Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 23

1 { t

I

a 't

I

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Sr. No.

Topic

1. I,IST OF ABBREVIATIONS

2. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

I. BOOKS REFERRED

II. CASES CITED

III. DICTIONARIES REFEFRED

IV. STATUTES REFERREI)

V. WEBLINKS REFERRED

3. STATEMENT OF .ILJRISDICTION

4. STATEMtrNT OF FACTS

5. STATEMENT OF ISSUES

6, STIMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

7. ARGUMEN'IS ADVANCED

Pg. No.

(i)

( ii)

(ii)

(iii)

(iv)

(ivi

(r',t

( 1)

, ri

(-l )

(5- i 6)

l. Whether the Accused is liable under Section 301 and 301 of the I.P.C'l

1.1 Whether the Accused acted in private defence?

1.2 Whether the Accused acted in sudden ad grave provocation?

1.3 Whether the act of the Accused was an accident?

2. Whether the information received lrom the Accused as to the discovery of the iron rocl

is evident to cause his Conviction?

3. Whether the accused can be charged under Section 304 of IPC?

S PR{\'Eru RELIEF CLAIMED

(r'i )

t,

t

L

L

t L-

[--' t

t

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

r

A.I.R. - All India Reporters

AC - Appeal Cases

Cr. P.C- The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

E.g. - Example

Ed.- Edition

F.I.R - First Information Report

HC - High Court

Hon'ble - Honorable

i.e. - that is

IPC- Indian Penal Code

Ltd. - limited

o

M.P- Madhya Pradesh

Mad. - Madras

Ors. * Others

P & H- Punjab and Haryana

Pg. - Page

o

SC - Supreme Court

o

SCC - Supreme Court Cases

Sec. - Section

u/s - Under Section

v. - Versus

Vol. - Volume

\IFMORIAI ON R}"HAI F' f)r. THF. D[' 'FNCT'

If

H

LI

I-T

H

il H

,H

H

H

BOOKS REFERRED

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

B.R. Sharma, Scientific Criminol Investigation, (2010).

Batuk Lal, Law OfEvidence (5tr, Edition, 201 0)

C.D. Field's. Law, on Burden of prottJ, (3,a Edition. 2O1q).

Dr. H. P. Gupta, Law o/'Et,idence, (yol2,3.oEdition.20l2)

H

G.C. Sarkar's, Crtmmentary On The Indian Penal CorJe ^ I 860, (3,0 Edition. 201 I ).

K. D. Gaur. commentar.y on the Intlion penal Code, (2naEditi.n,20r3).

K.D. Gaur. Leading cases on Criminal Law, (2015).

H

ti

-1

;-a u

l--_I

[.1

ll -J

M.A

Rashid, supreme ctourt Guidelines ond precedents, (2orr).

P.S. Varma. Murder Trials, (2008).

Prof S.N. Mishra. Indiun penal Code, (lgtr, Edition, 2012).

Ratan Lal & Dhirajlal. Lotr oJ Crinre.r, (Vol 2. 25tn Edition, reprint 2005).

Ratan Lal & Dhirajlal, Lav,O/'Eticlenc.e (23,aEdition 2013)

Sarkar andEjaz. Lay, of Evidence. (6*Edition. 2006).

Sarkar's, Contmentary'on the Inclian Penal Cotte, 1860 (Vol 2. 3ro Eclitiorr. 201 1)

Sarkar's, commentary on the Indian penal code, lB60 (vol 3. 3ra Edition. 201 1),

C {SES CITED

l

o

,

t

o

.

J o

_-l

_-lntjad Khanv. State AIR 1952 SC 165.

Bachtfordv. Queen (1988) 1 AC 130 pC.

BJtoit'cr y. Srate q/-M.p. AIR 1996 SC 3373.

Blttutct Singh y. State of Bihar" t9g0 BLJ 379 pat.

).i/'ntittder y Stote of H.p. 2002 Cri LJ 4302.

_,,',;n Singh \-ath y. State of Assam, l97g CrLJ (NOC) I0 (Gau).

Earabhu Drappa v. State o.f Karnataka. AIR 1983 SC 446.

t- l

i-.-

I

-l

G.V.S Subbrayanam v. Stare o"f A.P

AIR 1970 SC 1079.

Guedeo Singh v. State of Rajasthan. 1996 CrLJ 1270 Raj.

Hffittddinv. state. AIR 1957 ALL377.

Hirtt Singh v. State o.f'Bihor. AIR 1972 SC 244.

Inre Venkanna, AIR 1948 Mad.61.

Jqi Deviv. State of Punjab. AIR 1963 SC 612.

a

a

a

a

a

Krishnan Udayan v. State of Kerala.197l KerLT 604.

Laxman Singh v. Poonam Singh AIR 2003 SC 3204

Mctskandar Ali v. State of Assctnt 1995 Cri LJ 1900 Gau.

Md. Ina1,s1\ullaht,. State oJ-l,Iaharushtra. AIR i976 SC 483;

Mokul lrrushyo v. Stare" (1895) 7 WR (.Cr) 27.

Moti Singh v. State of Maharastra, 2002 SCC 494.

l{okul }r;ushyo v. State (1867) 7 WR27.

Puran Singh v. Emperor AIR 1L)47 Patna 162

Purna Chondro l{oik y. State o.f Oriss,a, 1974 CutLT 233.

o

a

a

a

O

F a

a

a

Shqnti Sarup v. Stare.2003 ALL l8-+.

State of Bihar v. ,4njani ('hout{hurr 1985 BLJ 531 Pat.

State of M"P. v. Rawa Ram.(1985) 1 Crimes 80 (IVIP). N4.P.

Stare of Puniab v. Buta Singh AIR 1991 SC 1316

State of rJ.P. v. Ram Swaroop, AIR 1971 1570.

vidhya singh v. state o.f M P. AIR 1971 SC 1857.

Vinod Kumar And Ors v. State (Govt Of NCT Of Delhi). on 30'r'Mar'. 2016.

Vi,shwanarhv. Stote o.f U.P. AiR 1960 SC 67.

Yusuf v. State of U.P. 1973 CrLl 1220.

l--

F- DICTIONARIES REFERRED

o

Garner, Black's Law Dictionary, Ttt Edition, West Group.

F .

Greenberg & Millbrook Eds, Stroud's Judicial Dictionary of Words and Phrases , Yol. 2,

Sweet & Maxwell,2000

Rutherford, Leslie; Bone, S., Eds., Osborn's Concise Law Dictionary, Eighth Edition

(Rep. 2003), Universal Law Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi.

o Stroud's, Judicial Dictionary, 6t Edition, Green Beng & Millbrook.

STATUTES REFBRRBD

o

o

o

Indian Evidence Act,1872.

Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1873.

WEBLINKS REFERRED

o

http://www.indiankanoon.com

o

http://www.lawyersclubindia.com

o

http://www.lexisnexis.com

.

http://www.manupatra.com

I { I

I

i

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Hon'ble Court is vested with the jurisdiction to try the instant matter under Section 177

read with Section 209 of the code of criminal procedure, 1973.

Section 177. -Ordinary place of inquiry ancl trial

Every olJbnce shall orclinarily be incluirecl inlancl rrietl b1. a Cotu.t tt,lhin y,hose loc:a!

.juris'diction it v;as committed.'

section 209' -Commitment of case to Court of session when offence is triable exclusively

bv il.-

LYhen in a cqse instituted on a police report or otherv'ise, the ctccused appears or is b*tught

be-fore the Magistrate ancl it appears to the Magistrcfie that the olJbnce is triable exclusivelv

by the Court of Session, he shall-

(a) commit, ofier contplying with lhe proti.sions of section 207 or section 20g, as the case

may be' the case to the ()our/ o/ .\ession. cttcl subject to the provisions of this code relating to

hail, remand the accusetl to custoc$ until

comntitment has been ntade,.J

'uch

b) subiect to the provisions of this Cocle relating to bail, remancl the accusecl to custodv

during, and until the conclusion o.f, the trial;

k) send to that Court the recorcl oJ the case and the doc'untents ancl article.s, i/ an),. tt,hich are

to be produced in evidence,.

td) notify the Public Prosecutor oJthe commitment of the case to the c'ourt ol Session.'

=?

_l

-l

STATEMENT OF FACTS

L

1. The Indraprastha College of Education" is an Educational Institution in Delhi. This is

a multi faculty institution with strength of 3000 students at its campus. There was

great enthusiasm in the Students' Organization to content elections in the College

General Body Election.

2. That the main contest u,as betu,een Indraprastha Communist Part1,. (ICP) and Indraprastha Socialist Party (ISP). Both the groups u'orked hard to secure students'

support and tireir votes. Mukesh Singh $-as the candidate for the Presidentship from the ICP. He was also having the supporl of a National Poiitical Part,v. Therefore. that

Pafiy's prestige was also involved in the success of this candidate.

J.

That the candidate from ISP, Rahul was quite popular amongst the students for his

honesty, integrity and always been working for students' welfare.

4.

'Ihat after a month long campaign. the elections were held on 16tl' January 2017.

Casting of vote went on peacefulll'. The result was declared on 18th January 2A17 and,

Mukesh Singh \\'on the elections b-v a margin of just two votes. Wave of joy went

around in the Indraprastha Communist Parr1,.

5.

That Indraprastha Socialist Partr uas disappointed and was sensing that victory of

Mukesh was only due to mone\.flori and r"rnfair practices adopted bv Mukesh.

>t*

6.

That On 20'h January 2017, at about 7:00 PN,I at the College cateteria \4ukesh in

invited Rahul to his dinner party. Rahul flatlr. refused the invitation b1 sa,r ing that he

will never attend a party hosted by a forged person.

7.

That Mukesh insisted by explaining to him. "Let us forget our past animosities and

work for the welfare of the students together" but Rahul again said "No! I do not wish

to join your dinner party as I know you have won the elections by fraudulent means. I

w'ill not go to the party of a scoundrel."

8. That at this Mukesh got annoyed and felt insulted n the public. He told Rahul "You

know'that I can adopt any means for r,l.hat I want". Rahul left the cafeteria by saying; "Hell u,ith you" Rahul left the cafeteria and went away with his friend Sanjay.

---"

9. That at about 8:30 PM Sanjay drove out in his Jeep from the parking area with Rahul

seated in the jeep beside him. When their jeep was passing through the main gate of

the college, I\4ukesh and his friend Sameer were standing in w.ait for them.

10. That Mukesh was having a pistol in his hands. Mukesh signated Sanjay to stop the

vehicle but Rahul told him not to stop there. Then. Mukesh fired in the air. Rahul

asked Sanjay to driver fast. Mukesh and Sameer chased the jeep on their bike with

Sameer driving and Mukesh riding the pillion.

11. That Mukesh fired indiscriminately u,hile chasing the jeep. One bullet hit Sanjay in

his riglrt upper arm. Rahul asked Sanjal, to stop the vehicle and got down from the jeep. Sameer stopped the bike where Rahui was standing. Mukesh -eot off the bike

tried to shoot at Rahul. But he could not as there u'as no caltriclge in the pistol.

12.'fhat then Rahul took out an iron rod out of jeep and aimed a hit at Vlukesh. But Mukesh ducked and the rod fell on the head of Sameer w-ho was sitting on his bike

.iust next to Mukesh.

13. That Sameer started bleeding profusely and t-ell unconscious. Both Rahul and Sanjay

left the scene immediatelv. Mukesh took Sameer to hospital. Sameer died after 12

hours in the hospital.

***

14.'fhat a case was registered against Rahul under section 302 read with Section 301 of

the Indian Penal Code. 1860. Post monem report disclosed the cause of death rvas

head injury which was ante mofiem in nature. Inresti-sating officer recor-ered the iron

rod used by Rahul from a pond near u-here crime took place. upon inlormation gir.en

by Rahul. while in police custodl.

1 5. That the State approached this l{on'ble Court ro seek justice.

>{

.-1

*-l

H

il

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1. Whether the Accused is liable under Section 302 and 301 of the I.P.C?

1.1 Whether the Accused acted in private defence?

1.2 Whether the Accused acted in sudden ad grave provocation?

1.3 Whether the act of the Accused \\-as an accident?

2. Whether the information received from the Accused as to the discor.ery of the iron rod

is evident to cause his Conviction?

3. Whether the accused can be charged under Section 304 of IPC?

H

,=

i-l

-

H

H

SUMMARY ARGUMENTS

l.WhethertheAccusedi.e.Rahutisliableundersection30land3020fl'P'C?

It is most humbly submitted before this Hon'ble Court that without an iota of doubt the

Accused is not liable under Section 302 rlw Section 301 , IPC, as the Accused did not had an

intention to kill [A], as his act was done in pursuance of right of private defence [A.1], his act

was an outcome of sudden and grave provocation [A.2], his act was a result of an accident

[A.3] and thus makes him not liable under section 301 of IPC [B].

Z. Whether the information received from the Accused as to the discovery of the

iron rod is evident to cause his Conviction?

It is most humbly submitted before this Hon'ble Court that the information received by the

accused cannot be used against him and therefore does not carry any evidentiary value, which

will be proved having regard to the essential requirements of this section.

3. Whether the accused can be charged under Section 304 of IPC, 1860?

It is most humbly submitted that the accused cannot be charged under Section 304 of IPC as

an altemative option. as though. his act u.as out of sudden and grave provocation but was

exercise in right of private defence. shich is evident from the following circumstantial

evidences-

1. Mukesh was waiting for Rahul at the main gate of the college armed u ith a hand gun'

2. ile fired indiscriminately at Rahul and Sanjal'uhile lolloriing thel.n-

3. A bullet hit Sanjay at his right upper arm,

4. Mukesh w'as aiming a fire at Rahul,

5. Looking at this Rahul acted in the self defence of himself and his friend, Sanjay.

:

--

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. Whether the Accused i.e. Rahul is liable under Section 30L and 302 of I.P.C?

It is most humbly submitted before this Hon'ble Court that without an iota of doubt the

Accused is not liable under Section 302 rlw Section 301 , IPC, as the Accused did not had

an intention to kill [A], as his act was done in pursuance of right of private defence [A.11, his act was an outcome of sudden and grave provocation 1A.21, his act was a result of an accident [A.3] and thus makes him not liable under section 301 of IPC [B].

tAl Intention to kill", an essential requirement to constitute an offence under Section

3O2.IPC

It is an established fact that to bring a case under the ambit of Section 302, essentiais of

Section 300 have to be complying with. One such essential is to prove ill Intention of the

Accused or Mens Rea, v'rhich is the heart and soul to constitute any criminal charge against an

Accused. However in the instant case there was no intention to cause death of the deceased

(Sameer) as the act of the Accused was in pursuance of exercising right of private defence.

T

f

[A.1] The act of the Accused was done in pursuance of riqht of private defence

It is most humbly submiued that the facts of the case make the situation crystal clear as to

why the Accused took recourse to attack Mukesh with an iron rod. The facts elucidate that it was Mukesh who started creating vulnerable risk to the life of Rahul and his friend Sanjay.

When Rahul and his friend got off from the jeep and confronted Mukesh he saw him aiming a

fire at Rahul and as Rahul find that space to protect himself he took an iron rod from his jeep

and

aimed a

hit

at

Mukesh so

as

to

protect his

life.

Therefore, the right ofprivate defence envisaged under Section 961 is correctly based on the instinct of self preservation. The instinct of self preservation is indomitable in a human being and this instinct has been recognized as a lawful defence in the laws of all civilized countries. If the danger to the body or property is there to a citizen, he need not flee away. He is entitled to hold his ground and strike back in defence.

Section 96 in The Indian Penal Code- Things done in private detbnce. Nothine is an ofl'ence rvhich is dt-.n;

--E

-.-

L\.

The common law recognizes that there are many circumstances in which one person may

inflict violence upon another without committing a crime. The cornmon law has always

recognized the right of a person to protect himself from attack and to act in def'ence of others

and if necessary to inflict violence on another in doing so. If no more force is used than is

reasonable to repel the attack such forces is not unlau.ful and no crime is committed. The

person about be attacked does not have to wait for his assailant to strike the first blow or fire

the first shot' circumstances may justif,v a pre-emptil,e strike.2

*---

IE

r- E

I

\\

T

5t-

f-

i)

t--

Section 96 IPC provides that nothing is an offence rvhich is done in exercise of the

private defence and the tentacles of Section 97 to 106 thereof la1-s dou.n the extent and

limitation of such rights. From the plain reading of the above sectio, it is manif.est that such

right of

right can be exercised to repel unlawiul aggression. The right of seif clefence is a

very

valuable right' It has a social purpose.3 Therefore, the act that has been committecl by Rahul

was not an outcome of ill intention rather he was afraid that Mukesh might be ca*1,-ing some extra cartridges with him u'hich may cause death of Rahul, so bef-ore Mukesh could do more

harm to Rahul and Sanjay, Rahul acted in his self defence.

The Apex court has held in a case where prosecution pafty armed rvith various w-eapons rvent

to cut the crop forciblr'. assaulted the owner of the plot. ancl the accused on the side of the

owner gave a fatal bhala blou resulting in the death of the deceased. the accusect dicl not

exceed the right of private defence.l

Similarli" in a case $-here the accused unarmed had receired tuo bloris on rital parls of liis

body' had reasonable appreciation to his lrre. qe'e a single

bro* to the cleceased resultins i,

his death" the accused did not exceed rris right ol serf detence. j

lA.1.1l

TAE FORCE USEI)

It is humbly submitted before this Hon,ble Court

Defence that accused exceeded his right of private

extent of necessity of the harm caused, the Courts

that the contention as to the fact by the

defence or disputation over the point of

in India have time and again opined and

-. Bac'lorlbrd v.

Queen (198g) 1 AC 130 pC.

' I'ictht'a Singh v. State of M.p. AIR 1971 SC 1857.

-_ Hu.u Sittgh v. State of Bihar,AIR 1972 SC 244.

!t::,t{:;:,rr, -{li v. Srate of Assam 199-5 CrLJ 1900 GAu DB: Guedeo Singh v. Stcrte ctf Rajasrhan, 1996 crl,.r

-I--5

a'-

held that there is no golden scale to measure the extent or necessity to exercise this right as in

the time of peril and danger a human mind cannot adjudge this degree.

The law does not require a law abiding citizento behave like a coward when confronted with

an imminent unlawfrrl aggression. 6

Also, it is for such a situation that it is often said that one cannot weigh in golden scales what

maximum amount of force is necessary to keep within the right of private defence.T However

a person in fear of his life is not expected to modulate his defence step by step or tier by tier.8

The Court in State of Punjab v. Buta Singhe held that a person who is apprehending death or

bodily injury cannot r.l'eigh in golden scales in the spur of moment and in the heat of rnoment.

the number of injuries required to disarm tire assailants who \\,-ere armed with weapons. In

moments of excitement and disturbed mental equilibrium it is often difficult to expect the

parties to presen,e composure and use only so much force in retaliation commensurate rvith

the danger apprehended to him where assault is eminent by use of force, it would be larvful to repel the force in self defence and the right of private defence commences as soon as the

threat becomes so imminent. Due weightage has to be given to. and hyper technical approach

ha to be avoided in considering what happens on the spur of the moment on the spot and

keeping in vieu the notmal human conduct and reaction. where self preservation is the

paramount consideration.

