"S &S N T A M C C 2018" O 5, 2018 O 7, 2018: in The Court of Sessions Judge, at Punnai C.C. 100 of 2018

“SURANA &SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY
MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2018”
OCTOBER 5, 2018 TO OCTOBER 7, 2018
In the Court of Sessions Judge, at Punnai
C.C. 100 of 2018
In the matter of
State of Sardam
(Prosecution)
v.
Mr. Deven (Accused No. 1) & Mr. Jeyant (Accused No. 2)
(Defence)
For the offences charged under:
Sections 307, 354D, 509, 325, 355, 504 and 358 of the Barat Penal Code, 1860.
Upon Submission to the Hon’ble Court of Sessions, Punnai
Memorandum on behalf of the Defence
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

“SURANA & SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2018”
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ----------------------------------------------------------------------------4-5
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ----------------------------------------------------------------------------6-10
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION -----------------------------------------------------------------------11
STATEMENT OF FACTS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------12
TIMELINE OF THE CASE
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------13
STATEMENT OF CHARGES
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------14
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS -----------------------------------------------------------------------15-16
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED -------------------------------------------------------------------------17-32
[1.] WHETHER DEVEN IS GUILTY OF ATTEMPT TO MURDER UNDER § 307 OF THE B.P.C.,
1860?
[1.1] A-1 had no intention or knowledge to commit murder.
[1.2] A-1 (Mr. Deven) did not commit the act with an intention or knowledge to murder.
[2]. A-1 cannot be held guilty under Section 354D and Section 509 of B.P.C., 1860?
[2.1] Accused no.1 (Mr. Deven) is not guilty under § 354D of B.P.C.
[2.2] A-1 (Deven) is not guilty under § 509 of B.P.C.
[3.] Whether the A-2 (Mr. Jeyant) can be charged under §§ 325 and 355 of Barat Penal
Code, 1860?
[3.1.] The act of the accused towards Mr. Deven is not a grievous hurt.

3
[3.2] The accused had intentionally dishonored Mr. Deven by assault or criminal force.
[4] Whether the A-2 (Mr. Jeyant) can be charged under § 504 of the Barat Penal Code,
1860?
[4.1] Jeyant didn’t have any intention to insult and provoke Deven.
[4.2] Act of Jeyant was not intended to provoke Deven and to break public peace.
PRAYER --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------33

4
TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
1. Supreme Court SC
2. High Court HC
3. Himachal Pradesh H.P.
4. Andhra Pradesh A.P.
5. Son of s/o
6. Wife of w/o
7. Patna Pat.
8. Criminal Procedure Code Cr.P.C.
9. Rabat Penal Code R.P.C.
10. Others Ors.
11. Article Art.
12. Rabat Evidence Act R.E.A
13. First Information Report F.I.R.
14. Versus V.
15. Bombay Bom.
16. Karnataka Kant.
17. Union of India U.O.I.
18. All India Report AIR
19. Page Pg.
20. Kerala Ker.
21. Edition Ed.
22. Excise Law Times ELT
23. Criminal Law Journal Cr.L.J.
24. Supreme Court Cases SCC
25. Bombay Bom.
26. Supplementary Suppl.
27. Supreme Court Report SCR
28. Section Sec.
29. Criminal Crl.
30. Tamil Nadu T.N.

5
31. Calcutta CAL.
32. Convention Conv.
33. Weekly Law Reports WRL
34. Judgment Today JT
35. Rajasthan Raj.
36. Uttar Pradesh U.P.
37. Honorable Hon’ble
38. Page ¶
39. Pages ¶¶
40. Between b/w
41. Under Section u/s
42. Privy Council P.C.
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
A. BOOKS
1. I, Basu D.D. Cr.P.C. 1973, (5th Ed. Lexis Nexis).
2. II, Basu D.D. Cr.P.C. 1973, (5th Ed. Lexis Nexis).
3. Ramasubramaniyam P., Criminal Major Act 2013.
4. Gaur K.D., Indian Penal Code, 1860.
5. Williams & Glanville, Criminal Law, (2nd Ed. 2011).
6. Sarkar, Law of Evidence, (17th Ed. 2011).
7. Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Law of Evidence, (23rd Enlarged Ed. 2011).
8. Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code, (31st Enlarged Ed. 2006).
9. Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Code of Criminal Procedure, (17th Ed. 2010).

6
10. Malik, Shailender, The Code of Criminal Procedure, (8th Ed. 2011).
11. Monir, M., Law of Evidence, (5th Ed. 2010).
12. Lal, Batuk, Law of Evidence, (5th Ed. 2011).
13. Kelkar, R.V., Criminal Procedure, (5th Ed. 2009).
14. IV, Sarvaria, S.K, Indian Penal Code, (10th Ed. 2008).
15. III, Sarvaria, S.K, Indian Penal Code, (10th Ed. 2008).
16. II, Sarvaria, S.K, Indian Penal Code, (10th Ed. 2008).
17. Rao, A.S. Ramchandra, Commentary on Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, (3rd Ed.
2016).
18. Mendiratta, S.K., All you want to know about Indian Elections, (1st Ed. 2009).
19. II, Doabia T.S., Law of Election and Election Petitions, (4th Ed. 2013).
20. Monir, M., Law of Evidence, ( 10th Ed 2017).
B. LEXICONS
1. Garner Bryana, Black’s law Dictionary, 7th Ed. 1981, West Group.
2. Collin’s Gem English Thesaurus, 8th Ed, 2016. Collins.
3. Catherine Soanes, Oxford Dictionary Thesaurus, 40th Ed, 2006, Oxford University Press.
C. LEGISLATIONS / CODES / STATUTES
1. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974).
2. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Act No. 1 of 1872).
3. The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860).
4. Representation of People Act, 1951 (Act No. 43 of 1951).

7
5. The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Act No. 49 of 1988).
D. LEGAL DATABASE
1. www.scconline.com
2. www.lexisnexis.com
3. www.manupatra.com
4. www.heinonline.com
E. LIST OF CASES
1. Sumersingh Umedsingh Rajput v. State of Gujarat, 2008 (1) ACR 1
2. Banna Lal v. State of Rajasthan, 2012 (3) W.L.C. 448
3. Rajju Pathak v. State of U.P., 2012 Cr.L.J. 3399
4. Raje v. State of M.P., 2012 (3) Crimes 709 (M.P.)
5. Gobinda Singh v. State, 1946 JLR 361
6. Provincial Government v. Abdul Rehman, AIR 1943 Nag 145
7. Jeetmal v. State of M.B., AIR 1950 MB 21
8. Prakash Chandra Yadav v. State of Bihar, 2008 Cr.L.J. 438
9. Gandaram Taria v. State, 1982 Cr.L.J. 1229
10. Kambi Nagji Kala v. State, AIR 1956 Sau. 107
11. Parsuram Pandey v. State of Bihar, (2004) 13 SCC 189.
12. Prakash Chandra Yadav v. State of Bihar, 2008 Cr LJ 438 (SC).
13. Krishnan v. Abdulla, (1968) Ker.L.T. 929
13. Jaswant Singh v. State, (2007) Cr.L.J. (Noc)
14. Pulicherla Nagaraju v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2006) 11 SCC 444.

8
15. Mangesh v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 2 SCC 2731.
16. Deomuni Singh v. State of Jharkhand, AIR 2009 SC 2731.
17. Gobinda Singh v. State, 1946 JLR 361.
18. Jeetmal v. State of M.B., AIR 1950 MB 21.
19. State of U.P. v. Krishna Gopal, 1988 AIR 2154
20. State of Punjab v. Jagir Singh, 1968 AIR 43.
21. State v. Jarif Ahmad, AIR 1967 Raj 190.
22. Amit @ Lalu v. State, 2017 SCC OnLine Del 8599.
23. Renee Priyadarshini KAshyap v. State of Gujarat, 2015 SCC OnLine Guj 5196.
24. Rama Goswami v. Lakshmi Kanta Roy, 2 Cal.L.T. 451.
25. Banda Sanamajhi v. Lukosuna Majhi, 2005 (II) O.L.R. 176.
26. Sadananda Borgohain v. State, 1972 Cri.L.J. 658
27. Vijayee Singh and Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1990 SCR (2) 573
28. Mathai v. State of Kerala, 2005 Cri.L.J. 898 (SC)
29. Rishi Kesh Singh and Ors. v. The State, AIR 1970 All 51
30. State v. Samaj, AIR 1969 Guj 337.
31. Jaina Pradhan v. State, 1982 Cr LJ (NOC) 217 (Ori)
32. Tunu v. State of Orissa, (1987) 1 crimes 695 (Ori).
33. Khursheed and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, (2007) 12 SCC 68.
34. K M Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1962 SC 605.
35. Amjad Khan v. State, 1952 SCR 567.
36. Madi Adma v. State, 35 Cut.L.T. 336
37. Sriram Chandra Das v. Krushna Chandra Roy, (1970) Cr.L.J. 264

9
38. Ram Singh v. Emperor, AIR 1935 Pat 214.
39. Birbal Khalifa v. Emperor, ILR 30 Cal 97.
40. State v. Hiralal Girdharilal Kothari, (1960) 2 SCR 355.
41. Jagmal Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 1980 Cr.L.R. 446
42. State of Tamil Nadu v. Karappuswamy, 1993 (1) Cr.L.C. 51
43. State of Karnataka v. Kamalaksha, 1978 Cr.L.J. 290
44. Sheodin Hari Prasad v. Juwni, AIR 1927 Nag 47.
45. Yogesh Singh v. Mahabeer Singh and Ors., AIR 1960 SC 5160.
46. Rahim Baksh v. Emperor, AIR 1920 All 10.
47. B.R. Meena v. Mangal Das Chiman Lal Barot, (1987) Supp. SCC 597.
48. Emperor v. Philip Rangel, 1931 SCC OnLine Bom 52
49. Mohd. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar, (2009) 8 SCC 751.
50. Vishal Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 2009 Cri LJ 2243
51. Pandurang Narayan Jawalekar v. State of Maharashtra, (1979) 1 SCC 132.
52. Kikar Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 1993 SCC (Cri) 1156.
53. Prem Pal Singh and others v. Mohan Lal, 1981 SCC OnLine HP 35.
54. Chakradhar Patnaik v. Bendudhar Patnaik, 1973 Cut.L.T. 1186
55. Jaykrishna Samanta v. King Emperor, AIR 1917 Cal 570.
56. Mohammed Sabed Ali v. Thulesvar Borah, AIR 1955 Assam 211
57. Emperor v. Motilal, 1901 AWN 212.
58. Pitchai Pillai v. T.R. Ramaswamilyengar, AIR 1940 Mad 42 Cr.L.J.48
59. Chainrai Valiram v. Emperor, AIR 1935 Sind 107(1)
60. Jugal Kishore v. State, 1973 Cr.L.J. 371 (Del)

10
61. Kondapalli Kutumba Rao v. State, (1971) MLJ (Cr) 704
62. Gul Ahmad v. Akbar Ali, AIR 1927 Lah 129
63. K P Sinha v. Aftabuddin, AIR 1955 Pat 453
64. Ram Karan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1984) 2 Crimes 27 (All).
65. Woolmington v. DPP, [1935] UKHL 1.
66. Parbhoo and Ors. v. Emperor, AIR 1914 All 402.
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The prosecution has approached the Hon’ble Court of the Sessions at Punnai under
section 177 of Cr.P.C r/w section 209 of Cr.P.C.
Section 177- Ordinary place of inquiry and trial.
Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired inland tried by a Court within whose local
jurisdiction it was committed.
Section 209- Commitment of case to Court of Session when offence is triable exclusively by
it.

11
When in a case instituted on a police report or otherwise, the accused appears or is brought
before the Magistrate and it appears to the Magistrate that the offence is triable exclusively
by the Court of Session, he shall-
(a) Commit, the case to the Court of Session.
(b) Subject to the provisions of this Code relating to bail, remand the accused to custody
during, and until the conclusion of, the trial;
(c) Send to that Court the record of the case and the documents and articles, if any, which
are to be produced in evidence;
(d) Notify the Public Prosecutor of the commitment of the case to the Court of Session.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. Pooja and Deven loved each other from the college days. Pooja belonged to higher caste
while Deven belonged to a backward community. After college, Deven and Pooja went
to Punnai for their respective jobs. Pooja stayed with Divya while Deven shared a room
with Kishore.
2. Pooja’s close friend Kavita and other friends, used to make fun of her choice of
boyfriend and so she decided to sever all ties with Deven. Deven made many attempts to
talk to her and so she decided to meet him one last time.
3. On June 9, 2017 Pooja met Deven and revealed her plans of becoming an air hostess.
This made Deven upset and so he tried to dissuade her but it was all in vain. Pooja

12
slapped Deven; he left the place with humiliation. Later, at around 11:45 PM an
intoxicated Deven called Pooja to ask for her apology, but was denied. Later, a
Whatsapp message was sent asking for a brief meeting at a public place so that he can
apologies. Pooja replied on the next day to meet tomorrow morning at Indira Nagar
metro station.
4. On 12th June 2017 Deven reached the place at 09:30 AM and Pooja along with Kavita at
09:45 AM. Trying to recreate the same magic of good old days again Deven brought out
the pen knife to cut the Apple. This panicked Jeyant and Kavita and He came shouting
murder, murder and threw a stone that hit Deven on head and he started to bleed. All of
this panicked the public and everyone approached towards Deven menacingly. To save
himself Deven caught hold of Pooja and held knife against her neck. Pooja tried to resist
and in attempt the knife slashed her neck and also wounded her shoulder. Public
overpowered Deven and he was brutally beaten.

13
TIMELINE OF THE CASE
List of Dates
Date and Time Event

2012- 2015 College life in Vanjiyur
2016 All three move to Punnai for their jobs
9th June 2017 at 08:00 PM Pooja meets Deven to tell her plans
10th June 2017 at around Deven calls Pooja to ask for apology
11:45 PM
11th June 2017 at around Deven Whatsapp messages Pooja asking for a brief meeting
02:00 AM
11th June 2017 at around Pooja text messages Deven and says to meet next day morning
02:30 PM at Indira Nagar metro station.

12th June 2017 at 09:30 AM Deven reaches Indira Nagar metro station
12th June 2017 at 09:45 AM Pooja reaches Indira Nagar metro station along with Kavita
STATEMENT OF CHARGES
Accused No. 1

14
Mr. Deven has been charged under sections 3071, 354D2 & 5093 of Barat Penal Code, 1860.
Accused No. 2
Mr. Jeyant has been charged under sections 3254, 3555 & 5046 Barat Penal Code, 1860.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
-I-
[1].WHETHER THERE IS ANY MATERIAL EVIDENCE TO PROVE GUILT OF A-1 UNDER §§ 307
OF B.P.C., 1860?
1
Attempt to murder.
2
Stalking.
3
Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman.
4
Punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt.
5
Assault or criminal force with intent to dishonour person, otherwise than on grave provocation.
6
Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace.

15
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that A-1 (Deven) is not guilty under § 307 of
B.P.C. 1860. The submission is twofold firstly; the act of the accused was not to cause death
of the victim, secondly, A-1 had neither intention to nor knowledge that his act can cause
death of the victim.
-II-
[2.] WHETHER THE ACCUSED NO. 1 CAN BE HELD GUILTY UNDER §§ 354D AND §§ 509 OF
B.P.C., 1860?
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that A-1 (Deven) not is guilty under § 354D
and § 509 of the B.P.C., 1860. The submission is twofold firstly; he is not guilty under §
354D because, there was no clear indication of disinterest from side of Pooja and secondly,
the conduct of the accused was reasonable and justified, secondly; he is not guilty under §
509 as he had no intention to insult the modesty of the victim.
-III-
[3] WHETHER THE A-2 (MR. JEYANT) CAN BE CHARGED UNDER §§ 325 AND §§ 355 OF
B.P.C., 1860?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the A-2 is not guilty under § 320 r/w §
325 and § 355 of B.P.C, 1860. The submissions are two folded. Firstly, act of accused doesn’t
satisfy any ingredients of § 320. Secondly, act of accused towards Deven was not to dishonor
him intentionally and all this was because of sudden and grave provocation. And, also there is
no single evidence to prove it.
-IV-

16
[4] WHETHER THE ACCUSED NO. 2 (MR. JEYANT) CAN BE CHARGED UNDER SECTION 504
OF B.P.C., 1860?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the accused is not guilty under section
504 of B.P.C, 1860. The submissions are two folded. Act done by accused was to save the
victim from Deven which was not intentional. A-2 didn’t want to provoke Deven and he also
didn’t wanted to break the peace of the metro station.

17
SURANA & SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2018
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
ISSUE – I
[1.] WHETHER DEVEN IS GUILTY OF ATTEMPT TO MURDER UNDER § 307 OF THE B.P.C.,
1860?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that Deven (hereinafter as A-1) is not guilty
for the offence under § 307 of the Baratian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter as the ‘BPC’). In
the present matter it is wrongfully alleged the accused has committed attempt to murder as:
[1.] Absence of intention of or knowledge relating to commission of murder; and [2.]
Absence of the doing of an act towards it.7
[1.1] A-1 had no intention or knowledge to commit murder.
The crux of every case is the intention of the assailant. 8 For the purpose of § 307, what is
material is the intention or knowledge, and not the consequences of the actual act done for the
purpose of carrying out the intention.9 Intention of or knowledge relating to the commission
of murder and the doing of an act towards it are the two ingredients of the offence under §
307, B.P.C., 1860.10 To determine whether an act falls within the ambit of § 307, the
circumstances under which the act is done is an essential consideration. 11 Whether a person
intended to kill another would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. 12 In
Kambi Nagji Kala v. State,13 four boys took their cattle for grazing; but the cattle strayed
7
Sumer Singh Umed Singh Rajput v. State of Gujarat, 2008(1) A.C.R. 1 at p. 4 (S.C.); see also: Banna Lal v.
State of Rajasthan, 2012 (3) W.L.C. 448 (Raj.); see also: Rajju Pathak v. State of U. P., 2012 Cr.L.J. 3399
(All.); see also: Raje v. State of M.P., 2012 (3) Crimes 709 (M.P.); see also: Gobinda Singh v. State, 1946
J.L.R. 361.
8
Provincial Government v. Abdul Rahman, A.I.R. 1943 Nag. 145.
9
Jeetmal v. State of M.B., A.I.R. 1950 M.B. 21.
10
Prakash Chandra Yadav v. State of Bihar, 2008 Cr. L.J. 438, p 440 (S.C.), 2007 (12) Scale 368, 2007 A.I.R.,
S.C.W. 6798.
11
Provincial Government v. Abdul Rahman, AIR 1943 Nag 145.
12
Gandaram Taria v. State, 1982 Cr.L.J. 1229 (Orissa).
13
Kambi Nagji Kala v. State, 1956 Cr.L.J. 1439 (Sau.): A.I.R. 1956 Sau. 107.

