Sei sulla pagina 1di 15

Team No

In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana, Chandigarh

BETWEEN THE STATE AND RAHUL

Jointly notified to the Court on 2nd December, 2017

-MEMORIAL FOR THE DEFENDANT-

TABLE OF CONTENTS
2

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS..3

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES4

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION5

STATEMENT OF FACTS ...6

ISSUES RAISED.....8

SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS........9

PLEADINGS. ..10

1. There was no legally binding contract between the parties..10


1.1. Knowledge of Offer was missing..11
2. There was no breach of contract.12
3. The Plaintiff is not entitled to the reward..13

PRAYER..14

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
3

IPC Indian Penal Code

AIR All India Reporter

Anr. Another

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Statutes:
4

The Indian Penal Code, 1860

Cases:

Lalman Shukla v. Guari Dutt (1913) 11 ALJ 489

11

Books:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Bare Act

Websites:

www.indiankanoon.org.

www.lawteacher.net

www.indiancaselaw.com

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
5

The Defendant humbly submits this memorandum for defending the criminal case

against him under the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The case invokes its appellate

jurisdiction under Section 300 of the Indian Penal code, 1860 along with Section 32

of the Indian Evidence Act. It sets forth the facts and the law on which the claims are

based.

STATEMENT OF FACTS
6

I.

The Defendant, Rahul, married the daughter of the deceased, Lt. Ramesh

Chand,in the year 2001 and was residing at Gurugram with his wife.

After a few years of marriage, their relationship got strained and they

were regularly quarrelling over frivolous issues. One day, Meera left her

matrimonial house and took her elder daughter Pinto to her Fathers

house at Faridabad. Rahul sent his younger daughter Pinku to his sisters

house Deepa in order to prevent Meera from seeing her.

II.

One afternoon, Meera came to Deepas house and forcefully took her

daughter Pinku with her. The defendant, Rahul, on hearing this went to

his father-in-laws house and quarreled.

III.

After two days of the occurrence of this incident, Rahul and Ramesh

Chand happened to meet each other at a marketplace in Gurugram. They

got into a heated argument and grappled with each other and fell down.

Ramesh Chand, then slapped Rahul and threatened to kill him. In the heat

of passion, Rahul picked up a stick lying nearby and gave a blow to the

stomach of the deceased.

IV.
7

The deceased who was suffering from an enlarged spleen fell down

instantly. Before dying, Ramesh Chand gave a dying declaration with

regards to the fight and the fact that Rahul had knowledge of Ramesh

Chands enlarged spleen. Following this incident, the defendant was

arrested by the Gurugram Police.

V.

The Prosecution at the Sessions Court, Gurugram led evidence during the

trial and an eyewitness stated that the deceased had started the fight. The

Trial Court, based on the dying declaration of the deceased convicted the

defendant for the commission under of Murder under section 300 of the

Indian Penal Code and sentenced him for life imprisonment.


8

ISSUED RAISED

1. Whether there was an intention to commit murder?

2. Whether there was preparation of the crime committed?

3. Whether there was knowledge of the enlarged spleen of the


deceased?
9

SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS

1. THERE WAS NO INTENTION ON THE PART OF THE DEFENDANT:

The Defendant humbly submits that there was no premeditation before the fight took

place between the defendant and the deceased. There was no prior planning or

intention on the part of the defendant to cause any such bodily injury to the deceased

that may result in the commission of murder.

2. THERE WAS NO PREPARATION OF THE CRIME:

The Defendant humbly submits that there was no preparation on the part of the

defendant. Preparation is one of the stages of crime and absence of it by the defendant

only lends credibility to the fact that the defendant did not have the intention of

committing the crime of murder.

3. THE PLAINTIFF IS NOT ENTITLED TO RECEIVE THE REWARD:

The Defendant humbly submits that the Plaintiff in the present case is not entitled to

receive the reward as mentioned in the offer made by the Defendant as the facts and

circumstances of the case clearly indicate that a valid contract had not been

established between the parties and thus the plaintiff is without the right to seek its

enforcement against the Defendant in the Court of law.


10

PLEADINGS

1. THERE WAS NO LEGALLY BINDING CONTRACT:

The Defendant humbly submits that there was no valid contract that was entered into

by the Plaintiff with the Defendant and is, thus, illegal to seek its enforcement in a

Court of law. It is the contention of the Defendant that validity of the contract is

without merit as the offer made by the defendant had not been communicated to the

plaintiff and therefore, he is, in a purely legal nature, without the ability to perform

the act specified in the contract. Since, there was no communication of the offer, there

cannot said to be the existence of a valid contract between the parties. Section 4 of the

Indian Contract Act, 1892 (hereinafter, ICA) says that, the communication of a

proposal is complete when it comes to the knowledge of the person to whom it is

made. It, thus, follows that an offer cannot be accepted unless and until it has been

brought to the knowledge of the person to whom it is made. In other words, a party

cannot be said to make an offer unless such party brings the offer to the knowledge of

the other party. And the other party cannot be said to have accepted the offer, even if

such party acts according to the terms of the offer. Thus, acting in ignorance of an

offer does not amount to acceptance of the offer.


11

1.1. Knowledge of offer was missing:

In Lalman Shukla v. Guari Dutt1, the Defendants nephew absconded from home. The

Plaintiff, who was the Defendants servant, was sent to search for the missing boy.

After the Plaintiff had left in search of the boy, the Defendant issued handbills

announcing a reward of Rs. 501/- to anyone who might find out the boy. The Plaintiff,

who was unaware of this reward, was successful in finding the boy. When he came to

know of the reward, which had been announced in his absence, he brought an action

against the defendant to claim this reward. It was held that since the Plaintiff was

ignorant of the offer of the award, his act of bringing the lost boy did not amount to

the acceptance of the offer and therefore he was not entitled to claim the reward.

It was furthermore stated, In the present case the claim cannot be regarded as one on

the basis of a contract. The plaintiff was in the service of the defendant. As such

servant he was sent to search for the missing boy. It is true that it was not within the

ordinary scope of his duties as a minim to search for a missing relative of his master

but he agreed to go to Hardwar in search of the boy and he undertook that particular

duty. Being under that obligation, which he had incurred before the reward in

question was offered, he couldnt, in my opinion, claim the reward. There was already

a subsisting obligation and therefore, the performance of the act cannot be regarded

as a consideration for the defendants promise.

1Lalman Shukla v. Guari Dutt (1913) 11 ALJ 489,


http://www.indiancaselaw.com/lalman-shukla-v-gauri-datt-1913/
12

The same is true in the present case. The Plaintiff, being the Defendants servant

undertook the duty of making enquiries based on the information received by the

Defendant and only thereafter succeeded in locating the Defendants son. Therefore, it

is the contention of the Defendant that the Plaintiff, despite being out of the ordinary

scope of his duties, was still acting within the scope and capacity of his employment

and is therefore not a party to this contract and thus incompetent to sue.

2. THERE WAS NO BREACH OF CONTRACT BY THE DEFENDANT:

The Defendant further submits to the Honble Court that there was no breach of

contract by the Defendant as there was no valid contract between the parties. As a

principle of law, it is necessary that two or more parties enter into a contract that is

valid in the eyes of the law in order to be able to enforce contractual liabilities against

one another in case of non-performance of the stipulations of the contract. However,

where no such contract is established between two parties, then they cannot hold one

another liable for breach. In the present case, the Plaintiff did not have the knowledge

of the offer that was made by the Defendant and was merely acting in the capacity of

the Defendants servant. Therefore, the Defendant contends that the Plaintiffs suit is

without merit and cannot, as such, be enforced by the law.

According to Section 2(a) of ICA, the offer must be communicated. Therefore, it

follows that a person is said to make a proposal when he signifies to another person

his willingness to do or to abstain from doing something. The emphasis is upon the
13

requirement that the willingness to make a proposal should be signified. It thus

requires that the offer must be communicated to the other person, i.e., the offeree.2

Therefore, in the absence of a valid contract between the parties, the question of its

breach is one without any merit.

3. THE PLAINTIFF IS NOT ENTITLED TO RECEIVE THE REWARD:

The Defendant humbly submits that the Plaintiff is not entitled to receive the reward

as when he performed the act of finding the defendants lost son, he did so in his

capacity as the Defendants servant and without the knowledge of the offer or the

intention to claim it.

The contention of the absence of knowledge of the offer is followed by the absence of

the intention to form a legal relationship. The Defendant contends that the Plaintiff

had neither the knowledge of the offer nor the intention to form a legal relationship.

Since, the reward was announced as part of the unilateral contract, the Plaintiff has no

right to the reward, despite performing the duty, as there was no valid contract

between the parties and in the absence of said contract, the reward being claimed by

the Plaintiff would not exist.

Therefore, the Plaintiff is not entitled to receive the reward.

2Dr. R.K. Bangia, Contract I


14

PRAYER

In the light of arguments advanced and authorities cited, the Defendant humbly

submits that the Honble Court may be pleased to adjudge and declare that:

1. The suit may be dismissed.


2. The Plaintiff may be penalized for filing frivolous suit.

Any other order as it deems fit in the interest of equity, justice and good conscience.

For This Act of Kindness, the Petitioner Shall Be Duty Bound Forever
Pray.

Respectfully submitted by
(Counsel for the Defendant)
15

Potrebbero piacerti anche