RAYAT BAHRA UNIVERSITY, MOHALI

UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW

MOOT COURT FILE

SUBMITTED TO:
Ms.Mandeep Kaur

Assistant Professor
RBU, USL
SSUBMITTED By
:

Yogesh Dager
B.A.LLB.(3
semester)
SectionB
2107001116

1
-MEMORANDUM FOR THE PROSECUTION-
 IN THE HON’BLE DISTRICT COURT AND SESSION COURT

IN THE MATTER OF

STATE ….PROSECUTION

V.

RAMESH ................................................................................ ACCUSED

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

2
-MEMORANDUM FOR THE PROSECUTION-
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Abbreviations ........................................................................................ 4

Table of Cases................................................................................................... 5

Statement of Jurisdiction ..................................................................................6

Statement of Facts............................................................................................ 7

Charges Frames ............................................................................................... 8

Summary of Arguments ................................................................................... 9

Arguments Advanced ...............................................................................10-14

1. Whether Ramesh be held liable under Section 307 IPC? ........................ 10

2. Whether Ramesh be held liable under Section 498A IPC? ...................... 13

Prayer .............................................................................................................. 15

3
-MEMORANDUM FOR THE PROSECUTION-
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

V. Versus
IPC Indian Penal Code
Sec Section
Cr.P.C. Criminal Procedure Code
R/W Read With
AIR All India Report
Cri.L.J. Criminal Law Journel
SC Supreme Court
St. State
SCC Supreme Court Cases
Raj. Rajasthan
Hon’ble Honourable
HC High Court
MP Madhya Pradesh
Bomb. Bombay

4
-MEMORANDUM FOR THE PROSECUTION-
 TABLE OF CASES

1 Om Prakash v. St. of Punjab AIR 1961 SC 1782

2 Sarju Prasad v. State of Bihar AIR 1965 SC 843

3 R. v. Cassidy (1867) 4 BHC (Cr C)17

4 State of Madhya Pradesh v. Kedar Yadav 2001(1)SCC (Cri) 1008

5Pran Dutt v. uttar Pradesh (1983) 1 Crimes 286

6 ManikBandu Gawali v. State of Maharashtra 1998 CrLJ 2246 (Bomb.)

7 Mathai v. State of Kerala AIR 2005 SC 710

8 Hari Mohan Mandal v. St. of Jharkhand 2004 Cri.L.j. 3112 (SC)

9 Jodha v. St. of Rajasthan 1994 SCC Raj 161

10 St. of Madhya Pradesh v. Harjeet singh and Another (2019) Cri. Appeal 1190/2009

11. State of A.P.V.M.Madhusudha Rao(2008)15scc582

12.GV Siddaranesh v. state of karnataka(2010)3sc152

5
-MEMORANDUM FOR THE PROSECUTION-
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The prosecution humbly submits this memorandum for a suit filed before this
Hon’able District and Session court.The prosecution has approached the Hon’ble
court of District and Session .

6
-MEMORANDUM FOR THE PROSECUTION-
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

For the sake of convenience of this Hon’ble Court the facts of the present case are
summarizedas follows:

1. That Ramesh (Accused) and Reena (Complainant) were working together in some private
company. Reena belonged to a very rich family and the financial position of Ramesh was
mediocre.

2. That they started liking each other and after sometime got married in 2015. After sometime the
attitude of Respondent became harsh towards Reena petitioner. Respondent started making
demands of money from petitioner. He also started putting pressure upon her to ask her parents
to purchase a bungalow in the city for them. After sometimes he also started asking petitioner to
get a share in the property of her father.

3. That petitioner did not accept the unjustified demands of respondent. Respondent started giving
physical beating to petitioner.

4. That with the passage of time, the petitioner’s attitude also became harsh towards respondent.
She stopped taking care of respondent and started hitting back. On 19 November, 2017, at about
9:30 pm a quarrel started between Ramesh and Reena. Reena threw a shoe at Ramesh and Ramesh
threw a statue of stone at Reena. The statue struck at theof head Reena and she fell unconscious.
Ramesh took her to the hospital where Reena was admitted to I.C.U. However with a great
difficulty her life was saved.

5. That an FIR was registered and during investigation the fact came out that Ramesh was already
legally married to one Roopa in the year 2003. The charges were framed against Ramesh under
section 307, 498A of the Indian Penal Code,1890.

7
-MEMORANDUM FOR PROSECUTION-
 CHARGES FRAMED

1. WHETHER RAMESH BE HELD LIABLE UNDER SECTION 307 IPC?

2. WHETHER RAMESH BE HELD LIABLE UNDER SECTION 498A IPC?

8
-MEMORANDUM FOR PROSECUTION-
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

The counsel on behalf of the prosecution would humbly submit before the Honourable Court that,

1. WHETHER RAMESH BE HELD LIABLE UNDER SECTION 307 IPC?

The counsel on behalf of the prosecution humbly submit before the Hon’ble Court that the
accused, Mr. Ramesh had committed the offence of attempt to murder. He threw a statue of
stone at Reena the petitioner which struck at theof head of Reena which proves the actus rea.
The mens rea can only be seen by the type of weapon and the wound along with part of body
attacked. The essential ingredients of section 307 are therefore fulfilled and thus he must be
made liable under it.

2. WHETHER RAMESH BE HELD LIABLE UNDER SECTION 498A IPC?

The prosecution council humbly submit before the Hon’ble Court that the accused, Mr.Ramesh
had committed the offence of cruelty on the victim that is his wife Reena. It is clearly stated in
the moot proposition that he pressurises Reena for money, bungalow and share in her father’s
property, along with he gave physical beatings to her. The main ingredient of section 498A IPC
that is husband subjecting cruelty on his wife is present here, thus we held Ramesh liable under
section 498A of IPC.

9
-MEMORANDUM FOR PROSECUTION-
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. Whether Ramesh be held liable under Section 307 IPC?

It is most humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that Ramesh (hereinafter referred to as the
accused) is guilty of committing attempt to murder of Reena (hereinafter referred to as
prosecution) under section 307 of IPC, 1860.

Section 307 of IOC, 1860 provides for Attempt to Murder and the accused should be prosecuted
for the same as it meet the essentials of the section. Section 307 of Indian Penal Code states that:

“Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if
he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with the imprisonment
of either description for term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine ; and
if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for
life, or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned.

Attempts by life convicts- When any person offending under this section is under sentence of
imprisonment for life, he may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death.”

In Om Prakash v. State of Punjab1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down that the ingredients
necessary to attract Section 307 IPC are:

1. Person commits an offence under this section when he has an intention to commit murder and;

2. And in pursuance of that intention does an act towards its commission irrespective of the fact
whether that act is the penultimate act or not.

1.1 The person must has an intention to commit murder

The essential ingredient to constitute an offence under this section is having the intention or
knowledge. The intention or knowledge can be understood as explained under Section 300 of the
Code2.

1
AIR 1961 SC 1782
2
Sarju Prasad v. State of Bihar AIR 1965 SC 843

10
-MEMORANDUM FOR PROSECUTION-
Law gives a lot of importance on proving the intent of the accused; there have been some tests to
determine the murderous intent of the accused3. The intent coupled with act in executing that
intention would suffice.4 The court said, “as far as the part of proving his intention the nature of
the wound, type of weapon used, part of the body attacked can be taken into account.” 5The Hon’ble
High Court of Bombay observed that an attempt to murder itself is enough to prove intention.6
Referring to our case, the counsel humbly submits that all the aforementioned conditions are
satisfied as:

• Nature of the Wound: The Wound caused by the accused was enough to cause death, as it resulted
in causing a grave injury to the victim and she was admitted to ICU.
• Type of Weapon Used: The Hon’ble High Court of Kerala has observed that any weapon can be
called as lethal weapon depending upon the facts of the case, 8 even teeth can be listed in the
category to cause death. The Weapon used was a stone statue, if it hits any vital part of the body
will lead to death.
• Part of the Body Attacked: The accused threw the statue of stone aiming at the head of the victim
which is considered to be a vital part of the body. As head is the part of an organism which usually
includes the ears, brain, forehead, cheeks, chin, eyes, nose, and mouth, each of which aid in various
sensory functions such as sight, hearing, smell, and taste, respectively.

It is submitted that in current case, these circumstances clearly proves that Ramesh had the
intentions to kill Reena.

In Hri Mohan Mandal v. State of Jharkhand9, it was held that it was not essential that bodily
injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted. Intention or knowledge that death will
be caused is a question of fact which will be the subject matter of the trail and in the present case
Ramesh, while taking Reena to hospital just set an excuse to justify his side that he is innocent and
hide his evil intention before the act of taking her to the hospital as he has the knowledge that his
act is of serious nature that is likely to cause the death of Reena. He gave physical beatings which
also points the same.

3
R. v. Cassidy (1867)4 BHC(Cr C)17
4
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Kedar Yadav 2001(1)SCC (Cri) 1008
5
Pran Dutt v. uttar Pradesh (1983) 1 Crimes 286
6
ManikBandu Gawali v. State of Maharashtra 1998 Cri.L.j. 2246 (Bomb.)
7
Mathai v. State of Kerala AIR 2005 SC 710
8
2004 Cri.L.j. 3112 (S.C.).

11
-MEMORANDUM FOR PROSECUTION-
1.2 The Act is capable of causing death

It is humbly submitted that the element of Actus Reus was present in the act of the accused. The
court, in a case, ruled that in order for an offence to fall under the ambit of section 307, the injury
has to be caused on a vital part of the body.9
In the present case injury was caused on the head of the victim, Head is, undisputedly, a vital part
of the body and any injury to the said part of the body may result in death of the victim.
The Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Harjeet Singh and another10,
has held as
Section 307 uses the term "hurt" which has been explained in Section 319, I.P.C.; and not "grievous
hurt" within the meaning of Section 320 I.P.C. If a person causes hurt with the intention or
knowledge that he may cause death, it would attract Section 307.

It is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted. Although
the nature of injury actually caused may often give considerable assistance in coming to a finding
as to the intention of the accused, such intention may also be deduced from other circumstances,
and may even, in some cases, be ascertained without any reference at all to actual wounds. The
Sections makes a distinction between the act of the accused and its result, if any. The Court has to
see whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under
circumstances mentioned in the Section."
If the assailant acts with the intention or knowledge that such action might cause death, and hurt
is caused, then the provisions of Section 307 I.P.C. would be applicable. There is no requirement
for the injury to be on a "vital part" of the body, merely causing 'hurt' is sufficient to attract S.307
I.P.C.

This Court in the recent decision of State of M.P. v. Kanha Omprakash11 held that:
"The judgement of this Court in this case leads us to the conclusion that proof of grievous or life
threatening hurt is not a sine qua non for the offence under Section 307 of the Penal Code. The
intention of the accused can be ascertained from the actual injury, if any, as well as from
surrounding circumstances. Among other things, the nature of the weapon used and the severity of
the blows inflicted can be considered to infer intent."
Thus in the present case hurt is also on the vital part of the body which is likely to cause death of
the victim, also the injury was so grave that she was admitted to I.C.U and as above mentioned
intention of accused is also clearly defined. Hence prosecution proves that the act is caused with
due knowledge of the fact that it may result in death of the victim and act had been done in
pursuance of such knowlegde, thus made accused held liable under 307 of IPC.

9
Jodha v. State of Rajasthan 1994 SCC Raj 161
10
(2019) Cri. Appeal no. 1190/2009
11
(2019)Cri Appeal 1589/2018
12
-MEMORANDUM FOR PROSECUTION-
2. Whether Ramesh be held liable under section 498A IPC?

The counsel on behalf of the prosecution would humbly submit before the Learned Session Court
that

The death of deceased, was under cruelty as it does meet the essential ingredient of Sec. 498A of
IPC, 1860.

Sec.498A of IPC says that, “Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a
woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term
which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.”

Explanation:

For the purpose of this section, “cruelty” means

any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide
or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the
woman; or

harassment of the woman where such harrasment is with a view to coercing her or any
person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or
is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.

Ingredients

For commission of an offence under Section 498A, following necessary ingredients require to be
satisfied:

The woman must be married;

She must be subjected to cruelty or harassment; and

Such cruelty or harassment must have been shown either by husband of the woman or by the
relative of her husband, U. Suvetha v. State, 12

• The woman must be married.

Reena was married to Ramesh got married in 2015 and thus the imgredient of being married is
completely fulfilled.

12
(2009)6 SCC 757

13
-MEMORANDUM FOR PROSECUTION-
• She must be subjected to Cruelty and Harassment

Every harassment does not amount to “cruelty” within the meaning of Section 498A. For the
purpose of Section 498A, harassment simpliciter is not “cruelty” and it is only when harassment
is committed for the purpose of coercing a woman or any other person related to her to meet an
unlawful demand for property, etc. that it amounts to “cruelty” punishable under Section 498A
IPC, State of A.P. v. M. Madhusudhan Rao, 13

Cruelty can either be mental or physical. It is difficult to straitjacket the term cruelty by means of
a definition because cruelty is a relative term. What constitutes cruelty for one person may not
constitute cruelty for another person, G.V. Siddaramesh v. State of Karnataka, 14

And in this case it was clearly seen that the the complainant was beaten and fought with because
the respondent wanted to have the part of his inlaw’s property ans so, this ingredient is also fulfilled
⚫ Such cruelty is shown by Husband in this case and thus again this ingredient shows its
presence too

FURTHER

section 498A and “Dowry Demand”

Dowry demand is included in the “unlawful demand” as contemplated under Explanation (b) of
Section 498A; however, it need not be the only demand. The Supreme Court
in Modinsab Kasimsab Kanchagar v. State of Karnataka, 15 held that a demand of Rs 10,000
towards repayment of a society loan, though not a dowry demand, was an unlawful demand
sufficient to attract Section 498A.

Past events of cruelty included

Section 498A includes in its amplitude past events of cruelty, and it was held under
Kaliyaperumal v. State of T.N.,16.
13
(2008)15 SCC 582
14
(2010) 3 SC 152
15
(2013) 4 SCC 551
16
(2004) 9 SCC 157

14
-MEMORANDUM FOR PROSECUTION-
 PRAYER

Wherefore, in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it

is humbly requested that the Honourable Court may be pleased to adjudge and declare

that:

That the accused is guilty of Attempt to Murder under section 307 of the
IPC,

That the accused is guilty of Cruelty by husband or relatives of husband under section

489A ofthe IPC,

Or

pass any such order as the Honourable Court may deems fit and proper in the interest

of justice.

For this act of kindness, the Counsel for the Prosecution, as in duty bound, shall forever pray.

ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

Sd/-

COUNSEL FOR PROSECUTION

15
-MEMORANDUM FOR PROSECUTION-
 16
-MEMORANDUM FOR PROSECUTION-