3P

BA LLB (V SEM) 2020-21

GITARATTAN INTERNATIONAL BUSINESSS SCHOOL

MOOT PROBLEM - 2

IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT

IN THE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. ________ 2020

STATE OF DELHI
V.
ANSHUMAN…. RESPONDENT 1
MOTILAL……RESPONDENT 2

MEMORIAL SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

i
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ------------------------------------------------------------ iii

LIST OF AUTHORITIES ----------------------------------------------------------------- iv

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ----------------------------------------------------- 1

STATEMENT OF FACTS ---------------------------------------------------------------- 2

STATEMENT OF CHARGES ----------------------------------------------------------- 4

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS --------------------------------------------------------- 5

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

 Whether Anshuman is guilty for murder of Trisha

and their 2-year-old boy under Sec. 300 of IPC,1860? ----------------------- 6

 Whether Motilal is guilty of abetment to murder

under Sec. 114 of IPC,1860? ----------------------------------------------------11

PRAYER ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15

ii
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

& And

V. Versus

S./Sec. Sec.

SCC Supreme Court Cases

i.e. Id Est/That is

No. Number

Hon’ble Honorable

Del. Delhi

J Justice

CrPC Code of Criminal Procedure

IPC Indian Penal Code

OLR Ontario Law Reports

SC Supreme Court

HC High Court

iii
 LIST OF AUTHORITIES

I. Statues Referred

1. Indian Penal Code, 1860(Act 45 of 1860)

2. Indian Evidence Act, 1872(Act 18 of 1872)

3. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act 2 of 1973)

II. Books referred

1. Aiyar, P Ramanatha, The Law Lexicon, p. 49 (2nd ed 2006)

2. Gaur, KD , The Indian Penal Code, 1860; Universal Law Publishing, 4th Edition, 2017

3. Lal, Batuk, The Law of Evidence, (18th Ed. 2010)

4. Myneni, SR, The Indian Penal Code, 1860; Asia Law House, 2nd Edition, 2017

III. Websites Referred

 http://www.manupatrafast.com/

 http://www.casemine.com/

 https://www.scconline.com/

 http://www.indiankanoon.org/

 http://www.legalserviceindia.com/

iv
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Hon’ble Court has jurisdiction to try the instant matter under Section 177 read with

Section 209 of the CrPC, 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.’

1
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

1) Trisha and Anshuman were happily married and they had a baby boy, aged 2 years. They

had a servant, Motilal who has been working with Anshuman’ s family since 17 years. He

used to live with Trisha and Anshuman in their house.

2) Trisha was an extrovert female. She loved to dance and attend parties while Anshuman was

an introvert and confined himself to the four walls of the house after returning from office.

3) Trisha was able to make friends very easily since she enjoyed spending time with people.

This often led to differences between Anshuman and Trisha. Anshuman wanted Trisha to

attend to their baby boy and often felt that she is not giving time to her family. Anshuman

often discussed about Trisha with Motilal also.

4) On several occasions, Anshuman even accused Trisha of having an extra marital affair with

Ramesh to which Trisha always denied.

5) One night Trisha went to the kitchen to get milk for their baby boy leaving her phone behind.

The phone rang and Anshuman answered the call which was Ramesh’s. Ramesh without

waiting for Anshuman to say ‘Hello’ said ‘Let’s meet tonight once your husband has slept.’

Upon hearing this, Anshuman started shouting at Ramesh and told him to stay away from

his wife.

6) Anguished, Anshuman went to the kitchen where Trisha was making milk for their child.

In a fit of frenzy, Anshuman threw boiling milk on Trisha’s face leading to burns. Thereafter

he started beating her mercilessly.

7) Trisha started shouting ‘Save me! Save me!’. That very moment their child came running

towards his mother, Trisha and Trisha carried him in her arms. Not having any control over

his body, Anshuman pushed Trisha due to which the child fell from her arms and his head

was hit with the sharp corner of the kitchen slab. The child started bleeding profusely.

2
8) By this time, Motilal who was sleeping in the servant room also came to the kitchen. He

found the child lying unconscious on the floor in a pool of blood. He immediately carried

the child in his arms but the child was not breathing. He thought the child died because of

Trisha’s carelessness and Anshuman is beating Trisha because she is responsible for causing

the death of the child.

9) Anshuman was already beating Trisha. Trisha then attempted to run out of the kitchen

towards the main gate. Motilal reached at the main gate before Trisha, and bolted the gate

with a lock. Anshuman followed her with a sharp edged knife (which he found in one of the

drawers of the kitchen while searching for an instrument to kill his wife). Thereafter,

Anshuman stabbed Trisha on her chest. Trisha fell on the floor unconscious.

10) It was then that Anshuman realized what all happened. He started crying and blaming

himself for the entire incident. But Trisha took her last breath 30 minutes after the third stab.

3
 STATEMENT OF CHARGES

CHARGE 1

Anshuman has been charged under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for the crime of murder

of his wife and his 2-year-old baby boy.

CHARGE 2

Motilal has been charged under Sec. 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for aiding the crime of

murder of the deceased.

4
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. Whether Anshuman is guilty for murder of Trisha and their 2-year-old boy under Sec.

300 of IPC,1860?

 It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the accused is guilty of murder as he

had committed an act of cold blooded murder of his wife Trisha and his 2-year-old boy with

a witness to actus reus. The accused has requisite intention of killing his wife as he searched

for an instrument in the kitchen drawer for killing her and stabbed her in the chest and he

pushed his son to a corner which led his death.

2. Whether Motilal is guilty of abetment to murder under Sec. 114 of IPC,1860?

 It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that Motilal is guilty of abetment under

Sec. 114, IPC, even if he was unaware of the actual situation, he bolted the main gate which

was the only escape for Trisha to run and protect herself from his husband.

5
 ADVANCED ARGUMENTS

WHETHER ANSHUMAN IS GUILTY OF MURDER OF TRISHA AND THEIR 2-YEAR -OLD BABY

BOY UNDER SEC. 302 OF IPC,1860?

It is humbly contended that the accused is guilty for committing the offence of murder under

Sec. 302, IPC. Sec. 302 prescribes the punishment for committing murder, which states that-

“Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall

also be liable to fine.”

In order to bring a successful conviction under this charge, however, it is pertinent to refer to Sec.

300, IPC which elucidates the essentials of murder that states-

A person is guilty of 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. The prosecution humbly contends that

both, the actus reus [1.1] and the mens rea [1.2] which are necessary elements to complete the

definition of ‘crime’ are present in this case.

1.1 ACTUS REUS OF MURDER IS PROVEN

Actus reus is any wrongful act1. Thus, in a case of murder, actus reus would be the physical

conduct of the accused that causes death of the victim. In the instant case, the actus reus is

established by the mentioned facts of the instant case.

It is submitted before the Hon’ble court that the circumstantial evidence in the instant matter shows

that within all human probability, the act must have been done by the accused2.

1
Aiyar, P Ramanatha, The Law Lexicon, p. 49 (2nd ed 2006)
2
Bakshish Singh v State of Punjab, AIR 1971 SC 2016

6
It is clearly mentioned in the facts that with the intention of killing his wife he was beating her

mercilessly and also threw boiling milk on her face causing burns and lastly, the accused search for

the murder weapon which was a knife from the kitchen drawer and followed her in order to kill her.3

Now, this is very clear from the facts that the accused stabbed her in the chest not only once but three

times, so there is no denying of the fact that the guilty act of murdering his wife happened on that

night.

Moving forward with the murder of his baby, knowing about the fact that Trisha is holding her son

in her arms and if he will push her he will fall on the ground but still he did the guilty act of pushing

Trisha because of which the baby fell and hit his head on the corner of the kitchen slab and started

bleeding profusely.

Since, he wanted to kill her he didn’t even see when his son started bleeding and after the servant

held his son to check if he was breathing he died on the spot. Here, the accused did the guilty act of

pushing his wife which made the son fall and hit the kitchen slab and even after he knew he hit his

head and was bleeding he didn’t take him to the hospital or didn’t give any care necessary to him.

In the case of Robba Ramanna Dora v. State of Andhra Pradesh4 , the court held that-

“The proof of sufficiency of the injury to cause death where evidence of either eye witnesses

or well corroborated by medical and other evidence on record inspires confidence that

accused had intention to kill deceased then conviction is valid.”

In this case where murder was caused by stabbing the victim on her chest three times and leaving his

son unattended even after such immense blood loss and the witness saw the accused killing his wife

by stabbing her while he was present there and did nothing.

3
Statement of facts, sub para 9
4
2000 Cr LJ 118 AP

7
1.2 MENS REA OF MURDER IS ESTABLISHED

Mens rea is considered as guilty intention5, which is proved or inferred from the acts of the

accused. It is submitted that the intention to kill is established [1.2.1] in light of clear-cut

motive of the accused [1.2.2]

1.2.1 THE ACCUSED HAD INTENTION TO KILL

It is presumed that every sane person intends the result that his action normally produces and

if a person hits another on a vulnerable part of the body, and death occurs as a result, the

intention of the accused can be no other than to take the life of the victim and the offence

committed amounts to murder.6

Moreover, the intention to kill is not required in every case, mere knowledge that natural and probable

consequences of an act would be death will suffice for a conviction under s. 302 of IPC.

The intention to kill can be inferred from the murder and nature of the injuries caused to the

victim. Causing a serious injury on a vital part of the body of the deceased with a dangerous

weapon must necessarily lead to the inference that the accused intended to cause death or

bodily injury sufficient to cause death of the victim, and it answers to Sec. 300 and is

murder.

In the case of Santosh Kumar Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh7, the court held that-

“Even if the accused did not have the intention to kill the deceased, but causing such bodily

injury at that vital part of the body which is likely to cause death, will be sufficient to cause

death of the victim and the accused can be charged under Sec. 302 of IPC.”

5
Commissioner of Income Tax v Patranu Dass Raja Ram Beri, AIR 1982 PH 1, 4
6
(1951) 3 Pepsu LR 635
7
1975 Cri LJ 602 (SC)

8
1.2.2 THE ACCUSED HAD MOTIVE TO KILL

Sec 8 of the Evidence Act8 stipulates that any fact is relevant which shows or constitutes motive or

preparation for any fact in issue or relevant fact. Thus, previous threats or altercations

between parties are admitted to show motive. It is further pertinent to note that if there is

motive in doing an act, then the adequacy of that motive is not in all cases necessary.

In the present case, the accused already on several occasions fought with the deceased blaming her

for an extra marital affair but she always denied it9 and when one day the person on whom the accused

had the doubt called at night he was angry and with the intention of killing the deceased brought a

sharp knife from the kitchen and stabbed her in the chest three times, before that he beat her

mercilessly and also threw hot boiling milk on her face which led to severe burns on her face.10

It was held by the Supreme Court that whether the injury intended by the accused and actually

inflicted by him is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death or not, must be determined

in each case on the basis of the facts and circumstances. In the instant case, the injury caused was the

result of blow with a knife in the stomach which was given with such force that the weapon had

penetrated the abdomen and had injured the bowels. According to the doctor the injury was sufficient

in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Therefore, in the absence of any circumstances to

show that the injury was caused accidentally or unintentionally, it had to be presumed that the accused

had intended to cause the inflicted injury and the condition of clause. (3) of section of 300, I.P.C.

were satisfied.11

8
Any fact is relevant which shows or constitutes a motive or preparation for any fact in issue or relevant fact. The conduct
of any party, or of any agent to any party, to any suit or proceeding, in reference to such suit or proceeding, or in reference
to any fact in issue therein or relevant thereto, and the conduct of any person an offence against whom is the subject of
any proceeding, is relevant, if such conduct influences or is influenced by any fact in issue or relevant fact, and whether
it was previous or subsequent thereto.
9
Statement of facts, sub para 4
10
Statement of facts, sub para 8,9
11
Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1958 SC 465

9
There was clear intention of causing death of the accused for killing his wife as when he dealt a severe

knife blow on her chest when she was unarmed and had already been injured by the burns and the

beating, it cannot be held that the accused had no intention of causing the death of the accused.12

Secondly, the death of his baby boy maybe didn’t have any intention but the accused had the

knowledge that the baby boy can fall from his mother’s arms and can get hurt but still he pushed his

wife due to which he fell and hit his head on the corner of the kitchen slab.

Now, arguendo, we believe that he neither had the intention nor the knowledge of what might happen

by pushing his wife with his son in her arms but after that if he wanted to save his child he should

have taken him to the hospital or should be brought immediate medical attention but still even after

his son lost immense blood he did not give any attention to him and after that took the knife from the

drawer and killed his wife.

Hence, this shows that the accused had the intention, knowledge of what he was doing and as

mentioned in the facts he realised he had done everything in rage and he started blaming himself for

the whole incident, he started crying and felt guilt by himself.13

12
Nashik v. State of Maharashtra, 1993(1) Crimes 1197(SC)
13
Statement of facts, sub para 10

10
 WHETHER MOTILAL IS GUILTY OF ABETMENT TO MURDER UNDER SEC. 114 OF IPC,1860?

Section 107 of Indian Penal Code defines abetment as:

“Abetment of a thing. —A person abets the doing of a thing, who—

(First) — Instigates any person to do that thing; or

(Secondly) —Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the

doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy,

and in order to the doing of that thing; or

(Thirdly) — Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.”

Here, the third clause fulfils the requirement for prove the fact that the servant intentionally aided the

accused for the murder of his wife. if any person provokes, allures, persuade, threatens, conspires,

commands or intentionally helps any person in doing an illegal act or those acts which are recognised

as crime is said to abet that person.

As mentioned in the facts, Motilal worked for 17 years for the accused’s family14 so he was committed

and was biased to the accused side, so unknown of the actual situation he didn’t let Trisha run away

instead bolted the door with a lock by reaching there before her and it was then the accused killed his

wife by stabbing her in the chest for three times.

In abetment, the person who had mens rea, but was not involved in actus reus is punishable. The

offence of abetment depends upon the intention of the person who abets, and not upon the act which

is actually done by the person whom he abets.15 If any person provokes, allures, persuade, threatens,

14
Statement of facts, sub para 1
15
In Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. The King Emperor AIR 1924 Cal 545

11
conspires, commands or intentionally helps any person in doing an illegal act or those acts which are

recognised as crime is said to abet that person.

The third clause under Section 107 is abetment by intentional aiding to do an illegal act or omission

of a legal act. In this, the abettor generally facilitates or helps in committing the crime. There is an

intention to aid the offender and some act should be done in order to assist him/her. So, in this instant

case it was clear that the servant abetted the act of murder by not letting her run away from his husband

who was coming to kill her by a knife.

It cannot be held in law that a person cannot ever be convicted of abetting a certain offence when the

person alleged to have committed that offence in consequence of the abetment has been acquitted.

The question of the abettor's guilt depends on the nature of the act abetted and the manner in which

the abetment was made. Under S. 107 I.P.C. a person abets the doing of an act in either of three ways

which can be-. instigating any person to do an act; or engaging with one or more person in any

conspiracy for the doing of that act; or intentionally aiding the doing of that act.16

The element of knowledge plays an important role in abetment by intentional aiding. Mere assistance

to the offender without the knowledge of facilitation of committing crime is not abetment.

In the case of Faguna Kanta Nath v. The State of Assam17, the Court reiterated it and said :

"Under the Indian law for an offence of abetment it is not necessary that the offence should

have been committed. A man may be guilty as an abettor whether the offence is committed or

not."

16
Jamuna Singh vs State of Bihar on 22 September 1967 AIR 553
17
1959 AIR 673

12
For better understanding, a person may be invited casually and for a friendly purpose, and if he

unintentionally helps his aide to facilitate the commission of crime, it cannot be said that the person

has abetted the murder or the crime. Here, ‘intentionally aids’ means the ‘active complicity’ in the

commission of the act which is the most important ingredient of the abetment by intentional aiding.

Sec. 108 of the IPC,1860 states that-

“A person abets an offence, who abets either the commission of an offence, or the commission

of an act which would be an offence, if committed by a person capable by law of committing

an offence with the same intention or knowledge as that of the ‘abettor’.”

Motilal here, will be an abettor as he fulfilled clause 3 of the IPC,1860. He intentionally by his choice

aided his master Anshuman by locking the main entry gate so that Trisha could not leave the house

and after that he was the only witness to this heinous murder where the accused stabbed his wife three

times in the chest after which he dies after few minutes.

To constitute the offence of abetment, it is not necessary that the person who abets an offence and it

includes both the person who either abets the commission of an offence or the commission of an act,

or have the same guilty intention or knowledge, he would be an abettor to the crime.18

Sec. 114 of IPC states that-

“Whenever any person, who is absent would be liable to be punished as an abettor, is present

when the act or offence for which he would be punishable in consequence of the abetment is

committed, he shall be deemed to have committed such act or offence.”

18
Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012)9 SCC 460

13
Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code is possibly only brought into activity when conditions adding

up to abetment of a specific wrongdoing have first been proved, and after that the presence of the

accused at the commission for that wrongdoing is demonstrated furthermore. It is where there has

been the wrongdoing of abetment, however where additionally there has been real commission of the

wrongdoing abetted and the abettor has been present there, and the manner by which it manages such

a case is this. Rather than the wrongdoing being still abetment with circumstances of aggravation, the

wrongdoing turns into the very wrongdoing abetted.

Here, Motilal will be guilty under Sec. 114 of the IPC,1860 as he was present at the time of the

offence, when it was committed and he would be liable for the same punishment as that of the offence

that has been committed. So, here the offence is murder then he will be convicted under this section

and be punished under Sec. 302 of IPC, 1860.

14
 PRAYER

Therefore, in the light of arguments presented, issues raised, authorities cited, it is humbly prayed
before this Hon’ble Court that it may be pleased to-

1. CONVICT Anshuman U/S 302 of IPC,1860 for the offence of murder of his wife and his
son.
2. CONVICT Motilal U/S 114 of IPC,1860 for the offence of abetting the murder of the
accused’s wife.

All of which is humbly submitted.

DATE: -

PLACE: - DELHI

PUBLIC PROSECUTERS
Shivangi Gaur
Divyansh Singh
Parth Pandey

15