2nd MAIMS National Mock Trial Competition,2023

TC-01P

2ND MAIMS NATIONAL MOCK TRIAL COMPETITION, 2023

17TH AUGUST – 2ND SEPTEMBER

BEFORE THE HON’BLE COURT OF SESSIONS JUDGE, SUNNAR

IN THE MATTER OF

STATE OF MERELA
(PROSECUTION)

V.

MR. SAHIL YADAV (ACCUSED NO. 1)

&

MR. SAMAR BHARDWAJ (ACCUSED NO. 2)

(DEFENCE)

For offences charged under:

Sections: 302, 341, 354A, 355 and 506 of the Indianan Penal Code, 1860

Upon submission to the Hon’ble session court of Sunnar, Merela

Memorandum on behalf of the prosecution

Page 1 of 25
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION
 2nd MAIMS National Mock Trial Competition,2023

TABLE OF CONTENT

TABLE OF ABBREVIATION………………….……………………………...…... [4]

LIST OF AUTHORITIES…………………………………………………….....… [5-7]

 BOOKS ………………………………………………... [5]

 LEGISLATIONS/CODES/STATUES ....……………. [5]
 LEGAL DATABASE…………………………………. [5]
 LEXICONS…………….……………………………… [5]
 LIST OF CASES……………………………………… [6-7]

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION………………………………………………... [8]

STATEMENT OF FACTS…………………………………………………………... [9]

STATEMENT OF CHARGES……………………………………………………… [10]

ISSUES RAISED…………………………………………………………………….. [11]

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS……………………………………………………. [12]

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED …………………………………………………… [13-24]

[1] WHETHER THE ACCUSED PERSONS ARE LIABLE FOR MURDER

UNDER SECTION 302 OF THE INDIANAN PENAL CODE. ……………… [13-16]

[1.1] Actions of the accused persons qualify as actus reus ………………….…….. [14]
[1.2] Mens rea of accused persons has been established …………………………... [14-16]
[1.2.1] Accused persons had the intention and knowledge to murder the deceased... [14-15]
[1.2.2] Accused persons had a motive to murder the deceased…………....………. [15-16]
[1.2.3] There was sufficient injury to cause death in the ordinary course of nature… [16]
[2] WHETHER THE ACCUSED(S) ARE LIABLE FOR SEXUAL HARASSMENT
AND ASSAULT OR USE OF CRIMINAL FORCE UNDER SECTIONS 354A AND
355 OF THE INDIANAN PENAL CODE. ……………………………………… [16-19]
[2.1] That the accused persons sexually harassed the victim………………… [17-18]
[2.1.1] There was physical contact. ………………………………………….. [17]
[2.1.2] The act was sexual. ……………………………………………………[17]

Page 2 of 25
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION
 2nd MAIMS National Mock Trial Competition,2023

[2.1.3] The act was unwelcoming and not consensual. …………………………[17-18]

[2.2] That the accused persons used criminal force or assault with intent to dishonour the
victim. ……………………………………………………………………………[18-19]
[2.2.1] There was an act of assault or criminal force. ……………………………[18-19]
[2.2.2] There was presence of intention. …………………………………………[19]
[3] WHETHER THE ACCUSED PERSONS ARE LIABLE FOR THE
PUNISHMENT OF WRONGFUL RESTRAINT UNDER SECTION 341 OF THE
INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 AND FOR CRIMINAL INTIMIDATION UNDER
SECTION 506 OF THE INDIANAN PENAL CODE,1860?................................[19-24]
[3.1.] That the accused persons are liable to be convicted for wrongful restrainment under
section 341 of IPC. ……………………………………………………………….[20-22]
[3.1.1.]That there was voluntary obstruction……………………………………..[20-21]
[3.1.2]That the obstruction was to prevent the deceased from proceeding in a direction in
which he had the right to proceed…………………………………………………[21-22]
[3.2] That the accused persons are liable to be convicted for criminal intimidation under
section 506 of IPC………………………………………………………………… [22-24]
[3.2.1] That the accused persons threatened the deceased with injury. ………………[23]
[3.2.2] That the threat was with intention ………………………………………….[23-24]
PRAYER………………………………………………………………………………[25]

Page 3 of 25
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION
 2nd MAIMS National Mock Trial Competition,2023

TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS

SL NO. ABBREVIATION ROOT WORD

1. AIR All India Reports

2. Art. Article

3. Cri. Criminal

4. Cri.L.J Criminal Law Journal

5. CrPC Criminal Procedure Code

6. Edn. Edition

7. F.I.R. First Information Report

8. HC High Court

9. H.P. Himachal Pradesh

10. Hon’ble Honourable

11. i.e., Id est (that is)

12. ILR Indian Law Reports

13. I.P.C. Indian Penal Code/Indianan Penal Code

14. M.P. Madhya Pradesh

15. MLC Medico Legal Case

16. Ors. Others

17. Pg. Page

18. ¶ Paragraph

19. r/w Read with

20. §/sec./S. Section

21. SC Supreme Court

22. SCC Supreme Court Cases

23. SCR Supreme Court Reports

24. U.P. Uttar Pradesh

Page 4 of 25
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION
 2nd MAIMS National Mock Trial Competition,2023

LIST OF AUTHORITIES

A. Books
1. Gaur K.D., Indian Penal Code, 1860, (7th Ed. 2020)
2. III, Gaur’s, DR. Hari Singh, Penal Law of India, (11th Ed. 2019)
3. IV, Gaur’s, DR. Hari Singh, Penal Law of India, (11 th Ed. 2019)
4. MODI, Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, (27th Ed. 2021)
5. II, Nelson, R.A, Indian Penal Code, (13th Ed. 2023)
6. III, Nelson, R.A, Indian Penal Code, (13th Ed. 2023)
7. IV, Nelson, R.A, Indian Penal Code, (13th Ed. 2023)
8. Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code, (36 th Ed. 2019)
9. Sharma, B.R, Criminal Investigation & Trials, (6th Ed. 2020)
10. Monir, M, The Law of Evidence, (12th Ed. 2021)

B. LEGISLATIONS / CODES / STATUTES

1. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974).
2. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Act No. 1 of 1872).
3. The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860)
4. The Police Act, 1861 (Act No. 5 of 1861).

C. LEGAL DATABASE
1. www.casemine.com
2. www.heinonline.com
3. www.lexisnexis.com
4. www.manupatra.com
5. www.scconline.com

D. LEXICONS
1. Catherine Soanes, Oxford Dictionary Thesaurus, 40th Ed., 2006, Oxford University
Press.
2. Collin’s Gem English Thesaurus, 8th Ed, 2016. Collins.
3. Garner Bryana, Black’s Law Dictionary, 7th Ed. 1981, West Group.
4. W B Saunders, Dorland’s Illustrated Medical Dictionary, 32nd Ed. 2018, Dorland.
Page 5 of 25
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION
 2nd MAIMS National Mock Trial Competition,2023

E. LIST OF CASES
1. Amulya Kumar Behera v Nabaghana Behera, 1995 Cr LJ 355(Ori).
2. Anda v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1966 S.C. 148
3. Azzi v State of Kerala, 2013 (4) KLT 439: 2013 (4) KLJ 445 (Kerela)
4. Babulal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1980) MPWN 236.
5. Badri v State, AIR 1953 All 189, p 191: 54 Cr LJ 450
6. Behari v State, AIR 1953 All 203: 54 Cr LJ 565
7. Bhagubhai Dullabhabhai Bhandari v. District Magistrate, Thana, A.I.R. 1956 S.C.
585
8. Bharat Aaratmal Ramtara @ Kara v. The State of Maharashtra, (2012) 1 A.I.R.
Bom. R 793
9. Bharat Kishormal Shah v State of Maharashtra, 2010CrLJ 4088 (Bom)
10. Chandi Charan v. Bhabataran, (1964) 2 Cri. L.J. 85 (Cal.).
11. Chhagan Vithal v Emperor, AIR 1927 Bom 369, p 370 (1): 28 Cr LJ 1023.
12. Chiranji Lall v Durga Dutt Tripathi AIR 1948 Pat. 299: 49 Cr LJ 418.
13. Deelip Singh v. State of Bihar, (2005) 1 S.C.C. 88
14. Emperor v Abdul Sattar Illahibax, 5 Cr LJ 97, P 99
15. Gunga Chunder Sen v Gour Chander Banikya, (1888) 15 Cal 671,673
16. John Pandain v State, (2010) 14 SCC 129: (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 550: 2011 (1)
Crimes 1 (SC).
17. Jose v. Sub-Inspector of police, 2017 Cri. L.J. 407.
18. Keki Hormusji Gharda v Mehervan Rustom Irani, 2009 Cr LJ 3733, p 3736 (SC):
AIR 2009 SC 2594: 2009 AIR SCW 4513: (2009) 6 SCC 475
19. Kelu Ayyappan v State, AIR 1959 Ker 230, P 233: 1959 Cr LJ 981
20. Kishore Singh v. State of M.P (1977) 4 S.C.C. 524
21. Madhab Chandra Charchari v Nalini Manna, AIR 1964 Cal 286, p 289: (1964) 2
Cr LJ 20
22. Malady Peraiah v Voruganti Chendraiah, AIR 1954 Mad 247, p 248: 55 Cr LJ 283
23. Manik Taneja v. State of Karnataka, (2015) 7 S.C.C. 423
24. Narayanan Nai Raghavan Nair v State of Travancore and Cochin, AIR 1956 SC
99: 1956 Cr LJ 278
25. Nika Ram v. State of H.P, (1972) 2 S.C.C. 80.

Page 6 of 25
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION
 2nd MAIMS National Mock Trial Competition,2023

26. Nilesh Sundar Shetty v. State of Maharashtra, (2016) S.C.C. OnLine Bom. 8588.
27. Nripendra Nth Basu v Kisen Bahadur, (1952) ILR 1 Cal 251
28. Om Prakash Tilak Chand v State, AIR 1959 Punj 134, p 142: (1959) Cr LJ 368.
29. Patiram v State of Madhya Pradesh, (1992) 2 Crimes 621 (MP) (DB): (1992)
1CCR 329 (MP) (DB)
30. Prasad Pannian v. Central University of Kerala, 2020 SCC Online Kerela 6550
31. Rahman Samail v Emperor, AIR 1939 Lah 245, p 251: 40 Cr LJ 712
32. Rampal Singh v. State of U.P (2018) 8 S.C.C. 289
33. Ricchpal Singh Meena v. Ghasi (2014) 8 S.C.C. 918
34. Sanjeev v State of Haryana, (2015) 4SCC 387
35. Santosh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1975 Cr LJ 602, p 603: AIR 1975 SC 654
36. Settu v State of Tamil Nadu. 2006 Cr LJ 3889 (SC): AIR 2006 SC 2986
37. Som Raj v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2013) 14 S.C.C. 246
38. State of Orissa v Ghana Padhan, (1979) 47 Cut LT 575
39. State of Sikkim v Rakesh Rai, 2012 Cr LJ 2737, p 2768 (Sikkim) (DB)
40. State of Uttar Pradesh v Babu Ram, (200) Cr LJ 2457 (SC)
41. State of U.P v. Nepal Singh, 2006 Cri. L.J. 1429
42. Surain Singh v. State of Punjab (2017) 5 S.C.C. 796.
43. Tilak Raj v. State of H.P., (2016) 4 S.C.C. 140
44. Vijay Kumari v SM Rao, AIR 1996 SC 1058: 1996 Cr LJ 1371
45. Vikramjit Singh v State of Punjab, 2006 AIR SCW 6197: 2007 Cr LJ 2000:
(2006) 12 SCC 306 (Para 17).
46. Virsa Singh v State of Punjab, AIR 1958 SC 465, p 467: 1958 Cr LJ 818
47. Wassan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1996) 1 S.C.C. 458

Page 7 of 25
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION
 2nd MAIMS National Mock Trial Competition,2023

STATEMENTS OF JURISDICTION

The offence has been committed under the local jurisdiction 1 of the Hon’ble Court of
Sessions at Sunnar under section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure r/w section 209
of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Section 177: Ordinary place of inquiry2 and trial.

Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired inland and tried by a Court within whose local
jurisdiction it was committed.

Section 209: Commitment of case to Court of Session when an offence is triable

exclusively by it.

When in a case instituted on a police report3 or otherwise, the accused appears or is brought
before the Magistrate and it appears to the Magistrate that the offence is triable exclusively by
the Court of Session, he shall-

a) Commit the case to the Court of Session.

b) Subject to the provisions of this Code relating to bail, remand the accused to custody during,
and until the conclusion of, the trial;

c) Send to that Court the record of the case and the documents and articles, if any, which are to
be produced in evidence;

d) Notify the Public Prosecutor4 of the commitment of the case to the Court of Session

1
CrPC section 2 sub-clause (j)
2
CrPC Section 2 sub clause (g)
3
CrPC section 2 Sub-clause (r)
4
CrPC Section 2 Sub-clause(u)
Page 8 of 25
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION
 2nd MAIMS National Mock Trial Competition,2023

STATEMENTS OF FACTS

Anirudh Sharma (deceased) was working as a software engineer in a successful and

prominent company, Vesalius Technology Pvt. Ltd in Wenglore, Indiana. He was a
hardworking person and he tried to do everything perfectly, without giving any opportunity to
his seniors to scold him. He used to do overtime also. He did not use to gel up with his
colleagues and always remained secluded and lonely and because of this, he became the
reason for the constant talk and gossip of his colleagues. One of Anirudh’s colleagues Samar
and his friends Sthir and Sahil used to make fun of Anirudh for his unsocial behaviour. They
used to call him chicken-hearted and crazy. They had also challenged him to go on the trip
along with them that was planned by the company for their employees.

On 12th February 2023, in Green View Resort, Sunnar, Merela, Sahil, Samar, and Sthir made
fun of him. All the colleagues went sightseeing where Samar and Sahil tried to make fun of
Anirudh as they could see that he appeared slightly nervous. They also played a prank on
him. All of them hid inside Anirudh’s room and, while he was sleeping, made scary noises
which frightened Anirudh. When Anirudh was about to leave the room, Sahil caught him
from behind, and they all made fun of him for his reaction.

On the next day i.e. 13th February, Anirudh complained about them to their boss Mr Sanjay
Nair, to which their boss called the three of them and scolded them. Sahil and Samar decided
to take revenge on Anirudh and in an inebriated state, they went to Anirudh’s room on the
night of 13th February to confront and scold him.

On 14th February 2023, Anirudh was found dead lying in the hotel compound by a staff
member, Rajpal, of the Green View Resort at around 6 am. He then told their boss, who
finally informed the police. The police after reaching the crime scene, made the prima facie
inquiry from the colleagues and resort staff and on suspicion took Mr. Sahil and Mr. Samar
into their custody. The police filed an FIR and started the investigation.

It was confirmed by Mr. Rohan (a colleague of the accused persons and deceased) that he had
seen the accused persons coming down the stairs around the time of the death of Mr.
Anirudh. The MLC report dated 14.02.2023 confirms certain evidence on the basis of which
the police filed the charge sheet in the court on 30th March 2023 against the accused persons,
Mr Sahil Yadav and Mr Samar Bharadwaj and offence u/s. 302, 341, 354A, 355, and 506
IPC, 1860 were registered.
Page 9 of 25
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION
 2nd MAIMS National Mock Trial Competition,2023

STATEMENT OF CHARGES

According to the submitted charge sheet (292/2023) by the Investigating Officer dated
30/03/2023, below mentioned persons have been charged:

Accused no. 1

Mr. Sahil Yadav has been charged under sections 3025, 3416, 354A7, 3558 and 5069 of
Indianan Penal Code, 1860.

Accused no. 2

Mr. Samar Bhardwaj has been charged under sections 302, 341, 354A, 355 and 506 of the
Indianan Penal Code, 1860.

5
Punishment for murder
6
Punishment for wrongful restraint
7
Sexual harassment and Punishment
8
Assault or Criminal force with intent to dishonour person
9
Punishment for criminal intimidation
Page 10 of 25
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION
 2nd MAIMS National Mock Trial Competition,2023

ISSUES RAISED

ISSUE-1

WHETHER THE ACCUSED PERSONS ARE LIABLE FOR MURDER UNDER §

302 OF THE INDIANAN PENAL CODE, 1860?

ISSUE-2

WHETHER THE ACCUSED PERSONS ARE LIABLE FOR SEXUAL

HARASSMENT AND ASSAULT AND USE OF CRIMINAL FORCE UNDER §§
354A AND 355 OF THE INDIANAN PENAL CODE, 1860?

ISSUE-3

WHETHER THE ACCUSED PERSONS ARE LIABLE FOR WRONGFUL

RESTRAINMENT AND CRIMINAL INTIMIDATION UNDER §§ 341 AND 506
OF THE INDIANAN PENAL CODE, 1860?

Page 11 of 25
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION
 2nd MAIMS National Mock Trial Competition,2023

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

I. THAT THE ACCUSED PERSONS ARE LIABLE FOR MURDER UNDER

SECTION 302 OF THE INDIANAN PENAL CODE.
It is humbly submitted that both accused persons are liable for murder as they had the
intention to cause the death of the victim and also the bodily injury was caused knowing
that it would cause the death of the victim10. The fact that the accused persons pushed
the deceased from the terrace satisfies the essential element of actus reas of this section.
There was also a motive to cause the death of the victim as the accused persons wanted
to take revenge on him. Hence, they must be held liable under section 302 of IPC.
II. THAT THE ACCUSED PERSONS ARE LIABLE FOR SEXUAL
HARASSMENT AND ASSAULT OR USE OF CRIMINAL FORCE UNDER
SECTIONS 354A AND 355 OF THE INDIANAN PENAL CODE.
It is humbly submitted that both accused persons are liable for sexual harassment as
they used physical contact and also there was a non-consensual act of sexual nature
towards the deceased by the accused persons. Hence, they must be held liable under
section 354A of IPC.
It is humbly submitted that the accused persons are liable for assault or use of criminal
force with intent to dishonour a person as they had violated the modesty of the deceased
with intention. Hence, they must be held liable under section 355 of IPC.
III. THAT THE ACCUSED PERSONS ARE LIABLE FOR WRONGFUL
RESTRAINMENT AND CRIMINAL INTIMIDATION UNDER SECTIONS 341
AND 506 OF THE INDIANAN PENAL CODE.
It is humbly submitted that the accused persons wrongfully restrained the deceased
various times by stopping him from leaving the room and obstructing him and hence
must be held liable for their acts under section 341 of IPC.
It is humbly submitted that the accused persons criminally intimidated the deceased by
threatening him through yelling and abusing him to cause alarm and make him do acts
which he was not legally bound to do. Hence, they must be held liable for their acts
under section 506 of IPC.

10
CrPC Section 2 Sub-clause (w)
Page 12 of 25
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION
 2nd MAIMS National Mock Trial Competition,2023

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE-1

WHETHER THE ACCUSED PERSONS ARE LIABLE FOR MURDER UNDER §§ 302
OF THE INDIANAN PENAL CODE, 1860?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Sessions Court of Sunnar that various incidents and
evidence establish the fact that accused persons are guilty of the offence 11 of murder 12 under §
30213 as [1.1] Actions of accused persons qualify as actus reus which resulted in the death
of the deceased [1.2] Mens rea of the accused persons has been established.

A person can be held guilty of the offence of murder if he intentionally 14 causes the death of
any person15 or causes such bodily injury16 as he knows, is likely to cause the death of that
person or causes such bodily injury, which in the ordinary course of nature results into
death17 or commits an act so dangerous18 that it must, in all probabilities cause the death of
that person19. Further, the ingredients of crime 20 are also to be fulfilled.

The offence of murder is attracted if the act by which the death is caused is done with the
intention of causing death, or there is knowledge on the part of the accused, that the natural or
probable consequences of the act would be death,21 or that his act was so imminently dangerous
that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury which was likely to cause
death,22 would suffice. Furthermore, it must be proved that there was an intention to inflict that
particular bodily injury, which in the ordinary course of nature, was sufficient to cause death,
viz, the injury found to be present was the injury that was intended to be inflicted.23

11
CrPC Section 2 Sub-clause (l)
12
Indian Penal Code, 1860, § 300.
13
Ibid.
14
Rampal Singh v. State of U.P, (2018) 8 S.C.C. 289.
15
Anda v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1966 S.C. 148.
16
Ricchpal Singh Meena v. Ghasi (2014) 8 S.C.C. 918.
17
Kishore Singh v. State of M.P (1977) 4 S.C.C. 524.
18
Som Raj v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2013) 14 S.C.C. 246.
19
Surain Singh v. State of Punjab (2017) 5 S.C.C. 796.
20
State of U.P v. Nepal Singh, 2006 Cri. L.J. 1429.
21
Santosh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1975 Cr LJ 602, p 603 : AIR 1975 SC 654.
22
Kelu Ayyappan v State, AIR 1959 Ker 230, P 233 : 1959 Cr LJ 981.
23
Settu v State of Tamil Nadu. 2006 Cr LJ 3889 (SC) : AIR 2006 SC 2986
Page 13 of 25
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION
 2nd MAIMS National Mock Trial Competition,2023

[1.1] Actions of the accused persons qualify as actus reus

Every act is followed by a consequence and the consequence necessary for the offence of
murder is ‘death’. The Act,24 or physical action is the ‘means’ of causing death. In the present
case, there has been a series of acts like forcing the deceased to drink alcohol and then stripping
him. The act that caused death was pushing him from the terrace. Minor injuries like scratches
on the palms, arms and back of the deceased 25 and the presence of skin tissues of DNA of two
different people in the nails of the deceased26 clearly indicate that a struggle took place between
accused persons and the deceased before his death. Moreover, the abrasions on the arms of the
accused persons27 confirm that force had been used by them. The circumstantial evidence 28
accompanied by the medical reports indicates a murder which was attempted to be shown as a
suicide.29

[1.2] Mens rea of accused persons has been established

Mens rea means guilty mind. It is the mental state of the crime committed. It is the final aim
that the person wants to achieve through his actions. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has
held, mens rea as an essential ingredient of a criminal offence. 30 In the present case, the mens
rea or the guilty mind can be proved by the conduct or behaviour of the accused persons
towards the deceased. The accused persons used to bully him in the office and on the trip also.
They could not take the fact that he retaliated and intending to take revenge, they went to him
in an inebriated state. The scratches on the palm, arms and back of the deceased indicate that
there was a struggle before the death. The fracture in the neck and the skull31 indicates that the
cause of death was due to falling from a great height. (PW4) Rohan saw the accused persons
coming from the terrace around the same time frame as the death of Anirudh. Furthermore, the
circumstantial evidence and the witness statements show that the accused persons had the guilty
intention to cause the death of Anirudh.

[1.2.1] Accused persons had the intention and knowledge to murder the deceased

24
Indian Penal Code, 1860, § 33.
25
Mock Proposition, Post Mortem Report, page- 24
26
Mock Proposition, Post Mortem Report, page- 24
27
Mock Proposition, MLC Report, page- 20
28
Nika Ram v. State of H.P, (1972) 2 S.C.C. 80.
29
Jose v. Sub- Inspector of police, 2017 Cri. L.J. 407.
30
Nathulal AIR 1966 S.C. 43.
31
Mock Proposition, Post Mortem Report
Page 14 of 25
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION
 2nd MAIMS National Mock Trial Competition,2023

Intention is the purposeful doing of a thing to achieve a particular end. It is shaping one’s
conduct to achieve a particular end at which he aims. 32 To read either intention or knowledge,
the courts have to examine the circumstances as there cannot be any direct evidence as to the
state of mind of the accused. 33 The intention of the accused to cause death can be ascertained
from the resultant injuries. 34 Where the injuries are inflicted with the intention of killing a
person and death ensures as a result of the injuries, it is a clear case of murder falling under
this clause. 35 This clause applies only when the culprit knows that death would be the result of
his act.36 Any sane person would know that his act of hitting another on a vulnerable part of
the body37 would result in the death of that person.38 While pushing a person from a height
anyone would know that it will likely cause death of that person. This confirms that the element
of knowledge was present. In the present case, the medical evidence and the findings of the
police, along with the circumstantial evidence prove the presence of the intention of the accused
persons to cause the death of Anirudh.

Conduct includes statements that accompany and explain acts other than statements. Conduct
is also a relevant fact in a criminal inquiry. The conduct of an accused must have nexus with
the crime committed. It must form part of the evidence as regards his conduct either preceding,
during or after the commission of the offence.39 In the present case, the accused persons
threatened the deceased, Anirudh, to face repercussions for his acts and later used physical
force while striping him and making him drink alcohol, before finally pushing him from the
terrace, thereby causing his death. This conduct on their part proves that they had the intention
to kill the deceased.

[1.2.2] Accused persons had a motive to murder the deceased

Motive is a relevant fact in all criminal cases whether based on the testimony of an eyewitness
or circumstantial evidence.40 Motive is not an ingredient for an offence under section 302,
IPC.41 But any normal human being does not commit any offence unless he has a motive for

32
Patiram v State of Madhya Pradesh, (1992) 2 Crimes 621 (MP) (DB);(1992) 1CCR 329 (MP) (DB).
33
Sanjeev v State of Harayana, (2015) 4SCC 387.
34
John Pandain v State, (2010) 14 SCC 129 (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 550;2011 (1) Crimes 1 (SC).
35
Badri v State, AIR 1953 All 189, p 191;54 Cr LJ 450.
36
Rahman Samail v Emperor, AIR 1939 Lah 245, p 251;40 Cr LJ 712.
37
Wassan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1996) 1 S.C.C. 458.
38
(1951) 3 Pepsu L.R. 635.
39
Vikramjit Singh v State of Punjab, 2006 AIR SCW 6197;2007 Cr LJ 2000;(2006) 12 SCC 306 (Para 17).
40
State of Uttar Pradesh v Babu Ram, (200) Cr LJ 2457 (SC).
41
State of Sikkim v Rakesh Rai, 2012 Cr LJ 2737, p 2768 (Sikk) (DB).
Page 15 of 25
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION
 2nd MAIMS National Mock Trial Competition,2023

doing it.42 It is humbly contended that the accused persons were already angry with the
deceased because he complained against them. They always used to humiliate him and make
fun of him and so could not take it when he complained about them. Further motive can be
established from the fact that they wanted to take revenge on him and also warned him to face
repercussions for his actions. Thus, the accused persons had the motive to cause death of
Anirudh.
[1.2.3] There was sufficient injury to cause death in the ordinary course of nature
“Ordinary course of nature” means “in the usual course if left alone” 43 An injury “sufficient,
in the ordinary course of nature to cause death” merely means that death will be the most
probable result of the injury having regard to the ordinary course of nature, and not that death
may be the necessary consequence.44 It is a question of fact in each case 45, whether the injury
is sufficient, in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. 46 In the present case, the injuries
sustained after falling from a height are sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the
death of a person and this fact was known to the accused persons. Thus, this essential clause is
also met in the present case.
From all the above-stated arguments it can be seen that accused persons are guilty of murder
of their colleague Anirudh. Therefore, the counsel humbly submits that the accused persons
should be held liable under section 302 of IPC.

ISSUE-2

WHETHER THE ACCUSED PERSONS ARE LIABLE FOR SEXUAL HARASSMENT

UNDER SECTION 354A AND FOR ASSAULT AND USE OF CRIMINAL FORCE WITH
INTENT TO DISHONOUR A PERSON UNDER SECTION 355 OF THE INDIANAN
PENAL CODE, 1860?

It is humbly submitted that the accused persons are guilty of sexual harassment under section
354A and of assault or use of criminal force with intent to dishonour a person under section
35547. Accused persons are creating baseless stories without any substantial proof. [2.1] That

42
Shamdasini P D A.I.R. 1929 Bom 443.
43
State of Orissa v Ghana Padhan, (1979) 47 Cut LT 575.
44
Behari v State, AIR 1953 All 203;54 Cr LJ 565.
45
Narayanan Nai Raghavan Nair v Stae of Travancore and Cochin, AIR 1956 SC 99;1956 Cr LJ 278.
46
Virsa Singh v State of Punjab, AIR 1958 SC 465, p 467;1958 Cr LJ 818.
47
Indian Penal Code, 1860, § 354A and 355, No. 45, Acts of Parliament, 1860 (India) [hereinafter IPC].
Page 16 of 25
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION
 2nd MAIMS National Mock Trial Competition,2023

the accused persons sexually harassed the victim and [2.2] That the accused persons used
criminal force or assault with intent to dishonour the victim.

[2.1] That the accused persons sexually harassed the victim

Section 354A defines sexual harassment. A man is said to be committed the offence of sexual
harassment if his acts include, any physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and
explicit sexual overtures; a demand or request for sexual favours; showing pornography
against the will of a woman; or making sexually coloured remarks, shall be guilty of the
offence of sexual harassment.

In the present matter accused persons went to Anirudh’s room in an inebriated state to take
revenge on him because of the complaint 48 he had made about the incident that took place the
night before. Now, to substantiate that they had committed the above crime, some elements
are to be met, [2.1.1] There was physical contact [2.1.2] The act was sexual [2.1.3] The
act was unwelcoming and not consensual.

[2.1.1.] There was physical contact

It was evident that there was a scuffle between the accused persons and the victim49
which is also clearly shown in Panchnama 50, in the MLC report51 and post mortem
report52. Therefore, there is a clear sign of physical contact between them.
[2.1.2.] The act was of sexual nature
It is humbly submitted that to invoke this very section showing the sexual element is
crucial. In the present matter, there is an act of sexual nature in which the accused
persons have stripped the victim forcefully and made him stand outside the room for
the whole night53.
[2.1.3.] The act was unwelcoming and not consensual
It is very clear that both Sahil and Samar came with the intent to take revenge on
Anirudh, and despite he tried to ignore them and rush to his senior; however, he was
stopped by them, and they forced Anirudh to drink alcohol54. Then they yelled at him
and stripped him, even though he expressed his objection.

48
CrPC section 2 sub clause (d)
49
Moot preposition pg. 2
50
Point 12
51
Finding of physical examination point c
52
External injuries
53
Moot proposition
54
Moot preposition
Page 17 of 25
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION
 2nd MAIMS National Mock Trial Competition,2023

It is humbly submitted that to constitute sexual harassment there should be an attempt

on the part of the wrongdoer to do some act which was unwelcome or by way of
behaviour, either directly or by implication makes the victim feel that it amounts to
sexual harassment 55.

Therefore, we can say that any form of sexual behaviour that is unwelcoming will come under
sexual harassment. The accused persons had done the same and they should be held liable under
section 354A56.

[2.2] That the accused persons used criminal force or assault with intent to dishonour the
victim.

It is humbly submitted that the accused persons are guilty under section 35557. This section
states that whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person, intending thereby to dishonour
that person, otherwise than on grave and sudden provocation given by that person58 should be
held liable under this section. The offence here punishable lies in dishonouring a person by
means of assault or use of criminal force. Since the word “person” includes a human being of
either sex. This section is confined to acts which are considered derogatory to one’s honour.

In the instant matter, the accused persons are guilty of this section and to prove this the
arguments are as follows, [2.2.1] There was an act of assault or criminal force; [2.2.2] There
was presence of intention.

[2.2.1.] There was an act of assault or criminal force

It is humbly submitted that Criminal force is when a person intentionally uses force on another
person without that person’s consent, to commit an offence and with the prior intention of
causing harm to that person in the form of injury, fear or annoyance to whom the force is used,
is said to use criminal force on the other person59 and assault is when a gesture is made to any
person, knowing that the person is going to apprehend it as the person is going to use criminal
force on that person is known as assault. Mere words do not consist of an assault. But a person
may use certain gestures and expressions or preparation, and such gestures, expressions and
preparations may amount to an assault 60. In the instant matter, the accused persons have used

55
Prasad Pannian v. Central University of Kerala, 2020 SCC Online Ker 6550
56
Indian Penal Code, 1860, § 354A, No. 45, Acts of Parliament, 1860 (India) [hereinafter IPC].
57
Indian Penal Code, 1860, s 355, No. 45, Acts of Parliament, 1860 (India) [hereinafter IPC].
58
Dr. Hari Singh Gour, Penal law of India, (11th edition), pg. 3423
59
Indian Penal Code, 1860, s 350, No. 45, Acts of Parliament, 1860 (India) [hereinafter IPC].
60
Indian Penal Code, 1860, s 351, No. 45, Acts of Parliament, 1860 (India) [hereinafter IPC
Page 18 of 25
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION
 2nd MAIMS National Mock Trial Competition,2023

force on Anirudh without his consent. The post-mortem, MLC and Panchnama reports also
suggest that there was some violence or struggle before the death. Therefore, we can say that
there was an act of assault or criminal force. Also, there was a scuffle between both accused
persons and the victim which is visible when we refer to the reports61.

[2.2.2.] There was a presence of intention.

The intention with which the assault is made is an important ingredient of the offence under
this section. In the instant matter, there is the clear intention of accused persons to do what they
have done. On the previous night, they had played pranks on which Anirudh went to the seniors
to complain and they got scolded for the same, so to take revenge from him they both went to
his room62. They both were full of rage and anguish and in that state of mind they went to the
victim and they had full intent to dishonour the victim.

In Babulal v. State of Madhya Pradesh63 , it is laid down that the assault or criminal force must
have been committed with the specific intent to dishonour the victim, and in the present case,
we can infer that they have intentionally assaulted the victim to dishonour him, and there was
no grave provocation. With a revengeful intent they forced him to drink alcohol and used force
in many other ways.

Therefore, it is established that the accused persons have used criminal force or assault with
intent to dishonour the victim so they both are guilty under section 355.

ISSUE-3

WHETHER THE ACCUSED PERSONS ARE LIABLE FOR THE PUNISHMENT OF

WRONGFUL RESTRAINT UNDER SECTION 341 OF THE INDIANAN PENAL CODE,
1860 AND FOR CRIMINAL INTIMIDATION UNDER SECTION 506 OF THE
INDIANAN PENAL CODE,1860?

It is humbly submitted that the accused persons have wrongfully restrained the deceased and
also criminally intimidated him and so they shall be convicted under section 341 and section
506 of IPC. [3.1] That the accused persons are liable to be convicted for wrongful restraint

61
Moot preposition
62
Moot preposition page no. 2
63
Babulal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1980) MPWN 236.
Page 19 of 25
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION
 2nd MAIMS National Mock Trial Competition,2023

under section 341 of IPC. [3.2] That the accused persons are liable to be convicted for
criminal intimidation under section 506 of IPC.

[3.1.] That the accused persons are liable to be convicted for wrongful restrainment under
section 341 of IPC.

Section 339 of the IPC defines wrongful restraint as, “Whoever voluntarily obstructs any
person to prevent that person from proceeding in any direction in which that person has a right
to proceed64, is said wrongfully to restrain that person.” Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code
provides the punishment for wrongful restraint.

Section 339 of the IPC requires some essentials to be fulfilled which include that the accused
should have voluntarily obstructed a person; from proceeding in any direction; in which he has
the right to proceed. When he obstructs any person and restrains him from proceeding in any
direction, he commits the offence of wrongful restraint punishable under section 341 of the
IPC.65

In a wrongful restraint, the physical presence of the obstructer is not necessary, nor is any actual
assault necessary, and fear of immediate harm restraining a man out of place, where he wishes
to be or has a right to be, is sufficient to constitute an offence under this section. The slightest
unlawful obstruction to the liberty of a person to go when and where he likes to go, provided
he does so in a lawful manner, cannot be justified and is punishable. 66

In the present case the allegations proved against the accused persons are that they stopped him
from leaving the room. This will be proved with the help of the following arguments [3.1.1]
That there was voluntary obstruction. [3.1.2] That the obstruction was to prevent the
deceased from proceeding in a direction in which he had the right to proceed.

[3.1.1.]That there was voluntary obstruction.

The word ‘voluntary’67 is significant in this section. It relates to voluntary obstruction by a

person, and not to obstructions which are not voluntarily continued by the persons accused
of the obstruction, throughout the time the obstruction lasts. 68 A person is said to cause an

64
Keki Hormusji Gharda v Mehervan Rustom Irani, 2009 Cr LJ 3733, p 3736 (SC); AIR 2009 SC 2594 ;2009
AIR SCW 4513:(2009); 6 SCC 475.
65
Bharat Kishormal Shah v State of Maharashtra, 2010CrLJ 4088 (Bom).
66
Malady Peraiah v Voruganti Chendraiah, AIR 1954 Mad 247 , p 248 : 55 Cr LJ 283.
67
Section 39, Indian Penal Code.
68
Emperor v Abdul Sattar Illahibax, 5 Cr LJ 97 , P 99.
Page 20 of 25
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION
 2nd MAIMS National Mock Trial Competition,2023

effect “voluntarily” when he causes it by means whereby he intended to cause it, or by

means which, at the time of employing those means, he knew or had reason to believe to
be likely to cause it.69 Voluntary obstruction means that the obstructor intends it or knows
or has reason to believe it to be likely that the means adopted would cause obstruction. 70
Obstruction must be physical obstruction although it may be caused by physical force as
well as by being a menace and using threats.71 There must be some physical coercion or
threat of physical injury. The obstruction must be such as to prevent the ordinary
movements of a person.72 In the present case on 13th February accused persons Sahil and
Samar went to confront the deceased i.e., Anirudh in an inebriated state and when Anirudh
tried to leave the room to avoid them, he was stopped by them. They obstructed his normal
movement. Furthermore, the MLC report73 confirms the abrasions on the forearms of the
accused persons that were a result of the use of physical force for restraining the deceased.
The obstruction was a physical one and the accused persons also had a common intention
to teach the deceased a lesson and take revenge from him.

[3.1.2]That the obstruction was to prevent the deceased from proceeding in a

direction in which he had the right to proceed

An offence under this section is constituted when a person obstructs another by-

1. Causing it to appear to that other person that to proceed would be;

 Impossible
 Difficult
 Dangerous
2. Or by actually causing it to be impossible, difficult or dangerous for that
other person to proceed

To constitute an offence under this section it is not necessary that the person to be deprived of
his liberty, should be touched or assaulted or arrested or confined within walls. The offence
may be committed by words alone or by acts or by both, or by merely operating on the will or

69
Section 39, IPC.
70
Madhab Chandra Charchari v Nalini Manna, AIR 1964 Cal 286, p 289 : (1964) 2 Cr LJ 20.
71
Nripendra Nth Basu v Kisen Bahadur, (1952) ILR 1 Cal 251.
72
Chhagan Vithal v Emperor, AIR 1927 Bom 369 , p 370 (1) : 28 Cr LJ 1023.
73
Moot Proposition, page no. 20
Page 21 of 25
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION
 2nd MAIMS National Mock Trial Competition,2023

by personal force or by both. A person can be deprived of his liberty of his locomotion by the
exercise of force as well as by the express or implied threat of it.74

In the case reported in Chiranji Lall v. Durga Dutt Tripathi, 75 S.K. Das, J. held that preventing
a person from proceeding homeward on an ekka would amount to preventing him from
proceeding in the direction in which he wanted to proceed and would, therefore, be wrongful
restraint as defined in section 399 of the IPC,1860.

In the present case accused persons had directly prevented the deceased from moving out of
the room and also threatened him to face repercussions for his actions of complaining against
the accused persons. Accused persons were in an inebriated state and were continuously
abusing the deceased which created a fear in the mind of the deceased that to proceed or move
out of the room would be dangerous.

For the offence of wrongful restraint, the necessary pre-condition is that the person concerned
must have a right to proceed.76 In the present case the deceased i.e., Anirudh had the right to
freedom of movement guaranteed under article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution of India, and there
was no condition of any reasonable restriction in this case, so the question of the right of the
concerned person to move in a particular direction is also eliminated.

From the above-stated arguments, it is apparent that the accused persons had wrongfully
restrained the deceased. Therefore, the counsel humbly submits that the accused persons must
be held liable under section 341 of IPC.

[3.2] That the accused persons are liable to be convicted for criminal intimidation under
section 506 of IPC.

It is humbly submitted that the accused persons criminally intimidated the deceased and hence
must be held liable for their acts under section 506 of IPC.

Section 506 IPC deals with punishment for criminal intimidation 77. Section 503 defines the
said offence. The essentials of this section include, threatening a person with any injury and

74
Om Prakash Tilak Chand v State, AIR 1959 Punj 134, p 142 : (1959) Cr LJ 368.
75
Chiranji Lall v Durga Dutt Tripathi AIR 1948 Pat. 299: 49 Cr LJ 418.
76
Vijay Kumari v SM Rao, AIR 1996 SC 1058 : 1996 Cr LJ 1371
77
The Indian Penal Code, 1860, §503.
Page 22 of 25
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION
 2nd MAIMS National Mock Trial Competition,2023

that injury must be to his person78, reputation79 or property80 or to the person or reputation of
anyone in whom that person is interested. The intention is also an important element to
constitute this section. The threat must be with intent; to cause alarm to that person 81, or to
cause that person to do any Act which he is not legally bound to do as means of avoiding
execution of such threat82.

In the present case, an offence under this section will be proved by the following arguments:
[3.2.1] That the accused persons threatened the deceased with injury. [3.2.2] That the
threat was with intention.

[3.2.1] That the accused persons threatened the deceased with injury.

The threat is referred to as u/s. 506 must be a threat communicated or uttered with the intention
of its being communicated, to the person threatened to influence his mind. 83 The gist of the
offence is the effect which the threat is intended to have upon the mind of the person threatened.
It is clear that before it can have effect upon his mind it must be cither made to him by the
person threatening or communicated to him in some way. To fulfil this ingredient, the threat
must be made to another with the fear of injury84 to that person, his reputation, or his property.
In the present case the deceased i.e., Anirudh was wrongfully restrained. The essential of
threatening a person was fulfilled when the accused persons told the deceased that he should
be ready to face repercussions for his actions. The accused persons also threatened the deceased
with an injury to his reputation by stripping him naked and making him stand outside as a
punishment for his actions.

[3.2.2] That the threat was with intention.

To hold a person guilty of an offence under this section, it is not necessary to prove that the
other person whom the accused threatened got frightened as a result of the act done by the
accused. 85 It is the intention of the person that has to be considered in deciding whether what
he stated comes within the mischief of this section. 86 But the material has to be brought on

78
Manik Taneja v. State of Karnataka, (2015) 7 S.C.C. 423.
79
Tilak Raj v. State of H.P., (2016) 4 S.C.C. 140.
80
Nilesh Sundar Shetty v. State of Maharashtra, (2016) S.C.C. Online Bom. 8588.
81
Bharat Aaratmal Ramtara @ Kara v. The State of Maharashtra, (2012) 1 A.I.R. Bom. R 793.
82
Bhagubhai Dullabhabhai Bhandari v. District Magistrate, Thana, A.I.R. 1956 S.C. 585.
83
Chandi Charan v. Bhabataran, (1964) 2 Cri. L.J. 85 (Cal.).
84
Deelip Singh v. State of Bihar, (2005) 1 S.C.C. 88.
85
Azzi v State of Kerala, 2013 (4) KLT 439 : 2013 (4) KLJ 445 (Ker).
86
Re AK Gopalan, 50 Cr LJ 258 : AIR 1949 Mad 233.
Page 23 of 25
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION
 2nd MAIMS National Mock Trial Competition,2023

record to show that intention was to cause alarm to that person. 87 It would not be sufficient if
the threat is not made to the person threatened and there is no evidence that it was intended that
the words should be communicated to the complainant to influence his mind. 88

In the present case, the accused persons had threatened the deceased intending to take revenge
on him. Their intention to threaten him was clear from the beginning when they entered the
room in an inebriated state to teach him a lesson. The accused persons threatened the deceased
intending to cause alarm and this can be seen in their behaviour towards him and actions like
stopping him when he was about to leave and telling him to be ready to face repercussions for
his actions. They threatened him by yelling at him and abusing him which caused him to do
acts like stripping89 to avoid the execution of the threat.

From all the above-stated arguments it can be seen that the accused persons criminally
intimidated the deceased by causing alarm and forcing him to do certain acts.

Therefore, the counsel humbly submits that the accused persons should be held liable under
section 506 of IPC.

87
Amulya Kumar Behera v Nabaghana Behera, 1995 Cr LJ 355(Ori).
88
Gunga Chunder Sen v Gour Chander Banikya, (1888) 15 Cal 671,673.
89
Moot Proposition
Page 24 of 25
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION
 2nd MAIMS National Mock Trial Competition,2023

PRAYER

Wherefore, in the light of the questions raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is
most humbly prayed and implored before the Hon’ble Court of Session, Sunnar, Merela:

To convict accused no. 1, Mr. Sahil Yadav

u/s. 302, 341, 354A, 355 and 506 of Indianan Penal Code, 1860.

Also,

To convict accused no. 2, Mr. Samar Bhardwaj

u/s. 302, 341, 354A, 355 and 506 of Indianan Penal Code, 1860.

And

Pass any such order that this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the interests of justice, equity and
good conscience.

Place: Sunnar, Merela All of which is respectfully submitted

Date: 9th March 2019 Counsels for the prosecution

Page 25 of 25
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION