Criminal Memorial Final

UILS ACADEMIC MOOT COURT 2017
IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE SESSIONS JUDGE
CRIMINAL CASE NO……….. OF 2017
IN THE MATTER OF:
STATE
V.
RAHUL
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION
PRESENTED BY- SHIVANIKA SINGLA
B.COM- LL.B.(H) ROLL NO.- 156/13
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION Page 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................................... 3
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES...................................................................................................... 4
STATEMENT OF FACTS ........................................................................................................ 7
ISSUES RAISED ....................................................................................................................... 9
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ............................................................................................. 10
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ................................................................................................. 11
ISSUE 1: WHETHER OR NOT THE ACCUSED IS LIABLE TO BE CONVICTED FOR

MURDER UNDER SECTION 302 OF IPC ........................................................................ 11
ISSUE 2: WHETHER OR NOT THE ACCUSED HAS ABETTED THE SUICIDE OF

THE DECEASED UNDER SECTION 306 OF IPC? ......................................................... 17
ISSUE 3: WHETHER THE ACCUSED HAS CAUSED MISCARRIAGE, VOLUNTARY

HURT AND COMMITTED RAPE? ................................................................................... 20
PRAYER FOR RELIEF .......................................................................................................... 24

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
S. NO. ABBREVIATION FULL FORM
1. & And
2. § Section
3. AIR All India Reporter
4. Anr. Another
5. CPC Civil Procedure Code
6. ed. Edition
7. HC High Court
8. Hon’ble Honourable
9. Ltd. Limited
10. Ors. Others
11. r/w Read with
12. SC Supreme Court
13. SCC Supreme Court Cases
14. SCJ Supreme Court Journal
15. SCR Supreme Court Reporter
16. S. Section
17. Supp. Supplementary
18. u/s Under section
19. v. Versus
20. IPC Indian Penal Code

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
TABLE OF CASES
Eshwarappa v. State of Karnataka

Bodh Raj v. State of J&K
Reddy Sampath Kumar v. State of A.P.
State Of Haryana v. Sher Singh
Lokendra Singh v. State Of M.P.
Gangula Mohan Reddy v. State of AndhraPradesh
Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State
Paravasivam v. State
State v. Hari Mohan Sharma
STATUTES REFFERED
INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860

CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973
INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872
BOOKS AND COMMENTARIES REFERRED
INDIAN PENAL CODE, K.D. GAUR, FIFTH EDITION, UNIVERSAL LAW PUBLISHING CO.
INDIAN PENAL CODE, S.N. MISRA, CENTRAL LAW PUBLICATIONS
THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, S.N. MISRA, CENTRAL LAW PUBLICATIONS
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, R.V. KELKAR, EASTERN BOOK COMPANY
LEGAL LEXICONS REFERRED
BRYAN A. GARNER, BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (8th ed. 2001).

OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY (2nd ed. 2009).
MISH F.C., MERRIAM-WEBSTER‘S COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY (11TH ED., 2003)

WEBSITES REFERRED
www.manupatra.com
www.scconline.com
www.indiankanoon.org

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
THE PROSECUTION HAS APPROACHED THIS HON’BLE SESSIONS COURT

UNDERSECTION 26 R/W SECTION 28 R/W SECTION 177 R/W SCHEDULE I OF THE
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973, WHICH READS AS HEREUNDER:
S. 26. Courts by which offences are triable:
Subject to the other provisions of this Code,-

(a) Any offence under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) may be tried by
…
The Court of Session
…
S. 28. Sentences which High Courts and Sessions Judges may pass:
A Sessions Judge or Additional Sessions Judge may pass any sentence authorised by law; but
any sentence of death passed by any such Judge shall be subject to confirmation by the High
court
S. 177. Ordinary place of inquiry and trial
Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local
jurisdiction it was committed.

STATEMENT OF FACTS
RELATION OF PRIYA AND RAHUL
1. In February, 2013, Priya, aged 24, completed her education in mass communication
from Dehradun. She moved to Delhi for better career opportunities but struggled to
settle there.
2. In May, 2013, Priya met Rahul who was running a production agency. They both
shared common interests and became close friends.
3. After two months, Rahul helped her to find a good job and also arranged an apartment
for her. Rahul was a big support for Priya in Delhi.
4. In December, 2013, they decided to live in together and lived happily for two years.
PROBLEMS BETWEEN PRIYA AND RAHUL
1. In January, 2016, Priya suspected Rahul of having physical relations with Pooja.
Rahul tried to explain that Pooja was his client and tried to convince Priya that there is
nothing going on between him and Pooja. Priya got mentally upset and went to
depression.
2. In February, 2016, Things were not going well between Rahul and Priya and they
were often spotted fighting with each other and having heated arguments even at
public places.
3. One day Rahul decided if the things are not sorted out then it is better for them to
separate but Priya was not convinced as she could not tolerate separation from Rahul.
4. On 15th May, 2016 Pooja visited their apartment which offended Priya. Rahul asked
Pooja to leave the apartment. Priya accused Rahul for bad character. Rahul tried
to convince Priya but became frustrated as things didn’t get resolved.

DEATH OF PRIYA
1. On 16th May, 2016, Rahul left the apartment when Priya was asleep without
informing her.
2. When she woke up, she tried calling her but he didn’t pickup her call and instead
switched off his phone. She found herself lonely and alone.
3. When he came back, he found her body hanging from the ceiling fan. He gathered
some neighbours and her body was taken to hospital where she was declared brought
dead.
4. According to the post mortem report the cause of death is suffocation. The
strangulation marks were found on the neck and there were also other mild injuries,
scars and scratches on her body.
5. According to her mother, she was two months pregnant and proposed Rahul for
marriage but he refused to marry and compelled her to abort the child. The doctors
have also confirmed that Priya was pregnant and had undergone abortion not long
before her demise. There was no suicide note found.
Rahul has been arrested on the complaint of Priya's mother. The Police registered a
case against Rahul u/s 302 IPC,306 IPC, 312 IPC, 313 IPC, 323 IPC and 376 IPC.

ISSUES RAISED
ISSUE NO. 1
WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS LIABLE TO BE CONVICTED FOR MURDER UNDER

SECTION 302 OF IPC OR NOT?
ISSUE NO. 2
WHETHER THE ACCUSED HAS ABETTED THE SUICIDE OF THE DECEASED

UNDER SECTION 306 OF IPC OR NOT?
ISSUE 3:
WHETHER THE ACCUSED HAS CAUSED MISCARRIAGE , VOLUNTARY HURT

AND COMMITTED RAPE OR NOT?

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
ISSUE 1: WHETHER OR NOT THE ACCUSED IS LIABLE TO BE CONVICTED

FOR MURDER UNDER SECTION 302 OF IPC?
Yes, Rahul is liable to be convicted for the murder of Priya. The two ingredients of murder
i.e. mens rea and actus reus are fulfilled in the current case. Circumstantial evidence points
out to the fact that it could not have been a case of suicide but murder itself.
ISSUE 2: WHETHER OR NOT THE ACCUSED HAS ABETTED THE SUICIDE OF

THE DECEASED UNDER SECTION 306 OF IPC?
Yes, Rahul has abetted the suicide of Priya. The deceased committed suicide to the acts of the
accused and clearly both the conditions of abetment under Section 306 of IPC are satisfied.
Direct involvement by the accused in such abetment or instigation is clear from the
circumstantial evidence.
ISSUE 3: WHETHER OR NOTTHE ACCUSED HAS CAUSED MISCARRIAGE,

VOLUNTARY HURT AND COMMITTED RAPE?
The accused, compelled the deceased to abort her child and also inflicted voluntary hurt upon
her. This is evident from the post mortem report of the deceased. So the accused should be
held guilty for the said offences. The accused is also guilty of committing rape as the consent
was obtained on false promise of marriage.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
ISSUE 1: WHETHER OR NOT THE ACCUSED IS LIABLE TO BE

CONVICTED FOR MURDER UNDER SECTION 302 OF IPC?
1.1 THAT THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY OF COMMITTING MURDER
It is humbly submitted that the accused is guilty of murder under S. 302 of Indian Penal
Code. The murder has been explained under S. 300, IPC.
300. Murder.—
Except in the case hereinafter expected, Culpable Homicide is Murder, if the act by which the
death is caused is done with the intention of causing the death of the person, or-
Secondly- If it is done with the intention of causing such type of bodily injury as the offender
knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm of such injury is caused,
or-
Thirdly- If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily
injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or-
Fourthly- If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it
must, in all probability, cause the death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and
commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as
aforesaid.
Exception-1- When Culpable homicide is not a murder-
Culpable homicide is not a murder when the offender, whilst deprived of the power of self-
control by grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the
provocation or causes the death of any other person by mistake or accident.
The above exception is subject to the following provisos-
First- That the provocation is not sought or voluntarily provoked by the offender as an excuse
for killing. or doing harm to any person.
Secondly- That the provocation is not given by anything done in obedience to the law, or by a
public servant in the lawful exercise of the powers of such public servant.

Thirdly- That the provocation is not given by anything done in the lawful exercise of the right
of private defense.
Under S.300(2), a person is guilty of committing murder if he acts with the intention of
causing such bodily injury which he knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to
whom such harm is caused.
A person is guilty of murder if he intentionally causes the death of a person or causes such
bodily injury as he knows, is likely to cause death of that person or causes such bodily injury,
which in the ordinary course of nature results into death or commits an act so dangerous that
it must, in all probability cause death of that person.1
Whether the offence falls under S. 302, I.P.C. or S. 304, I.P.C., the nature of the injuries
sustained by the deceased and the circumstances under which the incident took place are
relevant factors.
It is humbly submitted that from the nature of the injuries and the origin and genesis of the
incident, it could be spelt out that all the ingredients of the offence of murder defined under
S. 300, I.P.C are made out and the accused is liable to be convicted under Section 302, IPC.
In the present case, the accused compelled the deceased for aborting their child and refused to
marry. The accused wanted to get rid away of the deceased while the deceased loved the
accused truly and she tried to make their relationship better. Therefore, the accused planned
everything and murdered the deceased.
1.2 MENS REA TO COMMIT MURDER WAS PRESENT
Mens Rea is considered as guilty intention which is proved or inferred from the acts of the
accused. In the absence of circumstances that the injury was caused accidently and
unintentionally it is presumed that there was the intention to cause the inflicted injury.
1
S. 300(3), IPC

In the present case, there is no doubt that the death of deceased is non-natural death. It cannot
be accidental or unintentional also. This indicates that the accused has some active part in the
death of the deceased which makes a strong case against the accused for murder.
S. 8 of the Evidence Act, 1872 stipulates that any fact is relevant which shows or constitutes
motive or preparation for any fact in issue is a relevant fact. It is humbly submitted that all
the previous fighting at the public places between the accused and the deceased are relevant
facts to constitute the motive of the accused.
It is humbly submitted before this hon’ble court that there was presence of Mens Rea as the
accused had physical relations with Pooja and the accused also forced the deceased to abort
her child.
1.3 ACTUS REUS TO COMMIT MURDER WAS PRESENT

