moot memorial and one supreme court judgement | Cheat Sheet Law

MOOT PROPOSITION 1

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Mr X is a resident of the state of Purva Pradesh in Indica. In the year 1981, Mr X, who was

married, murdered his wife in a drunken rage at his house. The neighbours, who heard the

screaming and shouting leading to her murder caught hold of Mr X and handed him to the police.

Mr X was tried by the competent Sessions Court, convicted of offences punishable under S.302,

IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment in 1984.

2. Mr X was sent to the central prison in Purva Pradesh, Charapanna Agrahara,to serve his sentence.

While he was there, he became close friends with his cellmate, Mr Y. Mr Y was around 30 years

older than Mr X. He had an unmarried daughter who was around the age of Mr X. With time, X and

Y became friends and Y suggested that X marry his daughter. X agreed to the marriage.

3. In the year 1987, X and Y obtained parole from prison and the marriage between X and Y’s

daughter was solemnised as per the rights and customs of their religion. Both X and Y returned to

prison. For around 30 days a year, X would obtain parole and visit his wife in her village. In due

course of time, X’s wife delivered twin baby boys.

4. However, by the year 1990, X had started suspecting the fidelity of his wife. This seemed to be a

more acute problem to him since he was away in prison for most of the year. In October 1990, X

obtained parole and visited his wife and two children.

5. One night while he was with his family, and extremely intoxicated with liquor, X was seized by

rage and started quarrelling with his wife over his suspicions about her character and fidelity.

Ultimately, he seized an agricultural implement and hacked his wife to death. He then proceeded to

kill his two children who were sleeping in the house with the same weapon.

6. According to the neighbours who rushed in, X was trying to commit suicide by hanging himself

when they discovered him and overpowered him. X was handed over to the police, who accused

him of having committed the murders of his wife and children. X confessed in police custody that

he had committed the murders.

7. However, when X was produced before the jurisdictional magistrate, he refused to make any

statement. He was remanded to custody while the investigation went on. Ultimately, he was charged

with offences punishable under Sections 302 and 303 of the IPC.

8. X was represented by a government-appointed lawyer before the Court of Sessions where his trial

commenced. The lawyer was disinterested in the case and did not cross-examine witnesses of the

prosecution nor did he produce any evidence on behalf of the defence. X was convicted.

9. The Sessions Court sentenced X under S.302 and 303 of the IPC to death. The sentence was

pronounced in the year 1994.

10. Upon the matter being sent to the High Court of Purva Pradesh for confirmation of the sentence,

a Division Bench split on the quantum of sentence to be awarded. While one judge felt that a life

sentence without the possibility of parole, commutation or remission would be sufficient, the other

felt that only death would be an appropriate punishment since the convict was already under a

Partial preview of the text

Download moot memorial and one supreme court judgement and more Cheat Sheet Law in PDF only on Docsity!

MOOT PROPOSITION 1 STATEMENT OF FACTS

Mr X is a resident of the state of Purva Pradesh in Indica. In the year 1981, Mr X, who was married, murdered his wife in a drunken rage at his house. The neighbours, who heard the screaming and shouting leading to her murder caught hold of Mr X and handed him to the police. Mr X was tried by the competent Sessions Court, convicted of offences punishable under S.302, IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment in 1984.
Mr X was sent to the central prison in Purva Pradesh, Charapanna Agrahara,to serve his sentence. While he was there, he became close friends with his cellmate, Mr Y. Mr Y was around 30 years older than Mr X. He had an unmarried daughter who was around the age of Mr X. With time, X and Y became friends and Y suggested that X marry his daughter. X agreed to the marriage.
In the year 1987, X and Y obtained parole from prison and the marriage between X and Y’s daughter was solemnised as per the rights and customs of their religion. Both X and Y returned to prison. For around 30 days a year, X would obtain parole and visit his wife in her village. In due course of time, X’s wife delivered twin baby boys.
However, by the year 1990, X had started suspecting the fidelity of his wife. This seemed to be a more acute problem to him since he was away in prison for most of the year. In October 1990, X obtained parole and visited his wife and two children.
One night while he was with his family, and extremely intoxicated with liquor, X was seized by rage and started quarrelling with his wife over his suspicions about her character and fidelity. Ultimately, he seized an agricultural implement and hacked his wife to death. He then proceeded to kill his two children who were sleeping in the house with the same weapon.
According to the neighbours who rushed in, X was trying to commit suicide by hanging himself when they discovered him and overpowered him. X was handed over to the police, who accused him of having committed the murders of his wife and children. X confessed in police custody that he had committed the murders.
However, when X was produced before the jurisdictional magistrate, he refused to make any statement. He was remanded to custody while the investigation went on. Ultimately, he was charged with offences punishable under Sections 302 and 303 of the IPC.
X was represented by a government-appointed lawyer before the Court of Sessions where his trial commenced. The lawyer was disinterested in the case and did not cross-examine witnesses of the prosecution nor did he produce any evidence on behalf of the defence. X was convicted.
The Sessions Court sentenced X under S.302 and 303 of the IPC to death. The sentence was pronounced in the year 1994.
Upon the matter being sent to the High Court of Purva Pradesh for confirmation of the sentence, a Division Bench split on the quantum of sentence to be awarded. While one judge felt that a life sentence without the possibility of parole, commutation or remission would be sufficient, the other felt that only death would be an appropriate punishment since the convict was already under a

sentence of life imprisonment and some extra punishment had to be awarded for the new and ghastly crime committed by him.

The matter was referred to a third judge of the High Court who felt that there was no discretion in the matter given the provisions applied and the nature of the crime and confirmed the sentence of death.
Mr X’s Special Leave Petition to the Supreme Court of Indica was refused admission on grounds that it did not raise any issues of significant legal importance.
Mr X submitted a mercy petition to the President of Indica which came to be rejected in the year
Therefore, Mr X was due to be executed.
Due to oversight on behalf of the prison authorities, Mr X was not kept in the death row cells at the prison, but was allowed to remain in the cells with other ordinary criminals, it is only in the year 2011, that the same was discovered and the prisoner was sent to death row confinement.
On 01.01.2013, the black warrant for the execution of Mr X was issued by the appropriate court. The very next day, lawyers representing a human rights organisation filed a writ petition before the High Court of Purva Pradesh claiming that Mr X cannot be executed on the grounds that his trial is vitiated by illegality and his execution would violate several provisions of the Constitution of Indica. The state opposes the same and insists on execution.
The laws, case law and constitutional provisions of Indica are analogous to the ones in the Republic of India in the year 2015.
On behalf of both the State and the Petitioners, draft petitions and make oral arguments based on the above information.

and such student body should be banned. Due to wide media coverage, this issue gained a lot of publicity and led to social disorder as students came out on the roads.

Police lodged an FIR due to public unrest against Krishna, Waseem and their three other friends and slapped charges against them under Sections 124A, 121, 120B, 34,153, 505 of the Indian Penal Code and also Section 2 of The Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971. One separate FIR was also filed against Omar charging him under Sections 499 and 124A of IPC and also Section 2 of The Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act,
1. Soon the police reached the Awadh University to arrest Krishna, Waseem and their three friends but weren’t allowed to enter the campus by the student political body and there was a clash between both sides. Students started shouting slogans against the Government and made allegations that it is trying to suppress the voices of the students belonging to the lower caste. Thereafter police conducted a lathi charge to disperse and control the untruly mob and arrested Krishna, Waseem, Omar and three other accused. They were subsequently released on conditional bail, and criminal proceedings against them are still pending. A ban has also been imposed on the Times of Indistan on publishing such cartoons. The ban gave rise to major unrest in the media against the Government. However, AUVP is continuously conducting student rallies in order to defend their freedom of speech and expression.
The case came for hearing before the Sessions Court, but due to wide media coverage and public outrage, the High court of Awadh took cognizance of the matter and heard the case. The High Court of Awadh decided the case in favour of the state and held that the law under Section 124A of the IPC puts reasonable restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression and also held that the petitioners were involved in seditious activities and also upheld the charge against them. The High Court also ordered continuing the ban on the Times of Indistan against the publication of such cartoons. After this decision of the High Court, the petitioners were again arrested by the police.
One public spirited advocate agreed to represent the students’ body, AUVP and filed an appeal in the Supreme Court of Indistan against the order of the Awadh High Court challenging the arrest of Krishna, Waseem, Omar and three others claiming violation of their fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14,19&21 of Constitution of Indistan and also challenging the constitutionality of the Section 124A of the IPC, arguing that it puts unreasonable restrictions on the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression enshrined in Article 19(1)(a). In appeal, the ban against Times of Indistan is also challenged for its being violative of the freedom of the Press flowing from the aforesaid freedom. The appeal is presented before the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court on an urgent basis, and it has been listed for hearing on 23rd March 2017, in front of the Constitutional bench of five judges. The Attorney General of Indistan will be representing the state.
The petitioners claim that Section 124A is unconstitutional for imposing unreasonable restrictions on the fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) read with Article 19 (2) & violative of other fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution of Indistan and thus the charges under different Sections as filed in the FIR fall apart. If the aforesaid Section is saved from unconstitutionality their plea is that this case does not come within Section 124 A as a requisite intention to commit the crime of Sedition is wanting. The action of the state in restraining the media is also violative of the freedom of the Press implicit in Article 19(1) (a).

The respondents claim that the nature of the slogans, utterances, criticism and publication of the cartoon made by the accused all along intended to bring the Government into hatred, and contempt and to excite the feeling of disloyalty to a degree that it is seditious and punishable under Section 124A which has been held by the Apex Court to be consistent with the constitutional mandate in the form of the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. Note: The Constitution and all other laws of Indistan should be interpreted in pari materia with the Constitution and other laws of India. Awadh is a province in the State of Indistan. The position of Kashmirpur in Indistan is the same as that of Kashmir in India & relations between Pokistan and Indistan are similar to that of Pakistan and India

MOOT PROPOSITION 4

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Ajay and Abhiram are good friends. While Ajay comes from economically weaker strata of society, Abhiram belongs to an elite class. Both have good family relations. On one occasion Ajay is in dire need of money and therefore makes a request to Abhiram to help him financially which Abhiram agrees easily and pays him Rs.1 lac. After a considerable period, when the money is not returned Abhiram requests his friend to return the money. However, Ajay expresses his inability to return the money. Abhiram thereafter reminds his friend on a number of occasions, however, Ajay does not take it seriously and on one occasion there is a heated exchange of words between the two and Ajay gives sudden and grave provocation to Abhiram by saying that he can do whatever he likes but he will not return the money and also challenges him physically. Abhiram gets enraged by such an attitude of Ajay and starts beating him. Ajay dies as a consequence of injuries inflicted upon him. F.I.R.is lodged against Abhiram for an offence, punishable under 302 of I.P.C. and he is tried by the Court of Session which finds him guilty not for an offence punishable under section 302, but for the offence, culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under sec. 304 and sentences him to ten years imprisonment. Abhiram prefers an appeal before the High Court of Swarashtra and during the pendency of the appeal High Court directs his release on bail. As a consequence of Ajay’s death, his family is now on the street as it has lost the sole earning member of the family. Ajay’s wife has taken a mental shock from the incident and has gone into a state of depression therefore there is nobody to take care of Ajay’s wife and his minor children. Abhiram is made aware of the financial problems of Ajay’s family and therefore he goes to the house of Ajay and starts helping them financially and morally. The matter comes up for hearing before the High Court of Swarashtra. Ajay s wife joins as an interpleader in the petition and makes a request to the High Court that in view of the change in circumstances and since Abhiram has taken the entire responsibility of Ajay’s family, she as a victim personally and on behalf of her minor children intends to compromise the matter and prays that Abhiram should be set at liberty. Hon’ble High Court observes that in view of the changed circumstances, this is a fit case which can lead to a compromise between the parties and gives the decision accordingly and sets Abhiram at liberty. The said judgment of the High Court has evoked a very very strong reaction. Activists and Lawyers alike are up in arms over an order that could have detrimental consequences. The State of Swarashtra prefers Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court of Indiva challenging the order of the High Court of Swarashtra. The matter is now fixed for a final hearing before the Supreme Court of Indiva. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has set out the following issues for determination.

Whether the present petition is maintainable before the Supreme Court of Indiva?
Whether the High Court can direct a compromise in respect of an offence which is non- compoundable as per Sec.320 of Cr.P.C.?

Whether the present case is such where liberty to compound a Non- Compoundable offence may be allowed by the Court in the light of the maxim, ”Salus populi est suprema lex”, which means the welfare of the people is the supreme law? 4)Whether the order passed by the learned High Court is bad in law and therefore liable to be quashed and set aside? 5)Whether the court should make a recommendation to the legislature to enlarge the scope of Sec. 320 Cr.P.C. to bring within its ambit the cases, not within its scope?

MOOT PROPOSITION 6

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The present appeal relates to a Petition filed under Section 13 of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1995 by Aarohi, the Petitioner's wife, praying that the marriage between the parties is dissolved by a decree of the court. The parties to the dispute entered into a marital agreement on 01.04.2020. As per the contentions laid down by the Petitioner's wife, the Petitioner's wife resided in her matrimonial home for 5 days post the solemnization of marriage, but marriage between the parties was not consummated. The husband mistreated her, and they never shared the bed together. She returned to her parent’s home after 5 days. Following the cultural practice in Indian society, her parents sent her back to her matrimonial place explaining that with time passed, situations will get better and the husband’s approach towards the tie would improve. In spite of spending five years with the Respondent's husband, the situation remained the same with no sign of improvement. As per her submissions, the Respondent's husband would return home late at night in a drunken state and would physically, mentally and emotionally abuse her. He would beat her in a state of drunkenness. She extended efforts to persuade and convince him. However, all her attempts to mend ways were proved to be in vain. She also discovered that the Respondent's husband was a man of weak character. He was involved in extramarital relationships with multiple women, was an alcoholic and used to consume intoxicants. She moved out of her matrimonial residence in May 2006 and since then has been staying with her parents at her parent's place. The Respondent's husband replied to the contentions in a contradictory manner and stated that the Petitioner's wife was given a bona fide treatment during their stay together. He further stated that the Petitioner's wife was not interested in residing in the village and kept convincing him to move to the city. Perhaps, he was an unemployed man and could not afford city life, so the demand was totally absurd and unacceptable to him. Thereafter, the Petitioner's wife moved out of the matrimonial home without citing any reasonable and valid justification along with her personal belongings, including stridhan. He consistently made efforts to get her back to their matrimonial home, but she refused to return. Thereafter, he filed a petition under Section 9 of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 praying for restitution of conjugal rights. The court was pleased to grant his prayer. The said petition was neither contested by the wife nor did she return to her matrimonial home. All other material averments of the petition were denied, and it was prayed that the petition be dismissed with costs.

Argue in favour of petitioner and respondent
Mention the relevant provisions.
Support your arguments with the help of case laws.

moot memorial and one supreme court judgement, Cheat Sheet of Law

Related documents

Partial preview of the text

Download moot memorial and one supreme court judgement and more Cheat Sheet Law in PDF only on Docsity!

MOOT PROPOSITION 4

STATEMENT OF FACTS

MOOT PROPOSITION 6

STATEMENT OF FACTS