8th

NATIONAL MOOT COURT

COMPETITION, 2018

RAYAT COLLEGE OF LAW, ROPAR

MOOT PROPOSITION

1. On 08.10.2004 at about 7.30 p.m., when Rahul the Complainant, after having meal,
reached near the house of Umesh his paternal uncle, he heard noise coming out from that
house.
2. When Rahul entered the house, he saw Kartik, Pulkit and Neeraj, all from the same
locality, armed with country made pistols in their hands, abusing his cousin Yogesh ,

1|Page
 Shubham (son-in-law) and Ravita, his niece with filthy language and they made fires
from their respective pistols with the intention of killing them.
3. The bullet fired by Kartik injured Yogesh, the bullet fired by Pulkit caused injury to
Ravita on her abdomen, who was pregnant and the bullet fired by Neeraj injured
Shubham in his head. All of them were in critical state.
4. The incidence was witnessed by D,E,F etc.Rahul had given the ‘written report’ at Police
Station, after getting it written byP Singh.
5. On the basis of the written report submitted byRahul on 08.10.2004 at 20.45 hrs., F.I.R.
caseCrime No. 313 of 2004 was registered underSections 452, 307 and 504 IPC at Police
StationRailway Road, District Meerut.
6. On the same day,the investigation was conducted by sub-Inspector V Singh. The site plan
was prepared and thestatements of the witnesses were recorded underSection 161 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”).
7. Thecharge-sheet was filed against Kartik and Neerajfor the offences punishable under
Sections 452,307, 316 and 504 IPC.
8. The case was committed tothe Court of Sessions, Meerut for trial on 18.05.2005.
9. The trial was proceeded as S.T. No. 390 of2005 in the Court of Additional Sessions
Judge.
10. During the pendency of the investigation, Pulkit died and Kartikwasdeclared as ‘juvenile’
to be tried separately.
11. Neerajwas charged for the offencesunder Sections 452, 307/34, 504 and 316/34 ofIPC.
By judgment dated 11.12.2007, the Trial Courtconvicted the appellant for the offences
punishableunder Sections 452, 307/34, 316/34 and 504 IPCand sentenced him seven
years’ rigorousimprisonment with fine of Rs.5000/- under Section452 IPC, in default of
payment of fine, to furtherundergo three months’ simple imprisonment,imprisonment for
life with fine of Rs.10,000/- underSection 307/34 IPC, in default of payment of fine,
tofurther undergo six months’ simple imprisonment,ten years’ rigorous imprisonment
with fine ofRs.5000/- under Section 316/34 IPC, in default ofpayment of fine, to further
undergo simpleimprisonment for three months and two years’rigorous imprisonment with
fine of Rs.1000/- underSection 504 IPC, in default of payment of fine, tofurther undergo
simple imprisonment for onemonth. All the sentences would run concurrently.

2|Page
 12. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial Court,the accused filed an appeal being Criminal
Appealbefore the Allahabad High Court.
13. By judgment dated 21.04.2015, the High Courtdismissed the appeal filed by the accused
andupheld the judgment of conviction and sentencepassed by the Trial Court.
14. Against the said judgment, the accused hasfiled this appeal by way of special leave
before thisCourt i.e, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India for urging that the appellant
hasalready undergone custody around 10 to 12 yearstill date and hence it would be just
and proper to reduce the appellant’ssentence already undergone and he be set at libertyby
upholding his conviction.

Based on the above propositions, the moot team are required to make submission on behalf
the counsel of appellant and respondent on the following framed issues:

 Whether the appeal is maintainable?

 Whether the trial court has the power to grant that quantum of punishment as per
the sections under which accused charged?
 Whether the High court had made an erroneous decision?
 Whether the bail should be granted by reducing the appellant life imprisonment?

3|Page