MOOTCOURT MEMORIAL

DAMODARAM SANJEEVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY,

VISHAKAPATNAM,
3rd Novice Moot Court Competition 2015-2016.

In the Court of the Principle session Judge,

Vishakhapatnam.

STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

(PETITIONER)
V.
ANUSHKA
(RESPONDENT)

Prosecution Conducted by:

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS..

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION........ 6
STATEMENT OF FACTS.

STATEMENT OS ISSUES..

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ADVANCED ARGUMENTS..12
PRAYER..

13

LIST OF ABBREVATIONS
Art. Article.
Sec - Section
A.I.R- All India Report.
Cr.P.C Criminal Procedure Code.
Crl.L.J- Criminal Law Journal.
ppEd- Edition.
Pg no Page Number.
SCC- Supreme Court Cases
SC Supreme Court
Vol. Volume
u/s Under section

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The petitioners have approached thisHonble sessions court of Vishakapatnam as the

appropriate authority,to accused and I remanded her to the judicial Custody,
whereupon the accused through her Defence lawyer file bail application u/s 437 and
439 CrPC, because the accused did not have any occasion to move this Honble Court
or the Honble High Court for Anticipatory Bail under section 438 Code of Criminal
Procedure.

STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. Prabhas and Anushka are students OF CBIT Engineering College, Vishakapatnam.hey
are currently in their II year of study. Prabas is known for his boisterous nature and is
notoriously famous for being a prankster. He once set off fire crackers in his class while the
lecturer was teaching.
2. Anuska, on the other hand, is an introvert and is also kanown to have temper issues. Prabas
was in the habit of teasing her for being an abese by referring to her as a KovvuDhana (Fat
Girl). He also spread rumours about Anushka being drug addict. This greatly affected
Anushka and on one occasion, she lost her temper and slapped Prabas. From then on her
hatred froPrabas was common Knowledge.

3. On 5th November 2014, at around 5.45 P.M. Prabas texted Anushka from her friends phone
asking her to come to the college auditorium immediately to talk about something very
important. Anushka on reading the text rushed to the auditorium, however, on reaching there
she found it to be empty.
4. Before she realized what was happening, at around 6.00 P.M., Prabhas turned off all the
lights, cut off the power supply and locked the auditorium from outside. Anushka panicked
and started banging at the doors. She cried for help and ran around looking for an exit. She
remained in that state for about half an hour. At around 6.30 P.M., on hearing someone at the
door, she hid behind it, holding a wooden stick she found in the auditorium. As soon as
Prabas entered, she administered a blow on his head from behind with that stick. Soon after
Prabas entered, she administered a blow on his head from behind with that stick. Soon after
Prabas collapsed, She dropped the stick, ran out and locked the door from outside. The CCTV
footage obtained from the camera positioned outside the auditorium, towards the entrance,
clearly captured. Anushka entering.Prabas entering and thereafter Anushka leaving. The
wooden rod used was recovered from the garbage bin nearby. Anushkas friend stated that on
finding her nervous, they questioned her persistently about what was wrong. However, she
refused to answer, took a sedative and went to sleep.

5. On 6th November, at around 8.00 P.M. Prabas was found lying in a pool of blood in the
auditorium by a group of students. According to the post mortem report, he gradually bled to
his death due to the wound at the back of his head. Anushka has been arrested and an FIR
filed against her. She is sought to be prosecuted for the murder of Prabhas.
6. The matter is scheduled for final hearing in the Sessions Court, Vishakapatnam.

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

Do you not think that this is a case where the accused is entitle to acquittal u/s 232
Cr.P.C.?

Whether in this case the accused, before the charge was framed, did file a discharge
application u/s 227 Cr.P.C.

Whether we can consider the case of the accused u/s 304 IPC i.e culpable homicide
not amounting to murder

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
I. WHETHER ALL THE ELEMENTS OF CRIME NAMELY ACTUS REUS
AND MENS REA ARE PRESENT IN THE SAID ACT?
It is submitted before the Hon'ble Court that the accused Anushka in her act has
had all the three basic elements of a crime.
a) One of the essential ingredient of crime is actus reus which is the physical act
of crime.By having administered a blow on the head of the victim Prabhas from
behind establishes the guilty act.
b)Every act requires a mental element and that is considered as the fundamental
principle of criminal liability.By using the wooden rod unnecessarily and not
disclosing the impaired state of Prabhas after the incident her right to defence
ceases and her intention behind the act is obvious.Thus, mens reas is evident in
the act.
II. WHETHER ANUSHKA IS LIABLE FOR MURDER UNDER SECION
302 OF IPC?
The prosecution humbly submits that the accused, Anushka who is liable for
murder under Section 302 of the IPC. Section 300, Clause 3 correctly fits into
the matter in two folds. A) If it is done with the intention of causing bodily
injury to any person. B) The bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in
the ordinary course of nature to cause death.The Clause 3 of Section 300 is
firmly established in this case and therefore, Anushka should be held liable
under Section 302 of IPC.
III. WHETHER THE ACT OF ANUSHKA FALLS UNDER ANY OF THE
EXCEPTION MENTIONED IN SECTION 300 OF IPC?
The act of Anushka does not fall under any of the exceptions mentioned under
Section 300 of IPC, therefore clearly establishing culpable homicide amounting
to murder because the five exceptions of the Section 300 are:A)Grave and Sudden Provocation- which is evidently absent.
B)Private Defence- She had all the possible time to escape from the situation.
Thus,eliminating the use of Private Defence.
C)Exercise of Legal Power- This is exception is can not be applied in the
present case snce it is nowhere related to public servant's exercise of power.

D)Without Premeditation in sudden fight- There is an implied preditation in

pursuance of her act of murder.Thus, this exception is not fulfilled.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, in light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited it is
most humbly and respectfully requested that this Honble High Court to adjudge and declare
that:
1. Anushka to be declared liable under Section 302 of IPC.
2. To hold that the actions of Anushka doesn't fall under the exception of Section
300 IPC.
All of which is respectfully affirmed and submitted.
The court may also be pleased to pass any other order, which this Honble Court may deem
fit in the light of justice, equity and good conscience

Sd/(Counsel for the Respondent)