Written Submission on behalf of the Appellant

Participant Code: 108

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

(PRINCIPAL BENCH)

Criminal Appeal No: 4321/2022

In case of
Mr. Morokko……………………………………………………Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra……..……………………………………Respondent

Written submission on behalf of the Appellant

1
 Written Submission on behalf of the Appellant

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Index of Authorities……………………………………………………………………3

Statement of Jurisdiction………………………………………………………………4

Statement of Facts…………………………………………………………………......5

Issues Raised…………………………………………………………………………...7

Summary of Pleadings………………………………………………………………….8

Pleadings……………………………………………………………………………….9

I. Whether the accused justified in exercising the Right to Private defence?

II. Whether Mr Morokko exceeded his right of private defense?

III. Was the Sessions Court correct in convicting Mr Morokko under

Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860?

Prayer…………………………………………………………………………………...15

2
 Written Submission on behalf of the Appellant

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Statutes Referred:

1. The Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2. The Criminal Procedure, 1973

3. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Cases Referred:

1. Beckford v. The Queen, (1988) AC 130.

2. Thangavel v. State, 015 SCC Online mad 7788.
3. Darshan Singh vs State of Punjab & Anr on 15 January 2010.
4. Ishwar Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 1973 Cr LJ 811 (816).
5. Jai Dev v. State of Punjab, 1963 (1) Cr LJ 495: AIR 1963 SC 612.
6. Butta Singh v. State of Punjab, (1991) 2 SCC 612.
7. Vidhya Singh v. State of M.P., (1971) 3 SCC 244.
8. Nand Kishore Lal v. Emperor, AIR 1924 Pat 789.
9. Mithu Pandey v. State, 1967 CrLJ 102 (Pat).
10. Mahandi v. Emperor, (1930) 31 CriLJ 654 (Lahore).
11. Bishna v. State of West Bengal, AIR 2006 SC 302: (2005) 12 SCC 657.

Websites:

1. www.scc.com
2. www.livelaw.in
3. www.latestlaws.com

Books:
1. PSA Pillai: Criminal Law, 14th Edition.

2. Indian Penal Code, R.A. Nelson’s Volume 33.

3. RATANLAL & DHIRAJLAL, The Indian Penal Code 29th Edition

3
 Written Submission on behalf of the Appellant

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION:

The appellant invokes the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay under
Section 374(2) in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

The relevant provision of Section 374 of the criminal procedure code reads as follows

1. Any person convicted on a trial held by a High Court in its extraordinary original
criminal jurisdiction may appeal to the Supreme Court.
2. Any person convicted on a trial held by a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions
Judge or on a trial held by any other Court in which a sentence of imprisonment
for more than seven years 2 has been passed against him or agy other person
convicted at the same trial], may appeal to the High Court.
3. Save as otherwise provided in the subsubsection ((2), any person
a. convicted on a trial held by a Metropolitan Magistrate or Assistant Sessions
Judge or Magistrate of the first class, or the second class, or
b. sentenced under section 325, or
c. in respect of whom an order has been made or a sentence has been passed
under section 360 by any Magistrate, may appeal to the Court of Session.

Any person convicted on a trial held by a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions

Judge or on a trial held by any other Court in which a sentence of imprisonment for
more than seven years has been passed against him or any other person convicted at
the same trial may appeal to the High Court.

The parties shall accept any judgement of the court as final and binding for them and shall
execute in its entirety and good faith.

