Memorial For Prosecution

SURANA AND SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2015
BEFORE THE COURT OF SESSIONS

AT DURG, XANADU, BHARAT
S.C. NO.111 OF 2015
STATE OF XANADU

(PROSECUTION)
v.
MANOHAR AND ANR. (DEFENCE)
FOR OFFENCES CHARGED UNDER: SECTION 302, 465, 120B, 34 and 107 OF THE
INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 read with SECTION 66A AND 66C of the Information
Technology Act, 2000
UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE SESSIONS JUDGE
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

Memorandum on Behalf of Prosecution Page | 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBRIVIATIONS AND INDEX OF AUTHORITITES
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
STATEMENT OF FACTS
STATEMENT OF CHARGES
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
I. Whether the accused are liable under Section 465 of the Bharat Penal Code, 1860?
1.1 Actus Reus of forgery is proved:
1.2 Mens Rea of the crime is proved:
II. Whether the accused are guilty under Section 302?
2.1 Actus Reus of murder is proven
Forensic Report:
Witness Statements:
2.2 Mens Rea of murder is proven
A. The accused had intention to kill
III. Whether the accused are guilty under Section 120B, 34 and 109 of the Bharat Penal Code?
SURANA AND SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2015
3.1 Accused are guilty under Section 120B read with Section 34
3.2 Accused Rahul is guilty of abetment under Section 109
3.3 Accused not entitled to benefit of doubt
PRAYER
LIST OF ABBRIVIATIONS AND INDEX OF AUTHORITITES
AIR All India Reporter
All Allahabad High Court
Cal Calcutta High Court
Cri LJ / Cr LJ Criminal Law Journal
Cr.P.C. Code of Criminal Procedure
Del Delhi High Court
DW Defence Witness
Ed. Edition
Guj Gujarat High Court
IPC Indian Penal Code
IC Indian Cases
Mad Madras High Court
n. Foot Note no.
Ori Orissa High Court
p. Page No.
P&H Punjab and Haryana High Court
Pat Patna High Court
PW Prosecution Witness
Raj Rajasthan High Court
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
SCJ Supreme Court Journal
SCR Supreme Court Reporter
Sec. Section
v. Versus
Cases
Jyotilal v. Dipak Dutta 1995 Cr LJ 930 14
Amiruddin, (1922) BomLR 534, 542. 17
Andalammal v. Rajeswari Vedachalam AIR 1985 Mad 321 14
Bakshish Singh v State of Punjab, AIR 1971 SC 2016 12
Commissioner of Income Tax v Patranu Dass Raja Ram Beri, AIR 1982 PH 13
Dayanidhi Bisoi v. State of Orissa, AIR2003SC3915 14
Devender Pal Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi), AIR 2002 SC 161 16
Emperor v. Abdul Hamid, AIR 1944 Lah 380 10
Hardeep Singh v. State of Haryana, (2008) 12 SCC 39 16
Haripada Parul v. State (1988) 1 Crimes 772 (cal) 13
Inder Singh v, State, AIR 1978 SC 1091. 17
Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1988 SC 1883 11, 18
Mahbub Shah v. Emperor, (1945) 47 Bom LR 941 18
Malan v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1960 Bom 393 17
Mulakh Raj v. Satish Kumar, AIR 1992 SC 1175 15
Parichhat v. State of M.P., AIR 1972 SC 535 16
Ramesh Harijan v. State of U.P AIR 2012 SC 1979 17
Ranganayaki v . State by Inspector of Police, AIR2005SC418 16
Samundar Singh v. State, AIR 1965 Cal 598 18
Santosh v.State of Madhya Pradesh, 1975 Cri LJ 602 (SC) 13
Satyavir Singh Rathi, Asst. Commissioner of Police & Ors. v. State through CBI, (2011)6 SCC 1
17
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Digvijay Singh, 1981 Cri. LJ 1278 (SC) 15
State of Maharashtra v Meyer Hans George, AIR 1965 SC 722 13
State of Punjab v Sucha Singh, AIR 2003 SC 1471 15
State of UP v Ashok Kumar Srivastava, AIR 1992 SC 840 12
State v Dinakar Bandu (199) 72 Bom LR 905 14
Ujagar Singh v. State of Punjab, (2007) 13 SCC 90 14
Yogesh v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2008 SC 2991 16
Statutes
Indian Penal Code, 1860 11, 13
Books
Klaus-Juergen Lackner, Kathrin Barbara Krug, Avoiding Errors in Radiology: Case-Based
Analysis of Causes and Preventive Strategies, Thieme, 2011 12
Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code, 33rd Ed. (2011) 15
Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code, 36th Ed. (2014), 9
Richard C. Dart, Medical Toxicology, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2004 12
Dictionary
Aiyar, P Ramanatha, The Law Lexicon (2nd ed 2006) 11
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Hon’ble 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 220:
‘220.Trial for more than one offence.-
(1) If, in one series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction, more offences
than one are committed by the same person, he may be charged with, and tried at one trial for,
every such offence.
(2) When a person charged with one or more offences of criminal breach of trust or dishonest
misappropriation of property as provided in sub-section (2) of section 212 or in sub-section (1)
of section 219, is accused of committing, for the purpose of facilitating or concealing the
commission of that offence or those offences, one or more offences of falsification of accounts,
he may be charged with, and tried at one trial for, every such offence.
(3) If the acts alleged constitute an offence falling within two or more separate definitions of any
law in force for the time being by which offences are defined or punished, the person accused of
them may be charged with, and tried at one trial for, each of such offences.
(4) If several acts, of which one or more than one would by itself or themselves constitute an
offence, constitute when combined a different offence, the person accused of them may be
charged with, and tried at one trial for the offence constituted by such acts when combined, and
for any offence constituted by any one, or more, of such acts.
(5) Nothing contained in this section shall affect section 71 of the Indian Penal Code(45 of
1860).’
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Manaohar (Mano) and Rahul, the accused, are third year medical students. Rahul lent Manohar
money in college, and was pressurizing him to return the money. Manohar found it hard to ask
his uncle for money. One night Rahul came for a sleep over to Mano’s place. Rahul connected a
small USB look-a-like into Karan’s computer which enabled them to decrypt his uncle’s online
banking password and transferred money to his account. This happened on a few occasions.
Rahul came to know about the insurance policies of Karan for 2 Cr. that were in Mano’s name.
Rahul always reminded how rich Mano could be if his uncle had to go on a ‘long journey’.
On August 2, 2014, Mano opened the lap top as he has done many times on earlier occasions. He
tried to open Karan’s bank account to transfer money. But he could not as the password was not
appropriate. He opened a folder where he found a file containing his account and password
details. He opened (Bharat Bank) the bank account of Karan and transferred Rs. 2.50 lakhs to his
account towards college fees and towards his pocket expenses. Normally Karan used to transfer
2.25 lakhs to his account every semester.
On August 3, 2014 the deceased Mr. Karan experienced sudden abdominal and chest pain. He
was administered by Mr. Mano his brother’s son who is a medical student. As the drug was
administered to the deceased, the deceased recovered but in a matter of a few minutes he
collapsed. Mano wrote a medication on a piece of paper which happened to Dr. Choudhary’s
prescription and asked Ragahav to get it from the nearest pharmacy i.e. Mohan Pharmacy.
Thereafter, Mano administered the drug to his uncle through an intravenous. Immediately after
administering the drug his uncle revived and he was lifted from the ground and seated on a couch
in the living room. But within a matter of a few minutes his father collapsed again and died.
STATEMENT OF CHARGES
The Prosecution, State of Xanadu, most respectfully asks this Hon’ble Court of Sessions at Durg
to consider the following charges as framed by it in accordance with Chapter XVII of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973: -
-CHARGE-I-
Manohar has been charged with Section 465 of the Bharat Penal Code, 1860.
-CHARGE-II-
Manohar and Rahul have been charged with Section 302 along with Section 120B read with
Section 34 of the Bharat Penal Code, 1860.
-CHARGE-III-
Rahul has been charged with of Section 107 of the Bharat Penal Code, 1860.
-CHARGE-IV-
Manohar and Rahul have been charged with Section 66 and Section 66C of the Information
Technology Act, 2000.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
I. Whether the accused are liable under Section 465 of the Bharat Penal Code, 1860?
It is humbly submitted that the accused are guilty for committing the offence of forgery as as
defined in Section 464, made punishable under Section 465, BPC. Section 464 goes on to define
a false document. The two elements of a false document are that it must be a document
dishonestly or fraudulently made and it should have been made with the intention of causing a
belief that it was made or executed by or by the authority of a person who did not make or
1
execute it and with the knowledge that it was not so made or executed. The Prosecution humbly
contends that both, the actus reus [2.1] and the mens rea [2.2] of the crime are established in the
instant matter, negating any claims of innocence.
1.1 Actus Reus of forgery is proved:
Under Section 464, what is essential is that the accused must make a document with the intention
of making it to be believed that it was signed by or by the authority of someone else while he
2
knows that it was not so made or authorized by that person. As per the witness statement of
PW1, the report of the investigating officer, and the accused Manohar admitted to writing the
name of the medicine on Dr. Chaudhary’s prescription. Hence, the actus reus of forgery is
proved.
1
Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code, 36th Ed. (2014), p. 2605.
2
Id.
1.2 Mens Rea of the crime is proved:
It is submitted that in case of forgery, what is essential is that the accused must make a document
with the intention of making it to be believed that it was signed by someone else, while he knows
that it was not made or authorized by that person. Intent to cause injury is not an essential
3
ingredient in the offence of forgery. It is submitted that in the present case, Manohar knew that
the drug Oxycontin is a controlled drug under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
4
Act, 1985 which cannot be bought without the prescription of a qualified doctor. As the accused
was not a certified medical practitioner, it was impossible for him to obtain the drug without the
prescription of a qualified doctor. This coupled with the fact that it is most unnatural for the
accused to have the prescription of Dr. Chaudhary in his house strongly points towards
premeditation of the crime and the guilt of the accused.
II. Whether the accused are guilty under Section 302?
It is humbly contended that the accused are guilty for committing the offence of murder under
Sec 302, BPC. Sec 302 prescribes the punishment for committing murder. In order to bring a
successful conviction under this charge, however, it is pertinent to refer to Sec 300, BPC which
elucidates the essentials of murder.
A person is guilty of murder if he intentionally causes the death of a person or causes such bodily
injury as he knows, is likely to cause death of that person or causes such bodily injury, which in
3
Emperor v. Abdul Hamid, AIR 1944 Lah 380.
4
In exercise of the powers conferred by clauses (viia) and (xxiiia) of section 2 of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985) and in supersession of Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue
Notification S.O. 527 (E) dated 16th July, 1996
the ordinary course of nature results into death or commits an act so dangerous that it must, in all
5
probability cause death of that person . The Prosecution humbly contends that both, the actus
reus [3.1] and the mens rea [3.2] of the crime are established in the instant matter.
2.1 Actus Reus of murder is proven
6
Actus reus is any wrongful act . Thus, in a case of murder, actus reus would be the physical
conduct of the accused that causes death of the victim. In the instant case, the actus reus is
established by way of witness statements [A], forensic report [B].
Forensic Report:
The post mortem and forensic report becomes important in cases where the cause of
7
death is to be established and is a matter of controversy. In the present case, as per the
8 9
post mortem report and the forensic report , the death was caused by an air embolism in
10
the heart and drug overdose. As per the panchnama , 4 used syringes along with 7 units
of Oxycontin were recovered from the scene of death. As per the statement of PW1, only
one intravenous injection was administered in front of him. It is submitted that the
accused was left alone with the deceased, during which, the accused administered
5
Sec 300, Indian Penal Code, 1860.
6
Aiyar, P Ramanatha, The Law Lexicon, p. 49 (2nd ed 2006)
7
Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1988 SC 1883.
8
Annexure 3, page 10
9
Annexure 4, page 11
10
Annexure 2, page 8
intravenously a lethal dose of Oxycontin to the deceased as well as injected air into the
bloodstream of the deceased, which resulted in the air embolism causing death. It is
11
submitted that Oxycontin overdose can result in hypotension, bradycardia and death.
Additionally, when large amounts of air are introduced through the venous system, the air
bubble obstructs the right ventricular outflow tract, interrupting the blood flow from the
12
right ventricle into the pulmonary artery. In the present case, the heart was arrhythmic
and there was froth formation in the artery. Hence it can be concluded that the death was
caused due to the intravenous injection by accused Manohar.
Witness Statements:
Bearing in mind that it is not for the prosecution to meet any and every hypothesis
13
suggested by the accused, howsoever extravagant and fanciful it might be, it is humbly
submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the circumstantial evidence in the instant matter
14
shows that within all human probability, the act must have been done by the accused.
15
As per the admission of accused Manohar and the statement of PW1 Raghav , on August
3rd, 2014, the accused Manohar injected intravenously into the bloodstream of the
deceased a medicine which he had procured after forging Dr. Chaudhary’s medical
11
Richard C. Dart, Medical Toxicology, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2004, page 771.
12
Klaus-Juergen Lackner, Kathrin Barbara Krug, Avoiding Errors in Radiology: Case-Based Analysis of Causes and
Preventive Strategies, Thieme, 2011, page 345.
13
State of UP v Ashok Kumar Srivastava, AIR 1992 SC 840
14
Bakshish Singh v State of Punjab, AIR 1971 SC 2016.
15
Annexure 5, page 14.
prescription, soon after which the deceased collapsed. Additionally, the accused was left
alone with the deceased, giving him ample opportunity to inject air into the bloodstream
of the deceased, thereby causing an air embolism in the artery which resulted in the death
of Karan.
2.2 Mens Rea of murder is proven
16
Mens rea is considered as guilty intention , which is proved or inferred from the acts of the
17
accused . It is submitted that the intention to kill is established [A] in light of clear-cut motive of
the accused [B]. Arguendo, absence of motive would not be a sufficient ground to dismiss the
case [C].
A. The accused had intention to kill
It is submitted that when an act is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as
the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is
18
caused, it would amount to intention to kill. Moreover, the intention to kill is not
required in every case, mere knowledge that natural and probable consequences of an act
19
would be death will suffice for a conviction under s. 302 of BPC. The Prosecution
respectfully submits before this Court that ‘Evidence’ should not be considered on the
basis of stray pieces of evidence in an isolated manner, but on the basis of the total effect
16
Commissioner of Income Tax v Patranu Dass Raja Ram Beri, AIR 1982 PH 1, 4
17
State of Maharashtra v Meyer Hans George, AIR 1965 SC 722
18
Section 300, Indian Penal Code, 1860.
19
Santosh v.State of Madhya Pradesh, 1975 Cri LJ 602 (SC)
20
of the entire evidence on record. The reasonable course is to read the evidence of all the
witnesses as a whole and find out whether on the material aspect, which alone will have
21
an impact on the issue concerned, was there corroboration. It is contended that the
accused Manohar was a medical student of the third year, having studied pharmacology,
and was aware that a fatal dose of Oxycontin and an air embolism will result in the death
of Karan. The accused admitted to administering medicine to Karan, soon after which
Karan died. In the present case, the used syringes and the Oxycontin found by the police
point unerringly towards the guilt of the accused.
B. The accused had motive to kill
Sec 8, Evidence Act stipulates that any fact is relevant which shows or constitutes motive or
preparation for any fact in issue or relevant fact. In the present case, the accused were in the
urgent need of money and were aware of the insurance policy of Rs. 2 Cr. in the favor of
22
Manohar. Potential financial gain is sufficient motive to kill in the present case. It is further
pertinent to note that if there is motive in doing an act, then the adequacy of that motive
is not in all cases necessary. Heinous offences have been committed for very slight
20
Haripada Parul v. State (1988) 1 Crimes 772 (cal)
21
Andalammal v. Rajeswari Vedachalam AIR 1985 Mad 321 at p. 337; Jyotilal v. Dipak Dutta 1995 Cr LJ 930
(Cal).
22
Dayanidhi Bisoi v. State of Orissa, AIR2003SC3915
23
motive. The Prosecution contends that the circumstances taken cumulatively, cogently
24
and firmly establishes the guilt of the accused.
C. Arguendo, absence of motive is irrelevant
Assuming for the sake of argument that the accused had no motive, it is humbly
contended that absence of motive is no ground for dismissing the case. Motive is
25
immaterial so far as the offence is concerned, and need not be established as the mere
existence of motive is by itself, not an incriminating circumstance and cannot take the
26
place of a proof. Therefore, absence of proof of motive, does not break the link in the
chain of circumstances connecting the accused with the crime, nor militates against the
27
prosecution case and is not fatal as a matter of law. When the circumstantial evidence
on record is sufficient to prove beyond any doubt to prove that it was the accused and no
one else, who intentionally caused the death of the accused then, motive of the crime
28
need not be proved, as in the current case.
23
State v Dinakar Bandu (199) 72 Bom LR 905
24
Ujagar Singh v. State of Punjab, (2007) 13 SCC 90
25
Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code, 33rd Ed. (2011)
26
State of Punjab v Sucha Singh, AIR 2003 SC 1471
27
Mulakh Raj v. Satish Kumar, AIR 1992 SC 1175
28
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Digvijay Singh, 1981 Cri. LJ 1278 (SC)
III. Whether the accused are guilty under Section 120B, 34 and 109 of the Bharat Penal
Code?
3.1 Accused are guilty under Section 120B read with Section 34
Combining the elements of ss. 120A & 34, it is evident that the following will form the basis for
holding the accused jointly liable for the charge of criminal conspiracy:
(a) There should be two or more persons;(b) There should be an agreement between themselves;
(c) The agreement must be to do or cause to be done: an illegal act (or) a legal act by illegal
means; (d) A criminal act must be done by the persons; (e) The criminal act must be to further
the common intention of all; and (f) There must be participation of all persons in furthering the
29
common intention.
It is a matter of common experience that direct evidence to prove conspiracy is rarely available.
It is therefore, impossible to adduce direct evidence of the same. The offence can only be proved
largely from inferences drawn from acts or illegal omissions committed by the conspirators in
30
pursuance of a common design. The Prosecution will therefore, rely on the evidence of acts of
31
various parties to infer that they were done in reference to their common intention. Accused
Manohar and Rahul were in acute financial need and were aware of the insurance policy in
Manohar’s favor. Additionally, they were medical students well versed with the effect that a fatal
dose of Oxycontin and an air embolism would have on the Karan in his already failing health. It
29
Parichhat v. State of M.P., AIR 1972 SC 535; Hardeep Singh v. State of Haryana, (2008) 12 SCC 39
30
Devender Pal Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi), AIR 2002 SC 161
31
Yogesh v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2008 SC 2991
is submitted that the accused conspired together to murder Karan in order to obtain access to the
2 Cr. insurance money, and are guilty under Section 120B.
3.2 Accused Rahul is guilty of abetment under Section 109
Under Section 109 the abettor is liable to the same punishment which may be inflicted on the
principal offender; (1) if the act of the latter is committed in consequence of the abetment and (2)
32
no express provision is made in the IPC for punishment for such an abetment. Abetment, as
provided for under Section 107, constitutes of (1) instigating a person to commit an offence; or
33
(2) engaging in a conspiracy to commit it; or intentionally aiding a person to commit it. A
person is said to ‘instigate’ another to an act when he actively suggests or stimulates him to the
act by any means of language, direct or indirect, whether it takes the form of express solicitation,
34
or of hints, insinuation or encouragement. In the instant case, Manohar owed Rahul money and
Rahul was pressurizing Manohar to return it. Additionally, both accused were aware of the
insurance policy of Karan which named Manohar as the benefactor. Lastly, Manohar
administered Karan the injection which resulted in Karan’s death. It is humbly submitted that in
the present case, accused Rahul instigated accused Manohar into murdering the deceased and
criminally conspired to do the same.
32
Ranganayaki v . State by Inspector of Police, AIR2005SC418
33
Malan v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1960 Bom 393.
34
Amiruddin, (1922) BomLR 534, 542.
3.3 Accused not entitled to benefit of doubt
Proof beyond reasonable truth is a guideline not a fetish and the guilty cannot get away with it,
35
because truth suffers some infirmity when projected through human process. A reasonable
doubt is not an imaginary trivial or merely possible doubt based upon reason and common sense.
When it is said that the prosecution has to prove a case beyond doubt, it means proof beyond
36 37
‘reasonable’ doubt and not fanciful doubts or lingering suspicion. In the present case, all facts
point towards the guilt of the accused. Furthermore, there is no need to have a prior
communication to hatch a plot as a conspiracy and can be done at the spur of moment in order to
38
attain a common object. It is a well settled principle that the evidence as to transmission of
39
thought sharing the unlawful design may be sufficient to prove the accused guilty. Section 10
of the Indian Evidence Act 1872, states that anything said, done or written by any one of the
conspirators in reference to their common intention as a relevant fact not only as against each of
the conspirators but for proving the existence of the conspiracy itself. Further, the said act can be
used for showing that a particular person was a party to the conspiracy. Under the principle
contained in Section 10 of the Evidence Act, once a conspiracy to commit an illegal act is
40
proved, act of conspirator becomes the act of others. Accused Manohar seized the first
35
Re Ramaswami (197() MLJ (Cr) 423l Inder Singh v, State, AIR 1978 SC 1091.
36
Satyavir Singh Rathi, Asst. Commissioner of Police & Ors. v. State through CBI, (2011)6 SCC 1
37
Ramesh Harijan v. State of U.P AIR 2012 SC 1979
38
Mahbub Shah v. Emperor, (1945) 47 Bom LR 941
39
Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Admin.), (1989) Cr LJ 1
40
Samundar Singh v. State, AIR 1965 Cal 598
opportunity to inject Karan with the fatal dose of Oxycontin along with air intravenously,
thereby resulting in immediate death. The absence of Rahul at the time of commission of the
crime is immaterial and by way of previous conduct, it is conclusively proved that Rahul and
Manohar conspired together to murder the deceased.
IV. Whether the accused are guilty under Section 66 and 66C of the Information
Technology Act, 2000?
It is humbly submitted that the Accused Manohar and Rahul are guilty of committing the
offenses of hacking with computer system [1] and identity theft [2].
4.1 The accused are guilty under Section 66 of Information Technology Act, 2000
It is he Accused Manohar and Rahul have accessed or secured access to Karan’s computer, or
41
computer network without his permission and additionally, dishonestly introduced a computer
contaminant into his computer, which is an offense under Section 66 of the Information
Technology Act. Computer contaminant is a set of computer instructions that is designed to

42
record, transmit data residing within a computer . The term ‘dishonestly’ has been defined in the
Indian Penal Code as anything done with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or
43
wrongful loss to another person , with ‘wrongful gain’ being gain of property by unlawful
44
means to which the person gaining is not legally entitled .
41
Section 2(k), INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2000 (Central).
42
Section 43, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2000.
43
Section 24, Bharat Penal Code, 1860.
44
Section 23, Bharat Penal Code, 1860.
Rahul had accessed Karan’s laptop as he knew about the insurance policies that Karan had taken
in favour of Manohar. Karan’s laptop had both a software and a hardware key-logger which were
dishonestly introduced by Rahul and Manohar with the intention of recording personal data
including his net banking passwords that they subsequently used to transfer money from Karan’s
bank account. It is humbly contended that the Manohar was able to transfer money on August 3,
2014 because of the key-logger software that he had installed. Key-logger software generally
stored the keystrokes or the data in a folder on the computer itself and hence Manohar gained
access to Karan’s account and password details by way of a folder. Further, it is submitted that
Rahul, with his expertise of computers, had also transferred funds from Karan’s laptop, which he
could easily access as he used to stay over at his place, on a number of occasions. Thus, Manohar
and Rahul dishonestly introduced a computer contaminant in Karan’s laptop and therefore
committed an offense under Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
4.2 The accused are guilty under Section 66C of Information Technology Act, 2000
Under Section 66C 66C of Information Technology Act, 2000, dishonestly making use of an
electronic signature or password is termed to be an offense. Manohar and Rahul have used
Karan’s net banking password which was also unlawfully procured to transfer money from his
account to theirs. It is humbly submitted that the fact that Manohar transferred Rs. 2.5 lakhs
which is more than the usual money transferred for college fees and his pocket expenses points
towards his dishonest intention. Further, Manohar did not inform Karan about the excess money
transferred, the next day. Rahul had further been transferring money from Karan’s account to his
account without Karan’s knowledge. Thus, there was a wrongful gain to both Manohar and
Rahul.
PRAYER
Wherefore, in light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, may this
Hon‘ble Court be pleased to:
1. Convict Manohar for the offences of under Sections 302, 465, 120B, 34 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860.
2. Rahul for the offences of under Sections 302, 465, 120B, 34 and 107 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860.
2. Declare a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to life
imprisonment, and also be liable to fine under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
AND/OR
Pass any other order it may deem fit, in the interest of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience. All
of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted
Place: Xanadu S/d_____________
Date: August 10, 2015 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

Memorial For Prosecution

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Memorial For Prosecution

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Memorial For Prosecution

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SURANA AND SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT

BEFORE THE COURT OF SESSIONS

S.C. N​O​.111 O​F ​2015

S​TATE ​O​F ​XANADU

MANOHAR AND ANR. ​(D​EFENCE​)

Technology Act, 2000

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE SESSIONS JUDGE

M​EMORANDUM ​O​N ​B​EHALF ​O​F ​T​HE ​P​ROSECUTION

LIST OF ABBRIVIATIONS AND INDEX OF AUTHORITITES

1.1 Actus Reus of forgery is proved:

1.2 Mens Rea of the crime is proved:

II. Whether the accused are guilty under Section 302?

2.1 Actus Reus of murder is proven

2.2 Mens Rea of murder is proven

A. The accused had intention to kill

3.2 ​Accused Rahul is guilty of abetment under Section 109

3.3 Accused not entitled to benefit of doubt

LIST OF ABBRIVIATIONS AND INDEX OF AUTHORITITES

AIR All India Reporter

All Allahabad High Court

Cal Calcutta High Court

Cri LJ / Cr LJ Criminal Law Journal

Cr.P.C. Code of Criminal Procedure

Del Delhi High Court

Guj Gujarat High Court

IPC Indian Penal Code

Mad Madras High Court

n. Foot Note no.

Ori Orissa High Court

P&H Punjab and Haryana High Court

Pat Patna High Court

Raj Rajasthan High Court

SCC Supreme Court Cases

SCJ Supreme Court Journal

SCR Supreme Court Reporter

Jyotilal v. Dipak Dutta 1995 Cr LJ 930 14

Amiruddin, (1922) BomLR 534, 542. 17

Andalammal v. Rajeswari Vedachalam AIR 1985 Mad 321 14

Bakshish Singh v State of Punjab​, AIR 1971 SC 2016 12

Dayanidhi Bisoi v. State of Orissa, AIR2003SC3915 14

Devender Pal Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi), AIR 2002 SC 161 16

Emperor v. Abdul Hamid, AIR 1944 Lah 380 10

Hardeep Singh v. State of Haryana, (2008) 12 SCC 39 16

Haripada Parul v. State (1988) 1 Crimes 772 (cal) 13

Inder Singh v, State, AIR 1978 SC 1091. 17

Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1988 SC 1883 11, 18

Mahbub Shah v. Emperor, (1945) 47 Bom LR 941 18

Malan v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1960 Bom 393 17

Mulakh Raj v. Satish Kumar, AIR 1992 SC 1175 15

Parichhat v. State of M.P., AIR 1972 SC 535 16

Ramesh Harijan v. State of U.P AIR 2012 SC 1979 17

Ranganayaki v . State by Inspector of Police, AIR2005SC418 16

Samundar Singh v. State, AIR 1965 Cal 598 18

Santosh v.State of Madhya Pradesh, 1975 Cri LJ 602 (SC) 13

State of Madhya Pradesh v. Digvijay Singh, 1981 Cri. LJ 1278 (SC) 15

State of Maharashtra v Meyer Hans George, AIR 1965 SC 722 13

State of Punjab v Sucha Singh, AIR 2003 SC 1471 15

State of UP v Ashok Kumar Srivastava, AIR 1992 SC 840 12

S.C. NO.111 OF 2015

STATE OF XANADU

MANOHAR AND ANR. (DEFENCE)

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

3.2 Accused Rahul is guilty of abetment under Section 109

Bakshish Singh v State of Punjab, AIR 1971 SC 2016 12

Aiyar, P Ramanatha, The Law Lexicon (2nd ed 2006) 11

3.2 Accused Rahul is guilty of abetment under Section 109