PANJAB UNIVERSITY, CHANDIGARH
ADMINISTRATION LAW MOOT MEMORIAL
SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY:
Dr.BABITA PATHANIA Kunal Nagpal
ROLL NO: 378/23
SECTION: J
IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF PRADESH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO_______OF 2024
In the matter of
RAJIV SHARMA …………APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF ARYAVARTA ……….RESPONDENT
___________________________________________________________________________
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
___________________________________________________________________________
TABLE OF CONTENTS:
TABLE OF CONTENTS………………………………………………………………….....I
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS………………………………………………………………..II
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES………………………………………………………………...III
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION………………………………………………………...IV
STATEMENT OF FACTS…………………………………………………………………..V
ISSUES RAISED……………………………………………………………………………VI
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED……………………………………………………………....VII
PRAYER…………………………………………………………………………………...VIII
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS:
BNS BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA
IPC INDIAN PENAL CODE
FIR FIRST INFORMATION REPORT
SC SUPREME COURT
AIR ALL INDIA REPORTER
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES:
CASE LAWS
• Virsa Singh vs. State of Punjab 1958 AIR 465 SC
• State of Rajasthan vs. Kanhaiya lal (2019) 5 SCC 639
Statutes
• BNS 2023
• BNSS 2023
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION:
The present appeal has been filled under the provision of The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita,2023. Before this Hon’ble High Court of Pardesh, challenging the conviction of the
appellant under section 101 of BNS,2023, as pronounced by the learned Trial Court.
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
1. Rajiv had advanced 50000 Rs. for a consignment of imported watches to be delivered
within 30 days. Despite repeated enquiries, Ramesh neither delivered the watches nor
returned the amount advanced, alleging that amount has been used for business
expenses.
2. On March 10, 2024, at approximately 8:30 P.M. in Kavya Aryavarta, Rajiv Sharma
visited Tiwari Electronics, owned by Ramesh Tiwari, to address a financial dispute.
3. At the same time an altercation occurred at Tiwari Electronics, during which Rajiv
pushed Ramesh in fit of anger, causing him to Lose his balance. Ramesh fell
backward and struck his head against a metal shelf.
4. Several bystanders, including Deepak Verma (a neighboring shop owner) and Priya
Deshmukh ( a customer in the shop), witnessed the incident and rushed Ramesh to
Aryavarta City Hospital
5. Despite medical intervention, Ramesh succumbed to his injuries on March 12, 2024,
due to cerebral hemorrhage caused by blunt force trauma.
6. Thereafter F.I.R was registered against Rajiv Sharma and was convicted by learned
trial court u/s 101, of BNS, 2023 Sentencing him to 10 years of rigorous
imprisonment and a Rs 1 lakh fine.
ISSUES RAISED:
1. Whether the act of the appellant falls within the ambit of section 101(B) of BNS, 2023
(Culpable Homicide not amounting to murder)
2. Whether conviction u/s 105 of BNS was justified, or whether the offence should be
categorized u/s 106 (causing death by negligence)
3. Whether the medical condition of the deceased can serve as mitigating factor in
determining Rajiv’s criminal liability
4. Whether the Trial Court erred in sentencing Rajiv to 10 years of rigorous
imprisonment, considering the nature of the act
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED:
1. THE ACT OF THE APPELANT FALLS WITHIN THE AMBIT OF SECTION
101(b)OF The BNS, 2023:
Section 101 of BNS defines culpable homicide as an act where the perpetrator knows
that the act is likely to cause death but lacks the direct intention to kill.
In Virsa Singh vs. State of Punjab1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that knowledge
of consequences (the act is likely to cause death) is sufficient to establish culpable
homicide.
2. THE OFFENCE DOES NOT FALL UNDER THE AMBIT OF SECTION 106
(CAUSING DEATH BY NEGLIGENCE)
Rajiv Sharma, in fit of anger, pushed the deceased in a shop where hard surfaces
increased the likelihood of fatal injuries. Despite the lack of intent to kill, his
knowledge of the possible consequences makes him liable u/s 101 of BNS.
3. THE MEDICAL CONDITION OF DECEASED NOT A MITIGATING
FACTOR.
The cause of death, as per the post mortem, was cerebral hemorrhage due to head
injury from the fall.
A pre-existing medical condition, if any, does not exempt the accused from the
liability if it was the sole cause of the death.
In State of Rajasthan vs. Kanhaiya lal 2(a pre-existing medical does not absolve
accused from criminal liability if their act was direct and substantial cause of death).
4. JUSTIFICATION OF SENTENCE:
The punishment is proportionate as punishment must reflect the severity of the
offence and act as deterrent
Rajiv Sharma was sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and Rs 1 lakh fine.
Given that culpable homicide u/s 101 can extend imprisonment upto life, the sentence
is in well statutory limit. Section 106 would fail to deliver justice and set a weak
precedent.
1
1958 AIR 465 SC, 2 (2019) 5 SCC 639
PRAYER
In the light of above arguments presented the respondent humbly prays that this hon’ble
court:
• Affirms the conviction of appellant us 101 of BNS 2023 upholding the sentence of 10
year of rigorous imprisonment and rupees 1 lakh fine.
• Reject the appellant’s claim to reduce the offence u/s 106 of BNS.
• Pass any other order as deemed fit in the interest of justice.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT
