Compulsory Moot
Compulsory Moot
Compulsory Moot
STATE OF PUNJAB
(Plaintiff)
---versus--Mr. Dev, H/O Mrs. Devaki, R/O Tulip Heights Apartment, 11th Floor,
Mohali, Punjab
(Defendent)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TOPIC
PG NO.
Index of Authorities
3.
List of Abbreviations
6.
Statement of Jurisdiction
8.
Statement of Facts
9.
Summary of Facts
11.
Statement of Issues
12.
Summary of Arguments
13.
Arguments Advanced
15.
Prayer Clause
36.
**********
Page | 2
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
I . S TATU T O R Y C O M P I L ATI O N S
I I . B O O K S AN D C O M M E N T R I E S
Dr. Shakil Ahmad Khan, P. Ramnatha Aiyars The Law Lexicon- The Encyclopaedic
P r o c e d u r e , 4 t h E d . R e p r i n t , E a s t e r n B o o k C o m p a n y, L u c k n o w.
K N ChandrasekharanPillai (ed): R V Kelkars Criminal
P r o c e d u r e , 5 t h E d . 2 0 0 8 , E a s t e r n B o o k C o m p a n y, L u c k n o w.
Ratanlal&Dhirajlal: Criminal Procedure Code , 18th Ed, 2006,
Wad h w a & C o . N a g p u r.
S C Sarkar: The Law of Criminal Procedure , 2nd (Reprint), 2010,
D w i v e d i L a w Ag e n c y, Al l a h a b a d .
.
JOURNALS
I V. W E B S I T E S AN D W E B L I N K S
C r i m i n a l L a w, d o w n l o a d e d f r o m , h t t p : / / w w w.i l i . a c . i n / 1 _ C r i m i n a l
% 2 0 L a w.p d f , o n 2 n d S e p t . 2 0 1 6 .
Page | 3
V. TAB L E O F C A S E S
Page | 4
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AC:
Appeal Cases
AIR:
Bom.:
Bombay
Cal.:
Calcutta
C.J:
Chief Justice
Cri LJ:
Cri LR:
Edn.:
Edition
HC:
High Court
Honble:
Honorable
H/O:
Husband of
ILR:
K.B.:
Kings Bench
J.:
Justice
Ltd.:
Limited
Page | 5
Madras
Ors:
Others
PIL:
Punj.:
Punjab
Q.B.:
Queenss Bench
SC:
Supreme Court
SCC:
SCR:
v.:
Versus
W/O:
Wife of
**********
Page | 6
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The defendant in the present case has the honour of submitting this reply to the petition
instituted under Schedule I of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 under the Chapter
XVI - Offences Affecting the Human Body read with section 1771 and section 209 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on the basis of the police report, whereby the defendant
has been charged for the murder of one Mrs. Devaki, W/O Mr. Dev under section 302 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The Defendant most humbly submits to the jurisdiction of the Honble Court with regard to
the charges framed under Indian Penal Code, 1860.
1 177. Ordinary place of inquiry and trial. Every offence shall ordinary be inquired into and tried by a court
within whose local jurisdiction it was committed.
Page | 7
STATEMENT OF FACTS
~Most Respectfully Showeth That~
Mr. Dev (hereinafter referred as the Defendant) and Mrs. Devaki (hereinafter refrred
deceased since the defendant was comparatively poor to the deceased and an orphan.
Defendant got the anaesthetic branch and the decased after paying a capitaion fees of
Page | 9
SUMMARY OF FACTS
Both the defendant and the deceased got married on 26th November, 2011.
The deceased made much progress in her profession as a result of which frequent
petty fights started taking place on account of mere ego problems. However, the fights
soon ended in reconciliation.
One evening, on the ill-fated day dated XX-XX-XXXX, at about 7:00 p.m., the
defendant and the deceasd, his wife engaged in heated arguments and the deceased
gave a slap to the defendant which was retaliated with another one from the defendant
also.
The Deceased being heart-broken locked herself in the room and the defendant sat in
the living room drinking heavily.
The deceased opened the medical box of the defendant and injected a 5ml dose of
potent aneasthetic to put an end to her life.
When no sound came from the room for a long period of 3-4 hours, the defendent
broke the door to find the deceased lying unconcious on the floor.
The defendant could not make out for sure if she there was pulse as he was so heavily
drunk. He thought that she has committed suicide without any suicide note and was
dead.
In order to escape the liability for wrongfully being framed for murder he wrote
suicide note and threw the body down from the balcony at around 1:00 am.
The body of the Deceased was found by the gardner and sent for postmortem, which
revealed that the death was due to the dose of aneathesia and not as a result of fall.
Hence the deceased was already dead when she was thrown off the balcony.
Page | 10
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE
PRESENT CASE FOLLOWING ISSUES CAN BE RAISED:-
Page | 11
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
~ Whether the intoxication of the accused rendered him incompetent to
commit murder? ~
It is most humbly submitted that the present petition is liable to be dismissed as the same
is frivolous and baseless. It is crystal clear from the facts of the present case that the
defendant as a result of strained relationship with the deceased and the heated argument
and physical strife that ensued between the two on dated XX-XX-XXXX took to drinking
heavily2, although he was not a habitual drinker as a result of which the alcohal took its
toll over his senses and he was rendered incompetent to form the specific intention or the
knowledge to commit the murder. It is clear as per the facts of the case that the intention
behind the act of the defendant was not of revenge or hatred but that of saving himself
from being wrongfully inducted for commiting the offence of murder which he neither
committed nor was competent to commit.
Page | 13
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
It is most humbly submitted that the present petition is liable to be dismissed as the same is
frivolous and baseless. It is crystal clear from the facts of the present case that the defendant
as a result of strained relationship with the deceased and the heated argument and physical
strife that ensued between the two on dated XX-XX-XXXX took to drinking heavily 4,
although he was not a habitual drinker as a result of which the alcohal took its toll over his
senses and he was rendered incompetent to form the specific intention or the knowledge to
commit the murder. It is clear as per the facts of the case that the motive behind the act of the
defendant was not of revenge or hatred but that of saving himself from being wrongfully
inducted for commiting the offence of murder which he neither committed nor was
competent to commit.
It is the case of the defendant that he be brought within the ambit of section 86 of the IPC
dealing with the case of voluntary intoxication as a general defence against the offence of
murder defined under section 300 and punishiable under section 302 of the IPC.
The relevant section has been reproduced as follows:86. Offence requiring a particular intent or knowledge committed by one who is
intoxicated:- In cases where an act done is not an offence unless done with a particular
knowledge or intent, a person who does the act in a state of intoxication shall be liable to
4 Fact Sheet, pg 1, para 4.
Page | 14
Page | 18
Page | 25
24 Santosh Rani Jain and ors. v. State of West Bengal, 1988 Cal CriLR 98.
Page | 27
Page | 30
Page | 31
Page | 34
PRAYER CLAUSE
Wherefore, in the light of the facts stated, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities
cited, it is most humbly and respectfully prayed before this Honble Court that it may be
pleaded to-
The petition may kindly be dismissed and the defendant be acquitted from the charge
of murder of Mrs. Devaki (the deceased) under section 302 of IPC.
Any other relief for which the Defendent is further found entitled may also be granted
in his favour and against the Plaintiff in the ends of justice.
Page | 35
In late February of 1984, four-year-old Shauntay Walker came down with what seemed like
the flu. After four days of mild illness the child developed a stiff neck. Consistent with her
beliefs as a Christian Scientist, Shauntay's mother Laurie did not seek medical attention, but
instead treated Shauntay through prayer. Laurie Walker contacted a church prayer practitioner
who prayed for and visited the child, and a Christian Science nurse who attended the child on
three separate occasions. The child's illness, later determined to be meningitis, grew
progressively worse, however. Shauntay lost weight and became irritable and disoriented.
After a seventeen-day illness, Shauntay exhibited heavy and irregular breathing. A short time
later she died. The Sacramento District Attorney later charged Laurie Walker with involuntary
manslaughter and felony child endangerment for the death of her daughter.
In a pretrial review of the charge against Walker, the California Supreme Court rejected her
proposed defense of good motive. The court held that involuntary manslaughter depends on
criminal negligence, determined by whether "a reasonable person in defendant's position
would have been aware of the risk involved." Ms. Walker's concern and good faith in treating
her child would not be an excuse.
Constructive manslaughter:
Page | 36
29 http://lawprojectsforfree.blogspot.in/2010/09/indian-penal-code-manslaughter-and.html
30 Malice aforethought was the "premeditation" or "predetermination" (with malice) that was required as an element
of some crimes in some jurisdictions,[1] and a unique element for first-degree or aggravated murder in a few.
Page | 37
negligent
manslaughter is
variously
referred
to
as
criminally
negligent homicide in the United States, and gross negligence manslaughter in England and
Wales. In Scotland and some Commonwealth of Nations jurisdictions the offence of culpable
homicide might apply.
It occurs where death results from serious negligence, or, in some jurisdictions,
serious recklessness. A high degree of negligence is required to warrant criminal liability. A
related concept is that of willful blindness, which is where a defendant intentionally puts
himself or herself in a position where the defendant will be unaware of facts which would
render him or her liable.
Criminally negligent manslaughter occurs where there is an omission to act when there is a
duty to do so, or a failure to perform a duty owed, which leads to a death. The existence of
the duty is essential because the law does not impose criminal liability for a failure to act
unless a specific duty is owed to the victim. It is most common in the case of professionals
Page | 38
Page | 39