BNS INTERNAL II MEMORIAL MOOT COURT, 2025

{MEMORIAL for APPELLANT}

TABLE OF CONTENTS

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION …………………………………………………... I

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ............................................................................................ II

STATEMENT OF FACTS ................................................................................................ III

ISSUES RAISED ............................................................................................................... IV

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ....................................................................................... V

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ............................................................................................ VI

PRAYER ............................................................................................................................. VII

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The appellate jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Supreme Court of Bharat under article 136 of the
Constitution has been sought in the appeal brought by the petitioner against the judgment of
the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh which upheld the conviction of Mr. Arjun Singh
with respect to section 101 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. As per Section 210
of the Constitution, the Hon’ble Court has the power to grant special leave to appeal in such
cases as may be relevant to major matters of law and justice. The appeals on appeal raise major
legal issues like: What is the scope of private defence provided in paragraph 34 of the BNS;
What is the applicability of section 30 where it deals with acts committed in good faith (under
fear of injury); and what is the minimum essential concept of murder in article 101 i. e. how is
mens rea applicable? In view of the seriousness of the above questions the petitioner
respectfully submits that the Hon’ble Court does have jurisdiction to decide the matter.

I
 BNS INTERNAL II MEMORIAL MOOT COURT, 2025
{MEMORIAL for APPELLANT}

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASE LAWS Page No.

K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1962 SC 605 V
State of U.P. v. Ram Swarup, (1974) 4 SCC 764 V
M.G. Agarwal v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1963 SC 200 VI
Jai Dev v. State of Punjab, AIR 1963 SC 612 VI
Mohinder Pal Jolly v. State of Punjab, (1979) 3 SCC 30 VI
Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab, (2010) 2 SCC 333 VII
Babu v. State of Kerala, (2010) 9 SCC 189 VII & IX
Bhanwar Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2008) 16 SCC 657 VIII
Salim Zia v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1979) 2 SCC 648 VIII
James Martin v. State of Kerala, (2004) 2 SCC 203 VIII
Dharam Pal Singh v. State of U.P., (2008) 17 SCC 337 IX

STATUTES
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
Indian Evidence Act, 1872

BOOKS/ COMMENTARIES/ LEGAL DICTIONARIES

Ratanlal & Dhirajlal’s The Indian Penal Code
P.S.A. Pillai’s Criminal Law
Kenny’s Outlines of Criminal Law
Glanville Williams’ Textbook of Criminal Law
R.V. Kelkar’s Criminal Procedure
Black’s Law Dictionary
Wharton’s Law Lexicon

II
 BNS INTERNAL II MEMORIAL MOOT COURT, 2025
{MEMORIAL for APPELLANT}

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Background

Rajesh Singh, a law-abiding businessman of 38 years, has been allegedly punished under
Section 101 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 for an offence in which he just
exercised his right to private defense, police informed. In Indore, Madhya Pradesh, on 10th
July, 2024, Rajesh was subjected to a violent and abusive assault by Ramesh Verma, a property
dealer, against whom Rajesh had an ongoing property dispute. After several attempts by Rajesh
to resolve the controversy amicably, tensions rose in an uneasy manner due to the abusive and
aggressive behaviour of Ramesh Verma.

2. Incident:

The circumstances in this case are described in the attached Prosecutory Memorandum.
Rregarding the said case wherein on July 10, 2024, Rajesh Singh was summoned to the office
of Ramesh Verma at around 9:00PM to settle the ongoing dispute regarding property, he had
asked for an early evening meeting at the office for discussing the same in a peaceful manner.
When he showed up, at which time Ramesh was very angry at him and impatient. He started
arguing strongly and soon escalated the fight to physical confrontation by striking him with a
knife. As soon as Rajesh entered Ramesh's office, the room was very small and there was no
reasonable chance of escape for him.

3. Self-Defense by Rajesh Singh:

Considering his own life at risk, Rajesh instinctively took appropriate measures in self-defense
constituted under Section 24 of the BNS, 2023. He signalled Ramesh to back away in a violent
and aggressive manner. As his opponent lunged at him aggressively and violently, Rajesh had
no option but to use his licensed revolver to protect himself. Needless to say, Rajesh did not
intend to kill Ramesh or, for that matter, to inflict any injury upon him. His sole intention was
to neutralize the immediate and unlawful threat made by Ramesh.

III
 BNS INTERNAL II MEMORIAL MOOT COURT, 2025
{MEMORIAL for APPELLANT}

4. Contradictions in the Prosecution’s Case:

The prosecution's statement regarding Ramesh being unarmed at the time of the incident is
utterly counter-productive and inexcusably false. For the violent and tragic event it is entirely
possible that the knife flew away from in the course of the struggle or was moved from the area
away from the time law enforcement came along, and as regards the fact that the forensic report
specifies that the shot was fired from three meters away, in no way would this necessarily deny
Rajesh's claim of self-defense which is to say, that a person with a knife in such close range
poses a very real and immediate danger, especially in a conflicted, chaotic environment.

5. Rajesh Singh’s Lawful Conduct:

Rajesh Singh is a law-abiding citizen with no criminal background, and his only fault was his
attempt to protect his own life. The prosecution has failed to consider the psychological and
physical distress he faced at that moment, and instead, has sought to portray a defensive act as
an unlawful killing. Furthermore, no evidence suggests premeditation, as Rajesh had no reason
to engage in violence—his visit to Ramesh’s office was purely for discussion.

ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether the act committed by Rajesh Singh falls under Section 101 of the BNS
(Punishment for Murder) or is protected under the general exceptions of the BNS.

2. Whether Rajesh's right to private defence under Section 24 of the BNS was lawfully
exercised.

3. Whether Rajesh can invoke Section 23 of the BNS to claim protection based on his
state of mind at the time of the incident.

IV
 BNS INTERNAL II MEMORIAL MOOT COURT, 2025
{MEMORIAL for APPELLANT}

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE 1: WHETHER THE ACT COMMITTED BY RAJESH SINGH FALLS UNDER

SECTION 101 OF THE BNS (PUNISHMENT FOR MURDER) OR IS PROTECTED
UNDER THE GENERAL EXCEPTIONS OF THE BNS.

The basic concept of criminal law, right to private defense, is that an individual has a
fundamental right to use reasonable force to protect himself in such an incident as he reasonably
believes is being imminent. The right to private defense, recognized by the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita (BNS), 2023, recognizes this right. One may cause death in special cases if there is a
reasonable expectation of grievous harm or death in this case. In State of U. P. v. Ram Swarup
(1974) 4 SCC 7641, it has been held by the Supreme Court that the right of private defense also
applies where an accused has no chance to claim protection of the state and act for self-
preservation. in this particular case, the accused was found in a peculiar and unappealing
position – inside Ramesh’s office. The prima facie factual matrix indicates that Rajesh was
reasonably perceiving a danger with which he might sustain injury. Contrary to other alleged
situation, such as of an accused acting in aggression or being attacked, Rajesh acted for self-
defense only, which falls under the scope of private defense.

Also see K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra (1962) AIR 605 SC 2 where a legal opinion
held that no private defense can be raised on the basis of circumstances at the time when it is
being committed. In this case, Rajesh did not intend to injure Ramesh for what purpose. He
mistook an imminent danger for something he was doing which he cannot predict and
responded instinctively. Whether self-defense law should be carefully applied in the moment
of crisis is a question of judgment. I don’t think that even slight deviation in the accused’s
account from the truth does not preclude the private defense in this case. Having regard to the
nature of the threat and the single use of force in the event of the incident, it respectfully submits
that the particular facts do agree with the considerations of lawful private defense under BNS.

1
State of U.P. v. Ram Swarup, (1974) 4 SCC 764 [Link]
2
K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1962 SC 605 [Link]

V
 BNS INTERNAL II MEMORIAL MOOT COURT, 2025
{MEMORIAL for APPELLANT}

ISSUE 2: WHETHER RAJESH'S RIGHT TO PRIVATE DEFENSE UNDER

SECTION 24 OF THE BNS WAS LAWFULLY EXERCISED.

The principle of private defense comes within the bounds of limitation that the force used
must be proportionate to the danger to which it is being taken. From section 34 of the BNS,
2023, the right of private defense cannot be exercised in a manner that would not be
necessary. Supreme Court had held in Jai Dev v. State of Punjab (AIR 1963 SC 612)3, that
private defense is permitted only where there is a need to use force to prevent danger. In this
case, Rajesh shoots only one shot and this is restraint rather than an excessive or retaliatory
action. Unlike in cases where accused goes on doing the murder continuously beyond
necessity, Rajesh act rightly in keeping with the principle that self-defense must be done to
avoid or counter potential threat and not to punish or inflict injury or punishment.

In addition, under the proportionality test prescribed by the Constitution of India in Mohinder
Pal Jolly v. State of Punjab (1979) 3 SCC 304, a court shall consider whether in the
circumstances of the present case a reasonable man would have proceeded in the same manner
as Rajesh, on the basis of which it is unreasonable to suppose that he may have gone back to
his home or business in an unknown place. Accordingly, the Supreme Court has held that an
individual who is faced with imminent danger does not have to be exact in evaluating the
amount of force required. On account of which Rajesh behaved in a way that was instinctual
and proportionate, and did not proceed with prolonged or excessive force, it respectfully
submits that his conduct was not disproportionate.

ISSUE 3: WHETHER RAJESH CAN INVOKE SECTION 23 OF THE BNS TO

CLAIM PROTECTION BASED ON HIS STATE OF MIND AT THE TIME OF THE
INCIDENT.

The prosecution is required to prove the guilt “beyond reasonable doubt” which was again
affirmed by the introduction of section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. As there is any
plausible doubt in favour of the accused concerning his intent or disposition of the events there

3
Jai Dev v. State of Punjab, AIR 1963 SC 612 [Link]
4
Mohinder Pal Jolly v. State of Punjab, (1979) 3 SCC 30

VI
 BNS INTERNAL II MEMORIAL MOOT COURT, 2025
{MEMORIAL for APPELLANT}

should be the benefit of doubt. In M. G. Agarwal v. State of Maharashtra (1963 SC 200)5, the
Supreme Court held that circumstantial evidence must lead to only one hypothesis, namely that
the accused is guilty. In this case, however, there are multiple alternative explanations available,
including that Ramesh may have carried an object which would raise doubt as to whether
Rajesh was the aggressor. The fact that there is no forensic evidence of intent would further
weaken the prosecution’s case.

Additionally, in Babu v. State of Kerala (2010) (9 SCC 189)6, the Court held that where the
course of the prosecution tale is inconsistent or lacking in corroboration, the benefit of doubt
must be disregarded by the accused and in the present case, inadvertently, the prosecution has
not delivered an uninterrupted chain of evidence which established Rajesh’s innocence beyond
reasonable doubt. Also, in Raghunath v. State of Haryana (2003) (1 SCC 398)7, the Supreme
Court held that when two interpretations of evidence are available, the court must take the one
favouring the accused. In view of inconsistencies of witness statements, lack of forensic
certainty and the existence of probable alternative scenario, it respectfully submits that the
prosecution has failed to furnish the threshold of proof which can support a murder conviction.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

I. THE ACT COMMITTED BY THE APPELLANT FALLS WITHIN THE RIGHT OF

PRIVATE DEFENSE

The right to private defense is a fundamental and highly jurisprudent principle guaranteeing
the right of persons to defend themselves against an imminent threat to life or physical harm.
Section 34 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 specifically provides for the use of
force including lethal force when there is a legitimate and reassuring belief that there is some
serious injury or death. Hence in this case, the rppellant, Rajesh Singh was threatened with an

5
M.G. Agarwal v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1963 SC 200 [Link]
6
Babu v. State of Kerala, (2010) 9 SCC 189 [Link]
7
Raghunath v. State of Haryana, (2003) 1 SCC 398 [Link]

VII
 BNS INTERNAL II MEMORIAL MOOT COURT, 2025
{MEMORIAL for APPELLANT}

imminent and unlawful assault by the deceased Ramesh and in view of such a situation, he
was, to some extent, obliged to defend himself to the best of his ability to prevent any imminent
injury to his own life.

There is no such requirement that people have to retreat or sustain some kind of injury or be
killed before taking action for self-defense. In Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab (2010) 2 SCC
3338, the Hon’ble Supreme Court clearly held that one cannot do without reservation the
moment an attack or threat presents itself and should not act at the least with a degree of
complacency as it did not amount to excessive or unprovoked activity. To put it simply: the
said respondent’s acts were a necessary and proportionate reaction to the danger at hand.
Moreover, the burden of proof for private defense is not necessary to be absolute. It is only
permissible if the defense can prove the defense on the preponderance of probabilities, as the
Hon’ble Supreme Court had just reiterated in Bhanwar Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh
(2008) 16 SCC 6579. Since the said appellant had no criminal history, no intended
premeditation and had only one shot, then his action will be within the scope of lawful private
defense, and any allegations of murder will thus be barred by law.

II. THE APPELLANT DID NOT USE EXCESSIVE FORCE AND DID NOT EXCEED
THE RIGHT OF PRIVATE DEFENSE

Publicity Generally, India’s right to private defense is absolute in the event of imminent danger
but it is a matter of law that the appropriate force should be taken under consideration in
countering a danger. The scope for eliciting such defense under the Constitutional provisions
in Section 34, 2023 of the BNS is limited to a proportionate use of force, but not for offensive
or retaliatory acts. With respect to the facts of this case, the Appellant discharged only a single
shot; this clearly shows that he had no intention of making the situation escalate beyond the
scope for eliciting such defense by a reasonable extent, which was required for countering the
threat posed by the deceased. According to the Supreme Court, in Salim Zia v. State of Uttar

8
Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab, (2010) 2 SCC 333 [Link]
9
Bhanwar Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2008) 16 SCC 657
[Link]

VIII
 BNS INTERNAL II MEMORIAL MOOT COURT, 2025
{MEMORIAL for APPELLANT}

Pradesh (1979) 2 SCC 64810, “A person exercising private defense shall not indulge in an
offensive or revengeful act for purposes other than the prevention of danger, and such exercise
shall not take the form of an offensive retaliation”. The answeree’s conduct follows this legal
rule.

More importantly, when an accused feels that the amount of force used was excessive, the court
must look at the circumstances on the face of the accused at the time of the incident instead of
thinking about them from the perspective of the defendant before him. According to the High
Court’s opinion in James Martin v. State of Kerala (2004) 2 SCC 20311, a person when facing
some imminent danger cannot possibly be expected to weigh the consequences of his reaction
mathematically. Rajesh Singh’s actions were not deliberate but spontaneous and proportionate.
Also, the principle of reasonable apprehension is consistent with the appellant’s case. The Court
said in Dharam Pal Singh v. State of U. P. (2008) 17 SCC 33712, the answer to the question of
self-defense can be determined on the basis of the accused’s views at the time of the incident
rather than based on one’s hindsight. Based on these legal precedents, the appellant’s use of
force was just, necessary and in the strictest sense within the bounds of the scope of private
defense.

III. THE PROSECUTION HAS FAILED TO PROVE BEYOND REASONABLE

DOUBT THAT THE APPELLANT COMMITTED MURDER

It is a well-established principle of criminal law that the burden of proof laid down by the
prosecution rests on the prosecution to demonstrate the defendants’ guilt to the extent that the
test for the character of the accused cannot be proved beyond reasonable doubt. As provided
for in Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, such defendant cannot be convicted of
any offence unless the prosecution can show the defendant’s culpability to such a granularity
that there can be no reasonable alternative explanation which would support his innocence. In
this case the prosecution has failed in fulfilling the burden as the evidence in evidence does not

10
Salim Zia v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1979) 2 SCC 648 [Link]
11
James Martin v. State of Kerala, (2004) 2 SCC 203
12
Dharam Pal Singh v. State of U.P., (2008) 17 SCC 337

IX
 BNS INTERNAL II MEMORIAL MOOT COURT, 2025
{MEMORIAL for APPELLANT}

contiguously establish that Rajesh Singh acted with premeditated intention to kill the deceased.
Instead, the facts indicate that Rajesh acted instinctively in self-defense in response to an
imminent and life-threatening situation. The Supreme Court held that where there are two
interpretations of evidence, benefit of doubt must be given to the defendant.

More significantly, the very fact that there is a lack of credible forensic evidence along with
the contradictory statements made by the witnesses adversely effects the prosecution’s case. In
addition, the fact that Ramesh was wearing a weapon that perhaps was removed from the house
during the argument, also raises a crucial and unanswered issue. Under the benefit of doubt
doctrine, CSC (Supreme Court) was of the opinion that where reasonable doubt prevails in
respect of the sequence of events as alleged in the case, then the accused should be granted the
benefit of doubt. Similarly, under the benefit of doubt doctrine, in Babu v. State of Kerala
(2010) 9 SCC 18913 the Hon’ble Court held that where a prosecution narrative is inconsistent
or inconclusive there can be no case against the accused. And also, in Raghunath v. State of
Haryana (2003) 1 SCC 39814 the Hon’ble Court reiterated that when there are two plausible
versions of events, the court must choose the version in which the accused has a better chance
of winning the case. To this end, due to all these inconsistencies along with insufficient
compelling evidence for premeditation or intent, it is respectfully submitted that the
prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the accused should be
acquitted on the ground of benefit of doubt.

13
Babu v. State of Kerala, (2010) 9 SCC 189
14
Raghunath v. State of Haryana, (2003) 1 SCC 398 [Link]

X
 BNS INTERNAL II MEMORIAL MOOT COURT, 2025
{MEMORIAL for APPELLANT}

PRAYER

WHEREFORE IN THE LIGHT OF ISSUES RAISED, ARGUMENTS ADVANCED AND

AUTHORITIES CITED, IT IS HUMBLY PRAYED THAT THIS HONORABLE COURT
MAY BE PLEASED TO DECLARE THAT:

1. This Hon’ble Court be happy to order an acquittal of the Appellant of all

charges under Section 101 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, for
his conduct was lawful exercise of his right to private defence.
2. Further it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court should appreciate that the
prosecution has failed to give rise to conviction beyond reasonable doubt and
that the benefit of doubt ought to be accorded to the Appellant being the
inconsistencies in the evidence and the lack of premeditation.
3. Any other order (s) deemed fit and proper by this Hon’ble Court in the
interests of justice, equity and good conscience may hereafter be kindly
granted.

AND PASS ANY OTHER ORDER, DIRECTION, OR RELIEF THAT IT MAY DEEM FIT
IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, FAIRNESS, EQUITY AND GOOD CONSCIENCE

All of which is humbly prayed,

Counsels for the Appellant.

XI