UILS ACADEMIC MOOT, 2022

BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT, XYZ

Cr. Appeal No.- …..2022

IN THE MATTER OF

STATE ............................................................................................................. APPELLANT

VERSUS

SOHAN………………………………………………………………………RESPONDENT

CLUBBED WITH
SOHAN………………………………………………………………………APPELLANT

VERSUS
STATE………………………………………………………………………RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

SUBMITTED BY: RAMNEEK SAHOTA

B.A. LLB (Hons)

SECTION: B

ROLL NO: 88/18

SEMESTER: 9th
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS… ...................................................................... 3

LIST OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................ 4

ACTS AND STATUTES… ....................................................................... 4

LIST OF CASES ....................................................................................... 4

BOOKS REFERRED… ............................................................................. 4

WEBSITES REFERRED… ....................................................................... 5

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION… ............................................................ 6

STATEMENT OF FACTS ............................................................................. 7

STATEMENT OF CHARGE… ..................................................................... 9

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ................................................................. 10

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED… .................................................................... 11

PRAYER… .................................................................................................... 16

2 | M E M O R I A L F O R APPELLANT
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

& And

Adm Administration

AIR All India Reporter

Anr. Another

Art. Article

HC High Court

Hon’ble Honourable

Chd. Chandigarh

Co. Company

Corp. Corporation

ER England Reporter

I.e. That is

Mad. Madras

IPC Indian Penal Code

Rly. Railways

SC Supreme Court

SCC Supreme Court Cases

SCR Supreme Court Record

UOI Union Of India

UP Uttar Pradesh

Vs. Versus
3 | M E M O R I A L F O R APPELLANT
 LIST OF AUTHORITIES

ACTS AND STATUTES

1. Indian Penal Code, 1860

2. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

LIST OF CASES

1. Gabbar Pandey Case……………………… ........................................................................... 12

2. Harmam Case ......................................................................................................................... 12

3. Jai Prakash v. State .................................................................................................................. 11

4. Mana Case… ..................................................................................................................…….13

5. In Mansel Pleydell ...................................................................................................................... 12

6. Munnilal Case........................................................................................................................... 12

7. Sumer Singh Case .................................................................................................................... 12

8. Sunder Singh Case ................................................................................................................... 12

9. Richpal Singh Meena v. Ghosh ..................................................................................................... 13

BOOKS REFERRED

1. P.S.A. Pillai's Criminal law: P. S. Atchuthen Pillai (Author), K. I. Vibhute, 2014. Edition: 14th ed.

2. CLP’s Indian Penal Code [With The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2018] , S.N. Misra –
22nd ed. 2020

WEBSITES REFERRED

1. www.manupatrafast.in
4 | M E M O R I A L F O R APPELLANT
2. www.scconline.com

3. www.supremecourtofindia.nic.in

4. www.indiankanoon.com

5 | M E M O R I A L F O R APPELLANT
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The appellant approached this Hon’ble Court by virtue of Section-3771 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure,1973.

1
Section-377: Appeal by the State Government against sentence.
(1) Save as otherwise provided in sub- section (2), the State Government may, in any case of conviction on a trial held by any Court
other than a High Court, direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal to the High Court against the sentence on the ground of
its inadequacy.
(2) if such conviction is in a case in which the offence has been investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment, constituted
under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946 ) or by any other agency empowered to make investigation into
an offence under any Central Act
other than this Code, 1 the Central Government may also direct] the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal to the High Court
against the sentence on the ground of its inadequacy.
(3) When an appeal has been filed against the sentence on the ground of its inadequacy, the High Court shall not enhance the
sentence except after giving to the accused a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against such enhancement and while
showing cause, the accused may plead for his acquittal or for the reduction of the sentence.
6 | M E M O R I A L F O R APPELLANT
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. That, Sohan Kumar was a rich businessman of the city Z.

2. That, he was an extremely arrogant and short tempered by nature. He was in the habit of
picking up the quarrels with everyone even on petty issues.
3. That, Rupam Singh, an athlete by profession was his immediate neighbor.
4. That, both Sohan Kumar and Rupam Singh did not have friendly terms with each other.
5. That, on one occasion, there was a function in house of Rupam Singh.
6. That, a large number of guests came to join the occasion.
7. That, however, Sohan Kumar was not invited to the function.
8. That, on that day, Rupam Singh was parking his car in front of the gate of the house of Sohan
Kumar.
9. That, since Sohan Kumar was not given invitation to the function, his ego was hurt and he
very irritated with Rupam Singh and thus he warned Rupam singh sternly not to park the car
at that place, but Rupam Singh also showed his arrogance by saying that the road was not the
personal property of Sohan Kumar, he further added that he would remove his car only after
the function and after the departure of the guests.
10. Thus, on hearing such an arrogant statement Sohan Kumar lost his balance of mind and
slapped Rupam Singh.
11. That, both started quarrelling and grappling with each other, in the course of Sohan gave a
fist blow at the stomach of Rupam in order to free himself from the grip of Rupam.
12. That, on receiving the blow, appendicitis of Rupam busted and he fell down in severe pain in
lie stomach.
13. That, Sohan immediately threw Rupam in the car of Rupam and drove the car towards the
nearest hospital.
14. That, at the same time since a large number of cars were parked in the street due to the visits
of the guests in Rupam's function, Sohan had to face difficulty to take the car out of the street
and in this course a lot of time was wasted.
15. That, in the hospital, Rupam could not be saved.
16. That, doctors expressed their views that Rupam could have been saved had he been brought
to the hospital TEN minutes earlier.
17. That, besides in the medical report it was mentioned that one teeth of the deceased was also
found broken.
18. That, Sohan Kumar was charged with the offence of murder under Section 302 of IPC.
19. That, the Trial court convicted Sohan Kumar under section 326 of IPC for
causing grievous hurt.

7 | M E M O R I A L F O R APPELLANT
 20. That, Sohan Kumar filed an appeal challenging the decision of the trial court.
21. That, State also filed an appeal on the ground that the decision of the trial court is erroneous.
22. That, now, the case in before this Hon’ble Court for trial.

8 | M E M O R I A L F O R APPELLANT
 STATEMENT OF CHARGE

ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT THE RESPONDENT IS LIABLE FOR CULPABLE HOMICIDE NOT
AMOUNTING TO MURDER?

- DECISION OF THE TRIAL COURT IS ERRONEOUS OR NOT.

9 | M E M O R I A L F O R APPELLANT
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE: (1) WHETHER OR NOT THE RESPONDENT IS LIABLE FOR CULPABLE HOMICIDE NOT
AMOUNTING TO MURDER?
(1.1) THE DECISION OF THE TRIAL COURT IS ERRONEOUS OR NOT?

The counsel humbly contends before the Hon’ble court that the respondent is liable for culpable homicide
not amounting to murder as all the facts & circumstances of the present case fulfill the components under
Section 299 IPC, hence respondent is liable to be convicted under Section 304 IPC. Ergo, the decision of the
Trial Court is erroneous.

10 | M E M O R I A L F O R APPELLANT
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. WHETHER OR NOT THE RESPONDENT IS LIABLE FOR CULPABLE HOMICIDE NOT

AMOUNTING TO MURDER?

The counsel humbly submits before this Hon’ble Court that the respondent it liable for culpable homicide not
amounting to murder & not for grievous hurt under Section 326 IPC.

Here, Culpable homicide under Section 299 IPC means:

—"Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of
causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to
cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide”

Essentials of Culpable Homicide include:

In Jai Prakash v. State2, the term “knowledge” means consciousness. It denotes a state of conscious
awareness of certain facts in which human mind remains inactive. It connotes a bare awareness of the
consequences of his conduct.

1. Causing of death of a human being:

It is humbly contended before this Hon’ble Court that the respondent caused death of the appellant.
The offence of culpable homicide is complete as soon as any person is killed by the accused, whose mental
state is of the kind i.e. where the accused causes death by doing an act either with the intention of causing
death, or with the knowledge of causing such bodily injury which was likely to cause death, or with the
knowledge that he was likely, by such act, to cause death.

In the present case, the respondent was responsible for the death of appellant. The mental state of the
respondent was such that he had the knowledge of causing such bodily injury which was likely to cause
death, or with the knowledge that he was likely, by such act, to cause death.

22
(1991) 2 SCC 32
11 | M E M O R I A L F O R APPELLANT
 2. By doing an act:

It is noteworthy here that the respondent is liable for culpable homicide as he was extremely arrogant &
short-tempered person. In the fit of anger, he lost his balance of mind & slapped the appellant, as the result
of which on teeth of the appellant broke. Further, the respondent gave a very powerful fist blow at the
stomach of appellant which resulted in the latter’s death.

3. The act must have been done with the KNOWLEDGE that the doer is likely, by such
act, to cause death:

It is noteworthy here that knowledge imports a certainty and not merely a probability. 3
In Sunder Singh Case4, “Knowledge” refers to the personal knowledge of the person who does the act.
In Harmam Case5 If A, B, C attack 'M’ with lathis, the blows being directed at the head of M, they must
be fixed with the knowledge that they were likely to cause death.

In Mansel Pleydell6 the accused kicked the abdomen of B with such violence as to cause fracture of two
ribs and rupture of the spleen which was normal. B died. It was held that the accused knew that the
abdomen is a most delicate and vulnerable part of the human body and should, therefore, be presumed to
have kicked with the knowledge that by so kicking he was likely to cause death.

In Sumer Singh7, A, gave blows on the head of B which he intended or knew to be likely to smash the
victim's skull. A would be taken to have known that he was likely to cause the death of B. A was,
therefore, guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

In Munnilal's8 case, the accused sat on the chest of D and began to strangle him and did not resist despite
intervention by his relatives. D died owing to internal bleeding due to rupture of the spleen which was
enlarged.It was shown that the other injuries were not sufficient to cause death had the spleen not been
ruptured. Here the accused was held guilty of culpable homicide under Section 304.

In the present case, the respondent had knowledge that his act is likely to cause death. Appellant being an

3
GABBAR PANDEY CASE,(1927)7
4
(1939)14
5
(1921) 22 Cri. LJ.726.
5. AIR 1926 LAH.313.
7
(1941) 0.W.N.791
8
AIR 1943 ALL.853
12 | M E M O R I A L F O R APPELLANT
 athlete by profession was of a strong built but a human body has some vital parts which cannot remain
unaffected even by a minor injury e.g., brain, eyes, abdomen etc. Here, the respondent gave such a powerful
fist blow at the abdomen area of appellant which resulted in busting of his appendicitis & later his death.
Here, the respondent knew that the abdomen is the most delicate and vulnerable part of the human body and
should, therefore, be presumed to have given the fist blow with the knowledge that by so hitting he is likely to
cause the death.

- In Mana case9, it was held “If the victim is killed, ordinarily the offence is culpable homicide unless lack
of intention or the knowledge is proved. Once it is proved that the act was deliberate act and was not the
result of accident or rashness or negligence, the offence would be culpable homicide. 10

In the present case, the knowledge of the consequences of the act & act being a deliberate act
of the respondent, it is hereby proved that the respondent is liable for the offence of culpable homicide not
amounting to murder.

As in the case of Richpal Singh Meena v. Ghosh11, the Supreme Court has suggested a five-step enquiry in
deciding whether the accused causing death of person should be guilty of culpable homicide under Section 299
or should be guilty of murder under Section 300.Whether the act or omission of accused causing death, is
culpable homicide or not, can be determined by applying the five step test a follows :-

(1) Is there homicide?

(2) If yes, it is culpable or not culpable homicide?
(3) Is it a culpable homicide amounting to murder (i.e., Sec. 300, IPC) or culpable homicide not amounting to
murder under Section 304, IPC?
(4) If it is not culpable homicide, then a case under Section 304-A of IPC can be made out.
(5) If it is not possible to identify the person who has committed the homicide, the provisions of Section 72,
IPC may be invoked. Such cases generally arise if the investigation is defective or if the evidence
is insufficient.

Applying the said five-step enquiry in the present case: -

(1) Is there homicide?

It is humbly contended before this Hon’ble Court that the respondent has caused homicide. The respondent was

9
(1930) 32 BOM.LR 1143

10 ABRAHIM SHEIKH, AIR 1964 SC 1263

11
AIR 2014 SC 3595
13 | M E M O R I A L F O R APPELLANT
 responsible for the death of appellant. The respondent & the appellant did not have friendly terms with each
other and on the occasion of the function held in appellant’s house, things heated between the two, which
ended as a fight resulting in the death of appellant by the respondent.

(2) If yes, it is culpable or not culpable homicide?

It is humbly contended before this Hon’ble Court that the respondent has committed the offence of culpable
homicide as all the essentials of culpable homicide namely:

1. Causing of death of a human being

2. Such death must have been caused by doing an act
3. The act must have been done with the knowledge that the doer is likely, by such act, to cause death,
have been fulfilled in the present case.

(3) Is it a culpable homicide amounting to murder (i.e., Sec. 300, IPC) or culpable homicide not
amounting to murder under Section 304, IPC?

It is humbly contended before this Hon’ble Court that the offence committed in the present case by the
respondent is culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 IPC, as the respondent lost his
balance of mind and slapped the appellant & this resulted in quarrelling and grappling with each other, in the
course of which the respondent gave a fatal fist blow at the stomach area of appellant, the effect of blow
was such, which resulted in his death. The respondent had the knowledge that abdomen is the most delicate
area of human body & therefore be presumed to have given a blow with the knowledge that by hitting at that
area, he is likely to cause death.

(4) If it is not culpable homicide, then a case under Section 304-A of IPC can be made out.

It is humbly contended before this Hon’ble Court that the offence committed by the respondent in the
present case is culpable homicide & to be dealt under Section 304 IPC.

(5) If it is not possible to identify the person who has committed the homicide, the provisions of Section
72, IPC may be invoked (Such cases generally arise if the investigation is defective or if the evidence
is insufficient)

It is humbly contended before this Hon’ble Court that the in the present case the person who has committed
the culpable homicide, that is, the respondent is identified & hence the provisions of Section 72 IPC may
not be invoked.

14 | M E M O R I A L F O R APPELLANT
 Thus, prosecution has been successful in proving beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed
offence of culpable homicide under Section 299 of Indian Penal Code.

(1.1) DECISION OF THE TRIAL COURT IS ERRONEOUS OR NOT?

It is humbly contended before this Hon’ble court that the trial court failed to appraise the facts of the case and
didn’t pass a reasonable judgment on merits. It is submitted that the accused in the present case committed
heinous crime which should attract a graver punishment than is awarded by the trial court. The prosecution
humbly contends that the accused should be made liable under Section 299 of Indian Penal Code for Culpable
Homicide not for grievous hurt under Section 326 of IPC.

15 | M E M O R I A L F O R APPELLANT
 PRAYER

Wherefore, in the light of facts stated, issues raised, authorities cited & arguments advanced, it is most
humbly prayed & implored before the Hon’ble Court, that it may be graciously pleased to adjudge &
declare that:

1. The decision of trial court is erroneous and should be dismissed.

2. The accused should be made liable for the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and shall be
punished under Section 304 of Indian Penal Code.

AND/OR

Pass any other Order, Direction or Relief that it may deem fit in the best interest
of

Justice, Fairness, Equity & Good Conscience.

For this Act of Kindness, the Defendant Shall Duty Bound Forever Pray.

Place: XYZ S/D______________

Date : November 23, 2022 COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT

16 | M E M O R I A L F O R APPELLANT