Memorial Upon Murder

AIL CLASS MOOT COURT COMPETITION (9TH SEMESTER) 2023
Roll No. 1939

Jyoti Singh
CLASS MOOT COURT, 2023
Before
IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS
IN THE MATTER OF
STATE OF U.P……………………………………….......................……PROSECUTION
V.
SARFARAZ…................................................................................................DEFENSE
MEMORIAL FOR THE PROSECUTION
DRAFTED AND FILED BY THE COUNSELS FOR THE PROSECUTION
I
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Abbreviations...............................................................................................................................2
Table of Authorities.................................................................................................................................3
STATUTORY COMPILATIONS..................................................................................................3
BOOKS AND DIGESTS.................................................................................................................3
WEBSITES......................................................................................................................................3
Table of Cases..........................................................................................................................................4
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION.......................................................................................................6
STATEMENT OF FACT........................................................................................................................7
STATEMENT OF ISSUES.....................................................................................................................9
ISSUE 1:..........................................................................................................................................9
ISSUE 2:..........................................................................................................................................9
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS...........................................................................................................10
Written Pleadings/Arguments Advanced...............................................................................................11
That Sarfaraz is liable for committing the offence of Murder...........................................................11
That the Accused is liable to be punished under section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860...............16
Prayer......................................................................................................................................................xi
1
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
& And
AIR All India Reporter
All Allahabad
Anr. And others
Cal Calcutta
CrLJ Criminal Law Journal
Del Delhi
Ed. Edition
ILR Indian Law Reporter
P&H Punjab & Haryana
¶ Paragraph
§ Section
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
UP Uttar Pradesh
V./vs. Versus
WB West Bengal
2
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
STATUTORY COMPILATIONS
1. Indian Penal Code, 1860

2. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1974
BOOKS AND DIGESTS
1. C.K Takwani, Indian Penal Code, 1860, 11th edition, Eastern Book Company, 2017
2. Sumeet Malik, P L Malik’s Crminal Court Handbook, Twenty-third edition, EBC,
2016
3. Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code (1st ed. 2014).
4. R.V Kelkar’s Criminal Procedure (7th ed. 2021).
WEBSITES
1) www.scconline.com
2) www.advance.lexis.com
3) www.indiankanoon.org
4) https://www.legalserviceindia.com
5) https://www.lawyerservices.in
3
TABLE OF CASES
S.
Case Citation
No.
1 Badri v. State of U.P AIR 19953 All 189
2 Balakrishna Pillai v State of Kerala AIR 2003 SC 1012

3 Basdev v. State of Pepsu, AIR 1956 SC 488.
4 Behari And Ors. vs State AIR 1953 All 510.
Commissioner of income tax v. Patranu Dass Raja
5 AIR 1982
Ram Beri
6 Dibia v. State of U.P., AIR 19953 All 189
7 Hardev Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1958 SC 465.
8 Kapur Chand Pokhraj v State of Bombay AIR 1958 SC 993
9 Kartar Singh v State of Punjab, AIR 1995 SCW 2698

10 Laxman v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1974 SC 1803.
11 Md. Idrish v. State Md. 2004 Cr LJ 1724 (Raj);
12 Mohinder Singh v. State AIR 1960 Punj. 135.
13 PradeshChhotka v State of WB, AIR 1958 Cal 482
14 Public Prosecutor v. Bandi Pedda Venkata Nari AIR 1937 Mad 684.
15 Rajwant Singh v. State of Kerala, AIR 1966 SC 1874 (1878).

16 Reg v. Govinda, (1877) ILR 1 Bom 342.
17 Santosh v. State of Madhya Pradesh 1975 Cri LJ 602 (SC).
18 Sharif And Anr. v. Rex AIR 1950 All 380
19 Son Lal v State of Uttar AIR 1978 SC 1142,
20 State of Madhya Pradesh v. Digvijay Singh 1981 Cri. LJ 1278 (SC)
21 State of Maharashtra v. Bhairu Sattu AIR 1953 All 373
22 State of Maharashtra v. Meyer Hans George, AIR 1965 SC722
23 Subedar Tewari v. State of UP, AIR 1989 SC 733.
4
24 Thangiya v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2005) 9 SCC 650.

Trustees of Port of Bombay v Premier Automobiles
25 , AIR 1974 SC 923
Ltd
5
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Counsel for the Prosecution has approached the Hon’ble Court of Sessions of
Moradabad by virtue of Section 177 read with Section 209 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973.
SECTION 177- ORDINARY PLACE OF INQUIRY AND TRIAL-

Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local
jurisdiction it was committed.1
SECTION 209- COMMITMENT OF CASE TO COURT OF SESSION WHEN OFFENCE IS 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 the offence is triable exclusively
by the Court of Session, he shall-
(a) commit, after complying with the provisions of section 207 or section 208, as the case
may be, the case to the Court of Session, and subject to the provisions of this Code
relating to bail, remand the accused to custody until such commitment has been made;
(b) subject to the provisions of this Code relating to bail, remand the accused to custody
during, and until the conclusion of, the trial;
(c) send to that Court 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.2
1
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act 2 of 1974 as amended up to Act 34 of 2019), s. 177.
2
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act 2 of 1974 as amended up to Act 34 of 2019), s. 209.
6
STATEMENT OF FACT
1. Ramesh and Sarfraz's fathers were both running small departmental store and were
residing in a small village in Moradabad in UP. Ramesh his sister Mahi and Sarfraz
studied together in school and college. They had similar habits but Ramesh was not
interested in studies and aware that he could carry on business of his family. Sarfraz
however was good in Math's and wanted to do higher studies in Mathematics. Being
friends, their families were also close to each other.
2. Ramesh grandfather would consider Sarfraz as their son but Ramesh's father did not
like him much as he belonged to a Muslim family. When they were young, Ramesh
Mahi and Sarfraz would visit of each other house and in particular Ramesh and her
sister Mahi really liked the dishes that were made on Eid. Sarfraz would also spend
his entire day in Ramesh house but only when Ramesh's father was not around. Mahi
was also bright student. When Sarfraz was at their house he would spend most of time
with Mahi helping her in her studies.
3. All three were friends but as they grow older Mahi’s father told her not to visit the
house of Sarfraz and also instructed her to stay away from Sarfraz. But she did not
listen to his father as nobody in her house objected to her talking or spending time
with Sarfraz.
4. Sarfraz went to Delhi to do MSc in mathematics from JNU. Ramesh and Mahi both
started missing him very much. However, Mahi was sad all the time and would keep
on thinking about Sarfraz only. She felt that her life had crumbled. On other had
Sarfraz also missed Mahi more than Ramesh. He started calling her and both of them
admitted that they liked each other and can think of spending their life together.
Sarfraz told Ramesh that he liked her sister very much and would like to marry her.
Ramesh was happy as he knew that Sarfraz was really very good match for his sister.
5. Sarfraz and Mahi started meeting outside whenever he would come back from Delhi.
He told her that once he completed his studies he would talk to Mahi's father about
their marriage. However, Mahi expressed her fear that her father would never agree to
same. She said they have to run away from home as her father did not like him. But
Sarfraz told her he would convince her father about the marriage.
7
6. On 23rd Sept 2023 on eve of Eid her father saw Mahi and Sarfraz in village mela
together. He abused Sarfraz, slapped him and started abusing his entire family.
Sarfraz also got angry and pushed Mahi's father when he came forward to slap him
again. Sarfraz confessed that he is in love with Mahi. Mahi's father got really furious
and shouted in a loud voice that he should stay away from his daughter otherwise
Sarfraz would have to face dire consequences. After this incident both of them
decided to run away.
7. Following night, they planned to elope from the house. Sarfraz came to Mahi's house,
however, when they were about to climb the wall Mahi foot slipped and she fell
down. This raised the alarm. When Mahi's father saw Sarfraz, he picked up iron rod
lying nearby and gave blow on his head, Sarfraz fell down and picked sickle lying in
courtyard and gave a blow Mahi's father neck. His father died in hospital after two
days. Sarfraz was caught for the murder of Mahi's father.
8
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
ISSUE 1:
WHETHER MR. SARFRAZ IS LIABLE FOR COMMITTING THE OFFENCE OF MURDER?
ISSUE 2:
WHETHER MR. SARFARAZ IS LIABLE FOR PUNISHMENT U/S 302 OF IPC?
9
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
CONTENTION 1
WHETHER SARFRAZ IS LIABLE FOR COMMITTING THE OFFENCE OF MURDER?
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that Sarfaraz (hereinafter referred to as the
‘accused’) is guilty of murder of Mahi’s father (hereinafter referred to as the ‘victim’). He
used a sickle to attack the victim, further leading to the death of the victim. It is essential to
note that before the crime was committed the victim and the accused had gotten into a heated
argument where victim asked the accused to stay away from his daughter. Hence, the accused
felt insulted after the argument leading to establishing motive (mens rea) for murder.
CONTENTION 2
WHETHER MR. SARFARAZ IS LIABLE TO PUNISHMENT U/S 302 OF THE IPC?
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the accused premediated the murder of
the victim and therefore the exceptions provided under section 300 do not apply to him.
Hence, he is liable for punishment under section 302 of IPC.
10
WRITTEN PLEADINGS/ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
CONTENTION I:
THAT SARFARAZ IS LIABLE FOR COMMITTING THE OFFENCE OF MURDER.
1. Section 300 of the India Penal code defines “murder” as follows :

Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which
the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or— 2ndly.—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— 3rdly.—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— 4thly.—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.
Provided – (i) 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.
The above exception is subject to the following provisos: — First. —That the provocation
is not sought or voluntarily provoked by the offender as an excuse for killing or doing
harm to any person. Secondly. —That the provocation is not given by anything done in
obedience to the law, or by a public servant in the lawful exercise of the powers of such
public servant. Thirdly. —That the provocation is not given by anything done in the
lawful exercise of the right of private defence.
(ii) if the offender in the exercise in good faith of the right of private defence of person or
property, exceeds the power given to him by law and causes the death of the person
against whom he is exercising such right of defence without premeditation, and without
any intention of doing more harm than is necessary for the purpose of such defence.
(iii) if the offender, being a public servant or aiding a public servant acting for the
advancement of public justice, exceeds the powers given to him by law, and causes death
11
by doing an act which he, in good faith, believes to be lawful and necessary for the due
discharge of his duty as such public servant and without ill-will towards the person whose
death is caused.
(iv) if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon
a sudden quarrel and without the offender's having taken undue advantage or acted in a
cruel or unusual manner.
(v) when the person whose death is caused, being above the age of eighteen years, suffers
death or takes the risk of death with his own consent.
2. It is most respectfully submitted that in the instant case the accused attacked the victim
with the intent to cause death, as he hacked the victim with a sickle. The term hacked
means to cut or sever with repeated irregular or unskilful blows. 3 It is contended that this
act of the accused depicts both mens rea and actus rea of the crime.
3. Mens rea is considered as guilty intention, which is proved or inferred from the acts of
the accused.4 A criminal act generally requires some element of wrongful intent or other
fault.5 This is known as mens rea or guilty mind. 6 Mens rea is considered as guilty
intention7, which is proved or inferred from the acts of the accused 8. In the instant matter,
the accused has been convicted of offence of Murder. It is submitted that mens rea is
present in the instant case.
4. It is presumed that every sane person intends the result that his action normally produces
and if a person hits another on a vulnerable part of the body, and death occurs as a result,
the intention of the accused can be no other than to take the life of the victim and the
offence committed amounts to murder.9 Moreover, the intention to kill is not required in
every case, mere knowledge that natural and probable consequences of an act would be
death will suffice for a conviction under s. 302 of IPC.10
5. The intention to kill can be inferred from the murder and nature of the injuries caused to
the victim.11 Causing a serious injury on a vital part of the body of the deceased with a
dangerous weapon must necessarily lead to the inference that the accused intended to
3
Commissioner of income tax v. Patranu Dass Raja Ram Beri, AIR 1982
4
State of Maharashtra v. Meyer Hans George, AIR 1965 SC722
5
Glanville Williams, Text Book Of Criminal Law,( 2nd Edition,Universal Law Publishing,1999)
6
The Digest 17 (1st ed., Vol 14 (2), London Butterworths & Co. Ltd. 1993)
7
Commissioner of Income Tax v Patranu Dass Raja Ram Beri, AIR 1982 PH 1, 4
8
State of Maharashtra v Meyer Hans George, AIR 1965 SC 722
9
(1951) 3 Pepsu LR 635.
10
Santosh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1975 Cri LJ 602 (SC).
11
Laxman v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1974 SC 1803.
12
cause death or bodily injury sufficient to cause death of the victim, and it answers to
section 300 and is murder.12 Given that the accused hit the victim on the neck, a vital part
of the body, with the intention of causing death is logical to conclude that he intended to
cause the death of the victim.
6. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that apart from the necessary Mens Rea,
there has to be Actus Reus, which must be more than a preliminary preparation. 13 The
injury that has been caused must be intentional and not merely accidental in nature. 14Actus
reus is any wrongful act15.
7. Actus reus may be so defined as to include acts of omissions as well as acts of
commissions and a person may incur criminal liability for failing to do that which the law
enjoins as much as by doing that which the law proscribes or prohibits. 16 To constitute a
crime, the act and intention must both concur. 17 The requirements of actus reus vary
depending on the definition of the offence. Actus reus may be with reference to place,
time, person, consent, state of mind of the victim, possession, preparation, and the like.
The concept of “actus reus” would, in certain contexts, include an act of accessory,
aiding, abetting, counselling and procuring an offence 18. An offence is an aggregate of
acts or omissions punishable by law.19
8. In Behari And Ors. vs State20, it has been held that “A person is guilty of murder if,
having full knowledge of the peculiar physical condition of another, and further having
knowledge that the injury intended to be caused will most likely result in that person’s
death on account of his peculiar physical condition, he causes the injury to him and death
ensues.”
9. It was opined in the case of Rajwant Singh v. State of Kerala 21, that the second clause of
section 300 will apply if there is first, the intention to cause bodily harm and next, there is
the “subjective knowledge” that death will be the likely consequence of the intended
injury.
12
Md. Idrish v. State, 2004 Cr LJ 1724 (Raj); Md. Sharif And Anr. v. Rex, AIR 1950 All 380; Badri v. State of
U.P., AIR 19953 All 189; Dibia v. State of U.P., AIR 1953 All 373, State of Maharashtra v. Bhairu Sattu
Berad, AIR 1956 Bom 609
13
Mohinder Singh v. State, AIR 1960 Punj. 135.
14
Hardev Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1958 SC 465.
15
Aiyar, P Ramanatha, The Law Lexicon, p. 49 (2nd ed 2006)
16
Trustees of Port of Bombay v Premier Automobiles Ltd, AIR 1974 SC 923
17
Kartar Singh v State of Punjab, AIR 1995 SCW 2698
18
R Balakrishna Pillai v State of Kerala, AIR 2003 SC 1012
19
Kapur Chand Pokhraj v State of Bombay, AIR 1958 SC 993
20
Behari And Ors. vs State, AIR 1953 All 510.
21
Rajwant Singh v. State of Kerala, AIR 1966 SC 1874 (1878).
13
10. PURAN SINGH V. STATE OF PUNJAB (1975) – REASONABLE FORCE

11. Clause (4) of Section 300 contemplates generally, commission of acts which are so
imminently dangerous that it is likely to cause death. Under this clause, the act need not
be directed at any particular individual nor need there be an intention to cause the death of
any particular individual, it has to merely be a reckless act, which is imminently
dangerous.
12. In Thangiya v. State of Tamil Nadu22, the Supreme Court categorically ruled that clause
(4) of section 300 would be applicable where the knowledge of the offender as to the
probability of death of a person approximates to a practical certainty. Such knowledge on
the part of the offender must be of the highest degree of probability.
13. As defined in Basdev v. State of Pepsu23, motive is something which prompts a man to
form intention. Motor is the emotion which impulse a man to do a particular act. Such
impending calls need not necessarily be proportionally grave to the grave crimes. Mother
need not necessarily be committed with any know or prominent motive.
14. In Subedar Tewari v. State of UP24, the evidence regarding existence of motive is not
within the reach if anyone including the victim of the crime. A crime can be committed
on a spur of moment without premeditation. Hence, it is difficult to establish motive in a
crime. Further, it was stated that no motive can, as a matter of fact, be deemed sufficient
in the sense of justifying the commission of murder; for, if that were so, the offence
would be taken out of the category of wilful murder and may also be held be justifiable
homicide.
15. It has been held in the case of Reg v. Govinda25 that the nature of the weapon used will
indicate the degree of probability of death cost thereby. It will enable the court to find
whether the injury caused is merely likely to cause death or whether it is sufficient in the
ordinary course of nature to cause death; in other words, whether it is the most probable
result. Further, in the case of Public Prosecutor v. Bandi Pedda Venkata Nari 26, it was
noted that the nature of the weapon of the weapon used may show the intention or the
knowledge of the culprit in using the weapon.
16. Sarfaraz's actions and the ensuing circumstances indicate that he has committed murder.
Section 300, clause (4), of IPC establishes that an act may be classified as murder when it
22
Thangiya v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2005) 9 SCC 650.
23
Basdev v. State of Pepsu, AIR 1956 SC 488.
24
Subedar Tewari v. State of UP, AIR 1989 SC 733.
25
Reg v. Govinda, (1877) ILR 1 Bom 342.
26
Public Prosecutor v. Bandi Pedda Venkata Nari, AIR 1937 Mad 684.
14
is imminently dangerous and likely to cause death, without the necessity for specific
intent or a particular target.
17. Sarfaraz engaged in a violent confrontation, during which he used a deadly weapon, a
sickle, resulting in the death of Mahi's father. This corresponds with legal principles that
emphasize the degree of probability of death caused by the nature of the weapon used.
Additionally, the absence of an established motive should not absolve Sarfaraz of
culpability, as motive is not the sole determinant of the gravity of the crime. Considering
these factors and the established legal principles, it is reasonable to conclude that
Sarfaraz's actions meet the criteria for murder under the law.
15
CONTENTION II:
THAT THE ACCUSED IS LIABLE TO BE PUNISHED UNDER SECTION 302 OF INDIAN PENAL
CODE, 1860.
1. It is most respectfully submitted previous threats or altercations between parties are

admitted to show motive.27 In the instant case it has been established above that the
accused had all the intention to commit the murder of the victim.
2. It is most respectfully submitted that, moreover, when the circumstantial evidence on
record is sufficient to prove beyond any doubt that it was the accused and no one else,
who intentionally caused the death of the victim then, motive of the crime need not be
proved, as in the current case.28
3. Therefore, it is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the accused is guilty for
the offence of murder, given that the requisite mens rea and actus reus is established from
the facts of the case, beyond a reasonable doubt and is liable punishment under section
302 of IPC.
27
Son Lal v State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 1142, Chhotka v State of WB, AIR 1958 Cal 482
28
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Digvijay Singh, 1981 Cri. LJ 1278 (SC)
16
PRAYER
WHEREFORE IN THE LIGHT OF ISSUES RAISED, ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

AND AUTHORITIES CITED, IT IS HUMBLY PRAYED THAT THIS
HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO DECLARE THAT:
The accused may be punished with maximum punishment available u/s 302 of Indian
Penal Code,1860.
And/ or
Pass any such order, judgement or direction that the Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the
interest of equity, justice and good conscience.
For this act of kindness, the Counsels for the Prosecution as in duty bound shall forever
pray.
ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
_____________________________
Sd/-
COUNSELS FOR THE PROSECUTION
xi

Memorial Upon Murder

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Memorial Upon Murder

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AIL CLASS MOOT COURT COMPETITION (9TH SEMESTER) 2023

Roll No. 1939

CLASS MOOT COURT, 2023

IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS

MEMORIAL FOR THE PROSECUTION

DRAFTED AND FILED BY THE COUNSELS FOR THE PROSECUTION

AIR All India Reporter

Anr. And others

CrLJ Criminal Law Journal

ILR Indian Law Reporter

P&H Punjab & Haryana

SCC Supreme Court Cases

1. Indian Penal Code, 1860

BOOKS AND DIGESTS

1 Badri v. State of U.P AIR 19953 All 189

2 Balakrishna Pillai v State of Kerala AIR 2003 SC 1012

8 Kapur Chand Pokhraj v State of Bombay AIR 1958 SC 993

9 Kartar Singh v State of Punjab, AIR 1995 SCW 2698

15 Rajwant Singh v. State of Kerala, AIR 1966 SC 1874 (1878).

20 State of Madhya Pradesh v. Digvijay Singh 1981 Cri. LJ 1278 (SC)

21 State of Maharashtra v. Bhairu Sattu AIR 1953 All 373

22 State of Maharashtra v. Meyer Hans George, AIR 1965 SC722

23 Subedar Tewari v. State of UP, AIR 1989 SC 733.

24 Thangiya v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2005) 9 SCC 650.

SECTION 177- ORDINARY PLACE OF INQUIRY AND TRIAL-

WHETHER MR. SARFRAZ IS LIABLE FOR COMMITTING THE OFFENCE OF MURDER?

WHETHER MR. SARFARAZ IS LIABLE FOR PUNISHMENT U/S 302 OF IPC?

WHETHER SARFRAZ IS LIABLE FOR COMMITTING THE OFFENCE OF MURDER?

WHETHER MR. SARFARAZ IS LIABLE TO PUNISHMENT U/S 302 OF THE IPC?

WRITTEN PLEADINGS/ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

THAT SARFARAZ IS LIABLE FOR COMMITTING THE OFFENCE OF MURDER.

1. Section 300 of the India Penal code defines “murder” as follows :

10. PURAN SINGH V. STATE OF PUNJAB (1975) – REASONABLE FORCE

1. It is most respectfully submitted previous threats or altercations between parties are

WHEREFORE IN THE LIGHT OF ISSUES RAISED, ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

COUNSELS FOR THE PROSECUTION

You might also like