“TC- 34”

PANJAB UNIVERSITY INTRA-DEPARTMENT TRIAL

ADVOCACY COMPETITION, 2024

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SESSION COURT

Criminal Case No. _______/2024

STATE OF PUNJAB

(PROSECUTION)

v.

KAMAL

(DEFENCE)

FOR THE OFFENCES CHARGED UNDER SECTIONS

74/76/101/103/118/127/128/130/238/351 OF THE BHARATIYA NYAYA
SANHITA, 2023.

UPON SUBMISSION TO The HON’BLE SESSION COURT UNDER

SEC. 197 R/W SEC. 232 OF THE BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA
SANHITA, 2023.

MEMORANDUM FILED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

S.No. Particulars Page No.

1 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 4.

2 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 7.

3 STATEMENT OF FACTS 8.

4 STATEMENT OF CHARGES 10.

5 STATEMENT OF ISSUES 11.

6 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 12.

7 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED 14.

8 PRAYER 29.

2 [MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION]

 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVIATION EXPANSION
AIR All India Reporter
FIR First Information Report
IPC Indian Penal Code
HC High Court
Hon’ble Honourable
BNS Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita

No. Number
Ors. Others
Cr.P.C. Criminal Procedure Code
DNA Deoxyribonucleic acid

i.e., That is
Sec. Section
SC Supreme Court
u/s Under Section
v. Versus
BNSS Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita
SYMBOL EXPANSION
& And
% Percentage

3 [MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION]

 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

TABLE OF CASES

S.NO. CASE LAWS

1 Ashok Kumar V. State Of Punjab, AIR 1977 SC 109

2 Brend v. Wood, (1946) 62 TLR 462

3 Commissioner of Income Tax V. Patram Dass Raja Ram Beri,

AIR 1982 P&H 1

4 Jai Prakash V. State (Delhi Administration), 1991 () ACR 385

(SC)

5 Jitender Nath v. Ram Phal Bansal & Anr, (2010)

6 Kalawati and ors. Vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1953
SC 131

7 Karu Marik V. State of Bihar, 2002 (2) ACR 1656 (SC)

8 Mahesh Balmiki v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1999 (2) ACR 1879

(SC)

9 Mathai V. State of Kerala, 2005 (1) ACR 505 (SC)

10 Mithailal and Others V. State Of Maharashtra, (1994) (2)

BOMCR 720

11 Naresh Ch. Nath V. The State, (1971) CRILJ 407

12 Namdeo V. State of Maharashtra, 2007 (2) ACR 1522 (SC)

13 Nani Gopal Deb And Anr. V. Bhima Charan Rakshit, AIR 1956
CAL 32

14 Ramchandra Ohdar V. The State of Bihar, AIR 1999 SC 998

4 [MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION]

 15 State of Maharashtra v. M.H. George, AIR 1965 SC 722

16 State of Rajasthan V. Dhool Singh, AIR 2004 SC 1264

17 State V. Asif & Ors, (2013)

18 Sukra Oram V. State, AIR 1959 Ori 21

19 Sursing Shukabhai Bamne v. State of Gujarat, (2017)

GUJHC:21896-DB

20 Virsa Singh V. The State of Punjab, AIR 1958 SC 465

BOOKS REFERRED

• K.N. Chandrashekhar, Pillai,Essays on Indian Penal Code, 1860, Universal Law

Publication, 2019.

• T. Bhattacharya,The Indian Penal Code, 1860, Central Law Agency, 2017

• K.D. Gaur, The Indian Penal Code, 1860, Universal Law Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd, 2019

• S.C. Sarkar, Sarkar’s – Commentary on the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Jain Book Depot,
2015

• Rattan Lal and DhirajLal, The Indian Penal Code, 1860, Lexis Nexis Butterworths
Wadhwa, 2019

• Sir H.S. Gour, H.S. Gour’s Commentary on the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Law Publishers
(India) Pvt. Ltd., 2017

5 [MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION]

 STATUTES

1. The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, No. 46, Acts of Parliament, 2023 (India).
2. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, No. 45, Acts of Parliament, 2023 (India).
3. The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, No. 47, Acts of Parliament, 2023 (India).

WEBSITES

HTTPS://WWW.MANUPATRAFAST .COM/

HTTPS://WWW.LEGALSERVICEINDIA .COM/

HTTPS://INDIANKANOON .ORG/

HTTPS://WWW.CASEMINE .COM/

HTTPS://WWW.AIRONLINE .IN/

HTTPS://WWW.LAWFINDERLIVE .COM/

HTTPS://WWW.LIVELAW.IN/

6 [MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION]

 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Hon’ble Court has jurisdiction to try the instant matter under Sec. 197 read with Sec. 232
of The Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 1.

197 - 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 Sec, 232:

232- 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, after complying with the provisions of section 230 or section 231 the case to the
Court of Session, and subject to the provisions of this Sanhita relating to bail, remand the
accused to custody until such commitment has been made;

(b) subject to the provisions of this Sanhita 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 Prosecutor of the commitment of the case to the Court of Session:

Provided that the proceedings under this section shall be completed within a period of ninety
days from the date of taking cognizance, and such period may be extended by the Magistrate
for a period not exceeding one hundred and eighty days for the reasons to be recorded in
writing:

Provided further that any application filed before the Magistrate by the accused or the victim
or any person authorised by such person in a case triable by Court of Session, shall be
forwarded to the Court of Session with the committal of the case.

1. The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, , No. 46, Acts of Parliament, 2023 (India).

7 [MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION]

 STATEMENT OF FACTS
BACKDROP
1. The Deceased, Nidhi, D/O Gori, was a student pursuing a degree in Chemistry at
Government Arts & Science College, Ludhiana. She resided at, Ward 7, XYZ,
Ludhiana.

2. Kamal, S/O Damodar and Ambika, is a final semester student at Government

Engineering College, Ludhiana. Kamal's family employed Gori as a domestic helper,
and Kamal's residence is approximately 1 km from Nidhi’s home.

3. Relationship Dynamics:

o Nidhi and Kamal were acquaintances due to the professional relationship

between their families. Nidhi occasionally visited Kamal’s home, where he
assisted her with academic questions.

o Kamal harbored a personal interest in Nidhi, which extended beyond academic

help. He expressed a desire for a physical relationship with her. Kamal offered
Nidhi money in exchange for sexual favors, knowing that her family was
financially struggling, with Gori's income being their primary source of
support. Nidhi declined Kamal’s advances on multiple occasions.

4. Kamal had long admired Nidhi from afar, his feelings growing stronger with each
passing day. However, Kamal's growing obsession with Nidhi transformed into
bitterness after she rejected his advances. His unreciprocated feelings for Nidhi turned
into resentment, and on July 4, 2024, he saw an opportunity to act on his anger.
Knowing Nidhi would be alone while her mother, Gori, was at his home for chores,
Kamal decided to confront her. He called Nidhi on her mobile to confirm she was
home. Then, Kamal walked to her house, arriving around 5:15 p.m. He entered and
bolted the door from inside. Kamal then expressed that he wanted to have sexual
intercourse with her and would marry her. When she refused and tried to escape, he
caught hold of her and covered her mouth to muffle any noise. Kamal had brought a

8 [MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION]

 knife from his home with the intention of killing her if she didn't consent to his
demands. Ultimately, he caused a cut on her neck, leading to Nidhi's death.

MATTER BEFORE THE COURT

The First Information Report was lodged by Abhilash, the Ward Councillor of XYZ
Municipality. Following this, the police investigated the scene and recovered a knife. After a
thorough investigation, they filed a charge sheet against the accused. Kamal was then taken
into custody, where he confessed to the crime and revealed the location of the blood-stained
clothes he wore during the incident. The police recovered these clothes from a banana
plantation and sent them, along with the knife, for forensic testing. The DNA test confirmed
that the blood on the knife, pants, and t-shirt matched Nidhi's.

9 [MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION]

 STATEMENT OF CHARGE

The Accused i.e., Kamal was charged under Sections

74/76/101/103/118/127/128/130/238/351 of The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 for the
crime of Assault or use of criminal force to women with intent to outrage her modesty,
Assault or use of criminal force to woman with intent to disrobe, Murder, Punishment for
Murder, Voluntarily Causing Hurt or Grievous Hurt by dangerous weapon or means,
Wrongful Confinement, Force, Assault, Causing disappearance of evidence of offence or
giving false information to screen offender, Criminal Intimidation respectively.

10 [MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION]

 STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUE 1 – Whether the accused is liable under Section 101&103 of The Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023?

ISSUE 2: Whether Kamal is liable for voluntarily causing Grievous Hurt by Dangerous
weapons or means?

ISSUE 3: Whether the accused is liable under Section 127 of The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023?

ISSUE 4: Whether the accused is guilty under Section 238 of The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023 for causing disappearance of crucial evidence?

ISSUE 5: Whether the accused is guilty for the offences of Criminal Force and Assault U/S
129 and 130 of The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023?

11 [MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION]

 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE 1 – Whether the accused is liable under Section 101&103 of The Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023?

It is most humbly and respectfully submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the accused,
Kamal, is liable under Sections 101 and 103 of the BNS, 2023. Section 1012 outlines the key
elements of murder, all of which are satisfied here. The accused's confession, coupled with
evidence, clearly indicates premeditation. Kamal brought a knife to the scene and targeted the
victim while she was alone, intending to cause death or serious bodily injury. The injury
inflicted on the victim's neck was severe, cutting the jugular vein and leading to fatal blood
loss. The combination of Kamal's deliberate preparation, execution, and targeting of a vital
area demonstrates both the physical act (actus reus) and the guilty mind (mens rea) required
for a murder conviction. Premeditation, planning, and the lethal intent behind the act are
evident, supporting the charge of murder. The post-mortem report confirms the stab wound as
the direct cause of death.

ISSUE 2: Whether Kamal is liable for Voluntarily causing Grievous Hurt by Dangerous
weapons or means?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the accused, Kamal, is liable under
Section 118(2) of BNS, 2023 for voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous means, as all
essential elements are satisfied. Kamal acted with knowledge that his actions would cause
grievous harm, using a dangerous weapon (a knife) to inflict a fatal neck wound on Nidhi. On
July 4, 2024, Kamal deliberately armed himself with the knife, confronted her, and inflicted
the fatal wound, severing her jugular vein. The post-mortem report confirms this as the cause
of death due to severe hemorrhage. Kamal’s voluntary and premeditated use of a deadly
weapon, leading to a fatal injury, meets the definition of grievous hurt under Section 116, and
his actions directly resulted in Nidhi’s death, making him liable for grievous harm.

2. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, No. 45, Acts of Parliament, 2023 (India).

12 [MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION]

 ISSUE 3: Whether the accused is liable under Section 127 of The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the accused, Kamal, is liable under
Section 127 of the BNS, 2023 for wrongfully confining the deceased. Kamal bolted the door,
preventing the deceased from leaving the room, fulfilling the elements of wrongful
confinement. He coerced her by proposing marriage and expressing sexual intent, placing her
in a vulnerable position. When she resisted, he physically restrained her, covering her mouth
to prevent her from calling for help. These actions clearly demonstrate his intention to
confine her against her will, making him fully liable for wrongful confinement under the law.

ISSUE 4: Whether the accused is guilty under Section 238 of The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023 for causing disappearance of crucial evidence?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the accused, Kamal, is guilty under
Section 238 of the BNS, 2023 for causing the disappearance of crucial evidence. Kamal
knowingly discarded bloodstained clothing, crucial in establishing his presence at the crime
scene. By doing so, he intended to conceal evidence to avoid legal punishment, fulfilling the
elements of the offense: he was aware of the crime, destroyed evidence to protect himself,
and intentionally hid the clothing in a banana plantation. This deliberate act of concealing
evidence makes him fully liable under Section 238 3.

ISSUE 5: Whether the accused is guilty for the offences of Criminal Force and Assault U/S
129 and 130 of The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the accused, Kamal, is guilty of
Criminal Force and Assault under Sections 129 and 130 of the BNS, 2023. Kamal brought a
knife with the intent to murder Nidhi. When Nidhi panicked and attempted to escape, Kamal
used physical force by restraining her and covering her mouth to prevent her from making
noise. He then brandished the knife with the intent to kill. These actions clearly demonstrate
the use of criminal force and assault, making Kamal fully liable for these offenses.

3. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, No. 45 , Acts of Parliament, 2023 (India).

13 [MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION]

 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE 1 – Whether the accused is liable under Section 101&103 of The Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023?

It is most humbly and respectfully submitted before the Hon’ble court that the accused is
liable for committing the offence of murder u/s 101 & 103 of BNS, 2023. 4 Sec. 1035
prescribe the punishment for committing murder. In order to bring a successful conviction
under the charge, however, it pertinent to refer Sec 101, of BNS, 2023 which elucidates the
essentials of murder.

Section 101 of BNS, 2023 states that-

Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder,––

(a) if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death; or

(b) if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing such bodily
injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is
caused; or

(c) if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing bodily injury
to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course
of nature to cause death; or

(d) if the person committing the act by which the death is caused, knows that it is so
imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death, or such bodily injury as is
likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of
causing death or such injury as aforesaid.

4. State of Rajasthan V. Dhool Singh, AIR 2004 SC 1264

5. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, No. 45, Acts of Parliament, 2023 (India).

14 [MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION]

 The said offence clearly approves the clauses of section 1016

A- if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing
death; or

The confession of the accused, Kamal, clearly indicates a premeditated intention to murder.
Kamal brought a knife to the scene. Also, he visited the deceased's home while she was
alone, demonstrating his intent to commit the crime.

B- if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing such
bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person
to whom the harm is caused; or

The injury inflicted by the accused on the deceased’s neck was severe enough to cause death.
Targeting the neck—a vital body part —further reflects the accused's intent to cause death.
Even in case of Namdeo V. State of Maharashtra7, the court ruled that by considering the
nature of weapon used by the accused (axe) and the vital part of the body (head) of the
deceased chosen by him, it was clear that the intention of the accused was to cause death of
Ninaji. PW 4 Dr. Jaiswal in his deposition stated that injury No. 1 was sufficient in the
ordinary course of nature to cause death of the victim. In the circumstances, both the Courts
were right in holding that the case was covered by Section 302 8’.

Moreover, in case of Karu Marik V. State of Bihar9, the court observed that, ‘as far as
clause II of the Section 300 10 is concerned, it is enough if the accused had the intention of
causing such bodily injury as he knew to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom
the harm is caused. Such intention may be inferred not merely from the actual consequences
of his act, but from the act itself also’.

6. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, No. 45, Acts of Parliament, 2023 (India).
7. Namdeo V. State of Maharashtra 2007(2) ACR 1522 (SC).
8. The Indian Penal Code, No. 45, Acts of Parliament, 1860 (India).
9. Karu Marik V. State of Bihar 2002 (2) ACR1656 (SC)
10. The Indian Penal Code, No. 45, Acts of Parliament, 1860 (India).

15 [MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION]

 C- if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing
bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is
sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death; or

Neck is a vital part of the body and causing injury on the vital part of the body with the help
of sharp weapon can lead to death of the person. In Jai Prakash V. State (Delhi
Administration)11 the court observed that if we examine the facts in the present case, Clause
Third of Section 30012 is fully attracted. The appellant was having illicit relation with Agya
Devi, wife of the deceased and his visits to her house were resented and objected. On the day
of occurence, the accused visited the house when the deceased was not there and he went
there armed with a kirpan. When the deceased came and objected to his presence there was
only an altercation and exchange of hot words, and not a fight. Thereupon he took out a knife
and stabbed on the chest of the deceased resulting instantaneous death of the deceased. The
above circumstances would show that the accused intentionally inflicted that injury though it
may not be pre-mediated one. All the above circumstances would certainly indicate such a
state of mind namely he aimed and inflicted that injury with a deadly weapon. When once
the ingredient `intention' is established then the offence would be murder as the intended
injury is found to be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Therefore an
offence of murder is made out.

The injury inflicted on the neck of the deceased by the accused which injured the jugular vein
was sufficient to cause death . This clearly establishes the guilty intention of accused to
murder the deceased.

In the case of Virsa Singh V. The State of Punjab13, court observed, To put it shortly, the
prosecution must prove the following facts before it can bring a case under S. 300, "3rdly"14;

First, it must establish, quite objectively, that a bodily injury is present.

Secondly, the nature of the injury must be proved; These are purely objective investigations.
Thirdly, it must be proved that there was an intention to inflict that particular bodily injury,
that is to say, that it was not accidental or unintentional, or that some other kind of injury
was intended.

11. Jai Prakash V. State (Delhi Administration), 1991() ACR385 (SC).

12. The Indian Penal Code, No. 45, Acts of Parliament, 1860 (India).
13. Virsa Singh V. The state of Punjab, AIR 1958 SC 465.
14. The Indian Penal Code, No. 45, Acts of Parliament, 1860 (India).

16 [MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION]

Once these three elements are proved to be present, the enquiry proceeds further and.

Fourthly, it must be proved that the injury of the type just described made up of the three
elements set out above is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. This part
of the enquiry is purely objective and inferential and has nothing to do with the intention of
the offender.

Once these four elements are established by the prosecution (and, of course, the burden is on
the prosecution throughout) the offence is murder under s. 300, 3rdly. It does not matter that
there was no intention to cause death.

In the present case, all the above four elements are established and thus Kamal is liable for
murder.

D- if the person committing the act by which the death is caused, knows that it is so
imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death, or such bodily
injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for
incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.

The presence of a sharp knife and its application to a vital part of the deceased’s body,
specifically resulting in a deep wound to the neck underscores the accused's malicious intent
and supports the premeditated nature of the crime.

The case of Mahesh Balmiki V. State of Madhya Pradesh15 is relevant. In that case, the
appellant inflicted a single, fatal knife blow, which was determined to be premeditated with
the intent to cause death or grievous injury. The court clarified that the number of blows is
not the deciding factor in determining the severity of the crime. As the court pointed out,
"there is no principle that in all cases of a single blow, Section 302 I.P.C. is not attracted."
The nature of the injury, the body part targeted, and the weapon used are critical in
determining intent and the appropriate charge. Thus, the appellant had rightly been convicted
and sentenced under Sections 302 and 324 I.P.C.,1860 by Trial Court and the High Court.

15. Mahesh Balmiki V. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1999 (2) ACR1879 (SC).

17 [MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION]

 Establishment of Mens Rea and Actus Reus

The accused's actions provide a clear and undeniable demonstration of both actus reus (the
physical act of committing the crime) and mens rea (the mental intent to commit the crime),
both of which are essential elements in proving the charge of murder.

Actus Reus: Deliberate Preparation and Execution

The accused did not stumble into this crime accidentally or in a moment of heated passion.
Rather, he exhibited a deliberate and calculated plan by bringing a murder weapon—a
knife—from his own home. This specific act of carrying the weapon to the scene of the
crime demonstrates clear foresight and preparation, revealing that the fatal act was
premeditated. This is a critical point that establishes the physical act (actus reus) leading to
the victim's death.

The act of bringing the knife signifies more than just mere possession of a dangerous object;
it represents a purposeful intent to use it to inflict harm. This forethought and preparation,
culminating in the deadly stabbing of the victim, forms the foundation of the crime's physical
execution. The act was deliberate, planned, and carried out with precision—leaving no
ambiguity regarding the accused's role in causing the victim's death.

Mens Rea: Premeditated Wrongful Intention

The fundamental rule that applies to criminal cases is actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea,
as Justice Goddard stated in the case of Brend V. Wood16 It is critical for the protection of
the subject’s liberty that a court remember that “unless the statute expressly or by necessary
implication rules out mens rea as a constituent part of a crime, a defendant should not be
found guilty of an offence against the criminal law unless he has a guilty mind.”

The accused's mental state (mens rea), which is key in proving guilt, is evident through his
calculated decisions leading up to the murder. In the case of State of Maharashtra V. M.H.

16. Brend v. Wood ,(1946) 62 TLR 462.

18 [MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION]

George17, the Supreme Court emphasized that criminal liability cannot arise without the
presence of mens rea.

Thus, Kamal chose to go to the victim's house at a time when he knew the victim was
alone, fully aware that her mother was absent and working at his own residence. This
decision to target the victim at her most vulnerable moment was not a coincidence but a clear
indication of premeditated intent.

The fact that the accused exploited the opportunity to confront the victim when she was
defenseless reveals a guilty mind, which is an essential ingredient of a crime. His actions
were not impulsive or spontaneous; rather, they were part of a carefully crafted plan to
commit the offense when the victim was isolated, further solidifying his malicious intent.
The combination of bringing the weapon and choosing a strategic moment to carry out the
crime unmistakably demonstrates that the accused intended to cause grievous harm or death.

Premeditation and Guilty Mind (Mens Rea) as Essential Elements

Under the principle that a guilty mind is an essential element of any crime 18, the accused’s
actions speak volumes. The careful selection of the murder weapon, the timing of the attack,
and the calculated targeting of the victim while she was alone show clear malice
aforethought. The accused’s deliberate steps—each taken with the knowledge and intent to
commit a grievous act—establish that his mindset was criminal from the outset. This not only
supports the charge of murder but also satisfies the legal requirement of mens rea, proving
beyond doubt that the act was both intentional and premeditated.

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the accused’s calculated actions of
bringing a deadly weapon and timing his attack to when the victim was most vulnerable
establish both the physical act (actus reus) and the mental intent (mens rea) required to
prove the crime of murder. The evidence of premeditation, preparation, and the conscious
decision to exploit the victim's isolation demonstrate a clear guilty mind and intentionality
behind the act, leaving no doubt of the accused’s culpability in causing the victim's death.

17. State of Maharashtra v. M.H. George, AIR 1965 SC 722.

18. Commissioner of Income Tax V. Patram Dass Raja Ram Beri, AIR 1982 P&H1.

19 [MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION]

 As per Post Mortem Report:

The Cause of Death: Injury on the neck was a result of stab injury that had gone deep into
the fatal area in the neck region leading to the death of victim. The stab injury had gone deep
and cut the jugular vein, which is the major blood vessel in the head and neck region, which
led to severe hemorrhage leading to death.

The injury could be caused by a sharp weapon like a knife 19.

Thus, It is respectfully submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the accused inflicted a deep
stab wound on the victim's neck, which severed the internal jugular vein—one of the body's
most vital blood vessels. This injury, located in a critical area of the body, caused rapid and
severe blood loss, leading directly to the victim's death. Given the depth and precision of the
wound, it is evident that the injury was inflicted with lethal intent. The severity of the injury
and the immediate fatal outcome demonstrate that the wound was sufficient to cause death,
showing a clear link between the act of violence and the resulting death.

In the case of Sursing Shukabhai Bamne V. State of Gujarat20, a similar situation arose
where the court considered a sharp cutting wound to the neck, described as 4 inches long and
1 inch deep, which caused fatal hemorrhagic shock by injuring a major vessel. The post-
mortem report in that case stated the cause of death was due to the injury to a major blood
vessel in the neck caused by a sharp instrument. And that injury was sufficient to cause death,
given the vital area affected and the rapid blood loss.

Similarly, in the present case, the stab wound to the jugular vein, a vital and vulnerable area
of the body, directly caused the victim's death due to severe hemorrhage 21. Based on the
ruling in Sursing Shukabhai Bamne, it is respectfully submitted that the injury inflicted by the
accused was undoubtedly sufficient to cause death, showing clear intent and a direct causal
link between the violent act and the fatal outcome.

19. P.M.NO. 472/2024 Post- Mortem Certificate

20. Sursing Shukabhai Bamne V. State of Gujarat, (2017) GUJHC:21896-DB
21. Naresh Ch. Nath V. The State , (1971) CRILJ 407.

20 [MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION]

 ISSUE 2: Whether Kamal is liable for Voluntarily causing Grievous Hurt by Dangerous
weapons or means?

Voluntarily causing Grievous Hurt by Dangerous weapons or means:

It is most humbly and respectfully submitted before the Hon’ble court that the accused,
Kamal, is liable under Section 118(2)22 of BNS,2023 for voluntarily causing grievous hurt
by dangerous weapons or means, as all the essential elements of the offense are met. These
are:

Knowledge of causing grievous hurt: Accused must commit an act with the knowledge that
he was likely to cause grievous hurt to the deceased.

Voluntariness: He acted voluntarily, without coercion, in causing the grievous hurt.

Means used: The act was committed using dangerous means, which include:

o Instrument for shooting, stabbing, or cutting.

o Instrument likely to cause death when used as a weapon.

o Fire, heated substances, or harmful substances.

o Explosives, poison, corrosive substances, or animals.

Thus, Kamal’s actions constitute a premeditated and intentional crime. On July 4, 2024,
driven by resentment after Nidhi's rejection, Kamal deliberately armed himself with a knife
and confronted Nidhi. When she resisted his advances, he restrained her, covered her mouth,
and inflicted a fatal cut to her neck. His premeditated use of a dangerous weapon and the fatal
outcome of his actions demonstrate clear intent to cause grievous harm, making him liable for
murder. Therefore, Kamal should be held accountable for this grievous crime. A parallel
situation is found in the case of Sukra Oram V. State23, where the appellant was held guilty

22. Whoever, except in the case provided for by sub-section (2) of section 122, voluntarily causes grievous hurt
by any means referred to in sub–section (1), shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with
imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to
ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
23. Sukra Oram V. State, AIR 1959 Ori 21.

21 [MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION]

of causing grievous hurt with a sharp-cutting instrument and was punished under Section
32624.

In Ashok Kumar V. State of Punjab25, The Learned session judge and the High Court
determined that the defendant acted with a common intention to cause grievous hurt to the
deceased. Consequently, Keval Krishan was convicted under section 326 read with Section
34 of IPC. Notably High Court imposed a lenient sentence of two year’s rigorous
imprisonment on Keval Krishan which was deemed sufficient punishment by the court.

Grievous Hurt

It is most humbly and respectfully submitted before the Hon’ble court that the injuries
caused to the deceased fall under the category of “grievous hurt” as defined in Section 116 of
BNS, 2023 which reads as under-

Section 11626: Grievous Hurt: The following kinds of hurt only are designated as
“grievous”, namely:––

(a) Emasculation;

(b) Permanent privation of the sight of either eye;

(c) Permanent privation of the hearing of either ear;

(d) Privation of any member or joint;

(e) Destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any member or joint;

(f) Permanent disfiguration of the head or face;

(g) Fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth;

(h) Any hurt which endangers life or which causes the sufferer to be during the space of
fifteen days in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits.

It is further Submitted that Under clause (h) of Section 116, any hurt that endangers life or
causes the sufferer to be in severe bodily pain for fifteen days, or unable to follow their
ordinary pursuits for the same period, is considered grievous. Additionally, clause 8 extends

24. The Indian Penal Code, No. 45, Acts of Parliament, 1860 (India).
25. Ashok Kumar V. State Of Punjab, AIR1977 SC 109.
26. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, No. 45, Acts of Parliament, 2023 (India).

22 [MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION]

the definition of grievous hurt by including injuries that: (i) endanger life, (ii) cause the
sufferer to experience severe bodily pain for twenty days, or (iii) render the sufferer unable to
follow ordinary pursuits for twenty days. Thus, Kamal’s actions, by virtue of the injury (fatal
cut on neck) sustained to the deceased, align with the legal definition of grievous hurt under
Section 116, thereby holding him accountable for the offense of causing grievous hurt by
dangerous means.

It was also said in case of Mathai V. State of Kerala27,where court analysed that:

‘Some hurts which are not like those hurts which are mentioned in the first seven clauses, are
obviously distinguished from a slight hurt, may nevertheless be more serious. Thus a wound
may cause intense pain, prolonged disease or lasting injury to the victim, although it does not
fall within any of the first seven clauses. Before a conviction for the sentence of grievous hurt
can be passed, one of the injuries defined in Section 320 must be strictly proved, and the
eighth clause is no exception to the general rule of law that a penal statute must be construed
strictly.’

Post- Mortem Report

It is most humbly and respectfully submitted before the Hon’ble court that the post-mortem
report confirms the cause of Nidhi’s death as a stab injury to the neck, which was deep and
fatal. The report specifies that the stab wound severed the jugular vein, a major blood vessel
in the neck, causing severe hemorrhage and ultimately leading to death. This type of injury is
consistent with the use of a sharp weapon, such as a knife. The medical evidence corroborates
that Kamal’s use of a knife directly resulted in Nidhi’s death, establishing his liability for the
grievous harm and murder.

In the case of Ramchandra Ohdar V. The State of Bihar28, ‘The appellant had given one
blow with a sharp-edged weapon on the neck of the deceased. The medical evidence is silent
about the nature of the injury caused by the appellant. But considering the nature of the
weapon, the part of the body on which the blow was given and the size of injury it can be said
that the injury caused had endangered his life. Therefore, the appellant can be convicted for
the offence punishable under Section 326 IPC.

27. Mathai V. State of Kerala, 2005(1) ACR505 (SC),

28. Ramchandra Ohdar V. The State of Bihar, AIR 1999 SC 998.

23 [MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION]

 ISSUE 3: Whether the accused is liable under Section 127 of The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023?

It is most humbly and respectfully submitted before the Hon’ble court that the accused,
Kamal, is liable under Section 127 of the BNS, 2023, as he wrongfully confined the
deceased, preventing her from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits. Section
127(1)29 clearly defines wrongful confinement which reads as follows:

(1) Whoever wrongfully restrains any person in such a manner as to prevent that
person from proceedings beyond certain circumscribing limits, is said
“wrongfully to confine” that person.

It is further Submitted that the accused, Kamal, is clearly liable under Section 127 of BNS,
2023, for wrongfully confining the deceased, as his actions fulfill all the essential elements of
wrongful confinement. The facts of the case are as follows:

1. Confinement by Bolting the Door:

o Kamal entered the room and immediately bolted the door from the inside. This
act created a physical barrier, restricting the deceased’s ability to leave and
thus constituting "wrongful confinement" as per Section 127(1).

2. Expression of Threat and Coercion:

o Kamal expressed his desire to engage in sexual intercourse with the deceased
and proposed marriage as a means of coercion. This put the deceased in a
vulnerable and fearful position, further pressuring her to stay confined within
the room.

3. Attempt to Escape and Physical Restraint:

o When the deceased refused Kamal’s advances and attempted to escape, Kamal
physically restrained her by catching hold of her and covering her mouth to
prevent her from making noise. This use of force not only reinforced her
confinement but also escalated the violation of her personal liberty and
freedom.

29. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, No. 45, Acts of Parliament, 2023 (India).

24 [MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION]

 4. Muffling Noise and Preventing Help:

o By covering her mouth, Kamal ensured that the deceased could not call for
help, effectively isolating her within the confines of the room and preventing
any possibility of outside intervention. This act further solidifies the wrongful
confinement.

5. Clear Intention to Confine:

o Kamal’s actions, from bolting the door to physically restraining the deceased,
demonstrate his clear intention to confine her against her will. His deliberate
steps to prevent her from leaving fulfill the requirement of intentional
confinement under Section 127.

In case of Mithailal And Others V. State Of Maharashtra30, is was observed that the
essential ingredients of the offence of wrongful confinement are –

(1) Wrongful restraint, and,

(2) Within certain circumscribing limits.

To support a charge of wrongful confinement, proof of actual physical obstruction is not

essential. It must be proved in each case that there was at least such an impression produced
in the mind of the person confined, as to lead him, reasonably to believe that he was not free
to depart, and that he would be forthwith restrained, if he attempted to do so.

Similar situation arose in the case of State V. Asif & Ors.31, where The offence of wrongful
confinement has been defined in section 340 IPC and is made punishable by section 342 IPC.
As per section 340 IPC, a person is said to wrongfully confine any other person when that
person wrongfully restrains the other from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits.
In the case at hand, the offence of wrongful confinement was complete when the accused had
brandished the knife at him and told him to sit on the back seat and then did not let him move
out of their confinement in the TSR and took him all the way to Loni with both his hands tied
and handkerchief on his mouth. Accused are liable to be convicted for the offence.

30. Mithailal and Others V. State Of Maharashtra,( 1994) (2) BOMCR 720.
31. State V . Asif & Ors, (2013).

25 [MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION]

Thus, Kamal’s actions—bolting the door, coercing the deceased with threats, physically
restraining her, and covering her mouth—amount to wrongful confinement as defined under
Section 127 of BNS, 2023. All essential ingredients of the offense are met, making Kamal
fully liable for punishment under the law.

ISSUE 4: Whether the accused is guilty under Section 238 of The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023 for causing disappearance of crucial evidence?

It is most humbly and respectfully submitted before the Hon’ble court that the accused is
guilty of the offense under Section 238 for causing disappearance of crucial evidence.
Specifically, the accused discarded clothing stained with blood, which was vital in
establishing his presence at the crime scene.

Section 238 talks about

Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, causes
any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, with the intention of screening
the offender from legal punishment, or with that intention gives any information respecting
the offence which he knows or believes to be false shall,-

(a) if the offence which he knows or believes to have been committed is punishable with
death, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to
seven years, and shall also be liable to fine;

(b) if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment which may
extend to ten years, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which
may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine;

(c) if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for any term not extending to ten years, be
punished with imprisonment of the description provided for the offence, for a term which may
extend to one-fourth part of the longest term of the imprisonment provided for the offence, or
with fine, or with both.

26 [MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION]

 The elements of the offense are as follows:

1. Knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed,

2. Causing the disappearance of any evidence of the commision of the offence

3. With the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment gives any information
respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false,

4. The accused must have either destroyed or caused disappearance of the evidence about
the offence or intentionally given false information about it so as to save the real offender
from being punished, or

5. If the accused is charged with causing disappearance of evidence or knowingly giving false
information about a serious offence having been committed by the person whom he is trying
to screen from punishment, it is for the prosecution to prove that the alleged offence is
punishable with sentence of death or life imprisonment or with imprisonment for a term of
ten years.

The facts and the accused's confession clearly indicate that he concealed his bloodstained
clothing. This action directly supports the elements of the offense, as Kamal was aware and
was having full knowledge of his wrongdoing. Also, he deliberately attempted to destroy
evidence by hiding the clothes in a banana plantation.

In case of Kalawati and ors. V. The State of Himachal Pradesh 32

, the Hon’ble court
observed that the:

‘Section 20133 is not restricted to the case of a person who screens the actual offender; it can
be applied even to a person guilty of the main offence, though as a matter of practice a Court
will not convict a person both of the main offence and under section 201’.

It was said in Jitender Nath V. Ram Phal Bansal & Anr 34 What the court has to examine
is to see as to whether the accused knew or had reason to believe that an offence has been
committed. It is certainly for the prosecution to prove that the accused had such sufficient
knowledge to form a belief that the offender has committed some offence and to screen him
from such offence,

32. Kalawati and ors. V. The State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1953 SC 131.
33. The Indian Penal Code, No. 45, Acts of Parliament, 1860 (India).
34. Jitender Nath V. Ram Phal Bansal & Anr, (2010).

27 [MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION]

 Issue 5: Whether the accused is guilty for the offences of Criminal Force and Assault U/S
129 and 130 of The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023?

It is most humbly and respectfully submitted before the Hon’ble court that Kamal(Accused)
is guilty for the offences of Criminal Force and Assault U/S 129 and 130 of BNS, 2023.

Section 129- Criminal Force

Whoever intentionally uses force to any person, without that person's consent, in order to the
committing of any offence, or intending by the use of such force to cause, or knowing it to be
likely t)hat by the use of such force he will cause injury, fear or annoyance to the person to
whom the force is used, is said to use criminal force to that other.

Section 130- Assault

Whoever makes any gesture, or any preparation intending or knowing it to be likely that such
gesture or preparation will cause any person present to apprehend that he who makes that
gesture or preparation is about to use criminal force to that person, is said to commit an
assault.

Acc. to facts of the case/confession of accused

The facts that say –“He caught hold of her and closed her mouth with his palm to prevent her
from making any noise” and “He had brought a knife from his home”.

Kamal brought the knife from his home with the intent to murder Nidhi. When Nidhi
panicked and tried to escape, Kamal restrained her, covering her mouth to silence her, and
then took out the knife to kill her.

These actions clearly constitute the use of criminal force and assault by Kamal against the
victim.

It was held in case Nani Gopal Deb And Anr. V. Bhima Charan Rakshit35, It would
follow that the offence of which a person is convicted must be attended by criminal force or
show of force or by criminal intimidation.

35. Nani Gopal Deb And Anr. V. Bhima Charan Rakshit, AIR 1956 CAL 32.

28 [MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION]

 PRAYER
Therefore, in light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities
cited, may this Hon‘ble Court be pleased to:

1. Convict Kamal for the offence of, Assault or use of criminal force to woman with
intent to disrobe, Murder, Punishment for Murder, Voluntarily Causing Hurt or
Grievous Hurt by dangerous weapon or means, Wrongful Confinement, Force,
Assault, Causing disappearance of evidence of offence or giving false information to
screen offender.

2. Declare a sentence of rigorous life imprisonment.

AND/OR

Pass any other order it may deem fit, in the interest of Justice, Equity and Good
Conscience. All of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted.

(Signed) Counsel

Date:

Place:

29 [MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION]