moot court state v. sushant and manu

8/13/2019 MOOT COURT State V. Sushant and Manu

1/14

-MOOT COURT- Page |

T A B L E O F C O N T E N T SINDEX OF AUTHORITIESLIST OF ABBREVIATIONSSTATEMENT OF JURISDICTIONSTATEMENT OF FACTSSTATEMENT OF ISSUESARGUMENTS ADVANCED


2/14

-MOOT COURT- Page |

I N D E X O F A U T H O R I T I E S A INDIAN CASESIn state of U.P Vs Virendra Prasad, 2004 cri. L.j. 1373 (SC)

Haricharan v. State of Rajasthan A.I.R 1998 SC 244

Nandu Rastogi v. State of Bihar 2002 Cri. L.J 4698 (SC)

State of Maharashtra v Balram Bama patil, 1983 Cri. L.J 330 (SC)

State of M.P V. Kashi ram and others (2009)2 Cri. L.J. 1530 (SC)

Venu alias Venugopal & Ors. V. State of Karnataka 2008 Cri.L.J. 1634

Exhil V. State of Tamil Nadu 2002 Cri.L.J. 2799 (SC)

Nisar khan @ Guddu & ors. V. State of Uttaranchal (25.1.2006) JT 2006 (2) SC 262 [H.K.

SEMA & Dr. A.R. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.]

Bilal ahmed kaloo V. State of A.P AIR 1979 SC 3483

Lella Srinivasa rao, Apellant V. State Andhra Pradesh, Respondent AIR 2004 SC 1720

B. BOOKS1. THE INDIAN PENAL CODEBY K.D.GAUR (UNIVERSAL LAW PUBLISHING CO.,4THEDITION,REP.

2010)

2. THE LAW OF EVIDENCEBY BATUK LAL (CENTRAL LAW AGENCY,19TH

EDITION,REP.2012)

3. THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE,1973BY S.NMISRA

C DICTIONARIES1. BLACK, HENRY CAMPBELL: BLACKSLAWDICTIONARY, 6TH EDN., CENTENNIAL ED.

(1891-1991).

2. CURZON.L.B:DICTIONARYOFLAW,PITMAN PUBLISHING,4TH EDN.NEW DELHI (1994).

3. JUSTICE DESAI,M.C.AND AIYAR,SUBRAMANYAM: LAWLEXICON&LEGALMAXIMS,

2ND

EDN.,DELHI:DELHI LAW HOUSE (1980).

4. MITRA, B.C. & MOITRA, A.C., LEGAL THESARUS, UNIVERSITY BOOK, ALLAHABAD

(1997).

5. PREM, DAULATRAM, JUDICIAL DICTIONARY, 1ST EDN., JAIPUR: BHARAT LAW

PUBLICATION (1992).


3/14

-MOOT COURT- Page |

D STATUTORY COMPILATIONS1. INDIAN PENAL CODE,1860

2. THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE,1973

3. THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT,1872

4. THE ARMS ACT,1959

E INTERNET SITES1. http://www.findlaw.com

2. http://www.indiankanoon.com

3. http://www.indlawinfo.org/

4. http://www.lawsofindia.org

5. http://www.manupatra.com

6. http://www.scconline.com

7. http://www.supremecourtcaselaw.com


4/14


5/14

-MOOT COURT- Page |

S T AT E M E N T O F J U R I S D I C T I O NThe Petiti oner humbly submits this petiti on f il ed before this Honourable Cour t . Th is Criminal

peti tion is fi led U/s 307,302,392,34 of I ndian penal code, 1860 and Sec25 of Arms act,1959 by

the State Public Prosecutor for the state praying that this Honble court may punish the

accused and pass any other judgement cour t may deem f it

____________________________________________________________________________________


6/14

-MOOT COURT- Page |

S T AT E M E N T O F F A C T S1. Vikas and manish were friends and were residents of village modipur, which falls in

District Vilaspur. They used to work together at the shop of aman arora

.

2. On 8th

January, 2005, Aman Arora sent both of them to the bank situated in outskirts of

the village for withdrawing a sum of Rs three lacs (3,00,000/-)

3. They kept the amount of Rs 3 lakh in the dikky of the motorcycle .Manish then started

the motorcycle and both of them started their journey.While on the their way back to the

shop of Aman Arora, two persons riding on a white scooter came from behind .The

persons driving came adjacent to the motorcycle and the pillion rider of the scooter fired

at Manish which hit him on his left arm. Then a second shot was fired which hit vikas in

the chest.Third shot was fired which missed both Vikas and Manish. However, both of

them fell from the Motorcycle . Immediately, the two persons on the scooter stopped andgot down from the scooter , the pillion rider then at gun point took out the cash from the

Dikky of the motorcycle. Both the persons then fled away on their scooter, with the entire

cash. Both the persons who took away the cash were wearing masks.

4. 15 min after the persons had fled on the scooter a car came and stopped. Both Manish and

Vikas who were badly injured were picked up and were taken to a private hospital which

was a at a distance of 5 km from the site of the incident.

5. On 11 january 2005, Manish got his statement recorder with the police and on his

statement FIR u/s 307,302,392,34 of IPC read with section 25 Arms act was registered

against unknown persons .On 10th

January 2005 vikas died.

6. On 11th january 2005, the investigation officer went to the site and got prepare a rough

site plan.

7. On 14 th june of 2005, one abhishek got recorded his statement before the investigating

officer that two persons namely Sushant and Manu had made an extra judicial confession

before him that they had committed an offence on 8th

January 2005 and had looted Rs 3

Lakh from two persons. Abhishek in his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. told that he knewSushant as he was a distant relative

8. On 19thDecember 2005, accused Sushant was arrested .As per the version of the

prosecution Sushant made a disclosure statement before the investigation officer and on

the basis of his disclosure statement Rs 25000 were recovered from his house which were

wrapped in polythene bag allegedly the same polythene bag in which full amount of 3


7/14

-MOOT COURT- Page |

lacs was being used by Vikas and Manish. Later on the same polythene bag was

identified by manish at trial. Sushant had hidden the same in a pit five(5) Meter deep.

However, the investigating officer associated no independent witness when the alleged

recovery was made

9. On 19thfeb 2006, accused Manu was arrested. As per version of prosecution Manu made

a disclosure statement before the investigating officer and on the basis of his disclosed

statement Rs 30,000 were recovered from is house which he had hidden in a box of his

bed. According to prosecution version Manu also got recovered a 12 bore country made

pistol from the back side of the lake. Which was also hidden in a pit 3 meter deep.

10.On 20thNovember 2006 , Vaibhav was also arrested and a scooter allegedly used was

recovered from him. As per the version of the prosecution the scooter which was used by

manu and sushant for committing the offence was owned by Vaibhav.

11.During the trial of the case, Abhishek resiled from his earlier statement recorded u/s 161

of Cr.P.C.and deposed that Sushant was not known to him and in fact Vikas was known

to him as he was related to him. He was accordingly declared hostile .During cross

examination could not explain as to how he was related to vikas

12.During the cross examination of Manish he identified the accused Sushant and Manu anddeposed that a test identification parade was conducted by the investigating agency on19

thapril 2006


8/14

-MOOT COURT- Page |

S T AT E M E N T O F I S S U E STHE APPELLANTS RESPECTFULLY PRESENTS TO HONBLE COURT ,THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:

IISSSSUUEEII

WWHHEETTHHEERRTTHHEEAACCCCUUSSEEDDIISSLLIIAABBLLEEFFOORRTTHHEEPPUUNNIISSHHMMEENNTTOOFF

OOFFFFEENNCCEEFFOORRMMUURRDDEERRUU//SS330022RREEAADDWWIITTHHSSEECC3344OOFFIIPPCCOORRNNOOTT??

IISSSSUUEE--IIII

WWHHEETTHHEERRTTHHEEAACCCCUUSSEEDDIISSLLIIAABBLLEEFFOORRPPUUNNIISSHHMMEENNTTOOFF

AATTTTEEMMPPTTTTOOMMUURRDDEERRUU//SS330077RREEAADDWWIITTHHSSEECC3344OOFFIIPPCCOORRNNOOTT??

IISSSSUUEE--IIIIII

WWHHEETTHHEERRTTHHEEAACCCCUUSSEEDDIISSLLIIAABBLLEEFFOORRRROOBBBBEERRYYUU//SS339922RREEAADD

WWIITTHHSSEECC3344OOFFIIPPCCOORRNNOOTT??

IISSSSUUEE--IIVV

WWHHEETTHHEERRTTHHEEAACCCCUUSSEEDDIISS LLIIAABBLLEE FFOORRTTHHEEPPUUNNIISSHHMMEENNTTUU//SS2255

OOFFAARRMMSSAACCTTRREEAADDWWIITTHHSSEECC3344OOFFIIPPCCOORRNNOOTT??

IISSSSUUEE--VV

WWHHEETTHHEERRTTHHEEEEXXTTRRAA--JJUUDDIICCIIAALLCCOONNFFEESSSSIIOONNDDOONNEE IISS

AADDMMIISSSSIIBBLLEEOORRNNOOTT??


9/14

~moot court~

A R G U M E N T S A D VA N C E D11 .. WWHHEETTHHEERRTTHHEEAACCCCUUSSEEDDIISSLLIIAABBLLEEFFOORRTTHHEEPPUUNNIISSHHMMEENNTTOOFF

OOFFFFEENNCCEEFFOORRMMUURRDDEERRUU//SS330022RREEAADDWWIITTHHSSEECC3344OOFFIIPPCCOORRNNOOTT??

It is contended before the Honble court that accused fired shot in the chestof vikas and theinjury no. 2 caused by accused as per Post mortem report of Vikas clearly states that death of

deceased [which was due to haemorroage and shock due to injury ,On dissection the skin, sub/c

muscles, underlying rib, diapharam liver, intestines were injured ] was caused by injury no.2 i.e.

fire in the chest .Accused had knowledge that the injury inflicted by them was sufficient to cause death in

ordinary cause of nature.

Since all accused committed Murder with aid of arm and common intention to commit the crimeliable to be punished u/s 302 and 34 of I.P.C

According to section 300(3), Act done with intention of causing bodily injury to any person andthe bodily injury intended to be inflicted is insufficient in ordinary cause of nature to cause of

death.

Following authorities Referred in this context:-

1. In state of U.P Vs Virendra Prasad, 2004 cri. L.j. 1373 (SC)

it was held by supreme court that under clause (3) of section 300 IPC two thing must be proved

(a)That the act which causes death is done with intention of causing death or is done with

the intention of causing bodily injury

(b)That the injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in ordinary cause of nature to cause

death.

2. Haricharan v. State of Rajasthan A.I.R 1998 SC 244

it was held that where persons come arm together, do the act of committing murder, and runaway

together ,the murder can be said to have been committed in furtherance of common object andsuch person are liable U/S 302 , read with section 149 , Indian Penal Code

3. Nandu Rastogi v. state of Bihar 2002 Cri. L.J 4698 (SC)

It was held that to attract section 34 ,Indian Penal Code it is not necessary that each one of the

accused must assault the deceased. It is enough if it is shown that they shared a common

intention to commit the offence and in furtherance thereof each played hiss assigned role by role


10/14

~moot court~

doing separate acts , similar or diverse .The facts of this case are eloquent and the role played by

appellant accused of preventing the prosecution witnesses from going to rescue of the deceased

was the role played by him with the view to achieve ultimate object of killing the diseases

Thus it is requested to punish the accused u/s 302 read with section 34 of IPC in the

larger interest of fair justice.

22 .. WWHHEETTHHEERRTTHHEEAACCCCUUSSEEDDIISSLLIIAABBLLEEFFOORRPPUUNNIISSHHMMEENNTTOOFF

AATTTTEEMMPPTTTTOOMMUURRDDEERRUU//SS330077RREEAADDWWIITTHHSSEECC3344OOFFIIPPCCOORRNNOOTT??

It is contended before Honble court that although manish received severe injury for which he

was treated at the private hospital but his MLR was not prepared. However, the fair remain that

the accused has fired upon him with an intention to kill him. It is not necessary that a person

must have received injuries for the accused to be liable u/s 307 what has to be seen is the actual

intention of accused to kill manish which is fully proved as the accused had fired at him.

However, He escaped unharmed therefore the accused is liable to be punished u/s 307 and 34 of

IPC

Following authorities Referred in this context :-

1. State of Maharashtra v Balram Bama patil, 1983 Cri. L.J 330 (SC)

It was held by supreme court that to justify a conviction under section 307 it is not essential that

bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted.

2. State of M.P V. Kashi ram and others (2009)2 Cri. L.J. 1530 (SC)

It was held that it is sufficient to justified a conviction u/s 307 of I.P.C, If there is present andintent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof. It is not essential that bodily injury

capable of causing death should have been inflicted. The section makes a distinction between the

act of accused and its result if any. The court has to see whether the act ,irrespective of its result,

was done with intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the section.Therefore, an accused charged u/s 307 I.P.C cannot be aquitted merely because injury inflicted


11/14


12/14


13/14

~moot court~

55..WWHHEETTHHEERRTTHHEEEEXXTTRRAA--JJUUDDIICCIIAALLCCOONNFFEESSSSIIOONNDDOONNEE IISS

AADDMMIISSSSIIBBLLEEOORRNNOOTT??

Its is contended before the Honble court that sushant and manu made an extra-judicial

confession before abhishek and of disclosure statement of abhishek following Sushant and

Manu was arrested, On the disclosure statement of accused sushant , Rs 25000 were recovered

from accused in same polythene bag which was used by vikas and manish, and from the

disclosure statement of Manu Rs 30000 were recovered from his house and 12 bore country

made pistol from the back side of lake which was hidden in a pit 3 meter deep and scooter was

recovered from vaibhav which is used in crime. So it is sufficient to show that on extra-judicial

confession made to abhishek , all the allegations regarding accused shall be admissible and thefollowing supreme court decisions comes in support of this :

1. Lella Srinivasa rao, Apellant V. State Andhra Pradesh, Respondent AIR 2004 SC 1720

Section 154 of evidence act 1872-hostile witness-evidence of-fact that the witness were declared

hostile by prosecution does not result in automatic rejection of their evidence-even the evidence

of hostile witness if it finds corroboration from facts of case may be taken into account while

judging guilt of accused.


14/14

moot court state v. sushant and manu

Documents