1|Page

SUBJECT- MOOT COURT EXERCISE AND

INTERNSHIP (PRACTICAL)

TOPIC – MOOT COURT PROBLEM-I

Supervised By:
Mr. AMARJEET RANJAN

(Asst: Prof in Law)

NAME: WASIM AKRAM MOLLICK

ROLL NO: Admit Card No- 102/LLB3/17063
Class Roll No- 48
COURSE: LLB 3YEARS (6TH SEMESTER)
2|Page

In the Honorable Supreme Court of India

At New Delhi, India

Petition No: 409/ 2012

In the Matter of

Mr. ANOOP KUMAR……………………..... Petitioner

Versus

Ms. VINISHA SHARMA………….……… Respondent

Memorial on Behalf of the Respondent

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS……………………………………..4
3|Page

1. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES..............................................................5
a) Acts/ Statutes........................................................................................... 5
b) Books....................................................................................................... 5
c) Internet Sources....................................................................................... 5
d) List of Cases............................................................................................. 6
2. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION.................................................... 7
3. SYNOPSIS OF FACTS.......................................................................... 8-10
4. ISSUES RAISED..................................................................................... 11
5. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS............................................................ 12
6. BODY OF ARGUMENTS...............................................................13-15
 IS THERE ANY ACCIDENTAL DEATH UNDER SECTION 80 OF INDIAN
PENAL CODE 1860?

 WHETHER HER PREVIOUS GOOD CHARACTER IS RELEVANT IN THIS

CASE UNDER SECTION 53 OF THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT 1872?

 WHETHER THE SUPREME COURT CAN OVERRULE THE DECESION

WHICH IS PASS BY THE LOWER COURT?

 WHETHER HIS BAD CHARACTER IS RELEVANT UNDER THE INDIAN

EVIDENCE ACT 1872?

 IS THERE ANY EYE WITNESS DURING THE TIME OF OFFENCE?

 WHETHER SHE HAS ANY INTENTION, MOTIVE AND PREPARATION

UNDER SECTION 8 OF INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT 1872?

 WHETHER SHE KNOWS THE NATURE OF OFFENCE?

7. Prayer.....................................................................................................16
4|Page

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

& And

¶ Paragraph

AIR All India Reporter

ALL Allahabad
Anr Another
AP Andhra Pradesh

Art. Article
Cr. . Criminal
Edn. Edition
Govt. Government
HMA Hindu Marriage Act
Hon‟ble Honourable
PC Privy Council
SC Schedule Caste
SC Schedule Caste

SCC Supreme Court

SCC Supreme Court Cases

u/s Under Section

v. Versus
Vol. Volume
www World Wide Web

Hon‟ble Honourable
IPC Indian Penal Code
CrPC Code of Criminal Procedure
5|Page

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

ACTS/STATUTES:

 INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT 1872

 INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860

 CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950

 CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 1974

BOOK:

 INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT ,AVTAR SINGH,2ND EDITION

 MASSEY I.P., ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, LUCKNOW, EASTERN BOOK

COMPANY, 2008, SEVENTH EDITION

 SHUKLA V.N., CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, LUCKNOW, EASTERN BOOK

CORPORATION, 2008, ELEVENTH EDITION.
 BUTTERWORTHS WADHWA NAGPUR, 2010, SIXTH EDITION
 JAIN M.P., INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, GURGAON, LEXIS NEXIS

INTERNET SITES:

 www.judis.nic.in
 www.loksabha.nic.in
 www.manupatra.com
6|Page

LISTS OF CASES

1. Pyare Lal vs State of Rajasthan------------------------------------------------------------ 10

A.I.R 1954 All 319

2. Pakala Narayan swami vs Emperor ---------------------------------------------------- 13

(1886)11.App.cases197

3. Nishi kant jha vs stete of Bihar ------------------------------------------------------------09

1884 12 QBD 271

4. Sita Ram vs. State AIR 1966 SC 1906-------------------------------------------------12

A.I.R 1988 Mad 275

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
7|Page

The Petitioner in the present case has approached the Hon’ble Supreme court of India under
Section 299 and 300 of the Indian Penal Code.

The Respondent respectfully submits to this jurisdiction invoked by the Petitioner.

8|Page

STATEMENT OF FACTS

CASE HISTORY:

Anoop was a fourth year student of Central Medical College. He was a very animated character
and was a known personality in the college campus. He was also a talented dancer and an actor.
He had a habit of pranking people and recording them for posting them on his YouTube channel,
named ‘Prankster Anoop’. Through these videos he had not only acquired a lot of fame but had
also developed some sour relationships amongst his peers, who were mostly the victims of his
pranks. Apart from this, once he even used a pepper spray in the class, during the lecture,
whereby many students were badly affected and some of them were even hospitalized. One of
the victims of his constant pranks was Vinisha, his batch mate who was known to be of short
tempered. She was a bright student and was a consistent topper of her batch. She had the record
of highest marks in the subject ‘Hemodynamics’. She was also brilliant in dramatics. Anoop used
to like her and also extended request of friendship to her which she refused. Because of her
refusal, he always used to tease/prank her in one way or the other. On one such occasion, she lost
her temper and slapped him in the college canteen. He, though apologized to her for his behavior
due to the fear of rustication, but never really meant to apologize. He instead swears to take
revenge for his disrespect

BACKGROUND:

Anoop and Vinisha, both of them were selected for an Inter-College Theater Competition, a
prestigious annual event. The theme for the competition was Medical Negligence vis-à-vis
Doctor’s profession. The broad theme of the play was to show the mental pressure felt by a
doctor while operating the patients and the misuse of section 304A IPC against doctors. In the
play one of the scenes was that while doing operation doctor commits an error that results in the
death of the patient, despite their best attempt to save his patient. In this play the role of doctor
was played by Vinisha and Anoop played the role of the patient.
9|Page

OFFENCE COMMITTED:

On 11th January 2019, at around 4:45 p.m. in the college auditorium the rehearsal for the play
was going on, showing the mental stress felt by a doctor in an operation theatre. The scene being
rehearsed was that, Vinisha was standing next to Anoop, who is lying on the operation table. In
the absence of any professor, Anoop again played a prank on her by spilling real blood on all
over Vinisha’s body and started recording the video. Suddenly an altercation ensued between
them. Vinisha angrily started hitting Anoop with the kidney dish lying next to her on the
operation table; Anoop caught hold of kidney dish and snatched the dish from her hand. In spur
of the moment, as Anoop was getting down from the table, Vinisha took an empty syringe lying
on the table and pierced it on the neck of Anoop with full vigor.
arrived at the spot. The police then sent the deceased’s body for an autopsy and started the
investigation. As upon the investigation the whole incident was narrated by the students present
inside the auditorium to the police officials.
Thereafter students in the auditorium interfered and separated both of them. Meanwhile, Anoop
took out the syringe from the back his neck, and while getting down from the operation table,
collapsed on the floor. At 5:10 p.m., he was rushed to hospital within the campus, by the students
present in the auditorium, where he was declared brought dead. Subsequently, the family of
deceased and the police both

THE PROCEEDINGS:

At 8:00 p.m., police took Vinisha (hereinafter ‘accused’) into the custody in the charge of murder
of the Anoop (hereinafter ‘deceased’). The 60 ml syringe fully empty was found in the
auditorium was marked as article ‘P-1’. The finger print report confirmed two finger prints on
article ‘P-1’, both of the accused and the victim. The DNA report confirmed the blood found on
the needle of article ‘P-1’was that of that of the victim. The chemical report gave a negative
report as to presence of any foreign substance in article ‘P-1’.The autopsy report revealed that
the cause of death was due to cardiac arrest occurred due to ‘air embolism’ in carotid artery
caused due to the injecting of the air into the artery on the neck, and observed that “a large
amount of air remaining in carotid artery caused the obstruction of left common carotid artery
10 | P a g e

inflow tract leading to cardiac arrest. Though in ordinary course of nature such injury would not
cause death but in the particular case the nature of syringe [60 ml] can create a large air bubble
enough to cause cardiac arrest.”

