SVKM’S

PRAVIN GANDHI COLLEGE OF LAW

COMPULSORY MOOT – I, 2024

SUBMITTED BY: SRUSHTI VAIDYA

ROLL NO: B053

CLASS: 5TH YEAR

SEMESTER 9

MOOT EXAMINATION
 SVKM’s PRAVIN GANDHI COLLEGE OF LAW
COMPULSORY MOOT – I, 2024

Before
THE SUPREME COURT OF CYNDORIA

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.____ OF 2024

CLAIRE…………………………………………………………….
APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF CYNDORIA……………………………….… RESPONDENT

Upon Submission to the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Cyndoria

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SR NO. PARTICULARS PAGE

NO.
1 Name of the Court, Parties, Representation 4
2 List of Case Laws Referred and List of Statutes Referred 5
4 Statement of Jurisdiction 6
5 Summary of Facts 7
6 Statement of Issues 8
7 Summary of Arguments 9
8. Arguments Advanced 10
9. Prayers 14
NAME OF THE COURT

The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Cyndoria

PARTIES

Appellant: Claire

Respondent: The State of Cyndoria

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Petitioner

Page | 4
LIST OF CASE LAWS REFERRED

SR NO. PARTICULARS PAGE

NO.
1 K.M. Nanavati vs. State of Maharashtra [AIR 1962 SC 605]
2 State of M.P. v. Sughar Singh, (2010) 3 SCC 719
3 Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India, (1995) 3 SCC 635
4 Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan, (1997) 6 SCC 241
5 Bhagwan Swarup v. State of Maharashtra, (1965) 3 SCR 44
6 Amita v. State of NCT Delhi, (2016) 4 SCC 473
7 Sudhakar v. State of Maharashtra, (2014) 5 SCC 424
8 Keshav Bahadur v. State of Bihar, (1954) 1 SCR 1080

LIST OF STATUTES REFERRED

SR NO. PARTICULARS
1 Indian Penal Code, 1860
1.1 Section 300: Murder
1.2 Section 302: Punishment for Murder
1.3 Section 304: Culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
2 Constitution of India, 1950
2.1 Article 136: Special Leave to Appeal
2.2 Article 21: Right to life and personal liberty
2.3 Article 14: Right to equality
3 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
3.1 Section 313: Power to examine the accused.
3.2 Section 97: Right of private defense of the body and property.
3.3 Section 374: Appeals from Conviction
3.4 Section 482: Inherent powers of the court.

Page | 5
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

This Hon'ble Court has jurisdiction to entertain this appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution
of Cyndoria, which allows for special leave to appeal in cases where substantial questions of law
or interpretation are involved. The present appeal pertains to the question of whether the Appellant,
Claire, who was convicted of murder by the High Court, acted under "grave and sudden
provocation" as defined under Exception 1 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. This question
of law is fundamental to determining the Appellant’s liability, thus invoking the jurisdiction of this
Hon'ble Court.

Page | 6
SUMMARY OF FACTS

Claire married Jack in 2004, and they had a child with special needs. Over the years, Jack became
an alcoholic, and his abusive behavior escalated. Claire endured prolonged physical and emotional
abuse, including marital rape and threats to her life and her child’s safety. On 21st March 2009,
Jack returned home drunk and violently assaulted Claire. During the altercation, Jack threatened
to kill their child, which triggered Claire’s final emotional breakdown. Acting out of fear and
provocation from years of abuse, Claire killed Jack. In a disturbed state of mind, Claire also killed
her child, fearing for his future in a world where she could no longer protect him. The Sessions
Court convicted Claire of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, considering the
provocation. However, the High Court reversed this decision, convicting her of murder under
Section 302 of the Cyndorian Penal Code.

Page | 7
STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1. Whether the appeal is maintainable before the Hon'ble Supreme Court under Article 136
of the Constitution of Cyndoria.

2. Whether the prolonged history of domestic abuse and the immediate circumstances leading
to Claire’s actions amount to "grave and sudden provocation," reducing her liability from
murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

3. Whether Claire is entitled to the defense of private defense under Section 97 of the
Cyndorian Penal Code, given the imminent danger to her and her child.

Page | 8
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. Maintainability of the Appeal:

The appeal is maintainable as it involves a substantial question of law regarding the
interpretation of "grave and sudden provocation" in cases of domestic violence.

2. Grave and Sudden Provocation:

Claire’s actions were the result of prolonged abuse and an immediate threat to her child’s
life. The concept of provocation must be considered in the context of ongoing domestic
violence, as recognized in State of M.P. v. Sughar Singh and K.M. Nanavati v. State of
Maharashtra.

3. Private Defense

Claire’s actions can also be justified under Section 97 of the Cyndorian Penal Code, as
she acted in defense of her child’s life, which was under immediate threat.

Page | 9
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. Issue 1: Whether the appeal is maintainable before the Hon'ble Supreme Court under
Article 136 of the Constitution of Cyndoria.

• Article 136 of the Constitution of Cyndoria (pari materia with Article 136 of the Indian
Constitution) allows for special leave to appeal in cases where substantial questions of law
or public interest are involved. The primary issue before this Hon'ble Court is whether
Claire’s conviction under Section 302 should be downgraded to culpable homicide not
amounting to murder under Section 304 due to "grave and sudden provocation."

• The broader societal relevance of this case is evident as it touches upon the rights and
protections available to victims of prolonged domestic abuse. In Amita v. State of NCT
Delhi (2016) 4 SCC 473, the Supreme Court of India recognized that prolonged
psychological abuse could trigger mental breakdowns and impulsive acts of violence.
Claire's case poses similar issues, as her actions were not premeditated but provoked by
years of domestic violence and an immediate threat to her child.

• Precedent for Considering Domestic Abuse as Provocation: The appeal is maintainable

in line with past decisions where the court has recognized substantial questions of law
regarding how traditional legal doctrines (such as provocation) should be interpreted in
cases of ongoing domestic abuse. In State of M.P. v. Sughar Singh (2010) 3 SCC 719, the
court recognized that abuse spanning several years could create cumulative provocation
that leads to an impulsive, defensive act. The law must adapt to modern social realities and
the unique challenges faced by victims of abuse.

2. Issue 2: Whether the prolonged history of domestic abuse and the immediate
circumstances leading to Claire’s actions amount to "grave and sudden provocation,"
reducing her liability from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

• Concept of Grave and Sudden Provocation: Exception 1 to Section 300 of the

Cyndorian Penal Code (CPC) reduces murder to culpable homicide if the accused acted
under "grave and sudden provocation." In cases like K.M. Nanavati v. State of

Page | 10
 Maharashtra (1961) 1 SCR 497, the court emphasized that the provocation must be such
that it temporarily deprives the person of the ability to control their actions. Typically, the
law has required that the provocation be both immediate and significant. However,
modern jurisprudence increasingly acknowledges that in cases of domestic violence, the
provocation may accumulate over time, creating a sustained psychological impact that
culminates in an impulsive action.
• Cumulative Nature of Provocation in Domestic Abuse: The nature of Claire’s
provocation was not confined to a single incident. Her provocation arose from years of
physical, sexual, and emotional abuse. Courts have recognized that where there is a
pattern of abuse, it may not be a singular event that triggers an action but a final incident
that acts as a "last straw." This principle was articulated in State of M.P. v. Sughar Singh
(2010), where the court held that cumulative abuse could create a mental state amounting
to provocation. In Claire’s case, the constant threats, physical assaults, and, most notably,
Jack's threat to kill their child, created a situation of continuous provocation that became
"grave" when Jack physically attacked her on the night of 21st March 2009.
• Immediate Provocation and Claire’s State of Mind: In K.M. Nanavati v. State of
Maharashtra, the court ruled that the proximity between the provocation and the act must
be considered. In Claire’s case, the immediate trigger was Jack’s drunken assault and
threat to kill their child. This outburst of violence, against the backdrop of years of abuse,
created an overwhelming fear in Claire’s mind. Courts have repeatedly acknowledged
that prolonged domestic abuse can have a "boiling point" effect, where the victim acts
impulsively due to unbearable emotional and psychological stress.
• Psychological Impact of Domestic Violence: The court must consider the psychological
state of a victim of sustained abuse. In Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan (1997) 6 SCC 241,
the court recognized the broader social and psychological impact of gender-based
violence. Claire’s prolonged subjugation to abuse and marital rape must be recognized as
contributing to her mental breakdown, aligning her case with decisions like Amita v. State
of NCT Delhi (2016) where psychological trauma was acknowledged as a mitigating
factor.
• Legal Precedents on Domestic Abuse as Provocation: In Sarla Mudgal v. Union of
India (1995) 3 SCC 635, the court acknowledged the oppressive conditions many women

Page | 11
 face in abusive marriages, where legal recourse often feels out of reach. Claire’s position
as a victim of prolonged violence, marital rape, and psychological trauma supports
her claim to reduced culpability.

3. Issue 3: Whether Claire is entitled to the defense of private defense under Section 97
of the Cyndorian Penal Code, given the imminent danger to her and her child.

• Right to Private Defense Under Section 97 of CPC: Section 97 of the Cyndorian Penal
Code (in pari materia with Section 97 of the Indian Penal Code) recognizes the right to
private defense against threats to one’s life or the life of another. The court in Bhagwan
Swarup v. State of Maharashtra (1965) 3 SCR 44 observed that the right to private defense
is not limited to protecting one’s own life but extends to protecting the life of others when
an imminent threat exists. In the present case, Claire acted not only to defend herself but
to protect her child from the threats made by Jack, who had repeatedly warned that he
would kill their child.
• Imminent Threat and the Use of Force: In Sudhakar v. State of Maharashtra (2014) 5
SCC 424, the court acknowledged that the degree of force used in private defense must be
proportionate to the threat faced. Claire’s actions, though extreme, were taken in the belief
that her child’s life was in imminent danger. Jack had threatened to kill their child, and
given his history of violence and drunken behavior, Claire had reason to believe that the
threat was credible and immediate. Under these circumstances, Claire was justified in
using force to neutralize the threat posed by Jack.
• Lack of Pre-Meditation: The defense of private defense is negated when an act is
premeditated. However, in this case, Claire’s actions were impulsive, driven by fear and
the immediate need to protect herself and her child. The legal principle of private defense
supports her claim, as seen in Bhagwan Swarup v. State of Maharashtra, where the court
held that actions taken in the heat of the moment, under a genuine belief of imminent
danger, can qualify as private defense.
• Claire’s Fear for Her Child’s Safety: Jack’s repeated threats to kill the child,
compounded by his violent behavior on the night of the incident, provide a strong
foundation for the argument that Claire acted out of necessity to protect her child. The
Page | 12
court in State of M.P. v. Sughar Singh noted that a mother’s instinct to protect her child in
the face of a credible threat should be viewed with a certain degree of empathy when
evaluating claims of private defense.

Page | 13
PRAYERS

In light of the above submissions, the Respondent respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Court:

1. Set aside the conviction under Section 302 of the Cyndorian Penal Code and restore the
Sessions Court’s judgment of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section
304.
2. Pass any other order that this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the interests of justice.

For this act of Kindness, the Appellant shall duty bound forever pray

SD/-

(Counsel for the Appellant)

Page | 14