Common Induction Moot 2022-23

Moot Court Society

Law Centre-II, Faculty of Law

University of Delhi

Common Induction Moot 2022-23

Moot Proposition

To be held on: 27th February 2022

ORGANISED BY:

Team MCS
 Common Induction Moot 2022-23

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
We thank our teacher convenor, Prof. Dr. Kiran Gupta, and all faculty members of the society
for their constant support for all endeavors of the Moot Court Society, including this Common
Induction Moot.

We also thank our faculty members for their help in the drafting the proposition for CIM 2022-
23.

1
 Common Induction Moot 2022-23

1. Mr. Amar Kapoor ran a successful car dealership in Gopalganj, a town in Uttam Pradesh. He
married one Ms. Raveena Rai, as per Hindu rites and ceremonies, on 22.12.2015 and the
marriage was solemnized in Gopalganj. They lived together happily in Amar’s parental home
and a son was born to them on 7.9.2016.
2. Their lives went by smoothly until 15.5.2017, when Amar informed Raveena that his car
dealership was not doing well in business and that he urgently needed money to salvage it. On
hearing her husband’s plight, Raveena decided to help him by voluntarily offering to sell the
jewellery kept in their joint locker that both of them had access to. She had received this
jewellery as part of her wedding gifts from her own parents, Amar’s parents and other guests
and relatives.
3. Amar was not comfortable with his wife’s offer to sell off her jewellery as he thought that they
were an important future asset. Instead, he insisted that Raveena should request her parents to
lend them INR 50 lakhs, which he would eventually return. However, Raveena was reluctant
to ask her parents for money and refused to do so.
4. Amar did not let go and became agitated with Raveena. He kept insisting that she approach her
parents for the money. Husband and wife had several heated and serious arguments, where an
angry Amar even accused Raveena’s parents of not giving him or his family enough wedding
gifts, when the two got married.
5. Nearly 3 months later, Amar’s business gained normalcy and the fights between him, and
Raveena abated. Raveena asked her husband several questions about the state of the business,
but he acted indifferent and shot back by saying that she had no right to ask about a business
that she did not want to save.
6. After 2 days, Raveena decided to sell her jewellery to help her husband and went to the bank
to access the joint locker. On reaching there, she was informed that 3 months ago, on 25.2.2017,
the locker had been accessed and nearly all of the jewellery had been withdrawn by Amar.
7. A bewildered Raveena reached home to confront Amar. Amar, however, nonchalantly told her
that the jewellery was given to her by both of their parents and was kept in their joint locker so
both had equal right to them. He said that she could not challenge his actions by any legal
authority. Their relationship became strained due this incident.
8. Raveena decided to explore options of legal recourse and approached a local lawyer to get
advice on the issue. She was advised that the jewellery that she received at the time of her
marriage was her property, and that she should approach a Family Court to voice her
grievances.
9. She did so and the Family Court gave a decision in favour of her husband, Amar, noting that—
1
 Common Induction Moot 2022-23

• the jewellery was kept in a bank locker that was accessible to both of them
• based on the evidence, it was proven that Amar did not misuse the money he obtained after
selling the jewellery and used it to stabilise his business, which was also in the larger interest
of the family of which Raveena was a part.

The Court observed in its obiter that a joint bank locker held by the husband and wife should
be operated by mutual consent. but in the present case the wife had already voluntarily made
an offer to the husband expressing her intent to sell the jewellery in the interest of his business.
10. Aggrieved by this order, Raveena appealed before the High Court of Uttam Pradesh. she
contended that she had sole control over the jewellery that she received as part of her wedding
gifts, and that they could be used or sold only by her.
11. While the matter was pending before the High Court, Amar and Raveena decided to attempt
reconciliation by taking their son on vacation. Accordingly, they checked into a hotel at
25.12.2019. Here, they were accompanied by their friends Karishma and her husband, Prem.
On 26.12.2019, at 3:15 AM, screaming was heard from Amar and Raveena’s room. When their
friends rushed there, the door of the room had to be knocked down and they found Raveena
aflame. With the help of the hotel staff, they were able to put out the flames. At this point,
Raveena was barely alive and spoke to Karishma stating that her husband, Amar had tried to
kill her by burning. This statement was recorded by Karishma.
12. During this, Amar and their son were lying unconscious in the bathroom. All three of them
were rushed to the hospital. At the hospital, Raveena gave a second statement to the doctors
and the police personnel on duty that she had self-immolated. Soon after, she succumbed to the
grievous injuries on her body and died.
13. On gaining consciousness, Amar informed the police that he and his son consumed orange
juice given to them by Raveena and fell unconscious on the night of the incident. Hence, they
had no knowledge of it. The medical reports of Raveena stated that she died due to the 80%
burns to her body. The medical reports of Amar and their son stated that both had high levels
of oxycal, a potent sedative, in their blood.
14. Based on the medical reports, the two contradictory dying declarations and other evidence
present, the police registered the report. In the final report, the investigating officer mentioned
that Amar was used to taking oxycal and could handle even high doses. He therefore used it to
stage an alibi while having enough control to set his wife on fire, while their son fell
unconscious. Hence, the police filed the charge-sheet under Section 173, Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973.

2
 Common Induction Moot 2022-23

15. At the Sessions Court, Amar was sentenced to life imprisonment for culpable homicide
amounting to murder, committed under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860. Amar
challenged this order in the High Court of Uttam Pradesh, relying on Raveena’s second dying
declaration given to doctors and police personnel at the hospital.
16. The High Court clubbed both appeals and the final hearing for the same is scheduled to be held
on 27th February 2022. All laws applicable in India apply in the State of Uttam Pradesh.