Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
TABLE OF CONTENTS
2
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS..3
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES4
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION5
ISSUES RAISED.....8
SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS........9
PLEADINGS. ..10
PRAYER..14
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
3
Anr. Another
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Statutes:
4
Cases:
11
Books:
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
II.
One afternoon, Meera came to Deepas house and forcefully took her
daughter Pinku with her. The defendant, Rahul, on hearing this went to
III.
After two days of the occurrence of this incident, Rahul and Ramesh
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
IV.
7
The deceased who was suffering from an enlarged spleen fell down
regards to the fight and the fact that Rahul had knowledge of Ramesh
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
ISSUED RAISED
SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS
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
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
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
PLEADINGS
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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:
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