LL.B.
V Term, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi
LB-501: Moot Court, Mock Trial and Internship
CASE PLANNING CHART (10 Marks)
Name of the Centre:
Section:
Student’s Name:
Class Roll No:
Exam Roll No:
Fill the form as the lawyer in the case you shared in the Client Interview Exam
Goals, Objectives, or Concerns (immediate / long term):
The goal of my client is to prove that Mrs. Monika (complainant) attacked Mr. Mukesh (client/accused),
and she started pulling his hair and scratching his face and instinctively in manner to defend himself and
his daughter from a fall he struck Mrs. Monika with his left hand without deliberation and his acts comes
within the ambit of sections 96 and 97 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Therefore, Mr. Mukesh deserves
acquittal.
Brief Facts:
● My client (Mr. Mukesh) 10 years ago married Mrs. Monika (complainant) and a son and a
daughter were born to this marriage, Sanjay and Sonia, aged 8 and 5 years respectively.
● After 10 years of marriage, my client and the complainant divorced, and he moved into 678 Hauz
Khas with his girlfriend Mrs. Roshni. It upsetted Mrs. Monika, and she was jealous of Mrs.
Roshni because of it.
● On the occasion of Christmas day, the children were with Mrs. Monika (complainant) and she
promised that she would allow children to be with my client on New Year’s eve for overnight
stay. Later Mrs. Monika telephonically told Mr. Mukesh that he could have them from 2 pm on
31st December.
● My client with Mrs. Roshni brought the children to Mrs. Monika at 10 a.m. on 1st January. Mrs.
Monika stormed out of the house and started shouting “the children were late”, despite the fact
that the children were safe and had a good time with their father.
● As my client (Mr. Mukesh) pulled Sonia (his daughter) into his arms from the back seat. Sonia
began crying and Mrs. Monika was pulling my client’s jacket to put Sonia down. Sonia said to
my client “Daddy, please tell mummy to be nice to us and let us live at your house”.
● The complainant clearly heard this, and the effect was immediate and shocking. The complainant
flew at my client while Sonia was still in his arms.
● In response to Mrs. Monika (complainant) pulling my client’s hair, he was losing his balance and
feared he would fall and in an effort to calm her, he instinctively struck Mrs. Monika with his left
hand. Unfortunately, my client’s car keys were in his left hand at that moment.
● In this case, my client didn’t even realize he had car keys in his hand; it was not an aimed punch
but more of flailing. His act was not deliberated and was only instinctive of self defence.
Possible Case Theories:
1. Mrs. Monika is an irascible woman. She was once convicted for her violence. Monika was also
envied by Mrs. Roshni as she believed that Roshni was the reason for her divorce. When Mr.
Mukesh and Mrs. Roshni reached late to drop kids at Mrs. Monika’s house, Sonia (daughter of
Mr. Mukesh and Mrs. Monika) said, “Daddy, please tell mummy to be nice to us and let us live at
your house”. Monika clearly heard this, and the effect was immediate and shocking about such an
arrangement. She attacked Mukesh, and she started pulling his hair and scratching his face and
instinctively in manners to defend himself and his daughter from a fall he struck Mrs. Monika
with his left hand without deliberation.
2. Allegation made against Mr. Mukesh is frivolous. Mrs. Monika during her marriage with Mr.
Mukesh made false allegations against him. She was angry that the children want to live with Mr.
Mukesh and wants to prevent his access. These are calculated lies to assist her scheme. Many
times before the Court she had been untruthful, which is evident from her previous convictions.
Which among them is the most Persuasive Story in your opinion? Give reasons:
The 1st theory is more persuasive because it is clear from the facts that Mrs. Monika had blamed Mrs.
Roshni and believed that she is the reason of her divorce and Mrs. Monika also called her as Men-eater
so, it is obvious that Mrs. Monika was jealous from Mrs. Roshni. Monika was also convicted for violence
and theft which reflects her irascible nature. And after her daughter’s statement that she wanted to live
with her father Mr. Mukesh, Mrs. Monika turned red with anger and she flew at my client, my client was
forced to use force as a means of defending himself.
Good Facts: (Which facts go in your favour?)
1-Ms. Monika has been on medication for depression.
2- Ms. Monika has been convicted for shoplifting.
3- Ms. Monika was convicted for breaking windows at Roshni’s health club.
4- Ms. Monika has been alleged to pull Mr. Mukesh here.
Bad Facts: (Which facts go against you?)
1. Mr. Mukesh had been convicted for fighting in a bar.
2. Ms. Monika reported domestic violence against [Link] on 5 occasions. It was always alleged
that he had punched her in the stomach.
3. Mr. Mukesh struck at Monika with his left hand and injured her eye, at that time car keys were also
present in Mr. Mukesh left hand.
What are you going to say to counter your bad facts?
Counter Arguments for Bad Fact 1.
My client already had served one month detention, and shall not be prejudiced for his sole past
conviction.
Counter Argument for Bad Fact 2.
Ms. Monika on five occasions made allegation on Mr. Mukesh in relation of domestic violence she never
cooperated with the further investigation with police in relation to allegations. No material evidence like
the medical report of Ms. Monika or any other evidence is provided by the prosecution. Thus due to
preponderance probability and no material evidence on record it cannot be held that the complainant was
subject to any domestic violence.
Counter Argument for Bad Fact 3.
Mr. Mukesh took her daughter Sonia in his right arm and the only hand which was free at that time was
his left hand in which he had keys. Keys being a trivial object, [Link] was not even conscious about
having keys in his left [Link] was an unexpected attack from the side of monica, she started pulling his
hair and scratching his face and instinctively in manner to defend himself and his daughter from a fall he
struck Monica with his left hand without deliberation
Case Analyses Chart
Legal Elements of Facts to support Source Informal Formal Opponent’s Defences
Claim Claim Claim of Proof Discovery Discovery (Theory, Proof,
Discovery)
[Link] Nothing is 1 She attacked Car Keys Interview with Discovery:Deposition
done in an offence Mukesh ,started clients of Mukesh and
private which is pulling his hair and Roshini, agreeing that
defence,S done in the scratching his face the injury was caused
ection 96 exercise of and instinctively in by Mukesh
of Indian the right of a manner to defend
Penal private himself and his
Code defence. daughter from a
1860 fall he struck
Monica with his
2. Right left hand without
of private deliberation.
defence
of the
body and
of
property,
Section
97 of
Indian
Penal
Code
