H. P.

COLLEGE OF LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION

FOR ACADEMIC YEAR 2023-24

BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT, ………………………

SONIA………………………………………….(APPELLANT)

VS

STATE……………………………………………(RESPONDENT)

CRIMINAL WRIT PETTION

ON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT,…………..

UNDER SECTION 374 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY:

Mr. Manish Bhatia Prasiddh Kumar Verma

(Asstt. Prof.) 210111350058

1|Page
 H. P. COLLEGE OF LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION

TABLE OF CONTENT

SR. NO. PARTICULARS PAGE NO.

1. INDEX OF CITATIONS

2. STATEMENT OF FACTS

3. ISSUE RAISED

4. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

5. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

6. VERIFICATION

7. PRAYERS

8.

9.

2|Page
 H. P. COLLEGE OF LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

 BOOKS REFERRED

1. Indian Penal Code by Prof. S. N. Mishra

2. Criminal Procedure by R. V. Kelkar

 WEBSITE REFERRED

1. https://www.indiacode.nic.in

2. https://www.scconline.com

3. https://tnsja.tn.gov.in

 CASE REFERRED

1. K. M. Nanavati vs State Of Maharashtra: 1962 AIR 605

2. State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Rayavarappu: I (2003) DMC 638 (SC)

3. Yogendra Moraji vs. State: 2005 (2) RCR (Criminal) 159 (P&H)

4. Mohinder Pal Jolly v. State of Punjab: (1979) 3 SCC 169

3|Page
 H. P. COLLEGE OF LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION

FACTS OF THE CASE:

In the matter between Sonia and Aman, who were married for five

years, it is noted that Aman, over the past three years, has developed a habit

of excessive drinking and returning home late at night. Despite Sonia’s

frequent scolding and warning of leaving him if he didn’t change his

behaviour, Aman’s action persisted. It is also evident that Aman displayed

violent behaviour, including assault on Sonia and coercing her into unwanted

sexual activity.

Upon seeking counsel, Sonia was advised to leave Aman due to the

severity of the situation. When Aman returned home intoxicated one evening

and Sonia informed him of her decision to leave the next day, he responded

with violence, causing significant harm to her. Subsequently, while Aman

was sleep, Sonia, overwhelmed by the situation, took drastic action. She

retrieved a hammer from the tool shed and fatally struck Aman in the head.

Following this event, Sonia promptly contacted the authorities,

admitting to the act of killing her husband. During her subsequent

questioning, Sonia reiterated her inability to endure further abused, having

previously communicated her intentions to the counsellor. Despite these

circumstances, Sonia was charged with murder, prompting her to appeal the

verdict. It is contented that the trail judge failed to consider the defence of

4|Page
provocation, purportedly due to a perceived cooling-off period between the

provoking incident and Sonia’s action.

5|Page
 H. P. COLLEGE OF LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION

ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether the provocation was valid?

2. Whether Sonia committed culpable homicide or murder?

3. Whether Sonia has acted in involuntarily intoxication or private

defence or not?

6|Page
 H. P. COLLEGE OF LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

It is submitted that as the place of occurrence of event is ………… and

further, the case was heard in trial court of …………. Therefore, the

jurisdiction of the case lies with the Hon’ble High Court,………. Situated at

……………

7|Page
 H. P. COLLEGE OF LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

It is submitted that that the accused's action doesn't fit Section 300,

Exception 1Indian Penal Code which exempts culpable homicide from being

murder if the offender, due to grave and sudden provocation, causes death

without seeking or voluntarily provoking the provocation., as there was a

lapse of time between the provocation and the fatal blow, indicating

premeditation. K. M. Nanavati case support the argument that the act should

occur before reason regains control. Additionally, in cases of premeditation or

ill will, the exceptions don't apply. The respondent claims that the accused

harbored revenge and premeditated the act, evident from her discussions

with a counselor and her actions on the day of the incident, such as retrieving

a hammer to deliver a fatal blow. Therefore, it concludes that the accused's

actions were premeditated and driven by ill will, not falling under the

exception of provocation.

Further, it is also submitted that the accused wife should be charged

with murder rather than culpable homicide as ruled by the trial judge as

defined in Indian Penal Code Sections 299 and 300, defining culpable

homicide and murder respectively. Additionally, it references a Supreme

Court case, State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. RayavarappuPunnaya, which

differentiates between the two charges based on intent and knowledge

regarding causing death. The court emphasized the distinction between

bodily injury likely to cause death and bodily injury sufficient to cause death

8|Page
in the ordinary course of nature. In the present case, the accused wife had

clear intentions to cause the death of her husband as revenge for his ill

treatment. Her use of a hammer to inflict fatal injuries indicates an intention

to cause death, thus fitting the criteria for murder under Section 300 of the

IPC.

Also,the accused wife’s actions cannot be justified under either

voluntary intoxication or the right of private defense. Regarding private

defense, it is stated that under Section 100 of the Indian Penal Code, there

must be no safe or reasonable mode of escape by retreat for the defense to

justify causing death. In the case of Yogendra Moraji vs. State, it is

emphasized that lethal force should only be used when there is no other safe

option available. However, the accused wife had safe and reasonable retreat

options but chose lethal force instead. Additionally, private defense cannot

justify disproportionate force, as seen in the case of Mohinder Pal Jolly v.

State of Punjab.

Furthermore, the accused wife cannot claim involuntarily intoxication

defense as she did not consume anything intoxicating against her will, as

confirmed by her medical report. This negates the possibility of involuntarily

intoxication as a defense. The burden of proving the right of private defense

lies with the accused, which she failed to provide evidence to support this

plea. Therefore, neither voluntary intoxication nor the right of private defense

can justify the accused wife’s actions in the present case.

H. P. COLLEGE OF LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION

9|Page
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

Issue 1: Whether the provocation was valid?

1.1 It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble High Court, that the

respondent categorically denies the provocation on its part. Before, we go into

the facts and circumstances of the case, it is important to go through the Indian

Penal Code, in which provocation is defined under section 300, Exception 1,

which may be reproduced as under –

“Exception 1. —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.

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.

Explanation.—Whether the provocation was grave and sudden enough to prevent the

offence from amounting to murder is a question of fact.”

10 | P a g e
1.2 It is important to note here that the words used are “whilst deprived of

the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation” which conveys

that the offender must be deprived of power of self-control, which must arise

out of the act of the victim’s act immediately and this psychological condition

of the offender should be severe enough to lead to the commission of the act on

impulse without premeditation.Whereas in the present case, the accused wife

(Appellant) had heated arguments with his victim husband(Respondent), on

the issue of decision reached by the accused of leaving the victim husband due

to his habit of excessive drinking, returning home late,physical abuse and

coercing her to unwanted sexual activity. This decision had irked the victim

and the victim responded in violent manner with the accused wife. Though the

action of the victim husband is not at all justifiable but it is necessary to take

note that when the incident occurred, the victim was asleep and the accused

went to the tool shed and retrieved a hammer from there and used the

retrieved hammer to give a fatal blow on the head of the victim.From the

chronology of events, it is very clear that on the day of occurrence there is a

considerable lapse of timebetween violent behaviour of the victimhusband and

incident of occurrence of his death, which not only invalidated link between

the loss of control and provocation but also, has given room of pre meditation

and calculated murder. The same has been heldin the case of K. M Nanavati

wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that theact should have been

done during the continuance of that state of mind, that is, before there was time

for passion to cool and for reason to regain dominion over the mind.

11 | P a g e
1.3 Further, it is humbly submitted that onanalysis of all the exceptions

mentioned in Section 300 is one thing is common which is that in all the either

premeditation or ill will is absent. Therefore, when both are present, it will be

impossible to consider the matter as an exception. In the present case, the

accused wife had been burning under the fire of revenge due to the ill

behaviour of his victim husband and thoughts of killing her victim husband

had been doing rounds in her mind from quiet a long time before the date of

occurrence of events. This is evident from the fact that the accused wife had

also conveyed her intentions to the Counselor, which the accused wife, herself,

admitted in the subsequent questioning after the occurrence of the event.

Moreover, on the date of occurrence of event, the accused wife got the

opportunity to execute its premeditated plan when the victim husband falls

asleep. Facts like searching and retrieving of a hammer from tool shed and

giving a fatal blow on the head of the victim husband shows that the intention

of the accused wife is to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death of

the victim. Hence, the act of the accused wife is premeditation and full of ill

will for the victim husband.

Issue 2. Whether Sonia committed culpable homicide or murder?

2.1 It is most humbly submitted that the accused wife in the present case

has committed murderand not culpable homicide as held by the trail judge in

his verdict. Section 299 and section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, which deals

with the Culpable homicide and murder respectively are reproduced

hereunder –

12 | P a g e
“ 299. Culpable homicide—Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention

of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause

death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the

offence of culpable homicide

Explanation 1—A person who causes bodily injury to another who is labouring under

a disorder, disease or bodily infirmity, and thereby accelerates the death of that other,

shall be deemed to have caused his death.

Explanation 2—Where death is caused by bodily injury, the person who causes such

bodily injury shall be deemed to have caused the death, although by resorting to proper

remedies and skilful treatment the death might have been prevented.

Explanation 3—The causing of the death of a child in the mother's womb is not

homicide. But it may amount to culpable homicide to cause the death of a living child, if

any part of that child has been brought forth, though the child may not have breathed or

been completely born.

300. Murder —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—

13 | P a g e
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.”

2.2 Further, in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh Vs.

RayavarappuPunnaya, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has differentiated between

culpable homicide and murder in the manner described in the table below-

Section 299 IPC Section 300 IPC

A person Subject to certain

commits exceptions culpable

culpable homicide is murder if the

homicide if the act by which the death is

act by which the caused is done

death is caused

is done

Intent With the intent With the intention of

to cause death; causing death; or with the

or with the intention of inflicting

intention to physical injury that the

cause physical offender knows will result

damage that is in the death of the person

likely to result in to whom the harm is

death inflicted; or with the

14 | P a g e
 intention to inflict bodily

damage on any person

and the physical injury

intended to be inflicted is

sufficient to cause death in

the ordinary course of

nature

Knowledge Knowing that With the knowledge that

the conduct is the conduct is so

likely to result in immediately harmful that

death it must almost certainly

result in death or bodily

injury that is likely to

result in death and

without any justification

or risk of causing death or

injury as described above.

While differentiating between the culpable homicide and murder, the Hon’ble

Supreme Court has also held as under –

“In clause (3) of s. 300, instead of the words 'likely to cause death' occurring in the

corresponding el. (b) of s. 299, the words "sufficient in the ordinary course of nature"

have been used. Obviously, the distinction lies between a bodily injury likely to cause

death and a bodily injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The

15 | P a g e
distinction is fine but real, and, if over- looked, may result 'in miscarriage of justice.

The difference between cl. (b) of s. 299 and cl. (3) of s. 300 is one of the degrees of

probability of death resulting from the intended bodily injury. To put it more broadly, it

is the degree of probability of death which determines whether a culpable homicide is of

the gravest, medium or the lowest degree. The word "likely" in cl. (b) of s. 299 conveys

the sense of 'probable' as distinguished from a mere possibility. The words "bodily

injury... sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death" mean that death will

be the "most probable" result of the injury having regard to the ordinary course of

nature. For cases to fall within cl. (3), it is not necessary that the offender intended to

cause death, so long as death ensues from the intentional. bodily injury or injuries

sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature”

2.3 In the present case, there was clear intention accused wife is of causing

death of victim husband to get revenge of the ill treatment she received from

her victim husband as mentioned in Para 1.3 supra. Moreover, the accused wife

has intentionally landed a blow with a hammer on the head of the accused

victim knowing that the injury inflicted will be sufficient to cause the death of

the victim husband in the ordinary course of nature. Further, the blow of the

hammer on the face of victim husband is done with the intention to inflict

bodily damage or physical injury sufficient to cause death in the ordinary

course of time.

Issue 3. Whether Sonia has acted in involuntarily intoxication or private

defence or not?

16 | P a g e
3.1 In this regard, the respondents submits that the act of Sonia neither

come under the defence of voluntarily intoxication nor of private defence. As

per exception of Section 100 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 under the heading -

When the right of private defence of the body extends to causing death: -

“There must be no safe or reasonable mode of escape by retreat.”

In the case of Yogendra Moraji vs. State, the court has said as under:

“One of the aspects emphasized by the court was that there must be no safe or

reasonable mode of escape by retreat for the person confronted with an impending peril

to life or of grave bodily harm except by inflicting death on the assailant”

3.2 But from the facts and circumstances of this case, it is clear thatSonia

had not only safe but also reasonable mode of escape by retreat. But instead of

choosing those option as well as other alternatives available to protect herself

from harm, such as seeking assistance from law enforcement or support

services, the accused wife rather went with option of resorting to lethal force.

The accused wife has the knowledge of other options available to him as in the

past she had seek help from the counsel.

3.3 Further, as evident from the name the rightof private defence is an act

of defence and not of an offenceand the right of the private defence cannot

countenance that the person claiming such a right should resort to force which

is out of proportion to the injuries received or threatened. In the present case, it

is fact that the victim husband had shown violent behaviour but it was not at

all threatening or dangerous to cause apprehension of death or grievous hurt

17 | P a g e
and the force used by the accused wife. Therefore, this plea would not protect

heras held in the case of Mohinder Pal Jolly v. State of Punjab where workers of

a factory threw brickbats from outside the gates, and the factory owner by a

shot from his revolver caused the death of a worker, it was held that, this

section did not help him as there was no apprehension of death or grievous

hurt.

3.4 Moreover, the onus of proving the right of the private defence is upon

the accused who wants to plead it and the appellant has failed to produce any

evidence regarding this plea.

3.5 Furthermore, involuntarily intoxication has been defined in section 85

of the Indian Penal Code, which is reproduced as under -

“85. Act of 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 the nature of the act, or that he is doing

what is either wrong, or contrary to law; provided that the thing which intoxicated him

was administered to him without his knowledge or against his will.”

3.6 In the present case, it is matter of fact, that the accused wife has not

consumed anything which will result in intoxication of her which is also clearly

mentioned in the medical report of the accused when administered by the

Police after the occurrence of incidence. Therefore, the question of involuntary

intoxication does not arise in the present case and therefore, the appellant

defence does not stand on the ground of involuntarily intoxication.

18 | P a g e
19 | P a g e
 H. P. COLLEGE OF LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION

PRAYER

In view of advanced argument present before this Hon’ble High Court, the

appellant submits the following prayers:

a. To upheld the verdict of the trial judge, which e classified the

accused's actions as murder.

b. To recognize that the accused wife's actions constitute murder

under Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code

c. To reject the defense of voluntary intoxication, as the accused wife

did not consume anything intoxicating against her will, and the

medical report confirms the absence of involuntary intoxication.

d. To dismiss the defense of private defense, as the accused wife had

safe and reasonable retreat options available but chose lethal force

instead, and the force used was disproportionate to the threat posed

by the victim.

e. To uphold justice by ensuring that the accused wife is held

accountable for her premeditated and malicious actions, which

resulted in the death of the victim husband.

f. To deliver a verdict that reflects the gravity of the offense committed

and provides closure and justice to the victim's family.

20 | P a g e
 H. P. COLLEGE OF LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION

VERIFICATION

This is to verify that the law applied, authorities cited and arguments

advanced in the memorial is best of substantive knowledge and procedural

knowledge of the law by the respondent and all the pleadings are taken up by

the Counsel are fully acknowledged by him.

The verification is based on the requirement of moot court organized

by H. P. College of law.

21 | P a g e