URANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2015 · · 2015-09-22v./vs Versus Vol....

SURANA & SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2015

IN THE

COURT OF SESSIONS

DURG, XANADU, BHARAT

S.C. NO. 111 OF 2015

IN THE MATTER OF

STATE OF XANADU

(PROSECUTION)

V

MANOHAR (D1) & RAHUL (D2)

(DEFENCE)

For the Offences Charged under Sections 302, 120B, 465 r/w 34, 109 of the Bharat Penal Code

and Sections 66 & 66C of the IT Act, 2000

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE

TEAM CODE: I

SURANA & SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION ~ II ~


TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................................... IV

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................................... VII

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ....................................................................................... XII

STATEMENT OF FACTS ...................................................................................................... XIII

STATEMENT OF CHARGES ............................................................................................... XIII

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ............................................................................................... XV

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ....................................................................................................... 1

I. MR. MANOHAR AND MR. RAHUL ARE NOT GUILTY OF MURDERING MR. KARAN ........... 1

A. Mr. Manohar had no motive to nurture the intention of murdering Mr. Karan ........ 1

In Arguendo: Even if Mr. Manohar had a motive to murder Mr. Karan, it would not

be sufficient to convict him. ............................................................................................ 1

B. Mr. Manohar did not have the intention of murdering Mr. Karan. ............................ 2

C. Manohar’s act was not sufficient in the ordinary course of nature or imminently

dangerous within his knowledge to cause Mr. Karan’s death. .................................... 2

D. The circumstantial evidence is not cogent enough to convict Mr. Manohar. ............. 3

E. Mr. Manohar’s act is excusable under Sec. 80 of the B.P.C. ...................................... 4

F. The possibility of accidental death casts doubt on prosecution story. ......................... 4

G. Mr. Rahul is not guilty of murdering Mr. Karan. ........................................................ 5

II. THAT MR. MANOHAR AND MR. RAHUL ARE NOT LIABLE FOR THE OFFENCE OF

FORGERY. ................................................................................................................................... 5

A. Mr. Manohar is not liable for the offence of Forgery. ................................................. 6

i. Mr. Manohar did not forge Dr. Choudhary’s medical prescription. .......................... 6

In Arguendo: Mr. Manohar did not have fraudulent or dishonest intention. ............... 7

ii Mr. Manohar did not forge Mr. Karan’s Bank A/c password. ................................... 7

SURANA & SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION ~ III ~


a. Mr. Manohar did not forge Karan’s password. .......................................................... 7

b. Mr. Manohar did not have fraudulent intention. ........................................................ 8

B. Mr. Rahul is not liable for the offence of Forgery. ...................................................... 8

III. THAT MR. MANOHAR AND MR. RAHUL ARE NOT LIABLE U/SEC 66 & 66C OF THE I.T.

ACT, 2000. .................................................................................................................................. 9

A. Mr. Manohar and Mr. Rahul are not liable for the offences u/sec 66 r/w sec 43. .... 10

i. Mr. Manohar is not liable. ........................................................................................ 10

ii Mr. Rahul is not liable. ............................................................................................. 10

iii.There was no fraudulent or dishonest intention on their part. ................................ 10

B. Mr. Manohar and Mr. Rahul are not liable for the offence u/sec 66C. .................... 11

C. There is not enough evidence to prove the committal of offences. ............................ 11

i. Mr. Manohar had rightful access to Mr. Karan’s desktop. ..................................... 11

ii. The Key log files were not found in the Laptops. ..................................................... 12

IV. THAT MR. MANOHAR AND MR. RAHUL ARE NOT LIABLE FOR THE OFFENCE OF

CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY U/SEC 120B R/W SEC. 34 OF B.P.C. 1860. ........................................ 12

A. The accused are not liable for criminal conspiracy to commit murder. .................... 13

B. The accused are not liable for the offence of Hacking and Identity Theft. ............... 13

i. The essentials of Criminal Conspiracy are not satisfied.......................................... 13

ii There was no common intention between the parties. ............................................. 14

iii.There is no reliable circumstantial evidence. .......................................................... 14

PRAYER ................................................................................................................................. XVII

SURANA & SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION ~ IV ~


LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Abbreviation Full form

& And

¶ Paragraph

A.P. Andhra Pradhesh

AD Apex Decision

AIR All India Reporter

All Allahabad High Court

Anr. Another

b/w Between

Bom Bombay

Bom L.R. Bombay Law Reporter

Cal. Calcutta

Co. Company

Cri. Criminal

CrlJ Criminal Law Journal

CrLR Criminal Law Reporter

DB Division Bench

Del. Delhi

Ed. Edition

Gau Guwahati

Guj Gujarat

SURANA & SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION ~ V ~


Hon’ble Honourable

HP Himachal Pradesh

i.e. i.e. (That is)

IEA Indian Evidence Act

IPC Indian Penal Code

IPLR Intellectual Property Law Review

J&K Jammu and Kashmir

JT Judgment Today

Ker Kerala

LR Law Reporter

Mad Madras

MP Madhya Pradesh

NOC Notes of Cases

Ori Orissa

Ors Others

P&H Punjab & Haryana

p. Page

Para Paragraph

PLJ Punjab Law Journal

Punj. Punjab

RCR Recent Criminal Reports

S. Section

SC Supreme Court

SURANA & SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION ~ VI ~


SCC Supreme Court Cases

Supp. Supplement

U.P. Uttar Pradesh

u/s Under section

UoI Union of India

v./vs Versus

Vol. Volume

W.B. West Bengal

SURANA & SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION ~ VII ~


INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATUTES:

1. BHARAT EVIDENCE ACT, 1872.

2. BHARAT PENAL CODE, 1860.

3. CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1973.

4. THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2000.

LIST OF CASES

SUPREME COURT:

1. Bhagat Ram v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1972 SC 1502. ..................................................... 14

2. Dr. Suresh Gupta v. Govt, NCT Delhi AIR 2004 SC 409..................................................... 4

3. Girija Shankar v. State of U.P., AIR 2004 SC 1808. .......................................................... 14

4. Hardeep Singh v. State of Haryana, (2008) 12 SCC 39. ..................................................... 13

5. Hussain Umar v. Dilip Sinhji, AIR 1970 SC 45.................................................................. 12

6. Jacob Mathew v. State AIR 2005 SC 3180. .......................................................................... 4

7. Jamuna Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1967 SC 553............................................................... 6

8. K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharshtra AIR 1962 SC 605 ..................................................... 5

9. Katcheria Venkata Sunil v. Dr. Venguri Sheshumanba , 2008 CrLJ 853 (AP). .................. 4

10. Kehar Singh v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1988 SC 1883 ........................................... 13, 14

11. Mohan Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1974 SC 1144. .................................................. 15

12. Mohd Zahid v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1999 Cr LJ 3699 (SC). ............................................. 12

SURANA & SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION ~ VIII ~


13. Param Hans Yadav v. State of Bihar, AIR 1987 SC 1224. ................................................. 15

14. Parichhat v. State of M.P., AIR 1972 SC 535 ..................................................................... 13

15. Pramatha Nath Taluqdar v. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar AIR 1962 SC 876. .................................... 5

16. R. Dineshkumar v. State and Ors., AIR 2015 SC 1816 ............................................. 12,13,15

17. Ram Narain v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1973 SC 2200 ................................................. 12

18. Saju v. State of Kerala, AIR 2001 SC 175. ....................................................................... 5, 9

19. Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra , SCC para 19, p. 807, 1047 ................... 3

20. State of A.P. v. R. Punnayya, AIR 1977 SC 45. ................................................................... 3

21. State of HP v. Krishan lal, AIR 1987 SC 773. .................................................................... 12

22. State of U.P. v. Phera Singh, AIR 1989 SC 1205 ......................................................... 13, 15

23. Swinder Singh v. State of Punjab , AIR 1992 SC 209. ......................................................... 4

HIGH COURTS:

1. Adikanta Swami v. Emperor, AIR 1947 Pat 251 .................................................................. 8

2. Central Bureau of Investigation v. Pankaj Sharma and Another, MANU/UP/0600/2014 .... 8

3. Council, ICAI v. P.C. Parekh, ref 1/1991 GUJHC (MANU/GJ/0161/2003). ....................... 7

4. Daljeet Singh & Anr. v. Income Tax Officer & Anr. [1984] 148 ITR 510 (MP). ................ 6

5. Daniel Hailey v. State of Madras A’ 1968 Mad 649 ............................................................. 6

6. Dr. Lalit K. Bhanot v. C.B.I, 2011(3) JCC 1866 ................................................................... 6

7. Dr. R.K. Sharma and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Anr., 2005 (1) ACR 665. ............................ 7

SURANA & SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION ~ IX ~


8. ICICI Bank v. Ashish Agrawal, App. No. 435/2009, SCDRF, Raipur; .............................. 11

9. In re, Ram Japu Rai, 1999 CrLJ 4164 (Pat). ....................................................................... 13

10. In re, Sivnanda Mudaliar, AIR 1926 Mad 1072 .................................................................... 6

11. Jai Singh v. Smt. Sukhjit Kaur, (2007) 4 PLR 706 ............................................................... 6

12. K Thyagarajan v. ICICI Bank, CC no. 2969/2009, SCDRF, Bangalore. ............................ 11

13. Karali Bauri v. Subhas Das 1983 CrLJ 1474 (Cal). .............................................................. 4

14. Krishnarao Raojirao v. State of MP, 1953 Cr LJ 979 ........................................................... 6

15. M/s Pachisia Plastics v. ICICI Bank Ltd., CC no. 1059/2008,SCDRF Bangalore ............. 11

16. Malan v. State of Mahrashtra, AIR 1960 Bom 393 ............................................................... 9

17. Manmohan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1969 Punj 225. ................................................. 12

18. Nandram v. State of WB, AIR 1957 Cr LJ 442 ..................................................................... 6

19. Narayana v. State , 1999 CrLJ 4994 (4999). ......................................................................... 1

20. Palani Goundan, In re, (1919) 42 Mad 224. .......................................................................... 2

21. Pramatha Nath v. The State, AIR 1951 Cal 581............................................................... 7,10

22. Ramesh Baburao Devaskar v. State of Maharashtra 2008 CrLJ 372 (377). .......................... 2

23. Rishi Gupta v. ICICI Bank Ltd., CC No. 514/2010, SCDRF, Bangalore ........................... 11

24. Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra 1984 CriLJ 1738 ................................... 3

25. Soundara Pandian v. Vishwanathan, 1986 CrLJ 1181 (Mad). .............................................. 8

26. State of Orissa v. Sahadeb Pujhari (1992) 1 Crimes 365 (367) (Ori). ................................... 5

SURANA & SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION ~ X ~


27. Sukanti Choudhury v. State of Orissa, 2013 (1) OLR 742. ................................................... 7

OTHERS:

1. Ferguson v. Weaving, (1951) 1 KB 814................................................................................ 9

2. Gangaram v. Emp.,22 Cr LJ 529. .......................................................................................... 1

3. R v. Lamb, (1967) 2 All ER 1282 CA ................................................................................... 2

BOOKS:

1. DR. GUPTA AND AGARWAL, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY LAW AND PRACTICE, (2ND ed.,

2012).

2. KARNIKA SETH, COMPUTERS INTERNET & NEW TECHNOLOGY LAWS, (1ST ed., 2013).

3. PROF. R.K. CHAUBEY, AN INTRODUCTION TO CYBER CRIME & CYBER LAW, (1ST ed., 2012)

4. RATANLAL & DHIRAJLAL, THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, (19TH ed., 2014).

5. RATANLAL & DHIRAJLAL, THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, (33RD ed., 2012).

6. Y.R. RAO, EXPERT EVIDENCE (MEDICAL & NON-MEDICAL), (4th Ed., 2010).

7. RATANLAL & DHIRAJLAL, THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, (32nd Ed., 2013).

8. SUDIPTO SARKAR, V.R. MANOHAR, LAW OF EVIDENCE, (17th Ed., 2011).

9. CJ. M. MONIR, LAW OF EVIDENCE, (16th Ed., 2013).

10. BERNARD KNIGHT, LAWYER’S GUIDE TO FORENSIC MEDICINE, (2nd Ed., 1998).

11. MODI, A TEXTBOOK OF MEDICAL JURISPRUDENCE AND TOXICOLOGY, (24th Ed., 2012).

12. PAREKH & SINGH, LAW RELATING TO CRIME INVESTIGATION AND MEDICAL SCIENCE, (2nd

Ed., 2010).

SURANA & SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION ~ XI ~


13. K. KANNAN, MEDICINE AND LAW, (1st Ed., 2014).

WEBSITES:

1. www.manupatra.com

2. www.westlaw.com

3. www.scconline.com

4. www.hienonline.com

5. www.cybercases.blogspot.com

6. www.itact.gov.in

7. www.vakilno.1.com

8. www.vakilsearch.com.

SURANA & SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION ~ XII ~


STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Defence, most humbly and respectfully, submits that this Hon’ble Court has the requisite

territorial and subject matter jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate this matter under sections

1771, 2092, 184(b)3 and 2234 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It is further submitted

that all procedural requirements have been adhered to in the prescribed manner. The present

memorandum sets forth the facts, contentions and arguments in the present case.

§ 209. Commitment of case to Court of Session when offence is triable exclusively by it.

When in a case instituted on a police report or otherwise, the accused appears or is brought

before the Magistrate and it appears to the Magistrate that the offence is triable exclusively by

the Court of Session, he shall-

a) Commit, after Complying with the provisions of § 207 or § 208, as the case may be,

the case to the Court of Session, and subject to the provisions of this code relating to bail,

remand the accused the custody until Such commitment has been made;

b) Subject to the provisions of this Code relating to bail, remand the accused to custody

during, and until the conclusion of, the trial;

c) Send to that Court the record of the case and the documents and articles, if any, which

are to be produced in evidence;

d) Notify the Public Prosecutor of the commitment of the case to the Court of Session.

1 Ordinary Place of Inquiry and Trial, Sec. 177, Cr.P.C, 1973.

2 Commitment of case to Court of Session when offence is triable exclusively by it, Sec. 209, Cr.P.C, 1973.

3 Place of Trial for offences triable together, Sec. 184, Cr.P.C, 1973.

4 What person may be charged jointly, Sec. 223, Cr.P.C, 1973.

SURANA & SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION ~ XIII ~


STATEMENT OF FACTS

-BACKGROUND-

Karan, Manohar’s father’s brother, took him under his wings after the death of latter’s father

some years ago. Karan, who was an ardent alcoholic, despite knowing that he was suffering from

multiple life threatening ailments, suddenly complained of chest pain. Manohar, in the best of his

knowledge, administered ‘Angispan’ and took him to the hospital for CPR, but it was too late

and Karan passed away.

-CIRCUMSTANCES LEADING UPTO THE DEATH OF THE DECEASED-

Karan’s health was in a deteriorating condition from the last few years. This was primarily

because of stress at workplace, insecurity regarding Manohar’s look-after after his death,

quarrels with wife Devika and son Raghav etc. Dr. Chaudhary changed his medication and

strictly advised him not to consume alcohol, but only in vain.

Manohar had a friend Rahul who visited him during the examination.

On the day of the incident, Karan suddenly complained of chest pain. Manohar searched for pain

killers but could not find them. He tried to call Dr. Chaudhary also but was unable to contact

him. Therefore, he told Raghav to get ‘Angispan’ (which is a commonly used drug) from the

nearest medical store. He administered it via intravenous, since Karan was not in a position to

take it orally. His treatment worked and Karan revived. But, only after thirty minutes, he

collapsed again. Manohar took him to hospital and to get CPR done, but it was too late and fate

prevailed over efforts.

In the instant case, Manohar and Rahul have been accused of Murder (Sec.302), Forgery (Sec.

465), Identity theft and Password Hacking (Sec. 66 & 66C of I.T. Act, 2005), Common Intention

(Sec.34) and Criminal Conspiracy( Sec.120B).

SURANA & SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION ~ XIV ~


STATEMENT OF CHARGES

The issues presented for adjudication before the Honourable Court are as follows:

A. The Accused, Mr. Monohar Lal s/o Mr. Jiwan Lal, has been charged with offence u/s 302,

465 r/w 34, 120B of the Bharat Penal Code and 66 & 66C of the Information Technology

Act, 2000.

B. The Accused, Mr. Rahul Gulati s/o Mr. Jitender Gulati, has been charged with offence u/s

302, 465 r/w 34, 120B and 109 of the Bharat Penal Code and 66 & 66C of the Information

Technology Act, 2000.

SURANA & SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION ~ XV ~


SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

I. THAT MR. MANOHAR AND MR. RAHUL ARE NOT GUILTY FOR THE OFFENCE OF MURDER.

It is humbly submitted that in the instant case, Mr. Manohar and Mr. Rahul are not guilty of

murdering Mr. Karan, as the essential conditions of murder specified under Sec. 300 are not

satisfied. Firstly, Manohar did not have the intention to cause Karan’s death or any bodily injury

which he knew to be likely to cause his death. Secondly, his act was not sufficient in the ordinary

course of nature to cause Karan’s death and was not imminently dangerous within his knowledge

to cause his death. Thirdly, the circumstantial evidence is not cogent enough to convict Mr.

Manohar. Fourthly, the act was accidentally committed and is therefore, excusable under S.80 of

B.P.C. Also, the possibility of accidental death casts doubt on the prosecution story. Lastly, Mr.

Rahul is not liable for the murder of Mr. Karan, either directly or through abetment.

II. THAT MR. MANOHAR AND MR. RAHUL ARE NOT LIABLE FOR THE OFFENCE OF FORGERY.

The accused are not liable for the offence of forgery as alleged by the prosecution. Firstly, Mr.

Manohar made wrote the name of the medicine on a piece of paper without the knowledge that

the paper was Dr. Choudhary’s prescription and he should not be made liable for forgery of

prescription; secondly, Mr. Manohar was authorised to access Mr. Karan’s bank a/c and he,

along with Mr. Rahul, transferred the small amounts of money to his a/c to set off the debt taken

by him from Rahul and for the payment of college fees.

SURANA & SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION ~ XVI ~


III. THAT MR. MANOHAR AND MR. RAHUL ARE NOT LIABLE U/SEC 66 & 66C OF THE I.T. ACT,

2000.

The accused should not be made liable for the offence of hacking and identity theft as, firstly,

Manohar already had authorised possession of Mr. Karan’s desktop and does not fulfil any

essential condition u/sec 43 of I.T. Act, 2000 to be made liable u/sec 66 and Rahul, accessed the

desktop only with permission of Mr. Manohar; secondly, the accused did not make fraudulent

use of Mr. Karan’s bank a/c password as they transferred the requisite amount needed to pay off

the debt owed to Rahul and college fees, along with fine for late submission.

IV. THAT MR. MANOHAR AND MR. RAHUL ARE NOT LIABLE FOR THE OFFENCE OF CRIMINAL

CONSPIRACY U/SEC 120B R/W SEC. 34 OF B.P.C. 1860.

Firstly, the accused did not enter into any agreement to conspire for committing the offence of

murder as there is no cogent evidence pointing towards it. Secondly, they also did not plan to

hack into Karan’s desktop and decrypt his password as Manohar already had authorised access of

Karan’s desktop and was in permitted possession of Karan’s bank a/c details. Therefore, the

allegation of criminal conspiracy only on the basis mere suspicion is not justified.

SURANA & SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION ~ 1 ~


ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

I. MR. MANOHAR AND MR. RAHUL ARE NOT GUILTY OF MURDERING MR. KARAN

1. It is humbly submitted that in the instant case, Mr. Manohar is not guilty of murdering Mr.

Karan, as the essential conditions of murder specified under Sec. 300 are not satisfied. Firstly,

Manohar did not have the intention to cause Karan’s death or any bodily injury which he knew to

be likely to cause his death. Secondly, his act was not sufficient in the ordinary course of nature

to cause Karan’s death and was not imminently dangerous within his knowledge to cause his

death. Thirdly, the circumstantial evidence is not cogent enough to convict Mr. Manohar.

Fourthly, the act was accidentally committed and is therefore, excusable under S.80 of B.P.C.

A. Mr. Manohar had no motive to nurture the intention of murdering Mr. Karan

2. In the instant case, the accused was not under any motive5 to cause the deceased’s death. The

relations of the accused and the deceased were cordial and the accused time and again showed

concern for the health of deceased. Even on the day of the incident, the accused had suggested

the deceased to stay at home and take rest. Also, the accused did not face any substantial

financial problems. Therefore, there is no strong fact(s) to lead to the conclusion that there

existed a motive for the accused to murder the deceased.

In Arguendo: Even if Mr. Manohar had a motive to murder Mr. Karan, it would not be

sufficient to convict him.

3. In the cases of Narayana v. State6 and Surender Kumar v. State of Punjab7, even though the

prosecution had established the case with reference to the motive, the courts were of the view

5 According to Sec. 8 of the Evidence Act, 1872 any fact is relevant which shows or constitutes motive or

preparation for any fact in issue or relevant fact. Motive is that factor which moves or induces a person to act in a

certain manner, Gangaram v. Emp.,22 Cr LJ 529.

6 Narayana v. State , 1999 CrLJ 4994 (4999).

7 Surender Kumar v. State of Punjab, 1999 CrLJ 267 (SC) .



that motive alone would not be sufficient to hold that the accused committed the murder of the

deceased on the day of occurrence. A finding of motive, in some cases, may also lead to a false

implication. Suspicion against the accused on the basis of their motive to commit a crime cannot

by itself lead to a judgement of conviction.8

B. Mr. Manohar did not have the intention of murdering Mr. Karan.

4. On the day when the incident took place, Mr. Karan suddenly complained of chest pain and

stomach pain. Manohar tried his best to find medicines of chest pain, but could not find them

anywhere. So, he wrote the name of a popular and commonly used medicine ‘Angispan’ and told

Raghav to get it from the nearest pharmacy.

5. Afterwards, he administered the medicine via intravenous because Mr. Karan was not in a

position to take it orally. Manohar also tried to contact Dr. Chaudhary, but was unable to do so.

He also drove him to the hospital and got the CPR done.

6. In the case of R. v. Lamb9, the appellant, merely pointed a revolver at a friend but because of the

action of the cylinder which rotated before firing, a bullet was fired and the friend got killed. On

appeal, his conviction for manslaughter was quashed. In another case, the accused struck a blow

on the head of his wife which rendered her unconscious. Believing her to be dead and to lay a

foundation of false Defence of suicide by hanging, he hanged her on a beam by a rope and

thereby caused her death by strangulation, the accused was held not guilty either of culpable

homicide or of murder.10

C. Manohar’s act was not sufficient in the ordinary course of nature or imminently

dangerous within his knowledge to cause Mr. Karan’s death.

8 Ramesh Baburao Devaskar v. State of Maharashtra 2008 CrLJ 372 (377).

9 R v. Lamb, (1967) 2 All ER 1282 CA.

10 Palani Goundan, In re, (1919) 42 Mad 224.



7. The phrase sufficient in the ordinary course of nature implies that death would be the most

probable result of the act.11 It is only in cases where the probability of death is extremely high

that this clause is evoked.12 The act of administering Angispan via intravenous is not so

imminently dangerous that Manohar can be supposed to know that it may cause death. He

executed a procedure which he had seen in his college to save Karan’s life.

D. The circumstantial evidence is not cogent enough to convict Mr. Manohar.

8. In the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra13, it was held that only upon the

successful fulfilment of the following conditions, the case against the accused can be said to be

fully established; Firstly, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn

should be fully established. Secondly, the facts so established should be consistent only with the

hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Thirdly, the circumstances should be of a conclusive

nature and tendency. Fourthly, there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any

reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused.

9. In the instant case, it is not possible to draw an irresistible inference that it was only Manohar’s

acts which led to Mr. Karan’s death. Many other factors, such as, his poor health, multiple

ailments, drinking habits, irregular food habits, stress, work pressure led to his vulnerability.

Moreover, he never discussed his medication and health with anybody. Therefore, Mr. Manohar,

or anybody else apart from Dr. Chaudhary, cannot be supposed to foresee that even general pain

killers like Angispan, which are available without prescription also, would not suit Mr. Karan.

11 State of A.P. v. R. Punnayya, AIR 1977 SC 45.

12 Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Bharat Penal Code, 32nd Enlarged Ed., LexisNexis.

13 Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra 1984 CriLJ 1738. Also, Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of

Maharashtra , SCC para 19, p. 807: SCC (Cri)p. 1047.



10. In Swinder Singh v. State of Punjab14, the case of prosecution was based on circumstantial

evidence only. But, it was held that the circumstantial evidence was not cogent enough to hold

the accused guilty.

E. Mr. Manohar’s act is excusable under Sec. 80 of the B.P.C.

11. Sec. 80 of the B.P.C. postulates that if an act is done accidentally or by misfortune without any

criminal intention or knowledge and the said accident occurs while doing a lawful act in a lawful

manner by lawful means by exercising due care and caution, it will not amount to any offence.15

It has been held by HALSBURY16, that where Actus Reus is death of the victim, accident is a valid

defence. Here, the causing of death due to cross-reaction of incompatible drugs and air embolism

in the syringe leading to cardiac arrest, is an act committed accidentally and not intentionally.

12. This defence has been used in several cases involving treatment of patients. In the case of

Katcheria Venkata Sunil v. Dr. Venguri Sheshumanba17, a doctor administered necessary

medication, but the patient could not be saved due to her own delay of the treatment. In a catena

of cases involving criminal charges on doctors18, it has been held that mere lack of proper care,

precaution and attention does not give rise to criminal liability.

F. The possibility of accidental death casts doubt on prosecution story.

13. It has been held by the Calcutta High Court19 that the burden to prove any exception to criminal

liability lies on the accused taking the plea, but the burden may be discharged by preponderance

of probability. Also, the initial burden20 to prove the accident is on the accused but even if the

14 Swinder Singh v. State of Punjab , AIR 1992 SC 209.

15 Stephen’s Digest of Criminal Law, 9th Edn., Art 316.

16 HALSBURY’s Laws of England, 4th Ed., Vol.11, para 377, p.209.

17 Katcheria Venkata Sunil v. Dr. Venguri Sheshumanba , 2008 CrLJ 853 (AP).

18 Dr. Suresh Gupta v. Govt, NCT Delhi AIR 2004 SC 409, Jacob Mathew v. State AIR 2005 SC 3180.

19 Karali Bauri v. Subhas Das 1983 CrLJ 1474 (Cal).



accused fails to establish all the circumstances to bring his case within the exception, may be

sufficient to negative one or more ingredients of the offence.21

G. Mr. Rahul is not guilty of murdering Mr. Karan.

14. Mr. Rahul is not involved in the murder of Karan, whether directly or through abetment u /sec.

109 of B.P.C., 1860. Abetment involves active complicity on the part of the abettor at a point of

time prior to the actual commission of the offence. It is the essence of the crime of abetment that

the abettor should substantially assist towards the commission of the offence and it is necessary

to connect him with those steps in the transaction, which are criminal.22

15. In the instant case, Mr. Rahul has is not connected to the death of Mr. Karan in any manner.

There is no reasonable nexus between the death of Mr. Karan and the actions of Rahul.

To prove the charge of abetment, the prosecution is required to prove that the accused had

instigated for the doing of a particular thing or engaged with one or more other persons, if there

is conspiracy or intentionally aided the doing of that thing. 23 Abetment is not a matter of mere

suspicion or surmise. A mere allegation that the other co-accused acted in the way they did with

the connivance of the petitioner is not enough. The complainant is ought to show what actual

words were used by the petitioner by way of instigation.

II. THAT MR. MANOHAR AND MR. RAHUL ARE NOT LIABLE FOR THE OFFENCE OF

FORGERY.

20 Sec. 105 of the Evidence Act, 1872.

21 K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharshtra AIR 1962 SC 605, State of Orissa v. Sahadeb Pujhari (1992) 1 Crimes 365

(367) (Ori).

22 Pramatha Nath Taluqdar v. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar AIR 1962 SC 876.

23 Saju v. State of Kerala, AIR 2001 SC 175.



16. It is humbly submitted that Mr. Manohar is not liable for committing the offence of forgery u/sec

46324 r/w sec. 46425 which is punishable u/sec. 46526 of B.P.C, 1860.27

17. For proving the offence of forgery, the following essentials have to be satisfied28:

i. Making of false document or electronic record (Actus Reus) which includes which includes (a)

Making, signing, sealing or executing a document or part of a document, or (b) affixing any

electronic signature on any electronic record.29 AND ii. Such making should be with a fraudulent

or dishonest intention30 (Mens rea), (a) to support any claim or title, or (b) to cause any person to

part with property, or (c) to cause deception or commit fraud.

A. Mr. Manohar is not liable for the offence of Forgery.

18. Allegations of forgery against Mr. Manohar on account of forging the prescription of Dr.

Choudhary and the password of Mr. Karan’s bank a/c are baseless.

i. Mr. Manohar did not forge Dr. Choudhary’s medical prescription.

19. Mr. Manohar wrote the name of medicine to be administered to Mr. Karan on a blank piece of

paper31, which he later on realised was Dr. Choudhary’s medical prescription.32 Mr. Manohar, in

all probability, would have written the same at the back of the prescription. The circumstances at

the time of this event were sudden and the effort was desperate.33 The writing of medicine on a

24 Forgery, Sec. 463, B.P.C, 1860.

25 Making a False Document, Sec. 464, B.P.C. 1860.

26 Punishment for forgery, Sec. 465, B.P.C, 1860.

27 Jamuna Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1967 SC 553.

28 Nandram v. State of WB, AIR 1957 Cr LJ 442, Jai Singh v. Smt. Sukhjit Kaur, (2007) 4 PLR 706.

29 Dr. Lalit K. Bhanot v. C.B.I, 2011(3) JCC 1866; Daniel Hailey v. State of Madras A’ 1968 Mad 649.

30 Krishnarao Raojirao v. State of MP, 1953 Cr LJ 979; In re, Sivnanda Mudaliar, AIR 1926 Mad 1072; Daljeet

Singh & Anr. v. Income Tax Officer & Anr. [1984] 148 ITR 510 (MP).

31 Mano’s Statement, Annexure 5, pg. 13, Moot Proposition.

32 Para 25, pg. 5, Moot Proposition.




blank piece of paper disregarding the fact that whether that that paper was prescription or bill

was in natural course which any other prudent person would have resorted to.

20. If making of a document by a person is in the exercise of natural conduct, forgery cannot be

traced out.34 Moreover, a piece of blank paper is not a document.35 Therefore, Mr. Manohar did

not make any false document and therefore, the charge of forgery against Manohar must fail.

In Arguendo: Mr. Manohar did not have fraudulent or dishonest intention.

21. Mr. Manohar wrote the medicine in his last attempts to save the life of Mr. Karan.

22. Neither his intention was fraudulent nor did it cause any deception, as no prescription was

required to procure ‘Angispan’. Mr. Manohar being a medical student36 could very well be

presumed to know the same and his act was merely directory so that Raghav could procure the

right medicine in right form37. Also, Mr. Manohar no where intended to cause harm either to Dr.

Choudhary or to Mr. Karan, who would have become direct victims if such deception was

practiced. It is an essential ingredient of the offence of forgery that there must be the fraudulent

or dishonest intention in absence of which, criminal proceeding against the petitioner will

amount to an abuse of process of court.38

ii. Mr. Manohar did not forge Mr. Karan’s bank a/c password.

23. The essentials of forgery are not satisfied as Mr. Manohar’s act of transfer of money from

Karan’s bank a/c was duly authorised & without any fraudulent or dishonest intention.

a. Mr. Manohar did not forge Karan’s password.

34 Dr. R.K. Sharma and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Anr., 2005 (1) ACR 665.

35 Pramatha Nath v. The State, AIR 1951 Cal 581; Council, ICAI v. P.C. Parekh, ref 1/1991 GUJHC

(MANU/GJ/0161/2003).

36 DW5, Annexure 5, pg. 15, Moot Proposition.


38 Sukanti Choudhury v. State of Orissa, 2013 (1) OLR 742.



24. Mr. Manohar was duly authorised by Mr. Karan to transfer small amounts to his a/c.39 Also, he

was authorised to transfer alleged amount towards making the payment of college fees.40

Therefore, he was authorised to access Mr. Karan’s bank a/c. It is not forgery where the act is

done under the honest belief that the party doing it had a right to do it.41 Hence, the essentials for

making false electronic record u/sec 464 are not satisfied.

b. Mr. Manohar did not have fraudulent intention.

25. The alleged allegation of forgery is bolstered by prosecution by stating the fact that Mr. Manohar

instead of transferring ₹ 2, 25, 000/- as in the normal course, instead transferred ₹ 2, 50, 000 into

his a/c.42 This transaction can be explained on two accounts. Firstly, the additional amount was

transferred as against the claim of pocket expenses as authorized by Mr. Karan. Secondly,

Manohar’s had defaulted in his fee payment due non-payment of fees by Mrs. Devika, due to

which a certain fine was imposed on him. If sufficient explanation is given for the transactions

undertaken and the amounts were transferred to the normal account with no intention to incur

wrongful gain, the offence of forgery cannot be made out.43

B. Mr. Rahul is not liable for the offence of Forgery.

26. It is humbly submitted that Mr. Rahul should not be made liable for the offence of forgery as the

allegations against Mr. Rahul is that he abetted44 the offence committed by Mr. Manohar of

forging Mr. Karan’s bank a/c password. There are two essential elements to arraign a person



41 Supra Note 11 (RK sharma case).


43 Central Bureau of Investigation v. Pankaj Sharma and Another, MANU/UP/0600/2014, Adikanta Swami v.

Emperor, AIR 1947 Pat 251; Soundara Pandian v. Vishwanathan, 1986 CrLJ 1181 (Mad).

44 Punishment of abetment if the act abetted is committed in consequence, and where no express provision is made

for its punishment, Sec. 109, B.P.C., 1860.



u/sec. 109 for the offence of abetment i.e., (a) Intentional instigation, aiding or engaging in a

conspiracy to commit principle offence & (b) the principle offence was infact committed.45

27. In the present case, Mr. Manohar independently took up the transaction of payment of his college

fees.46 Also, Mr. Rahul did not aid or instigate Mr. Manohar. Furthermore, the allegation of

forgery against Mr. Manohar is not proved beyond reasonable doubt and hence, Mr. Rahul

cannot be made liable.

III. THAT MR. MANOHAR AND MR. RAHUL ARE NOT LIABLE U/SEC 66 & 66C OF THE I.T.

ACT, 2000.

28. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court of Sessions, that Mr. Manohar and Mr. Rahul

are not liable for the offences u/sec. 6647 and 66C48 of the I.T. Act, 2000 respectively.

Sec. 66 of the I.T. Act makes the offender criminally liable if the offences (Actus Reus49)

committed u/sec 4350 of the same Act are committed with dishonest51 & fraudulent52

intention (Mens Rea53).

Sec. 66C makes fraudulent or dishonest (Mens Rea) use of password54 (Actus Reus) of any

other person punishable as the offence of identity theft.

45 Ferguson v. Weaving, (1951) 1 KB 814; Malan v. State of Mahrashtra, AIR 1960 Bom 393; Saju v. State of

Kerala, AIR 2001 SC 175.


47 Computer related offences, Sec. 66, I.T. Act, 2000.

48 Punishment for identity theft, Sec. 66C, I.T. Act, 2000.

49 Elements of Actus Reus, [Dr. Gupta & Agarwal, Information Technology – Law and Practice, Premier Publishing

Co. (Ed. 2012)].

50 If any person without permission of the owner or any other person who is incharge of a computer, computer

system or computer network…, Sec. 43, I.T. Act, 2000.

51 Dishonestly, Sec. 24, B.P.C., 1860.

52 Fraudulently, Sec. 25, B.P.C., 1860.

53 Mens Rea in cyber-crimes, [Supra Note. 50].

54 Rule 19(2) Sch. 2. Information Technology (IT) Security Guidelines, Confidentiality of Subscriber’s Information,

Information Technology (Certifying Authorities) Rules, 2000.



A. Mr. Manohar and Mr. Rahul are not liable for the offences u/sec 66 r/w sec 43.

29. It is pleaded that Mr. Manohar and Mr. Rahul are not guilty of any offence u/sec 66 r/w sec. 43

of the I.T. Act, 2000 as the essentials for offence under said sections are not fulfilled.

i. Mr. Manohar is not liable.

30. Mr. Manohar had authorised access to the desktop of Mr. Karan.55 Furthermore, he was

permitted to access Mr. Karan’s bank a/c by Mr. Karan himself.56 The beginning phrase of Sec.

43 of I.T. Act, 2000 says “If any person without permission”. Therefore, in order to constitute an

offence under this section, the person committing the offence should perform the act without the

permission of the owner. In the instant case, the very condition which needs to be satisfied to

make someone guilty of the offence is not fulfilled.

ii. Mr. Rahul is not liable.

31. It is pointed out that Mr. Rahul had rightful claim of more than ₹ 1 Lakh against Mr. Manohar

which he borrowed from Mr. Rahul over a period of time.57 In order to repay the same, Mr.

Rahul was authorised by Mr. Manohar to transfer small amounts from Mr. Karan’s bank a/c. It is

no offence where the act is done under the honest belief that the party doing it had a right to do it

although in point of fact he had really no such authority.58Therefore, Mr. Rahul cannot said to be

wrongfully accessing the desktop of Mr. Karan.

iii. There was no fraudulent or dishonest intention on their part.

32. Both the accused performed the transactions in order to satisfy their rightful claim, i.e., Mr.

Manohar for payment of his college fee & pocket expenses AND Mr. Rahul for recovery of his




58 Pramatha Nath v. The State, AIR 1951 Cal 581.



money owed to him by Mr. Manohar. Therefore, the dishonest or fraudulent intention cannot be

inferred from the above circumstances.

B. Mr. Manohar and Mr. Rahul are not liable for the offence u/sec 66C.

33. It is stated, that Mr. Manohar and Mr. Rahul used the password of Mr. Karan’s bank a/c in order

to make payment of his college fees and recovery of the debt respectively. Various Consumer

Dispute Redressal Commissions have held that if a person shares his Bank A/c details, he can’t

allege embezzlement.59

34. Also, when ownership and possession of the password reside in two different entities, it obscures

the victim of the theft, making criminal liability difficult to apply.60 To be guilty of cyber-crime

in India, a person must act voluntarily and wilfully. This means that to constitute a cyber-crime

in India, Mens-rea is an essential element along with Actus Reus.61

C. There is not enough evidence to prove the committal of offences.

35. The authenticity of the electronic signature as affixed by its owner is presumed u/sec 85B of the

B.E.A., 1872.

i. Mr. Manohar had rightful access to Mr. Karan’s desktop.

a. Witness Testimony: PW1 stated that Rahul and Mano fiddle with the desktop and at times

would connect his laptop to it and sit there for hours together doing something to which

no one objected to.62

59 ICICI Bank v. Ashish Agrawal, App. No. 435/2009, SCDRF, Raipur; Rishi Gupta v. ICICI Bank Ltd., CC No.

514/2010, SCDRF, Bangalore; M/s Pachisia Plastics v. ICICI Bank Ltd., CC no. 1059/2008,SCDRF Bangalore;

K Thyagarajan v. ICICI Bank, CC no. 2969/2009, SCDRF, Bangalore.

60 Daniel S. Shamah, Password Theft: Rethinking an Old Crime in a New Era, 12 MICH. TELECOMM. TECH. L.

REV. 335 (2006), available at http://www.mttlr.org/voltwelve/shamah.pdf.

61 Maneela, Cyber Crimes: The Indian Legal Scenario, 11 Us-China L. Rev. 570 2014.

62 Statement 4, Annexure-5, Pg. 14, Moot Proposition.



b. Manohar’s Testimony: He stated that he was permitted by Mr. Karan to use his from his

bank A/c.

ii. The Key log files were not found in the Laptops.

36. The expert witness Hashmeet in his certificate has stated that the only log files found were in the

hard-disk and not in the laptops. Therefore, it is difficult to solely rely on this piece of evidence63

IV. THAT MR. MANOHAR AND MR. RAHUL ARE NOT LIABLE FOR THE OFFENCE OF

CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY U/SEC 120B R/W SEC. 34 OF B.P.C. 1860.

37. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court of Sessions that the accused are not liable u/sec.

120B64 r/w sec. 3465 of B.P.C, 1860 for offence of criminal conspiracy to commit offence of

murder66, hacking67 & identity theft68.

38. Combined reading of the provisions of criminal conspiracy with common intention culminates

following elements to prove the instant offence i.e., (i) there should be two or more persons, (ii)

there should be an agreement between themselves69; (iii) The agreement70 must be to do or cause

to be done an illegal act (or) a legal act by illegal means, (iv) A criminal act must be done by the

persons71, (v) The criminal act must be to further the common intention of all72 and

63 Sec. 45 r/w Sec 47, B.E.A., 1872; Ram Narain v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1973 SC 2200; Mohd Zahid v. State

of Tamil Nadu, 1999 Cr LJ 3699 (SC).

64 Punishment of criminal conspiracy, Sec. 120B, B.P.C., 1860.

65 Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention, Sec. 34, B.P.C., 1860.

66 Punishment for murder, Sec. 302, B.P.C., 1860.

67 Computer related offences, Sec. 66, I.T. Act, 2005.

68 Punishment for identity theft, Sec 66C, I.T. Act, 2005.

69 Hussain Umar v. Dilip Sinhji, AIR 1970 SC 45, R. Dineshkumar v. State and Ors., AIR 2015 SC 1816.

70 The principle of actus contra actum [State of HP v. Krishan lal, AIR 1987 SC 773].

71 State of HP v. Krishan lal, AIR 1987 SC 773.

72 Manmohan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1969 Punj 225.



(vi) there must be participation of all persons in furthering the common intention.73

A. The accused are not liable for criminal conspiracy to commit murder.

39. In the instant case, Manohar and Rahul have not entered into any conspiracy to murder Karan.

There is no cogent proof74 to establish an agreement to commit the murder in the minds of

Manohar and Karan, which is promise against promise ie, actus contra actum. Also, there is no

meeting of minds to commit the said offence. In cases of conspiracy, there must be a clear chain

of facts pointing to guilt of the accused. The gist of the offence of conspiracy lies in the forming

of the scheme75 or agreement between the parties. Agreement is essential. Mere knowledge, or

even discussion, of the plan is not, per se, enough.76 There is no cogent evidence pointing

towards a conspiracy hatched between Manohar and Rahul.

40. When there is absolutely no evidence to connect the accused with the alleged conspiracy, the

accused can not be convicted on a charge u/sec 120B77. Therefore, Manohar and Rahul are

entitled to acquittal.

B. The accused are not liable for the offence of Hacking and Identity Theft.

41. It is pleaded that Mr. Manohar did not commit the illegal act78 of Hacking and Identity theft &

therefore, should not be made liable for the offence of committing criminal conspiracy to effect

these offences.

i. The essentials of Criminal Conspiracy are not satisfied.

73 Parichhat v. State of M.P., AIR 1972 SC 535; Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.), AIR 1988 SC 1883; Hardeep

Singh v. State of Haryana, (2008) 12 SCC 39.

74 Kehar Singh v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1988 SC 1883.

75 In re, Ram Japu Rai, 1999 CrLJ 4164 (Pat).

76 R. Dineshkumar v. State and Ors., AIR2015SC181.

77 State of U.P. v. Phera Singh, AIR 1989 SC 1205.

78 Section 43. “Illegal”, “Legally bound to do”., Barata Penal Code, 1860.the term ‘illegal’ act (sec. 33) encompasses

everything (a) which is an offence (sec. 40) (b) which is prohibited by law, and (c)which furnishes a ground for civil

action.



42. The essentials to prove the offence of criminal conspiracy are not proved beyond reasonable

doubt by the prosecution.79 The concurrence cannot be inferred by a group of irrelevant facts

artfully arranged so as to give an appearance of coherence.80

43. There was no agreement81 between Mr. Manohar and Mr. Rahul to decrypt the password of Mr.

Karan’s bank a/c as Manohar was already in possession82 of Mr. Karan’ bank a/c password and

there was no need for him to extract or decrypt the same. Also the alleged act of identity theft

arises out of the offence of hacking but the same can be said to be conspired for, as Manohar was

authorised by Mr. Karan to access his bank a/c. Manohar in exercise of this authority transferred

small amounts and the alleged amount of ₹ 2, 50, 000/- from Karan’s a/c in order to pay off the

debt he owed to Mr. Rahul and payment of college fees respectively.

ii. There was no common intention between the parties.

44. There arise no question of common intention83 between the parties as the acts were committed by

Mr. Manohar in his individual capacity under proper permission. In case of two persons, if one is

acquitted of the charge of criminal conspiracy, the other one is acquitted automatically (in case

of two persons).84

iii. There is no reliable circumstantial evidence.

79 Sec. 101 & 102: Burden of Proof, Barata Evidence Act, 1872, S.L. Goswami v. State of M.P., (1972) 3 SCC 22.

80 Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Admn), AIR 1988 SC 1883.

81 Girija Shankar v. State of U.P., AIR 2004 SC 1808.


83 The general principle is that common intention as defined in s. 34 implies a pre-arranged plan and to convict

an Accused, it should be proved that the criminal act was done in concert pursuant to the pre-arranged plan

Pandurang v. State of Hyderabad, AIR 1955 SC 216.

84 Bhagat Ram v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1972 SC 1502.



45. If the prosecution relies upon the circumstantial evidence85, a clear link must be established &

the chain has to be completed, otherwise, it would indeed be hazardous to accept part of the link

as complete one and on the basis of such incomplete evidence,

the allegation of conspiracy falls.86

46. In the present case, Mr. Rahul visited Mr. Manohar during the time of examination87. Their

common interest in technology kept them busy with their computers88. The decryption activities

pursued by Mr. Rahul were in consonance with this interest and not to use that skill

maliciously89. A person from any stream of education can have certain hobbies, one of which is

having interest in computer sciences. Mere knowledge, or even discussion, of the plan is not, per

se, enough to establish conspiracy.90 Also, the discovery of Key-logger is not proved to be

anyway related to Mr. Rahul or Mr. Manohar as the log files related to the same were not

discovered from the laptops of either of the two accused.91 When there is absolutely no evidence

to connect the accused with the alleged conspiracy, the accused cannot be convicted on a charge

u/sec 120B92. Further, the acts committed by accused were performed in their in their individual

capacity without sharing of any intention93.

Therefore, the accused are not liable.

85 Mohan Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1974 SC 1144.

86 Param Hans Yadav v. State of Bihar, AIR 1987 SC 1224.

87 Para 2, Annexure – 5, pg. 13, Moot Proposition.

88 Para 4, Anexxure – 5, pg. 14, Moot Proposition.


90 R. Dineshkumar v. State and Ors., AIR2015SC1816.

91 Expert Witness, Annexure – 7, pg. 20, Moot Proposition.

92 State of U.P. v. Phera Singh, AIR 1989 SC 1205.

93 Once an evidence for CC rejected, it cannot be used to bolster a charge of common intention u/sec 34 BPC.

[Ramnath Madho Prasad v. State of MP, AIR 1953 SC 420].

SURANA & SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION ~ XVII ~


PRAYER

Wherefore, in light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, the Defendant

respectfully request this Hon’ble court to adjudge and declare:

1. That Mr. Manohar and Mr. Rahul are not guilty of murdering Mr. Karan u/sec 302 of

B.P.C., 1860.

2. That Mr. Manohar and Mr. Rahul are not liable for the offence of forgery forgery u/sec 465

r/w sec. 464 & 463 of B.P.C, 1860.

3. That Mr. Manohar and Mr. Rahul are not guilty of password hacking and identity theft

u/sec. 66 & 66C of I.T. Act, 2000.

4. That Mr. Manohar and Mr. Rahul are not guilty of hatching criminal conspiracy along with

common intention u/sec. 120B r/w sec. 34 of B.P.C, 1860.

And the Hon’ble Court may pass any such order as it may deem fit.

ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED COUNSELS ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE

AT: DURG, XANADU SD/-

DATED……………………………

URANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2015 · · 2015-09-22v./vs Versus Vol....

Documents

Transcript of URANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2015 · · 2015-09-22v./vs Versus Vol....