TEAM CODE: T9

POST GRADUATE COLLEGE OF LAW, OSMANIA UNIVERSITY

INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

IN THE HONOURABLE SESSION COURT,

UNDER ARTICLE 32,132(1),133(1),134 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

APPELLATE JURISDICTION No....…/2021

IN THE MATTER OF

ORVASI … COMPLAINANT

Vs.

ASHISH …DEFENDENT

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS COMPANION

JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE respondent

-MEMORANDUM FOR THE - respondent

Page | 1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE NO.

1) LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 3

2) INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 4

3) STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 5

4) STATEMENT OF FACTS 6

5) STATEMENT OF ISSUES 8

6) SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 9

I. WHETHER THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY OF SREERAM INFRINGED IN THE

INSTANT CASE?
II. WHETHER THE CORRUPTION CHARGES BASED ON VIDEO AND VOICE
RECORDING VALID?
III. WHETHER THE ACTIONS OF SREERAM AMOUNT TO CRUELTY AND
OFFENCE AGAINST ANY RELIGION?
IV. WHETHER THE DECREE OF DIVORCE GRANTED BY THE HIGH COURT
VALID?

7) ARGUMENTS ADVANCED 12

I. WHETHER THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY OF SREERAM INFRINGED IN THE

INSTANT CASE?
II. WHETHER THE CORRUPTION CHARGES BASED ON VIDEO AND VOICE
RECORDING VALID?
III. WHETHER THE ACTIONS OF SREERAM AMOUNT TO CRUELTY AND
OFFENCE AGAINST ANY RELIGION?
IV. WHETHER THE DECREE OF DIVORCE GRANTED BY THE HIGH COURT
VALID?

8) PRAYER 18

-MEMORANDUM FOR THE - respondent

Page | 2
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

& And
¶ Paragraph
AIR All India Reporter
ALL Allahabad
Anr. Another
AP Andhra Pradesh
Art. Article
Cr. Criminal
Edn. Edition
Govt. Government
HMA Hindu Marriage Act
Hon‟ble Honourable
i.e. That is
No. Number
PC Privy Council
SC Schedule Caste
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
u/s Under Section
v. Versus
Vol. Volume
www World Wide Web

-MEMORANDUM FOR THE - respondent

Page | 3
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
TABLE OF CASES

Sl.No Case Law Page No.

1 R.M MALKANI Vs STATE OF MAHARASTRA AIR, 1972 9
2 ANVUR P V Vs BASHEER CASE, 10
3 SARLA MUDGAL PRESIDENT ,KALYANI,Vs UNION OF 13
INDIA,
4 Vijaykumar Ramchandra Bhate v. Neela Vijaykumar Bhate, 13
(2003) 6 SCC 334
5 Govind v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Mathew, J. 14
6 Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) & Anr. vs. UoI & Ors. (supra), 14
7 R. M. Malkani vs. State of Maharashtra  17
8 Ziyauddin Burhanuddin Bukhari vs. Brijmohan Ramdass Mehra & 18
Ors.

DATABASE REFERRED
1. www.judis.nic.in

2. www.lexisnexis.com

3. www.manupatrafast.com

4. www.scconline.com

-MEMORANDUM FOR THE - respondent

Page | 4
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
It is humbly submitted that the petitioner has approached this Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India, Delhi invoking its jurisdiction under Article 21 And Art. 32 of Indian constitution.

 Article 21 of the Constitution of India 1949,

21. Right to life and personal liberty, No person shall be deprived of his life or personal
liberty except according to procedure established by law

 Article 32 of the Constitution of India 1949,

32. Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part- (1) The right to movoe the
Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by
this Part is guaranteed (2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or
orders or writs, including writs in the nature of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari,
whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred under
Part III of constitutions.”

-MEMORANDUM FOR THE - respondent

Page | 5
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

For the sake of brevity and convenience of this Hon’ble Court the facts of the present case are
summarised as follows:

1.Mr. Ranjan and Mr. Joseph are partners in Shadow Edge Technologies Co. Ltd. They both
have financial disputes in their business.

2.Mr.joseph called Mr. Ranjan to solve their disputes on 08.02.2022 at around 6;30 p.m in
their office at Himayatnagar area.

3. In that session, Mr. Joseph had a conversation with Mr. Ranjan regarding money and then
Mr. Joseph started quarrelling with Mr. Ranjan. During the heated discussion, Mr. Joseph
pushed Mr. Ranjan down and stood up on his abdomen and crushed his abdomen by using his
whole strength and thereafter he went away.

4.Mr. Ranjan was feeling continuous pain in the abdomen and left to his house with pain.
There is CCTV in the office room. The adjacent shopkeeper Mr. Ayyappan saw Mr. Ranjan
while walking out of the office holding his stomach with pain , not in a position to walk.

5.On the next day at about 12 noon, one Mr. Sreeram, neighbour of Mr. Ranjan informed
Mrs. Sheetal, sister of Mr. Ranjan regarding the severe pain in the abdomen of Mr. Ranjan
and thereby she came to her brother’s house and got him admitted in a nearby private hospital
for treatment.On the night of 09.02.2022 itself, he was referred to Osmania General Hospital,
for treatment.

7. While undergoing treatment, upon information given by the duty Doctor, the Head
Constable Sri J. Chandrakanth of Himayat Nagar Police Station came and recorded the
statement of the injured (Ranjan) on 10.2.2022 at 8 pm in the hospital in the presence of his
sister Mrs. Sheetal regarding his injuries,

8. based on which an FIR was registered in Cr. No. 345/2022 u/s 323 IPC on 10.2.2022 at 11
p.m. in Himayat Nagar Police Station. On 12.2.2022 at 11.00 a.m., Mr. Ranjan succumbed to
the injuries while undergoing treatment in the hospital.

-MEMORANDUM FOR THE - respondent

Page | 6
9. As per the post mortem conducted, the cause of death of the deceased was due to injuries
in the small intestines, a liver laceration on the right side of the abdomen, below the chest. On
the left side of the upper abdomen, there was a spleen rupture. There was an injury to the
mesenteric artery which resulted in internal bleeding. As per the Doctor opinion cause of
death is due to shock and haemorrhage.

10. In view of the death of Mr. Ranjan the Charge was altered by the Police from Sec. 323
IPC to 302 IPC. Accused was arrested by Police. The accused confessed the offence before
Police. Police recorded the confession Statement but nothing was recovered from the
accused.

11. However, Police ceased the CCTV footage of their office during the course of the
investigation and sent for expert examination. Charge-sheet was filed by the Investigation
Officer. The accused was charged under Section 302 of IPC, 1860. The expert who examined
the CCTV footage and issued the certificate was not examined by the prosecution.

-MEMORANDUM FOR THE - respondent

Page | 7
 STATEMENT OF ISSUES
Issues I

WHETHER THE ACT OF THE ACCUSED AMOUNTS TO MURDER?

ISSUE II
WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS ENTITLED TO ANY EXCEPTION UNDER ANY LAW?

ISSUE III

WHETHER THE STATEMENT OF MR. RANJAN RECORDED BY THE POLICE AT THE HOSPITAL
AMOUNTS TO DYING DECLARATION?

ISSUE IV

EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF EACH WITNESS AND MATERIAL PRODUCED BY THE PROSECUTION

BEFORE THE COURT

-MEMORANDUM FOR THE - respondent

Page | 8
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

I. WHETHER THE ACT OF THE ACCUSED AMOUNTS TO MURDER?

It is humbly submitted on behalf of the respondent that the act of the accused
joseph, is not amounting to murder. There is no mensria and Mr. joseph had
no plan to kill or injure Mr.Ranjan.
Mr. joseph had just called ranjan to clear the financial disputes between them. If he
had an intension to kill him so, he would have called to any other place , where no
CCTV placed. Mr.joseph was well aware of such CCTV in his office room.
The act took place only out of heated arguments but not intended. So,, he cannot be
held liable under section 302 of IPC,1860.

There is no intention of murder, they both were in an argument were he high tempered
and pushed him and jumped on his abdomen were by mistakably it got damaged
accuse also don’t know how much damaged internal.
He was thinking that it is normal fight he just had hand to hand and men to men fight
There was no intention the accuse is not guilty for that because they just had a quarrel
discursion. As you can see footage of cctv that the man who got injured was not
bleeding from any side. He was just holding his stomach because of the pain.
Essential ingredients of murder
The act must be done with the intention to kill someone and
cause death.
 The act is done with the intention to caukkkkkkkkkkkkkse bodily injury and
such bodily injury is likely to result in death.
 If the act is done having proper knowledge that it will cause
death, such an act shall be termed as murder.so
 Is intention necessary for murder?
 Intention to kill or knowledge that death will be caused is a question of
fact which will be subject matter of trial. In State vs. Salauddin @ Raja &
Anr. , the court held that Intention or knowledge is an essential
ingredient for an offence under Section 307 IPC.

-MEMORANDUM FOR THE - respondent

Page | 9
 II. WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS ENTITLED TO ANY EXCEPTION UNDER
ANY LAW?
It is humbly submitted before honable court that the accused is entitled to exceptions
under section 300(1) and 300{4] [SUDDEN FIGHT]of IPC.according to this when a person
losing his self control by the sudden and grave provocation ,causes death of a person who
gave the provocation or any other person due to a mistake or an accident then he will be
liable for the culpable homicide not amounting to murder but not to murder.

K.M NANAVATHI VS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 1962 SCR 567

SULJINA DHAN VS STATE OF ASSAM

MAHAMOOD VS STATE AIR 1961 ALL 538

NARAYANA NAIR VS THE STATE IF TRAVANCORE 1956[0] KLT 92SC [exception 4]

According Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code. 300. Murder.—Except in the cases hereinafter
excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention
of causing death,.In this case Mr. Joseph had no intention to kill .Hence his act cant be directly considered as
murder.

Carry on

According to 1st point

There was no intention to accuse is not at all guilty for that, he has no intention of any murder
and putting charges 302 which is a very big allegation to a person who has no intention to
some body, so the person who doesn’t have a intention to kill somebody how you can put
charges of 302 on him.

He is apology for only a person doesn’t have any intention of killing somebody, and by
mystically he kills some body what are the charges.

-MEMORANDUM FOR THE - respondent

Page | 10
Confession

Voluntary accepting
When is Section 302 IPC not applicable?

if the accused has not intentionally killed someone then murder cannot
be proved. Apart from this, Section 300 of the IPC mentions certain
exceptions for the offence of murder, which are as follows:

 If a person is suddenly provoked by a third party and loses his

self-control, and as a result of which causes the death of
another person or the person who provoked him, it won’t
amount to murder.
 When a person under the right of private defence causes the
death of the person against whom he has exercised this right
without any intention, Section 302 will not be applicable.
 If a public servant, while discharging his duty and having
lawful intention, causes the death of a person this Section will
not be applicable.
All these three exceptions mentioned above shall come under Section
304 and will be termed as culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

341. Punishment for wrongful restraint. —Whoever wrongfully restrains any

person shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may
extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or
with both.

-MEMORANDUM FOR THE - respondent

Page | 11
III. WHETHER THE STATEMENT OF MR. RANJAN RECORDED BY THE
POLICE AT THE HOSPITAL AMOUNTS TO DYING DECLARATION?
I humbly submit bEfore the court that the statement of mr.ranjan recorded by
the police at hospital not amounts to dying declaration ,as under section 32[1] of
Indian evidence act1872,
The proper method for recording dying declaration by a Magistrate or a doctor or a police official is
that they should see that the declarant is in a fit state of mind to give declaration. The endorsement
of the duty doctor is also equally important.hence in the above case a doctor has not certified the
condition of the deceased and the statements were recorded during his treatment.

No,
The dying declaration is valid but there is no clarity words in dying declaration to
punish the accuse is trying to killing him with the intension of murder under ipc 302.
After that incident he is not given any complaint or information to police
immediately. If there is happen any attempt to murder on his with pre planed, he will
approach the police directly or by phone call. He didn’t do that because he knows her
partner kicked me with hated dispute. And also he clearly given statement as accuse
was standing on stomach after hated dispute.

. Rule 33 of Criminal Rules of Practice casts duty on Magistrate to record the Dying Declarations. Sub
Rule (d) of Rule 2 of Criminal Rules of Practice says “Chief Judicial Magistrate” includes the Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate,m “Magistrate” includes the Metropolitan Magistrate, and “Special
Magistrate” includes Special Metropolitan Magistrate. So, under Rule 33 of Criminal Rules of
Practice, Judicial Magistrate is empowered to record the Dying Declarations. However, in some parts
of the Country, Executive Magistrates are recording the Dying Declarations

-MEMORANDUM FOR THE - respondent

Page | 12
The proper method for recording dying declaration by a Magistrate or a doctor or a police official is
that they should see that the declarant is in a fit state of mind to give declaration. If the declarant is
not in a fit condition to give statement, the Magistrate should not proceed further beyond making a
note that the declarant was not in a fit condition to give statement. The endorsement of the duty
doctor is also equally important.

Dying declaration is not mandatorily required to be recorded by any Magistrate or particular person.
However, it is normally accepted that such declarations would be recorded by Magistrate or by
doctor to eliminate chances of any doubt of false implication. 2010 AIR SCW 5494.

IV. EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF EACH WITNESS AND MATERIAL

PRODUCED BY THE PROSECUTION BEFORE THE COURT
I humbly submit on the behalf of the accused that the evidentiary value of
witnesses depends upon the facts of the case. During the happening of the event
there were no other witnesses except me being the only Eye withness ,so no
person knows as how and what had happen in that situation. The all other
witnesses knows only about the pain that MR.RANJAN had suffered . Basing on
this evidentiary value Mr,ranjan’s intention or mensria cannot be determined.

PW1: Mrs. Sheetal ( sister of the deceased)

PW2: Mr. Ayyappan ( the adjacent shopkeeper)
PW3: Dr. Hemanth ( private doctor who treated the injured)
PW4: J. Chandrakanth ( Head Constable who recorded the statement of Ranjan and filed FIR)
PW5: Mr. Sreeram ( neighbour of the deceased)
PW6: Mr. Narayan ( Mediator for confession of accused)
PW7: Mr. Dhruv Rathee ( Investigating Officer)
Ex.P1: FIR
Ex.P2: Statement of Ranjan recorded by the Police in the hospital
Ex.P3: Post-mortem Report
Ex.P4: Mediator’s Report

MO1: CD of the CCTV footage

-MEMORANDUM FOR THE - respondent

Page | 13
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

I. WHETHER THE ACT OF THE ACCUSED AMOUNTS TO MURDER?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that the act of the accused
amounts to murder under section 320 of INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860.

II. WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS ENTITLED TO ANY EXCEPTION UNDER

ANY LAW?

-MEMORANDUM FOR THE - respondent

Page | 14
III. WHETHER THE STATEMENT OF MR. RANJAN RECORDED BY THE
POLICE AT THE HOSPITAL AMOUNTS TO DYING DECLARATION?

-MEMORANDUM FOR THE - respondent

Page | 15
IV. EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF EACH WITNESS AND MATERIAL
PRODUCED BY THE PROSECUTION BEFORE THE COURT

-MEMORANDUM FOR THE - respondent

Page | 16
 PRAYER
Wherefore in the light of facts presented, issues raised, arguments advanced and
authorities cited, the Counsels on behalf of the Defendant humbly pray before this
Hon’ble Court that it may be pleased to adjudge and declare that:

1.
2.
3.
4.

Or pass any other order that the court may deem fit in the light of equity, justice and good
conscience and for this Act of kindness of Your Lordships the Defendant shall as duty bound
ever pray.

Section 302 of the IPC is a very detailed provision. Punishing an

offender for murder might sound straightforward, but there are a lot of
aspects to be considered. The most important of them is the problem
of deciding whether to award a death sentence or life imprisonment.
Further, as murder is a non-bailable offence, pleading not guilty and
hoping for the bail application to be accepted also becomes difficult. So
it is important for the Courts to rely on and examine the facts and
circumstances of each case thoroughly while dealing with Section 302.

In Krishna Mochi & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar [(2002) 6 SCC 81], Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India held : “It has been then submitted on behalf of the appellants that nothing incriminating
could be recovered from them, which goes to show that they had no complicity with the
crime. In my view, recovery of no incriminating material from the accused cannot alone be
taken as a ground to exonerate them from the charges, more so when their participation in the
crime is unfolded in ocular account of the occurrence given by the witnesses, whose evidence
has been found by me to be unimpeachable.”

DISCHARGE OF ACCUSED IN CRIMINAL CASES Introduction: Under the

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the Discharge Application is the remedy that
is granted to the person who has been maliciously charged.

. Rule 33 of Criminal Rules of Practice casts duty on Magistrate to record the Dying
Declarations. Sub Rule (d) of Rule 2 of Criminal Rules of Practice says “Chief Judicial
Magistrate” includes the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,m “Magistrate” includes the
Metropolitan Magistrate, and “Special Magistrate” includes Special Metropolitan Magistrate.
So, under Rule 33 of Criminal Rules of Practice, Judicial Magistrate is empowered to record
the Dying Declarations. However, in some parts of the Country, Executive Magistrates are
recording the Dying Declarations

-MEMORANDUM FOR THE - respondent

Page | 17