JURIS MOOT COURT COMPETITION’23 TEAM PRIME

JURIS MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023

BEFORE THE HONOURABLE COURT OF JURISTAN

CASE CONCERNING MURDER

STATE OF JURISTAN

(PROSECUTION)

V.

ARMAGHAN RANDHAWA

(DEFENCE)

FOR OFFENCES CHARGED UNDER:

SECTIONS 34, 302 OF THE JURISTAN PENAL CODE, 1860

TEAM MEMBERS: Faheem Ahmed Badini - Shagufta Ramzan Baloch - Hamid Nawaz Khan

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION 1

JURIS MOOT COURT COMPETITION’23 TEAM PRIME

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES……………………………………………….. P.3

STATEMENT OF FACTS………………………………………. P.4 -7

ISSUES………………………………………. P.8

CHARGES…………………………………………………. P. 9

ARGUMENTS………………………………………. P.10-18

PRAYER ……………………………………………….... P.19

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION 2

JURIS MOOT COURT COMPETITION’23 TEAM PRIME

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

1. Subjective Territorial Jurisdiction

• Brownlie, Ian. Principles of Public International Law. 8th ed. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2012.

• D'Amato, Anthony. The Concept of Custom in International Law. Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University Press, 1971.
• Jackson, John. The International Legal System. 3rd ed. New York: Foundation Press, 2000.
• Oppenheim's International Law. 9th ed. Edited by Robert Jennings and Arthur Watts.
London: Longman, 1992.

2. S.S. Lotus (France v. Turkey), Judgment, PCIJ Series A, No. 10, 7 September 1927

3. Enrica Lexie Case (Italy v. India), Award, ITLOS Reports 2020, vol. 34, p. 1

4. John A. Cohan, Homicide by Necessity, 10 Chap. L. Rev. 119 (2006)

5. 14Q.B.D. 273 (Queen’s Bench Division. 1884).

6. Harvard Law Review 62 (4): 616-645. 1949

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION 3

JURIS MOOT COURT COMPETITION’23 TEAM PRIME

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The Islamic Republic of Juristan once under the colonial rule of Angel Land, claimed
independence in 1947. Juristan is a coastal state geographically situated in South
Asia.It shares its west international border with NARAN, east with BINDIA, north
with DILARAM, and in the northeast with NAINA and its south Mariadona Sea.

2. According to The United Nations Convention on the Law of Sea (UNCLOS)

the“exclusive economic zone” or “EEZ” OF Juristan is 200 Nautical Miles (NM).
This area can be used by Juristan for economic purposes in conformity with
international law. Furthermore, consistent with The United Nations Convention on the
Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) this area is extendable to 360 NM which is based on the
structure of the continental shelf of the state. To explore the feasibility of natural
resources of the seabed, subsoil, and water above and in-depth, the federal
government of Juristan hired the services of Mr. Armaghan Randhawa and Dillrozain
Qazalbash who are the nationals of the State of Naina. They have expertise in marine
geology, oceanology, and international law. They have been appointed for a period of
one year and their contracts will be automatically terminated on the expiry of one
year. To facilitate the expert team and provide all the necessary items, including
vessels, lifeboats, etc. for the voyages, the Federal Government entered into a contract
with Zee Zo Company i.e. the main registered office of which is situated in Babul,
which is one of the states of Dilaram. Babul is almost 20 percent of the total territory
of Dilaram. Since 2021Dilaram is in a state of active war with Uraisia. Additionally,
almost 80 percent of the territory of Dilaram including capital territory has been
conquered by the forces of Uraisia.

3. The expert team consisting of four members namely Mr. Armaghan

Randhawa,Dillrozain Qazalbash, Fairoza Bill, and Captain Arooza Gill started their
voyage towardthe high sea from the port of Zawader which is one of the states of
Juristan on 1st June2022. They have made several voyages to complete the task, the
final voyage they started on April 2023. They have to be in the sea for a period of 2

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION 4

JURIS MOOT COURT COMPETITION’23 TEAM PRIME

months and were handed with all accessories and food items for the period of two
months. After completing the task, they set off on the journey toward Zawader on the
25th of May2023.

4. The voyage was uneventful until 27th May, when, deviated from the main trade
routein search of fair weather, 340 NM off the Zawader the yacht was hit by a
massive shark which completely destroyed the communications and navigation
system of the vessel. Now the vessel is moving without proper navigation and moving
somewhere in the sea.

5. Armaghan Randhawa and the crew were able to, fortunately, get a few navigational
instruments along with some turnips, but no fresh water. And the bad luck kept
coming. The crew survived a shark attack that night. Being nearly 300 NM away from
the nearest land, they were losing hope minute by minute. The first two days the crew
survived on turnips, and then Arooza Gill saw a turtle and they ate it. The crew
knewthey couldn’t drink seawater because there was no other freshwater. It’s
estimated that on June 6th Dillrozain Qazalbash became ill, probably from drinking
seawater. With no option, in the end, they could only opt to drink each other’s blood.

6. After seven days without food and water, Armaghan Randhawa proposed that
oneperson should forgo himself in order to save the rest. After motivation, Mr.
DillrozainQazalbash agreed that he is willing to sacrifice to save the life of a great
scientist. Beingyoung and inexperienced, my life is not as important as the life of
Armaghan Randhawa, who is a great scientist his contributions to humanity are
remarkable. He said, “The nation needs you and long live the scientist.” After the
agreement, they went to sleep with the intention that if tomorrow we are not rescued,
Dillrozain Qazalbash will be killed, and his flesh will be eaten to save others.

7. On the following day, with no prospect of rescue in sight, Armaghan Randhawa

approached with the intention to kill Dillrozain Qazalbash thereupon he refuses to be
killed and said, “I have changed my mind as I had promised my girlfriend namely
Mashoo Pali that we will marry on return, thus she is waiting for me to fulfill that
promise and I have to survive by all means”. The crew discussed cannibalization

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION 5

JURIS MOOT COURT COMPETITION’23 TEAM PRIME

openlyduring this period. Mr. Armaghan Randhawa is a follower of the “Shaanshoo”

religion under which cannibalism is permissible under some special circumstances.
Furthermore, Dillrozain Qazalbash also has some similar beliefs to that of Armaghan
Randhawa. A few minutes later, Fairoza Bill Proposed that lots should be drawn so
that one of them could be sacrificed to feed the others.

8. They started to discuss this option on the 11th of June 2023. They draw lots by
saying let nature decide. The lots indicated Mr. Dillrozain Qazalbash had to die, but
he refused to die, discussion had turned into a very heated argument, with no
resolution in sight. Dillrozain Qazalbash fell into a coma around the 11th to 13th of
June.

9. Armaghan Randhawa kept encouraging his crew that one should die to save the
others, and Dillrozain Qazalbash is the perfect option in the current situation. He
pointed out that both he and Fairoza Bill had families, while the Dillrozain Qazalbash
is a young boy who was an orphan with no connections. However, Firoza Bill rejected
this option and proposed an idea for the sake of survival that they should only cut one
part of the body to get meat and eat it since he is already in a coma, and it will only
hurt Dillrozain subsequently not amounting to killing. With that, they all decided to
sleep on it.

10. The next day there was still no hope of a rescue. They were still stranded probably
250Nautical Miles from any human contact. Both Armaghan Randhawa and Fairoza
Bill signaled to one another that Qazalbash should be the one to go. What was the
point of drawing lots when he was obviously going to die? Killing Qazalbash before
his natural death would mean blood to drink. They knew that killing Qazalbash would
best preserve his blood for drinking. Armaghan Randhawa said a prayer and, with
FirozaBill standing by to hold the youth's legs if he struggled, pushed his penknife
into Qazalbash 's jugular vein consequently Qazalbash died.

11. For the next four days all crew, fed on the boy’s body and drank his blood. While
eating, Arooza Gill Asked, this meat is very vicious delicious who caught this fish?
Nobody replied. On the fifth day after the act was committed, the three men were

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION 6

JURIS MOOT COURT COMPETITION’23 TEAM PRIME

sighted by a Zawader Coastal Guard and picked up by it, in the lowest state of
prostration. They were carried to the port of Zawader, where they faithfully recounted
the details of the shipwreck and death of Qazalbash to the authorities. They were later
charged with Murder/Qatl e amd u/s 34,302 etc of Juristan Penal Code. This news
spread like a fire globally which sparked a controversy between the states of Dilaram
and Uraisia to process the trials of the alleged accused.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION 7

JURIS MOOT COURT COMPETITION’23 TEAM PRIME

ISSUES

I. Whether the court of Juristan has jurisdiction to try the case or not.

II. Whether the killing of Dillrozain Qazal bash was murder considering the
circumstances of this case or not.

III. Whether only Armaghan Randhawa is liable for the killing of Dillrozain
Qazalbash or not.

IV. Whether cannibalism is lawful under the theory of necessity or not.

V. Whether or not the principle of common intention applies to Arooza Gill and
others.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION 8

JURIS MOOT COURT COMPETITION’23 TEAM PRIME

STATEMENT OF CHARGES

CHARGE-I

Armaghan Randhawa and the crew members- have been charged under the Juristan Penal
Code, 1860- Section 302 for the murder of Dillroazain Qazalbash.

CHARGE-II

Arooza Gill and Fairoza Bill- have been charged under the Juristan Penal code, 1860- Section
34, for aiding and abetting the murder of Qazalbash.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION 9

JURIS MOOT COURT COMPETITION’23 TEAM PRIME

ARGUMENTS

1. Statement of Jurisdiction
The Hon’ble Court of Juristan has the jurisdiction to try the instant matter under Sec. 3 r/w
Sec. 4 of the J.P.C/Jurisdiction under International Law.

J.P.C S.3: Punishment of offences committed beyond, but which by law may be tried in
Pakistan.
Any person1 liable, by any Juristan Law, to be tried for an offence committed beyond
Juristan shall be dealt with according to the provision of this Code for any act committed
beyond Juristan in the same manner as if such act had been committed within Juristan.
r/w Section 4 J.P.C. Extension of Code to extra-territorial offences.

Sub-section 1.
Any citizen of Juristan or any person in the service of Juristan in any place without and beyond
Juristan;
The above-mentioned provisions of the Juristan Penal Code (J.P.C.) of 1860 establish very firm
grounds over the matter of criminal jurisdiction in this case. Sections 3 and 4 of the J.P.C. state
that it is applicable to any citizen of Juristan or any person in the service of Juristan in any place
without and beyond Juristan.
The facts of this case suggest that:
• Crew members were on a voyage on behalf of the Juristan.
• Dillrozain Qazalbash was killed during his services for Juristan.
Thus, these facts indicate that the J.P.C. is applicable to this case, and that the crew members
could be prosecuted for the murder of Dillrozain Qazalbash.

Service of Juristan. The federal government of Juristan hired the services of Armaghan
Randhawa and Dillrozain Qazalbash, who are the nationals of Naina, for research purposes on
the high seas. Additionally, Juristan contracted with Zeezoo Company, a foreign agency whose
main registered office is in a neighboring state, to provide resources for a voyage on the sea. The

1
Juristan Penal Code S.11

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION 10

JURIS MOOT COURT COMPETITION’23 TEAM PRIME

company provided two crew members, including the vessel and all other equipment necessary
for the voyage. Fairoza Bill and the captain of the ship, Arooza Gill, are nationals of Dilaram but
were in service of Juristan. According to the code, both Arooza Gill and Firoza Bill, along with
the vessel, were in the service of Juristan and are under the criminal jurisdiction of Juristan.

r/w. Jurisdiction under the International Law

The areas beyond the territorial waters are dealt under the United Nations Convention on the
Law of Seas (UNCLOS).

• UNCLOS.art.59. Basis for the resolution of conflicts regarding the attribution of

rights and jurisdiction in the exclusive economic zone:

In cases where this Convention does not attribute rights or jurisdiction to the coastal State or
to other States within the exclusive economic zone, and a conflict arises between the interests
of the coastal State and any other State or States, the conflict should be resolved on the basis
of equity and in the light of all the relevant circumstances, taking into account the respective
importance of the interests involved.

UNCLOS gives the sole rights as regard to jurisdiction to the states to resolve the disputes,
because the UNCLOS does not explicitly address the issue of Criminal Jurisdiction over the
EEZ and high seas, and there is no single, universally accepted answer.

• Universal Jurisdiction

Universal jurisdiction is a principle of international law that allows states to prosecute

individuals for certain crimes, regardless of where the crimes were committed or the
nationality of the perpetrator or victim. The crimes that are typically subject to universal
jurisdiction include genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and torture.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION 11

JURIS MOOT COURT COMPETITION’23 TEAM PRIME

The state of Juristan is a party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
(ICC), which explicitly recognizes the principle of universal jurisdiction for the crimes of
genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes.

All democratic and independent states have a responsibility to prosecute crimes, regardless of
where they were committed. This is to ensure that perpetrators are brought to justice and to
deter future crimes. Juristan, like any other independent country, has a strong interest in
prosecuting foreign criminals for crimes that may have a significant impact on its bilateral
relations with the neighboring countries.

Therefore, Juristan has the legal basis under the principle of universal Jurisdiction to try the
Armaghan Randhawa and others against the murder of Dillrozain Qazalbash. The principle of
universal jurisdiction is an important tool for ensuring that criminals are brought to justice,
even if they are not nationals of the state where the crimes were committed. It is also a way
for states to show their commitment to fighting impunity for serious crimes.

• Subjective Territoriality Principle

The subjective territoriality principle is a principle widely accepted as a principle of

customary international law that allows a state to exercise jurisdiction over crimes that are
committed outside of its territory, but that have a significant connection to the state.

The principle of subjective territoriality is based on the idea that states have a legitimate
interest in prosecuting crimes that are committed by their nationals or that have a significant
impact on their territory. The principle is also seen as a way to ensure that perpetrators of
crimes are brought to justice, regardless of where the crimes were committed.

The principle of subjective territoriality remains an important tool for states in their fight
against crime. The principle allows states to prosecute crimes that would otherwise go
unpunished, and it helps to ensure that perpetrators of crimes are brought to justice.2

• 2
Brownlie, Ian. Principles of Public International Law. 8th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.
• D'Amato, Anthony. The Concept of Custom in International Law. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press,
1971.
• Jackson, John. The International Legal System. 3rd ed. New York: Foundation Press, 2000.
• Oppenheim's International Law. 9th ed. Edited by Robert Jennings and Arthur Watts. London:
Longman, 1992.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION 12

JURIS MOOT COURT COMPETITION’23 TEAM PRIME

The following are globally renowned landmark cases that took place on the high seas and
also support the principles of Universal jurisdiction and subjective territoriality.

1) S.S. Lotus (France v. Turkey)3

2) Enrica Lexie Case (Italy v. India)4

2. Whether the killing of Dillrozain Qazal bash was murder considering the
circumstances of this case or not.
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that the accused, Mr.Armaghan Randhawa
had committed the offense of murder and is guilty of the charges. The S.300 of J.P.C defines
the essential elements for the commission of murder, which as mentioned states:

S.300. J.P.C. Whoever, with the intention of causing death or with the intention of causing
bodily injury to a person, by doing an act which in the ordinary course of nature is likely to
cause death, or with-the knowledge that his act is so imminently dangerous that it must in all
probability cause death, causes the death of such person, is said to commit qatl-e-amd.
The accused and the company fulfill all the essential elements of Murder mentioned in the
said provision. The elements are as following.

i. Mensrea
ii. Actus reus
iii. Concurrence
iv. Causation
v. Harm

The act of murder is defined as the unlawful killing of a human being with malice
aforethought. In this case, the conversation between Armaghan Randhawa and Fairoza Bill
makes it very clear that the murder of Qazalbash was pre-determined and falls in the
category of intentional killing.
Furthermore, considering the question of circumstances, the excuse of killing the Qazalbash
because of the prevailing circumstances is not justified by any means. Even though the crew

3
S.S. Lotus (France v. Turkey), Judgment, PCIJ Series A, No. 10, 7 September 1927

4
Enrica Lexie Case (Italy v. India), Award, ITLOS Reports 2020, vol. 34, p. 1

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION 13

JURIS MOOT COURT COMPETITION’23 TEAM PRIME

was facing starvation and dehydration, they didn’t have any right to kill an innocent person in
order to preserve their lives.
Moreover, The crew members were not in an imminent threat of death. They could have tried
to survive on other means such as sea animals and rainwater; they might possibly have been
picked up next day by a passing ship; and they could have tried to signal for help by building
a fire or seek help by any other means and similar methods.

3. Whether only Armaghan Randhawa is liable for the killing of Dillrozain

Qazalbash or not.

It is submitted before the Hon’ble court that facts prove that the Armaghan Randhawa was
ringleader of the killing. He was the one who proposed that one should die to save the
others, and he was the one who ultimately killed Qazalbash. Randhawa was motivated by a
desire to save himself, and that he did not care about the life of Dillrozain Qazalbash.

However, it is also found that Fairoza Bill and Arooza Gill were culpably involved in the
killing. They both were present when Qazalbash was killed, and they did not attempt to stop
it. Fairoza Bill was standing next to help Randhawa if the victim resist; this shows that she
was actively and intentionally involved in the killing. This whole scenario clearly indicates
that Fairoza Bill and Arooza Gill were willing to go along Randhawa’s plan, therefore they
share sheer responsibility for the killing and may be held for joint enterprise liability.

Moreover, the circumstances and evidences signify that the killing was premeditated. After
when Qazalbash fell into coma, Randhawa and the other crew members discussed the
possible killing of Qazalbash because according to them, he was an orphan and didn’t had
family. This shows that they had planned the killing in advance, and that they therefore knew
that their actions were likely to result in death of Qazalbash.

4. Whether cannibalism is lawful under the theory of necessity or not.

According to the facts, both Armaghan Randhawa and Dillrozain Qazalbash are the followers
of Shanshoo religion and under that religion the heinous act of human flesh eating was
permissible under some certain circumstances.

It is to be noted that, as far as the act of cannibalism in this religion is concerned, few vague
historic accounts on cannibalism under this particular religion are found.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION 14

JURIS MOOT COURT COMPETITION’23 TEAM PRIME

There is little ambiguous evidence that cannibalism was practiced in early Tibetan Buddhism,
but it is not clear how widespread or accepted the practice was. Some of the earliest sources
that mention cannibalism in Tibetan Buddhism are Indian Buddhist tantras, which were
translated into Tibetan in the 8th and 9th centuries. These tantras describe a practice called
"flesh yoga," in which practitioners ingest the flesh of others, either as a literal or symbolic
act.

There are also some Tibetan historical accounts that mention cannibalism. For example, the
12th-century text "The Blue Annals"5 describes a group of Tibetan monks who were known
for their practice of cannibalism. These monks were said to have ingested the flesh of their
enemies, believing that it would give them magical powers.

However, it is important to note that these accounts are not always reliable. The Indian
tantras that mention cannibalism were written in a highly symbolic language, and it is
possible that the practice of flesh yoga was not as literal as it may seem. Similarly, the
historical accounts of cannibalism in Tibet may have been exaggerated or misinterpreted.

In any case, it is clear that cannibalism was not a central or essential part of Tibetan
Buddhism. The vast majority of Tibetan Buddhists have never practiced cannibalism, and the
practice is now universally condemned.

There are a few possible explanations for why cannibalism may have been practiced in early
Tibetan Buddhism. One possibility is that it was a way of acquiring magical powers.
Another possibility is that it was a way of expressing religious devotion. Whatever the
reason, it is clear that cannibalism was never a mainstream practice in this particular
religion. It was a rare and controversial practice that was only practiced by a small number of
people.

Armaghan Randhawa was neither a monk nor was he living in 9th century. Hence, on no
grounds he and the other crew members had any excuses to eat human flesh for the sake of
survival. Furthermore, the J.P.C and religious laws of Jursitan also strictly prohibit the cruel
act of cannibalism.

Cannibalism has no place in any religion or tradition. It is an act against humanity and is
globally prohibited.

5
https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.283021/mode/2up

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION 15

JURIS MOOT COURT COMPETITION’23 TEAM PRIME

As far as the defense of necessity is concerned,

It is established that there is no necessity defense to a charge of murder.

• Neither on the basis of legal precedent; nor

• On the basis of ethics and morality

J.P.C S.81 and S.94 lay down the grounds for defense of necessity.

Defense OF Necessity and Compulsion;

(I) DEFENCE OF NECESSITY:

Statutory Provision: Section 81 of J.P.C says;

Act likely to cause harm, but done without criminal intent, and o prevent other harm: Nothing
is an offence merely by reason of its being done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause
harm, if it be done without any criminal intention to cause harm, and in good faith for the
purpose of preventing or providing other harm, to person or property.

(II) LAW LAY DOWN UNDER SECTION 81 J.P.C;

Section 81 excuses an act which would otherwise be criminal but in the best interest of
individual or society, it is done to avoid a greater evil. The act is done reasonably and under a
necessity in order to avoid expected harm to persons or property. However, the act should be
done in good faith in order to avoid or prevent other harm to person or property. In such cases
there is absence of Mens Rea and the act is done without any criminal intention. This section
applies without any criminal intention. This section applies, to cases where evil is done to
prevent a greater evil.

(III) QUESTION OF FACT

It is a question of fact in each case whether the harm to be avoided was of such a natures to
justify the doing of the act with the knowledge that the act would cause harm, the element of
good faith being necessary in each case.

(IV) DEFENCE OF NECESSITY IS AVAILABLE ONLY IN THE LAW OF SELF-

DEFENCE

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION 16

JURIS MOOT COURT COMPETITION’23 TEAM PRIME

There is no defense of necessity in criminal offences except that where necessity is created in
cases covered by the law of self-defense.

(V) DEFENCE OF COMPULSION; STATUTORY PROVISION

So far as the defense of compulsion is concerned, Section 94 J.P.C is important. It says;

Act to which a person is compelled by threats: Except murder, and offences against the State
punishable with death nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is compelled to
do it by threats, which, at the time of doing it, reasonably cause the apprehension that instant
death to that person will otherwise be the consequence: provided that person doing the act did
not of his own accord, or from a reasonable apprehension of harm to himself short instant
death, place himself in the situation by which he became subject to such constraint.

(VI) LAW LAY DOWN UNDER SECTION 94 J.P.C

The defense is not applicable to offence of murder and offences against State punishable
with death. In all other cases, compulsion is a defense to a criminal charge. In case of murder,
no man has a right to take another's life to save his own. The offences against the State to
which compulsion is no answer are only those punishable with death.

The act of Armaghan Randhawa doesn’t justify any elements of the necessity, duress or self
defense. The killing of Qazalbash was deliberative and pre-determined; he was an unresisting
and unoffending person and was not a threat to the other men.

Necessity defense cannot be used to save one’s life at the expense of another. In this case,
Qazalbash was “used” merely as a means to save the lives of others. The act was committed
against an innocent person who not only did not consent to be killed, but who did not commit
an act of aggression, much less unlawful aggression, against the others. Moreover, there was
no prevention of greater harm but “self-preservation.”

The prosecution thinks it well to cite Lord John Coleridge's dictums, which he asserted
during the verdict of Regina v. Dudley and Stephens (1884).

Lord Coleridge stated that “there is a general duty to preserve one's life, but that this duty is
overridden by a special duty in a shipwreck situation, where it is morally necessary to "not
live but to die."

He added that “one has a duty to sacrifice oneself rather than to kill another.”

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION 17

JURIS MOOT COURT COMPETITION’23 TEAM PRIME

Maxim as saying: Necesse est ut eam, non ut vivam, which translates, “it is necessary to
serve, not live.”

Below are cited two famous common law precedents relating to the matters of cannibalism on
high seas and necessity defense, along with a few established dictums of common law on
necessity defense.6

1. Regina v. Dudley and Stephens7

2. The Speluncean Explorers 8

5. Whether or not the principle of common intention applies to Arooza Gill

and others.

Section 34 of J.P.C is concerned with the common intention.

S.34. Acts done by several persons In furtherance of common intention. When a criminal
act is done by several persons, in furtherance of the common intention of all, each such
person is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.

In this case, Armaghan Randhawa and Fairoza Bill maliciously and cooperatively caused the
death of Dillrozain Qazalbash.

However, Captain Arooza Gill did not actively participate in the killing, but she did not try to
object to it or stop it either. Arooza was the captain of yacht. She participated in lots-drawing
and she was a part of the heated argument broke out between the crew members on June 11th.
She was aware of everything and knew that a murder plan was being formulated.

Arooza Gill’s behavior throughout the incident implies that she had malicious intentions and
approved of the actions of Armaghan Randhawa and Fairoza Bill. Thus, she may be held
liable along with the others under the principle of joint enterprise.

6
John A. Cohan, Homicide by Necessity, 10 Chap. L. Rev. 119 (2006)
7
14Q.B.D. 273 (Queen’s Bench Division. 1884).
8
Harvard Law Review 62 (4): 616-645. 1949

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION 18

JURIS MOOT COURT COMPETITION’23 TEAM PRIME

PRAYER

In light of the foregoing arguments, it is respectfully submitted that this Honorable Court may
kindly order the conviction and sentencing of the said offender Armaghan Randhawa,
alongside the co-accused Fairoza bill and Arooza Gill, to the sentence that is commensurate
with the crime in the interest of justice, equity, and fair play.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION 19