4
 Written Submission on behalf of the Appellant

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The Appellant humbly Submits before the Hon’ble Court, a summary of Facts in the
instant case. The facts of the case are:

➢ Software engineer Maria, 44, and hairdresser Morocco, 45, get married. In November
2000, in Mumbai, India, they began living together in her two-bedroom apartment.
➢ On May 1, 2001, Mr Morocco's neighbour, Krishna, heard Mr Morocco's story. He
screams in the middle of the night and immediately rushes to his apartment with a knock
on the door. About 20 minutes after ringing the bell a few times, Marokko opened the
door. The door was dishevelled with dishevelled hair, a scar on his face, and a bleeding
arm. Mr Morocco thanked Mr Krishna for his concern, but he told him to leave, as his
wife is going through a personal crisis.
➢ At a dinner party at a restaurant hosted by Mr Rubio on November 15, 2005. Maria's
colleague Maria and Morocco were eating quietly. Suddenly a war of words broke out
between them. Morocco asked Maria. Please refrain from eating other desserts as they
are bad for your health. Maria had her reply that Mr Morocco no longer loved her. child.
Maria, an angry woman, reacts when Morokko denies the truth of her remarks
He slapped Ms Morocco on the cheek three times in front of her colleague. After that
Morokko left the dinner party embarrassed. The incident was captured by video
surveillance of the restaurant.
➢ In May 2015, Mr Morocco’s mother, Ms Gala, was visiting his Mumbai place and
planned to stay with Ms Maria and Mr Morokko for a week. Ms Maria asked Ms Gala
to leave their house as she was uncomfortable with her presence in their home. This
led to a disagreement between Ms Gala and Ms Maria. Ms Maria threatened to kill him
unless he asked his mother to leave their house. Ms Gala immediately left the house
and directly went to the police station to report the complaint as she thought her son’s
life was in danger because of Ms Maria’s frequent physical attacks. Mr Morokko
withdrew the complaint, the incident had shaken Mr Morokko and he was scared for
his safety and became even more cautious of not inviting Ms Maria’s anger at any cost.
➢ On 15 October 2016, another fight took place between both because Mr Morokko
suggested that she should take help to overcome her anger issues. And in this incident,
Mr Morokko was beaten by his wife with a cooking pan which caused pain in his jaw.

5
 Written Submission on behalf of the Appellant

➢ It was a matter of common knowledge among all his colleagues of Ms Maria and Mr
Morokko, that Ms Maria resorted to physical violence against him. Although Mr
Morokko remained miffed at her after each episode of physical violence, he never
retaliated with violence himself and always tried to pacify Ms Maria.
➢ On 13th June 2017, they both were cooking together and his phone beeped many times
he did not check that. This irritated his wife, and she took his phone and saw the text
message from Ms Quila in which it was written I am always there for you. And because
of this Ms Maria immediately raised her hand to slap him, Mr. Morokko took the knife
and stabbed her in the abdomen which caused her death.
➢ Mrrr. Sheen, Ms Maria's father, filed a First Information Report against Mr Morokko
for Ms Maria's murder at the local police station on June 14, 2017. According to Section
302 of the Indian Penal Code of 1860, Maria. Following an inquiry, the Post-Mortem
Report determined that Ms Maria died as a result of a single abdominal stab wound.
After thereafter, Mr Morokko was tried in Mumbai's City Civil and Sessions Court for
killing Ms Maria (hereinafter, Sessions Court). Mr Morokko admitted throughout the
trial that he killed Ms Maria by stabbing her, but he argued that Section 100 of the
Indian Penal Code 1860 should exonerate him because he acted in self-defence.
➢ On September 10, 2022, the Sessions Court issued an appeal stating that Mr Morokko
had killed Ms Maria and had gone beyond the scope of his right to private defense. As
a result, the Sessions Court found Mr Morokko guilty under Section 302 of the Indian
Penal Code 1860 and gave him a life sentence.

6
 Written Submission on behalf of the Appellant

ISSUES RAISED

I. Whether the accused justified in exercising the Right to Private defence?

II. Whether Mr Morokko exceeded his right of private defense?

III. Was the Sessions Court correct in convicting Mr Morokko under Section 302 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860?

7
 Written Submission on behalf of the Appellant

SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS

I. WHETHER THE ACCUSED JUSTIFIED IN EXERCISING THE RIGHT TO

PRIVATE DEFENCE?

