MOOT MEMORIAL
LLB 5th Semester
Submitted To: Submitted By:
Ms. Aabha Sood Shashank Yadav
Regd. No. 71912249
SCHOOL OF LAW
CT UNIVERSITY, LUDHIANA
BEF
ORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT
OF MAHARASHTRA
CRIMINAL APPEAL -/ 2021
DILIP
(APPEALANT)
V.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
(RESPONDENT)
UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT
OF MAHARASHTRA
Memorandum on behalf of the Respondent State of Maharashtra
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE Page 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABBREVATIONS……………………………………. 3
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES…………………………. 3-4
· LIST OF STATUTES………………… 3
· TABLE OF CASES……………………4
· BOOKS…………………………………..5
· WEBSITES………………………………5
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION…………………………………. 6
FACTS……………………………………………………………………… 7-8
STATEMENT OF ISSUES ………….……………………………….. 9
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT……………………………………… 10-11
ARGUMENT ADVANCED…………………………………………..12-14
PRAYER…………………………………………………………………… 15
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE Page 2
LIST OF ABBREVATION
AIR All India Reporter
IPC Indian Penal Code
SCC Supreme Court Cases
v. Versus
u/s Under section
CrPC Code of Criminal Procedure
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE Page 3
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
1. LIST OF STATUTES
THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860
THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872
THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973
2. LIST OF CASES
• Sita Ram & Others V. State of Uttar Pradesh, 19 January 1979
• Mohammad Khan & Others V. State of Madhya Pradesh, 21
October 1971
• Gurcharan Singh V. State of Punjab, 1963 AIR 340
• Bachan Singh V. State of Punjab
• Hirabhai Jhaverbhai V. State of Gujarat and Others, Appeal No. 517
of 1994
• Ram Lal and Others V. State of Jammu & Kashmir, Jan 25 1999
• Gopal Singh V. State of Uttrakhand, 8 February 2013
• Binoy & Another V. State of Kerala, 13 February 2015
• Jagat Pal Singh & Others V. State of Haryana, 26 March 1999
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE Page 4
3. Books
Indian Penal Code , seventh edition by K.D Gaur
4. Websites
• indiakanoon.com
• casemine.com
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE Page 5
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The respondent has the honour to submit before the Honourable
Court, the memorandum for the respondent order the jurisdiction
of the High court.The Prosecution approaches to the court for matter
relating to the sec. 302, 324& 452 of the I.P.C., 1860. The honourable
high court enjoys the Right to provide order this nature by virtue of
section374 of CrPC,1973
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE Page 6
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. Appellant Dilip and deceased Ramabai are relative.
2. Ramabai was mother of the Anil and mother-in-law of the Anjali.
3. Dilip was suffering from “Bipolar Affected disorder” and treated with
the drugs and electro convulsive therapy.
4. The land of the Ramabai and Dilip was situated adjacent to each other.
5. Dilip was residing along with his father Bapurao, his wife, his elder
brother Ramu and wife of Ramu.
6. There was a common well between the family of Bapurao and Ramabai.
7. There was quarrel on account of well between Ramabai and the Dilip.
8. Sandeep solekar was also residing at Morewasti, Pune.
9. The land of the father of the Dilip was situated adjacent to the land of
the sandeep.
10. The cattle of the sandeep had entered into the field of the Dilip.
11. On account of this, exchange of words took place between Sandeep
and the Dilip.
12. On 24.11.2004 at about 9 a.m. Anjali and her mother-in-law Ramabai
were taking their cattle for grazing. At that time the Dilip came in front of
the Ramabai.
13. Dilip started assaulting Ramabai with a knife. He assaulted Ramabai
on neck, chest.
14. Anjali intervened. Thereupon Dilip also assaulted her on the hand and
chest with a knife.
15. Ramabai fell down on the ground and Dilip stabbed her on the back
with a knife.
16. Thereafter Anjali also fell down.
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE Page 7
17. Dilip then ran away towards the house of the Mahadeo solekar.
Sandeep was the son of the Mahadeo solekar. He was residing at the
Yelagewadi.
18. At about 9.15 a.m. Sandeep was in his house. His mother Suman was
cooking food.
19. At that time Dilip came running in the house of the Sandeep with knife
in his hand.
20. Dilip also assaulted Sandeep with the knife on his chest and stomach.
21. Suman intervened. Dilip also assaulted Suman on her chest and on the
hands.
22. Dilip then ran away from the spot.
23. Sandeep and Suman were going to the hospital, on the way they saw
Ramabai lying on the ground with injuries on her person. They saw that
Anjali was also lye injured state near Ramabai.
24. Anil who was the son of Ramabai was informed by his cousin brother
that his mother Ramabai was assaulted by Dilip with a knife.
25. Anil was also informed that his sister-in-law Anjali was also assaulted
by Dilip.
26. On receiving the said information, Anil went to his wadi on the
motorcycle.
27. He saw his mother Ramabai and sister-in-law Anjali were lying in the
field in injured condition.
28. Anil then went to the Sangola Police Station and lodged FIR.
Thereafter investigation commenced.
29. Dilip was arrested. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet
came to be filed for causing murder of Ramabai. Charge was also framed
u/s. 307 for assaulting Anjali, Sandeep and Suman with a knife.
30. Charge came to be framed against Dilip u/s. 302 of the IPC. Charge
was also framed u/s.452 of IPC as Dilip had entered into the house of the
witnesses in order to commit offence.
31. After going through the evidence adduced in this case, the learned
Session judge convicted and Sentenced Dilip u/s. 302, 324 & 452 of the
IPC.
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE Page 8
32. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the session
court, the appellant has filled this appeal to the High court.
STATEMENT OF ISSUE
ISSUE 1- whether Dilip is liable u/s. 302, 324 & 452 of I.P.C.?
ISSUE 2-whether dilip was of an unsound mind at time of commission
of offences and was incapable of knowing nature and consequences of
the case?
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE Page 9
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
ISSUE 1- Whether Dilip was liable u/s. 302, 324 & 452 of the
I.P.C.?
It is humbly submitted before the court that in this case the learned
session court sentenced the Dilip undergo imprisonment of life and
u/s. 302 , imprisonment of 3 months and to pay fine u/s. 324 and
u/s. 452 of the I.P.C.
In this case according to the circumstances of the case Dilip
was liable under sec. 302, 324 & 452 of the IPC as he was suffering
from “Bipolar Affected Disease” as murdered Ramabai with three
Stabs of Knife and assaulted Anjali. And the at 9:15 A.M he went
Mahadeo Solekar’s house assaulted Sandeep and his mother Suman
with knife.
ISSUE 2- whether Dilip was of unsound mind at time of commission
of offence and was incapable of knowing nature and consequences
of the act?
In this case Dilip was suffering from a “Bipolar Affected
disorder” and he was treated with Drugs and Electro Compulsive
Therapy. He was allowed to live in home and with his current
treatment which means he does not require to be admitted into
hospital he was doing well and can live in normal human society.
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCEPage 10
Bipolar affected disease- Bipolar affected disorder is a mental
disorder that causes unusual shifts in mood, energy, activity levels,
concentration, and the ability to carry out day-to-day tasks.
But its clear from his actions that at time of commission of his he was
in sound mind state as he stabbed Ramabai not only one or two times
but three times. He also stabbed Anjali because she intervened
between Dilip and Ramabai and then at 9:15 he went to Mahadeo
Solekar’s house and assaulted Sandeep on his stomach ( human’s vital
point) ,also when Suman mother of Sandeep tried to intervene he
assaulted her on chest and hands. The biggest of all he ran from the
spot . If he was under fit of bipolar attack he won’t have run from the
first place i.e Ramabai’s land.
In the present case Dilip was also of unsound mind at the time
of commission of offence and was capable of knowing nature and
consequences of the act.
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCEPage 11
ARGUMENT ADVANCED
ISSUE 1-Whether Dilip is liable u/s. 302, 324 & 452 of IPC?
Yes in this case Dilip is liable u/s 302, 324 & 452 as he murdered
Ramabai at 9 A.M by stabbing on her Stomach, Chest and on her
Back with a knife also assaulted Anjali on her Chest and hand who
intervened between Ramabai and Dilip.
At 9:15 Dilip went to Mahadeo Solekar’s house with his and
assaulted Sandeep by stabbing on his stomach and as his mother
Suman intervened he also assaulted her by stabbing her on chest and
hands which means at house trespass with preparation to hurt or
assault.
A. The accused had intention - Dilip had intention to kill and
assault others because it was not a spur of moment as he had
already a knife when went to kill Ramabai and without any mercy
he killed Ramabai and assaulted Anjali , Sandeep and Suman.
B. The Accused had motive - Dilip had a motive to kill Ramabai as
there was quarrel between Dilip and Ramabai on account of well
water. Thus he had motive here.
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCEPage 12
He also had exchange of words with Sandeep when once his
cattle
entered into the field of Dilip. Therefore Dilip had a motive here
too.
C. Precedent Cases
• Sita Ram & Others V. State of Uttar Pradesh, 19 January 1979
The Apex court found Sita Ram and others guilty and were given
life imprisionment under section 302 of Indian penal code.
• Mohammad Khan & Others V. State of Madhya Pradesh, 21
October 1971.
In this case the Supreme Court held life sentence for murder and
dacoity of villagers.
• Gurcharan singh V. State of Punjab, 10 August ,1962
The Apex Court denied appeal of self defence and charged
Gurcharan Singh and others with death sentence under section
302/149 of IPC for killing Arjan Singh ,Sukhjit Singh and Piara Singh
and for forming unlawful assembly for purpose rioting.
• Hirabhai Jhaverbhai V. State of Gujarat , appeal no. 517 of 1994
The Supreme Court declined the appeal held the conviction of 6
months and fine of Rs250/- under section 324 of IPC.
• Ram Lal & Others V. State of Jammu & Kashmir, January 25 ,1995
The Supreme Court held conviction of Ram Lal for 2 years of
rigorous imprisionment under section 324 of IPC for stabbing his
business partner 2 times on back.
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCEPage 13
• Jagat Pal Singh V. State of Haryana , 26 March,1999
The Apex Court held Conviction of 3 months under section 452of
IPC for Jagat Pal singh who trespassed into house of Mahabir Singh
with pistol in his hands.
ISSUE 2-Whether Dilip was of unsound mind at the commission of
offences and was incapable of knowing nature and consequences of
act?
In this case Dilip was suffering from a “Bipolar Affected disorder”
and he was treated with Drugs and Electro Compulsive Therapy. He
was allowed to live in home and with his current treatment which
means he does not require to be admitted into hospital he was doing
well and can live in normal human society.
Bipolar affected disease- Bipolar affected disorder is a mental
disorder that causes unusual shifts in mood, energy, activity levels,
concentration, and the ability to carry out day-to-day tasks.
But its clear from his actions that at time of commission of his he was
in sound mind state as he stabbed Ramabai not only one or two times
but three times. He also stabbed Anjali because she intervened
between Dilip and Ramabai and then at 9:15 he went to Mahadeo
Solekar’s house and assaulted Sandeep on his stomach ( human’s vital
point) ,also when Suman mother of Sandeep tried to intervene he
assaulted her on chest and hands. The biggest of all he ran from the
spot . If he was under fit of bipolar attack he won’t have run from the
first place i.e Ramabai’s land.
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCEPage 14
In the present case Dilip was sound mind at the time of
commission of offence and was capable of knowing nature and
consequences of the act.
PRAYER
In the light of the facts stated, issue raise, authorities
cited and pleadings advanced, it is most humbly prayed before the
court that it may be plea to dismiss the appeal of the defence and keep
convicted the Dilip u/s. 302, 324 & 452 Of IPC.
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCEPage 15
