Uday Moot Respondant

5th INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION- 2019
Team Code:

IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
IN THE MATTER OF
NGO………………………………………………………………………APPEALLANT
VS.
STATE OF BENGAL…………………………………………………..RESPONDENT
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. ------------OF 2019
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION
UNDER ART.136 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
_____________________________________________________________
Most Respectfully Submitted to
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
_____________________________________________________________
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
1-West Bengal AIR 1955SC 55

2-AIR 1956 SC 757 Page 1
TABLE OF CONTENT
1- Abbreviation………………………………………………………………………….
2- Index of Authorities……………………………………………………………..
3- Statement of Jurisdiction……………………………………………………..
4- Statement of Fact…………………………………………………………………
5- Statement of Issues…………………………………………………………..
6- Summary of Arguments……………………………………………………..
7- Argument advanced…………………………………………………………….
1- Whether the special leave petition (SLP) is maintainable or not and

whether the NGO has the locus standi to impugn the judgment of
the High Court…………………………………………………………………
2- Whether the act of baba tantamount to murder…………
3- Whether the accused that is deemed insane put on trial as per the
section 84 of Indian Penal Code………………………………………
4- Whether the act of baba tantamount to cheating…………
5- Whether from the facts of the case the owner of pharmaceutical
company be charged with criminal conspiracy or abatment by
intentional aid………………………………………………………………
8- Prayer………………………………………………………………………………………….

2-AIR 1956 SC 757 Page 2
INDEX OF ABBREVIATIONS
Cr.P.C Code 0f criminal procedure code,1973
SC Supreme Court
AIR All India Report
AC Appeal Cases
ALJ Allahabad Law Journal
ALJR Allahabad Law Journal Reporter
I.P.C Indian Penal Code,1860
AIR Cr All India Reporter Criminal Cases
IC Indian Cases
OR’s. Others
SUPP. Supplementary
U/S Under Section
SCC Supreme Court Cases
V/S Versus
SC Supreme Court
HC High Court

2-AIR 1956 SC 757 Page 3
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Statues
The Constitution of India
Indian Penal Code, 1860
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Cases
Gopabandhu Biswal VS Krishna Chandra Mohanty AIR 1998 4 SCC 447
Taherakhatoon VS Salambin Mohammad AIR 1999 SC 1104
Pritiam Singh VS State AIR 1950 SC 169
Narendra Pratap Narain Singh VS State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1991 2 SCC
623
Vikaram Singh VS Union of India 1998 9 SSC 254
D.C Mills VS Commissioner of Income Tax West Bengal AIR 1955 SC 55
Haripada Dey VS State of West Bengal AIR 1956 SC 757
Tabu Chetia VS State of Assam AIR 1976
Sudhier Chandra Biswas VS State AIR 1987
Ram Das VS U.P AIR 1971 SCJ 264
Hiralal Harilal Bhagwati VS CBI New Delhi
Qyami Ayatu VS State of Madhya Pradesh
Bapu VS State of Rajasthan
S. Sunil Sandeep VS State of Karnataka
State of Punjab VS Mohinder Singh

2-AIR 1956 SC 757 Page 4
Books
Constitution of India ,by Jain , 7 edition
Constitution of India,by P.M Bakshi
Constitution of India,by Dr. J.N Pandey , 55 edition
Constitution of India,dr. P.K Agrwal
Constitution of India, by Mahender Pal Singh
Indian Penal Code ,by C.K Lakwani
Indian Penal Code, by K.D Gaur , 6 edition
Indian Penal Code, by B.M Gandhi, 2 edition
Indian Penal Code, by Ratanlal ,Dhiraj Lal, 33 edition
Indian Penal Code, by Harish Chandra
Indian Evidence Act by Dr. Awtar Singh
Indian Evidence Act by BATUK LAL
Indian evidence act by Dr. V Nageswara Rao.
Code of Criminal Procedure by S C Sarkar
Code of Criminal Procedure by K.V.Kelkar
Code of Criminal Procedure by Ratanlal & Dhirajlal
Web References
www.manupatra.com
www.scconline.com
www.indiankanoon.com
www.mciindia.org
www.livelaw.in
2-AIR 1956 SC 757 Page 5
http://copyright.gov.in/frmrti.aspx
www.quora.com
www.blog.i.pleaders
www.lawrato.com
www.lawoctopus.com
www.scribd.com
www.shareyouressay.com
www.firstpost.com
www.lawsenate.com
www.lawteacher.com

2-AIR 1956 SC 757 Page 6
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The hon’ble Supreme Court of India has the jurisdiction in this matter under
article 136 of The Constitution of India as follow:
136. Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court -
1. Notwithstanding anything in this chapter the supreme court may, In its

discretion, grant special leave to appeal from any judgment decree,
determination, sentence or order in any Cause or matter passed or made
by any court or tribunal in the territory of India
2. Nothing in the clause (1) shall apply to any judgment, determination,

sentence or order passed or made by any court or tribunal constituted by or
under any law relating to the armed forces.
The Supreme Court has a jurisdiction to entertain and hear appeals by

granting special leave against any kind of judgment or order made by any
court or tribunal in any proceedings and the exercise of this power is left
entirely to the discretion of the Supreme Court.
THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION IS NOT MAINTAINABLE AS THERE IS A NO

INJUSTICE WITH THE BABA
Special leave petition is exercised in the cases where any substantial

question of law is involved or gross in justice has been done.
The court needs to be convicted that there is substantial question of law that
needs settlement by the Supreme Court.

2-AIR 1956 SC 757 Page 7
STATEMENT OF FACTS
ABOUT BABA
A well known person of Paristhan state was involved with multiple social and
religious organizations, having huge following among the locals politicians,
bureaucrats, politicians & others and is renowned for his command over
“Tantrik Vidya”.
RAJPURIA FAMILY
He lived in a huge and posh complex known as “mukti ashram”. Rajpuria

family was one amongst many reputed families who seek baba’s guidance in
day-to-day life. Rajpuria family happened to be very close to baba and had
blind faith on him. There was a rumour that Mrs. Himani Rajpuria and her
daughter had an illicit relationship with baba.
TOLD ABOUT EVIEL SPIRIT
On 12th February, 2005 :-
Baba summoned the entire family to his mukti ashram and took him to his
special meditation room where he unfolded that – Rajpuria family was likely
to face a series of extremely unexpected and tragic problems in coming few
months due to ire of “evil spirits”.
Baba revealed that by the virtue of his “tantric vidya”, he foresaw such
serioes problem. Hearing this, the entire family was shell-shocked. Mr.
Rajpuria questioned : “are you sure baba” and Mrs. Rajpuria stammered &
visibly shaken replied : “are you questioning baba ?”
After this baba went into Samadhi for half hour and then uttered : “I can
vividly see that all of you will be killed within a span of four months” I have
to do something for a family which is most loyal to me.
Baba went into deep meditation for the span of 5 days in his special
Samadhi room and after 5 days, baba sent a message to rajpuria family to
reach “Mukti Ashram” where baba declared : “oh! It’s your property which is
the cause of this curse” and asked whether there were any property dispute
earlier, in reply to which Mr. Rajpuria discussed about previous property and

2-AIR 1956 SC 757 Page 8
business related issues which was settled by the decision of Hon’ble High
Court.
After hearing Mr. Rajpuria, baba said : the evil spirits are engaged by
someone to destroy your entire property by killing all the members of
Rajpuria family and the only way to protect the lives is to transfer the entire
movable and immovable property to some other person or organization as
per the law of the land so that the threat to the family will be over.
Hearing this, wife of Mr. Rajpuria immediately suggested : “who can be more
appropriate & better man then baba”. Her suggestion was appreciated and
accepted.
Baba, hence resolved to start a ninety day long “tantric jaap” with Samadhi
in isolation to destroy the evil spirits.
The entir rajpuria family resolved to proceed for “chaar dhaam yatra” to pray
for the baba’s safety and victory after the execution of deeds and documents
for the transfer of property. All deeds were executed within 7 days.
After 90 Days :-
Rajpuria family and other devotees opened the door of Samadhi room but
did not found baba there. Every corner of the ashram was searched but baba
found neither dead nor alive.
Police were informed and investigation was started.
After 1 month, police received information that all the 9 members of the
rajpuria family were found assumed dead in Mr. Rajpuria’s mother home
(deceased a year ago).
POLICE FOUND ALL WERE DEAD
Polce found that all were dead but Mr. Himani Rajpuria was in sub-conscious
state, she was rushed to the hospital and doctors declared that she is in
comna. After 3 months of extensive treatment, she recovered but lost all her
memory.
Investigation term described the cases “very baffeling & disturbing” because
there wasno marks of injuries on the body of victins.

2-AIR 1956 SC 757 Page 9
DEAD BODIES WERE FOUND
Dead bodies were found near a big dining table where the presence of used
plates & utensils appeared that 12 – 13people including the family itself had
consumed dinner 2 days before the dead bodies found on receiving
information from neighbours.
Post mortem report showed traces of Belladona.
TRANSFER OF PROPERTY
It became clear that the entire property of Rajpuria family has been
transferred/sold to a well-known businessman – Mr. P.C., proprietor of P.C.
Sons & co. Things were found to be as per law after verification.
POLICE WENT TO BABA ASHARM
Police claimed to have made all the efforts to trace the baba but could not
found. After this police team raided the premises of baba’s ashram and
found some material and videos which pointed towards the suspicion of sex
trade activities but no other substantial evidence in the form of witness were
available.
INVESTIGATION STARTED
December, 2005
A baba was intercepted by the police team from a small kutya in a remote
and backward area of Gassam. He was found mentally-unstable and on the
basis of investigation by the police, it was cocluded that baba was kidnapped
from his ashram and taken to an isolated place.
He was kept captive for a few months and it appeared that he was tortured
mentally & physically and was made to sign documents as per the orders of
his kidnappers, before being released with blind-fold and with hands tied in a
deserted place.
The baba was found in a bad condition by the inhabitants of the village who
gave him shelter and food. Baba was famous among them as “Bhola Baba”.
INTERROGATION

2-AIR 1956 SC 757 Page 10
As per the statement given by the police, the baba admitted during
interrogation that he had planned the entire drama and conned the rajpuria
family. He further admitted to have sold the property to Mr. P.C., a
businessman. But allegedly beforehe could receive the money, he was
abducted. However, he strongly maintained that he know nothing about the
whereabouts of the rajpuria family.
Villagers verified that the old man known as “Bhola Baba, lived a humble life
& never indulged in any unlawful activities. Rather he kept busy with puja-
path throughout the day.
CHARGE SHEET FILLED
On the basis of Charge-sheet filed by the police, trial of the baba was
conducted in the court of district and session judge(Jashmer). The court
acquitted baba on 16th may 2014 due to lack of sufficient and concrete
evidence and he was given benefit of doubt.
However, he was held liable for the offence of cheating u/s 416/420 of I.P.C.
and was sentenced with 3 years imprisonment
APPEAL FILLED
14th July,2014 :-
Relatives of Rajpuria family along with state/police filed an appeal against

the decision of the court in the Paristhan High court. After hearing the
pleadings the Hon’ble High Court awarded life imprisonment to baba ad held
him guilty of C.H. amounting to murder on the basis of circumstantial
evidence.
NGO based in Gassam challenged the decision of Hon’ble High Court,

keeping in view trhe good conduct of baba and contradictory conclusions
drawn by the police after investigation at the initial stage.

2-AIR 1956 SC 757 Page 11
STATEMENT OF ISSUE
1. Whether the special leave petition (SLP) is maintainable or not and

whether the NGO has the locus standi to impugn the judgment of the
high court?
2. Whether the accused that is deemed insane put on trial as per the
section 84 of the Indian penal Code,1860?
3. Whether the act of Baba tantamount to murder?
4. Whether the act of Baba tantamount to cheating?
5. Whether from the facts of the case the owner of pharmaceutical

Company is charged with criminal conspiracy or abatement by
intentional aid?

2-AIR 1956 SC 757 Page 12
STATEMENT OF ARGUMENTS
1. Whether the special leave petition (SLP) is maintainable or not

and whether the NGO has the locus standi to impugn the
judgment of the high court?
Article 136 empowers the Supreme Court to grant in discretion Special leave
to Appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in
any cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory
of India. It vests in the Supreme Court a discretionary power to be exercised
for satisfying the demands of justice under exceptional circumstances. Such
power is to be exercised with caution and in accordance with law and set
legal principles. In the instantaneous matter SLP is not maintainable as
Special Leave cannot be granted when substantial justice has been done and
no exceptional or special circumstances exist for case to be maintainable.
The practice of non-interference in the decisions of lower courts is followed
by the Supreme Court when it is of the view that all relevant factors have
been taken into consideration as in the instantaneous matter.
In the case D.C Mills VS Commissioner of Income Tax 1 The court held
in this case ”It being an exceptional and overriding power it had to be
exercised sparingly and with caution and only in special extra ordinary
situation. Beyond that it is not possible for fetter the exercise of this power
by any set formula or rule.”
In the case Haripada Dey VS State of West Bengal2 The court held that
it will grant special leave only if there has been gross miscarriage of justice
or departure from legal procedure such as which vitiates the whole trial or if
the finding of fact were such as shocking to the judicial conscience of the
court.
IN THE GIVEN CASES—
THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION IS NOT MAINTAINABLE AS there is no

injustice with the baba.
 The baba confesses in front of the magistrate about his overall

offences

2-AIR 1956 SC 757 Page 13
 He influences the Rajpuria family

 He created the overall conspiracy as per the police investigation.
 He was involved in the tantric vidhya.
2-Whether the accused that is deemed insane put on trial as per

the section 84 of the Indian penal Code, 1860?
Section 84 states Act of a person of unsound mind – Nothing is an offence

which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of
unsoundness of min, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that
he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law.Persons of unsound
mind:-
There are four kinds of persons who may be said to be not of sound mind:-
(i) An Idiot (ii)A Lunatic or a madman (iii) One made non compos
by illness
In the case Tuba chatia VS State of Assam3 The cout held that
unsoundness of mind as contemplated by sec 84 of the penal code is legal
insanity which means the state of mind in which an accused is incapable
of knowing the nature of his act or that he is doing what is either wrong
or contrary to law. In other words his congnitive faculties are such that he
does not know what he has done or what will follow his act.
In the case Sudhir Chandra Biswas VS State4 The court held that the
unsoundness of mind in order to be defence, means and implies a state of
mind in which the accused is incapable of knowing that he is doing any
wrong or anything contrary to law and burden of proving this is upon the
person who takes the plea.
IN THE GIVEN CASES –
 At the time of offence the baba was mentally sound.

 He influences the Rajpuria family
 Baba did all the planning with full knowledge of his act and its possible
outcome

2-AIR 1956 SC 757 Page 14
 He created the conspiracy of evil spirit.
3- Whether the act of Baba tantamount to murder-
Sec. 300 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 states culpable homicide is
murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention
of causing death or causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to
be likely to cause the death of the person to whome the harm is caused
or if it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person
and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary
course of nature to cause death or if the person committing the act knows
that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability cause
death.
In the given case-
- Baba had illicit relationship with both the wife and daughter of Mr.
Rajpuriya.
- With the help of Mrs. Rajpuriya Baba cheated hole of Rajpuriya family.
- With fear of being caught for cheating Baba killed the hole of family
with the help of belladone.
4-Whether the act of Baba tantamount to cheating?
Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code states -
Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the

person so deceived to deliver any property, to any person, or to consent that
any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so
deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he
2-AIR 1956 SC 757 Page 15
were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause
damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said
to “cheat.
In the case Ram Das VS State of U.P court analysed the ingredients of
offence of cheating as under-
1- There should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person by

deceiving him;
2- A) The person so deceived should be induced to deliver any property
to any person, or to consent that any shall retain any property;or
B) The person so deceived should be intentionally induced to do or
omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so
deceived; and
3- In cases covered by 2(B), the act or omission should be one which
causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to the person induced in
body, mind, reputation or property.
In the case Hiralal Harilal Bhagwati VS C.B.I New Delhi court held
that for establishing the offence of cheating, the complaint is required to
show that the accused had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time
of making promise or representation.
In the given case:-
 Tantrik Baba influenced the Rajpuria family to transfer their entire

movable & immovable property to some other person or organization
in order to avoid the series of tragic problems due to ire of “Evil
Spirits”.
 Baba made a plan to deceive the Rajpuria Family by dishonestly
inducing them to transfer their entire property to him
 Baba confess in front of the magistrate about the overall offences
 He sold the entire property to the parametrical company
5-Whether from the facts of the case the owner of pharmaceutical

Company be charged with criminal conspiracy or abatement by
intentional aid?
Section 120-A defines criminal conspiracy as below:

2-AIR 1956 SC 757 Page 16
"120-A. Definition of criminal conspiracy:- When two or more persons agree

to do, or cause to be done, (1) an illegal act, or (2) an act which is not illegal
by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy:
Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall
amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is
done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof.
In the case Sachin Jagdish Joshi VS State of Maharastra1 the S.C held
that the union of mind of two or more persons is compulsory for the crime of
criminal conspiracy. But it is not possible to prove the agreement between
such persons by a direct avidence.
In the case R. Saji VS state of Kerla the S.C held that knowing the
purpose of criminal conspiracy enough to constitute a criminal conspiracy
IN THE GIVEN CASE :---
 The owner has been with the baba in all the conspiracy from the
beginning
 The baba and owner made the overall conspiracy
 With baba the owner conned the Rajpuria family
 The owner kidnapped the baba because he did not want to give baba
partnership.
In the case Sachin Jagdish Joshi VS State of Maharastra1 the S.C

held that the union of mind of two or more persons is compulsory for the
crime of criminal conspiracy. But it is not possible to prove the agreement
between such persons by a direct avidence.
In the case R. Saji VS state of Kerla the S.C held that knowing the
purpose of criminal conspiracy enough to constitute a criminal conspiracy.

2-AIR 1956 SC 757 Page 17
ARGUMENT ADVANCED
1-Whether the special leave petition (SLP) is maintainable or not

and whether the NGO has the locus standi to impugn the judgment
of the high court?
It is humbly submitted that the special leave petition filed by the NGO
against the judgment of
Hon’ble high court is not maintainable under Article 136 of the

Constitution of India.
It is contended that the jurisdiction of Supreme Court under Article 136

can always be aphealed
1.1When a question of law of general public importance arises and even

question of fact can also be a subject matter of judicial review
The issues involves substantial question of law.
Art. 136:-Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court(1) Notwithstanding

anything in this Chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion, grant
special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence

2-AIR 1956 SC 757 Page 18
or order in any cause or matter passed or made by anycourt or tribunal in

the territory of India
Nothing in clause (1) shall apply to any judgment, determination, and

sentence or order passed or made by any court or tribunal constituted by or
under any law relating to the Armed Forces.
it has to be understood that the Court has evolved and formulated a

principle that if the basic judgment is not assailed and the challenge is only
to the order passed in review, this Court is obliged not to entertain such
special leave petition. The said principle has gained the authoritative status
and has been treated as a precedential principle for more than two decades
and we are disposed to think that there is hardly any necessity not to be
guided by the said precedent.
It is humbly submitted that the Special Leave Petition against the judgment
of Hon’ble High Court is not maintainable under Article 136 of the
Constitution of India. Article 136 empowers the Supreme Court to grant in
discretion Special leave to Appeal from any judgement, decree,
determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or made by
any court or tribunal in the territory of India. It is humbly submitted that SLP
is not maintainable as Special Leave cannot be granted when substantial
justice has been done and no exceptional or special circumstances exist for
case to be maintainable [A]. Also, the Supreme Court should restrict itself to
interfere in the decisions of lower court. [B] Furthermore, the question
involved in the present case is outside the jurisdiction of this court, thus
entitled to be dismissed [C]
A. NO EXCEPTIONAL AND SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST AND

SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE HAS BEEN DONE IN THE PRESENT CASE. It is most
humbly submitted before this Honourable Court that the SC will not interfere
with the concurrent finding of the courts below unless of course the findings
are perverse or vitiated by error of law or there is gross miscarriage of
justice. Article 136 does not confer a Right of Appeal, but merely, a
discretionary power to the Supreme Court to be exercised for satisfying the
demands of justice under exceptional circumstances. The SC observed in the
Pritam Singh v. State , in explaining how the discretion will be exercised
generally in granting SLP: The wide discretionary power with which this
2-AIR 1956 SC 757 Page 19
court is invested under it is to be exercised sparingly and in exceptional

cases only and as far as possible a more or less uniform standard should be
adopted in granting special leave in the wide range of matters which can
come up before it under article 136.4 Circumspection and circumscription
must induce the Court to interfere with the decision under challenge only if
the extraordinary flaws or grave injustice or other recognised grounds are
made out.5 It is contended by the respondent that the appellant must show
that exceptional and special circumstances exists and that if there is no
interference, substantial and grave injustice will result and the case has
features of sufficient gravity to warrant review of the decision appealed
against on merits. Only then the court would exercise its overriding powers
under Art. 136 . Special leave will not be granted when there is no failure of
justice or when substantial justice is done, though the decision suffers from
some legal errors.7 Although the power has been held to be plenary,
limitless , adjunctive, and unassailable9 , in M. C. Mehta v. Union of India
and Aero Traders Private Limited v. Ravinder Kumar Suri, it was held
that the powers under Article 136 should be exercised with caution and in
accordance with law and set legal principles.
B. NON-INTERFERENCE IN THE DECISION OF THE LOWER COURTS If it

appears prima facie that the order in question cannot be justified by any
judicial standard, the ends of justice and the need to maintain judicial
discipline require the Supreme Court to intervene; the Supreme Court in this
case pointed out the errors of the High Court, but, did not interfere in the
decision of the High Court. The Supreme Court does not interfere with the
conclusion arrived at by the High Court if it has taken all the relevant factors
into consideration and there has been no misapplication of the principles of
law.13 Normally, in exercising its jurisdiction under Article 136, the Supreme
Court does not interfere with the findings of the fact concurrently arrived at
by the tribunal and the High Court unless there is a clear error of law or
unless some important piece of evidence has been omitted from
consideration. Though Article 136 is conceived in widest terms, the practice
of the Supreme Court is not to interfere on questions of fact except in
exceptional cases when the finding is such that it shocks the conscience of
the court.
IN THE GIVEN CASE:---

2-AIR 1956 SC 757 Page 20
There is no injustice and no violation of natural justice.
In the case of C.CHENGA REDDY &ORS. VS. STATE OF ANDRAPRADESH

1996 10 SCC 193 , IN THIS CASE based on circumstancial evidence the
settled law is that the circamstancial from which the conclusion of guilt is
drawn should be fully proved and such circumstances must be conclusive in
nature .MOREEVER, all the circumstances should be complete and there
should be no gap left in the chain evidence .
IN THE PRESENT CASE the court below have overlooked these settled
principle and allowed suspicion to take the place of proof besides relying
upon some inadmissible evidence .
Whether the accused that is deemed insane put on trial as per the
section 84 of the Indian penal Code,1860?
Section 84 states Act of a person of unsound mind –
Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it,
by reason of unsoundness of min, is incapable of knowing the nature of the
act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law.
In order to hold a person legally responsible for a crime, a criminal intent is

necessary and therefore capacity of the wrong-doer to form a criminal intent
is a relevant consideration in determining the criminal liability of that person.
A person may lack sufficient mental capacity to form a criminal intent
because of some defect of the mental faculty.
Stephen in his Digest of Criminal Law states – No act is a crime if the person
who does it, is at the same time when it is done prevented either by
defective mental power or by any disease affecting his mind (a) from
knowing the nature and quality of the act, or (b) from knowing that act is
wrong.

2-AIR 1956 SC 757 Page 21
Persons of unsound mind:-
There are four kinds of persons who may be said to be not of sound mind:-
An Idiot.
A Lunatic or a madman.
One made non compos by illness, and
One who is drunk.
In R. Vs. Arnold, it was held that:- A person can claim exemption from
liability if by reason of unsoundness of mind he was unable to distinguish
between good and evil and also did not know what he did. This test is known
as wild beast test.
In Shrikant Anand Rao Bhosale Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2002, it was

held that:- The unsoundness of mind before and after the incident would be
a relevant fact.
In Sudhir Chand Biswas Vs. State, 1987, it was held that:- If at the time
of committing the offence the accused knew the nature of the act, he is
guilty. Unsoundness of mind means and implies a state of mind in which the
accused is incapable of knowing that he is doing any wrong or anything
contrary to law and the burden of proving this is upon the person who takes
the plea.
In Tabu Chetia Vs. State of Assam, 1976, it was held that:- Unsoundness
of mind as contemplated by section 84 of the Penal Code is legal insanity
which means the state of mind in which an accused is incapable of knowing
the nature of his act or that he is incapable of knowing that he is doing what
is either wrong or contrary to law. In other words his cognitive faculties are
such that he does not know what he has done or what will follow his act.
In Kalicharan A.I.R. 1947, it has been pointed out that mere absence of
motive for a crime, however atrocious it may be, cannot, in the absence of
plea and proof of legal insanity, bring the case within this section.
The plea of insanity is taken in the Bar of Trial: When the accused is insane
and cannot plead.

2-AIR 1956 SC 757 Page 22
“When you live in the shadow of insanity, the appearance of another mind
that thinks and talks as your does is close to be blessed event” – Robert M
Pirsig (Philosopher & Writer)
In the given case:-
Baba was of sound mind at the time of committing the offence.
Baba did all the planning with full knowledge of his act and its possible
outcome.
Baba was found insane or mentally disable, when police team traced him in
Gassam.
Baba cannot plead the defence of insanity under section 84 of the Penal
Code.
At the time of trial in the court of justice, baba was insane. Baba can be put
on trial because there is no immunity provided to any insane person.
Hence, Baba can be put on trial.
-Whether the act of Baba tantamount to cheating ?
Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code states -
Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the

person so deceived to deliver any property, to any person, or to consent that
any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so
deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he
were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause
damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said
to “cheat”.
Ingredients:-
Deception of any person.
(a) Fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person –
To deliver any property to any person; or
To consent that any person shall retain property, or

2-AIR 1956 SC 757 Page 23
(b) Intentionally inducing that person to do or omit to do anything which he

would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission
causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind,
reputation or property.
In the given case:-
Tantrik Baba influenced the Rajpuria family to transfer their entire movable
& immovable property to some other person or organisation in order to
avoid the series of tragic problems due to ire of “Evil Spirits”.
As Rajpuria Family was very close and loyal to Tantrik Baba, they followed
the instructions of Baba and transferred their entire movable & immovable
property on the name of Baba. All deeds were executed within 7 days i.e. by
24th February,2005.
Baba instructed to not to disturb him for 90 Days during the “Tantrik Jaap”
with Samadhi in isolation to destroy the evil spirits and when the Rajpuria
Family & other devotees opened the door of his room, baba was not found
there. Entire ashram was searched out but no traces of baba were found.
A police complaint was filed but even after serious search out, baba couldn’t
found.
In December, 2005 – Baba was intercepted by the police team from a small
kutya in a remote & backward area of Gassam in very bad condition and was
mentally-unstable.
As per the statement given by the police, the baba admitted during
interrogation thatb he had planned the entire drama and conned the
Rajpuria Family. He further admitted to have sold the property to Mr. P. C.,
a businessman engaged in Pharmaceutical Co. But allegedly before he could
receive the money, he was abducted.
The Supreme Court has in Ram das Vs. State of U.P., 1971 analysed the
ingredients of offence of cheating as under:-
There should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person by

deceiving him;
(a) The person so deceived should be induced to deliver any property to a

person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property; or
2-AIR 1956 SC 757 Page 24
(b) The person so deceived should be intentionally induced to do or omit to

do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived; and
In cases covered by (ii) (b), the act or omission should be one which causes
or is likely to cause damage or harm to the person induced in body, mind,
reputation or property.
Our Remarks:-
Baba made a plan to deceive the Rajpuria Family by dishonestly inducing

them to transfer their entire property to him.
Baba arranged the entire drama to create a sense of fear among the
members of the Rajpuria Family by creating the fictitious story of “Evil
Spirits”.
Rajpuria Family was made to transfer their entire property in the name of
Baba by the fraudulent & dishonest representation of facts.
Moreover, as per the statement given by the police, the baba admitted
during interrogation that he had planned the entire drama and conned the
Rajpuria Family. He further admitted to have sold the property to Mr. P. C.,
a businessman engaged in Pharmaceutical Co. But allegedly before he could
receive the money, he was abducted.
4-Whether from the facts of the case the owner of haramaceutical

Company be charged with criminal conspiracy or abatement by
intentional aid ?
Section 120-A defines criminal conspiracy as below:
"120-A. Definition of criminal conspiracy:- When two or more persons agree

to do, or cause to be done, (1) an illegal act, or (2) an act which is not illegal
by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy:
Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall
amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is
done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof.

2-AIR 1956 SC 757 Page 25
Explanation - It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of

such agreement, or is merely incidental to that object.
120-B. Punishment of criminal conspiracy -
(1) whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence

punishable with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a
term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in
the Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same
manner as if he had abetted such offence.
(2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal

conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished
with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months,
or with fine or with both.
IN THE GIVEN CASES:--
The parmatical company owner has kidnapped the baba as soon as he

transferred all the property to thje company
The parmatical company owner also did not pay the money to baba as he
sold the property of mr rajpuria which he conned from them.
The parameticcal company owner has been with the baba in all the
conspiracy from the beginning.
The parmatical company owner also tourture the baba mentally and
physically for months and also made him to sign some of the documents.

2-AIR 1956 SC 757 Page 26
PRAYER
Wherefore it is prayed, in light of the issues raised, arguments advanced,

and authorities cited, that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:
1. Declare that the Special Leave Petition is not maintainable under

Article 136 of the constitution of India, 1950.
2. To set aside the sentence of Hon’ble High court and give relief in the
punishment of life imprisonment to Baba keeping in view his good
conduct and contradictory conclusions deemed by the police after
investigation at the initial stage.
3. To treat Baba as the person of unsound mind treated as per law and
provide proper medical aid for his ill health & frequent mental fits.
And Pass any other Order, Direction, or Relief that it may deem fit in
the Best Interests of
Justice, Fairness, Equity and Good Conscience.
For This Act of Kindness, the Appellant Shall Duty Bound Forever Pray.
Respondent

2-AIR 1956 SC 757 Page 27

Uday Moot Respondant

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Uday Moot Respondant

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

5th INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION- 2019

5th INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION- 2019

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. ------------OF 2019

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION

UNDER ART.136 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

Most Respectfully Submitted to

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

1-West Bengal AIR 1955SC 55

1- Whether the special leave petition (SLP) is maintainable or not and

1-West Bengal AIR 1955SC 55

Cr.P.C Code 0f criminal procedure code,1973

AIR All India Report

ALJ Allahabad Law Journal

ALJR Allahabad Law Journal Reporter

I.P.C Indian Penal Code,1860

AIR Cr All India Reporter Criminal Cases

U/S Under Section

SCC Supreme Court Cases

1-West Bengal AIR 1955SC 55

The Constitution of India

Indian Penal Code, 1860

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Gopabandhu Biswal VS Krishna Chandra Mohanty AIR 1998 4 SCC 447

Taherakhatoon VS Salambin Mohammad AIR 1999 SC 1104

Pritiam Singh VS State AIR 1950 SC 169

Vikaram Singh VS Union of India 1998 9 SSC 254

D.C Mills VS Commissioner of Income Tax West Bengal AIR 1955 SC 55

Haripada Dey VS State of West Bengal AIR 1956 SC 757

Tabu Chetia VS State of Assam AIR 1976

Sudhier Chandra Biswas VS State AIR 1987

Ram Das VS U.P AIR 1971 SCJ 264

Hiralal Harilal Bhagwati VS CBI New Delhi

Qyami Ayatu VS State of Madhya Pradesh

Bapu VS State of Rajasthan

S. Sunil Sandeep VS State of Karnataka

State of Punjab VS Mohinder Singh

1-West Bengal AIR 1955SC 55

Constitution of India ,by Jain , 7 edition

Constitution of India,by P.M Bakshi

Constitution of India,by Dr. J.N Pandey , 55 edition

Constitution of India,dr. P.K Agrwal

Constitution of India, by Mahender Pal Singh

Indian Penal Code ,by C.K Lakwani

Indian Penal Code, by K.D Gaur , 6 edition

Indian Penal Code, by B.M Gandhi, 2 edition

Indian Penal Code, by Ratanlal ,Dhiraj Lal, 33 edition

Indian Penal Code, by Harish Chandra

Indian Evidence Act by Dr. Awtar Singh

Indian Evidence Act by BATUK LAL

Indian evidence act by Dr. V Nageswara Rao.

Code of Criminal Procedure by S C Sarkar

Code of Criminal Procedure by K.V.Kelkar

Code of Criminal Procedure by Ratanlal & Dhirajlal

1-West Bengal AIR 1955SC 55

136. Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court -

1. Notwithstanding anything in this chapter the supreme court may, In its

2. Nothing in the clause (1) shall apply to any judgment, determination,

The Supreme Court has a jurisdiction to entertain and hear appeals by

THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION IS NOT MAINTAINABLE AS THERE IS A NO

Special leave petition is exercised in the cases where any substantial

1-West Bengal AIR 1955SC 55