Mock Trial Assignment, 2021

T-3B
Speaker 1 –Saurabh swami(19bal103)

Speaker 2 - Kuldeep singh Rathore (19bal084)

Researcher- Himanshu charan(19bal077)

BEFORE THE HON’BLE COURT OF SESSIONS, BILLAI, TOPOLI, HINGUSTAN

STATE OF TOPOLI- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - PROSECUTION

v.

RAGHUWAR & NITESH- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -DEFENCE

FOR OFFENCES CHARGED UNDER:

Hingustan Penal Code: Sections 302, 465 r/w 34, 120B and Information Technology Act

2000: Sections 66 & 66C

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE PRINCIPLE SESSIONS JUDGE

MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF PROSECUTION
-Table of Contents- Page |

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS............................................................................................................i

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS...................................................................................................iii

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES......................................................................................................v

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION......................................................................................viii

STATEMENT OF FACTS.......................................................................................................ix

STATEMENT OF CHARGES.................................................................................................xi

CHARGE 1...............................................................................................................................xi

CHARGE 2...............................................................................................................................xi

CHARGE 3...............................................................................................................................xi

CHARGE 4...............................................................................................................................xi

CHARGE 5...............................................................................................................................xi

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

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED................................................................................................xiii

[I] THE ACCUSED 1 & ACCUSED 2 ARE LIABLE OF MURDER UNDER

SECTION 302 OF I.P.C.____________________________________________________xiii

[II] Accused 1 & 2 are LIABLE for commiting FORGERY IN FURTHERANCE OF

COMMON INTENTION.__________________________________________________xvii

[III] Accused 1 &2 are LIABLE for CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY OF COMMITING

MURDER OF DECEASED._________________________________________________xix

[IV] Accused 1 & 2 are LIABLE for commiting offence under S.66 & S.66C OF
INFORMATION TECNOLOGY ACT 2000.___________________________________xxi

[V] Accused 1 & 2 are LIABLE for commiting offence OF ABETMENT UNDER S.
109 IPC._________________________________________________________________xxii

MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

-Table of Contents- Page |

PRAYER...............................................................................................................................xxiv

MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

-List of Abbreviations- P a g e | iii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVIATION EXPANSION
& AND
A ACCUSED
A.I.R. ALL INDIA REPORTER
A.L.T. ANDHRA LAW TIMES
A.P. ANDHRA PRADESH
Anr. ANOTHER
B.B.C.J. BIHAR BAR COUNCIL JOURNAL
Cal. CALCUTTA
Cr.P.C. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE
Cri.L.J. CRIMINAL LAW JOURNAL
D.L.T. DELHI LAW TIMES
D.W. DEFENCE WITNESS
ed. EDITION
G.L.R. GUJARAT LAW REVIEW
Hon’ble HONOURABLE
I.P.C. INDIAN PENAL CODE
Ker. KERALA
M.P. MADHYA PRADESH
No. NUMBER
Ors. OTHERS
p. PAGE
P.W. PROSECUTION WITNESS
r/w READ WITH
S.C. SUPREME COURT
S.C.C. SUPREME COURT CASES
Sec. SECTION
U.P. UTTAR PRADESH
v. VERSUS

MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

-Index of Authorities- P a g e | iv

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

TABLE OF CASES

S. No Cases
Gudar Dusadh v State of Bihar, (1972) 3 SCC 118: AIR 1972 SC
1.
952.
Mohit Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1964 SC 900: (1964)Cr
2.
Lj 727 (SC);
Virsa Singh v State of Punjab, AIR 1958 SC 465 : (1958) 1 SCR
3.
1495;
4. Bhupinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (1988) 3 S.C.C. 513
Chahat Khan v State of Haryana, AIR 1972 SC 2574 : (1972) 3
5.
SCC 408;

6. Regina v. Williams, (1986) 84 Cr. App. R 299, CA.

7. Naseem Ahmed v Delhi Administration, AIR 1974 SC 691.

Chandrakant Murgyappa Umrani v. State of Maharashtra, A.I.R.
8.
1999 S.C. 1557.
9. Md. Asir Ali v. State of Assam, 2009 (3) G.L.T. 817
Noor Mohammad Mohd. Yusuf Momin v. State of Maharashtra,
10.
(1970) 1 S.C.C. 696 ;

11. Ibra Akanda v. Emperor, A.I.R. 1944 Cal. 339

12. State of U.P. v. Iftikhar Khan, A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 863; see also

13. Esher Singh v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2004 (4) A.L.T. 28; see also

14. K.S. Narayan v. S. Gopinathan,1982 Cri.L.J. 1611 .

15. State (N.C.T. of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu, A.I.R. 2005 S.C. 3820

MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

-Index of Authorities- Page |v

16. Keher Singh v. State (Delhi Admin.), A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 1883.
17. Hardeo Singh v. State of Bihar & Ors., 2000 Cri.L.J. 2978 ¶ 10.
18. State v savithri, (1976) Cr Lj 37 (mad).
19. Ramesh Singh v. State of A.P, 2004 Cri.L.J. 3354

20. Balu and Ors. v. State (U.T. of Pondicherry), 2016 Cri.L.J. 176

21. HALSBURY’S LAWS OF ENGLAND 44 (4th ed. 1987).

JOGENGAR SINGH V STATE OF PUNJAB,AIR 1979 SC 1876:
22.
(1979) CR LJ 1406 (SC).
Jaikrishnadas Manohardas Desai and Anr. v. State of Bombay,
23.
A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 889
Gurjit Singh v State of Haryana, (2015) 4 SCC 380 : (2015) Cr Lj
24.
1955(SC).
Kishore Singh v State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1977 SC 2267:
25.
(1977) 4 scc 524.

ONLINE DATABASES

 Manupatra (www.manupatra.com).

 SCC Online (www.scconline.in).

 JSTOR (www.jstor.org).

STATUTES

 Indian Penal Code, 1860.

 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

 The Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

 Information Technology Act, 2000.

BOOKS REFFERED

 RATANLAL & DHIRAJLAL, THE INDIAN PENAL CODE 936 (31st ed.2006).

MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

-Statement of Jurisdiction- P a g e | vi

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Prosecution, most humbly and respectfully, submits that this Hon’ble Court has the

requisite territorial and subject matter jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate this matter

under Section 1771 r/w Section 262 and Section 2093 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

1973.

1
Section 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’.
2
Section 26: Courts by which offences are triable. Subject to the other provisions of this Code,

(a) any offence under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), may be tried by,

(i) the High Court, or

(ii) the Court of Session, or
(iii) any other Court by which such offence is shown in the First Schedule to be triable;

(b) any offence under any other law shall, when any Court is mentioned in this behalf in such law, be
tried by such Court and when no Court is so mentioned, may be tried by-

(i) the High Court, or

(ii) any other Court by which such offence is shown in the First Schedule to be triable.
3
Section 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.’
MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF PROSECUTION
-Statement of Facts- P a g e | vii

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. At the age of ten, Raghuvar Lal (hereinafter mentioned as ‘Raghu'), who is accused 1,

became an orphan. Since then, he has been cared for by his supportive and caring uncle

Arun,the deceased who has provided for not only his preliminary education but also his

college fees and regular expenses.

2. Accused 1 owed some money to accused 2 and the latter pressurized former to get the

money arranged for him.

3. Arun's health began to deteriorate significantly due to office and stress. He had a range of

illnesses, including high blood pressure, obesity, diabetes, and alcoholism.

4. Accused 1 was indebted to his uncle and, as a result, he held him in high regard and taken

care of him when nobody else would.

5. Raghu and Nitesh had a good friendship. Raghu had his uncle's permission to transfer

money online from his bank account whenever he needed it, but it was to be informed to

Arun.

6. It's assumed that even on the morning of August 3rd, Arun was inebriated but feeling fine;

he wanted to go to work, but accused 1 advised him not to go.

MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

-Statement of Facts- P a g e | viii

7. Later that day, after talking with accused 1 for a short while, Arun complained of chest

pain. Accused 1 dispatched his cousin Raman to fetch Angispan because they couldn't find

his medicines and Dr. Talukdar wasn't answering his phone.

8. For half an hour, he felty relieved but later, collapsed and died due to cardiac arrest. The

wife and son of deceased came to know about the 2 crore policy in name of accused 1. This

made them suspicious and they informed the police.

MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

-Statement of Charges- P a g e | ix

STATEMENT OF CHARGES

CHARGE 1

Whether or not accused 1 and 2 are guilty for murder of Arun under section 302 IPC?

CHARGE 2

Whether or not accused 1 and 2 are guilty for forgery under section 465 IPC read with section

34 of IPC?

CHARGE 3

Whether or not accused 1 and 2 are guilty for criminal conspiracy under section

120B?

CHARGE 4

Whether or not accused 1 and 2 are guilty for committing offence under section 66 of

Information Technology Act 2000?

CHARGE 5

Whether or not accused 2 is guilty of abetment under section 109 of IPC?

MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

-Prayer- P a g e | xii

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

WHETHER OR NOT ACCUSED 1 & ACCUSED 2 ARE GUILTY FOR MURDER

UNDER S. 302 I.P.C.

It is humbly submitted before the court that the accused 1 is guilty of murder as he has
committed the act by administering Angispan to Arun which lowered the blood pressure
resulting into death of Arun.
Accused 2 is also guilty of murder as Nitesh owed Raghu money and he pressurized him to
return the money. After that he knew about the insurance policy by Arun in hius name and
then both intended to kill Arun. Their actons show that both were interested in the death of
Arun from which Raghu would get the policy amount.

WEATHER OR NOT ACCUSED 1 & 2 ARE GUILTY FOR FORGERTY UNDER

SECTION 465 I.P.C. R/W S.34 OF I.P.C.?

It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that both the accused are involved in the act
of forgery as both hacked the laptop of Arun and installed the hardware device to use the
deciphered net banking password using the software through which they transfered the
money by entering into the net banking account of Arun.

WHEATHER OR NOT ACCUSED 1 & 2 ARE GUILTY FOR CRIMINAL

CONSPIRACY UNDER SECTION 120B?

It is humbly submitted to this court that both the accused are involved in the act criminal
conspiracy and had both common intention and pre-mediated plan to murder the deceased
Arun, to grab the insurance policy money which would be benefited to accused 1 only after
the death of the Arun. For this, accused 1 administered Angispan intravenously to deceased
when he was going through the treatment combination of which led to death of Arun which
accused 1 was aware of being a good medical student.

WEATHER OR NOT ACCUSED 1 &2 ARE GUILTY FOR COMMITING OFFENCE

UNDER S. 66 OF ITA 2000?

It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that both the accused are guilty for
committing offence of criminal conspiracy. Both the accused without permission of the
owner Arun and secured access to his laptop by installing keyboard software and got access
to internet banking account and then withdrew money from his account. Thus they are under
section 66 and 66C of IT Act 2000.

MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

-Prayer- P a g e | xiii

WEATHER OR NOT ACCUSED 2 IS GUILTY OF ABETMENT UNDER SECTION

109 OF I.P.C.?

It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that the accused 2 is guilty of abetting Raghu
for committing the offence of Murder of Arun. Although accused 2 was not present when
offence for murder was not committed, but both the accused shared the common intention of
taking the money of Arun as accused 2 was also going to be benefitted after the death of
Arun.

MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

-Prayer- P a g e | xiiii

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

[I] THE ACCUSED 1 & ACCUSED 2 ARE LIABLE OF MURDER UNDER SECTION 302 OF

I.P.C.

1. It is humbly submitted that Accused 1 and Accused 2 are guilty of committing murder

of the deceased. Accused 1 and Accused 2 have committed this offence against

deceased who is the wife of Accused 1, in order to marry each other. The chain of

circumstances, post mortem report4 and Statements of Witnesses prove the same

beyond reasonable doubt.

2. The Section 302 of I.P.C. prescribes the punishment of murder. So, it is pertinent to

refer to Section 300 of I.P.C. which highlights the Ingredients of murder.

3. The Section 300, I.P.C. states that

“A person is guilty of committing murder if he intentionally causes

the death of a person or causes such bodily injury as he knows, is

likely to cause death of that person or causes such bodily injury,

which in the ordinary course of nature results into death or

commits an act so dangerous that it must, in all probability cause

death of that person.”5

4. Here, the present act of Accused 1 and Accused 2 is murder under clause 2 of Section

300 which states, a person is guilty of murder if he intentionally causes death of the

person.

5. For s. 300(1) I.P.C to be applied it is required that , first S.299(A) of I.P.C. must be

4
Annexure - 3
5
Section 300, The Indian Penal Code, 1860, No. 45, Acts of Parliament, 1860 (India).
MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF PROSECUTION
-Prayer- P a g e | xivi

satisfied , which states “whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of

causing death”6 , i.e. S.299 of I.P.C. defines culpable homicide in a simple manner.

S.300 I.P.C. defines murder which is also a culpable homicide with some special

characteristics.

6. S.299(a)

If satisfied
S.300(1)

If satisfied

General Exceptions applied General Exceptions not applied

Culpable Homicide Culpable Homicide

NOT AMOUNTING TO MURDER AMOUNTING TO MURDER

Punishment under S.304 I.P.C. Punishment under S.302 I.P.C.

7. S.299(A) and 300(1) of IPC are similar , the difference arise when the exeptions

available under S. 300 gets applied, i.e. once S.299(A) is applicable then the only

escape route for S.300 IPC is by the general exceptions. Therefore, an act coming

under clause (1)of S.299, and in both instance ,it will be culpable homicide

amounting to murder. 7

The essential ingredients of Culpable homicide are;

There must be death of person. satisfied

Death must be by act of another person. satisfied
The act causing death must be done with intention of causing death. satisfied

The definition itself provides for 3 circumstances in the form of explanation, wherein the
presence of absence of certain factors in causing death is nevertheless treated as causing
culpable homicide.
8. Explanation 1 provides for a situation where the injured person is suffering from

6
Section 299(A), The Indian Penal Code, 1860, No. 45, Acts of Parliament, 1860 (India).
7
Gudar Dusadh v State of Bihar, (1972) 3 SCC 118 : AIR 1972 SC 952.
MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF PROSECUTION
-Prayer- P a g e | xvi

some disorder, disease or bodily infirmity which resulted in death in less time. The

fact that his death was quickened by the disease he was already suffering from will

not reduce the guilt of the person causing the injury. In other words person causing

the injury cannot escape the criminal liability of culpable homicide by stating that the

person wouldn’t have died had he not suffered from other disease or disorder.

9. In this case, an important point is to be verified whether the act done by the accused

has caused the death of another person. The relevant consideration for such

verification is to see whether the death is caused as a direct result of the act

committed by the accused, or not. The connection between the primary cause and

death should not be too remote. There needs to have a proximate causal link between

the two8. The death must be direct consequences of the injuries inflicted on the

deceased. Intervening or supervening cause, if any, should not be independent of the

injuries sustained by the deceased9.

10. A doctor’s opinion is considered as an expert opinion 10in this case, both post-mortem

and forensic report proves direct relation of act committed and death.

11. It is submitted before this Hon’ble Court that in the case of Keher Singh v. State

(Delhi Administration),11 it was laid by the court that the post mortem is very

important where the cause death is to be established and the matter is of controversy.

Also, the post mortem report is a valuable piece of information and does not require

any other formal proof.12

12. Post mortem report 13says death was due to cardiac arrest which was triggered by the

cross reaction of the medicines Dr. prescribed and Raghu gave to Arun.
8
Mohit Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1964 SC 900: (1964)Cr Lj 727 (SC);Jogengar Singh v State
of Punjab,AIR 1979 SC 1876: (1979) Cr Lj 1406 (SC).
9
Virsa Singh v State of Punjab, AIR 1958 SC 465 : (1958) 1 SCR 1495; Kishore Singh v State of
Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1977 SC 2267: (1977) 4 scc 524.
10
S. 45, The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, No.1, Acts of Parliament,1872(India)
11
A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 1883 ¶ 42.
12
Bhupinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (1988) 3 S.C.C. 513
13
Annexure 3
MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF PROSECUTION
-Prayer- P a g e | xvii

14
13. Forensic Report says the death was due to air embolism (caused by intravenous

injection) in the arteries, leading top blockage of oxygen rich blood which ultimately

resulted into arrhythmia and then, cardiac arrest.

14. When any patient has Angina(chest pain) with blood pressure imbalance and

arrhythmic, doctor prescribes a calcium channel blocker medicine such as

Amlodipine, which was prescribed to Arun. This is injected intravenously in such

situations.

15. The act of administering Angispan and not Amlodipine by Raghu, although being a

medical student with good knowledge shows his intention to kill Arun. It can be

observed that Raghu had knowledge of both the drugs and the result of mixing of

both the medicines. As his intention was to kill Arun, he prescribed wrong medicine

which resulted into death of Arun.

16. Intention of a person plays a vital role in commission of murder. Intention of a person

can be gathered from the action of that person. If a person administers a medicine,

which is not prescribed for him and if that medicine acts as a deadly poison , then it is

very clear that he has an intention to kill that person, as the cause and effect of the

actions are very clear. Hence, it is evident that cause of death is cross reaction of

medicines which caused instant death.

17. Since intension is always a state of mind, it can be proven only by its external

manifestation.15 Motive may be relevant to proof and the prosecution may prove the

motive for a crime if it helps them to establish their case, as a matter of circumstantial

evidence.16

18. In present case, the motive is clearly established. The Accused 1 and Accused 2 were

friends and were over ambitious and wanted to get rid of the deceased so that they

14
Annexure 4
15
Chahat Khan v State of Haryana, AIR 1972 SC 2574 : (1972) 3 SCC 408; Gurjit Singh v State of
Haryana, (2015) 4 SCC 380 : (2015) Cr Lj 1955(SC).
16
Regina v. Williams, (1986) 84 Cr. App. R 299, CA.
MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF PROSECUTION
-Prayer- P a g e | xviii

could get the 2 cr policy. The circumstantial evidence in the present case has

determined the line which proves that the act was committed by the person so
17
accused.

[II] ACCUSED 1 & 2 ARE LIABLE FOR COMMITING FORGERY IN FURTHERANCE OF

COMMON INTENTION.

19. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that Accused 1 and Accused 2 in

furtherance of the common intention had committed forgery.

20. Section 34 of the I.P.C. states that,

“When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of

the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that

act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.” 18

21. Before a person can be held liable under the provisions of this section, there is need to

establish the ingredients, that are,

A. There was a common intention in the sense of prior meeting of minds or pre-

mediated plan between the two;

B. The person in order to be held liable, he should have participated in the Act in the

furtherance of the common intention.

If common intention and participation are both present, this section would be

applicable.19

22. Common Intention means that when two or more persons intentionally do an act

jointly, it is same as if each of them had done it individually.20

17
Naseem Ahmed v Delhi Administration, AIR 1974 SC 691.
18
Section 34, The Indian Penal Code, 1860, No. 45, Acts of Parliament, 1860 (India).
19
Chandrakant Murgyappa Umrani v. State of Maharashtra, A.I.R. 1999 S.C. 1557.
20
Md. Asir Ali v. State of Assam, 2009 (3) G.L.T. 817
MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF PROSECUTION
-Prayer- P a g e | xviiii

23. In the present case, Accused 1 and Accused 2 had a clear intention to get rid of the

deceased Arun as she was the only barrier between Accused 1 and Arun’s money in

form of insurance policy. In such cases, the totality of circumstances must be taken

into consideration in arriving at the conclusion whether the accused had the common

intention to commit an offence of which they could be convicted.21

24. On various occasions both Raghu and Nitesh withdrew money from Arun’s banking

account. Nitesh, when came to Raghu’s place, decrypted Arun’s online banking

passwords and transferred money on several occasions. On 02-08-2019, when Raghu

was sitting with Arun, he said Raghu to transfer money for his college fee which was

2.25L. Raghu transferred 2.5L into account without making Arun aware of that which

makes his intentions more doubtful. Although he was allowed to transfer some money

for his pocket expenses that too with permission and consent of Arun

25. On next day, i.e. 03-08-2019, Raghu again sat with Arun but didn’t made Arun aware

that the amount transferred was 2.5L. So, it can be concluded that considering the

circumstances, both the accused had common intention of committing the crime.

26. The expression “in furtherance of common intention of all” in Section 34 I.P.C., for

the application of this section does not require, all participants in the joint act must

either have the common intention of committing the same offence or the common

intension of producing the same result by the joint act. It is enough if all of them

intend that the joint act be performed.22

27. It is humbly submitted before the court that accused 1 and 2 had committed forgery.

28. Nitesh and raghu were best friends and were eager about the use of technology, even

though they were medical students. Nitesh was a master at manipulating attendance,

getting money fraudulently by unauthorized access and also taught raghu how to do it.
21
Noor Mohammad Mohd. Yusuf Momin v. State of Maharashtra, (1970) 1 S.C.C. 696 ¶ 8; see also
Ramesh Singh v. State of A.P, 2004 Cri.L.J. 3354 ¶¶ 11-12; Balu and Ors. v. State (U.T. of
Pondicherry), 2016 Cri.L.J. 176 ¶ 12.
22
Ibra Akanda v. Emperor, A.I.R. 1944 Cal. 339 ¶ 45.
MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF PROSECUTION
-Prayer- P a g e | xixi

29. Annexure 7 mentions the expert witness report about the activity on seized desktop,

laptop and other devices. Nitesh and Raghav installed key-logger software to track

the keying pattern of the user so aas to get password. By using that software, Nitesh

made multiple transactions by stopping electric records fraudulently.

30. As the action of Nitesh falls under section 463 of IPC which mentions about making

false electronic record with intention of causing damage. Both of them had common

intention of doing this, presence of any one would be sufficient to make them liable

for the same offence. It is enough if it is established that the criminal act has been

done by one of the accused in the furtherance of common intention.23

31. Hence, both the accused are guilty for committing forgery with common intention and

bopth would be punished under section 465 of IPC. They affixed electronic signature

that is account password of net banking here, on electric record of Hingustan Bank’s

Internet Banking with dishonest intention of causing it to be believed that such

electronic signature was affixed by person having authority to do the same.

[III] ACCUSED 1 &2 ARE LIABLE FOR CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY OF COMMITING MURDER

OF DECEASED.

32. It is pertinent to note that the punishment for committing criminal conspiracy is

mentioned in Section 120B, I.P.C. whereas in order to show conviction under this

charge, it is important to refer to the ingredients of Sec. 120A, I.P.C.

 Section 120A: Definition of Criminal Conspiracy

When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done, an

illegal act, or an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an

agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy.24

23
State of U.P. v. Iftikhar Khan, A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 863 ¶ 31; see also Jaikrishnadas Manohardas Desai and
Anr. v. State of Bombay, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 889 ¶ 9.
24
Esher Singh v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2004 (4) A.L.T. 28; see also HALSBURY’S LAWS OF ENGLAND
44 (4th ed. 1987).
MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF PROSECUTION
-Prayer- P a g e | xxi

Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an

offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act

besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such

agreement in pursuance thereof.25

33. The essential ingredient of proving criminal conspiracy is to show agreement between

two or more persons who were alleged to conspire, itself amounts to offence. 26 Before

a person can be held liable under the provisions of this section, there is need to

establish the ingredients of this section.

34. In order to convict, the prosecution’s guilty circumstantial evidence must be relied

upon.27 An agreement made between two or more accused persons wherein, they

become committed to co-operate for the definite accomplishment of the objective by

embodied means of the agreement, or by any means.

35. There was an agreement between Accused 1 and Accused 2 as per which they wanted

to get rid of the deceased by killing him, for which Accused 1 took advantage of the

situation which aroused on 03rd aug,2019. Accused 1 was a medical student and it can

be presumed that he knew the result of Angispan in such a situation.

36. Furthermore the medicine also does not require a prescription but accused 1 wrote it

on a prescription slip of Dr.Tahokdar so that the medicine could not be tracked back

to him by the police.

37. The act of killing the deceased by giving him angispan intravenously, even though

Amlodipine was prescribed by a practising doctor can be presumed to be done by a

brilliant medical student(accused 1). Accused 1 & accused 2 have discussed the

scenario in which Arun would go for a “long journey” and that would help accused

1’s financial situation greatly which would also affect accused 2’. The evidence as to
25
Section 120A, The Indian Penal Code, 1860, No. 45, Acts of Parliament, 1860 (India).
26
K.S. Narayan v. S. Gopinathan,1982 Cri.L.J. 1611 ¶ 7.
27
State (N.C.T. of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu, A.I.R. 2005 S.C. 3820 ¶ 12.
MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF PROSECUTION
-Prayer- P a g e | xxii

transmission of thoughts, sharing the unlawful design, may be sufficient to prove the

commission of Criminal conspiracy.28

38. Accused 2 helped accused 1 to access arun’s bank account passwords and withdraw

money from his accounts so they share a common goal of getting Arun’s money.

Thus, clearly establishing there was clear agreement between Accused 1 and Accused

2 for committing such a crime. Some connecting link or connecting factor is enough

for framing a charge.29

[IV] ACCUSED 1 & 2 ARE LIABLE FOR COMMITING OFFENCE UNDER S.66 & S.66C OF

INFORMATION TECNOLOGY ACT 2000.

39. Nitesh and Raghav, by the use of hardware based keylogger, got unauthorized access

to Raman’s desktop, which is illegal under section 43(1) of Information Technology

Act and shall be liable to pay compensation.

40. As per section 66 of IT Act, if any preson dishonestly, does any act referred to in

section 43 shall be punishable with imprisonment of for a term extending to 3 years or

fine of 5 Lakh or both.

41. In this case, Raman had knowledge of Nitesh and Raghu operating from desktop but

he wasn’t aware that they had installed an hardware keylogger in it. Thus, this access

of his desktop is unauthorized as per section 43(1) (b), which would be punishable

under section 66 of the IT Act 2000.

42. When the accused installed a key-logger software for tracking web poages and

keyboard keys with which they extracted passwords of internet banking for

transferring funds from Arun’s account. Hence, it can be said that they fraudulently

made use of password of net banking account of Arun and thus, shall be punished

under section 66 of IT Act for a term which may extend upto 3 years and fine which

28
Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 1883 ¶ 272.
29
Hardeo Singh v. State of Bihar & Ors., 2000 Cri.L.J. 2978 ¶ 10.
MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF PROSECUTION
-Prayer- P a g e | xxiii

may be extended to rupee one Lakh.

[V] ACCUSED 1 & 2 ARE LIABLE FOR COMMITING OFFENCE OF ABETMENT UNDER S.

109 IPC.

43. Nitesh is liable for abetting Raghu in murder of Arun.

44. S. 109 IPC says

“ Whoever abets any offence shall, if the act abetted is committed in consequence of

the abetment, and no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment of

such abetment, be punished with the punishment provided for the offence.”

45. As in IPC, there is no specific provision for the punishment of that abatement. In such

a situation the punishment due will be the same as provided for the offence abetted.30

46. An abettor's presence is not always required for attracting section 109 IPC. He

becomes liable even though he was not present when the perpetrator committed the

abetted offence provided prosecution proves that he abetted the offence.31

47. In this case, Nitesh instigated Raghu for gaining insurance policy by reminding Raghu

many a times about how rich Raghu would become if his uncle had to go on a long

journey (death). A person can be charged and convicted for abetting an offence if he

has instigated another to commit a criminal act or renders intentional aid by act or

omission or engages somebody to do an illegal act.

48. In Another case, it is mentioned that, a charged under section 109 IPC however has to

be along with some other substantive offence committed in consequence of

abatement. 32This case is also so satisfying and is applicable in the theory. It can be

concluded that Nitesh is liable to be punished for abetment under section 109 IPC.

30
State v savithri, (1976) Cr Lj 37 (mad).
31
Noor Mohammad Momin v State of Maharashtra,AIR 1971 SC 885: ( 1971) Cr Lj 793 (SC).
32
Kehar Shingh v state , AIR 1988 SC 1883 Sc 1883: 1988(sup) 2 SCR 24.
MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF PROSECUTION
-Prayer- P a g e | xxiiii

PRAYER

Wherefore, in light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, the

prosecution humbly prays and implores before this Hon’ble Court of Session that:

MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

-Prayer- P a g e | xxivi

1. Convict Raghuvar Lal, Nitesh Gulati for the offence of Murder, Criminal Conspiracy,

forgery read with Common Intention under Sections 302, 120B r/w Section 34 of the

Indian Penal Code, 1860 & Section 66 & 66c of Information Technology Act 2000

2. Convict Nitesh Gulati for the offence of abetment under Section 109 of the Indian

Penal Code, 1860.

3. Impose appropriate punishment available under law.

AND/OR

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.

Date: sd/- _________________________

Place: Billai (COUNSELS FOR PROSECUTION)

MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF PROSECUTION