TEAMCODE: (2013030) Novice Moot Court Competition, 2012 In the Honble High Court of Ranchi Case Concerning, section

300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 And Section 482 of The Code of
Criminal Procedure

State Of Bihar. (prosecution) V. Ratan Gond... (Accused)

On Submission to the Honble High Court At Ranchi

Memorandum on behalf of the Respondent

Table of Contents Table of Contents.. Index of Authorities..............................

1

01 02-04

Statement of Jurisdiction........ Statements of Facts. Statement of Issues.. Summary of Arguments Arguments Advanced Prayer..

05 05-06 07 07-09 09-13 13

INDEX OF AUTHORITES

LIST OF ABBREVATIONS Art. Article. A.I.R- All India Report.

2

Cr.P.C Criminal Procedure Code. Ed- Edition. F.I.R First Information Report. Pg no Page Number. Sec. Section. SCC- Supreme Court Cases SC Supreme Court RNC Ranchi Vol. Volume. LIST OF STATUTES:

Indian Penal code, 1860.

The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The Indian Evidence Act, 1972.

LIST OF CASES: 1. Param Hans Yadav And Sadanand Tripathi V state of bihar(AIR 1987 SC 955 2. Mohd. Azad v state of west Bengal(AIR 2009 SC 1307

3. Balbir Singh V State Of Punjab(1996)8 S.C.C.77 4. Ashiruddin v. The King, AIR 1949 Cal 182 5. Ratan Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh. 6. R v. Daniel McNaughten, [1843] Revised Reports 8 ER 718 (HL) 7. R v. Bryne, (1960) 2 QB 396 (CCA, England 8. The Queen v. Thompson. 9. Re Kataru Chinna Papiah

LIST OF BOOKS: Ratanlal And Dhirajlal,The Code Of Criminal Procedure 20th ed.,Lexis Nexis

Publication,2011

K.D. Gaur: Criminal Law: Cases and Materials, Lexis Nexis

K.D.Gaur, The Textbook on Indian Penal Code, 4th Edition, Universal Law Publishing

Company, Delhi, Reprint 2011.

WEB SOURCES:

. http://www.google.com
http://www.judis.nic.in http://www.indiankanoon.org http://www.crestlaw.com http://www.manupatra.com http://www.wikipedia.com

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Petitioners have approached the Honourable High Court under section 482 of The Criminal

Procedure Code, which talks about the inherent powers of the High Court. The Honourable High Court should dismiss the case for a fair investigation by the Trial Court which was is not completed. The confession of the accused should be taken infront of a first class magistrate. The evidence against the accused, Mr. Ratan Gond is not clear enough and so the Trial Court must perform the proceedings and if any issue arises after this then the Honourable High Court may be approached.

STATEMENT OF FACTS 1. Mr. Ratan Gond was a resident of village Urte, Tola Banmunda police station Kolebera in the district of Ranchi. 2. Ms. Jatri, who was a widow, also lived in the same village and same Tola. She had two young daughters, Baisakhi and Aghani, nine and five years old respectively.

On May 7, 2010, Jatri had herself gone to pluck berries known as Keond berries at another place. When she left the house in the morning, her two daughters were in the house. Jatri came back at noon and found Aghani alone in the house. She asked from Aghani about Baisakhi and Aghani said to her mother that she last saw her talking to Ratan Gond.

Next morning, information was sent to Rup Ram about the fact that Baisakhi was missing, Rup Ram having gone to village Targa for making tiles on the next monday.

On may 8,2010 the village party found the headless body of Baisakhi at a short distance from the aforesaid spring. The body was identified by Jatri.
On May 9, 2013, at about 10 a.m., Rup Ram and the Chaukidar appeared at the police station of Kolebera and Rup Ram gave information, which was recorded by the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police.

Ratan Gond was found in the house of his sisters husband in another village called Karmapani. Ratan Gond was caught hold by the village volunteers and brought back to village Banmunda.

He was questioned by Dalpat Sai, Mukhia of the Gram Panchayat, Krishna Chandra Singh, Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, and Praduman Singh, one of the panches of the Panchayat, and it is stated that Ratan Gond made an extra-judicial confession.

10 He confessed to the effect that he had killed the child Baisakhi for greed of money, as Suliman Khan, a contractor who has taken up the construction of a bridge on the Lurki river had offered Rs. 80 for a human head.

11 The Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police arrested Ratan Gond, who was already in custody of the Mukhia. The Assistant Sub Inspector of Police took Ratan Gond to an unknown place and forced upon him to tell the truth.

12 A house weapon called balua was found in the north facing room of the house, between a wall and the roof. This balua had certain blood-stains on it, but the stains having disintegrated, the origin of the blood could not be determined.

13 Ratan Gond took the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police and some of the villagers to a place where the dead body was. At that place, the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police discovered some strands of bloodstained hair which were seized. The strands of hair looked like the hair on the bead of a female person and the chemical examiner later reported that the strands of hair were stained with human blood and appeared to be scalp hair of human (female) origin morphologically.

14 Aghani committed suicide on May 14, 2010. 6

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1. 2.

Whether the Honourable Court has the jurisdiction to hear the petitions? Whether the defence of unsound mind can be taken under sec.84 of Indian Penal Code

or not?
3. Whether the forceful confession is punishable under section 330 and 348 of The Indian Penal Code or not?

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. The Honourable High Court has no jurisdiction to hear the petitions.

Petitioners have approached the High court under section 482 of Cr.P.C which speaks about the inherent powers of the High Court. The case should be dismissed by The Honourable High Court. The case should be investigated properly by the trial court because the confession obtained must be infront of a first class magistrate, which was not taken in this case. After the criminal proceedings are are over in the trial court if there are any issues then it may be referred to The Honourable High Court 2.Whether the defence of unsound mind can be taken under section 84 of The Indian Penal Code or not?

Here the defence of unsound mind can be taken because Mr. Ratan Gond made an extra judicial confession to the Dalpat Sai, Mukhia of the Gram Panchayat, Krishna Chandra Singh, Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, and Praduman Singh, one of the panches of the Panchayat, that he had killed the child Baisakhi for greed of money, as Suliman Khan, a contractor who has taken up the construction of a bridge on the Lurki river had offered Rs. 80 for a human head. The killing of a child for such a meagre sum of money clearly show that Mr. Ratan Gond was not of sound mind while committing the murder of Baisakhi. He was of unsound mind when he committed the murder for the amount of Rs. 80 offered to him by Mr. Suliman Khan. Section 84 of The Indian Penal Code states that, Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law.

3.Whether the forceful confession is punishable under section 330 and 348 of The Indian Penal Code or not? Here, the defence can be taken under sections 330 and 348 of The Indian Penal Code as the Assistant SubInspector of police took Mr. Ratan Gond to an unknown place and forced upon him to tell the truth. This act is punishable under both the sections of The Indian Penal Code. The section 330 of The Indian

Penal Code states that, Whoever voluntarily causes hurt for the purpose of extorting from the sufferer or from any person interested in the sufferer, any confession or any information which may lead to the detection of an offence or misconduct, or for the purpose of constraining the sufferer or any person interested in the sufferer to restore or to cause the restoration of any property or valuable security or to satisfy any claim or demand, or to give information which may lead to the restoration of any property or 8

valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also liable to fine. The section 348 of The Indian Penal Code states that, Whoever wrongfully confines any person for the purpose of extorting from the person confined or any person interested in the person confined any confession or any information which may lead to the detection of an offence or misconduct , or for the purpose of constraining the person confined or any person interested in the person confined to restore or to cause the restoration of any property or valuable security or to satisfy any claim or demand, or to give information which may lead to the restoration of any property or valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

I.

The Honourable High Court has no jurisdiction to hear the case.

The Petitioners have approached the High court under section 482 of Cr.P.C which speaks about the inherent powers of the High Court. The case should be dismissed by The Honourable High Court. The case should be investigated properly by the trial court because the confession obtained must be infront of a first class magistrate, which was not taken in this case. After the criminal proceedings are over in the trial court if there are any issues then it may be referred to The Honourable High Court. The Trial Court shall carry on the proceedings first and if there are any issues left then the Honourable High Court may be approached. The trial must be allowed to do the fact finding in the case.Therefore, the respondent submits that the Honorable Court to dismiss the petition under Sec. 482 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

II.

Whether the defence of unsound mind can be taken under section 84 of The Indian Penal Code or not? 9

.
Section 84 of The Indian Penal Code states that1. A number of tests2 have been given from time to time for this purpose and the kind and degree of insanity available as a defence against a crime. But the most notable among all is the R. v. MNaghtens case3. In this case the law relating to insanity is to be found in the form of replies given by the 15 judges of the House of Lords to the five questions put to them with a view to clarifying the law on this subject. The two questions that arose were: 1) What are the proper questions to be submitted to the jury where a person, alleged to be afflicted with insane delusions respecting one or more particular subject or persons, is charged with the commission of a crime and insanity is set up as a defence? 2) In what terms ought the questions to be left to the jury as to the prisoners state of mind at the time when the act was committed? The answers to these questions were: Every man is presumed to be sane, and to possess a sufficient degree of reason to be responsible for his crimes, until the contrary be proved to their satisfaction; and that to establish a defence on the ground of insanity, it must be clearly proved that, at the time of committing the act, the party accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, from the disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and the quality of the act he was doing; or if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong. Section 84 of The Indian Penal Code embodies two different mental conditions to claim exemption from criminal liability, namely: (i) The accused was incapable of knowing the nature of the act, owing to the unsoundness of the mind, or (ii) The accused was precluded by reason of unsoundness of mind from understanding that what he was doing was either wrong or was contrary to law. In the case of R. v. McNaughten , the accused, Daniel McNaughten was charged for the

murder of Edward Drummond (Secretary to the Prime Minister, Sir Robert Peel), by shooting him in his back, as he was walking. The accused was suffering from an insane delusion that Sir Robert Peel had injured him. He mistook Drummond for Sir Robert and so shot and killed him.

Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is

incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law.
2 3

See R.C.Nigam,Law of Crimes in India,(Vo;.1,1965),p. 364 (1843)10 Clark and Finnelly 200-214 (H.L.);Revised Reports,Vol. 59 8 E. R 718

10

The accused pleaded not guilty on the ground of insanity, his obsession with certain morbid (horrible) delusions. The jury returned a verdict of not guilty on the ground of insanity. In R. v. Bryne 4 the accused was charged for strangling a girl and mutilating her dead body. It was found that the accused was a sexual psychopath and that he could not control himself at the material time. The trial judge directed the jury to the effect that if he killed the girl under an abnormal sexual impulse or urge which was so strong that he found it difficult or impossible to resist, but otherwise he was normal, the plea of diminished responsibility would fail. He was convicted of murder. The Court of Appeal substituted a verdict of manslaughter. Similarly, in the given case, the accused, Mr. Ratan Gond was incapable of knowing the nature of the act, owing to the unsoundness of the mind. Also, he by reason of unsoundness of mind was unable to understand that what he was doing was either wrong or was contrary to law. In the case of Ashiruddin v. The King5 , the Honourable Calcutta High Court allowed the defence of insanity under section 84 of The Indian Penal Code on the ground that the accused had sacrificed his son of five years while acting under the delusion of a dream, believing it to be right. The accused had dreamt that he was commanded by someone in paradise to sacrifice his son of five years. The next morning the accused took his son to a mosque and killed him by thrusting a knife at his throat. He then went straight to his uncle but, finding a chaukidar nearby, took his uncle to a tank some distance away and slowly related the story. On these facts, it was held by a bench of the Honourable Calcutta High Court that this was a case of insanity under section 84 of The Indian Penal Code was made out. It was held in this case that to enable an accused to obtain the benefit of section 84 of The Indian Penal Code he should establish any one of the following three elements:(i) (ii) (iii) That the nature of the act was not known to the accused, or That the act was not known by him to be contrary to law, or That the act was not known by him to be wrong.

On the above facts , the Bench held that the third element was established by the accused, namely, that the accused did not know that the act was contrary to law.

4 5

(1960) 2 QB 396 (CCA, England) AIR 1949 Cal 182

11

In Ratan Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh6, the accused was in the habit of setting fire to his own clothes and house. It was held that this could hardly be called rational and was more likely verging on insanity. The Supreme Court accepted the plea of insanity raised by the accused and absolved him of criminal liability.

In the light of all these cited cases, Mr. Ratan Gondshould be granted the defence of insanity under section 84 of The Indian Penal Code. III. Whether the forceful confession is punishable under section 330 and 348 of The Code or not? Here in this case, Mr. Ratan Gond was taken to an unknown place and forced upon to tell the truth by the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police. The confession is taken without the presence of a first class magistrate, so it is invalid and it has to be taken before the same. The section 330 of The Indian Penal Code states that, Whoever voluntarily causes hurt for the purpose of extorting from the sufferer or from any person interested in the sufferer, any confession or any information which may lead to the detection of an offence or misconduct, or for the purpose of constraining the sufferer or any person interested in the sufferer to restore or to cause the restoration of any property or valuable security or to satisfy any claim or demand, or to give information which may lead to the restoration of any property or valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also liable to fine. This section punishes causing of hurt for the purpose of extorting a confession7, or information leading to the detection of an offence, or misconduct or for constraining the sufferer, or another to restore any property, or valuable security, or to satisfy claim, or demand, or to do anything subservient thereto. Ingredients: 1. The accused caused hurt voluntarily; 2. Hurt was caused To extort confession from the sufferer, or a person interested in him to detect an offence or misconduct, or Indian Penal

6 7

AIR 1971 SC 778 Pakala Narayan Swami, AIR 1939 PC 47

12

For the purpose of constraining such person to restore any property or valuable security, or

To satisfy a claim or demand, or To give information leading to restoration of property8.

In The Queen v. Thompson9 a prisoner was tried for embezzling the money of a company. It was proved at the trial that, being taxed with the crime by the Chairman of the company, the prisoner said that he had taken the money. The Chairman stated that at the time of the confession, no threat or promise was made, but he said to the prisoner's brother, " It will be the right thing for your brother to make a statement " and the court drew the inference that the prisoner, when he made the confession, knew that the Chairman had spoken these words to his brother. In these circumstances, the learned Judge said that he would prefer to put his judgment on the ground that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove, in case of doubt, that the prisoner's statement was free and voluntary, and that they did not discharge themselves of the obligation. He further added that there were always reasons to suspect those confessions which were supposed to be the offspring of penitence and remorse, and which nevertheless were repudiated by the prisoner at the trial. It is true that in the case under our consideration the appellant denied to have made the confession which he had made earlier; but we find no such circumstances as were present in Thompson's case, such as the statement of the Chairman of the company to the brother of the prisoner. It is true that the appellant was brought back from village Karmapani by members of the village volunteer force. He was taken to the village authorities to whom he made a confession. The evidence does not even remotely suggest that any threat, promise or inducement was made. The only circumstance that can be relied upon is that it took about two to three hours from the time when the appellant was brought to the house of the mukhia up to the time when he made his confessional statement. The confession is not valid in this case as it has been taken without the presence of a first class magistrate or any other person authorized by law.

8 9

Q.E. v. Latif Khan, (1895) ILR 20 Bom 394 (1893) 2 Q. B. 12, 18.

13

In Re Kataru Chinna Papiah10, where a Superintendent of Police questioned the accused person for four hours at nightand again for two hours in the morning. It was pointed out that this was a flagrant violation of the relevant rule in the instructions issued to police officer. Similarly, in the case of Ratan Gond, he was made to wait till the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police arrived, and the confession was induced by force by taking him to an unknown place. It is not known whether the confession taken is true or not. Also the validity of the statement of Aghani is not a valid statement as it was not told to a man authorized by law. She committed suicide before making a statement infront of a magistrate, so the section 33 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 clearly fails.

PRAYER

Therefore, in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and the authorities cited, it is
humbly prayed that this Honorable court may grant the following:(i) (ii) Declare that Mr. Ratan Gond is insane and thus the charges upon him to be dismissed. Declare that the Assistant Commissioner of Police is liable under sections 330 and 348 of The Indian Penal Code.

All of which humbled prayed, Counsel for respondents.

10

) A.I.R. 1940 Mad. 136

14