1

SHRI VAISHNAV VIDYAPEETH VISHWAVIDYALAYA

INTRA MOOT COURT – 2024

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SESSION COURT OF INDORE

________________________________________________
UNDER SECTION 9 AND 28 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

________________________________________________
CRIMINAL COMPLAINT NO.---/2024

STATE of Madhya Pradesh……………………………………………….. PROSECUTION

v.
AJAIB SINGH…………………………………………………………………….DEFENCE

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED TO THE HON’BLE SESSION JUDGE

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ……………………………………………………………2

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES…………………………………………………………….3

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION…………………………………………………….5

STATEMENT OF FACTS………………………………………………………………7

ISSUES RAISED……………………………………………………………………….9

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS……………………………………………………….10

ARGUMENSTS ADVANCED………………………………………………………..11

ISSUE 1- WHETHER THE ACCUSED COULD EXERCISE THE RIGHT

OF PRIVATE DEFENCE……………………………………………………..12

[1.1] THE RIGHT OF PRIVATE DEFENCE IS NOT AVAILABLE TO

THOSE WHO THEMSELVES HAS COURTED THE ATTACK
FIRST…………………………………………………………………..13
[1.2] THE RIGHT OF PRIVATE DEFENCE IS A RIGHT TO DEFEND NOT
TO RETALIATE……………………………………………………………..14
[1.3] THE ACT OF THE DECEASED WAS NOT SUCH SO AS TO CAUSE
REASONABLE APPREHENSION IN THE MIND OF THE
ACCUSED THAT THERE WAS DANGER TO HIS LIFE………..14

ISSUE 2- WHETHER THE ACCUSED HAD INTENTION OF CAUSING

DEATH……………………………………………………………15

PRAYER……………………………………………………………………………..16

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

 2

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVIATIONS ACTUAL TERM

Anr. Another

SCC Suprme Court Case

SC Supreme Court

Ors. Others

Hon'ble Honourable

UOI Union of India

v. Versus

AC Appeal Cases

Cr LJ Criminal Law Journal

AIR All India Reporter

Vol. Volume

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

 3

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

TABLE OF CASES
S. NO NAME OF THE CASE

1. Anda And others v. State of Rajasthan (1966)

2. Beckford v. The Queen(1988)

3. Bhanwar Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2009)

4. Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab (2010)

5. Dharam v. State of Haryana (2006)

6. Harendra Rai vs State of Bihar (2023)

7. Laxman v. State of Orissa (1988)

8. Rajesh Kumar v. Dharamvir (1997)

9. Ram Raj Shukla v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1992)

Thangaavel v. State representation by Inspector of Police Thevattipatti Police

10.
Station Salem (2015)

STATUTES
1. INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860

2. CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE,1976

3. INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

 4

BOOKS

1. S.N. MISRA, INDIAN PENAL CODE, CENTRAL LAW PUBLICATIONS

2. K.D. GAUR, INDIAN PENAL CODE, UNIVERSAL LAW PUBLICATIONS

AVTAR SINGH,PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF EVIDENCE, CENTRAL

3.
LAW PUBLICATIONS

LEGAL DATABASE

1. CASEMINE

2. INDIAN KANNON

3. MANUPATRA

4. SCC ONLINE

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

 5

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Petitioners, in this case, seek to invoke the Hon'ble Session Court’s jurisdiction under
Section 9 and 28 of the code of criminal procedure.

9. Court of Session.—

(1) The State Government shall establish a Court of Session for every sessions division.

(2) Every Court of Session shall be presided over by a Judge, to be appointed by the High
Court.

(3) The High Court may also appoint Additional Sessions Judges and Assistant Session
Judges to exercise jurisdiction in a Court of Session.

(4) The Sessions Judge of one sessions division may be appointed by the High Court to be
also an Additional Sessions Judge of another division, and in such case he may sit for the
disposal of cases at such place or places in the other division as the High Court may
direct.

(5) Where the office of the Sessions Judge is vacant, the High Court may make arrangements
for the disposal of any urgent application which is, or may be, made or pending before
such Court of Session by an Additional or Assistant Sessions Judge, or, if there be no
Additional or Assistant Sessions Judge, by a Chief Judicial Magistrate, in the sessions
division; and every such Judge or Magistrate shall have jurisdiction to deal with any such
application.

