TABLE OF CONTENTS

Sr. No. Table of Contents Page no.

1 List of Abbreviations 1
2 List of Authorities 2
3 Statement of Jurisdiction 3
4 Statement of Facts 4
5 Statement of Issues 5
6 Summary of Arguments 6
7 Arguments Advanced 7-10
8 Prayer 11
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

1. BNS: Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (Indian Penal Code)

2. BNSS: Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (Indian Criminal Procedure Code)
3. IPC: Indian Penal Code
4. SCC: Supreme Court Cases (reporter)
5. Cal: Calcutta High Court (reporter)
6. Art: Article (referring to the Constitution of India)
7. Sec: Section (referring to a statute or code)

1
LIST OF AUTHORITIES
Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023
Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
Constitution of India, 1950

CASE LAWS
1. Rajesh v. State of Gujarat
2. Kumar v. State of Maharashtra
3. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Bimlesh
4. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramesh

Website referred
Indian kanoon
Lexis nexis
[Link]

2
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

THE PROSECUTION HAS APPROACHED THIS COURT UNDER THE Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 197: 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.

An offense should ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local
jurisdiction it was committed. Specifies that inquiries and trials for offenses should take
place in the Court that has jurisdiction over the location where the offense was committed.

3
STATEMENT OF ISSUES

[Link] Amar can claim protection under the principle of double jeopardy (Section 337
BNSS)?

2. Whether Akbar and Anthony can be held liable for Rohan’s death under the doctrine of
common intention (Section 3(5) BNS)?

3. Whether Amar’s act constitutes murder or grievous hurt as defined under Section 101 & 116
BNS?

4. The extent of liability for co-accused in a coordinated robbery resulting in death.

4
STATEMENT OF FACTS

On the night of 5th October 2024, a violent robbery occurred at the residence of Mr. Arun
Malhotra, a renowned businessman in Anand, Gujarat. The accused—Amar, Akbar, and
Anthony—are alleged to have planned and executed the robbery.

Armed with weapons, they broke into the Malhotra house at midnight. During the incident, the
family was held at knifepoint and threatened to hand over valuables. In an attempt to resist,
Rohan Malhotra (22), son of Arun Malhotra, was stabbed by Amar, resulting in fatal injuries.
The robbers fled with valuables worth ₹15 lakhs. Despite immediate medical efforts, Rohan
succumbed to his injuries.

The police investigation uncovered CCTV footage and retrieved part of the stolen property. The
knife recovered from Amar matched the fatal injury during forensic analysis. Amar’s prior
criminal history surfaced, and he was already facing trial for a pending theft case. During trial
preparation, Amar’s counsel claimed double jeopardy under Section 337 BNSS, arguing he
cannot be tried for multiple offenses.

Akbar and Anthony contended that they were unaware of Amar’s intent to harm Rohan and were
only involved in the robbery. The prosecution, however, emphasized the concept of common
intention under Section 3(5) BNS and charged all three with collective responsibility for Rohan’s
death. The case presents critical legal questions about Amar’s culpability for murder, the liability
of Akbar and Anthony as co-accused, and the applicability of the double jeopardy principle.

5
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

[Link] Amar can claim protection under the principle of double jeopardy (Section 337
BNSS)?
Amar can claim protection under the principle of double jeopardy. That is of 337 0f BNSS, 2023.

2. Whether Akbar and Anthony can be held liable for Rohan’s death under the doctrine of
common intention (Section 3(5) BNS)?
Akbar and Anthony can NOT be held liable for Rohan’s death under the doctrine of common
intention (Section 3(5) BNS) 2023. As they were involved in the crime.

3. Whether Amar’s act constitutes murder or grievous hurt as defined under Section 101 & 116
BNS?
Amar’s act DOES NOT constitutes murder or grievous hurt as defined under Section 101 & 116
BNS more specifically constitutes grievous hurt under sec 116 of BNS, 2023.

4. The extent of liability for co-accused in a coordinated robbery resulting in death.

No one is liable in this case at all.

6
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

[Link] Amar can claim protection under the principle of double jeopardy (Section 337
BNSS)?

Section 337 BNSS: This section provides protection against double jeopardy, ensuring that no
person is tried twice for the same offense. Amar can claim protection under the principle of
double jeopardy, as the present case involves a offense from any previous case.

The police does not have any proof in this case. And in the present case section 337 of BNSS
does apply. It is requested to this honorable code to accept the ground of double jeopardy taken
by the us counsel.

As the offense is overlap Amar can claim protection under Section 337 BNSS. The accused,
Amar, submits that he cannot be tried twice for the same offense. The principle of double
jeopardy, as enshrined in Article 20(2) of the Constitution and Section 337 BNSS, prohibits the
prosecution from trying an individual for the same offense twice.

The accused argues that the present trial is a violation of his right against double jeopardy. He
submits that he has already been tried of the same offense in a previous trial. The accused relies
on the landmark judgment of Rajesh v. State of Gujarat (2010)

7
2. Whether Akbar and Anthony can be held liable for Rohan’s death under the doctrine of
common intention (Section 3(5) BNS)?

Akbar and Anthony can not be held liable for Rohan’s death under the doctrine of common
intention, as they were parties to the robbery and shared a common intention to commit the
crime.

Section 3(5) BNS: This section provides that when two or more persons share a common
intention to commit a crime, each person is liable for the actions of the others.

Shared Intention: Akbar and Anthony were not having shared a common intention with Amar to
commit the robbery. They were aware of the plan and actively participated in the crime.

Liability: As they do not hsve shared a common intention, Akbar and Anthony are not liable for
the actions of Amar, including the murder of Rohan Malhotra. And they are not liable under the
common intention for the murder of innocent Rohan.

Prosecution of the present case are used that Akbar and Anthony are equally not liable for the
death of Rohan who son of Arun Malhotra.

The accused, Akbar and Anthony, submit that they cannot be held liable for the actions of Amar.
The doctrine of common intention, as provided in Section 3(5) BNS, requires that all parties
share a common intention to commit the crime. In this case, the accused submit that they did not
share a common intention with Amar.

The accused argue that they did not share a common intention with Amar to commit the crime.
They submit that they were only involved in the robbery and did not intend to cause harm to
anyone. The accused rely on the judgment of Kumar v. State of Maharashtra (2007)

8
3. Whether Amar’s act constitutes murder or grievous hurt as defined under Section 101 & 116
BNS?

Amar’s act does not constitutes murder, as it was not a deliberate act that resulted in the death of
Rohan Malhotra. Section 300 BNS: This section defines murder as the intentional and deliberate
act of causing death.

Intentional Act: Amar's act of stabbing Rohan Malhotra was not intentional and non deliberate.
He was not aware of the consequences of his actions and did not intended to cause harm.

Murder: As Amar's act was not intentional and resulted in the death of Rohan Malhotra, it does
not constitutes murder under Section 300 BNS. Only and only greivious heart was given by the
Accused.

There was not pre-plan of the accused. That it does not establishes ingredient of common
[Link] is given in Section 3 (5) of BNS , 2023

Both Akbar and Anthony have accompanied with the Akbar but were unaware of his with
intention of committing murder. Which was extended to the murder of Rohan Malhotra.

The accused argues that his actions, at most, constitute grievous hurt. He submits that he did not
intend to cause death and that the prosecution's evidence is insufficient to establish the necessary
intent for murder. The accused relies on the judgment of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Bimlesh
(2003).

9
4. The extent of liability for co-accused in a coordinated robbery resulting in death.

The co-accused, Akbar and Anthony, are not liable for their role in the coordinated robbery,
which resulted in death.

Co-ordinated Robbery: The robbery was not coordinated effort between Amar, Akbar, and
Anthony : As they were not parties to the murder , each co-accused does not shares responsibility
for the consequences of their actions.

Liability: The co-accused, Akbar and Anthony, are not liable for their role in the coordinated
robbery, which resulted in death. They submit that they were only involved in the robbery and
did not intend to cause harm to anyone.

The accused argue that the prosecution has failed to establish any direct or circumstantial
evidence linking them to the crime. They submit that they were only involved in the robbery and
did not intend to cause harm to anyone. The accused rely on the judgment of State of Madhya
Pradesh v. Ramesh (2011)

10
PRAYER

In the view of the above facts this Hon'ble court maybe pleased to

A.​ Acquit all the accused

B.​ Accept the plea of not guilty
C.​ Accept plea of double jeopardy

11