SVKM’S

PRAVIN GANDHI COLLEGE OF LAW

COMPULSORY MOOT – I, 2024

SUBMITTED BY: NISHTHA RATHOD

ROLL NO: B040

CLASS: 5TH YEAR

SEMESTER 9

MOOT EXAMINATION

Page | 1
SVKM’s PRAVIN GANDHI COLLEGE OF LAW
COMPULSORY MOOT – I, 2024

Before

THE SUPREME COURT OF CYNDORIA

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.____ OF 2024

CLAIRE……………………………………………………………. APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF CYNDORIA……………………………….… RESPONDENT

Upon Submission to the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Cyndoria

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPLLENANT

Page | 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS

SR NO. PARTICULARS PAGE NO.

1 Name of the Court, Parties, Representation 4
2 List of Case Laws Referred and List of Statutes Referred 5
4 Statement of Jurisdiction 6
5 Summary of Facts 7
6 Statement of Issues 8
7 Summary of Arguments 9
8. Arguments Advanced 10
9. Prayers 14

Page | 3
NAME OF THE COURT

The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Cyndoria

PARTIES

Appellant: Claire

Respondent: The State of Cyndoria

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Respondent

Page | 4
LIST OF CASE LAWS REFERRED

SR NO. PARTICULARS PAGE NO.

1 K.M. Nanavati vs. State of Maharashtra [AIR 1962 SC 605]
2 Virsa Singh vs. State of Punjab [AIR 1958 SC 465]
3 State of Karnataka vs. K.M. Sundararajan [AIR 2004 SC 3712]
4 Bhagwan Swarup vs. State of Maharashtra [AIR 1965 SC 682]
5 Sudershan Kumar vs. State of Delhi [AIR 1974 SC 2323]
6 Pritam Singh vs. The State [AIR 1950 SC 169]
7 Vishaka & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan [AIR 1997 SC 3011]
8 Akhlaq Ahmed vs. State of U.P. [1998 AIR 1503]
9 Sukhlal Sarkar vs. Union of India [AIR 1961 SC 1731]
10 Rajpal vs. State of Haryana [2007 AIR SC 2301]
11 Durga Shankar Mehta vs. Raghuraj Singh [AIR 1954 SC 520]
12 State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Munshi Singh [AIR 2004 SC 3712]

LIST OF STATUTES REFERRED

SR NO. PARTICULARS
1 Indian Penal Code, 1860
1.1 Section 299: Culpable Homicide
1.2 Section 300: Murder
1.3 Section 302: Punishment for Murder
2 Constitution of India, 1950
2.1 Article 136: Special Leave to Appeal
3 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
3.1 Section 378: Appeal in Case of Acquittal
3.2 Section 374: Appeals from Conviction

Page | 5
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Appellant has approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Cyndoria under Article 136 of the
Constitution of Cyndoria, which provides for Special Leave to Appeal. This Hon'ble Court has
the discretion to grant leave to appeal against the judgment of the Vespera High Court, which
convicted Claire under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

Page | 6
SUMMARY OF FACTS

Claire, after enduring prolonged domestic violence at the hands of her husband Jack, killed both
Jack and her special-needs child on the morning of March 22, 2009. Claire was initially acquitted
by the trial court on the grounds of “grave and sudden provocation” and held liable for culpable
homicide. However, the Vespera High Court reversed this acquittal and convicted Claire of
murder under Section 302 of the IPC. The appellant now challenges this conviction before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court.

Page | 7
STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1. Whether the appeal filed by Claire is maintainable before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
Cyndoria under Article 136 of the Constitution?

2. Whether the prolonged history of domestic abuse and immediate circumstances

surrounding the incident qualify as "grave and sudden provocation," mitigating the
offense of murder to culpable homicide?

3. Whether the killing of the child constitutes an act beyond the scope of provocation,
demonstrating premeditation and malice aforethought?

4. Whether the actions of the appellant Claire were covered under any exceptions to Section
300 of the IPC, or do they constitute murder punishable under Section 302?

Page | 8
Summary of Arguments

1. Maintainability of the Appeal:

The appeal under Article 136 is an extraordinary remedy and not a matter of right. The
appellant has not demonstrated any miscarriage of justice warranting intervention by the
Supreme Court.

2. Grave and Sudden Provocation:

Claire's defense of "grave and sudden provocation" is untenable given the time lapse
between the quarrel and the murders. The deliberate nature of her actions undermines this
defense.

3. Killing of the Child as Premeditation:

The killing of the child shows premeditation, which extends beyond any provocation by
her husband. This act further establishes malice aforethought.

4. Applicability of Section 300 Exceptions:

None of the exceptions to Section 300, IPC, apply to Claire’s case. The injuries inflicted
and the manner of execution indicate the requisite intent for murder.

Page | 9
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

Issue 1: Whether the Appeal is Maintainable Before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
Cyndoria under Article 136 of the Constitution?

1. Discretionary Nature of Article 136

Article 136 of the Constitution of Cyndoria, which mirrors Article 136 of the Constitution
of India, grants the Hon'ble Supreme Court the discretion to allow an appeal by Special
Leave against any judgment, decree, or order passed by any lower court or tribunal. This
jurisdiction is not a matter of right but an extraordinary remedy that can only be invoked
when there has been a manifest miscarriage of justice or where substantial questions of
law are involved. In Durga Shankar Mehta vs. Raghuraj Singh (1954 AIR 520), the
Hon’ble Supreme Court held that Article 136 should be exercised sparingly, only in cases
where the Court feels that a significant legal issue or gross injustice demands its
intervention. The appellant, Claire, has failed to establish any such legal error or
miscarriage of justice by the Vespera High Court to warrant the exercise of this Court’s
extraordinary jurisdiction.

2. High Court’s Thorough Examination

The High Court’s judgment does not reflect any legal perversity, and its findings were
based on a thorough re-evaluation of evidence. In Pritam Singh vs. The State (AIR 1950
SC 169), the Supreme Court underscored that it would not interfere with the findings of
fact unless they are shown to be manifestly erroneous or perverse. Here, the Vespera High
Court carefully reversed the trial court’s acquittal based on detailed legal reasoning and
evidence. Thus, the appeal does not meet the high threshold required under Article 136,
which is meant to correct substantial legal errors rather than re-examine facts.

Issue 2: Whether the Prolonged History of Domestic Abuse and Immediate Circumstances
Constituted "Grave and Sudden Provocation," Mitigating the Offense of Murder to
Culpable Homicide?

1. Lack of Immediate Provocation

Page | 10
For the defense of "grave and sudden provocation" to apply, the provocation must be such
that it causes the accused to lose self-control immediately, leading to an impulsive act of
violence. As laid down in Exception 1 to Section 300 of the IPC, "grave and sudden"
means that there must be no significant time gap between the provocation and the act of
violence. In K.M. Nanavati vs. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1962 SC 605), the Supreme
Court held that if there is a cooling-off period between the provocation and the killing,
the defense of provocation cannot be sustained. In this case, Claire’s actions do not meet
the requirement for “sudden” provocation. After the argument with Jack on the night of
March 21, 2009, Claire did not immediately retaliate. Instead, she contemplated her
actions, fetched an iron rod, and inflicted fatal injuries hours later. This delay between the
argument and the killings indicates that the provocation was not sudden, and Claire acted
with premeditation.

2. Pattern of Abuse Does Not Justify the Defense

While the appellant may argue that prolonged abuse constituted grave provocation, this
argument fails as the provocation must be immediate and overwhelming to the extent that
it deprives the accused of self-control in the moment. In Sudershan Kumar vs. State of
Delhi (AIR 1974 SC 2323), the Supreme Court held that habitual abuse, while a
mitigating factor in sentencing, does not in itself justify the defense of provocation unless
there is an immediate and sudden trigger for the act of violence. Claire endured a history
of abuse, but the delay in her response and the manner of the attack demonstrate that her
actions were not impulsive.

3. Proportionality of Response
Even assuming the argument of provocation, the defense would still fail because the
response must be proportionate to the provocation. In Sukhlal Sarkar vs. Union of India
(AIR 1961 SC 1731), the Supreme Court held that an excessive and disproportionate
reaction to provocation does not fall under the exceptions to Section 300. Claire’s attack
was not only aimed at her husband Jack but also her child, who played no role in the
provocation. The brutality of the attack, especially towards the child, reflects an
exaggerated response and negates any argument of provocation.

Page | 11
Issue 3: Whether the Killing of the Child Constituted an Act Beyond the Scope of
Provocation, Demonstrating Premeditation and Malice Aforethought?

1. The Child’s Death as Proof of Premeditation

The killing of the child, who had no involvement in the quarrel between Claire and Jack,
demonstrates malice aforethought and premeditation. In State of Karnataka vs. K.M.
Sundararajan (AIR 2004 SC 3712), the Supreme Court emphasized that the defense of
provocation cannot apply when the act of violence extends beyond the person who
provoked the accused. Claire’s deliberate act of harming her innocent child, especially
using a fatal weapon like an iron rod, clearly shows an intention to kill, independent of
any provocation by Jack.

2. Doctrine of Transferred Malice

The doctrine of transferred malice applies here, where the animosity that Claire harbored
towards Jack was transferred to her child. In Bhagwan Swarup vs. State of Maharashtra
(AIR 1965 SC 682), the Supreme Court applied this doctrine to situations where violence
was intentionally extended to uninvolved victims. In this case, the animus against Jack
was transferred to the child, who was fatally attacked without any reason. This
demonstrates a clear case of murder under Section 300 of the IPC.

3. Premeditation and Malice Aforethought

Claire’s actions display malice aforethought, a necessary element for a conviction under
Section 300 of the IPC. In Virsa Singh vs. State of Punjab (AIR 1958 SC 465), the
Supreme Court held that an intent to inflict bodily harm likely to result in death satisfies
the requirement of murder. Claire’s calculated decision to target her child’s head and vital
body parts indicates a clear intention to cause death, thus fulfilling the requirements of
Section 302, IPC.

Issue 4: Whether the Appellant’s Actions are Covered Under Any of the Exceptions to
Section 300 of the IPC, or Constitute Murder Under Section 302?

1. Inapplicability of Exception 1: Grave and Sudden Provocation

Page | 12
As discussed earlier, Claire’s case does not meet the requirements of Exception 1 of
Section 300, IPC. The cooling-off period between the quarrel and the murders negates the
defense of "grave and sudden provocation." In K.M. Nanavati vs. State of Maharashtra
(AIR 1962 SC 605), the Supreme Court made it clear that when there is sufficient time
for reflection, the defense of provocation fails. Here, Claire had several hours between
the argument and the attack, during which she premeditated her actions, fetched the
weapon, and deliberately inflicted fatal injuries.

2. Proportionality of Response and Disregard for Innocent Life

The attack on Claire’s child further negates any possibility of applying Exception 1. Even
if the appellant argues that the quarrel with Jack led to a momentary loss of control, this
cannot justify the killing of her child. In State of Karnataka vs. K.M. Sundararajan (AIR
2004 SC 3712), the Court held that violence against uninvolved parties demonstrates
premeditation and cannot be excused as provocation. Claire’s disproportionate reaction,
which extended to the deliberate murder of her innocent child, removes any possibility of
invoking the exceptions to murder under Section 300.

3. No Justification for Exception 4: Sudden Fight

The facts of the case do not support the application of Exception 4 to Section 300, IPC,
which covers killings during a "sudden fight." The ruling in Virsa Singh vs. State of
Punjab (AIR 1958 SC 465) emphasizes that the intention to cause bodily injury that is
likely to result in death constitutes murder. In this case, the nature of the injuries inflicted
on both Jack and the child shows that Claire acted with clear intent to cause death, which
falls squarely under Section 302, IPC. The defense of a "sudden fight" cannot apply, as
the attack was one-sided and premeditated.

Page | 13
PRAYERS

In light of the above submissions, the Respondent respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Court:

1. Dismiss the appeal filed by the Appellant, Claire.

2. Uphold the judgment of the Vespera High Court convicting Claire of murder under
Section 302 of the IPC.

3. Reject the defense of "grave and sudden provocation" in light of the facts that suggest
premeditation and deliberation.

4. Grant any other relief that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interests of
justice.

For this act of Kindness, the Appellant shall duty bound forever pray

SD/-

(Counsel for the Appellant)

Page | 14