Actus reus is any wrongful act. It is the conduct that constitutes a particular
crime.Everycriminal act is based on actus reus and mens rea. The word "actus reus" connotes
an overt act. This is a physical result of human conduct, and therefore, an event which is
distinguished from the conduct which produced the result. In a murder case, it is the victim's
death which is an event and, therefore, is an actus reus.
The court in the case ofESHWARAPPA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA2rejected the theory

of suicide for reasons more than one. Firstly, the death occurred due to strangulation as
observed by the doctor which is not necessarily by hanging. Secondly, because if the death
occurred due to hanging she would have been discovered by the witnesses in the hanging
position. Thirdly, there was no immediate provocation for the deceased to commit suicide.
The decision of the trial court and High Court was upheld by the Supreme Court and accused
was held guilty under S. 302 of IPC.
It is humbly submitted before this hon’ble court that there was presence of actus reus in the
present case. As per the post mortem report there were strangulation marks on the neck and
there was the presence of injuries, scratches and scars on the body which shows the use of
2
2015 SCC 647

force and actus reus on part of accused which resulted into the death of the deceased. The
deceased did not have any immediate provocation to commit suicide as she loved the accused
and wanted to make their relationship better.
1.4 CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE PROVES THE MURDER BEYOND

REASONABLE DOUBT
Essential ingredients to prove guilt by circumstantial evidence are:
(1) Circumstances from which conclusion is drawn should be fully proved.
(2) Circumstances should be conclusive.
(3) All facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt and
inconsistent with innocence of the accused.
(4) Circumstances should exclude the possibility of guilt of a person other than the
accused.27
The Supreme Court, in BODH RAJ V. STATE OF J&K,3 added one more point to the
above four, viz., there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any
reasonable ground forthe conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and
must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
These conditions being satisfied circumstantial evidence can be the sole basis for
conviction.
The Supreme Court in REDDY SAMPATH KUMAR v. STATE OF A.P.,4held that the
circumstantial evidence can be the sole basis of conviction if the said evidence are
complete and incapable of explanation on any other hypothesis other than the guilt of the
accused.
The chain of link starts from the fact that they both fell in love. Later on, they started
living in together. The accused had illicit relationship with Priya. Meanwhile, the
deceased aborted their child because the accused forced her to do so. Moreover, the
3
AIR 2002 SC 3164
4
2005 SCC 1710

accused refused to marry her but she had faith in her love. When the deceased came to
know about the illicit relationship, the accused got an intention to remove her from his
life. On 15th May the accused came to know about the character of the accused and on
16th May, the deceased died. There was no one else in the apartment apart from the
accused and the deceased. The presence of injuries on the deceased body indicates that
there was use of force on her body.
The above mentioned chain of link is complete and prove the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt.
It is humbly submitted that in the present case there is no other hypothesis other than the
guilt of the accused.
1.4.1 PLEA OF ALIBI

Section 103 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 lays down that the burden of proof as to
particular fact lies on that person who wishes the court to believe in its existence, unless it
is provided by any law that the proof of that fact shall lie on any particular person.
Where the accused pleads that he was elsewhere at the time of incident, the burden to
prove the same lies on him.
In the case of STATE OF HARYANA v. SHER SINGH,5 the court held that Plea of
alibi taken by the accused, it is he who has to prove the same.
From the above authorities, it is clear that the burden is on the accused to prove that he
was not present at the apartment when the deceased died. On 16th May morning , the
deceased trying calling accused but the accused didn’t picked her call. After that, the
accused switched off his mobile phone. The accused switched off his mobile phone so
that his location cannot be traced out and used as an evidence against him.
1.4.2 LAST SEEN THEORY

The last seen theory comes into play where the time-gap between the point of time
when the accused and the deceased were seen last alive and when the deceased is found
5
AIR 1981 SC 1021

dead is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of
the crime becomes impossible. It would be difficult in some cases to positively establish
that the deceased was last seen with the accused when there is a long gap and possibility of
the other persons coming in between exists.
It is humbly submitted that the accused and deceased were last seen together and there is
no possibility of any other person coming to the apartment. The accused was the first
person to witness the body of the deceased at the apartment. There is a strong case against
the accused as there was no one else in the apartment that morning.

ISSUE 2: WHETHER OR NOT THE ACCUSED HAS ABETTED THE

SUICIDE OF THE DECEASED UNDER SECTION 306 OF IPC?
In the present case, the accused is charged with both the sections i.e. S. 302 and 306 of the
Indian Penal Code.
According to S. 221(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 , if the act or series of acts
is of such a nature that it is doubtful that what offences that facts which can be proved will
constitute then the accused may be charged with the offences alternatively.
In the case of LOKENDRA SINGH v. STATE OF M.P. ,6 the accused was charged under
sections 302 and 306 alternatively as it was doubtful from the nature of act that after proving
the facts what offence will be constituted. In this case, the court convicted the accused under
S. 302 and acquitted from the charges framed under S. 306.
2.1 THAT THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY OF ABETTING SUICIDE
The abetment to suicide is laid down under S. 306 of the IPC.
S. 306. Abetment of suicide.—

If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years,
and shall also be liable to fine.
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that for convicting the person under Section
306 of the Indian Penal Code the following two essentials must be established:
2.1.1 THE DECEASED COMMITTED THE SUICIDE.

For convicting the person for abetment to suicide the foremost requirement is that the death
must be suicidal death.
6
1999 SCC 371

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the evidence of suicide must be drawn
from the post-mortem report of the victim. The post-mortem report is relevant under S. 45 of
the IEA, 1872.
2.1.2 THE ACCUSED ABETTED THE SUICIDE.
The term ‘ABETMENT’ has been defined under Section 107 of the IPC.
107. Abetment of a thing.—

A person abets the doing of a thing, who—
First — Instigates any person to do that thing; or
Secondly —Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the
doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy,
and in order to the doing of that thing; or
Thirdly — Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.
Explanation 1.—A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a
material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to
cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.
Explanation 2.—Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does
anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitate the
commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.
It is humbly submitted that the law regarding offence of abetment to commit suicide is clear.
A person can be said to instigate another when he incites or otherwise encourages another,
directly or indirectly, to commit suicide. The word ‘instigate’ means to goad or urge forward
or provoke, incite, urge or encourage to do an act.
The Supreme Court has observed in the case of GANGULA MOHAN REDDY VS. STATE
OF ANDHRAPRADESH7, that: "Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a
person orintentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part
of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained.
7
2010 CrLJ 2110

The Supreme Court in CHITRESH KUMAR CHOPRA V. STATE8 held that “Each
person's suicidability pattern is different from the other. Each person has his own idea of self-
esteem and self-respect. Therefore, it is impossible to lay down any strait-jacket formula in
dealing with such cases. Each case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and
circumstances.”
Reflecting all of the above, it is clear that the accused instigated the deceased to commit
suicide. The constant acts by the accused led the deceased into a state of frustration and
depression. They kept quarrelling and one day the accused finally declared that if things are
not sorted out, then, it is better for both of them to get separated and to move on in life. The
accused also compelled the deceased to abort and even refused to marry her. The night before
the suicide, Pooja visited the apartment which led the deceased to doubt the accused more.
All these instances by the accused instigated the deceased to commit suicide.
8
(2009) 16 SCC 605

ISSUE 3: WHETHER THE ACCUSED HAS CAUSED MISCARRIAGE,

VOLUNTARY HURT AND COMMITTED RAPE?
3.1 THAT THE ACCUSED HAS CAUSED MISCARRIAGE
Whoever voluntarily causes a woman with child to miscarry shall, if such miscarriage be not
caused in good faith for the purpose of saving the life of the woman, be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine,
or with both; and, if the woman be quick with child, shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to
fine.9The term "miscarriage" is synonymous with "abortion".
The unborn child in the womb must not be destroyed unless the destruction of that child is for
purpose of preserving the yet more precious life of the mother.
Good faith by itself is not enough. It has to be good faith for the purpose of saving the life of
the mother or the child and not otherwise.
In the case of PARAVASIVAM v. STATE,10the court held the accused guilty for miscarry
of the child and sentenced him to Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years and fine.
It is humbly submitted that the accused compelled the deceased for abortion. The doctors
have confirmed that the deceased had gone for abortion before her demise. Therefore, the
accused is guilty under S.312 of IPC.The burden is on the prosecution to prove that the
procuring of the miscarriage was not necessary to save life.There was no danger to the
deceased life but the accused forced her to abort. Therefore, the accused is guilty.
3.2 THAT THE ACCUSED HAS CAUSED VOLUNTARY HURT
Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or
9
S. 312 IPC
10
2015 Madras HC

with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
Where accused caused simple injuries to victim and not grievous injuries still accused are
guilty for offence under section 323. Therefore in the current case, accused must be held
guilty for causing hurt.
3.3 THAT THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY OF COMMITTING RAPE UNDER SECTION

376, IPC
The offence of rape has been defined under S. 375 of IPC and the punishment for same is
provided under section 376 of IPC.
375. Rape.—A man is said to commit “rape” who, except in the case hereinafter excepted,
has sexual intercourse with a woman under circumstances falling under any of the six
following descriptions:—
First — Against her will.
Secondly —Without her consent.
Thirdly — With her consent, when her consent has been obtained by putting her or any
person in whom she is interested in fear of death or of hurt.
Fourthly —With her consent, when the man knows that he is not her husband, and that her
consent is given because she believes that he is another man to whom she is or believes
herself to be lawfully married.
Fifthly — With her consent, when, at the time of giving such consent, by reason of
unsoundness of mind or intoxication or the administration by him personally or through
another of any stupefying or unwholesome substance, she is unable to understand the nature
and consequences of that to which she gives consent.
Sixthly — With or without her consent, when she is under sixteen years of age.
Explanation.—Penetration is sufficient to constitute the sexual intercourse necessary to the
offence of rape.
Exception —Sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife, the wife not being under fifteen
years of age, is not rape.
376. Punishment for rape.—

(1) Whoever, except in the cases provided for by sub-section (2), commits rape shall be

punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than
seven years but which may be for life or for a term which may extend to ten years and shall
also be liable to fine unless the women raped is his own wife and is not under twelve years of
age, in which cases, he shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to two years or with fine or with both: Provided that the court may, for
adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of
imprisonment for a term of less than seven years.
(2) Whoever,—
(a) being a police officer commits rape—
(i) within the limits of the police station to which he is appointed; or
(ii) in the premises of any station house whether or not situated in the police station to which
he is appointed; or
(iii) on a woman in his custody or in the custody of a police officer subordinate to him; or
(b) being a public servant, takes advantage of his official position and commits rape on a
woman in his custody as such public servant or in the custody of a public servant subordinate
to him; or
(c) being on the management or on the staff of a jail, remand home or other place of custody
established by or under any law for the time being in force or of a woman’s or children’s
institution takes advantage of his official position and commits rape on any inmate of such
jail, remand home, place or institution; or
(d) being on the management or on the staff of a hospital, takes advantage of his official
position and commits rape on a woman in that hospital; or
(e) commits rape on a woman knowing her to be pregnant; or
(f) commits rape on a woman when she is under twelve years of age; or
(g) commits gang rape, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall
not be less than ten years but which may be for life and shall also be liable to fine: Provided
that the Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment,
impose a sentence of imprisonment of either description for a term of less than ten years.
Explanation 1.—Where a woman is raped by one or more in a group of persons acting in
furtherance of their common intention, each of the persons shall be deemed to have
committed gang rape within the meaning of this sub-section.
Explanation 2.—“Women’s or children’s institution” means an institution, whether called an
orphanage or a home for neglected woman or children or a widows’ home or by any other
name, which is established and maintained for the reception and care of woman or children.

Explanation 3.—“Hospital” means the precincts of the hospital and includes the precincts of
any institution for the reception and treatment of persons during convalescence or of persons
requiring medical attention or rehabilitation.
In the case of STATE v. HARI MOHAN SHARMA11, the court convicted the accused
under section 376 for the rigorous imprisonment of 7 years and fine on the false promise of
marriage.
It is humbly submitted that in the present case, accused shall be held guilty for rape as the
consent of the deceased was not a free consent. The deceased consented under the
misconception that the accused will marry the deceased. The accused not only refused to
marry her but also forced her to abort their child. Therefore, the consent was not the free
consent and it amounts to rape. The accused shall be convicted under Section 376, IPC.
11
2013 DELHI HC

PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREOF IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE, WRITTEN PLEADINGS AND
AUTHORITIES SIGHTED, IT IS HUMBLY PRAYED THAT:
 The accused be convicted for murder under Section 302, IPC.

 The accused be convicted for abetment to suicide under Section 306, IPC.
 That accused be convicted for causing miscarriage, voluntarily causing hurt and rape
under Sections 312, 323 and 376 respectively.
OR PASS ANY OTHER ORDER IT MAY DEEM FIT IN THE INTEREST OF EQUITY, JUSTICE AND
GOOD CONSCIENCE.

Criminal Memorial Final

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Criminal Memorial Final

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

UILS ACADEMIC MOOT COURT 2017

IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE SESSIONS JUDGE

CRIMINAL CASE NO……….. OF 2017

IN THE MATTER OF:

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

PRESENTED BY- SHIVANIKA SINGLA

B.COM- LL.B.(H) ROLL NO.- 156/13

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION Page 1

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................................... 3

STATEMENT OF FACTS ........................................................................................................ 7

ISSUES RAISED ....................................................................................................................... 9

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ............................................................................................. 10

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ................................................................................................. 11

ISSUE 1: WHETHER OR NOT THE ACCUSED IS LIABLE TO BE CONVICTED FOR

ISSUE 2: WHETHER OR NOT THE ACCUSED HAS ABETTED THE SUICIDE OF

ISSUE 3: WHETHER THE ACCUSED HAS CAUSED MISCARRIAGE, VOLUNTARY

PRAYER FOR RELIEF .......................................................................................................... 24

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION Page 2

S. NO. ABBREVIATION FULL FORM

3. AIR All India Reporter

5. CPC Civil Procedure Code

10. Ors. Others

11. r/w Read with

12. SC Supreme Court

13. SCC Supreme Court Cases

14. SCJ Supreme Court Journal

15. SCR Supreme Court Reporter

17. Supp. Supplementary

18. u/s Under section

20. IPC Indian Penal Code

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION Page 3

Eshwarappa v. State of Karnataka

INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860

BOOKS AND COMMENTARIES REFERRED

LEGAL LEXICONS REFERRED

BRYAN A. GARNER, BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (8th ed. 2001).

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION Page 4

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION Page 5

THE PROSECUTION HAS APPROACHED THIS HON’BLE SESSIONS COURT

Subject to the other provisions of this Code,-

S. 177. Ordinary place of inquiry and trial

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION Page 6

RELATION OF PRIYA AND RAHUL

PROBLEMS BETWEEN PRIYA AND RAHUL

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION Page 7

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION Page 8

WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS LIABLE TO BE CONVICTED FOR MURDER UNDER

WHETHER THE ACCUSED HAS ABETTED THE SUICIDE OF THE DECEASED

WHETHER THE ACCUSED HAS CAUSED MISCARRIAGE , VOLUNTARY HURT

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION Page 9

ISSUE 1: WHETHER OR NOT THE ACCUSED IS LIABLE TO BE CONVICTED

ISSUE 2: WHETHER OR NOT THE ACCUSED HAS ABETTED THE SUICIDE OF

ISSUE 3: WHETHER OR NOTTHE ACCUSED HAS CAUSED MISCARRIAGE,

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION Page 10

ISSUE 1: WHETHER OR NOT THE ACCUSED IS LIABLE TO BE

1.1 THAT THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY OF COMMITTING MURDER

Exception-1- When Culpable homicide is not a murder-

The above exception is subject to the following provisos-

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION Page 11

1.2 MENS REA TO COMMIT MURDER WAS PRESENT

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION Page 12

1.3 ACTUS REUS TO COMMIT MURDER WAS PRESENT

The court in the case ofESHWARAPPA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA2rejected the theory