TEAM CODE

IN THE HONOURABLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT

MEMORIAL FILED ON BEHALF OF

Criminal Appeal no. :

THE

APPELLANT

/2015

IN THE MATTER OF

STATE OF PUNJAB

APPELLANT
VERSUS

DR. MUKESH & OTHERS

RESPONDENT

APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 378 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL

PROCEDURE, 1973

Most Respectfully Submitted to the Honble Judges of the Punjab & Haryana High Court
COUNSELS APPEARING ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

RBUSL 1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2015

Table of Contents
Abbreviations...........................................................................................................................III
Index of Authorities.................................................................................................................IV
Statement of Jurisdiction........................................................................................................VII
Statement of Facts.................................................................................................................VIII
Charges Framed.......................................................................................................................XI
Summary of Arguments..........................................................................................................XII
Whether the accused is liable under section 302 of IPC to be read with Section 34 of IPC
or not...................................................................................................................................XII
Whether the accused is liable under section 364 read with section 34 of IPC or not.............XII
Whether the accused is liable under section 18 of Transplantation of

Human Organs Act,

1944 or not?............................................................................................................................XII
Arguments..................................................................................................................................1
1.

Whether the accused is liable under section 302 of IPC to be read with Section 34 of

IPC or not...............................................................................................................................1
2.

Whether the Accused liable under section 302 of IPC or Not........................................2

3.

Whether the accused is liable under section 18 of Transplantation of

Human Organs

Act, 1944 or not?....................................................................................................................5

Prayer.........................................................................................................................................7

Memorial for Appellant

Page 2

RBUSL 1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2015

ABBREVIATIONS
A.I.R.
A.P.
All.
Anr.
Cri.
Cr.L.J
Cr.P.C
H.C
Honble
I.P.C
ILR
M.P.
Ors.
P&H
Para.
Pg.
Pvt.
Raj.
R.C.R
SC
SCC
SCR
Sec.
U.P.
UOI
v.
Vol.
W.B.

All India Reporter

Andhra Pradesh
Allahabad
Another
Criminal
Criminal Law Journal
Code of Criminal Procedure
High Court
Honourable
Indian Penal Code
Indian Law Reporter
Madhya Pradesh
Others
Punjab and Haryana
Paragraph
Page
Private
Rajasthan
Recent Criminal Reporter
Supreme Court
Supreme Court Cases
Supreme Court Reporter
Section
Uttar Pradesh
Union of India
Versus
Volume
West Bengal

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATUTORY COMPILATIONS
1) Indian Evidence Act, 1872
2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
3) The Indian Penal Code, 1860

BOOKS
1) S.C. Sarkar, Commentary On Law Of Evidence, Allahabad, Dwivedi Law Agency (3rd
ed. Vol 1&2, 2009)

Memorial For Appellant

Page 3

RBUSL 1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2015

2) Sir John Woodroffe And Syed Amir Ali, Law Of Evidence, Dr V Kesava Rao, ,
Nagpur Wadhwa & Co. (18th ed. Vol 1&2, 2009)
3) A.N.SAHA, SUPREME COURT ON CRIMINAL LAW (Prints Asia, 2005)
4) B.N. BANERJEE, LAW OF CRIMINAL APPEALS REVISION, REFERENCES AND REVIEW
(Lexis Nexis Butterworth New Delhi, 2003)
5) B.R SHARMA, FORENSIC SCIENCE IN CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION & TRIAL (Universal
law Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi, 2007)
6) EJAZ AHMAD, LAW OF CRIMES (Rajasthan Law House Jodhpur, 1994)
7) JOGA RAO, EVIDENCE: CASES AND MATERIAL (STUDENT SERIES) (Lexis Nexis
Buttersworth New Delhi, 2003)
8) JOHN WOODROFEE, COMMENTARIES ON CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (Law
Publishers (India) Pvt Ltd. Allahabad, 2005)
9) K.D. GAUR, CRIMINAL LAW: CASES AND MATERIALS , 5th Edition, 2008
10) K.I. VIBHUTE, PSA PILLAIS CRIMINAL LAW (Lexis Nexis Butterworths New Delhi,
2008)
11) M.L SAWHNEY, SUPREME COURT CRIMINAL CASES DIGEST, (Universal Printing Press
Jaipur, 2005)
12) N.V PARANJAPE, CRIMINOLOGY AND PENELOGY (Central Law Publisher Allahabad,
2006)
13) P S A PILLAI, CRIMINAL LAW (Lexis Nexis Butterwords New Delhi, 2007)
14) PANDIT TARANGA, SUPREME COURT READY REFERENCER ON CRIMES (Sodhi
Publications New Delhi, 2007)
15) R.A NELSON, INDIAN PENAL CODE (Lexis Nexis Butterworth New Delhi, 2003)
16) R.M JHALA. & V.B. RAJU, MEDICAL JURISPRUDENCE (Eastern Book Company
Lucknow, 1981)
17) R.P KATHURIA, SUPREME COURT ON CRIMINAL LAW (Ashoka Law House New Delhi,
2006)
18) R.P. KATHURIA, LAW OF CRIMES AND CRIMINOLOGY EXHAUSTIVE AND CRITICAL
COMMENTARY ON INDIAN PENAL CODE (Vinod Publication Delhi, 2007)
19) R.S. Verma, I.B.S. Thockhom, Commentary on Rape Kidnapping and Abduction
(Verma Publications Delhi, 2001)
20) R.V. KELKAR, CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (Eastern Book Company Lucknow, 2007)
21) RATANLAL & DHIRAJLAL, THE INDIAN PENAL CODE (Wadhwa and Company Nagpur,
2008)
22) T. BHATTACHARYA, INDIAN PENAL CODE (Central Law Agency Allahabad 2001)

DICTIONARIES
1) BLACKS LAW DICTIONARY, (11th Ed.1999)
2) OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY OUP
3) P. RAMANATHA AIYARS THE LAW LEXICON, THE ENCYCLOPEDIC LAW, (2nd Ed,
reprint 2009)
4) WEBSTERS NEW ENCYCLOPEDIA DICTIONARY, (2002)

Memorial For Appellant

Page 4

RBUSL 1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2015

WEBSITES
1) www.manupatra.com
2) www.indiankanoon.org
3) www.judis.nic.in

TABLE OF CASES

Alagupandi @ Alagupandian vs State Of Tamil Nadu AIR 2012 SC 726..................................5

B. N. Srikantiah & Others vs The State Of Mysore AIR 1998 SC 67........................................1
Baleshwar Mandal v. State of Bihar, 1997 Cr. L. J 4084 at p. 4085 (S.C.)................................4
Gurdit Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another P&H HC 2009..................................................5
Hari Kishan & Anr vs Sukhbir Singh & Ors 1988 SCR Supl. (2) 571......................................1
Laxman V. State of Maharashtra SC 2002.................................................................................1
Namdeo v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 14 SCC 150...............................................................4
Padala Veera Reddy v.State of A.P, A.I.R 1990 S.C. 79.............................................................4
Paramsivam v State Tr. Insp. of Police 2015 (1) RCR (Criminal) 305 SC................................4
Parkash vs State Of Haryana SC AIR 2003...............................................................................4
Pawan Kumar v.State of Haryana, A.I.R 2003 S.C 298.............................................................4
Sanatan Naskar v. State of West Bengal 2010 (3) RCR (Cri) 629 (S.C.....................................4
Sanatan Naskar v. State of West Bengal 2010 (3) RCR (Cri) 629 (S.C.)..................................4
Shankar vs State Of Punjab P&H HC 2011...............................................................................5
Sucha Singh v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 2003 S.C. 3617..............................................................4

Memorial For Appellant

Page 5

RBUSL 1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2015

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The appellant humbly submits this memorandum for a Criminal Appeal filed before this
Honble Court. The appellants have approached the Honble Court under Section 378 of
Criminal Procedure Code, which states that appeal in case of acquittal No other remedy is
available to the appellants except to approach this Honble Court challenging the decision
of the Trial Court.

Memorial For Appellant

Page 6

RBUSL 1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2015

STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. Amrik Singh is a well settled engineer in Sector 68, Mohali, Punjab. Amrik married
Sukhman Kaur in 1996. A female child named Gurleen was born to the couple on 5th
May, 2000 after undergoing treatment. Unfortunately on 23rd January, 2004 Sukhman
Kaur met with a road accident, in which she expired. Amrik Singh was finding it hard
to carry on his job and take care of his 4 year old daughter. On persuasion of his
relatives he entered into second marriage with one Sandeep Kaur on 12th February,
2005. Sandeep Kaur seemed to be good by nature and promised to take care of
Gurleen after marriage. Everything was going on well. But with passage of time
Sandeep expressed a desire to bear her own child. She always insisted that it will also
be in Gurleen's benefit if they will have a male child as she will get company of her
brother. Amrik Singh got convinced. However Sandeep failed to conceive. Even the
best medical treatment failed in their case. Sandeep started visiting a number of Babas
in her craving for male child. Amrik Singh accompanied Sandeep on one or two
occasions. She also performed several rituals for bearing a male child on suggestion
of Babas.
2. Due to Sandeeps pre-occupation with the desire to have the male child, Gurleen
started feeling ignored and neglected. Gurleen complained about the neglect but there
was no change in the behaviour of Sandeep. Finally, Gurleen found solace with her
neighbour Dr. Mukesh Arora and his wife Dr. Swati Arora who were employed as
senior doctors in Sanjeevni Hospital, Mohali. Dr. Mukesh and Dr. Swati were over
affectionate towards Gurleen. As the couple was issueless, they started treating
Gurleen as their daughter. Gurleen used to visit their residence whenever she felt
lonely and stressed. On one or two ocassions, Gurleen had even visited the doctor
couple without informing her parents. On Amrik Singhs objection Gurleen responded
that she preferred the company of the doctor couple rather than her father and step
mother. In 2009, Sanjeevni Hospital was much in news for running an illegal kidney
organ trade. Both Dr. Mukesh Arora and his wife, Dr. Swati Arora were interrogated
by the police. However the clean chit was given to them by the authorities on the
basis of benefit of doubt.

Memorial For Appellant

Page 7

RBUSL 1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2015

3. Suddenly from 5th July, 2012 onwards Sandeep started showing great love towards
Gurleen and frequently kept on asking her to accompany her to an unknown place.
However, Gurleen did not show any interest for the same. On 15th July, 2012 at about
1:30 p.m., Sandeep got annoyed and scolded Gurleen over the issue of not
accompanying her to some Baba who had specifically asked Sandeep to bring Gurleen
along with her. Gurleen left the house immediately. Sandeep informed Amrik Singh
on the phone around 6:00 p.m. that Gurleen had left the house in anger after an
argument with her in anger shouting that she will never return. Amrik Singh
immediately started from his place of work and reached home at about 6:45 p.m. He
searched for Gurleen everywhere, but in vain. He also inquired about Gurleen from
Dr. Mukesh over the phone, but Dr. Mukesh told Amrik Singh that both he and his
wife are in Delhi for a conference and will return on 16th July, 2012 in the evening.
Now Amrik Singh became more desperate. When all his efforts to find Gurleen got
exhausted, Amrik Singh became suspicious that Gurleen might have been kidnapped.
4. Amrik Singh informed the police the next day at 9:15 a.m. The police registered an
FIR and started their investigation into the matter. Police was working on all possible
theories of disappearance of Gurleen. Amrik Singh, Sandeep, Dr. Mukesh and Dr.
Swati fully cooperated with the police during investigation. During the course of
investigation, a neighbour Mr. Kulkarni deposed before the police that he had seen Dr.
Mukesh and Dr. Swati with a minor girl on the night of 15th July, 2012 near Sector
69, Mohali in their car. However, another person named Mr. Keshav Malhotra,
coordinator of the conference in Delhi deposed before the police that he had seen the
doctor couple on morning of 16th July, 2012 in the conference room. These
revelations made Sandeep furious and she alleged that Dr. Mukesh and Dr. Swati had
done something wrong with Gurleen. She accused the doctor couple of being involved
in the illegal human organ transplant trade.
5. On 20th July, 2012 mutilated body parts of a young minor girl were recovered from
the dumping ground of Sector 69, Mohali. This information was given to the police by
one garbage picker of the area. From the same place, there was also recovered one
coconut, a piece of red cloth and agarbattis. The body was identified as Gurleen's
body through the iron bangle and shoes that she was wearing on 15 July 2012, when
she left her house in a rage. Further, the medical examination revealed that organs i.e.
heart, kidney and liver were missing from the body of Gurleen. On further
Memorial For Appellant

Page 8

RBUSL 1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2015

investigation and after collecting various other evidences, the police filed charge sheet
against Dr. Mukesh and Dr. Swati under sections 302 and 364 read with Section 34 of
Indian Penal Code and Section 18 of Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994 for
alleged kidnapping and murder of Gurleen and involvement in illegal human organ
transplant.
6. The Trial court acquitted both the accused giving them benefit of doubt on the basis of
insufficient evidence. Therefore, Appellant approached to Honble Court.

Memorial For Appellant

Page 9

RBUSL 1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2015

CHARGES FRAMED

WHETHER

THE

ACCUSED

LIABLE UNDER SECTION

364/34

OF

IPC

THE

ACCUSED

LIABLE UNDER SECTION

302

IPC

OR

NOT.

WHETHER

WHETHER

THE

ACCUSED

LIABLE

UNDER

TRANSPLANTATION OF HUMAN ORGAN. ACT OR

Memorial For Appellant

Page 10

NOT

OF

SECTION

OR

NOT.

18

OF

RBUSL 1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2015

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS LIABLE UNDER SECTION 302 OF IPC TO BE READ WITH
SECTION 34 OF IPC OR NOT
It is submitted that in the present matter, the intention as under Section 300(1) of Indian Penal
Code is inflicted from the circumstances of the case. The act of the respondent was an
intentional act amounting to murder for which the punishment has been given under Section
302 of IPC. In the instant matter there are sufficient circumstantial evidences and the chain of
evidences are so complete that it proves the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt.
WHETHER

THE ACCUSED IS LIABLE UNDER SECTION

364

READ WITH SECTION

34

OF

IPC

OR NOT

It is humbly submitted before this Honble High Court that the impugned judgment and order of
acquittal of the charge of Kidnapping by the Ld. Trial Court is perverse and erroneous on account
subjective appreciation of evidence and therefore, the present appeal is filed before the Hon ble
High Court .The ingredients of the offence of Kidnapping are satisfied in the instant matter

WHETHER

THE ACCUSED IS LIABLE UNDER SECTION

18

OF

TRANSPLANTATION

OF

HUMAN ORGANS ACT, 1944 OR NOT?

That It is submitted that in the present matter, the intention as under Section 300(1) of Indian
Penal Code is inflicted from the circumstances of the case. The act of the respondent was an
intentional act amounting to murder for which the punishment has been given under Section
302 of IPC. In the instant matter there are sufficient circumstantial evidences and the chain of
evidences are so complete that it proves the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt.

ARGUMENTS
1. WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS LIABLE UNDER SECTION 302 OF IPC TO BE READ WITH
SECTION 34 OF IPC OR NOT

Memorial For Appellant

Page 11

RBUSL 1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2015

1.1.

That it is submitted that the accused is liable under section 302 of IPC to be
read with Section 34 of IPC as the evidence adduced by the prosecution clearly proves
the guilt of the accused and that Dr. Mukesh Arora and Dr. Swati Arora should be
awarded maximum sentence and no leniency should be adhered in the present matter.
according to section 300 (1) of IPC provides that
Culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the
intention of causing death

1.2.

That when culpable homicide is accompanied by the mens rea detailed in the
clause firstly namely the intention to cause death it leads to murder under Section 300
of IPC. Intention to cause death is considered to be a most important element and can
be deduced from the circumstantial evidence. Circumstances surrounding will lead to
inference of intention.Cutting the skin, muscles, arteries, veins above the thyroid
cartilage, pharynx and muscles in front of the vertebral column are the fatal injury
sufficient to cause death. The common intention of the respondent is clear from the
fact that he assaulted the victim till he was dead. 1Court held that prosecution has to
prove the common intention of the accused to murder the victim through the facts and

circumstances of the case .2

1.3.
That the intention or knowledge or the accused must be such as is necessary
constitute' murder. The intention is to be gathered from all circumstances, and not
merely from the consequences that ensue. As held in the case of Hari Kishan & Anr
vs Sukhbir Singh & Ors Motive for the crime, severity of the blow, the part of the
body where the injury is inflicted are some of the factors that may be taken into
consideration it, determine the intention.3
1.4.
That the term criminal act means that unity of criminal behaviour which
results to something for which an individual would be punishable if it were all done
by himself alone in a criminal offence. In order to constitute offence under section 34
presence of criminal act is necessary.
1.5.
That in the present case the behavior of the respondent clearly depicts their
common intention to murder the minor child. Being aware of the very fact that the
1 B. N. Srikantiah & Others vs The State Of Mysore AIR 1998 SC 67
2 Laxman V. State of Maharashtra SC 2002
3 Hari Kishan & Anr vs Sukhbir Singh & Ors 1988 SCR Supl. (2) 571
Memorial For Appellant

Page 2

RBUSL 1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2015

real mother of the child had met with a road accident in which she expired and step
mother was ignorant of the child as she had failed to conceive and even the best
medical treatment failed in their case , respondents were over affectionate with the
child.
1.6.

That the present matter also provides that as a result of being over affectionate
the minor child was more comfortable in the company of the respondent as the child
used to visit their residence whenever the child felt lonely and stressed. Even on one
or two occasions the child had left the house without informing the parents. After
when the child in anger shouting that she will never return the father of minor child
inquired from the respondent over phone he misrepresented him and told that both he

and her wife were in Delhi for a conference and will return on 16 July 2012.
1.7.
That the facts of the present case provide that mutilated body parts of the
minor girl were recovered from the dumping ground of Sector 69 Mohali on 20 th July
2012by a garbage picker , further the medical examination report revealed that organs
i.e. heart, kidney and liver were found missing from the body of minor child.
That in the light of above facts it is clearly proved that the respondent had a common
intention to murder the child.
2. WHETHER THE ACCUSED LIABLE UNDER SECTION 302 OF IPC OR NOT.
2.1.

That SECTION 364 Kidnapping or abducting in order to murder.

Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person in order that such person may be murdered or
may be so disposed of as to be put in danger of being murdered, shall be punished with
[imprisonment for life] or rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten
years, and shall also be liable to fine.
That In order to establish the offence under this section it is important to prove that the
accused had the intention at the time of kidnapping to murder the victim or to dispose of
as to put in danger of being murdered.
2.2.

That Kidnapping has been defined under Section 361 of IPC.

Whoever takes or entices any minor under

under eighteen years of age if a female, or any

sixteen years of age if

male, or

person of unsound mind, out of the

keeping of the lawful guardian of such minor or person of unsound mind, without the
consent of such guardian, is said to kidnap such minor or person from lawful
Memorial For Appellant

Page 3

RBUSL 1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2015

guardianship. That SC observed that the word takes or entices not necessarily connotes
taking by force. It is not confined to force , actual or constructive .It means cause to go
"to escort" or "to get into possession". No doubt it does mean physical taking, but not
necessarily by use of force or fraud. The word "entice" seems to involve the idea of
inducement or allurement by giving rise to hope or desire in the other. This can take many
forms, difficult to visualise and describe exhaustively; some of them may be quite subtle,
depending for their success on the mental state of the person at the time when the
inducement is intended to operate. This may work immediately or it may create
continuous and gradual but imperceptible impression culminating after some time, in
achieving its ultimate purposes of successful inducement. The two words "takes" and
"entices", as used in Section 361, I.P.C. are in our opinion, intended to be read together so
that each takes to some extent its colour and content from the other.
2.3.

That in the present matter the minor child had left the house of lawful guardian
because the respondent was over affectionate with the child and they provided a
comfortable company. Huge differences were present between the child and the step
mother. Whenever the child felt lonely and stressed she visited the respondent
without informing her parents.
That the Respondent had enticed the child with their

2.4.

over

affectionate

behaviour. They did not use force to kidnap the child but had enticed the child. The
other most important element of kidnapping is taking child out of keeping of lawful
guardian without their consent . Further the guardian's charge and control appears to
be compatible with the independence of action and movement in the minor, the
guardian's protection and control of the minor being available, whenever necessity
arises. On plain reading of this section the consent of the minor who is taken or
enticed is wholly immaterial : it is only the guardian's consent which takes the case
out of its purview. Nor is it necessary that the taking or enticing must be shown to
have been by means of force or fraud. Anything which creates willingness on the part
of the minor to be taken out of the keeping of the lawful guardian would be sufficient
to attract the Section.4
2.5.
That the circumstances taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete
that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability, the

4 Parkash vs State Of Haryana SC AIR 2003

Memorial For Appellant

Page 4

RBUSL 1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2015

crime was committed by the accused and none else. 5 Each of the links need not appear
on the surface of the evidence, since some of these links may only be inferred from
the proven facts.6 As observed in Sanatan Naskar v. State of West Bengal, 7an accused
can be punished if he is found guilty even in cases of circumstantial evidence 8 as long
as the prosecution is able to prove the complete chain of events9 beyond reasonable
doubt which definitely point towards the involvement or guilt of the suspect or
accused. Circumstances and the behavior of the respondent clearly depict that he had
an intention to kidnap and murder the child which fulfills the essential elements of
Section 364 IPC.
That In Namdeo v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 14 SCC 150; and Bipin

2.6.

Kumar Mondal v. State of West Bengal, AIR 2010 SC 3638) the SC held That it is
open to a competent Court to fully and completely rely on a solitary witness and
record conviction. Conversely, it may acquit the accused in spite of testimony of
several witnesses if it is not satisfied about the quality of evidence.
That In Paramsivam v State Tr. Insp. of Police 2015 (1) RCR (Criminal) 305

2.7.

SC, the accused was convicted on the basis of last seen evidence. Evidence of
eyewitness that accused persons took away deceased along with them, thereafter dead
body of deceased found in mutilated condition.
That In the present case their was no consent of the lawful guardian when the

2.8.

minor child had left the house. Soon thereafter Mr. Kulkarni had seen the respondent
with minor child near sector 69 in their car . Well settled is the proposition of law that
where there is a sole witness to the incident, his evidence has to be accepted with
caution and after testing it on the touchstone of evidence tendered by other witnesses
or evidence otherwise recorded. The evidence of a sole witness should be cogent,
reliable and must essentially fit into the chain of events that have been stated by the
5 Padala Veera Reddy v.State of A.P, A.I.R 1990 S.C. 79.
6 Pawan Kumar v.State of Haryana, A.I.R 2003 S.C 298.
7 Sanatan Naskar v. State of West Bengal 2010 (3) RCR (Cri) 629 (S.C.).
8 Baleshwar Mandal v. State of Bihar, 1997 Cr. L. J 4084 at p. 4085 (S.C.).
9 Sucha Singh v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 2003 S.C. 3617.
Memorial For Appellant

Page 5

RBUSL 1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2015

prosecution. When the prosecution relies upon the testimony of a sole eye-witness,
then such evidence has to be wholly reliable and trustworthy.10
2.9.
That the respondent in the present case hadeven misrepresented the father of
the child when he inquired from respondent over phone. He told him that both he and
his wife were in delhi for a conference. SC held in the case of Shankar vs State Of
Punjab that it is settled proposition of law that the prosecution is required to establish
the complete chain of circumstances which would lead to the inference that the
offence has been committed by none else but the accused.11
3. WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS LIABLE UNDER SECTION 18 OF TRANSPLANTATION

OF

HUMAN ORGANS ACT, 1944 OR NOT?

3.1.
That Punishment for removal of human organ without authority.
Any person who renders his services to or at any hospital and who, for purposes of
transplantation, conducts associates with, or helps in any manner in, the removal of
any human organ without authority, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term
which may extend to five years and with fine which may extend to ten thousand
rupees.
3.2.

That in the present case Respondent husband and wife both were employed as
senior doctors in Sanjeevni Hospital and in the year 2009 Sanjeevni hospital was in
news for running illegal kidney organ trade . Respondent was interrogated by the
police but clean chit was given to them on basis of benefit of doubt. Clean chit was
given to them on the basis of benefit of doubt as no sufficient evidence was available
against them. When the mutilated body parts were recovered from the dumping
ground the medical examination revealed that the organs i.e. heart ,kidney and liver
were found missing from the body of the minor child. No information or written
consent was sought from the complainant or his relatives or family members before
removing the left kidney of the complainant, guilt of the accused proved beyond

reasonable doubt12
3.3.
That Section 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. It is further
10 Alagupandi @ Alagupandian vs State Of Tamil Nadu AIR 2012 SC 726
11 Shankar vs State Of Punjab P&H HC 2011
12 Gurdit Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another P&H HC 2009
Memorial For Appellant

Page 6

RBUSL 1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2015

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.
That It is submitted that in the present matter, the intention as under Section

3.4.

300(1) of Indian Penal Code is inflicted from the circumstances of the case. The act of
the respondent was an intentional act amounting to murder for which the punishment
has been given under Section 302 of IPC. In the instant matter there are sufficient
circumstantial evidences and the chain of evidences are so complete that it proves the
hypothesis of the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Hence it can be abstracted that respondent had murdered the child in order to carry on illegal
organ trade.

Memorial For Appellant

Page 7

RBUSL 1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2015

PRAYER

In the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited it is humbly
prayed before the Honble Court to adjudge and declare:a. That all the said accused are guilty of committing offence of murder punishable
u/s 302/34 of the IPC.
b. That the said accused be awarded with maximum sentence.
c. The orders of the trial court be set aside.

Any other order as it deems fit in the interest of equity, justice and good
conscience.

For This Act of Kindness, the Appellant Shall Duty Bound Forever Pray.

Sd/(Counsel for the Appellant)

Memorial For Appellant

Page 8