T 14

3RD INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION

TEAM CODE: T C

3rd INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF VIDHISHVA PRADESH

WRIT PETITION

W.P. NO. / 2021

IN THE MATTER OF

SHERINA JWOTSIK ................................................................. PETITIONER

V.

JARGON WEAPONRIES LTD. & JOHN SPARK .................... RESPONDENT

BEFORE SUBMISSION TO HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE

AND OTHER JUDGES OF

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT VIDHISHWA PRADESH

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

1
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 TC
MOOT COURT CLINICAL

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SR. NO. TOPIC PAGE

NO.
1. Index of Abbreviations 3
2. Index of Authorities 4
3. Statement of Jurisdiction 5
4. Statement of Facts 6
5. Issues Raised 8
6. Summary of Arguments 9
7. Body of Arguments 10
8. Prayer for Relief 12

2
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 TC
MOOT COURT CLINICAL

INDEX OF ABBREVIATIONS

SR. NO. ABBREVIATION MEANING

1. & And

2. Anr. Another

3. Art. Article

4. Hon’ble Honorable

5. VP Vidhishwa Pradesh

6. v. Versus

7. JW Jargon Weaponries

3
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 TC
MOOT COURT CLINICAL

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATUTES

1. Constitution of India, 1950.

2. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)
3. Corporate Manslaughter & Corporate Homicide act, 2007
4. Good Samaritan Law

CASES
1. GR ENGINEERING SERVICES LTD -v-. INVESTMENT LTD [2019] WASC 439

2. Groenwald vs Groenwald 1998 (2) SA 1106 SCA0

3. Martin F. D' Souza v. Mohd. Ishfaq AIR 2009 SC 2049
4. Ravule Hariprasada Rao v. State 1951 SCR 322
5. State of Maharashtra v. Mayer Hans George(1964) 1 SCR 123
6. Mohinder. Singh v. State [(1950) SCR 821]
7. Fowler v Padget (1798) 7 Term Rep 509; 101 ER 1103

4
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 TC
MOOT COURT CLINICAL

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
1. The Hon’ble High Court of Vidhishwa Pradesh has jurisdiction in this matter under Section 21 of
Court of Vidhishwa Pradesh Act, 1993.

2. The Respondent JARGON WEAPONRIES LTD. & JOHN SPARK would like to humbly submit to
the jurisdiction of the court.

5
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 TC
MOOT COURT CLINICAL

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. BACKGROUND OF VIDHISHWA PRADESH

Vidhishwa Pradesh is a nation of mainland aspects whose overall set of laws is identical to India's general set
of laws, including the sacred constitution. The 'Tort Law' of the Country is uncodified.

2. BACKGROUND OF JARGON WEAPONRIES

Jargon Weaponries Ltd. is a public enlisted organization consolidated under the laws of Vidhishwa Pradesh
with the objective of manufacturing defence equipment for the State. It is an enormous organization known
for making exceptionally advanced weapons. The organization was additionally occupied with the venture of
assembling Drones for observations and acquiring data.

3. INCIDENT OF 16 MAY, 2015

The senior authorities of the organization on 16 May, 2015 chose to test the Drone, thus they sent it for a test
drive. As exhorted by the researchers and the scientist the drone was tested in a jungle on the grounds that the
innovation used to make that cutting-edge drone was temperamental. For the initial three hour the drone was
utilized in the wilderness, after completing the necessary tests for three hours in the jungle it was found that
the drone was working fine. Therefore, the senior administration decided to test out the drone in the nearby
city as it was supposed to be run in an inhabited are during the course of its normal use. As it was being tested
out in the city unfortunately the battery in the drone overcharged due to unforeseen circumstances and caused
a fire in a nearby house since it was being flown in a low altitude.

4. THE 7-YEAR-OLD BOY

A 7-year-old kid was inside when the house burst into flames. Sherina Jwotsik, the mother of the child while
returning back from the nearby store saw the house on seething fire and raced to rescue her son, yet was
stopped by people nearby. She started shouting for help.

5. JOHN SPARK AND ARMY JAWAAN TO THEIR RESCUE

John Spark was roaming around with his girlfriend as this incident was happening. When he heard the shouts,
he decided to go inside the house to try and rescue the kid. By that time an Army Jawan also showed up at
the scene to help the kid yet when he saw John Spark trying to rescue the kid, he abstained from rescuing the
kid since there was not sufficient room for the rescue to be finished by two individuals. Yet, John got
apprehensive when he went into the house and decided to come out of the house without completing the
rescue mission. Then the Army Jawan went into the house and got the kid out but by that time the kid had
already passed away.

6. DOCTOR’S SAY
The doctors observed that the kid would have survived if he was brought a few minutes earlier.

6
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 TC
MOOT COURT CLINICAL

7. PETITION FILED BY SHERINA JWOTSIK (MOTHER OF THE 7-YEAR-

OLD)
The mother of the kid recorded a request in the 'Court of Vidhishwa Pradesh Under Section 21 of Court of
Vidhishwa Pradesh Act, 1993 and sued both 'Jargon Weaponries Ltd.' and 'John Spark'. She contended that
Jargon Weaponries Ltd. was not just simply negligent when it was operating its most memorable test in the
city yet was 'grossly negligent' and henceforth the organization has murdered her child, thus it would be
obligated under 'Law of Corporate Manslaughter'. She further fought that despite the fact that there is no
regulation managing Corporate Homicide except for the Court of Vidhishwa Pradesh has power under Article
999 of the Constitution of Vidhishwa Pradesh to make the regulations at whatever point there is a vacuum,
thus in light of a legitimate concern for equity the court should make regulation. She asked the Court to allow
the suitable therapeutic request and burden of fine alongside the heading to the organization to distribute on
its site and paper about the offense which it has committed of killing a 7-year-old kid. These are such requests
which are passed by the court in instances of Corporate Manslaughter and not in that frame of mind of
straightforward carelessness. She further contended that John Spark is at risk to pay to her for the deficiency
of her youngster since, supposing that possibly he would have finished the salvage cycle or would have not
decided on something similar, her kid would have lived however as he didn't do any of them, he is responsible
for negligence.

8. THE WRIT PETITION HAS BEEN ADMITTED BEFORE THE COURT OF

VIDHISHWA PRADESH.
The case shall be heard by the court of Vidhishwa Pradesh on merits.

7
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 TC
MOOT COURT CLINICAL

ISSUES RAISED
1. Whether the company Jargon Weaponries Ltd. has killed the boy under ‘Law of Corporate

Manslaughter’?

2. Whether John Spark can be held liable for negligence?

8
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 TC
MOOT COURT CLINICAL

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. That the guidelines can't be given by the court on the law of Corporate Homicide

As the organization can never have a 'guilty mind' or 'mens rea' to kill an individual. Further, she has
remedies under various regulations and laws, subsequently there is no vacuum.

2. Conduct of Jargon weaponries does not fall under section 304A of IPC

Furthermore, assuming arguendo there is any regulation, the conduct of the organization can't be received
as 'grossly negligent' so it can't be held at risk under it.

3. John spark cannot be made liable for negligence since No ‘Duty of Care’ has been owed to the
plaintiff.

It was argued by John Spark that he cannot be made liable for negligence because for that there has to be a
‘duty of care’ by the respondent towards the plaintiff, but in this case, he had no duty to take care.

9
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 TC
MOOT COURT CLINICAL

BODY OF ARGUMENTS

1. JARGON WEAPONRIES CAN'T BE HELD LIABLE FOR THE DEATH OF THE 7 YEAR
OLD UNDER THE ‘LAW OF CORPORATE MANSLAUGHTER’

1.1 Under the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 which came into force in the UK
in April 2008. Where a corporation's activities cause a person's death and the failure because of a breach
that falls far below what can reasonably be expected of the organization in the circumstances, the offense
is made out. Corporate Manslaughter act, 2007 can be taken as a reference in India.
A further approach is to accept the legal fiction of corporate personality and to extend it to the possibility
of a corporate mens rea, to be found in corporate practices and policies. This approach has been widely
advocated in the U.S., as the corporate ethos standard and introduced in Australia in 1995.

1.1.1 The child was alive when the drone exploded which actually does not make the organization
responsible for the death of the child.

1.2 A Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill was introduced to the House of Commons by
Home Secretary John Reid on 20 July 2006 to create new offenses of corporate manslaughter, in England
and Wales, and corporate homicide, in Scotland. Originally, the Bill proposed that the offense would
require a company's or organization's activities to be so managed or organized by its senior managers as to
cause a person's death, and to amount to a "gross breach" of a duty of care owed to the deceased. The
requirement for the failure of management or organization to have been "by its senior managers" was
dropped in the Standing Committee. The Bill also sought to abolish the common law offense of
manslaughter by gross negligence so far as it applies to corporations. A juristic person cannot be
imprisoned. The Bill received royal assent on 26 July 2007, becoming the Corporate Manslaughter and
Corporate Homicide Act 2007. The Act came into force on 6 April 2008. On 15 November 2007, the
Sentencing Guidelines Council issued a consultative document recommending a starting point of a fine of
5% of turnover for a first offense with a not guilty plea, rising to 10% of turnover.

1.3 Lack of Mens Rea

Mens rea means a wrongful intention. The maxim means that an act does not itself make one guilty unless
the mind is also guilty. The mere commission of a criminal act or violation of law is not enough to
constitute a crime. These generally require, in addition, some elements of wrongful intent or other fault. It
means some blameworthy condition of the mind, the absence of which on any particular occasion negates
the condition of crime. It is one of the essential ingredients of criminal liability. A criminal offense is said
to have been committed only when an act, which is regarded as an offense in law, is done voluntarily.
Hence, an act becomes criminal only when done with a guilty mind.

1.3.1 In the case mentioned, the organization had absolutely no intention to cause the explosion in the
name of working for the state which does not turn the act of 16th may to be a crime of intention
and can’t be made liable for killing.
1.3.2 Jargon weaponries Ltd. is a firm working for the state and manufactures weapons for the
protection of the state. All the weapons are made and are sent into fields with the allowance of
the government.

1.4 Were not “Grossly Negligent”

According to section 304A of IPC, whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent
act not amounting to culpable homicide can be punished.

10
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 TC
MOOT COURT CLINICAL
1.4.1 In the current scenario all the necessary precautions were taken before sending the drone in the nearby
city. Under the advice and care of expertise the drone was tested in the city only after testing it in the jungle.
It was made sure that the drone was working properly and such equipment is meant to be used in inhabited
areas.
1.5 According to Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007, Section 1(6) An organization
that is guilty of corporate manslaughter or corporate homicide is liable on conviction on indictment to a fine
only.
1.5.1 as mentioned in clause 6 of section of corporate manslaughter act, 2007 , the petitioner cannot plead
for the company to publish on its website and newspaper about the death of the child which leads to
defamation

2. JOHN SPARKS CANNOT BE HELD LIABLE FOR THE DEATH OF THE 7 YEAR OLD
CHILD UNDER THE LAW OF ‘NEGLIGENCE’
2.1 Negligence

According to section 304A of the IPC, whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or
negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description
for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

In this scenario the conduct of John Spark while trying to rescue the victim does not amount to a rash and
negligent act as he was acting in good faith. John Spark came forward to help
the victim even though he did not owe any legal duty of care towards the 7-year-old kid.

2.2 Good Samaritan law

The Good Samaritan Law allows a person, without expectation of payment or reward and without any duty
of care or special relationship, voluntarily come forward to administer immediate assistance or emergency
care to a person injured in an accident, or crash, or emergency medical condition.

In this incident John Sparks must be considered as a good samaritan who acted on good faith and tried to
rescue the child even though he did not owe any legal duty of care towards the victim. Therefore, he should
not be liable under negligence and since he acted on good faith, he should not face any criminal or civil
charges.

2.3 Novus actus interveniens

Novus actus interveniens is Latin for a "new intervening act". In the Law of Delict 6th Edition, Neethling
states that a novus actus interveniens is "an independent event which, after the wrongdoer's act has been
concluded either caused or contributed to the consequence concerned”. A novus actus breaks the causal
chain between the initial wrongdoer's action and the liability that is imputed to him or her as a result thereof.
A requirement for an act or omission committed after the initial wrongdoer's act to constitute a novus actus
is that the secondary act was not reasonably foreseeable.

According to this legal maxim John Sparks cannot be made liable for his actions as when he went inside to
save the 7-year-old kid he could not reasonably foresee that his omission from rescuing the child would lead
to the child's death as his mental condition at that time was only focused on getting the child out alive and
saving himself too.

11
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 TC
MOOT COURT CLINICAL

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Wherefore in the light of the facts stated, issues raised, authorities cited, and arguments advanced, it is most
humbly prayed before this Hon'ble Court that it may be pleased to adjudge and declare:

1. Jargon weaponries Ltd pleads to the court to be found not guilty for the death of the 7-year-old under
“Law of Corporate Manslaughter”.
2. Jargon weaponries pleads that they should not be asked to publish anything on their website and
newspaper as asked by the petitioner.
3. John spark pleads that he does not owe any duty of care towards the plaintiff and is not obliged to
compensate as asked by the petitioner AND/ OR
4. Pass any order that it deems fit in the interest of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience. And for this,
the Respondent as in duty bound, shall humbly pray.

COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE

RESPONDENT

12
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT