1

SU-03

1st NATIONAL ONLINE MOOT COURT COMPETITION,

SNBP LAW COLLEGE, PUNE

BEFORE

THE HONORABLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

APPELLATE JURISDICTION
(Special Leave petition No… … …/2021)

In the matter of

KUNAL……………………………………………………………………… APPELLANT

V.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA………………………………………….RESPONDDENT

FOR SUBMISSION TO THE HONORABLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

WRITTEN SUBMISSION for the RESPONDENT

1
 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS……………………………………………………………….3

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

 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION………………………………………………………...6

 STATEMENTS OF FACTS…………………………………………………………………7

 ISSUES RAISED…………………………………………………………………………....8

 SUMMARY OF AGRUMENTS……………………………………………………………9

 WRITTEN PLEADINGS…………………………………………………………………..10

1 WHETHER KUNAL SHOT PREM IN “THE HEAT OF THE MOMENT” OR WHETHER

IT WAS A PREMEDITATED MURDER ?...........................................................................10

1.1 The Act done by the kunal with the mens rea (guilty intention)…………….10

1.2 The Act committed by kunal it was a premeditated murder………………...11

2 WHETHER THE ACT FALLS UNDER THE AMBIT OF SEC 302 AND 304 PART 1 OF

I.P.C?.......................................................................................................................................13

2.1 The act committed by kunal fall under the ambit of sec 300………………..13

2.2 The Act committed also fall under the sec. 299 of I.P.C……………………15

 PRAYER…………………………………………………………………………………...17

2
 3

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVIATIONS EXPANSION

& And

V. Versus

AIR All India Report

Cr.L.J Criminal Law Judgment

CI. Clause

Crpc Code of Criminal Procedure

Hon’ble Honorable

IPC Indian Penal Code

SC Supreme Court

SCC Supreme Court Cases

Sec. section

edn. Edition

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
3
 4

CASES:

Sherrasv. De Rutzen[1895] 1 QB 918…………………………………………………………...10

Bhola Bind, (1943) 22 Pat 607…………………………………………………………………..10

Mangesh v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 2 SCC 123…………………………………………...10

Arun Niovalaji More v. State of Maharashtra, (2006) 12 SCC 613……………………………..11

Anda v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1966 SC 148…………………………………………………..11

Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1958 SC 465………………………………………………11

Nankaunoo v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 2016 SC 447………………………………………..12

Ajit Singh v. of State Punjab, (2011) 9 SCC 462………………………………………………..13

Shivaji Dattupatil v. state of Maharashtra, 1994 Cr LJ 1189 (Bom.)……………………………14

Sahaj Ram v. State of Haryana, 1983 Cri. L.J. 993(S.C)………………………………………...14

K.M Nanavati v. state of Maharashtra,1962 AIR 605…………………………………………...15

Gurmail Singh v. State of Punjab,2011(6) SCALE 322…………………………………………16

Vineet Kumar Chauhan v. State of U.P., 2008 II Cr. L.J. 1367 (S.C)…………………………...16

STATUTES:

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, No. 2, Acts of Parliament, 1974.

Indian Penal Code, 1860, No. 45, Acts of Parliament, 1860.

Mental Healthcare Act, 2017.

4
 5

BOOKS:

Textbook on Indian Penal Code (KD Gaure, 6thedn, 2018)

The Indian Penal Code (Ratanlal&Dhirajlal, 35thedn, 2017)

Indian Penal Code (Prof. S.N.Misra,25thedn, 2016)

WEBSITES:

Casemine.com

Indiankanoon.org

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

5
 6

The appellant has approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court ofIndia, under Art. 136 of the
Constitution of India. The Respondent reserves the right to contest the jurisdiction of this
Hon’ble Court. This written submission sets forth the facts, issues and arguments thereto.

The Art. 136 of the Constitution of India reads as under:

“136: 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 case 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, and sentence or order
passed or made by any Court or tribunal Constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed
Forces.

STATEMENT OF FACTS
6
 7

 Kunal, a commander in the Indian navy.

 When Kunal was away for his work, his wife, Sylvia, nurtured an illicit
relationship with Mr. Prem, a friend of Kunal.

 On 27th April 1959, Kunal returned from one of his long voyages.

 When he came home, his wife seemed to be behaving strangely and was not
responsive or affectionate to him. Sensing something, he asked to which Sylvia
confessed about her affair with prem.

 That evening, Kunal dropped Sylvia (wife) and their two children at a cinema hall
and went to confront prem.

 Kunal first went to his ship, collected his pistol on a false pretext from the stores
along with six bullets, completed his official duties and continued for Prem office.

 On not finding him there, he made his way to Prem’s home where he found him.
There was a verbal confrontation between the two men.

 After the confrontation, there was an altercation after which three shots were fired
and Prem dropped dead.

 Kunal headed straight to confess to the provost marshal of the western naval
command and later turned himself over to the deputy commissioner of police.

 The jury found him not guilty of murder which did not find favour with the
sessions judge, sand he referred the case to Bombay high court.

 The Bombay High Court dismissed the jury’s decision and convicted Kunal under
Section 302 and 304 part 1 of IPC.

ISSUES
7
 8

ISSUE 1

WHETHER THE PRESENT PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE AS A PUBLIC INTEREST

LITIGATION ?

ISSUE 2

WHETHER THE DEPENDENTS OF DECEASED MIGRANT WORKERS ARE

ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION ?

ISSUE 3

WHETHER THE MIGRANT WORKERS ARE LIABLE FOR “TRESPASSING” BY

CHOOSING RAILWAY TRACKS FOR THEIR TRAVEL TO HOME TOWN?

ISSUE 4

WHETHER RIGHT TO LIVELIHOOD, A BASIC HUMAN RIGHT FALLING UNDER

ARTICLE 21 OF CONSTITUTION IS VIOLATED DURING PANDEMIC COVID 19 ?

8
 9

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. WHETHER THE ACT COMMITTED BY KUNAL WAS DONE IN “THE

HEAT OF THE MOMENT” OR WAS A PREMEDITATED MURDER?

Yes, it was premeditated murder of Prem because after Sylvia’s confession, a

calm and collected Kunal took them to a movie hall, dropped them there and then
went to his stores to retrieve his pistol, that too under a false pretext. This shows
he had enough cooling time and provocation was neither grave nor sudden and
that Kunal had planned the murder.

2. WHETHER THE ACT FALLS UNDER THE AMBIT OF SEC 302 AND
304 PART 1 OF IPC?

Yes, the act falls under the ambit of Sec.302 and 304 part 1 of I.P.C because the
murder was premeditated Kunal hadmens rea to murder the Prem also collected
pistol on a false pretext from the stores along with six bullets to murder Prem.

9
 10

WRITTEN PLEADINGS

ISSUE 1

Whether the act committed bykunal was done in “the heat of the moment” or was a
premeditated murder?

1.1 The Act done by the Kunal with the mens rea (guilty intention).

Mens reamens to have a guilty intention in Sherras v. De Rutzen1, “the court

held that in every statute mens rea is to be implied unless the contrary is
shown”. Kunal has mens rea to kill the Prem.

Intention of Kunal develop when his wife Sylvia confessed about her affair
with prem.

Preparation Kunal prepare planed to kill Prem and go to collected his pistol
with six bullets.

Attempt Kunal first go to office where Prem not finding him there and way
to Prem’s home where he found him and fired three shots on Prem dropped
dead and Kunal has Accomplishment murder.

1
[1895] 1 Q B 918.

10
 11

It is clear from the above arguments the kunal has mens rea with criminal
stages to murder Prem.

Where a man intentionally kills another, or intentionally inflicts bodily injury

sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, his act is murder.2

In the case of Mangesh v. State of Maharashtra3, stated the circumstances

from which it may be gatherd as to whether ther was intention to cause death.
It included circumstances like; nature of the weapon; on what part of the body
the blow was given; the amount of force, etc.

Arun Niovalaji More v. State of Maharashtra4, held that though the word
“intention of causing death” occur in clause firstly and not in clause thirdly,
an offence would still fall within clause third even though the offender did not
intend to cause death so long death ensued from the intentional bodily injury
which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.

In Anda v. State of Rajasthan5,the Supreme Court reaffirmed its earlier view

held in virsa Singh v. State of Punjab6, and observed, that the third clause of
sec.300, IPC speaks of an intention to cause bodily injury which is sufficient
in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The nature of the weapon used
and the part of the body on which the injury is caused is also a relevant
circumstance to determine the intention of the person. But the determinant
factor is the intentional injury which must be sufficient to cause death in the
ordinary course of nature.

1.2. The Act committed by Kunal it was a premeditated murder.

2
Bhola Bind, (1943) 22 Pat 607.
3
(2011) 2 SCC 123.
4
(2006) 12 SCC 613.
5
AIR 1966 SC 148.
6
AIR 1958 SC 465.

11
 12

I. The council submit on the behalf of respondent that act done by Kunal it was a
premeditated murder. The council would like to support this argument with the fact of
the case, in the fact of the case there is mention of Kunal’s wife Sylvia confessed
about her affair with prem. That evening, Kunal dropped Sylvia and their two
children at a cinema hall and went to a cinema hall and went to confront Prem means
to fight or murder Prem. He first went to his ship, to collected his pistol with the
intion to murder Prem and Kunal continued for Prem office. On not finding him there,
he made his way to Prem’s home where he found him. There was a verbal
confrontation that Prem shouting to not shoot to him and he also traya to run away but
Kunal three shots were fired and Prem dropped dead.

II. According to fourthly clause (4) 300 sec of I.P.C, Kunal committing the act knows
that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such
bodily injury as is likely to cause death or such act without any excuse for incurring
the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.7

III. It is clear from the above arguments that the act committed by Kunal is premeditated
murder.

IV. Nankaunoo v. State of Uttar Pradesh8, while modifying the conviction of the
appellant accused from sec.302, IPC to sec.304 Part I, IPC and altering the conviction
from life imprisonment to ten years rigorous imprisonment, the Apex Court said
evidence of witnesses that appellant threatened deceased and thereafter fired shot
from his loaded pistol which hit deceased on his left thigh. Unimpeachable oral
evidence coupled with medical evidence that deceased met with homicidal death due
to gunshot injuries. Weapon used and manner in which attack was made and injury
was inflicted establishes that appellant intended to cause said injury and attack was

7
Indian penal code, 1860 s.300
8
AIR 2016 SC 447.

12
 13

premeditated, However, in absence of evidence obtained from doctor that said injury
was sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. Conviction of appellant
under sec.302 altered to one under section 304, Part I.

Hence, the act of Kunal was premeditated murder

ISSUE 2

Whether the act falls under the ambit of sec 302 and 304 part 1 of I.P.C?

2.1. The act committed by Kunal fall under the ambit of sec 300.

I. It is most humbly submitted before the Hon’ble council, that act of murder committed
by Kunal amounts to murder under sec. 300 of I.P.C.

Sec. 300.Murder.—Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the
act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or—

(Secondly) —If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows
to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or—
(Thirdly) —If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily
injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or—
(Fourthly) —If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it
must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and
commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as
aforesaid. Illustrations9

9
Indian penal code, 1860 s.300.

13
 14

II. The Kunal fulfill the condition of the sec. 300 of murder. That Kunal has intention to
murder prem.

III. Thus’ Kunal has punished under the 302 of I.P.C to committing a crime.

IV. In Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab10, it is held that:”In order to hold whether an offence
would fall under sec.302 or sec. 304 Part I of the code, the courts have to be
extremely cautious in examining whether the same falls under sec. 300 of the code
which states whether a culpable homicide is murder, or would it fall under its five
exceptions which lay down, when culpable homicide is not murder.” In other words,
sec.300 state both, what is murder and what is not. First finds place in sec.300 in its
four stated categories, while the second finds detailed mention in the stated five
exceptions to sec.300. the legislature in its wisdom, thus, covered the entire gamut of
culpable homicide ‘amounting to murder’ as well as that ‘ not amounting to murder’
in a composite manner in sec.300 of the code.

V. The accused who was armed with a high powered service revolver entered into the
residential house of the deceased at night. He put the revolver near the ear of the
daughter of the deceased and tried to snatch her gold chain, threatening other member
of the family. The father and uncle of the girl tried to overpower the accused who
fired two shots one of which hit the father fatally. His conviction and sentence under
sec.302 of I.P.C. 11

VI. In Sahaj Ram v. State of Haryana12, a constable fired five shots with his rifle at another
constable, as a result of which he died on the spot. It was held that having regard to
the fact that the accused had used a dangerous weapon like a rifle (being a police
constable he must have known that it was a dangerous weapon) and having regard to

10
(2011) 9 SCC 462.
11
Shivaji Dattupatil v. state of Mharashtra, 1994 Cr LJ 1189 (Bom.).
12
1983 Cri. L.J. 993(S.C).

14
 15

the fact that he had fired five shots, one of which was fired after the victim was hit by
a bullet and collapsed on the ground, it is impossible to accept the contention that the
appellant had not done the act with the intention of causing his death. It is naïve to
argue that intention was merely to frighten him or to cause him grievous hurt. The
case falls under clause 4 to Sec.300 of I.P.C.

VII. In K.M Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra 13In this case, the accused was a naval officer.
One day, his wife confessed to him that she had developed intimacy with the
deceased. Enraged at this, the accused went to ship, took a revolver and six cartridges
from the store of the ship, went to the flat of the deceased, entered his bedroom and
shot him dead. Thereafter the accused surrendered himself to the police. Here the
Supreme Court held that the accused, after his wife confessed about the illicit
relationship, may have momentarily lost control. He had thereafter dropped his wife
and children to a cinema, left them there, went to his ship, took a revolver on a false
pretext, loaded it with six round, did some official business there, and drove his car to
the office of deceased and then to his flat, went straight to the bed-room of deceased
and shot him dead. There was sufficient time for him to regain self-control. So the
Court held that it is not a case under exception of Sec.300 and convicted the accused
for murder.

2.2. The Act committed also fall under the sec. 299 of I.P.C.

I. Sec. 299. Culpable homicide.--- 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. 14
13
1962 AIR 605.
14
Indian penal code, 1860 s.299

15
 16

II. Kunal has committed the culpable homicide with the intention of causing death.

III. Thus, Kunal punished under the sec.304 of I.P.C.

IV. In Gurmail Singh v. State of Punjab15,Injury caused directly and deep into the
stomach of deceased, a very vital part, which had led to death within a short time. It
is argued that said injury caused to deceased would not fall under clause “thired” of
sec.300 and as such conviction recorded under 304 part I of I.P.C. it cannot,be said
that there was no intention to cause that very injury which had led ultimately to the
death of the deceased.

V.In Vineet Kumar Chauhan v. State of U.P., 16accused and victim were neighbours. The
incident in question preceded by altercation between accused and family members
of victim. Accused returned to his house in a huff, took revolver of his father and
fired indiscriminately towards victims house, victim while trying to close door of
his house was hit by the bullet which proved fatal. It was held that accused at best
can be said to have knowledge that use of revolver was likely to cause death and
hence he is liable to be convicted under sec.299.

Hence, the act falls under the ambit of Sec.302 and 304 part 1 of I.P.C.

15
2011(6) SCALE 322.
16
2008 II Cr. L.J. 1367 (S.C).

16
 17

PRAYER

WHEREFORE IN THE LIGHT OF THE ISSUES RAISED, ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

AND AUTHORITIES CITED, IT IS HUMBLY PRAYED THAT THIS HON”BLE COURT

AND PASS ANY OTHER ORDER, DIRECTION, OR RELIEF THAT THIS HON”BLE
COURT MAY DEEM FIT IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE, EQUITY AND GOOD
CONSCIENCE.

All of which is humbly prayed,

SU-03

Counsels for the Respondents.

17
 18

18