Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Community
Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts
Discover the best universities in your country according to Docsity users
Free resources
Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors
A detailed analysis of a moot court case involving charges of murder, grievous hurt, and abetment. It explores the legal principles and arguments surrounding the case, including the application of indian penal code sections related to murder, grievous hurt, common intention, and vicarious liability. A comprehensive overview of the legal issues involved and the potential arguments that could be presented in court.
Typology: Transcriptions
1 / 31
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!
State of Vindhya Pradesh…………………………… [Petitioner] v****. Sagar & Ors. ……………………………………….. [Respondent] Most Respectfully Submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Hindia COMPENDIUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER 2 ND^ DR. PATANGRAO KADAM MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024
It is respectfully submitted that Hon’ble Supreme Court of Hindia has Jurisdiction to entertain, try and dispose of this appeal ,being a criminal matter, under Article 134 of ‘Indian Constitution’. Section 134 : Appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court in regard to criminal matters^1 (1)An appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgment, final order or sentence in a criminal proceeding of a High Court in the territory of India if the High Court- (a)has on appeal reversed an order of acquittal of an accused person and sentenced him to death; or (b)has withdrawn for trial before itself any case from any court subordinate to its authority and has in such trial convicted the accused person and sentenced him to death; or (c)certifies under article 134A that the case is a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court: Provided that an appeal under sub-clause (c) shall lie subject to such provisions as may be made in that behalf under clause (1) of article 145 and to such conditions as the High Court may establish or require. (^1) INDIA CONST. art.134.
Deli Tribe women- Renu, Geru, Peru and deceased Ritu are appellant. Uday Shetty is a 25-year-old who along with his driver Sagar came to document an exploration, of the school which was abandoned for over 20 years, for his social media. Rajiv, his son Lucky (17 years old) and his friend Aryan (16-year-old) stays near the school. All five of them are respondent. LOCATION Near the Peepal tree of Bundeli Village which was approx. 400 m from the abandoned school. BACKGROUND It was a moon night which occurs once a year. Local Tribal people believe that on this night supernatural activities take place, so they pray inside their homes and do not come out. Uday Shetty along with the other 4 respondents decided to go to abandoned school to document ghost videos. INCIDENT The present case revolves around the tragic demise of Ritu and grievous hurt caused to Renu, Geru and Peru while they were performing a tribal ceremony under people tree which is performed commonly by deli tribe women on every full moon night after visiting kali mata temple. Sagar (on the order of his master Uday) and Aryan (out of fear, influenced by Lucky) attacked these women with Khukhri and iron rod indiscriminately assuming them to be ghost as it was moon night, believing that they would not encounter any human -which is reckless as they didn’t even bothered to verify and differentiate between human & ghost. CHARGES IN FIR Section 302 Indian Penal Code (herein referred to as IPC) for murder, Section 326 IPC for grievous hurt and Section 324 IPC for hurt against Sagar. Section 302 IPC for murder against Aryan. Section 109 IPC for abetment to murder against Lucky. Conspiracy and abetment involving Rajiv and Uday. LOWER AND HIGH COURT PROCEEDING
Sagar, Aryan and Lucky were held liable by Sessions Judge as they did not act with ‘ due care and attention ’. Uday Shetty was guilty on the ground of vicarious liability. An appeal was then filed in Hon’ble High Court of Vindhya Pradesh by accused against the conviction. Hon’ble High Court acquitted Aryan and Lucky as they were Juveniles. Other accused were protected under the general defence of ‘mistake of fact’ in good faith. APPEAL An appeal was filed before Hon’ble Supreme Court of Hindia as a result of Judgment given by Hon’ble Hight Court of Vindhya Pradesh under appellate jurisdiction. Petitioner believes the acquittal to be unjust as the respondents were lacking the due care and attention they should take. An ordinary prudent man must have the intellect to distinguish between a ghost and human being, that too when it was not dark enough that a person is unable to see.
Issue 1 Whether charges of murder, grievous hurt, and hurt can be sustained under Sections 302, 324, and 326 IPC on the accused Sagar It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble Court that Sagar Bhai committed murder of Ritu under Section 302; injuries inflicted on Renu, Geru, and Peru are grievous under Section 320 IPC, making him liable under Section 326 IPC. Also, Sagar’s attack on Lucky causing hurt qualifies under Section 324 IPC as hurt caused by a dangerous weapon. The hurt to lucky was also intentional to create an impression of mistake of fact and to misguide this Hon’ble Court, but this very act of causing simple hurt to Lucky while grievous hurt to three women and murder of one further strengthens the mens rea as it is unusual to have one very less impact and others grievous impact out of the same nature of attack. He is not exempted from criminal liability under 76 of IPC (the defence of mistake of fact) due to his action of using deadly weapon, like a khukhri , even if believed to ward off ghosts, shows disregard for human life, and the defence of supernatural belief does not apply. His reckless conduct resulted in real harm, affirming his liability (lack of due care). Issue 2 Whether the actions of Aryan and Lucky can be excused under the provisions of Juvenile Justice Law It is humbly submitted that Lucky’s influence on Aryan and others to carry a weapon constitute abetment under Section 109 IPC. Although Lucky may not intend for anyone to be harmed, his actions contributed to Aryan’s mind-set, making him complicit in the events that followed. His defence that these actions were based on shared beliefs does not negate his liability under criminal conspiracy. Though Aryan had strong belief in ghosts but Sagar and Uday Shetty were new to such place. Their mind-set was not accustomed to belief in ghosts and they were devoid of all those generational stories for whole of their lives. It was only then when they visited the village they got to hear such stories. Their mental state was much more scientific and rationale in case of Sagar and Uday Shetty. Mental state of Aryan could also be considered that of a major on the context of committing a heinous crime and giving various blows of iron rod to women to cause such consequences which is not practically possible with a
single blow. He must have realised it soon after he started attacking them but still, he managed to continue. Issue 3 Whether Uday Shetty can be held vicariously liable for actions of his servant It is humbly submitted that Uday’s criminal liability is not vicarious from Master-Servant relation however he can be held liable for Joint Liability. Criminal vicarious liability generally apply when common intention or criminal conspiracy under Sections 34 and 120B IPC can be established. Instruction given by him shows his shared intention and carelessness. Vicarious liability is a legal doctrine in which liability shifts from servant to master owing to their legal relationship, which is very popular in Law of Torts but in criminal cases generally a person is responsible due to his own acts- involvement of mens rea or actus reus.
1.1 Intention and evidence of preparation deduced from facts and circumstances. ¶4. It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that it is difficult to look into a man’s mind, what he tends can only be judged by what he does or says.^8 Intention to cause death can be gathered from the circumstances from the nature of weapon used, whether the weapon was carried by the accused or picked from the spot, amount of forced employed to cause injury, whether accused dealt a single blow or several blows.^9 ¶5. Sagar carried khukhri which is a sharp-edged weapon, Aryan had iron rod and others shared the opinion to carry lathis and sticks; their belief of warding off spirits using iron rod does not justify so many dangerous weapons^10. It was premediated as they didn’t picked it from the spot , this shows the evidence of preparation of crime. A single blow cannot result in grievous hurt or death, it is not possible that they did not hear the sound of women crying or blood flowing from the injury (No ghost bleeds through wounds). Also, there is no evidence of videos, photos and their attempt to document. A reasonable man would not try to attack a ghost who is 400m away from them. ¶6. In the present case, Sagar Bhai's act of attacking with a khukhri , resulting in Ritu's death, constitutes an offense under Section 302 IPC. The key element is the intention behind the act. While the defence claims that Sagar believed he was attacking ghosts, the hon’ble court will have to examine whether Sagar's belief was genuine and in good faith, which might qualify him for the general defence of mistake of fact^11. However, the indiscriminate nature of the attack suggests recklessness, and if the court finds that he did not act with due care, the charge of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 IPC might apply instead. An intention to kill is not required in every case. Knowledge that the natural and probable consequences of an act would be death will suffice for conviction under Section 302 of IPC^12. (^8) R v. Monkhouse, 4 Cox C.C. 55 (1849). (^9) Pulicherla Nagaraju Alias Nagaraja Reddy v. State of A.P., (2006) 11 SCC 444. (^10) State of U.P. v. Indrajeet Alias Sukhatha, (2000) 7 SCC 249. (^11) Supra note 3, § 79 read with § 76. (^12) Kapur Singh v. State of Pepsu, AIR (1956) SC 654.
¶7. The Counsel majorly relies upon the Hammersmith Ghost Murder Case^13 , a judicial precedent of 1804 regarding the principle of self-defence, stating that someone could also be held liable for their actions even if their actions were the consequence of a mistaken belief.
¶8. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that if it is established with circumstantial evidence that the person was capable of understanding the consequences of his act, it is taken that he had the required mens rea as the test is from the point of view of a prudent man. The intention to constitute mens rea for murder could have been inferred from the series of acts of both Aryan and Sagar. The act of giving a blow with khukhri^14 may itself reflect either intention or knowledge which was occupying mind of accused^15. ¶9. Accused had attacked purposely and with intention on the women performing their annual ritual causing death of one Ritu and grievous hurt to three other females namely Renu, Geru and Peru. Both the accused had the required mens rea to make them liable for murder of humans which would have been distinguished easily from evil spirits if even a little bit of care and consciousness of a reasonable and prudent person was used. Sagar and Aryan both were well equipped with torch lights^16. If they had used them with some care, they would have known that the figures were alive humans. It was a full-moon night and not a dark night. ¶10. The appreciation of evidence regarding identification has to be made in the context of fact-situation. It is an undisputed fact that the attack was done in response to presuming dancing ghosts around the flickering lights which was subsequently discovered to be women holding lanterns performing their ritual. This clear cut shows that there was enough light for accused to identify a human and distinguish them from ghosts provided the human was not an individual entity but a group of village ladies. ¶11. It is submitted that women were known to Rajiv^17 , who was a resident of the village and Lucky told about the full moon night story then he must also had the knowledge about the ritual being performed on the same night which he highlighted. It is very probable to consider (^13) R.S. KIRBY, THE HAMMERSMITH GHOSTS 65-79 (1804). (^14) Moot Proposition, Para 12. (^15) Bijay Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar, Cr. App. (SJ) No. 452 of 2014 (Patna HC Apr. 24, 2014). (^16) Supra note 14_._ (^17) Id. at pg 4.
cases where there is enough time to recourse^20 , the harm assumed by the accused was not immediate as they believed the ghost to be dancing around the light 400m away. ¶15. The injuries caused to Renu, Geru, and Peru make Sagar liable under Section 326. The use of a dangerous weapon like a khukhri leaves little room for defence, barring the court’s acceptance of mistake of fact in good faith. Sagar’s attack on Lucky constitutes hurt under Section 324. Even if he did not intend to hurt Lucky, the act of striking him with a dangerous weapon fulfils the criteria for liability under Section 324 IPC. 1.4 General defence of mistake of fact is not available ¶16. It is humbly submitted before hon’ble court that one cannot plead ignorance of fact when responsible inquiry would have elicited the true facts. Defence of mistake of fact is constituted only when there is presence of good faith with which the person believed that he was bound by law to do it^21 or believes himself to be justified by law^22. Mistaken acts must be reasonable to avail the protection under Section 76 and 79 of IPC. ¶17. The word “good faith” means “the acts done with due care and attention”. Due care and caution principle requires three factors, firstly, the nature of the act committed by the accused; secondly, its magnitude and importance, and thirdly, the facility a person has for the exercise of the care and attention. The Burden of Proof lies with the accused (Indian Evidence Act) as they took the plea of General Exception - ‘Mistake of Fact’. ¶18. It is therefore hereby submitted that the defence of mistake of fact for the accused would fail in the present case due to lack of necessary care and attention. Also, the act committed by the accused was of intentional and rash nature not amounting to the immediate importance of its performance. The distance of 400m gives reasonable time to run away from the situation when no immediate harm is present. Running towards harm is itself not justified. 1.5 Accused were not justified by law in their act ¶19. It is submitted before this Hon’ble Court that according to Section 76 and 79 either the act of accused must be such which he mistook for that he was bound by law to do it or believes (^20) Munshi Ram & Ors. v. Delhi Admin., (1968) 1 SCR 125. (^21) Supra note 3, § 76. (^22) Id., § 79.
himself to be justified by law. Act of accused hereby to commit an attack with khukhri , which is a dangerous weapon to carry along with oneself casually. ¶20. The act of imposing an attack is not something with which a person could be bound by law to do. The phrase “bound by law”^23 means a duty imposed by law. Law imposes duty on people for the welfare and protection of people and not to inflict harm. If the argument is that such a duty was mistakenly presumed then this doesn’t fall under mistake of fact rather it is mistake of law which is no defence to be taken^24.
¶21. It is submitted before this Hon’ble Court that good faith is the essential condition to avail the defence of mistake of fact. Nothing is said to be done or believed in “good faith” which is done or believed without due care and attention^25. Good faith can’t be presumed when the real situation could be known with some efforts and if the accused failed to opt such efforts, then this is his rashness and negligence^26. No person shall be allowed to take advantage of his wrong. ¶22. The mala fide intention to harm women could be understood from the fact that the injuries were not possible by a single attack by lathis or even khukhri to four women, that too of such a nature where one Ritu was killed, and three other females namely, Renu, Geru and Peru were grievously injured. It is significant to consider that such number of injuries require repetitive attacks, during which, of course women must have cried in pain. It is illogical to believe that even after having beaten up women would have remained quite or didn’t attempt to save themselves. Accused must have realised them to be humans at the very moment they attacked the so called “ghosts”. ¶23. In Sushil Ansal v. State Through CBI^27 , in this case a fire broke out in the theatre of Sushil Ansal, the fire broke out because of certain malfunction in the transformer due to the lack of care and attention by the accused persons, it caused the death of 59 people and over a 100 people were injured. They pleaded the defence under Section 79 of the IPC but, the court (^23) Supra note 3, § 43. (^24) Sanya Motors Pvt. Ltd. v. Vaishali Shirishkumat Deolaiwala, 2013 CCJ 111. (^25) Emperor v. Abdool Wadood Ahmed (1907) 9 Bom LR 230. (^26) Vijayan v. State of Kerala, 1991 (2) KLT 597. (^27) Sushil Ansal v. State Through CBI, (2014) 6 SCC 173.
