







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
Moot memorial for IPC ,v crime law 123
Typology: Papers
1 / 13
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!
IN THE MATTER OF SECTIONS 147, 153A & B, 295A, 326, 354, 426, 506, r/w 34 AND 120B OF THE GONDHIAN PENAL CODE. STATE OF GONDHIAā¦ā¦ā¦ā¦ā¦ā¦ā¦ā¦ā¦ā¦...ā¦ā¦ā¦ā¦ā¦ā¦ā¦ā¦PETITIONER V. SANSKRITI SUDHAR DAL...............................................................RESPONDENT BEFORE SUBMISSION TO HONāBLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE HONāBLE HIGH COURT MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
It is submitted that the various sections of the Gondhian Penal Code that Udit Kumar and others were charged under could not be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution even failed to produce enough witnesses to corroborate the alleged criminal charges even though it is alleged to have taken place in a public place in broad day light. They were further wrongfully charged for charge of abetting suicide of one Pooja Kumari who in her statement did not even talk about that crime. Therefore, it is humbly submitted that the acquittal by the sessionās court is completely justified from a legal point of view. ISSUE 2. WHETHER THE STATEMENT OF PUJA KUMARI RECORDED UNDER §161 CRPC IS ADMISSIBLE IN THE COURT OF LAW It is submitted before this court that the statement of Pooja Kumari recorded under 161 Cr.P.C is admissible. The subsequent death of Pooja Kumari makes her statement a dying declaration that deals with the transaction at the Select Metro Mall that lead to her suicide which is admissible under section 32 of the Evidence Act. ISSUE 3. WHETHER AN ACCOMPLICE CAN BE CONSIDERED AN AUTHENTIC WITNESS In the sessions court proceedings, no weightage was given to Krishna Pahalwanās statements and it was stated that he was unworthy of credit. Krishna Pahalwan cannot be proved as an authentic accomplice and it is contended that his statement was undoubtedly not admissible in the court.
It is humbly submitted before this honourable court that the acquittal of the accused persons by the honourable sessionās court is justified as the accused persons can be proved to be not guilty of the offences under GPC that they were charged for [1.1-1.3]. 1.1 The accused persons can be punished for rioting under § 147 of the GPC To be punished under §147 for rioting the primary pre-requisite is to commit the offence of rioting under § 146 which requires a number of conditions to be fulfilled including the following: A. There must be an unlawful assembly under §141 of the GPC. For rioting to take place an important ingredient is unlawful assembly. 1 And unlawful assembly requires at least five people.^2 The Supreme Court has established that mere presence in assembly is not sufficient to prove membership of the unlawful assembly. 3 It needs to be shown that each of the members did some overt act that is wrongful and in consonance with the common intention of the assembly.^4 It is submitted that on the 14th^ of February, 2002 no such incident occurred that can conclusively prove an unlawful assembly. The following paragraph discusses the same. In the narration of the given incident there is no clear description of five or more people doing overt acts individually which are wrongful. This proves that there was no unlawful assembly and thus no rioting under §146 of GPC and hence the accused cannot be punished under §147 of GPC. (^1) Hazara Singh v. State of Punjab, (1971) 3 SCR 647. (^2) Section 141 of the GPC (^3) Baladin v State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1956 SC 181. (^4) Baladin v State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1956 SC 181.
prove prima facie the existence of mens rea which was established in the case of Manzar Sayeed Khan v. State of Maharshtra. As in this case also the prosecution has failed to prove mens rea beyond reasonable doubt. In Ramesh Chotalal Dalal v. Union of India & Others^11 , this Court held that TV serial "Tamas" did not depict communal tension and violence and the provisions of § 153A of IPC would not apply to it. It was also not prejudicial to the national integration falling under §153B of GPC.^12 These sections are violative of the fundamental right of free speech, and were penalising people even when they remained well within the reasonable restrictions on free speech in Article 19(2)^13 of the Constitution^14. It is also claimed that these sections curbed a vibrant and vigorous public discourse that is essential to a lively democracy.^15 Udit Kumar believes in preserving the culture of Gondhu religion. Acts done by the moral police and the activists were in the best interest to save the religion and not to hurt the sentiments of the citizens. Again in Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v. State of A.P.^16 , it is held that promotion of feeling of enmity, hatred or ill-will "between different" religious or racial or linguistic or regional groups or castes and communities, it is necessary that at least two such groups or communities should be involved. There have been some aberrations, few and far between, at times pointing to the presence of committed judges or those influenced by particular religion-political ideologies. Such aberrations can of course be, and have often been, freely criticized by conscientious objectors and legal critics.^17 Further, it was observed that merely inciting the feeling of one community or group without any reference to any other community or group cannot attract the Section. Udit Kumar doesnāt talk about another community, the intention here is protecting the Gondhian culture and not insulting or attempting to insult another community. To ascertain whether an offence as defined under § 153(A) of GPC has been committed or not, it is for the court to examine the words either spoken or written or by signs or by visible (^11) Ramesh Chotalal Dalal v. Union of India & Others AIR (1988) SC 775 (^12) Section 153 B of Gondhian Penal Code (^13) Subramanian Swamy v. Unioun of India (2016) (8) SCC 31 (^14) Article 19(2) of Constitution of Gondhia (^15) Master Tara Singh vs State Of Punjab And Anr (1961) CriLJ 547 (^16) Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v. State of A.P. (1997) 7 SCC 431 (^17) RELIGION & LAW REVIEW (Tahir Mahmood ed., 1992ā2000), and TAHIR MAHMOOD, AMID GODS AND LORDS: MY LIFE WITH THE VOTARIES OF RELIGION AND LAW (2005).
representations and come to a conclusion whether they have a tendency to promote or attempts to promote on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other group etc. disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities.^18 In this case, the prosecution has not been able to establish any mens rea on the part of the appellants, as envisaged by the provisions of § 153A GPC, by their raising causally the three slogans a couple of times. The offence under § 153A GPC is, therefore, not made out. It appears that raising some slogan only a couple of times by the two lonesome appellants, which neither evoked any response nor any reaction from anyone in the public can neither attract the provisions of § 124A^19 or § 153A IPC^20. 1.5 The accused has abetted the suicide of the deceased under § 306 of GPC It is humbly submitted that the law regarding offence of abetment to commit suicide is clear. A person can be said to instigate another when he incites or otherwise encourages another, directly or indirectly, to commit suicide.^21 The word āinstigateā means to goad or urge forward or provoke, incite, urge or encourage to do an act.^22 Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do "an act". To satisfy the requirement of "instigation", though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes "instigation" must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet, a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. Where the accused had, by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct, created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide, in which case, "instigation" may have to be inferred. A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow, cannot be said to be instigation. In a recent case Sanjay Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh^23 it was held that (^18) Mohd. Khalid Hussain vs. The State, through S.H.O : 2000 (1) ALD Cri 482, 2000 (1) ALT Cri 561, 2000 CriLJ 2949 (^19) Section 124A of Gondhian Penal Code (^20) Balwant Singh vs. State of Punjab and Anr. (18.02.1994 - SC) 1995 (1) SCR 411 (^21) Asha Shukla v. State of U.P. (2002) CriLJ 2233 (^22) Parimal Chatterji v. Emperor 140 Ind. Cas.787. (^23) Sanjay Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2002) 5 SCC 371: 2000 Supp sc 2246
conviction.^29 In the past dying declaration was accepted and conviction was based solely on the basis of the declaration. It was held that if the truthfulness of a dying declaration is accepted, it can always form the basis of conviction of the accused.^30 Further, under the Indian Law it is not necessary for the admissibility of a dying declaration that the deceased at the time of making it should have been under expectation of death.^31 Nemo moriturus praesumitur mentire- It implies that a man who is on death bed would not tell a lie to falsely implicate innocent person.^32 Where the dying declaration is believed to be true, consistent and coherent, it can be relied upon for conviction, even if there was no corroboration.^33 2.1 The statement of Pooja Kumari related to the circumstances of the transactions which resulted in the abetment of her suicide resulting in her death Pooja Kumari clearly stated in her statement that she was assaulted by one of the members of the mob (later identified as Krishna Pahalwan)^34 who pushed her hard and snatched her belongings and shouted āsave Gondhiyan cultureā and ātie or dieā.^35 Such unwanted physical contact and unwarranted violence (both mental and physical) caused immense humiliation to her. Abetment to suicide involves a mental process of instigating a person to do a thing.^36 Each personās suicidability pattern is different from others. Each person has his or her own idea of self-esteem and self-respect.^37 Unable to handle such a violent interaction Pooja Kumari committed suicide on the 14th^ of February, 2002. Therefore, it is very humbly submitted that exclusion of her statement would tend to defeat the ends of justice. ISSUE 3. WHETHER AN ACCOMPLICE CAN BE CONSIDERED AN AUTHENTIC WITNESS (^29) Urgeu Sherpa v. State of Sikkim , (1985) 1 SCC 278. (^30) Lallubhai Devchand Shah v. State of Gujarat , AIR 1972 SC 1776. (^31) Rajindra Kumar vs. TheState, Air 1960 P&H 310(1); State vs. Kanchan Singh ; Tehal Singh vs. State of Punjab;Sharad vs. State of Maharashtra (^32) Sharda v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2010 SC 408. (^33) Khushal Rao v. State of Bombay , AIR 1958 SC 22: 1958 Cr LJ 106; Ram Nath Madhoprasad v. State of Madhya Pradesh , AIR 1953 SC 420: 1953 Cr LJ 1772; State of Assam v. Mafizuddin Ahmed , AIR 1983 SC
(^34) Anexure II, III (^35) Annexure II (^36) Sohan Raj Sharma v. State of Hariyana, AIR 2008 SC 2108. (^37) Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (2009) 16 SCC 605.
The sessions court did not give weightage to his statements and stated that he was unworthy of credit. The fact that Krishna Pahalwan cannot be called an accomplice has been proved in (3.1) and whether his statement is admissible in court is proven in (3.2). 3.1 That Kkrishna Pahalwan is not an accomplice to the crime. In Haroon Haji Abdulla v. State of Maharashtra^38 it was held that: The case against Haroon stands mainly on the basis of the statement of the accomplice Kashinath (PW 1). Kashinath must be held to be a competent witness in view of our decision in the Chauraria case^39. The use of the statements is objected to generally and in particular on the following grounds that the statements are not confessions proper to which § 30 of the evidence act^40 can be made applicable and an accompliceās statement cannot be used to corroborate him as an accomplice cannot corroborate himself. Therefore, it is contended that Krishna Pahalwan is not an accomplice to the crime as there was no corroboration to the crime by him^41. Pooja Kumarisās short ā glimpse ā is not a ground on which the evidence can be recorded^42. Moreover, Pooja Kumariās statement as a deceased^43 ,^ is not admissible^44 in the court^45 and there is no proof^46 of Krishna Pahalwan being involved in the crime.^47 The court must acquit the accused of charges as the witnesses are not admissible and the authenticity of the witnesses are highly questionable in the court. 3.2. That Krishna Pahalwanās statement was not admissable in the court In Bhuboni Sahu v. The Emp^48 , The appellant was acquitted by the court. The Court Observed that : (^38) Haroon Haji Abdulla vs. State of Maharashtra (14.12.1967 - SC) 1968 AIR 832, 1968 SCR (2) 641 (^39) Lal Chand Chauraria vs. Hari Chand Kharar (08.03.1939 - CALHC) : MANU/WB/0325/ (^40) Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 (^41) Rameshwar Singh v. State of Rajasthan (SB Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 110 of 1967) (^42) Annexure 2 (^43) In The High Court Of Jammu And Kashmir vs Mahabaleshwar Gourya Naik 1992 ... on 11 December, 2015 (^44) Antonio v Barugahare v R (1957) EA 149 (CA) (^45) Mohamed Warsama v R .(1956) 23 EACA 576. (^46) Chonampara Chellappan v. State Of Kerala on 30 March, (1979) AIR 1979 SC 1761, 1979 CriLJ 1335, (1979) 4 SCC 312 (^47) Haroon Haji Abdulla vs. State of Maharashtra (14.12.1967 - SC) 1968 AIR 832, 1968 SCR (2) 641 (^48) Bhuboni Sahu vs The King on 17 February, (1949) 51 BOMLR 955
Therefore, it is prayed, in light of the issues raised, arguments advanced, and authorities cited, that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to declare/ adjudge/ hold that: