MOOT COURT

BEFORE THE HON’BLE DISTRICT & SESSIONS

COURT OF TIS HAZARI

STATE
(PETITIONER)
V.
RAVI SHANKAR AND RAJAT LAMBA
(RESPONDENT)

MEMORIAL SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE

PETITIONER
 CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 3
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 5
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 7
STATEMENT OF FACTS 8
ISSUES RAISED 11
ISSUES CONCERNED 12
ARGUMENT ADVANCED 13
PRAYER 16
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AC Appeal Cases
A.I.R All India Reporters
All Indian Law Reports Allahabad series
A.P Andhra Pradesh
Art. Article
BLJ Bombay Law Journal
Bom LR Bombay Law Reporter
Cr. LJ Criminal Law Journal of India
CrPC Criminal Procedure Code
DPs Directive Policy
Edn. Edition
FRs Fundamental Rights
Guj Gujrat
Hon’ble Honorable
IPC Indian Penal Code
Jul July
Ors. Others
QBD Queen’s Bench Division (Eng)
pat Indian Law Reports Patna series
r/w Read with
S Section
SC Supreme Court
SCR Supreme Court Reporters
Sec. Section
TLR Times Law Reports (Eng)
U.P Uttar Pradesh
u/s Under section
V. Versus
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

LEGISLATION

1. INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860.

2. CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973.

CASES REFERRED
1. RAJESH KUMAR V. DHARAMVIR (1977)
2. BARENDRA KUMAR GHOSH V. KING EMPEROR (1925)
3. KEHAR SINGH V. STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION) (1988)
4. BACHAN SINGH V. STATE OF PUNJAB (1980)

BOOKS REFERRED
1. K D GAUR, TEXTBOOK ON INDIAN PENAL CODE, SIXTH EDITION,
2018.
2. UNIVERAL’S CRIMINAL MANUAL, 2017 EDITION.
3. SHAILENDER MALIK, THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, TWENTY FIFTH
EDITION, 2011.
4. RATANLAL AND DHIRAJLAL, THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, THIRTHY
FOURTH EDITION, 2012
5. RATANLAL AND DHIRAJLAL, THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE,
TWENTY THIRD EDITION, 2020

LEGAL DATABASES
 WWW.YOURARTICLELIBRARY.COM
 WWW.LEGALSERVICEINDIA.COM
 WWW.INDIANKANOON.ORG
 WWW.LAWRATO.COM
 WWW.MANUPATRA.COM
 WWW.INDIANCASELAWS.ORG
 WWW.INDLAW.COM
 WWW.JUDIC.NIC.IN
 WWW.LEXISNEXIS.COM
 WWW.SCCONLINE.CO.IN
 WWW.WESTLAW.COM
 WWW.NCBI.NLM.NIH.GOV
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The petitioner has approached the Hon’ble District & Sessions courts under
sections 261 And 282 of the Criminal procedure of Code 1973.

1
Section 26. Courts by which offences are triable.Previous Next
Subject to the other provisions of this Code,--
(a) any offence under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) may be tried by--
(i) the High Court, or
(ii) the Court of Session, or
(iii) any other Court by which such offence is shown in the First Schedule to be triable:
1[Provided that any 2[offence under section 376, 3[section 376A, section 376AB, section 376B, section 376C,
section 376D, section 376DA, 376DB] or section 376E of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)] shall be tried as far as
practicable by a Court presided over by a woman.]
(b) any offence under any other law shall, when any Court is mentioned in this behalf in such law, be tried by such
Court and when no Court is so mentioned, may be tried by--
(i) the High Court, or
(ii) any other Court by which such offence is shown in the First Schedule to be triable.
2
Section 26. Courts by which offences are triable.Previous Next
Subject to the other provisions of this Code,--
(a) any offence under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) may be tried by--
(i) the High Court, or
(ii) the Court of Session, or
(iii) any other Court by which such offence is shown in the First Schedule to be triable:
1[Provided that any 2[offence under section 376, 3[section 376A, section 376AB, section 376B, section 376C,
section 376D, section 376DA, 376DB] or section 376E of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)] shall be tried as far as
practicable by a Court presided over by a woman.]
(b) any offence under any other law shall, when any Court is mentioned in this behalf in such law, be tried by such
Court and when no Court is so mentioned, may be tried by--
(i) the High Court, or
(ii) any other Court by which such offence is shown in the First Schedule to be triable.
 STATEMENT OF FACTS
For the sake of brevity and convenience of the Hon’ble court the facts of the case
are summarized as follows
1. Ravi Shankar was a tenant of an apartment on the second floor of a building
owned by Nikhil Mehta.
2. Information was given to the police on 12.09.2000, at about 10.40 A.M that a
dead body is lying in that same apartment.
3. After receiving the information police team visited the spot and found a person
lying dead on a folding cot and blood was scattered all over the floor and also
on the cot and bed linen.
4. The police seized the bed linen, blood, burnt cigarette pieces, match box, empty
packets of salted snake mixture, wiskey bottle, plate etc.
5. Also a suicide letter was found in a pocket of the trouser which the deceased
was wearing. This note was also seized.
6. The body was later identified by Bhagwan dass as the body of Hari shankar.
Now on 13.09.2000, Shiv Shankar(brother of the deceased), Reema Varma(wife
of the deceased) and Ajay Kumar(brother-in-law of the deceased) on
information arrived and confirmed that the body is of Hari Shankar.
7. Nikhil Mehta, owner of the building disclosed during investigation that Ravi
Shankar was his tenant and occupant of that particular apartment.
8. At about 4.00 P.M on 11.09.2000 Ravi Shankar was seen leaving the premises
with a Gathri(a bag made of cloth) in his hands.
9. Raj Kumar, a tenant of the first floor, during investigation confirmed that Ravi
Shankar resided in that apartment with his friend Rajat Lamba singh and on
1.09.2000 he visited them to pay money and there he saw the deceased playing
cards and having liquor with Ravi Shankar and Rajat Lamba singh in that
apartment.
10. Now police party on 20.09.2000 visited Gurdaspur which is the native place of
Ravi Shankar, but could not find him there.
11. However, the accused persons (Ravi Shankar and Rajat Lamba Singh)
surrendered before the concerned court at Tis Hazari on 23.09.2000.
12. On getting the information of their surrender, the police moved an application
for their custody and got three days police custody of both the accused.
13. Confessional statements were made by each of the two accused during police
custody which resulted in recovery of a knife at the instant of Rajat Lamba and
blood-stained clothes, carrying blood of same group as of the deceased, at the
instance of Ravi Shankar.
14. Dr. M.M. Narnaware prepared the autopsy report of the deceased and in that it
was established that the death was homicidal. Further, police obtained specimen
like handwriting and signature of Rajat Lamba and that suicide letter, specimen
handwriting and signature of accused Rajat Lamba were sent to the forensic
science Laboratory(FSL) for comparison.
15. The FSL report dated 29.12.2000 Stated that the suicide letter and specimens
were in the handwriting of one and the same person. The serologist report
 proved that the clothes recovered at the instance of Ravi Shankar carried human
blood of same group as found on the trouser and vest worn by the deceased at
the same time of his death.
16. The police charge-sheeted both the accused for offences punishable under
sections 302/34 and 120-B IPC on the basis of the materials so collected.
 ISSUES RAISED

 WHETHER INCRIMINATING CIRCUMSTANCES CONSTITUTED A

CHAIN WHICH CONCLUSIVELY INDICATED THAT THE ACCUSED
RAVI SHANKAR IN THE COMPANY OF CO-ACCUSED RAJAT
LAMBA COMMITTED THE CRIME AND TO REMOVE THE
EVIDENCE HID THE KNIFE AND THE BLOOD-STAINED CLOTHES
AND FURTHER, TO HOODWINK THE POLICE, RAJAT LAMBA
WROTE AND PLANTED A SUICIDE LETTER IN A POCKET OF THE
TROUSER WORN BY THE DECEASED.
 ISSUE CONCERNED
 WHETHER INCRIMINATING CIRCUMSTANCES CONSTITUTED A
CHAIN WHICH CONCLUSIVELY INDICATED THAT THE ACCUSED
RAVI SHANKAR IN THE COMPANY OF CO-ACCUSED RAJAT
LAMBA COMMITTED THE CRIME AND TO REMOVE THE
EVIDENCE HID THE KNIFE AND THE BLOOD-STAINED CLOTHES
AND FURTHER, TO HOODWINK THE POLICE, RAJAT LAMBA
WROTE AND PLANTED A SUICIDE LETTER IN A POCKET OF THE
TROUSER WORN BY THE DECEASED.
SUMMARY ARUGMENTS
 ARUGMENTS ADVANCED

There are several incriminating circumstances that point towards the involvement
of Ravi Shankar and his co-accused Rajat Lamba Singh in the crime:
1. Presence at the Scene: Ravi Shankar was seen leaving the premises on the day
of the incident with a bag, and Raj Kumar confirmed that Ravi Shankar resided in
the apartment where the crime took place.
2. Association with the Deceased: Witnesses saw the deceased playing cards and
having liquor with Ravi Shankar and Rajat Lamba Singh in the apartment.
3. Confessional Statements: Both accused made confessional statements during
police custody, leading to the recovery of a knife and blood-stained clothes.
4. Forensic Evidence: The forensic reports, including handwriting analysis and
blood matching, support the prosecution's case.
5. Suicide Letter: The suicide letter found in the pocket of the deceased's trousers,
along with the forensic analysis, suggests an attempt to mislead the investigation.
Considering these circumstances, it appears that there is a chain of events and
evidence pointing towards the guilt of Ravi Shankar and Rajat Lamba Singh in
committing the crime and attempting to cover it up.
Section 300 IPC is one of the provisions relating to the offence of “Murder”.
According to this section, culpable homicide is considered as murder if:

1. The act by which the death is caused is committed with an intention to cause
death.
2. The act is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury that the
offender has knowledge that it would likely result in death.
3. The act is committed with the intention of causing bodily injury to a person
and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient to cause death in
the ordinary course of nature.
4. The person committing the act knows that his act is so imminently
dangerous that it must, in all probability, result in death or such bodily injury
as is likely to cause death.

In the case of Rajesh Kumar v. State of Punjab, it was held by the hon’ble court
that all the conditions of murder were satisfied and the accused was convicted and
sentenced to imprisonment.

Section 34 of IPC says when a criminal act is done by several persons with a
common intention each of the person is liable for that act as it has been done by
him alone. In the case of Barendra Kumar ghose v. King Emperor was a landmark
judgement delivered by the privy council in 1925 that dealt with the concept of
common intention under section 34 of the Indian penal code.
Barendra Kumar Ghose was accused of participating in a robbery and murder at a
post office. While he did not directly kill the victim, the prosecution argued that he
shared a common intention with his accomplices to rob and, if necessary, kill the
postmaster.

Section 120-B of IPC says that whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to

commit an offence punishable with death, or imprisonment for a term of 2 years or
upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this Code for the
punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had
abetted such offence.In the case of Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Administration)
(1988) In this landmark judgment, the Supreme Court held that even if the
intended offense is not committed, the mere agreement between conspirators
constitutes a criminal conspiracy under IPC 120B.
 PRAYER

WHEREFORE IN THE LIGHT OF THE ISSUES RAISED, ARGUMENTS

ADVANCED AND AUTHORITIES CITED, IT IS HUMBLY PRAYED THAT
THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO:

1. Declare and adjudge that all the accused, guilty of the offence under section
302 R/W 34 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2. To sentence all accused with death penalty or the maximum punishment

with fine for the deterrence.

AND/OR

pass any order, direction or relief that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the
interests of justice, equity and good conscience.

Sd/

Counsels for the Petitioner.