Again in Laxman Singh t'. Poonam Singhtj it has been held by the Supreme Clourl that non- explanations of the injuries sustained b1 the accused at about the time of occunence or in the

course of altercation is a I err importallr circumstance. But mere non-erplanation of the injuries by the procesution mav not al-tect the prosecution case in a1l cases. This principle

applies to cases where the injuries sustained br the accused are minor and superficial or

where the evidence is so clear and cogent. so independent. and disinterested, so probable.

consistent and creditworthy, that it far outw.eighs the effect of omission on the part of the

prosecution to explain the injuries.

' G I.S Subbra),anarn ,-. State ,l'A.P., AIR 1970 SC 1079.

-lntiad Khan t. Slale AIR I 952 SC 1 65.

. ' Sr,tte ct| L.P.

t:.

Rorn Sv,aroop, AIR I974 1570.

\lR 1991 SC 1316

\lR 1003 SC 320.1

tl

lr

l.\-

Ir

!\

II

l.-.-

In the exercise of his right, it rrv'ould not be fair to require that he should modulate his defence

step by step, according to the attack. before there is reason to believe that the attack is over.11

Relying on this case an Allahabad case held while it is true that law does not expect from the

person. whose life is placed in danger. to u,eigh with nice precision. the extent and the degree of the force which he employs in his defence.

Such a question fell for consideration again in Supreme Courl and the Courl point out that

w-hile exercising the right of private defence it is not possible for an average person whose

mental excitement could be better imagined than described. to weight the position in golden

scales and it w-as w'ell-nigh inipossible for the person placecl in the position to take a calm and

objective view expected in the detached atmosphere of the Cour1. and calculate u,ith arithmetical precision to how much lorce would efi-ectively sen,e the purpose of self defence

and when to stop.12

When a right of private defence accrues in fbvour of a person. it is hardly possible to expect

that he ought to measure his blows or select a particular part of the body or the weapon. The

mental equilibrium of the person entitled to private defence cannot be weighted in a

goldsmith's case scale. l-l

When the prosecution partv has been held to be aggressor who had come armed and w-ho had

inflicted serious injuries on four persons of the accused side" it is surprising that the court

should hold the appellant exceeded the right of private defence. It is ver,v difficult for a

person who is trying to save his life to w'eigh his right on a golden scale.la lr,- I'ishrancrth v.

State oJ' LI.P.t5 in uhich Apex coufi has held that the ;:ight of private ciefence arises if there

\vas an offence affbcting the human bod1,.

Although the right of private defence ends rl.ith the necessitl fbr it. altirough right of privare

defence is exhausted its moment the agsressor becomes disabled or helplessl6 in the leacling

Supreme Court decision on a point. the Court pointed out that in judging the conduct of a

person who proves that he had a right of private defence, allowance has necessarily to be

made for his feelings at the relevant time. He is faced with an assault which causes a

t.t.Jai Deyi r'. S/are of Punjab,AIR 1963 SC 612.

'- G. I .S Subbral'ananr v. State of A.p., AIR 1970 SC 1079.

'.'. Dhan Singh Nath v. State of issam,l978 CrLJ (NOC) l0 (Gau).

tt

Bhuno Singh v. State of Biiar, 1980 BLJ 379 pat. '' AIR 1960 sc 67.

l;:

c

reasonable apprehension of death

some excitement and confusion.

or grievous hurt and that inevitably creates in his mind

lA.1.2l

If the accused who sustained injury takes the prea of private

prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt _

defence, the burden is on the

[i]' That he did not sustain injuT in the same incident and