Cases

Only available on StudyMode
  • Download(s) : 4586
  • Published : February 13, 2013
Open Document
Text Preview
PADMASHREE DR . D.Y. PATIL LAW COLLEGE PIMPRI,PUNE – 411018.

MOOT COURT NO. – 2
DATE : 28 JAN . 2013.

STUDENT ADVOCATE

POKHARKAR CHHAYA BHAUSAHEB
B.COM.LL.B.-III
ROLL NO . - 16.
IN THE COURT OF HIGH COURT
OF BANGALORE AT KARNATAKA

RAHUL Appellant
V/S
State of Karnataka Respondent

Appearing on behalf of Respondent

INDEX
SR.NO| PARTICULARS| PAGE NO.|
1.| List of Abbreviations| |
2| Authority Cited| |
3| Statement Of Jurisdiction| |
4| Fact Of Case| |
5| Issue Of The Case| |
6| Body Of Pleading| |
7| Prayer Clause| |

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
1. Indian Evidence Act 1872
2. Indian penal code 1860
3. Criminal Procedure code 1973
4. Criminal law 1967

AUTHORITY CITED
1. Chirra Shivaraj v/s State of Andhra Pradesh 20/11/2010 2. Puran Chand v/s State of Hariyana 13/5/2010
3. R v/s Scarlett 1994
4. R v/s owino 1995
5. Palmer v/s R 1971
6. Balkar Singh v/s State of Uttarakhand
7. Thangiya v/s State of Tamilnadu 8/12/2004

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, Any Person convicted on trial held by Session Judge or and Additional Session judge or on a trial held by any other court in which sentence of Imprisonment may Appeal to High Court

FACT OF THE CASE
1. Mala and Rahul were Married in 2001 and were Residing at Vijaya nagar, Bangalore. 2. However after few years their, relationship got strained and were regularly quarrelling over frivolous issues. 3. One day, Mala left her Matrimonial House with her eldest daughter Pinto and started living with her father Gopalakrishna at Jayanagar, Bangalore. 4. Rahul kept his younger daughter, Pinkoo with her sister and Preventing Mala to meet the Pinkoo but on that day afternoon Mala come to Deepa’s house and forcefully took Pinkoo with her on hearing this Rahul reached Gopalakrishna’s house and quarreled. 5. After two days of incident Rahul and Gopalakrishna happenedly meet at market place and start quarrel and grappled with each other. Both fell down. In the heat of passion rahul took stick lying near and gave a blow to stomach of Gopalakrishna. 6. Gopalakrishna who was suffering from diseased spleen and fell down instantly. Rahul known about the diseased of Gopalakrishna though he gave blow. Rahul has intentionally done that murder. 7. Gopalakrishna before dying make dying declaration regarding fight and the knowledge of rahul about enlarged spleen. 8. Rajajinagar police arrest rahul and file charge sheet. 9. Evidence was led by prosecution in the session court and relying on dying declaration of gopalakrishna convict the rahul for commission of murder and sentence life imprisonment. 10. Rahul challenged the conviction by filing a criminal appeal, before high court of Karnataka.

ISSUE OF THE CASE
1) Whether conviction valid solely on dying declaration? 2) Whether Self defense taken by appellant was Reasonable or not? 3) Whether it is murder or not?

BODY OF PLEADING
1. Whether conviction valid solely on dying declaration?
Yes, The dying declaration is trustworthy in Evidence law. The Gopalakrishna gives his dying declaration in his declaration he gives all facts how the murder has done by Rahul and it given in fit state of mind. In dying declaration relating to the cause of his death, so that declaration has a evidential value and it consider solely for conviction. Case law :-

-------------------------------------------------
Chirra Shivraj
-------------------------------------------------
v/s
-------------------------------------------------
State of Andhra Pradesh 20/11/2010
In this case Supreme court held that appeal is dismiss and says person has be convicted solely on dying declaration As long as it was trustworthy even if other witness turn hostile....
tracking img