37th BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA TRUST ALL INDIA INTER

UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT COMPETITION

BEFORE THE COURT OF

SESSIONS AT …..

S.C. NO………

STATE OF GOA

(PROSECUTION)

v.

MAJ. (RETD.)J.S.RANA

(DEFENCE)

FOR OFFENCES CHARGED UNDER:

SECTION 302 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE SESSIONS JUDGE

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents ii

List of Abbreviations iii

Index of Authorities iv

Table of Cases iv

Books vi

Lexicons vii

Websites vii

Statutes vii

Statement of Jurisdiction viii

Statement of Facts ix

Statement of Charges x

Summary of Arguments xi

Arguments Advanced 1

Issue-I 1

Whether the Accused is guilty of Murder? 7

Prayer 16
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AIR All India Reporter
All Allahabad High Court
Cal Calcutta High Court
Cri LJ / Cr LJ Criminal Law Journal
Cr.P.C. Code of Criminal Procedure
Del Delhi High Court
DW Defence Witness
Ed. Edition
Guj Gujarat High Court
IPC Indian Penal Code
IC Indian Cases
Mad Madras High Court
n. Foot Note no.
Ori Orissa High Court
p. Page No.
P&H Punjab and Haryana High Court
Pat Patna High Court
PW Prosecution Witness
Raj Rajasthan High Court
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
SCJ Supreme Court Journal
SCR Supreme Court Reporter
Sec. Section
v. Versus
PW Prosecution Witness
SHO Station House Officer

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
 The Hon’ble Court has jurisdiction to try the instant matter under Section 177 read with

Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Section 177:

‘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.’

Read with Section 209:

‘ 209. Commitment of case to Court of Session when offence is triable exclusively by it-

When in a case instituted on a police report or otherwise, the accused appears or is brought

before the Magistrate and it appears to the Magistrate that the offence is triable exclusively by

the Court of Session, he shall-

(a) commit the case to the Court of Session;

(b) subject to the provisions of this Code relating to bail, remand the accused to custody

during, and until the conclusion of, the trial;

(c) send to that Court the record of the case and the documents and articles, if any, which

are to be produced in evidence;

(d) notify the Public Prosecutor of the commitment of the case to the Court of Session.’

STATEMENT OF FACTS
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE

WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY OF MURDER?

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the accused is guilty of murder as he had
committed an act of cold blooded murder of his wife, Sheela, in his house in Varthur by
stabbing her with a knife, with many witnesses to the actus reus. The accused had the requisite
mens rea to commit said crime, and he even had a motive to carry out said act. The Accused
stabbed by knife and the cause of death was excessive haemorrhage and trauma due to
lacerated cuts which had penetrated portions of the colon, stomach and liver of the victim, thus
showing it was indeed an execution and not an act of self defence or an accident. Hence it is
proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the crime of Murder was indeed committed by the
accused in the case at hand.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
 ISSUE

WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY OF MURDER?

It is humbly contended that the accused is guilty for committing the offence of murder under
Sec 302, IPC. Sec 302 prescribes the punishment for committing murder. In order to bring a
successful conviction under this charge, however, it is pertinent to refer to Sec 300, IPC which
elucidates the essentials of murder.

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 person1. The Prosecution humbly contends that
both, the actus reus [1] and the mens rea [2] of the crime are established in the instant matter,
negating any claims of private defence [3].

ACTUS REUS OF MURDER IS PROVEN

Actus reus is any wrongful act2. Thus, in a case of murder, actus reus would be the physical
conduct of the accused that causes death of the victim. In the instant case, the actus reus is
established by way of witness statements [A], forensic report [B] and ballistic evidence [C].
A. Witness Statements

Bearing in mind that it is not for the prosecution to meet any and every hypothesis suggested by
the accused, howsoever extravagant and fanciful it might be,3 it is humbly submitted

before this Hon’ble Court that the circumstantial evidence in the instant matter shows that

1
Sec 300, IPC
2
Aiyar, P Ramanatha, The Law Lexicon, p. 49 (2nd ed 2006)
3
State of UP v Ashok Kumar Srivastava, AIR 1992 SC 840
2
3
 within all human probability, the act must have been done by the accused.4
If we see Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 defines Evidence as:

Evidence — “ Evidence” means and includes—

(1)  all statements which the Court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses, in
relation to matters of fact under inquiry, such statements are called oral evidence;

(2)  6 [all documents including electronic records produced for the inspection of the Court], such
documents are called documentary evidence. 

Indian Evidence act also takes circumstantial evidence within its purview. In the instant matter,
the case is based on circumstantial evidence.
In the present case on the night of the incident the deceased, the accused along with their two
sons, were sleeping inside their house in the same room. PW1 (Shankara) stated that the accused
had stabbed the deceased there by killing her. He states that on the night of the murder, the

In the case of Radhakrishnan vs Circle Inspector Of Police5, it was held that there are three
tests which are applied to ensure whether there is reasonable doubt or not. They are:
(1) The circumstances from which the inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently
and fully established.
(2) Those circumstances should be of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of
the accused.
(3) The circumstances taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no
escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the
accused and no one else.
In the present case, the circumstances ipso facto makes it clear that an inference of guilt can be
sought and can be fully established.

4
Bakshish Singh v State of Punjab, AIR 1971 SC 2016
5
Crl. Appeal No.639 of 2005, Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P. And Ors. AIR 1990 SC 79.