MOOT DIARY

DEPARTMENT OF LAWS, PANJAB UNIVERSITY,

CHANDIGARH

IN THE HON'BLE COURT OF SESSIONS JUDGE

S. C. N O .------- 2024

X (DEFENDENT)

VERSUS

STATE (PROSECUTION)

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE

Submitted To: Submitted By:

DR. GEETA JOSHI SANJEETA CHOUDHARY
Department of laws , Roll No.= 216/23
PANJAB UNIVERSITY Year = 2nd , 3rd Semester
Section = I
 Table of Content

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS………………………………..…………………2

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES………………………………………….………...3

TABLE OF CASES…………………………………………………………….4

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION……………………………………………5

STATEMENT OF FACTS ……………………………………………………6

STATEMENT OF IISUES…………………………………………………….7

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS……………………………………………....8

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED………………………………………………...9-14

PRAYER……………………………………………………........................... 15

1
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

1).Hon’ble Honourable

2).HC High Court

3).SC Supreme Court

4).SCC Supreme Court Cases

5).AIR All India Reporter

6).IPC,1860 Indian Penal Code of 1860

7).Sec Section

8).CrPc ,1973 Code Of Criminal Procedure of 1973

9).UOI Union of India

10). i.e. That is

2
 Index of Authorities

TABLE OF STATUTES:

• Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

• The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
• Bharatiya Nyaya Adhiniyam, 2023
• The Indian Penal Code, 1860

TABLE OF BOOKS:

• Criminal Procedure, KELKAR R. V., Pillai Eastern Book Company, 4th

Ed. 2007 (Revised by Dr. K. N Chandrasekharan).

• Indian Penal Code, BASU N. D., (edited by A.N. Saha) 8th Ed. 1998.

• The Code of Criminal Procedure, RATANLAL & DHIRAJLAL,

Wadhwa & Company Nagpur, 20th Ed. 2011 (Y V Chandrachud .J & VR
Manohar J.).

• The Indian Penal Code, GAUR K. D., Universal Law Publishing Co. Pvt.
Ltd., 4ht Ed., 2013 Reprint,

• The Indian Penal Code, RATANLAL & DHIRAJLAL, LexisNexis

Butterworth's
• Wadhwa &Co., Nagpur, 29th Ed. 2004,

• The Indian Penal Code, RATANLAL & DHIRAJLAL, Wadhwa &

Company Nagpur, 30th Ed. 208Y( V Chandrachud.J & V R Manohar J).

3
 TABLE OF CASES

Sr No. Name of Cases

Narasingh Challan v. State of Orissa, (1997) 2 Crimes 78

1 (Ori)

2 Virsa Singh V. State Of Punjab MANU/SC/0041/1958 : AIR

1958 SC 465
Palani Goundan, In re, 1919 SCC OnLine Mad 67
3

4 K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra, 1962 Supp (1) SCR

567

5 Mancini v director of public prosecution,1942 (English law)

6
Yatendrasingh Chauhan v. State of Maharashtra

4
 Statement of Jurisdiction

This Honorable Court has jurisdiction to hear and adjudicate the present
matter UNDER Section 197 of BNSS as it provides territory jurisdiction
for trial

AND also Under Section 213 of BNSS, which empowers the Court Of
Session to take cognizance of the said matter.

5
 Statement of Fact

1. On Sunday, July 1", 2024, the dead body of Mrs. Norma was found in
the River Thames within a few yards of the van of the accused person
which stood near the bank. The corpse bore the marks of serious
injuries.

2. The accused ultimately signed a statement admitting complicity in the

death. He then said that he had taken Mrs. Norma to his van for sexual
purposes, that he was unable to satisfy her and she then reproached
him and slapped on his face; they then had a fight during which he
knocked her out and thereafter she only moaned. The statement
continued: "I was shaking her to wake her for about half an hour, but
she didn't wake up, so I panicked and dragged her out of the van and
put her in the river".

3. He repeated this account at his trial and then said, and said for the
first time, "I thought she was dead".

4. These injuries were likely to have caused unconsciousness and

eventually death, but they were inflicted a half-hour or an hour before
death supervened and did not in fact cause it.

5. According to the medical evidence her injuries were inflicted not long
before Mrs. Norma was thrown into the river, but she was alive when
that was done, she continued to breathe for an appreciable time
afterwards, and the eventual cause of death was drowning according
to medical report.

6
 Statement of Issues

1. Whether the accused, X, is criminally liable for Mrs. Norma’s death

(murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder) or only for
causing injuries?

2. Whether there was provocation by Mrs. Norma or not?

7
 Summary of Arguments

1. That the accused is not criminally liable for Mrs. Norma’s death (murder
or culpable homicide not amounting to murder)

a. That the accused did not intended to kill Mrs. Norma, that shows
Absence of Mens Rea, which is necessary element of constitution
of any crime . He states that, he "thought she was dead" after the
fight, indicating he believed the incident had already concluded,
and his actions afterward did not aim to cause death.
b. He lacked the necessary guilty mind (Mens Rea) for murder or
even culpable homicide for her death.

2. That there was Provocation by Mrs. Norma.

a. That the accused acted impulsively in response to an intense and
immediate provocation, which was the incident of Slapping by
Mrs. Norma that lead to loss of self-control and provided no
chance of regain it to accused
b. That as it was Mrs. Norma who reproached him and slapped
him, which led to a fight and the accused acted in the heat of the
moment summaries that there was a clear provocation by Mrs.
Norma as out of the blue she came and slapped the accuse without
any extreme verbal abuse, a physical attack, an unexpected
betrayal, or an act of significant insult.

8
 Arguments Advanced

Issue (1)
That the accused is not criminally liable for Mrs. Norma’s death.

That the accused had Lack of Intent to Kill (Absence of Mens Rea for
Murder or Culpable Homicide) which can be proved by following points:

• That the accused did not intend to kill Mrs. Norma, which is necessary to
establish murder. He states he "thought she was dead" after the fight and
why will somebody try to kill an already dead person, indicating he
believed the incident had already concluded, and his actions afterward did
not aim to cause death.
• He admitted to shaking her for half an hour to revive her, which may
demonstrate that his purpose was to ensure she regained consciousness,
not to harm or kill her.
• By saying that he “panicked” when she didn’t wake up, it signifies that
his actions afterward were not calculated or malicious but instead a hasty,
fear-driven response without criminal intent.

That following are the section of Culpable homicide and Murder

Section 100 of BNS : Culpable homicide

Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or
with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with
the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence
of culpable homicide.

Explanation 1.—A person who causes bodily injury to another who is labouring
under a disorder, disease or bodily infirmity, and thereby accelerates the death
of that other, shall be deemed to have caused his death.

Explanation 2.—Where death is caused by bodily injury, the person who causes
such bodily injury shall be deemed to have caused the death, although by
resorting to proper remedies and skilful treatment the death might have been
prevented.

9
Explanation 3.—The causing of the death of a child in the mother’s womb is not
homicide. But it may amount to culpable homicide to cause the death of a living
child, if any part of that child has been brought forth, though the child may not
have breathed or been completely born.

Section 10 of BNS : Murder

Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder,

1. if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of
causing death; or
2. if the act by which the death is caused 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
3. if the act by which the death is caused 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
4. if the person committing the act by which the death is caused, 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.

That as it is stated in the case of Narasingh Challan v. State of Orissa, (1997)

2 Crimes 78 (Ori)“Culpable homicide” is the genus, and “murder” is the
species. All “murder” are culpable homicide but not vice-versa;

That in the case of Virsa Singh V. State Of Punjab MANU/SC/0041/1958 :

AIR 1958 SC 465, The Essentials Of Murder Were Given By Supreme
Court and was held that once these four elements are established by the
prosecution then the offence is committed under then (section 300 of IPC), now
Section 100 of BNS,

Observed that to bring the case under this part of the section the prosecution
must establish objectively:

(1) That a bodily injury is present;

(2) That the nature of injury that must be proved;

10
 (3) It must be proved that there was an intention to inflict that
particular bodily injury;

(4) That the injury inflicted is sufficient to cause death in the

ordinary course of the nature (this is purely objective).

Once these four elements are established by the prosecution then the
offence is committed under clause 3 of section 300, I.P.C.

That due to the absence to the provided (3) Essential given by Supreme court as
precedent in Virsa Singh v State of Punjab when applied to present matter,
doesn’t fulfil all the essentials that is :-

3) It must be proved that there was an intention to

inflict that particular bodily injury; so it is neither Murder nor Culpable
homicide due to absence Intent or knowledge to kill the person.

That in the case of , Virsa Singh vs State of Punjab (AIR 1958 SC 465):
The Supreme Court held that there must be a direct consequence of the injuries
inflicted on the deceased. Therefore, intervening causes must not be
independent or unconnected with the injury sustained by the deceased.

That Section 100, talks about causing death or such bodily injuries likely to
cause death, with intention or knowledge, but at the time when the accused
threw the victim in the river he believed her to be already dead so he can’t
possibly have any intention or knowledge of cause her death and therefore
can’t be made liable under section 105 of BNS.
That , “Knowledge in forseabilty of consequences , while intention is
forseability of consequences and desire to such act. Here since her believed her
to be already dead she cant possibly forsee dead as consequence of his act and
therefore the act of the accused does not fall Under Section 105 of BNS.

That in the case of, Palani Goundan, In re, 1919 SCC OnLine Mad 67
A person believing to have caused death of his wife, hanged her body to make it
look like suicide. Medical report showed that hanging her was the actual cause
of her death. The Court was of the view that the act was neither committed with
intent nor with knowledge of the consequences, hence it was merely a negligent
act.

11
Issue (2) That there was Provocation by Mrs. Norma.

Section 101 and section 122 of the BNS provides the defence of grave and
sudden provocation

Section 122 of BNS

1. Whoever voluntarily causes hurt on grave and sudden provocation, if he
neither intends nor knows himself to be likely to cause hurt to any
person other than the person who gave the provocation, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five thousand
rupees, or with both.
2. Whoever voluntarily causes grievous hurt on grave and sudden
provocation, if he neither intends nor knows himself to be likely to cause
hurt to any person other than the person who gave the provocation, shall
be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which
may extend to five years, or with fine which may extend to ten thousand
rupees, or with both.

Explanation: This section is subject to the same provision as Exception 1,

section 99

Section 101 of BNS

Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder,

1. if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of
causing death; or
2. if the act by which the death is caused 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
3. if the act by which the death is caused 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
4. if the person committing the act by which the death is caused, 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.

12
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;

Provided that the provocation is not,

1. sought or voluntarily provoked by the offender as an excuse for killing

or doing harm to any person;
2. 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;
3. 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.

That the incident of her showing disappointment due to sexual inadequacy and
then slapping him for that is in fact grave provocation and since this all
happened immediately after they had sexual intercourse shows that he didn’t
have any hence to regain any Self Control.

That in the case of, Mancini v director of public prosecution,1942 (English

law), it was held that provocation should be such that it temporarily deprives the
person provoked, of his power of Self Control and as a result of which he
commits any wrongful act.

That in the case of K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra (1962)

• Facts: Naval officer K.M. Nanavati discovered that his wife had an affair
with Prem Ahuja. In a fit of rage, Nanavati confronted Ahuja, and in the
ensuing altercation, Ahuja was shot dead.
• Held: The Supreme Court found that there was sufficient provocation that
deprived Nanavati of his self-control. The conviction was reduced
to culpable homicide not amounting to murder as the court held that his
actions were not premeditated. Nanavati was ultimately sentenced
under Section 304 Part I IPC.

13
That in the case Yatendrasingh Chauhan v. State of Maharashtra,The
Supreme Court, in this case, reaffirmed the need to individually examine the
facts and circumstances of each case to ascertain whether a particular action
qualifies as provocation of the necessary magnitude.There cannot be a straight-
jacket formula for deciding whether there was intention to commit the murder
or not. Similarly, as to whether there was a grave and sudden provocation which
would lead an accused to lose his power of self control would depend upon the
facts and circumstances of each case. It cannot be disputed that how a person
responds to a particular situation would depend upon the temperament of a
particular person. A hot tempered person may react differently as compared to a
cool headed person.

14
 PRAYER

In light of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, the Defendent, humbly

prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:

1) Dismiss any Charges filed by Prosecution seeking conviction under the

Principle of actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, as there was absence
of any Intent or knowledge of accused and his reaction was on the bases of clear
Provocation.

2)Grant any other relief deemed appropriate in the interests of justice, equity,
and good conscience.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE PROSECUTION SHALL EVER

PRAY.

14-11-2024 SdI-
(COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDENT)

15
16