IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, AT NEW DELHI

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION No.__/2021 FILED UNDER ARTICLE 136

r/w ARTICLE 142

SATATRANGI SINGH ……….APPELLANT

V.

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ………..RESPONDENT

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

0 0
 MOOT COURT AND INTERNSHIPS- MOOT PROBLEM- 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS ...................................................................................................... 2

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS................................................................................................ 3

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................................. 4

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ...................................................................................... 8

STATEMENT OF FACTS .................................................................................................... 9

STATEMENT OF ISSUES ................................................................................................. 10

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ......................................................................................... 11

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ............................................................................................. 12

PRAYER ............................................................................................................................ 22

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT

2

0 0
 MOOT COURT AND INTERNSHIPS- MOOT PROBLEM- 1

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AIR All India Reporter

SC Supreme Court

HC High Court

SCC Supreme Court Cases

Art. Article

IPC Indian Penal Code

Hon’ble Honourable

Id. Ibidem

No. Number

Ors Others

v. Versus

r/w Read with

Sec. Section

CrPC Code of Criminal Procedure

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT

3

0 0
 MOOT COURT AND INTERNSHIPS- MOOT PROBLEM- 1

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

STATUTES
1. Constitution of India
2. Indian Penal Code, 1860
3. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
4. Indian Evidence Act, 1872

CASE LAWS
1. State of Maharashtra v. Satarangi Singh, S.C. No. 420 of 2020.
2. Rajwant Singh v. State of Kerala, AIR 1966 SC 1874.
3. Badri v. State of U.P., AIR 1953 All 189.
4. Jagdish v. State of M.P., AIR 1981 SC 1167.
5. State of Rajasthan v. Kalki & Anr., AIR 1981 SC 1390.
6. Rana Pratap v. State of Haryana, AIR 1983 SC 680.
7. State of Kant. v. Rapanaika AIR 2004 SC 4967.
8. Akhtar & Ors. v. State of Uttaranchal, (2009) 13 SCC 722.
9. State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, AIR 1992 SC 840.
10. V.C. Shukla & Ors. v. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1980 SC 1382.
11. Bodh Raj @ Bodha & Ors. v. State of J&K, AIR 2002 SC 3164.
12. Ashok v. State of Maharashtra, (2015) 4 SCC 393.
13. Kiriti Pal & Ors. v. State of W.B. & Ors., (2015) 11 SCC 178.
14. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Patranu Dass Raja Ram Beri, AIR 1982 P&H 1.
15. State of Maharashtra v. Meyer Hans George, AIR 1965 SC 722.
16. Pulichera Nagaraju v. State of A.P., AIR 2006 SC 3010.
17. Chahat Khan v. State of Haryana, (1973) Cr LJ 36 (SC).
18. Bhaskar Pandit v. State of Maharashtra, 1984 (2) Bom CR 769.
19. Md. Idrish v. State, (2004) Cr LJ 1724 (Raj).
20. Md. Sharif & Anr. v. Rex, AIR 1950 All 380.
21. Badri, AIR 1953 All 189.
22. Dibia v. State of U.P., AIR 1953 All 373.
23. State of Maharashtra v. Bhairu Sattu Berad, AIR 1956 Bom 609.
24. Kesar Singh v. State of Haryana, (2008) 15 SCC 753.
25. Santosh v. State of M.P., 1975 Cr LJ 602 (SC).

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT

4

0 0
 MOOT COURT AND INTERNSHIPS- MOOT PROBLEM- 1

26. Sumer Singh v. Surajbhan Singh, 2014 Cr LJ 3246 (SC).

27. State of Rajasthan v. Manoj Kumar, (2014) 4 SCC 724.
28. Murali v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2001) 1 SCC 229.
29. Rahman Samail v. Emperor, AIR 1939 Lah 245.
30. Srikantiah BN v. State of Mysore, AIR 1958 SC 672.
31. Anda v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1966 SC 148.
32. John Pandian v. State, (2010) 14 SCC 129.
33. Dawaru Patra v. State, (1968) 10 Ori JD 147.
34. Paramananda Mahakud & Anr. v. State, 1970 Cr LJ 931 (Ori) (DB).
35. Buddhi Lal v. State of Rajasthan, (2004) Cr LJ 4420 (Raj) (DB).
36. Dharam & Ors v. State of Haryana, AIR 2007 SC 397.
37. Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab, (2010) 2 SCC 333.
38. Sikandar Singh v. State of Bihar, (2010) 7 SCC 477.
39. Babulal Bhagwan Khandare v. State of Maharastra, AIR 2005 SC 1460.
40. Raising Mohima v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1962 Guj 203.
41. Sekar @ Raja Sekharan v. State Rep. By Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu, 2002 (4) RCR
(Criminal) 477.
42. Guriya Bucha v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1962 Guj 39.
43. Devi Lal v. State of Rajasthan, 2018 SCC Online Raj 2090.
44. Chandra Bhan v. State, AIR 1954 All 39.
45. Guru Charan Singh v. State, AIR 1965 All 543.
46. Ranbaran v. State of Bihar, AIR 1963 Ori 52.
47. Basan Bhowmick v. State, (1963) 1 Cr LJ 46.
48. Pandharinath Punjaram Lahane v. State of Maharashtra, 2008 Cr LJ (NOC) 79 Bom (DB).
49. Carlose John v. State of Kerala, AIR 1974 SC 1115.
50. Somiah v. State of Karnataka, (1978) Kant LJ 93.
51. Sheshreddi Gopireddi Changati v. State of Maharashtra, 2013 Cr LJ (NOC) 312 (Bom).
52. Laxman Sahu v. State of Orissa, AIR 1988 SC 83.
53. Radhey v. State of Chattisgarh, 2008 Cr LJ 3520 (SC).
54. Omkarnath Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1974 SC 1550.

BOOKS

1. B.R. SHARMA, FORENSIC SCIENCE IN CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION AND TRIAL (6th ed., Universals
& LexisNexis, 2019).

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT

5

0 0
 MOOT COURT AND INTERNSHIPS- MOOT PROBLEM- 1

2. BATUK LAL, THE LAW OF EVIDENCE (7th ed., Thomson Reuters, 2017).
3. II, B.B. MITRA, CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 (20th ed., Kamal Law House, 2006).
4. Bryan Garner, Black’s Law Dictionary, (14th Ed., 2012).
5. D. ORMEROD, SMITH AND HOGAN’S CRIMINAL LAW (9th ed., Oxford Publications, 2009).
6. DR. DURGA DAS BASU, COMMENTARY ON CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (8th ed.,
Lexis Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa, Nagpur 2008).
7. GLANVILLE W ILLIAMS, PROOF OF GUILT (1st ed., Stevens & Sons, 1955).
8. HALSBURY’S LAWS OF INDIA, (2nd ed., Lexis-Nexis Butterworth Wadhwa, 2007).
9. H.M. SEERVAI, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA, (4th ed., Universal Law Publishing,
2010).
10. II, III, IV J K SOONAVALA’S, SUPREME COURT CRIMINAL DIGEST (1950-2015) (6th ed.,
LexisNexis, 2016).
11. KAGZI, THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 8th ed. 2012.
12. J.W. CECIL TURNER, KENNY’S OUTLINES OF CRIMINAL LAW (18th ed., Cambridge University
Press, 2017).
13. K.D. GAUR, TEXTBOOK ON INDIAN PENAL CODE (6th ed., UNIVERSAL LAW PUBLISHING, 2006).
14. M.P JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, (16th ed., Lexis Nexis Butterworth
Wadhwa,2011)
15. N.S. BINDRA, INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES (12th ed., LexisNexis, 2017).
16. P RAMANATHA AIYAR, THE LAW LEXICON (2nd ed., LexisNexis, 2006).
17. P. RAMANATHA AIYAR, THE LAW LEXICON, (3rd ed., LexisNexis, 2012).
18. III, R.A. NELSON, INDIAN PENAL CODE, (11th ed., LexisNexis, 2012).
19. II, III, IV R.A. NELSON, INDIAN PENAL CODE (12th ed., LexisNexis, 2019).
20. R. P. KATHURIA, SUPREME COURT ON INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 (9th ed., LexisNexis, 2017).
21. R.V. KELKAR, LECTURES ON CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE (6th ed., Eastern Book Company,
2019).
22. RAM JETHMALANI & D.S CHOPRA, THE INDIAN PENAL CODE (1st ed., Thomson Reuters, 2014).
23. RATANLAL & DHIRAJLAL, CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE,1973 (20th ed., Wadhwa And
Company, 2006).
24. RATANLAL & DHIRAJLAL, LAW OF CRIMES – A COMMENTARY ON THE INDIAN PENAL CODE,
1860, (27th ed., Bharat Law House, 2016).
25. RATANLAL & DHIRAJLAL, LAW OF CRIMES – A COMMENTARY ON THE INDIAN PENAL CODE,
1860 (35th ed., LexisNexis, 2016).
26. RATANLAL & DHIRAJLAL, LAW OF EVIDENCE (24th ed., LexisNexis, 2016).

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT

6

0 0
 MOOT COURT AND INTERNSHIPS- MOOT PROBLEM- 1

27. S. C. SARKAR, LAW OF EVIDENCE (17th ed., Lexisnexis Butterworths Wadhwa Nagpur, 2010).
28. S.N. MISRA, THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE,1973 (21ST ed., CENTRAL LAW
PUBLICATIONS, 2019).
29. SURENDRA MALIK, SUPREME COURT ON EVIDENCE ACT (2nd ed., Eastern Book Company,
2015).
30. V.N. SHUKLA, CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, (Mahendra Pal Singh, 13th ed. 2019).

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT

7

0 0
 MOOT COURT AND INTERNSHIPS- MOOT PROBLEM- 1

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Petitioner has submitted that, in the instant case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has jurisdiction
over the matter under Art. 136 r/w Art. 142 of the Constitution to hear appeal on the judgement
passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Maharashtra. The Respondent, submits to this jurisdiction
in the instant case and does not contend the maintainability of this Appeal.

Art. 136 of the Constitution- Special Leave to appeal by the Supreme Court
(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion, grant
special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any
cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India.
(2) Nothing in clause (1) shall apply to any judgment, determination, sentence or order passed
or made by any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed
Forces.
Art. 142 of the Constitution- Enforcement of decrees and orders of the Supreme Court and
orders as to discovery, etc.
(1) The Supreme Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such
order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it,
and any decree so passed or orders so made shall be enforceable throughout the territory of
India in such manner as may be prescribed by or under any law made by Parliament and,
until provision in that behalf is so made, in such manner as the President may by order
prescribe.
(2) Subject to the provisions of any law made in this behalf by Parliament, the Supreme Court
shall, as respects the whole of the territory of India, have all and every power to make any
order for the purpose of securing the attendance of any person, the discovery or production
of any documents, or the investigation or punishment of any contempt of itself

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT

8

0 0
 MOOT COURT AND INTERNSHIPS- MOOT PROBLEM- 1

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Vadakar, a bachelor aged 21, was a university student. He was residing alone in a room at
the back of Duryodhan Hostel, Ayodhya Park. At around 12:45 PM on 04//08/2021, Alexis,
the complainant of the instant case along with the watchman of Duryodhan hostel, heard
Vadakar shouting loudly from his room. Along with other students, they attempted to knock
on the door to enquire the issue.
2. An individual from inside the room claimed that Vadakar was vomiting blood and
demanded the students to go away. The students continued to knock on the door when the
person (Satarangi Singh) opened the door and attempted to run away. He was caught and
locked in a room in the hostel. Vadakar was found dead and naked inside the room.
3. Alexis filed a complaint at the Mayapuri Police Station and an investigation commenced.
The accused claimed to have hit the deceased with a weapon and alleged that it was because
the deceased removed his clothes and attempted to have unnatural sex with the accused. It
was observed that the deceased died due to a haemorrhage. It was also observed that certain
ornaments of the deceased were stolen. The father of the deceased identified the stolen
ornaments in the instance of the accused.
4. Upon completion of the investigation, the accused was tried before the Hon’ble Court of
Sessions, Pune under S.C. No. 420 of 2020 for offences punishable under Sec. 302 & Sec.
394 of the Indian Penal Code. After the examination of all witnesses, documents and
evidences provided by the Prosecution, the Hon’ble Court of Sessions, Pune convicted the
accused on 31/08/2021 for the offences of murder and voluntarily causing hurt in
committing robbery. The accused was sentenced to imprisonment for life, and liable to pay
a fine of Rs. 20,000.
5. Aggrieved by the judgement, the accused appealed the same before the Hon’ble High Court
of Maharashtra challenging the judgement on the grounds of lack of evidence provided by
the Prosecution, and the accused’s exercise of his right to private defence under fourthly of
Sec. 100. The accused further argued that if the Court believed that the accused exceeded
his right, then the provisions under Sec. 304 Part II was more applicable than Sec. 302 due
to lack of intention.
6. The Hon’ble High Court convicted the accused under Sec. 304 Part II and sentenced him
to imprisonment up to seven years, and made him liable to pay a fine of Rs. 500. Aggrieved
by the judgement passed by the Hon’ble High Court, the Appellant-Accused has preferred
the instant appeal.

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT

9

0 0
 MOOT COURT AND INTERNSHIPS- MOOT PROBLEM- 1

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUE I:

WHETHER THE ACCUSED WAS JUSTIFIED IN EXERCISING HIS RIGHT TO

PRIVATE DEFENCE?

ISSUE II:

WHETHER THE ACCUSED HAS EXCEEDED HIS RIGHT TO PRIVATE DEFENCE?

ISSUE III:

IF YES, WHETHER THE ACCUSED CAN BE HELD LIABLE UNDER PART II OF

SECTION 304?

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT

10

0 0
 MOOT COURT AND INTERNSHIPS- MOOT PROBLEM- 1

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
ISSUE I: WHETHER THE ACCUSED WAS JUSTIFIED IN EXERCISING HIS RIGHT
TO PRIVATE DEFENCE?

It is contended that the accused has no right to private defence and the death of Mr. Vadakar
(hereinafter referred to as the deceased), was not an act of private defence due to a grave and
sudden provocation. It is contended by the Respondent before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India that the conviction of Mr. Satarangi Singh (hereinafter referred to as the Appellant-
Accused) by the Hon’ble Court of Sessions is proper since the accused is guilty of committing
the offence of murder under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 since actus reus and mens
rea to cause death is established.

ISSUE II: WHETHER THE ACCUSED HAS EXCEEDED HIS RIGHT TO PRIVATE
DEFENCE?

It is submitted by the Respondent before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the Appellant-Accused
did not have any right to private defence under Fourthly of Sec. 100 and Exception II of Sec.
300. In Arguendo, even if such a right did exist, it is submitted that the Appellant-Accused has
exceeded this right by causing the death of the deceased. It is contended that there was no proof
of immediate danger to the accused and there was no necessity to cause injury to the deceased in
order to cause death as it would be disproportionate. The defence of right to private defence under
Fourthly of Sec. 100 is inapplicable as the burden of proof of the same is on the Appellant-
Accused.

ISSUE III: IF YES, WHETHER THE ACCUSED CAN BE HELD LIABLE UNDER
PART II OF SECTION 304?

It is firstly submitted by the Respondent that the Appellant Accused, did not have any right to
private defence as the same right was not proven before the Hon’ble Court of Sessions. It is
secondly submitted that in Arguendo, even if such a right did exist, and the Appellant-Accused
did exercise such a right, he has exceeded his right by disproportionately utilising the same,
thereby causing the death of the deceased. It is therefore submitted that the Appellant-Accused
may then be convicted under Sec. 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 as he has still committed
the offence of culpable homicide regardless.

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT

11

0 0
 MOOT COURT AND INTERNSHIPS- MOOT PROBLEM- 1

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

I. WHETHER THE ACCUSED WAS JUSTIFIED IN EXERCISING HIS RIGHT TO

PRIVATE DEFENCE?

1. It is contended by the Respondent before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that the
conviction of Mr. Satarangi Singh (hereinafter referred to as the Appellant-Accused) by the
Hon’ble Court of Sessions is proper since the accused is guilty of committing the offence
of murder under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 18601 since ‘actus reus’ and ‘mens rea’
to cause death is established.2 It is further contended that the decision provided the Hon’ble
High Court is erroneous to the extent that the Appellant-Accused did indeed have an
intention to commit the heinous offence and had full knowledge of the consequences of his
act, and therefore, submitted that the Appellant-Accused ought to be convicted under Sec.
302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 over Sec. 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.3
2. It is contended that the accused has no right to private defence and the death of Mr. Vadakar
(hereinafter referred to as the deceased), was not an act of private defence due to a grave
and sudden provocation. The conviction of the accused under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal
Code, 18604 requires reference to Sec. 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 18605 that elucidates
the essentials of murder. It is contended that the Appellant-Accused is liable to be held
guilty under Sec. 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 18606 as his act of attacking the deceased
with a sword was done with the knowledge and intention of causing death of the deceased.7
3. The factors to be taken into consideration for the intention to kill are the nature of the
weapon used and the vital part on which the injury was inflicted and the force with which
the weapon was used.8 Proof of intention is enough to establish the offence of murder unless
it falls with any of the exceptions of Sec. 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.9 Where
injuries are inflicted with the intention of killing a person and death ensues as a result of
the injuries, it is a clear case of murder.10

1
PEN. CODE § 302.
2
State of Maharashtra v. Satarangi Singh, S.C. No. 420 of 2020.
3
PEN. CODE § 304.
4
PEN. CODE § 302.
5
PEN. CODE § 300.
6
Id.
7
Case Records, Statement of Facts.
8
K.D. GAUR, TEXTBOOK ON INDIAN PENAL CODE, 448 (6th ed., Universal Law Publishing, 2006).
9
Rajwant Singh v. State of Kerala, AIR 1966 SC 1874.
10
Badri v. State of U.P., AIR 1953 All 189 (hereinafter referred as Badri, AIR 1953 All 189).

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT

12

0 0
 MOOT COURT AND INTERNSHIPS- MOOT PROBLEM- 1

[A]. Actus Reus of Murder is Proven.

4. ‘Actus reus’ is any wrongful act.11 In the case of murder, actus reus is the physical conduct
of the accused that causes death of the victim.12 It is contended before this Hon’ble Court
that in the instant case the actus reus is established by way of witness statements, medical
evidence, First Information Report and the circumstantial evidence.

(i). Witness Statements

5. It is humbly contended that the witness statements do not show inconsistencies in the
manner in which the crime was committed. Direct evidence is the testimony given by a
person as to what he has himself perceived by his own senses and done in regard to the fact
under investigation.13 There are bound to be observations of different witnesses as
observations are very subjective in nature and each witness has seen the incident with a
different perspective,14 there is no legal principle of universal application of how a witness
would react in a given circumstance.15
6. Therefore, the substance provided by each Prosecution witness should be regarded as
conclusive proof of the guilt of the accused. Prosecution Witness and complainant, Alexis
in the instant case provided sufficient information that the Appellant-Accused initially
refused to open the door despite the victim screaming loudly and allegedly vomiting. It is
further on record that a sword was found at the instance of the Appellant-Accused when he
attempted to run away as soon as the door was opened, however, he was caught by the
complainant and other Prosecution Witnesses who were standing outside the door.16

(ii). Medical Evidence

7. It was observed by the Hon’ble Court of Sessions that the post mortem report clearly opined
that the death of the deceased had been caused by a shock due to haemorrhage.17 Where in
the post mortem report all the injuries received by the accused were given in detail and said
injuries received by the deceased correspond with the version of prosecution witnesses
there is no reason to disbelieve the post mortem report.18 In the instant case, the post mortem

11
P. RAMANATHA AIYAR, THE LAW LEXICON, 49 (2nd ed., LexisNexis, 2006).
12
III, R.A. NELSON, INDIAN PENAL CODE, 2100 (11th ed., LexisNexis, 2012).
13
Jagdish v. State of M.P., AIR 1981 SC 1167.
14
State of Rajasthan v. Kalki & Anr., AIR 1981 SC 1390.
15
Rana Pratap v. State of Haryana, AIR 1983 SC 680.
16
Case Records, Statement of Facts.
17
State of Maharashtra v. Satarangi Singh, S.C. No. 420 of 2020.
18
State of Kant. v. Rapanaika AIR 2004 SC 4967.

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT

13

0 0
 MOOT COURT AND INTERNSHIPS- MOOT PROBLEM- 1

report elaborately discusses the cause of death and type of injuries suffered. It is duly
acknowledged that the cause of death was due to a shock due to haemorrhage and the same
was upheld by the Hon’ble Court of Sessions as well as the Hon’ble High Court.19
8. It is settled position of law that if the genuineness of any document filed by a party is not
disputed by the opposite party it can be read as substantive evidence under Sec. 294(3) of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.20 Accordingly, the post mortem report, if its
genuineness is not disputed by the opposite party, the said post mortem report can be read
as substantive evidence to prove the correctness of its contents without the doctor
concerned being examined.21 In the instant case, the defence has not questioned the
genuineness of the post mortem report and therefore, the same can be read as substantive
evidence.

(iii). Circumstantial Evidence (Last Seen Theory)

9. It is contended that it is not for the prosecution to disprove every hypothesis suggested by
the accused, howsoever extravagant and fanciful it might be, guilt can be proved by
circumstantial evidence after justification of incriminating facts and circumstances.22 The
last seen together theory in itself may not be conclusive proof but along with other
circumstances surrounding the incident, like relations between the accused and the
deceased, previous history of hostility, etc may lead to a presumption of guilt.23 The theory
of “last seen alive” comes into play when the time gap between the manner in which
accused and the deceased were last seen together and the deceased was found dead was so
small, the possibility of any other person committing the murder becomes impossible.24
10. It is firstly submitted that the Appellant-Accused was the last person who was seen inside
the room of the deceased when the deceased was still alive. It is secondly submitted that
the Appellant-Accused refused to open the door and allow for a possibility of medical
intervention when the deceased was vomiting after being hit by the sword. It is thirdly
submitted that a sword was found at the instance of the Appellant-Accused when he
attempted to run away as soon as the door was opened.

19
State of Maharashtra v. Satarangi Singh, S.C. No. 420 of 2020.
20
CODE CRIM. PROC. §294(3).
21
Akhtar & Ors. v. State of Uttaranchal, (2009) 13 SCC 722.
22
State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, AIR 1992 SC 840; V.C. Shukla & Ors. v. State (Delhi
Administration), AIR 1980 SC 1382; Bodh Raj @ Bodha & Ors. v. State of J&K, AIR 2002 SC 3164.
23
Ashok v. State of Maharashtra, (2015) 4 SCC 393.
24
Kiriti Pal & Ors. v. State of W.B. & Ors., (2015) 11 SCC 178.

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT

14

0 0
 MOOT COURT AND INTERNSHIPS- MOOT PROBLEM- 1

11. By virtue of Sec. 106, Indian Evidence Act, 187225 the Respondent is exempted to prove
exact happening of the incident as the accused himself would have special knowledge of
the incident and thus, would have burden of proof. It is contended that the circumstantial
evidence in shows that within all human probability, the act must have been done by the
accused and it is not for the prosecution to prove whether the act was done in private
defence.

[B]. Mens Rea for Murder is Established

12. Mens rea is considered as guilty intention,26 which is proved or inferred from the acts of
the accused.27 In order to prove whether the accused are guilty under Sec. 302 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860,
a) There must have been death of a human being;
b) Such death has been caused by, or in consequence of, the act of the accused;
c) Such act must have been done with the intention of causing death and;
d) accused caused death by doing an act known to him to be so imminently dangerous
that it must in all probability cause death. 28

(i). Accused had Knowledge and Intention to cause death

13. It is contended that where a person causes an injury on the vital part of the body, 29 the
intention to kill can be attributed from that.30 Causing a serious injury on a vital part of the
body of the deceased must necessarily lead to the inference that the accused intended to
cause death or bodily injury sufficient to cause death of the victim, and it answers to Sec.
300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 31 and is murder.32 Moreover, the intention to kill is not
required in every case,33 mere knowledge that natural and probable consequences of an act

25
§ 106, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, No.1, Acts of Parliament, 1872.
26
Commissioner of Income Tax v. Patranu Dass Raja Ram Beri, AIR 1982 P&H 1.
27
State of Maharashtra v. Meyer Hans George, AIR 1965 SC 722.
28
RATANLAL & DHIRAJLAL, LAW OF CRIMES – A COMMENTARY ON THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860, 1299 (27th
ed., Bharat Law House, 2016).
29
Pulichera Nagaraju v. State of A.P., AIR 2006 SC 3010.
30
Chahat Khan v. State of Haryana, (1973) Cr LJ 36 (SC); Bhaskar Pandit v. State of Maharashtra, 1984 (2) Bom
CR 769.
31
PEN. CODE § 300.
32
Md. Idrish v. State, (2004) Cr LJ 1724 (Raj); Md. Sharif & Anr. v. Rex, AIR 1950 All 380; Badri, AIR 1953
All 189; Dibia v. State of U.P., AIR 1953 All 373; State of Maharashtra v. Bhairu Sattu Berad, AIR 1956 Bom
609.
33
Kesar Singh v. State of Haryana, (2008) 15 SCC 753.

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT

15

0 0
 MOOT COURT AND INTERNSHIPS- MOOT PROBLEM- 1

would be death will suffice for a conviction under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860.34
14. It is contended that when the doer of an act knows that his act would result in death of a
person, he should be deemed to have intent to cause death.35 To determine the intention of
the accused, the nature of the weapon, part of the body of the victim chosen for the accused
to attack, the number of blows administered, the force used by the assailant, etc. is to be
considered.36 Furthermore, it has also been held that the intention of the accused to cause
death can be inferred from the resultant injuries.37
15. It is submitted that the cause of death was due to a shock due to haemorrhage, and the
weapon used for the same was a sword. It is submitted that the Appellant-Accused had
knowledge that an attack to a vital part of the body of the deceased that may result in a
grievous injury of haemorrhage, which may result in death when he attacked the deceased
with a sword. Furthermore, the accused changed the name plate of the vehicle in which he
arrived to the house of the deceased and the ornaments of the deceased was found in the
instance of the Appellant-Accused. It is therefore submitted that the Appellant-Accused
had the intention and knowledge of causing the death of the deceased.
[C]. The Accused did not have right of private defence under Fourthly of Sec. 100 and
Exception 2 of Sec. 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
16. It is contended that it is trite that a plea of right of private defence cannot be based on
surmises and speculation. There must be some evidence to establish the circumstances
which necessitated the exercise of such right.38 Burden to prove the plea is on the accused
and it stands discharged by showing preponderance of probabilities in favour of that plea
of the basis of material on record.39
17. The right of private defence preserved by the law for an individual is a very narrow and
circumscribed right and can be taken advantage of only when the circumstances fully justify
the exercise of such a right.40 By virtue of the right to private defence the law permits taking
of the life of another person for prevention and not for punishment, in the exercise of private

34
Santosh v. State of M.P., 1975 Cr LJ 602 (SC); Sumer Singh v. Surajbhan Singh, 2014 Cr LJ 3246 (SC); State
of Rajasthan v. Manoj Kumar, (2014) 4 SCC 724.
35
Rahman Samail v. Emperor, AIR 1939 Lah 245.
36
Srikantiah BN v. State of Mysore, AIR 1958 SC 672; Anda v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1966 SC 148.
37
John Pandian v. State, (2010) 14 SCC 129.
38
Dawaru Patra v. State, (1968) 10 Ori JD 147.
39
Paramananda Mahakud & Anr. v. State, 1970 Cr LJ 931 (Ori) (DB).
40
Buddhi Lal v. State of Rajasthan, (2004) Cr LJ 4420 (Raj) (DB).

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT

16

0 0
 MOOT COURT AND INTERNSHIPS- MOOT PROBLEM- 1

defence and not in retribution. It is available only to those who act honestly and in good
faith,41 and in no case can it be applied as a shield to justify aggression.42
18. The accused cannot invoke private defence as a device or pretence for provoking an attack
in order to slay his assailant and then claim exemption on the ground of private defence.43
A person who provokes his adversary to launch an attack is not entitled to right of private
defence.44Aggressors have no right to private defence.45 It is contended that the Appellant-
Accused was the aggressor and used the sword to cause death of the deceased.
19. Furthermore, the Hon’ble Court of Sessions convicted the accused since there existed no
sufficient evidence to suggest that the deceased wanted to have unnatural sex with the
accused. Therefore, the defence of right to private defence under Fourthly of Sec. 100 is
inapplicable as the burden of proof of the same is on the Appellant-Accused.46 The
Appellant-Accused claimed to have injuries, however, he was caught while trying to run
away. The Respondent submits that if the Appellant-Accused had the capacity to run away,
then any injury claimed by the accused cannot be considered as a result of the advancement
of the deceased since the Appellant-Accused refused to open the door initially.47

41
Dharam & Ors v. State of Haryana, AIR 2007 SC 397; Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab, (2010) 2 SCC 333
42
Sikandar Singh v. State of Bihar, (2010) 7 SCC 477.
43
Babulal Bhagwan Khandare v. State of Maharastra, AIR 2005 SC 1460.
44
Raising Mohima v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1962 Guj 203; Chandra Bhan v. State, AIR 1954 All 39; Guru Charan
Singh v. State, AIR 1965 All 543; Ranbaran v. State of Bihar, AIR 1963 Ori 52; Basan Bhowmick v. State, (1963)
1 Cr LJ 46; Pandharinath Punjaram Lahane v. State of Maharashtra, 2008 Cr LJ (NOC) 79 Bom (DB).
45
Carlose John v. State of Kerala, AIR 1974 SC 1115.
46
Paramananda Mahakud & Anr. v. State, 1970 Cr LJ 931 (Ori) (DB).
47
State of Maharashtra v. Satarangi Singh, S.C. No. 420 of 2020.

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT

17

0 0
 MOOT COURT AND INTERNSHIPS- MOOT PROBLEM- 1

II. WHETHER THE ACCUSED HAS EXCEEDED HIS RIGHT TO PRIVATE

DEFENCE?

1. It is submitted by the Respondent before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the Appellant-
Accused did not have any right to private defence under Fourthly of Sec. 100 and Exception
II of Sec. 300.
2. In Arguendo, even if such a right did exist, it is submitted that the Appellant-Accused has
exceeded this right by causing the death of the deceased. Sec. 100 of the Indian Penal Code
provides for When the right of private defence of the body extends to causing death wherein
if the offence which occasions the exercise of the right be due to An assault with the
intention of gratifying unnatural lust.48 It is essential to analyse Sec. 102 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 which provides that, the right of private defence of the body commences as
soon as a reasonable apprehension of danger to the body arises from an attempt or threat to
commit the offence though the offence may not have been committed; and it continues as
long as such apprehension of danger to the body continues.49 Thus, there ought to exist
reasonable apprehension of danger and the burden of proving the same is on the defence.50
3. It is to be noted that although the right to private defence is available to the accused, the
Court ought to examine the case with “proper circumspection and caution” since the right
is an exception to the general rule.51 The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that mere attempt
to commit an unnatural offence would not amount to grave provocation although the
commission of an unnatural offence may amount to grave provocation.52 It is to be noted
that the Appellant-Accused has not alleged that any offence was committed, but a mere
attempt. Therefore, the accused has clearly exceeded the right that may be granted to him.
4. The right to private defence cannot be exercised against an act which does not reasonably
cause the apprehension of death or of grievous hurt.53 The right of private defence is
available to only such person who is suddenly confronted with the necessity of averting
danger not of his creation and the necessity must be present, real or apparent.54 When the
assault on the deceased was exceedingly vindictive and maliciously excessive, and the force

48
PEN. CODE § 100.
49
PEN. CODE § 102.
50
Paramananda Mahakud & Anr. v. State, 1970 Cr LJ 931 (Ori) (DB).
51
Murali v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2001) 1 SCC 229.
52
Guriya Bucha v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1962 Guj 39.
53
Somiah v. State of Karnataka, (1978) Kant LJ 93; Sheshreddi Gopireddi Changati v. State of Maharashtra, 2013
Cr LJ (NOC) 312 (Bom).
54
Laxman Sahu v. State of Orissa, AIR 1988 SC 83; Radhey v. State of Chattisgarh, 2008 Cr LJ 3520 (SC).

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT

18

0 0
 MOOT COURT AND INTERNSHIPS- MOOT PROBLEM- 1

5. It is to be noted that while the Appellant-Accused claimed to have sustained injuries, the

.56 Since the appellant has failed

in establishing that the injury was caused to him while he was exercising his right to private
defence, it is clear that he has exceeded his right by causing the death of the deceased.
Minor or less serious injuries are not sufficient to justify the commission of murder.57
6. It is contended that there was no proof of immediate danger to the accused and there was
no necessity to cause injury to the deceased in order to cause death as it would be
disproportionate.58 The defence of right to private defence under Fourthly of Sec. 100 is
inapplicable as the burden of proof of the same is on the Appellant-Accused.59 The
Appellant-Accused claimed to have injuries, however, he was caught while trying to run
away. The Respondent submits that if the Appellant-Accused had the capacity to run away,
then any injury claimed by the accused cannot be considered as a result of the advancement
of the deceased since the Appellant-Accused refused to open the door initially.60
7. The same is further relevant when read along with the fact that the Appellant-Accused
changed the number plate of the vehicle he used to reach the place of the victim. It is
contended that the same clearly implies malice.

56

Devi Lal v. State of Rajasthan, 2018 SCC Online Raj 2090.

58
Case Records, Statement of Facts.
59
Paramananda Mahakud & Anr. v. State, 1970 Cr LJ 931 (Ori) (DB).
60
State of Maharashtra v. Satarangi Singh, S.C. No. 420 of 2020.

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT

19

0 0
 MOOT COURT AND INTERNSHIPS- MOOT PROBLEM- 1

III. IF YES, WHETHER THE ACCUSED CAN BE HELD LIABLE UNDER PART II
OF SECTION 304?
1. Sec. 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 provides for the punishment of culpable homicide
not amounting to murder.61 It is submitted that whoever causes death by doing an act with
the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely
to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits
the offence of culpable homicide.62 Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 provides
various exceptions as to when culpable homicide does not amount to murder.63
2. It is firstly submitted by the Respondent that the Appellant Accused, did not have any right
to private defence as the same right was not proven before the Hon’ble Court of Sessions.64
It is secondly submitted that in Arguendo, even if such a right did exist, and the Appellant-
Accused did exercise such a right, he has exceeded his right by disproportionately utilising
the same, thereby causing the death of the deceased. It is therefore submitted that the
Appellant-Accused may then be convicted under Sec. 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
as he has still committed the offence of culpable homicide regardless.
3. Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender firstly, 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.65 It secondly
submitted that 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.66
4. The right to private defence cannot be exercised against an act which does not reasonably
cause the apprehension of death or of grievous hurt.67 When the assault on the deceased
was exceedingly vindictive and maliciously excessive, and the force used was out of
proportion to the supposed danger which no longer existed, the accused were not entitled
to a right of private defence.68

61
PEN. CODE § 304.
62
PEN. CODE § 299.
63
PEN. CODE § 300.
64
State of Maharashtra v. Satarangi Singh, S.C. No. 420 of 2020.
65
PEN. CODE § 300.
66
Id.
67
Somiah v. State of Karnataka, (1978) Kant LJ 93; Sheshreddi Gopireddi Changati v. State of Maharashtra, 2013
Cr LJ (NOC) 312 (Bom).
68
Omkarnath Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1974 SC 1550.

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT

20

0 0
 MOOT COURT AND INTERNSHIPS- MOOT PROBLEM- 1

5. It is therefore contended by the Respondent before the Hon’ble Court that, even if the
Appellant-Accused did have the right to private defence, he has used it beyond the scope
of such right. It is contended that the act of hitting the deceased with a sword is in no
reasonable way, a proportional usage of right when the deceased allegedly stripped his
clothes and advanced towards the Appellant-Accused. The Appellant-Accused could have
easily just walked out of the room instead of having to use such drastic measures.
6. In Arguendo, it is submitted that the Appellant-Accused did indeed have an intention and
the knowledge of causing the death of the deceased when he attacked the deceased with the
sword. It is to be noted that the Appellant-Accused refused to open the door when the
complainant and other prosecution witnesses knocked the door. It is also to be noted that
the Appellant-Accused attempted to run as soon as the door was opened, and the ornaments
of the deceased, as well as the sword was found in the instance of the deceased.
Furthermore, the Appellant-Accused had changed the name plate of the vehicle that was
used to reach the place of the deceased thereby indicating a possibility of motive as well.
For the above reasons, the Hon’ble Court of Sessions convicted the accused for murder.69

69
State of Maharashtra v. Satarangi Singh, S.C. No. 420 of 2020.

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT

21

0 0
 MOOT COURT AND INTERNSHIPS- MOOT PROBLEM- 1

PRAYER

Wherefore, in light of facts stated, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is
most humbly prayed by the Respondent that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India may adjudge
and declare that:

1. The Appellant-Accused was not justified in exercising the right to private defence.
2. Uphold the judgement of the Hon’ble Court of Sessions and convict the Appellant-Accused
for committing the offence of murder punishable under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860, thereby quashing the judgement passed by the H on’ble High Court.
3. Convict the Appellant- Accused for committing the offence of voluntarily causing hurt in
robbery punishable under Sec. 394 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

AND/OR

Pass any order that deems fit in the interest of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience and in facts
and circumstances of the case to sub serve the purpose of justice and ensure protection of
Fundamental Rights,

all of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted.

And for this act of kindness the Respondent shall as duty bound ever humbly pray.

Date:

Place:

sd/-

Counsel for Respondent

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT

22

0 0