Scribd
Upload
69 views3 pages

Supreme Court Moot: Sudhir Kumar Case

Group 7 presented their 3rd moot court on a criminal appeal regarding a murder case. The moot was heard by Advocates Reema Maliyekkal and Saritha before student judges Safa and Rinees. J. The facts of the case are that on March 13, 2008, an altercation occurred between Sudhir Kumar's mother and aunt, and the next day a group of 8-9 people armed with weapons approached Sudhir Kumar's family members and attacked and injured them, resulting in the death of Sudhir Kumar's father. The trial court convicted one of the accused under section 302 IPC for murder and others under sections 323, 506, and 148 read with 149 IPC. The High

Uploaded by

Muhd Ansar
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
69 views3 pages

Supreme Court Moot: Sudhir Kumar Case

Group 7 presented their 3rd moot court on a criminal appeal regarding a murder case. The moot was heard by Advocates Reema Maliyekkal and Saritha before student judges Safa and Rinees. J. The facts of the case are that on March 13, 2008, an altercation occurred between Sudhir Kumar's mother and aunt, and the next day a group of 8-9 people armed with weapons approached Sudhir Kumar's family members and attacked and injured them, resulting in the death of Sudhir Kumar's father. The trial court convicted one of the accused under section 302 IPC for murder and others under sections 323, 506, and 148 read with 149 IPC. The High

Uploaded by

Muhd Ansar
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

Group 7

3Rd moot

Date: 20/6/2023
Time: 11:30

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 6970 OF 2019

(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) Nos.41394140 of 2017)

UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF INDIAN CONSTITUTION

IN THE MATTERS OF

Name of the case


SUDHIR KUMAR
VS
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

Mooters

Appellant side
1. Parvathy S Pillai
2. Muhammed Ansar kp
3. Radha Krishnan TR

Respondent side
1. Monisha Babu
2. Pooja P Madhu
3. Muhammed Riyasudheen kp

Student judges

1. Safa
2. Rinees . J

Presiding judges

1. Adv.Reema maliyekkal
2. Adv. saritha
STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. On 13-03-2008 an altercation to place between the Sudhir Kumar’s mother Ramrathi

and his aunt Sarli at about 5pm. On the same day the others started pelting bricks and

stones up un the house of the Sudhir Kumar showing solidarity with Sarli. However,

the Sudhir Kumar and other family members remind inside their house out of fear.

2. On the next day 14-03-2008 Sudhir Kumar’s mother Ramrathi went to fetch water at

about 2pm and at that time 8 persons were sitting there and they started threatening

Ramrathi with dire consequences. Subsequently 9 persons carrying deadly weapons like

Jellies and iron rods approached the shop of the Sudhir Kumar’s brother, Satheesh and

threatened him also. Consequently Sathish fled from the scene. There after all the

persons came to the house of the Sudhir Kumar and attacked his father, Balwansingh.

The Sudhir Kumar and his cousin were also injured in this altercation.

3. The regional police station filed FIR charged section 302,148,323,506, read with 149

IPC.

4. The trail court convicted Surendar @ Monu (respondent no.2) Son of Vedprakash

(respondent no 3) for the offences he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life

for the offences punishable under section 302 IPC and pay a fine of Rs. 10000 to

undergo imprisonment for other offences also.

5. All other were convicted by the trail court for the offences punishable under section

323, 506,148 read with 149 IPC. They were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 6

months for these offences.

6. The High Court reduced Surendar @ Monu (respondent no.2) for the offence

punishable under section 302 IPC to section 304 IPC and other accused sentences to

the period already undergone by them.

Issues
1. Whether The Petition Is mainatainable?
2. Whether The Act Of Accused Amounts to Murder?
3. Whether All The Other Accused Are avail to get any beneficiary
provisions under law
Judgement
The court set aside the High Court’s judgment and convicted Surender
(Monu) under Section 302 IPC, sentencing him to life imprisonment and
imposing a fine. The fine amount, if paid, would be given to the legal
representatives of the deceased as compensation. If the fine is not paid,
Surender (Monu) would serve an additional three years of rigorous
imprisonment.

You might also like