INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2025

RADHIKA SHARMA
(APPELLANT)
V
STATE OF DELHI
(RESPONDENT)

BEFORE THE HON’BLE

HIGH COURT OF DELHI

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO : ______/2025

UNDER SECTION 415 OF BHARATHIYA
NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023
 TABLE OF CONTENT

LIST OF ABBREVIATION……………………………………………………………. 3

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES…………………………………………………………… 4

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION……………………………………………………. 6

STATEMENT OF FACTS……………………………………………………………… 7

ISSUES RAISED………………………………………………………………………. 9

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS……………………………………………………….. 10

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED…………………………………………………………… 11

ISSUE 1 : WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING RADHIKA

SHARMA UNDER SECTION 103 AND SECTION 140(1) OF BNS?.......................... 11

1. The Trial Court Erred in Convicting Radhika Under Section 103 (Murder) Lack of
Mens Rea (Intent to Kill):
2. Disproportionality of Sentence

ISSUE 2 : WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT WAS CORRECT IN RELYING ON

RADHIKA’S CONFESSION TO POLICE FOR HER CONFESSION?........................ 15

1. Confession to police is inadmissible in court

2. Violation of procedural safeguards

PRAYER…………………………………………………………………………………. 19

2
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

BNS,2023 BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023

IPC INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860

HC HIGH COURT

SC SUPREME COURT

DYSP DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

BSA,2023 BHARATIYA SAKSHYA ADHINIYAM,

2023

IEA,1872 INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT,1872

BNSS, 2023 BHARATHIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA

SANHITA, 2023

CRPC,1973 CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973

3
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATUTES

1. Indian Penal Code, 1860

2. Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam,2023
3. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,2023
4. Indian Evidence Act,1872
5. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,2023
6. Code of Criminal Procedure,1973

BOOKS

1. Law of Crimes by Ratanlal and Dhirajlal

2. Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, K. Swamyraj
3. K D Gaur book on New Criminal Major Laws

CASES

1. State of Andhra Pradesh v. Rayavarapu Punnayya

2. Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra (1973 AIR 2622)
3. Shanmugam v. State of Tamil Nadu (2002)
4. State of Punjab v. Prem Sagar (2008) 7 SCC 550
5. Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. King Emperor (1925 AIR 1)
6. State of U.P. v. Satish (2005) 3 SCC 114
7. Reg v. Govinda (1877)
8. Shivappa v. State of Karnataka (1995) 2 SCC 76
9. Pakala Narayana Swami v. Emperor (1939)
10.State of U.P. v. Deoman Upadhyaya (1960)

4
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

11.Kashmira Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1952)

12.Pulukari Kotayya V Emperor, AIR 1947 PC 67

5
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Appellants have approached the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi under Section
415 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by filing a criminal appeal,
challenging the conviction and sentence of Radhika Sharma by the Trial Court
under Sections 103 and 140(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The
appellant’s humbly submits to the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.

This Hon’ble Court has jurisdiction under Section- 415 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to hear appeals against convictions and
sentences passed by the Trial Court.

415. Appeals from convictions.

(1)Any person convicted on a trial held by a High Court in its extraordinary

original criminal jurisdiction may appeal to the Supreme Court.

(2)Any person convicted on a trial held by a Sessions Judge or an Additional

Sessions Judge or on a trial held by any other Court in which a sentence of
imprisonment for more than seven years has been passed against him or against
any other person convicted at the same trial, may appeal to the High Court

.(3)Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (2), any person,-(a) convicted on

a trial held by Magistrate of the first class, or of the second class; or(b)
sentenced under section 364; or(c) in respect of whom an order has been made
or a sentence has been passed under section 401 by any Magistrate, may
appeal to the Court of Session

.(4)When an appeal has been filed against a sentence passed under section 64,
section 65, section 66, section 67, section 68, section 70 or section 71 of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the appeal shall be disposed of within a period
of six months from the date of filing of such appeal.

6
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. On October 14, 2022, 23-year-old Shubham Verma, a BSc Radiology

student, visited his girlfriend Radhika Sharma at her residence in Delhi.
2. Radhika had been planning to end her relationship with Shubham due to an
impending arranged marriage and had been emotionally conflicted about her
actions.
3. Radhika tried to break up with Shubham multiple times, but he did not
agree. Radhika then offered Shubham a drink, which she described as an
ayurvedic concoction meant to improve his health.
4. However, this drink was mixed with a pesticide, which Radhika had
procured to hasten the breakup without directly confronting Shubham. After
consuming the drink, Shubham began to feel unwell and experienced
symptoms of poisoning.
5. Despite his worsening condition, Radhika assured him that it was a minor
issue, urging him to go and rest at home. The following day, Shubham’s
symptoms persisted and his family sought further medical attention.
6. He was admitted to the ICU at Safdarjung Hospital, Delhi where doctors
discovered significant internal organ damage.
7. Tragically, Shubham succumbed to cardiac arrest on October 25, 2022
caused by multi-organ failure from the poisoning.
8. During the course of Shubham's illness, Radhika withheld the information
about the drink she had given him, despite repeated inquiries from
Shubham’s family.
9. The police testified that, had Radhika revealed the truth earlier, Shubham’s
life could have been saved.
10. The case initially treated as a medical emergency shifted to a criminal
investigation after Shubham's family raised suspicions of foul play.

7
11. The Crime Branch led by DySP Kumar took over the investigation on
October 30, 2022. Radhika was arrested on October 31, 2022.
12. Radhika later confessed to the police that she had mixed the pesticide in the
drink to end her relationship with Shubham, but stated that she did not
intend to kill him and her goal was simply to force him to break up with her.
13. Radhika’s defense argues that she did not intend to cause any harm to
Shubham and only tried to end her relationship with him.
14. However, the prosecution argues that Radhika’s actions were premeditated
and she knowingly poisoned Shubham.
15. The court convicted Radhika under Section 103 and Section 140(1) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).
16. Radhika was sentenced to life imprisonment for her conviction under
Section 103 and Section 140(1) of BNS.
17. Radhika, aggrieved by the trial court’s decision, has now appealed her
conviction and sentence before the Delhi High Court, and the case is
pending for hearing.

8
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether the trial court erred in convicting Radhika Sharma under Section
103 and Section 140(1) of BNS?

2. Whether the trial court was correct in relying on Radhika’s confession to

the police for her conviction?

9
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

Issue : 1

Whether the trial court erred in convicting Radhika Sharma under Section
103 and Section 140(1) of BNS?

Section 103 of BNS requires a clear intent to kill for a murder conviction.
Radhika’s actions, while reckless, do not demonstrate an intention to cause
death. Her own confession states that she only wanted to make Shubham unwell
to end the relationship, not to kill him.

Issue : 2

Whether the trial court was correct in relying on Radhika’s confession to

the police for her conviction?

Under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, a confession made to a police

officer is inadmissible in court. For a confession to be admissible, it must be
recorded before a magistrate under Section 164 CrPC. Since Radhika’s
confession was made only to the police, it cannot be used as primary evidence
for conviction.

10
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE 1

Whether the trial court erred in convicting Radhika Sharma under Section
103 and Section 140(1) of BNS?

The trial court erroneously convicted the appellant under Section 103 and
Section 140(1) of BNS without establishing intent to murder. The prosecution
failed to prove mens rea beyond reasonable doubt.

The reliance on the confession given to the police is improper, as confessions to

police officers are inadmissible under the old Act; Section 25 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 and according to new Act; Section 23 of BSA, 2023.

This argument is justified on the basis of following grounds

The Trial Court Erred in Convicting Radhika Under Section 103 (Murder)
Lack of Mens Rea (Intent to Kill):

Section 103 of BNS requires clear intent to kill, but Radhika only intended to
make Shubham sick to force a breakup. Her own confession states that she did
not intend to kill him. There is no evidence that she ensured a lethal dose was
administered.

As per precedent, an act causing death but lacking intent to kill constitutes
culpable homicide under Section 104 of BNS, not murder under Section 103.
The difference between Sections 103 and 104 hinges on intention, which was
absent in this case. Since there was no intention to kill, the punishment for life
imprisonment is too harsh.

The burden of proving causation beyond a reasonable doubt lies on the

prosecution, which it failed to do. Medical reports should conclusively establish
that poisoning was the direct cause of death, but the delay in treatment
complicates this determination.

11
 Courts have ruled in past cases (State of Andhra Pradesh v. Rayavarapu
Punnayya)1 that if death results from recklessness rather than intent to kill, the
charge should be culpable homicide. If Radhika truly intended murder, she
would have ensured immediate fatality rather than allowing Shubham to leave
and seek medical help. If the prosecution fails to prove direct intent to kill, the
charge must be reduced. Courts have differentiated between intentional murder
and reckless actions that lead to death. The punishment under

There was a violation of due process and natural justice principles, as the
petitioner was not given adequate opportunity to present a proper defense. The
prosecution failed to establish the mens rea (guilty mind) necessary for
conviction under this section. Mere presence or association does not constitute
an offense under this provision. In Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of
Maharashtra (1973 AIR 2622)2, the Supreme Court held that weak
circumstantial evidence cannot form the basis of a conviction unless it
conclusively establishes guilt. There is no evidence that she deliberately planned
to cause death; instead, she aimed to cause temporary illness.

At most, Radhika may have had knowledge that her act could harm Shubham.
However, knowledge of a possible consequence is not the same as intent to
bring about that consequence. Under criminal law, mere recklessness or
negligence does not constitute murder unless it is proven beyond doubt that the
accused desired the death of the victim.

Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder (Section 104 BNS) is the more
appropriate charge in this case. Section 104 BNS states that when death is
caused without the intention to kill but due to reckless behaviour, the act
qualifies as culpable homicide. Since Radhika did not intend to kill but only to
cause harm, the case falls under Section 104 BNS, not Section 103 BNS. Since

1
(State of Andhra Pradesh v. Rayavarapu Punnayya)
2
Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra (1973 AIR 2622)
12
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

Shubham himself visited Radhika at her residence, Section 140(1) is not

applicable. The trial court has erred in convicting Radhika under Section 140(1)
which states the punishment for kidnapping or abducting for murder. The
kidnapping and abduction is unlawful. It does not satisfy the ingredients of
Section 140(1).

In Shanmugam v. State of Tamil Nadu (2002)3 ,The court held that an act
resulting in death due to negligence or recklessness but without intent to kill
must be classified as culpable homicide, not murder.

Disproportionality of Sentence

Life Imprisonment is Excessive Given the Circumstances. Courts consider

intent and circumstances before imposing life sentences. Radhika had no
criminal history and acted impulsively, making life imprisonment too harsh.

Judicial Precedents Favor Lesser Punishment. Courts have reduced murder

charges to culpable homicide in cases where intent to kill was not proven.
Radhika should, at most, face punishment for causing grievous hurt or culpable
homicide, not murder. Radhika did not have any intention to kill Shubham, she
committed the act only to force him to break up with him.

Both Shubham and Radhika’s family had no idea about their relationship. She
4
knew that if they reveal their relationship to her family, they wouldn’t accept it
and they would’ve forced her for arranged marriage. She committed the act only
for him to breakup with her. Mens rea was lacking in this case. Giving life
imprisonment is excess and too harsh for the act committed by her. The
principle of proportionality in sentencing, as upheld in State of Punjab v. Prem
Sagar (2008) 7 SCC 5504 requires that punishment must be commensurate with
the nature of the crime. The trial court failed to provide the petitioner with
adequate opportunity to present a defense, violating the principle of natural
3
Shanmugam v. State of Tamil Nadu (2002)
4
State of Punjab v. Prem Sagar (2008) 7 SCC 550
13
justice. The petitioner was not given an opportunity to cross-examine key
prosecution witnesses, violating her right to a fair trial.

Section 140(1) of BNS requires proof of active participation or encouragement

in an offense. However, mere presence does not amount to aiding and abetting.
The trial court did not establish any overt act committed by the petitioner to
justify the conviction under Section 140(1).

In Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. King Emperor (1925 AIR 1) 5, the Privy Council
held that passive presence at the scene of a crime is not sufficient to establish
liability. The petitioner has no prior criminal record, which should have been
considered as a mitigating factor. Sentencing guidelines were not properly
followed by the trial court.

In State of U.P. v. Satish (2005) 3 SCC 114 6 The prosecution must establish the
guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and prove the case with cogent evidence. The
prosecution failed to establish the mens rea (guilty mind) necessary for
conviction under this section. Mere presence or association does not constitute
an offense under the Section 140(1). Since Radhika did not have any intention
to kill Shubham the life imprisonment is too harsh and it can be reduced.

Her own confession and behaviour indicate that she only wanted to make him
unwell to force a breakup, not to end his life. The prosecution argues that
Radhika’s act was premeditated since she procured the pesticide in advance.
However, premeditation alone is not sufficient to prove intent to kill. There is no
evidence that she deliberately planned to cause death; instead, she aimed to
cause temporary illness.

Radhika was 23 years old at the time of the incident. She has no prior criminal
history and was not a habitual offender. Courts have consistently recognized
that first-time offenders, especially young individuals, should not receive the
5
Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. King Emperor (1925 AIR 1)
6
State of U.P. v. Satish (2005) 3 SCC 114

14
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

maximum penalty unless the crime is particularly heinous. Courts have

sentenced individuals to less than life imprisonment in cases where there was no
premeditated intent to kill.

The appropriate conviction should be under Section 104 BNS (Culpable

Homicide Not Amounting to Murder), not Section 103 BNS (Murder). The
punishment for culpable homicide carries a lesser sentence (up to 10 years or
life imprisonment, depending on the severity). In Reg v. Govinda (1877)7, the
court ruled that if death is caused without intent to kill, the offense should fall
under culpable homicide, not murder.

ISSUE 2 : Whether the trial court was correct in relying on Radhika’s

confession to police for her conviction?

Under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act and under Section 23 of BSA,
2023 confessions made to a police officer are inadmissible in court. The trial
court improperly relied on the confession, making the conviction legally flawed.
No material evidence apart from the confession establishes premeditated intent.
The court must base conviction on evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, which
is lacking here.

Confession to police is inadmissible in court

Without legal representation at the time of confession, the appellant’s rights

were violated. Confession Must be Made Before a Magistrate to be admissible.
A confession must be recorded before a magistrate voluntarily and without
coercion.

Radhika’s confession was not given before a magistrate, making it legally

irrelevant. Under Section 23(2) of BSA, 2023; No confession made by any
person while he is in the custody of a police officer, unless it is made in the
immediate presence of a Magistrate shall be proved against him. Courts
7
Reg v. Govinda (1877)

15
consider intent and circumstances before imposing life sentences. Radhika had
no criminal history and acted impulsively, making life imprisonment too harsh.

In the case of Shivappa v. State of Karnataka (1995) 2 SCC 768 ,The Supreme
Court held that a confession made to the police while in custody is inadmissible
under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, unless made in the presence
of a magistrate.

In Pakala Narayana Swami v. Emperor (1939)9, the Privy Council held that a
confession made to the police is not admissible in evidence, where the
definition was given by judiciary. In State of U.P. v. Deoman Upadhyaya
(1960)10, the Supreme Court reinforced that confessions to the police cannot be
used against the accused.

Even if the confession were admissible (which it is not), Radhika never

explicitly admitted to intending to kill Shubham. She only confessed to mixing
a substance in his drink to make him sick, which does not satisfy the intent
requirement under Section 103 BNS (Murder).

Radhika did not immediately confess when she was arrested. Her confession
came after several days of interrogation. If her intent had truly been to commit
murder, she could have revealed this immediately.

Confession under Section 23(1) is inadmissible. It states that No confession

made to a police officer shall be proved as against a person accused of any
offence. In Kashmira Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1952)11, the Supreme
Court ruled that confessions must be supported by additional evidence.

Violation of procedural safeguards

8
Shivappa v. State of Karnataka (1995) 2 SCC 76
9
Pakala Narayana Swami v. Emperor (1939)
10
State of U.P. v. Deoman Upadhyaya (1960)
11
Kashmira Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1952)

16
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

Radhika was not mentioned about the confession that whatever she confesses
maybe used against her as an evidence in the court of law. Since it is stated that
if Shubham had been brought earlier to hospital, he could have been saved.
There must be any fault in the medical treatment given to Shubham.

When Radhika tried to breakup with Shubham multiple times, he did not agree
to breakup with her. Even though it was premeditated her mind would have
been under psychological distress and she must have committed the act out of
frustration and Radhika must have taken this decision to force him breakup with
her.

There is no evidence of recording for the confession made my Radhika. The

trial court did not ask for the evidence when she was investigated. Since the
incident took place in Radhika’s residence and it was a closed place, no one
knew what could have happened inside and there is no evidence for it. There
was no medical report submitted stating that the death was caused due to
poisoning in the trial court.

The court had relied only on the confession made my Radhika and they did not
consider any other evidence and no importance was given to medical report.
Hence evidence is not admissible. When Shubham had the pesticide Radhika
assured him that it must be minor issue and told him to rest. Then later when he
began to feel unwell.

When he began to feel unwell, he should have visited the hospital. If he had
visited the hospital earlier he could have been saved. The doctors stated that if
he had brought to hospital earlier he could have been saved. So there must have
been negligence on behalf of the hospital for lack of medical treatment.

In Pulukari Kotayya V Emperor, AIR 1947 PC 67 12, the portion of the

information which can be treated as the direct cause of the discovery of the new

12
Pulukari Kotayya V Emperor, AIR 1947 PC 67

17
fact is admissible. In this case no new fact is discovered, hence it is
inadmissible.

PRAYER

18
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

Wherefore, in the light of facts stated, the cases cited, issues raised, arguments
advanced and authorities cited, it is most humbly prayed and implored before
the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, that it may be graciously pleased to:

1. Set aside the conviction under Section 140(1) of BNS, 2023

2. Reduce the sentence in light of the absence of intent to kill;
3. Declare the confession made by the appellant to the police as
inadmissible evidence

Also, pass any other order that the court may deem fit in the favour of Appellant
to meet the ends of Equity, Justice and Good Conscience.

For this act of Kindness, the Appellant shall duty bound forever pray.

Dated : 03rd March, 2025

Respectfully submitted,
Counsel for Appellant

19