moot memorial and one supreme court judgement, Cheat Sheet of Law

Download moot memorial and one supreme court judgement and more Cheat Sheet Law in PDF only on Docsity! MOOT PROPOSITION 1 STATEMENT OF FACTS 1. Mr X is a resident of the state of Purva Pradesh in Indica. In the year 1981, Mr X, who was married, murdered his wife in a drunken rage at his house. The neighbours, who heard the screaming and shouting leading to her murder caught hold of Mr X and handed him to the police. Mr X was tried by the competent Sessions Court, convicted of offences punishable under S.302, IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment in 1984. 2. Mr X was sent to the central prison in Purva Pradesh, Charapanna Agrahara,to serve his sentence. While he was there, he became close friends with his cellmate, Mr Y. Mr Y was around 30 years older than Mr X. He had an unmarried daughter who was around the age of Mr X. With time, X and Y became friends and Y suggested that X marry his daughter. X agreed to the marriage. 3. In the year 1987, X and Y obtained parole from prison and the marriage between X and Y’s daughter was solemnised as per the rights and customs of their religion. Both X and Y returned to prison. For around 30 days a year, X would obtain parole and visit his wife in her village. In due course of time, X’s wife delivered twin baby boys. 4. However, by the year 1990, X had started suspecting the fidelity of his wife. This seemed to be a more acute problem to him since he was away in prison for most of the year. In October 1990, X obtained parole and visited his wife and two children. 5. One night while he was with his family, and extremely intoxicated with liquor, X was seized by rage and started quarrelling with his wife over his suspicions about her character and fidelity. Ultimately, he seized an agricultural implement and hacked his wife to death. He then proceeded to kill his two children who were sleeping in the house with the same weapon. 6. According to the neighbours who rushed in, X was trying to commit suicide by hanging himself when they discovered him and overpowered him. X was handed over to the police, who accused him of having committed the murders of his wife and children. X confessed in police custody that he had committed the murders. 7. However, when X was produced before the jurisdictional magistrate, he refused to make any statement. He was remanded to custody while the investigation went on. Ultimately, he was charged with offences punishable under Sections 302 and 303 of the IPC. 8. X was represented by a government-appointed lawyer before the Court of Sessions where his trial commenced. The lawyer was disinterested in the case and did not cross-examine witnesses of the prosecution nor did he produce any evidence on behalf of the defence. X was convicted. 9. The Sessions Court sentenced X under S.302 and 303 of the IPC to death. The sentence was pronounced in the year 1994. 10. Upon the matter being sent to the High Court of Purva Pradesh for confirmation of the sentence, a Division Bench split on the quantum of sentence to be awarded. While one judge felt that a life sentence without the possibility of parole, commutation or remission would be sufficient, the other felt that only death would be an appropriate punishment since the convict was already under a sentence of life imprisonment and some extra punishment had to be awarded for the new and ghastly crime committed by him. 11. The matter was referred to a third judge of the High Court who felt that there was no discretion in the matter given the provisions applied and the nature of the crime and confirmed the sentence of death. 12. Mr X’s Special Leave Petition to the Supreme Court of Indica was refused admission on grounds that it did not raise any issues of significant legal importance. 13. Mr X submitted a mercy petition to the President of Indica which came to be rejected in the year 1996. Therefore, Mr X was due to be executed. 14. Due to oversight on behalf of the prison authorities, Mr X was not kept in the death row cells at the prison, but was allowed to remain in the cells with other ordinary criminals, it is only in the year 2011, that the same was discovered and the prisoner was sent to death row confinement. 15. On 01.01.2013, the black warrant for the execution of Mr X was issued by the appropriate court. The very next day, lawyers representing a human rights organisation filed a writ petition before the High Court of Purva Pradesh claiming that Mr X cannot be executed on the grounds that his trial is vitiated by illegality and his execution would violate several provisions of the Constitution of Indica. The state opposes the same and insists on execution. 16. The laws, case law and constitutional provisions of Indica are analogous to the ones in the Republic of India in the year 2015. 17. On behalf of both the State and the Petitioners, draft petitions and make oral arguments based on the above information. 9. The respondents claim that the nature of the slogans, utterances, criticism and publication of the cartoon made by the accused all along intended to bring the Government into hatred, and contempt and to excite the feeling of disloyalty to a degree that it is seditious and punishable under Section 124A which has been held by the Apex Court to be consistent with the constitutional mandate in the form of the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. Note: The Constitution and all other laws of Indistan should be interpreted in pari materia with the Constitution and other laws of India. Awadh is a province in the State of Indistan. The position of Kashmirpur in Indistan is the same as that of Kashmir in India & relations between Pokistan and Indistan are similar to that of Pakistan and India MOOT PROPOSITION 3 STATEMENT OF FACTS A large-scale winter sale was organized on behalf of a renowned D-Company by its directors named John Ibrahim and Ajeet Kaskar in a shopping complex situated at Central Market, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi from 25th Dec 2012 – 31st Dec 2012. It was required that entry into the premises will be only after buying a ticket and free water and lunch will be provided to all the people visiting the Sale. A target was assigned to all the sales managers till the last day of the sale. There was a huge rush on the last day of the sale i.e. 31st Dec 2012 to get a heavy discount on the branded apparel. Suddenly the rumours spread that a fire broke out on the premises. But the gatekeepers and supervisors on the instructions of the managers (who are under the direct control of the owner of the Company) said that nothing happened as such and the people may continue shopping as usual. After a few hours, the fire spread to the whole shopping complex. Noticing that the fire can’t be controlled in the absence of proper fire extinguishers, gatekeepers and managers fled away. By that time, the deadly fire took the life of 60 people and 150 people got seriously injured. Criminal and civil proceedings were initiated against the sale organizing company and the owner of the shopping complex. During the trial, evidence was led to the effect that both the accused were well aware of the fire incident and they did not take any active step to prevent the spreading of fire and they called the fire brigade only after securing their safety from fire. Due to the narrow passage of exit, people were not able to come out of the shopping complex. It was also pointed out that there were no emergency alarm systems or even emergency lights to keep exit signs illuminated. No one from the side of the Organizing Company was there to assist the people struck in the premises. The electronic records of the account book revealed that the company made a huge profit by organizing the sale. It was also brought to the knowledge of the trial court that the building design was quite faulty and the approval was given by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA)/ Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) without following due procedure. The trial Court also joined the erring officials of DDA/ MCD u/S. 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The accused pleaded that reason for the fire spread is still unknown and is not proved by the prosecution and there is no complicity on the part of either of the accused in this regard. Hence they should not be convicted for any offence. Despite the plea of the accused of not having any criminal background and being a senior citizen, the trial court convicted the main accused u/S. 304-A, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and awarded 2 years rigorous imprisonment and also awarded Rs. 5 crore punitive damages to be recovered from the Organizing Company and the owner of the shopping complex for the rehabilitation of the victims of the fire accident. However, in an appeal before the High Court, the prosecution contended that the trial court erred in fixing the liability under Section 304-A and that the accused should be held liable under Section 304 part II. The High Court did not disturb the finding of the trial court but reduced the sentence to one year and awarded 1-year community service and enhanced the compensation from Rs. 5 crores to 10 crores. The reduction of the sentence led to public outrage and special leave to appeal is filed in the Supreme Court raising several issues: The prosecution argued that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in awarding the community service for one year and showed undue sympathy to the accused in reducing the sentence u/S. 304- A, IPC, 1860. The prosecution pleaded in the alternative that if the accused can not be convicted u/S/ 304 part-II then the accused must be punished with a maximum punishment under Section 304-A, IPC in order to do complete justice in the exercise of the power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to deter the offenders in future. The accused pleaded their innocence, advanced aged and non-criminal background and argued that their complicity is not proved beyond reasonable doubt and the principle of vicarious liability cannot be stretched too far to fasten the criminal liability on them. MOOT PROPOSITION 4 STATEMENT OF FACTS Ajay and Abhiram are good friends. While Ajay comes from economically weaker strata of society, Abhiram belongs to an elite class. Both have good family relations. On one occasion Ajay is in dire need of money and therefore makes a request to Abhiram to help him financially which Abhiram agrees easily and pays him Rs.1 lac. After a considerable period, when the money is not returned Abhiram requests his friend to return the money. However, Ajay expresses his inability to return the money. Abhiram thereafter reminds his friend on a number of occasions, however, Ajay does not take it seriously and on one occasion there is a heated exchange of words between the two and Ajay gives sudden and grave provocation to Abhiram by saying that he can do whatever he likes but he will not return the money and also challenges him physically. Abhiram gets enraged by such an attitude of Ajay and starts beating him. Ajay dies as a consequence of injuries inflicted upon him. F.I.R.is lodged against Abhiram for an offence, punishable under 302 of I.P.C. and he is tried by the Court of Session which finds him guilty not for an offence punishable under section 302, but for the offence, culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under sec. 304 and sentences him to ten years imprisonment. Abhiram prefers an appeal before the High Court of Swarashtra and during the pendency of the appeal High Court directs his release on bail. As a consequence of Ajay’s death, his family is now on the street as it has lost the sole earning member of the family. Ajay’s wife has taken a mental shock from the incident and has gone into a state of depression therefore there is nobody to take care of Ajay’s wife and his minor children. Abhiram is made aware of the financial problems of Ajay’s family and therefore he goes to the house of Ajay and starts helping them financially and morally. The matter comes up for hearing before the High Court of Swarashtra. Ajay s wife joins as an interpleader in the petition and makes a request to the High Court that in view of the change in circumstances and since Abhiram has taken the entire responsibility of Ajay’s family, she as a victim personally and on behalf of her minor children intends to compromise the matter and prays that Abhiram should be set at liberty. Hon’ble High Court observes that in view of the changed circumstances, this is a fit case which can lead to a compromise between the parties and gives the decision accordingly and sets Abhiram at liberty. The said judgment of the High Court has evoked a very very strong reaction. Activists and Lawyers alike are up in arms over an order that could have detrimental consequences. The State of Swarashtra prefers Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court of Indiva challenging the order of the High Court of Swarashtra. The matter is now fixed for a final hearing before the Supreme Court of Indiva. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has set out the following issues for determination. 1) Whether the present petition is maintainable before the Supreme Court of Indiva? 2) Whether the High Court can direct a compromise in respect of an offence which is non- compoundable as per Sec.320 of Cr.P.C.?