The Judicial Magistrate I took the cognizance of the offence and committed the case to the
Session Courts, who held accused guilty under section 300, IPC (thirdly, read with Exception 1)
and sentenced her for 10 years of imprisonment under section 304, IPC. The court held that she
intended to cause the bodily injury sufficient in ordinary cause of nature to cause the death of the
deceased, as she was fully aware of the consequence of the injecting an empty syringe into
someone’s neck but did it upon the grave and sudden provocation. In appeal, the High Court
11 | P a g e

ISSUES RAISED

 IS THERE ANY ACCIDENTAL DEATH UNDER SECTION 80 OF INDIAN

PENAL CODE 1860?

 WHETHER HER PREVIOUS GOOD CHARACTER IS RELEVANT IN THIS

CASE UNDER SECTION 53 OF THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT 1872?

 WHETHER THE SUPREME COURT CAN OVERRULE THE DECESION

WHICH IS PASS BY THE LOWER COURT?

 WHETHER HIS BAD CHARACTER IS RELEVANT UNDER THE INDIAN

EVIDENCE ACT 1872?

 IS THERE ANY EYE WITNESS DURING THE TIME OF OFFENCE?

 WHETHER SHE HAS ANY INTENTION, MOTIVE AND PREPARATION

UNDER SECTION 8 OF INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT 1872?

 WHETHER SHE KNOWS THE NATURE OF OFFENCE?

12 | P a g e

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. YES THERE WAS AN ACCIDENTAL DEATH UNDER SECTION 80 OF INDIAN

PENAL CODE 1860.

According to section 80. Accident in doing a lawful act.—Nothing is an offence which is done
by accident or misfortune, and without any criminal intention or knowledge in the doing of a
lawful act in a lawful manner by lawful means and with proper care and caution. Illustration A
is at work with a hatchet; the head flies off and kills a man who is standing by. Here, if there

was no want of proper caution on the part of A, his act is excusable and not an offence .
2. HER GOOD CHARACTER ALSO RELEVANT IN THIS CASE.

Because she was not a hot temper as like a Anoop In criminal cases, previous good character
relevant.—In criminal proceedings, the fact that the person accused is of a good character, is

relevant .
3. SHE HAS NO INTENTION TO KILL ANOOP.

On 11th January 2019, at around 4:45 p.m. in the college auditorium the rehearsal for the
play was going on, showing the mental stress felt by a doctor in an operation theatre. The
scene being rehearsed was that, Vinisha was standing next to Anoop, who is lying on the
operation table. In the absence of any professor, Anoop again played a prank on her by
spilling real blood on all over Vinisha’s body and started recording the video. Suddenly an
altercation ensued between them. Vinisha angrily started hitting Anoop with the kidney dish
lying next to her on the operation table; Anoop caught hold of kidney dish and snatched the
13 | P a g e

dish from her hand. In spur of the moment, as Anoop was getting down from the table,
Vinisha took an empty syringe lying on the table and pierced it on the neck of Anoop with
full vigor.

BODY OF ARGUMENTS/ WRITTEN PLEADINGS

I) YES THERE WAS AN ACCIDENTAL DEATH UNDER SECTION 80 OF

INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860.

According to section 80. Accident in doing a lawful act.—Nothing is an offence which is done
by accident or misfortune, and without any criminal intention or knowledge in the doing of a
lawful act in a lawful manner by lawful means and with proper care and caution. Illustration A is
at work with a hatchet; the head flies off and kills a man who is standing by. Here, if there was
no want of proper caution on the part of A, his act is excusable and not an offence.1

On 11th January 2019, at around 4:45 p.m. in the college auditorium the rehearsal for the play
was going on, showing the mental stress felt by a doctor in an operation theatre. The scene being
rehearsed was that, Vinisha was standing next to Anoop, who is lying on the operation table. In
the absence of any professor, Anoop again played a prank on her by spilling real blood on all
over Vinisha’s body and started recording the video. Suddenly an altercation ensued between
them. Vinisha angrily started hitting Anoop with the kidney dish lying next to her on the
operation table; Anoop caught hold of kidney dish and snatched the dish from her hand. In spur
of the moment, as Anoop was getting down from the table, Vinisha took an empty syringe lying
on the table and pierced it on the neck of Anoop with full vigor. 2

1
https://www.justice.gov/jm/criminal-resource-manual-133-second-factor-nature-alleged-offense
2
https://saylordotorg.github.io/text_introduction-to-the-law-of-property-estate-planning-and-insurance/s09-03-
the-nature-of-a-criminal-act.html
14 | P a g e

II) HER GOOD CHARACTER ALSO RELEVANT IN THIS CASE.

