3rd NATIONAL MOOT COURT, 2024

TEAM CODE: TC-30

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTAR PRADESH

Appeal under section 374(2) of the code of criminal procedure

In the matter of

RAHUL KAPOOR ………………………… APPELLANT

V.

State of Uttar pradesh ………………………………. RESPONDANT

Most respectfully submitted before the Hon’ble High Court of Uttar Pradesh

MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF THE RESPONDANT

1
 3rd NATIONAL MOOT COURT, 2024

TABLE OF CONTENT

List of Abbreviations…………………………………………………3

Index of Authorities………………………………………………… 4

Statement of Jurisdiction…………………………………………….5

Statement of Facts……………………………………………………6

Issues Raised………………………………………………………….8

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

Arguments Advanced……………………………………………....... 11

Prayer………………………………………………………………… 30

2
 3rd NATIONAL MOOT COURT, 2024

LIST OF
ABBREVIATION
EXPANSION
ABBREVIATIONS
Sec. Section

¶ Paragraph

& And

AIR All India Reporter

SC Supreme Court

v. Verses

Cri.LJ Criminal law journal

Ors Others

IPC Indian Penal Code,1860

HC High Court

Hon’ble Honorable

CONSTI. Constitution

Acc According

p. Page No.

r.w.s. Read with Section

SCC Supreme Court Cases

3
 3rd NATIONAL MOOT COURT, 2024

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

1. Reg v. Govind (1877 ILR 1 Bom 342).

2. Jai Kumar v. State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR 1999 SC 1860).
3. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Sahrunnisa (AIR 209 SC 3182).
4. Gaya Prasad Ramlal v. State of Maharashtra ( AIR 1971 SC 1112).

STATUTES REFERRED

1. The Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. The Indian Penal Code.

BOOKS REFERRED

1. The Code of Criminal Procedure- Ratan Lal & Dhiraj Lal, S.N. Mishra.
2. The Indian Penal Code, 1860- S.N. Mishra, Ratan Lal & Dhiraj Lal.

ONLINE SOURCE

1. SCC online
2. Manupatra

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

4
 3rd NATIONAL MOOT COURT, 2024

THE HON’BIE SUPREME COURT EXERCISES JURISDICTION TO HEAR AND

ADJUDICATE OVER THE MATTER UNDER SECTION 374(2) OF THE CODE OF
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

5
 3rd NATIONAL MOOT COURT, 2024

Dr. Rahul and Akansha Kapoor aged 45 and 40, respectively along with their 15-year-old
daughter Sneha Kapoor and their domestic help Garvesh; reside in Kaveri apartments, flat no.
20, floor no. 3, Gandhi Nagar, Naharpur. At 6:15 am on 16th May 2008, housemaid Kamala Devi
rang the doorbell which awakened Akansha. Akansha noticed Garvesh was not at home and
opened the door for the maid. Rahul Kapoor woke up and noticed his bottle of whiskey polished
off along with two used glasses on their living room table. Rahul was surprised at this view for
only him and his wife knew about their concealed bar in the living room. It was also noticed by
Rahul that Sneha’s room was slightly opened. Upon entering Sneha’s bedroom, Akansha and
Rahul discovered that Sneha was lying dead on her bed at around 6:25 a.m. with blood stains all
over her body, bed, and pillow covers. The housemaid entered the room as well to Akansha
screaming “GARVESH KILLED MY DAUGHTER AND RAN AWAY”. By this time a huge
crowd had gathered into their apartment. The building watchman called the police, and they
reached the crime scene around 7:15 am. Parents accused Garvesh for their daughter’s murder
and police tried to pursue Garvesh and investigate the matter but they failed. Police while
investigating the house tried to reach the terrace but they were initially stopped by Rahul. The
parents used to lock Sneha’s room from outside every night before going to bed and kept the
keys on Akansha’s nightstand. Rahul was suspected by Sneha to be in an affair with his business
partner’s wife and Rahul was aware of her suspicion. Rahul also found Garvesh and Sneha in an
objectionable situation a few days before her murder. Later forensic team and police found
Garvesh dead on the terrace in a decomposed state while they were tracing the blood stains on
the stairs leading to the terrace. According to Kapoor's internet router, Rahul was active online
till 12:30 a.m. The police sent both bodies for post- mortem. The findings of the post- mortem
examination are:

 Both Sneha and Garvesh died between 1:30 and 2:30 a.m.
 They found injuries on their heads believed to be caused by a blunt U/V shaped object
resulting in their death.
 Blood stains found on Sneha’s pillow covers matched with Garvesh’s blood
 Doctors believed that her vagina had also been cleaned after her death. Based on the
forensic report, medical report and circumstantial evidence found at the crime scene, the
police suspected parents to be the prime suspects and the session court convicted the
Kapoor’s under section 302,325 and 34 of IPC.

ISSUES RAISED

6
 3rd NATIONAL MOOT COURT, 2024

ISSUE 1: WHETHER THE APPEAL IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OR

NOT?

ISSUE 2: WHETHER RAHUL KAPOOR IS HELD LIABLE UNDER SECTION 302 AND 325
OF IPC OR NOT?

ISSUE 3: WHETHER AKANSHA KAPOOR IS HELD LIABLE UNDER SECTION 34 OF

IPC OR NOT?

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

7
 3rd NATIONAL MOOT COURT, 2024

ISSUE 1: WHETHER THE APPEAL IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OR

NOT?

It is humbly submitted to the Hon’ble court that the present appeal is not maintainable in the
High Court. Because there is no question of law that can be raised and Session court has checked
all the evidences and after seeing all the evidences Mr. Rahul Kapoor is held liable for the
murder of his daughter Sneha and his servant Garvesh.

ISSUE 2: WHETHER RAHUL KAPOOR IS HELD LIABLE U/S 302& 325 OF IPC OR NOT?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that Rahul Kapoor id held liable under section
302 and 325 of IPC. We can say this because all the circumstantial evidence that are found in the
forensic examination says that Rahul Kapoor is held liable under section 302 and 325 of IPC
conviction given by session court is correct.

ISSUE 3: WHETHER AKANSHA KAPOOR IS HELD LIABLE UNDER SECTION 34 OF

IPC OR NOT?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble High Court that Akansha Kapoor is held liable under
section 34 of IPC which says about the common intention in murder. Akansha Kapoor is held
liable for common intention in murder of her daughter and her servant Garvesh. She put fake
allegation on Garvesh but in real Garvesh was also murdered.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

8
 3rd NATIONAL MOOT COURT, 2024

ISSUE 1: WHETHER THE APPEAL IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OR

NOT?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that the present appeal is not maintainable
before the High Court. In its present form as the present appeal do not involve any substantial
question of law of general importance as well as the question of fact and the same is likely to be
dismissed on this sole ground. It is further submitted that there is no cause of action arises in
favor of the appellant and the appellant is stopped by his own acts and conduct to claim the relief
as prayed far and is not authorized to file the present appeal and the same is liable to be
dismissed with cost.

The session court has given Rahul Kapoor punishment after seeing all the evidences and results
of the medical examination and forensic post- mortem reports. This appeal is not maintainable in
High Court because the session court has seen that Rahul Kapoor was active on social media
during the time of murder of daughter and servant. Daughter and servant both were killed with
some kind of blunt u/v shaped object. The blood stains which were on the bed sheet and pillow
cover of Sneha’s room matched with the blood of Garvesh. The main point which will prove that
Rahul Kapoor has killed the servant Garvesh is that during the police investigation when police
wanted to go on the terrace to find Garvesh then Rahul Kapoor stopped police. This shows that
Rahul Kapoor is held liable under section 302 and 325 of IPC. The punishment which is given by
session court to Rahul Kapoor and Akansha Kapoor is absolutely right and there is not any point
of filing this appeal in The High Court.

ISSUE 2: WHETHER RAHUL KAPOOR IS HELD LIABLE UNDER SECTION 302 AND
325 OF IPC OR NOT?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that Rahul Kapoor is held liable under section
302 and 325 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. Section 302 deals with the punishment of murder and
section 325 deals with the offence of grievous hurt.

9
 3rd NATIONAL MOOT COURT, 2024

For committing the murder there must be two essentials that should be fulfilled that is Mens Rea
and Actus Reus. When either the essential or one of the essential is fulfilled then we can say that
murder is committed. Mens Rea is a situation when there is wrongful intention to commit crime
present whereas Actus Reus is situation in which the act is done which shows that murder is
committed. To find murder is committed the one should look for wounds.

In the case Reg v. Govinda1, the prisoner, a young man of 18, kicked his wife (a girl of 15) and
struck her several times with his fist on the back. These blows seemed to have caused her no
serious injury. She however, fell on the ground, and then the accused put one knee on her chest,
and struck her two or three times on the face. One or two of these blows were violent and took
effect on girl’s left eye, producing contusion (injury without breaking skin) and discoloration.
The skull was not fractured, but the blow caused extravasation of blood in the brain, and the girl
died in consequence either on the spot, or very shortly afterwards. The session judge and the
assessors found the prisoner guilty of murder and sentenced him to death. The case was sent up
to High Court of Bombay for confirmation of the sentence of death passed on the prisoner. There
being a difference of opinion between the judges of the High Court as to what offence the
prisoner had committed, the case was referred to third judge, Melville J for his opinion.

Post- Mortem Examination:-

In the post – mortem examination it was found that there was a injury on their heads which was
believed to be caused by the a blunt u/v shaped object resulting in their death. Both Sneha and
Garvesh died between 1: 30 to 2: 30 a.m. and Rahul was active online on till 12:30 a.m. These all
examination results says that Rahul Kapoor is held liable for the murder

In Jai Kumar case2(1999), the accused aged about 22 years was charged under section 302, IPC
for murdering his sister- in-law(30 years old) who was in advance stage of pregnancy and his
niece of 8 years, in most cold blooded and brutal manner and sentenced to death by trial court
and confirmed by High Court.

1
1877 ILR Bom 342.
2
AIR 1999 SC 1860.

10
 3rd NATIONAL MOOT COURT, 2024

The facts of the case are very pathetic and revolting. On the fateful night of 7 January 1997, at
village Rakri, Rewa, in the state of Madhya Pradesh, the accused entered the house of victim and
bolted from outside the mother’s room and removed certain bricks from the wall “choukat”
(door). Thus, facilitating the entry into the room where deceased sister-in-law was sleeping with
the child. The accused committed murder of his sister-in-law at about 11:00 pm by Parsul (a
sharp instrument) blows on her neck severing her head from the body and taking away her 8
years old daughter Renu and killing her in a jungle by axe blows, said to be by offering a
sacrifice to Mahuva ( tree) Maharaj burying her in the sand covered with stones and thereafter
the accused came back home and carried the body of the sister- in-law tied in a cloth to the
jungle and hung the head being tied on a branch with a hair and put the body on the trunk of the
Mahuva tree.

Dismissing the appeal and confirming death sentence, the Apex Court rightly said:

The facts establish the depravity and criminality of accused in no uncertain terms. No regard
being had for precious life of the young child also. The compassionate ground of the accused
being 22 years of age cannot in the facts of matter be term to be at all relevant… in the present
case the savage nature of the crime has shocked our judicial conscience. The murder was cold –
blooded and brutal without any provocation. It certainly makes it a rarest of rare cases in which
there are no extenuating or mitigating circumstances

Rahul kapoor is also held liable for section 325.

Section 325 says about the, voluntarily causing grievous hurt- whoever, except in the case
provided for by section 335, voluntarily causes grievous hurt, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 7 years, and shall also be
liable to fine.

In this case according to facts, Rahul Kapoor has voluntarily caused grievous hurt to his daughter
Sneha and his servant Garvesh by murdering them. He has killed his daughter and his servant
with the blunt U/V shaped object. Thus, we can say this after reading the forensic or post-
mortem examination report.

11
 3rd NATIONAL MOOT COURT, 2024

Punishment for grievous hurt:-

This section prescribes the punishment for grievous hurt. The main ingredient of the offence
under this section is that grievous hurt should be intended to be caused to the offender should
have knowledge that the hurt caused was likely to be grievous. The offence under this section is
intermediate between hurt and homicide.

Ingredients:-

1. The accused caused the hurt,

2. The hurt was grievous as specified in section 320, and
3. The hurt was caused voluntarily.

The offence is cognizable, bailable, compoundable and triable by any magistrate. Punishment
may extend to imprisonment upto 7 years and fine.

In case of Surjan Singh, where the accused in the course of a fight left the place of incident,
bought an axe and inflicted a blow on the head of the injured, he was rightly held liable under
section 326, IPC since the injury was grievous in nature.

ISSUE 3:- WHETHER AKANSHA KAPOOR IS HELD LIABLE U/S 34 OF IPC OR NOT?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble High Court that Akansha Kapoor is held liable under
section 34 of IPC. Section 34 of IPC deals with the common intention in the crime.

Section 34 of IPC says that, it only lays down a rule of evidence that if two or more persons
commit a crime in furtherance of a common intention, each of them will be liable jointly on the
principle of group(or joint) liability. Thus if two or more persons commit an illegal act
conjointly, it is the same as if each of them had done the act separately and each will be held
liable constructively for the act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.

In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Sahurunnisa3, the state of Uttar Pradesh went in appeal before the
apex court against the acquittal of the two respondents (accused nos. 3 and 4) by the High Court
against their convictions under sections 300, 302 read with section 34, IPC by session court.
3
AIR 209 SC 3182.

12
 3rd NATIONAL MOOT COURT, 2024

The present case is one such dreadful and hair- raising example of superstition committed in the
name of “Peer Paigamber”, wherein two innocent boys aged 7 and 4 years lost their precious
lives while the third barely escaped death. The accused claimed that two boys were killed by way
of sacrifice and that they would regain their lives. Very unfortunately, in all this, the father
Abdul Hafez khan ( accused 1) and Shakila Bano ( accused 2), his daughter, the paternal aunt of
unfortunate boys were involved, while their own mother ( accused 3) and Siraj Khan ( accused 4,
husband of the accused 2) had to remain as a mute spectator to this gruesome act of cruelty.

The sessions judge found all the accused guilty for offences under section 302 read with section
34, IPC and also under section 307 read with section 34, IPC and sentenced them to
imprisonment for life and imprisonment for three years under section 307, IPC read with section
34, IPC for attempt to murder.

On appeal, the High Court confirmed the conviction and sentenced of the two accused namely
A1 and A2. However, the High Court acquitted A3, Sahrunnisa and A4, Siraj Khan giving them
benefit of doubt.

Dismissing the appeal the apex court while refuting the state’s claim of involvement of
respondents in the gruesome acts of murder, in which these two respondents were present, said
their presence by itself cannot be of criminal nature in the sense that by their mere presence a
common intention can be attributed to them. Indeed, they have not done anything. No overt act is
attributed to them.

The case of Sahrunnisa (A3) is one of a Mohammedan lady, whose husband and daughter were
overpowered by the superstitious belief. The force of superstition was so overpowering that A1
and A2 probably were convinced of the non-existent super natural power of A2. A poor
Mohammedan lady coming from the humble background, whose husband and daughter claimed
these powers could not have ordinarily opposed which was being done and, therefore, had to see
with open eyes the death of her two sons. Her act of not opposing the gruesome acts does not
speak in favor of her nurturing the common intention.

The High Court was undoubtedly right that she could be afraid of A1and A2 as she herself might
be under the superstitious psyche. By their mere presence, common intention cannot be

13
 3rd NATIONAL MOOT COURT, 2024

attributed to them. Conduct of wife of main accused is not opposing gruesome acts could be due
to superstitious psyche – acquittal of respondents is proper.

In Gaya Prasad Ramlal v. state of Maharashtra4, the evidence found by the high court was
that R and M were assaulted at a narrow open space surrounded by huts on all sides except for
two small openings, one in east, the other in the west. The attack on R was not unpremeditated.
The suddenness was accentuated by the shout given by the appellant. The ghastly attack in the
narrow space could not, by the combination of circumstances, have been preceded by any
commotion. The incident commenced with appellant shouted “maro” “maro” (beat, beat).

One of the accused was armed with the knife, and shout which the appellant gave established
that this accused should commence the attack on R with the knife. Thus, the appellant shared the
intention of the other two accused to commit the murder of R. it was found that the other two
accused and the appellant were members of an unlawful assembly with the common intention to
commit murder of R.

The shout of the appellant established beyond any doubt that he shared the common intention to
commit murder of R.

These all shows that Akansha Kapoor was present on the murder scene and she is equally liable
for the murder of her daughter Sneha and her servant Garvesh.

PRAYER

Wherefore in the light of facts presented, issued raised, arguments advanced and authorities
cited, the counsel on the behalf of respondent before this Hon’ble court pray that it may be
pleased to adjudge and declare that:
1. The appeal is not maintainable before the High Court.
4
AIR 1971 SC 1112.

14
 3rd NATIONAL MOOT COURT, 2024

2. Rahul Kapoor is held liable under section 302 and 325 of IPC, 1860.
3. Akansha Kapoor is held liable under section 34 of IPC, 1860.

Also pass any order that Hon’ble court may deem fit in the favor of the respondent to meet
the
Ends of equity, justice and good conscience.

For this act of Kindness, the respondent shall duty bound forever pray.

15