18
into the adjoining field of the accused and were committing mischief. The accused attempted
to take them to the pound but was obstructed by the boys resulting in a scuffle and some of
the boys were seriously injured by sharp cutting weapons. The High Court acquitted the
accused of the charge under § 307 B.P.C., 1860 for absence of mens rea, the accused using
only sharp cutting agricultural implements used ordinarily by cultivators. In the present case,
the accused used only a pen knife which was he always had from his college days and was
ordinarily used by him to cut fruits.14
Intent which is a state of mind cannot be proved by precise direct evidence; as a matter of fact
it can only be detected or inferred from other factors.15 Some of the relevant considerations
may be the nature of the weapon used, the place where injuries were inflicted, nature of the
injuries and the circumstances in which the incident took place. 16 The accused had no
intention to kill the victim. He wanted to save himself from the aggression of the crowd and
seeing no other remedy available; he had to grab the victim so that he can threaten the crowd
to move away. The accused never wanted to cause any harm to the victim. Intention to kill is
the most important ingredient of the offence under this section and if this is not proved, no
conviction can be had under the section even if the act committed is sufficient to cause death
under normal circumstances.17 The intention to cause death can be gathered generally from a
combination of a few circumstances. Some of them are: (i.) whether the incident occurs by
chance or whether there was any pre-mediation; (ii.) whether there was any grave and sudden
provocation, and if so, the cause for such provocation; (iii.) whether it was in the heat of
passion; and (iv.) the amount of force employed in causing injury.18
14
Moot Proposition, ¶ 17.
15
NELSON, R.A., INDIAN PENAL CODE 2706 (11th Edn., 2016 LEXIS NEXIS).
16
Parsuram Pandey v. State of Bihar, (2004) 13 S.C.C. 189, 2004 Cr.L.J. 4978, A.I.R. 2004 S.C. 5068; see
also: Prakash Chandra Yadav v. State of Bihar 2008 Cr.L.J. 438 (S.C.), 2007 (12) Scale 368, 2007.
17
Krishnan v. Abdulla (1968) Ker. L.T. 929; see also: Jaswant Singh v State (2007) Cr. L.J. (N.O.C.).
18
Pulicherla Nagaraju v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2006) 11 S.C.C. 444: AIR 2006 SC 3010: 2006 Cr.L.J.
3899; see also: Mangesh v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 2 S.C.C. 123: AIR 2011 SC 637: 2011 Cr.L.J. 1166.

19
In the circumstances of the present case:
(i.) the incident has occurred by chance and there was no pre-mediation. The incident took
place only because the stone was thrown by Jeyant and the crowd gathered to lynch the
accused. All of this would have never taken place if Jeyant would have not acted in such an
irresponsible manner.
(ii.) Next, the incident took place only because of sudden and grave provocation by the crowd
and it was all in the heat of passion and not something planned or already thought off.
(iii.) Lastly, the amount of force employed by the accused was not to cause death. The
slashing of the neck of the victim was due to the force that the victim used and this is the
reason behind slashing of her shoulder along with her neck.19 If it would have been force of
accused then the cut would have been only on the neck and not on the shoulder.
Further, taking the circumstances under which the incident took place into consideration, no
person would have been in his senses and would have been able to think the consequences of
his act. Seeing a bunch of aggressive people around who can kill him any moment, the
accused panicked and did what he thought to be the only way to save his life.
[1.2] A-1 (Mr. Deven) did not commit the act with an intention or knowledge to murder.
In Deomuni Sharma v. State of Jharkhand20, accused and other accused on seeing mob
entered their house and came back with fire arms. For purpose of scaring away aggressors
and to scatter them he fired in air. It was allegedly said that he exhorted other accused to
attack complainant party. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the appellant (accused in the
case) cannot be booked under § 307 B.P.C. and was acquitted. In the present case also the act
done by the accused was to save him for the mob. There was no intention of killing the victim
and all the things done by the accused was to simply save him from the aggression of the
19
20
Deomuni Singh v. State of Jharkhand, AIR 2009 SC 2731 : (2009) 16 SCC 80.

20
mob. The act of the accused was aimed towards saving his life and not towards causing death
of the victim.
In order that a person may be guilty of attempt to murder, the following two ingredients of
the offence must be present: (i.) an intention or knowledge of committing murder; (ii.) the
doing of an act towards it.21 For the purpose of § 307, what is material are the intention or
knowledge, and not the consequence of the actual act done for the purpose of carrying out the
intention.22 It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that the guilt of the accused
must be proved beyond all reasonable doubts and the burden is on the prosecution is to
establish its case beyond all reasonable doubts.23 In the present case the prosecution has failed
to produce any evidence that can prove the intention or knowledge of the accused beyond
reasonable doubts. Therefore, in the absence of such evidences no one can be held guilty of
any offence.24 Thus, the accused cannot be held guilty for the offence of attempt to murder
under § 307 of B.P.C.
ISSUE - II
[2]. A-1 cannot be held guilty under Section 354D and Section 509 of B.P.C., 1860?
It is humbly submitted to the Hon’ble Court that he cannot be held guilty. [2.1] A-1 (Mr.
Deven) is not guilty under § 354D of B.P.C. [2.2] A-1 (Deven) is not guilty under section 509
of B.P.C.
[2.1] Accused no.1 (Mr. Deven) is not guilty under § 354D of B.P.C.
Section 354D of the Barat Penal Code, 1860 states, that any man who follows a woman and
contacts, or attempts to contact such woman to foster personal interaction repeatedly despite a
clear indication of disinterest by such woman, commits the offence of stalking. But there are
certain exceptions to the said rule that are mentioned in the section itself. One of the
21
Gobinda Singh v. State, 1946 J.L.R. 361.
22
Jeetmal v. State of M.B., A.I.R. 1950 M.B. 21: 51 Cr.L.J. 745.
23
State of U.P. v. Krishna Gopal, 1988 A.I.R. 2154.
24
State of Punjab v. Jagir Singh, 1968 A.I.R. 43.

21
important exception states that, ‘in the particular circumstances such conduct was reasonable
and justified.’25
The said section clearly indicates that there are two important questions to be answered in
order to prove the liability of accused no. 1, Deven26:
(i) Whether there was clear indication of disinterest from Pooja to Deven?
(ii) Whether such conduct was reasonable and justified on the part of accused no. 1, Deven?
[2.1.1]There was no clear indication of disinterest from Pooja to Deven.
There was no clear indication of disinterest from Pooja to Deven. To invoke case under §
354D of B.P.C. there must be a clear indication of disinterest by the victim to the accused. 27
There was no reason conveyed by Pooja to Deven and she simply stopped talking and started
to ignore Deven. Also, it is clear from the statement of Karan, an old friend of both Pooja and
Deven, that both of whom were in relationship from college days and used to love each
other,28 and when someone is in such deep love with someone, then just not answering calls
or ignoring calls cannot be termed to be as an indication of disinterest. 29 Further, Pooja used
to sometimes answer the calls of Deven and scold him for calling during office hours and
used to say that she will call him later. 30 All of these actions of Pooja can never be seen as an
indication of disinterest.
[2.1.2] Conduct of Deven was reasonable and justified.
One of the exceptions to the offence of stalking is that the act of accused must be reasonable
and justified.31 Deven and Pooja loved each other and were in relationship from the college
days. They both were in deep love and this is clear from the statement of Karan.32 Deven used
25
Indian Penal Code, 1860, § 354D (1).
26
State v. Jarif Ahmad, A.I.R. 1967 Raj. 190: 1967 Cr.L.J. 1053.
27
Amit @ Lalu v. State, 2017 S.C.C. OnLine Del. 8599.
28
Exhibit No-III.
29
Renee Priyadarshini Kashyap v. State of Gujarat, 2015 S.C.C. OnLine Guj. 5196.
30
31
Indian Penal Code, 1860, §354D.
32
Exhibit No-III.

