Defense Memorial

[TEAM CODE-E]
SURANA AND SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT

COMPETITION, 2015
BEFORE THE COURT OF SESSIONS

AT DURG
S.C. NO. 111 OF 2015
IN THE MATTER OF
STATE OF XANADU
(PROSECUTION)
v.
MANOHAR LAL
&
RAHUL GULATI
(DEFENSE)
FOR OFFENCES CHARGED UNDER

SECTIONS 302, 465 READ WITH 34, 120B AND 109 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860
AND SECTIONS 66 AND 66C OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2000
UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE SESSIONS JUDGE
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENSE

[i]
SURANA AND SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2015
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES..................................................................................... ii
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION....................................................................... vii
STATEMENT OF FACTS .................................................................................... viii
STATEMENT OF CHARGES ................................................................................ ix
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ............................................................................. xi
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ...................................................................................1
Issue I: Whether or not Mr. Manohar Lal and Mr. Rahul Gulati are guilty of
computer related offences and conspiracy? ...........................................................1
ISSUE II: Whether or not Mr. Mahohar Lal is guilty of forgery? .........................5
Issue III: Whether or not Accused No.1 committed the offence of murder against
Deceased? ...............................................................................................................8
Issue IV: Whether or not Mr. Rahul Gulati is guilty of abetment? ......................14
PRAYER ................................................................................................................ xiii

[ii]
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS:
AIR All India Reporter
All Allahabad High Court
Cal Calcutta High Court
CBI Central Bureau of Investigation
Cr.P.C. Code of Criminal Procedure
Cri LJ Cr LJ Criminal Law Journal
Del Delhi High Court
DW Defense Witness
Ed. Edition
Guj Gujarat High Court
IEA Indian Evidence Act
IPC Indian Penal Code
IT Act Information Technology Act
M.P Madhya Pradesh
Mad Madras High Court
Mah Maharashtra High Court
Ori Orissa High Court
P Page No.
Para Paragraph
Pat Patna High Court
PW Prosecution Witness
r/w Read with
Raj Rajasthan High Court
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
s. Section
v. Versus

[iii]
TABLE OF CASES
USED AT
S.NO CASE NAME CITATION
PAGE
Adhi Mullick v State
1. AIR 1955 Cal 473 …05
Anant Chintaman Lagu v. State of Bombay, AIR 1960 SC 500 : 1960
2. …12
Cri LJ 682
Ashiruddin v The King,
3. AIR 1949 Cal 182 …07
Bhagwat Singh v Balwant Singh,
4. 1978 CrLJ (Raj) 279 …15
Chandra Mohan Tiwari v. State of MP,
5. AIR 1992 SC 891 …11
Dalbeer Kaur v. State of Punjab,
6. AIR 1977 SC 472 …11
Dayanbhai Chaganbhai Thakkar v State of
7. AIR 1964 SC 1563 …07
Gujarat
Dharamdas Lilaram v. Emperor

8. AIR 1932 Sind 169 …01
Ekabban Mondal v Emperor,
9. AIR 1937 Cal 756 …04
Empress v Mohammad Saeed Khan,
10. (1899) ILR 21 All 113 …05
Excel & co. v. A.K. Menon and Another,
11. (2005) 13 SCC 93 …02, 08
Haffijuddi v Emperor
12. AIR 1934 Cal 678 …04
Happu v. Emperor,
13. AIR 1933 All 837 …12
Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi v. State of
14. 2004 (5) SCC 347 …13
Gujrat,
Jibrial Diwan v. State of Maharastra,

15. (1997) 6 SCC 499 …05
Kehar Singh and Ors. v. State (Delhi
16. 1988 (3) SCC 609 …03
Administration),
Leela Das v Union of India & Ors,

17. (1999) CrLJ 1807 (Cal) …03

[iv]
M Ata Mohammad Khan v Crown,

18. AIR 1950 Lah 1999, p 221 …05
Mohammad Usman Mohammad Hussain
19. (1981) 2 SCC 443. …04
Maniyar & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra,
Monica Bedi v State of Uttar Pradesh,

20. (2011) 1 SCC 284 …07
Murugan v. State,
21. 1991 CrLJ 1680 …11
Om Prakash Narang v. State (Delhi
22. (1979) 2 SCC 323 …13
Administration),
Phino v. State of Punjab,

23. AIR 1975 SC 1327 …12
Pramatha Nath v State,
24. AIR 1951 Cal 581 …07
Prem Narayan v State,
25. AIR 1957 All 177 …15
Queen-Empress v. Girdhari Lal,
26. 8 ILR All 653 …02
Queen-Empress v. Haradhan,
27. 19 ILR Cal 380; …02
R. Venkatakrishnan v. Central Bureau of
28. AIR 2010 SC 1812. …03
Investigation,
Rajaram v. State of M.P (1992) 3 SCC 634 : AIR

29. …10
1994 SC 846
Ram Khelawan v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2014 SCC OnLine Chh 29
30. …08, 09
: 2014 Indlaw CTH 36
Ram Narain Poply v. Central Bureau of
31. AIR 2003 SC 2748 …05
Investigation,
Ramakant Rai v. Madan Rai

32. Cr LJ 2004 SC 36 …13
Ramesh Chandra Das v. Premlata Patra,
33. (1983) 3 Crimes 87 (Ori) …05
Re Kodur Thimma Redi,
34. AIR 1957 Andh Pra 758, …03
Re. M Gangandhariah 1967 CrLJ 787, AIR 1967
35. …05
Mys 86

[v]
Reniger v.Fogosia
36. (1551), 1 Plowd. 1 …07
Sachin Jagdish Joshi v. State of Maharashtra,
37. (2008) 6 SCALE 469 …03
Saju v State of Kerala,
38. 2001 (1) SCC 378 …14
State of Bihar v. Ranen Nath and Ors,
39. AIR 1958 Pat 259, 1957 …14
State v Naresh Chand
40. AIR 1975 SC 195 …15
Suresh Chandra Bihari v State of Bihar,
41. AIR 1994 SC 2420, …03
Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs The
42. 2002 (24) PTC 580 Guj …06
Wellcome Foundation Ltd,
Union of India v. Ranbir Singh,

43. JT 2011 (11) SC 339 …05
Vijayan Alias Rajan v State of Kerala,
44. (1999) CrLJ 1638 (SC) …04
Yash Pal Mittal v. State of Punjab,
45. [1977] SCC 540 …03
BOOKS REFERRED
S.NO NAME OF THE BOOK

1. Gaur, K.D, Criminal Law: Cases and Materials, (6th Ed. 2012)
2. Gupta, Apar, Infromation Technology Act, (2nd Ed. 2011)
3. I, Sarvaria, S.K, The Indian Penal Code, (10th Ed. 2008)
4. II Taylor, Principles and Practice of Medical Jurisprudence, (13th Ed. 1984)
5. II, Sarvaria,S.K, Indian Penal Code, (10th Ed. 2008)
6. III, Sarvaria,S.K, Indian Penal Code, (10th Ed. 2008)
7. IV, Sarvaria,S.K, Indian Penal Code, (10th Ed. 2008)
8. Jhala & Raju, Medical Jurisprudence, (6th Ed. 1997)

[vi]
9. Kelkar, R.V, Criminal Procedure, (5th Ed. 2009)
10. Lal, Batuk, Law of Evidence, (5th Ed. 2011)
11. M. Mohir, Law of Evidence, (5th Ed. 2010)
12. Malik, Shailender, The Code of Criminal Procedure, (8th Ed. 2011)
13. Modi, Medical Jurisprudence & Toxicology, (24th Ed. 2012)
14. National Crime Reference Handbook, (V.11, 2015)
15. Parikh, Medical Jurisprudence, Forensic Medicines & Toxicology, (6th Ed. 2011)
16. Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Code of Criminal Procedure, (17th Ed. 2010)
17. Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code (31st Enlarged Edn. 2006)
18. Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Law of Evidence, (23rd Enlarged Ed. 2011)
19. Sarkar, Law of Evidence, (17th Ed. 2011)
20. The Indian Law Institute, Essays on Indian Penal Code, (1st Reprint, 2008)
21. Verma, Amita, Cyber Crimes and Law, (1st Ed. 2009)
22. Williams, Glanville, Criminal Law, (2nd Ed. 2011)
STATUTES:
S.NO NAME OF THE 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. The Information Technology Act, 2000 (Act No. 21 of 2000)
5. The Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (Act No. 23 of 1940)
6. The Drugs and Cosmetics Rule, 1945

[vii]
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
This Hon’ble Court has jurisdiction to try the instant matter under Section 177, read with Section
209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Section 177
‘177. Ordinary place of inquiry and trial: Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and
tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed.’
Read with Section 209
‘209. Commitment of case to Court of Session when offence is triable exclusively by it: 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.’

[viii]
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Manohar lost his parents at the age of 10 and lived with his uncle Karan and aunt Devika, since
then. They had a son ‘Raghav’ who disliked Mano. Mano took admission in TMC Medical
College in 2013. Prof. Deshpande considered Mano to be a bright and sincere student. Mano
borrowed money from his friend ‘Rahul’ which accumulated to Rs.1,00,000/-.
Karan and Devika had quarrels due to his drinking habits. Though, Mano too did not support
Karan’s dinking activity, but provided him with emotional support. Karan and Mano were very
close to each other. On May 21, 2014, Karan got severely ill and informed Mano about the life
insurance policy, to which Mano was the sole benefactor. Mano showed no interest in the matter.
On 1st August, 2014, Karan, Devika and Mano had a heated discussion as Mano found his name
in the defaulter list for college fee payment. On 2 nd August, Karan gestured his apology to Mano
and told him to transfer money for his college fees as well as his pocket expenses and even
allowed him to transfer more, if needed. On 3rd August, while Mano was leaving for his college,
Karan started moaning heavily and complained of chest pain.
Mano searched for pain killer and tried to call Dr. Choudhary, but was unable to contact him. He
wrote Angispan on Dr. Choudhary’s prescription and yelled at Raghav to get the medicine. Mano
had seen and practiced the procedure of administering medicine via syringe during his training at
Altis Hospital, while treating alcoholics. He administered Angispan to Karan through push
intravenous method. Karan was quiet for about half an hour but, suddenly collapsed.
After Karan’s death, Raghav and Devika found his life insurance policy, which displayed Mano
as the sole benefactor and got suspicious about Karan’s death. The case is in Durg Sessions
Court for hearing.

[ix]
STATEMENT OF CHARGES
This Hon’ble court has the power to joint charges and hear the instant matter under Section 184
read with Sections 220 and 223 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Section 184
‘184. Place of trial for offences triable together- Where - (a) the offences committed by any
person are such that he may be charged with, and tried at one trial for, each such offence by
virtue of the provisions of section 219, section 220 or section 221, or
(b) the offence or offences committed by several persons are such that they may be charged with
and tried together by virtue of the provisions of section 223,
the offences may be inquired into or tried by any Court competent to inquire into or try and of
the offences.’
‘220. Trial for more than one offence-(1) If, in one series of acts so connected together as to
form the same transaction, more offences than one are committed by the same person, he may be
charged with, and tried at one trial for, every such offence.’
‘223. What persons may be charged jointly-The following persons may be charged and tried
together, namely:-
(a) persons accused of the same offence committed in the course of the same transaction;

[x]
(b) persons accused of an offence and persons accused of abetment of, or attempt to commit,
such offence;
(d) persons accused of different offences committed in the course of the same transaction.’
ACCUSED 1
Mr. Manohar Lal, s/o Late Mr. Jiwan Lal has been charged under Sections 302, 120B and 465
read with 34 of Indian Penal Code for the act of Murder, Criminal conspiracy and Forgery
respectively. Charges have also been framed under Sections 66 and 66C, Information
Technology Act for the act of Computer related offences and Identity theft respectively.
ACCUSED 2
Mr. Rahul Gulati, S/o Jitender Gulati has been charged under Sections 302, 120B, 109 and 465
read with 34 of Indian Penal Code for the act of Murder, Criminal conspiracy, Abetment and
Forgery respectively. Further, charges have also been framed under Sections 66 and 66C,
Information Technology Act for the act of Computer related offences and Identity theft
respectively.

[xi]
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
ISSUE I: WHETHER OR NOT MR. MANOHAR LAL AND MR. RAHUL GULATI ARE
GUILTY OF COMPUTER RELATED OFFENCES AND CONSPIRACY?
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that Accused persons are not guilty of
computer related offences and criminal conspiracy. The alleged offence done by them was for
experimenting a trick related to technology. (a) Neither, they conspire to commit an unlawful
act, (b) nor the act was done with a dishonest intention. Moreover, (c) there are no material
evidences to substantiate the guilt of Accused persons.
ISSUE II: WHETHER OR NOT MR. MAHOHAR LAL IS GUILTY OF FORGERY?
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that Accused No.1 is not guilty of forgery as
the act committed by him was, (a) done in good faith, and; (b) there is no fraudulent or dishonest
intention to commit the crime. Furthermore, the alleged crime for which Manohar is charged, is
(c) an act of necessity in order to save Deceased from dying. There was no intention to cause any
injury to the deceased.
ISSUE III: WHETHER OR NOT ACCUSED NO.1 COMMITTED THE OFFENCE OF
MURDER AGAINST DECEASED?
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that Mr. Manohar Lal (Accused No.1) is not
guilty of murder as the alleged crime (a) lacks the presence of mens rea. Accused No.1, (b)
acting in good faith administered the drug, for he wanted to save Karan’s life. (c) The

[xii]
prosecution has paid heavy reliance on uncorroborated evidences, as Raghav and Devika are
interested witnesses. Furthermore, (d) the investigation report is faulty; and (e) have not been
backed up with evidence to substantiate the charge.
ISSUE IV: WHETHER OR NOT MR. RAHUL GULATI IS GUILTY OF ABETMENT?
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that Mr. Rahul Gulati (Accused No. 2) is not
guilty of abetment, as he had no possible reason to abet the commission of the alleged crime. (a)
He did not incite or instigate or provoke Mr. Manohar to commit the crime; and (b) the crime
was, in fact, not committed. Moreover, there was (c) no intention of Mr. Rahul to abet Manohar
to murder Late Mr. Karan, as there was no material benefit which he could derive from his death.

[1]
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
ISSUE I: WHETHER OR NOT MR. MANOHAR LAL AND MR. RAHUL GULATI ARE
GUILTY OF COMPUTER RELATED OFFENCES AND CONSPIRACY?
It is humbly contented before this Hon’ble court that Mr. Manohar Lal (hereinafter referred to as
‘Accused No. 1’) and Mr. Rahul Gulati (hereinafter referred to as ‘Accused No. 2’ collectively
referred as ‘Accused persons’) are not guilty of the offence under Sec. 66 and Sec. 66C of IT Act,
and Sec. 302, 465 r/w 34, 120B and 109 of IPC.
In the present matter, it has been wrongfully alleged that the Accused persons have dishonestly
and fraudulently accessed to computer system without permission u/s 66, IT Act and decrypted
the password of deceased person’s bank account, committing the offence of identity theft u/s
66C, IT Act. It has also been alleged that Accused persons are guilty for the offence under
Section 120B r/w Section 120A, IPC. It is contended that the act was not done dishonestly or
fraudulently [1.1.]; that there is no substantial evidence of transactions from Karan’s account
[1.2.], and that Accused persons did not conspire together [1.3.].
1.1 THE ACT WAS NOT DONE DISHONESTLY OR FRAUDULENTLY
A. TEST OF DISHONESTY
The determining factor of a dishonest act is the intention with which it was done.1 The test of
dishonesty is the mental element of belief.2 The Accused persons having a keen interest in
technology used the trick of decrypting the deceased persons’ bank account password during the
1
Dharamdas Lilaram v. Emperor AIR 1932 Sind 169
2
11, Halsbury’s Laws of England, (4th Ed. p 675, para 1263)
[2]
experimentation procedure of their skills and thus, the allegation of decryption is frivolous as
they had no dishonest intention to do so.
B. PRIMARY INTENTION
In considering Sec 24, IPC, it is the primary and not the remote intention of the Accused that
must be looked at.3 The word ‘intent’ implies ‘aim’ and does not connote a ‘merely possible’
result. The one object for which the effort is made is to be foreseen; and thus has reference to
what has been called the dominant motive, without which the action would not have been taken.4
Primary intention of Accused persons was to check whether the trick of decryption works or not.
‘Primary intention’, being the experimentation shall be taken in consideration, and not the ‘mere
possible result’ of decryption for transferring money from Deceased’s account.
1.2 NO SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF KARAN’S ACCOUNT TRANSACTIONS
The defendant humbly contends that there were no unlawful transactions done from the deceased
person’s bank account. There is no documentary evidence to conclude any transactions from the
deceased person’s bank account. Even the investigation report is not annexed with any record of
the transaction. 5 The decrypted password was not used for identity theft as it has not been used
dishonestly or fraudulently; and there is no evidence to substantiate the aforesaid allegation.
Therefore, the Accused persons do not attract the charge under Sections 66 and 66C, IT Act.
1.3 ACCUSED PERSONS ARE NOT GUILTY FOR CONSPIRACY
3
Queen-Empress v. Haradhan, 19 ILR Cal 380; Queen-Empress v. Girdhari Lal, 8 ILR All 653
4
I, Sarvaria, S.K, Indian Penal Code, (10th Ed. p146)
5
Excel & co. v. A.K. Menon and Another, (2005) 13 SCC 93

[3]
Conspiracy has been defined, “An agreement by two or more persons to commit an unlawful act,
coupled with an intent to achieve the agreement's objective.”6. It is contended that the Accused
persons did not conspire with each other [A] and motive does not constitute conspiracy [B].7
A. ACCUSED PERSONS DID NOT CONSPIRE TO COMMIT THE OFFENSE
The Accused persons did not have any agreement between them in order to do an illegal act or to
do a legal act by illegal means, which is a sine qua non to commit an offence.8 In case of
conspiracy what is to be proved is an agreement and common design.9 The evidence as to the
transmission of thoughts sharing the unlawful act is not sufficient10. Guilt for a charge of
criminal conspiracy must, therefore, be considered on the anvil of a fact which must be
established by the prosecution, viz., meeting point of two or more persons for doing or causing to
be done an illegal act or an act by illegal means.11
‘Agreement’ is essential, mere knowledge or even discussion of the plan is not, per se, enough.12
Mere discussion and knowledge is not enough, there shall be execution to it
The Deceased person, on several occasions, transferred the requisite amount by the Accused No.
1 for his semester fees and daily expenses, which clearly enunciates the satisfaction of the
6
Black’s Law Dictionary, 9th Edn. p 351
7
Leela Das v Union of India & Ors, (1999) CrLJ 1807 (Cal)
8
Suresh Chandra Bihari v State of Bihar, AIR 1994 SC 2420, Sachin Jagdish Joshi v. State of Maharashtra, (2008)
6 SCALE 469
9
Re Kodur Thimma Redi, AIR 1957 Andh Pra 758, Yash Pal Mittal v. State of Punjab, [1977] SCC 540
10
I, Sarvaria, S.K., Indian Penal Code, (10th Ed. p. 1007)
11
R. Venkatakrishnan v. Central Bureau of Investigation, AIR 2010 SC 1812.
12
Kehar Singh and Ors. v. State (Delhi Administration), 1988 (3) SCC 609

[4]
Accused No.1 for basic needs. Now his ambition and small borrowings cannot be equalized
intention of stealing from the man he respects. It is of essence that there be some material
showing a connection between the alleged conspiracy and the act done is pursuant of that
conspiracy13, which stands missing in the prosecution’s story.
B. MOTIVE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE CONSPIRACY
In absence of any other evidence of conspiracy, mere evidence to motive is not sufficient to
connect a man with conspiracy14. What may be sufficient is motive for an individual may or may
not be sufficient motive for others, and it is, therefore, necessary to give importance to the
occurrence itself.15 The manner and circumstances in which the offences have been committed
and the level of involvement of the Accused persons therein are relevant factors. For the said
purpose, it is necessary to prove that the Accused persons have expressly agreed to, or caused to,
do an illegal act.16
Therefore, it is humbly submitted that the Accused persons did not conspire together to commit
an illegal act. It is a case where motive and intention of Accused No. 2 had been wrongly
misinterpreted as enmity between Accused persons. In the case, the unsatisfied need has been
interpreted into a criminal act by the prosecution, and even the alleged act is being tried by law
on Non-Merit Grounds. The law protects the one deceased for the offences which had been
committed, not for the offences which were never intended.
13
Vijayan Alias Rajan v State of Kerala, (1999) CrLJ 1638 (SC)
14
Ekabban Mondal v Emperor, AIR 1937 Cal 756
15
Haffijuddi v Emperor AIR 1934 Cal 678
16
Mohammad Usman Mohammad Hussain Maniyar & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, (1981) 2 SCC 443.

[5]
ISSUE II: WHETHER OR NOT MR. MAHOHAR LAL IS GUILTY OF FORGERY?
It is humbly contended before this Hon’ble court that Accused No. 1 is not guilty for committing
the offence of forgery u/s. 465, IPC. The facts under consideration are that the Accused No. 1 did
not act in fraudulent or dishonest manner [2.1], and there was no intention to cause damage to
any person or to support any claim or title [2.2]17. The burden of proof lies on the prosecution to
prove the offense of forgery beyond all reasonable doubt.18
2.1 THE ACT WAS NOT COMMITTED IN FRAUDULENT OR DISHONEST MANNER
To prove an offense under section 465, the false document needs to be made dishonestly and
fraudulently without lawful authority, by cancellation or otherwise.19 The basic ingredient of S.
465 is that the act should be done in “dishonest” and “fraudulent” manner.20
The expression ‘fraudulent’ u/s s.25, IPC includes any kind of harm or injury to body, mind or
reputation.21It is contended that Accused No. 1 was acting in good faith22 when, in a fit of rush,
he wrote ‘Angispan’ on Dr. Choudhary’s (DW 4) prescription paper.23 The conviction cannot
stand if the intention, to cause harm or any kind of injury to Deceased, is absent.24
17
Ramesh Chandra Das v. Premlata Patra, (1983) 3 Crimes 87 (Ori); See also, Ram Narain Poply v. Central
Bureau of Investigation, AIR 2003 SC 2748

18
M Ata Mohammad Khan v Crown, AIR 1950 Lah 1999, p 221
19
Section 464, Indian Penal Code, 1860; See also, Empress v Mohammad Saeed Khan, (1899) ILR 21 All 113
20
Jibrial Diwan v. State of Maharastra, (1997) 6 SCC 499
21
Union of India v. Ranbir Singh, JT 2011 (11) SC 339
22
Section 92, Indian Penal Code, 1860
23
Re. M Gangandhariah 1967 CrLJ 787, AIR 1967 Mys 86
24
Adhi Mullick v State AIR 1955 Cal 473

[6]
2.2 NO INTENTION TO CAUSE DAMAGE OR TO SUPPORT ANY CLAIM
It is humbly contended that the drug Angispan is a commonly used drug [A], and is the Accused
No. 1 was acting in good faith [B]. Therefore the possible intention of committing the act i.e. to
cause injury to person or claim title is ruled out [C].
A. Commonly used drug
Accused No. 1 is a third year medical student. In the opinion of Prof. Deshpande, Accused No. 1
is a bright and sincere student.25 DW 4, who had been treating the Deceased person since 1995
confirmed that the Accused No. 1, administered the same drug which any other medical
practitioner would administer during a severe chest pain situation.26
B. Good Faith
The medicine which was administered via intravenous was harmless.27 Though, it is a common
practice of the pharmacist selling prescription drugs without prescription.28 Accused No.1,
having knowledge of what being followed commonly, accidently made prescription for Angispan
over DW4’s prescription. The accused cannot be held liable for the act done in good faith, with
no criminal intent and with the knowledge he possess. Arguendo, if Accused No. 1 had intention
to commit the act, he would have had administered Deceased with such a drug which makes
death certain, and not a mere matter of chance.
C. There was no intention to cause damage or to claim title over something
25
See, Case Details, p 1, para 5
26
See, Case Details, p 15, DW4’s confessional statements
27
See, Case Details, p. 5
28
Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs The Wellcome Foundation Ltd, 2002 (24) PTC 580 Guj

[7]
Forgery is an act committed with intent to cause injury, whereas, the intent of the act, does not
satisfy any of the essentials given out in S.463, IPC. Mere preparation for the commission cannot
amount to forgery.29 The sole intention was to revive the Deceased person, for whom the
Accused No. 1 had utmost care and affection.
The circumstances rendered the Accused No. 1 insane and rendered him incapable of
understanding the nature and consequence of his actions. Insanity under S.84, IPC, signifies the
reasoning capacity of the man, to such an extent as to render him incapable of understanding the
nature and consequences of his actions.30 To claim defense u/s 84 the court must consider the
circumstances which preceded, attended, and followed the crime.31 To enable the accused to
avail the benefit, he should be able to establish that the act was not known by him to be wrong 32,
which is the present situation in the above case.
QUOD NECESSITAS NON HABET LEGEM
It is a common proverb, which means ‘necessity knows no law’. A man may break the words of
the law and yet not break the law itself. Such things are exempted out of the penalty of law. The
law privileges them, although, they are done against the letter (not the spirit) of it. Breaking the
words of law is not breaking the law, so long as the intent of the law is not broken.33
In the absence of any conclusive evidence, the ingredients of S.46334 are not satisfied.35
29
Pramatha Nath v State, AIR 1951 Cal 581
30
Gaur, K. D, Indian Penal Code, (6th ed. p. 134)
31
Dayanbhai Chaganbhai Thakkar v State of Gujarat, AIR 1964 SC 1563
32
Ashiruddin v The King, AIR 1949 Cal 182
33
Reniger v.Fogosia (1551), 1 Plowd 1
34
Monica Bedi v State of Uttar Pradesh, (2011) 1 SCC 284

[8]
ISSUE III: WHETHER OR NOT ACCUSED NO.1 COMMITTED THE OFFENCE OF
MURDER AGAINST DECEASED?
It is most humbly contented before this Hon’ble Court that the Accused No. 1 is not guilty for
committing the offense of murder under s.302 read with s.300, IPC. The matter which needs to
be taken under consideration in the present case is that the accused was acting in good faith
[3.1.]. To prove the charge under s.300, mens rea needs to be established [3.2.], which is a sine
qua non of conviction for the aforesaid offense. The prosecution’s story paid heavy reliance on
uncorroborated evidence [3.3.] and failed to consider the items took in possession [3.4.].
Moreover, the improper investigation [3.5.] on the part of Investigating Officer, created a large
cloud of reasonable doubt [3.6.], which shall only be considered as a false allegation against
Accused No. 1.
3.1 THE ACCUSED WAS ACTING IN GOOD FAITH
Herein, the circumstances under Section 92, IPC stands fulfilled. The aforesaid section states for
the acts done by a person in good faith for benefit of a person without consent.
A. The accused acted in good faith
Intention or knowledge is necessary for offence of murder (s. 302 IPC)… or injury by
administering poison (s. 328, IPC). Nothing is an offence, if the act was done in good faith for
benefit of the victim36. It is well evident in the case that Accused No. 1 administered drug
Angispan, which was done to revive the deceased person’s body37, therefore done in good faith.
35
Excel and Co. v. A.K. Menon and Anr., (2005) 13 SCC 93
36
Ram Khelawan v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2014 SCC OnLine Chh 29:2014 Indlaw CTH 36
37
See, Case Details, Para 25, p 5

[9]
In addition, neither Raghav (PW 1) showed his dissent when Accused No. 1 was about to
administer the drug to Deceased, nor when Accused No. 1 asked PW 1 to purchase the drug. The
aforesaid scenario enunciates the consent of PW 1 at that time.38 It is not to mention that,
Accused No. 1 and PW 1 had the implied consent of the Deceased in order to revive him.
B. Accused No. 1 made a Difficult decision
Accused No. 1 has seen as well as practiced the procedure of administering painkiller via
intravenous before.39 It is evident from the present case that Accused No. 1 tried calling Dr.
Choudhary (DW 4) on phone before administering the drug. However, DW 4 did not reply as he
was out of station on vacations. It must be adhered to that the act of administering Angispan drug
was a difficult decision undertaken by Accused No. 1.
3.2. MEANS REA STANDS TO BE ABSENT
In Indian penal law, mens rea is inbuilt in the statute.40 Therefore, in order to prove a conviction
under s.302 IPC, mens rea is to be established. Arguendo, Accused No. 1 committed the offense
of murder against the Deceased then also there is no presence of mala fide intention.
A. Possible intention ruled out
Arguendo, Accused No. 1 did murder the Deceased in order to hide the transfer of Rs 2,50,000/-
from the Deceased person’s bank account into his own bank account. No material case of mens
rea arises as Accused No. 1 took the consent of Deceased before transferring the aforesaid
38
Ibid.
39
See, Case Details, Para 21, p 4,
40
Ram Khelawan v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2014 SCC OnLine Chh 29

[10]
amount.41 Moreover, the non-filing of any bank statement or a document as an Annexure, which
may prove the aforesaid transaction of Rs.2,50,000/- proves that Accused No. 1 has not
committed the actus reus as well.
B. Abetment of Murder is frivolous
To avoid redundancy the counsel with the permission of this Hon’ble court, moves forth to the
next argument.
3.3 PROSECUTION PAID HEAVY RELIANCE ON UNCORROBORATED EVIDENCES
A. Enmity makes a witness interested
A witness is normally considered to be an independent witness unless he springs from the
sources which are likely to be tainted such as enmity or relationship and which make him
inclined to implicate the accused falsely.42 In the case, the enmity of PW 1 and PW 2 against
Accused No. 1 is evident;43 the court must tread lightly when taking into account their
statements.
B. Raghav (PW 1) and Devika (PW 2) are interested witness
It is further contended that PW 1 and PW 2 fall within the category of “interested witness”. An
interested witness is one who postulates that the person concerned must have some direct interest
in seeing that the accused is somehow convicted, due to the fact that he has an animus or ill will
41
42
Rajaram v. State of M.P., (1992) 3 SCC 634 : AIR 1994 SC 846
43
See, Case Details, Para 4, p. 1; see also, Case Details, Para 18, p. 3,

[11]
with the accused or for any other reason44, seeing PW 2 and PW 1 fall within this category, the
court must tread lightly when taking into account their statements.45
3.4 THE ITEMS TOOK IN POSSESSION
The defense humbly pleads that the items discovered from home Anti-Depressants, used syringe
and drug oxycontin needs to be taken into consideration
Serious problems, including both inadvertent errors as well as deliberate and conscious acts of
wrongdoing, have arisen in crime laboratories, medical examiner offices, and forensic service
providers around the country. This not only undermines the public trust in the criminal justice
system, but can contribute significantly to erroneous verdicts in death penalty cases. 46 The
medical exhibits47 such as Prozac, Oxycontin and used syringes etc. cannot be disregarded.
However, the Investigating Officer (PW 6), in the case disregarded the aforesaid list of exhibits,
thereby acting in a callous manner48.
3.5 FAULTY CONCLUSION:
It is humbly contended that the conclusion derived by the prosecution story, from medical
examination do not back any evidence [A]; making the investigation improper and faulty [B].
A. Conclusion that does not back evidence, shall be disregarded
44
Dalbeer Kaur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1977 SC 472
45
Chandra Mohan Tiwari v. State of MP, AIR 1992 SC 891
46
Report on the Governor’s Council on Capital punishment, 80 Ind. L.J. 1, 23 (2005)
47
See, Case Details, Annexure 2
48
Murugan v. State, 1991 CrLJ 1680

[12]
In Chemical analysis, the Chemical analyzer may be unsuccessful for various reasons. Taylor in
his Principles and Practice of Medical Jurisprudence, Vol. II, p. 228 gives three possible
explanations for negative findings, one of which says that “the case may have been of disease
only…”49
In the case, Dr. Bhatia’s (PW 5) report50 concluded the death of deceased to be air embolism in
the artery. However, the prosecution’s story disregarded the medical illness of the deceased
which includes Cirrhosis in liver and Arthosclerosis, and are capable of causing cardiac arrest in
the same manner as in the present case. The possibility of death due to any other disease other
than the one attributable to poisoning cannot be ruled out.51
The Apex Court maintains that if two views are possible, benefit is given to the accused, thereby
acquitting him/her from the charge of s.302.52
B. Faulty and Improper Investigation
When a report is received from the Chemical Examiner containing a quantitative analysis, it
should be presented to the medical examiner who conducted the post mortem examination so that
he will be in a position to state before the Committing Magistrate what are the medico-legal
inferences to be drawn from their report.53In the present case, neither the Investigation report54 is
proper, nor is the Forensic report presented to PW 5 as mentioned in the aforesaid precedent.
49
Anant Chintaman Lagu v. State of Bombay, AIR 1960 SC 500 : 1960 Cri LJ 682
50
51
Phino v. State of Punjab, AIR 1975 SC 1327
52
Ibid.
53
Happu v. Emperor, AIR 1933 All 837
54

[13]
It has been observed by the Supreme Court that when defective investigation comes to light
during course of trial further investigation of circumstances are so permitted under Section
173(8).55 Therefore, it is humbly submitted that the aforesaid reports are improper and require
further investigation under Section 173(8)56.
3.6 REASONABLE DOUBT:
In light of all the aforementioned arguments, the accused humbly submit s that there
exists reasonable doubt and hence he should be acquitted of the alleged crime. A reasonable
doubt must not be imaginary, trivial or merely possible doubt; but a fair doubt based upon reason
and common sense arising out of the evidence of the case.57
The prosecution’s arguments are leaning towards the fact that the crime ‘may have been
committed by the accused’, however they have failed to make the link between ‘may have
committed the crime’ and ‘must have committed the crime’ and that gap must be filled by the
prosecution by legal, reliable and unimpeachable evidence before a conviction can be
sustained58.
Therefore, it is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that Accused No. 1 must be
exempted from the charge under s.302,IPC, as the said charge is not more than a mere allegation
in the absence of any authoritative as well as corroborative evidences.
55
Om Prakash Narang v. State (Delhi Administration), (1979) 2 SCC 323, See also, Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi v.
State of Gujrat, 2004 (5) SCC 347

56
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
57
Ramakant Rai v. Madan Rai Cr LJ 2004 SC 36
58
IV, Nelson, R. A., Indian Penal Code, (10th Ed. 2008, p. 2905)

[14]
ISSUE IV: WHETHER OR NOT MR. RAHUL GULATI IS GUILTY OF ABETMENT?
It is humbly contented before this Hon’ble court that the Accused is not guilty for the offence of
abetment under s.109 r/w s.107, IPC. Abetment of a thing is when a person instigates, conspires
or intentionally aids an illegal act or an illegal omission. In order to convict a person as an
accomplice, it is necessary for the prosecution to prove59 that the Accused aided, abetted,
counselled or prosecuted the commission of the principal offense; [4.1.], that the principal
offence was in fact committed; [4.2.] and the accused did not had intent to encourage the
commission60 [4.3.]
4.1. ACCUSED NO. 2 DID NOT ABET OR ATTEMPT TO ABET ACCUSED NO. 1
To attract an offense under s.109, IPC, mere association of the Accused person with those who
are charged for an offense is not enough. Unless there is existing material evidence which
enunciates the instigation by Accused No. 2, either in aiding or in the commission of the offense
committed by Accused No. 1, the charge under abetment stands disproved.
Accused No. 2, being a friend of Accused No. 1 does not relate him to the instigation for
committing the offence. A mere association of the Accused with the Accused No. 1 does not
depict any intention to abet or instigate the Accused No. 1 for the commission of any crime.
There is no material evidence which leads to the conclusion that there was any abetment for
commitment of the offence of murder. It depends on the particular facts of each case61 that the
words 'Instigation and Incitement' “should be read to signify something deeper than a mere
59
Saju v State of Kerala, AIR 2001 SC 175: 2001 (1) SCC 378
60
Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, Indian Penal Code, (31st Edn., 2006 p. 518)
61
State of Bihar v. Ranen Nath and Ors, AIR 1958 Pat 259, 1957

[15]
asking of a person to do a particular act.” There was nothing which was urged or encouraged or
provoked by Accused No. 2 in any way, to abet Accused No. 1 to murder Deceased. No material
or circumstantial evidences are present so as to conclude abetment of the offense committed by
Accused No. 2.
4.2. THE OFFENSE WAS ACTUALLY NOT COMMITTED
The contents of ‘the offence was actually not committed’ are mentioned above in detail, under
Issue III, and the same are not being reproduced herein again for the sake of brevity.
4.3. ACCUSED HAD NO INTENTION TO ENCOURAGE THE COMMISSION
In order to constitute abetment, the abettor must be shown to have ‘intentionally’ aided to the
commission of the crime.62 In the present case, Accused No. 2 use to tease Accused No. 1 of him
being rich if his uncle would go on a ‘long journey’, hearing which both of them would have a
good laugh.63 In order to ascertain the meaning of the words conveyed, the ‘immediate reaction’
of the Accused persons is to be noticed and relied upon64, which in the present case is ‘a good
laugh’, which certainly cannot be taken as a mala fide intention on the part of Accused No. 2.
Accused No. 2 himself belongs to an affluent family65. Moreover, the insurance policy taken up
by Deceased had Accused No. 1 as the sole benefactor. There was no benefit for Accused No. 2
in abetting to murder Deceased. Therefore, it is humbly submitted that there cannot be any
intention of the Accused for the commission of the offence.
62
State v Naresh Chand AIR 1975 SC 195
63
64
Prem Narayan v State, AIR 1957 All 177; See also, Bhgwat Singh v Balwant Singh, 1978 CrLJ (Raj) 279
65

[xiii]
PRAYER
Wherefore, in light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, may this
Hon‘ble Court be pleased to:
TO HOLD:
 That Mr. Manohar Lal is not guilty of committing murder.
 That Mr. Rahul Gulati is not guilty of abetment to commit murder.
 That Mr. Manohar Lal and Rahul Gulati are not guilty of criminal conspiracy.
 That Mr. Manohar Lal and Rahul Gulati are not guilty of Identity theft and Computer
related offences.
TO PASS:
 Acquit Mr. Manohar Lal and Mr. Rahul Gulati of all the charges.
AND
Pass any other order it may deem fit, in the interest of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience.
All of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted
Place: Durg S/d_____________
Date: / /2015 COUNSELS FOR THE DEFENSE

Defense Memorial

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Defense Memorial

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

Defense Memorial

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

[TEAM CODE-E]

SURANA AND SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT

BEFORE THE COURT OF SESSIONS

S.C. NO. 111 OF 2015

FOR OFFENCES CHARGED UNDER

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE SESSIONS JUDGE

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENSE

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION....................................................................... vii

STATEMENT OF FACTS .................................................................................... viii

STATEMENT OF CHARGES ................................................................................ ix

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ............................................................................. xi

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ...................................................................................1

computer related offences and conspiracy? ...........................................................1

PRAYER ................................................................................................................ xiii

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENSE

Dharamdas Lilaram v. Emperor

Jibrial Diwan v. State of Maharastra,

Leela Das v Union of India & Ors,

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENSE

M Ata Mohammad Khan v Crown,

Monica Bedi v State of Uttar Pradesh,

Phino v. State of Punjab,

Rajaram v. State of M.P (1992) 3 SCC 634 : AIR

Ramakant Rai v. Madan Rai

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENSE

Union of India v. Ranbir Singh,

S.NO NAME OF THE BOOK

2. Gupta, Apar, Infromation Technology Act, (2nd Ed. 2011)

3. I, Sarvaria, S.K, The Indian Penal Code, (10th Ed. 2008)

4. II Taylor, Principles and Practice of Medical Jurisprudence, (13th Ed. 1984)

5. II, Sarvaria,S.K, Indian Penal Code, (10th Ed. 2008)

6. III, Sarvaria,S.K, Indian Penal Code, (10th Ed. 2008)

7. IV, Sarvaria,S.K, Indian Penal Code, (10th Ed. 2008)

8. Jhala & Raju, Medical Jurisprudence, (6th Ed. 1997)

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENSE

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

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

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

13. Modi, Medical Jurisprudence & Toxicology, (24th Ed. 2012)

14. National Crime Reference Handbook, (V.11, 2015)

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

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

S.NO NAME OF THE 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. The Information Technology Act, 2000 (Act No. 21 of 2000)

5. The Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (Act No. 23 of 1940)

6. The Drugs and Cosmetics Rule, 1945

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENSE

209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed.’

Read with Section 209

(a) commit the case to the Court of Session;

and until the conclusion of, the trial;

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENSE

borrowed money from his friend ‘Rahul’ which accumulated to Rs.1,00,000/-.