RAGHAVENDRA PHADNIS INTRA-COLLEGE MOOT, 2025
Law of Crimes
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*The counsel seeks permission to approach the Dias - Much obliged
*The counsel seeks permission to refer to the bench as your honours - Much obliged your
honours.
*The counsel is appearing before this honourable high court in the matter of Rahul
Waghmare Vs. State of Maharashtra, representing Rahul Waghmare.
*The counsel would like to seek the permission to begin with the Jurisdiction. - Much obliged
your honours.
JURISDICTION-
u/s 415 of BNSS: Appeals from convictions.
S.415 clause (2) states
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 seven years has been passed against him or against any other person
convicted at the same trial, may appeal to the High Court.
*The counsel would like to seek the permission to begin with the statement of facts. - Much
obliged your honours.
FACTS OF THE CASE-
The accused, Mr. Rahul Waghmare, a porter at Shivajinagar Railway Station, had a monetary
dispute with the deceased, Mr. Salim Mohammad, who had borrowed ₹10,000 and failed to
repay it. On 15th October 2024, during a heated confrontation over the unpaid debt, the
deceased took out a pocket knife and pushed the accused. In response, the accused picked up
a bamboo stick and struck the deceased once on the head. The deceased succumbed to his
injuries five days later.
The post-mortem confirmed “unnatural death” due to head injury. Based on the post-mortem
and eyewitness testimonies, the Sessions Court convicted the accused under Section 101 BNS
for murder, sentencing him to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5000/-.
The accused now appeals this conviction before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court.
*Your honours, the counsel seeks permission to address the 1st issue. - Much obliged your
honours
ISSUE 1-
Whether the ingredients of the offence under section 101 BNS have been made out in
the present case?
The law of crime has a fundamental rule, that to constitute a crime two elements are required,
i.e. Mens Rea (mental intent) + Actus Reus (physical act)
Further, the stages leading to the commission of a culpable homicide typically
include:
a) Intention to commit an act likely to cause death,
b) Preparation for the commission of that act,
c) An attempt to commit the act, and finally,
d) The actual commission of the act
However, the counsel humbly demonstrates, the facts and circumstances of the
present case do not fulfill all essential criteria.
The act committed by the accused falls within the scope of culpable homicide not
amounting to murder, as contemplated under the recognised Exceptions to Section
101 of BNS.
These Exceptions, which the counsel now elaborates upon, provide a clear defence
and justifies the lesser degree of culpability attributed to the accused.
CASE LAWS:
FIRST
The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Sukhbir Singh v. State of Haryana (2002) 3 SCC 327
held that where a person causes death in the course of a sudden fight, without taking undue
advantage or acting in a cruel manner, the offence is not murder. In that case too, the
accused responded to a sudden quarrel with a single blow using a lathi, and the Hon’ble
Court held Exception 4 to be fully applicable.
Exception 4 to Section 101 BNS, states
[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.]
The facts in the present case are nearly identical, the accused responded immideately, using a
bamboo stick lying nearby, delivering one blow in the heat of the moment, with no pre-
planning. He did not bring the weapon, nor acted with cruelty, nor striked repeatedly.
Just as in Sukhbir Singh v. State of Haryana, the accused, acted without pre-determination,
during a sudden quarrel.
Your Honours, it is most respectfully submitted that the accused is not guilty of murder,
and indeed, not even of culpable homicide under the given standard, as the act was neither
intentional nor pre-determination.
Hence, the benefit of Exception 4 must be extended to the accused.
(Pre-determination- the act of determining or ordaining in advance what is to take place)
SECOND
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab, (2010) 2 SCC 333,
held that where an accused exceeds his right of private defence in the heat of the moment,
the act still falls under Exception 2, and murder cannot be made out.
Exception (2) S. 101 BNS, states
[ Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender in the exercise in good faith of the right
of private defence of person or property, exceeds the power given to him by law and causes
the death of the person against whom he is exercising such right of defence without
premeditation, and without any intention of doing more harm than is necessary for the
purpose of such defence.]
Your Honours, the prosecution’s own witness, PW1, confirms that the deceased pushed the
accused, brandished a pocket knife, and threatened him, in response the accused used a
bamboo stick lying nearby in self-defence without pre-determination, even if the right of
private defence was exceeded, the act was committed in good faith, without intention to do
more harm than necessary.
Hence, the benefit of Exception 2 must be extended to the accused.
THIRD
In the landmark judgment of K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1962 SC 605
the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down the test for Exception 1 clarifying that if an act is done
suddenly and in the heat of passion, as a direct result of provocation—without any
cooling-off period or pre-determination —it would not amount to murder.
Exception 1 to Section 101 of the BNS, states
[ 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. ]
Your Honours, record shows that, the deceased became enraged in front of multiple
bystanders the deceased’s public humiliation, threat with a pocket knife, and pushing
provoked the accused suddenly and gravely. The accused reacted without any time for
reflection, and with no weapon of his own.
While in Nanavati, the exception was ultimately not granted due to a time gap and
preparation involved, the Court affirmed the principles for grave and sudden provocation,
applying that test to the present case, the accused reacted within seconds of the threat—he
had no time to cool off, and used an object lying at the scene. There was no planning, no
repeated blows, and no intention to cause death.
Hence, Your Honours, the ratio laid down in Nanavati supports the accused’s plea.
Therefore, we humbly submit, the benefit of Exception 1 must be extended to the accused.
We respectfully submit that the offence does not amount to murder, and accused is clearly
protected under Exceptions 4, 2, and 1, the conviction deserves to be set aside or altered
accordingly.
*Your honours, the counsel seeks permission to address the 2nd issues. - Much obliged your
honours
ISSUE 2-
Whether any defence under the BNS is available to the accused for an acquittal or an
alternative sentence?
The counsel humbly submits, that the accused should be granted defence as the incident arose
from a sudden and unplanned altercation. The accused had merely asked the deceased to
return money he had lent in good faith. The deceased reacted with verbal aggression,
physically pushed the accused, and pulled out a pocket knife, threatening him. The accused
reacted immediately and without any pre-determination, delivering a single blow with a
bamboo stick lying nearby. There was no repeated assault, no cruelty, and no undue
advantage. The act was a spontaneous response in the heat of passion during a sudden
confrontation, fulfilling conditions laid out in the following
CASES LAWS:
FIRST
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kikar Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1993) 4 SCC 238
explained the boundaries of Exception 4. In that case, the accused had used a deadly weapon
against an unarmed opponent, and the Court held that Exception 4 did not apply due to the
use of excessive and cruel force.
However, the decision laid down a clear legal test for Exception 4—requiring the act to be
without pre-determination, during a sudden quarrel, without cruelty, and without undue
advantage.
Unlike the facts in Kikar Singh v. State of Rajasthan, the accused in the present case:
• Did not use a deadly weapon,
• Delivered only one blow,
• Faced an armed and threatening assailant, and did not act cruelly or with any
intention to kill.
in this case—where the force used was minimal against an armed and aggressive
person, which was not pre-determined and took place in a sudden quarrel
without taking undue advantage.
We respectfully submit that the accused is clearly entitled to the benefit of Exception
4 and that at most, the offence amounts to culpable homicide not amounting to
murder, warranting a reduction in sentence under Section 101 BNS
SECOND
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Budhi Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2012) 13 SCC
663
held that, the accused Budhi Singh struck the deceased with a stick during a sudden quarrel.
The fight was not pre-determined, and the act was committed in the heat of passion upon a
sudden provocation. It was held that the case falls under Exception 4.
Similarly, in the case at hand, the altercation arose suddenly, there was no intention to kill,
and the act was committed in the spur of the moment during a sudden quarrel. Much like
Budhi Singh, the accused here acted without pre-planning or cruelty.
Thus, the facts of this case bring it squarely within the scope of Exception 4, warranting a
conviction, if at all, only under the lesser charge of culpable homicide not amounting to
murder.
CONCLUSION-
In conclusion, My Honours, the facts clearly establish that the accused acted without pre-
determination, in the heat of the moment, and under grave provocation or imminent
threat.
We respectfully submit that the conviction for murder is unsustainable and must be set aside
or suitably modified.
**The counsel seeks permission to proceed with the prayer- Much Obliged your honours.
PRAYER-
Wherefore, in the light of the facts of the case, issue raised, arguments advanced and
authorities cited, the Hon’ble court may be pleased to:
Uphold the Acquittal of the accused Rahul Waghmare, herein as the appellant u/s 101 of
BNS.
And issue any other order, discretion, in the interest of justice, equity & good conscience.
This, is the counsel for the Appellant, shall duty bound, forever pray.