22
to call Pooja and used to try to contact her by different means. 33 This is justified and
reasonable on part of Deven as this is what any person will do when his relationship on the
verge of breaking. Any reasonable man will give every effort to save his relationship from
coming to an end.
Therefore, the conduct of Deven is reasonable and justified. So, Deven cannot be held guilty
under § 354D of B.P.C. for stalking.
[2.2] A-1 (Deven) is not guilty under § 509 of B.P.C.
It is most humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that accused is not guilty under § 509
of Barat Penal Code, 1860. § 509 states34, ‘Whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any
woman, utters any word, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object, intending that
such word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object shall be seen, by such
woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman, shall be punished with simple
imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, and also with fine.’
‘Modesty’ means as regards to woman, decorous in manner and conduct, scrupulously chaste,
shrinking from indecency.35 ‘Decency’ means propriety of behavior; respectability.36 It is a
necessity that the accused, while committing any act to insult the modesty of a woman has
the intention to do it or knows it to be likely that thereby her modesty would be outraged.37
In Sadananda Borgohain v. State, High Court of Assam held that, “If the intention of the
accused to outrage the modesty is not proved then the accused cannot be convicted.” 38 In the
present case, there was no such intentional act done by the accused no. 1 that would insult her
modesty. All the words spoken by the A-1 was out of anger and in the heat of the moment
33
34
Indian Penal Code, 1860. § 504.
35
4 H.S. GAUR, PENAL LAW OF INDIA, 3408 (11th Edn., 2013 LAW PUBLISHERS).
36
Ibid.
37
Rama Goswami v. Lakshmi Kanta Roy, (2005) 2 Cal. L.T. 451 at p. 462 (H.C.); see also: Banda Sanamajhi
v. Lukosuna Majhi, 2005 (II) O.L.R. 176 at p. 177 (Orissa).
38
Sadananda Borgohain v. State, 1972 Cri.L.J. 658.

23
and not something for which he had already planned or had done intentionally. A-1 (Deven)
was not happy with the decision of the victim to become an air hostess and so he was simply
trying to convince her to change her decision but when he was unable to achieve the desired
results, he got frustrated and in anger said the words that he never intended to. The words
spoken by him were not intentional and were only in heat of passion.
Therefore, the prosecution has failed to produce any evidence that can prove the accused
guilty of the offence beyond any reasonable doubts.39 It is the duty of the prosecution to prove
the presence of all the ingredients of the offence beyond reasonable doubts and if the
prosecution fails in its duty to prove them then these ingredients are considered to be absent. 40
Therefore, in the absence of intention, a person cannot be charged under § 509 of B.P.C. as
intention is the most important ingredient required under the section. Thus, the accused no. 1
cannot be held guilty under § 509 B.P.C.
ISSUE-III
[3.] Whether the A-2 (Mr. Jeyant) can be charged under §§ 325 and 355 of Barat Penal
Code, 1860?
It is most humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the A-2 (Mr. Jeyant) cannot be
charged under §§ 325 and 355 as: [3.1] The act of the accused no. 2 (Jeyant) towards Mr.
Deven is not a grievous hurt. [3.2] The accused had not intentionally dishonored Mr. Deven
by assault or criminal force.
[3.1.] The act of the accused towards Mr. Deven is not a grievous hurt.
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that act of accused was not a grievous hurt,
which proves that accused is not guilty under section 325 of the act.
[3.1.1] Act of the accused doesn’t fulfill the ingredients of section 320.
39
Vijayee Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1990 S.C.R. (2) 573.
40
Rishi Kesh Singh v. The State, A.I.R. 1970 All. 51.

24
Section 320 of B.P.C. talks about ‘Grievous hurt’ which can be proved or invoked only when
any of the eight clauses of this section are proved. Act of Jeyant doesn’t satisfy any of the
ingredients of section 320(8) of section 320 inter alia states that any hurt which leads to the
sufferer to remain at least for a period of twenty days in severe bodily pain or unable to
follow his ordinary pursuits for 20 days at least, is a grievous hurt.
In State v. Samaj41 it was held that a mere fact that the accused was confined to hospital for
more than twenty days would not be enough to conclude that he was unable to follow his
ordinary pursuits during the period. Complainant may remain in hospital for more than 20
days – but if there is no evidence of severe physical pain, the offence is of simple hurt.42
[3.1.2] A-2 (Mr. Jeyant) acts falls under the exception of private defence.
In the present case Jeyant hit Deven’s head with a stone and it started to bleed. 43 Jeyant did
the act in good faith to save Pooja from Deven because he and Kavita felt that Deven is going
to kill Pooja and this satisfies the act of accused. 44 The injury on Deven’s forehead is not of a
grievous nature and cannot resist anyone from carrying out his ordinary pursuits for more
than 20 days.45 Hence, the act of the accused, Jeyant can fall under the exception of private
defence.
[3.1.3] Act of accused no. 2(Mr. Jeyant) falls under § 335 of B.P.C.
There is a basic exception of §325 of B.P.C.,1860 which says that the act of accused must not
fall under § 335. The basic essence of § 335 of B.P.C. says that if the act was under grave
and sudden provocation and if he neither intends nor knows himself to be likely to cause
grievous hurt to any person other than the person who gave the provocation, shall be
punished under this section not under may extend to four years, or with fine which may
41
State v. Samaj , A.I.R. 1969 Guj. 337 : 1969 Cr. L.J. 1498 : 10 Guj. LR 1000; see also: Jaina Prodhan v.
State, 1982 Cr.L.J. (N.O.C.) 217 (Ori.): (1989) 1 Crimes 414.
42
Tunu v. State of Orissa, (1987) 1 Crimes 695 (Ori): 1988 Cr. L.J. 524 (Ori).
43
Moot proposition, ¶ 18.
44
Indian Penal Code, 1860, §106.
45
Khursheed v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2007) 12 S.C.C. 68 : (2008) 2 S.C.C. (Cri) 218.

25
extend to two thousand rupees, or with both. In KM Nanavati v State of Maharashtra the
Supreme Court held that words and gestures may also, under certain circumstances, cause
grave and sudden provocation to an accused.46 In the present case Jeyant has done all things
in sudden and grave provocation as he saw Deven with a knife in his hand close to Pooja’s
neck, which made him and Kavita panic, due to which, he picked up a stone and threw at
Deven47. Hence Jeyant didn’t have any intention to cause hurt to Deven, it was all because of
Deven’s gestures which was a sudden and grave provocation for him, as a result of which, he
did this act.
[3.2] The accused had intentionally dishonored Mr. Deven by assault or criminal force.
It is humbly submitted before the honorable court that accused no.2 (Jeyant) had not
dishonored Mr. Deven by assault or criminal force. § 355 says “Assault or criminal force
with intent to dishonor person, otherwise than on grave provocation. — Whoever assaults or
uses criminal force to any person, intending thereby to dishonor that person, otherwise than
on grave and sudden provocation given by that person, shall be punished with imprisonment
of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.”
But in this case, there was –
1. No use of criminal force from the side of Jeyant;
2. He had no intention to dishonor Mr. Deven; and
3. Sudden and Grave provocation was present in the act of Jeyant.
Absence of these three essential ingredients leads to the conclusion that Jeyant cannot be
charged under these sections.
[3.2.1] There was no assault or criminal force caused to Mr. Deven.
46
KM Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra, A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 605, p 630, (1962) 1 Cr. L.J. 521; see also: Madi
Adma v. State, 35 Cut. L.T. 336.
47

26
Assault means that – “Whoever makes any gesture or any preparation, intending or knowing
it to be likely that such gesture or preparation will cause any person present to apprehend that
he who makes that gesture or preparation is about to use criminal force to that person, is said
to commit an assault.”48 Before an act can amount to an assault under § 351, IPC, it is
necessary that gesture or preparation should be made by the person who would cause another
to apprehend that person is about to use criminal force to him,49 then and there, and the
preparation, taken with the words used, must cause him to apprehend that criminal force
would be used on him if he persisted in the particular course of conduct and there would be
no assault if he desired from that conduct.50
In the case of Ram Singh v Emperor51 an accused went away from the scene, threatening
certain officers that he would return and teach them a lesson, and soon afterwards returned
with a lathi in his hand and went sufficiently close to the officers to raise their minds a
reasonable apprehension that actual force was likely to be used, it was held that in these
circumstances, the act of the accused fell within the definition of assault. However, in the
52
case of Birbal Khalifa v Emperor where a person takes a lathi and shouts that he will
break the head of a policeman if he insists upon taking his thumb impression, it will amount
to an assault. The same can be explained here as Jeyant saw pen knife in the hands of Deven
he panicked, started shouting murder, murder …. and threw a stone towards Deven. All these
acts were done without any preparation as he picked up a stone from there itself and the act
done was under sudden and grave provocation to save Pooja.
[3.2.2] There was no intention to dishonor Mr. Deven.
48
, Indian Penal Code, § 351.
49
Amjad Khan, Son of Haji Mohammad Khan v. State, 1952 S.C.R. 567: A.I.R. 1952 S.C. 165: 1952 Cri. L.J.
848.
50
Sriram Chandra Das v. Krushna Chandra Roy (1969) 35 Cut. L.T. 788, (1970) Cr. L.J. 264
51
Ram Singh v Emperor A.I.R. 1935 Pat. 214, 36 Cr. L.J. 714.
52
Birbal Khalifa v Emperor I.L.R. 30 Cal 97, 6 C.W.N. 342.

27
The intention to dishonor the person assaulted, or to whom the criminal force is used, is an
essential ingredient of an offence under § 355.53 There can be no conviction under this section
in the absence of proof of such intention. 54 Jeyant knew what was going on between Deven
and Pooja, and Pooja asked Kavita and Jeyant to join her at her last meeting with Deven
because she apprehended that something might go wrong between their meeting. When
Jeyant saw knife in the hand of Deven which was very close to Pooja’ neck, he panicked and
threw stone at Deven because he had the apprehension that Deven could go to any limit for
Pooja.55 He just had the intention to save Pooja he didn’t want to dishonor Deven. Everything
which Jeyant did was unintentional and was done in good faith because he wanted to save
Pooja from Deven by seeing his act. To bring home an offence under section 355, the
prosecution has to prove the intention which is the crux of the matter. 56 The accused cannot,
therefore, be convicted only on surmises and speculations in the absence of any evidence to
that effect.57
[3.2.3] Act was done under sudden and grave provocation.
In State of Karnataka v. Kamalaksha58 it was said that ‘words and gestures may also under
certain circumstances cause grave and sudden provocation’. The accused cannot be imputed
or inferred, if it is proved that he assaulted, or used criminal force to the person concerned on
grave and sudden provocation from the victim. 59 When Jeyant saw Deven sitting beside Pooja
with a pen knife in his hand which was very near to Pooja, he panicked and went there
shouting murder murder….and by this the mob around also panicked.60 This all things led
53
Indian Penal Code, 1860 § 351.
54
Indian Penal Code, 1860 §355.
55
56
State v. Hiralal Girdharilal Kothari, (1960) 2 S.C.R. 355: 1960 Cri. L.J. 524: 1960 All. Cr. R 133 : A.I.R.
1960 S.C. 360
57
Jagmal Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 1980 Cr. L.R. 446 at p.448(Raj.); see also: State of Tamil Nadu v.
Karappuswamy, 1993 (1) Cr. L.C. 51 at pp. 56, 57 (S.C.).
58
State of Karnataka v. Kamalaksha, 1978 Cr. L.J. 290.
59
Sheodin Hari Prasad v Juwni A.I.R. 1927 Nag 47, 27 Cr. L.J. 1003.
60
Moot Proposition, ¶18.

28
Jeyant into sudden and grave provocation because he wanted to save Pooja and gestures of
Deven were clearly indicating that he is going to kill Pooja. Hence, the act of the accused was
under sudden and grave provocation and he cannot be charged guilty under this section.
It is the duty of the prosecution to bring evidences on record that can prove the guilt of the
accused beyond reasonable doubts.61 Here the prosecution has miserably failed in its duty and
hence in the absence of evidences that prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
doubts and so the accused is not guilty of any offence. Thus, the accused should be acquitted
of the charges.
ISSUE - IV
[4] Whether the A-2 (Mr. Jeyant) can be charged under § 504 of the Barat Penal Code,
1860?
It is most humbly submitted to the honorable court that the accused no. 2 Jeyant is not guilty
under § 504. Because § 504 further requires an intention in the accused to give provocation
intending or knowing it to be likely that the man provoked should commit breach of the peace
or knowledge that a breach of peace. 62 Discourtesy and bad manners do not amount to an
offence under the § 504.63 Hence, this section has following essentials –
i. There should be an act or conduct on the part of the accused which may amount to an
intentional insult;64
ii. the said intentional insult65, so caused, should be such as to give provocation to the person
insulted and the provocation given should be such a nature as would cause the person,
who is given provocation, to break the public peace or to commit any other offence;66 and
61
Yogesh Singh v. Mahabeer Singh and Ors., A.I.R. 2016 S.C. 5160.
62
B.R. Meena v. Mangal Das Chiman Lal Barot, (1987) Supp. S.C.C. 597.
63
Rahim Baksh v. Emperor, AIR 1920 All 10: 21 Cr. L.J. 451: 56 IC 435.
64
Emperor v. Philip Rangel, 1931 S.C.C Bom. 52. I.L.R. (1932) 56 Bom 196 : (1932) 34 Bom L.R. 282 : A.I.R.
1932 Bom 193.
65
Mohd. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar, (2009) 8 S.C.C. 751: (2009) 3 S.C.C. (Cri) 929.
66
Vishal Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 2009 Cri. L.J. 2243; see also: Pandurang Narayan Jawalekar v. State of
Maharashtra, (1979) 1 S.C.C. 132; see also: Kikar Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 1993 S.C.C. (Cri) 1156.

29
iii. the person, giving the insult, must intend, or know, that his act would cause a provocation
of the nature mentioned above.67
[4.1] Jeyant didn’t have any intention to insult and provoke Deven.
It is necessary that insult68, by which provocation is caused, should either be intended, or
known to be likely, to lead to a breach of the public peace or the commission of some other
offence by the person insulted.69
In Mohammed Sabed Ali v. Thulesvar Borah70 it was held without intention, the insult,
however provocative it may be, will not bring the offender within the mischief of this section.
If an insult is only incidental, and not intentional, the case would not be covered by the
section, particularly when the accused is not charged under this section71. Where accused
shouted at the complainant ‘shameless fellow’, 'I will sue you', 72 or where the complainant
came to the shop wherein he became engaged in a dispute with its owner as a result of which
he was asked to leave the shop,73 it was held that no case under this section was made out.
The provision in this section clearly visualizes that the intentional insult will have, in its
background, the intention or the knowledge that such intentional insult would either provoke
the person, to whom it offered, to break public peace or to commit any other offence.74
In the present case, Jeyant’s act was unintentional and it was all to save Pooja from Deven, he
(Jeyant) did not want to intentionally insult Deven and he didn’t have any personal grudges
against him. Jeyant went to the Indira Nagar metro station with Kavita and Pooja because
67
Prem Pal Singh and others v. Mohan Lal, 1981 S.C.C. OnLine HP 35 : 1981 Cri LJ 1208.
68
Chakradhar Patnaik v Bendudhar Patnaik 1973 Cut. L.T. 1186.
69
Jaykrishna Samanta v. King Emperor, 1916 S.C.C. OnLine Cal. 117: (1916-17) 21 C.W.N. 95 : A.I.R. 1917
Cal. 570.
70
Mohammed Sabed Ali v Thulesvar Borah, 1955 Cr. L.J. 1318, A.I.R. 1955 Assam 211.
71
Emperor v. Motilal (1903) I.L.R. 25 A11. 155, 1901 A.W.N. 212.
72
Pitchai Pillai v. TR Rama Swami lyengar A.I.R. 1940 Mad 42 Cr. L.J. 48.
73
Chainrai Valiram v. Emperor AIR 1935 Sind 107(1), 36 Cr. L.J. 1461.
74
Jugal Kishore v. State, 1973 Cr. L.J. 371 (Del.); see also: Kondapalli Kutumba Rao v. State (1971) M.L.J.
(Cr) 704.

30
Pooja told him to come. Nothing was planned or prepared, all was because Pooja asked him
to come and Jeyant didn’t have any idea about what is going to happen.
[4.2] Act of Jeyant was not intended to provoke Deven and to break public peace.
In Gul Muhammad v Akbar Ali75 it was said a person comes within the ambit of this
section if the provocation offered by him is of such a character as to cause the person
provoked to break public peace or to commit any other offence. In the case of KP Sinha v.
Aftabuddin76 it was said that ‘If there was no allegation made in the case that the intentional
insult was such as to give provocation for any breach of peace, the section will have no
application’.77 In the present case no allegations or evidence is present. It was Pooja and
Deven’s last meeting and Pooja by seeing Deven’s past behavior had the apprehension that
something might go wrong so she called Kavita and Jeyant at Indira Nagar metro station. 78
When Jeyant and Kavita saw pen knife in hands of Deven which was very near to Pooja they
panicked and started shouting.79 Jeyant shouted murder murder…. and threw a stone towards
Deven just to stop him because of which the mob was attracted towards Deven and beat him.
It was all because Jeyant in good faith wanted to save Pooja from Deven it was all
unintentional and unprepared. Hence, Jeyant could not be charged under this section.
Throughout the web of the Criminal Law one golden thread is always to be seen, that it is the
duty of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused.80 If the prosecution fails in its job
then the accused cannot be held liable. 81 The prosecution here has failed in its duty of
providing the court with evidences that prove the accused guilty beyond any reasonable
doubts. Thus, the accused should be acquitted of all the charges against him.
75
Gul Ahmad v Akbar Ali 28 Cr LJ 172,173, A.I.R. 1927 Lah 129.
76
KP Sinha v Aftabuddin A.I.R. 1955 Pat. 453, 56 Cr. L.J. 1328; Ram Karan v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1984) 2
Crimes 27 (A11.).
77
Ibid.
78
Moot Proposition, ¶ 16
79
Moot Proposition, ¶ 18
80
Woolmington v. DPP [1935] UKHL 1
81
Parbhoo v. Emperor, A.I.R. 1914 All. 402.

31
PRAYER
Wherefore, in the light of the questions raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is
most humbly prayed and implored before the Hon’ble Court of Session, Sardam:
That it may be pleased to acquit the accused no. 1 and accused no. 2 of all charges because
the prosecution failed to prove guilt of the accused and the co-accused beyond all reasonable
doubt.

32
Place: Punnai All of which is respectfully
submitted.
Date: 7th October, 2018 TC-
Counsels for the defence.
TABLE OF EXHIBITS
S. No. CONTENT Page No.
1. Exhibit-I: Statement of Deven 19 - 21
2. Exhibit-II: Statement of Jeyant 22 - 24
3. Exhibit-III: Statement of Karan 25
4. Exhibit-IV: Statement of Kishore 26 - 27
5. Exhibit-V: Statement of Alex 28

33
6. Exhibit-VI: Statement of Psychologist 29
7. Exhibit-VII: Statement of Pandidurai 30 - 31
8. Exhibit-VIII: Request letter for C.D.R. of Jeyant 32 - 33
9. Exhibit–IX: Certificate in compliance to 65B Barat Evidence 34 - 35
Act, 1872
10. Exhibit-X: C.D.R. of Jeyant 36 - 37
11. Exhibit-XI: Telephonic conversation between Jeyant and 38 - 41
Shubham Mishra
12. Exhibit-XII: Voice Expert Report 41 - 44
EXHIBIT – I
Statement of Deven (Accused no.1)
Sex – Male Age – 25 years Occupation – Civil Engineer
Statement - I am Deven s/o Perumal resident of 1, Canal Street, Chirapalli, Vanjiyur,
Sardam- 1. I and Pooja were in relationship since the college days and we really loved each
other a lot. After completing our studies, we both moved to Punnai as Pooja got a job in
Punnai at a software firm. She got campus placement but I was not able to get one, so I
decided to search for a job in Punnai so that I can be with her. After a few efforts, I got a job
with a private builder. Due to busy schedule, Pooja was not able to give her time to our
relationship but I understood that she is busy. After sometime, even the small conversations
between us stopped. Pooja was neither answering to my calls nor replying to my messages. It
was almost like I did not exist for her and then one day, all of a sudden; she messaged me that

34
she is no more interested in me and wants to move on in her life. I was not able to understand
what was happening. I wanted to know the reason behind the breakup and so I tried to ask her
for the reason but there was no reply from her side. I was really depressed because of all this
and I wanted to know the reason why she broke up with me. I tried to contact her by different
means but it was all in vain as she was not at all interested to even talk to me.
My luck shined on 9th June 2017, when after all my efforts Pooja finally called and asked to
meet her at a restaurant. I was really happy and excited to meet her and spend time with her
again. At 08:00 PM, I reached the restaurant on time. Pooja was a bit late but when she
arrived, I forgot all my complaints as she looked like an angel on earth. I was probably the
happiest person on planet at that time but this happiness was lost soon. She told me about her
future plans. She wanted to become an air hostess. She said that she has also joined a part
time training institute along with Kavita for the same. I understood all the matter. It was
Kavita who was putting all the evil ideas into the mind of Pooja and was influencing her in a
wrong way. In order to save Pooja’s life and career, I tried to convince her to not to go ahead
with her plans as it is not something good for her but she was not ready to understand. Even
after my repeated efforts, she refused to understand and I got frustrated and I said things
which I never intended to. Pooja slapped me and she was right for doing so as it was my
mistake. I left the place quietly and on my way back to home, I met Karan, one of my friends.
We together went to a bar and drank beyond limits. At around 11:45 PM, Karan dropped me
to my flat where Kishore was watching a music channel. I was guilty of my act so I tried to
call Pooja to ask for her apology and after five attempts she finally answered to the call but I
again made her angry, so I messaged her requesting for one last meeting.
On 11th June 2017 afternoon, I received a text message from Pooja asking to meet her on 12 th
June morning at 09:30 AM at Indra Nagar Metro Station. On 12 th June 2017, I reached the
place on time but as usual Pooja was late. She came around 09:45 AM along with Kavita. I

35
was not happy to see Kavita as I knew she is the reason behind all the troubles in my life, so I
asked Kavita to leave. We both sat on a bench and I offered her apples from my bag but she
refused. There were tears in my eyes and this was the act that brought us together. During
college days we both used to travel to the college from the same bus. I always used have a
cotton bag with me containing fruits. One day I offered her a piece of apple and that started
our friendship that slowly turned into relationship. I wanted to recreate good old days, so I
brought out the pen knife from my bag to cut the apples. Since there were tears in my eyes
and they were hindering my sight, I wiped them from the same hand from which I was
holding the pen knife. All of a sudden, a stone came and hit me and I heard the voice of
Jeyant shouting “murder, murder..”. I fell on the ground and when I rose up, I was terrified by
seeing the whole crowd gathering around me with Jeyant leading them. I was really terrified
seeing so many people around and I knew that they might kill me so I quickly moved towards
Pooja and requested her to save me. I knew she is the only one who can save me from this
situation. But I don’t know, why there was no response from her side and after seeing no
other way left, I caught hold of Pooja and placed the knife around her neck intending to
threaten the mob and run away safely. I shouted asking them to back off but Jeyant threw
another stone towards me and this panicked Pooja and she tried to run away and in this
attempt her neck got slashed. I was frightened and all of a sudden the crowd caught hold of
me. I was beaten badly by them till I lost my consciousness.
I never wanted to cause any harm to Pooja. I love her and I cannot even dream of hurting her.
It was all an accident and each and everything done by me was to only save myself from
death.

36
EXHIBIT – II
Statement of Jeyant (Accused no. 2)
Sex – Male Age – 26 Occupation – Personal Assistant
Statement - I am Jeyant s/o Gajanan resident of 3 Subhedar Street, Chirapalli, Vanjiyur,
Sardam- 3. On 11th June 2017, I was asked by Pooja and Kavita to accompany them to my
boss Shubham Mishra. Pooja wanted to get rid of Deven, so I took her to my boss who, being
a political leader is a really influential person. We reached the office of Shubham Mishra at
11:00 AM in morning, where we told each and everything to Shubham Mishra. He advised
Pooja to call Deven to the Indra Nagar Metro station the next morning to have one last talk
and then he will take care of everything and said Deven will never trouble her after that.
Pooja and Kavita were a bit reluctant but were later convinced after little hesitation.

37
After Pooja and Kavita went away, I was called by my sir. He asked me to kill Deven at the
Indra Nagar Metro Station when he will meet Pooja. I refused for the same, saying that I
cannot do that as it is wrong but Sir threatened me and said either you kill Deven or I will kill
you. He also said that “you very well know my power and what I can do so just do what I am
saying and don’t try to use your brain as anything that you will do, I will have an eye on it
and even slightest of your moves against me will immediately result in your death. So just
kill Deven. Select any way that you want to as the method doesn’t matter to me, what I want
is the result and if the result will not be the one that I want then thing that will be followed by
that will not be favorable to you. Choose one, either your life or Deven’s. Choice is
completely yours. Be smart and take the right decision. Remember I have my eyes and ears
everywhere.” I got frightened as I very well knew the power of my boss and what he can do. I
knew if I will not kill Deven, Shubham sir will kill me.
On 12th June 2017, I reached the Indra Nagar metro station at around 09:45 AM. I was really
tensed as I didn’t knew what I will do and how I will kill Deven but as I wanted to save my
life and I knew there would be someone watching me and if I will not kill Deven I will lose
my life. When Pooja and Deven were sitting on the bench, I was carefully observing them
and I noticed Deven taking out something from his bag. I moved forward to look what it is
and found it to be Pen knife. It was an opportunity for me, so I picked up a stone and threw
towards Deven and started shouting murder, murder. I knew that the public will gather after
listening it and will lynch Deven. Deven panicked seeing the crowd around him and in order
to save himself he caught hold of Pooja and placed the knife around her neck. To further
provoke the crowd to attack Deven and to save Pooja, I threw another stone towards him but
Pooja panicked and her neck got slashed from the pen knife. I never wanted this to happen
but this provoked the crowd beyond any limits and they overpowered Deven and started
hitting him. Once I was convinced that now Deven is dead I quietly ran away from the place

38
and reached my office. Shubham sir was really happy from my work and assured me that he
will save me and nothing will happen to me.
On 14th June 2017, when the entire matter took hike and a political shape Shubham sir handed
me over to the police saying you didn’t do your work well as Deven is still alive. He also
warned me to not to take his name and if I will, then I should be ready to bear its
consequences. I told everything to the police officers but they were not ready to listen to me
as each and every one of them worked for Shubham sir and they were not ready to go against
him. I was even forced to sign on a false statement.
I haven’t done anything wrong as whatever I did was just to save my life as, if I would have
not done all of this, I would have lost my life.
I haven’t done anything wrong as whatever I did was just to save my life as, if I would have
not done all of this, I would have lost my life.

39
EXHIBIT – III
Statement of Karan (Friend of Deven)
Sex – Male Age – 26 years Occupation – Businessman
Statement - I am Karan Shetty s/o Sunny Shetty resident house no. 908 Aryan Enclave,
Punnai, Sardam. I know Deven since college days. In college, everyone used to admire the
relationship of Deven and Pooja. They were really fond of each other and just by seeing them
anyone can easily find out how much they love each other. On 9 th June 2017 at around 09:30
PM when he was on his way back home. He was in a miserable condition and so I could not
resist myself from asking the reason behind his condition. After repeatedly asking so, Deven
broke down and told how Pooja has been ignoring him and she broke up with him. After his
continuous attempts today she agreed to meet him but it ultimately transformed into an ugly
fight and Pooja slapped him. I was shocked listening to all this as it was all beyond

40
expectations. To refresh his mood, I took him to a nearby bar where I offered him drinks. We
both drank beyond limits and then at around 11:45 PM, I left Deven to his flat.
I know Deven since many years. I have seen the relationship of Deven and Pooja closely and
I know Deven cannot even think of hurting Pooja as he loves her a lot. For sure there is some
misunderstanding.
EXHIBIT – IV
Statement of Kishore (Flat mate of Deven)
Sex – Male Age – 24 years Occupation – Civil Engineer
Statement - I am Kishore s/o Rajan Kumar resident House no. 12/113 Mahesh Nagar,
Thoraipakkam, Sardam. I am flat mate of Deven and I know him from past one year. Pooja
and Deven were in relationship but suddenly Pooja started ignoring Deven. One day she
broke up with Deven without stating any reason. Because of this Deven was really tensed and
had no idea about what should he do or what wrong has he done. He used to call Pooja from
different contact numbers and a few times he even tried to contact her from my number. On
9th June 2017 Deven was really excited and happy as Pooja requested him to meet her at a
restaurant. Deven was happy that he will finally meet her and will fix all the wrongs.

41
On 9th June 2017, he came back home at around 11:45 PM along with Karan. He was drunk
and looked absolutely miserable. It was clear from his condition that his meeting did not go
well and there had been something wrong. Deven was continuously staring at the television.
After sometime he called Pooja and apologized but there was again a fight between them now
Deven was in deep depression. Next day afternoon he received a message from Pooja asking
to meet on 12th June at Indra Nagar Metro station. The message was just like a revival pill for
Deven. Deven was again back but he knew that this might be the last time, he would meet
her. On 12th June 2017, he woke up early and left to meet Pooja.
I have been living with Deven from almost a year and I know him very well. Deven cannot
think of hurting anyone. He is the nicest person, I have ever seen in my life. For him Pooja
was everything and so it is not at all possible for him to even think of hurting her.
EXHIBIT – V
Statement of Alex (Waiter at the hotel where Pooja slapped Deven)
Sex – Male Age – 22 years Occupation – Waiter
Statement - I am Alex s/o Ronny John resident house no. 1716 Green Avenue, Punnai,
Sardam. Deven and Pooja came to the hotel on 9 th June 2017. They were sitting on Table no.
21. Deven sir came at around 08:00 PM while Pooja ma’am came at around 08:30 PM. Sir
looked really happy and excited. In the beginning, they were having nice conversation and I
had even heard sir complementing ma’am. But suddenly ma’am slapped sir and it all went
quite in the restaurant. Sir left the place quietly with humiliation without uttering any word.

42
EXHIBIT – VI
Statement of Dr. Abhay (Psychologist)
Sex – Male Age – 45 Occupation – Psychologist
Statement – I am Dr. Abhay s/o Mehul resident of 35A, Civil Colony, Punnai, Sardam – 6. I
am psychologist at Punnai. Deven was my patient from past 3 months and was battling with
depression, anxiety and insomnia. He was also suffering from psychological trauma. I was
treating him and developments in his personal life weren’t helping him at all. But Deven was
not an aggressor and even after multiple sessions he did not ever give any sign of hatred
towards Pooja nor did he show any intention of hurting her.

43
EXHIBIT – VII
Statement of Pandidurai (Local leader of Deven’s community)
Sex – Male Age – 55 years Occupation – Political leader
Statement – I am Pandidurai s/o Venkateshwara resident of 153A, New Friends Park,
Punnai, Sardam. On 11th June 2017 at around 10:30 AM I went to meet Shubham Mishra to
his office. When I was coming out of his office at around 11:00 AM three people, two female
and one male entered his office. I was waiting for my car to arrive when I heard Shubham
Mishra cursing people of my community. He also said to call a boy to Indra Nagar Metro
Station on 12th morning and then he will take care of everything. At around 11:10 AM both
the girls went but the boy was still inside. I heard Shubham Mishra saying “you will kill him
tomorrow when he will come to meet her.” The boy was refusing to do it but Shubham

44
Mishra threatened him saying either you kill him or I will kill you. Shubham Mishra also said
“this is the only way to teach a lesson to these people of backward community”. On asking
one of the staff members about the person inside, he informed me that the boy was Jeyant,
Personal Assistant of Shubham Mishra. On 12th June 2017 while I was listening to news of
the incident of Deven and Pooja, I recognized Pooja to be the same girl who came to the
office of Shubham Mishra on 11th June 2017 and wanted to get rid of a boy. Shubham Mishra
had assured her that he will help her to get rid of the boy. He is the one who threatened his
Personal Assistant, ‘Jeyant’ to kill that boy at the Indra Nagar Metro Station. Shubham
Mishra wanted to teach a lesson to whole community by killing Deven, that if anyone of my
community will come close to any girl of his community, then this will be the final outcome.
Deven is completely innocent and all of this was planned and plotted by Shubham Mishra
and he is the main culprit so he should be the one who should be punished.
EXHIBIT-VIII
DATE – 10th March, 2018.
Privileged and Confidential
Via Fax 9754780357
Mobtel,
32 BMRS Road
Techno Park, SK 223122
Punnai, Sardam.
Phone: (888) 988-2244
Sub: Records Request for 8855577333

45
Dear Custodian of Records compliance letter:
Pursuant to the attached request letter, I am requesting the following information for target
number 8855577333
1. Subscriber information as of June 14, 2017.
2. Call detail records [with cell tower information] from June 10, 2017 to June 14, 2017,
[including a master list of all cell tower names and locations associated with this target
number on June 12, 2017].
3. SMS and/or MMS detail records [with cell tower information] for June 14, 2017.
4. Cell sector, azimuth and/or orientation information pertaining to each tower for June 12,
2017. [Sprint Wireless sector layout information.]
Once the records are ready, you can fax them to me at +91-222-4448888. Please call me with
any questions or concerns at 9818147553. Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
Shubham Kumar,
Counsel for defence.

46
[Notice of request to Mobtel for call record details ]
EXHIBIT - IX
Before The Court of Sessions Judge, Punnai
C.C No. 100 of 2018
State of Sardam
v.
Deven & Jeyant
For Offences Charged Under:
Sections 307, 354D, 509, 325, 355, 504 and 358 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
CERTIFICATE IN COMPLIANCE TO 65B INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872

47
This is to certify that the call records provided as requested for F.I.R. No. 110/2017. It is to
state that the records are preserved in the ordinary fashion and such records are provided
without being tampered or modified. The contents cannot be altered or tampered and are
locked. This is to also certify that servers of the company are working properly and there is
no such malfunction in such servers.
This is also to certify that I am aware of all the contents of the electronic document is
provided and it can be identified. I certify that the server information is true and correct.
Sd/-
(Deponent)
Name: Anil Mittal
Sr. Manager
Mobtel
Date: 18th March 2018

48
[Affidavit by Mobtel u/s 65B of Barat Evidence Act, 1872]
EXHIBIT – X
Call Details of Jeyant
Mobtel
DATE: 10/06/2017 SIM CARD No. 8855577333
8855577333 55432176389645 IN-C 7324543678 11:35AM 11:37AM 00:02:10 PUNNAI
8855577333 55432176389645 IN-C 7324543678 09:53PM 10:02PM 00:09:08 PUNNAI
Mobtel
DATE: 11/06/2017 SIM CARD No. 8855577333
8855577333 55432176389645 IN-O 7292099647 01:05AM 01:20AM 00:15:22 PUNNAI

49
8855577333 55432176389645 OC-C 8278948786 10:00AM 10:02AM 00:02:02 PUNNAI
8855577333 55432176389645 IN-O 7292099647 01:15PM 01:32PM 00:17:22 PUNNAI
8855577333 55432176389645 IN-C 8278948786 08:28PM 08:32PM 00:04:07 PUNNAI
Mobtel
DATE: 12/06/2017 SIM CARD No. 8855577333
8855577333 55432176389645 IN-C 8278948786 09:02AM 09:05AM 00:03:10 PUNNAI
8855577333 55432176389645 IN-C 8278948786 09:50AM 10:15AM 00:24:48 PUNNAI
8855577333 55432176389645 OC-C 8278948786 10:52AM 10:54AM 00:02:22 PUNNAI
8855577333 55432176389645 OC-C 8278948786 05:05PM 05:07PM 00:02:02 PUNNAI
Mobtel
DATE: 13/06/2017 SIM CARD No. 8855577333
8855577333 55432176389645 OC-C 8278948786 12:05AM 12:08AM 00:03:00 PUNNAI
Mobtel
DATE: 14/06/2017 SIM CARD No. 8855577333
8855577333 55432176389645 OC-C 8278948786 10:12AM 10:12AM 00:00:00 PUNNAI
8855577333 55432176389645 OC-C 8278948786 10:13AM 10:13AM 00:00:00 PUNNAI
8855577333 55432176389645 OC-C 8278948786 10:14AM 10:15AM 00:00:52 PUNNAI

50
EXHIBIT - XI
Telephonic Conversations
Dated: 11 June 2017 Time: 10:00:02AM No. 8855577333
(Call CD attached)
Jeyant [8855577333 (Mobtel)] to Shubham Mishra [8278948786 (Mobtel)]
Shubham Mishra – Hello
Jeyant – Hello, Shubham Sir? Good morning.
Shubham Mishra – Good morning
Jeyant – Sir, how are you?

51
Shubham Mishra – I am totally fine. You say why did you call? Is there any problem?
Jeyant – Sir a friend of mine is in problem and so she wants to meet you.
Shubham Mishra – Ya, say what is the matter?
Jeyant – A boy is troubling her. She has told the boy lots of times to not to contact her but he
is still following her. She is really tensed and wants to get rid of him but we are not able to
find out how, so, sir we need your help. Kindly help her she is really tensed because of all
this.
Shubham Mishra - Ok, bring her to my office today at 11. I will do something.
Jeyant – Thank you sir, Thank you so much. I knew you are the only one who can help us.
Shubham Mishra – No problem. Make sure you are on time.
Jeyant – For sure sir we will be on time. Thank you so much.
Call cuts
Dated: 11 June 2017 Time: 08:28:14 PM No. 8855577333
(Call CD attached)
Jeyant – Yes Sir.
Shubham Mishra – How is it all going?
Jeyant – Fine, Sir.
Shubham Mishra – So what have you decided?

52
Jeyant – About what?
Shubham Mishra – Your life or Deven’s?
Jeyant – Sir I can’t do it. I am not a killer. It is not at all possible for me to take anyone’s
life. I have never done it before. I am a simple, innocent person.
Shubham Mishra – There are a lots of things that a person does for the first time in his life
and there is nothing wrong in trying something new.
Jeyant – But sir killing someone is wrong. It is a crime. We just want that Deven should not
contact Pooja but for that killing him is not right. We can find any other way.
Shubham Mishra – It is not about Deven or Pooja, It is about the whole community. We
need to set up an example before the whole world that if anyone belonging to any lower caste
will come close to any girl of our community or will even think of doing it then death will be
his award. After Deven’s death no one will even dare to think to repeat it.
Jeyant – Sir, What are you saying? This is not at all right. You are trying to use me for your
personal gain. Just for your benefit how can you kill someone?
Shubham Mishra – I am not here to listen to your idiotic lecture. Just do what I am saying or
you know what will happen.
Jeyant – No sir, I can’t.
Shubham Mishra – Ok, then be ready to die.
Jeyant – No sir, you can’t do it.
Shubham Mishra – You very well know what I can and what I cannot. I have already given
you the choice, either your life or Deven’s. You can save only one.

53
Jeyant – Ok sir, I will do it.
Shubham Mishra – Smart choice. Don’t worry nothing will happen to you, I am there with
you.
Call Cuts
Dated: 12 June 2017 Time: 09:02:00 AM No. 8855577333
(Call CD attached)
Jeyant – Hello
Shubham Mishra – Where are you?
Jeyant – About to leave for the Indra Nagar Metro Station.
Shubham Mishra – Ok. Remember your task.
Jeyant – Yes sir
Shubham Mishra – Don’t take tension I am there with you.
Jeyant – Yes sir.
Shubham Mishra – And don’t try to cheat me as I have my eyes and ears everywhere and
even slightest by you will result in your death. My people will be keeping a continuous eye
on your movements so don’t try to be smart.
Jeyant – Yes sir.
Shubham Mishra – Finish your task and come back to me.

54
Jeyant – Ok Sir.
Call Cuts.
EXHIBIT - XII
Voice Expert Report

FSL Report No. 46/2017
FORENSIC SCIENCE LABORATORY, HILDA
Report No. FSL/2017/46
F.I.R No- 110/2017 Dt- 12/06/2017 Date- 15th Sept, 2018

55
The request (vide No. FSL/2017/5599) & vide No. FSL/2017/5610 to be carried out for
conducting the Forensic Science Laboratory test as information was received from Defence
counsel. And upon receipt of various evidences from the defence counsel, the following
report is prepared by performing various tests.
Exhibits for the forensic tests:
Exhibit ‘A’ Sample voice of Jeyant.
Exhibit ‘B’ Sample voice of Shubham Mishra.
Exhibit ‘C’ C.D.R report by the Telecom Company.
Exhibit ‘D’ Telephonic Conversation.
Exhibit ‘E’ Tape received from the Telecom Company ‘Mobtel’
Analysis
1. The analysis based on various tests reveals that the voice sample of Jeyant which is
marked as Exhibit C is exactly the same as the voice in Exhibit D and E that is the tape
received from the company Mobtel all the pitches and frequencies of both the voices are
exactly the same.
2. Also the voice sample of Shubham Mishra which is marked as Exhibit B is exactly same
as voice in Exhibit D and E all of their pitches and frequencies are exactly the same.

56
3. The telephonic conversation which is hereby attached Exhibit ‘D’ is absolutely same in
its letter and spirit with the recordings present in Exhibit E.
Opinion
On the cumulative effect of the observation, the FSL is of the opinions that since both the
voices are identical and both are matching with the C.D.R report attached as Exhibit C which
proves that Shubham Mishra has called Jeyant and has a word with them.
Also the Telephonic conversation matches the recordings of Exhibit E and is exactly same in
its letter and spirit. Hence the FSL is of the opinion that all documents are same and in their
original condition, also that no tampering is done with them.
Conclusion
Hence we can conclude that the voice of Shubham Mishra had talked to accused, i.e., Jeyant
and threatened him. As no tampering is done by the Exhibits and they are in their original
condition. The CD is attached with the report.
(Analyst Forensic Computer)

57
(Director FSL)
Rahul Singh
[Such report is admissible as per section 293 of Cr.P.C]

"S &S N T A M C C 2018" O 5, 2018 O 7, 2018: in The Court of Sessions Judge, at Punnai C.C. 100 of 2018

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

"S &S N T A M C C 2018" O 5, 2018 O 7, 2018: in The Court of Sessions Judge, at Punnai C.C. 100 of 2018

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

"S &S N T A M C C 2018" O 5, 2018 O 7, 2018: in The Court of Sessions Judge, at Punnai C.C. 100 of 2018

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

“SURANA &SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY

MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2018”

OCTOBER 5, 2018 TO OCTOBER 7, 2018

In the Court of Sessions Judge, at Punnai

C.C. 100 of 2018

Mr. Deven (Accused No. 1) & Mr. Jeyant (Accused No. 2)

For the offences charged under:

Upon Submission to the Hon’ble Court of Sessions, Punnai

Memorandum on behalf of the Defence

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ----------------------------------------------------------------------------4-5

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ----------------------------------------------------------------------------6-10

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION -----------------------------------------------------------------------11

TIMELINE OF THE CASE

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS -----------------------------------------------------------------------15-16

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED -------------------------------------------------------------------------17-32

[1.1] A-1 had no intention or knowledge to commit murder.

[2.2] A-1 (Deven) is not guilty under § 509 of B.P.C.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

1. I, Basu D.D. Cr.P.C. 1973, (5th Ed. Lexis Nexis).

2. II, Basu D.D. Cr.P.C. 1973, (5th Ed. Lexis Nexis).

3. Ramasubramaniyam P., Criminal Major Act 2013.

4. Gaur K.D., Indian Penal Code, 1860.

5. Williams & Glanville, Criminal Law, (2nd Ed. 2011).

6. Sarkar, Law of Evidence, (17th Ed. 2011).

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

11. Monir, M., Law of Evidence, (5th Ed. 2010).

12. Lal, Batuk, Law of Evidence, (5th Ed. 2011).

13. Kelkar, R.V., Criminal Procedure, (5th Ed. 2009).

20. Monir, M., Law of Evidence, ( 10th Ed 2017).

2. Collin’s Gem English Thesaurus, 8th Ed, 2016. Collins.

C. LEGISLATIONS / CODES / STATUTES

1. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974).

2. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Act No. 1 of 1872).

3. The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860).

4. Representation of People Act, 1951 (Act No. 43 of 1951).

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

1. Sumersingh Umedsingh Rajput v. State of Gujarat, 2008 (1) ACR 1

2. Banna Lal v. State of Rajasthan, 2012 (3) W.L.C. 448

3. Rajju Pathak v. State of U.P., 2012 Cr.L.J. 3399

4. Raje v. State of M.P., 2012 (3) Crimes 709 (M.P.)

5. Gobinda Singh v. State, 1946 JLR 361

6. Provincial Government v. Abdul Rehman, AIR 1943 Nag 145

7. Jeetmal v. State of M.B., AIR 1950 MB 21

8. Prakash Chandra Yadav v. State of Bihar, 2008 Cr.L.J. 438

9. Gandaram Taria v. State, 1982 Cr.L.J. 1229

10. Kambi Nagji Kala v. State, AIR 1956 Sau. 107

11. Parsuram Pandey v. State of Bihar, (2004) 13 SCC 189.

12. Prakash Chandra Yadav v. State of Bihar, 2008 Cr LJ 438 (SC).

13. Krishnan v. Abdulla, (1968) Ker.L.T. 929

13. Jaswant Singh v. State, (2007) Cr.L.J. (Noc)

14. Pulicherla Nagaraju v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2006) 11 SCC 444.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

16. Deomuni Singh v. State of Jharkhand, AIR 2009 SC 2731.

17. Gobinda Singh v. State, 1946 JLR 361.