Moot problem - 1, LL.B VI SEM.
Moot
problem 1
Moot Problem: 1 Ms. Komal Chauhan
is a practising criminal advocate at the District and Sessions Court, Surajpur,
and a guest faculty at HSL, Greater Noida. It is pertinent to note that she has
two associates along with her, Priya and Vivek. She teaches criminal law to the
first-year LL.B. students. It has been close to a decade since she has been
practicing and teaching law. She has a unique tendency to give students
hands-on training. Every year, she chooses four students from her class to intern
for her. This is done through an assignment she gives her class in the first
week, and based on that assignment, she chooses four students. This year, Ms.
Komal chose five students instead of four because she felt her workload had
increased. These interns were Himanshu, Vartika, Karan, Sonal, and Siddhanth.
Karan is a homosexual, whereas Siddhanth belongs to the OBC category. These
students from August 2024 became an integral part of Komal’s life. The students
were very happy to have been selected to work under the guidance; however,
little did they know what was in store for them. In the early days, Sonal began
liking Vivek and grew close to him. Siddhanth was always liked by Ms. Komal for
his inquisitiveness about learning. Karan and Vartika were working very hard to
ensure that they didn’t disappoint Komal. Himanshu, on the other hand, didn’t
bother about anything and just went with the flow as he was the grandson of
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal, former Chief Justice of the High Court of
Allahabad. Their lives were going on well until on one fateful day, a rape
victim sought the help of Komal. In cases of rape, sexual assault, and other
cases where the women are victims, Komal didn’t charge any professional fees.
Now, this rape victim, Meenakshi, told her entire chain of events to Komal and
her team. The victim was raped by her boss in the firm where she was working as
a receptionist. Komal initiated the proceedings in the Sessions Court of
Surajpur. While the proceedings were going on, Komal found out that her fiancé,
Rohan, was also a party to the act of rape. It was mid-trial, and she couldn’t
go back. She was in a mental trauma, and all her team members noticed that.
This went on for a week, and on the night of Dussehra, when the entire world
was celebrating the victory of good over evil, Komal confronted Rohan. Rohan
was taken aback and upset. He understood that this mask was off, and now he had
to find a way to save himself. He confessed his guilt and tried to persuade Komal
that such an act would never be repeated. Komal was devastated and shattered.
She left the house immediately, called Siddhanth, and told him to come to the
Magic Court near the Yamuna Expressway. Both Komal and Siddhanth met, and Komal
told her everything. Siddhanth told her not to worry, calmed her down, took her
to his apartment, and told her to rest. In the meantime, Siddhanth had messaged
the other four in their personal group about the crisis that Komal had faced,
and all of them wanted justice for their professor. Komal was unaware of all
this. The five of them planned to meet near Pari Chowk and then proceed to
Komal’s home in Gaur City to talk to Rohan and make relations between him and
Komal amicable. They met at Pari Chowk and proceeded towards Komal’s home. On
reaching Komal’s home, they found that the door was open. They went inside, but
no one answered when they called Rohan by his name. However, the group heard
some noise coming from the bedroom upstairs, and Siddhanth went to the bedroom
to find that Rohan was raping Meenakshi once again. Seeing that enraged Rohan, he
took the metal vase, which was just near the table, and hit Rohan on the head,
which made him unconscious, and he lay on the bed. The others had rushed in by
this time. They all started to comfort Meenakshi, but just as they were
comforting her, Rohan came to his senses and was trying to hit Siddhanth with
the vase when Himanshu stabbed him to death with a knife. After this, they all
got terrified and wanted to leave the house, and while they were thinking so,
Komal arrived. When she saw what they had done, she was taken aback. She wanted
to save them but didn’t know how. Finally, she devised a strategy and asked the
students to get rid of the body. The students obeyed her while she took care of
Meenakshi at the house. The body was disposed but the very next day the police
did find the same and upon investigation arrested all the five students and
charged them under section 3(5), 190, 103(1), 126(2), 61(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023 only based on the circumstantial evidence and not based on any
corroborative or primary evidence. Komal was also charged under section 61(2)
of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The case is now scheduled for trial before
the Sessions Judge, Surajpur. You are to prepare your arguments based on the
side (Prosecution/Defence) given to you.
IN
THE HON’BLE SESSIONS COURT, SURAJPUR
CRIMINAL
TRIAL UNDER THE BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023
STATE
(PROSECUTION)………..…Prosecution
VERSUS
HIMANSHU
& ORS…………..…Accused
MEMORIAL
ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION
TABLE
OF CONTENTS
- List
of Abbreviations
- Index
of Authorities
- Statement
of Jurisdiction
- Statement
of Facts
- Issues
Raised
- Summary
of Arguments
- Arguments
Advanced
- Prayer
1. 1. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
|
Abbreviation |
Full Form |
|
BNS |
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 |
|
BNSS |
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 |
|
SC |
Supreme Court of India |
|
HC |
High Court |
|
CrPC |
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 |
|
IPC |
Indian Penal Code, 1860 |
|
¶ |
Paragraph |
|
& Ors. |
And Others |
2.
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
A. STATUTES
- Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
- Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
B. CASE LAWS
- Virsa
Singh v. State of Punjab
- K.M.
Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra
- Sharad
Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra
- Hanumant
Govind Nargundkar v. State of Madhya Pradesh
- State
of U.P. v. Ram Swarup
C. BOOKS / COMMENTARIES (Optional
but adds marks)
- Ratanlal
& Dhirajlal, Law of Crimes
- K.D.
Gaur, Criminal La
3. 3. STATEMENT
OF JURISDICTION
The Hon’ble Sessions Court,
Surajpur, has jurisdiction to try the present case under the provisions of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).
- As
per Section 209 of BNSS, 2023 (Commitment of case to Court of
Sessions), cases involving serious offences such as murder are triable by
the Court of Sessions.
- The
accused has been charged under:
- Section
103(1) of BNS, 2023
– Punishment for Murder
- Section
61(2) of BNS, 2023
– Criminal Conspiracy
- Section
190 of BNS, 2023
– Unlawful Assembly
- Section
126(2) of BNS, 2023
– Wrongful Restraint/related offence (as per charge context)
- Section
3(5) of BNS, 2023
– Common Intention
- Further,
offences like murder are exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions,
thereby conferring proper jurisdiction upon this Hon’ble Court.
Hence, this Hon’ble Court has the
appropriate jurisdiction to adjudicate the present matter.
4. STATEMENT
OF FACTS
Ms. Komal Chauhan practices criminal law at the District and Sessions
Court, Surajpur, and serves as a guest faculty member at Harlal School of Law,
Greater Noida. She has nearly a decade of experience in legal practice and teaching
and is recognized for offering practical training to students through
internships.
In August 2024, due to increased workload, Ms. Komal selected five
students—Himanshu, Vartika, Karan, Sonal, and Siddhanth—as interns. These
students actively assisted in her professional work and developed close
associations with her.
During her professional engagement, a rape victim named Meenakshi sought
legal assistance from Ms. Komal. Consistent with her practice, Ms. Komal
accepted the case pro bono. Proceedings commenced before the Sessions Court,
Surajpur.
During the trial, Ms. Komal discovered that her fiancé, Rohan, was
implicated as a perpetrator in the crime. This revelation caused significant
mental distress. She confided in her intern Siddhanth, who, without her
consent, informed the other interns. The group then decided to confront Rohan.
On the night of Dussehra, the five interns gathered at Pari Chowk and
proceeded to Ms. Komal’s residence, where Rohan was present. Upon entry, they
observed the door was open and heard noises from an upstairs bedroom. Siddhanth
investigated and discovered Rohan assaulting Meenakshi again.
In response, Siddhanth struck Rohan on the head with a metal vase,
rendering him unconscious. The other interns then entered the room. While
attending to Meenakshi, Rohan regained consciousness and attempted to attack
Siddhanth. Himanshu subsequently stabbed Rohan with a knife, causing his death.
Following the incident, the accused panicked and decided to leave the
premises. Ms. Komal arrived, and upon learning of the event, devised a plan to
protect the students. Under her direction, the accused disposed of Rohan’s body
to destroy evidence, while Ms. Komal stayed to assist the victim.
The following day, police recovered the body and initiated an
investigation. Based solely on circumstantial evidence, all five interns were
arrested and charged under Sections 103(1), 61(2), 190, 126(2), and 3(5) of
the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Ms. Komal Chauhan was also charged under
Section 61(2) of the BNS, 2023, for her involvement.
The matter is currently
pending trial before the Hon’ble Sessions Court, Surajpur.
5.
ISSUES RAISED
ISSUE 1
Whether the accused persons are
guilty of committing the offence of murder punishable under Section 103(1) of
the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023?
ISSUE 2
Whether the accused persons can
validly claim the right of private defence under the provisions of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, or whether such right has been exceeded?
ISSUE 3
Whether the acts of the accused
persons were done in furtherance of a common intention, thereby attracting
liability under Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023?
ISSUE 4
Whether the accused persons are
liable for criminal conspiracy under Section 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023?
ISSUE 5
Whether the accused persons are
liable for causing disappearance of evidence of offence under Section 238 of
the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023?
ISSUE 6
Whether the prosecution has
successfully established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt based
on circumstantial evidence?
6.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
1. THE ACCUSED ARE GUILTY OF MURDER
UNDER SECTION 103(1) OF BNS, 2023
It is most respectfully submitted
that the accused persons are liable for the offence of murder under Section
103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, as the act of stabbing the
deceased with a deadly weapon clearly establishes the intention to cause death.
The nature of the weapon used, the part of the body targeted, and the severity
of the act collectively demonstrate the existence of mens rea. The act was not
accidental but deliberate, thereby satisfying all essential ingredients of
murder.
2. THE RIGHT OF PRIVATE DEFENCE IS
NOT AVAILABLE TO THE ACCUSED
It is humbly submitted that the
accused cannot claim the protection of the right of private defence under the
BNS, as such right was clearly exceeded. Even if the initial act of
intervention could be justified, the subsequent act of stabbing the deceased
was grossly disproportionate and unnecessary. At the time of the fatal blow,
there existed no imminent threat warranting such extreme force. Therefore, the
accused have exceeded the permissible limits of private defence and are not
entitled to its protection.
3. THE ACCUSED ACTED IN FURTHERANCE
OF COMMON INTENTION UNDER SECTION 3(5) OF BNS, 2023
It is submitted that the accused
persons acted in furtherance of a common intention, thereby attracting
liability under Section 3(5) of the BNS, 2023. The prior meeting at Pari
Chowk, their collective decision to confront the deceased, and their
coordinated actions at the scene clearly indicate a shared design. The conduct
of each accused contributed to the commission of the offence, establishing joint
liability.
4. THE ACCUSED ARE LIABLE FOR
CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY UNDER SECTION 61(2) OF BNS, 2023
It is further submitted that the
actions of the accused reveal the existence of a prior agreement to commit an
unlawful act, thereby constituting criminal conspiracy under Section 61(2)
of the BNS, 2023. The coordinated movement to the scene, coupled with their
unified conduct, demonstrates a meeting of minds sufficient to attract
liability under the said provision.
5. THE ACCUSED ARE GUILTY OF
CAUSING DISAPPEARANCE OF EVIDENCE UNDER SECTION 238 OF BNS, 2023
It is most respectfully submitted
that the accused persons, after committing the offence, attempted to conceal
the crime by disposing of the dead body. Such conduct squarely falls within the
ambit of Section 238 of the BNS, 2023, which penalizes the causing of the
disappearance of evidence. The deliberate attempt to evade legal consequences
further strengthens the prosecution’s case.
6. THE PROSECUTION HAS ESTABLISHED
THE CASE BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT THROUGH CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
It is submitted that the
prosecution has successfully established a complete chain of circumstantial
evidence which unerringly points towards the guilt of the accused. The presence
of the accused at the scene, the motive arising from the circumstances, and
their subsequent conduct collectively form a consistent and coherent chain of
events. There exists no plausible alternative explanation, and thus the
standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt stands satisfied.
7.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
ISSUE 1: THE ACCUSED ARE GUILTY OF
MURDER UNDER SECTION 103(1) OF THE BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023
1.1 Intention to cause death is
clearly established
The accused, Himanshu, is liable
for murder under Section 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, as
stabbing the deceased with a knife demonstrates a clear intention to cause
death. A knife is a deadly weapon, and its use on a vital body part is
ordinarily sufficient to cause death.
In Virsa Singh v. State of
Punjab, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held
that intention can be inferred if an injury is sufficient in the ordinary
course of nature to cause death. Applying this principle, the accused’s act
falls squarely within the ambit of murder.
1.2 Nature of injury proves mens
rea
The sequence of acts, first
Siddhanth striking the deceased with a metal vase, followed by Himanshu
stabbing him, demonstrates a clear escalation of violence. This chain of
actions reflects a conscious and deliberate decision to eliminate the deceased.
The cumulative conduct of the
accused establishes mens rea, satisfying the essential elements of murder.
1.3 No protection under sudden
provocation
The defence of sudden provocation
is unavailable because the incident was not spontaneous. The accused assembled
beforehand and proceeded together to the deceased’s residence, intending
confrontation.
In K.M. Nanavati v. State of
Maharashtra, the
court held that the provocation defence is unavailable when there is time for
premeditation. The prior meeting at Pari Chowk negates any claim of sudden
provocation in this case.
ISSUE 2: THE RIGHT OF PRIVATE
DEFENCE IS NOT AVAILABLE
2.1 The right of private defence
was clearly exceeded
Although the right of private
defence is recognized under criminal law, it is subject to limitations. Even if
Siddhanth’s initial act was justified to prevent rape, Himanshu’s subsequent
stabbing was excessive and disproportionate.
At the time of the stabbing, the
deceased was already unconscious from the vase blow. Therefore, there was no
necessity to cause death.
2.2 Absence of imminent threat at
the time of fatal act
The right of private defence
applies only when an imminent and continuing threat exists. Here, the threat
had ceased when the fatal injury was inflicted.
Therefore, the stabbing cannot be
justified as defensive but must be treated as an independent, unlawful act.
2.3 Retaliation cannot be equated
with defence
It is a settled legal principle
that the right of private defence cannot serve as a pretext for retaliation.
The accused’s act was punitive, not preventive.
Accordingly, the accused are not
entitled to protection under the right of private defence.
ISSUE 3: COMMON INTENTION IS
ESTABLISHED UNDER SECTION 3(5) OF THE BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023
3.1 Prior meeting of minds
The accused acted in furtherance of
a common intention, attracting liability under Section 3(5) of the BNS, 2023.
The meeting at Pari Chowk and the collective decision to confront the deceased
establish a prior meeting of minds.
3.2 Coordinated and concerted
action
It is further submitted that the
conduct of the accused at the scene reflects coordination and unity of purpose.
Siddhanth initiated the attack, Himanshu delivered the fatal blow, and the
remaining accused assisted in the aftermath.
These synchronized actions indicate
a shared objective, thereby attracting joint liability.
3.3 Conduct after the offence
strengthens the inference
The accused’s subsequent conduct,
including disposing of the dead body and failing to report the incident,
further reinforces the existence of common intention.
ISSUE 4: THE ACCUSED ARE LIABLE FOR
CAUSING DISAPPEARANCE OF EVIDENCE UNDER SECTION 238 OF THE BHARATIYA NYAYA
SANHITA, 2023
4.1 Disposal of the dead body
constitutes destruction of evidence
The accused’s act of disposing of
the dead body falls within Section 238 of the BNS, 2023, which penalizes
causing the disappearance of evidence of an offence.
The deliberate attempt to conceal
the body was aimed at preventing detection and shielding themselves from legal
consequences.
4.2 Active participation of all
accused persons
All the accused actively
participated in disposing of the body. Their collective involvement establishes
liability under the provision.
4.3 Liability of Ms. Komal Chauhan
Ms. Komal Chauhan, by advising and
facilitating the body’s disposal, abetted the offence and is liable under Section
61(2) and Section 238 of the BNS, 2023.
ISSUE 5: CONVICTION CAN BE BASED ON
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
5.1 Complete chain of circumstances
established
The prosecution has established a
complete chain of circumstances, including:
- Presence
of the accused at the scene
- Motive
arising from emotional outrage
- Conduct
before and after the incident
5.2 No alternative hypothesis
exists
No plausible alternative
explanation consistent with the accused’s innocence exists. The only logical
inference is that the accused committed the offence.
5.3 Legal principle supporting
conviction
In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v.
State of Maharashtra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down that conviction can be
based on circumstantial evidence if the chain is complete and points solely
towards guilt.
Similarly, in Hanumant Govind
Nargundkar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the court held that circumstances must exclude every
possible hypothesis except the one to be proved.
Applying these principles, the
present case satisfies all requirements for conviction.
8.
PRAYER
Considering the facts, issues, and
arguments, it is respectfully prayed before this Hon’ble Court that it may be
pleased to:
a. Hold the accused guilty of
murder under Section 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
b. Hold the accused liable under
Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, for acts done in furtherance
of common intention.
c. Convict the accused for criminal
conspiracy under Section 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
d. Hold the accused guilty of
causing the disappearance of evidence under Section 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023.
e. Reject the plea of the right of
private defence raised by the accused.
f. Hold Ms. Komal Chauhan liable
for abetment and causing the disappearance of evidence under the relevant
provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
g. Pass any other order(s) this
Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice, equity, and good
conscience.
Place & Date (Important for
format)
Place: Surajpur
Date: __________
Filed By:
Counsel for the Prosecution
Comments
Post a Comment