Chandigarh Judicial Academy National Moot Court Competition

³Chandigarh Judicial Academy National Moot Court Competition, 2010´

The State Appellant

V

Walaiti Ram & othersRespondent

Memorial for the Appellant

Table of Contents

INDEX

Lists

OF AUTHOR ITIES

of Cases:

1

MayakaurBaldev

2

1431) Sunny Kapoor V U.T of Chandigarh (2006 Indlaw 535)

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

29 30 31 32 33

Mulla

Singh Sardar and Another V State of Maharashtra, (2007 Indlaw SC

and Anothers v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2010 Indlaw SC 87) RajuK isan Mane v State of Maharashtra, through Police Station (2010 Indlaw MUM 925) Eknath S/o BhagwanHatkar v State of Maharashtra (2010 Indlaw MUM 883) Charansing @ Chnya S/o IndersingKadewale v State of Maharashtra, through Police Station (2010 Indlaw MUM 861) Jamalu and others v State of Delhi (2010 Indlaw DEL 2104) ChakaliMaddilety and others v State of Andhra Pradesh (2010 Indlaw SC 645) Parsan and others v State of Uttar Pradesh (2010 Indlaw ALL 1263) Bhim Singh and another v State (2010 Indlaw DEL 2185) Paramjit S ingh and another v State (2010 Indlaw DEL 2187) Md. Sekendar Ali Mondal v State of West Bengal (2010 Indlaw CAL 563) Balkr ishnaKhashabaMohite v State of Maharashtra (2010 Indlaw MUM 1016) Sambhu Das @ Bi joy Das and another v State of Assam (2010 Indlaw SC 751) AbdulSayeed and others v State of Madhya Pradesh (2010 Indlaw SC 743) Manjappa and another v State of Karnataka (2010 Indlaw SC 726) Santokh Singh and another v State of Punjab (2010 Indlaw SC 706) MayakaurBaldev Singh Sardar and Anotherv State of Maharashtra (2007 Indlaw SC 1431) Musheer khan @ Badshah khan and others V. State of Madhya Pradesh(2010 Indlaw SC 64) Ragnath Sharma V Satendra Sharma and others, (2008 Indlaw SC 1319) Paramjit S ingh and other V State(2010 Indlaw DEL 2187) Mohmed Amin @ Amin choteli Rahim MiyanShaikh and Another v C.B.I(2008 Indlaw SC 2603) ChhoteySahu S/o Badr iSahu and others v State of Uttar Pradesh(2010 Indlaw ALL 1253) Rajneesh Kumar and another v State (Government of NCT Delhi)(2010 Indlaw DEL 2089) Santosh Kumar Baranwal v State of Uttar Pradesh(2010 Indlaw ALL 962) Antarsingh V state of rajasthan(2004 Indlaw SC 79) Anwar Ali v State(2009 Indlaw DEL 2727) (1)Rakesh Kumar and Others; (2) Sharda Jain and Another; (3) Pushpender; (4) Roshan S ingh; (5) Rajinder @ Rajesh @ Raju; (6) Nirvikar @ Dr v State Delhi High Court(2009 Indlaw DEL 1861) Surender v State(2009 Indlaw DEL 2870) Vinod Kumar @ Dolly v State of Delhi(2009 Indlaw DEL 2384) (1)Kehar Singh and Another; (2) Udai Veer Singh; (3) Vimal Kumar @ Pinto v State(2009 Indlaw DEL 2035) Anwar Ali v State(2009 Indlaw DEL 2727) Mehmood Ali v State(2010 Indlaw DEL 792)

Statement of Jurisdiction

1

1

The Petitioner Approaches the Court under Art icle 133 Of The Constitut ion Of India.

The constitution of India, P.M Bakshi

2

Statement of facts

On 1.5.2009, a telephone call was received in Police Station No.1, Azadpur at about 1.00 A.M that two dead bodies were lying on the berm of the bypass of Azadpur  in a pool of blood. The Off icer- in-charge of the Police Station recorded an entry in the Roz Namcha (Daily Dairy Report) to this effect and dispat ched a police party headed by Inspector Gopal S ingh to the spot. Upon arr ival at the by-pass, the police party found the two dead bodies, one of male and other of  female. The deceased appeared to have been done to death by slitt ing their throats.An ocular  examinat ion of the bodies revealed, that in addit ion to the injury to their throats, a large number  of lacerated wounds, abrasions and contusions had also been inflicted on var ious parts of bodies of the deceased. The clothes on the dead bodies were blood soaked and the dead bodies were lying in a pool of blood. Inspector Gopal Singh sent a message through Constable Ajmer Singh for registrat ion of  case for an offence under section 302 IPC etc., at which S.I. Dali p Singh registered FIR No. 10 dated 1.5.2009 at P.S. Azadpur u/s 302 IPC and intimated the Invest igat ing Off icer at the spot about the particulars of the FIR. The police prepared a site plan, showing the locat ion of the dead bodies; lifted the blood soaked earth; sear ched the area for the weapon(s) of offence and, thereafter, sent the bodies for postmortem after prepar ing the inquest reports of the two deceased. The villagers from the nearby village Azadpur  ident if ied the deceased girl as PhoolWati from their village. On further invest igat ion, the boy was ident if ied as, Atma Singh of Village Mastana. The postmortem report revealed that the deceased boy, Atma Singh, was aged about 22 years and, PhoolWati, a girl was aged about 19 years. The cause of  death, as per the postmortem report, was shock and hemorrhage, on account of mult iple injur ies. 2

Facts from fact sheet

It conf irmed that Atma Singh and PhoolWati had been murdered by slitt ing their throats with a sharp edged weapon and before their murder, a large number of gr ievous and simple injur ies on var ious parts of their bodies were inflicted. The clothes removed from the bodies of the deceased and the

Legal Issues

1) Whether the accused jointly or individually liable for the felony under U/S 302/34? 2) Whether the sec. 302 I.P.C is applicable for his father and the community leader? 3) Whether the accused is liable under Arms Act?

Summary of submission 1) Whether the accused jointly or individually liable for the felony under U/S 302/34

The blood stained earth lifted from the spot were sent to forensic laboratory for analysis. The forensic analysis revealed human blood bear ing three different blood groups ±blood group A+ relating to the boy Atma Singh; blood group B+ relating to the girl PhoolWati, and blood group O+ did not relate to either of the deceased. As per the fact the accused did the Felony, because the forensic laboratory disclosed that the third sample of blood bear ing the blood group O+ matched with the blood group of  accused.Dur ing the nar co-analysis,got the information and went to the place and recovered a knife by police accused said that the knife was used in slitt ing the throats of the deceased and heavy sticks used to inflict other  injur ies found on the person of the deceased on the basis of  statement ofWalait i Ram. As per the report received from the forensic laboratory, the knife carr ied traces of ante-mortem human blood bear ing blood groups A+ and B+. No blood was found on the heavy sticks recovered by the police and allegedly used by the accused persons for  3 causing injur ies on the bodies of the deceased.In a similar  case MayakaurBaldev Singh Sardar  and Another V State of Maharashtra, were MayakaurBaldev Singh and other were charged for  I.P.C Sections 302, 307, 120(B), 34; Arms Act, 1959- Sections 25(1) & (3), 27(3), Out of e ight accused, four accused was awarded death penalty and two accused with life impr isonment and 4 two more accused to lesser offences.In the case sunny Kapoor V U.T of Chandigarhaccused is 3 4

2007 Indlaw SC 1431 2006 Indlaw 535

liable undersec.302, he was found to be guilty for  commission of offence and was sentenced to 5 life impr isonment, Mulla and Anothers v. State of Uttar Pradesh were Appellants were charged u/ss. 148, 302, 365 all r/w s. 149, IPC Tr ial court by giving adequate reasons, awarded death sentence to both the appellants, 6RajuK isan Mane v State of Maharashtra, through Police Station the appellant, has been convicted for the offence punishable Under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer  impr isonment for life and to pay a f ine of Rs. 500/- in default to suffer further r igorous impr isonment for six months.7Eknath S/o BhagwanHatkar v State of  Maharashtra, whereby the appellant/accused is convicted for the offence punishable under  sect ion 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer  impr isonment for life and to pay a f ine of Rs.3,000/- i/d to suffer r igorous impr isonment for one year. The accused is also convicted for  the offence punishable under sect ion 498-A of IPC and sentenced to suffer r igorous impr isonment for three years and to pay f ine of Rs.2,000/- i/d to undergo further r igorous 8 impr isonment for six months. Charansing @ Chnya S/o IndersingKadewale v State of  Maharashtra, through Police Station by which the appellant-accused is convicted for the offence  punishable under Section 302 of IPC and is sentenced to undergo R.I. for life and to pay a f ine of  9 Rs.1000/-, i/d to undergo further S.I. for twomonths. Jamalu and others v State of Delhi the appellantshave been convicted by the Tr ial Court under Sect ion 308 read with Sect ion 34 of the Indian Penal Code ( IPC) and sentenced to undergo r igorous impr isonment for f ive 10 years. ChakaliMaddilety and others v State of Andhra Pradesh convict ing the appellants under  Sections 302 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter  called as "IPC") and 11 sentencing them to undergo life impr isonment and one year R.I. respectively. Parsan and others v State of Uttar Pradeshthe cr iminal appeal is at the instance of four accused namely Parsan, Bispat, Jhurrey and Mangrey who stand convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 302/34 and 394 IPC for life impr isonment and seven years r igorous impr isonment.12Bhim Singh and another v State the appellant Tr ilok Chand was convicted underSection 302 of IPC and was sentenced to undergo impr isonment for life and to payf ine of Rs 15,000/- or to undergo R.I. for  six months in default under sect ion 302 and was furthersentenced to undergo R.I. for three years and to pay f ine of Rs 5000/- or to undergo R.I. for s ixmonths in default under Section 304-B of  IPC and further sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years each and to paya f ine of Rs 5000/- each 13 or to undergo S.I. for six months. Paramjit Singh and another v State the applleant were sentenced to undergo impr isonment for life for the offence of murder and to undergo r igorous impr isonment for three years for their  convict ion under Section 324/34 IPC. Accused-appellant Paramjit Singh was further  convicted under Sect ion 27 of the Arms Act also and was sentenced to undergo r igorous impr isonment for three years and to pay a f ine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of  14  payment to undergo further r igorous impr isonment for one month. Md. Sekendar Ali Mondal v State of West Bengal the learned judge sentenced Sekendar to suffer  impr isonment for life and a f ine of Rs.6000/- and in default to suffer further r igorous impr isonment for two years for  5 6 7 8 9

2010 Indlaw SC 87 2010 Indlaw MUM 925 2010 Indlaw MUM 883 2010 Indlaw MUM 861 2010 Indlaw DEL 2104

10

2010 Indlaw SC 645 2010 Indlaw ALL 1263 12 2010 Indlaw DEL 2185 13 2010 Indlaw DEL 2187 14 2010 Indlaw CAL 563 11

committ ing

15

offence under Sect ion 302. Balkr ishnaKhashabaMohite v State of  Maharashtra sentenced to suffer RI for life and to pay a f ine of Rs.4,000/-, in default to suffer further R.I. for  three years for having committed murder 

2) Whethersec. 302/34 I.P.C is applicable for his father and the community leader?

As per the facts deceased marr iage was against the will of the family members, so family members of PhoolWati, they threatened to k ill Atma Singh and his family members. The local community leaders had called a meeting and put pressure on the family members of  Atma Singh and PhoolWati to either dissolve their marr iage or face a social boycott. In the 16 similar  case Sambhu Das @ Bi  joy Das and another v State of Assam, appellants are convicted under Section 302/34 IPC and sentenced to impr isonment for life and to pay a f ine of Rs.10,000/17 each, and in default, to undergo further  impr isonment for six months each. AbdulSayeed and others v State of  Madhya Pradesh, appellants have been convicted under Sect ion 302/34 of  the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter  calledIPC) for  committ ing the murders of Chand Khan 18 and Shabir Khan, Manjappa and another v State of Karnataka, appellants herein for the offences punishable under Section 366A, 372, 373 read with Sect ion 34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo impr isonment for a per iod of seven years with a f ine of Rs.50,000/- each, in default, 19 to undergo simpleimpr isonment for two years. Santokh Singh and another v State of Punjab,the appellants for the offence under Section 302 read withSection 34 IPC sentencing them each to undergo impr isonment for life with a f ine of Rs. 1,000/- with a direct ion to further undergo RI for six months in case of default of payment f ine.

15

2010 Indlaw MUM 1016

16

2010 Indlaw SC 751

17

2010 Indlaw SC 743 2010 Indlaw SC 726

18 19

2010 Indlaw SC 706

3) Whether the accused is liable under Arms Act? The accused is also liable U/S 25, 27 of arms act, 1959, because police recovered a knife said to  be used in slitt ing the throats of the deceased on the basis of statement of accused. In a similar  20 cases MayakaurBaldev Singh Sardar and Anotherv State of  Maharashtra the accused is held 21 liable under this a ct. . In case Musheer khan @ Badshah khan and others V. State of Madhya 22 Pradesh, the accused is liable for U/S 25(1)(a)(b) and 27 of arms, a ct, Ragnath Sharma V Satendra Sharma and others, so accused is liable under sec. 27, where Satendra Sharma was 23 sentenced for r igorous impr isonment for 5 years. Paramjit S ingh and other V State, the accused convicted under Sect ion 27 of the Arms Act also and was sentenced to undergo r igorous impr isonment for three years and to pay a f ine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment to undergo 24 further r igorous impr isonment for one month, Mohmed Amin @ Amin choteliRahim MiyanShaikh and Another v C.B.I, Through its D irector, where 7 accused were sentenced to life impr isonment each of them is dire cted to pay f ine of Rs 5000/- and in default to go r igorous impr isonment for one year. Other 2 were sentenced with 3 years of  impr isonment for offence 25 under sec. 27 0f arms,act and in default to undergo 6 months impr isonment. ChhoteySahu S/o Badr iSahu and others v State of Uttar Pradesh, where accused has also been sentenced to 26 undergo impr isonment for 3 years under section 25 Arms Act. Rajneesh Kumar and another v State (Government of NCT Delhi), where Accused-appellant Rajinder Kumar was also convicted under Sect ion 25 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo r igorous impr isonment for six months and also to pay a f ine of Rs. 200/- and to undergo further r igorous impr isonment for one month in the event of default in payment of f ine. For his convict ion under Section 27 of  the Arms Act he was sentenced to undergo r igorous impr isonment for one year and also to pay a f ine of Rs. 500/- and to undergo further r igorous impr isonment for two months in the event of  non-payment of f ine. The deceased accused Rajneesh was also convicted under Sect ion 25 of  the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo r igorous impr isonment for one year and to pay f ine of  Rs. 500/- and to undergo further r igorous impr isonment for two months in the event of non27  payment of f ine. SantoshKumar Baranwal v State of Uttar Pradesh, where accused is sentenced to Six months r igorous impr isonment under sect ion 25 of Arms Act and a f ine of Rs. 10,000/with default st ipulat ion of two months simple impr isonment, 28Antarsingh V state of rajasthan where accused is awarded life impr isonment, one year and three year sentenced respectively 29 were imposed for three offences U/s 25 and 27 of arms, act. Anwar Ali v State the Appellant Anwar Ali has been convicted and sentenced for offences punishable under Sect ion 302 Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sect ion 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 in terms of the impugned 30  judgment. (1) Rakesh Kumar and Others; (2) Sharda Ja in and Another; (3) Pushpender; (4) Roshan Singh; (5) Rajinder @ Rajesh @ Raju; (6) Nirvikar @ Dr v State 20

2007 Indlaw SC 1431 2010 Indlaw SC 64 22 2008 Indlaw SC 1319 23 2010 Indlaw DEL 2187 24 2008 Indlaw SC 2603 25 2010 Indlaw ALL 1253 26 2010 Indlaw DEL 2089 27 2010 Indlaw ALL 962 28 2004 Indlaw SC 79 21

29 30

2009 Indlaw DEL 2727

2009 Indlaw DEL 1861

Delhi High CourtFor the offence punishable under Section 25,Arms Act, 1959 accused Roshan Singh has been sentenced to undergo RI for three years and to pay a f ine in sum of Rs5, 000/-, in default to undergo SI for three months. For the offence punishable under Sect ion 27, Arms Act, 1959 accused Pushpender and Nirvikar have been sentenced to undergo RI for three years and to 31  pay a f ine in sum of Rs5, 000/- each, in default to undergo SI for three months. Surender v State the appellant has also been convicted for the offence punishable under Sect ion 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 , in respect whereof he has been sentenced to undergo impr isonment for 5 years and 32   pay a f ine in sum of Rs.2,000/-. Vinod Kumar @ Dolly v State of Delhi, Appellant and was 33 sentenced to undergo RI for 3 years under Sect ion 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, (1) Kehar Singh and Another; (2) Udai Veer Singh; (3) Vimal Kumar @ Pinto v State, appellant Kehar Singh has  been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 25 Arms Act, 1959, for which offence he has been sentenced to undergo r igorous impr isonment for 4 years and pay a f ine in sum of  34 Rs.5, 000/-; in default to undergo simple impr isonment for 6 months. Anwar Ali v State, the appellant was sentenced under Sect ion 302 Indian Penal Code, 1860 to undergo impr isonment for life and also to pay a f ine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to undergo r igorous impr isonment for a  per iod of three months and for offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, the appellant was sentenced to undergo r igorous impr isonment for a per iod of three years and to pay a f ine of  Rs. 200/-, in default, to undergo r igorous impr isonment for further per iod of one month. 35

MehmoodAlivState,

Appellant the offence punishable under Sect ion 27 of the ArmsActthe has  been sentenced to undergo simple impr isonment for 15 days.

31

2009 Indlaw DEL 2870

32

2009 Indlaw DEL 2384

33

2009 Indlaw DEL 2035 2009 Indlaw DEL 2727

34 35

2010 Indlaw DEL 792

PRAYER