1ST ZEAL INTERNAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2016
TEAM CODE: ZL-65
1ST ZEAL INTERNAL MOOT COURT COMPETTION,2016
BEFORE THE HON’BLE
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
(PROSECUTION)
v.
RAMESH
(DEFENCE)
FOR OFFENCES CHARGED UNDER:
SECTION 326A READ WITH SECTION 34, SECTION 354D, SECTION 366 OF THE
INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860
UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE DIVISION BENCH
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE
1ST ZEAL INTERNAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2016
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS…………………………………………………………………..
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS………………………………………………………………
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES………………………………………………………………….
TABLE OF CASES........................................................................................................
BOOKS.....................................................................................................................
LEXICONS…………………………………………………………………………………..
WEBSITES……………………………………………………………………………………
STATUTES……………………………………………………………………………………..
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION……………………………………………………………
STATEMENT OF FACTS…………………………………………………………………………
STATEMENT OF CHARGES……………………………………………………………………
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS…………………………………………………………………..
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED…………………………………………………………………….
1. 1.IF THE PETITON FILED BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT
MAINTAINABLE?
2.WHETHER RAMESH IS GUILTY OF STALKING?
3.WHETHER RAMESH IS GUILTY OF ACID ATTACK WITH COMMON INTENTION?
4.WHETHER RAMESH IS GUILTY OF ABDUCTING A WOMAN TO MARRY?
PRAYER…………………………………………………………………………………………
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE
1ST ZEAL INTERNAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2016
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AIR : All India Reporter
Art. : Article
COI : Constitution Of India
Cr.P.C. : Criminal Procedure Code
CrLJ : Criminal Law Journal
HC : High Court
Hon'ble : Honourable
IPC : Indian Penal Code
Para : Paragraph
Pg. No. : page number
r/w : read with
SC : Supreme Court
SCC : Supreme Court Cases
SCR : Supreme Court Records
Sec. : Section
SLP : Special Leave Petition
U.P. : Uttar Pradesh
UOI : Union of India
V. : versus
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE
1ST ZEAL INTERNAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2016
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
Arulvelu v. State, (2009) 10 SCC 206
Hardev Singh v. State of Punjab, (1975)3 SCC 731
K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra, 1962 AIR 605, 1962 SCR Supl.(1)567
M.G. Agarwal v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1963 SC 200
Madan Lal v. State of J&K ,(1997) 7 SCC 677
State of Gujarat v. JayrajbhaiPunjabhai Varu,2016 Indlaw SC 491
State of Rajasthan v. Bhanwar Singh, (2004) 10 SCC 709
State of U.P. v. Gopi, (1979) Cri LJ 1121 (SC)
State of U.P. v. Harihar, AIR 1974 SC 1890
State of U.P. v. Ram, AIR 1976 SC
State of U.P. v. Sahrunnisa, AIR2009 SC 3182
Zabar Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1957 SC 465:1957 Cr Lj 581
BOOKS
1.K.D. Gaur, Textbook On Indian Penal Code,(5th Edition, Universal Law Publishing,2014)
2.
WEBSITES
1. https://www.indiankanoon.org
2. https://www.scconline.com
3. https://www.manupatra.com
4. https://www.findlaw.com
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE
1ST ZEAL INTERNAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2016
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Hon’ble Court has jurisdiction to try the instant matter under Article 132 read with 134 (A)
of The Constitution of India, 1949.
Article 132:
‘132. Appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court in appeals from High Courts in certain cases
(1) An appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgment, decree or final order of a High
Court in the territory of India, whether in a civil, criminal or other proceeding, if the High Court
certifies under Article 134A that the case involves a substantial question of law as t the
interpretation of this Constitution
(3) Where such a certificate is given, any party in the case may appeal to the Supreme Court on
the ground that any such question as aforesaid has been wrongly decided Explanation For the
purposes of this article, the expression final order includes an order declaring an issue which, if
decided in favour of the appellant, would be sufficient for the final disposal of the case’
Read With Article 134A:
‘134A. Certificate for appeal to the Supreme Court
Every High Court, passing or making a judgment, decree, final order, or sentence, referred to in
clause (1) of Article 132 or clause (1) of Article 133, or clause (1) of Article 134
(a) may, if it deems fit so to do, on its own motion; and
(b) shall, if an oral application is made, by or on behalf of the party aggrieved, immediately after
the passing or making of such judgment, decree, final order or sentence, determine, as soon as
may be after such passing or making, the question whether a certificate of the nature referred to
in clause ( 1 ) of Article 132, or clause ( 1 ) of Article 133 or, as the case may be, sub clause (c)
of clause ( 1 ) of Article 134, may be given in respect of that case.’
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE
1ST ZEAL INTERNAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2016
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Nimisha was a 12th standard student who to support her father used to give tuitions. The
accused no. 1, Ramesh was her math teacher at school who secretly developed emotions
for her. On Nimisha’s 18th birthday he organized a party for her at his house and gifted
her an expensive watch.
On 14th Feb 2015 he proposed her for marriage and Nimisha asked him to talk to her
parents. On 20th Feb 2015, Ramesh approached Nimisha’s parents with the proposal for
marriage but was rejected. They warned him not to contact her because she had her 12 th
boards coming up and threatened her that they would discontinue her studies.
Despite the disinterest shown by Nimisha, Ramesh started stalking her on internet,
following her to her tuitions, phone calls. Nimisha complained about the same to her
parents. They rebuked Ramesh but he tried to convince them that he wanted to marry her.
They beat him and asked him to leave.
Enraged, Ramesh went to Accused no.2 Mahesh(45) whom he always confided in and
whom he had lived with since his parents died in a road accident in 2000. Mahesh
suggested him to take Nimisha to the temple when she was alone and marry her secretly.
If she resisted Mahesh would threaten her with a bottle of acid to pressurize her to come
to the temple. Ramesh who was initially reluctant to this plan but later agreed to the plan
on the condition that no harm will be caused to Nimisha and that the bottle of acid will
only be used as a tool to threaten her for compliance to their wishes.
On 23rd March 2015, they found her passing on a lonely road. Ramesh approached her
and asked her to accompany him to the temple so that they could marry. On her refusal,
Mahesh who was carrying the bottle of acid threatened Nimisha. Ramesh started
dragging her into the car. Nimisha started shouting and abusing. Meanwhile in the state
of confusion, Mahesh opened the bottle, waited for a fraction and threw the acid on
Nimisha’s face. After this both Ramesh and Mahesh fled in the car driven and belonging
to Mahesh.
A case was registered against both the accused under Sec. 326 r/w Sec 34 IPC, 1860 and
Ramesh was also charged under Sec. 354D, IPC, 1860. Mahesh absconded and was
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE
1ST ZEAL INTERNAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2016
declared a proclaimed defender while Ramesh was arrested by the police from his home
and the bottle of acid and car, used in the crime were seized from his possession.
After investigation, he was put to trial before the Sessions Court where he claimed not
guilty and claimed trial. Sessions court convicted Ramesh under Sec. 326A r/w Sec. 34
IPC, 1860 and sentenced him to 10 years of rigorous punishment and compensation of
Rs. 2,00,000 to be paid to Nimisha. He was also awarded 2 years of rigorous punishment
under Sec. 254D, IPC, 1860 and both the punishments were to run concurrently.
The High Court adjudicated in favour of the accused by aquitting him from the charges
under Sec. 326A r/w Sec. 34, IPC, and Sec. 354D IPC, 1860 and dismissed the appeal of
the State, being bereft of any substance. The High Court, however, recommended the
State Legal Services Authority to decide upon the quantum of the compensation to be
awarded to the victim as per Sec. 357A, CrPC, 1973, within a month.
Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court, the State filed an appeal before the
Supreme Court for considering the offences as heinous and awarding life imprisonment
under Sec. 326A r/w Sec. 34 and Sec. 354D of the IPC, 1860 and also to enhance the
compensation payable by the accused under Sec. 326A to Rs. 3,50,000 in addition to the
compensation paid by the State Government under Sec. 357A CrPC. The State also
sought permission for addition of charge under Sec. 366 of the IPC.
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE
1ST ZEAL INTERNAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2016
ISSUES RAISED
1.IF THE PETITON FILED BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT
MAINTAINABLE?
2.WHETHER RAMESH IS GUILTY OF STALKING?
3.WHETHER RAMESH IS GUILTY OF ACID ATTACK WITH COMMON
INTENTION?
4.WHETHER RAMESH IS GUILTY OF ABDUCTING A WOMAN TO MARRY?
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE
1ST ZEAL INTERNAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2016
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
ISSUE I
IF THE PETITON FILED BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT
MAINTAINABLE?
The Special Leave Petition is not maintainable and the decision of High Court in setting aside the
judgment of Conviction by the Sessions court is completely valid in this case as the prosecution
has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. In the instant case no material evidence is
presented to support the charges complained of. Thus the High Court had rightly exercised its
jurisdiction in setting aside the judgment of conviction passed by the Sessions Court and in
acquitting the accused persons.
ISSUE II
WHETHER RAMESH IS GUILTY OF STALKING?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the respondent, Ramesh is not guilty of
committing the offence of stalking as by considering the particular circumstances, his act was
reasonable and justified.
ISSUE III
WHETHER RAMESH IS GUILTY OF ACID ATTACK WITH COMMON INTENTION?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the respondent, Ramesh is not guilty of
voluntarily causing grievous hurt by use of acid because the act of throwing the acid on the
victim was done by Mahesh, the proclaimed offender who had both actus reas and mens rea i.e.
the basic elements of a crime.
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE
1ST ZEAL INTERNAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2016
ISSUE IV
WHETHER RAMESH IS GUILTY OF ABDUCTING A WOMAN TO MARRY?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the respondent, Ramesh is not guilty of
abducting the victim and compelling her to marry as she wasn’t taken from one place to another.
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE
1ST ZEAL INTERNAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2016
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
1.THAT THE PETITION FILED BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT IS NOT
MAINTAINABLE.
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the appeal submitted before it is not
maintainable and the decision of the High Court adjudicating in favour of the accused by
acquitting him thereby dismissing the appeal by the State is completely valid.There are no valid
grounds supporting the plea.According to the facts of the case, there was due consideration made
to the arguments put forward by the prosecution in the Hon’ble HC of Uttar Pradesh.
It is humbly submitted that in a special leave petition, under Ar.136 of the COI, against a finding
of acquittal by the High Court, the Supreme Court would not interfere unless that finding is
vitiated by some glaring infirmity in the appraisement of evidence;1 or where it is perverse;2 or
where the facts are such that no tribunal could legitimately arrive at the conclusion that the guilt
of the accused had not been proved beyond any reasonable doubt,3 resulting in a failure of
justice4.
A.BEREFT OF SUBSTANCE
Considering the first reason for acquitting the accused i.e. lack of evidence, the counsel humbly
submits that in the case in hand, the prosecution is unable to provide subsequent evidence to
support its claim beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution’s case rests solely on the facts that
are vague and their interpretations leads to no proper conclusion. Thus, the judgment of the High
Court cannot be termed as manifestly fallacious and undefendable. There is no substantial or
grave injustice done and the case calls for no review of the decision appealed against.
In State of Gujarat v. JayrajbhaiPunjabhaiVaru5, it was observed that “the burden of proof in
criminal law is beyond all reasonable doubt. The prosecution has to prove the guilt of the
1
State of U.P. v. Harihar, AIR 1974 SC 1890
2
M.G. Agarwal v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1963 SC 200
3
State of U.P. v. Gopi, (1979) Cri LJ 1121 (SC)
4
State of U.P. v. Ram, AIR 1976 SC
5
State of Gujarat v. JayrajbhaiPunjabhai Varu,2016 Indlaw SC 491
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE
1ST ZEAL INTERNAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2016
accused beyond all reasonable doubt and it is also the rule of justice in criminal law that if two
views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused
and the other towards his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be
adopted”.Thus, it is humbly submitted that this case is of persuasive value.
Further submission being that the Supreme Court will not interfere with the order of acquittal
passed by the High Court where the High Court has acquitted the accused, reversing conviction
by the sessions judge, the Supreme Court will not interfere if the view taken by the high court
was reasonably possible upon the evidence on record.6
B.THE OFFENCE OF STALKING HAS NOT BEEN COMMITTED
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the offence of stalking was not committed
by the accused. Referring to the facts of given case, it is clearly seen that though the accused did
try to reach the victim, it was done due to a just and reasonable cause. The accused resorted to it
believing that all the actions of the victim were because of the parental pressure. Furthermore, it
can be clearly seen in the facts that the victim did not initially show reluctance towards the
accused.
Hence the counsel humbly submits that the High Court cannot be said to be unjustified in
doubting the veracity of the victim’s case as the defence version is a probable one and
accordingly the impugned judgment of acquittal rendered by it cannot be said to be perverse in
any manner so as to be interfered with by this Court.7 This being the position, the counsel is of
the opinion that the High Court has not committed any error in acquitting the respondents of the
charges.
C.THAT THE ACCUSED IS NOT GUILTY OF COMMITTING THE OFFENCE OF
ACID ATTACK
6
Arulvelu v. State, (2009) 10 SCC 206
7
State of Rajasthan v. Bhanwar Singh, (2004) 10 SCC 709
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE
1ST ZEAL INTERNAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2016
It is humbly submitted by the counsel that the accused is not guilty of the offence of acid
attack.The charges under sec.326 r/w sec.34 of IPC are irrelevant because the acid was thrown
by the offender and not the accused . Also, it was made clear by the accused that no harm should
be caused to the victim, which shows that the accused did not have any wrong intentions.
Moreover, it was pre decided by the accused and the offender that the bottle of acid would be
used for the purpose of threatening. The fact that the offender went on to throw the acid on the
victim shows that the accused had no role to play there. According to the plan decided upon, the
purpose was to threaten and not cause any kind of injury to the victim. The subject8 to which the
consent of the accused was given, was threatening. The said facts show that there was no
common intention .The prosecution has no material evidence to show that the bottle of acid was
thrown by the accused or that he had common intention as that of the offender
D. WHETHER THE JUDGEMENT GIVEN BY THE HIGH COURT WILL STAND
BEFORE THE HON’BLE COURT?
The High Court of the State of Uttar Pradesh, after considering all the facts of the given case, had
adjudicated in favour of Ramesh by acquitting him of all charges. It held that under the given
circumstances of the case, the Sessions Court had wrongly held him liable. The High Court had
done so by acting within it’s judicial capacity after considering and analyzing all the facts of the
case. There is no reason as to why a doubt might be casted on the decision given by the High
Court.
In Madan Lal v. State of J&K9, the Court observed that there must be "sufficient and compelling
reasons" or "good and sufficiently cogent reasons" for the appellate court to alter an order of
acquittal to one of conviction........". Thus, it can be concluded that the decision of the High
Court has not resulted in miscarriage of justice. It has carefully scrutinized all the aspects of the
case and has rightly decided in favour of the accused by exercising it’s jurisdiction.
Thus, the counsel humbly submits that the Special Leave Petition under Art. 136 of the
Constitution of India is not maintainable
8
Para. 4,Pg. No. 7
9
(1997) 7 SCC 677
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE
1ST ZEAL INTERNAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2016
2.THAT RAMESH IS NOT GUILTY OF COMMITTING THE OFFENCE OF
STALKING
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the accused has not committed the offence
of stalking. The offence of stalking, as defined under sec.354D of IPC, clearly states that stalking
refers to-(1) Any man who -(1)follows a woman and contacts, or attempts to contact such woman
to foster personal interaction repeatedly despite a clear indication of disinterest by such woman;
or (2)monitors the use by a woman of the internet, email or any other form of electronic
communication, commits the offence of stalking. One of the exceptions under the said sec. is that
a conduct won’t amount to stalking if in the particular circumstances such conduct was
reasonable and justified.
Thus, in the case in hand, the accused had reasonable and just cause for reaching the victim
through various means.The accused did so under the impression that the victim too was
interested in him owing to the reasons mentioned below-
Firstly, Referring to the facts of the given case, it can be clearly inferred that the victim was not
completely reluctant towards the accused.The fact that the accused, being a teacher to the victim,
had “arranged a party for her birthday and gifted her an expensive watch”10, were clear
indications of the accused’s feelings. The victim had accepted these gifts from the accused which
shows that even she had feelings for the accused. The victim was mature enough(18 y/o) to
differentiate as to what kind of feelings the accused was referring to. If the victim had not been
interested, she would have denied to accept the gifts of the accused then and there.
Secondly,when the accused proposed the victim for marriage, she asked him to talk to her
parents11 which evidently shows that she had some kind of inclination towards the accused. If
there was no interest on behalf of the victim, she could have rejected his proposal at that very
instance rather than expanding and bringing the matter to her parent’s notice. The fact that she
asked him to talk to her parents shows that she was interested in marrying the accused too.
10
Para. 1, Pg. No. 7
11
Para. 2, Pg. No. 7
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE
1ST ZEAL INTERNAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2016
Thirdly,after the victim’s parents rejected his proposal, they had “strongly admonished the victim
and threatened that they’ll discontinue her studies”12, which makes the point explicit that it was
due to the pressure imposed by her parents that she started avoiding him. The parental influence
had forced the victim to cut all ties with the accused. On one occasion, the victim had
approached the accused to make it clear that “she will not go against the wishes of her parents
and asked him to not to follow her”. She could have done so without replying or approaching
him.The mere fact that she approached him to tell him so shows signs of interest.
Moreover, another point to be noted is that if the victim had no interest towards the accused, she
could have filed a case of stalking at that very time when the accused was supposedly following
her. No reason can be attributed to the fact that the case of stalking was filed way after when the
incident actually took place.
12
Para. 2, Pg. No. 7
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE
1ST ZEAL INTERNAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2016
3.THAT RAMESH IS NOT GUILTY OF ACID ATTACK AND COMMON INTENTION.
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that Ramesh(hereinafter to be referred as the
‘accused’) is not guilty of the offences under 326A r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code,1860
(hereinafter to be referred as the ‘IPC’).In the matter in hand, it has been wrongfully alleged that
the accused has committed acid attack, in furtherance of common intention with the proclaimed
offender, Mahesh.(hereinafter to be referred as the ‘offender’)
A.THERE WAS NO COMMON INTENTION
It is contended that the accused had no common intention with the offender to throw the acid on
the victim as it can be clearly inferred from the given facts that, firstly, it was the offender’s idea
to take the victim to a temple in order to marry her without informing her parents and threaten
the victim with the bottle of acid if she resists. Since the offender was a fatherly figure to the
accused and the accused confided in him, it was easy for him to influence the accused for
agreeing to such an act.Moreover, it is clearly mentioned in the facts that the offender could not
bear the pain of the accused which clearly shows that the offender was aggrieved when the
accused narrated the entire incident to him.Thus, it can be inferred that the offender, because of
his aggressiveness and his affection towards the accused, persuaded him to agree to such an act.
Secondly,according to the facts given, the accused was “initially reluctant”13 to the idea
suggested by the offender. As already stated, the offender was a fatherly figure to the accused as
he had always supported him since his parents died in a car accident and because he had an upper
hand on the accused, he cunningly made him agree to the plan suggested by him.
It is very clear from the provisions under sec. 34 of IPC, that one of the essential ingredients to
attract this section is that there must be a common intention of all to commit a particular criminal
act.Meaning,there should be a prior meeting of minds and participation of all the members of the
group in the execution of that plan so that they all are aware about the act to be committed.
13
Para. 4,Pg. No. 7
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE
1ST ZEAL INTERNAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2016
In the case of Zabar Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh14,the SC held that “For the application of
sec.34 ,it is essential that the Court finds that the accused shared with others a common intention
to commit a crime and participated in its commission. If there is no clear and acceptable
evidence on record of circumstances from which a previous concert between him and other
persons, known or unknown, and his participation in a joint criminal act can be reasonably
inferred, conviction with the aid of sec.34 is not justified”
In the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Sahrunnisa15,it was held that “the mere presence of a
person is not indicative of common intention.The SC said that there presence itself cannot be of
criminal nature in the sense that by there mere presence a common intention can be attributed to
them.”
In the case of Hardev Singh v. State of Punjab16,the SC held that “The view that even the person
not committing the particular crime could be held guilty of that crime with the aid of sec.34 of
IPC if the commission of the act was such as could be shown to be in furtherance of the common
intention not necessarily intended by every one of the participants, is not correct. The common
intention must be to commit the particular crime, although the actual crime may be committed by
any one sharing the common intention. Then only others can be held guilty.”
Thus, it is contended that there was no common intention in the case in hand. There was no error
in judgement made by the HC regarding the issue of common intention. The facts stated and the
cases referred to make it clear that the sole responsibility of the offence should be attributed to
the offender and not the accused.
B. THE BOTTLE OF ACID WAS THROWN BY THE OFFENDER AND NOT THE ACCUSED
Considering other reasons, the counsel humbly submits that, firstly,the bottle of acid had to be
used for the purpose of “threatening” only17. The offender himself had made it clear in the
suggestion given by him that incase the victim resists, they’ll use the bottle of acid to threaten
14
AIR 1957 SC 465:1957 Cr Lj 581
15
AIR 2009 SC 3182
16
(1975)3 SCC 731
17
Para. 4,Pg. No. 7
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE
1ST ZEAL INTERNAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2016
her to agree and not actually throw it, which is an essential ingredient of the offence alleged.
Moreover, after the accused had heard the plan, he too had made it very clear to the offender that
the bottle of acid should be used for the sole purpose of threatening only and that no harm should
be caused to the victim. This shows that since the accused had deep affection for her, cared about
her and wanted to marry her, there can be no clear reason as to why he would want to cause any
kind of injury to her.
Secondly, On the victim’s refusal, the offender, who was carrying the bottle of acid, opened it
and threw the acid on her face.18 It can be inferred from the given statements that it was the
offender’s intention to actually throw the acid and not the accused’s, as he never asked the
offender to throw the acid and also it was pre decided that the acid was not supposed to be
thrown.
C. THERE WAS SUDDEN PROVOCATION
It is humbly brought to the notice of the Hon’ble Court that there was sudden provocation due to
which the offender resorted to the act of throwing the acid on the victim.The fundamental
ingredients to attract the defence of sudden provocation are- 1) That the accused received
provocation;
(2) That the provocation was (a) grave, and (b) sudden;
(3) That he was deprived by the provocation of his power of self-control;
(4) That while thus deprived of his power of self-control and before he could cool down he
caused the death of the person who gave him the provocation.
Thus, it is contended that in the case at hand, when the accused started dragging the victim in the
car, the victim started “shouting loudly and abusing”19.The offender, who had the bottle of acid
in hand, got provoked and enraged due to which he threw the acid on the victim in the “heat of
the moment”.
18
Para. 5,Pg. No. 7
19
Para. 5, Pg.No.7
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE
1ST ZEAL INTERNAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2016
In the case of K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra20, it was held that “In India, unlike in
England, words and gestures may, under certain circumstances cause grave and sudden
provocation21 so as to attract that exception. The mental background created by any previous
act of the victim can also be taken into consideration in judging whether the subsequent act
could cause grave and sudden provocation, but the fatal blow should be clearly traced to the
influence of the passion arising from that provocation and not after the passion had cooled
down by lapse of time or otherwise, giving room and scope for premeditation and
calculation.”
20
1962 AIR 605, 1962 SCR Supl. (1) 567
21
Exception (1) to sec.300 of IPC,1860
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE
1ST ZEAL INTERNAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2016
4.THAT THE ACCUSED IS NOT GUILTY OF ABDUCTING THE VICTIM TO
COMPEL TO MARRY
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the accused is not guilty of abducting the
victim to compel to marry. Abduction22 is defined as- Whoever by force compels, or by any
deceitful means induces, any person to go from any place, is said to abduct that person.
According to the given facts of the case, it can be clearly deduced that it was an attempt to abduct.
The reason being that, though the accused did force the victim, but he couldn’t actually take her from
one place to another, which constitutes an essential ingredient of the offence of abduction. It is
required as one of the essential components of abduction to take a person from one place to another
which nowhere can be seen in the case at hand as both, the offender and the accused, had left the said
location after the acid was thrown.Thus, the offence of abduction cannot be made against the accused
22
Sec.362 of IPC,1860
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE
1ST ZEAL INTERNAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2016
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, in light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited it is most
humbly and respectfully requested that this Hon’ble Court to adjudge and declare that:
1. The Special Leave Petition filed by State of Uttar Pradesh is not maintainable before the
Hon`ble Supreme Court of India.
2.The Accused is not guilty.
3. The case does not fall under the category of heinous crime and life imprisonment should
not be awarded to all the accused persons.
The court may also be pleased to pass any other order, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in
light of justice, equity and good conscience. All of which is respectfully submitted on behalf of
The Respondent
Sd/-
..............................
(Counsel for the “Respondent”)
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE
