RAMANDEEP KAUR RAO

1365

8TH SEMESTER CLASS MOOT (2016-2017)

BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT

OF ABC

CASE NO. EFG OF 201X

STATE
(PROSECUTION)
V.
NARMADA
(DEFENCE)

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE COURT OF SESSION

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

 8TH SEMESTER CLASS MOOT (2016-2017) ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents ii

List of Abbreviations iii

Index of Authorities iv

Table of Cases iv

Books iv

Online Articles iv

Websites v

Statutes v

Statement of Jurisdiction vi

Statement of Facts vii

Issues Raised viii

Summary of Arguments ix

Arguments Advanced 1-5

Issue

Whether or not the Accused Is Guilty for the Offence of Culpable Homicide Amounting
to Murder u/s 302 of Indian Penal code, 1860?

Annex. 6

Prayer x

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

 8TH SEMESTER CLASS MOOT (2016-2017) iii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AIR All India Reporter

Anr. Another

Cri.LJ Criminal Law Journal

Crl. Criminal

ILR Indian Law Report

IPC Indian Penal Code, 1860

Ors. Others

SC Supreme Court

SCC Supreme Court Cases

S.L.P. Special Leave Petition

u/s Under Section

V. Versus

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

 8TH SEMESTER CLASS MOOT (2016-2017) iv
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

TABLE OF CASES

1. Dhupa Chamar v. State of Bihar (2002) 6 SCC 506

2. Jai Prakash vs State (Delhi Administration) 1991 SCC (2) 32

3. Kesar Singh v. State of Haryana (2008) 15 SCC 753

4. Virsa Singh vs. State of Punjab AIR 1958 SC 465;

BOOKS

1. KD Gaur, Commentary on Indian Penal Code, 2nd Ed. (2013) Universal Law
Publishing

2. Dr. K I Vibhute, PSA Pillai’s Criminal Law, 12th Ed. (2014) Lexis Nexis

3. Ram Jethmalani & Prof.D.S.Chopra, The Indian Penal Code, 1st Ed. (2014) Thomson
Reuters.

4. Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code, 34th Ed. (2014) Lexis Nexis.

ONLINE ARTICLES

1. Serafettin Demirci, M.D.; Kamil Hakan Dogan, M.D.; and Gursel Gunaydin, M.D.,
Throat-Cutting of Accidental Origin, J Forensic Sci, July 2008, Vol. 53, No. 4, doi:
10.1111/j.1556-4029.2008.00764.x, Available online at: www.blackwell-synergy.com
at
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Kamil_Hakan_Dogan/publication/5359997_Thr
oat-Cutting_of_Accidental_Origin/links/09e415023a71b5a114000000/Throat-
Cutting-of-Accidental-Origin.pdf

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

 8TH SEMESTER CLASS MOOT (2016-2017) v
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

WEBSITES

1. http://www.juris.nic.in

2. http://www.manupatra.co.in

3. http://www.scconline.com

STATUTES

1. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

2. The India Penal Code, 1860

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

 8TH SEMESTER CLASS MOOT (2016-2017) vi
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The prosecution has approached the Hon’ble Court of Session under Section 28 r/w

Schedule I of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

 8TH SEMESTER CLASS MOOT (2016-2017) vii
STATEMENT OF FACTS

STATEMENT OF FACTS

 Narmada, wife of Roof Chand was living with her brother Gangaram because of the
estrangement between the spouses.
 On the 23 Jan 2015 at 10 a.m. along with her brother and his wife Chameli was taking
cattle to the river.
 Roop Chand obstructed them and asked Narmada to come with him. She refused.
 Roop got annoyed and gave blows on her hand with iron bar.
 Gangaram got angry and gave tight fist on his face. At that moment four brothers of
Roop joined him.
 A1 gave axe blow on the right leg of Gangaram causing compound fracture to him.
 A2 assaulted Chameli by giving fist and kicks blows to her.
 Suddenly Narmada got sickle and cut the throat of A3, died, gave blow on the leg of
A4 and arm of Roop Chand.
 Then they went away and registered the case to the nearest police station. Police filed
the FIR and arrested Narmada.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

 8TH SEMESTER CLASS MOOT (2016-2017) viii
ISSUES RAISED

ISSUES RAISED

1. WHETHER OR NOT THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY FOR THE OFFENCE OF CULPABLE

HOMICIDE AMOUNTING TO MURDER U/S 302 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860?

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

 8TH SEMESTER CLASS MOOT (2016-2017) ix
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE
WHETHER OR NOT THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY FOR THE OFFENCE OF CULPABLE HOMICIDE
AMOUNTING TO MURDER U/S 302 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860?

It is humbly submitted that the accused has caused the death of deceased by cutting his throat
with sickle. The accused has caused the injury intentionally and the nature of injury was such
that it was sufficient to cause the death of a person in ordinary course of nature. Therefore,
the accused is guilty of the offence of culpable homicide amounting to murder u/s 302 of
Indian Penal Code 1860.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

 8TH SEMESTER CLASS MOOT (2016-2017) 1
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

THAT THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY FOR THE OFFENCE OF CULPABLE HOMICIDE AMOUNTING
TO MURDER U/S. 302 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE

It is most humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that Narmada (hereinafter referred to
as the ‘accused’) is punishable for the offence of murder under S. 302 of Indian Penal Code,
1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’). In order to bring a successful conviction under this
charge, however, it is pertinent for the prosecution to show that the act committed by the
accused is covered under any one of the four clauses of S. 300, IPC. 1 It is contended that the
act of the accused is covered under clause three of S. 300, IPC, which elucidate the following
essentials as laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court2:

1) First, it must establish, quite objectively, that a bodily injury is present,

2) Secondly, the nature of the injury must be proved; these are purely objective
investigations,
3) Thirdly, it must be proved that there was an intention to inflict that particular bodily
injury, that is to say, that it was not accidental or unintentional, or that some other
kind of injury was intended. Once these three elements are proved to be present, the
enquiry proceeds further and,
4) Fourthly, it must be proved that the injury of the type just described made up of the
three elements set out above is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of
nature. This part of the enquiry is purely objective and inferential and has nothing to
do with the intention of the offender.

1
Sec. 300, INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860, “Murder.—Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is
murder:
(Firstly) — If the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or—
(Secondly) — If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to
cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or—
(Thirdly) — If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended
to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or—
(Fourthly) — If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all
probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any
excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.”
2
Virsa Singh vs. State of Punjab AIR 1958 SC 465

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

 8TH SEMESTER CLASS MOOT (2016-2017) 2
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

It was observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court that once the above mentioned four elements are
established by the prosecution the offence is murder under Section 300, "3rdly".

Therefore, it is asserted that in the pertinent case the accused has caused the death of A3 by
intentionally causing particular bodily injury i.e. cutting of throat with sickle [1.1] and the
injury caused is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature [1.2].

[1.1] THAT THE ACCUSED HAS INTENTIONALLY CAUSED THE PARTICULAR BODILY INJURY:

It is humbly submitted that at the onset of the case it is very essential to prove that bodily
injury was caused and the nature of the injury must be established, that is to say, whether the
injury is on the leg or the arm or the stomach, how deep it penetrated, whether any vital
organs were cut and so forth.3 It is submitted that in the present case the throat of the
deceased was cut and he died as a result of this injury.4

It is asserted that the next question comes as to the intention to cause the alleged injury and
when it comes to the question of intention, that is subjective to the offender then it must be
proved that he had an intention to cause the bodily injury that is found to be present. It was
held by Hon’ble Supreme Court that what needs to be proved is not that the accused had an
intention to inflict the injury that was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature
but that he had an intention to cause the same bodily injury that is found to be present on the
body of the deceased.5

It was held that the initial words of second part of S.300(3) is descriptive of the earlier part of
the section, namely, the infliction of bodily injury with the intention to inflict it, that is to say,
if the circumstances justify an inference that a man's intention was only to inflict a blow on
the lower part of the leg, or some lesser blow, and it can be shown that the blow landed in the
region of the heart by accident, then, though an injury to the heart is shown to be present, the
intention to inflict an injury in that region, or of that nature, is not proved. In that case, the
first part of the clause does not come into play. But once it is proved that there was an

3
Virsa Singh vs. State of Punjab AIR 1958 SC 465; Kesar Singh v. State of Haryana (2008) 15 SCC 753
4
As mention in FACTSHEET
5
Kesar Singh v. State of Haryana (2008) 15 SCC 753

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

 8TH SEMESTER CLASS MOOT (2016-2017) 3
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

intention to inflict the injury that is found to be present, then the earlier part of the clause -
"and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted" is merely descriptive.6

It was further observed by court in considering whether the intention was to inflict the injury
found to have been inflicted, the enquiry necessarily proceeds on broad lines as, for example,
whether there was an intention to strike at a vital or a dangerous part of the body, and
whether with sufficient force to cause the kind of injury found to have been inflicted. It is, of
course, not necessary to inquire into every last detail as, for instance, whether the accused
intended to have the bowels fall out, or whether he intended to penetrate the liver or the
kidneys or the heart. Otherwise, a man who has no knowledge of anatomy could never be
convicted, for, if he does not know that there is a heart or a kidney or bowels, he cannot be
said to have intended to injure them. Of course, that is not the kind of enquiry. It is broad
based and simple and based on common sense: the kind of enquiry that "an ordinary man"
could readily appreciate and understand.7

Therefore, it was concluded by court that the question, so far as the intention is concerned, is
not whether he intended to kill, or to inflict an injury of a particular degree of seriousness, but
whether he intended to inflict the injury in question; and once the existence of the injury is
proved the intention to cause it will be presumed unless the evidence or the circumstances
warrant an opposite conclusion.8

[1.2] That THE INJURY CAUSED IS SUFFICIENT TO CAUSE DEATH IN THE ORDINARY COURSE
OF NATURE:

It is humbly submitted that once it is established that the injury is caused and the accused has
the intention to cause the injury inflicted on the person of the deceased then comes the later
part of the enquiry which is objective in nature to find out that whether the injury was
sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death or not. Thus, intention is only linked
up and is restricted to the causing of the bodily injury and not to the knowledge or intention

6
Dhupa Chamar v. State of Bihar (2002) 6 SCC 506
7
Kesar Singh v. State of Haryana (2008) 15 SCC 753
8
Jai Prakash vs State (Delhi Administration) 1991 SCC (2) 32

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

 8TH SEMESTER CLASS MOOT (2016-2017) 4
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

of causing such bodily injury that is sufficient to cause bodily injury that is sufficient to cause
death in ordinary course of nature.

It was observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court that what needs to be proved is that the accused
had an intention to cause the same bodily injury found to be present on the person of
deceased, which was later found to be sufficient to cause death. Such a principle is based on
broad lines of common sense because if intention is considered to be of causing an injury
which is sufficient to cause death; then any person could always plead that he never had an
intention to cause such a injury and it would have been very difficult to prove him wrong. 9

In the present case the throat of the deceased was cut with a sickle.10 It is humble submitted
that death from a cut throat depends on the nature and extent of local damage to the neck.
There are two main ways to die in this situation: Damage to the Trachea (windpipe) or the
Carotid Arteries. Arterial damage is much more likely to be fatal.
 Damage to the Trachea (windpipe): If the trachea is cut but the arteries are not, cause
of death would be from lack of oxygen and aspiration of blood. There are a number of
small vessels in that area which would begin to bleed, and the blood could end up
flowing through the hole in the trachea and into the lungs, where the effect would be
similar to drowning. This is actually a much more survivable scenario than the other
possibility.11
 Damage to the Carotid Arteries: The most likely cause of death from a cut throat is
blood loss. The carotid arteries run up the sides of the neck before splitting to supply
structures outside the skull as well as the brain. You can feel where the arteries are by
palpating the pulse in your neck. These are high pressure, large vessels. If they are
severed, the person will bleed profusely. Blood flow to the brain is compromised and

9
Virsa Singh vs. State of Punjab AIR 1958 SC 465; Kesar Singh v. State of Haryana (2008) 15 SCC 753r
10
Annex. 1
11
“If the larynx or trachea is opened, then even relatively minor haemorrhage from local vessels may cause
blockage of the airways by blood and clot, hough many slashed air-passage victims survive.” Serafettin
Demirci, M.D.; Kamil Hakan Dogan, M.D.; and Gursel Gunaydin, M.D., Throat-Cutting of Accidental Origin, J
Forensic Sci, July 2008, Vol. 53, No. 4, doi: 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2008.00764.x, Available online at:
www.blackwell-synergy.com at
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Kamil_Hakan_Dogan/publication/5359997_Throat-
Cutting_of_Accidental_Origin/links/09e415023a71b5a114000000/Throat-Cutting-of-Accidental-Origin.pdf

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

 8TH SEMESTER CLASS MOOT (2016-2017) 5
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

unconsciousness quickly follows. As the blood loss continues, eventually so much is

lost that the heart stops. This can happen extremely quickly. A person with a complete
transection of even one carotid will likely be unconscious in less than a minute, and
dead a few minutes after that. If both carotids are cut, unconsciousness would be
within seconds, followed by cardiac arrest probably a minute or so later.12

It is humbly submitted that according to the rule laid down in Virsa Singh's case, even if the
intention of accused was limited to the infliction of a bodily injury sufficient to cause death in
the ordinary course of nature, and did not extend to the intention of causing death, the offence
would be murder. Illustration (c) appended to Section 300 clearly brings out this point.

It was observed by the court that no one has a licence to run around inflicting injuries that are
sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and claim that they are not guilty of
murder. If they inflict injuries of that kind, they must face the consequences; and they can
only escape if it can be shown, or reasonably deduced that the injury was accidental or
otherwise unintentional.

Therefore, it is most humbly submitted that the accused has caused the death of A3 by cutting
the throat of the deceased and the nature of injury was such that it was sufficient to cause the
death of a person in ordinary course of nature and the accused can be held liable for the
offence of culpable homicide amounting to murder u/s 302 IPC.

12
“Severe haemorrhage from the jugular vein, or less often the carotid arteries may lead to death from
exsanguination.” Ibid.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

 8TH SEMESTER CLASS MOOT (2016-2017) 6
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

Annex. 1 : Sickle

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

 8TH SEMESTER CLASS MOOT (2016-2017) x
PRAYER

PRAYER

Wherefore, in the light of the facts of the case, issues raised, authorities cited and arguments

advanced, the counsels for the Prosecution humbly pray before this Hon’ble Court to kindly

adjudge and declare:

THAT CHARGE OF S. 302 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 AGAINST THE ACCUSED ARE

PROVED

HENCE SHE BE CONVICTED & SENTENCED FOR THE CHARGE

AND/OR

Pass any other order as it may deem fit in the interest of Equity, Justice & Good Conscience.

All of which is most humbly & respectfully submitted

S/d___________

COUNSELS FOR PROSECUTION

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION