Moot Problem - 3 (Plaintiff)

LIST OF ABBRIVATIONS
S.No. ABBRIVATION TITLE
1) App.No. Application Number
2) AIR All India Reporter
3) Cr.P.C. Criminal Procedure Code
4) Para Paragraph
5) Prin Principle
6) Art. Article
7) CL Clause
8) E.g. Exemplum Gratia (For Example)
9) Hon’ble Honorable
10) i.e. That is
11) Ltd. Limited
12) Ors. Others
13) Bom. Bombay
14) Cal. Calcutta
15) SCC Supreme Court Citation
16) P&H Punjab & Haryana
17) SCR Supreme Court Reports
18) V. Verses
19) O.S. Original Suit
20) @ At the rate
21) Sec. Section
22) SCN Show Cause Notice
23) TG Telangana State
1
1) CODE OF CRIMINA PROCEDURE, 1973
2) INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860
3) INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872
4) PROTECTION OF WOMEN FROM DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT, 2005
24) UOI Union of India
25) % Percentage
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
S.No. BOOKS, AUTHORS & CASE LAWS
BOOKS
1) Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Published by Eastern Book Company, 5 th
Edition 2018
2) Indian Penal Code, 1869 – Published by Eastern Book Company, 5th Edition 2017
3) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Published by Eastern Book Company, 5th Edition 2018
4) Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 downloaded from website
5) Black’s Law Dictionary
6) Law Forum – Vikaspedia (https://www.vikaspedia.in/)
7) Legal Service of India (https://www.legalserviceindia.com/)
8) The Indian Kanoon (https://www.indiankanoon.org/)
2
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The petitioner humbly submits this memorandum for the petition filed before this Hon’ble District &
Sessions Court, Kukatpally U/s 177 of Indian Penal Code. The petition invokes the punishment for
murder Under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Punishment for Murder. It sets forth the facts
and the laws on which the claims are based.
3
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1) Mr.Jay Kumar was the Chief Executive Officer of a leading multinational company, M/s Arin
Technologies who was a citizen of India, residing in Hyderabad City, State of Telangana.
2) On 05/01/2021, Mr. Kumar had left home in his car at 9.00 a.m. for his office. But he never
reached there. Instead, at about 1.00 p.m., his wife, Ms. Jaya, received a call from the Station
House Officer, Lingampally Police Station, informing here that Mr. Kumar had been killed.
3) Ms. Jaya lodged a complaint and the Station House Officer registered a First Information Report
at Lingampally Police Station (F.I.R. No.13/2021 was filed under Section 302 and 201 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860).
4) She informed the police that her husband was wearing a white shirt, black trouser and a blue
sweater. She also mentioned that Mr. Kumar was carrying his laptop when he left home.
5) Inspector, Mr. Bahadur prepared the seizure memo of items recovered from the place where Mr.
Kumar was found murdered.
6) No laptop was recovered and the deceased was wearing white shirt and black trouser when his
body was found. Sub-Inspector, Mr. Vijay prepared the inquest report under the instruction of
Inspector, Mr.Bahadur. Thereafter, he sent the dead body for a post-mortem with a constable.
7) Dr. John conducted the post-mortem of the body and found that the death of the deceased was a
result of ante-mortem injuries. The injuries were three gunshot wounds and two incised wounds.
8) On 06/03/2021, Sub-Inspector, Mr. Vijay along with other police officers, apprehended a car after
a informer told him that a vehicle perceived to be stolen by the informer would come from the
direction of Strand Road.
4
9) The person driving the car told Sub-Inspector, Mr.Vijay that his name was Rambo. When he was
searched, the police recovered a .32 caliber pistol with four live cartridges in a seven shot
magazine from the pocket of his trousers. The police arrested Rambo.
10) On 08/03/2021, Ms. Jaya identified the car as the one her husband owned and was driving on the
day he was killed. As described by her, the aluminium stick was also found in the car that Mr.
Kumar used to keep underneath his seat for self-defence. Ms. Jaya produced a copy of the
Registration Certificate of the Car.
11) After seven-eight days, when Rambo visited Austin’s house, Mr.Austin told him that the car
belonged to one Mr. Jay and that he along with Simon had murdered Mr. Jay. Though looking
furious, looking deep into the eyes of Rambo, Austin laughed.
12) On 16/03/2021, Inspector, Bahadur and his team went to Austin’s house to arrest him. But Austin
was not there. One Mr.Robin (Austin’s next-door neighbour) told the police that he saw Ms. Lily,
Austin’s sister burning a laptop in the outdoor fire place established in the garden of Austin’s
house. Inspector, Bahadur found the charred remains of what were perceived to be some
electronic components from the spot indicated by Mr. Robin.
13) Austin and Simon were arrested a day later. Both were interrogated separately.
14) Simon stated in his statement recorded by the police that he had neither committed any murder
nor did he give any car to Rambo. On the other hand, Austin took the police to his house and
showed a finger in the direction of his cupboard, stating, “The pistol my brother owns is in that
cupboard. Yes, we killed Mr. Jay and took his money. He had a lot of money”, Inspector,
Bahadur prepared the recovery memo of the .32 caliber pistol recovered from the house of Austin.
15) On the day of his arrest, Austin’s school principal also handed over the attendance register of his
class to the police. Austin was marked absent in the register on 05/01/2021.
16) On 17/03/2021, Renowned Forensic Science expert Dr. James from Central Forensic Science
Laboratory stated in his report that the burnt remains might be those of laptop. One of the
5
components found burned was a batter cell, which is used in the batteries of laptop, but same may
also be found in power bank.
17) The police filed the charge-sheet against Simon and Austin under Section 302, 397, 201 R/w 34 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Ms. Lily under Sections 201 and 202 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860.
18) Austin was declared a juvenile, and his trial is still going on in the juvenile court of Hyderabad.
19) In the statement Simon and Rambo said, “I don’t know”, in reply to all the questions put to them.
20) In the statement Ms. Lily stated that she had not burned any laptop as claimed by Mr. Robin. She
said Mr. Robin used to pass lewd remarks towards her, and since she did not respond to his
advances, he lied to the police.
21) The case State of Telangana V. Simon & Anr. Is now listed before the Hon’ble Sessions Court,
Hyderabad.
6
LIST OF ISSUES RAISED
1) Whether Mr. Simon, Rambo and Ms. Lily had common intention to commit Robbery and Murder
Mr. Jay?
2) Whether Mr.Simon, Mr.Rambo and Ms.Lily are guilty of causing disappearance of evidence,
dishonest, misappropriation of property and receiving stolen property?
3) Whether the offenses against Mr.Simon, Mr. Rambo and Ms. Lily is proved beyond reasonable
doubt?
7
SUMMARY OF AURGUMENTS
1) Whether Mr. Simon, Rambo and Ms. Lily had common intention to commit robbery and murder
of Mr. Jay?
The accused Mr. Simon agreed in his own statement that he along with Rambo & Ms. Lily have
committed the robbery and murder of Mr. Jay Kumar.
In view of Mr. Simon’s confession statement seems to committed murder and robbery Under Section 302,
397, 201 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1869 and against Mr. Rambo under section 201, 202, 404
and 411 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 have committed the crime while Ms. Lily has harboured their
crime under section 201 and 202 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2) Whether Mr. Simon, Mr, Rambo and Ms. Loly are guilty of causing disappearance of Evidence,
Dishonest and Misappropriation of Property and receiving stolen property?
According to the eyewitness testimony, i.e., Mr. Robin, who was the neighbour of Mr. Simon, it
is clear and evident that he saw the sister of Mr. Simon by name, Ms. Lily, burning a laptop in the
outdoor fireplace on March 16, 2021, which is a severe offence under Section 201 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860.
“Sec. 302 of IPC : Punishment for Murder – whoever commits murder shall be punished with death or
imprisonment for life and also shall be liable to fine”.
“Sec. 397 of IPC: If, at the time of committing robbery or dacoity, the offender uses any deadly weapon,
or causes grievous hurt to any person, so attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any person, the
imprisonment with which such offender shall be punished not less than seven years”.
“Sec. 201 of IPC: punishes any person, who knowing that any offense has been committed, destroyes the
evidence of that offense or gives false information in order to screen the offender from legal punishment.
It is designed to penalize “attempts to frustrate the course of justice”.
“Sec. 202 of IPC: Whoever, knowing or having reasons to belived that an offense has been committed,
intentionally omits to give any information respecting that offense which he is legally bound to give, shall
8
be punished with imprisonment either description for a term which may extend to 6 months, or with fine,
or with both”.
“Sec. 411 of IPC: Whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property, knowing or having reason
to believe the same to be stolen property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to 3 years, or fine, or with both”.
Further, Dr. James who is a renowned forensic science expert from Central Forensic Science Laboratory
vide his report stated that the burnt remains might be those of a laptop.
3) Whether the offenses against Mr. Simon, Mr. Rambo and Ms. Lily is proved beyond reasonable
doubt?
The offenses filed against the accused persons of Mr. Simon, Mr. Rambo and Ms. Lily have been proven
beyond reasonable doubt i.e. not just by the testimony of Mr. Simon but also by considering the eye
witnesses, proof of objects restored from the accused house i.e. pistol, car of Mr. Jay Kumar and most
importantly the tampering of evidence i.e. laptop burnt remains in the backyard at the fireplace along with
the forensic report confirms that the offenses were indeed committed by the same people Mr. Simon, Mr.
Rambo and Ms. Lily.
9
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
1) Whether Mr. Simon, Rambo and Ms. Lily had common intention to commit robbery and murder
of Mr. Jay?
The accused Mr. Simon conferred the admission that he is either guilty of any offence or the admission is
probating all the facts constitute the offence. Therefore, Mr. Rambo and Ms. Lily are found common
intention robbery and murder of Mr. Jay Kumar which is proved under section 17 of the Indian Evidence
Act, 1872. Since the accused of offence makes statement against him is proved guilty and all are
punishable under section 302, 397, 201 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Further, Mr. Rambo’s guilty is also proved based on the confession statement given by Mr. Simon, the
intention to commit robbery and murder of Mr. Jay Kumar is to be punished under Sections 201, 202, 404
and 411 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Lastly, Ms. Lily has harbored their crime and she also found guilty to be punished under section 201 and
202 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2) Whether Mr. Simon, Mr. Rambo and Ms. Lily are guilty of causing disappearance of Evidence,
Dishonest, Misappropriation of property and receiving stolen property?
According to the eyewitness testimony of Mr. Robin who has the neighbor of Mr. Simon that the sister of
Mr. Simon i.e. Ms.Lily burnt the laptop in the outdoor fire place and recovered the some electronic
components from the spot indicated which is conferred by the forensic report is causing the disappearance
of evidence. Therefore, under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the accused will be punished
for a term which may extend to “six months”, or “fine”, or “both”.
3) Whether the offenses against Mr. Simon, Mr. Rambo and Ms. Lily are proved beyond reasonable
doubt?
The offenses filed against the accused persons have been proved beyond reasonable doubt just by the
testimony of Mr. Simon while considering the eyewitness, proof of objects restored from the accused
house which means recovering the pistol, car of Mr. Jay Kumar and also tampering the evidence i.e. burnt
10
the laptop in the outdoor fire place along with forensic report corroborate the offenses were indeed
committed by Mr. Simon, Mr. Rambo and Ms. Lily.
11
PRAYER
IN LIGHT OF THE ISSUES RAISED, THE AUTHORITIES CITED, AND THE

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED, IT IS THEREFORE PRAYED THAT THIS
HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE KINDLY PLEASED TO:
1) The Hon’ble Court may please be punished the accused i.e. Mr. Simon under sections 302, 397,
201 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 with life imprisonment.
2) The Hob’ble Court may please be punished the accused i.e. Mr. Rambo under sections 201, 202,
404 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 with rigorous imprisonment of 7 years.
3) The Hon’ble Court may please be punished the accused i.e. Ms. Lily under Section 201 and 201
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 with rigorous imprisonment of 7 years.
Date: XX / XXX / XXXX

Place: Hyderabad
ADVOCATE
COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER
12

Moot Problem - 3 (Plaintiff)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Moot Problem - 3 (Plaintiff)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LIST OF ABBRIVATIONS

S.No. ABBRIVATION TITLE

1) App.No. Application Number

2) AIR All India Reporter

3) Cr.P.C. Criminal Procedure Code

8) E.g. Exemplum Gratia (For Example)

10) i.e. That is

11) Ltd. Limited

12) Ors. Others

13) Bom. Bombay

14) Cal. Calcutta

15) SCC Supreme Court Citation

16) P&H Punjab & Haryana

17) SCR Supreme Court Reports

S.No. BOOKS, AUTHORS & CASE LAWS

5) Black’s Law Dictionary

6) Law Forum – Vikaspedia (https://www.vikaspedia.in/)

7) Legal Service of India (https://www.legalserviceindia.com/)

8) The Indian Kanoon (https://www.indiankanoon.org/)

IN LIGHT OF THE ISSUES RAISED, THE AUTHORITIES CITED, AND THE

Date: XX / XXX / XXXX

You might also like