“Chandigarh Judicial Academy

National Moot Court Competition, 2010”

The State Appellant

Walaiti Ram & others Respondent

Memorial for the Appellant

Table of Contents
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Lists of Cases:

1 Mayakaur Baldev Singh Sardar and Another V State of Maharashtra, (2007 Indlaw SC
1431)
2 Sunny Kapoor V U.T of Chandigarh (2006 Indlaw 535)

3 Mulla and Anothers v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2010 Indlaw SC 87)

4 Raju Kisan Mane v State of Maharashtra, through Police Station (2010 Indlaw MUM
925)
5 Eknath S/o Bhagwan Hatkar v State of Maharashtra (2010 Indlaw MUM 883)
6 Charansing @ Chnya S/o Indersing Kadewale v State of Maharashtra, through Police
Station (2010 Indlaw MUM 861)
7 Jamalu and others v State of Delhi (2010 Indlaw DEL 2104)
8 Chakali Maddilety and others v State of Andhra Pradesh (2010 Indlaw SC 645)
9 Parsan and others v State of Uttar Pradesh (2010 Indlaw ALL 1263)
10 Bhim Singh and another v State (2010 Indlaw DEL 2185)
11 Paramjit Singh and another v State (2010 Indlaw DEL 2187)
12 Md. Sekendar Ali Mondal v State of West Bengal (2010 Indlaw CAL 563)
13 Balkrishna Khashaba Mohite v State of Maharashtra (2010 Indlaw MUM 1016)
14 Sambhu Das @ Bijoy Das and another v State of Assam (2010 Indlaw SC 751)
15 AbdulSayeed and others v State of Madhya Pradesh (2010 Indlaw SC 743)
16 Manjappa and another v State of Karnataka (2010 Indlaw SC 726)
17 Santokh Singh and another v State of Punjab (2010 Indlaw SC 706)
18 Mayakaur Baldev Singh Sardar and Another v State of Maharashtra (2007 Indlaw SC
1431)
19 Musheer khan @ Badshah khan and others V. State of Madhya Pradesh (2010 Indlaw SC
64)
20 Ragnath Sharma V Satendra Sharma and others, (2008 Indlaw SC 1319)
21 Paramjit Singh and other V State (2010 Indlaw DEL 2187)
22 Mohmed Amin @ Amin choteli Rahim Miyan Shaikh and Another v C.B.I (2008 Indlaw
SC 2603)
23 Chhotey Sahu S/o Badri Sahu and others v State of Uttar Pradesh (2010 Indlaw ALL
1253)
24 Rajneesh Kumar and another v State (Government of NCT Delhi) ( 2010 Indlaw DEL
2089)
25 Santosh Kumar Baranwal v State of Uttar Pradesh (2010 Indlaw ALL 962)
26 Antar singh V state of rajasthan (2004 Indlaw SC 79)
27 Anwar Ali v State (2009 Indlaw DEL 2727)
28 (1)Rakesh Kumar and Others; (2) Sharda Jain and Another; (3) Pushpender; (4) Roshan
Singh; (5) Rajinder @ Rajesh @ Raju; (6) Nirvikar @ Dr v State
Delhi High Court (2009 Indlaw DEL 1861)
29 Surender v State (2009 Indlaw DEL 2870)
30 Vinod Kumar @ Dolly v State of Delhi (2009 Indlaw DEL 2384)
31 (1)Kehar Singh and Another; (2) Udai Veer Singh; (3) Vimal Kumar @ Pinto v State
(2009 Indlaw DEL 2035)
 32 Anwar Ali v State (2009 Indlaw DEL 2727)
33 Mehmood Ali v State (2010 Indlaw DEL 792)

Statement of Jurisdiction

1
The Petitioner Approaches the Court under Article 133 Of The Constitution Of India.

1
The constitution of India, P.M Bakshi
 2
Statement of facts

On 1.5.2009, a telephone call was received in Police Station No.1, Azadpur at about 1.00 A.M
that two dead bodies were lying on the berm of the bypass of Azadpur in a pool of blood. The
Officer-in-charge of the Police Station recorded an entry in the Roz Namcha (Daily Dairy
Report) to this effect and dispatched a police party headed by Inspector Gopal Singh to the spot.
Upon arrival at the by-pass, the police party found the two dead bodies, one of male and other of
female. The deceased appeared to have been done to death by slitting their throats. An ocular
examination of the bodies revealed, that in addition to the injury to their throats, a large number
of lacerated wounds, abrasions and contusions had also been inflicted on various parts of bodies
of the deceased. The clothes on the dead bodies were blood soaked and the dead bodies were
lying in a pool of blood. Inspector Gopal Singh sent a message through Constable Ajmer Singh
for registration of case for an offence under section 302 IPC etc., at which S.I. Dalip Singh
registered FIR No. 10 dated 1.5.2009 at P.S. Azadpur u/s 302 IPC and intimated the
Investigating Officer at the spot about the particulars of the FIR. The police prepared a site plan,
showing the location of the dead bodies; lifted the blood soaked earth; searched the area for the
weapon(s) of offence and, thereafter, sent the bodies for postmortem after preparing the inquest
reports of the two deceased. The villagers from the nearby village Azadpur identified the
deceased girl as Phool Wati from their village. On further investigation, the boy was identified
as, Atma Singh of Village Mastana. The postmortem report revealed that the deceased boy, Atma
Singh, was aged about 22 years and, Phool Wati, a girl was aged about 19 years. The cause of
2
Facts from fact sheet
death, as per the postmortem report, was shock and hemorrhage, on account of multiple injuries.
It confirmed that Atma Singh and Phool Wati had been murdered by slitting their throats with a
sharp edged weapon and before their murder, a large number of grievous and simple injuries on
various parts of their bodies were inflicted. The clothes removed from the bodies of the deceased
and the

Legal Issues

1) Whether the accused jointly or individually liable for the felony under U/S 302/34?
2) Whether the sec. 302 I.P.C is applicable for his father and the community leader?
3) Whether the accused is liable under Arms Act?
 Summary of submission

1) Whether the accused jointly or individually liable for the felony under U/S 302/34

The blood stained earth lifted from the spot were sent to forensic laboratory for analysis. The
forensic analysis revealed human blood bearing three different blood groups –blood group A+
relating to the boy Atma Singh; blood group B+ relating to the girl Phool Wati, and blood group
O+ did not relate to either of the deceased.
As per the fact the accused did the Felony, because the forensic laboratory disclosed that the
third sample of blood bearing the blood group O+ matched with the blood group of accused.
During the narco-analysis,got the information and went to the place and recovered a knife by
police accused said that the knife was used in slitting the throats of the deceased and heavy sticks
used to inflict other injuries found on the person of the deceased on the basis of statement of
Walaiti Ram. As per the report received from the forensic laboratory, the knife carried traces of
ante-mortem human blood bearing blood groups A+ and B+. No blood was found on the heavy
sticks recovered by the police and allegedly used by the accused persons for causing injuries on
the bodies of the deceased. In a similar case 3Mayakaur Baldev Singh Sardar and Another V
State of Maharashtra, were Mayakaur Baldev Singh and other were charged for I.P.C Sections
302, 307, 120(B), 34; Arms Act, 1959- Sections 25(1) & (3), 27(3), Out of eight accused, four
accused was awarded death penalty and two accused with life imprisonment and two more
accused to lesser offences. In the case 4sunny Kapoor V U.T of Chandigarh accused is liable
under sec.302, he was found to be guilty for commission of offence and was sentenced to life
3
2007 Indlaw SC 1431
4
2006 Indlaw 535
imprisonment, 5Mulla and Anothers v. State of Uttar Pradesh were Appellants were charged u/ss.
148, 302, 365 all r/w s. 149, IPC Trial court by giving adequate reasons, awarded death sentence
to both the appellants, 6Raju Kisan Mane v State of Maharashtra, through Police Station the
appellant, has been convicted for the offence punishable Under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code
and is sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to suffer
further rigorous imprisonment for six months. 7Eknath S/o Bhagwan Hatkar v State of
Maharashtra , whereby the appellant/accused is convicted for the offence punishable under
section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine
of Rs.3,000/- i/d to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. The accused is also convicted for
the offence punishable under section 498-A of IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- i/d to undergo further rigorous
imprisonment for six months. 8Charansing @ Chnya S/o Indersing Kadewale v State of
Maharashtra, through Police Station by which the appellant-accused is convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 302 of IPC and is sentenced to undergo R.I. for life and to pay a fine of
Rs.1000/-, i/d to undergo further S.I. for two months. 9 Jamalu and others v State of Delhi the
appellants have been convicted by the Trial Court under Section 308 read with Section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code ( IPC) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years.
10
Chakali Maddilety and others v State of Andhra Pradesh convicting the appellants under
Sections 302 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter called as "IPC") and
sentencing them to undergo life imprisonment and one year R.I. respectively. 11 Parsan and others
v State of Uttar Pradesh the criminal appeal is at the instance of four accused namely Parsan,
Bispat, Jhurrey and Mangrey who stand convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section
302/34 and 394 IPC for life imprisonment and seven years rigorous imprisonment. 12Bhim Singh
and another v State the appellant Trilok Chand was convicted under Section 302 of IPC and was
sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs 15,000/- or to undergo R.I. for
six months in default under section 302 and was further sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years
and to pay fine of Rs 5000/- or to undergo R.I. for six months in default under Section 304-B of
IPC and further sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years each and to pay a fine of Rs 5000/- each
or to undergo S.I. for six months. 13Paramjit Singh and another v State the applleant were
sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence of murder and to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for three years for their conviction under Section 324/34 IPC. Accused-appellant
Paramjit Singh was further convicted under Section 27 of the Arms Act also and was sentenced
to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of
payment to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month. 14 Md. Sekendar Ali Mondal v
State of West Bengal the learned judge sentenced Sekendar to suffer imprisonment for life and a
fine of Rs.6000/- and in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for two years for

5
2010 Indlaw SC 87
6
2010 Indlaw MUM 925
7
2010 Indlaw MUM 883
8
2010 Indlaw MUM 861
9
2010 Indlaw DEL 2104
10
2010 Indlaw SC 645
11
2010 Indlaw ALL 1263
12
2010 Indlaw DEL 2185
13
2010 Indlaw DEL 2187
14
2010 Indlaw CAL 563
committing offence under Section 302. 15Balkrishna Khashaba Mohite v State of Maharashtra
sentenced to suffer RI for life and to pay a fine of Rs.4,000/-, in default to suffer further R.I. for
three years for having committed murder

2) Whether sec. 302/34 I.P.C is applicable for his father and the community leader?

As per the facts deceased marriage was against the will of the family members, so family
members of Phool Wati, they threatened to kill Atma Singh and his family members.
The local community leaders had called a meeting and put pressure on the family members of
Atma Singh and Phool Wati to either dissolve their marriage or face a social boycott. In the
similar case 16Sambhu Das @ Bijoy Das and another v State of Assam, appellants are convicted
under Section 302/34 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-
each, and in default, to undergo further imprisonment for six months each. 17AbdulSayeed and
others v State of Madhya Pradesh, appellants have been convicted under Section 302/34 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter called IPC) for committing the murders of Chand Khan
and Shabir Khan, 18Manjappa and another v State of Karnataka, appellants herein for the offences
punishable under Section 366A, 372, 373 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced them to
undergo imprisonment  for a period of seven years with a fine of Rs.50,000/- each, in default, to
undergo simple imprisonment  for two years. 19Santokh Singh and another v State of Punjab, the
appellants for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC  sentencing them each to
undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- with a direction to further undergo RI
for six months in case of default of payment fine.

3) Whether the accused is liable under Arms Act?

15
2010 Indlaw MUM 1016
16
2010 Indlaw SC 751
17
2010 Indlaw SC 743
18
2010 Indlaw SC 726
19
2010 Indlaw SC 706
The accused is also liable U/S 25, 27 of arms act, 1959, because police recovered a knife said to
be used in slitting the throats of the deceased on the basis of statement of accused. In a similar
cases 20Mayakaur Baldev Singh Sardar and Another v State of Maharashtra the accused is held
liable under this act. . In case 21Musheer khan @ Badshah khan and others V. State of Madhya
Pradesh, the accused is liable for U/S 25(1)(a)(b) and 27 of arms, act, 22Ragnath Sharma V
Satendra Sharma and others, so accused is liable under sec. 27, where Satendra Sharma was
sentenced for rigorous imprisonment for 5 years. 23Paramjit Singh and other V State, the accused
convicted under Section 27 of the Arms Act also and was sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment to undergo
further rigorous imprisonment for one month, 24Mohmed Amin @ Amin choteli Rahim Miyan
Shaikh and Another v C.B.I, Through its Director, where 7 accused were sentenced to life
imprisonment each of them is directed to pay fine of Rs 5000/- and in default to go rigorous
imprisonment for one year. Other 2 were sentenced with 3 years of imprisonment for offence
under sec. 27 0f arms,act and in default to undergo 6 months imprisonment. 25Chhotey Sahu S/o
Badri Sahu and others v State of Uttar Pradesh, where accused has also been sentenced to
undergo imprisonment for 3 years under section 25 Arms Act. 26Rajneesh Kumar and another v
State (Government of NCT Delhi), where Accused-appellant Rajinder Kumar was also convicted
under Section 25 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six
months and also to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- and to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one
month in the event of default in payment of fine. For his conviction under Section 27 of
the Arms Act he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and also to pay a
fine of Rs. 500/- and to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months in the event of
non-payment of fine. The deceased accused Rajneesh was also convicted under Section 25 of
the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of
Rs. 500/- and to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months in the event of non-
payment of fine. 27Santosh Kumar Baranwal v State of Uttar Pradesh, where accused is sentenced
to Six months rigorous imprisonment under section 25 of Arms Act and a fine of Rs. 10,000/-
with default stipulation of two months simple imprisonment, 28Antar singh V state of rajasthan
where accused is awarded life imprisonment, one year and three year sentenced respectively
were imposed for three offences U/s 25 and 27 of arms, act.29Anwar Ali v State the
Appellant Anwar Ali has been convicted and sentenced for offences punishable under Section
302 Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 in terms of the impugned
judgment. 30(1) Rakesh Kumar and Others; (2) Sharda Jain and Another; (3) Pushpender; (4)
Roshan Singh; (5) Rajinder @ Rajesh @ Raju; (6) Nirvikar @ Dr v State
Delhi High CourtFor the offence punishable under Section 25,Arms Act, 1959 accused Roshan
Singh has been sentenced to undergo RI for three years and to pay a fine in sum of Rs5, 000/-, in

20
2007 Indlaw SC 1431
21
2010 Indlaw SC 64
22
2008 Indlaw SC 1319
23
2010 Indlaw DEL 2187
24
2008 Indlaw SC 2603
25
2010 Indlaw ALL 1253
26
2010 Indlaw DEL 2089
27
2010 Indlaw ALL 962
28
2004 Indlaw SC 79
29
2009 Indlaw DEL 2727
30
2009 Indlaw DEL 1861
default to undergo SI for three months. For the offence punishable under Section 27, Arms Act,
1959 accused Pushpender and Nirvikar have been sentenced to undergo RI for three years and to
pay a fine in sum of Rs5, 000/- each, in default to undergo SI for three months. 31Surender v State
the appellant has also been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms
Act, 1959 , in respect whereof he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 5 years and
pay a fine in sum of Rs.2,000/-.32Vinod Kumar @ Dolly v State of Delhi, Appellant and was
sentenced to undergo RI for 3 years under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, 33(1) Kehar Singh
and Another; (2) Udai Veer Singh; (3) Vimal Kumar @ Pinto v State, appellant Kehar Singh has
been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 25 Arms Act, 1959, for which offence
he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 4 years and pay a fine in sum of
Rs.5, 000/-; in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months. 34Anwar Ali v State, the
appellant was sentenced under Section 302 Indian Penal Code, 1860 to undergo imprisonment
for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
period of three months and for offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, the appellant was
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.
200/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for further period of one month.
35
Mehmood Ali v State, Appellant the offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act the
has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days.

31
2009 Indlaw DEL 2870
32
2009 Indlaw DEL 2384
33
2009 Indlaw DEL 2035
34
2009 Indlaw DEL 2727
35
2010 Indlaw DEL 792
PRAYER