MADHUSUDAN LAW UNIVERSITY MOOT MEMORIAL

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS....................................................................................1

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES……………………………………………………………………..2

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION.........................................................................3

STATEMENT OF FACTS.........................................................................................4

ISSUE RAISED............................................................................................................5

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS................................................................................6

ARGUMENTS ADVANCE........................................................................................7

ISSUE [1]. Whether the punishment given u/s-300/326 of IPC is justified or not ?

ISSUE [2] whether the accused persons can be held criminally liable under section 34 of
Indian penal code, 1860, or not ?

PRAYER....................................................................................................................8

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 MADHUSUDAN LAW UNIVERSITY MOOT MEMORIAL

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

S.No Abbereviations Full Form

1 & And

2 AC Appeal cases

3 AIR All india report

4 Anr. Another

5 Art. Article

6 Const. Constitution

7 FIR First information report

8 HC High court

9 Hon’ble Honorable

10 Ltd. Limited

11 No. Number

12 Ors. Others

13 Props. Proposition

14 SC Supreme court

15 SCC Supreme court cases

16 Supl. Supplement

17 V. versus

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 MADHUSUDAN LAW UNIVERSITY MOOT MEMORIAL

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

1 Om prakash vs. State of punjab

2 State of Assam vs. Abinash Dutta

3 Rajesh kumar vs Dharamvir

4 Machhi Singh v State of Punjab

5 Ranadhir Basu v. State of WB

6 Allauddin Mian v. State of Bihar

7 Kripal Singh v. State of U.P

8 Nandu Rastogi v. State of Bihar

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 MADHUSUDAN LAW UNIVERSITY MOOT MEMORIAL

TABLE OF STATUTES

1. Indian penal code, 1960

2. Indian Evidence Act,1872

3. The code of criminal procedure,1973

WEBSITE

1. https://indiankanoon.org/

2. https://www.lawfinderlive.com

3. http://www.advocatekhoj.com/

BOOKS

1 Criminal Procedure- R.V Kelkars’s

2 Criminal Law Cases And Materials- K.D Gaur

3 Commentary On The Indian Penal Code- K.D Gaur

4 The Indian Evidence Act – Dr V Nageswar Rao

5 The Indian Penal Code- Ratanlal & Dhirajlal

6 Indian Penal Code ( With The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act,

2018- S.N Mishra

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 MADHUSUDAN LAW UNIVERSITY MOOT MEMORIAL

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The appellants humble approach the hon’ble high court S. 374(2) of the code of criminal

procedure 1973, which reads as follows :

S.374. Appeals From Conviction

1. any person convicted on the trial held by a high court in its extraordinary original criminal

jurisdiction may appeal to the supreme court.

2. 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 fro ore then seven

years has been passed agnaist him or agnaist any other person convicted at the same trial may

appeal to the high court .

3. save otherwise provided in sub-section (2), any person,

a) 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

b) sentenced under section 325 , or

c) in respect of whom an order has been made or a sentence has been passed

under section 300 by any magistrate, may appeal to the court,

The Respondent Humbly Submit To The Jurisdiction Of The Hon’ble Court .

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

 MADHUSUDAN LAW UNIVERSITY MOOT MEMORIAL

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The accused Ramesh was a resident of Jajpur and worked as a broker in the road
transport office, Jajpur. The deceased Raghav belong to a Zamindar family and owned
several plots of land in the village of Jajpur. The prosecution case is that the accused
and the deceased Raghav had a long standing land dispute between them and for the
said reason both of them also had regular verbal fights and altercations between them
on several occasions which was witnessed by the people of that particular locality.
2. That on 10.11.2010 Ramesh along with his two friends Vinit and Rahul went to a bar
which was in close proximity to the RTO office at around 10:30 pm at night. In the
same bar the servant of the deceased i.e. Ramlal (P.W. 1) who was also a regular
drunkard was sitting couple of rows behind the table where the accused and his other
two friends were sitting and he heard them whispering in low voices. At around,
12:00 am at night the accused and the other two friends left the bar in a motorcycle
and soon after they left the P.W. 1 also left the bar at 12:15 am.
3. Thereafter, the next day i.e. 11.11.2010 at around 9:30 am in the morning, the accused
went to the place of the deceased in order to settle the ongoing land dispute between
them andwhile such they both had an altercation on a particular matter which turned
violent and both of them picked up a physical fight as well. The gardener Mansa (
P.W.2) interfered in between and subsequently the fight came to an end and the
accused left the place of the deceased threatening him with dire consequences.
4. On the same day, at night while no one was at home except the P.W.2 and the
deceased, Three unidentified persons at around 11:45 pm at the night entered the
place of the deceased armed with Tangia and Katari, and assaulted the deceased.
When Mansa ( P.W.2) who was sleeping in the room adjacent to the bedroom of the
deceased heard the deceased shouting and yelling in pain. He immediately raised a
voice to which all the three unidentified persons left the place leaving behind their
weapons in the bedroom of the deceased. After those persons left, the P.W.2 entered
into the bedroom of the deceased wherein the deceased was badly injured and was
bleeding severely because of the assault and the injuries inflicted by the unidentified
persons. The P.W.2 reported the same incident to the police and by the time the police
arrived the place of occurrence the deceased was already dead.
5. The very next day i.e. 12.11.2010 on the basis of the F.I.R lodged by the servant
(P.W.1) and the F.IR was registered as P.S case no. 162/2010 corresponding to the

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 MADHUSUDAN LAW UNIVERSITY MOOT MEMORIAL

G.R. caseno. 256/2010. The investigation began and the accused Ramesh and his
friends Vinit and Rahul were arrested by the local police station on the basis on the
F.I.R lodged by P.W.1 The statement of witnesses Ramlal(P.W.1), Mansa (P.W.2)
and a nearby shopkeeper (P.W.3 ) were recorded by the police. P.W.1 stated that
accused and his other two friends were sitting in a bar and he heard them whispering
in low voices. At around, 12:00 am at night the accused and the other two friends left
the bar in a motorcycle and soon after he also left. P.W.2 stated before the police that
on 11.11.2010 the accused and the deceased had fought over a matter and as soon as
he interfered both of them stopped fighting and the accused left the place of the
deceased and threatened to kill him. P.W.3 stated before the police that at around
11:40 pm he saw three persons wearing winter apparels entered into the house of the
deceased and he was unable to identify those three persons as their faces were
covered.
6. The post mortem report revealed that there were incised injuries on the neck,
shoulders chest and on the face of the deceased and all the injuries were anti mortem
in nature. The time of death was determined to be in between 12:40 am to 1:00 am.
The cause of death was due to severe blow on the forehead. However, the material
objects were not examined.
7. In course of the trial the Learned Additional Sessions Judge Jajpur considering the
material on record and after scrutinizing all the evidences came to a conclusion that
the caseagainst Vinit and Rahul was not made out but the accused was found guilty of
the offences under section 302/326 IPC, 1860 thereafter, sentencing him to undergo
life imprisonment.
8. This Appeal is directed against the order of conviction passed in ST No. 120/2010
dated 24.09.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Jajpur wherein he
convicted the accused person for the charges under section 302/326 IPC,1860.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 MADHUSUDAN LAW UNIVERSITY MOOT MEMORIAL

STATEMENTS OF ISSUES

ISSUE:1

Whether the punishment given u/s-300/326 of IPC is justified or not ?

ISSUE : 2

whether the accused persons can be held criminally liable under section 34 of Indian penal
code, 1860, or not ?

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 MADHUSUDAN LAW UNIVERSITY MOOT MEMORIAL

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE : 1

Whether the punishment given u/s-300/326 of IPC is justified or not ?

It is humbly contended that before this hon’ble high court that the conviction of Ramesh
based on section 302 of IPC be upheld. The accused person hit the deceased forehead with a
tangia which leads to his death, with proper planning and was be ready with the weapon and
the appellants are guilty of the same.

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 a 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.

ISSUE : 2

whether the accused persons can be held criminally liable under section 34 of Indian
penal code, 1860, or not ?

It is humbly contended that before this hon’ble High court that the accused persons must be
convicted under sec.302 of IPC R/W sec.34 of IPC. The acquittal of the other accused
persons who were tried under section 302 of IPC shows the inadequacy of the lower court,
this case appear to fulfil the essentials of common intention, hence the conviction of the
accused persons should be incorporated with section 34,IPC. It envisages commission of
murder by two or more people in furtherance of a common intention; and the appellants are
guilty of the same.

When 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.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 MADHUSUDAN LAW UNIVERSITY MOOT MEMORIAL

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE:1

Whether the punishment given u/s-300/326 of IPC is justified or not ?

1. It is humbly contended that before this hon’ble high court that the conviction of
Ramesh based on section 302 of IPC be upheld. The accused person hit the deceased
forehead with a tangia which leads to his death, with proper planning and was be
ready with the weapon and the appellants are guilty of the same.
2. 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 a 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.
3. As per the facts there was long standing land dispute between the parties for this
reason both of them had regular verbal fights and altercations between them on
several occasions also witnessed by the local people. On 11.11.2010 at around 9;30
am the appellant went to the place of the deceased in order to settle the on-going land
dispute and they get into an altercation between them which turned the matter into
violent and both of them picked up a physical fight as well. By the interfere of the
gardener Mansa (P.W.2) the fight came to an end and the appellant left the place of
the deceased threatening him to kill. And on the same day , at night while on one was
at home except Mansa Ramesh and his 2 friends entered the place of the deceased
with dangerous weapons of Tangia and Katari and assaulted the deceased.
4. That the above facts shows that it was a pre-planned murder and the accused person
act vindictively with the intention to kill Raghav.
5. 300. Murder.- Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder,

Firstly- 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

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 MADHUSUDAN LAW UNIVERSITY MOOT MEMORIAL

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 bodily
injury as aforesaid

6. In the case of Om prakash vs. State of punjab1 the essentials of Murder was
discussed, which are already discussed above.
7. Also, in the case of State of Assam vs. Abinash Dutta2, court stated that a vindictive
or malicious act by a person implies that the act has been done with the motive of
taking revenge and this was happened in the case in hand.
8. 302. Punishment for murder.- whoever commits murder shall be punished with
death or (imprisonment for life), and shall also be liable to fine.
9. Similarly in case of Rajesh kumar vs Dharamvir3, it was held by the Hon’ble court
that all the conditions of murder were satisfied and the accused was convicted and
sentenced to imprisonment.
10. In the case of Machhi Singh v State of Punjab4, 3- judge Bench observed that in
rarest of the rare cases when collective conscience of the community is shocked to
such an extent that it expects infliction of the death penalty from the holders of the
judicial power, the court said that the community may entertain such a sentiment in
the following circumstances :
 The manner of the commission of the offence
 The motive for the commission of the offence
 The societal impact of the offence on the whole
 Facts and circumstances leading to the offence
 The vulnerability of the members of the society at the hands of the offender
 Magnitude of crime
 The personality of the victim of the offence

1
Om prakash vs. State of punjab
2
State of Assam vs. Abinash Dutta2

3Rajesh kumar vs Dharamvir3

4Machhi Singh v State of Punjab

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 MADHUSUDAN LAW UNIVERSITY MOOT MEMORIAL

11. In the case of Ranadhir Basu v. State of WB5 , In conclusion, we would like to say
that the facts of the case on hand are quite close to the facts of Ranadhir Basu v. State
Of W.B 2000 3 SCC 161 and Allauddin Mian v. State of Bihar6 in which the Court
did not choose to impose death sentence in multiple murder cases. The indiscriminate
killing of fellow policemen resorted to by a member of a disciplined force is no doubt
an aggravating factor but it is offset by other mitigating circumstances discussed
above and we are, therefore, inclined to hold that death sentence is not the appropriate
sentence in the instant case. We, therefore, set aside the judgment under appeal
insofar as it has confirmed the sentence of death while maintaining the conviction
under Section 302 IPC. The appellant is hereby sentenced to life imprisonment and a
fine of Rs 1000 and in default of payment of fine to undergo imprisonment for a
period of six months.
12. It is submitted that on 11.11.2010 accused hit on the forehead of the deceased with
the help of a dangerous weapon that the accused persons left in the bedroom of the
deceased, as result deceased died on the spot . F.I.R lodged and the police spot and
seized the used instruments in the murder and the post-mortem report clarify the
murder . in session court all the prosecution witness had corroborated the prosecution
.

Accused had the knowledge of that it is so imminently dangerous act, that it must in all
probability of cause death.

1. 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 or such
injury as aforesaid.
2. This case signifies all the essential elements and the accused carried the mens rea to
commit such offence.
3. The counsels on behalf of the respondents humbly submits that the order passed by
the
4. Sessions Court of sentencing the accused for imprisonment for life for his offence
committed under section 300 and punishable under section 302 of IPC is appropriate.

5
Ranadhir Basu v. State of WB
6
Allauddin Mian v. State of Bihar

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 MADHUSUDAN LAW UNIVERSITY MOOT MEMORIAL

5. The conditions of section 300 of IPC have been satisfied . The accused has committed
the offence of murder because act done by him falls under the definition of Murder as
defined in Section 30013 of IPC. The present case comes under the 4th clause of the
said section. Clause 4 of the Section talks about a person committing any act. and
knowing that the act thus committed is so imminently dangerous that it
will in all probability cause death or bodily injury as is likely to cause death and
that person commits the act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death
or such injury aforesaid.

The essential ingredients of this clause are –

(a) The act must be imminently dangerous,
(b) The person committing the act must have knowledge that it is so
imminently dangerous, As per the Oxford Dictionary, the word knowledge means:
‘Acquaintance with a fact, perception, or certain information of a fact matter; state of
being award or informed; consciousness (of anything).’ For practical and legal
purposes, ‘knowledge’ means the state of mind entertained by a person with regard to
existing facts which he has himself observed, or the existence of which has been
communicated to him by persons whose veracity he has no reason to doubt.
(c) That in all probability it will cause– either Death or Bodily injury as is likely to cause
death and;
(d) Such imminently dangerous act should be done without any reason or justification for
running the risk of causing death or such injury.
Though the accused persons were not a minor, he knows clearly that to hit someone’s
forehead with a dangerous weapon like tangia is sufficient to cause death with all
probability. That the person has the knowledge that the act is so imminently dangerous that in
all probability it will cause death. The act of hit on the forehead is sufficient to cause death
still doing the act fulfils the conditions of the clause 4 of section 300 of IPC,1860, and brings
the act of the accused person under the definition murder.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 MADHUSUDAN LAW UNIVERSITY MOOT MEMORIAL

ISSUE : 2

whether the accused persons can be held criminally liable under section 34 of Indian
penal code, 1860, or not ?

1. It is humbly contended that before this hon’ble High court that the accused persons
must be convicted under sec.302 of IPC R/W sec.34 of IPC. The acquittal of the other
accused persons who were tried under section 302 of IPC shows the inadequacy of
the lower court, this case appear to fulfil the essentials of common intention, hence
the conviction of the accused persons should be incorporated with section 34,IPC. It
envisages commission of murder by two or more people in furtherance of a common
intention; and the appellants are guilty of the same.
2. When 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.
3. Section 34 acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention

Contemplates the doing of an act by several persons in furtherance of common intention. The
constructive liability under this section arises only if the three conditions are fulfilled :

1. Criminal act is done by several persons;

2. Such act is done in furtherance of the common intention of all; and
3. Each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by
him alone

To invoke the aid of section 34 successfully, it shall be shown that the criminal act
complained against was done by one of the accused persons in furtherance of the common
intention of all; if this is shown then liability for the crime may be imposed on any one of the
persons in the same manner as if the act were done by him alone . The first two ingredients of
the acts are attribute and have to be proved as actions of the accused, the third is the
consequence. Once the criminal liability of having done that act by each person individually
would arise.

4. Criminal Act

It shall be observed that the section 34 when speaks of a criminal act done by several persons
in furtherance of the common intention of all, has regard not to the offence as a whole, but to

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 MADHUSUDAN LAW UNIVERSITY MOOT MEMORIAL

the criminal act, that is to say, the totality of the series of acts which results in the offence. In
the case of a person assaulted by many accused , the criminal act is the offence which finally
results, though the achievement of that criminal act may be the result of the action of several
persons.

In this case the criminal act is pre-planned. All the accused persons Ramesh, Vinit and Rahul
execute this plan and carry out the criminal act and discloses the pre-arranged ill intention.
They had a plan on 10.11.2010 to execute the act in a bar(near RTO office) around 10;30 pm
that was witnessed by Ramlal (P.W.1). after the planning and preparation as per the planning
on 11.11.2010 morning the accused had a physical fight with the deceased entering at the
place of the deceased and after the P.W.2 (mansa) stopped the fight the accused left the place
and threaten to kill Raghav. Afterwards on the very same day the accused persons with the
intent to take revenge entered the hose of the deceased with some dangerous weapon and
assault the deceased. All the matters were confirmed by the witnesses P.W.1 (Ramlal), P.W.2
(Mansa), P.W.3 (a near by shopkeeper) that the three accused persons are entered into the
house by wearing winter apparels.

5. Participation in furtherance of common intention :

Common intention— The phrase common intention means a pre-arranged plan and acting in
pursuance to the plan. Though to bring this section into effect a pre-concert not necessarily be
proved, and it may well be develop on the spot as between a number of persons and be
inferred form facts and circumstances of each case7.

It was held in a case it is not necessary to assign a specific role to each individual appellant as
and when it is undoubtedly with a clear intent that some thing is done.

From the facts of the case it can be deduced that the accused persons Ramesh,Vinit and Rahul
had a common ill intention towards the deceased . As they had a long standing land disputes
with the deceased and there was no love lost between them.as the fact that they had regular
verbal fights and altercations between them on several occasions which was witnessed by the
local people. after the quarrel the accused persons develop a plan to harm the deceased . As
they get a chance they execute their plan and murdered Raghav.

7
Kripal Singh v. State of U.P

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 MADHUSUDAN LAW UNIVERSITY MOOT MEMORIAL

The acts of all the accused need not be the same or identically similar. All that is necessary is
that they all must be actuated by one and the same common intention.

6. In the case of Nandu Rastogi v. State of Bihar8, To attract section 34 IPC it is not
necessary that each one of the accused must assault the deceased. It is enough if it is
shown that they shared a common intention to commit the offence and in furtherance
thereof each one played his assigned role by doing separate acts, similar or diverse.
7. The facts of this case are eloquent and the role played by Ramesh, Vinit and Rahul
suggest a view to achieve the ultimate objective of killing Raghav.

8
Nandu Rastogi v. State of Bihar

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 MADHUSUDAN LAW UNIVERSITY MOOT MEMORIAL

PRAYER

In the light of the facts stated, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited the

counsel on behalf of the respondent humbly prays before the Hon’ble High court of Odisha to

kindly adjudge and declare.

1. To dispose this appeal.

2. To uphold the decision of the Lower Court.

3. And held the other accused persons criminally liable under sec 34 rw sec 302 of IPC,

1860

Or to pass any appropriate relief that the Hon’ble court may deem fit and is in the best

interest of justice, equality and good conscience,

And for this act of kindness, the counsel on behalf of the respondent , as duty bound shall

forever pray.

All of which most humbly and respectfully submitted

s/d__________

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT