LEARNERS’ MOOT COURT COMPETITION

TEAM CODE

IN THE HON’BLE
HIGH COURT OF SLEEPY HOLLOW

APPELLATE JURISDICTION
(UNDER SECTION 374 (2) OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE)
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.:- ____________/2017

IN THE MATTER OF

A1. WILLYWONKA RAM

A2. DHARMAVIJAY
……………………………………. APPELLANT

VS.

R1. UNION OF INDICA

……………………………………. RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 1

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF ABBREVIATION………………………………………… 3

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES…………………………………………...4

STATEMENT OF JURISIDICTION………………………………….5

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

ISSUES RAISED……………………………………………………….8

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS……………………………………….9

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED…………………………………………..

Whether both the appellants have been wrongly convicted.....10

Whether the Narco-Analysis Test is admissible…………………15

Whether this case will fall under the ambit of Rarest of Rare

Case………………………………………………………………………..16

Prayer…………………………………………………………………….18

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 2

 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

& And

AIR All India Reporter

SC Supreme Court

Art. Article

Anr. Another

UOI Union of India

Hon’ble Honorable

V. Versus

Govt. Government

i.e. That is

Const. Constitution

IPC Indica Penal Code

CrPc Criminal Procedure Code

Ors. Others

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 3

 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

S. No. CASE REFFERED

1. STATE OF UP V. KRISHNA MASTER,

AIR 2010 SC 3071
2. LATA SINGH V. STATE OF UP,
AIR 2006 SC 2522
3. BHAGWAN DASS V. NCT,
AIR 2011 SC 1863
4. BACHAN SINGH V. STATE OF PUNJAB,
AIR 1980 SC 898
5. MACHHI SINGH V. STATE OF PUNJAB,
AIR 1983 SC 957
6. STATE OF UP V. DEOMAN UPADHYAYA,
AIR 1960 SC 1125

BOOKS REFERRED

1) K D GAUR, CRIMINAL LAW CASES AND MATERIALS 203-209

(4th ed. 2005)

2) K.N. CHANDRASEKHARAN PILLAI, R.V. KELKAR’S LECTURES ON

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 46-68 (4th ed., 2006)

3) DR. V NAGESWARA RAO, THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT 540-542

(4th ed., 2010)

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 4

 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

THE COUNSELS REPRESENTING THE RESPONDENTS

HAVE ENDORSED THEIR PLEADINGS BEFORE THE HON’BLE
HIGH COURT OF SLEEPY HOLLOW UNDER SECTION 374(2) OF
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE. THE PRESENT MEMORANDUM
SETS FORTH THE FACTS, CONTENTIONS AND ARGUMENTS.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 5

 STATEMENT OF FACTS

 Two people were found dead on 1st may 2016 at about 1 am who were
later identified as Ranjha Patel of village Mastana and Heer Ben of
village Dabanga.
 The police filed an FIR and conducted further investigation. The post
mortem report revealed that the two had been murdered by use of
heavy stones to smash their heads and slitting their throats with a
sharp edged weapon. The cause of their death was shock and
hemorrhage.
 The police then arrested Willywonka Ram and Sanskari Rani, parents
of the girl Heer Ben, Ranjha Patel’s younger brother Dharmavijay and
community leader Ramraj Singh on finding a prima facie case against
them for offences punishable under section 302/34 IPC.
 Ranjha Patel and Heer Ben belonged to different castes, eloped and
got married at a mandir against the wishes of their parents.
 Their marriage was opposed by family members of both of them.
 The local community leader called a meeting and pressurized the
family members of Ranjha Patel and Heer Ben to either dissolve their
marriage or face a social boycott.
 It was stated by villagers of both villages during the course of police
investigation that Ramraj Singh had abducted and kept the family
members of the deceased at gunpoint to make Dharamvijay and
Willywonka Ram commit the said murders under coercion.
 The clothes removed from the bodies of the deceased and the blood
stained earth lifted from the spot was sent to forensic laboratory for
analysis which revealed human blood bearing three different blood
groups – A+ relating to Ranjha Patel, B+ relating to Heer Ben and
blood group O+ which did not relate to either of the deceased.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 6

 On drawing blood samples of Dharamvijay and Willywonka Ram, it
was found that their blood group matched with the sample of blood
bearing the blood group O+.
 Due to the statements made by Ramraj Singh during the narco
analysis, the weapons namely heavy sticks, heavy stones and the
knife used to murder the deceased could be recovered by the police.
 During the narco analysis test conducted on Dharamvijay and
Willywonka Ram, both of them admitted that the murders were
committed by them under coercion by Ramraj Singh.
 Ante mortem human blood bearing blood group A+ and B+ was found
on all the weapons recovered except the heavy sticks.
 The police also recorded the statement of Udas Ram (a regular
alcoholic), who affirmed that he had seen both Dharmavijay and
Willywonka Ram near the place of recovery of dead bodies on the
midnight of 30th April and 1st May.
 The District Court after examining the facts and evidence so
presented in this case held Willywonka Ram and Dharmavijay guilty
for murder and acquitted Ramraj Singh.
 The accused were convicted under rarest of rare case and given death
penalty.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 7

 ISSUES RAISED

1. WHETHER THE APPELLANTS HAVE BEEN WRONGLY

CONVICTED?

2. WHETHER THE NARCO ANALYSIS TEST IS ADMISSIBLE?

3. WHETHER THIS CASE FALLS UNDER THE AMBIT OF RAREST

OF RARE CASE?

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 8

 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

 The appellants have not been wrongly convicted as Mens Rea is

present, it is a clear case of honor killing, and the circumstantial
evidence clearly prove that the accused are guilty.

 The statement of Ramraj Singh during the Narco Analysis is

admissible under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act,1872.

 This case falls under the ambit of Rarest of Rare Case as several
precedents like ‘Bachan Singh V. State of Punjab’, ‘Lata Singh V.
State of UP’ and others prove that granting death penalty is not
violative of Article 354(3) of the Const. and honor killing falls under
the ambit of rarest of rare cases.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 9

 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. THE APPELLANTS HAVE NOT BEEN WRONGLY CONVICTED

and are guilty for murder due to the following reasons –
 Mens Rea is present – The circumstances in this case are very
essential as they prove the presence of mens rea in the minds of the
convicts. The family members of both Heer Ben and Ranjha Patel
were from beginning itself opposed to their choice of marriage as they
threatened the two which shows that they were unhappy with the
marriage and they gave more importance to their family reputation
than the freedom of choice of marriage of their own children.
These particular series of circumstances show this –
a. After Heer Ben and Ranjha Patel had eloped to get married, both
of their family members neither tried to find them in the village
nor did they file an FIR with the police or even report to the police
regarding their absence. This clearly shows that family members
of both the deceased were pretty sure that the two had eloped.
This also shows that they had a feeling of revenge from the
beginning as they found murdering the two as a better option than
lodging an FIR with the police as it could cause dishonor to the
family name.

b. Their affirmation of murdering the deceased in the statements

given during narco analysis and the weapons recovered also
clearly clarify that it was a preplanned murder.

 It is a clear case of honor killing – refers to the homicide of a member

of a family due to the perpetrator’s belief that the victim has brought
shame or dishonor to the family and has violated the principles of the
community or the religion usually for reasons such as refusing to

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 10

 enter an arranged marriage or being in a relationship that is
disapproved by their family. As in this case, the families of both the
deceased are against their independent choice of marriage and
threaten them to dissolve the marriage. Hence it is correct to find
both the accused guilty for murder under section 302 read along with
section 34 of IPC and punish them with death penalty as the Hon’ble
SC in Lata Singh V. State of UP1 held that there is nothing honorable
in honor killing of such persons who undergo intercaste or
interreligious marriage of their own free will and in fact they are
nothing but barbaric and shameful acts committed by brutal, feudal
– minded persons who deserve harsh punishment.

 Coercion cannot be pleaded as an exception to Murder-

The appellants cannot plead on the ground of coercion as Section 94
of IPC states that,
“Except murder and offences against the State punishable with death,
nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is compelled to do
it by threats.”

 The below mentioned series of evidences clearly prove that the

murder was committed by the appellants –
a. Constant threatening by family members of both the deceased
which shows that this murder is not blind murder as there was a
clear threat to the lives of both the deceased.

b. Dharmavijay had a similar lacerated wound on his palm which

was found on several parts of the bodies of the deceased that
could have been caused during the struggle between the deceased
and the accused.

1
AIR 2006 SC 2522

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 11

c. The refusal and reluctance of Dharmavijay to give his blood
sample shows that he was involved in the killing of the deceased
and so had an apprehension of fear of being caught.

d. The report received from forensic laboratory further raises goes

against the two accused as their blood group matched with the
blood group found on the clothes removed of the dead bodies and
the blood stained earth.

e. The weapons recovered due to the statements made in the narco

analysis by Ramraj Singh show that a proper procedure and
planning was done to kill the deceased by first hitting the
deceased with heavy sticks, smashing their heads with heavy
stones and finally slitting their throats with a sharp edged knife.

f. The statement of Udas Ram (a regular alcoholic) also proves the

presence of Dharmavijay and Willywonka Ram near the place of
recovery of the dead bodies. His statement can surely be admitted
in the court of law as it is not clear that he was drunk that
particular night or not. Also his age (75) is not a barrier to his
being a witness in this case as section 118 of the evidence act des
not prescribe any minimum or maximum age condition in this
regard and so any person of any age young or old is considered as
a competent witness. Also his statements are vital for the case as
he is the only person to have seen the two accused at the place of
the commission of the crime which shows that the accused were
the last ones to be seen at the place of commission of crime.
Already the deceased had been threatened by them multiple times
and the evidence of their being the last ones to be seen near the
place of recovery of dead bodies makes it quite clear that the
accused committed the said murders.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 12

 g. Their affirmation of murdering the deceased in their statements of
narco analysis can be taken as a supporting evidence to further
assure this chain of circumstantial evidence as these
circumstances connect the accused with crime beyond reasonable
doubt. As has also been held by the Hon’ble SC in Bhagwan Dass
V. NCT2,
“That persons can be convicted on circumstantial evidence
provided, links in chain of circumstances connects the accused with
crime beyond reasonable doubt.”
Also the Hon’ble SC has opined similarly in State of UP V. Deoman
Upadhyay3 that,
“Even purely circumstantial evidence may furnish a safe basis for
conviction if the facts proved establish a chain which is consistent
only with his guilt.”

 Ramraj Singh should also be given the same quantum of punishment

as his narco analysis statement proves that he had vital information
about the murder and the exact place where the weapons were
buried which shows that was equally involved in the crime as the two
main accused. He also did not tell the same before the Narco Analysis
which shows that he too had the fear of being caught, had he been
innocent he would have informed the police. So, he shall also be held
guilty under Section 302 read along section 34 4(Acts done by several
person in furtherance of the common intention) of IPC which says
that,

“When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the

common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in
the same manner as if it were done by him alone.”

2
AIR 2011 SC 1863
3
AIR 1960 SC 1125
4
THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 13

 Also, he is guilty under section 107 of IPC for Abetment which has been
described as –
A person abets the doing of a thing, who –
First. - Instigates any person to do that thing; or
Secondly. - Engages with one or more other person or persons in any
conspiracy or the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place
in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of the thing; or
Thirdly. - Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that
thing.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 14

 2. THE NARCO ANALYSIS TEST IS ADMISSIBLE
because section 275 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 states that,
“when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of
information received from a person accused of any offence, in the
custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it
amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact
thereby discovered, maybe proved.”

Therefore, similarly the statements made by Ramraj Singh in the

narco analysis through which the weapons get recovered are
admissible as his statement regarding the place where the
weapons were buried and hidden turned out to be exactly true.
This statement thereby relates distinctly to the fact thereby
discovered and hence is proved and admissible.

5
THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 15

 3. THIS CASE FALLS UNDER THE AMBIT OF RAREST OF RARE
CASE
As the deceased have been killed brutally and with utter cruelty
keeping aside humane values by their own family members. This
shows the decline in human values and acts like these are a
danger to individuals who have the right of choosing who to marry
with and the entire society at large. It would also give
encouragement to people with similar mentality as that of the
accused to commit such honor killings and crimes of the same
degree if capital punishment is not awarded. This case falls under
the ambit of rarest of rare case as it an exceptional case of cold
blooded murder where the children have been killed by their own
family members with a high degree of cruelty keeping aside the
humane values due to which it becomes important to give such
judgments that deter other people from committing the same
crime in future and so granting capital punishment becomes
important.
Also, the Hon’ble SC has held that honor killing is a brutal murder
and comes under the ambit of rarest of rare case deserving death
punishment in several cases like ‘The State of UP V. Krishna
Master’6, ‘Machhi Singh V. State of Punjab’7, ‘Bachan Singh Vs.
State of Punjab’8, ‘Lata Singh V. State Of UP 9’
and others.
The same has been reiterated in Bhagwan Dass V. NCT (State of
Delhi)10 wherein the Apex Court held that,
“It is time to stamp out these barbaric, feudal practices which are a
slur on our nation. This is necessary as a deterrent for such

6
AIR 2010 SC 3071
7
AIR 1983 SC 957
8
AIR 1980 SC 898
9
AIR 2006 SC 2522
10
AIR 2011 SC 1863

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 16

 outrageous, uncivilized behaviors. All persons who are planning to
perpetrate ‘honor killings’ should know that the gallows await
them.”
Thus, solitary witness, recovery of weapons, enmity, village
meeting to bar marriage, opposition of family members, recovery of
blood group of accused on blood stained earth and clothes of
deceased and injury on palm all prove that they have committed
the crime and come under the ambit of rarest of rare cases, hence
liable to be hanged.

4.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 17

 PRAYER

Therefore, in the light of the facts presented, arguments advanced

and authorities cited, the Respondent humbly submit that the
Hon’ble High Court of Sleepy Hollow be pleased to adjudge and
declare that:

1. Willywonka Ram, Dharmavijay Patel and Ramraj Singh are equally

guilty for the honor killing of Heer Ben and Ranjha Patel under
section 302 read along with section 34 of IPC and shall be awarded
with death penalty under the ambit of rarest of the rare case.

2. The Statements made by Ramraj Singh during the Narco Analysis

are admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1862.

For this act, the Respondent shall duty bound forever pray.

Sd./-

Counsel for the Petitioner

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 18