Moot Court - 1

MOOT PROBLEM - 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
__________________________________________________________________________
APPEAL NO._/2016
IN THE MATTER OF
SHERSHAH, GAJENDER, SURI SHAH
PETITIONER /APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
...RESPONDENT
ON SUBMISSION TO THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

(WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF APPELLANT)
(SHWETA DHAKA :A11911114180,SAMEEKSHA GUPTA
A11911114178,AYUSHI
YADAV :A11911114168, SHIKHAR MEHRA :A11911114189,PRIYA SIROHI A11911114102)
INDEX
S.NO
PARTICULAR
(1)
MEMO OF THE PARTIES
(2)
LIST OF REFERENCES
(3)
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
(4)
SUMMARY OF FACTS
(5)
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
(6)
SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS
(7)
PRAYER
PAGE
MEMO OF PARTIES
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
__________________________________________________________________________
APPEAL NO._/2016
IN THE MATTER OF
SHERSHAH, GAJENDER, SURI SHAH
PETITIONER /APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA
RESPONDENT
ON SUBMISSION TO THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF HARYANA

(APPEAL FILED ON THE BEHALF OF APPELLANT)
LIST OF REFERENCES
BOOKS:
THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860
(a) RATTANLAL AND DHIRAJLALS THE INDIAN PENAL CODE
(b) K.D. GAUR, THE INDIAN PENAL CODE
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973

(a) RATTANLAL AND DHIRAJLALS, THE INDIAN PENAL CODE
WEBSITES
(a) www.highcourtcases.com
(b) www.judis.nic.in
STATUTES
(a) INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860
(b) CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973
STATEMENT OF JURIDICTION
The Appellants humbly submits this memorandum for a petition filed before the Honble HIGH
COURT OF HARYANA.
The Appellants has approached the Honble High court under the Section 374 clause (2) of
CRPC which states that 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, may appeal to the High Court
appealing that the appellants are not liable for Murder under Section 302, IPC since there was no
common intention as there was no prior meeting of minds.
SUMMARY OF FACTS
KARIM AND SHERSHAH LIVED IN THE SAME VILLAGE.

SHERSHAH ALONG WITH HIS FAMILY INCLUDING HIS WIFE SOBTI,
SON GAJENDER, DAUGHTER NAINA AND HIS BROTHER SURI SHAH
LIVED IN SAME HOUSE.
SURI SHAH OWED A DEBT TO KARIM OF RS. 20,000
KARIM AND NAINA WAS IN LOVE WITH EACH OTHER AND KARIM USE TO
MEET HER ON THE WEEKENDS WHEN HER FATHER WAS NOT AT HOME, ON
PRETEXT TO COLLECT MONEY.
SHERSHAH DID NOT LIKE KARIMS PRESENCE IN HIS ABSENCE. HE TOLD
KARIM MANY TIMES NOT TO VISIT HIS HOUSE IN HIS ABSENCE BUT KARIM
IGNORED IT.
ON AUGUST 5, SURI SHAH CALLED KARIM TO COME AND COLLECT HIS
MONEY IN THE EVENING.
KARIM WENT TO THEIR HOUSE AT 8:30 IN THE EVENING.
ON HEARING WHISPERING COMING FROM BACKYARD OF THEIR HOUSE,
THEY ALL WENT TO SEE WHERE THEY SAW KARIM AND NAINA TALKING.
SHERSHAH ON SEEING THEM TOGETHER LOST HIS TEMPER AND STARTED
ABUSING HIM.
GAJENDER BROUGHT A LATHI FROM INSIDE AND GAVE A BLOW TO KARIM
ON HIS LEG. THN SURI HAH GRABBED THE LATHI AND STARTED BEATING
HIM ON HIS HEAD AND CHEST.
ON HEARING THE HUE AND CRY VILLAGERS CAME TO HIS RESCUE, THEY
FOUND THAT SURI SHAH WAS BEATING HIM WHILE OTHER TWO WERE
ABUSING HIM, TILL THEN KARIM WAS BLEEDING AND WAS UNCONCIOUS.
KARIM WAS TAKEN TO THE HOSPITAL BY THE VILLAGERS, WHERE HE DIED
AFTER THREE DAYS WITHOUT GAINING HIS CONCIOUSNESS.
POST MORTEM REPORT CONFIRMED THAT KARIM SUFFERED INJURIES IN
HIS HEAD AND FRACTURES OF THREE RIBS AND THERE WAS MUCH LOSS
OF BLOOD.
WHILE NONE OF THE INJURIES INDEPENDENTLY WERE SUFFICIENT TO
CAUSE DEATH.
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
WHETHER IN THE LIGHT OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES APPELLANT IS
GUILTY UNDER SECTION 302 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860.

WHETHER THERE WAS A COMMON INTENTION OF CAUSING DEATH.
WHETHER THERE WAS GRAVE AND SUDDEN PROVOCATION .
WHETHER THERE WAS COMMON OBJECT
SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS
WHETHER IN THE LIGHT OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES APPELLANT IS GUILTY

UNDER SECTION 302 OF INIDAN PENAL CODE, 1860.
COUNCIL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITS BEFORE

THE HONBLE COURT THAT THE SESSION COURT DID NOT CONSIDER ALL THE
FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF PRESENT MATTER PROPERLY. SESSION COURT
DECISION FOR UPHOLDING THE APPELLANT FOR LIFE IMPRISONMENT LEADS TO
MISCARRIAGE OF LAW AND JUSTICE. THE APPELLANT SHOULD NOT BE
CONVICTED UNDER SECTION 302 FOR LIFE IMPRISONMENT WHICH CAN BE WELL
SAID THROUGH THE EXCEPTIONS GIVEN IN SECTION 300.
ACCORDING TO EXCEPTION -1 CULPABLE HOMICIDE IS NOT MURDER IF THE
OFFENDER, WHILST DEPRIVED OF THE SELF CONTROL BY GRAVE AND SUDDEN
PROVOCATION, CAUSES DEATH OF ANY OTHER PERSON BY MISTAKE OR
ACCIDENT. BY THIS EXCEPTION IT IS CLEAR THAT THEY LOST THEIR SELF
CONTOL OF WHAT THEY SAW AND IN THE SUDDEN PROVOCATION THEY HIT
KARIM.
IN THE CONCEPT OF MURDER THERE ALSO INCLUDES THE INTENTION OF THE
PERSON COMMITTING MURDER AND HOW MUCH A PERSON INTENTION IS THERE
FOR COMMITTIN IT.
(a) IN THE INSTANT CASE THE APPELLANT DID NOT HAVE THE INTENTION TO
KILL THE RESPONDENT WHICH CAN BE CLEARED FROM THE FACTS AND
JUDGMENTS OF THE VARIOUS CASES.
(b) IN THE CASE THE COURT HAD MADE A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MURDER
AND CULPABLE HOMICIDE WITH REFERENCE TO INTENTION AND
KNOWLEDGE OF COMMITTING A CRIME.
Cited with the approval the following observation from the decision of Supreme Court
In the view of S.C the evidence on record, it does not appear that the intention on the part of the
accused was to cause death or such bodily injury as would have resulted in the death of his wife.
There would be much more activity on the part of the accused if his intention was to commit the
murder of his wife. It seems that as soon as the accused entered the house, there appeared to be
some quarrel with his wife and in that fight first, he threw water pot and thereafter a kerosene
lamp. The burning seems to be more out of the fact that unfortunately at that time, the lady was
wearing nylon sari. Had she not been wearing a nylon sari, it is difficult to imagine how she
could have been burnt to the extent of 70%. In our view this was a case which clearly falls under
Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC since there was sudden fight. There was no premeditation either.
Therefore the accused-appellant is liable to be convicted for the offence punishable under
Section 304 Part-I.
Cited with the approval the following observation from the decision of Allahabad high court
In our view, it is enough, for the purpose of enabling an accused person to get the advantage of a
general or special exception to criminal liability if we are left in reasonable doubt, based on
substantial grounds, whether circumstances existed which could give the accused the benefit of
an exception, vide Parbhoo v. Emperor, AIR 1941 All 402 (FB). There are substantial grounds in
this case for believing that facts and circumstances, constituting a grave and sudden provocation
for the appellant, existed, and for holding that the appellant stabbed his brother while he was
deprived of the power of self-control. In cases where the power of self-control has been lost, the
power to form the intention required for an offence punishable under Section 304, Part I, must
necessarily be lacking.
Cited with the approval the following observation from a decision of S.C
In our view, from the evidence on record, it does not appear that the intention on the part of the
accused was to cause death or such bodily injury as would have resulted in the death of his wife.
There would be much more activity on the part of the accused if his intention was to commit the
murder of his wife. It seems that there was a fight as soon as he came to the house under the
drunken state and in the fight, he first hit her left knee with a water pot and thereafter, threw
kerosene lamp on her. It is obvious from the evidence that this was done suddenly in the heat of
passion. If there was any intention to commit her murder, as mentioned in Section 299 IPC, there
would have been much other acts like pouring kerosene on the deceased etc. on the part of the
accused.
Through this case the intention of app. is proved that if there is any intention on the part of app.
to murder the resp. then there will be some preparation or he should carry any such weapon
already to commit the offence of murder but he carry the stick which lies nearby in market.
From the witness it is also stated that fight between them starts mainly from the resp. side and if
there was any intention to commit murder, as mentioned in sec. 299 of Indian Penal Code, there
would have been much other acts.
PRAYER
(a)
THEREFORE IN THE LIGHT OF THE LAW POINTS PUT FORTH, CASES

CITED AND ARGUMENTS FORWARDED, IT IS HUMBLY PRAYED FOR THE
APPELANT THAT THIS HONBLE COURT MAY KINDLY RECONSIDERED
THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENT IN THE PARTICULAR CASE BY THE
SESSION JUDGE AND,
(b)
PASS ANY OTHER ORDER AS THE COURT MAY DEEM FIT

Moot Court - 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Moot Court - 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Moot Court - 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MOOT PROBLEM - 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

STATE OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

ON SUBMISSION TO THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

MEMO OF THE PARTIES

ON SUBMISSION TO THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF HARYANA

CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973

KARIM AND SHERSHAH LIVED IN THE SAME VILLAGE.

WHETHER IN THE LIGHT OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES APPELLANT IS

GUILTY UNDER SECTION 302 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860.

WHETHER IN THE LIGHT OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES APPELLANT IS GUILTY

COUNCIL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITS BEFORE

THEREFORE IN THE LIGHT OF THE LAW POINTS PUT FORTH, CASES

PASS ANY OTHER ORDER AS THE COURT MAY DEEM FIT

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.