It is humbly submitted that Section 97 allows for the Right of Private Defence in case of
absolute necessity and where there is no recourse and thus it is upon the accused to prove this
was the only way to defend himself from the aggressor. The Appellant’s actions fall under the
Right of Private Defence that is provided under Section 97 of IPC, which allows for the person
to protect his own body. It is seen that the appellant was in danger as his wife was in the act of
causing grievous hurt to him. And thus, here the appellant is protected under the extent of the
Right of Private Defence.

II. WHETHER MR MOROKKO EXCEEDED HIS RIGHT OF PRIVATE DEFENSE?

It is humbly submitted that Section 100 of the IPC talks of certain occasions wherein if a person
under certain conditions causes the death of the person, he shall be excused under this defence.
In the current case, the situation is covered under the First & Second situation of Section 100
of IPC.

Hence, it is most humbly prayed before the Hon’ble Court that it holds the Appellant to have
not exceeded his right of Private defence and that his actions are covered under Section 100 of
the IPC.

III. WAS THE SESSIONS COURT CORRECT IN CONVICTING MR MOROKKO

UNDER SECTION 302 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860?

It is humbly submitted that section 302 of the IPC applies to cases of murder. In the current
case, the actions of the Appellant were well within the extent of self-defence provided under
Section 100 of the IPC and so he has not committed the offence punishable under Section 302
of the IPC because there was a real and imminent threat to the Appellant. 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 acquits him of all charges upon him.

8
 Written Submission on behalf of the Appellant

PLEADINGS

I. WHETHER THE ACCUSED JUSTIFIED IN EXERCISING THE RIGHT TO

PRIVATE DEFENCE?

The Right of Private Defence has been defined under Sections 96-106 of the Indian Penal Code.
Under this right, a person has the right to protect life, body and property. In general, when a
person causes harm to another, it is an offence. Right to Private Defence acts as an exception
wherein the person causing the harm can escape liability since he does say action to protect his
person or property. Right to Private Defence works on the first principle of Self Help i.e., it
is the duty of a person to first help himself. Right to Private Defence allows for a person to
protect himself and his property where there is an imminent danger upon them and there is no
other possible recourse available. The right of private defence is preventive in nature and not
punitive i.e., it cannot be used to inflict harm upon in the guise of self-defence, one has to prove
that there is the apprehension of harm being inflicted upon the body or property of a person for
him to be at the liberty to use the Right of Private Defence.

• In the case of Beckford v. The Queen1, it was held by the Court that a person is entitled
to use a reasonable amount of force to protect himself.
• In the case of Thangavel v. State2 representation by Inspector of Police Thevattipatti
Police Station Salem', the court highlighted that the Right of Private defence exists and
is inherent to every person but cannot be misused by the person claiming the right.
• In the case of Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab3, the Supreme Court laid down 10
guidelines for the usage of the right of private defence wherein the court highlighted
that a person doesn't need to be afraid to protect himself if confronted with unlawful
aggression.
• In the case of Ishwar Singh v. State of Rajasthan4, it was held that the accused had to
prove that he was put in a dangerous situation wherein invoking the Right of Private
Defence was necessary to get out of the said situation.

1
(1988) AC 130
2
2015 SCC Online mad 7788
3
(2010) 10 SCC 333
4
1973 Cr LJ 811 (816)

9
 Written Submission on behalf of the Appellant

It is most humbly submitted before this Hon'ble Court that in the current case, the appellant Mr
Morokko used the knife to defend himself as it was known that Ms Maria’s action can cause
grievous hurt to him. Here it can be seen that the aggressor was deceased and the appellant was
only trying to protect his body. The appellants’ actions fall under Section 97 of the IPC, which
allows for a person to protect his own body.
It is most humbly prayed before this Hon’ble Court, that it finds the actions of the appellant to
be justified use of the private defence under the Indian Penal Code.

II. WHETHER MR MOROKKO EXCEEDED HIS RIGHT TO PRIVATE DEFENCE?

The Right of Private Defence as provided under the Indian Penal Code is present to protect a
person when he offends whilst preserving himself or his property. The law allows for the person
to act reasonably to avoid harm from being caused to the person or his property. Private
Defence works on the principle of "Self-preservation" and is a preventive right i.e., it allows a
person to take measures to protect himself but it does not allow for a person to overreach and
cause another harm in the guise of private defence. Under Indian law, a reasonable defence in
proportion to the act of the aggressor is allowed and protected under the Right of Private
Defence.
The Right of Private Defence works on certain principles which have been enumerated in
several judgements over the years. These principles have also been talked about in detail in
the American Legal System:
• Principle of Reasonableness - Under this principle, the right of private defence only
exists when there is a reasonable apprehension of danger and private defence is only
valid when done in cases where the danger is real and imminent.
• Principle of Proportion - the force used as private defence should be proportionate to
the harm being caused by the aggressor.
A Person claiming the Right of Private Defence has to prove that there was a reasonable
apprehension of danger and that the force used was proportionate to the harm caused.
• In the case of Darshan Singh vs the State of Punjab & Anr5, it was recently held that
there was a conflict between families. Gurcharan Singh was Bakhtawar Singh’s brother
and Darshan Singh’s uncle. The appellant Darshan Singh only shook after his father

55
(2010) 10 SCC 333

10
 Written Submission on behalf of the Appellant

Bakhtawar Singh received a grave wound incurred by a Gandasa, and then he fired two
shots to save his life which led to the death of the late Gurcharan Singh. The trial court
ruled, after all of the facts had been provided, that the outcome of the case is much more
favourable to the defence than to the prosecution.6
In this case, the Supreme court laid down 10 guidelines for the usage of the right of
private defence wherein the court highlighted that a person doesn’t need to be afraid to
protect himself if continued with unlawful aggression.

• As noted in Butta Singh v. The State of Punjab7, a person who is apprehending death
or bodily injury cannot weigh in golden scales in the spur of the moment and the heat
of circumstances, the number of injuries required to disarm the assailants who were
armed with weapons. In moments of excitement and disturbed mental equilibrium it is
often difficult to expect the parties to preserve composure and use exactly only so much
force in retaliation commensurate with the danger apprehended to him where assault is
imminent by use of force, it would be lawful to repel the force in self-defence and the
right of private-defence commences, as soon as the threat becomes so imminent.

• In the case, of Vidhya Singh vs the State of Madhya Pradesh8, it was observed that the
courts have to rely more on human probabilities than on the assertions of the witnesses.
The court should take an overall view of the case and if the right of self-defence is made
out from the evidence on record, that right should not be construed narrowly because
the right of self-defence is very valuable and it has a social purpose.

• In the case of Nand Kishore Lal v. Emperor,9 there was an altercation between the
parties wherein a married lady was abducted and made to change her religion. On being
asked to return, she expressed her unwillingness and so force was used by the lady's
relatives to take her back. The persons who had abducted her tried to stop them and in
doing so landed a blow upon one of the assailant's heads which caused their death. The
Court held that the accused had exercised his right of private defence and thus had
committed no offence.

6
Darshan Singh vs State of Punjab & Anr on 15 January 2010
7
Butta Singh v. State of Punjab, (1991) 2 SCC 612
8
Vidhya Singh v. State of M.P., (1971) 3 SCC 244
9
AIR 1924 Pat 789

11
 Written Submission on behalf of the Appellant

• In the case of Mithu Pandey v. State,10 the accused suffered multiple injuries due to the
assault done by the assailant and the accused to defend himself used force which caused
the death of the assailant. In this case, the Patna High Court clarified that if the force
used is reasonable, causing the death of an assailant can be justified under the right of
Private Defence and the accused shall be acquitted.

• In the cases of Mahandi v. Emperor11 and Alingal Kunhinayan & Anr v Emperor"
wherein the Courts have observed that the acceptable degree of defence is determined
by the "reasonably proportionate force" to deter wrongdoer. 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."

Section 100: When the right of private defence of the body extends to causing death.

Clause 1. Such an assault as may reasonably cause the apprehension that

death will otherwise be the consequence of such assault;
Clause 2: Such an assault as may reasonably cause the apprehension that
grievous hurt will otherwise be the consequence of the such assault.

Hence, here Mr Morokko has taken private defence to protect himself from Mr Maria as she
has raised her hand to slap him. In this situation, Mr Morokko was sure that his wife will cause
him grievous hurt keeping the previous incidents in mind. The appellant to protect himself hit
the deceased with the weapon which caused the death of Mr Maria. This situation is covered
under the First and second situations of Section 100 of IPC.

The fact that he caused the death of Mr Maria in the course of defending his own body does
not make him liable for the murder of Mr Maria as held by Session Court

Hence it is most humbly prayed before the Hon’ble Court that it holds the Appellant to have
not exceeded his right of private defence and his actions were covered within the scope of
Section 100 of the IPC.

10
1967 CrLJ 102 (Pat)
11
(1930) 31 CriLJ 654 (Lahore)

12
 Written Submission on behalf of the Appellant

III. WAS THE SESSIONS COURT CORRECT IN CONVICTING MR MOROKKO

UNDER SECTION 302 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860?

In Section 300 of IPC,

• Exception 1 Grave and sudden provocation.

• Exception 2 it is said that “Culpable homicide is not murdered if the offender in the
exercise in good faith of the right of private defence of person or property, exceeds the
power given to him by law and causes the death of the person against whom he is
exercising such right of defence without premeditation, and without any intention of
doing more harm than is necessary for such defence”.

Here, the question of this exception arises is if the alleged offender exceeds the right of
private defence subject to limitations that,

- The accused caused the death of a person without premeditation.

- He caused the death of the victim, without any intention of doing more harm than what
was necessary for defence.

• In Hansa Singh v State of Punjab, 46 the accused saw the deceased committing an act
of sodomy on his son, which enraged him and he killed the deceased. It was held that
it amounted to a grave and sudden provocation. The conviction under s 302 was set
aside. He was convicted under s 304, IPC.

In this case, we can see that Mr Morokko had no intention of killing his wife as he was loving
her so much. Mr Morokko said that Ms Maria was a good person who was not herself in
moments of anger but he loved her very much.

• In Bansi v. State the judgments where states: “This court has gone through the evidence
on record and thinks that the appellant is the offender who caused the stab wound
resulting in death. However, there was no intent to cause death as there was a sudden
and immediate argument between the appellant and the deceased, a strain in marital
relations and in the heat of the moment the appellant inflicted a single blow to the
deceased's lower abdomen with a small vegetable knife and also to his wife's
abdomen."12

12
2019 SCC Online Del 8483

13
 Written Submission on behalf of the Appellant

It is most humbly submitted that in the current case, the High Court relied 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 Section 302 of the IPC, his
Right to Private Defence is extended to causing the death of Mr Maria under Section 100.

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 issues 1 and 2. Further, the Hon'ble
High Court had also upheld the justified use of the Right of Private Defence but had erred in
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
Appellant were well within the extent of self-defence provided under Section 100 of the IPC
and so he has not committed the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. The
Appellant has not exceeded his right by disproportionately utilising the same, thereby causing
the death of the deceased. 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 acquits him of
all charges upon him.

14
 Written Submission on behalf of the Appellant

PRAYER

Wherefore in the light of facts stated, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities
cited, it is most humbly and respectfully prayed by the Petitioners, before this Hon'ble
Court that it may be pleased to:

1. Quash the Order of the Session Court in the current matter;

2. Declare that the Appellant was justified in exercising his Right of Private Defence;

3. Declare that the Appellant has not exceeded his Right of Private Defence;

4. Acquit the Appellant of charges against him.

And pass any Order or Direction that may deem fit in the Best Interest of Justice,
Fairness, Equity and Good Conscience. For this Act of Kindness, the Petitioner shall be
duty-bound for every prayer.

15