IN THE MOOT COURT OF THE HONOURABLE SRI PRASUNNA COLLEGE OF LAW,

KURNOOL

SC. NO. :- 136/2024

BETWEEN

1. Nandu - Petitioner/Accused
- Versus -
1. SHO, Dharavi P.S, Bomaby, - Respondent/Complainant
State of Maharashtra

WRITTEN ARGUMENTS FILED ON BEHAL OF THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED

May it please your honor.

1. The petitioner Nandu, an Indian Naval Officer, shifted to Bombay with his wife
Ragini and their children.
2. A businessman named Arun was residing with his sister in the same city.
3. The petitioner marriaged ragini in the year 2019 and has two children and
shifted his family to Bombay.
4. When the petitioner was frequently away from Bombay on his official duty for
longer durations then Ragini, his wife, fell in love with Arun and developed Illicit
relations with him.
5. When the petitioner returned from his ship he tried to be affectionate to his
wife to which she was not being responsive on multiple occasions.
6. The petitioner asked his wife if she had been faithful to him. She merely shook
her head to indicate that she was not.
7. The petitioner questioned Arun also admitted to Illicit relationship and getting
more disturb the petitioner threatend Arun he will shot him.
8. Next day the petitioner took his family to a cinema and dropped them there
and promised to pick them again after show.
9. Then the petitioner drove his car to the shipyard took his revolver from his
cupboard of the ship and loaded six bullets in the revolver and drove to straight
Arun flat, nocked the door bell, door was opened by the servant.
10. The petitioner walked to arun’s bedroom and shut the door inside.
11. The servant heard six sounds of bullet shots and Arun found lying on the floor
in pool of the blood.
12. Issues :-
1. Whether Nandu is guilty of offence of murder under section 302 of IPC ?.
2. Whether the Acts of Nandu was done in good faith in Right of Private
Defence under section 96 read with section 100 and false exemption 2 of
section 300 of IPC ?.
3. Whether the element of Mensrea can be trace?.
13. Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Mens Rea :-
Mens Rea means “ mental element or civil intent or guilty mind “.
Mensrea means “ an intention to do a forbidden act “. The term ‘ mens rea
‘ is not defined in the Indian Penal Code. It is expressed in the Latin maxim “
actus non fecit reum nisi mens sit rea “ as a fundamental principle for
penal liability. It means, intent and act both must concur to constitute a
Crime. In other words is no crime, unless it is coupled with an evil intent.
Section 34 - Acts done by several persons in furtherance of Common
Intention :-
“ When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the
common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the
same manner as if it were done by him alone “.
Section 96 – Things done in private defence :-
“ Nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of
private defence “.
Section 100 – When the right of private defence of the body extends to
causing death :-
“ The right of private defence of the body extends, under the restrictions
mentioned in the last preceding section, to the voluntary causing of death
or of any other harm to the assailant, if the offence which occasions the
exercise of the right be of any of the descriptions hereinafter enumerated,
namely :-
First :- Such an assault as may reasonably cause the apprehension that
death will otherwise be the consequence of such assault;
Secondly :- Such an assault as may reasonably cause that apprehension
that grievous hurt will otherwise be the consequence of such assault;
Thirdly :- An assault with the intention of committing rape.
Fourthly :- An assault with the intention of gratifying unnatural lust;
Fifthly :- An assault with the intention of kidnapping or abducting;
Sixthly :- An assault with the intention of wrongfully confining a person,
under circumstances which may reasonably cause him to apprehend that
he will be unable to have recourse to the public authorities for his release.
[ Seventhly :- An act of throwing or administering acid or an attempt to
throw or administer acid which may reasonably cause the apprehension
that grievous hurt will otherwise be the consequence of such act ].
Section 300 – Murder.
Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if
the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing
death, or –
Secondly :- If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as
the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom
the harm is caused, or –
Thirdly :- If it is done with intention of causing bodily injury to any person
and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary
course of nature to cause death, or –
Fourthly :- If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently
dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury
as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for
incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.
Exception 2 :- Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, in the
exercise in good faith of the right of private defence of person or property,
exceeds the power given to him by law and causes the death of the person
against whom he is exercising such right of defence without premeditation,
and without any intention of doing more harm than is necessary for the
purpose of such defence.
Illustration :- Z attempts to horsewhip A, not in such a manner as to cause
grievous hurt to A. A draws out a pistol. Z persists in the assault. A believing
in good faith that he can by no other means prevent himself from being
horsewhipped, shoots Z dead. A has not committed murder, but only
culpable homicide.
Punishment for Murder (Sections 302) :-
Section 302 prescribes punishment for murder. “ Whoever commits murder
shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be
laible to fine “.
Punishment for murder by life convict (Section 303) :-
“ Whoever, being under sentence of imprisonment for life, commits murder
shall be punished with death “.
Culpable Homicide, when amounts to Murder :-
Culpable Homicide amounts to murder provided the following two
conditions are satisfied.
1. Killing must be accompanied by intention or knowledge specified in
Section 300.
2. Killing must not fall within one or other of the five exceptions. (If it
comes under these exceptions, it will be culpable homicide not amounting
to murder).
If the intention is to kill and the killing results, the accused succeeded in
doing so, then it amounts to murder.
 When Culpable Homicide is not Murder (Section 300, Exception 1 to 5) :-
An intentional killing resulting in death is primarily culpable homicide.
Sometimes, it amounts to murder and in other cases, it does not amount to
murder. In case of the former (murder), the offence is more serious and
more severe punishment is prescribed (life imprisonment or death
sentence under Section 302). While in case of the latter, (culpable homicide
not amounting to murder), the maximum punishment is life imprisonment
(under Section 304).
Following are the instances of Culpable Homicide, not amounting to
murder :-
1. Grave and sudden provocation.
2. Right of private defence.
3. Public servant exceeding his power.
4. Sudden fight and.
5. Consent.
14. Written Arguments :-
1. The Petitioner is not guilty of the offence of Murder under section 302 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The Accused is not guilty of the offence under Section 302 of the Indian
Penal Code.
2. The act of Petitioner was done in good faith of right of private defence
under Section 96 read with Section 100 and false within the exemption 2
of Section 300 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
a) The act of Petitioner was done in good faith of right of private
defence under Section 96 read with Section 100 and falls within the
exemption 2 of Section 300 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
b) The Petitioner can avail the right to private defence as he was free
from fault in initiating the very incident and an impending peril to his
life or of great bodily harm was present. Therefore, it was necessary
for him to retaliate as he had no reasonable chance of escaping as
Arun (deceased) had already grasped the envelope to kill him.
c) The exercise of the right of private defence of person or property,
exceeds the power given to him by law and causes the death of the
person without pre-mediation, and without any intention of doing
more harm than is necessary for the purpose of such defence, then
such act would not amounting to murder. In the present case, the act
of the Accused fell under the definition of exception 2 of the Section
300.
3. The element of mensrea can be trace.
There is no element of mensrea can be trace.
a) The Petitioner did not have intention to commit the offence.
b) The Petitioner did not have the motive to commit the offence.
14. The relevant case of the given case is K.M. Nanavati vs. State of Maharashtra,
AIR 1962 SC 605 :- The Trial Court sentenced the accused to death under Section
302 and the same was confirmed by the High Court. On appeal, the Supreme
Court altered the conviction to life imprisonment. His family members submitted
mercy petition to the President of India under Article 72 of the Constitution.
Before the decision of the petition, Nanavati accepted the conviction of life
imprisonment.

Hence it is therefore prayed that the honourable moot court may be

Defence Counsel for Petitioner/Accused Petitioner/Accused

List of Citations :-
1. Mensrea of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2. Section 96 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
3. Section 100 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
4. Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
5. Section 300 of exemption 2 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
6. Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
7. Section 303 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Defence Counsel for Petitioner/Accused

SC. NO. :- 136/2024

WRITTEN ARGUMENTS FILED

FILED BY :-

H.T. NO. :-
Phone No. :-
Kurnool