TEAM CODE:

INTRA COLLEGE MOOT COURT COMPETITION , 2023

Before the Honourable,

Gauhati High Court

HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Criminal Appeal no. ………………/………..

u/s 337, 339 of Crpc

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the matter of-

Dileswar Tanti ………………….. Petitioner

State of Assam …………………..Respondent

Application for bail and review for the sentence upheld by the Session court of Sivasagar under the
relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

(1)
MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONER

-----------------------------------------TABLE OF CONTENTS--------------------------------------

1. Table of Abbreviation
2. Index of Authorities
3. Statement of Jurisdiction
4. List of Statues
5. Statement of facts
6. Statement of Issues
7. Summary of Arguments

8. Arguments Advanced

9. Prayer

To

The Hon’ble Mr. SANDEEP MEHTA., the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the
Gauhati High Court at Assam, and His Lordships other companion Justices
of the said Hon’ble High Court.

(2)
 TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS

Crpc Code of Criminal Procedure

I.P.C Indian Penal Code

U/S Under Section

PW Prosecution Witness

CRA Criminal Appeal

CRR Criminal Revison

SCC Supreme Court Cases

Ors Others

SC Supreme Court

LJ Law Journal

(3)
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES:

1. ASU vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN, 2000 Cr LJ 207 (Raj)

2. AFZAUDDIN ANSARY VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL, (1997), 2, CRIMES 53 (CALL)

3. KEDAR NATH V STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, (1991) CR LJ 989 (SC)

4. RAMPAL SINGH VS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH, (2012) 8 SCC 289

5. PALANI GAINDAN V EMPEROR, (1919) 42 Mad 547

6. SHOUSE CALIFORNIA LAW GROUP

(4)
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION:

According to section 26, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Subject to the other provisions of this Code,—

(a) any offence under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) may be tried by

(i) the High Court, or

(ii) the Court of Session, or
(iii) any other Court by which such offence is shown in the First Schedule to be
triable:

b) any offence under any other law shall, when any Court is mentioned in this
behalf in such law, be tried by such Court and when no Court is so mentioned,
may be tried by –

(i) the High Court, or

(ii) any other Court by which such offence is shown in the First Schedule to be
triable:

According to section 31, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

(1) When a person is convicted at one trial of two or more offences, the Court
may, subject to the provisions of section 71 of the Indian Penal Code (45
of 1860), sentence him for such offences, to the several punishments
prescribed therefor which such Court is competent to inflict; such
punishments when consisting of imprisonment to commence the one after
the expiration of the other in such order as the Court may direct, unless the
Court directs that such punishments shall run concurrently.

(2) In the case of consecutive sentences, it shall not be necessary for the Court
by reason only of the aggregate punishment for the several offences
being in excess of the punishment which it is competent to inflict on
conviction of a single offence, to send the offender for trial before a higher
Court:
Provided that—

(a) in no case shall such person be sentenced to imprisonment for a longer period
than fourteen
years;

(5)
(b) the aggregate punishment shall not exceed twice the amount of punishment
which the Court
is competent to inflict for a single offence.

(3) For the purpose of appeal by a convicted person, the aggregate of the
consecutive sentences passed against him under this section shall be
deemed to be a single sentence.

STATUTES REFERRED TO:

1. The Indian Penal Code, 1890

2. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

3. The Indian Evidence act, 1872

BOOKS REFERRED:

1. Textbook on Indian Penal Code by K D Kaur

2. Criminal law caes and materials by K D Kaur

3. Principles of The Law of Evidence by Dr. Avtar Singh

(6)
STATEMENT OF FACTS:

1. Rameswar Tanti (Husband) during the course of quarrel with his wife
(Shanti Tanti) at home caused a grieviuos injury by giving a blow on her
head with an axe.

2. Rameswar Tanti was charged to have committed an offence u/s 302 of

I.P.C on the ground of having assaulted his wife with an axe with the
intention of causing her to death.

3. PW1 Gauranga Nayak in his deposition had stated that, the villagers
present in the place told him that Rameswar Tanti had murdered his wife.

4. He further deposed that the accused also confessed before the villagers that
he had murdered his wife.

5. PW2 Anil Tanti in his deposition stated that at about 3:00 pm he heard a
shout from the wife of the accused.

6. Then, immediately he went to the house of the accused and he noticed that
the accused was coming out of the house holding an axe and the accused
told him that he killed his wife.

7. In the cross examination PW2 states that axes are found in each and every
houses of the locality and he has no knowledge as to whether the axe
belongs to the accused.

8. The Investigating Officer was also examined and in his Examination in

Chief, he stated that when he reached the house of the accused, he noticed
the accused was standing in the house with an axe in his hand.

9. The accused in his statement u/s 213 of Crpc stated that at the time of
incident he was in drunken condition and out of intoxication what he did
he could not recall.

(7)
 10. The accused also stated that he do no know how the offence was
committed and on that day he was drunk.

STATEMENT OF ISSUES:

1. Is Mens Rea is present?

2. The evidence that was found in the crime scence, was the weapon (axe)
hold by the accused is the same weapon?

3. Whether decisions be made on the basis of Circumstantial evidence?

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS:
1. The charges were read over and explained to the accused to which he
pleaded not guilty under Section 302 of I.P.C and requested reduction
in punishment in the sentence as there were no intention to murder.

2. No medical evidence regarding axe being the murder weapon. As per

the statement of P.W.2 Anil Tanti in his statement states that axes are
found in each and every houses of the locality and he has no knowledge
as to whether the axe belongs to the accused.

3. As mentioned in the FIR, the statement stated that “ an offence took

place on the ground of having assaulted his wife Shanti Tanti with an
axe with an intention to causing her to death.”
Here, Section 299 of IPC states “ Whoever causes death by doing an act
with the intention of causing death or with the knowledge, that he is
likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable
homicide.”

4. In the Article of, Circumstantial evidence is proof of a fact or set of

facts from which one could infer the fact in question. In trails for

(8)
 criminal cases, the prosecution commonly relies on circumstantial
evidence.

AGRUMENTS ADVANCED:
1. The charges were read over and explained to the accused to which he
pleaded not guilty under Section 302 of I.P.C and requested reduction in
punishment in the sentence as there were no intention to murder.

Also, judgement made in the case ASU vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN,

2000 Cr LJ 207 (Raj), “Where the accused, who inflicted fatal injury on
head of deceased which caused his death, without intention to kill him is
liable to be convicted under Section 304 Part II.

Here, as the accused in his statement under Section 313 of Crpc, that he
was under intoxication (drunk) and was not able to recall the incident. If
he would have planned the murder he would try to conceal the murder
weapon (Axe).

2. No medical evidence regarding axe being the murder weapon. As per the
statement of P.W.2 Anil Tanti in his statement states that axes are found in
each and every houses of the locality and he has no knowledge as to
whether the axe belongs to the accused.

In the referred case, AFZAUDDIN ANSARY VS STATE OF WEST

BENGAL, (1997), 2, CRIMES 53 (CALL) states, “ A man may lie but a
document will never lie.”

Again in the case of KEDAR NATH V STATE OF MADHYA

PRADESH, (1991) CR LJ 989 (SC) , When there was no evidence as to
how death came about, evidence relating to charge of murder was held to
be insufficient and unacceptable.

3. As mentioned in the FIR, the statement stated that “ an offence took place
on the ground of having assaulted his wife Shanti Tanti with an axe with
an intention to causing her to death.”

Here, Section 299 of IPC states “ Whoever causes death by doing an act
with the intention of causing death or with the knowledge, that he is likely
by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide.”
(9)
 Homicides: The following are the essentials of culpable homicide:
 Causing of death of a human being;
 Such death must have been caused by doing an act;
 The act must have been done:
 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 the doer is likely, by such act, to
cause death.
In reference to the case of RAMPAL SINGH VS STATE OF UTTAR
PRADESH, (2012) 8 SCC 289 states “Culpable Homicide” is the genus and
“murder” is its species and all ‘murders” are “culpable homicides”, but all
“culpable homicides” are not “murders”.
Again in the case of PALANI GAINDAN V EMPEROR, (1919) 42 Mad
547, The accused struck his wife a violent blow on the head with the
ploughshare which rendered her unconscious. It was held that the intention
of the accused must be judged not in the light of the actual circumstances,
but in the light of what he supposed to be the circumstances.
4. In the Article of, Circumstantial evidence is proof of a fact or set of facts
from which one could infer the fact in question. In trails for criminal cases,
the prosecution commonly relies on circumstantial evidence. The first is to
cast doubt on the circumstantial proof itself. If the premises(s) are not
proven SHOUSE CALIFORNIA LAW GROUP, then the inference
should not be drawn.

The second is to show that even if all the circumstantial facts are true, they
lead to two or more reasonable conclusions. And atleast one of them is
consistent with the defendant being innocent. In other words, there is
reasonable doubt as to whether the accused is guilty.

PRAYER:

Hon’ble court kindly dismiss the punishment given by the lower court and
prevent injustice to the accussed, Rameswar Tanti.

(10)