committed in a lucid interval
unless it appears to have been committed during derangement.
The supreme court held that an accused who seeks exoneration from
criminal liability of an act under section 84 is to prove legal insanity
and not medical insanity. Merely because the accused is
conceited ,odd and his brain is not all right, or that the mental or
physical ailments from which he suffered has rendered his intellect
work and attacked his emotions or indulges in certain unusual acts,
or had fits of insanity a short interval or that he was subjects to
epileptic fits and there was abnormal behaviour or the behaviour is
queer are not sufficient to attract the application of section 84 IPC.
The Apex Court in its judgement reported that though the accused
suffered from certain mental instability of mind even before and after
the incident but from that one cannot infer on a balance of
preponderance of probabilities that the offense did not know the
nature of his act, that it was either wrong or contrary to law, hence
the rejected the insanity defense.

The burden of proof to claim exemption under section 84 rest on the

accused, in the case of T.N Lakshmaiah vs State of Karnataka,
Supreme Court has spelled out the provisions relating to burden of
proof when insanity is placed as defence in the following words.
i. The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the
accused had committed the offence with requisite mens rea and the
burden of proving that always rest on the prosecution from
beginning to the end of the trial.
ii. There is a rebuttable presumption that the accused was not
insane, when he committed the crime, in the sense laid down by
Section 84 of the Penal code, the accused may rebut it by placing
before the court all the relevant evidence-oral, documentary or
circumstantial, but the burden of proof upon him is no higher than
that rests upon a party to civil proceedings.
iii. Even if the accused was not able to establish conclusively that he
was insane at the time he committed the offence, the evidence
placed

PRAYER
In the light of the arguments advance and authorities cited, the appellant
humbly submits that the honourable court may be pleased to adjudge and
declare this

1.
2.
 3.
4.
5.

Respondent side cases

Issue no 1

Case no 1

1. Shrikant anandrao Bhosale v. state of Maharashtra.

Issue no 2 muder

State of rajasthan v. shera ram alias Vishnu dutta.

Sidhapal Kamla Yadav v. state of Maharashtra.

Jagdish v state of Madhya pardesh

Elavarasan v state

Shibu v state of kerala

Surendra Mishra v state of Jharkhand

Gopal Bhowmik v. state of Tripura