Aman Soni Roll No.

65

CRIMINAL MOOT COURT PROBLEM, 2023

Before

HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF GENOVIA

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 914 OF 2023

(FILED UNDER SECTION 134 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF GENOVIA)

FOR THE OFFENCES CHARGED UNDER:

APPELLANT

SECTION 300 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN:

STATE OF NANDIGRAM [APPELLANT]

Versus

TEJUS [RESPONDENT]

MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT

 [CRIMINAL MOOT COURT PROBLEM, 2023]

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 2
INDEX OF ABREVIATIONS 3
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 4
STATEMENT OF FACTS 5
ISSUES RAISED 6
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 7
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED 8
PRAYER FOR RELIEF 11

PAGE | 1
MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT TABLE OF CONTENTS
 [CRIMINAL MOOT COURT PROBLEM, 2023]

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

TABLE OF CASES

1. Ratan Lal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 1971 AIR 778.

2. Surendra Mishra vs. State of Jharkhand (2011) 3 SCC (Cri.) 232.

3. Amar Singh vs. State of Rajasthan AIR 1982.

4. Narayan Chatterjee vs. State of West Bengal AIR 1996.

5. State of Maharashtra vs. Abdul Hamid Haji Mohammed AIR 1968.

6. Ganesh Shah vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 2002.

7. State of Punjab vs. Iqbal Singh 1991 AIR 1532.

8. State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Lallu AIR 2007.

TABLE OF WEBSITES
1. www.livelaw.in
2. https://indiankanoon.org/
3. https://www.scconline.com/?login=true
4. http://www.manupatra.com/asp/DataBaseDirectory.aspx
TABLE OF STATUES
1. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act no. 2 of 1974).
2. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act no. 45 of 1860).
3. The Constitution of India, 1950.

PAGE | 3
MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT INDEX OF ABBREVIATIONS
 [CRIMINAL MOOT COURT PROBLEM, 2023]

INDEX OF ABBREVIATIONS

1. SCC Supreme Court Cases

2. CS(OS) Civil Suit Original Site
3. SCR Supreme Court Reports
4. AIR All India Reporter
5. SC Supreme Court
6. No. Number
7. KLT Kerala High Court
8. FIR First Information Report
9. IPC Indian Penal Code
10. CrPC Code of Criminal Procedure
11. PW1 Prosecution Witness 1
12. PW2 Prosecution Witness 2
13. PW3 Prosecution Witness 3
14. DW1 Defense Witness 1
15. DW2 Defense Witness 2

PAGE | 3
MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT INDEX OF ABBREVIATIONS
 [CRIMINAL MOOT COURT PROBLEM, 2023]

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

THIS HONORABLE COURT POSSESSES THE JURISDICTION TO ADJUDICATE

UPON THIS APPEAL UNDER ARTICLE 134 (1) OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION,
1950 WHICH STATES, APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF SUPREME COURT IN
REGARD TO CRIMINAL MATTERS – (1) AN APPEAL SHALL LIE TO THE
SUPREME COURT FROM ANY JUDGEMENT, 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 REVERESED AN ORDER OF ACQUITTAL
OF AN ACCUSED PERSON AND SENTENCED HIM TO DEATH. (b) HAS
WITHDRAWN FOR TRIAL BEFORE ITSELF ANY CASE FROM ANY COURT
SUBORBINATE TO ITS AUTHORITY AND HAS IN SUCH TRIAL CONVICTED THE
ACCUSED PERSON AND SENTENCED HIM TO DEATH; OR (c) CERTIFICATE
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.

PAGE | 4
MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
 [CRIMINAL MOOT COURT PROBLEM, 2023]

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The defendant, Tejus, is a citizen of Genovia and a resident of Freedonia, a small

town in the State of Nandigram.

2. Tejus married Aditi on 16th January 2010, and they had a daughter named Sonali in
2012.

3. Tejus was diagnosed with Bipolar Mood Disorder by Dr. Rohan, a qualified
psychiatrist. Bipolar disorder is a recognized mental illness characterized by extreme
mood swings, including manic and depressive episodes.

4. Dr. Rohan prescribed medication and provided advice to Tejus to help him control his
anger and mood swings.

5. After the birth of their daughter Sonali, Aditi began to notice changes in Tejus's
behavior. Tejus's mood swings became more pronounced, and he displayed bouts of
extreme anger and violence over trivial matters.

6. Initially, Aditi did not take these changes seriously, believing they were related to the
stress of parenthood.

7. As Tejus's violent behavior continued and escalated, Aditi became increasingly

concerned for her safety and the well-being of their daughter.

8. Aditi took Tejus to Dr. Rohan (DW1), the psychiatrist who had diagnosed him with
Bipolar Mood Disorder. Dr. Rohan advised Tejus to continue taking medication and
recommended therapy to help manage his condition.

9. On the morning of 7th November 2012, Tejus and Aditi had a heated argument that
turned violent. A loud and disturbing altercation took place in their home in
Freedonia.

10. Ayush (PW3), a neighbor, heard the commotion and went to Tejus and Aditi's
residence to investigate. He discovered Aditi lying unconscious on the floor, covered
in blood, and saw Tejus attempting to hide a 7-inch iron axe in the garden.

11. Aditi was immediately rushed to the government hospital, where she was treated by
Dr. Yogesh (PW2). Dr. Yogesh confirmed that the injuries Aditi sustained were
severe and ultimately proved fatal.

12. On 8th November 2012, Aditi regained consciousness, and her statement was
recorded by Abhijit (PW1), the Police Inspector of Freedonia Police Station. In her
statement, she alleged that Tejus had attacked her with the axe.

PAGE | 5
MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT STATEMENT OF FACTS
 [CRIMINAL MOOT COURT PROBLEM, 2023]

13. Following the incident, Tejus was arrested by the police on 7th November 2012 and
was kept in police custody.

14. A First Information Report (FIR) was filed against Tejus under Section 302 of the
Indian Penal Code (IPC) for the murder of Aditi, based on Ayush's account and
Aditi's dying declaration.

15. Tejus, during interrogation, claimed that he was unconscious during the attack and did
not know how Aditi sustained her injuries.

16. The case went to trial, and key witnesses included Abhijit (PW1), Dr. Yogesh (PW2),
and Ayush (PW3).

17. Tejus presented Dr. Rohan (DW1), who testified about Tejus's Bipolar Mood
Disorder and its potential impact on his behavior.

18. On 8th November 2016, Tejus was found guilty of intentional murder under Section
302 IPC and sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment by the trial court.

19. Tejus appealed the decision of trial court to the High Court of Nandigram, which, in
July 2018, acquitted him on the grounds of legal and medical insanity due to his
diagnosed Bipolar Mood Disorder.

20. The State of Nandigram subsequently appealed the High Court's acquittal to this
Hon’ble Supreme Court of Genovia.

PAGE | 5
MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT STATEMENT OF FACTS
 [CRIMINAL MOOT COURT PROBLEM, 2023]

ISSUES RAISED

The following issues are before this Honorable Court for consideration:

1. Whether sufficient ground of legal insanity exists to exonerate the accused from
liability of murder.

2. Whether the burden of proof of legal insanity on the part of Defense is at par with
burden of proof on part of Prosecution.

PAGE | 6
MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT ISSUES RAISED
 [CRIMINAL MOOT COURT PROBLEM, 2023]

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

Issue 1 - Whether sufficient ground of legal insanity exists to exonerate

the accused from liability of murder.

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that the Defendant’s Bipolar Mood Disorder,
diagnosed and treated by a qualified psychiatrist, is a valid medical condition recognized by
the medical community. Bipolar disorder can lead to severe mood swings and impaired
judgment, which can manifest as violence in some cases. Tejus's inability to control his
actions during a manic episode should be considered a valid defense of legal insanity. In this
regard, we rely on the expert testimony of Dr. Rohan (DW1) who treated Tejus for Bipolar
Mood Disorder.

Issue 2 - Whether the burden of proof of legal insanity on the part of

Defense is at par with burden of proof on part of Prosecution.

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that under the principle of 'innocent until
proven guilty,' the Prosecution bears the initial burden of proving Tejus's guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt. However, once evidence of legal insanity is presented, the burden shifts to
the Prosecution to establish that Tejus was not legally insane when he committed the crime.
The Defense maintains that Tejus's medical condition and the expert testimony of Dr. Rohan
shift this burden, demonstrating that Tejus was legally insane during the incident.

PAGE | 7
MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
 [CRIMINAL MOOT COURT PROBLEM, 2023]

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE 1

Whether sufficient ground of legal insanity exists to exonerate the

accused from liability of murder

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that, The Appellant claims that there is no
sufficient ground for insanity, however the council would like to submit that there is
sufficient ground of legal insanity exists. The council will prove this argument with the
following arguments and cases –

1.1 Diagnosed Bipolar Mood Disorder: Tejus had been diagnosed with Bipolar Mood
Disorder by a qualified psychiatrist, Dr. Rohan. Bipolar disorder is a recognized and
medically substantiated mental health condition characterized by extreme mood
swings, which can include manic and depressive episodes. This diagnosis is not a
mere assertion; it is supported by medical records and expert testimony.

1.2 Impact on Mental Capacity: Bipolar disorder is known to significantly impact an

individual's mental capacity and judgment. During manic episodes, individuals with
this disorder may experience impaired impulse control and irrational behavior. Tejus's
violent behavior and mood swings, which Aditi observed, are consistent with the
symptoms of this condition.

1.3 Medical Treatment: Tejus was actively seeking medical treatment for his condition.
He followed the prescribed medication regimen and received counseling from Dr.
Rohan. This demonstrates his willingness to address his mental health issues and
underscores the seriousness of his diagnosis.

1.4 Expert Testimony (Dr. Rohan - DW1): Dr. Rohan, an expert in psychiatry, testified
that Tejus was suffering from Bipolar Mood Disorder and that the disorder could lead
to episodes of extreme behavior, including violence. The expert testimony should
carry significant weight in the court's decision-making process.

1.5 Impact on Legal Insanity: Given the diagnosis, treatment, and expert testimony, the
defense argues that Tejus's Bipolar Mood Disorder is a valid ground for legal insanity.
Legal insanity, as established in numerous Indian cases, is recognized when a person
is incapable of understanding the nature and wrongfulness of their actions due to a
mental disorder. Tejus's mental condition at the time of the incident aligns with this
legal principle under Section 84 of Indian Penal Code1.

1
Section 84 of Indian Penal Code, (45 of 1860), Act of a person of unsound mind - Nothing is an offence which
is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the
PAGE | 8
MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
 [CRIMINAL MOOT COURT PROBLEM, 2023]

1.6 In the case of Ratan Lal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (1971), it was held that a person
suffering from a mental disorder or disease at the time of the commission of an
offense should not be held criminally responsible if the disorder impaired their
capacity to understand the nature and consequences of their actions 2. In the present
appeal the defendant was not in the condition to understand the nature of offence due
to his medical condition.

1.7 Surendra Mishra vs. State of Jharkhand (2011): The court in this case recognized that
a person suffering from a mental illness that affects their mental capacity and
judgment cannot be held criminally responsible for their actions. The judgment
highlighted the importance of considering the mental state of the accused 3. As in the
present appeal the defendant was unable to understand the consequences of his actions
therefore the defendant should not be held criminally responsible for his actions.

1.8 Amar Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (1982): This case emphasized that an accused's
mental state and capacity at the time of the offense are essential considerations in
determining criminal responsibility. If mental illness or disorder is established, it may
exonerate the accused4.

1.9 Narayan Chatterjee vs. State of West Bengal (1996): In this case, it was ruled that a
person who is suffering from a mental disorder that impairs their judgment and self-
control cannot be held criminally responsible for their actions. The judgment stressed
the importance of expert medical testimony in such cases 5. As it was observed by the
Aditi and Shekhar, defendant’s brother that Tejus condition was worsening with the
time and he was losing his control over his actions therefore the defendant should not
held criminally liable.

nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law.

2
Ratan Lal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 1971 AIR 778.

3
Surendra Mishra vs. State of Jharkhand (2011) 3 SCC (Cri.) 232.

4
Amar Singh vs. State of Rajasthan AIR 1982.

5
Narayan Chatterjee vs. State of West Bengal AIR 1996
PAGE |8
MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
 [CRIMINAL MOOT COURT PROBLEM, 2023]

ISSUE 2

Whether the burden of proof of legal insanity on the part of Defense is at

par with burden of proof on part of Prosecution.

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the burden of proof on the part of
defense is sufficient and at par with the burden of proof on the part of appellant. The council
will prove this argument with the following arguments and cases –

2.1 Presumption of Innocence: The defense emphasizes that Tejus is presumed

innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This fundamental
principle of criminal law places the initial burden squarely on the prosecution to
prove the guilt of the accused. Tejus is not obligated to prove his innocence.

2.2 Shifted Burden of Proof: Once the defense raised the issue of legal insanity and
presented evidence of Tejus's diagnosed Bipolar Mood Disorder, the burden of
proving Tejus's sanity shifted to the prosecution. As established in various Indian
cases, the prosecution must now demonstrate that Tejus was legally sane at the
time of the offense.

2.3 Medical Evidence and Expert Testimony: The defense argues that the medical
evidence, including Tejus's diagnosis and expert testimony from Dr. Rohan
(DW1), sufficiently raise doubts about Tejus's mental state at the time of the
incident. The prosecution must provide compelling evidence to counteract this
medical and expert testimony.

2.4 High Evidentiary Standard: Legal insanity is a high evidentiary standard to meet.
It requires establishing that the accused, at the time of the offense, could not
understand the nature and wrongfulness of their actions due to a mental disorder.
The defense contends that the prosecution's case must meet this high standard, and
mere assertions are insufficient.

2.5 The defense submits that, given the medical diagnosis and expert testimony, there
exists a presumption of insanity. The prosecution must rebut this presumption by
providing clear and convincing evidence that Tejus was legally sane when the
offense occurred.

2.6 State of Maharashtra vs. Abdul Hamid Haji Mohammed (1968): This case
reaffirmed that once the accused pleads insanity as a defense, the burden of
proving the accused's sanity shifts to the prosecution. The prosecution must
establish the accused's sanity beyond a reasonable doubt6. In the present appeal the

6
State of Maharashtra vs. Abdul Hamid Haji Mohammed AIR 1968.
PAGE | 9
MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
 [CRIMINAL MOOT COURT PROBLEM, 2023]

defense has affirmed that the legal insanity existed with the help of medical
reports and witnesses therefore the burden of proving that the insanity does not
exist is shifted on the appellant.

2.7 Ganesh Shah vs. State of Maharashtra (2002): The court in this case emphasized
that it is the responsibility of the prosecution to prove the accused's sanity when
the issue of insanity is raised. The accused is not obliged to prove their insanity;
the prosecution must meet this burden7.

2.8 State of Punjab vs. Iqbal Singh (1991): This case reiterated that the prosecution
must prove the accused's sanity beyond a reasonable doubt when the defense of
insanity is raised. The accused does not have to prove their mental condition; the
onus lies with the prosecution8.

2.9 State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Lallu (2007): In this case, it was ruled that once the
accused raises the issue of insanity, the burden shifts to the prosecution to prove
the accused's sanity at the time of the offense. The prosecution must provide
sufficient evidence to establish the accused's mental state9

7
Ganesh Shah vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 2002.

8
State of Punjab vs. Iqbal Singh 1991 AIR 1532.

9
State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Lallu AIR 2007.
PAGE | 9
MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
 [CRIMINAL MOOT COURT PROBLEM, 2023]

PAGE | 10
MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
 [CRIMINAL MOOT COURT PROBLEM, 2023]

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

In the light of arguments advanced and issues quoted the respondent humbly submits that the

Hon’ble Supreme Court of Genovia may be pleased to adjudge and declare that:

1. The Respondent prays for the dismissal of the Appeal and pass a favorable judgment

in his favor.

2. To upheld the order of acquittal passed by the learned High Court in favor of the

Respondent, and

3. Pass any other just and equitable order that the hon’ble court may deem fit.

Sd-

(Counsel for Respondent)

PLACE: Nandigram

DATE: 21.09.2023

PAGE | 11
MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT PRAYER FOR RELIEF