TC-01

TC-01
BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
C.C. NO. 100 OF 2022

IN MATTER OF
SIDHARTH KAPOOR ……. APPELLANT

V.
STATE OF MAHARASTRA ……. RESPONDENT

FOR OFFENCES CHARGED UNDER:

SECTIONS 307AND 498A
OF INDIAN PENAL CODE,1860

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT JUDGE

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT

1I
 RABINDRANATH TAGORE UNIVERSITY,
SECOND INTRA MOOT COURT

INDEX OF CONTENT

List of Abbreviations 3
Index of Authorities 4
• Statutes 4
• Sections 4
• Case laws 4
• Books 5
• Dynamic Links 5
Statement of Jurisdiction 6
Statement of Facts 7-8
Statement of Charges 9
Issues Raised 10
Summary of Arguments 11
Arguments Advanced 11-12
ISSUE 1: Whether Sidharth Kapoor is guilty under section 307 IPC,1860 for 13
attempting murder of Rishika?
ISSUE 2: Whether Sidharth is an offender under section 498A of IPC,1860? 14-15
Prayer 16

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

2
 RABINDRANATH TAGORE UNIVERSITY,
SECOND INTRA MOOT COURT

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

& And
A.P. Andhra Pradesh
AIR All India Report
Anr Another
Bom CR Bombay Criminal Reporter
Cr.P.C. Code of Criminal Procedure
Cri LJ / Cr. LJ Criminal Law Journal
Del Delhi
Hon’ble Honourable
IPC Indian Penal Code
No. Number
Ori. Odisha
Or’s. Others
r/w Read with
Retd. Retired
S./Sec. Section
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
St. State
u/s Under Section
v. Versus
RABINDRANATH TAGORE UNIVERSITY,SECOND INTRA MOOT COURT

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
STATUTES:

1. IPC 3 Indian Penal Code 1860

SECTIONS:

1. 498A IPC
Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty — Whoever, being the
husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be
punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to
fine. Explanation. 4 For the purposes of this section, <cruelty= means
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to
cause grave injury or danger to life, limb, or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person
related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account
of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.

2. 307 IPC
Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by
that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is
caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to 1[imprisonment for life], or to
such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned.

Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty — Whoever, being the
husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be
 RABINDRANATH TAGORE UNIVERSITY,
SECOND INTRA MOOT COURT

punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to
fine. Explanation. 4 For the purposes of this section, <cruelty= means
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to
cause grave injury or danger to life, limb, or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person
related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account
of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.

Case laws:

1. Ajay V. State of Chhattisgarh - 03.01.2013 - CGHC

2. State of MP V. Manmohan Choubey - 18.01.1994 – MP

3. Gaurav Maggo V. The state of NCT of Delhi

4. Nitin V. Rekha

5. SomNath Sain Petitioner V. State of H.P

6. Binda Devi Petitioner V. Dabboo Yadav Sanjeev Yadav

7 Jitendra Mohan Khan V. State of West Bengal and Another

8 .State V. Udhav Trivedi

.9 Kanwal Ram and others V. Himachal Pradesh Administration

10. Naresh Kumar through his LRs Amita $ others V. Charanpreet Kaur @ Priti and others

11. Mohan singh Jogi V. State of NCT of Delhi

 lOMoARcPSD|29342214

RABINDRANATH TAGORE UNIVERSITY, SECOND INTRA MOOT COURT

Books:

1. Ratana Lal & Dhiraj Lal 3 Indian Penal Code, Lexis Nexis

Dynamic links:

1. www.manupatra.com

2. indiankanoon.org

6.
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
[Type here]

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Hon’ble Court has the jurisdiction to try the instant matter under section 374 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973.
Section 374:

8Appeals from convictions: -

1. Any person convicted on a trial held by a High Court in its extraordinary original criminal jurisdiction
may appeal to the Supreme Court.

2. Any person convicted on a trial held by a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge or on a
trial held by any other Court in which a sentence of imprisonment for more than seven years 2 has
been passed against him or against any other person convicted at the same trial], may appeal to
the High Court.

3 a. Convicted on a trial held by a Metropolitan Magistrate or Assistant Sessions Judge or Magistrate

of the first class, or of the second class, or

b. sentenced under section 325, or

c. in respect of whom an order has been made or a sentence has been passed under section 360 by any
Magistrate, may appeal to the Court of Session.

The Counsels for the Prosecution most respectfully submit to this jurisdiction of the Hon’ble High Court of
Bombay.

9.
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 lOMoARcPSD|29342214

RABINDRANATH TAGORE UNIVERSITY,SECOND INTRA MOOT COURT

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Rishika Banerjee the wife of Sidharth Kapoor is victim of cruelty.

2. Rishika Banerjee was a 22-year-old girl from Dehradun, she was struggling in the film industry. She
survived in Mumbai on her own. She was trying very hard to get a debut in the film, so she was giving
many auditions.

3. On September 2018 Rishika attended a party where many Bollywood bigshots attended the party. She
met many big stars and directors. Then she met Sidharth Kapoor, the well-known film director at the
bar in the party. Rishika exchanged her number with Sidharth Kapoor eventually.

4. Sidharth Kapoor the well-known director in the film industry has married 3 times but all 3 marriages
were failed.

5. Sidharth Kapoor was also known as a career builder for YOUNG ACTRESSES. Sidharth Started
meeting Rishika frequently for a few months (3 to 5 months) due to this Rishika developed feeling about
Sidharth, so she fell in love with Sidharth.

6. Sidharth was in a relationship with Rishika after 3 failed marriages.

7. The news about Sidharth & Rishika’s relationship went viral in public. As Sidharth was the well-
established director so he was used to that situation, but Rishika was not aware of this kind of things.
There were many items circulating on social media about both.

8. Rishika asked Sidharth to cast her in his next upcoming project, but Sidharth has already casted all the
actors & actresses & has invested a huge amount of money in it, so he denies to it. Rishika accepted his
answer but though there were some conflicts between them, which is normal in a kind.

9. After 3 months (March 2019) Sidharth demanded Rishika to leave his house. He claimed that girls like
her come begging to him every day and he can get anyone he wishes. Rishika begged him not to
force her to leave the house and promises him that she would stop arguing with him.

10. Rishika asked for help from Sidharth regarding her mental health issue that she was facing. She asked
Sidharth for seeking medical help, but he denied for it. Sidharth said that it would affect her career if

10.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

[Type here]

media agencies found out about her psychiatrist issue. But the main reason behind his denial is that it
can also affect Sidharth’s image in public.

The above Statements of Facts are continued on this page.

11. For protecting the image of Sidharth she withdrew herself from social media & confined herself to the
house. But Sidharth was active on social media. He was seen cozying up to young women at parties on
social media.

12. In October 2019 Rishika Banerjee & Sidharth Kapoor got married in a small temple near Mumbai,
Sidharth also gifted her a flat in Bandra as her Wedding Gift. He also forced Rishika that not to reveal
the information about their marriage to anyone as it would affect his career. This statement is given by
Rishika on 12th Feb 2020 to Police at Hospital while she was burnt 75%.

13. In November 2019 a picture of Sidharth and a young debutante actress, holidaying on a secluded island
in the Maldives, went viral on social media and rumours started spreading about Sidharth’s & Rishika’s
separation.
14. A week later, Sidharth released his statement, clarifying that all is well between them (Rishika &
Sidharth) and that they were one in their heart and soul (they are together).

15. In January 2020 Rishika found out that the divorce proceedings with his previous wife were still pending
before the court. This means that Sidharth was concealing the facts about his divorce from Rishika & get
married to Rishika.

16. This made Rishika vulnerable & the fight between Rishika and Sidharth increased.

17. On 4th September Rishika was cooking or doing some other thing near the stove. While she picked up
the kerosene can for some use Sidharth came into the house and saw Rishika.

18. As he saw Rishika holding the kerosene can, he thought that she was attempting suicide but, she was
doing some work, as based on some evidence. Sidharth was intoxicated on that night. Sidharth then
rushed towards Rishika fuming with rage. Without understanding the actual situation Sidharth became
aggressive and said that she had ruined all the fun in his life.

19. In a rage, he poured kerosene on Rishika. But as she was doing something on the stove, the stove was
inflamed, due to which Rishika was engulfed in flames as her dress caught fire from the stove. But this
does not mean that Sidharth was not trying to kill Rishika.

20. As per the actions of Sidharth, he poured kerosene on Rishika in a rage to kill her.

9.
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 lOMoARcPSD|29342214

RABINDRANATH TAGORE UNIVERSITY,SECOND INTRA MOOT COURT

21. 21.As Rishika was not attempting suicide but due to the in toxic condition of Sidharth he was not able to
think and so he committed the crime.

10.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 lOMoARcPSD|29342214

RABINDRANATH TAGORE UNIVERSITY,SECOND INTRA MOOT COURT

ISSUES RAISED

ISSUE 1: Whether Sidharth is an offender under section 498A of IPC,1860?

ISSUE 2: Whether Sidharth Kapoor is guilty under section 307 IPC,1860 for
attempting murder of Rishika?

11. MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 lOMoARcPSD|29342214

RABINDRANATH TAGORE UNIVERSITY, SECOND INTRA MOOT COURT

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE 1: Whether Sidharth is an offender under section 498A of IPC,1860?

It is submitted before the Hon’ble court that the accused, Mr. Sidharth Kapoor had committed the offense
under section 498A of IPC, 1860 by denying medical aid to her wife Rishika willing fully, due to which
her mental health was affecting badly. (Reference page IV)

ISSUE 2: Whether Sidharth Kapoor is guilty under section 307 IPC,1860 for attempting
It is submitted before the Hon’ble court that the accused, Mr. Sidharth Kapoor had committed the offense of
attempting to murder the victim. He poured kerosene on Rishika in rage, but before he could lighted the
match stick she caught fire due to inflamed stove which proves actus rea & he also exclaimed that if she was
so firm on ending her lifer life, then he would make things easier for her , which proved men’s rea. The
essential ingredients of Section 307 are therefore fulfilled.

14. MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 lOMoARcPSD|29342214

RABINDRANATH TAGORE UNIVERSITY,SECOND INTRA MOOT COURT

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE 1: Whether Sidharth is an offender under section 498A of IPC,1860?

It is humbly submitted before this court that Sidharth was not providing medical aid to his wife Rishika
Banerjee which affect her mental health. Any act done wilfully by husband or relative of husband which
forces wife to commit suicide or cause grave injury or danger to life, limb, or health (whether mental or
physical) of the woman shall be punished under section 498A. The act of neglecting medical aid of his
wife (Rishika) clarifies that Sidharth has committed cruelty to his wife.
For the commission of an offence under Section 498-A, following necessary ingredients are required to be
satisfied:

1. The woman must be married.

2. She must be subjected to cruelty or harassment; and

3. Such cruelty or harassment must have been shown either by husband of the woman or by the
relative of her husband.

Husband - Who is the expression "husband" covers a person who enters into a marital relationship and
under the colour of such proclaimed or feigned status of husband subjects the woman concerned to cruelty
in the manner provided under Section 498-A, whatever be the legitimacy of the marriage itself for the
limited purpose of Section 498-A. The absence of a definition of "husband" to specifically include such
persons who contract marriages ostensibly and cohabit with such woman, in the purported exercise of
their role and status as "husband" is no ground to exclude them from the purview of 498-A IPC, Reema
Aggarwal v. Anupam, (2004) 3 sec 199.

ISSUE 2: Whether Sidharth Kapoor is guilty under section 307 IPC,1860 for
attempting murder of Rishika?

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

13.
 lOMoARcPSD|29342214

RABINDRANATH TAGORE UNIVERSITY, SECOND INTRA MOOT COURT

It is humbly submitted before this court that Sidharth is guilty of an unlawful offence under Section 307 of
IPC. Any act or omission will be taken into this section if the offender, while committing such act thought
that it would lead to death. It is to be noted that the essential elements of Sec. 307 are as follows:

1. the act must be capable of causing death,

2. the existence of the intention of the offender to cause death.

For a conviction under this section, it is not necessary that the accused should complete every stage in the
actual offence, except the final action. It is enough if in the attempt he did an act towards the commission
of the offence. The Supreme Court reiterated its earlier view and held that the offence under 307, IPC is
committed, when with the intention to commit murder, the offender does any act or series of acts towards
the commission of murder. It is not necessary that the act done must be last for committing murder.

1. The act can cause death:

It is humbly submitted that the element of Actus Rea was present in the act of the accused. The court, in a
case, ruled that for an offence to fall under the ambit of section 307, the injury must be caused on a vital
part of the body. In the present case the injury was caused on the entire body of the victim as Rishika was
burnt 75. The act done with the intention to cause death is sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause
death or such injury which would cause death. In the present case, the injury of Rishika is grave enough as
she is in ICU under critical state.

2. Intention to murder:
The essential ingredient to constitute an offence under this section is having the intention or knowledge.
The intention or knowledge can be understood as explained under Section 300 of IPC, 1860. Law gives a
lot of importance on proving the intent of the accused; there have been some.
tests to determine the murderous intent of the accused. The intent coupled with act in executing that
intention would suffice. The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay observed that an attempt to murder itself is
enough to prove intention.

14. MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 lOMoARcPSD|29342214

In Ajay vs. State of Chhattisgarh (03.01.2013 - CGHC): MANU/CG/0005/2013, the Hon'ble High
Court of Chhattisgarh held as follows:
Manner of pouring kerosene on concerned witness and setting her on fire by Accused and nature of
injuries sustained by witness clearly communicated intention of Accused which was no one else than
attempt to end life of victim - Therefore Court had rightly held Accused guilty for offence punishable
under Section 307.

15. MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

[Document title]

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

16.