Prosecution

CCI – NLUD COMPETITION LAW MOOT 2018 TC -
IV INTERNAL TRIAL ADVOCACY COMPETITION,2018
BEFORE THE COURT OF SESSION
STATE ……PROSECUTION
V.
SATYAVRANT AND KAANT KUMAR ……..DEFENCE
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

IV INTERNAL TRIAL ADVOCACY COMPETITION 2018
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBERVATION…………………………………………………………………………4
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ………………………………………………………………………….5
TABLE OF CASES ……………………………………………………………….………….5
BOOKS REFERRED ………………………………………………………………………...6
STATUES ………………………………………………………………………………….7
ONLINE DATABASE ……………………………………………………………………...7
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION …………………………………………………………………8
STATEMENT OF FACTS ………………………………………………………………………….9
STATEMENT OF CHARGES ……………………………………............................................10
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS …………………………………………………………………….11
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ………………………………………………………………………..12
ISSUE1THAT THE GURU JI AND KAANT ARE LIABLE UNDER SECTION 376 OF IPC?
............................………………………………...…………………………………….11
[1.1]THERE WAS NO CONSENT GIVEN BY EILLA…...................................………….12
[1.2MEDICIAL EXAMINATION REPORT…………………...14
ISSUE 2THAT THE GURU JIAND KAANT KUMAR ARE LIABLE FOR THE OFFENCE
UNDER SECTION 120B READ WITH SECTION 34 OF THE IPC,
1860……………………………………………………………………………………………..21
[2.1] THAT THERE WAS AN AGREEMENT TO COMMIT AND WRONFUL
ACT…………………………………………………………………………………...…15
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

[2.2] MEETING OF MINDS………………………………………………………………………….16
[2.3] LIMITED ROLE……………………...………………………………………………………..16
[2.4] CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE……………………………………………………………….17
[2.5] PARTICIPATION…………………………………………………………………………….17
[2.6] ACT DONE BY SEVERAL PERSON IN FURTHERENCE OF COMMON INTENTION………………18
ISSUE 3 THAT THE KAANTKUMAR CAN BE LIABLE UNDER SECTION 107 OF IPC? 18
3.1 ABETEMENT BY CONSPIRACY……………………………………………………. 19
[3.2] THAT THE CO-ACCUSED ACTUAALY ADIED THE CAUSES OF THE RAPE OF
THE VICTIM WITH COMMOM INTENTION OR NOT……………………………………..21
[3.2.1] THAT MERE PRSENCE OF A PERSON DOES NOT DENOTE INSTIGATE FOR
ABETMENT…………………………………………………………………………………….22

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AIR ALL INDIA REPORTER
ALL ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
CAL CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
CRI LJ/ CRLJ CRIMINAL LAW JOURNAL
CR.P.C CRIMINL PROCEDURE CODE
DEL DELHI HIGH COURT
DW DEFENCE WITNESS
ED. EDITION
IPC INIDAN PENAL CODE
IC INDIAN CASES
N. FOOT NOTE NO.
P. PAGE NO
PW PROSECUTION WITNESS
RAJ RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
SC SUPERME COURT
SCC SUPREME COURT CASES
SCJ SUPREME COURT JOURNAL
SEC. SECTION
V. VERSUS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Table of Cases
S. CASE NAME CITATIONS PAGE

NO. NO.
1. Adam BhaiSulemanbhaiAjmeri v. State (2014) 7 SCC 18
716:2014(7) SCALE
100
2. Amrik Singh v. State of Punjab 1972 20
3. B.Ammu v. State of T.N, 2009 CrLJ 866(Mdr) 24
4. Dur Mohammed v. Emperor AIR 1934 Sind 57 19
5. E.K. Chandrasenan v. State of Kerala , AIR 1995 SC 1066 19
6. Harapal Singh v. state of H.P AIR 1981 SC 14
361:1981 CrLJ SC
1:(1980) 1 SCC 560
7. Jamunasingh v. State of Bihar AIR 1967 SC 553 24

8. John Pandian v. State Rep. By Inspector of Police (2010) 13 SCALE 13 18
9. Kali Munda v. king emperor 28 Cal 797 22
10. Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab (1994) 3 SCC 569 21
11. Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Administration) AIR 1988 SC 1983 17
12. KishoriLal v. State of M.P AIR 2007 SC 2457 21
13. Lingam Ramanna (1880) 2 Mad 137 23
14. Matan v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1960 Bom 393 : 21
1960 CrLJ 1189 : ILR
1958 BOM 700
15. Piara Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1977 SC 2274: 14
1977Cr LJ 1941
16. Piara Singh v. State of Punjab. AIR 1977 SC 2274: 14
1977Cr LJ 1941

17. RamabatarAgarwalla v. State 1983 CrLJ 122 (Ori) : 25

(1982) 54 Cut LT 345
18. ShivanarayanLaxminarayan Joshi v. State of , AIR 1980 SC 439 19
Maharashtra
19. State v. Jaigovind 52 CrLJ 646 : AIR 19

1951 Raj 89
20. State of M.P. v. Mukesh (2006)13scc197 24
21. The Queen v. Ameer Khan (1871) 17 WR (Cr) 15 22
Books Referred
1. RATANLAL&DHIRAJAL THE INDIAN PENAL CODE (33RD EDITION)

2. RATANLAL&DHIRAJLAL THE LAW OF EVIDENCE(25TH EDITION)
3. SARKAR LAW OF EVIDENCE VOLUME 1(17TH EDITION)
4. SARAKAR LAW OF EVIDENCE VOLUME 2(17TH EDITION)
5. PSA PILLAI’S CRIMINAL LAW(13TH EDITION)
6. R.V. KELKAR’S CRIMINAL PROCEDURE(6TH EDITION)

7. PARIKH’S TEXTBOOK OF MEDICAL JURISPRUDENCE, FORENSIC MEDIICNE(6TH EDITION
8. K D GAUR CRIMINAL LAW CASES AND MATERIALS (8TH EDITION)
9. LYONS, MEDICAL JURISPRUDENCE & TOXICOLOGY(23RD EDITION)
10. GUPTA AND DIGHE, CRIMINAL MANUAL

Statutes
1. INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860.

2. THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT 1872.
3. THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973.
Online Database
1. SCC ONLINE
2. LEXIS NEXIS
3. MANUPATRA
4. ALL INDIA REPORTER

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Prosecution have approached the Hon’ble court of session, to try the instant matter under
section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973

STATEMENT OF FACTS
Eila, the 17 years old girl, is a resident of B-276, Block 13, Sant Vihar, Jagdishpur District, in the
Union Of Indiana. Her family members were the followers of Guru “Sant Maharaj ji”. Elia has
no faith in Guru Ji but due to the devout faith of her grandmother she conforms to the
instructions of Guruji and shows herself as a believer.
Ricky is Eila’s classmate and has a shop in the sabzi and rashan market lane, he used to follow
elia everyday while going and coming back from school. Ricky also used to see her at Sant
Maharaj ji’s Darbar. Ricky confessed to Kaant all his feelings for elia. Kaant used to help ricky
to get along with eila. But little did he know that Kaant was sharing all his personal information
to Guruji.
The incident took place when Shanta devi was worried for elia and asked Guru ji for a solution.
Guruji told that there is a shudhi pooja that needs to take place. Elia family was sent back to
main hall dinner, as the pooja will take place at night and no one can enter the premise. Elia was
taken by Seema for shudhi-pooja. She was taken to a dimly-lighted room , where she felt weird.
There were buch of people surrounding Guruji, and when Elia turned to one of the sevak, she
found out that he was no one but Kaant, she didn’t feel right and tried to go, but she was stopped.
After that she was given holy water which made her more drizzy and unconscious. After that she
felt felt someone touching her legs and then she felt lot of pain in her abdomen area and chest
area but her mind wasn’t reacting. When she tried to lift her head, someone held it back and
closed her eyes. She woke up after one hour and it was difficult for her to walk.
On reaching home, elia found blood between her legs. She told this to her mother and she got
very worried and took her to nearest hospital. After examination, Doctor Pradeep, informed
Elia’s family that she had been raped.
After that both Guruji and Kaant were arrested and taken into the custody by the Police for
Investigation. And Guruji will be produced in the Court on Friday. On investigation ,it was found
out that there were many similar allegations of sexual assault was made earlier against Guruji.
The other fact, which came to the knowledge, was on the day of incident elia went to meet Ricky
at his residence in the morning and returned after few hours.

STATEMENT OF CHARGES
The following charges have been raised before the Court:
CHARGE 1
THAT THE GURU JI AND KAANT KUMAR ARE LIABLE UNDER SECTION 376 OF IPC?
CHARGE 2
THAT THE GURU JIAND KAANT KUMAR ARE LIABLE FOR THE OFFENCE UNDER
SECTION 120B READ WITH SECTION 34 OF THE IPC, 1860?
CHARGE 3
THAT THE KAANT KUMAR CAN BE LIABLE UNDER SECTION 107 OF IPC?

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
CHARGE 1
The council from the side of prosecution humbly submits that the Guru ji and kaant had sexual
intercourse with eilla without her consent which is proved by medical report and she was
intoxicated by Guru ji by to drink ‘holy water’ which made him dizzy and unconscious and when
she was unconscious she could not understand any thing and Guru ji an kaant take benfit of this
situation and had sexual intercourse without her consent which is punishable under sec 376 of
IPC
CHARGE 2
It is humbly submitted thatGuriji and kaant have criminal conspiracy which comes under section
120 b of ipc. The kaant sharing the letter of eill to guru ji from criminal mind which is essential
of mensrea and from that letter the Guru ji make eliia very scared when she saw her letter to guru
ji and the kaant were present at the crime scene with Guru ji which is completely indicates that
there was criminal conspiracy and guru ji and kaant would be liable under section of 120 b of
IPC
CHARGE 3
It is humbly submitted that the co-accused kaant would be liable under sec 107 of IPC which is
abetment because kaant was the only person who was providing the letter of eilla to Guru ji and
he acted with guilty mind which is required for abetment and there is intention of kaant for
providing the letter to guru ji and the kaant was aslo at the crime scene firm which the kaant is
liable under sec 107 of IPC

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
CHARGE 1
THAT THE ACCUSED AND CO-ACCUSED CAN BE LIABLE UNDER SECTION 376 OF IPC?
It is most humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court of india that respondent
(Satyavratkumur@Guruji) and (kaantkumar) is punishable for rape as they had forcible sexual
intercourse with the petitioner (Eila)
Under Indian Penal law Rape has been defined under “section375” which read as follow:
A man is said to commit “rape” who, except in the case hereinafter excepted, has sexual
intercourse with a woman under circumstances falling under any of the six following de-
scriptions:—
(First) — Against her will.
(Secondly) —Without her consent.
(Thirdly) — With her consent, when her consent has been obtained by putting her or any person
in whom she is interested in fear of death or of hurt.
(Fourthly) —With her consent, when the man knows that he is not her husband, and that her
consent is given because she believes that he is another man to whom she is or believes herself to
be lawfully married.
(Fifthly) — With her consent, when, at the time of giving such consent, by reason of
unsoundness of mind or intoxication or the administration by him personally or through another
of any stupefying or unwholesome substance, she is unable to understand the nature and
consequences of that to which she gives consent.

(Sixthly) — With or without her consent, when she is under sixteen years of age. Explanation.—
Penetration is sufficient to constitute the sexual intercourse necessary to the offence of rape.
(Exception) —Sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife, the wife not being under fifteen
years of age, is not rape.
[1.1]There Was No Consent given by the Eilla
In view of clause six section 375 of IPC sates that sexual intercourse with a girl not related as
wife below eighteen is an offence of rape, no matter whether the victim girl consented or not
consented to sexual intercourse
In the case of Harpal Singh vs State of H.P1 the Supreme Court observe that when the girl is
minor her consent is immaterial. When the prosecutrix girl is minor,even if the girl is not modest
or was a willing party or even if she invited the accused to have sexual intercourse with her,the
act of sexual intercourse would be still offence
As in this case the victim was minor as she is 17 years old so her consent was irrevelent and the
victim was intoxication which was stated by eilla that she was given ‘holy water’ to drink which
made her dizzy and unconscious and it is also stated in the opinion of medical report by medical
examiner which can be taken consider as a evidencial value which is sated in the sec 45 of India
Evidence Act 18722 which stated that When the Court has to form an opinion upon a point of
foreign law or of science or art, or as to identity of handwriting [or finger impressions], the
opinions upon that point of persons specially skilled in such foreign law, science or art, [or in
questions as to identity of handwriting] [or finger impressions] are relevant facts. Such persons
are called expertsso from this section the opinion of expert should be consider as a evidence
In the case PiarasinghVs state of Punjab3 the supreme court observe that in rape case where the
doctors differed it was held that the evidence of expert witness which support the direct evidence
should be accepted
1
Harapal Singh v. state of H.P., AIR 1981 SC 361:1981 CrLJ SC 1:(1980) 1 SCC 560
2
The Indian Evidence Act,1872
3
Piara Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1977 SC 2274: 1977Cr LJ 1941

And in the section of 114a of Indian evidence act 18624 which state that . Presumption as to
absence of consent in certain prosecutions for rape.—In a prosecution for rape under clause
(a) or clause (b) or clause (c) or clause (d) or clause (e) or clause (g) of sub-section (2) of section
376 of the Indian Penal Code, (45 of 1860), where sexual intercourse by the accused is proved
and the question is whether it was without the consent of the woman alleged to have been raped
and she states in her evidence before the Court that she did not consent, the Court shall presume
that she did not consent.]as it is also stated in the evidence which is statement of eilathat she was
made to drink something which made him unconscious and later she can not expressed in words.
She felt someone touching her legs then she felt lot of pain in her abdomen area and chest area
and when she tried to waking up someone forced him back which indicates that she had not
given consent for the sexual intercourse
As it is stated in the facts of the case and statement of elia that she was given holy water to drink
which made her dizzy and unconscious so she was intoxicated in which she was ot able to give
her consent
In the case of State Of MaharashtraV. VasantMadhavDavre5 the supreme court observed that
where a man had carnal knowledge of a girl of imbecile mind and the jury found that it was
without her consent, she being incapable of giving consent from defect of understanding it was
held that this amounted to rape
[1.2]MEDICAL EXAMINATION REPORT
After the offence of rape there is medical examination of victim by the doctor which is
compulsory for the rape cases as in same in this case the Dr. Pradeep kumar who is medical
Officer has take medical examination of victim eilla and in the medical report it is clearly shows
that there was forceful penetration by the accused and there are many evidence which shows that
there is sexual intercourse with eilla without her consent. There were blood stains, pubic hair and
fingernails were available on the victim clothes which shows clearly that the rape has been
commited.
4
Indian Evidence Act,1872
5
State of Maharashtra v. VasantmadhavDharve, 1989 CrLJ 2004(BOM)

According to sec 45 of INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT 1872 which states that When the Court has
to form an opinion upon a point of foreign law or of science or art, or as to identity of
handwriting [or finger impressions], the opinions upon that point of persons specially skilled in
such foreign law, science or art, [or in questions as to identity of handwriting] [or finger
impressions] are relevant facts. Such persons are called experts so from this section the opinion
of expert should be consider as a evidence
In the case PLARA SINGH VS STATE OF PUNJAB6 the supreme court observe that in rape
case where the doctors differed it was held that the evidence of expert witness which support the
direct evidence should be accepted
So as in this case the Medical officer stated his opinion 7 that she had sexually transmitted
infection, she was FORCEFUL PENTRATION and she was alcoholic intoxicated which is stated
in the facts that she was given ‘holy water’ to drink which made her dizzy and unconscious from
which that she could not understand much of what was happening around her and she had
injuries to the genitals/anus from this medical report we can conclude that she was sexually
transmitted
6
Piara Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1977 SC 2274: 1977Cr LJ 1941
7
See Annexure-1

CHARGE 2
THATSatyavrat Kumar AndKaant Kumar are liable for the offence under Section 120B
read with Section 34 Of the IPC, 1860
The prosecution humbly submits that the accused are liable for Criminal Conspiracy under
Section 120 B of IPC. For this offence , it is necessary to establish the following ingredients. The
hon'ble Supreme Court in MIR NAGVI ASKARI Vs. C.B.I.8 laid down the following ingredients
:-
(i) an agreement between two or more persons;

(ii) an agreement must relate to doing or causing to be done either (a) an illegal act; (b)
an act which is not illegal in itself but is done by illegal means.
[2.1] That there was an agreement to commit an unlawful act
It is essential that the offence of conspiracy required some kind of physical manifestation of
agreement. The express agreement, however, need not be proved. Nor actual meeting of two
persons is necessary. Nor it is necessary to prove the actual words of communication. The
evidence as to transmission of thoughts sharing the unlawful design may be sufficient. It is
unnecessary to prove that the parties actually came together and agreed in terms‘ to pursue the
unlawful object, there need never have been an express verbal agreement, it being sufficient that
there was a tacit understanding between the conspirators as to what should be done‘. The relative
acts or conduct of the parties must, however, be conscientious and clear to mark their occurrence
as to what should be done.9
Here in the present case, we can conclude from the given facts that Kaant use to share every
information of Elia’s and Ricky’s relationship to Guruji, as he was the only person to whom
Ricky shares all the information of his relationship. And Guruji used that information to scare
Elia, as it is provided that Guruji asked his sevika i to bring something from the room ,and she
brought the same letters that were written by Elia to Ricky. As it is clearly seen that Kaant was
8
2009(15) SCC 643
9
Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1988 SC 1983.

clearly involve with guruji. Second instance that can be seen, when the Shudhi-pooja was going
to start and Elia was taken to a dim light room , where she saw one of the sevak that was Kaant.
She didn’t feel right and wanted to go from the room, but Guruji ordered his Sevak to hold her as
it is because of the devil in her who wants to flee. Elia was already weak and drowsy after the
meal and was forcefully made to lie on the carpet. And after that she was given holy water to
drink which made her more drizzy and unconscious. Then Baba asked few sevaks to leave the
room , and just after that she felt someone touching her legs and then she felt a lot of pain in her
abdomen area and chest area but her mind wasn’t reacting to it. When she tried to lift her head,
someone held it back and closed her eyes. Then after the shudhi-pooja , she went back to her
home where she found out blood between her legs. She told her mother about this , who got very
worried and took her to nearest hospital, where they found out that Elia was raped.
It is clearly seen that, the series of acts done by Guruji and Kaant proves that there was
agreement between them, that it was not in verbal or in any written form, but from the acts and
thoughts of both, we can come out that there was a criminal conspiracy between them.
[2.2] Meeting of minds
Circumstances in a case, when taken together on their face value, should indicate meeting of
minds between the conspirators for the intended object of committing an illegal act or an act
which is not illegal, committed by illegal means.10
The meeting of minds can be seen when as Kaant use to bring all the information to Guruji about
Elia and Ricky’s relationship and that information is further used by Guruji to scare Elia. And
presence of Kaant in the room, where the shudhi-pooja was conducted. This fact clearly
establishes the meetings of mind of Guruji and Kaant.
[2.3]Limited Role
In Akshardham case11, the Supreme Court while acquitting the acqused it is held that:
10
John Pandian v. State Rep. By Inspector of Police, (2010) 13 SCALE 13.

“ It is true that in order to establish criminal conspiracy, it is not required of every co-conspirator
to know the entire sequence of the chain and events , and they can still be said to be conspirators
even if they are only aware of their limited roles and are not able to identify the role of any other
conspirator.”
Here Kaant was known to his role of helping guruji in every manner, first of all giving all the
information to the Guruji about the relationship of Ricky. And his presence in the room with the
guruji, and he was the ony person with whom ricky shared all his relationship information. So he
is the conspirator with the Guruji in raping an innocent girl.
[2.4] Circumstantial Evidence
In a case of criminal conspiracy it is not necessary to prove that a conspirator was aware of all
the acts his fellow conspirators committed in pursuance of the conspiracy. 12Conspiracy can be
proved even by circumstantial evidence and it is really this type of evidence which is normally
available to prove conspiracy.13
It is not the law that every conspirator must be present at every stage of the conspiracy. If the
conspirator concerned had agreed to the common design and had not resiled from that
agreement, it can be presumed that he continued to be a party to the conspiracy. It is manifest
that a conspiracy is always hatched in secrecy and it is impossible to adduce direct evidence of
the same. The offence can be only proved largely from the inferences drawn from acts or illegal
omission committed by the conspirators in pursuance of a common design. 14Here from the facts
itself it is conferred that both Kaant and Guruji were involved in the criminal conspiracy, as
Kaant was there in everything done by guruji . He was involved in every act, that was from
sharing information and raping the girl. From the series of acts we can conclude that both were
involed in the criminal conspiracy
[2.5] Participation
11
Adam BhaiSulemanbhaiAjmeri v. State (2014) 7 SCC 716:2014(7) SCALE 100.
12
Dur Mohammed v. Emperor, AIR 1934 Sind 57
13
E.K. Chandrasenan v. State of Kerala, AIR 1995 SC 1066
14
ShivanarayanLaxminarayan Joshi v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1980 SC 439

It is not necessary that all the conspirators should participate from the inception to the end of the
conspiracy; some may join the conspiracy after the time when such intention was first
entertained by any one of them and some others may quit from the conspiracy. When in
pursuance of the agreement the conspirators commit offences individually or adopt illegal means
to do a legal act which has a nexus to the object of conspiracy, all of them will be liable for such
offences even if some of them actively participated in the commission offences.15
[2.6]Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention16
When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all,
each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.
In Amrik Singh’s Case17 it has been further held that though common intention may develop in
course of the fight but there must be clear and unimpeachable evidence to justify that inference.
In other case also Pandurang v. State of Hyderabad18Supreme court emphasised on this point
that prior concert need not be something always very much prior to the incident, but could well
be something that may develop on the spot, on the spur of the moment.
Here in the case, from the following given facts we can conclude that there was a common
intention of both Kaant and Guruji to do the offence of rape. As Kaant use to share all the
information to the Guruji and He was present in the room where the incident took place, he was
present there as a sevak. Further he was only the one on whom ricky trusted. From this we can
see that Kaant and Guruji have prior knowledge of the incident and both were having the
common intention to do the offence of rape. There is clear evidence that both were involved in
the draconian act.
[2.7] Section 10 Evidence Act.
When there is reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have conspired together to
commit an offence or an actionable wrong, anything said, done or written by any one of such
15
State through Superintendent of police, CBI/Sit v. Nalini& Others, reported in (1999) 5 SCC 253 : AIR 1999 SC
2640: 1999 (3) SCR
16
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
17
Amrik Singh v. State of Punjab 1972
18
AIR 1954 SC 706

persons in reference to their common intention, after the time when such intention was first
entertained by any one of them, is a relevant fact as against each of the persons believed to be so
conspiring, as well for the purpose of proving the existence of the conspiracy as for the purpose
of showing that any such person was a party to it.
As held in a Rajasthan case conspiracy is hatched up in secrecy and it may be difficult to adduce
direct evidence of the same. The prosecution often relies on evidence of acts of various parties to
infer that acts were done in reference to their common intention. The prosecution will also more
rely upon circumstantial evidence. The conspiracy can be undoubtedly proved by such evidence
direct or circumstantial, but the court must inquire whether the two persons are independently
pursuing the same and/or they have come together to the pursuit of the unlawful object. The
former does not render those co-conspirators but the latter does. It is , however, essential that the
offence of conspiracy requires some kind of physical manifestation of agreement.19
CHARGE 3
[3.1] THAT THE ACCUSED CAN BE CHARGED UNDER SECTION 107 OF IPC HIS ACT?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court of Sessions, that the second accused, i.e., Kant
is guilty for abetting the offence of Rape under § 107 of the I.P.C. Where the offence is
committed in consequence of the abetment but there is no provision for punishment of such
abetment, the abettor is to be punished along with the offender for the original offence. 20 It is
humbly contented that Accused 2 are guilty for abetment. In order to bring a successful
conviction under this charge, it is pertinent to refer § 107 of I.P.C, which elucidates the essentials
of abetment.
19
Khalid v. State of Rajasthan, 1990 CrLJ NOC 176 (Raj)
20
KishoriLal v. State of M.P., AIR 2007 SC 2457.

In Corpus JurisSecundum,21 the meaning of the word ‘abet’ has been defined as meaning to aid;
to assist or to give aid; to command, procure, or to counsel; to countenance; to encourage,
counsel, or assist; to encourage or to set another on to commit.
In order to bring a person abetting the doing of a thing, under any one of the clauses enumerated
under section 107, it is not only necessary to prove that the person who has abetted has taken part
in the steps of the transaction but also in some way or other, he has been connected with those
steps of the transaction which are criminal. The offence of abetment depends upon the intention
of the person who abets, and not upon the act which is actually done by the person whom he
abets.22
It is well known that an act of abetment may take place in one of the three ways : (1) Instigation,
(2) Consipiracy, or (3) Intentional aid.23The definition of abetment in section 107, I.PC.includes
not merely instigation which is the normal form of abetment, but also conspiracy and aiding
3.1 ABETEMENT BY CONSPIRACY
Conspiracy consists, in a combination and agreement by persons, to do some illegal act or effect
a legal purpose by illegal means. So long as such a design rests in intention only, it is not
indictable. When parties agree to carry it into effect, the very plot is an act in itself, and the act of
each of the parties, promise against promise, actus contra actum, capable of being enforced, if
lawful, punishable, if for a criminal object or for the use of criminal means. And so far as proof
goes, conspiracy is generally a matter of inference, deducted from certain criminal acts of the
parties accused, done in pursuance of an apparent criminal purpose in common between them.24
In order to constitute the offence of abetment by conspiracy, there must be a combining together
21
See Corpus JurisSecundum, Vol. I, p. 306.
22
Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, (1994) 3 SCC 569 : 1994 CrLJ3139 : (1994) 1 SCC(Cri) 899.
23
Matan v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1960 Bom393 : 1960 CrLJ 1189 : ILR 1958 BOM 700.
24
RamabatarAgarwalla v. State, 1983 CrLJ 122 (Ori) : (1982) 54 Cut LT 345.

of two or more persons in the conspiracy and an act, or illegal omission, must take place in
pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing.25
Also in the instant matter we conclude from the given facts that Kaant used to share every
information of Eila and Ricky to the Guruji as he was the only person who was helping Ricky
with his affair with her and so he shared everything with Kaant. Also Kaant used to work with
the Guruji at his darbar and used to spend time there and all the the letters which were written by
both Eila and Ricky were being shared by his so called dear friend aka love guru to the
SantMaharajJi
It is not necessary that the abettor should concert the offence with person who commits it. It is
sufficient if he engages in the conspiracy in pursuance of which, the offence is committed.26
Where parties concert together, and have a common object, the act of one of the parties, done in
furtherance of the common object and in pursuance of the concerted plan, is the act for all.27
And here the second instance where it can be interpreted is when the Shudhipooja was going to
start and Eliawas taken to a dim light room where she saw one sevak that was Kaant fully
dressed in the attire with the Guruji as it was his dwar and he was there to help him. And when
she did not feel right and wanted to exit the room she was stopped by the sevaks who were
ordered by the Guruji in the name of evil sprit. Elia was already weak and drowsy after the meal
and was forcefully made to lie on the carpet. And after that she was given holy water to drink
which made her more dizzy and unconscious. Then Baba asked few sevaks to leave the room,
and just after that she felt someone touching her legs and then she felt a lot of pain in her
abdomen area and chest area but her mind wasn’t reacting to it. When she tried to lift her head,
someone held it back and closed her eyes. Then after the shudhi-pooja , she went back to her
home where she found out blood between her legs. She told her mother about this , who got very
worried and took her to nearest hospital, where they found according to the reports that Elia was
raped.
25
Kali Munda v. king emperor, 28 Cal 797; State v. Jaigovind, 52 CrLJ646 : AIR 1951 Raj 89.
26
Expln. 5 to section 108: Kali Munda, (1901) 28 Cal 797
27
The Queen v. Ameer Khan, (1871) 17 WR (Cr) 15.

It is clearly seen that, the series of acts done by Guruji and Kaant proves that there was
agreement between them, that it was not in verbal or in any written form, but from the acts and
thoughts of both, we can come out that there was a criminal conspiracy between them.
A person, it is trite, abets by aiding, when by any act done either prior to, or at the time of the
commission of an act, he intends to facilitate and does in fact facilitate the commission thereof,
would attract the third clause of section 107of the Penal Code. Doing something for the offender
is not abetment. Doing something with knowledge so as to facilitate him to commit the crime or
otherwise would constitute abetment.28 A person abets by aiding, when by act done either prior
to, or at the end of, the commission of an act, he intends to facilitate, and does in fact facilitate
the commission thereof. For instance, the supplying of necessary food to a person known to be
engaged in crime is not per ay criminal, but if food were supplied in order that the criminal might
go on a journey to the intended scene of the crime, or conceal himself while waiting for an
opportunity to commit the crime, the supplying of food would be in order to facilitate the
commission of the crime and might facilitate it.29
[3.2]THAT THE CO-ACCUSED ACTUAALY ADIED THE CAUSES OF THE RAPE OF

THE VICTIM WITH COMMOM INTENTION OR NOT
It is humbly submitted that in the present case the accused did not have any intention because
only doing something for the offender is not abetment. Doing something with knowledge so as to
facilitate him to commit the crime or otherwise would constitute abetment30 as in this case the
co-accused kaant is only providing letter to Guru ji where kaant have intention and he had no
knowledge as to facilitate hi to commit the crime and he have no mensrea he was only providing
letter to guru ji with no criminal intention
In order to proceed against a person for criminal offence under section 107,prosecution must
prove the element of mensrea31Negligence or carelessness or the facilitation cannot be termed to
be abetment so as to punish the guilty as per the provision of penal law32. In order to constitute
abetment the abettor must be shown to have “intentionally” aided to commission of the crime.
28
State of M.P. v. Mukesh, (2006) 13 SCC 197 : (2007) 2 SCC(Cri) 680.
29
Lingam Ramanna, (1880) 2 Mad 137.
30
State of mp.v.mukesh,(2006)13scc197
31
Jamunasingh v. State of Bihar,AIR 1967 SC 553
32
B.Ammu v. State of T.N,2009 CrLJ 866(Mdr)

The fact that kaant have no criminal intention he was only providing the letter and he had no
knowledge about the crime where for the abetment the abettor must be shown to have
intentionally aided to commission of the crime.
3.2.1 THAT MERE PRSENCE OF A PERSON DOES NOT DENOTE INSTIGATE FOR
ABETMENT
Mere presence at the commission of a crime cannot amount to intentional aid unless it was
intended to have that effect. To be present and aware that an offence is about to be committed
does not constitute abetment, unless the person thus present holds some position of rank or
influence such that his countenancing which takes place may, under the circumstances, be held
as a direct encouragement. In order to amount to abetment within the meaning of clause 3 of
section 107 of the ‘penal code’, the aid given must be with the intention to aid the commission of
a crime. The mere giving of aid will not make the act of abetment an offence, if the person who
gave the aid did not know that an offence was being committed or contemplated. As kaant
providing the letter to Guru ji is not said that the only providing the letter is abetment but the for
the abetment the intention is require where in this case kaant have no intention and he has no
knowledge about the crime
A person may, for example, invite another casually or for a friendly purpose and that may
facilitate the murder of the invitee.But unless the invitation was extended with intent to facilitate
the commission of the murder, the person inviting cannot be said to have abetted the murder. It is
not enough that an act on the part of the alleged abettor happens to facilitate the commission of
the crime. Intentional aiding and therefore, active complicity is the gist of the offence of
abetment33. The intention of either of the accused in this case was not to aid the commission of a
crime. The intention should be toaid an offence or to facilitate the commission of an offence. But
if the person, who lends his support, does not know, or has no reason to believe that the act,
which he is aiding or supporting, would actually take place, it cannot be said that he intentionally
aided or facilitated the doing of that act.34
33
Shri ram v. State of U.P.,AIR 1975 SC 175
34
RamabatarAgarwalla V. State Of Orissa, 1983 CrLJ 122(Ori)

PRAYER
Wherefore in light of the issue raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is humbly
prayed that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to
1. Convict, Guru ji and kaant fot the offence of rape under section 376 of IPC
1860
2. Convict, guru ji and kaant for the offence of criminal conspiracy and read
with common intention under section 120b and 32 of IPC,1860
3. Convict, kaant for the offence of abetment under section 107 of IPC,1860
And any other order that this Court may deem fit in the interest of justice, equity and good
conscience.
All of which is humbly prayed
Counsel for the Prosecution

Prosecution

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Prosecution

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CCI – NLUD COMPETITION LAW MOOT 2018 TC -

IV INTERNAL TRIAL ADVOCACY COMPETITION,2018

BEFORE THE COURT OF SESSION

SATYAVRANT AND KAANT KUMAR ……..DEFENCE

SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ………………………………………………………………………….5

TABLE OF CASES ……………………………………………………………….………….5

BOOKS REFERRED ………………………………………………………………………...6

ONLINE DATABASE ……………………………………………………………………...7

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION …………………………………………………………………8

STATEMENT OF FACTS ………………………………………………………………………….9

STATEMENT OF CHARGES ……………………………………............................................10

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS …………………………………………………………………….11

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ………………………………………………………………………..12

[1.1]THERE WAS NO CONSENT GIVEN BY EILLA…...................................………….12

[1.2MEDICIAL EXAMINATION REPORT…………………...14

[2.1] THAT THERE WAS AN AGREEMENT TO COMMIT AND WRONFUL

SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

[2.2] MEETING OF MINDS………………………………………………………………………….16

[2.3] LIMITED ROLE……………………...………………………………………………………..16

[2.4] CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE……………………………………………………………….17

[2.6] ACT DONE BY SEVERAL PERSON IN FURTHERENCE OF COMMON INTENTION………………18

3.1 ABETEMENT BY CONSPIRACY……………………………………………………. 19

SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

AIR ALL INDIA REPORTER

ALL ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

CAL CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

CRI LJ/ CRLJ CRIMINAL LAW JOURNAL

CR.P.C CRIMINL PROCEDURE CODE

DEL DELHI HIGH COURT

IPC INIDAN PENAL CODE

N. FOOT NOTE NO.

RAJ RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

SCC SUPREME COURT CASES

SCJ SUPREME COURT JOURNAL

SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

S. CASE NAME CITATIONS PAGE

7. Jamunasingh v. State of Bihar AIR 1967 SC 553 24

SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

17. RamabatarAgarwalla v. State 1983 CrLJ 122 (Ori) : 25

19. State v. Jaigovind 52 CrLJ 646 : AIR 19

1. RATANLAL&DHIRAJAL THE INDIAN PENAL CODE (33RD EDITION)

6. R.V. KELKAR’S CRIMINAL PROCEDURE(6TH EDITION)

10. GUPTA AND DIGHE, CRIMINAL MANUAL

SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

1. INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860.

SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

The following charges have been raised before the Court:

SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

(First) — Against her will.

(Secondly) —Without her consent.

SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

[1.1]There Was No Consent given by the Eilla

SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

[1.2]MEDICAL EXAMINATION REPORT

SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

(i) an agreement between two or more persons;

[2.1] That there was an agreement to commit an unlawful act

SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

[2.2] Meeting of minds