1

MADHUSUDAN LAW UNIVERSITY INTERNAL MOOT COURT

FOR ACADEMIC YEAR 2022-2023

BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF ODISHA

NATU AND TAPU------------------------------------ [ APPELLANT]

VS

THE STATE-------------------------------------------[ RESPONDENT]

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

Sangram Khuntia
B.A. LLB 4th Sem
Section- B, Roll No. 79
 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ---------------------------------------------------------------

CASES REFERRED------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3

BOOKS REFERRED------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 4

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION------------------------------------------------------- 5

STATEMENT OF FACTS------------------------------------------------------------------- 6

STATEMENT OF ISSUES------------------------------------------------------------------ 7

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS------------------------------------------------------------ 8

ARGUMENT ADVANCED------------------------------------------------------------- 9 - 12

PRAYER----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13
 3

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Cases referred

1. Gurdatta Mal AIR 1965 SC 257

2. Chikkarange Gowda AIR 1956 SC 731

3. Tukaram Ganpat Pandare AIR 1974 SC 514

4. Parshottam vs State AIR 1953 All 356

 4

Books referred

1. THE INDIAN PENAL CODE by Ratan Lal and Dhiraj Lal

2. CRIMINAL LAW (PART - I) by Mayank Madhaw

3. CRIMINAL LAW (PART - II) by Mayank Madhaw

4. PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAW by Pillai

 5

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Appellants humbly approach the Hon’ble High Court under Section 374(2) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which reads as follows:

374. Appeals from convictions.-

Any person convicted on a trial held by a High Court in its extraordinary original criminal
jurisdiction may appeal to the Supreme Court.

Any person convicted on a trial held by a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge
or on a trial held by any other Court in which a sentence of imprisonment for more than
seven years has been passed, may appeal to the High Court.

Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (2), any person,-

Convicted on a trial held by a Metropolitan Magistrate or Assistant Sessions Judge or
Magistrate of the first class, or of the second class, or sentenced under section 325, or In
respect of whom an order has been made or a sentence has been passed under section 360
by any Magistrate, may appeal to the Court of Session. The respondents humbly submit to
the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court
 6

STATEMENT OF FACTS

• The appellants and Lal were residents of the same township.

• Lal was a friend of Tapu, and he had lent Rs.10,000 to Tapu.
• Tina, daughter of Natu, and Lal were in love with each other, and used to meet often in
the absence of Natu and Tapu.
• On the day of the incident, Tapu had called Lal to his house to repay the debt.
• Natu, Tina and Tapu were at home when Lal arrived, and they heard him talking to
Tina in the backyard.
• On seeing Lal and Tina together, Natu lost his temper and started abusing him.
• Tapu got angry and showed Lal a lathi, and when he started abusing Lal, Lal told him
that he was still in debt.
• This enraged Tapu, and he gave a blow to Lal on his shoulder.
• Natu then grabbed the lathi from Tapu’s hand and started beating Lal on his head.
• On hearing the hue and cry people from locality came to Lal’s rescue.
• Lal was unconscious and bleeding, and was taken to a hospital by the local people
where he died after 10 days
 7

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

A. Whether the appellant can be prosecuted under Section 302 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal
Code,1860?
B. Whether the nature of injuries and the nature of the weapon, was such as to cause death of
person?
C. Whether the act of the deceased amounted to grave and sudden provocation?
D. Whether the Sessions Court was justified in sentencing the Appellants with life
imprisonment in connection with the act committed by them?
 8

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

A. Whether the Appellants can be prosecuted under section 302 read with Section 34
of the INDIAN PENAL CODE. 1860?
It is humbly contended that the Hon’ble Sessions Court correctly held the Appellants
as guilty of murder of Lal under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC. Section 302
read with Section 34, IPC envisages commission of murder by two or more people in
furtherance of a common intention. Section 300 of IPC gives the definition of murder
and enumerates the ingredients of the offence.

B. Whether the nature of injuries and the nature of the weapon, was such as to cause
death of a person?
It is most humbly submitted before this Hon’ble High Court that the nature of the
injuries and the nature of the weapon were indeed enough to cause death of the person.
Resting on the facts given in this case, injuries suffered by the deceased was due to joint
and physically powerful assault by the aforementioned appellants. Deceased had injury
on his shoulder and head.
C. Whether the act of the deceased amounted to grave and sudden provocation?
It is most humbly submitted before this Hon’ble High Court that the act of the deceased
did not amount to grave and sudden provocation rather it was a pre-mediated, arranged
and with a well defined Modus Operandi of the Appellants.
D. Whether the Sessions Court was justified in sentencing the Appellants for act
committed by them?
It is humbly contended that the Hon’ble Sessions Court correctly held the Accused as
guilty of murder of Lal under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC. Section 302
read with Section 34, IPC envisages commission of murder by two or more people in
furtherance of a common intention. Section 300 of IPC gives the definition of Murder
and enumerates the ingredients of the offence.
 9

ARGUMENT ADVANCED

A. Whether the Appellants can be prosecuted under section 302 read with Section 34
of the INDIAN PENAL CODE. 1860?
It is humbly contended that the Hon’ble Sessions Court correctly held the Appellants as guilty
of murder of Lal under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC. Section 302 read with Section
34, IPC envisages commission of murder by two or more people in furtherance of a common
intention.
Section 300 of IPC gives the definition of murder and enumerates the ingredients of the
offence. Section 300 of Indian Penal Code contemplates that a person is guilty of murder if he
intentionally causes the death of a person or causes such bodily injury as he knows, is likely to
cause death of that person or causes such bodily injury, which in the ordinary course of nature
results into death or commits an act so dangerous that it must, in all probability cause death of
that person.
Section 34 of Indian Penal Code contemplates the doing of an act by several persons in
furtherance of common intention. The constructive liability under this section would arise only
if two conditions are fulfilled:
a) There must be common intention to commit the crime; and
b) There must be participation by all the persons in doing such act in furtherance of that
intention.
If these two ingredients are established all the accused would be liable for the said offence.
(Gurdatta Mal AIR 1965 SC 257)
The leading feature of Sec 34 is the element of participation in action (Chikkarange Gowda
AIR 1956 SC 731). It is the essence of this section that the person must be physically present
at the actual commission of the crime. Criminal sharing, overt or covert, by active presence or
by distant direction, making out a certain measure of jointness in the commission of the act is
the essence of this section (Tukaram Ganpat Pandare AIR 1974 SC 514).
 10

B. Whether the nature of the injuries and the nature of the weapon were such as to
cause death of a person?

It is most humbly submitted before this Hon’ble High Court that the nature of the
injuries and the nature of the weapon were indeed enough to cause death of the person.
Resting on the facts given in this case, ante-mortem injuries acquired by the deceased
was due to joint and physically powerful assault by the aforementioned appellants.
Deceased had injury on his shoulder and head.

According to the post-mortem report, deceased succumbed due to due to blood loss
from head injury caused by the several lathi blows.

It is most humbly and respectfully submitted to the court that there is enough literature
and co-relative evidence which proves that both nature of injury and nature of the
weapon was enough to cause death of Lal.

In the case of Parshottam vs State (AIR 1953 All 356) the Court held that the attack
on the deceased was cold-blooded, well planned and calculated. The court also
observed that the circumstances of the case even though the death was caused by one
single injury the appropriate sentence is one of death. The court dismissed the appeal.
 11

C. Whether the act of the deceased amounted to grave and sudden provocation?
It is most humbly submitted before this Hon’ble High Court that the act of the deceased
did not amount to grave and sudden provocation.

It is to be noted that according to the facts of the case, it looks like there was a
conspiracy to murder of Lal. Lal was in love with Tina and this fact was not hidden
from the appellants. Appellants in due course had also scolded Tina and had asked her
not to meet Lal.

Even though after the known fact of Tina and Lal – we later understand that the Tapu
(Appellant No-2) had purposely taken a hand loan of Rs. 10,000/- from Lal. Appellant
No.2 was supposed to return the amount immediately however, he refrained from doing
so.

Once the amount was arranged – Appellant No.2 asked Lal to come to his home to
collect the amount. Lal then reaches the house around evening 8:00 p.m. to collect the
loan amount. Here the motive was obvious that Lal was to come to collect money and
will be willing to talk to Tina. This will be a good opportunity to prove a sudden spurt
of hate and hence a heated argument. Else Appellant No.2 would have met Lal
elsewhere to return the loan amount.
 12

D. Whether the Sessions Court was justified in sentencing the Appellants?

It is humbly contended that the Hon’ble Sessions Court correctly held the Accused as guilty of
murder of Lal under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC. Section 302 read with Section
34, IPC envisages commission of murder by two or more people in furtherance of a common
intention.

Section 300 of IPC gives the definition of murder and enumerates the ingredients of the
offence. Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 reads:

302. Punishment for murder: - Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or
[imprisonment for life], and shall also be liable to fine.

Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 reads:

34. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention: - 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.

The Sessions Court, after considering the evidence on record adduced by the prosecution, was
pleased to convict Natu - Appellant No. 1; Tapu - Appellant No. 2 for the offences punishable
under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced them.
 13

PRAYER

Wherefore, in the light of the issues raised , arguments advanced and authorities cited may

this Hon’ble Court be pleased to :

1. Declare and adjudged that all two accused are guilty of murdering Lal ;

2. Uphold the conviction of the Hon’ble Session Court.

AND/OR

Pass any other order as it deems fit in the light of justice, equity and good conscience.

Date Sd/-

Place: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR