Download KSHAN National Trial & Appellate Moot Court Competition: Criminal Law Case Study and more Study Guides, Projects, Research Criminal Law in PDF only on Docsity!
KES’SHRI. JAYANTILAL H. PATEL LAW COLLEGE “INTRA- COLLEGIATE MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2021”
TEAM CODE- K-
18 th^ KSHAN NATIONAL TRIAL AND APPELLATE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT RAVANPUR CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: /2023. IN CRIMINAL CASE NO. 76 / District-RAVANPUR IN THE MATTER BETWEEN
- RAJ CHHANCHAD ) Age 45 years, Occ: Sole Proprietor, ) … (Appellants) (Ori. Accused) VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHANRASHTRA ) Through Police Incharge, Roshan Nagar- Police Station, ) … (Respondent) Ravanpur ) (Ori. Complainant)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT RAVANPUR
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: /
IN
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 76 /
District- RAVANPUR IN THE MATTER BETWEEN RAJ CHHANCHAD ) … (Appellants) VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHANRASHTRA ) … (Respondent) INDEX SR.NO PARTICULARS PAGE NO.
1. (^) **LIST OF AUTHORITIES 3-
- STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 6
- MEMORANDUM OF CRIMINAL APPEAL 7-
- BRIEF FACTS 9
- GROUNDS 10
- STATEMENT OF CHARGES 11
- STATEMENT OF ISSUES 12
- SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 13 8.** a.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
Whether charges under Section 302 have been established by the respondent beyond any reasonable doubt?
b. Whether the evidences collected are enough to prove the guilt of the Appellant?
9. PRAYER 28
10. LAST PAGE 29
WEBLIOGRAPHY & BIBLIOGRAPHY:
1. www.bombay.highcourt.in 2. http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/ 3. http://www.lawyerservice.in/ 4. http://www.manupatrafast.com/ 5. www.scconline.com **CASE REFERENCE: SR. NO. CASE REFERENCE CITATION PAGE NO.
- Om Prakash v. State of Punjab AIR 1953 All 203 14
- Behari**^ v.^ State^ of^ Uttar^ Pradesh^ AIR^ 1953 All^203 3. D. Yohannan v. State of Kerela AIR 1958 KER 207
4. Mohan Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1974 SC 1144
**5. Virsa Singh case AIR 1958 SC 465 16
- Commissioner of Income Tax v. Patranu Dass** Raja Ram Beri
AIR 1982 PH 1, 4 17
**7. State of Maharashtra v. Meyer Hans George AIR 1965 SC 722. 17
- Santosh v. State of Madhya Pradesh 1975 AIR 654, 17
- Laxman v. State of Maharashta, AIR 1974 SC** 1803.
10. Chandmal v. State of Rajasthan , (1976) 1 SCC 621
11. State v. Dinakar Bandu (1969) 72 Bom LR 905.
**12. Nathulal case AIR 1966 SC 43. 19
- Shamdasini P D AIR 1929 Bom 443. AIR 1929 Bom** 443.
14 Gurucharan^ Singh^ Air^ 1956 SC^1322 15 State of Punjab v. Sucha Singh AIR 2003 SC 1471
16 Jagtar^ Singh^ AIR 1983^ SC^ 463.^20 17 Mulakh Raj v. Satish Kumar, AIR 1992 SC 1175
18 State^ of^ Madhya^ Pradesh^ v.^ Digvijay^ Singh,^1981 Cri.^ LJ^1278 (SC).
19 State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh. 20
20 Rizan v. State^ of Chhattisgarh,^ AIR 2003^ SC^ 976.^21 21 State^ of MP^ v. Rammi,^ 1999 (1) JLJ 49 (MP).
22 State of MP v. Dharkale, AIR 2005 SC 44. 22 23 State of WB v. Orilal Jaiswal AIR 1994 SC 1418.
24 Mohan Lal^ v. State^ of Uttar Pradesh.^ AIR 1974^ SC 1144
25 Janar Lal Das v. State of Orissa, 1991 (3) SCC 27 23 26 Padam^ Pradhan v. State^1982 Cri.^ LJ.^534 27 Sharad Bircichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra,
AIR 1984 SC
28 Bakhshish Singh vs State of Punjab AIR 1971 SC 2016
29 State of Uttar Pradesh v. Satish, AIR 2005 SC 1000 24 30 Hukam v. State^ AIR 1977^ SC 1063
31 C. Chenga Reddy v. State of A.P.. (1996) 10 SCC 193
32 State^ of Rajasthan^ v. Tej^ Ram,^ (1999) 3 SCC^ 507.^25 33 Karthik Sahu v. State of Orissa, 1994 Cri.L.J.102(Ori)
34 Prakash Chand v.^ State^ (UT^ of^ Delhi)^ (1979) 3 SCC^90 35 A.N.^ Venkatesh v.^ State^ of^ Karnataka^ (2005) 7 SCC^ 714.^25 36 Sk. Yusuf v. State of West Bengal (2011) 11 SCC 754
37 Ram Kishan^ v. State^ of^ U. P^ AIR 2004^ SC 4678 (4680).
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT RAVANPUR
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: /
IN
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 76 /
District-RAVANPUR IN THE MATTER BETWEEN RAJ CHHANCHAD ) … (Appellants) VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHANRASHTRA ) … (Respondent) Affidavit in Reply Cum in Written Submission of Respondent to oppose the admission of the captioned Criminal Appeal against conviction and set aside the said impugned Judgement and Order of Sessions Court as prayed by the Appellants therein. We State of MAHANRASHTRA, through Police In charge. Roshan Nagar Police Station (hereinafter referred as “ the Respondent” ) do hereby solemnly affirm and state as follows: -
- At the outset I say that the present affidavit is being filed to oppose the relief as claimed by the Appellate in the above matters and for the admission of Criminal Appeal against conviction and set aside the said impugned Judgement and Order of the Sessions Court.
- At the further outset we say that we repeat, confirm and reiterate the contents of the present Affidavit and deny whatever is stated in the Memo of Criminal Appeal against Conviction to the extent that they are inconsistence with and contrary to whatever is
stated herein. We say that no allegations, averments, statements or contentions raised
THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE: -
- The deceased Mr. Nandkishor Chhanchad, aged 75 years resident of Geetanagar, Ravanpur, was living with his spouse Ms. Kavita Chhanchad, aged 72 years. He had three sons viz. Raj who runs his own clothing retail outlet, Ramesh who is a customer support rep of local enterprise and Rahul was involved in running his family business with his father of retail in footwear with the name “Foot story” located at Roshan Nagar. The three sons were married however, Raj separated from his parents and was living with his wife and children for the last 10 years at Babita Nagar due to regular quarrels.
- Nandkishor and Rahul visited Raj as they were facing losses in their footwear business. Nandkishor requested Raj to help Rahul by lending funds. Raj acceded to their request and borrowed some funds from his contacts, who handed out small loans with high interest rates, where he stood the borrower and his wife was the guarantor for the loans. Nandkishor and Rahul started their business afresh with new stocks and renovations from these funds and in the meanwhile, Raj paid monthly installments to the loan sharks in time for next following months. On one hand the footwear business owned by Nandkishor and Rahul was making profits, whereas, the financial debt turned into a burden for Raj hence, he stopped paying the creditors. As the creditors were trying to recover the money from Raj and his wife, he tried contacting his father and brother but got no response. One day Raj visited his brother (Rahul) to ask him to repay the loans. Rahul refused his request, abused him, and kicked him out of the store.
- The next day, early in the morning, Raj went to a street shop where he purchased a bat and reached his father’s shop at about 9:30 AM. His father was sitting behind the cash counter. Raj started a conversation about the repayment of loans and his father replied “Paisa humne liya kya? Tune liya, tu dekh”, which led to further verbal altercation. Nandkishor was enraged and slapped him across his face which struck a nerve in Raj who then swung the bat at his father twice on the head, which left him unconscious, and he died on the spot. Raj went to the police station, and confessed the crime to PSI Rajesh Tiwari whereupon FIR was registered. Raj was taken into custody and weapon was seized at the police station. The senior inspector then rushed to the spot and found the victim’s body near the counter of the shop. Then the police with panchas, prepared the Spot Panchnama. The IO, prepared Seizure Panchnama, sent the body for Post Mortem, seized the clothes, samples of spills of victim’s blood, recorded statements of witnesses and sent seized articles for chemical analysis, on completion of due procedure and investigation, chargesheet was filed before the Hon’ble Sessions Judge, Ravanpur.
GROUNDS
- I say and submit that the present Criminal Appeal is liable to be dismissed and rejected on several grounds, each of which are enumerated herein after without prejudice to each other: a) It is pertinent to note that it was the case of prosecution in Sessions Case No. 76 of 2023 whereby the Appellant were convicted by the Learned Session Court Judge for having committed offences punishable U/s 302, of IPC. b) It is pertinent to note that the Trial Court while deciding Sessions Case No.76 of 2023 has observed that the evidences presented were self-sufficient and not even disputing within itself. The Trial Court relying upon the said evidences has come upon a conclusion that the accused has proved an offence punishable U/302, of IPC. c) It is pertinent to note that after going through the testimony of witnesses all of themhave specifically and particularly stated as to the exact words in which the incidentleading to the crime has taken place. d) It is pertinent to note that as admitted, accused had a clear motive and premeditation to cause his father’s death. The edifice of the accused’s hatred towards his father was built when his father didn’t approve of Aaliya as his daughter-in-law. From that stemmed the need to be the ‘bigger person’ and the need to help his family members in financial matters. But the accused was not content with his act of a selfless good deed. The prosecution further states that the relations between the Chhanchad family remained strained and it finally led to this premeditated, well-thought and cold-blooded murder of the deceased.
- Thus, this case is free from all the reasonable doubts on the facts and hence the Judgement and order of the conviction passed by the learned Session Court cannot be set aside.
- In the view the facts mentioned herein above and further the arguments stated by the prosecution, the Appellants are not entitled for any reliefs as claimed by them and the Appeal will be dismissed with compensatory cost.
- I crave leave of this Hon’ble Authority to add/alter/amend the averment of this affidavitin the facts and circumstances with prior permission of this Hon’ble Court.
- I view of whatever is mentioned and in view of various grounds replied by me, it is prayed that the Appellants are not entitled for any relief as prayed and the Criminal Appeal must be rejected.
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
1. Whether charges under Section 302 have been established by the Respondent **beyond reasonable doubt?
- Whether the evidences collected are enough to prove the guilt of the** Appellant?
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
1. Whether charges under Section 302 have been established by the Respondent beyond reasonable doubt? It is humbly submitted that, YES, it has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Appellant have committed the crime in question as the prosecution have time and again proved beyond the reasonable doubtthat the deceased was an easy victim as Appellant, had a clear motive,knowledge and premeditation to commit cold blooded murder against the deceased subjecting him to death. 2. Whether the evidences collected are enough to prove the guilt of the Appellant? It is humbly submitted that, YES, evidences collected are enough to prove the guilt of the Appellant. The Respondents have formed a complete chain of circumstantial evidence with the help statement of all witnesses corroborated with medical evidences. Hence it is proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the crime of Murder was indeed committed by the accused in the case at hand. The Ld. Sessions Court has rightly convicted the Appellants and the same does not need any interference of this Hon’ble Court as theprosecution has established the chain of evidence corroborating with circumstances in the present case beyond reasonable doubt. The Judgement and Order of the Ld. Sessions Court, convicting Appellants u/s 302, is just and proper in theinterest of justice, under Sec. 384 this appeal should be summarily dismissed.
b. With the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to causedeath; or c. With the knowledge that the doer is likely by such act to cause death. Thus, though an act may cause, it will not amount to culpable homicide unless theabove conditions are satisfied.^3
- The mental element in culpable homicide that is the mental attitude of the agent towards the consequences of his conduct, is one of the intention or knowledge. The intention or knowledge necessary in order to render killing culpable homicide must be clearly proved by the prosecution which can usually be done by proof of the circumstances which prove the act or omission in question for the presumption is that, a man knows the probable result of his conduct.
- It is settled position of law that an act is said to cause death when death results either from the act directly or from some consequences necessarily or naturally flowing from such act a reasonably contemplated as its result.^4
- The terms ‘actus reus’ and ‘mens rea’ come from “Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea ”, which literally means “an act does not make a person guilty unless mind is also guilty”. The “Burden of Proof” lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
- The Respondent- Prosecution contends that (1) actus reus and (2) mens rea had been proven successfully, thus the Appellant is guilty of murder of Nandkishore Chanchad. I. Actus reus Actus reus is any wrongful act^5. Thus, in case of murder, actus reus would be the physical conduct of the accused that causes death of the victim. In the instant case, it is contended that the actus reus can been established by way of statement of eye witness Ganya Patil and the statement of all other witnesses i.e., Rahul chanchad, Investigation Officer, Aaliya and also with help of the circumstantial evidence which prosecution proved to substantiate its claim. It is a well settled principle that where the case is based on circumstantial evidence, the court must satisfy itself that various circumstances in the chain of evidence should be established clearly and that the completed chain must be such as to rule out a reasonable likelihood of the innocence of the accused^6. It is the humble contention of the Respondent that the physical act of murdering (^3) Behari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1953 All 203
(^4) D. Yohannan v. State of Kerela, AIR 1958 KER 207 (^5) Aiyar, P Ramanathan, The Law Lexicon, p.49(2nd (^) ed 2006.) (^6) Mohan Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1974 SC 1144.
- 7 AIR 1958 SC 465: 1958 Cri LJ 818 (SC): 1958 SCR
that he saw a man swinging his bat at Nandkishore Chanchad on 8th^ January, his statement was corrobated with the statement of all the other witnesses and also with the help of post mortem report and chemical analyzer report it was proven by the respondent in the Hon’ble Sessions Court that the man was none other than the accused Raj Chanchad beyond any reasonable doubt which a prudent person will have. These set of events clearly justified that, Raj Chanchad; the accused committed the offence of murder. II. Mens rea Mens rea is considered as guilty intention^8 , which is proved or inferred from the acts of the accused.^9 It is submitted that: A. The intention to kill had been established B. In light of clear-cut motive of the accused C. The premeditation to cause the death of the victim has also been proved i. Intention It is presumed that every sane person intends the result that his action normally produces and if a person hits another on a vulnerable part of the body, and death occurs as a result, the intention of the accused can be no other than to take the life of the victim and the offence committed amounts to murder.^10 Moreover, the intention to kill is not required in every case, mere knowledge that natural and probable consequences of an act would be death will suffice for a conviction under s.302 of IPC.^11 The intention to kill can be inferred from the act of committing murder itself and nature of the injuries caused to the victim.^12 The Respondent substantiated their claim that the accused had guilty mind, with the help of post mortem report that clearly mentions, there were two injuries found on the head of the victim caused by the blunt object with great force, which was none other but the wooden bat that accused bought just before the murder and act of accused buying the (^8) Commissioner of Income Tax v. Patranu Dass Raja Ram Beri, AIR 1982 PH 1, 4 (^9) State of Maharashtra v. Meyer Hans George, AIR 1965 SC 722.
