Defence Final Version Memorial PDF

TEAM CODE:
SURANA AND SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT

COURT COMPETITION, 2019- WEST ROUNDS
IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS
JUDGE OF ANDHA
C.C. NO OF 110 of 2018
IN THE MATTER OF
STATE OF MAHA (PROSECUTION)
VERSUS
Ms. ANKITA AND ORS (DEFENSE)
FOR THE OFFENCES CHARGED UNDER INDIAN PENAL CODE

SECTION 153A, 306 AND SECTION 84B, 84C OF INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2000
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENSE

2
SURANA & SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2019 –WEST ROUNDS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES....................................................................................................... 3
Acts And Legislation: ................................................................................................................
List of Cases...............................................................................................................................
Books Referred ..........................................................................................................................
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ..................................................................................................... 5
STATEMENT OF JURISDTICTION ....................................................................................... 6
STATEMENT OF FACTS ....................................................................................................... 8
STATEMENT OF CHARGES ................................................................................................. 9
Ankita ..........................................................................................................................................
Suman Sekar…………………………………………………………………………………….
Rohit Sippy………………………………………………………………………………………
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ................................................................................................10
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED… ................................................................................................ 14
PRAYERS… ............................................................................................................................... 27
ANNEXURES ............................................................................................................................ 28
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

3
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
ACTS AND LEGISLATION:
1. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
2. Indian Penal Code, 1860
3. Indian Evidence Act, 1872
4. Information Technology Act, 2000
LIST OF CASES:
• Bhagwati Charan Shukla v. Provincial Government, A.I.R. 1947 Nagpur, Ramesh.S/O
Chotalal Dalal vs Union Of India & Ors 1988 AIR 775
• Bilal Ahmed Kaloo Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh [1997] INSC 646 (6 August 1997)
• Balwant Singh And Anr vs State Of Punjab 1995 (1) SCR 411
• Vishambhar Dayal Tripathi vs. Emperor : AIR 1941 Oudh 33, Sikkim Social Empowerment
Association vs. Shri Anjan Upadhyaya and Another S.B. Crl.A. No.13 of 2013
• Ramesh kumar vs state of chattisgarh: (2001) 9 SCC 618
• State Of West Bengal vs Orilal Jaiswal And Another AIR 1994 SC 1418, 1994
• Chitresh Kumar Chopra vs State(Government of NCT of New Delhi) 2009 16 SCC
• Swamy Prahaladdas v. State of M.P. & Anr. , 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 438
• Mahendra Singh v. State of M.P., 1995 Supp.(3) SCC 731
BOOKS REFEREED:

4
1. Ratanlal and Dhirajlal – The Indian Penal Code 31st Edition 2007
2. Sarkar – Law of Evidence 17th Edition 2011
3. The Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 by Ram Jethmalani 2015 Edition
4. Hari Singh Gour’s commentary on Indain Penal Code 14th Edition
5. Batuklal’s commentary on Indian Penal Code,1860
6. B.B. Mitra’s commentary on Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 19th edition
LAW DICTIONARIES/LEXICONS:
1. Black’s Law Dictionary 2nd Edition

5
List of Abbreviations
A.I.R All India Reporter
S.C Supreme Court
S.C.C Supreme Court Cases
Govt Government
Anr Another
Ors Others
Cr.P.C Criminal Procedural Code
I.T Information Technology
SD Signed Under
v/s Versus
S.C.R Supreme Court Records
I.P.C Indian Penal Code
& And

6
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Hon’ble Court has the jurisdiction to try the instant matter pursuant to S. 177 read with S. 209
read with S. 223(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
1177. Ordinary place of inquiry and trial.
Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it
was committed.
2209 Commitment of case to Court of Session when offence is triable exclusively by it
When in a case instituted on a police report or otherwise, the accused appears or is brought before the
Magistrate and it appears to the Magistrate that the offence is triable exclusively by the Court of
Session, he shall-
(a) Commit, after Complying with the provisions of section 207 or section 208, as the case may be,
the case to the Court of Session, and subject to the provisions of this code relating to bail, remand the
accused the custody until Such commitment has been made;
(b) Subject to the provisions of this Code relating to bail, remand the accused to custody during, and
until the conclusion of, the trial;
c) Send to that Court the record of the case and the documents and articles, if any, which are to be
produced in evidence;
(d) Notify the Public Prosecutor of the commitment of the case to the Court of Session.
1
§ 177 Code of Crim. Proc.
2
§ 209 Code of Crim. Proc.
7
3223(d) What persons may be charged jointly, the following persons may be charged and tried
together, namely:-
(d) Persons accused of different offences committed in the course of the same transaction
3
§ 223(d) Code of Crim. Proc.
8
STATEMENT OF FACTS
• The Union of Allogria is a Democratic Republic in South of Ragni, which has a very high rate
of suicide. The state of Maha has the highest suicide rate in the Union of Allogoria, especially
among the youth. Maha is also Allogoria’s entertainment center; they run one of the most
famous reality TV shows. One of the popular show-Baazi-ghar has a wide audience span
across the whole of Allogria.
• The show has 10 contestants and at the end of the week the housemates reveal a nominee for
eviction from the house and later one of them is evicted through nomination. One of the
housemates, Pooja who was addicted speedogram had one million followers. Pooja would lose
her cool very easily and would also shout at other housemates. This quickly earned her the
name of the “most hated person”. She was also active on speedogram and took polls on which
housemate she should evict. The producers would telecast her speedogram usage on TV.
• Ankita, another contestant, was not very fond of Pooja due to Pooja’s arrogant behavior and
would get into fights. After one of their fights, Ankita called Pooja worthy of nothing and due
to her addiction to speedogram Pooja went on speedogram and typed “Haha, I am useless,
should I die?” She got a 100 replies and 75% said that she should die.
• On 08.08.2018, Pooja had not left her room and at 11 AM, Karthik forced open the door and
had found her with her eyes open but her pulse absent with an empty bottle of melatonin and a
red sipper having traces of alcohol. Karthik immediately called the health service who
declared her dead around 2 am.

9
STATEMENT OF CHARGES
ANKITA
Ms. Ankita Singh has been charged under Sections 306 (Abetment of suicide) and 153A
(Creating disharmony between two groups of people) of the Indian Penal Code.
ROHIT SIPPY
Mr. Rohit Sippy has been charged under Section 306 (Abetment of Suicide) of the Indian Penal
Code and Section 84b (Punishment for abetment of offences) of the Information Technology act.
SUMAN SEKAR
Mr. Suman Sekar has been charged under Section 306 (Abetment of Suicide) of the Indian Penal
Code and Section 153A(Creating disharmony between two groups of people) of the Indian Penal
Code

10
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
ISSUE I. WHETHER ANKITA IS LIABLE FOR COMMISSION OF ABETMENT OF
SUICIDE OF POOJA UNDER SECTION 306 AND 153A OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE
The charges levelled by prosecution against Ankita are baseless and without any substance, it is
contended that Ankita is not liable U/s 306 and 153A of IPC on the following grounds-
➢ Firstly, S. 306 of IPC holds an offender criminally liable if the act done by him is done with
the intention or knowledge that his act would have caused victim’s death. It is humbly
contended that Ankita did not intend to cause Pooja’s death neither had the knowledge that his
act would result in injuring that would have caused Pooja’s death. It was the concept of the
show to stage fights and to create controversies in order to gain popularity. Ankita had no
intention whatsoever to kill Pooja and she said everthing in spit of anger.
Further, Pooja was a hypersensitive person and she was on psychological medication of which
Ankita was not aware of. Any word said in a normal course of argument caused her deep
grievances, which was not a fault of Ankita. If she had prior mental health issues, she
should’ve not participated keeping in mind the concept of the show.
➢ Secondly, U/s 153A of IPC, this section holds criminal liability against a person who
Is responsible to create disharmony amongst two group of people on the basis of religion, race, place
of birth, residence ,language, caste or community or any other ground. Actions of Ankita clearly
imply that she did not wanted to hurt the sentiments of any community, it was just a taunt towards
Pooja.
11
Furthermore, she did not have any hatred towards the concerned group of people, she just wanted to
speak her anger out and everthing she said was in rage of anger and was not directed towards any
community of people.
ISSUE II. WHETHER ROHIT SIPPY IS LIABLE FOR COMMISSION OF ABETMENT OF
SUICIDE OF POOJA UNDER SECTION 306 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE AND
SECTION 84B OF THE IT ACT
The charges levelled by prosecution against Rohit are baseless and without any substance, it is
contended that Ankita is not liable U/s 306 of IPC and U/s 84B of IT Act on the following grounds-
➢ Firstly, U/s 306 of IPC, this section holds criminal liability against a person who
‘Abets a Person to commit Suicide’. In order to hold a person criminally liable U/s 306 of
IPC, three essentials are required to be proven. Firstly, the deceased should have committed suicide,
secondly, the accused under this section should have abetted or instigated him/her to commit such an
act and thirdly, such the alleged involvement of the accused should be direct in nature.
The Medical Reports show that the deceased died due to overdose of Melatonin pills mixed with
alcohol implying suicide. Not removing the content from the host’s platform and allowing its users to
promote suicide implies instigation on behalf of the accused. Further, the poll was posted on the
host’s website which was under the supervision of the accused shows direct involvement to the crime
committed.
➢ Secondly, Section 79 of the IT Act states that if the host does not select the receiver; transmit
the information and modify the information then he is not liable for any charge under the IT
Act.

12
➢ Thirdly, the intermediary is liable to remove any content after an order from the court or any
government agency. No such order was received by the intermediary.
➢ Fourthly, there is no relevant section under the IT Act that mentions abetment of suicide which
can be charged by the prosecution which makes the ground for this charge non-existent.
ISSUE III. WHETHER SUMAN SEKAR IS LIABLE FOR COMMISSION OF ABETMENT
OF SUICIDE OF POOJA UNDER SECTIONS 306 AND 153A OF THE INDIAN PENAL
CODE
The charges levelled by prosecution against Suman are baseless and without any substance, it is
contended that Suman is not liable U/s 306 and 153A of IPC on the following grounds-
➢ Firstly, U/s 306 of IPC, this section holds criminal liability against a person who
‘Abets a Person to commit Suicide’. In order to hold a person criminally liable U/s 306 of
IPC, three essentials are required to be proven. Firstly, the deceased should have committed suicide,
secondly, the accused under this section should have abetted or instigated him/her to commit such an
act and thirdly, such the alleged involvement of the accused should be direct in nature.
➢ The facts clearly establish that Suman had no knowledge that Pooja will commit suicides due
to fights and the telecast. The poll posted on Speedogram was posted with funny emojis so it
didn’t become a matter of concern. And the concept of the show was based on controversies to
which Pooja had consented so Suman wasn’t aware that Pooja would take the fights seriously
which would lead to her suicide.
➢ Further, there was no benefit that Suman could receive by killing pooja and it is impossible to
establish any intent on behalf of the accused. Suman was also not involved directly as he was
a mere producer of the show and he just wanted popularity.

13
➢ Secondly, U/s 153A of IPC, this section holds criminal liability against a person who
Is responsible to create disharmony amongst two group of people on the basis of religion, race, place
of birth, residence ,language, caste or community or any other ground. No Action of Suman implies
that he wanted to hurt the sentiments of the different Nationalities to which Pooja’s Parents belong.
Suman had only telecasted the footage and had not said the words himself. Further, the words said by
Ankita were meant to be treated as taunts towards Pooja and it was not possible to anticipate that
these words were capable enough to incite hatred towards any group of people

14
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
ISSUE I: Whether Ankita is liable for the commission of criminal offences under the Indian
Penal Code.
I. A. That Criminal Liability cannot be attributed to Ankita under Section 306 of the IPC
It is humbly submitted that to prove the liability of Ankita u/s 3064 of the IPC, the essential
ingredients of this section need to be established. These essential ingredients are that
1) That any person commits suicide
2) That such suicide was committed by the consequence of an abetment
3) That the abetment was made by the accused
I.A.1 Pooja’s death was caused by suicide.
(¶1.) It is humbly submitted that as per the facts of the case along with the Post Mortem Report and
Forensic Report, Pooja’s death was caused by overdosage of melatonin along with liquor. The
Melatonin was consumed by Pooja of her own accord and hence Pooja’s death is a result of suicide.5
I.A.2 Pooja’s death was not caused by the consequence of an abetment.
(¶2.) Section 306 of the IPC reads as under:
“If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished
with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be
liable to fine."
4
Section 306 of IPC
5
Case Factsheet-Page 4 Paragraph 22, Post Mortem Report-Annexure-, Forensic Report-Annexure-
15
From a bare reading of the provision, it is clear that to constitute an offence under Section 306 IPC,
the prosecution has to establish: (i) that a person committed suicide, and (ii) that such suicide was
abetted by the accused. In other words, an offence under Section 306 would stand only if there is an
"abetment" for the commission of the crime. The parameters of "abetment" have been stated in
Section 107 of the IPC, which defines abetment of a thing as follows6:
"107. Abetment of a thing : A person abets the doing of a thing, who -
First- Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly- Engages with one or more other person or
persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in
pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly- Intentionally aids, by
any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. It is manifest that under all the three situations,
direct involvement of the person or persons concerned in the commission of offence of suicide is
essential to bring home the offence under Section 306 of the IPC.
. As per clause firstly in the said Section, a person can be said to have abetted in doing of a thing, who
"instigates" any person to do that thing. The word "instigate" is not defined in the IPC. The meaning
of the said word was considered by Supreme Court in Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh7
which defined instigation as instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do
"an act". To satisfy the requirement of "instigation", though it is not necessary that actual words must
be used to that effect or what constitutes "instigation" must necessarily and specifically be suggestive
of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being
spelt out. Where the accused had, by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct, created
such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide, in which
case, an "instigation" may have to be inferred. A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without
intending the consequences to actually follow, cannot be said to be instigation.
6
Section 107 of IPC
7
Ramesh kumar vs state of chattisgarh: (2001) 9 SCC 618
16
Thus, to constitute "instigation", a person who instigates another has to provoke, incite, urge or
encourage doing of an act by the other by "goading" or "urging forward". The dictionary meaning of
the word "goad" is "a thing that stimulates someone into action: provoke to action or reaction"8; "to
keep irritating or annoying somebody until he reacts" 9. Similarly, "urge" means to advise or try hard
to persuade somebody to do something or to make a person to move more quickly and or in a
particular direction, especially by pushing or forcing such person. Therefore, a person who instigates
another has to "goad" or "urge forward" the latter with intention to provoke, incite or encourage the
doing of an act by the latter. Ankita’s fights and misunderstandings with Pooja were ordinary and
expected in a reality show.
I.A.3 Pooja was a hypersensitive person.
(¶3.) The supreme Court in State Of West Bengal vs Orilal Jaiswal And Another held that if it
transpires to the court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance
discord and differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and
such petulance discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced
individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the Court should not be satisfied for
basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty.10
(¶4.) Pooja was raised in a wealthy and privileged environment and was snobbish.11 She was suffering
from Insomnia and had been prescribed melatonin doses. 12 Due to her snobbish nature and short
temper she couldn’t get along with the housemates including Ankita and had regular fights. These
fights, which were to be expected given the nature of the show made her very frustrated.13 She earned
the title of ‘most hated’14 She availed the mental healthcare facilities provided by the show, However,
this was kept confidential from the other participants and the audience. Along with this, she was also
8
Concise Oxford English Dictionary
9
Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary - 7th Edition
10
State Of West Bengal vs Orilal Jaiswal And Another AIR 1994 SC 1418, 1994
11
Case Fact sheet-Page 2 Paragraph 9
12
13
14
17
obsessively addicted to Speedogram.15 All of these things lead to the conclusion that her mental state
was fragile and unhealthy.
(¶5.) Thus, Pooja due to her mental state, reacted disproportionately to Ankita’s words and as further
aggravated by her Instagram poll which was supposed to funny but was taken seriously by Pooja.
I.A.4. Ankita’s did not have the mens rea to abet Pooja’s suicide.
(¶6.) In the case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra vs State on 10 August, 2009, The Supreme Court
observed that the presence of mens rea is the necessary concomitant of instigation in abetment to
commit suicide. 16
(¶7.) Though it is true that Ankita wanted to win the competition and wanted to get Pooja eliminated,
it does not mean that she wanted to instigate her to commit suicide. Further, she was also compelled
to use harsh words because of Pooja’s behaviour such as not completing tasks.17
I.A.5 Ankita said the words ‘you might as well die’ some harsh words to Pooja in a fit of anger
And thus cannot be considered as instigation.
(¶8.) In Swamy Prahaladdas v. State of M.P. & Anr , the Supreme Court acquitted the appellant who
was charged for an offence under Section 306 I.P.C. on the ground that the appellant during the
quarrel is said to have remarked the deceased 'to go and die' .This Court was of the view that mere
words uttered by the accused to the deceased 'to go and die' were not even prima facie enough to
instigate the deceased to commit suicide. A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without
intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.18 This has been
reiterated in Mahendra Singh and Anr. v. State of M.P 19
15
16
Chitresh Kumar Chopra vs State(Government of NCT of New Delhi) 2009 16 SCC
17
Case Factsheet- Page 3 Paragraph 17
18
Swamy Prahaladdas v. State of M.P. & Anr. , 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 438
19
Mahendra Singh v. State of M.P., 1995 Supp.(3) SCC 731
18
(¶9.) To understand whether Pooja’s words “Pooja, you aren’t worthy of anything. You are just a
lucky, rich, spoilt girl who does not help with the tasks and doesn’t even deserve good people and
might as well die.you might as well die” were used intentionally or in a fit of anger, the context has to
be referenced. On 6.8.18, Pooja woke up late and missed the time to clean the house which meant that
all the responsibility fell on Ankita, Prithvi and Karthik and thus having been frustrated, Ankita said
the above words.20
Hence, the charges levelled by the prosecution against Ankita do not hold and it is contended that
Ankita is not liable U/s 306 of IPC.
I. B That Criminal Liability cannot be attributed to Ankita under Section 153-A of the IPC
I. B.1 Ankita’s words do not refer to any two communities either explicitly or implicitly
(¶10.) In order to attract the provisions of Section 153-A, it is necessary that at least two groups or
communites should be involved.21 Ankita’s words did not refer to any two communities either
explicitly or implicitly and were merely comments about Pooja’s habits and behaviour on the show.
I.B.2. Ankita’s words were not intended to cause any enmity or ill-will.
(¶11.) The intention to cause disorder or incite people to violence is the sine qua non of the offence
under Section 153 A IPC.22 The below stated words do not suggest any intention of Ankita in
promoting enmity between two communities and clearly seem to be words which were said in the
20
Case Factsheet- Page 3 Paragraph 17
21 Bilal Ahmed Kaloo Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh [1997] INSC 646 (6 August 1997)
22
Balwant Singh And Anr vs State Of Punjab 1995 (1) SCR 411
19
course of the reality show in which the both Ankita and Pooja as participants were under a lot of
stress.23
“Pooja is a menace in this world and people like her don’t last long.”24
“I have had enough of Pooja’s blackmail and would soon get rid of her”25
“I will get rid of Pooja one way or other”.5
“I want to get rid of Pooja”.26
“Pooja, you aren’t worthy of anything. You are just a lucky, rich, spoilt girl who does not help with
the tasks and doesn’t even deserve good people and might as well die.”6
“Pooja is a mad girl, Karthik, you should focus on the finale instead of wasting your time on
pampering hybrid Pooja.” 27
I.B.3. Ankita’s words could not cause any enmity between any communities
(¶12.) The effect of Ankita’s words must be judged from the standards of reasonable, strong- minded,
firm and courageous men, and not those of weak and vacillating minds, nor of those who scent danger
in every hostile point of view.28 The words uttered by Ankita stated in above paragraph would hardly
incite any hatred or enmity in the mind of a reasonable, strong minded person as it does not speak
hatefully against any particular community.
(¶13.) In several cases concerning S. 153-A Courts held that in estimating the effect of a speech the
Court should look at any speech as a whole and not pay undue regard to any particular sentence or
phrase.29 The words should not be examined in isolation but should be seen with the context in which
23
Case-Fact Sheet- Page 2-Paragraph 7
24
25
26
27
28
Bhagwati Charan Shukla v. Provincial Government, A.I.R. 1947 Nagpur, Ramesh.S/O Chotalal Dalal vs Union Of India
& Ors 1988 AIR 775
29
Vishambhar Dayal Tripathi vs. Emperor : AIR 1941 Oudh 33, Sikkim Social Empowerment Association vs. Shri Anjan
Upadhyaya and Another S.B. Crl.A. No.13 of 2013

20
they were uttered. Ankita and Pooja were competitors in a very stressful reality show and Ankita said
the above mentioned things out of frustration and anger at Pooja’s behaviour such as not completing
tasks assigned to her.30
ISSUE II. Whether Rohit Sippy is liable for commission of criminal offences under the Indian
Penal Code and Information Technology Act
II.A That criminal liability cannot be attributed against Rohit under s. 306 of IPC
II.A.1 Rohit did not have the intention or knowledge to abet Pooja to commit suicide.
(¶14.)The necessary ingredient of Section 306 of IPC that is intention31 is absent. It is humbly
contended that the act of Rohit was not under prior intention or knowledge of harming Pooja. He was
a mere host of the website and the poll was posted by the deceased herself. A reasonable time is
required to remove such content as Speedogram is a popular website with billions of users and it is
difficult to keep track of everyone’s activity. The suicide was committed shortly after the poll which
didn’t gave the accused a reasonable response time. Moreover, the poll was posted with funny emojis
so it became more difficult by his systems to identify the same.
II.A.2 Rohit was not involved directly in the poll
(¶15.) It is humbly contended the poll was posted by the deceased on her own will. He did not intend
to cause injury to Pooja voluntarily. The pre-requisite of S.306 of I.P.C. is direct involvement in the
30
31
21
abetment32, there being no ambiguity regarding the same as Rohit’s website only acted as a host.
Moreover, according to the facts, after receiving response on the poll, she did not commit suicide on
the same day. The poll was posted on 6th of August whereas she committed suicide on 8th of August.
This further establishes that the suicide is not a direct consequence.
II.B That criminal liability cannot be attributed against Rohit under s. 84b of the IT Act
II.B.1 Exception of Intermediary in certain cases
(¶16.) According to Section 79 of the IT Act, Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the
time being in force but subject to the provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3), an intermediary shall not
be liable for any third party information, data, or communication link made available or hosted by
him. (2) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall apply if– (a) the function of the intermediary is
limited to providing access to a communication system over which information made available by
third parties is transmitted or temporarily stored or hosted; or (b) the intermediary does not– (i)
initiate the transmission, (ii) select the receiver of the transmission, and (iii) select or modify the
information contained in the transmission; (c) the intermediary observes due diligence while
discharging his duties under this Act and also observes such other guidelines as the Central
Government may prescribe in this behalf.
And according to the facts, Rohit Sippy did not initiate the transmission, nor he selected the receiver
and neither did he selected or modified the information. This exception releases him of all the liability
under the IT act.
II.B.2 Absence of Any order by Court or Government Agency
(¶17.) It is humbly submitted that an intermediary is liable to remove any immoral or obscene content
after receiving an order from the court or any government agency as held in the case of Shreya
32
Gurcharan Singh v/s State of Punjab, Supreme Court of India Criminal Appeal No. 1135 of 2016

22
Singhal v. The Union of India33, the order from which is stated as “Section 79 is valid subject to
Section 79(3)(4) being read down to mean that an intermediary upon receiving actual knowledge from
a court order or on being notified by the appropriate government or its agency that unlawful acts
relatable to Article 19(2) are going to be committed then fails to expeditiously remove or disable
access to such material. Similarly, the Information Technology "Intermediary Guidelines" Rules,
2011 are valid subject to Rule 3 sub-rule (4) being read down in the same manner as indicated in the
judgment.”
II.B.3 No relevant Section in the IT Act
(¶18.) It is humbly contented that the according to the charges put forth by the prosecution for Mr.
Sippy, he is charged for abetment of offences under Section 84(B) under the IT act but after a careful
examination of the same reproduced below, it is seen that Section 84(B) talks only about offences
under the Information Technology Act, i.e. offences listed in Chapter XI sections 65 to 75; none of
which are applied against Rohit Sippy. As there is no relevant section in the Information Technology
act which makes abetment of suicide as an offence under the IT Act, this charge becomes non-
existent.
‘84B. Punishment for abetment of offences34.–Whoever abets any offence shall, if the act abetted is
committed in consequence of the abetment, and no express provision is made by this Act for the
punishment of such abetment, be punished with the punishment provided for the offence under this
Act. Explanation.–An act or offence is said to be committed in consequence of abetment, when it is
committed in consequence of the instigation, or in pursuance of the conspiracy, or with the aid which
constitutes the abetment.’
33
Shreya Singhal v. The Union of India, (2013) 12 S.C.C. 73
34
The Information Technology Act.
23
ISSUE III: Whether Suman Shekar is liable for the commission of criminal offences under the
Indian Penal Code.
III.A That criminal liability cannot be attributed against Suman under S. 306 of IPC
III.A.1 Suman did not have the intention or knowledge to abet Pooja to commit suicide.
(¶19.) It is humbly contended that the act of Suman was not under prior intention or knowledge of
harming Pooja. He was just a producer of the show and he was not in direct contact with the deceased.
The fights took place without involving the producer, moreover, the deceased had prior knowledge
regarding the nature of the show to which she had consented. The producer had made required
arrangements like treatment of psychiatrist and weekly parties to take the tension off the shoulders of
the participants.
III.A.2 Suman was not involved directly in any situation
(¶20.) It is humbly contended the poll was posted by the deceased on her own will.
He did not intend to cause injury to Pooja voluntarily. The pre-requisite of S.306 of I.P.C. is direct
involvement in the abetment, there being no ambiguity regarding the same as Suman was just a
producer of the show. Moreover, according to the facts, Pooja knew the nature of the show and she
participated voluntarily. This further establishes that the suicide is not a direct consequence.
III.A.3 Suman was not aware of the mental state of Pooja
(¶21.) It is humbly stated that Pooja had mental health issues before joining the show, which were not
known to Suman Sekar. Furthermore, the issues that the participants shared with the in-house
24
psychiatrist, were kept confidential and even the producer was kept out of the loop. Therefore, Suman
could not have anticipated such suicide by Pooja as fights and arguments were counted as normal in a
full day course keeping in mind the nature of the show.
III.A.4 Popularity based Show
(¶22.) It is humbly contented that the show was based on popularity. As the eviction was in the hands
of the public, every contestant wanted to gain popularity and sympathy. So, it was assumed that the
fights and the depression depicted by Pooja was in a healthy spirit to gain sympathy in order to win
the show. It was very hard to anticipate the suicide as social media influencers and film stars do these
kind of controversies in order to become popular which in turn helps to build their career.
III. B That Criminal Liability cannot be attributed to Suman Shekar under Section 153-A of
the IPC.
III. B.1 Shekar himself did not make any comments on the show regarding any community.
(¶23.) Suman Shekar did not make any comments regarding any communities on the show.
III. B.2. The words which were telecasted by Shekar’s show do not refer to any two communities
either explicitly or implicitly.
(¶24.) In order to attract the provisions of Section 153-A, it is necessary that at least two groups or
communities should be involved.35 The words telecasted on Shekar’s show did not refer to any two
communities either explicitly or implicitly and were merely comments about Pooja’s habits and
behaviour on the show.
III.B.3. The words telecasted by Shekar’s show were not intended to cause any enmity or ill-will.
35 Bilal Ahmed Kaloo Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh [1997] INSC 646 (6 August 1997)
25
(¶25.). The intention to cause disorder or incite people to violence is the sine qua non of the offence
under Section 153 A IPC.36 The below stated words do not suggest any intention of Ankita or Shekar
in promoting enmity between two communities and clearly seem to be words which were said in the
course of the reality show in which the both Ankita and Pooja as participants were under a lot of
stress.37
“Pooja is a menace in this world and people like her don’t last long.”38
“I have had enough of Pooja’s blackmail and would soon get rid of her”39
“I will get rid of Pooja one way or other”.5
“I want to get rid of Pooja”.40
“Pooja, you aren’t worthy of anything. You are just a lucky, rich, spoilt girl who does not help with
the tasks and doesn’t even deserve good people and might as well die.”6
“Pooja is a mad girl, Karthik, you should focus on the finale instead of wasting your time on
pampering hybrid Pooja.” 41
III.B.4. The words telecasted by Shekar’s show could not cause any enmity between any communities
(¶26.) The effect of the words telecasted by Shekar words must be judged from the standards of
reasonable, strong- minded, firm and courageous men, and not those of weak and vacillating minds,
nor of those who scent danger in every hostile point of view.42 The words uttered by Ankita stated in
above paragraph would hardly incite any hatred or enmity in the mind of a reasonable, strong minded
person as it does not speak hatefully against any particular community.
(¶27.) In several cases concerning S. 153-A Courts held that in estimating the effect of a speech the
Court should look at any speech as a whole and not pay undue regard to any particular sentence or
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
Bhagwati Charan Shukla v. Provincial Government, A.I.R. 1947 Nagpur, Ramesh.S/O Chotalal Dalal vs Union Of India
& Ors 1988 AIR 775
26
phrase.43 The words should not be examined in isolation but should be seen with the context in which
they were uttered. Ankita and Pooja were competitors in a very stressful reality show and Ankita said
the above mentioned things out of frustration and anger at Pooja’s behaviour and they were not
capable causing hatred between communities.
43
Vishambhar Dayal Tripathi vs. Emperor : AIR 1941 Oudh 33, Sikkim Social Empowerment Association vs. Shri Anjan
Upadhyaya and Another S.B. Crl.A. No.13 of 2013

27
PRAYER
Wherefore, in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, may this
Hon’ble Court be pleased to:-
Acquit Ankita, Suman Sekar and Rohit Sippy of all charges.
AND/OR
Pass any other order it may deem fit, in the interest of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience.
All of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted.
Place: Andha Sd/-
Date: October, 2018 COUNSEL FOR DEFENCE

28
ANNEXURES
FIRST INFORMATION REPORT
(U/s 154(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973)
Serial No. : X Book No. : Y
1. District: Andha P.S.Andha Year 2018 FIR No. 321/2018

Date: 09/08/18
2. (i) Act -Indian Penal Code Section- 306, 153A

(ii) Act- Information Technology Act Section- 84(b), 84(c)
3. Case filed against:

i Ankita
ii Rohit Sippy
iii Suman Shekar
4. (a) Occurrence of Offence: Day- ; Date from 08/08/18; Date to
08/08/18; Time: 02:00a.m.
5. Information recorded by: Sub-Inspector Virat Singh

6. Type of Information : Oral Complaint
7. Place of Occurrence :
(a) Direction and Distance from PS: About 2.5 km east from Police Station.. Beat No.
14A
(b) Address :Indira Nagar Metro Station, Indra Nagar, Punnai.
(c) In case outside the limit of Police Station, then
Name of PS - District -
8. Complainant/Informant
(a) Name: Mr. Vignesh S.
(b) Father’s/Husband’s Name: N.A.
(c) Date/Year of Birth -16/10/1982 (d) Nationality- Allogria/Andha
(e) Passport No. IB5032928 Date of Issue: 11.08.2007 Place of Issue: NA
(f) Occupation: Studio Incharge
(g) Address: N.A.
(h) Tel No.: No.
29
9. Basis on which FIR is lodged: Oral Complaint by Mr. Vignesh

10. Details of known/suspected/unknown accused with full particulars(Attach separate
sheet if necessary)-
S.No. Name Description

1 Ms. Ankita Female, Aged 23, D/o Mr. Bajaj Basu
2 Mr. Rohit Male, Aged 36, S/o Vikram Sippy
Sippy
3 Mr. Suman Male, Aged 44, S/o Karan Shekhar Singhaniya
Shekhar
11. Reasons for delay in reporting by the complainant/informant- NA

12. Partculars of Injuries sustained: Internal Body Damage
13. Particulars of Post Mortem Report: Over Dosage on Melatonin along with
alcohol.
14. Post Mortem Report done by: Dr. Khan
15. Inquest Report/ U. D. case No., if any
16. Brief Facts of the case:
FIR Contents (Attach separate sheet, if necessary):-
The crime had taken place in the State of Maha. The deceased was a participant of the reality
show “Bazzi-Ghar” that had 10 participants in a closed house (under camera surveillance-
24*7) and is devoid of any communication to the outside world. Ms. Ankita (accused) was
found to have great hatred against Pooja; this was caught on camera through the constant
fights between them. Ankita, was upset that all her friends were getting eliminated from the
show because of the online polls that was being posted by Pooja on Speedogram. This led to
Ankita telling Pooja to die as she is useless. The deceased was so affected and posted a poll on
speedogram on whether she should die or not? 70% had voted her to die. Later on 08.08.2018,
Pooja was found dead in her room.
17. Action taken: Since the above report reveals commission of offence(s) U/s as
mentioned at Item No. 2): Vivek Dhayani, Rank: S.I. has taken up the Investigation.

30
18. FIR read over to the complainant/informant, admitted to be correctly

recorded and a copy given to the complainant/informant, free of cost.
Sd/- Sd/-
Signature/ Thumb impression of Signature of Officer
Complainant/Informant Name: Virat Singh
Name: Vignesh. S Rank: SI
-

31
PANCHNAMA/MAHAZAR
On August 8, 2018 at 4.00 am the investigating officer visited the crime scene in Maha, ‘Baazi-
Ghar’ house. After observing the place and taking statements, he prepared a sketch. The
following items were taken into possession in front of witnesses:
1. The Melatonin bottle
2. Red Sipper of the deceased (founded with traces of liquor)
3. Mobile Phone of the deceased
4. Poll readings conducted by the deceased
Mr. Anuj Mahajan and Mr. Aditya Sawhney, present on the scene and consented as
eyewitnesses and have attested the Panchnama.
Sd/-
Virat Singh
Investigating Officer
Witnesses:
Sd/- Sd/-
Mr. Anuj Mahajan Mr. Aditya Sawhney
R/o R/o

32
POST MORTEM REPORT
SIPPY MEMORIAL CITY HOSPITAL
PM No. 1 Date: 09.08.2018

1. Name of Deceased: Pooja S
2. Sex: Female
3. Age: 22
4. Height: 6 feet 1 inches, 182 cms
5. Weight: 65 kgs
6. Habits: Alcohol consumer
7. Home Address: # 14 Galaxy Apartments, PR Road, Maha 9
8. Date and time of death: Previous day before the Examination
9. Identification Marks: Mole on left lip
10. By: SI Virat Singh
11. Requisition Received On: August 8, 2018 at 9:00 PM
12. Clothes: White shirt and blue jeans
13. Pathological Diagnosis
Adult female suffered over dosage due to consumption of melatonin pills along
with liquor.
The following viscera were preserved and sealed for chemical analysis:
a. Skull and the brain;
b. Stomach and its contents;
c. Upper part of the small intestine (about 30 cm in length and its contents)
d. Liver not less than half kilogram;
e. One kidney or half of each;
f. 100ml blood; and
g. Heart.
14. External Examination: The body is that of an adult female measuring 182 cm and
weighing 65 kilograms. The body is athletic and consistent with the age of 26 years. The
scalp is round. The nose is long. The mouth and lips are red. The tongue is white and
long. Total no. of teeth present is 31 and is white. The ears are bilateral prominent.
Clothed with a white shirt and blue jeans and sneakers. Full rigor mortis. The scalp hair
is black/brown and long. The corneas are cloudy. The irises are grey. The mouth
contains natural teeth. The ears, nose and mouth show no abnormalities. The neck is of
normal configuration and there are no palpable masses. The extremities are symmetrical
and normally developed. Identifying marks include a birthmark on the left upper lip .

33
15. Evidence of Injury: At the time of the post mortem the stomach contents had high dosage
of melatonin with Alcohol present.
16. Internal Examination: The organs occupy normal positions, and all the internal organs
are in a state of autolysis. There are no adhesions or mass lesions.
Head and Neck: Brain weighs 1350 grams. Hemorrhaged
Cardiovascular System: The heart weighs 450 grams and is normal.
Respiratory System: The Right lung weighs 410 grams and left weighs 390 grams.
Digestive System and Liver: The stomach contains fresh food particles, which includes
The liver weighs 1600 grams. The gallbladder contains 9cc of bile. The pancreas is
otherwise unremarkable.
Genitourinary System; The right and left kidney weighs 150 and 170 grams respectively.
The calyces, pelvis and ureters are patent and unremarkable. The urinary bladder
contains approximately 786 cc of urine.
• The intestines are unremarkable and carry partially digested mater.
• The spinal cord is intact.
• There are no signs of decomposition.
• The viscera have been preserved.
Postmortem Concluded at: April 9, 2018 at 06.00 hours
Opinion: Death due to over dosage of melatonin along with liquor. Body organs removed were
sent for detailed examination.
Sd/-
Dr. Khan
Medical Officer.

34
FORENSIC REPORT
Examinations Requested:
1. Skull and the brain

2. Stomach and its contents; Upper part of the small intestine (about 30 cm in length and its
contents);
3. Liver not less than half kilogram;
4. One kidney or half of each;
5. 100ml blood; and
6. Heart.
Examination of the Skull and Brain:

There are no distinct fresh injury marks on the skull
Examination of the Blood: High level of liquor has been detected along with high level of
toxins-Melatonin Pills.
Potassium level 6 mmol/l (millimoles per litre).
Conclusion:
Death due to consumption of melatonin pills and liquor.
Dr. Khan
Medical Officer (Pathologist)

35
STATEMENT OF WITNESSES UNDER SECTION 161 OF Cr.PC
DISTRICT: Andha POLICE STATION : Divison 3
FIR No: 321/2018
DATE : 09/08/2018
NAME : Ankita Singh
OCCUPATION : Artist
Statement as recorded:
My name is Ankita Singh and I am 23 years old. I am a contestant in Bazi-Ghar. Pooja was a
very arrogant and over pampered rich spoilt girl. She used to show-off her richness. But inside
the show it does not matter where you come from. Each and every participant has to help with
the household chores together. I was the house captain so I had assigned her the responsibility to
clean the washrooms but she intentionally woke up late that day and we had to clean it as we are
bound by timeframe and I had to ensure that the work was completed. She was very arrogant and
self-centered. Because of her tantrums nobody was her friend in the house. I wonder how she
came this far in the show despite her bad behavior.
Virat Singh
Sd/-
(Investigating Officer)
Rank: S.I.

36
FIR No: 321/2018
DATE : 09/08/2018
NAME : Prithvi
OCCUPATION : Model
My name is Prithvi and I am a model by profession I met Pooja at the sets of Bazi-Ghar for the
first time. Initially Pooja was nice. She talked to everybody but because of her short temper
everybody avoided her. I believe she preferred having friends of her standards. Her relations with
Ankita was especially not good. They often used to get into fights.
Virat Singh
Sd/-
Rank: S.I.

37
FIR No: 321/2018
DATE : 09/08/2018
NAME : Suman Sekar
OCCUPATION : Producer
My name is Suman Shekhar and I am producer of the show Bazi-ghar. I provide a platform to the
contestants so that they can boldly reveal their thoughts. They voluntarily give their consent for
such a format where even their personal life could be exposed.
Virat Singh
Sd/-
Rank: S.I.

38
FIR No: 321/2018
DATE : 09/08/2018
NAME : Raju Shukla
OCCUPATION : Technical Assistant
I am Raju Shukla. I handle the camera and mikes. If any fault or issue arises, I immediately send
a guy for repairing. I am also responsible for monitoring the activities of the participants. I saw
Pooja taking medicines along with sipper bottle inside the restroom area.
Virat Singh
Sd/-
Rank: S.I.

39
REPORT OF INVESTIGATION OFFICER U/S 173 OF THE CRPC
In the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Maha

1. District: Andha, PS:Division 3, Year: 2018, FIR No. 321/2018 Date: 09.08.2018
2. Charge sheet No. 17/2018
3. Date: 11.08.2018
4. Acts/ Section(s) :Section 153A and Section 306 of IPC; Section 84B and Section 84 C of the
IT Act, 2000
a. Ankita S
b. Suman Shekar
c. Rohit Sippy
d. 10 people (who were identified) who had answered the poll.
5. Type of Charge sheet: Charge sheet against: (i) Ankita S (ii) Suman Shekar and (iii) Rohit
Sippy
6. Offence as mentioned did occur as per the contents of the FIR.
7. Original Charge sheet, supplementary to follow against the rest of the accused.
8. I.O.: Virat Singh : SI
9. Complainant: Mr. Vignesh. S
10. Date of properties/Articles/Documents Recovered/seized during investigation and relied

upon: Recovered vide Panchnama dated 08.08.2018.
11. Particulars of accused persons charge sheeted:

S.No Name of the Accused Status of the Accused
1. Ankita S In Custody
2. Suman Shekar In Custody
3. Rohit Sippy In Custody
12. FIR is not false.

13. Result of the forensic report attached.
40
14. Brief facts of the case:
1. In the Union of Allogria is a Democratic Republic in South of Ragni, the people in the state
continues having a discussion of the mental health issue a taboo. The youth population had the
highest rate of suicide in the country. The statistics also shows youngsters were addicted to
smartphones and social media platforms like speedogram. The state of Maha has the highest
suicide rate in the Union of Allogoria, especially among the youth. Maha is also Allogoria’s
entertainment center; they run one of the most famous reality TV shows. One of the popular
show-Baazi-ghar has a wide audience span across the whole of Allogoria.
2. The reality TV show has 10 contestants living together for 10 weeks isolated from the outside
world. At the end of the week that is on Friday the housemates reveal the nominee for eviction
from the house. Then, the 2 housemates with the most number of votes were announced and the
viewers got to pick and evict through SMS one of the nominees.
3. One of the housemates was Pooja who was a wealthy heiress and was addicted to social media
especially speedogram with one million followers. She would frequently post videos of her
parties, beauty tips and photos of herself on vacation. Pooja had survived the first three weeks
and only 7 housemates including her were left. Pooja would lose her cool very easily and would
also shout at the other housemates. This quickly earned her the name of the “most hated person”.
She was also active on speedogram and take polls on which housemate she should evict. The
producers would telecast her speedogram usage on TV.
4. Ankita, another contestant at the house was the arch rival of Pooja and would constantly get
into fights. Pooja would always lose her temper. Pooja had posted a poll that she would be
nominating Ankita for eviction this coming Friday and this was telecasted on TV. Due to this,
Ankita was having an outburst and Pooja heard her telling “Haha, she is useless and she should
die.” As usual, Pooja went on speedo poll and typed “Haha, I am useless, should I die?” She got
a 100 replies and 70% said that she should die.
5. On 08.08.2018, Pooja had not left her room and at 11 AM, Karthik had found her with her
eyes open but her pulse absent with an empty bottle of melatonin and her red sipper having
traces of alcohol. Karthik immediately called the health service who declared her dead around 2
AM.
7. The police registered a case under Section 153A and Section 306 of IPC and section 84B and
84C of the IT Act. The police booked Ankita, Suman Shekar as the 1st defendant and Rohit
Sippy as the 2nd defendant and 10 people (who they were able to identify) who had answered
Pooja’s poll. The police filed a charge sheet in the Session Court and the magistrate committed
the case for trial.
Sd/- Sd/-
House Officer Investigating Officer

41
LIST OF EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT (A)
➢ ANKITA’S RED SIPPER BOTTLE
EXHIBIT (B)
➢ THE MELATONIN PILL BOTTLE

42
EXHIBIT (C)
➢ POOJA’S MOBILE PHONE

43
EXHIBIT (D)
➢ THE SPEEDO GRAM POLL AND RESULT

44
EXHIBIT (E)
➢ THE EMOJIS USED ON THE POLL

45

Defence Final Version Memorial PDF

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Defence Final Version Memorial PDF

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

TEAM CODE:

SURANA AND SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT

IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS

C.C. NO OF 110 of 2018

STATE OF MAHA (PROSECUTION)

Ms. ANKITA AND ORS (DEFENSE)

FOR THE OFFENCES CHARGED UNDER INDIAN PENAL CODE

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENSE

Acts And Legislation: ................................................................................................................

Books Referred ..........................................................................................................................

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ..................................................................................................... 5

STATEMENT OF JURISDTICTION ....................................................................................... 6

STATEMENT OF FACTS ....................................................................................................... 8

STATEMENT OF CHARGES ................................................................................................. 9

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ................................................................................................10

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED… ................................................................................................ 14

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

1. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

2. Indian Penal Code, 1860

3. Indian Evidence Act, 1872

4. Information Technology Act, 2000

• Bhagwati Charan Shukla v. Provincial Government, A.I.R. 1947 Nagpur, Ramesh.S/O

Chotalal Dalal vs Union Of India & Ors 1988 AIR 775

• Ramesh kumar vs state of chattisgarh: (2001) 9 SCC 618

• Chitresh Kumar Chopra vs State(Government of NCT of New Delhi) 2009 16 SCC

• Mahendra Singh v. State of M.P., 1995 Supp.(3) SCC 731

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

1. Black’s Law Dictionary 2nd Edition

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

A.I.R All India Reporter

S.C Supreme Court

S.C.C Supreme Court Cases

Cr.P.C Criminal Procedural Code

I.T Information Technology

S.C.R Supreme Court Records

I.P.C Indian Penal Code

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

read with S. 223(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

1177. Ordinary place of inquiry and trial.

2209 Commitment of case to Court of Session when offence is triable exclusively by it

accused the custody until Such commitment has been made;

until the conclusion of, the trial;

across the whole of Allogria.

declared her dead around 2 am.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

ISSUE I. WHETHER ANKITA IS LIABLE FOR COMMISSION OF ABETMENT OF

should’ve not participated keeping in mind the concept of the show.

ISSUE II. WHETHER ROHIT SIPPY IS LIABLE FOR COMMISSION OF ABETMENT OF

SECTION 84B OF THE IT ACT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

government agency. No such order was received by the intermediary.

ISSUE III. WHETHER SUMAN SEKAR IS LIABLE FOR COMMISSION OF ABETMENT

which would lead to her suicide.

a mere producer of the show and he just wanted popularity.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

1) That any person commits suicide

2) That such suicide was committed by the consequence of an abetment

3) That the abetment was made by the accused

I.A.1 Pooja’s death was caused by suicide.

I.A.2 Pooja’s death was not caused by the consequence of an abetment.

(¶2.) Section 306 of the IPC reads as under: