TEAM CODE: TC_A

NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024

RAYAT- BAHARA COLLEGE OF LAW, HOSHIARPUR

BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF RIVERDALE CITY

UNDER SECTION 374(2) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973

IN THE MATTER OF:

STATE OF RIVERDALE..............................................................................(APPELLANT)

versus

ABHAY RAICHAND...................................................................................(RESPONDENT)

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE JUSTICES OF THE HIGH COURT OF RIVERDALE CITY

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,

INDEX

INDEX…..................................................................................................................................2
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS.................................................................................................3
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES..................................................................................................4
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION......................................................................................7
SYNOPSIS OF FACTS...........................................................................................................8
STATEMENT OF ISSUES..................................................................................................10
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS...........................................................................................11
BODY OF ARGUMENTS.....................................................................................................13
ISSUE 1: WHETHER THE ACCUSED, ABHAY RAICHAND HAS COMMITTED
MURDER UNDER SECTION 302 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE?....................13-20
1.1 ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF MURDER ARE BEING FULFILLED...........................13
1.2 RESENTMENT OF THE RESPONDENT LEADING TO DESIROUSNESS TO KILL.19
1.3 RESPONDENT’S CONSPIRACY TO MUDER RUPAM SINGH..................................20
ISSUE 2: WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS ENTITLED TO ANY EXCEPTIONS OR
NOT?..................................................................................................................................21-26
2.1 EXCEPTIONS PROVIDED UNDER SEC. 300 OF IPC.................................................21
2.2 NON-COMPLIANCE OF EXCEPTION 1…...................................................................22
2.3 EXCEPTION 4 CANNOT BE INVOKED........................................................................24
ISSUE 3: WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT WAS RIGHT IN CONVICTING THE
ACCUSED UNDER SECTION 326 OF IPC?...............................................................27-31
3.1 IRRELEVANCE OF SEC. 326 DUE TO LOSS OF LIFE................................................27
3.2 A SUDDEN QUARREL BETWEEN THE ACCUSED AND THE DECEASED LEADS
TO THE LOSS OF LIFE.........................................................................................................30
PRAYER.................................................................................................................................32

-MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF 2|Page

 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,

Abbreviations Expansion
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
HC High Court
& And
Sec. Section
¶ Paragraph
AIR All India Reporter
IPC Indian Penal Code
CrPC Code of Criminal Procedure
Hon’ble Honourable
i.e., That is
Ors Others
Para Paragraph
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
Anr. Another

-MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF 3|Page

 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Case Referred

S. No. Cause Title Citation

1. State of Assam v. Abinash Dutta 1982 CRILJ 400

2. Jagdish v. State of M.P. 1980 Cr LR 212

3. State of Maharashtra v. Kalu Shivram AIR 1980 SC (UJ) 632

Jagpat
4. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Digvijay 1981 Cri. LJ 1278 (SC)
Singh
5. Radhey Shyam and Anr. v. State of Uttar 2009 (3) SCALE 754
Pradesh
6. State of Maharashtra v. Arun Savalaram AIR 1966 SC 1874 rel. on
Pagare
7. Narpat Singh v. State of Rajasthan 1990 Cr LJ 2720

8. Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1958 SC 465

9. Kesar Singh v. State of Haryana (2008) 15 SCC 753

10. John Pandian v. State (2010) 14 SCC 129

11. State of Rajasthan v. Dhool Singh AIR 2004 SC 1264

12. Re Thangavelu 1972 CrLJ 390 (Mad)

13. AIR 1973 SC 2699

State of Bihar v. Pasupati Singh

14. AIR 2008 SC 1661

Nishan Singh v. State of Punjab

-MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF 4|Page

 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,

15. AIR 1972 SC 952

Gudar Dusadh v. State of Bihar

16. (2010) 6 SCC 673

Balraje v. State of Maharashtra

17. AIR 1975 SC 654

Santosh v. State of Madhya Pradesh

18. Rajwant Singh v. State of Kerala AIR 1966 SC 1874

19. Sudhu Kumbean v. King AIR 1951 Orissa 354

20. Badri v. State AIL 1952 AII 189

21. Mahmood v. State AIR 1961 All 538

22. K.M Nanavati v. The State of 1962 SCR Supl. (1) 567
Maharashtra
23. Sukhlal Sarkar v. Union Of India & Ors 2012 AIR SCW 3398

24. Samuthram alias Samudra Rajan v. State (1997) 2 Crimes 185 (Mad).
of Tamil Nadu
25. Emperor v. Babu Ram AIR 1931 All 8

26. Rawail Chand v. State of Uttar Pradesh 1967 All WR 394 (SC)

27. Narayan Badi v. State 1996 Cr LJ 1901 (Ori)

28. ReMarimuthu AIR 1924 Mad 41

29. State of Maharashtra v. Praful B. Desai AIR 2003 SC 2053

30. Rex v. Lesbini (1914) 3 KB 1116

31. State of U.P. v. Jai Dutt 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 72

-MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF 5|Page

 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,

STATUES INCORPORATED

S. No Statue Section
1. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Sec. 374 (2)
2. The Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sec. 299, 300, 302, 304, 320,
326

BOOKS REFERRED

S. No Name of the Author Name of the Books Edition/Year

1. Ratanlal & Dheerajlal The Indian Penal Code
2017
2. M.P. Tandon Indian Penal Code
2015
3. K.D. Gaur Textbook on Indian Penal Code
2020
4. Lexis Nexis Universal CrPC Bare Acts 2022
5. Lexis Nexis Universal IPC Bare Acts 2022

WEB RESOURCES REFERRED

S. No Web Resources Websites

1. Live Law https://www.livelaw.in/
2. SCC Online https://www.scconline.com/
3. Manupatra https://www.manupatrafast.com/?t=desktop
4. Lexis Nexis https://www.lexisnexis.com/

-MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF 6|Page

 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

THE COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT, HEREBY HUMBLY SUBMIT TO THIS HON’BLE

COURT’S JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 374(2) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE, 1973 (CrPC) FOR THE APPEAL OF TRIAL COURT ORDER.

THE APPELLANT MOST HUMBLY AND RESPECTFULLY SUBMITS BEFORE THE

JURISDICTION OF THE PRESENT COURT AND ACCEPTS THAT IT HAS THE
POWER AND AUTHORITY TO PRESIDE OVER THE PRESENT CASE.

S.374 - Appeals from convictions.

(2) Any person convicted on a trial held by a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge
or on a trial held by any other court in which a sentence of imprisonment for more than 7
years (has been passed against him or against any other person convicted at the same trial),
may appeal to the High Court.1

1
Subs. By Act 45 of 1978, s.28, for “has been passed” (w.e.f. 18-12-1978).

-MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF 7|Page

 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,

SYNOPSIS OF FACTS

-Part I-

Abhay Raichand was a rich businessman in the city of Riverdale. He was extremely arrogant
and short-tempered by nature and was in quarrelling with everyone on petty issues also. The
deceased, Rupam Singh was an athlete by profession and Abhay Raichand’s immediate
neighbour. Both Abhay Raichand and Rupam Singh were never on friendly terms with one
another.

-Part II-

On one occasion the deceased, Rupam Singh had kept a function in his house. However,
Abhay Raichand was not invited in the function due to the nature of Abhay Raichand because
of this his ego was hurt. On that day when Rupam Singh was parking his car in front of the
gate of Abhay Raichand’s house, he sternly warned Rupam Singh to not park the car in that
place. But, Rupam Singh refused to remove the car replying that it was not Abhay Raichand’s
personal property and that the car will be removed after the function and departure of guests.

-Part III-

Abhay Raichand lost his balance of mind and slapped Rupam Singh. Both Started quarrelling
and grabbed each other, in the course Abhay Raichand gave a fist blow on the stomach of
Rupam Singh. Consequently appendicitis of the deceased, Rupam Singh busted and he fell
down in severe pain in stomach.

-Part IV-

Abhay Raichand immediately threw the deceased in the car of the deceased itself and drove
the car towards the nearest hospital. At the same time since a large number of cars were
parked in the street, Abhay Raichand had to face difficulty to take the car out of the street and
a lot of time was wasted. Rupam Singh could not be saved and doctor gave a statement that if
the deceased, Rupam Singh had been brought ten minutes early, he could have been saved.
Besides the medical report also mentioned that one tooth of the deceased was also found to be
broken.

-MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF 8|Page

 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,

-MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF 9|Page

 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,

-Part V-

Abhay Raichand was charged with the offence of murder under Section 302 of Indian Penal
Code, 1860. The Trial Court convicted Abhay Raichand only under Section 326 of Indian
Penal Code, 1860 for causing grievous hurt. The prosecution not being satisfied by the order
of the Trial Court, has initiated the appeal to the Hon’ble High Court of Riverdale City.

-MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF 10 | P a g

 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUE 1.

WHETHER THE ACCUSED, ABHAY RAICHAND HAS COMMITTED MURDER

UNDER SECTION 302 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE?
ISSUE 2.

WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS ENTITLED TO ANY EXCEPTIONS OR NOT?

ISSUE 3.

WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT WAS RIGHT IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED

UNDER SECTION 326 OF IPC?

-MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF 11 | P a g

 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE 1: WHETHER THE ACCUSED, ABHAY RAICHAND HAS COMMITTED

MURDER UNDER SECTION 302 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE?

It is most humbly submitted to the Hon’ble High Court of Riverdale city that the respondent,
Abhay Raichand has committed the murder of the deceased Rupam Singh under Sec. 302 of
IPC, 1860. As the deceased did not invite the respondent to the function, the respondent's ego
was hurt, he was looking for issues to pick up a fight with the deceased. The delay in
reaching the hospital is also pointing toward the malicious intent of the respondent. The
respondent had the desire to kill the deceased as he was looking for a chance his arrogant
behaviour towards his immediate neighbour is a testament to the same. The respondent must
be held guilty of taking away the life of the deceased, Rupam Singh. The deceased lost his
life to the anger of the respondent over a petty issue.

ISSUE 2: WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS ENTITLED TO ANY EXCEPTIONS OR

NOT?

It is most humbly submitted to the Hon’ble High Court of Riverdale city that the accused,
Abhay Raichand is not entitled to any exceptions provided under Sec. 300 of IPC, 1860. The
essentials of exception 1 are resisting in complying with the present situation, the exception
cannot be invoked and the respondent cannot be given the benefit of the same. The
respondent had a premeditated desire to kill the deceased as both were not on good terms
with each other and there was an enmity between the two, therefore the exception 4 is also
not attracted in the present matter. Hence, the respondent’s actions do not attract any of the
exceptions given under section 300 of IPC.

ISSUE 3: WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT WAS RIGHT IN CONVICTING THE

ACCUSED UNDER SECTION 326 OF IPC?

It is highly submitted before the Hon’ble High Court of Riverdale city, that the trial court has
convicted the accused under sec. 326 of IPC but the accused should also be convicted under
sec. 302 of IPC. It can be established that Abhay Raichand did grievously hurt Rupam Singh.
But it did not end here, the grievous hurt eventually resulted in the death of Rupam Singh.
The punishment under sec. 326 of IPC does not suffice the required amount of punishment
that should be given to the accused because the nature of offence committed by the accused is
much

-MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF 12 | P a g

 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,

-MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF 13 | P a g

 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,

more rigorous in nature. Prosecution advocates for the accused's conviction under Sec. 302
for taking the life of the deceased. The court should see the gravity of the offense and thereby
give a more appropriate penalty.

-MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF 14 | P a g

 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,

BODY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE
[¶1.] It is 1: WHETHER
most THE ACCUSED,
humbly submitted ABHAYHigh
before this Hon’ble RAICHAND HAS
Court of Riverdale city that the
COMMITTED
respondent, MURDER
Abhay Raichand UNDER SECTION
has committed 302 OF
the murder ofTHE INDIANRupam
the deceased PENAL CODE?
Singh under
Sec. 302 of IPC, 18602.

[¶2.] According to the facts, both the deceased and the respondent started quarrelling because
of the issue that aroused when the deceased, Rupam Singh parked his car in front of the
respondent’s house as there were already a lot of cars parked there. On being told by the
respondent to remove the car from that place, the deceased even tried to resolve the issue by
saying that he would remove the car after the function is over when the other cars will also be
moved. The situation worsened when the respondent after hearing this slapped the deceased
and a simple argument aggravated into a quarrel between the two. During the fight, the
respondent blew a fist in the deceased’s stomach due to which his appendicitis busted and he
died.

[¶3.] In the present matter, firstly, the essential elements of murder are being fulfilled.
Secondly, the acts of the respondent clearly indicate his resentment towards Rupam Singh
due to which he wanted to cause such an injury which would cause his death. With this desire
to kill he was even successful to do the same by intentionally aggravating a verbal argument
into a quarrel between the two as soon as he slapped Rupam Singh and punched him in the
stomach. Due to this action of the respondent, the deceased’s appendix busted and he lost his
life. Therefore, the accused has committed murder.

1.1 Essential elements of murder are being fulfilled

[¶4.] The Sec. 300 of IPC, 1860 which reads-

Murder. Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by
which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or—

2
The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860), s. 302.

-MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF 15 | P a g

 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,

Secondly. —If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows
to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm 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 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.3

[¶5.] Herein, the essential elements of murder are provided in the Sec. 300 of IPC, which
provides that when an offence is to be deemed to be culpable homicide amounting to murder,
if there is an intention to cause death, if there is a knowledge that the act is likely to cause
death and if there is a knowledge that the act is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to
cause the death. In present matter, the deceased died due to the fist blown in his stomach by
the respondent as a result of which his appendix busted immediately and he died. Therefore,
it is submitted that the respondent’s actions were intentional and he also had the knowledge
of the same.

1.1.1 Clear Intention of the Respondent

[¶6.] The respondent was an extremely arrogant and short-tempered man by nature. He was in
the habit of indulging himself in quarrels with everyone on petty issues. The respondent was
not on friendly terms with his immediate neighbour, the deceased. These facts shed some
light on the enmity of the respondent towards the deceased.

[¶7.] As the deceased did not invite the respondent to the function, the respondent's ego was
hurt, he was looking for issues to pick up a fight with the deceased. The function was a
private affair of the deceased, he was not obligated to invite the respondent to the function. It
is already a known fact that both the respondent and the deceased were not on friendly terms
with each other, Rupam Singh made the right decision by not inviting the respondent to the
function, taking into consideration the arrogant and short-tempered behaviour of the
respondent, to avoid any conflict between them. But, the respondent just to aggravate the
fight and with the clear

-MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF 16 | P a g

3 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,
The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860), s. 300.

-MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF 17 | P a g

 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,

intention of causing death of the deceased slapped him initially4 when he was being told by
the deceased that the car would be removed from the front gate after the function, after which
both started quarrelling.

[¶8.] During the quarrelling between the two, the respondent punched the deceased in the
stomach causing his appendicitis to bust due to which he died. This shows that the respondent
was already intending to do such an act which would cause the death of Rupam Singh just to
take revenge as his ego was hurt. He already knew that if he will punch with such a force on
Rupam Singh’s stomach, an injury will be inflicted due to which he will die. As in the case of
State of Assam v. Abinash Dutta5, the court was of the view that, “a vindicative or malicious
act by a person implies that the act has been done with the motive of taking revenge.”

[¶9.] A broken tooth was also found as per the medical report6 which indicates that how
brutally he was beaten by the respondent. The respondent had slapped and punched the
deceased with such an intensity that as a result the tooth of the deceased broke. As in the case
of Jagdish v. State of M.P.7, it was held that, “If the court comes to the conclusion that the
accused had the intention to kill the deceased and this conclusion is further fortified by the
medical evidence, the accused is guilty of murder u/s 302.” Similar was observed in the case
of State of Maharashtra v. Kalu Shivram Jagpat8.

[¶10.] Furthermore, the delay in reaching the hospital is also pointing towards the malicious
intent of the respondent. It is mentioned in the moot proposition that the deceased, Rupam
Singh could not be saved and doctors gave a statement that if the deceased, Rupam Singh had
been brought ten minutes early, he could have been saved. In State of Madhya Pradesh v.
Digvijay Singh9, “When the circumstantial evidence on record is sufficient to prove beyond
any doubt to prove that it was the accused and no one else, who intentionally caused the
death of the accused then, motive of the crime need not be proved.”

[¶11.] In the case, Radhey Shyam and Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh10 , the appellant was
extremely angry when he got to know that his calf had come to the deceased place. The

4
Moot Compromis.
5
1982 CRILJ 400.
6
Moot Compromis.
7
1980 Cr LR 212.
8
AIR 1980 SC (UJ) 632.
9
1981 Cri. LJ 1278 (SC).
10
2009 (3) SCALE 754.

-MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF 18 | P a g

 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,

appellant started abusing the deceased when it was tried to stop him, the appellant fired at
the deceased. The deceased was unarmed at that time; thus the appellant had an intention to
kill the deceased, hence, he was held liable to murder. Similarly, in the present case also the
respondent clearly wanted to indulge in the fight being agitated as his ego was hurt when he
was not invited to the function by Rupam Singh and therefore, slapped and punched him in
the stomach to the extent that his appendix busted and he died.

[¶12.] In another case, State of Maharashtra v. Arun Savalaram Pagare11, the court was of
the view that it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove that the accused had intended to
cause the death of the victim. The prosecution has only to prove that the accused intentionally
caused injuries sufficient to cause the death of the victim in the ordinary course of nature,
and on such proof the provisions of sec. 300 of IPC are satisfied and thereby the offence
committed would be murder punishable under sec. 302 of IPC. As in the present matter, the
enmity, the aggression and the actions done by the respondent leave no doubt that he wanted
to cause such injury to the deceased that would result in his death.

[¶13.] He intentionally caused injuries which were sufficient enough to cause the death of
Rupam Singh. Otherwise, in an ordinary course of action, punching would not cause an
immediate death but in the present case it is clear that the force used by the respondent was so
extensive that the appendix of the deceased busted due to which he died immediately.
Similarly, in the case of Narpat Singh v. State of Rajasthan12, “the doctor stated that the
cause of death was sudden and excessive haemorrhage due to liver injury caused by pallets of
gun and when re-examined by the court, he stated that the injuries were sufficient in the
ordinary course of nature to cause and specially the injury to the liver was so sufficient.
Therefore, there was no room for doubt that the accused either wanted to cause death of the
deceased or in any case intended to inflict such injury which was sufficient in the ordinary
course of nature to cause death. Therefore, his conviction under S. 302, IPC was quite
proper.”

[¶14.] In the present matter as well, the injury caused by the respondent by punching in the
stomach of the deceased which resulted in the busting of the appendix which was sufficient
enough in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death of the deceased. Therefore,
through these arguments the intention on the part of the respondent to cause the death is
evident and justified.

11
AIR 1966 SC 1874 rel. on.
12
1990 Cr LJ 2720.

-MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF 19 | P a g

 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,

-MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF 20 | P a g

 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,

1.1.2 Presence of respondent’s knowledge that his actions would cause the death of the
deceased
[¶15.] The respondent was an immediate neighbour of the deceased, it is very likely that the
respondent had the knowledge that the deceased was suffering from the disease, appendicitis.
In the ordinary course of business, neighbours know the health issues of each other, the
respondent was well aware and he conspired to kill the deceased, and specifically blew a fist
in the deceased’s stomach as he was well aware that his actions would cause such an internal
injury which would kill the deceased.

[¶16.] In Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab13, it was held that whether the injury intended by the
accused and actually inflicted by him is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause
death or not, must be determined in each case on the basis of the facts and circumstances of
that particular case. Therefore, the facts and circumstances of this case are such that it is
evident and undoubtedly establishes a direct link between the actions of the respondent and
the death of the deceased. As in another case of Kesar Singh v. State of Haryana14, the court
was of the view that when an intended injury is likely to cause death, the same would mean an
injury which is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death in turn would mean
that death will be the most probable result.

[¶17.] As the broken tooth was found it made it evident that the respondent's blows and slaps
were of such intensity that it shuddered the athletic body of the deceased. Although the
deceased was an athlete, even he couldn’t endure the punches and slaps inflicted by the
respondent. this shows that with how much intensity the punches were given keeping in mind
that the respondent was an aggressive person and was always quarrelling with people on petty
issues. Even the fight between the respondent and the deceased was a verbal argument
initially on a petty issue of parking but it intensified as soon as he slapped the deceased first.
Similarly, in the case of John Pandian v. State15, it has been held that the intention of the
accused to cause death can be ascertained from the resultant injuries. In another case, State
of Rajasthan
v. Dhool Singh16, it was observed that, “from an understanding of the legislative intent of
sec. 300, IPC, a culpable homicide becomes murder if the attacker causes an injury which he
knows is likely to cause death and, of course, consequent to such injury, the victim should
die.”

13
AIR 1958 SC 465.
14
(2008) 15 SCC 753.
15
(2010) 14 SCC 129.
-MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF 21 | P a g
16 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,
AIR 2004 SC 1264.

-MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF 22 | P a g

 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,

[¶18.] The respondent’s action is primarily responsible for the loss of Rupam Singh’s life.
There is a direct link between the action of the respondent and the death of Rupam Singh. He
started the fight first by slapping the deceased and then punched him in stomach causing his
appendix to bust due to which he died. As in the case of Re Thangavelu17, the court was of
the view that, “where bodily injury sufficient to cause death is actually caused it is
immaterial to go into the question as to whether the accused had intention to cause death or
knowledge that the act will cause death.” The same was held in State of Bihar v. Pasupati
Singh18 and Nishan Singh v. State of Punjab19.

[¶19.] As given in Illustration (b) to Sec.300, where A knowingly with intention of causing
death strikes Z, who is labouring under such a disease that a blow is likely to cause his death,
and Z dies in consequence of the blow, A is guilty of murder, although the blow might not
have been sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death of a person in the
sound state of health20. In the case of Gudar Dusadh v. State of Bihar21, where in a
premeditated attack the accused gave only one blow with a lathi on the head of the deceased
with such great force that it immediately resulted in the latter's death, it was held he was
guilty of culpable homicide amounting to murder. Similarly, in Balraje v. State of
Maharashtra22, the court held that, “plea that only one injury was inflicted on deceased by
appellant hence the offence falls u/s 325 repelled in view of the fact that one blow on the vital
part i.e. chest and the deceased died due to the said injury, the court is fully justified in
convicting him u/s. 302 and imposing life sentence.”

[¶20.] Furthermore, in the case Santosh v. State of Madhya Pradesh23, the court was of the
view that a knowledge that the natural and probable consequence of an act would be death
will suffice for a conviction u/s. 302, IPC. In the present matter as well, the respondent had
the efficient knowledge that his acts of quarrelling and punching the deceased in the stomach
would kill him as he was already suffering from appendicitis. This shows that he had the
intention as well as the knowledge of the same. The court further held in the case of Rajwant

17
1972 CrLJ 390 (Mad).
18
AIR 1973 SC 2699.
19
AIR 2008 SC 1661.
20
Id., s. 300.
21
AIR 1972 SC 952.
22
(2010) 6 SCC 673.
23
AIR 1975 SC 654.

-MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF 23 | P a g

 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,

Singh v. State of Kerala24 that it must be proved that there was an intention to inflict that
very injury and not some injury and that it was not accidental or unintentional. If this is also
held against the offender, the offence of murder is established.

Therefore, it is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the respondent has
committed the offence of murder, given that the requisite Mens Rea and Actus Rea had been
established.

1.2 Resentment of the respondent leading to desirousness to kill

[¶21.] The respondent had the desire to kill the deceased as he was looking for a chance as his
arrogant behaviour towards his immediate neighbour is a testament to the same. On the day
of the function, the respondent put up a physical fight with the deceased over a petty issue of
car parking. The deceased respectfully tried to make the respondent understand that he would
remove the car after the function was over, as there were a lot of cars parked already, so the
deceased had no other option but to park his car elsewhere. The respondent was already
desirous to kill the deceased as his ego was hurt by not being invited to the function by the
deceased.

[¶22.] The respondent initiated the fight and slapped the deceased out of anger. The
respondent is not in control of his anger, he has anger issues and he picks up fights with
everybody. The deceased became a victim of the respondent’s rage and lost his life. The
respondent broke the tooth of the deceased by beating him brutally. There is a possibility that
the respondent was aware of the appendicitis and deliberately gave a fist blow in the
deceased’s stomach, with a blooming desire to kill the deceased. The delay in reaching the
hospital also points towards the malicious desire of the respondent. As in the case of State of
Assam v. Abinash Dutta25, the court was of the view that, “a vindicative or malicious act by
a person implies that the act has been done with the motive of taking revenge.”

[¶23.] Similarly, in the case of Sudhu Kumbean v. King26, where the assailant gave the
deceased a terrific blow on the head in the consequence of which the skull got fractured like a
coconut shell and the man died, the only inference that can be made is that the person who
gave such a blow either intended to cause the death or else intended to cause such bodily
injury

24
AIR 1966 SC 1874.
25
Supra note 5 at 13.
-MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF 24 | P a g
26 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,
AIR 1951 Orissa 354.

-MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF 25 | P a g

 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,

as would be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Hence, the assailant is
guilty of the offence of murder.

[¶24.] The respondent has taken away the life of the deceased, Rupam Singh. The deceased
lost his life to the anger of the respondent over a petty issue. The respondent was unable to
keep his antagonism in check, which caused the deceased to give his life away. Also in cases
where no intention or motive to kill is present, still the fact that an innocent life is being taken
away cannot be deserted. Similarly, in Badri v. State27, the court was of the view that, where
injuries are inflicted with the intention of killing a person and death ensues as a result of the
injuries, it is a clear case of murder falling under this clause.

1.3 Respondent’s conspiracy to murder Rupam Singh

[¶25.] The death of the deceased is a well-fed conspiracy conspired by the respondent. The
first point of uncertainty arises when the respondent, throws the deceased in the car of the
deceased himself. If the respondent had acted in the heat of the moment, there is no possible
way that the respondent would have driven the deceased to the hospital in the car of the
deceased. He was planning on murdering the deceased beforehand. The broken tooth and the
delay in medical services, all these things are all part of the respondent’s plan to murder the
deceased.

[¶26.] Therefore, the actions of the respondent in the present case are evident enough to
consider the situation as a murder. He had a clear intention as well as knowledge that his
actions would cause such an injury which would cause the death of Rupam Singh. He had a
desire to kill Rupam Singh because of the enmity between the two in the past and he
accomplished the same when he started quarrelling. During this quarrel, the respondent
punched him in the stomach resulting in the death of Rupam Singh as his appendix busted
due to the fist blow that was so hard and the effect of which was so extensive in nature.

d all the essential elements of Murder. Thus, the accused, Abhay Raichand has committed the murder of the deceased
302 of IPC, 1860.

27
AIL 1952 AII 189.

-MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF 26 | P a g

 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,

-MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF 27 | P a g

 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,

ISSUE
[¶27.] 2. most
It is WHETHER THE ACCUSED
humbly submitted ISHon’ble
before this ENTITLED TO ANY
High Court EXCEPTIONS
of Riverdale city that the
OR NOT?
accused, Abhay Raichand is not entitled to any exceptions provided under Sec. 300 of IPC,
1860 because, firstly, the exceptions as provided under the section cannot be complied with
the present matter. Secondly, none of the essentials of the given exceptions under the section
are being complied to. Therefore, the respondent shall not be provided with the benefit of
such exceptions.

[¶28.] According to the facts, both the deceased and the respondent started quarrelling
because of the issue that aroused when the deceased, Rupam Singh parked his car in front of
the respondent’s house as there were already a lot of cars parked there. On being told by the
respondent to remove the car from that place, the deceased even tried to resolve the issue by
saying that he would remove the car after the function is over when the other cars will also be
moved.

[¶29.] The situation worsened when the respondent after hearing this slapped the deceased
and a simple argument aggravated into a quarrel between the two. During the fight, the
respondent blew a fist in the deceased’s stomach due to which his appendix busted and he
died. This particular instance is clearly establishing that the present matter will be dealt by
Sec. 302 of IPC as the essentials of murder are evident in the actions of the respondent which
caused the death of Rupam Singh. Furthermore, it is humbly contended that in light of these
facts, the present matter does not invoke any of the exceptions given under Sec. 300 of IPC.

2.1 Exceptions provided under Sec. 300 of IPC

[¶30.] Sec. 300 of IPC provides for murder and there are certain exceptions to it which can be
invoked for the benefit of the offender. There are five such exceptions, the gist of which
under the section can be enumerated as follows:

Exception 1: Grave and sudden provocation

Exception 2: Right of Private Defence
Exception 3: Public Servant exceeding his powers
Exception 4: Sudden fight
Exception 5: Consent by eligible

-MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF 28 | P a g

 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,

The present matter is unlikely to invoke any of these exceptions. However, the respondent
may contend for the benefit under Exception 1 and 4 of the section.

2.2 Non-Compliance of Exception-1

[¶31.] It is humbly submitted that the Exception 1 of Sec. 300 of IPC, 1860 reads as follows:

Exception 1- Culpable homicide is not murder if 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 defence.

Explanation.—Whether the provocation was grave and sudden enough to prevent the offence
from amounting to murder is a question of fact.28

[¶32.] Exception-1 of the Sec. 300 of IPC, gives a benefit to the offender on the ground that
the offence is committed due to the sudden and grave provocation due to which the other
person loses self-control and causes the death of the other person by mistake or accident. But
in the present matter, according to the facts, the initiation of the fight was done by the
respondent as he slapped Rupam Singh because earlier the situation was a mere verbal
argument between the two over the parking of the car. Rupam Singh already told the
respondent that the car will be removed after the function is over as there was no other place
to park it. This cannot be considered as a provocation on part of the deceased and surely not a
grave one to start a fight as well.

[¶33.] In the case of Mahmood v. State29, the court observed that there are certain ingredients
required to fulfil in order to come under the ambit of this section. They are as follows:

28
Id., s. 300.
29
AIR 1961 All 538.

-MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF 29 | P a g

 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,

“The provocation must be sudden- The term sudden constitutes two elements- the provocation
needs to be unexpected which means that it should not be planned beforehand. The time gap
between provocation and homicide should be short.

The provocation must be grave- A mere statement given by the accused that he was provoked
will not be accepted in the Court. The court needs to apply the objective test for determining
whether there was a grave provocation or not, whether the reasonable man would do the
same act if he would be placed in the same situation as the offender.

Losing a self- control- If the court is satisfied that the provocation was sudden and grave then
the court will assume that he had lost his self-control.”

[¶34.] Similarly, in the present case as well, neither there was a provocation at the first
instance and nor was it sudden as the argument was going on. Both the respondent and the
deceased were arguing over an issue of parking of car. There remains no chance of grave
provocation as it was a petty issue and could be solved by negotiation as well but the
respondent having the clear intention of causing the death of the deceased adopted rather
aggressive means.

[¶35.] The action of the deceased does not amount to any type of provocation as the deceased
only wanted to park the car there for a certain period of time and even told that the car would
be removed after the function. But, in reaction to this, the deceased was slapped by the
respondent. The issue was just a verbal argument initially but it transformed into a rather
severe fight between the two because of the respondent’s actions which were unacceptable
and unnecessary at the same time. Similarly, in the matter of Sukhlal Sarkar v. Union Of
India & Ors30, The meaning of the expressions "grave" and "sudden" provocation has come
up for consideration before this Court in several cases and it is unnecessary to refer to the
judgments in those cases. The expression "grave" indicates that provocation be of such a
nature so as to give cause for alarm to the appellant. "Sudden" means an action which must
be quick and unexpected so far as to provoke the appellant. The question whether
provocation was grave and sudden is a question of fact and not one of law. Each case is to be
considered according to its own facts."

[¶36.] The explanation of this exception clearly states that the question arises on the intensity
of the provocation and it must be so sudden that it leaves no time for the offender to think and
act upon it. Whereas, in the present matter, it is clearly evident that how it was a mere verbal

30
2012 AIR SCW 3398.

-MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF 30 | P a g

 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,

-MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF 31 | P a g

 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,

argument on the part of the deceased but the respondent took it to another level by initiating
the fight by slapping Rupam Singh.

[¶37.] The act of the respondent was unnecessary and indicates the intention as well.
Therefore, when the essentials of such exception are resisting in complying with the present
situation, the exception cannot be invoked and the respondent cannot be given the benefit of
the same. As in the case of K.M Nanavati v. The State of Maharashtra31, the court observed
that-“For the purpose of determining the sudden and grave provocation, the background of
the previous act of victim is to be taken into consideration in determining whether the
subsequent act was sufficient to cause a sudden and grave provocation. The fatal blow on the
person giving a sudden and grave provocation should be immediately when he was provoked
but not after the time which was sufficient for him to calm down or cool down.”
Therefore, in the light of these arguments, it is clear that there was no provocation on the part
of the deceased rather it was the respondent who wanted to start a fight due to his aggressive
nature and with the clear intention of causing an injury to the deceased resulting in his death.
Hence, in the present situation, Exception-1 cannot be invoked.

2.3 Exception-4 cannot be invoked

[¶38.] It is humbly submitted that the Exception-4 of Sec. 300 of IPC, 1860 reads as follows:
Exception 4.—Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a
sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender's having
taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.
Explanation.—It is immaterial in such cases which party offers the provocation or commits
the first assault.32

[¶39.] It is most humbly contended that there are certain essentials to be fulfilled in order to
invoke such an exception but the present case lacks those. A case would fall under this
section only when the death is caused in a sudden fight in the heat of passion without any
premeditation and without the offender having taken any undue advantage or acting in a cruel
manner. The fight must be between the accused and the person who is killed. Furthermore it
was held in the case of Samuthram alias Samudra Rajan v. State of Tamil Nadu33, that,
“mere sudden quarrel would not entitle the accused to seek for Exception 4 to section 300.”

31
1962 SCR Supl. (1) 567.
32
Id., s. 300.
33
(1997) 2 Crimes 185 (Mad).

-MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF 32 | P a g

 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,

[¶40.] To invoke Exception 4 to section 300, four requirements must be satisfied, namely
(i) it was a sudden fight
(ii) there was no premeditation
(iii) the act was done in a heat of passion
(iv) the assailant had not taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner.
The number of wounds caused during the occurrence is not a decisive factor but what is
important is that the occurrence must have been sudden and unpremeditated and the offender
must have acted in a fit of anger. Of course, the offender must not have taken any undue
advantage or acted in a cruel manner.

2.3.1 Essentials of Exception-4 are not fulfilled

[¶41.] In the present matter, the respondent had a premeditated desire to kill the deceased as
both were not on good terms with each other and there was an enmity between the two.
According to the facts, when a verbal argument started between the two, the respondent
without any cause slapped Rupam Singh just to instigate the fight. Although, the explanation
of the same exception states that it is immaterial that who started the assault first but the
action of the respondent cannot be neglected and points towards the premeditated desire to
start such a fight and kill the other person and in this case, the deceased, Rupam Singh.

[¶42.] The offender in this case, i.e.- Abhay Raichand has acted in a cruel manner as he blew
a fist in the deceased’s stomach and a tooth was also found to be broken. Another essential
lacked by this situation is of the sudden quarrel because according to the facts it was the
respondent who converted a mere verbal argument into a severe and aggravated fight
between the two by slapping the deceased.

[¶43.] The respondent also had enough time and conscious in that duration but instead he
chose to further instigate an unnecessary quarrel and this cannot be termed as a sudden
quarrel rather a conscious decision on part of the offender to cause the death of the deceased.
With due respect, in the case of Emperor v. Babu Ram34 & Rawail Chand v. State of Uttar
Pradesh35 the court opined that, “If blows are exchanged, the fact, that the person assaulted
hits back in self-defence, would not make any difference. It may be added that if, in the course
of a sudden quarrel, one of the parties gives a blow to his adversary and that blow results in
death, he cannot take advantage of exception 4.”

34
AIR 1931 All 8.
35
1967 All WR 394 (SC).

-MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF 33 | P a g

 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,

[¶44.] Similarly, it is to be noted that in the present matter, the respondent had the
premeditated desire to kill Rupam Singh due to which he engaged in an unnecessary quarrel
with him just to instigate a fight. Therefore, the essentials of the Exception-4 of Sec. 300 of
IPC do not comply with the present case and the benefit of such an exception cannot be
given. Hence, the Exception-4 cannot be invoked.

r the exceptions of Sec. 300 of IPC which makes it evident that the exceptions cannot be invoked and the respondent c

-MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF 34 | P a g

 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,

ISSUE
[¶45.] 3: most
It is WHETHER THE TRIAL
humbly submitted to the COURT WASCourt
Hon’ble High RIGHT IN CONVICTING
of Riverdale city, that the trial
THE has
court ACCUSED
convictedUNDER SECTION
the accused under326
Sec.OF326
IPC?
of IPC but the accused should also be
convicted under Sec. 302 of IPC because the respondent when blew a fist in Rupam Singh’s
stomach, his appendix busted and he died immediately. Firstly, although the Trial Court has
convicted the accused, Abhay Raichand under Sec. 326 of IPC, the accused should be
convicted for murder under Sec. 302 of IPC taking into consideration the severity of the
crime and that there has been a loss of life. Secondly, the loss of life is due to the actions of
the respondent which were intentional and he also had the knowledge of the same. Therefore,
the conviction given by the Trial Court should be altercated from Sec. 326 to Sec. 302 of IPC.

3.1 Irrelevance of Sec. 326 due to loss of life

[¶46.] Sec. 326 of IPC, 1860 reads as:

326. Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means-

Whoever, except in the case provided for by Section 335, voluntarily causes grievous hurt by
means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as a
weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any corrosive substance, or
by means of any explosive substance, or by means of any substance which is deleterious to
the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any
animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to ten years, and also with a liability to pay a fine.36

[¶47.] Here, in the present matter, as the respondent slapped the deceased and a simple
argument over a petty issue of car parking aggravated into a quarrel between the two. During
the fight, the respondent blew a fist in the deceased’s stomach due to which his appendix
busted and he died. Both the action and the reaction here are connected to each other because
the severe injury that was caused to the deceased by the respondent was the result of punch
blown by him onto the deceased’s stomach.

[¶48.] Sec. 326 of IPC provides for the provision of voluntarily causing grievous hurt by
dangerous weapons or means. The respondent punched the stomach of the deceased to inflict

36
Id., s. 326.

-MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF 35 | P a g

 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,

an injury that is likely to cause death but it cannot be regarded as only causing grievous hurt
and death also occurred. The Trial Court would have been right in convicting the respondent
under Sec. 326 if the respondent had inflicted an injury upon Rupam Singh due to which he
would have suffered and would be alive but in the present matter, he immediately died.

[¶49.] As in the case of Narayan Badi v. State37, the court was of the view that in order to
determine whether the offence has been committed, both the nature and extent of the hurt
caused and the intention or knowledge of the offender have to be taken into account.
Similarly, the nature and the extent of the injuries inflicted by the respondent upon the
deceased were of such an intensity that the latter died instantly. Furthermore, keeping in mind
the intention as well as the knowledge of the respondent regarding the fact that the high
intensity fist blown by him onto the deceased’s stomach could cause death draws an inference
that the essentials of murder are being attracted here.

[¶50.] Furthermore, the medical report also mentioned that one tooth of the deceased, Rupam
Singh was also found to be broken.38 Sec. 320 of IPC39, provides for the definition of
“Grievous hurt” and it has been mentioned in the same provision that the dislocation of a
bone of a tooth will be designated as a grievous hurt.

3.1.1 Definition of grievous hurt:

[¶51.] “Grievous hurt” has been defined in Sec. 320 of IPC, 1860, which read as follows:

320. Grievous Hurt – The following kinds of hurt only are designated as “grievous”-

First – Emasculation.
Secondly - Permanent privation of the sight of either eye.
Thirdly – Permanent privation of the hearing of either ear.
Fourthly – Privation of any member or joint.
Fifthly – Destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any members or joint.
Sixthly – Permanent disfiguration of the head or face
Seventhly – Fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth.
Eighthly – Any hurt which endangers life or which causes the sufferer to be during the space
of twenty days in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits.40

37
1996 Cr LJ 1901 (Ori).
38
Moot Proposition.
39
The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860), s. 320.
40
The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860), s. 320.

-MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF 36 | P a g

 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,

[¶52.] In the present case it was established in the medical reports that one tooth of deceased,
Rupam Singh was broken. It would’ve been the consequence of the slap and the continuous
quarrelling between the accused and the deceased. According to the facts of the case, it was
the respondent who had initiated the fight by slapping Rupam Singh and by instigating
an unnecessary fight, started quarrelling. It can be inferred that the dislocation of the tooth is
the result of the slaps and punches by the respondent. Hence, the seventh point of the Sec.
320 which states that fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth will be regarded as grievous
hurt is fulfilled here.

[¶53.] Therefore, it can be established that Abhay Raichand did grievously hurt Rupam
Singh. But it did not end here, the grievous hurt eventually resulted in the death of Rupam
Singh. In the case of State of Maharashtra v. Praful B. Desai41, “the Supreme Court held
that the court should consider the nature of the act, the circumstances leading to it, and the
intention behind it while determining whether the offense amounts to murder or causing
grievous hurt.”

[¶54.] In another case of ReMarimuthu42, it was observed that 'Any Hurt Which Endangers
Life' this phrase is not intended to apply to cases in which life is not only endangered, but is
also actually taken away. Therefore, in the present situation as well, since the death has
occurred but the definition of grievous hurt covers the situations where life has been
endangered but not taken away.

[¶55.] The respondent was also known to be extremely arrogant and short- tempered by
nature and was in the quarreling with everyone on petty issues which cannot be considered as
an excuse in the present matter as the severity of the crime, circumstance, nature of the act
and the intention also have to be contemplated. As in Rex v. Lesbini43, J. Avory was of the
view that, “The law cannot permit ill-temper and similar abnormalities to become assets for
the purpose of committing murder, for if it did, a bad-tempered man will be entitled to a
lighter verdict of manslaughter where a good-tempered one would be convicted of murder.”

3.1.2 Compliance of essential ingredients of Sec. 326 but death was also caused

[¶56.] The essential ingredients to attract Sec. 326 are:

(1) voluntarily causing a hurt;

41
AIR 2003 SC 2053.
42
AIR 1924 Mad 41.
43
(1914) 3 KB 1116.

-MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF 37 | P a g

 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,

-MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF 38 | P a g

 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,

(2) hurt caused must be a grievous hurt; and

(3) the grievous hurt must have been caused by dangerous weapons or means.

[¶57.] The present case is fulfilling significant essentials of the Sec. 326 as the respondent
intentionally caused such an injury to the deceased that it resulted in the busting of his
appendix due to which he died. The injury caused was intentional and grievous in nature as a
broken tooth was also found which suffices the hurt as “grievous”. The respondent caused it
by blowing a fist in the deceased’s stomach, therefore, the Trial Court convicted the
respondent under Sec. 326. But, in the case at hand, a death has also been resulted which
cannot be overlooked.

The court would’ve been right in convicting the accused under Sec. 326 of IPC , if Rupam
Singh had not been dead because of the injuries inflicted upon him by Abhay Raichand. But
as soon as Rupam Singh was taken to the hospital he was declared dead by the doctors.

3.2 A sudden quarrel between the accused and the deceased leads to the loss of life

[¶58.] The respondent must be held guilty of taking away the life of the deceased, Rupam
Singh. The deceased lost his life to the anger of the respondent over a petty issue. The
respondent was unable to keep his antagonism in check, which caused the deceased to give
his life away. Also in cases where no intention or motive to kill is present, still the fact that an
innocent life is being taken away cannot be deserted. In the case of ReMarimuthu44, it was
observed that 'Any Hurt Which Endangers Life' this phrase is not intended to apply to cases
in which life is not only endangered, but is also actually taken away.

[¶59.] The punishment under Sec. 326 of IPC does not suffice the required amount of
punishment that should be given to the accused because the nature of offence committed by
the accused is much more rigorous in nature. Had it been that the deceased Rupam Singh has
just suffered injuries due to the conduct of accused, Abhay Raichand then the court’s decision
would’ve been justified but it caused the death of Rupam Singh, therefore it is submitted to
the Hon’ble Court that the accused, Abhay Raichand shall be convicted under Sec.302 of IPC.
As in the case of State of U.P. v. Jai Dutt45, “The impugned judgement and order passed by
the High Court acquitting the accused – respondents Jai Dutt and Shastri for the offence
under

44
Supra note 42 at 44.
45
2022 LiveLaw (SC) 72.

-MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF 39 | P a g

 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,

-MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF 40 | P a g

 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,

sec. 302 and sec. 302/34 IPC respectively and convicting them for the offence under sec. 326,
IPC is hereby quashed and set aside.”
The explanation as to why the accused shall be convicted under sec. 302 has been presented
in issue 1.
[¶60.] Furthermore, Sec. 326 outlines punishment for causing grievous hurt with dangerous
weapons, or means, but we contend that the injuries inflicted led to the victim's death,
violating. Sec. 326's punishment is insufficient for the severity of the crime; the counsel
contends for the accused's conviction under Sec. 302 for taking the life of the deceased. The
court should see the gravity of the offense and thereby give a more appropriate penalty.

at the accused, convicted under Sec. 326 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for voluntarily causing grievous hurt, should

-MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF 41 | P a g

 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,

PRAYER FOR THE RELIEF

THEREFORE, IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS USED, ISSUES RAISED, ARGUMENTS

ADVANCED AND AUTHORITIES CITED, THE COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT
MOST HUMBLY AND RESPECTFULLY PRAYED THAT THIS HON’BLE HIGH
COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO:

1. Convict the respondent under Sec. 302 of IPC.

2. Declare that no exception of Sec. 300 shall be applied in the present case.
3. Overrule the order passed by the Hon'ble Trial Court for convicting the respondent under
Sec. 326 and pass an order of conviction of the respondent under Sec. 302 of IPC.

AND PASS ANY ORDER, DIRECTION, OR RELIEF THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT
MAY DEEM FIT IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE, EQUITY, AND GOOD
CONSCIENCE.

The Counsel pleads this Hon’ble Court to bind “Sacramentum habet in se trscomites,
veritatem, justitiam et judicium; veritas habendaest in jurato, Justitia et judicium in
judice”.
And for this act of kindness and justice, the appellant shall be duty-bound and
forever pray.

All of which is submitted with utmost reverence

Counsels for the Appellant

Date: 27-03-2024
Place: RIVERDALE CITY

-MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF 42 | P a g