." In criminal cases, previous good character relevant.—In criminal proceedings, the fact that the
person accused is of a good character, is relevant.

Because she was not a hot temper as like a Anoop In criminal cases, previous good character
relevant.—In criminal proceedings, the fact that the person accused is of a good character, is
relevant.

III) SUPREME COURT CAN OVERRULE THE DECESION WHICH IS PASS BY

THE LOWER COURT.

Although the lower court cannot overrule the higher courts judgement, but it may choose to
depart from the precedent while hearing similar cases. It can decline to follow the precedent only
if the judgement is per incuriam.3

Per incuriam, literally translated as "through lack of care", refers to a judgment of a court which
has been decided without reference to a statutory provision or earlier judgment which would
have been relevant. The significance of a judgment having been decided per incuriam is that it
does not then have to be followed as precedent by a lower court. Ordinarily, in the common law,
the rational of a judgment must be followed thereafter by lower courts hearing similar cases. A
lower court is free, however, to depart from an earlier judgment of a superior court where that
earlier judgment was decided per incuriam.4

The Court of Appeal in Morelle Ltd v Wakeling [1955] 2 QB 379 stated that as a general rule the
only cases in which decisions should be held to have been given per incuriam are those of
decisions given in ignorance or forgetfulness of some inconsistent statutory provision or of some
authority binding on the court concerned: so that in such cases some part of the decision or some
step in the reasoning on which it is based is found, on that account, to be demonstrably wrong.

3
http://dgca.nic.in/schedules/sched6.htm
4
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/QPqm5aj2meRmE7kR8/the-nature-of-offense
15 | P a g e

IV) SHE HAS ANY INTENTION, MOTIVE AND PREPARATION UNDER SECTION
8 OF INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT 1872.

On 11th January 2019, at around 4:45 p.m. in the college auditorium the rehearsal for the play
was going on, showing the mental stress felt by a doctor in an operation theatre. The scene being
rehearsed was that, Vinisha was standing next to Anoop, who is lying on the operation table. In
the absence of any professor, Anoop again played a prank on her by spilling real blood on all
over Vinisha’s body and started recording the video. Suddenly an altercation ensued between
them. Vinisha angrily started hitting Anoop with the kidney dish lying next to her on the
operation table; Anoop caught hold of kidney dish and snatched the dish from her hand. In spur
of the moment, as Anoop was getting down from the table, Vinisha took an empty syringe lying
on the table and pierced it on the neck of Anoop with full vigor.

Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct.—Any fact is relevant which shows or
constitutes a motive or preparation for any fact in issue or relevant fact. The conduct of any
party, or of any agent to any party, to any suit or proceeding, in reference to such suit or
proceeding, or in reference to any fact in issue therein or relevant thereto, and the conduct of any
person an offence against whom is the subject of any proceeding, is relevant, if such conduct
influences or is influenced by any fact in issue or relevant fact, and whether it was previous or
subsequent thereto. Explanation 1.—The word “conduct” in this section does not include
statements, unless those statements accompany and explain acts other than statements; but this
explanation is not to affect the relevancy of statements under any other section of this Act.
Explanation 2.—When the conduct of any person is relevant, any statement made to him or in his
presence and hearing, which affects such conduct, is relevant.

V) SHE PARTIAL KNOWS THE NATURE OF OFFENCE.

16 | P a g e

The nature of the offense(s) alleged is the second mandatory factor that must be considered in
determining whether a transfer would be in the interest of justice. ... This statutory factor calls for

findings regarding the nature of the offense alleged and not some other offens .

PRAYER

Wherefore, in the light of the facts stated, arguments advanced and authorities cited, the

respondent, most humbly prays before the Hon’ble court, to be graciously pleased to hold

adjudge and declare that:

1) The Petition must be grand in the court of law

2) The decision of the Court be Upheld;

3) To make appropriate remedy

4) To pass any other order which the Humble court may deem fit in the light of
Justice, Equity and Good Conscience.

All of Which is most humbly prayed and most respectfully submitted by the Respondent.
17 | P a g e

Date: S/d_________________

(Counsel for Respondent)