1st MCI

CRIMINAL LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.: _______/2022

SATARANGI SINGH
(APPELLANT)
V.
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
(RESPONDENT)

APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 374(1) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973

MEMORIAL FOR APPELLANT

1st MCI CRIMINAL LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

 WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ..........................................................................................................3
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ...........................................................................................................4
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION................................................................................................6
SUMMARY OF FACTS .................................................................................................................7
ISSUES RAISED .............................................................................................................................8
SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS........................................................................................................9
PLEADINGS .................................................................................................................................10

1st MCI CRIMINAL LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

2
 WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

& And
AIR All India Reporter
Anr. Another
Hon’ble Honorable
Ltd. Limited
No. Number
Ors. Others
Para Paragraph
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
Sec. Section
UOI Union of India
v. Versus
w.r.t with respect to

1st MCI CRIMINAL LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

3
 WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Sr. No. Case Name Page No.

1 Alingal Kunhinayan & Anr v. Emperor 11
2 Babulal Bhagwan Khandare v. State of Maharasthra 10
3 Bhagwan Swaroop v. State of Madhya Pradesh 12
4 Gottipulla Venkatasiva Subrayanam and Ors. v. State of Andhra 11
Pradesh and Anr.
5 Jangir Singh v. State of Punjab 13

6 Kashi Ram and Ors. v. State of M.P 13

7 Keshoram Bora v. State of Assam 13

8 Mahandi v. Emperor 11

9 State of Orissa V. Nirupama Panda 11

10 Samir Nijam Landge v. State of Maharashtra 13

11 Subramani v. State of T.N. 11

12 Suresh Singhal v. State (Delhi Administration) 10
13 Yogesh Hanmant Madane v. State of Maharashtra 13

14 Yogendra Morarji v. State of Gujarat 10

SR. NO BOOKS

1. Criminal Procedure - R.V. Kelkar's

2. Criminal Law: Cases and Materials – K.D. Gaur

3. Commentary on the Indian Penal Code – K.D. Gaur

1st MCI CRIMINAL LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

4
 WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

4. Criminal Law: Incorporating the Criminal Law - PSA Pillai's

5. The Indian Penal Code - Ratanlal & Dhirajlal

6. Indian Penal Code (With the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2018 – S.N.
Mishra

1st MCI CRIMINAL LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

5
 WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The counsel on behalf of the Appellant humbly submits to the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court under a certificate made under Article 134A of the Constitution of India, 1973 to hear the
present appeal.

Article 134 of the Constitution of India, 1950

“134. Appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court in regard to criminal matters.—(1) An appeal shall
lie to the Supreme Court from any judgment, final order or sentence in a criminal proceeding of a
High Court in the territory of India if the High Court—
(a) has on appeal reversed an order of acquittal of an accused person and sentenced him to death;
or (b) has withdrawn for trial before itself any case from any court subordinate to its authority
and has in such trial convicted the accused person and sentenced him to death; or
(c) [Certifies under article 134A] that the case is a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court.
Provided that an appeal under sub-clause (c) shall lie subject to such provisions as may be made
in that behalf under clause (1) of article 145 and to such conditions as the High Court may
establish or require.
(2) Parliament may by law confer on the Supreme Court any further powers to entertain and hear
appeals from any judgment, final order or sentence in a criminal proceeding of a High Court in
the territory of India subject to such conditions and limitations as may be specified in such law.”

1st MCI CRIMINAL LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

6
 WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

SUMMARY OF FACTS

1. Vadakar, aged 21, was a university student. He was residing in a room at the back of
Duryodhan Hostel, Ayodhya Park. On day the watchman of the said hostel heard shouting
and informed the complainant who on knocking the door was informed that Vadakar was
vomiting and, therefore, they should go away.

2. The door was however opened on the instance of the complainant and the individual was
Vadakar was lying dead in the room naked and the said person opened the door and started
running away. The accused was then locked in room and confessed to the complainant that
he had killed the deceased. A complaint was registered at the police station of Mayapuri

3. The accused, Satarangi Singh claimed to be innocent. He filed a statement of defense

stating that he had gone to the house of the deceased for repairing the TV and the deceased
wanted to have unnatural sex with him.

4. The accused proceeded to remove his clothes and attack the complainant. On the
apprehension that an act of unnatural sex would be committed against the accused, the
accused went on to attack the deceased and later confessed his actions and surrendered.
The cause of death on investigation was said to be hemorrhage the accused was tried in the
court of the Sessions Judge, at Pune in Sessions Case No. 420 of 2020 for offences
punishable under Sec. 394 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

5. The learned Sessions Judge has held that the appellant is guilty of offences punishable
under Sections 394 and 302 of the I.P.C. By his judgment and order dated 31/8/2021, the
learned Judge convicted the appellant-accused for the offence punishable under Section
302 of the I.P.C. and sentenced him to imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rest.
20000/-. The appellant was further convicted for the offence punishable under Section 394
of the I.P.C. and sentenced for 2 years.

6. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Being aggrieved by this
judgment and order, the appellant preferred an appeal to the High Court. On appeal in the
High court, it was contended He submitted that the prosecution has not adduced any
evidence to establish that the appellant had committed the murder of the deceased.

1st MCI CRIMINAL LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

7
 WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

7. The earned Counsel submitted that the case of the prosecution, that the appellant robbed
the deceased of his jeweler and then murdered him and hid the jeweler and the weapon in
the room in the hostel where he was kept by the persons who apprehended him is inherently
improbable. The deceased was found naked. There were injuries on the appellant consistent
with the defense version that the deceased wanted to have unnatural sex and the appellant
in order to protect himself the appellant attacked the deceased. He submitted that; therefore,
the assault was made by the

8. Appellant in exercise of his right of private defense. The prosecution on the other hand
submitted that the appellant has been rightly convicted under Sections 302 and 394 of the
IPC. He submitted that the appellant was caught on the spot. He confessed to the crime. At
his instance sword and ornaments of the deceased were found.

9. It is further bought to the notice of the court that the appellant had borrowed the scooter of
his friend, changed its name plate and used it for coming to the house of the deceased.

10. Based on this reasoning the court appellant was justified in exercising his right of private
defense which was however excessive and held that appellant's case falls in part II of
Section 304 of the IPC and a sentence of seven years and a fine of Rest. 500

11. The present appeal from the above rests with the Supreme Court.

1st MCI CRIMINAL LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

8
 WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

ISSUES RAISED

I. WHETHER THE ACCUSED WAS JUSTIFIED IN EXERCISING RIGHT TO

PRIVATE DEFENSE?

II. WHETHER THE ACCUSED HAS EXCEEDED HIS RIGHT TO PRIVATE

DEFENSE?

III. IF YES, WHETHER THE ACCUSED CAN BE HELD LIABLE UNDER PART
II OF SECTION 304?

1st MCI CRIMINAL LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

9
 WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS

I. WHETHER THE ACCUSED WAS JUSTIFIED IN EXERCISING RIGHT TO

PRIVATE DEFENSE?

The Accused is justified in exercising his right of private defense. The attempted sexual assault of
the accused by the deceased, the ability of the deceased to overpower the accused, the lack of any
available recourse at the time and the reasonable threat or apprehension of threat that the accused’s
body was in danger all contributed to the manifestation of the right of private defense.

II. WHETHER THE ACCUSED HAS EXCEEDED HIS RIGHT TO PRIVATE DEFENSE?

The accused has not exceeded his right to private defense. The extent to which private defense
cannot be measured by a yardstick and has no set parameters. However, certain factors are
analyzed by the court including the degree of proportionality of the offence, the impending danger
that is set to affect a person and the apprehension that such danger will likely cause harm to the
person’s body or property. The accused at the time of the commission of the offence reasonably
concluded that his life was in danger and if he does not act upon such danger, he will become a
victim of the deceased’s unnatural lust. Therefore, he had no option but to exercise said right in
order to immobilize the deceased.

III. IF YES, WHETHER THE ACCUSED CAN BE HELD LIABLE UNDER PART II OF

SECTION 304?

The Appellant must be held liable under Section 304 Part II over Section 304 Part I if he has
exceeded the right of private defense. The Appellant had no intention to cause the death of the
deceased in the scuffle between the two. The attack by the appellant was merely in order to protect
himself from sustaining further injuries by the deceased. There was no premeditated attempt to
commit culpable homicide.

1st MCI CRIMINAL LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

10
 WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

PLEADINGS

I. WHETHER THE ACCUSED WAS JUSTIFIED IN EXERCISING RIGHT TO

PRIVATE DEFENSE?

1. The Appellant humbly submits before this Hon’ble Court that the acts committed by
the appellant in the instant case is a justified exercise of the right of private defense in
an attempt to protect himself from the sexual assault by deceased.
2. The right of private defence emanates as an extension to Sections 96-106, which
explains the right of private defence. The right allows the creation of a caveat that
entitles an individual to be exempt from an offence is the act is committed as private
defence. In order to identify if a particular act is within the bounds of private defence,
it is of utmost importance to identify the circumstances behind the commission of the
act, and the degree of the commission of the act. This was succinctly described in the
case of Bauble Bhagwat Khan Dare v. State of Maharashtra1 where the situations
must be judged from a subjective point of view and whether it would be justifiable in
the prevailing circumstances.
3. The subject matter of private defence is laid down in Section 97 of the IPC2. Section
1003 allows for private defence to be exercised against several scenarios, including
bodily injury, acid attacks, rape, unnatural lust, kidnapping, abduction, confinement
and death. It is therefore of utmost important to the court to attain a comprehensive
understanding of the facts surrounding the exercise of the right the circumstances that
preceded it as laid down in the case of Yogendra Morarji v. State of Gujarat4 and
Suresh Singhal v. State (Delhi Administration)5 observed several guidelines and
factors that determine whether a particular act can be assumed to be private defence.
These factors include:
 Whether there was sufficient time for recourse to public authorities or not

1
(2005) 10 SCC 404
2
Section 97, Indian Penal Code, 1860
3
Section 100, Indian Penal Code, 1860
4
AIR 1980 SC 660
5
(2017) 2 SCC 737

1st MCI CRIMINAL LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

11
 WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

 Whether the degree of reflexive action is proportional to the danger

 Whether the act was necessary
 Whether the accused person is the victim of aggression
 If there was a reasonable apprehension of death, grievous hurt or hurt to the body or
property.
4. It is respectfully submitted by the appellant that in the instant case, private defence is
completely justified. The deceased had attempted to sexually assault the appellant and
this qualifies as unnatural lust. This has been laid down in the case of State of Orissa
V. Nirupama Panda6 where the accused in the case had killed an intruder in her home
who had attempted to rape her. This principle was also observed in the case of
Gottipulla Venkatasiva Subrayanam and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr.7
Where the Court stated that a right of private defence is created when an assault with
the intention of causing rape or gratifying unnatural lust is caused upon a person.
5. Furthermore, the respondent may contend that there exists reasonable doubt regarding
the appellant’s testimony. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the
respondent has not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant has attempted to
rob the deceased. The evidence provided by the respondent regarding the vomiting, the
presence of ornaments and weapons and the changing of the license plate8 are merely
incidental to the facts at hand and are not hard-line facts that prove intention to commit
an offence. By virtue of the preponderance of probabilities, the prosecution has not
proved that the appellant has murdered the deceased beyond reasonable doubt. The
evidence must be placed in the benefit of the accused.9

II. WHETHER THE ACCUSED HAS EXCEEDED HIS RIGHT TO PRIVATE DEFENSE?

6
1989 CrLJ 621 (Ori)
7
(1970) 1 SCC 235
8
Moot problem, pages 1 and 2
9
Periasami and Anr. V. State of T.N. (1996) 6 SCC 457

1st MCI CRIMINAL LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

12
 WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

1. The counsel for the appellant humbly submits before the Hon’ble Court that the appellant had
not exceeded his right to private defense. There are no particular set of guidelines or formula
to determine the extent and limitation of private defense.10 The principle to determine the same
has been observed in several judicial decisions such as Subramani v. State of T.N.11 The
Supreme Court held that the accused’s acts during the defense of his property were not
construed to be exceeding the confines of private defense. The accused at the time of the attack
by the deceased had within his mind the apprehension that there may be grievous harm to his
body. With no recourse available at the time, the grave nature of his reaction was considered
to be legitimate and proportionate to the impending harm.
2. A particular part that is required to be analyzed by the Court at the time of deciding whether
an act exceeds the confines of private defense is the proportionality/degree of the defense to
the impending danger. In cases such as Mahandi v. Emperor12 and Alingal Kunhinayan &
Anr v. Emperor13 the Courts have observed that the degree of the defense claimed determined
via the exact impact of the force used by a person against an aggressor. Rather what must be
used is a “reasonably proportionate force” to a deter wrong doer. This force must be
proportionate to the danger posed by the person against whom force has been unleashed. In
other words, use of force must not be “totally disproportionate.”
3. In Bhagwan Swaroop v. State of Madhya Pradesh14, the deceased attacked the plaintiff with
a lathi forcing his son to open fire against the assailants of his father. While accepting the plea
of private defense, the Court noted that the validity of such a plea ought to be examined on an
ex facto basis as against an ex ante basis. This implies that the determination of private defense
must be done subjectively as opposed to objectively through guiding principles. In other
words, threat to life and limb necessitating use of force must be assessed at the time when
such threat persisted.
4. The counsel for appellants therefore, humbly submits that the accused at the time of being
attacked by the deceased was under the reasonable apprehension that he will be subject to the
deceased’s unnatural lust. Furthermore, as the deceased is in a position to likely overpower

10
DR. HARI SINGH GAUR, INDIAN PENAL CODE 297 (14th ed. 2013)
11
(2002) 7 SCC 210
12
(1930) 31 CriLJ 654 (Lahore)
13
ILR 28 Mad 454a
14
(1992) 2 SCC 406.

1st MCI CRIMINAL LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

13
 WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

the accused by virtue of his physique,15 and with no immediate recourse available, the accused
had no alternative method of immobilizing the deceased, but with the weapon which was
readily available to him. In moments of excitement and disturbed mental equilibrium, parties
cannot act efficiently and use only the necessary amount of force.16 Therefore, the accused
could not exceed his right of private defense.

III. IF YES, WHETHER THE ACCUSED CAN BE HELD LIABLE UNDER PART II OF

SECTION 304?

1. Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 lays down the offence of culpable homicide not
amounting to murder.17 The Section divides the offence into two parts – first, where the act
caused is considered culpable homicide not amounting murder if the commission of the act is
with the intention of causing murder or grievous bodily harm18; second, where the commission
of the act is committed without the intent to cause death, creating a distinction between
intentional and unintentional homicide.19
2. Section 304 is applicable in situations where a person has exceeded the right of private
defense. The application of the section hinges on the weather said person has intended to cause
death or likely injury, or did not, at the time of the commission of the offence, intend to cause
any harm, injury or death to the victim. This principle was observed in several cases of private
defense, such as Keshoram Bora v. State of Assam20, wherein the accused had assaulted the
deceased after the latter had entered into his territory, leading to an attack against the accused’s
father, creating the right of private defense.
3. The applicability of the Section hinges on the intent of the person committing the offence. If
the intention to hurt or grievously injure is found, part I of Section 304 would apply. This can
be observed in cases such as Jangir Singh v. State of Punjab,21 who intentionally shot the
deceased, disproportionately harming him after an altercation ensued between the two. This

15
Moot Problem, Page 2
16
Shriram v. State of M.P., (2004) 9 SCC 292
17
Section 304, Indian Penal Code, 1860
18
C.K. Takwani (Thakker), Indian Penal Code IPC | Offences against Human Body
19
Ibid
20
(1978) 2 SCC 407
21
(2019)13 SCC 813

1st MCI CRIMINAL LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

14
 WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

can be distinguished from Kashi Ram and Ors. v. State of M.P.,22 where the accused’s intent
to shoot a gun was considered absent. Rather he was charged under Section 304 Part II based
on his knowledge that such an act would amount to or would likely cause death.
4. Section 304 of the IPC is applicable to cases of Culpable Homicide not amounting to murder
which also includes as cases falling under Exception 2 to Section 300, IPC , i.e., where a
person has exceeded the right of private defence. This section can be applied to a situation on
the basis of whether the person causing the death had the intention to cause death or likely
injury when he committed the offence. In the case of Keshoram Bora v. State of Assam, the
court held that when the accused had assaulted the deceased when the deceased entered into
the accused’s territory and assaulted his father, there was a valid presence of the right of
private defence.
5. This Section is based upon the idea that the person had the intention to commit the offence. If
a person has the intention to hurt or grievously injure is found, part I of Section 304 would
apply. In the case of Jangir Singh v. State of Punjab , the accused was found to be guilty of
the offence as he had intentionally shot the deceased disproportionately harming him after
they had a fight whereas in the case of Kashi Ram and Ors. v. State of M.P. , the accused
didn’t have the intent to shoot and so he was charged with Section 304 Part II based on his
knowledge that such an act would amount to or would likely cause death.
6. It is most humbly submitted that in the current case, the High Court replied on the above
explained understanding to pronounce its order and judgement. The Counsel of Appellant
would like to most humbly submit that the Hon’ble High Court has erred in coming to this
conclusion. Even if the actions of the Appellant are covered under the II part of Section 304
of the IPC, his Right to Private Defence extended to causing the death of Vadakar under
Section 100.
7. The Counsel for Appellant most humbly submits that the Counsel has already dealt with the
issue of rightful use of Private defence while dealing with issue 1 and 2. Further, the Hon’ble
High Court had also upheld the justified use of the Right of Private Defence but had erred
holding that the Appellant had exceeded his right. The Counsel while dealing with issue 2 has
clarified that the Appellant has not exceeded his right of private defence. The actions of the

22
(2002) 1 SCC 71

1st MCI CRIMINAL LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

15
 WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

Appellant were well within extent of self-defence provided under Section 100 of the IPC and
so he has not committed the offence punishable under the II part of Section 304 of the IPC.
The Appellant has not exceeded his right by disproportionately utilising the same, thereby
causing the death of the deceased. The act of private defence using a sword was ‘reasonably
proportionate’ in the face of the real and imminent threat of sexual assault. Therefore, it is
most humbly prayed before this Hon’ble court that it acknowledges the existence of the right
of private defence of the Appellant and acquit him of the all charges upon him.
8. Based on the theory aforementioned, the appellant humbly submits that in the instant case, the
appellant may not be charged under Section 304 Part I, but in the event that he has exceeded
private defense, he must be charged under Section 304 Part II. The facts of the instant case are
similar to the facts in the case of Samir Nijam Landge v. State of Maharashtra.23 The
Bombay High Court held that there was no intent of the accused to cause death to the victim
through his act of self-defense. However, the injuries caused and the proportion of harm
caused by the accused proved that he had exceeded his right of private defense. The charge
was subsequently placed under Section 304 Part II. This evidentiary standard was followed in
cases such as Yogesh Hanmant Madane v. State of Maharashtra24 wherein the Hon’ble High
Court observed that the strike delivered to the victim by the accused had no sign of
premeditation or intent; it merely reflected an instinctive reflex to protect themselves from
impending danger.
9. The same principles are observed in the instant case, where the accused was attacked and
suffered injuries, thereby forcing him into a situation to protect himself.25 The excessive nature
of such force comes with the fact that the accused also had the option to subdue the deceased,
or render them immobile. However, the intent to cause death is absent; therefore Section 304
Part II must be applied over Part I.

23
(2006) 4 AIR Bom R 512 (DB)
24
(2013) 1 AIR Bom R 785
25
Moot Problem, Page 2

1st MCI CRIMINAL LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

16
 WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

PRAYER

Appellant respectfully requests the Court to adjudge and declare that:

1. The Accused is justified in his right to exercise private defense
2. The Accused has not exceeded his right of private defense
3. The Accused is not liable under section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code and therefore be
acquitted of all charges

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.

Counsel on behalf of Respondent

SD/-

1st MCI CRIMINAL LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

17