Moot Problem 5

MOOT PROBLEM 5
This case involves a human tragedy of Shakespearean proportions: a young man overcomes huge physical disabilities
to reach Olympian heights as an athlete; in doing so he becomes an international celebrity; he meets a young
woman of great natural beauty and a successful model; romance blossoms; and then, ironically on Valentine’s Day,
all is destroyed when he takes her life. In the early hours of 14 February 2013 the respondent, Mr. Jerome (at times
the accused hereafter), shot and killed the 29 year old Miss Maria (at times the deceased hereafter) at his home in a
secured complex known as Silver Woods Estate in Mumbai, Maharashtra.
The accused was born with deformed legs, consequently before his first birthday, both of his legs were surgically
amputated below the knee and, since then, he has had to rely on prosthetics. Despite such a severe physical
handicap, he made his way bravely into the world and, had a spectacular athletic career. He competed by using
prosthetic legs at the international level in both disabled and able-bodied athletic events. He won numerous
international medals, including gold medals at the Paralympics. The accused represented India in both the Olympic
and the Paralympic Games of 2012. His athletic achievements not only brought him international fame but also into
contact with charities, and he was awarded an honorary doctorate for his humanitarian work in the world of
prosthetic. The accused met the deceased, who was a successful model on 4th November, 2012. Romance quickly
blossomed and they became intimate. As so often happens with romantic relationships, they had petty conflict and
tensions as evidenced by a transcript of text messages that had passed between them. But despite these hiccups,
the deceased at times slept over at the accused’s home. She did so on the night of 13 February 2013. In the early
hours of the following morning, screams, gunshots, loud noises and cries for help were heard, emanating from the
accused’s house. Within minutes, a Mr. Raj and a Dr. Dilip, the latter a medical practitioner, arrived at the accused’s
home. There they found the accused in a highly emotional state, kneeling alongside the deceased who was lying on
the floor at the foot of the stairs leading to the sleeping quarters of the house. She had been carried there by the
accused from an upstairs bathroom where the shooting had taken place. She had been shot several times and was
mortally wounded. The severity of her injuries was such that she was not breathing and Dr Dilip was unable to find a
pulse. In due course FIR was registered against the accused under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for murder.
The State’s prosecutor attempted to persuade the trial court that the accused had threatened the deceased during
the course of an argument, that she had locked herself into the toilet cubicle in the bathroom to escape from him,
and that he had thereupon fired the four fatal shots with a 9mm pistol through the door of a toilet cubicle in the
bathroom adjacent to his bedroom and killed her. The accused, on the other hand, alleged that he had awoken from
his sleep in the early hours of the morning. It was very warm and so he sat up, although it was dark in the room, he
was aware that the deceased was awake in the bed next to him as she rolled over and spoke to him. He got out of
bed, brought the two fans from the balcony into the room, closed and locked the sliding doors, and drew the
curtains. It was very dark in the room, the only light being from a small LED on an amplifier at the TV cabinet. He
then heard the sound of a window opening in the bathroom. The bathroom is situated not directly adjacent to the
bedroom but down a short passage lined with cupboards. He immediately thought that there was an intruder who
had entered the house through the bathroom window, possibly by climbing up a ladder. He quickly moved back to
his bed and grabbed his 9mm pistol from where he kept it under the bed. As he did so, he whispered to Maria to ‘get
down and phone the police’ before proceeding to the passage leading to the bathroom. He was not wearing his
prosthetic legs at that stage and, overcome with fear, he started screaming and shouting both for the intruder to get
out of his house and for Maria to get down on the floor and to phone the police. When he reached the entrance to
the bathroom, he stopped shouting as he was worried that the intruder would know exactly where he was. As he
neared the bathroom he heard the toilet door slam. Peering around the wall at the end of the passage, he saw that
there was no one in the bathroom itself but that the toilet door was closed. He alleged that at that point he started
screaming again, telling Maria, who he presumed was in the bedroom, to phone the police. He then heard a noise
coming from inside the toilet and promptly fired four shots at the door. After that he retreated to the bedroom
where he found that Maria was no longer there. It then dawned on him that it could be her in the toilet. In panic he
went back to the bathroom and tried to open the door, but found it to be locked. He then started screaming for help
and put on his prosthetic legs. He unsuccessfully tried to kick open the door but on seeing the key lying on the toilet
floor, he unlocked the door and found Maria slumped with her weight on the toilet bowl. She was not breathing. He
held her and pulled her out of the bathroom before telephoning the other two resident of the estate, Mr Raj and Dr
Dilip, followed by the calls made to the paramedic organizations for ambulance and the estate’s security by the
accused.
The accused pleaded in the trial that he cannot be held guilty of murdering Maria because he had no subjective
intention to cause her death as he had not known Maria was in the toilet. On the contrary the accused believed that,
at the time he fired shots into the toilet door, the deceased was in the bedroom while the intruders were in the
toilet. This belief was communicated to a number of people shortly after the incident. The counsel for the accused
emphasized the accused’s physical disabilities, the fact that he had not been wearing his prostheses at the time and
that he had thus been particularly vulnerable to any aggression directed at him by an intruder. His counsel argued
that it had to be inferred that he must have viewed whoever was in the toilet as a danger hence there was a genuine
belief of an imminent attack upon him.
The Court of Session convicted him for culpable homicide not amounting to murder holding that there was no
intention to kill the person behind the door. He had shot the deceased believing that she was an intruder. The
accused’s had erroneous belief that his life was in danger therefore cannot be found guilty of murder. Aggrieved by
the decision of the trial court the State has made an appeal to the High court.
Memorial is required to be filed only for one party.

Moot Problem 5

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Moot Problem 5

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Moot Problem 5

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MOOT PROBLEM 5

Memorial is required to be filed only for one party.

You might also like