Moot court problem
Name : GAURVI BHASIN
Class : [Link]
Enrolment number : 00814903822
Email id : Gaurvibhasin45@[Link]
This document is from the side of plaintiff or
State in the High Court
• I surely agree to that the session court found B guilty on the grounds that he had a motive to kill A and also
was last seen by bye standers going with A to the place where his body was found let me present some
case laws and criminal laws regarding it .
• It is seen that person A had repeatedly lent money to B who has a history of not returning the money , this
could have led to a confrontation between the two and B could have been seen killing A as a way to avoid
repayment
As mentioned in Mens Rea in IPC
Its is considered as guilty intention which is proved and stated in the acts of accused . It is stated that
intention to kill was there by the accused .
• The last seen theory in Indian evidence act which shows relevance from section 7 of the Indian evidence
act which is called the “doctrine of Inductive login” in which it is stated that in any fact related to the
occasion , cause, or effect lead to the circumstance in which that thing occurred or it provided an
opportunity for the occurrence of that thing then those facts will be relevant. And in the last seen theory
also the person who was the last present with the victim would have a reasonable opportunity to commit
the crime.
As A was the last person seen with B before he was found dead . This Is a crucial piece of evidence against B
This presumption of fact is taken under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act under which the court can presume that
certain facts exist if some other facts are proved to be existing in the cases of natural events, human conduct, and public
and private business. For instance, if A was the last person seen with B just before his murder then it can be presumed that
A murdered B under this theory because A had adequate opportunity to commit the crime.
• the principle laid down in the case of Woolmington v Director of Public Prosecutions (1935). In this
case, the instances that occurred while he was last seen with the victim are exclusively known by him as
this law is laid down under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act where the burden of proving the fact is
on the person who has especially known about that particular fact or circumstance.
This shows that B person In our case also stated that he was last seen with person A before he waa dead
• Let us look Into the section 299 of the IPC “Whoever causes death by doing an act with the
intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause
death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of
culpable homicide”.
When a homicide is committed with a guilty mind, that homicide would be culpable homicide or murder
2
As mentioned In the above section B has a guilty mind and Intention to kill person A as he has earlier
threatened him to face the consequences and It could be possible that threat given by B was the reason
why A agreed to meet him In the park and this could have been a trap set by B .
So he should be punished under the section 302 and section 304 of the Indian penal code
• Suresh vs State of UP case involved an appeal before the High Court against the judgment of
Sessions Court. The concept of criminal law is based on the intention and knowledge of the
offender. This case deals with Section 34 of IPC which defines that when an act is done by several
persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that such
act in the same manner as it was done by him alone.
This shows that the Intention to commit crime Is Imp for a evidence to be proved against the accused and
In this case person B has the Intention to kill person A .
In the case of Sherras v. De Rutzen (1895), Justice Wright stated that
• There is a presumption that mens rea, or ill purpose, or awareness of the wrongfulness of the
act, is a fundamental part in every offence
• Unless the opposite is proven, mens rea is assumed in every statute.
• There is a presumption that mens rea, or evil intent, or knowledge of the act’s wrongfulness, is an
essential ingredient in every offence; however, that presumption may be displaced either by the
words of the statute creating the offence or by the subject-matter with which it deals, and both
must be considered.
This shows that mens rea was present In our case and mena rea Is proved In this case as B was last seen
there at the time of murder as he agreed that he met person A and gave him cash and B mentioned that A
had received a death threat from colleague but this person was absent from work on the day of muder so
this all concluded that there was the Involvement of person B In the murder of person A.
3
List of references
STATUTES:
1. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
2. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
3. The Indian Penal Code, 1860
WEBSITES:
1. [Link]
2. [Link]
3. [Link]
4. [Link]
5. [Link]
4
5