MOOT COURT, EXERCISE & INTERNSHIP

CASE ANALYSIS (STATE V. MUKESH)

PREPARED BY

MUKESH NARAYAN

ROLL NO.-136

SECTION -A

CAMPUS LAW CENTRE

NEUTRAL STORY
Mukesh, son of Rajesh and married to Monika, mother of two children, Sanjay and Sonia. Mukesh,
on 1st January, outside 345 Green Park was charged for voluntarily causing grievous hurt by damag-
ing her right eye and thereby caused her to be in severe bodily pain for a period of twenty days.

As per the statement of Monika, Mukesh had assaulted her many times before and she reported the
matter to the police but refused to make statement reasons best known to her and she explains that
the fight was always about money. Policemen Satinder always attended to her complaint.

Monika discovered that her husband was having an affair with a wealthy divorcee who runs a health
club and had set her sights on her husband. The problem started on the eve of Christmas and Monika
decided to allow Mukesh to spend some time with the children and Mukesh deliberately did not re-
turn the children until 10 a.m. on 31st December to 10 a.m. on 1st January.

The scuffle ensued when Mukesh came to return the children and when Monika reached to take
Sonia by extending her arms, Mukesh with his left hand punched her in right eye. The car keys
which Mukesh had in his hands went into the eye of Monika damaging her right eye. Mukesh and
Roshni guiltily fled. Monika called the police immediately.

This is a matter concerning the accused (Mukesh), Victim (Monika), Co-accused (Roshni) & Inves-
tigating officer (S.I. Satinder)

The issue is whether on the basis of facts and circumstances of the case Mukesh can be prosecuted
for causing grievous hurt to Monika by badly damaging her right eye and thereby caused her to be in
severe bodily pain for a period of twenty days.

LEGAL CLAIM:
a) Acquittal of the accused of the charges of voluntarily causing grievous hurt to the victim by
damaging her right eye by poking in her eyes car keys and thereby causing grievous hurt to
the victim.
b) Insinuations and accusations made by the victim to the accused without having any legal
basis and maligning the character of the accused on frivolous grounds and thereby causing
character assaniation of the accused. The accused makes a humble request discharge him of
all the false accusations made by the victim to the accused.
ELEMENTS OF CLAIM:

1) A person who is divorced has an option to love someone else without any interference from
his former wife. In this case, Mukesh and Monika were divorced and Mukesh could look for
his future prospects which he did by being in love with Roshni, a wealthy divorcee who runs
a health club. There is no law which prevents two divorcees from being in love.
2) Monika had a history of being involved in criminal activities and on one occasion she broke
all the windows of at the health club for no justifiable reason and was fined by the local mag-
istrate.
3) She had been convicted thrice for shoplifting and also pressurized Mukesh for lying to the
court that she was on medication for depression.

FACTS TO SUPPORT THE CLAIM:

1) The statement made by the Monika mentions about Monika being assaulted by Mukesh many
times before and also about the occasions on which she reported the matter to the police but refused
to make statement reasons best known to her.

2) The Statement made by Monika clearly states that the keys which Mukesh had in his hands
went into the eye of Monika and this clearly suggests that there was no deliberate intention on the
part of the accused to harm the victim.

3) The fact that this was the first Christmas after being separated from his children created an
irrestible desire to meet his children after being separated for a long time.

4) The fact that Roshni is very rich and has all the means and resources to provide to the chil-
dren and the affinity shown by the children towards her makes the victim jealous and to have a
grudging feeling towards both Mukesh & Roshni.

SOURCES OF PROOF:

1) The statement of S.I Satinder explains the circumstances which are in favour of Mukesh. S.I
Satinder reaches to the house of Monika and sees that her children were crying, pleading to
be allowed to keep the presents. This clearly shows the attitude of Monika towards her chil-
dren and who shares more affinity towards the children.
 2) The Statement made by Monika clearly states that the keys which Mukesh had in his hands
went into the eye of Monika and this clearly suggests that there was no deliberate intention
on the part of the accused to harm the victim.
3) As per S.I. Satinder, it could be inferred that the accused was regretting the sequence of
events and the scuffle which ensued, the injury which accidently caused to the victim and d
the desire of a father to meet his children after a long time.
4) Also, the fact that victim was hysterical as per the statement of Roshni and the past records,
behavior and the circumstances under which the whole incident took place points to the man-
ner in which victim handles any and every issue in a similar manner.
5) The victim was also angry at the presents received by her children form the accused and the
same has been corroborated in the statement made by the S.I Satinder.

INFORMAL DISCOVERY:

1) The characterstic features which can be drawn from Monika’s personality are that she is mas-
ter in speaking lies and there apparently seems to be contradiction in her statements. On one
occasion she explains to S.I. Satinder that Mukesh had poked his car keys in her eyes and on
another occasion in her statement that the car keys which the accused had in his hands went
into her eyes.
2) The other statements made by her clearly show that she is trying to falsely implicate the ac-
cused. The reasons which can be ascribed to this kind of insinuation and accusations are sim-
ple rather than complex. The fact that children have shown more affinity towards their father,
the fact that they have all the means and resources required for a better upbringing of the
children.
3) The fact that Monika’s history of headstrong and reacting to minor issues and making an is-
sue out of it. The fact that she had been convicted on previous occasions and being fined by
the magistrate. The fact that she became hysterical on the day of occurrence of scuffle shows
negative traits of her personality.
FORMAL DISCOVERY:

1) The discovery of documents of previous conviction of the victim and the order of the magis-
trate.
2) The discovery of the CC TV footage which could form a part of electronic evidence.
3) The discovery of the copy of FIR and the statement recorded by the victim and the accused.
4) The response recorded by the accused and the victim during cross examination.
5) The nature of injuries suffered by the victim during the scuffle and the treatment thereafter.

OPPONENTS DEFENCES:

The opponent’s case theory suggests that the accused deliberately attacked the victim. The accused
was struggling person who was financially not stable and had a habit of assaulting the victim. The
victim had described in her statement to S.I Satinder that the accused had assaulted her on numerous
occasions.

They had a settled arrangement in which Monika had agreed to allow her children to spend some
time with the accused and in view of that Monika allowed Mukesh to take kids for New Year cele-
brations. Despite being informed in advance about the timing of returning the children, the accused
deliberately did not return the children. Monika was tensed about the children as she was not able to
contact her kids. On the next day, he came to return the children and had gifted expensive presents to
bribe the children against me. When Monika asked for the children, the accused attacked the victim
and victim’s right was hurt in the scuffle.

Mukesh is a characterless person who left the victim and their children for her girlfriend Roshni. He
never was never able to sustain his married life. Mukesh has a history of assaulting the victim alt-
hough the matter was reported to the police but refused to make statement.

The fact that Roshini admitted that Mukesh had hit the victim and she went to the police station to
inquire about the release of Mukesh on Bail and the fact Mukesh also admitted that he had hit the
victim and the on previous occasions assaulted the victim. Thus, based on facts and circumstances of
the case is clear and calls for the prosecution of Mukesh.