IN THE HON’BLE COURT OF SUPREME COURT

IN THE MATTER OF-

STATE [COMPLAINANT]

VS

SUMIT & OTR, [ACCUSED]

FIR U/S 302,397,201 read with 34 OPC

AND

STATE VS RANDHIR

FIR U/S 201,202.404,411 OPC

AND

STATE VS LALITA

FIR U/S201,202 OPC

SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED

………………………………………………………………………………………………………...
 P-2

[TABLE OF CONTENTS]

 ABBREVATION

 INDEX OF CITATION (AUTHORITY)

 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

 SUMMARY OF FACT

 ISSUES

 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

 PRAYER
 P-3 d

INDEX OF ABBREVATION

ABBREVATION FULL-FORM

 NO ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NUMBER

 PVT. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------PRIVATE

 HON’BLE -------------------------------------------------------------------HONOURABLE

 V. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- VERSES

 B/W ------------------------------------------------------------------------------BETWEEN

 AIR ---------------------------------------------------------------------ALL INDIA REPORT

 CO.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COMPANY

 SC -------------------------------------------------------------------------SUPREMECOURT

 ANR. --------------------------------------------------------------------------ANOTHER
 P-4

CITED CASE
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

1. Amar Malla v State of Tripura, AIR 2002 SC 3052

2. Ambalal v State of Rajasthan, 2003 Cr LJ 115
3. Asha v State of Rajasthan, AIR 1997 SC 2828
4. Badshah Singh v State, AIR 1958 All 677
5. Bakshish Singh v State of Punjab, AIR 1971 SC 2016
]

 ONLINE RESOURCES

o MANUPUTRA

o LEXIS NEXIS

 WEBSITES
o http://www.judis.nic
o http://www.manupatra.co.in/AdvancedLegalSearch.aspx
o 4http://www.scconline.com .in
P-5

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Hon’ble Court has jurisdiction to try the instant matter under Section
177 read with Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Section
177: ‘177. Ordinary place of inquiry and trial- Every offence shall ordinarily be
inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was
committed.’ Read with Section 209: ‘ 209. Commitment of case to Court of
Session when offence is triable exclusively by it

- When in a case instituted on a police report 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) ; (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) (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) (d) notify the Public Prosecutor of the commitment of the case to the
Court of Session.’

…………………………………………….....................................................................................................................
P-6

SUMMARY OF FACTS
Mr. Joe Cornell was a citizen of the Republic of Oreo, residing in Modena, a city of State
Yaku. He was the Chief Executive Officer of a leading multinational company, Arin
Technologies. Just like any other day, on 05.01.2021, Mr. Cornell had left home in his
car at nine a.m. for his office. But he never reached there. Instead, at about one p.m., his
wife, Mrs. Anita Ajay, received a call from the Station House Officer, Modena Police
Station, informing her that Mr. Cornell had been killed.

2. Mrs. Anita Ajay lodged a complaint and the Station House Officer registered a First
Information Report at Modena Police Station (F.I.R. No. 13/2021 was filed under
Sections 302 and 201, Oreo Penal Code,1860). She informed the police that her
husband was wearing a white shirt, black trousers and a blue sweater. She also
mentioned that Mr. Cornel was carrying his laptop when he left home.

3.inspector vikramprepared the seizure memo of items recovered from the place where
Mr. Cornell was found murdered. No laptop was recovered. The deceased was wearing
white shirt and black trousers when his body was found. Sub-Inspector Sunil prepared
the inquest report under the instruction of Inspector Michael Watson. Thereafter,
Inspector Michael sent the dead body for a post-mortem with a constable. Dr. Larry
John conducted the post-mortem of the body and found that the death of the deceased
was a result of ante-mortem injuries. The injuries were three gunshot wounds and two
incised wounds.

4. On 06.03.2021, Sub-Inspector Sunil along with other police officers, apprehended a

car after an informer told her that a vehicle, perceived to be stolen by the Faculty of
Law, Aligarh Muslim University Surana & Surana International Attorneys informer,
would come from the direction of Strand Road. The person driving the car told Sub-
Inspector Sunil that his name was RandhirScott. When he was searched, the police
recovered a .32 calibre pistol with four live cartridges in a sevenshot magazine from
the pocket of his trousers. The police arrested RandhirScott.

P-7
5. On 08.03.2021, Mrs. Anita Ajay identified the car as the one her husband owned and
was driving on the day he was killed. As described by Mrs. Osaka, the aluminium stick
was also found in the car that Mr. Osaka used to keep underneath his seat for
selfdefence. Mrs. Osaka produced a copy of the Registration Certificate of the car. The
police got the chassis number from the car using a tracing paper. They matched with
the number provided in the Registration Certificate.inspector vikramprepared the
identification memo of the car of the deceased.

6. The police recorded the confession statement of Randhiron 15.03.2021. He said that
his friend Amit Baker and Amit’s brother sumitBaker came to meet him, at his house, at
three p.m. on 05.01.2021 and told him that the car was Simon’s car and was involved in
an accident. Amit and sumitrequested Randhirto keep the car with him for a few days.
sumitused Rambo’s toilet and after he was done, Amit took out a laptop from the car
and they left with the laptop. After they left, Rambo’s wife went to the toilet and found a
blue sweater. Randhircalled sumitto ensure if he had left the sweater; Simon, though
acknowledging that it belongs to him, asked Randhirto keep it. After seven-eight days,
when Randhirvisited Amit’s house, Amit told him that the car belonged to one Mr. Ajay
Cornell and that he along with sumithad murdered Mr. Cornell. Though looking
furious, looking deep into the eyes of Rambo, Amit laughed. After this conversation,
Randhirfelt paranoid, but he smiled. When police took Randhirto his house,
Randhiropened his almirah and gave the blue sweater to the police. Mrs. Osaka
confirmed that the sweater was of the same size and colour that Mr. Osaka wore the
day he was killed. On 22.03.2021, Randhirwas produced before the Judicial Magistrate
Mary Bishop and she recorded his judicial confession under Section 164 CrPc

. 7. On 16.03.2021,inspector vikramand his team went to Amit’s house to arrest him.

But Amit was not there. One Mr rockey Amit’s next-door neighbour, told the police that
he saw Ms. Lalita Baker, Amit’s sister burning a laptop in the outdoor fireplace
established in the garden of Amit’s house.inspector vikramfound the charred remains
of what were perceived to be some electronic components from the spot indicated by
Mr rockey.

P-8
8. Amit and sumitwere arrested a day later. Both were interrogated separately.
sumitstated in his statement recorded by the Police that he had neither committed any
murder nor did he give any car to Rambo. On the other hand, Amit took the police to his
house and showed a finger in the direction of his cupboard, stating, “The pistol my
brother owns is in that cupboard. Yes, we killed Joe Cornell and took his money. He had
a lot of money!”inspector vikramprepared the recovery memo of the .32 calibre pistol
recovered from the house of Amit.

9. On the day of his arrest, Amit’s school principal also handed over the attendance
register of his class to the police. Amit was marked absent in the register on
05.01.2021.

10. On 17.03.2021, Renowned Forensic science expert Dr. Malcolm Hunt from Central
Forensic Science Laboratory stated in his report that the burnt remains might be those
of a laptop. One of the components found burned was a battery cell, which is used in the
batteries of laptops, but the same may also be found in power banks.

11. The Police filed the charge-sheet against sumitand Amit under Sections 302, 397,
201 r/w 34, Oreo Penal Code, 1860 & against Randhirunder Section 201, 202, 404 and
411, Oreo Penal Code, 1860 and Lalita under Sections 201 and 202, Oreo Penal Code,
1860.

12. Amit was declared a juvenile, and his trial is still going on in the juvenile court of
Modena. Only Simon, Randhirand Lalita were tried by the Sessions Judge at Modena.
During the examination of witnesses Mr. Gardner was declared a hostile witness as he
stated that he had never told the police about the laptop and that the police had made
him sign on a blank paper.

13. In their statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC, 1973 sumitand Randhirsaid, “I
don’t know”, in reply to all the questions put to them. In her statement recorded under
Section 313 CrPC, 1973 Lalita stated that she had not burned any laptop as claimed by
Mr. Gardner. She said Mr. Gardner used to pass lewd remarks towards her, and since
she did not respond to his advances, he lied to the police.

P-9
14. The Sessions Judge convicted Randhirand sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment
for three years and Rs. 2000 as fine and in default, one month of simple imprisonment
under Section 201 OPC, 1860, six months of rigorous imprisonment under Section 202
OPC, 1860, one year of rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 1000 fine and in default, one
month of simple imprisonment under Section 404 OPC,1860 and one year of rigorous
imprisonment under Section 411 OPC,1860.

15. The Sessions Judge acquitted sumitand Lalita for the lack of evidence on the ground
that the murder weapon was recovered from the possession of a juvenile accused who
was still being tried, and the judicial confession of a co-accused cannot be relied upon
for convicting sumitBaker. Similarly, the court held that since Mr. Gardner turned
hostile, sufficient evidence was not available to convict Lalita Baker.

16. State of Yaku challenged the acquittal of sumitand Lalita before the hon’ble High
Court of Yaku in an appeal. The case State of Yaku v. sumit& Anr. is now listed for final
hearing before a Division Bench.

17. For the purposes of this moot problem statement, Oreo Penal Code, 1860 or OPC,
1860 and Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or CrPC, 1973 of the Republic of Oreo are in
pari materia with the Oreo Penal Code, 1860 and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
as applicable to the whole of India respectively.

P-10
 ISSUES
Issues:

 Whether the sumit & amit is guilty for robbery or dacoity ?

NO

 Whether sumit and amit is guilty of murder?.

NO
P-11

SUMMARY OFARGUMENTS

Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of NV Ramana, CJI and AS Bopanna* and Hima Kohli, JJ
has elaborated on the question as to whether to be charged under Section 397 IPC, it is
necessary to prove that the offender has put the weapon to “use”.

The law laid down by the Bench can be summarized as follows:

o the use of the weapon to constitute the offence under Section 397 IPC does not require
that the ‘offender’ should actually fire from the firearm or actually stab if it is a knife
or a dagger but the mere exhibition of the same, brandishing or holding it openly to
threaten and create fear or apprehension in the mind of the victim is sufficient.
o if the charge of committing the offence is alleged against all the accused and only one
among the ‘offenders’ had used the firearm or deadly weapon, only such of the
‘offender’ who has used the firearm or deadly weapon alone would be liable to be
charged under Section 397 IPC.
o in the teeth of the offence under Section 397 IPC being applicable to the offender
alone, the vicariability of the same will also have to be noted if the charge against the
accused under Sections 34, 149 IPC and such other provisions of law, which may
become relevant, is also invoked along with Section 397 IPC.
o In such event, it will have to be looked at differently in the totality of the facts,
evidence and circumstances involved in that case and the provisions invoked in that
particular case to frame a charge against the accused. In the instant case, the charge
under Section 34 IPC was not framed against the appellant nor was such an allegation
raised and proved against the appellant.
o benefit of the interpretation raised on the scope of Section 397 IPC to hold the
aggressor alone as being guilty, will be available to the appellant if there is no specific
allegation against him

Shri Phool Kumar v. Delhi Administration, (1975) 1 SCC 797

“The term ‘offender’ in that section, as rightly held by several High Courts, is confined to the
offender who uses any deadly weapon. The use of a deadly weapon by one offender at the
P-12

time of committing robbery cannot attract Section 397 for the imposition of the minimum
punishment on another offender who had not used any deadly weapon.”

Dilawar Singh v. State of Delhi, (2007) 12 SCC 641

““Offender” refers to only culprit who actually used deadly weapon. When only one has used
the deadly weapon, others cannot be awarded the minimum punishment. It only envisages
the individual liability and not any constructive liability. Section 397 IPC is attracted only
against the particular accused who uses the deadly weapon or does any of the acts
mentioned in the provision. But the other accused are not vicariously liable under that section
for acts of the co-accused.”

Ganesan v. State, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1023

“… the term ‘offender’ under Section 397 IPC is confined to the ‘offender’ who uses any deadly
weapon and use of deadly weapon by one offender at the time of committing robbery cannot
attract Section 397 IPC for the imposition of minimum punishment on another offender who
has not used any deadly weapon. Even there is distinction and difference between Section 397
and Section 398 IPC. The word used in Section 397 IPC is ‘uses’ any deadly weapon and the
word used in Section 398 IPC is ‘offender is armed with any deadly weapon’. Therefore, for the
purpose of attracting Section 397 IPC the ‘offender’ who ‘uses’ any deadly weapon Section
397 IPC shall be attracted.

Section 202. Intentional omission to give information of offence by person bound to inform.—
Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed,
intentionally omits to give any information respecting that offence which he is legally bound
to give, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.

In the matter of Ramphal v. King Emperor10, it has been held that provisions contained in
Section 202 IPC are not intended to be punitive in themselves, but are intended to be facilitate
information as to the commission of an offenc

Section 302 readwith Section 34, IPC envisages commission of murder by two or more people
in furtheranceof a common intention. Section 300 of IPC gives the definition of murder and
P-13

enumerates theingredients of the offence.Section 300 of Indian Penal Code contemplates that
a person is guilty of murder if heintentionally causes the death of a person or causes such
bodily injury as he knows, is likelyto cause death of that person or causes such bodily injury,
which in the ordinary course ofnature results into death or commits an act so dangerous that
it must, in all probability causedeath of that person.Section 34 of Indian Penal Code
contemplates the doing of an act by several persons infurtherance of common intention.

o The constructive liability under this section would ariseonly if two conditions are
fulfilled:a) There must be common intention to commit the crime; and b) There must
be participation by all the persons in doing such act in furtherance of thatintention. If
these two ingredients are established all the accused would be liable for the
saidoffence.

o 1 The leading feature of Sec 34 is the element of participation in action.

o 2 It is the essence of this section that the person must be physically present at the
actualcommission of the crime. Criminal sharing, overt or covert, by active presence or
by distantdirection, making out a certain measure of jointness in the commission of
the act is theessence of this section.

o It is presumed that every sane person intends the result that his action normally
produces andif a person hits another on a vulnerable part of the body, and death
occurs as a result, theintention of the accused can be no other than to take the life of
the victim and the offencecommitted amounts to murder.

o Moreover, the intention to kill is not required in every case, mere knowledge that
natural and probable consequences of an act would be death will suffice for a
conviction under section.302 of the Indian Penal Code
P-14

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

Orissa High Court: A Division Bench of Pramath Patnaik and Dr A. K. Mishra JJ. modified the
conviction given by the trial court and convicted the accused under Section 304 Part-I Penal
Code, 1860.

The brief facts of the case are that the accused was charged under Section 302 IPC for having
given a single blow to deceased mother.

 As per prosecution case, the accused and his wife quarreled and when mother
intervened, the accused left the spot only to return later with a knife dealt a blow
which struck to the right ear and the mother succumbed to her injuries. On
investigation, accused was arrested, post mortem conducted and charge-sheet under
Section 302 IPC submitted and consequently the accused faced trial by the Court of
Session.

 Defence took the plea of denial simplicitor and examined none. The trial court
appreciated the evidence of doctor and eyewitnesses and found the death of deceased
to be homicidal in nature convicted and sentenced the accused. Aggrieved by the
impugned judgment has filed the instant petition.

 The counsel for the appellant, Ambika Prasad Ray, submitted that the manner in which
the knife blow was inflicted to the mother is nothing but without premeditation and
due to heat of passion, out of sudden quarrel and not in a cruel manner for which
exception 4 of Section 300 IPC is attracted.

 He further requested the Court to convert the conviction to Section 304 Part-I of IPC.
 The counsel for the respondent, Zafarullah, did not dispute the factum of quarrel but
stated that no such plea was taken before the Trial Court.
P-15

 After carefully perusing the evidence on record and hearing all the witnesses from
both sides, the Court observed that the accused son had no animosity with the
deceased mother, rather the incident had the genesis of quarreling between accused
and his wife for which it could be said that there was no premeditation and no motive.
 The Court further observed that the trial Court has committed error in not appreciating
the law in the right perspective whereas the material in abundance proves that the
offence committed is culpable homicide not amounting to murder as defined under
Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC and for that the accused is to be convicted under Section
304 Part-I IPC instead of Section 302 IPC.

In view of the above, the appeal was allowed and sent back. [Santosh Toppo v. State of
Odisha, 2020 SCC OnLine Ori 59, decided on 29-02-2020]

DEATH OF DECEASED IS IMMATERIAL EVIDENCE

inspector vikram prepared the seizure memo of items recovered from the place where Mr.

Cornell was found murdered. No laptop was recovered. The deceased was wearing white shirt

and black trousers when his body was found. Sub-Inspector Sunil prepared the inquest report

under the instruction of Inspector Michael Watson. Thereafter, Inspector Michael sent the

dead body for a post-mortem with a constable. Dr. Larry John conducted the post-mortem of

the body and found that the death of the deceased was a result of ante-mortem injuries

STATEMENT BY LALITA

In their statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC, 1973 sumitand Randhirsaid, “I don’t

know”, in reply to all the questions put to them. In her statement recorded under Section 313

CrPC, 1973 Lalita stated that she had not burned any laptop as claimed by Mr. Gardner. She

said Mr. Gardner used to pass lewd remarks towards her, and since she did not respond to his
advances, he lied to the police.

P-16

CONVERSATION PRONOUNCED

After seven-eight days, when Randhirvisited Amit’s house, Amit told him that the car

belonged to one Mr. Ajay Cornell and that he along with sumithad murdered Mr. Cornell.

Though looking furious, looking deep into the eyes of Rambo, Amit laughed. After this

conversation, Randhirfelt paranoid, but he smiled. When police took Randhirto his house,

Randhiropened his almirah and gave the blue sweater to the police. Mrs. Osaka confirmed
P-17

PRAYER

Hon’ble Court be pleased to:

1. Declare and adjudge that all three ACCUSED IS not guilty of murder.

2. Do not Uphold the conviction of the Hon’ble Sessions Court.

AND/OR

Pass any other order, as it deems fit, in light of justice, equity and good conscience

.All of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted