MOOT MEMORIAL (DEFENSE SIDE)

IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT SRINAGAR

IN THE MATTER OF:

Azra – Accused/Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent

Submitted by:

Name: Sadaf

Roll No: 79

Semester: 7th

Section: B

Vitasta School of Law, Nowgam Srinagar

MOOT MEMORIAL – DEFENSE SIDE

IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT SRINAGAR

IN THE MATTER OF:

Azra – Accused/Appellant

Versus

State – Respondent

---
1. Statement of Facts:

1. Atif and Azra are students of SIB Engineering College, Srinagar.

2. Atif was a known prankster and often misbehaved in class; Azra is introverted and known to have
temper issues.

3. Atif used to tease Azra about her obesity and spread rumors, including calling her a drug addict.

4. Azra had earlier slapped Atif and expressed hatred toward him.

5. On 5th September 2022, Atif lured Azra to the college auditorium under false pretenses and locked
her inside after cutting the power.

6. Azra panicked, cried for help, and hid upon hearing a noise.

7. She struck Atif with a wooden stick in fear as he entered in the dark, without knowing who it was.
8. CCTV later showed both Azra and Atif entering and Azra leaving.

9. The wooden stick was recovered from nearby.

10. Azra’s friends reported her nervous behavior; she took a tranquilizer and slept.

11. Atif was later found dead due to the head injury.

---

2. Issues Raised:

1. Whether the act committed by Azra falls under culpable homicide amounting to murder?

2. Whether the act was committed in the exercise of the right to private defence?

3. Whether the accused had any intent to kill or cause death?

4. Whether Azra’s act was a reaction under grave and sudden provocation and panic?

Arguments – From the Defense Side

---

1. Absence of Mens Rea (Criminal Intention)

The cornerstone of criminal liability, especially for murder under Section 302 IPC (now Clause 101 of
BNS), is intention to kill or cause such bodily injury that would likely result in death. In the present case:

Azra did not enter the auditorium with any weapon.

The act was sudden, unplanned, and occurred in complete darkness, where she could not identify who
was entering.

The accused had no reason to expect that Atif would re-enter after having locked her inside and created
a threatening environment.

🧠 Legal Position:

In Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1958 SC 465, the Supreme Court emphasized that to convict for
murder, it must be proven that the injury was both intended and sufficient to cause death. In this case,
intent is clearly missing.
---

2. Exercise of Right of Private Defence

Under Section 100 IPC (now Clause 19 of BNS), a person has the right to cause death if there is a
reasonable apprehension of danger to life or grievous hurt.

Azra had been locked alone in a dark auditorium by the very person who had previously harassed her.

There was no certainty about who was entering; given the context and fear, she assumed her life was at
stake.

Her reaction to the sound of someone entering (possibly Atif) was a reflex action to defend herself with
what was available—a wooden stick.

Supporting Case Law:

In Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab, (2010) 2 SCC 333, it was held that the right of private defence is a
lawful right and even causing death is justified if the apprehension is genuine.

---

3. Grave and Sudden Provocation

Under Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC (now Clause 14 of BNS), culpable homicide is not murder if
committed under grave and sudden provocation.

Atif had a history of mental and emotional torture toward Azra, including body shaming, character
assassination, and harassment.

On the day of incident, Atif created a terrifying situation by misleading her to enter, locking her inside,
and cutting off power—this was the immediate provocation.

Her action was a spontaneous reaction to fear and stress, not a premeditated criminal intent.

🔥 Reference Case:

In K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1962 SC 605, the Court held that emotional disturbance
and grave provocation are valid grounds for mitigation of murder to culpable homicide.

---

4. Psychological Trauma and Post-Offense Conduct

Azra’s behavior after the incident is indicative of trauma, not guilt.

She did not flee the campus or try to destroy evidence.

Upon returning, she took a tranquilizer, showing signs of mental breakdown, not a murderer’s cunning.
Her friends also observed she was shaken and unresponsive, which aligns with a person in shock, not
criminality.

🧠 Psychological Defense Principle:

According to criminal jurisprudence, post-crime conduct reflecting confusion, fear, or breakdown

supports lack of mens rea (refer: Sukhbir Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 2002 SC 1168).

---

5. Absence of Premeditation or Weapon

Azra picked up the stick only after being trapped, showing the act was not planned.

The weapon used was an improvised object—a wooden stick—indicative of a reflexive defense, not an
assault.

⚖️Inference:

As held in State of Andhra Pradesh v. R. Punnayya, AIR 1977 SC 45, distinguishing culpable homicide and
murder depends on intention and circumstance. Here, the circumstances show panic and fear, not a
calculated killing.

---
Conclusion:

Given the psychological pressure, sudden provocation, fear of assault, lack of premeditation, and no
intent to kill, the act committed by Azra:

Falls under culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Attracts protection under private defence and sudden provocation.

Merits the benefit of Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC and Section 100 IPC, as per the old law and
corresponding clauses under BNS 2023.

Applicable Laws:

Old Law (IPC, 1860):

Section 302 – Punishment for Murder

Section 304 – Culpable Homicide not amounting to Murder

Section 100 – Right of private defence of the body

Section 300 Exceptions – Including grave and sudden provocation

New Law (Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023):

Clause 101 – Punishment for murder (replaces Section 302 IPC)

Clause 105 – Culpable homicide not amounting to murder

Clause 19 – Right of private defence of the body

Clause 14 – Exceptions to murder (including sudden provocation)

---

6. Prayer:

The Hon’ble Court may kindly consider:

That the accused was subjected to grave mental and physical harassment.

The incident occurred under sudden fear and provocation without intent to kill.

The accused be acquitted or charged under a lesser offence (culpable homicide not amounting to
murder) with benefit under private defence.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE ACCUSED AS IN DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY.