TC-22

TC-22

5th RBUSL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022
BEFORE THE HON’BLE DISTRICT COURT
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
SESSIONS CASE NO. OF 2022
(UNDER SECTION 177 OF CrPC)
IN THE MATTER OF:
REENA
COMPLAINANT
VERSUS
THE STATE
UPON SUBMISSION TO HON’BLE JUDGES OF THE DISTRICT COURT
MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT

5TH RBUSL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022
TABLE OF CONTENTS
S.NO PARTICULARS Page

No.
1. LIST OF ABBREVIATION 03
2. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 04
3. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 08
4. STATEMENT OF FACTS 09
5. ISSUES RAISED 10
6. SUMMARY OF ARGUEMENTS 11
7. ARGUMENT ADVANCED 12
8. Whether accused can be convicted for attempt to murder under section 12

307 of IPC?
9. Whether Reena (Complainant) is subjected to cruelty under Section 498A 20

of IPC?
10. PRAYER 24

2
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
¶ PARAGRAPH
§ SECTION
& AND
AIR ALL INDIA REPORTER
Art. ARTICLE
AIHC ALL INDIA HIGH COURT CASES
IPC INDIAN PENAL CODE
Anr. ANOTHER
CrPC CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Cr. LJ CRIMINAL LAW JOURNAL
CCR CURRENT CRIMINAL REORTS
CAR CRIMINAL APPEAL REPORTER
CLC CRIMINAL LAW CASES
CE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
Etc. ETCETERA
Ed. EDITION
FIR FIRST INFORMATION REEPORT
FE FORENSIC EVIDENCE
Cl CLAUSE

3
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
CONSTITUTION
The Constitution of India, 1950
STATUTES
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973
INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860
INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872
CASES REFERRED
1. Abdulla Mohammed v. State, 1978 Cri LJ 84.

2. Addha v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2001)Cr LJ 4675 (SC).
3. Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab (2011) 9 SCC 462.
4. Babu Lodhi v. State of U.P, AIR 1987 SC 1268 : 1987 Cr LJ 1119.
5. Binati Mahakud v. State of Orissa 1988 Cr LJ 763 (Ori).
6. Boya Munigadu v. The Queen (ILR 3 MAD 33).
7. Budhi Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2013) Cr LJ 962 (SC).
8. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Patranu Dass Raja Ram Beri, AIR 1982 PH.
9. Dhandayuthan v. State of T.N., 1994 Cr LJ 1587 (Mad).
10. Gnanagunaseeli v. State of T.N, 1996 Cr LJ 2849 (Mad).
11. Gudar Dusadh v. state of Bihar (1972) 3 SCC 118.
12. Gurcharan Singh, AIR 1956 SC 460.
13. Gurmail Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1982 SC 1466.
14. Habeeb Mohammed v. State of Hyderabad AIR 1954 SC 51.
15. Hadu v. State, (1950) Cut 309.
16. Hansa Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1977 SC 1801, (1977) Cr LJ 1446 (SC).
17. Harjinder Singh v. Delhi Administration AIR 1968 SC 867.
18. Jagrup Singh v. state of Bihar AIR 1972 SC 952.
19. Jaharlal Das v. State of Orissa 1991 AIR 1388, 1991 SCR (2) 298.
20. K.P.Shaji vs State of Kerala Crl. Appeal No.1810 of 2005.
21. Karam Singh v. State of Punjab1993 AIR SCW 2870.
22. Kashi Ram v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 2001 SC 2002, (2002) 1 SCC 71.
4
23. Kikar Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1993 SC 2426.

24. KM Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1962 SC 605.
25. Kundarapu, (1962) 1 Cr LJ 261.
26. Laikhan, (1955) Cut 625.
27. Laxman Kalu Nikalje v State of Maharashtra AIR 1968 SC 1390.
28. Manju Lakra v. State of Assam 2013 SCC Gau 207: (2013) 4 GLT 333.
29. Manke Ram v. State of Haryana (2003) 11 SCC 238.
30. Mohibur Rahman v. State of Assam, 2000 Cr LJ 4725 (Gau).
31. Phundi v. State of M.P. 1993 Cr LJ 1881 (MP).
32. Prabhu v State of Madhya Pradesh (1991) Cr LJ 1373 SC.
33. R v Humphreys, (1995) 4 All ER 1008 (CA).
34. R v. Ahluwalia [1992] 4 All ER 889
35. R v. Duffy [ 1949] 1 All ER 932.
36. R v. Ibrams [1981] 74 Cr App R 154.
37. R v. Thornton [1992] 1 All ER 306.
38. R v. Whitefield [1976] 63 Cr App R 39.
39. Rajwant Singh v. State of Kerala AIR 1996 SC 1874.
40. Regina v. Ahluwalia (1993) 96 Cr App R 133.
41. S.C. Bahri v. State of Bihar, AIR 1994 SC 2020: 1994 Cr LJ 327.
42. Sakharam v . State of M.P., AIR 1992 SC 758: (1992) 2 SCC 153: 1992 Cr LJ 861.
43. Sikander v. State (Delhi Administration) AIR 1999 SC 1406.
44. State of Karnataka v. Harijan Dharma, 1992 Cr LJ 2840 (Kant).
45. State of Maharashtra v. Meyer Hans George, AIR 1965 SC 722.
46. State Of Tamil Nadu Through v. Nalini & 25 Others, Date of judgment:11/05/1999.
47. Sukhlal Sarkar v. Union of India Cr. Appeal No: 117.
48. Thangaiya v State of Tamil Nadu (2005) 9 SCC 650.
49. V. Raja v. State of TN. 1999 Cr LJ 3918 (Mad).
50. Willie (William) Slaney v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1956 SC 116

5
BOOKS REFERRED
1. B. M. Gandhi, Indian Penal Code, (2 nd ed., Eastern Book Company, 2006).
2. Batuk Lal’s Commentary on The Indian Penal Code, (Orient Publishing Company
Vol. 2 2 nd ed. 2011).
3. D.D. Basu, Commentary on Constitution of India (8 th ed., Wadhwa and Company,
Allahabad, 2006).
4. D.N. Sen, The Code of Criminal Procedure (Premier Publishing Company,
Allahabad, 2006).
5. H.M. Seervai, Constitutional Law of India (4 th ed. Eastern Book Company,
Lucknow, 2007).
6. Justice Y.V. Chandrachud, V.R. Manohar, Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, Code of
Criminal Procedure (17 th ed., Wadhwa and Company, Nagpur, 2007).
7. K. D. Gaur, A text Book on Indian Penal Code, (Universal Law Publishing co. 3rd
ed. 2003).
8. M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law (Lexis Nexis, Gurgaon (Haryana), 8 th ed.
2018).
9. Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code (Nagpur, Wadhwa 31 st ed. 2007).
10. R.A. Nelson, Indian Penal Code (9 th ed., 2003).
LEGAL DATABASES
1. Manupatra Online Resources, http://www.manupatra.com
2. Lexis Nexis Academia, https://www.nexisuni.com/
3. Lexis Nexis Legal, http://www.lexisnexis.com/in/legal.
4. SCC Online, https://www.scconline.com/
5. Oxford Dictionary, https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/
6. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/
7. Hein online, https://home.heinonline.org/
8. West law India, http://www.westlawindia.com/
9. Blue book online, https://www.legalbluebook.com/

6
LEXICONS
1. Brayan A. Garner, Black’s law dictionary (9 th ed. Thomson West, 2009).
2. The International Webster’s New Universal Dictionary (2 nd ed. Trident Press
International, USA, 1983).
3. P. Ramnatha Iyer, The Major Law Lexicon (4 th ed. Vol. 6, Lexis Nexis
Butterworths Wadhwa, Nagpur, 2010).
4. Aiyar, P. Ramanathan, The Law Lexicon, (2 nd ed. 2006).
5. Greenberg Daniel, Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary of Words and Phrases, (4th ed.),
Sweet and Maxwell, Vol. 4.
6. Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary, (7th ed., 2008).

7
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Complainant has approached this Hon’ble District Court under Section 177 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure.

8
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Ramesh (Accused) and Reena (Complainant) were working together in some private company.
Reena belonged to a very rich family and the financial position of Ramesh was mediocre. They
started liking each other and after sometime got married in 2015. After some time the attitude
of Respondent became harsh towards Reena Petitioner. Respondent started making demands
of money from petitioner. He also started putting pressure upon her to ask her parents to
purchase a bungalow in the city for them. After some time he also started asking petitioner to
get a share in the property of her father. Petitioner did not accept the unjustified demands of
respondent. Respondent started giving physical beating to petitioner. With passage of time,
petitioner’s attitude also became hard towards respondent. She stopped taking care of
respondent and started hitting back. On 19 November, 2017, at about 9:30 pm a quarrel started
between Ramesh and Reena. Reena threw a shoe at Ramesh and Ramesh threw a statue of stone
at Reena. The statue struck at theof head Reena and she fell unconscious. Ramesh took her to
the hospital where Reena was admitted to I.C.U. However with a great difficulty her life was
saved.
An FIR was registered and during investigation the fact came out that Ramesh was already
legally married to one Roopa in the year 2003. The charges were framed against Ramesh under
Section 307, 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1890.
The trial in the matter is now pending before the District and Session Judge. Prepare your
Memorial supported by case laws on the behalf of Complainant Reena or Accused Ramesh.

9
ISSUES RAISED
ISSUE 1
WHETHER ACCUSED CAN BE CONVICTED FOR ATTEMPT TO MURDER

UNDER SECTION 307 OF IPC?
ISSUE 2
WHETHER REENA (COMPLAINANT) IS SUBJECTED TO CRUELTY UNDER

SECTION 498A OF IPC?

10
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
ISSUE 1: WHETHER ACCUSED CAN BE CONVICTED FOR ATTEMPT TO

MURDER UNDER SECTION 307 OF IPC?
It is most humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the accused (Ramesh) must be
convicted under section 307 of IPC, 1860 as Ramesh threw a statue of stone at Reena
(complainant), which struck her head and she fell unconscious. Section 307, must have
both the necessary mens rea and act us reus. The conduct of the accused before or after the
crime is also very relevant as circumstantial evidence. It is humbly submitted that the accused
(Ramesh) must be convicted under section 307 of IPC, 1860 for attempting to murder his wife,
the petitioner, Reena.
ISSUE 2: WHETHER REENA (COMPLAINANT) IS SUBJECTED TO CRUELTY

UNDER SECTION 498A OF IPC?
It is humbly submitted before thus Hon’ble Cout that Complainant was subjected to cruelty
under section 498A of IPC. Dowry demand is included in the “unlawful demand” as
contemplated under Explanation (b) of Section 498-A. The facts of the case say that the
complainant was being harassed by the accused from a long time as he wanted her to ask her
parents to give some money. He also started putting pressure upon her to ask her parents to
purchase a bungalow in the city for them. After some time he also started asking petitioner to
get a share in the property of her father. Petitioner did not accept the unjustified demands of
respondent. Respondent started giving physical beating to petitioner. Thus, it is clear that Reena
was subjected to cruelty.

11
ARGUMENT ADVANCED
ISSUE 1: WHETHER ACCUSED CAN BE CONVICTED FOR ATTEMPT TO

MURDER UNDER SECTION 307 OF IPC?
It is most humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the accused (Ramesh) must be
convicted under section 307 of IPC, 1860 as Ramesh threw a statue of stone at Reena
(complainant), which struck her head and she fell unconscious.
1.1 THAT THE ACCUSED HAD INTENTION OF MURDERING REENA.
It is most humbly submitted that accused had an intention of killing Reena, because
before the quarrel on 19 th November, 2017, he kept his cruelty to only physical beatings of the
Petitioner, but with the passage of time, the Petitioner’s attitude changed towards the
Respondent, which led to increased hostility from the Respondent towards the Petitioner.
It is clear from the facts that the Accused violence started early on from their marriage and
the last straw broke when he threw the stone statue intending to finish of his wife.
It is submitted that to constitute an offence under Section 307 the following two
ingredients must be present:-
• Firstly, The intention or knowledge to commit murder.
• Secondly, the actual act of trying to commit the murder. 1
1.2 ACT MUST BE ONE CAPABLE OF CAUSING DEATH.
It is submitted that intention cannot be proved by direct evidence but is to be detected from
the facts and circumstances of case. There are various relevant considerations like the nature
of weapon used, the place where the injuries were reflected, the nature of the injuries caused,
and the opportunity available which the accused gets etc. 2
1 Om Parkash v. The State of Punjab AIR 1961 SC 1782.

2 Gangadhar v. State of Maharashtrsa, 1981 CrLJ 1725(Bom.)
12
In the recent judgment of Padamati Venkata Sundara Rao v. State of A.P. 3, it was
observed by the Court that: “The intention is to be gathered from various circumstances and
not merely form the consequence that ensures. The prosecution should place and prove all the
facts and circumstances as mentioned in Section 300, IPC. Unless it can be said that the
intention or knowledge of the accused was to cause such a bodily injury as would come within
the scope of Section 300, IPC, the accused cannot be found guilty under Section 307, IPC when
there is attempt to cause injury. It must be proved that if the act complained of would have
culminated in the death of the victim, the offence would have come within the ingredients as
envisaged in Section 300, IPC. Mere giving a blow does not raise an inference of attempt to
murder.”
Section 307, must have both the necessary mens rea and act us reus. In other words, for
offences under this section, all the elements of murder exist, except for the fact that death has
not occurred. However, an attempt, in order to be criminal, need not be the penultimate act
foreboding death. 4 It is not necessary for the applicability of the section that any injury should
have been caused to the person on whom the attempt to murder was made. In State of
Maharashtra v Balram Bama Pate 5, the Supreme Court held:
‘To justify a conviction under s 307, it is not essential that bodily injury capable of
causing death should have been inflicted. Although, the nature of injury actually caused may
often give considerable assistance in coming to a finding as to the intention of the accused,
such intention may also be deduced from other circumstances, and may even, in some cases,
be ascertained without any reference at all to actual wounds. The section makes a distinction
between an act of the accused and its result, if any. Such an act may not be attended by any
result as far as the person assaulted is concerned, but still there may be cases in which the
culprit would be liable under this section. It is not necessary that the injury actually caused to
the victim of the assault should be sufficient under ordinary circumstances to cause the death
of the person assaulted. What the Court has to see is whether the act, irrespective of its result,
was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in this section.
3
Padamati Venkata Sundara Rao v. State of A.P.2006 CriLJ 2168.
4 AIR 1979 SC 577, (1979) Cr LJ 584(SC)
5 AIR 1983 SC 305, 1983 CriLJ 331.

13
An attempt in order to be criminal need not be the penultimate act. It is sufficient in law, if
there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof.’ 6
The Supreme Court in the matter of Hari Kishan Vs. Sukhbir Singh and Ors 7 observed
that “Under Section 307 IPC what the Court has to see is, whether the act irrespective of its
result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances m entioned in that
section. The intention or knowledge of the accused must be such as is necessary constitute
murder. Without this ingredient being established, there can be no offence of "attempt to
murder". Under Section 307 the intention precedes the act attributed to accused. Therefore, the
intention is to be gathered from all circumstances, and not merely from the consequences that
ensue. The nature of the weapon used, manner in which it is used, motive for the crime, severity
of the blow, the part of the body where the injury is inflicted are some of the factors that may
be taken into consideration to determine the intention.”
The Supreme Court upheld the opinion of Strait J., in the landmark judgment of Om Prakash
v. The State of Punjab 8: "It seems to me that if a person who has an evil intent does an act
which is the last possible act that he could do towards the accomplishment of a particular crime
that he has in his mind, he is not entitled to pray in his aid an obstacle intervening not known
to himself. If he did all that he could do and completed the only remaining proximate act in his
power, I do not think he can escape criminal responsibility, and this because his own set volition
and purpose having been given effect to their full extent, a fact unknown to him and at variance
with his own belief, intervened to prevent the consequences of that act which he expected to
ensue, ensuing."
In the same judgment, SC followed the law laid down in the case of Emperor v. Vasudeo
Balwant Gogte 9 in which a person fired several shots at another. No injury was in fact
occasioned due to certain obstruction. The culprit was convicted of an offence under s. 307.
Beaumont, C.J., said: "I think that what section 307 really means is that the accused must do
an act with such a guilty intention and knowledge and in such circumstances that but for some
intervening fact the act would have amounted to murder in the normal course of events".
6
Kikar Singh v State of Rajasthan AIR 1993 SC 2426
7
Hari Kishan Vs. Sukhbir Singh and Ors. AIR 1988 SC 2127.
8 Om Parkash v. The State of Punjab AIR 1961 SC 1782
9 Emperor v. Vasudeo Balwant Gogte I.L.R(1932) 56 Bom

14
Further, in the recent judgment of Parsuram Pandey and Ors. v. The State of Bihar10, It
was held that: “For the purpose of Section 307 what is material are the intention or the
knowledge and not the consequence of the actual act done for the purpose of carrying out the
intention. Section clearly contemplates an act which is done with intention of causing death but
which fails to bring about the intended consequence on account of intervening circumstances.
The intention or knowledge of the accused must be such as is necessary to constitute murder.
In the absence of intention or knowledge which is the necessary ingredient of Section 307,
there can be no offence 'of attempt to murder'. Intent which is a state of mind cannot be proved
by precise direct evidence, as a fact it can only be detected or inferred from other factors. Some
of the relevant considerations may be the nature of the weapon used, the place where injuries
were inflicted, the nature of the injuries and the circumstances in which the incident took
place.”
It is humbly submitted that, as for the above cases, it is clear that the intention and the
knowledge of the act should be present and accused in the present case, knows that throwing a
heavy stone statue at his wife would likely cause serious injury and cause such bodily injury,
which he knows is likely to cause death. Thus, in light of the prevailing circumstances and the
relevant considerations, it can be clearly concluded that Accused had the required murderous
intention.
1.3 THAT THE OFFENCE UNDER SECTION-307 WAS COMMITTED
It is most humbly submitted that in the landmark judgment of State of Maharashtra v.

Balram Bama Patil and Ors. 11, it was held by the SC:
“To justify a conviction under this section it is not essential that bodily injury capable of
causing death should have been inflicted. Although the nature of injury actually caused may
often give considerable assistance in coming to a finding as to the intention of the accused,
such intention may also be deduced from other circumstances, and may even, in some cases,
be ascertained without any reference at all to actual wounds. The section makes a distinction
between an act of the accused and its result, if any. Such an act may not be attended by any
result so far as the person assaulted is concerned, but still there may be cases in which the
culprit would be liable under this section. It is not necessary that the injury actually caused to
10 Parsuram Pandey and Ors. v. The State of Bihar AIR 2004 SC 5068
11 State of Maharashtra v. Balram Bama Patil and Ors., AIR1983SC305
15
the victim of the assault should be sufficient under ordinary circumstances to cause the death
of the person assaulted. What the Court has to see is whether the act, irrespective of its result,
was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in this section.
An attempt in order to be criminal need not be the penultimate act. It is sufficient in law, if
there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof.”
The interpretation given in Balram Bama Patil has been followed in catena of judgments.
Further, in the matter of Abhiram Mukhi v. State of Orissa12, it was observed by the Court that:
“The question, however, remains as to whether it can be said beyond all reasonable doubt that
an offence under Section 307, I.P.C, has been made out. In order to bring home the charge
under Section 307, the prosecution has to establish the following:-
(i) death of human being was attempted to be caused by or in consequence of the act of the
accused;
(ii) such act was done by the accused with intention of causing death or with intention of
causing such bodily injury as the accused knew to be likely to cause death or was sufficient in
the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or that by doing such an act as the accused knew
to be so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause death or such bodily injury
as is likely to cause death.… In a given case offence under Section 307, I.P.C. can be said to
have been committed even without the slightest injury. It is the nature of the act and not the
result thereof that is the determinative factor.”
It is most humbly submitted that there was an overt action by Accused towards commission
of murder when he threw a stone statue at Reena and she fell unconscious, immediately.
Thus, it is submitted that above stated facts clearly prove beyond doubt that the accused,
Ramesh was harsh towards the Petitioner from the start of their marriage by making demands
of money and material wealth and when the Petitioner refused to do so, he started giving
physical beating which was a continuous abuse both mentally and physically. And he didn’t
even flinch when he cold heartedly threw the stone statue at his wife. Hence, it is most
respectfully submitted that Accused should be convicted for Attempt to murder under Section-
307 of the IPC.
12 Abhiram Mukhi v. State of Orissa 82(1996)CLT576

16
1.4 ACCUSED SUBJECTED HIS WIFE ‘REENA’ WITH CRUELTY.
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that to constitute cruelty the conduct
should be such which is “inexcusable”, “unpardonable”, “unforgivable”, or “grossly
excessive”. The shortest expression is “grave and weighty”. 13 It is further submitted in the light
of the case Rup Lal v. Kartaro 14 that the act and conduct complained of should be considered
in reference to the whole matrimonial relationship.
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that cruelty is a conduct of such a character
as to have cause danger to life or health bodily or mental, gives rise to reasonable apprehension
of such danger. Further it is humbly submitted that in the case of Praveen Mehta v. Inderjeet
Mehta15, Supreme Court observed that mental cruelty is a state of mind and feeling, therefore,
a matter of inference and inference has to be drawn on facts and circumstances taken
cumulatively. It is pertinent to mention that there had been an attitude change by the
Respondent towards the Petitioner, after a short time after their marriage.
It is also stated in the facts that the Accused had started making demands of money from
the petitioner and he also started putting pressure upon her to ask her parents to purchase a
bungalow in the city.
Hence, it is clear that the accused had subjected his wife to mental cruelty and after
sometime, the physical beating ensued.
1.5 INTENTION TO CAUSE DEATH OR BODILY INJURY.
Intention is a subjective element and in most of the cases, direct proof o f intention is not
forthcoming. It has rightly been said that ‘the Devil himself knows not the thought of man’. 16
A man’s intention is a question of fact and it can be gathered from his acts. In deciding the
intention of the accused, the court may consider the nature of the weapon used, the part of the
body of the victim chosen by the accused for attack, the number of blows administered, the
force used by the assailant, etc. 17
Here, to prove that the intention to cause death was present, we’d use th e following :
13
Collins v. Collins, (1953) 2 All ER 966
14
Rup Lal v. Kartaro, 1970 J&K 158
15
5 Praveen Mehta v. Inderjeet Mehta, AIR 2002 SC 2582.
16 Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1958 SC 465: 1958 Cri LJ 818 (SC): 1958 SCR 1495
17 Srikantiah B N AIR 1958 SC 672: 1958 Cri LJ 1251: (1959)

17
1.5.1 conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence
Case of the prosecution relies on the circumstantial evidence and is one of the relevant
considerations.
In case of Santa Naskar and And. vs. State of West Bengal 18, the court held that,
“There cannot be any dispute to the fact that it is a case of circumstantial evidence as there
was no eyewitness to the occurrence. It is a settled principle of law that an accused can be
punished if he is found guilty even in cases of circumstantial evidence provided, the
prosecution is able to prove beyond reasonable doubt complete chain of events and
circumstances which definitely points towards the involvement and guilt of the suspect or
accused, as the case may be. The accused will not be entitled to acquittal merely because there
is no eyewitness in the case. It is also equally true that an accused can be convicted on the basis
of circumstantial evidence subject to satisfaction of the accepted principles in that regard.”
It is humbly submitted that in this particular case, the chain of events p rovide that the
accused is guilty of the act.
1.5.2 Motive
Section 8, Indian Evidence Act stipulates that any fact is relevant which shows or
constitutes motive or preparation for any fact in issue or relevant fact. It is further pertinent to
note that if there is motive in doing an act, then the adequacy of that motive is not in all cases
necessary. Heinous offences have been committed for very slight motive. 19
It is humbly contended that the Accused’s actions towards the petitioner after she refused
to accept the unjustified demands of the respondent is a motive in itself and cannot be ignored.
1.5.3 Absence of proof of motive
Assuming for the sake of argument that the accused had no motive, it is humbly contended
that absence of motive is no ground for dismissing the case. Motive is immaterial so far as the
offence is concerned, and need not be established20 as the mere existence of motive is by itself,
18
(2010) 8 SCC 249
19
State v. Dinakar Bandu (1969) 72 Bom LR 905
20
RATANLAL AND DHIRAJLAL, The Indian Penal Code, (26th ed., 2007)
22 State of Punjab v. Such Singh AIR 2003 SC 1471
23 Mulakh Raj v. Satish Kumar, AIR 1992 SC 1175
18
not an incriminating circumstance and cannot take the place of proof. 21 Therefore, absence of
proof of motive does not break the link in the chain of circumstances connecting the accused
with the crime, nor militates against the prosecution case and is not fatal as a matter of law. 22
1.5.4 Conduct of accused.23
A fact can be proved by conduct of a party & by surrounding circumstances. Statements

accompanying or explaining conduct are also relevant as part of the conduct itself. Previous
conduct of the accused can be inferred from the facts of the case. Also it is important to note
that the accused was already legally married to one Roopa in the year 2003, which is prior 12
years to the marriage of Reena, the petitioner. Where once it is established that the husband
(accused) was living double lives and ensued bigamy by marrying Reena with the conscious
knowledge that he was already married, it shows the conduct of the accused. The conduct of
the accused before or after the crime is also very relevant as circumstantial evidence. It is
humbly submitted that the accused (Ramesh) must be convicted under section 307 of IPC, 1860
for attempting to murder his wife, the petitioner, Reena.
21
State of Punjab v. Such Singh AIR 2003 SC 1471
22 Mulakh Raj v. Satish Kumar, AIR 1992 SC 1175
23 Section 8, IEA, 1872

19
ISSUE 2: WHETHER REENA (COMPLAINANT) IS SUBJECTED TO CRUELTY

UNDER SECTION 498A OF IPC?
It is humbly submitted before thus Hon’ble Cout that Complainant was subjected to cruelty
under section 498A of IPC. According to Section 498A Marrying again during lifetime of
husband or wife.—Whoever, having a husband or wife living, marries in any case in which
such marriage is void by reason of it taking place during the life of such husband or wife, shall
be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven
years, and shall also be liable to fine.
(Exception) —This section does not extend to any person whose marriage with such husband
or wife has been declared void by a Court of competent jurisdiction, nor to any person who
contracts a marriage during the life of a former husband or wife, if such husband or wife, at
the time of the subsequent marriage, shall have been continually absent from such person
for the space of seven years, and shall not have been heard of by such person as being alive
within that time provided the person contracting such subsequent marriage shall, before such
marriage takes place, inform the person with whom such marriage is contracted of the real
state of facts so far as the same are within his or her knowledge.
2.1 SECTION 495 IN THE INDIAN PENAL CODE
Same offence with concealment of former marriage from person with whom subsequent
marriage is contracted.—Whoever commits the offence defined in the last preceding section
having concealed from the person with whom the subsequent marriage is contracted, the fact
of the former marriage, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
While the spouse does not necessarily need proof of the act of bigamy for the criminal courts,
he or she would need it for the civil courts. The evidence usually exists in phone calls, emails,
text, chat messages and personal interactions. If the spouse leaves for a work conference and
is gone for days or weeks at a time, this could increase the strength of proof that he or she has
already married another person. Collecting the evidence may help the person sue the spouse

20
for damages. However, the evidence may also convict him of criminal bigamy with a judge or
jury.
2.2 Punishment of bigamy.—Any marriage between two Hindus (including Buddhist, Jaina
or Sikh) solemnized after the commencement of this Act is void if at the date of such marriage
either party had a husband or wife living; and the provisions of Sections 494 and 495 of the
Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) shall apply accordingly, Ingredients of offence of Bigamy
For an offence of bigamy to have been committed the following ingredients are required (i) the
accused must have contracted first marriage (ii) he/she must have married again (iii) the first
marriage must be subsisting (that is no divorce has taken place) (iv) the first spouse must be
living, Pashaura Singh v. State of Punjab, (2010) 11 SCC 749.
It is abundantly clear fact that the term “Second wife” brings a social stigma with it. In the eyes
of the Indian society, the second wife is not treated in par with the respect given to the first
wife. While it is not given any positive social importance, there is also an absence of any legal
status to it. Women in the second marriage are cheated on and are not provided with much
protection under the Indian laws. There is no legal recognition given to second wives.
Nevertheless, the victims of bigamy can still approach the Courts for claiming maintenance.
A Two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court has held that even a second wife can file a complaint
under Section 498-A. In this connection, following words of Arijit Pasayat, J. (talking in terms
of Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC and Section 113-B Evidence Act, 1872) assumes importance
….The legislature has taken care of children born from invalid marriages. Section 16 of the
Marriage Act deals with legitimacy of children of void and voidable marriages. Can it be said
that the legislature which was conscious of the social stigma attached to children of void and
voidable marriages closed its eyes to the plight of a woman who unknowingly or unconscious
of the legal consequences entered into the marital relationship? If such restricted meaning is
given, it would not further the legislative intent. …” 24
24 Reema Aggarwal v. Anupam, (2004) 3 SCC 199)

21
The above said para was quoted with approval in A. Subash Babu v. State of A.P., 25 wherein
the Supreme Court held that Section 498-A is attracted even in the case of allegation of cruelty
to second wife.
This domestic incident report, referred to instances of physical violence and his verbal and
emotional abuse taking into consideration the instances of acts of domestic violence which
include physical beating and physical and mental torture. Compensation p rovides for is to be
assessed by taking into consideration the damages for the injury including mental torture and
emotional distress caused by the acts of domestic violence committed by the respondent.
The accused had harassed his wife and this can be easily deduced from the facts of the case.
The facts of the case say that the complainant was being harassed by the accused from a long
time as he wanted her to ask her parents to give some money. He also started putting pressure
upon her to ask her parents to purchase a bungalow in the city for them. After some time he
also started asking petitioner to get a share in the property of her father. Petitioner did not
accept the unjustified demands of respondent. Respondent started giving physical beating to
petitioner. As she was not bringing any money in that respect so he subjected her to cruelty by
harassing and ill-treating her both physically and mentally. He made illegal demand for money
by abusing her. These facts clearly shows us that she was abused, thre atened and harassed by
the accused and which accounts to cruelty and comes under Explanation (b) of Section 498A
of IPC.26
It is always contended that the word ‘cruelty’ occurring in the said provision and its
interpretation is very vague. But it is not so, we just have to interpret what is written in the
Explanation (b) of the contested section. It says that if there is harassment for obtaining some
property or valuable security from the wife or any of her relative, then it also amounts to
cruelty. Then coming to the ingredients of this section we can divide the ingredients in three:
25
(2011) 7 SCC 616
26
Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code
498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.—Whoever, being the husband or the
relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a
term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.—For the purpose of this section,
“cruelty” means—
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause
grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her
to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person
related to her to meet such demand.

22
(i) The woman must be married. (ii) She must be subject to cruelty or harassment, For purpose
of the section, harassment is not simply ‘cruelty’ and it is harassment only when it is committed
for the purpose of coercing any woman or any person related to her to fulfil any unlawful
demand for property, etc. then it amounts to cruelty under sec 498A 27. (iii) Such cruelty or
harassment must have been shown either by husband of the woman or by any relative of the
husband. These above ingredients have been correctly fulfilled by the accused and this again
shows that he is liable for the act of harassment and cruelty that he has done.
Cruelty need not to be physical, it can be mental also. To find out cruelty we will have to infer
it by the act of the men, the seriousness in his act. It is also to be established that the woman
was constantly subjected to harassment/cruelty. To decide about cruelty what needs to be
checked are the relevant factors of the marital relationship between the husband and the wife,
their interaction with each other, their culture, societal status and various other factors.
2.3 Section 498-A and “Dowry Demand

Dowry demand is included in the “unlawful demand” as contemplated under Explanation (b)
of Section 498-A; however, it need not be the only demand. The Supreme Court
in Modinsab Kasimsab Kanchagar v. State of Karnataka, (2013) 4 SCC 551, held that a
demand of Rs 10,000 towards repayment of a society loan, though not a dowry demand, was
an unlawful demand sufficient to attract Section 498-A.
Section 498-A and Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 -
Even before a criminal court where a case under Section 498-A is pending, if allegation
is found genuine, it is always open to the appellant to ask for reliefs under Sections 18
to 22 of the Domestic Violence Act and interim relief under Section 23 of the said
Act, Juveria Abdul Majid Patni v. Atif Iqbal Mansoori, (2014) 10 SCC 736. (Domestic
Violence Act, 2005 provide for a remedy under the civil law which is intended to
protect the women from being victims of domestic violence occurring within the family
and to prevent the occurrence of domestic violence in the society. It makes provision
for a protection order under Section 18, residence order under Section 19, monetary
relief under Section 20, custody order under Section 21, compensation under Section
22 and interim relief under Section 23). Thus, it is clear that Reena was subjected to
cruelty.
27
Smt. Shanti and Anr. v State of Haryana, AIR 1991SC 1226.
23
PRAYER
Wherefore in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced, and authorities cited, it
is prayed that this Hon’ble Court to
Adjudge and declare that the accused namely Ramesh has committed offences under
Section 307 and 498A of IPC and hence liable to be convicted thereof.
And pass any other Order or Orders, Direction, or Relief that it may deem fit in the Best
Interests of Justice, Fairness, Equity and Good Conscience.
For this Act of Kindness, The Complainant as in Duty Bound and Shall Forever Pray
Sd/
(Counsel for the Complainant)

24

Uploaded by

Uploaded by

TC-22

5th RBUSL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

BEFORE THE HON’BLE DISTRICT COURT

SESSIONS CASE NO. OF 2022

(UNDER SECTION 177 OF CrPC)

IN THE MATTER OF:

UPON SUBMISSION TO HON’BLE JUDGES OF THE DISTRICT COURT

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT

S.NO PARTICULARS Page

8. Whether accused can be convicted for attempt to murder under section 12

9. Whether Reena (Complainant) is subjected to cruelty under Section 498A 20

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT

The Constitution of India, 1950

1. Abdulla Mohammed v. State, 1978 Cri LJ 84.

23. Kikar Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1993 SC 2426.

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT

WHETHER ACCUSED CAN BE CONVICTED FOR ATTEMPT TO MURDER

WHETHER REENA (COMPLAINANT) IS SUBJECTED TO CRUELTY UNDER

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT

ISSUE 1: WHETHER ACCUSED CAN BE CONVICTED FOR ATTEMPT TO

ISSUE 2: WHETHER REENA (COMPLAINANT) IS SUBJECTED TO CRUELTY

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT

ISSUE 1: WHETHER ACCUSED CAN BE CONVICTED FOR ATTEMPT TO

1.1 THAT THE ACCUSED HAD INTENTION OF MURDERING REENA.

• Firstly, The intention or knowledge to commit murder.

• Secondly, the actual act of trying to commit the murder. 1

1.2 ACT MUST BE ONE CAPABLE OF CAUSING DEATH.

1 Om Parkash v. The State of Punjab AIR 1961 SC 1782.

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT

1.3 THAT THE OFFENCE UNDER SECTION-307 WAS COMMITTED

It is most humbly submitted that in the landmark judgment of State of Maharashtra v.

12 Abhiram Mukhi v. State of Orissa 82(1996)CLT576

1.4 ACCUSED SUBJECTED HIS WIFE ‘REENA’ WITH CRUELTY.

1.5 INTENTION TO CAUSE DEATH OR BODILY INJURY.

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT

1.5.1 conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence

1.5.3 Absence of proof of motive

1.5.4 Conduct of accused.23

A fact can be proved by conduct of a party & by surrounding circumstances. Statements

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT

ISSUE 2: WHETHER REENA (COMPLAINANT) IS SUBJECTED TO CRUELTY

2.1 SECTION 495 IN THE INDIAN PENAL CODE

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT

24 Reema Aggarwal v. Anupam, (2004) 3 SCC 199)

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT

2.3 Section 498-A and “Dowry Demand

(Counsel for the Complainant)

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT

You might also like