1st MCI

CRIMINAL LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.: _______/2022
SATARANGI SINGH
(APPELLANT)
V.
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
(RESPONDENT)
APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 374(1) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE, 1973
MEMORIAL FOR APPELLANT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS...........................................................................................
...............3
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ...........................................................................................
................4
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION.................................................................................
...............6
SUMMARY OF FACTS .................................................................................................
................7
ISSUES RAISED...........................................................................................................
..................8
SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS.........................................................................................
...............9
PLEADINGS .................................................................................................................
................10
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
& And

AIR All India Reporter

Anr. Another

Hon’ble Honorable

Ltd. Limited

No. Number

Ors. Others

Para Paragraph

SC Supreme Court

SCC Supreme Court Cases

Sec. Section

UOI Union of India

v. Versus

w.r.t with respect to

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Sr. N Page N
Case Name
o. o.

1 Alingal Kunhinayan & Anr v. Emperor 11

2 Babulal Bhagwan Khandare v. State of Maharasthra 10

3 Bhagwan Swaroop v. State of Madhya Pradesh 12

Gottipulla Venkatasiva Subrayanam and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pr

4 11
adesh and Anr.

5 Jangir Singh v. State of Punjab 13

6 Kashi Ram and Ors. v. State of M.P 13

7 Keshoram Bora v. State of Assam 13

8 Mahandi v. Emperor 11

9 State of Orissa V. Nirupama Panda 11

10 Samir Nijam Landge v. State of Maharashtra 13

11 Subramani v. State of T.N. 11

12 Suresh Singhal v. State (Delhi Administration) 10

13 Yogesh Hanmant Madane v. State of Maharashtra 13

14 Yogendra Morarji v. State of Gujarat 10

SR. N BOOKS
O

1. Criminal Procedure -R.V. Kelkar's

2. Criminal Law: Cases and Materials – K.D. Gaur

3. Commentary on the Indian Penal Code – K.D. Gaur

4. Criminal Law: Incorporating the Criminal Law -PSA Pillai's

5. The Indian Penal Code -Ratanlal & Dhirajlal

Indian Penal Code (With the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2018 – S.N. M
6.
ishra
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The counsel on behalf of the Appellant humbly submits to the jurisdiction of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court under a certificate made under Article 134A of the
Constitution of India, 1973 to hear the present appeal.
Article 134 of the Constitution of India, 1950
 “134. Appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court in regard to criminal matters.—(1) An
appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgment, final order or sentence in a criminal
proceeding of a High Court in the territory of India if the High Court—
 (a) has on appeal reversed an order of acquittal of an accused person and sentenced him to
death; or (b) has withdrawn for trial before itself any case from any court subordinate to its
authority and has in such trial convicted the accused person and sentenced him to death; or
 (c) [Certifies under article 134A] that the case is a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court.
Provided that an appeal under sub-clause (c) shall lie subject to such provisions as may be
made in that behalf under clause (1) of article 145 and to such conditions as the High Court
may establish or require.
 (2) Parliament may by law confer on the Supreme Court any further powers to entertain
and hear appeals from any judgment, final order or sentence in a criminal proceeding of a
High Court in the territory of India subject to such conditions and limitations as may be
specified in such law.”
SUMMARY OF FACTS
 1. Vadakar, aged 21, was a university student. He was residing in a room at the back of
Duryodhan Hostel, Ayodhya Park. On day the watchman of the said hostel heard shouting
and informed the complainant who on knocking the door was informed that Vadakar was
vomiting and, therefore, they should go away.
 2. The door was however opened on the instance of the complainant and the individual was
Vadakar was lying dead in the room naked and the said person opened the door and started
running away. The accused was then locked in room and confessed to the complainant that he
had killed the deceased. A complaint was registered at the police station of Mayapuri
 3. The accused, Satarangi Singh claimed to be innocent. He filed a statement of defense
stating that he had gone to the house of the deceased for repairing the TV and the deceased
wanted to have unnatural sex with him.
 4. The accused proceeded to remove his clothes and attack the complainant. On the
apprehension that an act of unnatural sex would be committed against the accused, the
accused went on to attack the deceased and later confessed his actions and surrendered. The
cause of death on investigation was said to be hemorrhage the accused was tried in the court
of the Sessions Judge, at Pune in Sessions Case No. 420 of 2020 for offences punishable
under Sec. 394 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
 5. The learned Sessions Judge has held that the appellant is guilty of offences punishable
under Sections 394 and 302 of the I.P.C. By his judgment and order dated 31/8/2021, the
learned Judge convicted the appellant-accused for the offence punishable under Section 302
of the I.P.C. and sentenced him to imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rest. 20000/-. The
appellant was further convicted for the offence punishable under Section 394 of the I.P.C.
and sentenced for 2 years.
 6. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Being aggrieved by this
judgment and order, the appellant preferred an appeal to the High Court. On appeal in the
High court, it was contended He submitted that the prosecution has not adduced any evidence
to establish that the appellant had committed the murder of the deceased.
 7. The earned Counsel submitted that the case of the prosecution, that the appellant robbed
the deceased of his jeweler and then murdered him and hid the jeweler and the weapon in the
room in the hostel where he was kept by the persons who apprehended him is inherently
improbable. The deceased was found naked. There were injuries on the appellant consistent
with the defense version that the deceased wanted to have unnatural sex and the appellant in
order to protect himself the appellant attacked the deceased. He submitted that; therefore, the
assault was made by the
 8. Appellant in exercise of his right of private defense. The prosecution on the other hand
submitted that the appellant has been rightly convicted under Sections 302 and 394 of the
IPC. He submitted that the appellant was caught on the spot. He confessed to the crime. At
his instance sword and ornaments of the deceased were found.
 9. It is further bought to the notice of the court that the appellant had borrowed the scooter
of his friend, changed its name plate and used it for coming to the house of the deceased.
 10. Based on this reasoning the court appellant was justified in exercising his right of
private defense which was however excessive and held that appellant's case falls in part II of
Section 304 of the IPC and a sentence of seven years and a fine of Rest. 500
 11. The present appeal from the above rests with the Supreme Court.
ISSUES RAISED
 I. WHETHER THE ACCUSED WAS JUSTIFIED IN EXERCISING RIGHT TO
PRIVATE DEFENSE?
 II. WHETHER THE ACCUSED HAS EXCEEDED HIS RIGHT TO PRIVATE
DEFENSE?
 III. IF YES, WHETHER THE ACCUSED CAN BE HELD LIABLE UNDER PART
II OF SECTION 304?

SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS
I. WHETHER THE ACCUSED WAS JUSTIFIED IN EXERCISING RIGHT T
O PRIVATE DEFENSE?
The Accused is justified in exercising his right of private defense. The attempted
sexual assault of the accused by the deceased, the ability of the deceased to
overpower the accused, the lack of any available recourse at the time and the
reasonable threat or apprehension of threat that the accused’s body was in danger
all contributed to the manifestation of the right of private defense.
II. WHETHER THE ACCUSED HAS EXCEEDED HIS RIGHT TO PRIVATE
DEFENSE?
The accused has not exceeded his right to private defense. The extent to which
private defense cannot be measured by a yardstick and has no set parameters.
However, certain factors are analyzed by the court including the degree of
proportionality of the offence, the impending danger that is set to affect a person and
the apprehension that such danger will likely cause harm to the person’s body or
property. The accused at the time of the commission of the offence reasonably
concluded that his life was in danger and if he does not act upon such danger, he will
become a victim of the deceased’s unnatural lust. Therefore, he had no option but to
exercise said right in order to immobilize the deceased.
III. IF YES, WHETHER THE ACCUSED CAN BE HELD LIABLE UNDER P
ART II OF SECTION 304?
The Appellant must be held liable under Section 304 Part II over Section 304 Part I if
he has exceeded the right of private defense. The Appellant had no intention to
cause the death of the deceased in the scuffle between the two. The attack by the
appellant was merely in order to protect himself from sustaining further injuries by
the deceased. There was no premeditated attempt to commit culpable homicide.
PLEADINGS
I. WHETHER THE ACCUSED WAS JUSTIFIED IN EXERCISING RIGHT T
O PRIVATE DEFENSE?
 1. The Appellant humbly submits before this Hon’ble Court that the acts committed by the
appellant in the instant case is a justified exercise of the right of private defense in an attempt
to protect himself from the sexual assault by deceased.
 2. The right of private defence emanates as an extension to Sections 96-106, which
explains the right of private defence. The right allows the creation of a caveat that entitles an
individual to be exempt from an offence is the act is committed as private defence. In order to
identify if a particular act is within the bounds of private defence, it is of utmost importance
to identify the circumstances behind the commission of the act, and the degree of the
commission of the act. This was succinctly described in the case of Bauble Bhagwat Khan
Dare v. State of Maharashtra1 where the situations must be judged from a subjective point of
view and whether it would be justifiable in the prevailing circumstances.
 3. The subject matter of private defence is laid down in Section 97 of the IPC2 . Section
1003 allows for private defence to be exercised against several scenarios, including bodily
injury, acid attacks, rape, unnatural lust, kidnapping, abduction, confinement and death. It is
therefore of utmost important to the court to attain a comprehensive understanding of the
facts surrounding the exercise of the right the circumstances that preceded it as laid down in
the case of Yogendra Morarji v. State of Gujarat4 and Suresh Singhal v. State (Delhi
Administration)5 observed several guidelines and factors that determine whether a particular
act can be assumed to be private defence. These factors include:
  Whether there was sufficient time for recourse to public authorities or not
  Whether the degree of reflexive action is proportional to the danger
  Whether the act was necessary
  Whether the accused person is the victim of aggression
  If there was a reasonable apprehension of death, grievous hurt or hurt to the body or
property.
 4. It is respectfully submitted by the appellant that in the instant case, private defence is
completely justified. The deceased had attempted to sexually assault the appellant and this
qualifies as unnatural lust. This has been laid down in the case of State of Orissa V.
Nirupama Panda6 where the accused in the case had killed an intruder in her home who had
attempted to rape her. This principle was also observed in the case of Gottipulla Venkatasiva
Subrayanam and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr.7 Where the Court stated that a
right of private defence is created when an assault with the intention of causing rape or
gratifying unnatural lust is caused upon a person.
 5. Furthermore, the respondent may contend that there exists reasonable doubt regarding
the appellant’s testimony. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the
respondent has not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant has attempted to rob
the deceased. The evidence provided by the respondent regarding the vomiting, the presence
of ornaments and weapons and the changing of the license plate8 are merely incidental to the
facts at hand and are not hard-line facts that prove intention to commit an offence. By virtue
of the preponderance of probabilities, the prosecution has not proved that the appellant has
murdered the deceased beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence must be placed in the benefit
of the accused.91 (2005) 10 SCC 4042Section 97, Indian Penal Code, 18603Section 100,
Indian Penal Code, 18604AIR 1980 SC 6605(2017) 2 SCC 737
II. WHETHER THE ACCUSED HAS EXCEEDED HIS RIGHT TO PRIVATE
DEFENSE?
61989 CrLJ 621 (Ori)7(1970) 1 SCC 2358Moot problem, pages 1 and 29Periasami and Anr.
V. State of T.N. (1996) 6 SCC 457
 1. The counsel for the appellant humbly submits before the Hon’ble Court that the
appellant had not exceeded his right to private defense. There are no particular set of
guidelines or formula to determine the extent and limitation of private defense. 10 The
principle to determine the same has been observed in several judicial decisions such as
Subramani v. State of T.N.11 The Supreme Court held that the accused’s acts during the
defense of his property were not construed to be exceeding the confines of private defense.
The accused at the time of the attack by the deceased had within his mind the apprehension
that there may be grievous harm to his body. With no recourse available at the time, the grave
nature of his reaction was considered to be legitimate and proportionate to the impending
harm.
 2. A particular part that is required to be analyzed by the Court at the time of deciding
whether an act exceeds the confines of private defense is the proportionality/degree of the
defense to the impending danger. In cases such as Mahandi v. Emperor12 and Alingal
Kunhinayan & Anr v. Emperor13 the Courts have observed that the degree of the defense
claimed determined via the exact impact of the force used by a person against an aggressor.
Rather what must be used is a “reasonably proportionate force” to a deter wrong doer. This
force must be proportionate to the danger posed by the person against whom force has been
unleashed. In other words, use of force must not be “totally disproportionate.”
 3. In Bhagwan Swaroop v. State of Madhya Pradesh14 , the deceased attacked the plaintiff
with a lathi forcing his son to open fire against the assailants of his father. While accepting
the plea of private defense, the Court noted that the validity of such a plea ought to be
examined on an ex facto basis as against an ex ante basis. This implies that the determination
of private defense must be done subjectively as opposed to objectively through guiding
principles. In other words, threat to life and limb necessitating use of force must be assessed
at the time when such threat persisted.
 4. The counsel for appellants therefore, humbly submits that the accused at the time of
being attacked by the deceased was under the reasonable apprehension that he will be subject
to the deceased’s unnatural lust. Furthermore, as the deceased is in a position to likely
overpower the accused by virtue of his physique,15 and with no immediate recourse
available, the accused had no alternative method of immobilizing the deceased, but with the
weapon which was readily available to him. In moments of excitement and disturbed mental
equilibrium, parties cannot act efficiently and use only the necessary amount of force.16
Therefore, the accused could not exceed his right of private defense.10DR. HARI SINGH
GAUR, INDIAN PENAL CODE 297 (14th ed. 2013)11(2002) 7 SCC 21012(1930) 31 CriLJ
654 (Lahore)13ILR 28 Mad 454a14(1992) 2 SCC 406.

III. IF YES, WHETHER THE ACCUSED CAN BE HELD LIABLE UNDER P

ART II OF SECTION 304?
 1. Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 lays down the offence of culpable homicide
not amounting to murder.17 The Section divides the offence into two parts – first, where the
act caused is considered culpable homicide not amounting murder if the commission of the
act is with the intention of causing murder or grievous bodily harm18; second, where the
commission of the act is committed without the intent to cause death, creating a distinction
between intentional and unintentional homicide.19
 2. Section 304 is applicable in situations where a person has exceeded the right of private
defense. The application of the section hinges on the weather said person has intended to
cause death or likely injury, or did not, at the time of the commission of the offence, intend to
cause any harm, injury or death to the victim. This principle was observed in several cases of
private defense, such as Keshoram Bora v. State of Assam20 , wherein the accused had
assaulted the deceased after the latter had entered into his territory, leading to an attack
against the accused’s father, creating the right of private defense.
 3. The applicability of the Section hinges on the intent of the person committing the
offence. If the intention to hurt or grievously injure is found, part I of Section 304 would
apply. This can be observed in cases such as Jangir Singh v. State of Punjab, 21 who
intentionally shot the deceased, disproportionately harming him after an altercation ensued
between the two. This can be distinguished from Kashi Ram and Ors. v. State of M.P., 22
where the accused’s intent to shoot a gun was considered absent. Rather he was charged
under Section 304 Part II based on his knowledge that such an act would amount to or would
likely cause death.
 4. Section 304 of the IPC is applicable to cases of Culpable Homicide not amounting to
murder which also includes as cases falling under Exception 2 to Section 300, IPC , i.e.,
where a person has exceeded the right of private defence. This section can be applied to a
situation on the basis of whether the person causing the death had the intention to cause death
or likely injury when he committed the offence. In the case of Keshoram Bora v. State of
Assam, the court held that when the accused had assaulted the deceased when the deceased
entered into the accused’s territory and assaulted his father, there was a valid presence of the
right of private defence.
 5. This Section is based upon the idea that the person had the intention to commit the
offence. If a person has the intention to hurt or grievously injure is found, part I of Section
304 would apply. In the case of Jangir Singh v. State of Punjab , the accused was found to be
guilty of the offence as he had intentionally shot the deceased disproportionately harming
him after they had a fight whereas in the case of Kashi Ram and Ors. v. State of M.P. , the
accused didn’t have the intent to shoot and so he was charged with Section 304 Part II based
on his knowledge that such an act would amount to or would likely cause death.
 6. It is most humbly submitted that in the current case, the High Court replied on the above
explained understanding to pronounce its order and judgement. The Counsel of Appellant
would like to most humbly submit that the Hon’ble High Court has erred in coming to this
conclusion. Even if the actions of the Appellant are covered under the II part of Section 304
of the IPC, his Right to Private Defence extended to causing the death of Vadakar under
Section 100.
 7. The Counsel for Appellant most humbly submits that the Counsel has already dealt with
the issue of rightful use of Private defence while dealing with issue 1 and 2. Further, the
Hon’ble High Court had also upheld the justified use of the Right of Private Defence but had
erred holding that the Appellant had exceeded his right. The Counsel while dealing with issue
2 has clarified that the Appellant has not exceeded his right of private defence. The actions of
the Appellant were well within extent of self-defence provided under Section 100 of the IPC
and so he has not committed the offence punishable under the II part of Section 304 of the
IPC. The Appellant has not exceeded his right by disproportionately utilising the same,
thereby causing the death of the deceased. The act of private defence using a sword was
‘reasonably proportionate’ in the face of the real and imminent threat of sexual assault.
Therefore, it is most humbly prayed before this Hon’ble court that it acknowledges the
existence of the right of private defence of the Appellant and acquit him of the all charges
upon him.
 8. Based on the theory aforementioned, the appellant humbly submits that in the instant
case, the appellant may not be charged under Section 304 Part I, but in the event that he has
exceeded private defense, he must be charged under Section 304 Part II. The facts of the
instant case are similar to the facts in the case of Samir Nijam Landge v. State of
Maharashtra. 23 The Bombay High Court held that there was no intent of the accused to
cause death to the victim through his act of self-defense. However, the injuries caused and the
proportion of harm caused by the accused proved that he had exceeded his right of private
defense. The charge was subsequently placed under Section 304 Part II. This evidentiary
standard was followed in cases such as Yogesh Hanmant Madane v. State of Maharashtra24
wherein the Hon’ble High Court observed that the strike delivered to the victim by the
accused had no sign of premeditation or intent; it merely reflected an instinctive reflex to
protect themselves from impending danger.
 9. The same principles are observed in the instant case, where the accused was attacked
and suffered injuries, thereby forcing him into a situation to protect himself.25 The excessive
nature of such force comes with the fact that the accused also had the option to subdue the
deceased, or render them immobile. However, the intent to cause death is absent; therefore
Section 304 Part II must be applied over Part I.15Moot Problem, Page 216Shriram v. State of
M.P., (2004) 9 SCC 29217Section 304, Indian Penal Code, 186018C.K. Takwani (Thakker),
Indian Penal Code IPC | Offences against Human Body19Ibid20(1978) 2 SCC
40721(2019)13 SCC 81322(2002) 1 SCC 7123(2006) 4 AIR Bom R 512 (DB)24(2013) 1
AIR Bom R 78525 Moot Problem, Page 2

PRAYER
Appellant respectfully requests the Court to adjudge and declare that:
 1. The Accused is justified in his right to exercise private defense
 2. The Accused has not exceeded his right of private defense
 3. The Accused is not liable under section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code and
therefore be acquitted of all charges
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.
Counsel on behalf of Respondent
SD/-