Professional Documents
Culture Documents
COMPETITION, 2013
STATE OF GOA
(PROSECUTION)
v.
MAJ. (RETD.)J.S.RANA
(DEFENCE)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents
ii
List of Abbreviations
ii
i
Statutes
i
v
i
v
v
i
v
ii
v
ii
v
ii
Statement of Jurisdiction
v
iii
Index of Authorities
Table of Cases
Books
Lexicons
Websites
Statement of Facts
i
x
Statement of Charges
Summary of Arguments
x
i
Arguments Advanced
Issue-I
Issue-II
Prayer
1
6
iii
SURANA AND SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2013
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AIR
All
Cal
Cri LJ / Cr LJ
Cr.P.C.
Del
DW
Defence Witness
Ed.
Edition
Guj
IPC
IC
Indian Cases
Mad
n.
Ori
p.
Page No.
P&H
Pat
PW
Prosecution Witness
Raj
SC
Supreme Court
SCC
SCJ
SCR
Sec.
Section
v.
Versus
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF
THE PROSECUTION
iv
SURANA AND SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2013
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
TABLE OF CASES:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Commissioner of Income Tax v Patranu Dass Raja Ram Beri, AIR 1982 PH 1
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
v
SURANA AND SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2013
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
Niranjan Das and Ors. v. Giridhari Das and Anr., 68 (1989) CLT 746
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
State of Himachal Pradesh v. Lekh Raj and Anr., 1999 (9) ST 155
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
vi
SURANA AND SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2013
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
BOOKS:
1.
2.
Jurisprudence, (2 Ed 1989)
3.
Gaur, KD, Criminal Law: Cases and Materials, (6th Ed. 2009)
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
II, Mitra, B.B., Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (20th ed. 2006)
th
th
th
nd
Ed. 2007)
th
11. II, Princeps Commentary on the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (18 ed. 2005)
12. III, Sarvaria, SK, Indian Penal Code, (10th Ed. 2008)
st
13. James, Jason, Forensic Medicine: Clinical and Pathological Aspects, (1 Ed. 2003)
14. Kelkar, R.V. Criminal Procedure, (5th Ed. 2011)
th
vii
SURANA AND SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2013
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
19. Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code, 33 Ed. (2011)
20. Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The Law of Evidence, 22nd Ed. (2006)
th
23. Sharma, B.R., Forensic Science in Criminal Investigation & Trials, (4 Ed. 2003)
24. Tyagi, Surendra Prakash, Criminal Trial (2nd ed. 1996)
25. Varshi, H.P. Criminal Trial and Judgment, (3rd ed. 1981)
LEXICONS:
nd
WEBSITES:
1. http://www.findlaw.com
2. http://www.judis.nic.in
3. http://www.manupatra.co.in/AdvancedLegalSearch.aspx
4. http://www.scconline.com
STATUTES:
1. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act 2 of 1973)
2. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Act 18 of 1872)
3. The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860)
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF
THE PROSECUTION
viii
SURANA AND SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2013
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Honble Court has jurisdiction to try the instant matter under Section 177 read with
Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Section 177:
177. Ordinary place of inquiry and trialEvery offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local
jurisdiction it was committed.
ix
SURANA AND SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2013
STATEMENT OF FACTS
STATEMENT OF FACTS
st
1. On the night of 31 December, 2012, the Montecito Hotel & Casino owned by Ms Shonli
Gujral, on the ship Aurora located on river Mandovi , hosted a high stakes poker game on
the Octavious floor. The chain of events that transpired that night are:
1.
Post 11p.m. of that night, the Octavious vault had been breached by four men dressed
in fine suits, though while making their exit the alarm got triggered.
2.
Subsequently the four men ran towards the deck to make an exit, and threw eight
waterproof bags overboard into a motorboat. Two of the men escaped by rappelling
into a motorboat, while the other two awaited their turn to rappel down.
3.
Just as the remaining two were about to make their escape, Mr. Michael Barbosa
(Chief Security Officer) ordered them to stop.
4.
Thereafter Mr. Barbosa fired a warning shot in the air, however when they still did
not stop, he fired at one mans knee and subdued him, they disobeyed the order and
one of them took a guest as hostage in order to escape; subsequently the accused,
Maj. (Retd.) J.S. Rana (Head of Operations, Security) had shot dead the other man.
5.
The police reached the scene of crime at 12.15 a.m and Ms Shonali registered an
F.I.R against the accused.
th
2. Bhaskar Sanyal, on 4 February, 2013 confessed to the crimes under Sec. 164 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, and further provided incriminating evidence against the accused. The
final report of the police was made on the complicity of the accused on the 14th March, 2013.
th
3. On 16 May, 2013, an interim order was passed by the Sessions Court stating that the
charges under Sec.396/302 have been read out to the accused and that the chargesheet has
been served. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The matter is listed for final
hearing before the Sessions Court, Panaji on the 29th May 2013.
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF
THE PROSECUTION
x
SURANA AND SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2013
STATEMENT OF CHARGES
STATEMENT OF CHARGES
CHARGE 1
Maj. (Retd) J. S. Rana has been charged under Section 396 read with Section 302 the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 for the crime of Dacoity with Murder.
xi
SURANA AND SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2013
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
ISSUE I
WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY OF DACOITY?
It is humbly submitted before this Honble Court that the accused, Maj. (Retd) J. S. Rana is
guilty of committing dacoity as he had committed the crime with 5 other members with full
intent of robbing the Octavious Vault of the 12 Crore Rupees that was being held in it on the
1st of January 2013. The accused had access to all of the necessary instruments to carry out a
successful robbery as he was the Head of Operations (Security) aboard the Montecito. And
while committing said crime the accused had committed murder, thus fulfilling all of the
elements of section 396 of the IPC.
ISSUE II
WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY OF MURDER?
It is humbly submitted before this Honble Court that the accused is guilty of murder as he
had committed an act of cold blooded murder on board the Montecito with many witnesses to
the actus reus. The accused had the requisite mens rea to commit said crime, and he even had
a motive to carry out said act. The shot was fired point blank in the centre of the deceaseds
head, thus showing it was indeed an execution and not an act of self defence or an accident.
Hence it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the crime of Murder was indeed committed
by the accused in the case at hand.
SURANA AND SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2013
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
ISSUE-I
WHETHER MAJ RANA IS GUILTY OF DACOITY?
It is humbly contended that Maj. (Retd) J.S. Rana (hereinafter referred to as the
accused) is guilty of unlawful offences under Sec. 396/302 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as IPC). It is to be noted that the essential
elements of Sec. 396 are as follows:
1
of the dacoity1. The pre-requisite of a dacoity will be dealt with in the present issue
(Issue I), while the charge of murder will be proved in the subsequent issue (Issue
2
II). Dacoity is robbery committed by five or more persons , with the abettors who
are present and aiding when the crime is committed, to be counted in the number.
The ingredients of dacoity are thus as follows:
3
1Shyam Behari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1957 S.C.; Rahimal v. State of Uttar Pradesh,1992
CriLJ 3819 (All)
SURANA AND SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2013
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
10
11
(PW 1) and Michael Barbossa (DW 4) who state that the accused
Madhusundan Das v Narayanbai, AIR 1983 SC 114, Krishna Pillai v State of Kerala, AIR 1981 SC
1237
10
11
Ibid, para 2
SURANA AND SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2013
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
be admitted to the Octavious floor of the Aurora. Moreover, the accused was
entrusted with enforcing security within the Octavious floor.
12
Therefore, the
accused was privy to the details of the security arrangement security in place,
which included the rotation of guards.
13
It is also to be noted that in the process of emptying the vault, the dacoits did not
face any resistance from the guards, who claimed that some guests had lost their
way.
14
Security on the intercom stated that they saw four men in suits
carrying large bags running towards the deck
2.
17
12
Ibid, p. 15
13
Ibid, p.14
14
Supra, n. 11, p. 15
15
Deonandan Mishra v State of Bihar (1955) 2 SCR 750; Harish Chandra Thange v State of
16
17
18
Ibid
SURANA AND SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2013
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
19
3.
Zareen Malik (DW2) s saw four men run onto the deck
4.
5.
20
Facts made out state that a motor boat was waiting for the accused
21
persons . From the aforementioned statements, it is evident that there were four
people onboard the ship while committing dacoity and another participant was in a
motorboat assisting in the retreat of the accused persons. Hence, apart from the
accused, there were five other participants to the crime.
1.3 ALL SUCH PERSONS SHOULD ACT CONJOINTLY
The word conjointly refers to united or concerted action of five or more persons
participating in the act of committing an offence 22. From the aforementioned
arguments, it is clearly established that the accused aided the accused persons by
giving them integral information about the security layout and assisted them in
entering the Octavious floor of the Montecito. The entire chain of events from
getting on board the ship, to the escape was a well planned and concerted effort by
the accused persons. Thus, it is humbly submitted before this Honble
Court that the threshold of acting conjointly has been fulfilled.
1.4 CORROBORATION OF CONFESSION
Being an accomplice i.e. a guilty partner or associate in a crime, 23 the evidence of
PW2 is subject to the combined reading of Sec 114 and Sec 133, Evidence Act and
requires some
19
Ibid, p. 16
20
Supra n. 9
21
Case Details, P. 1
22
Niranjan Das and Ors. v. Giridhari Das and Anr., 68 (1989) CLT 746
23
SURANA AND SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2013
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
independent
corroboration
in material particulars
for acceptance.
24
The
25
i.e. the entrance into the Montecito [A], breaking into the
vault [B], timing of commission [C] and the number of people [D].
1. Entrance into Montecito
1)
Confession The accused offered to secure entrance of all the accused persons.
2) Witness statementPW1 and DW4 indicate the accused made the final call on
guest list and was supposed to scrutinize the names on the list to ensure safety.
2. Breaking into the vault
1) Confession - The accused shared information as to when the post of the guards
would change so as to ensure undetected entry.
2) Witness statement - Accused himself verifies that he was entrusted with security
of the entire ship, along with DW 4 who states that security arrangements of the
Octavious floor was exclusively managed by the accused.
3. Time of Commission
1)
Confession- Post 11:30 p.m. the accused persons started commission of dacoity.
ii)Witness statement -F.I.R. filed by PW1 states that the firing started in between
11:30-11:45p.m, corroborated by DW 2 statements about gunshots fired at around
12 oclock.
D. Number of persons
As already established in issue 1.2, the confessional statement of PW 2 is verified
with oral testimony of other witnesses, with regard to the number of people
perpetrating the offence. Thus, the aforementioned chain of events stated in PW2s
confession is in consonance with the oral testimony and clearly indicate the
involvement of the accused.
24
25
SURANA AND SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2013
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
26
28
27
Therefore, the Prosecution humbly submits that the Trial Court would be justified
in convicting the accused if it is shown by the evidence on record that he had
participated in the
dacoity.30
26
27
Leela Ram v. State of Haryana AIR 1999 SC 3717 ; State of U.P. v. M.K. Anthony, 1985
CriLJ 493; Appabhai v. State of Gujarat, 1988 CriLJ 848; Sajjan Kumar v. State of MP, 1999CriLJ
4561
28
State of Himachal Pradesh v. Lekh Raj and Anr., 1999 (9) ST 155
29
30
SURANA AND SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2013
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
ISSUE-II
WHETHER MAJ RANA IS GUILTY OF MURDER?
It is humbly contended that the accused is guilty for committing the offence of
murder under Sec 302, IPC. Sec 302 prescribes the punishment for committing
murder. In order to bring a successful conviction under this charge, however, it is
pertinent to refer to Sec 300, IPC which elucidates the essentials of murder.
A person is guilty of murder if he intentionally causes the death of a person or
causes such bodily injury as he knows, is likely to cause death of that person or
causes such bodily injury, which in the ordinary course of nature results into death
or commits an act so dangerous that it must, in all probability cause death of that
person31. The Prosecution humbly contends that both, the actus reus [2.1] and the
mens rea [2.2] of the crime are established in the instant matter, negating any
claims of private defence [2.3].
2.1 ACTUS REUS OF MURDER IS PROVEN
32
Actus reus is any wrongful act . Thus, in a case of murder, actus reus would be the
physical conduct of the accused that causes death of the victim. In the instant case,
the actus reus is established by way of witness statements [A], forensic report [B]
and ballistic evidence [C].
A. Witness Statements
Bearing in mind that it is not for the prosecution to meet any and every hypothesis
suggested by the accused, howsoever extravagant and fanciful it might be,
humbly submitted
31
33
it is
32
33
SURANA AND SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2013
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
before this Honble Court that the circumstantial evidence in the instant matter
shows that within all human probability, the act must have been done by the
accused.
34
st
On the night of 31 December, 2013, 4 well dressed men breached the high-stakes
Octavious vault of Auroras Montecito hotel and casino, post 11 p.m. According to
the confessional statement of PW 2, at around 11.30-12.00 p.m., the accused shot
Brij Gopal (hereinafter referred to as the victim/deceased) in the head with his
special edition Smith and Wesson custom engraved model 60, .38 revolver 35,
reaffirmed by DW 2s statement, who heard the gunshot, alongwith DW 3s oral
testimony, who saw the accused standing over the body.
In a case where murder was caused by gunshot, the witnesses did not actually see
the accused shooting but saw him lowering the gun right after they heard the gunshot, their evidence was held to be as good as that of eye witnesses and conviction
was upheld.36
B. Forensics
The post mortem report becomes important in cases where the cause of death is to
be established and is a matter of controversy. 37 Moreover, it is not possible for the
Prosecution in to explain each and every injury suffered by the witnesses.
38
However, for the sake of convenience, the Prosecution feels obliged to assist this
Honble Court in understanding the intricacies of the post mortem report.
34
35
36
37
38
SURANA AND SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2013
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
i) Size of Wounds
The entry wound in this case is a 15 mm round-shaped one, while the exit wound is
a highly irregular starry shaped wound 33 mm in size. This difference in size and
appearance is because when a bullet makes an entry into the human body, it first
indents and stretches into the skin and subsequently, depending upon the energy,
effects penetration into the soft tissues and/or bones and comes out, causing an exit
wound. After entry of the bullet, the skin partially returns to its original position
and therefore, the size of the entry wound may be smaller than the size of the
bullet.
39
When a projectile transverses the skull and emerges, the aperture in the bone differs
in relation to the outer and inner tables; the defect is larger in the direction in which
the bullet travels.
40
usually clean cut and the defect on the inner surface of the bone is larger than the
outer surface. An exit hole on the skull is bevelled outward and is larger on the
outer than on the inner surface of the bone,41consistent with the autopsy report in
the instant matter, keeping in mind that the gunshot wound perforated the frontalis
of the deceased, causing instant death.42
ii) Appearance of the Wounds
The autopsy report by Dr Trehan indicates the presence of a wide zone of powder
soot and seared blackened skin around the entrance wound.
43
The
Parikh,CK, Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence, Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, p. 4.42 (6th ed
1999)
40
Ibid, p. 4,43
41
Ibid, p. 4.50
42
43
ibid
SURANA AND SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2013
10
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
matter .Even smokeless powder produces a small amount of smoke which may
mark objects at close range.44 Presence of blackening on wounds is thus consistent
with firing from a very close range.
45
46
The presence of
scorching/charring is a clear indication that the fatal shots were fired at the
deceased from a very close range.
47
The Prosecution humbly contends that the autopsy report merely demarcates an
upper limit of the proximity of the firearm with the deceased, with a distance of not
more than 15 ft48 between the two. This should not, however in any manner, be
construed to mean that the weapon could not have been placed at a lesser distance.
The primary requirement of pleading the defence of accident is that the act must be
done with proper care and caution.49 Thus, at a close range ,the chances of any
accident50are ruled out, given that the accused is a retired Army officer, who, by
his own account, has a considerable experience in handling weapons and killing
men. In fact , such a short distance would indicate the intention to kill.
C. Ballistics
44
Gaur, KD Firearms ,Forensic Ballistics, Forensic Chemistry and Criminal Jurisprudence, p. 71 (2nd ed
1989)
45
46
Supra n 36, p. 70
47
48
49
50
SURANA AND SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2013
11
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
51
52
bullets were recovered from Auroras deck. The grooves on one bullet matched the
Smith and Wesson custom engraved model 60 .38 revolver, owned by the accused.
In cases where injuries are caused by fire arms, the opinion of the ballistic expert is
of a considerable importance53 and is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused. 54
When the direct evidence is well corroborated by the circumstantial evidence and
conforms to the probabilities, there is no reason why it should not be accepted.
55
So far as the question of the 4th bullet is concerned, it is well know that in case of
tandem bullets, the first bullet fails to leave the barrel and is ejected by the
subsequently fired bullet. The bullets are thus ejected one after another,
56
which is
what occurred when DW 4 fired his standard issue Glock .38 handgun 57,
considering that the .38 Live Hornady cartridges
58
Therefore, contrary to the claims of the Defence, the presence of an extra bullet
should not be attributed to any investigational lapse on part of the police. On the
other hand, since 2 bullets were fired almost at once, DW 2s testimony as to the
three shots also corroborates with the Prosecutions version of events.
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF
THE PROSECUTION
SURANA AND SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2013
12
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
Arguendo, any lapse on part of the investigation agency would not be fatal to the case.
60
Absence of blood at the spot where the eye-witness saw the accused attacking the
deceased and which was sufficiently explained did not create a doubt in the
prosecution story.
61
Mens rea is considered as guilty intention , which is proved or inferred from the
64
acts of the accused . It is submitted that the intention to kill is established [A] in
light of clear-cut motive of the accused [B]. Arguendo, absence of motive would
not be a sufficient ground to dismiss the case [C].
A. The Accused had intention to kill
It is presumed that every sane person intends the result that his action normally
produces and if a person hits another on a vulnerable part of the body, and death
occurs as a result, the intention of the accused can be no other than to take the life
of the victim and the offence committed amounts to murder.
65
Moreover, the
intention to kill is not required in every case, mere knowledge that natural and
probable consequences of an act would be death will suffice for a conviction under
s. 302 of IPC.
66
60
Amar Malla v State of Tripura, AIR 2002 SC 3052, State of UP v Jagdeo , AIR 2003 SC 660
61
62
Ambalal v State of Rajasthan, 2003 Cr LJ 115; Sudhin Chandra Barman v. State of WB Cr LJ 2006 Cal
4656
63
Commissioner of Income Tax v Patranu Dass Raja Ram Beri, AIR 1982 PH 1, 4
64
65
66
SURANA AND SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2013
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
The intention to kill can be inferred from the murder and nature of the injuries
caused to the victim.67 Causing a serious injury on a vital part of the body of the
deceased with a dangerous weapon must necessarily lead to the inference that the
accused intended to cause death or bodily injury sufficient to cause death of the
68
victim, and it answers to section 300 and is murder. Given that the accused shot
the victim on the head, a vital part of the body, it is logical to conclude that he
intended to cause the death of the victim.
B. The Accused had motive to kill
Sec 8, Evidence Act stipulates that any fact is relevant which shows or constitutes
motive or preparation for any fact in issue or relevant fact. Thus, previous threats or
altercations between parties are admitted to show motive. 69 It is further pertinent to
note that if there is motive in doing an act, then the adequacy of that motive is not
in all cases necessary. Heinous offences have been committed for very slight
motive.
70
67
68
Md. Idrish v. State, 2004 Cr LJ 1724 (Raj); Md. Sharif And Anr. v. Rex, AIR 1950 All 380;
Badri v. State of U.P., AIR 19953 All 189; Dibia v. State of U.P., AIR 1953 All 373, State of
Maharashtra v. Bhairu Sattu Berad, AIR 1956 Bom 609
13
69
Son Lal v State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 1142, Chhotka v State of WB, AIR 1958 Cal 482
70
SURANA AND SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2013
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
71
offence is concerned, and need not be established as the mere existence of motive
is by itself, not an incriminating circumstance and cannot take the place of a
proof72.
Therefore, absence of proof of motive, does not break the link in the chain of
circumstances connecting the accused with the crime, nor militates against the
prosecution case and is not fatal as a matter of law . 73 When the circumstantial
evidence on record is sufficient to prove beyond any doubt to prove that it was the
accused and no one else, who intentionally caused the death of the accused then,
motive of the crime need not be proved,
74
76
71
Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code, 33rd Ed. (2011)
72
73
74
75
76
14
77
SURANA AND SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2013
1
5
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
78
right of private defence is available only till the apprehension to the body
79
property exists.
From the statements of all the witnesses, it is evident that the deceased had not
actively either assisted PW 2 in taking a hostage, nor had he presented any
immediate danger to any other person on board. It is amply clear from the
statements of DW 3 and DW 4 that the accused shot the victim after DW 4 had
already apprehended PW 2 i.e. any immediate danger to DW 3 as a hostage had
already subsided.
Furthermore, instead of shooting him on the head, the accused could have fired a
warning shot, or at the very least, fired at some other part of the body, given that in
exercising the right to private defence, one of the most important caveats is that no
more harm than is necessary should be caused.
80
exceeded his right of private defence and any defence of necessity 81 also cannot
be claimed by him as an act of necessity must be done with a bona fide intent and
without any unnecessary force or violence82.
Therefore, it is humbly submitted before this Honble Court that the accused is
guilty for the offence of murder, given that the requisite mens rea and actus reus is
established from the facts of the case, beyond a reasonable doubt.
78
79
80
81
82
or
SURANA AND SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2013
16
PRAYER
PRAYER
Wherefore, in light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, may this
Honble Court be pleased to:
1. Convict Maj (Retd) J.S. Rana for the offence of committing dacoity with
murder under Sections 396/302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
AND/OR
Pass any other order it may deem fit, in the interest of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience.
Place: Goa
Date: May 29, 2013
S/d___________
__
PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR