3rd UPES TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT

COMPETITION, 2017
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Honble Court has jurisdiction to try the instant matter under Section 177 read with
Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Section 177:
177. Ordinary place of inquiry and trial- Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and
tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed.
Read with Section 209:
209. Commitment of case to Court of Session when offence is triable exclusively by itWhen in a case instituted on a police report or otherwise, the accused appears or is brought
before the Magistrate and it appears to the Magistrate that the offence is triable exclusively
by the Court of Session, he shall(a) commit the case to the Court of Session;
(b) subject to the provisions of this Code relating to bail, remand the accused to custody
during, and until the conclusion of, the trial;
(c) send to that Court the record of the case and the documents and articles, if any, which are
to be produced in evidence;
(d) notify the Public Prosecutor of the commitment of the case to the Court of Session.

3rd UPES TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT

COMPETITION, 2017
STATEMENT OF FACTS

1.

Rani Singh, 26, is the daughter of Mr. Hari Mehta, aged 78 years. She works as an
Assistant Managing Director at her fathers office, who is one of the richest
businessmen in the city. Rajesh Singh, aged 27, resides in Indra Colony, Sehradun. He
is an independent businessman and CEO of a tech-startup ChaloDilli.com. Both
have known each other since their college days and got married in the year 2014. Both
were conscious about their careers and therefore decided not to have children. After
two years of their marriage, they mutually decided to raise their family. Unfortunately,
Rajesh discovered that Rani cannot conceive a child, which Rajesh presupposed was
because of her weight. During this time, Rajesh also suffered heavy losses in his

2.

business and was in urgent need of money.

Dr. Tapan, 29,is a dear friend of Rajesh and by profession, is a medical professor as
well as a Research Associate in the Research and Development Department of the well
renowned -Alpine Hospital & Institute of Medical Sciences in Sehradun. Dr. Tapan
was infatuated towards Rani since the first day he met her in college, but he never told

3.

about his feelings to either Rani or Rajesh.

On 15th November, 2016, Dr. Tapan told Rajesh of a new sexually arousing drug on
which he is working currently and also mentioned that he will provide good money to
that person who will let him perform biological experiments with this drug. Rajesh
told Dr. Tapan to try his drugs onto Rani saying as she is useless to me now, maybe

she could be of some use to you.

4. On 18th December, Rani became unconscious and fell down due to negative impacts
of drugs. To handle the situation Rajesh urgently called Dr. Tapan. He along with his
nurse came to Rajeshs place. While the nurse made the entries, Dr. Tapan hurried
upstairs. After examining her condition, he injected Rani with 0.25 mg of insulin to
bring her in conscious state. After a few minutes, she gained her consciousness while
Dr. Tapan and Rajesh discussed some things. Subsequently, Rajesh left for his
business trip. Dr. Tapan also left.
5. On 19th December, Deepali came to Singhs residence to wish her friend on her
birthday but found her dead body on the floor. She immediately called up the Police.
On the basis of Deepalis statements and First Information Report, police arrested
Rajesh Singh and Dr. Tapan Das for the charges of Murder under section 302 and
criminal conspiracy under section 120B of Vindian Penal Code. Charge sheet was

3rd UPES TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT

COMPETITION, 2017
filed by Hardik P. (I.O) before the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 27th December, 2016
and the case is set for trial before the Sessions Court of Sehradun.
STATEMENT OF CHARGES

Rajesh Singh and Dr. Tapan Das have been charged with criminal conspiracy under section
120B of Vindian Penal Code with a common intention to murder Rani charged under section
302 of Vindian Penal Code.

3rd UPES TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT

COMPETITION, 2017
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE 1
WHETHER ACCUSED ARE GUILTY OF CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY?
It is humbly submitted before this Honble Court that accused are guilty of criminal
conspiracy to commit the crime of murder. The accused Rajesh and Dr, Tapan had an
agreement to murder the victim, Rani. The circumstances of the case clearly project that there
is an understanding, agreements between the accused to commit the offence of murder. Also
in the pursuance of their agreement they carry out their plan, by injecting the victim with
heavy dose of insulin, giving a physical manifestation to their agreement.
ISSUE 2
WHETHER ACCUSED ARE GULITY OF MUREDER?
It is humbly submitted before this Honble Court that the accused are guilty of murder as they
have committed an act of cold blooded murder in the house of Rani with a clear actus reus.
The accused had the requisite mens rea to commit said crime, and he even had a motive to
carry out said act. The victim was intentionally administered with a heavy dose of insulin,
with a clear knowledge that the act was imminently danger to cause death in all probability.
Hence it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the crime of Murder was indeed committed
by the accused in the case at hand.

3rd UPES TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT

COMPETITION, 2017
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
ISSUE 1
WHETHER ACCUSED ARE GUILTY OF CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY
It is humbly submitted that Rajesh Singh and Dr. Tapan (hereinafter referred to as the
accused) are guilty of criminal conspiracy under section 120B of Vindian Penal Code
(hereinafter referred as the VIP). It is to be noted the essential elements of criminal
conspiracy as defined- When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done,(1) An illegal act, or
(2) An act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a
criminal conspiracy:
Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a
criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to
such an agreement in pursuance thereof.
[1.1] Acts of the respondents were to conspire against the victim
[1.1.1] There was an agreement between the respondents to conspire
[1.1.2] The agreement was for doing an illegal act.
[1.2] Respondents had Common Intention to conspire the plot for murder.
[1.2.1]Respondents actively participated to conspire against the victim.
[1.2.2] Presence at scene of occurrence amounts to presumption of participation
[1.2.3]Arguendo, Common intention may develop on the spot
[1.3] Admission of evidence by witness
As per Sec.118, Indian Evidence Act (herein after as IEA), all persons shall be competent
witnesses, unless they are prevented from understanding or answering the question put to
them by virtue of tender years, extreme old age, disease or infirmity, lunacy or any other
cause of same kind.18 The witnesss statements by, Ms. Khushboo (herein after referred as
PW3) and Mr. Ganesh (herein after referred as PW4) show that A1 has played along
with A2 and A3 as being a co- conspirator by acting in the scenes which were refused to be
shot by complainant.
[1.3.1] Admissibility of Circumstantial evidence

3rd UPES TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT

COMPETITION, 2017
ISSUE 2
WHETHER ACCUSED ARE GUILTY OF MUREDER

3rd UPES TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT

COMPETITION, 2017