(6) The Court of Session shall ordinarily hold its sitting at such place or places as the High
Court may, by notification, specify; but, if, in any particular case, the Court of Session is
of opinion that it will tend to the general convenience of the parties and witnesses to hold
its sittings at any other place in the sessions division, it may, with the consent of the
prosecution and the accused, sit at that place for the disposal of the case or the
examination of any witness or witnesses therein.

Explanation.— For the purposes of this Code, “appointment” does not include the first
appointment, posting or promotion of a person by the Government to any Service, or post in

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

 6

connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State, where under any law, such
appointment, posting or promotion is required to be made by Government.

28. Sentences which High Courts and Sessions Judges may pass.—
(1) A High Court may pass any sentence authorised by law.
(2) A Sessions Judge or Additional Sessions Judge may pass any sentence authorised by law;
but any sentence of death passed by any such Judge shall be subject to confirmation by
the High Court.

(3) An Assistant Sessions Judge may pass any sentence authorised by law except a sentence

of death or of imprisonment for life or of imprisonment for a term exceeding ten years

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

 7

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1
I. BACKGROUND

Ajaib Singh was a police officer. On the date of occurrence, 15/02/2024, he visited a local
bar in Indore with a few friends. At the next table, Survade, a local contractor, was also
drinking with his friends. Disturbed with the content and tone of conversation and
obnoxious sound of laughter coming from Ajaib Singh and his friends, Survade accosted
them and asked them to keep their volume low. Ajaib Singh became angry at this and an
argument ensued between the two which stopped only when the bar manager intervened to
pacify them. Survade was also pulled away by one of his friends. They kept drinking on.

2
II. REASON OF DISPUTE

Seeing the aggressive attitude of Ajaib Singh, Survade apologized and asked his friends for
closing the party so that they can go home. However, Ajaib Singh was not pacified and
continued to abuse him. At this Survade also lost his cool and dared Ajaib Singh to carry
out his threats. To show he was nothing less Survade took out a pistol from his pocket and
fired a shot in the air. At this Ajaib Singh took out a knuckleduster from his pocket and
punched twice on the face of the Survade. Survade fell on the floor and Ajaib Singh
relieved him of his gun and pointed the gun at the friends of Survade when they tried to
pick him up. Thereafter Ajaib Singh sat down at the table to finish the drink that was left,
while Survade lay bleeding on the floor. Survade’s friends requested Ajaib Singh to let them
take Survade to the hospital but he did not allow them. Only after he finished his drink and
left the bar Survade could be taken to the hospital. HoweverSurvade died in the hospital
due to excessive bleeding.

1
MOOT PROP.
2
MOOT PROP.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

 8

III. RESULTANT LITIGATION

FIR was registered with the Indore (Palasi) police station and after due investigation the
accused Ajaib Singh was arrested and committed to trial for the offence punishable under
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

 9

ISSUES RAISED

ISSUE 1:

WHETHER THE ACCUSED COULD EXERCISE RIGHT TO PRIVATE

DEFENCE

ISSUE 2:

WHETHER THE ACCUSED HAD INTENTION OF CAUSING DEATH

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

 10

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS:

ISSUE 1- WHETHER THE ACCUSED COULD EXERCISE THE RIGHT

OF PRIVATE DEFENCE.

It is most humbly submitted before the Hon'ble Session Court of Indore that
the accused(Ajaib singh) has no Right to exercise Private Defence as the
accused himself courted the attack i.e, the act was the result of his own
creation, also the right of Private Defence do not include the right to retaliate
and lastly, the act of the deceased was not such so as cause reasonable
apprehension in the mind of the accused.

ISSUE 2- WHETHER THE ACCUSED HAD INTENTION OF CAUSING

DEATH.

It is most humbly submitted before the Hon'ble Session Court of Indore that
whether the accused had intention to cause death is an issue which relies on
various factors such as nature of injury and weapon used to injure and also
the part of the body attacked. Similar to it, intention can also be determined
on the basis of the subsequent conduct of the accused. The fact of the case
reveals that both the factor are against the accused, hence the accused is
liable to punishment u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

 11

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED:

ISSUE 1- THAT THE ACCUSED COULD NOT EXERCISE THE RIGHT

OF PRIVATE DEFENCE.

1. It is most humbly submitted to the Hon'ble Session Court of Indore that the
accused has no right of private defence on the basis of the following grounds:
1.1 That it is the general rule of criminal jurisprudence and also established
through various judicial precedents that the right of private is not available to
those who themselves has courted the attack first.
1.2 That the right of private defence is a right to defend not to retalilate.
1.3 That the act of the deceased was not such so as to cause a reasonable
apprehension in the mind of the accused that there was danger to his life.

The above mentioned submissions have been substantiated herein:

RIGHT OF PRIVATE DEFENCE- The Right of Private Defence has been
defined under Sections 96-106 of the Indian Penal Code. Under this right, a
person has the right to protect life, body and property. In general, when a person
causes harm to another, it is an offence. Right to Private Defence acts as an
exception wherein the person causing the harm can escape liability since he does
said action to protect his person or property. Right to Private Defence works on
the first principle of Self Help i.e. it is the duty of a person to first help himself.
Right to Private Defence allows for a person to protect himself and his property
where there is an imminent danger upon them and there is no other possible
recourse available. Right to private defence is preventive in nature and not
punitive i.e. it cannot be used to inflict harm upon in the guise of self-defence, one
has to prove that there is apprehension of harm being inflicted upon the body or
property of a person in order for him to be at the liberty to use the Right of Private
Defence. In the case of Beckford v. The Queen3, it was held by the Court that a
person is entitled to use a reasonable amount of force to protect himself. In the
case of Thangaavel v. State representation by Inspector of Police Thevattipatti

3
[1988] AC 130.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

 12

Police Station Salem4, the court highlighted that the Right of Private defence
exists and is inherent to every person but cannot be misused by the person
claiming the right. In the case of Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab5, the Supreme
Court laid down 10 guidelines for the usage of right of private defence wherein
the court highlighted that a person doesn't need to be afraid to protect himself if
confronted with an unlawful aggression.

[1.1] THE RIGHT OF PRIVATE DEFENCE IS NOT AVAILABLE TO

THOSE WHO THEMSELVES HAS COURTED THE ATTACK
FIRST.

2. It is most humbly submitted to this Hon'ble Session Court that although the Indian
Penal Code recognise the Right of Private Defence u/s 96-106 but there are certain
limitations as well. According to Mayne6, there are two limits on the right of
private defence:
a. The first is that the right of private defence can under no circumstances justify
anything which strictly is no defence but an offence.
b. Secondly, the right cannot be claimed when you have yourself courted the
attack.
3. In the case of Laxman v. State of Orissa7, it was held that right of private defence,
is available only to one who is suddenly confronted with immediate necessity of
averting an impending danger not of his own creation. The necessity must be
present, real and apparent.
In the instant case, even after the deceased (Sarvade) apologised and asked his
friends to close the party so that they can go home, accused (Ajaib Singh)
continued to abuse the deceased which led to further quarrel and confrontation
between the two. This clearly shows that even though the deceased was pacified,
it was accused who first courted the attack or who created the whole situation. So
in the light of the above legal precendant, the accused cannot take the benefit of
the Right of Private Defence.

4
2015 SCC OnLine Mad 7788.
5
(2010) 10 SCC 333.
6
Mayne, Criminal Law,p. 202.
7
1988 Cr LJ 188 (SC)

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

 13

[1.2] THE RIGHT OF PRIVATE DEFENCE IS A RIGHT TO DEFEND NOT

TO RETALIATE.

4. It is submitted before the Hon'ble Session Court that the facts of the present case
shows that it was the accused who was causing nuisance with his friends by
content and tone of conversation and obnoxious sound of laughter and also when
the deceased try to pacify him with a gun shoot in air, instead of cooling down he
retaliated with 2 punches on the face of the deceased with a knuckleduster.

In the case of Rajesh Kumar v. Dharamvir8 , it was held that "There is no right of
private defence under the Code against any act which is not in itself an offence
under it. The right of private defence can be exercised only to repel unlawful
aggression and not to retaliate."

Again in the case of Ram Raj Shukla v. State of Madhya Pradesh9, it was held that
the right of private defence does not permit a right of retaliaton.

[1.3] THE ACT OF THE DECEASED WAS NOT SUCH SO AS TO CAUSE

REASONABLE APPREHENSION IN THE MIND OF THE
ACCUSED THAT THERE WAS DANGER TO HIS LIFE.

5. It is most humbly submitted to the Hon'ble Court that in order to avail the benefit
of Right of Private Defence there must be some degree of apprehension of danger
to the body in the mind of the person, when there is no such apprehension the
right to private defence can't be availed.
In the case of Bhanwar Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh10 and Dharam v. State
of Haryana11, it was held that the right of private defence is a defence right. It is
neither a right of aggression nor of reprisal. There is no right of private defence
where there is no apprehension of danger.
In the current legal scenario, the fact that accused took out knuckleduster and
punched twice on the face of the deceased, even thought the deceased only fired
the gun shoot in the air and not on the accused, clearly shows that the accused do

8
1997 Cr LJ 2242 (SC)
9
1992 Cr LJ1223 (MP)
10
AIR 2009 SC 768
11
(2006) 12 SCALE 280

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

 14

not have the apprehension of danger otherwise he would have retreated from the
place. But instead of retreating, he retaliated with the knuckleduster which clearly
shows absence of apprehension of danger in the mind of the accused. Hence the
availability of Right of Private Defence itself gets cancelled.

ISSUE 2- THAT THE ACCUSED HAD INTENTION OF CAUSING

DEATH.

6. It is most humbly submitted before tha Hon'ble Session Court that the accused had
intention of causing death. He had all the ingredients which are required to create
an intention to cause a death. Stephen12, observed that " Intention is an operation
of the will directing an overt act;"

NATURE OF INJURY AND WEAPON :- In the case of Anda And Others v.

State Of Rajasthan13 it was held that," The third clause views the matter from a
general standpoint. It speaks of an intention to cause bodily injury which is
sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The emphasis here is on
the sufficiency of the injury in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The
sufficiency is the high probability of death in the ordinary way of nature and when
this exists and death ensues and the causing of such injury is intended, the offence
is murder. Sometimes the nature of the weapon used, sometimes the part of the
body on which the injury is caused, and sometimes both are relevant. The
determinant factor is the intentional injury which must be sufficient to cause death
in the ordinary course of nature."
7. From the above legal precedent it becomes clear that when the injury is caused to
any person, the weapon used or the part of body attacked all become relevant in
drawing out the intention of the attacker.
In the present legal scenario, the accused used a knuckleduster and also punched
the deceased on the face (sensitive part of the body) which clearly establishes the
required intention (mens rea) for the act.

12
Stephen, History of the English Criminal Law. Vol.II.
13
1966 AIR SC 148

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

 15

8. SUBSEQUENT CONDUCT OF THE ACCUSED:- In criminal cases, the after-

act of the accused can hold significant relevance in determining guilt or
innocence. The conduct of the accused subsequent to the incident in question can
provide valuable insights into their intentions, motives, and involvement in the
crime. Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, which deals with motive, preparation,
and previous or subsequent conduct, is particularly relevant in such situations.

The conduct of the accused after the commission of the crime can be indicative of
their guilt, especially if it influences or is influenced by any fact in issue or
relevant fact. This conduct can include actions such as fleeing the scene,
absconding, providing false information, or any other behavior that suggests a
consciousness of guilt or involvement in the crime.

In the case of Harendra Rai v. The State of Bihar14 This judgment discusses the
relevance of the conduct of the accused under Section 8 of the Evidence Act in
determining guilt.

In the instant case also the subsequent conduct of the accused plays an important
role in answering the question of presence of intention to cause death. The fact of
the case reveals that the accused continued to drink by sitting on the table while
the deceased lied on the floor bleeding the attack from the accused.

Also the accused prevented the friends of the deceased from taking the
unconscious deceased to be taken to the hospital by pointing a gun at them, which
ultimately resulted in the death of Sarvade.

This clearly establishes the intention of the accused to cause the death of the
deceased.

14
2023 SCC ONLINE SC 1023

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

 16

PRAYER

Wherefore, it is humbly prayed to this Hon’ble Session Court of Indore that

in light of the issues raised, arguments advanced, and authorities cited, this
Hon’ble Session Court of Indore may be pleased to:

1. HOLD the current case maintainable under section 9 and 28 of the code of
criminal procedure.

2. UPHOLD the accused to be convicted u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

And any other relief that the Hon’ble Session Court may be pleased to
grant in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience.

All of which is respectfully submitted.

COUNSEL FOR THE PROSECUTION

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION