LAW CENTRE II, FACULTY OF LAW

UNIVERSITY OF DELHI

LB - 501: MOOT COURT, MOCK TRIAL AND INTERNSHIP

MOCK TRIAL WRITTEN SUBMISSION

STATE VS MUKESH

SUBMITTED BY UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF

ARPIT KUMAR (202326) MR. EKLAVYA ANAND
AMAN SAINI (202447) ASSISTANT PROFESSOR
GOPESH JANGID (202448)
CHIRANJEEV MAHTO (202449)

5TH SEMESTER, SECTION D

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

S. NO. PARTICULARS PAGE NO.

I. ROLE PLAY 2

II. PARTICULARS OF THE CASE 3

III. FACTS OF THE CASE 4-8

IV. RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE INDIAN PENAL 9

CODE, 1860
V. OPENING STATEMENT OF THE PROSECUTION 10

VI. OPENING STATEMENT OF THE DEFENCE 10

VII. EXAMINATION OF MONIKA (PW-1) 11-13

VIII. EXAMINATION OF SATINDER (PW-2) 14-16

IX. EXAMINATION OF MUKESH (DW-1) 17-19

X. EXAMINATION OF ROSHNI (DW-2) 20-21

XI. FINAL ARGUMENT (PROSECUTION) 22

XII FINAL ARGUMENT (DEFENCE) 23-24

XIII CLOSING STATEMENT OF THE PROSECUTION 25

XIV CLOSING STATEMENT OF THE DEFENCE 26

2
 ROLE PLAY

EXAMINATION IN CHIEF CROSS EXAMINATION

WITNESSES FOR PROSECUTION

Witness – Monika
Aman Saini Gopesh Jangid

Witness – Sub Inspector Satinder

Chiranjeev Mahto Arpit Kumar

WITNESSES FOR DEFENCE

Witness – Mukesh
Gopesh Jangid Aman Saini

Witness – Roshni
Arpit Kumar Chiranjeev Mahto

3
 PARTICULARS OF THE CASE

 STATEMENT OF OFFENCE
 Voluntarily Causing Grievous Hurt, Contrary to Section 322 read in correlation
with Section 325, Indian Penal Code, 1860.
 There is no dispute that the accused has injured the complainant’s eye which has
caused her to be in severe bodily pain for twenty days.

 WITNESSES FOR THE PROSECUTION

PW-1: Monika (Victim)
PW-2: Satinder (Sub Inspector, P.S. Green Park)

 WITNESSES FOR THE DEFENCE

DW-1: Mukesh s/o Rajesh (Accused)
DW-2: Roshni

However, before I call up my first witness, I would like to throw some lights on the
facts and circumstances of this case if your lordship permits the same.

4
 FACTS OF THE CASE
The complainant and the accused got married 10 years ago. Out of the marriage they were
blessed with two children namely Sanjay and Sonia, aged 8 and 5 years respectively. During
the marriage period the accused (Mr. Mukesh) used to assault the complainant many times.
The complainant had even reported the violence to the police 5 times against the accused in 3
years.

10 years after the marriage, they got divorced and Mukesh left his wife and children (whom
he claimed he loved by all his heart) to live with his girlfriend Roshni at 678 Hauz Khas. On
December 25 of year 1, the children were with the complainant and this had annoyed the
defendant as he wanted to be with children and celebrate Christmas with them. However, since
my client was very kind- hearted, therefore, she allowed the accused to have the children from

2 pm to 5 pm of 31st December year . The accused instead of keeping the children from 2

pm to 5 pm of December 31 he kept them till 10 a.m. of January 1st year .

The whole night the mother of the children was worried to know their (children) where about.
She even called the accused so many times. But the accused paid no heed to answer the calls.
On January 1, year . when the accused reached the house of the complainant at 10 am he
had the daughter with him in arms. The complainant asked the accused to drop Sonia down
but he ignored her (complainant) straight away.

When the complainant extended her hands to get Sonia, the accused got so furious and he hit
Monika very badly. He deliberately poked his car keys straight into the eyes of the complainant
and fled away from the spot with his girlfriend Roshni. The complainant who was bleeding
profusely, immediately called the police and sub inspector (SI) Satinder arrested the accused
from his residence 678, Hauz Khas.

STATEMENT OF MONIKA
I am aged 35 and mother of two children, Sanjay and Sonia. The children’s father is Mukesh,
aged 38. We were married for about 10 years, and the children are aged 8 and 5. We divorced
in March of year 1. The marriage used to be OK, although Mukesh has assaulted me many
times before. There have been five occasions in year - 3 when I reported violence to the police
but refused to make a statement. On each occasion he had punched me once in the stomach,

5
Usually after a fight about money. A policeman called Satinder always attended to my
complaints. I never had a visible injury.

In July of Yr…2, I discovered Mukesh was having an affair when he told me he was leaving
me for Roshni, a wealthy divorcee who runs a health club. I have no doubt she set her sights
on him and carefully stole him from me. I was very angry, and broke all the windows at the
club. I am sorry that I did this, and pleaded guilty to criminal damage and was fined by the
local magistrate. I have no other convictions for violence. However, I have three convictions
for shoplifting in Yr…2, Yr…3 and Yr…4. I stole for the children at a time Mukesh was
unemployed and we had no money. On each occasion, I pleaded not guilty and Mukesh came
to court to lie for me that I had not known what I was doing because I was on medication for
depression. Neither of us were believed, and I was rightly convicted, and fined.

On Christmas Day of Yr…1, the children were with me. This had annoyed Mukesh. He had
wanted to see them, but I promised him that he could take them on New Year’s Eve. On New
Year’s Eve, I phoned him at 8 a.m. to say the children were tired from a party the previous
night and, so, instead of having them from 10 a.m. on 31st December Yr…1 to 10 am on 1st
January Yr…0 he could have them only from 2 pm to 5 pm on 31st December Yr…1. He was
really angry and hung up. He did not come to the door to collect the children, which he normally
does, but beeped his horn, and they went to him.

He deliberately did not return the children until 10 a.m. on 1st January Yr 0. I was terribly
worried. He would not answer his phone. When they arrived, I ran out the door. Sanjay was
hugging Roshni goodbye and was tearful. Sonia was hugging Mukesh, carried in arms. Both
had expensive presents to bribe the children against me: Sanjay had brand new cricket bat and
Sonia was wearing a designer dress. I stood near Mukesh. He would not look at me, nor release
Sonia who was singing a Hindi film song for him. I asked Mukesh to put her down. He ignored
me. I reached to take Sonia, extending my arms. Without warning and in front of the children,
with his left hand, he punched me straight in the right eye. The car keys, which he had in his
hand, went into my eye. I was knocked to the ground. I saw him put Sonia down. Dazed, I got
up and tried to smack Mukesh across the face, but missed, and ended up pulling his hair. Roshni
pulled me off him, and generally roughed me up. I became hysterical, the children were crying,
and Mukesh and Roshni guiltily got in the car and fled. I called the police immediately. Sub
Inspector Satinder attended. My right eye is hurt very badly and I want Mukesh prosecuted and
want sole custody of the children.

6
STATEMENT OF SUB INSPECTOR SATINDER OF P. S. GREEN PARK
On 1st January Yr… at 10.36 am I was on duty alone at the Police Station when I received a
call from Mrs. Monika reporting that her former husband, Mr. Mukesh had threatened to kidnap
her children and had struck her in the face. I know Ms. Monika as I have previously attended
her home Yr…3 years ago in relation to five allegations domestic violence to her by Mr.
Mukesh. It was always alleged he had punched her in the stomach, which he would never
comment on, saying wait and see if she makes a statement, which she never did.

On arriving at her home, 345 Green Park, she was angry and tearful. Her right eye was badly
damaged. Her children were crying, pleading to be allowed to keep some presents. She
explained Mr. Mukesh had kept the children later than agreed, on returning them had been
offensive to her, and as she was leading her daughter away from him, she had been poked in
her eye by him with his car keys and he had to be restrained by his new girlfriend.

I drove to Mr. Mukesh home at 678 Hauz Khas and arrested him for voluntarily causing
grievous hurt and cautioned him. He said “Look, whatever you think about the other times
we’ve met, this time even you can see what has happened. She’s mad. I had to hit her. I’m
sorry for it, but you would have done the same.” He was taken to Green Park Police Station
where he was charged at 2 p.m. Ms. Roshni, Mr. Mukesh’s girlfriend, came to the police station
and at 1 pm while Mr. Mukesh was in custody, spoke to me at the front desk. She told me she
knew he should not have hit Mrs. Monika, but he had a temper and found Christmas without
the children difficult. She asked if Mr. Mukesh could simply be released on bail. I explained
he would have to go to Court.

STATEMENT OF MUKESH, SON OF RAJESH

I live at 678 Hauz Khas with Roshni. I used to live with Monika at 345 Green Park. We were
married for ten years, from when she was 25 and I was 28. We have two children together; Sanjay
and Sonia aged 8 and 5. I am charged with voluntarily causing grievous hurt to Monika on 1st
January Yr…0 I deny the charge. I admit I struck her, but it was in self defense and defense of
Roshni. I only struck her once to calm her down. Feelings were running high as this was the first
Christmas I had been separated from my children. Monika had refused to let me see them on
Christmas Day. This upset me, but I made a great effort to remain friendly and negotiated for New
Year’s Eve. Overnight stay was agreed. However, early on New Year’s Eve, Monika rang to say I
could only have them from 2 pm for the afternoon. She said they did not really want to see me.

6
This upset me. It was a lie. I got rather angry on the phone; said I would collect them at 2 pm and
hung up.

Monika did not tell me the children were to go home for 5 pm another lie. At my home, we played
together and I gave Sanjay a cricket bat and Sonia a dress. They were very happy and told me they
wanted to live with me and Roshni. I did not take any calls as I did not want our short time together
interrupted. I accept the phone probably did ring at 5 pm. But I did not know it was Monika. I
brought the children to Monika at 10 a.m. on 1st January. She stormed out of the house and was at
the car, shouting the children were late, as I pulled Sonia into my arms from the back seat. Sonia
began crying. Monika was pulling at my jacket to put Sonia down. Sonia said “Daddy, please tell
mummy to be nice to us and let us live at your house”.

Monika clearly heard this, and the effect was immediate and shocking. She flew at me while Sonia
was still in my arms. She pulled my hair and I was losing my balance.

Fearing I would fall and hurt Sonia, and in an effort to calm Monika, I instinctively struck at Monika
with my left hand. My car keys just happened to be in my hands. I was not even conscious that I
had the car keys in my hand. It was not an aimed punch, more of a vigorous slap or flailing. I deny
that I deliberately poked the keys into her eye. I do not deny that I injured her eye. It was only one
blow. It knocked her down and calmed her down. Roshni run around the car and placed herself
between us to be sure Monika’s madness did not start again.

When the officer arrested me, he said he understood there had been a bit of scuffle over the kids
and things seemed to have got out of hand, he reckoned on both sides knowing us both. It was in
that context I said what the officer recorded but I said Monika was acting madly, meaning
violently, not that she is mad.

Monika is lying when she says I struck her. She attacked me. She is angry that the children
want to live with me and wants to prevent my access. These are calculated lies to assist her
scheme. I have never struck her, even three years ago. She can be quite dishonest if she wants,
as you can see from her previous convictions. I have one conviction for a fight in a bar in
Yr…6, to which I pleaded guilty and received one month’s detention. I do not hit women. I do
not lose my temper. I did not lie for Monika at her trials, but simply gave evidence she was on
medication.

7
STATEMENT OF ROSHNI
I am the proprietor of the health club Healthy Smile and live at 678 Hauz Khas with Mukesh.
I have no previous convictions.

On 31 December Yr… 0, Mukesh picked up his children at 2 pm. He had been a little irritated
he could not have them for the day. They spent the afternoon with us playing with the presents.
He did not answer the phone in case Monika rang to complain and disturb us. On returning the
children at 10 am on 1st January, Monika was hysterical. I think she was angry at the presents
and the tearful hug I received from Sanjay. She complained loudly the children were late – but
what did it matter, they were safe and they had a really good time. I said to Monika not to be
as spiteful as she was upsetting Sanjay. Monika called me a man-eater. Mukesh said she should
calm down and apologise. And she just leapt at him. She tried to scratch his face and pull his
hair. I wrestled her off Mukesh who lashed out at her to get away as Sonia was still in his arms.
He hit her in the head somewhere. I am sure he did not mean it. It was instinctive, an accident.
He was certainly sorry for what happened in the car when we drove away.

I asked Sub Inspector Satinder to release Mukesh on bail. I said tempers had frayed, which was
not surprising as I had seen Mukesh upset over the children before. I did not say he had a
temper. I was careful not to blame Monika, although I should have done, as I was trying to
persuade the officer not to detain Mukesh, and though it would be more helpful to talk about
generally how unfortunate the incident was, rather than blame anyone.

8
RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860
Section 96: Things done in private defense - Nothing is an offence which is done in the
exercise of the right of private defense.

Section 97: Right of private defense of the body and of property - Every person has a
right to defend.

First - His own body and the body of any other person, against any offence
affecting the human body.

Second - The property, whether movable or immovable, of himself or of any

other person, against any act which is an offence falling under the definition of
theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass, or which is an attempt to commit
theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass.

Section 319: Hurt - Whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person is said
to cause hurt.

Section 320: Grievous hurt - The following kinds of hurt only are designated as “grievous”:
……. Eighthly - Any hurt which endangers life or which causes the sufferer to be
during the space of twenty days in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his
ordinary pursuits.

Section 322: Voluntarily causing grievous hurt - Whoever voluntarily causes hurt, if the
hurt which he intends to cause or knows himself to be likely to cause is grievous
hurt, and if the hurt which he causes is grievous hurt, is said “voluntarily to
cause grievous hurt”. Explanation - A person is not said voluntarily to cause
grievous hurt except where he both causes grievous hurt and intends or knows
himself to be likely to cause grievous hurt. But he is said voluntarily to cause
grievous hurt if, intending or knowing himself to be likely to cause grievous hurt
of one kind, he actually causes grievous hurt of another kind.

Section 325: Punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt – Whoever voluntarily
Causes grievous hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description
for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

9
 OPENING STATEMENT OF THE PROSECUTION

JUDGE: The court is in session now. The case listed before it is State v. Mukesh. The
prosecution may now start with its opening statement.

PROSECUTION: My Lord, the case is about the accused Mukesh who could not control his
anger and on the 1st January, 2017 outside 345 Green Park, New Delhi i.e., the home of the
victim Monika, voluntarily caused her grievous hurt by damaging her right eye and thereby
caused her to be in severe bodily pain for a period of twenty days.

My Lord, the prosecution will call two witnesses to the stand. First, I will call Ms. Monika
who is the victim in this case and my second witness will be Mr. Satinder who is sub-inspector
at P.S. Green Park.

At the conclusion of the case, we would ask you to find the defendant guilty. Thank you.

JUDGE: Defence may start with its opening statement now.

OPENING STATEMENT OF THE DEFENCE

DEFENCE: My Lord, the defendant stands here falsely accused of grievous hurt, a very
serious crime, whereas my client acted out only in his self defence.

My Lord, the defence will call two witnesses to the stand. First, I will call Mr. Mukesh who
is the accused here and my second witness will be Ms. Roshni who is the eye witness of the
whole incident.

At the conclusion of the case, we would ask you to find that my client is innocent and a
verdict of not guilty. Thank you.

JUDGE: Prosecution may now call up its first witness.

10
PW-1: EXAMINATION OF MONIKA (VICTIM)
Prosecution Counsel: Aman Saini (Examination-in-chief)
Defence Counsel: Gopesh Jangid (Cross Examination)

Examination in Chief of Monika

PROSECUTION: Thank you, my Lord. If it would please the court, I request my witness no.
1, Ms. Monika to approach the podium if your lordship permits. (Monika approaches the
witness box)

PROSECUTION: Please identify yourself for the records of the court?

MONIKA: My name is Monika. I am aged 35 and I live at 345 Green Park, New Delhi with
my two children, Sanjay and Sonia.

PROSECUTION: How long have you been married to Mr. Mukesh?

MONIKA: We were married for about 10 years. We divorced in March 2016.

PROSECUTION: Did accused ever cause any harm to you during

marriage?

DEFENCE: Objection, my Lord. Leading question.

JUDGE: Sustained.

PROSECUTION: Let me rephrase, tell us about your marital life with the accused?

MONIKA: Our marriage used to be OK, although Mukesh has assaulted me many times
before. There have been five occasions in 2014 when he punched me in the stomach after a
fight about money.

PROSECUTION: How was the behavior of the accused towards the family?

MONIKA: After few years of marriage, he disregarded his responsibilities towards the family.
He was unemployed and we had no money. This forced me to shoplift for the children in the
year 2013, 2014 and 2015.

PROSECUTION: Ms. Monika, please tell the court about the incident on 1 st Jan
2017 when the accused came home to drop the children?

11
MONIKA: When Mukesh returned with children on 1st Jan, I reached to take them. And
without warning Mukesh punched me in the right eye with car keys in his hand. I was dazed
and tried to smack the Mukesh but missed. Roshni, his girlfriend roughed me up and they
both fled in the car leaving me in pain.

PROSECUTION: Can you tell us something about the background that led to this
misfortunate incident?

MONIKA: Mukesh was annoyed as the children were with me on Christmas Eve. I promised
Mukesh that he can take the children on New Year’s Eve, but as the children were very tired
from a party previous night, I called him in the morning and said that instead of overnight
stay he can have the children from 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. on 31 st Dec. He was really angry,
as he didn’t even come to collect the children and only beeped the horn. Even on the next day
he deliberately didn’t return the children until 10 a.m. and when they came all this incident
happen.

PROSECUTION: What did you do when the children came back?

MONIKA: When Mukesh came to drop off the kids, I asked him why were the children late,
why didn’t he bring them back on time. He ignored me. So, I went to take the children inside
but he did not let go of Sonia. I asked him repeatedly to put her down so I could take them
inside but he didn't pay any heed to me

PROSECUTION: What you did next?

MONIKA: So, I approached him to take Sonia from his arms but he moved away and
suddenly struck me on my right eye after which I was knocked down to the ground. I
immediately called Mr. Satinder to report about the incident.

PROSECUTION: How much time did it take you to recover?

MONIKA: I was in severe bodily pain for a period of twenty days.

PROSECUTION: Thank you. No further question my Lord.

JUDGE: Counsel for defence may do cross-examination.

Cross Examination of Monika

DEFENCE: Ms. Monika, do you suffer from short temper issues?

MONIKA: No.
12
DEFENCE: Ms. Monika, in July 2015 you broke all the windows of Ms. Roshni’s
health club for which you were convicted. Is it true?

MONIKA: Yes. But it was because I was angry. Mukesh....

DEFENCE: (interrupting) please it suffices the answer. Ms. Monika do you

consideryourself a law-abiding citizen?

MONIKA: Yes. Of course.

DEFENCE: You were convicted for shoplifting in the year 2013, 2014 and 2015. Yes,
or no?

MONIKA: Yes. But it was...

DEFENCE: (interrupting) Kindly answer only what have been asked. Ms. Monika,
I put to you that in the year 2014 you made 5 complaints of assault against my
client but never madea statement. Yes, or no?

MONIKA: Yes.

DEFENCE: Ms. Monika I put to you that Mr. Mukesh never assaulted you during
your marriage.

MONIKA: I deny.

DEFENCE: Ms. Monika I put to you that you are a depressed lady who easily gets
offendedand hurt people in your anger.

MONIKA: I deny that.

DEFENCE: Ms. Monika I put to you that on 1 st Jan, 2017 it was you who attacked
Mr. Mukesh first and he acted in his self defence only.

MONIKA: I deny.

DEFENCE: That’s all your lordship, I have no further question to ask.

JUDGE: The witness is excused. The prosecution may call its next witness

13
PW-2: EXAMINATION OF SATINDER (SUB INSPECTOR)
Prosecution Counsel: Chiranjeev Mahto (Examination-in-chief)
Defence Counsel: Arpit Kumar (Cross Examination)

Examination Of Satinder (Sub-Inspector)

PROSECUTION: The prosecution would like to call its next witness Mr. Satinder. (Satinder
enters the witness box)

Mr. Satinder please tell the court that whatever you speak shall be the truth and nothing
else but the truth;

PROSECUTION: Please identify yourself before the court?

SATINDER: My name is Satinder. I am sub inspector at P. S. Green Park.

PROSECUTION: Were you on duty on 1st January, 2017?

SATINDER: Yes.

PROSECUTION: What happened on January 1st when you received a call regarding
Monika’scomplaint?

SATINDER: On 1st January 2017 at 10.36 a.m. I was on duty alone at the Police Station when
I received a call from Ms. Monika reporting that her former husband, Mr. Mukesh had
threatened to kidnap her children and had struck her in the face. I immediately left for her
home.

PROSECUTION: On arriving at the spot what did you see?

SATINDER: On arriving at her home, I saw she was angry and tearful. Her right eye was
badly damaged. Her children were crying, pleading to be allowed to keep some presents. She
explained Mr. Mukesh had kept the children later than agreed and on returning them had been
offensive to her, and as she was leading her daughter away from him, she had been poked in
her eye by him with his car keys and he had to be restrained by his new girlfriend.

PROSECUTION: Was the accused present at the scene?

SATINDER: No. I drove to Mr. Mukesh home at 678 Hauz Khas and arrested him for

14
Voluntarily causing grievous hurt and cautioned him.

PROSECUTION: What was Mr. Mukesh’s reaction when you went to his residence?

SATINDER: He said “Look, whatever you think about the other times we’ve met, this time
even you can see what has happened. She’s mad. I had to hit her. I’m sorry for it, but you
would have done the same.”

PROSECUTION: Did Ms. Roshni come to Police Station to get his bail?

DEFENCE: Objection, my Lord. Leading question.

JUDGE: Sustained.

PROSECUTION: Let me rephrase. What transpired after the arrest of Mr. Mukesh?

SATINDER: He was taken to Green Park Police Station where he was charged at 2:00 p.m.
Ms. Roshni, Mr. Mukesh’s girlfriend, came to the police station and at 1:00 p.m. while Mr.
Mukesh was in custody, spoke to me at the front desk. She told me she knew he should not
have hit Mrs. Monika, but he had a temper and found Christmas without the children difficult.
She asked if Mr. Mukesh could simply be released on bail. I explained he would have to go
to Court.

PROSECUTION: Can you identify the accused in the court? Is he

present here?
SATINDER: Yes. This man is Mukesh. (Pointing towards Mukesh)

PROSECUTION: Thank you, Mr. Satinder. No further question my Lord.

JUDGE: Counsel for defence may have the cross-examination.

Cross Examination of Satinder

DEFENCE: Mr. Satinder, could you please tell the court again in brief what was
the complaint of Ms. Monika exactly?

SATINDER: Ms. Monika reported that her former husband, Mr. Mukesh had threatened
to kidnap her children and had struck her in the face.

DEFENCE: Kindly note my Lord, Ms. Monika tried to allege my client in

15
Kidnapping of his own children as well. So, Mr. Satinder does this mean Ms.
Monika tried to file a falsecomplaint?

PROSECUTION: Objection my Lord. Calls for speculation.

JUDGE: Sustained.

DEFENCE: Withdrawn. Is it true that Ms. Monika had complained 5 times in 2014
againsthis husband for assaulting her but refused to make a statement?

SATINDER: Yes.

DEFENCE: That’s all your lordship, I have no further question to ask.

JUDGE: The witness is excuse.

16
DW-1: EXAMINATION OF MUKESH (ACCUSED)
Prosecution Counsel: Gopesh Jangid (Examination-in-chief)
Defence Counsel: Aman Saini (Cross Examination)

Examination of Mukesh
JUDGE: The defence may now proceed with their first witness.

DEFENCE: Defence call upon its first witness Mr. Mukesh. (Mukesh walks to the stand)

DEFENCE: Please identify yourself before the court?

MUKESH: My name is Mukesh aged about 38 year, s/o Rajesh. I live at 678 Hauz Khas, Delhi.

DEFENCE: Do you understand why you are present here in the court today?

MUKESH: Yes. I have been charged of hurting my ex-wife Monika on 1st Jan 2017.

DEFENCE: Do you admit to the charge?

MUKESH: No. I only acted in the self defence.

DEFENCE: Mr. Mukesh can you tell the court how that accident with your ex-wife
occurred?

PROSECUTION: Objection, my Lord. That was not an accident.

JUDGE: Sustained.

DEFENCE: Let me rephrase. Can you tell the court exactly what happened at Ms.
Monika’shome on 1st Jan 2017?

MUKESH: On 1st Jan 2017 morning when I brought back the children to Monika’s place, she
was very angry and frustrated upon hearing my daughter Sonia telling me that she wanted to
live with me and Roshni. This had a shocking effect on her and she lost her temper. Thereby,
pulling my hair and jacket and throwing me off balance. I had Sonia in my arms and fearing
a fall would cause an injury to her, I instinctively struck at Monika with my left hand not
realizing the fact that my car keys were in my hand.

17
DEFENCE: Thank you Mr. Mukesh. No further questions, my Lord

JUDGE: Prosecution may proceed with cross-examination.

Cross-Examination of Mukesh

PROSECUTION: Mr. Mukesh is it true that you become violent when your feelings run
high?

MUKESH: No.

PROSECUTION: So, you are saying you don’t get violent but were you not
convicted for a fight in a bar in 2011?

MUKESH: Yes, I was.

PROSECUTION: Mr. Mukesh do you have some vested interest in maligning the
image of the victim?

MUKESH: No.

PROSECUTION: But didn’t you refer her as mad when Investigation officer came
to arrest you?

MUKESH: Yes, I said she’s mad but I didn’t mean...

PROSECUTION: (interrupting) You didn’t mean to call her mad but you called her
mad. Alright, Mr. Mukesh, I put to you that it was you who injured the eye of the
victim. Yes, or no?

MUKESH: Yes. But I had no intention...

PROSECUTION: You had no intention. Alright! You are a quite amazing person.
You call a lady mad but you don’t mean it, you hurt a woman but you never had
the intention to. Mr. Mukesh do you ever get the intention for what you do or
mean what you say?

DEFENCE: Objection, my Lord. Prosecution is making irrelevant statements.

JUDGE: Sustained. Counsel, come to the point.

18
PROSECUTION: Indeed, my Lordship. I am coming to my point. Mr. Mukesh do you
identify this statement? (Showing the copy of the statement). It was made by you.

MUKESH: Yes. It is my statement.

PROSECUTION: Do you affirm to the content of this statement that you made it
with your full intention and in all your senses?

MUKESH: Yes, I do.

PROSECUTION: Mr. Mukesh kindly refer your statement. (Mukesh read the
statement)

PROSECUTION: You said, you struck Ms. Monika in self-defense, and in the
defenceof Roshni. Did you or did you not?

MUKESH: Yes, I did.

PROSECUTION: You also said that Roshni ran around the car and placed herself
between you and Ms. Monika. If Ms. Roshni did run around the car on a later
stage, then how is it possible that you acted in her defence earlier? Your
statement is contradictory. The truth is that Roshni was nowhere close to you
and Monika so that you need to act in her defence. You are lying Mr. Mukesh.
You intentionally hit the victim and made her to suffer for 20 days in pain.

DEFENCE: Objection, my Lord. Prosecution is trying to intimidate my client.

JUDGE: Objection overruled.

PROSECUTION: That’s All your lordship, I have no further question to ask.

JUDGE: The witness is excused. Defence may call its next witness.

19
DW-2: EXAMINATION OF ROSHNI
Prosecution Counsel: Arpit Kumar (Examination-in-chief)
Defence Counsel: Chiranjeev Mahto (Cross Examination)

Examination of Roshni
DEFENCE: Defence would like to call its next witness Ms. Roshni. (Roshni enters the witness
box)

DEFENCE: Please identify yourself before the court?

ROSHNI: My name is Roshni. I live at 678 Hauz Khas with Mukesh.

DEFENCE: Ms. Roshni please tell court as to what happened on 1st Jan 2017 at Ms.
Monika’shouse?

ROSHNI: On 1st Jan at around 10 a.m. when Mukesh and I returned with the children, Monika
was out of control. She was angry because of the presents we gave to the children and that
Sanjay was upset on leaving me and was hugging me. She was complaining loudly that
children are late. I said to Monika not to be as spiteful as she was upsetting Sanjay. Monika
called me a man-eater. Mukesh said she should calm down and apologies. And she just leapt
at him. She tried to scratch his face and pull his hair. I wrestled her off Mukesh who lashed
out at her to get away as Sonia was still in his arms. He hit her in the head somewhere. I am
sure he did not mean it. It was instinctive, an accident. He was certainly sorry for what
happened in the car when we drove away.

DEFENCE: No more questions my Lord.

JUDGE: The prosecution may do the cross-examination.

Cross Examination of Roshni

PROSECUTION: Ms. Roshni can you please tell the court what is your
relationship with the accused?

ROSHNI: I am his girlfriend. We live together.

PROSECUTION: Ms. Roshni do you love Mr. Mukesh?

20
ROSHNI: Yes. I do.

PROSECUTION: Ms. Roshni do you love his children?

ROSHNI: Yes. Of course, I do.

PROSECUTION: Ms. Roshni is it true that you went to the police station to get
bail forMr. Mukesh?

ROSHNI: Yes.

PROSECUTION: My Lord, kindly note Ms. Roshni has all the interest in the
acquittal of the accused. She is an interested witness. Her testimony cannot be
relied. With this, no further question, my Lord. Counsel rests the case.

JUDGE: The witness is excused.

21
 FINAL ARGUMENTS
(PROSECUTION)

1. That the accused Mukesh had motive to cause grievous hurt to the victim asthe victim
denied him custody of the children on Christmas Day, so he wanted revenge.
2. That the said accused did not appear at the door to pick the children as he would normally
do but beeped his horn, indicating that he was so annoyed withMonika that he didn’t even
want to see her face.
3. That the said accused intentionally kept the children overnight at his place without giving
any intimation to the victim mother and had not answered anycall from her indicating he
wanted the victim mother to suffer.
4. That when Monika requested the accused to put Sonia down from his lap, he sensed this as
opportunity and attacked the victim with no fault of hers.
5. That it is an established fact that Mukesh has temperamental issues and hisfight at the bar
in year 2016 proves the same.
6. That the said accused had also assaulted the victim multiple times during the marriage and
the testimony of both Monika and Satinder proves the same.
7. That it is highly implausible for a man who is holding a child in his lap to casually injure
someone’s eye unless it is preconcerted. A reasonable man is adept to use his right hand
more. Accused Mukesh used his left hand, and the pointed side of the key precisely
landed on the eye of the victim in a scuffle isnot a mere coincidence but, the accused did
this intentionally.
8. That the said accused fled the scene of the occurrence, leaving behind his children
crying and injured ex-wife who was bleeding profusely proves or highlights the evil
plans of the accused.
9. That the prosecution strongly denies that the act was done in self-defence.
10. That it is a trite and established law that the right of private defence can beexercised
only when there is an apprehension of danger and by no stretch of imagination it can be
assumed that a mother who was longing to see her children would just go out and attack
the accused.
11. That it is to highlighted that the use of private defence should be proportionate to the
apprehended danger and even if accept the testimony of Mukesh to be true that the victim
was trying to pull his jacket to get Sonia downfrom his lap, still the act of the accused was
out of proportion to the apprehended danger.
12. That it has not been established as to how the accused apprehended danger from
Monika.

22
 FINAL ARGUMENTS
(DEFENCE)
The Accused respectfully submit as under: -
1. That the accused Mukesh is ex-husband of victim Monika. They were married for
10 years.
2. That Monika had a previous attempt of false allegations of violence against Mukesh
when they were married. Monika reported for violence of punched once in stomach after
having fight with Mukesh over money but Monika never made a statement in that attempt.
3. That in the incident which caused grievous injury to Monika there the act ofMukesh was
in right of private defence of his body and private defence of Roshni.

4. That for application of Sec. 96 and Sec. 97 read with Sec. 102 of the IPC the essential
ingredients are:

a) Nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of privatedefence.

b) Right of private defence is available when there is a reasonable apprehensionof receiving
injury.

c) Every person has a right to defend his own body and the body of any other person,
against any offence affecting the human body.

d) Sec. 102, the right of private defence of the body commences as soon as a reasonable
apprehension of danger to the body arises from an attempt or threat to commit the offence
though the offence may not have been committed; and it continues as long as such
apprehension of danger to the body continues.
5. That in the view of above point b) in Para 5,
Monika was in anger after seeing that the Sanjay and Sonia were hugging and happy with
Mukesh and Roshni and in heat of jealous, Monika pulled the hair of Mukesh. At that time
Mukesh was having Sonia in his arms and he was losing his balance and as such there was a
reasonable apprehension of receiving injury to body of Mukesh from Monika.
6. That in the view of above point b) in Para 5,
Monika was trying cause injury to Mukesh and Mukesh was having Sonia in herarms, in effort
to separate the Monika, Roshni had to came in between both of them as such there was a
reasonable apprehension of receiving injury to body ofRoshni from Monika.
7. That in the view of above point c) and a) in Para 5 respectively,
Mukesh in effort to calm down the Monika, instinctively struck her with his left hand but he
was not conscious about that he is having car keys in his hand which poked the eyes of
Monika as such the act of Mukesh was exercise of the right of private defence for his own
body and body of Roshni.
8. That in the view of above point d) in Para 5, Mukesh hit Monika after she pulled his hair

23
 and he was losing his balance but once the Monika was knocked and calmed, Mukesh did
not hit her further as such Mukesh exercised his right of private defence of body after the
arise of apprehension of danger of body tillthe apprehension of danger of body was
continued.

9. That in the case of “Ranjitham v. Basavaraj, 2011 13 SCALE 221”, the Supreme Court
held that right of private defence cannot be weighed in a golden
Scale and even in absence of physical injury, in a given case, such a right may be upheld by
the court provided there is reasonable apprehension of life or reasonable apprehension of a
grievous hurt to a person.
10. That for application of offence voluntarily causing grievous hurt under Sec. 322 of the
IPC the essential ingredients are:
a) Sec. 322, Explanation-- The offence of voluntarily causing grievous hurt is not caused
unless the offender both causes grievous hurt and intends, or know himself to be likely, to
cause grievous hurt.
11. That in the view of point a) in Para 10,
Mukesh while exercising his right of private defence, instinctively struck her with his left
hand but he was not conscious about that he is having car keys in his hand which poked the
eyes of Monika which has caused her to be in severebodily pain for twenty days as such
Mukesh has no intention, or not knowing himself to be likely to cause grievous hurt to
Monika.
12. That in the case of “Ramkaran Mohton v. State, AIR 1958 Pat 452”, the Patna High
court held that if he intended, or knew himself to be likely to cause only simple hurt, he
cannot be convicted for the offence under section 325 even if the resultant hurt was grievous.
In the other words, to constitute the offence ofvoluntarily causing hurt, there must be
correspondence between the result and the intention or the knowledge of the accused.

24
 CLOSING STATEMENT OF THE PROSECUTION

JUDGE: Prosecution may proceed with its closing statement.

PROSECUTION: My Lord, as I stated in my opening statement and as clear from the

testimony of witnesses it is clear that the accused intentionally caused the injury to the victim.
Accused is a person of violent nature and in anger he struck the victim. Victim was in pain
for 20 days. Prosecution request to reject the theory of self defence made by defence counsel
as in the cross- examination it has been proved that the accused made a false statement and
the testimony of Ms. Roshni the sole eye witness of defence cannot be relied as she being
related to accused and interested in his acquittal will depose only what is in favor of the
accused. In conclusion, we would ask that you find the defendant guilty as charged. Thank
you.

JUDGE: Defence may give its closing statement.

25
 CLOSING STATEMENT OF THE DEFENCE

DEFENCE: My Lord, in the case that the prosecutor has presented to you today there is
insufficient proof to convict. We would ask for a verdict of not guilty. As I earlier said the
victim is a woman with short temper and on the day of incident, she tried to attack my client in
anger.

My client only acted in self defence. That was mere an accident. Victim is lying. Her testimony
cannot be relied depending upon her false allegations made earlier in 2014 against my client
and in present case also where she tried to implicate my client in the offence of kidnapping his
own children. She has already been convicted in a case for violence. The defence thereby
request to kindly reject the testimony of the victim. We would ask you to render the only verdict
that is fair, not guilty.

JUDGE: Court has heard both the parties. Court is adjourned till the next day of hearing to
pronounce the judgment.

26