YASHWANTRAO CHAWAN NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, YCLC, PUNE – FEB 2023

KLE TECH UNIVERSITY

INTRA MOOT COURT 2023

BEFORE
THE COURT OF SESSIONS, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA
FOR OFFENCES CHARGED UNDER
SECTION 302 OF THE INDAIN PENAL CODE 1860

CRIMINAL CASE NO: _________/2023

IN THE MATTER OF:

BETWEEN :

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA

…PROSECUTION

V.

AND :
1. Mr. ABHAY

…..ACCUSED

MEMORIAL FOR PROSECUTION

STATE OF KARNATAKA

0|MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONER

Memorial on behalf of the prosecution

 YASHWANTRAO CHAWAN NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, YCLC, PUNE – FEB 2023

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ........................................................................................................

TABLE OF CASES ......................................................................................................................

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION .............................................................................................

STATEMENT OF FACTS ............................................................................................................

STATEMENT OF ISSUES...........................................................................................................

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ..................................................................................................

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ......................................................................................................

MURDER .........................................................................................................................

LEGAL INSANITY .........................................................................................................

BURDEN OF PROOF......................................................................................................

PRAYER.......................................................................................................................................

2|MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONER

1 | MEMORIAL FOR PROSECUTION
 TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS

1. H.C High Court

2. S.C. Supreme Court
3 .A.I.R All India Reports
4. IPC Indian Penal Court
5. Hon’ble Honourable
6. vs. Versus
7. Ors. Others
8.Vol. Volume
9.SCC Supreme Court Cases
10.Sec. Section

2 | MEMORIAL FOR PROSECUTION

 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

TABLE OF STATUTES

1) INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860

BOOKS
1. Gaur, KD, Criminal Law: Cases and Materials, (6th Edition. 2009)
2. Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code, 33rd Edition. (2011)
3. Dr. KNC Pillai, General Principles of Criminal Law, 2nd edition

WEBSITES

1. http://www.findlaw.com
2. http://www.judis.nic.in
3. http://www.scconline.com

STATUTES:

1. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act 2 of 1973),

2. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Act 18 of 1872)
3. The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860)

3 | MEMORIAL FOR PROSECUTION

 TABLE OF CASES

1. Hyam Vs. Director of Public Prosecution, (1975) AC 55

2. Om Prakash vs. State of Punjab’, AIR (1961) SC 843
3. Sheralli wali Mohammed v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1972 SC 2443
4. Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar vs. State of Gujarat, 1964 AIR 1563, 1964 SCR (7) 361
5. Surendra Mishra vs. State of Jharkhand, 1972 CrLJ 1523
6. Jai Lal v. Delhi Administration, 1969 SCR (1) 140
7. State Of Rajasthan v. Shera Ram Alias Vishnu, AIR (2012) SCC 602

4 | MEMORIAL FOR PROSECUTION

 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Hon’ble Court has jurisdiction to try the instant matter under Section 177 read with Section 209
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Section 177:

‘177. 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.’

Read with Section 209:

‘ 209. Commitment of case to Court of Session when offence is triable exclusively by it- When in a
case instituted on a police report or otherwise, the accused appears or is brought before the
Magistrate and it appears to the Magistrate that the offence is triable exclusively by the Court of
Session, he shall-

(a) commit the case to the Court of Session;

(b) subject to the provisions of this Code relating to bail, remand the accused to custody during, and
until the conclusion of, the trial;
(c) send to that Court the record of the case and the documents and articles, if any, which are to be
produced in evidence;
(d) notify the Public PROSECUTION of the commitment of the case to the Court of Session.’

5 | MEMORIAL FOR PROSECUTION

 STATEMENTS OF FACTS

1. Abhay and Sunita were married according. After one year of marriage, Abhay’s behaviour
started changing. He started becoming violent without any reason.
2. Dr. Atul who was a psychiatrist diagnosed him to be suffering from rst stage of Bipolar Mood
Disorder and prescribed him some medicines.
3. In spite of the medical treatment the violent behaviour of Abhay continued to exist.
4. On slight issues Abhay would become violent and use to beat her without any reason.
5. On dated 5 December 2021 at 10 am, loud noise of fighting and crying was coming from the
th

house of Abhay.
6. On hearing the cry Nakul who was neighbour of Abhay went to their house and found Sunita
lying unconscious on the floor covered in blood with various injuries on her body.
7. At that time Nakul saw Abhay hiding a 6 inch blood stained knife in the garden. Sunita died
because of the multiple injuries in her chest and lower abdomen. Nakul called the police and
Abhay was arrested and was taken to police custody.
8. Final Report was submitted in which Abhay was charged for murder of Sunita under Section
302 of IPC.
9. During the trial Abhay stated that he was unconscious at the time when he attacked Sunita and
when he regained his consciousness he found Sunita lying on the floor and knife in his hand.
10. He told to the police that he did not know from where the knife came and he also stated that he
did not know how Sunita died. Therefore, he could not be made liable by virtue of Section 84 of
IPC on ground of insanity.
11. Dr. Atul who was treating accused Abhay for Bipolar Mood Disorder stated before the Court
that accused Abhay was suffering from Bipolar Mood Disorder and the disorder was sufficient
to enable a person to do any violent act under its influence.

6 | MEMORIAL FOR PROSECUTION

fi
 STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1. Whether there is a strong enough case of legal insanity to absolve the accused of any
responsibility for murder?

7 | MEMORIAL FOR PROSECUTION

 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
Whether there is a strong enough case of legal insanity to absolve the accused of any responsibility
for murder?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon'ble court that the accused, Mr.Abhay is guilty of committing
murder under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code of 1860. The accused had mens rea to commit
the murder and there is no strong evidence to prove that the person was in unsound mind.

8 | MEMORIAL FOR PROSECUTION

 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
1. Whether there is a strong enough case of legal insanity to absolve the accused of any
responsibility
for murder?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon'ble court that the accused, Mr.Abhay is guilty of committing
murder under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code of 1860. The accused had mens rea to commit
the murder and there is no strong evidence to prove that the person was in unsound mind.

1.1 MURDER

It is to be noted that the essential elements of Section 302 Murder are as follows:

• The act must be done with the intention to kill someone and cause death. An intentional
omission is also included here.

In Hyam Vs. Director of Public Prosecution 1 the court held that the mens rea needed to prove
that a defendant acted with “intent” to produce death or grievous bodily injury to another should
be restricted to cases where the consequences of a defendant's actions were clearly to cause a
victim's death or that it was certainly foreseeable.

• The act is done with the intention to cause bodily injury and such bodily injury is likely to
result in death.
• If the act is done having proper knowledge that it will cause death, such an act shall be
termed as murder.

In the case of Om Prakash vs. State of Punjab’ 2 the essentials of Murder was deatiledly
discussed, which are already discussed above.

In the given facts the mens rea and actus reus required for the offence have been established.
Abhay’s violent behaviour, witnessed by the neighbour Nakul on numerous occasions, indicates the
presence of intent to cause harm. Further more the act of hiding her blood stained knife supports the
inference of guilty knowledge

1.2 LEGAL INSANITY

Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code deals with the act of a person of unsound mind. This section
contains two different mental conditions arising from unsoundness of mind which immunes a man
from responsibility for his wrongful act namely, that his unsoundness of mind was such that: -
• He was incapable to know the nature of the act.
• He did not know that what he was doing was either wrong or contrary to the law.

In case of Sheralli wali Mohammed v. State of Maharashtra 3, the Supreme Court stated that the
mere fact that no motive has been established why the accused has murdered his wife & had made
no attempt to run away when the door was broken open would not indicate that he was insane or
that he did not have the necessary guilty mind. Mere abnormality of mind compulsive behaviour of
1.(1975) AC 55
2. AIR (1961) SC 843
3.AIR 1972 SC 2443
9 | MEMORIAL FOR PROSECUTION
 a psychopath affords no protection under Section – 84 of IPC.

In Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar vs. State of Gujarat 4 it is held that the facts that were
presented were not able to prove that the accused has had insanity from the last 4-5 years and the
reason why he suffered an attack of insanity at the time of the incident was that he wanted to avail
the benefit of section 84 of IPC. Hence, the Apex Court found that the murder that took place was
not because of insanity instead it was a planned murder.

It is clearly stated that Abhay’s legal insanity is not supported by strong enough evidence. It is
acknowledged that Abhay was diagnosed with Bipolar Mood Disorder, it not automatically
absolved him of responsibility of the crime

1.3 BURDEN OF PROOF

It is to be noted that every person who is mentally diseased is not ipso facto exempt from the
criminal liability.

Section 84 stated two terms:

A. Wrong
B. Contrary to Law

The legal insanity differs from the medical insanity. It is not every form of insanity or madness that
is recognized by law as a sufficient excuse.

A Bench of Justices Arijit Pasayat and DK Jain has ruled out that the ‘mentally diseased’ persons
and psychopaths cannot seek immunity from criminal proceeding as the burden is on them to prove
the insanity at the time of committing the crime. Exemption under section 84 of the IPC will not be
available as the burden to prove the insanity would rest with them as provided under Section 105 of
the Indian Evidence Act.

In Surendra Mishra vs. State of Jharkhand 5. In this case, the Apex Court has stated that under
Section 84 of the IPC, legal insanity has to be proved and not the medical insanity. Every person
who is suffering from mental illness is not immune from criminal liability. The mere fact that the
accused is odd, irascible, the physical and mental ailments from which he suffers has rendered his
intellect weak and has provoked him to indulge into certain unusual acts and he is subjected to
epileptic fits are not sufficient to attract the exemption under Section 84 of the IPC.

In the stated facts, the defence has failed to meet the burden of proof and present sufficient
evidence to establish that Abhay’s mental state was such that he should be absolved of any
responsibility of the murder.

Supporting Case Laws:

1. Jai Lal v. Delhi Administration 6. In a similar case, the accused had a medical history of
insanity which was proved by the evidence in court, But the court convicted him on the basis of
4. 1964 AIR 1563, 1964 SCR (7) 361
5. 1972 CrLJ 1523
6. 1969 SCR (1) 140
10 | MEMORIAL FOR PROSECUTION
 his subsequent conduct mainly, his act of concealing the weapon, bolting the door to prevent
arrest and absconding thereafter. These acts clearly show the consciousness of the mind.

2. In State Of Rajasthan v. Shera Ram Alias Vishnu 7 was charged for committing an offence
under Sections 302, 295 and 449 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'Indian Penal Code')
and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life by the Additional Sessions Judge-1,
Jodhpur vide judgment dated 7th June, 2000. However, upon appeal, he came to be acquitted of
all the offences by a Division Bench of the High Court of Rajasthan vide order dated 21st
February, 2004 primarily on the ground that at the time of incident, he was a person of unsound
mind within the meaning of Section 84 Indian Penal Code and was directed to be detained in
safe custody in an appropriate hospital or a place of custody of non-criminal lunatics as would
be provided to him by the State Government under the direct supervision of the Jail Authorities
till the time he was cured of his mental illness and infirmity.

7. AIR (2012) SCC 602

11 | MEMORIAL FOR PROSECUTION
 PRAYER

Therefore, in light of the issues raised, argument advance and authorities cited. The counsel for the
prosecution most humbly prays that the Hon'ble court be pleased to adjudge, hold and declare:

A. Reject the defence’s claim of legal insanity.

B. Hold the accused, Abhay responsible for murder of Sunita under Section 302 of IPC 1860.

AND/OR

Pass any other order it may deem fit, in the interest of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience

All of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted

Place: S/d ____________________

Date: PROSECUTION

12 | MEMORIAL FOR PROSECUTION