A warm welcome to the honorable bench.

Today I tejas pandey am here before

supreme court of India to present my case from the side of the appellant
Now with your permission of the honorable bench, I may start with proceeding of
my case
If the honorable bench is well acquainted with the facts of the case I would like to
proceed with my first issue.
Your Excellences I would like to address the first issue which is WHETHER
RAHUL IS GUILTY FOR THE ACT COMMITED BY SANJAY UNDER
SECTION 326A R/W SECTION 34 IPC?

My first point under this issue is that accused Rahul is liable under section 326 a r/w
section 34 ipc as Rahul had a common intention with Sanjay of throwing acid over
Meera. The counsel would like to point the interpretation of Section 34 Ipc by
Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Govind Jagesha v. State of Maharashtra stated:
“No premediation or previous meeting of mind is necessary for the applicability of
Sec 34 IPC. The existence of common intention can be inferred from the attending
circumstances of the case and the conduct of the parties. No direct evidence of
common intention is necessary. For the purpose of common intention even the
participation in the commission of the offence need not be proved in all cases. The
common intention can develop even during the course of an occurrence.” In our
case Rahul did not resist to Sanjay’s plan of using acid neither by disagreeing to the
use acid altogether nor by disagreeing to accompany Sanjay to abduct Meera.
Secondly Rahul stood as a silent witness, while Sanjay threw acid over Meera where
Rahul could have easily intervened Sanjay from using acid. Lastly if Rahul really
had feeling of love for Meera and he did not have an intention of using acid over
Meera then he could have taken Meera to the nearest hospital rather than fleeing
from the scene. All the points prove beyond doubt that both Rahul and Sanjay shared
a common intention to cause injury and disfigurement to the Meera. Hence it proves
that the Rahul is liable under Section 326a IPC to inflict bodily harm over Meera by
use of acid.
My second argument will be that accused Rahul is liable under section 326-a ipc r/w
section 6 of the Indian evidence act if going by the grammatical interpretation of the
section and combining it with the facts of the case. Section 326-A is a newly
established law after recommendations from the Justice Verma Committee. Being a
particularly new law, there has not been a proper judicial interpretation of the law
providing judicial precedents. Hence the prosecution would proceed by the
grammatical interpretation of the law. The words of the section 326-a saying “with
the intention of causing or with the knowledge that he is likely to cause such injury
or hurt” can be applied in the case of Rahul as he had the prior knowledge that
agreeing to use acid over a woman even as tool to threaten may cause injury to her.
Reading the following clause along with Section 6 of Indian Evidence Act
containing the principle of Res Gestae, the counsel would like to establish a chain of
events. Firstly, Rahul was enraged after suffering a rejection from Meera’s family
which is evident in para 4 where it is mentioned “Enraged with feeling of rejection.”
This highlights the fact that Rahul had the feeling revenge in his mind against Meera
and his family. Secondly, if Rahul wanted, he could have rejected the use of acid
altogether, but he did not. He could have suggested the use of any other weapon such
as a knife to fulfil their purpose. Rahul did not use any other because he knew that
the most precious thing for an 18-year-old girl is her beauty and that using acid
would cause a lifelong effect on Meera both physically and mentally. And lastly that
if Rahul wanted to help Meera after acid was thrown, he would have used his vehicle
to take Meera to a nearby hospital. the chain of events clearly prove that Rahul
wanted revenge from Meera. As soon as he agreed to use acid, he knew that he it
could inflict lifelong injury over Meera. Hence it proves that the Rahul is liable under
Section 326a IPC r/w section 6 of Indian evidence act.

WHETHER THE COMPENSATION AWARDED BY THE SESSION COURT TO

THE VICTIM UNDER SEC 326A IPC IN ADDITION TO COMPENSATION
PAID BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT UNDER SEC 357A CrPC SHOULD BE
ENHANCED OR NOT?

It is submitted that the compensation paid to meera by accused rahul under section
326-a ipc as held by the sessions court must be enhanced to rs.3,50,000 considering
the dire situation of meera and her family. Meera has already undergone 6 surgeries
which has them over six lakhs (6,50,000/-) and further treatments needs to be done
which includes 10-15 more surgeries and further ongoing treatment. Physical,
emotional and Mental damage aside there is a lot of monetary loss in the form of
Meera’s father losing his job because of extended leave for her treatment, making it
difficult to support his other two daughters and the additional income which the
family earned through Meera’s tuition classes was too lost by her injury. Damage
and distress caused to Meera and her family is beyond measure and repair. Hence
the prosecution requests the increase in compensation under Section 357a crpc.

THAT THE COMPENSATION PAID TO MEERA BY ACCUSED RAHUL

UNDER SECTION 326-A IPC AS HELD BY THE SESSIONS COURT MUST BE
ENHANCED TO RS.3,50,000 CONSIDERING THE DIRE SITUATION OF
MEERA AND HER FAMILY.