Defence Mml 114 ( lawoctopus task )

IST MMU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

D-MML114 -

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SESSIONS COURT

IN Case No. SC of 2016

IN THE MATTER OF

STATE

...PROSECUTION

V. RAHUL

...DEFENSE

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENSE


MML -114

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

2

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

4

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

5

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

11

STATEMENT OF FACTS

12

ISSUES RAISED

13

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

14

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ISSUE 1: WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS LIABLE TO BE CONVICTED FOR MURDER UNDER SECTION 302 OF IPC?

15

1.1 THAT THE ACCUSED IS NOT GUILTY OF COMMITTING MURDER

15

1.2 MENS REA TO COMMIT MURDER WAS NOT PRESENT

16

1.3 ACTUS REUS TO COMMIT MURDER WAS NOT PRESENT

17

1.4 CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS UNRELIABLE GIVING RISE TO REASONABLE DOUBT

19

1.4.1. PLEA OF ALIBI

21

1.4.2 LAST SEEN THEORY

22

1.4.3 REASONABLE DOUBT ARISES

23

MEMORANDUM FOR THE DEFENSE

Page 2


MML -114

ISSUE 2: WHETHER THE ACCUSED HAS ABETTED THE SUICIDE OF THE DECEASED UNDER SECTION 306 OF IPC?

25

2.1 THAT THE ACCUSED IS NOT GUILTY OF ABETTING THE DECEASED’S SUICIDE 25 2.2 THAT THERE IS ENOUGH EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO PROVE THAT THE DECEASED COMMITTED SUICIDE 2.3 THERE WAS NO ABETMENT BY THE ACCUSED

26 26

ISSUE 3: WHETHER THE ACCUSED HAS CAUSED MISCARRIAGE AND VOLUNTARY HURT?

31

3.1 THAT THE ACCUSED HAS NOT CAUSED MISCARRIAGE

31

3.2 THAT THE ACCUSED HAS NOT CAUSED VOLUNTARY HURT

31

PRAYER

33


Page 3


MML -114

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

& ¶ AIR All ALR Anr. Art. Edn. Hon’ble i.e. LW Ltd. Mad M.P. MLJ No Pvt. SC SCC SCR U/S U.P. v. Viz. Vol. www

And Paragraph All India Reporter Allahabad Allahabad Law Reports Another Article Edition Honourable That is Law Weekly Limited Madras Madhya Pradesh Madras Law Journal Number Private Supreme Court Supreme Court Cases Supreme Court Reports Under section Uttar Pradesh Versus Namely Volume World Wide Web


Page 4


MML -114

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES CASES CITED

S.NO 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

CASES CITED Nara Singh Challan v. Sate of Orrisa Lakhanpal vs State of Madhya Pradesh Sanwat Khan vs State of Rajasthan Ramashraya vs State of Madhya Pradesh Settu vs State of Tamil Nadu Commissioner of Income Tax v Patranu Dass Raja Ram Beri State of Maharashtra v Meyer Hans George State v. Dinakar Bandu Gul Mohummed vs King Emperor Chander Bahadur Suha vs State Haughton vs Smith

CITATION 1997 CriLJ 2204 AIR 1979 SC 1620 AIR 1956 SC 54 AIR 2001 SC 1129 2006 Cri LJ 3889 (3893) AIR 1982 PH 1, 4 AIR 1965 SC 722 (1951) 3 Pepsu LR 635 AIR 1947 Nag 121 1978 Cr LJ 942 (Sikkim). (1973) 3 All ER 1109

12. 13. 14.

Karen-Jutzi Johnson v. United States of America Vijaybaiv. State of Maharashtra Sushil Ansal v. State

263 F.3d 753. 1995 Supp (2) SCC 734. 2014 (6) SCC 173.

15. 16. 17.

Anil Kumar v. State Sheo Govind Bin v. State of Bihar Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Administration)

2014 (1) JCC 256. 1985 BBCJ 632. AIR 1988 SC 1883

18. 19. 20.

State of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal Kunduru Dharua v. State Vaman Jaidev Raval v. State of Goa

21. 22. 23. 24.. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31.

Hadi Kisani v. State of Orissa Munshi Prasad v. State of Bihar Ramaswami, Re State of Haryana v. Ram Singh Ram Kumar Madhusudan Pathak vs State of Gujarat Nemichand v. State of Rajasthan Ravinder Singh v. Govt of NCT Delhi Ravinder Singh v. Govt of NCT Delhi (DB) Naseem Ahmed v. Delhi Administration Sharad Birdhich and Sarda v. State of Maharashtra Mohan Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh

AIR 1994 SC 1418 2002 CrLJ 1757 (Ori). 2007 CrLJ 431(NOC) (Bom) AIR 1966 Ori 21 (2002) 1 SCC 351 (para 6) AIR 1938 Mad 336 (2002) 2 SCC 426 (para 1) AIR 1998 SC 2732 2015 SCC Online Raj 9391 2008 (101) DRJ 61 (DB) 2008 (101) DRJ 61 AIR 1974 SC 691 AIR 1984 SC 1622 AIR 1974 SC 1144

32. 33. 34. 35.

State of U.P. v. Dr. R.P. Mittal. Vithal Tukaram More v. State of Maharashtra Kartik Sahu v. State State of Maharashtra v. Vilas Pandurang Patil

AIR 1992 SC 2045 (2002) 7 SCC 20 1994 CrLJ 102 (Ori) 1999 CrLJ 1062, 1065


Page 5


MML -114

36. 37. 38. 39. 40.

Thangaraj v. State by Inspector of Police Prithviraj v. State of Rajasthan also Dhananjoy Chatterjee v. State of W.B. Sukhram v. State of Maharashtra Peria Rajendran v. State

41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59..

Anant v. State of Bombay Laxman Naik v. State of Orissa State of Tamil Nadu vs P. Muniappan Janar Lal Das v. State of Orissa A. Jayaram and An r. v. State of AP Mahmood v. State of UP Govinda Reddy v. State of Mysore Deonandan Mishra v. State of Bihar Rajan Johnsonbhai Christy v. State of Gujarat Alamgir v. State (NCT, Delhi) Reddy Sampath Kumar v. State of A.P. Bakshish Singh v. State of Punjab Reddy Sampath Kumar v. State of A.P, Kumaravel v. State State of H.P. v. Diwana Omanakuttan v. State of Kerala Earabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka Sharad Birdichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra Ashok Kumar Chatterjee v. State of M.P.

(Bom) 1994 CrLJ NOC 16(Mad) 2004 CrLJ 2190 (2002) 8 SCC 45 (2007) 7 SCC 502 2007 CrLJ 1242, 1245 (Mad) AIR 1960 C 500 1995 CrLJ 2692 (para 11) AIR 1998 SC 504 1991 (3) SCC 27 AIR 1995 SC 2128. AIR 1976 SC 69 AIR 1960 SC 29 (1955) 2 SCR 570 1997 CrLJ 3702(Guj) AIR 2003 SC 282 (2005) 7 SCC 603, 604 AIR 1971 SC 2016. (2005) 7 SCC 603 AIR 2005 SC 3478 1995 CrLJ 3002 2000 CrLJ 4893(Ker) 1983 CrLJ 846 AIR 1983 SC 446 1984 CrLJ 1738

60.

State of A.P. v. I.B.S.P. Rao

AIR 1970 SC 648.

61.

Gade Lakshmi Mangraju v. State of A.P.

2001 CrLJ 3317 (SC)

62.

Charan Singh v. State of U.P.

AIR 1967 SC 520.

63.

State of U.P. v. Sukhbasi

AIR 1985 SC 1224

64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72.

Hukam Singh v. State of Rajasthan Mohmood v. U.P. State of U.P. v. Sukhbasi Hukam Singh v. State of Rajasthan Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v. State of M.P. Kedarnath Bajoria v. State of West Bengal Kutubal Yadev v. State of Bihar Manak Lal v. Dr. Premchand Ramdas v. State of Maharashtra

AIR 1977 SC 1063 AIR 1976 SC 69. AIR 1985 SC 1224 AIR 1977 SC 1063 AIR 1952 SC 343 1953 CrLJ 129 AIR 1954 SC 660 AIR 1954 SC 720 AIR 1957 SC 425;

73. 74. 75.

Pandu Dhondu v. State of Maharashtra Krishnan Nair v. State of Kerala C.P. Fernandes v. Union Territory of Goa

(1968) 2 SC WR 363 ILR (1959) Ker 1094 AIR 1977 SC 135


Page 6


MML -114

76. 77. 78. 79. 80.

Piyaio v. State Raghav Prapanna v. State of U.P. .G. Agarwal v. State of Maharashtra Yusuf S.K. v. State State v. Sashibhushan

AIR 1958 MP 144 AIR 1963 SC 74 AIR 1963 SC 200. AIR 1954 Cal 258 (1963) 1 CrLJ 550(Ori)

81.

State of Haryana v. Sher Singh

AIR 1981 SC 1021

82. 83.

Dalel Singh v. Jag Mohan Singh State of U.P. v. Sughar Singh

1981 CrLJ 667(Del) AIR 1978 SC 191

84.

Chandrika Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar

AIR 1972 SC 109

85. 86. 87.

D.B. Deshmukh v. State Yaduram v. State Sarat Chandra v. Emperor

AIR 1970 Bom 438 1972 CrLJ 1464(J&K) AIR 1934 Cal 719

88. 89.

Parbhoo v. Emperor Amir Hossain v. State of Tripura

90. 91.

Chandrika Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar State v. Murugan

AIR 1941 All 402 1998 CrLJ 4315, at page 4323 (Gau) AIR 1972 SC 109 2002 CrLJ 670, 673 (Mad)

92. 93. 94. 95.

Rajendra Singh v. State of U.P. Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab Narendra Singh v. State of M.P. State of U.P. v. Snghar Singh

2001 (2) Mad LW (Cri) 815 AIR 1956 SC 460 (2004) 10 SCC 699 AIR 1978 SC 191

96. 97. 98.

Chandrika v. State Satyovir v. State Bindeshwari Singh v. State

AIR 1972 SC 109 AIR 1958 All 746 AIR 1958 Pat 12.

99.

State of Gujarat v. Miyame Abraham Mamed

100.

State of Manipur v. Okram Jitan Singh

101.

Naunidh v. State of U.P.

2004 CrLJ 3471, 3485 (Guj). 2005 CrLJ 1646, 1650, (Gau). AIR 1982 SC 1299

102. 103. 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113

Uda alias Suda v. The State of Rajasthan Bodhraj v. State of J&K State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran Ramreddy Rajeshkhanna Reddy v. State of A.P. Jaswant Gir v. State of Punjab Subhajoy Tripura v. State of Tripura, Gopal Singh v. State of Uttaranchal Kusuma Ankama Rao v. State of A.P. State of Orissa v. Purna Chandra Kusal Chattar Singh v. State of Haryana Latika Koteswara Rao v. State of A.P. State of Goa v. Pandurang Mohite

2001 CrLJ NOC 28(Raj) (2002) 8 SCC 45 (2007) 3 SCC 755 AIR 2006 SC 1656 (2006) 1 SCC 579(Cr) 2007 CrLJ 70(NOC) (Gau) 2007 CrLJ 1972 AIR 2008 SC 2819, 2823 2008 CrLJ 4597, (2008) 14 SCC 67 2009 CrLJ 319 AIR 2009 SC 1066


Page 7


MML -114

114 115 116 117 118 119

Mohd. Azad v. State of W.B. Raju v. State, by Inspector of Police Vithal Eknath Adinge v. State of Maharashtra Jaswant Gir v. State of Punjab Poshakadantha v. The State of Karnataka Ramesh Bhai v. State of Rajasthan

120

Kaliyamurhty v. State

121

Ramakant Rai v. Madan Rai

AIR 2009 SC 1307 AIR 2009 SC 2171 AIR 2009 SC 2067 (2005) 12 SCC 438 2008 CrLJ 72(NOC) (Kar) 2007 (6) AIR Kar R 320(DB) 2008 CrLJ 195(NOC) (Mad) Cr LJ 2004 SC 36

122 123 124 125 126

West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal Bura Manohar v. State of A.P. Central Bureau of Investigation v. V.C. Shukla Bapurao v. State of Maharashtra M. Mohan v. State

AIR (1994) SC 1418 2002 Cr LJ 3322(AP) AIR 1998 SC 1406 2003 Cr LJ 2181(Bom) (2011) 3 SCC 626

127 128 129 130

Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs State of Maharashtra Satvir Singh vs State of Punjab Basu Harijan v. State of Orissa Pratap Tigga v. State of Bihar

AIR 1984 SC 1622 AIR 2001 SC 2828 2003 CrLJ 2270 2004 CrLJ NOC 86(Jhar).

131 132 133 134 135 136

Kunduru Dharua v. State Ananda Mohan Sen vs State of West Bengal Ramesh Kumar vs State of Punjab Asha Shukla v. State of U.P. Parimal Chatterji v. Emperor Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) Kishangiri Mangalgiri Goswami v. State of Gujarat Goura Venkata Reddy v. State of A.P., Gangula Mohan Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh

AIR 1994 SC 1418 2007 Cri LJ 2770 (2776) AIR 1994 SC 945 2002 CriLJ 2233 140 Ind. Cas.787. AIR 2010 SC 1446

137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 145 146 147 148 149 150

Rajib Neog v. State of Assam Brij Lal vs Prem Chand Wazir Chand v. State of Haryana Surender v. State of Hayana, Kishori Lal v. State of M.P. Sonti Rama Krishna v. Sonti Shanti Sree, Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) State of Punjab v. Iqbal Singh M. Mohan v. State, Represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police Amalendu Pal v. State of West Bengal Rakesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh Gangula Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh MEMORANDUM FOR THE DEFENSE

(2009) 1 SCR 672 (2003) 12 SCC 469. 2010 Cr.L.J. 2110 (Supreme Court) 2011 CrLJ 399(Gau) . AIR 1989 SC 1661 AIR 1989 SC 378 AIR 1991 SC 1532 (2006) 12 SCC 375 (2009) 16 SCC 605. AIR 2009 SC 923. AIR 1991 SC 1532 (2011) 3 SCC 626 (2010) 1 SCC 707 (2001) 9 SCC 618 (2010) 1 SCC 750 Page 8


151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158

Thanu Ram v. State of M.P. S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan & Anr., Dammu Sreenu v. State of A.P. Sohan Raj Sharma v. State of Haryana S. S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and Another Charan Singh v. State of U.P. Coffin v. United States R vs Bourne

MML -114

(2010) 10 SCC 353 (2010 0 AIR SCW 4938) AIR 2009 SC 3728 AIR 2008 SC 2108 2010 (12) SCC 190 AIR 1967 SC 520. 156 U.S. 432 (1895) (1938) 3 All ER 615

STATUTES REFERRED 1.

THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 (2 OF 1974)

2.

THE GENERAL CLAUSES ACT, 1897 (10 OF 1897)

3.

THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 (1 OF 1872)

4.

THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 (45 OF 1860)

JOURNALS REFEERED S.NO

NAME

1.

All India Reporter

2.

Supreme Court Cases

3.

Manupatra

4.

Supreme Court Reporter

5.

CDJ Law Journal

1.

2.

BOOKS REFERRED: Batuk Lal, “Commentary on the Indian Penal Code, 1860”, Ed. R. P. Kataria and S. K. A. Naqvi, Vol-I, (Section 1 to 300), (Orient Publishing Company, 1st Edn. New Delhi) (2006-07). Dr. Hari Singh Gour, “The Penal Law of India”, Vol-I, (Section 1 to 120), (Law Publishers (India) Pvt. Ltd., 11th Edn.) (2006).

3. Field’s “Commentary on Law of Evidence”, Ed Gopal S. Chaturvedi, Vol-I & II, (Delhi Law House, 12th Edn.) (2006). 4.

Halsbury’s Laws of India, Vol-32, “Criminal Procedure – I & II”, (Lexis Nexis Butterworths, New Delhi) (2007).


Page 9


MML -114

5. Nelson R. A. Indian Penal Code, 10th Ed. (2008) 6.

Kathuria, R.P. Supreme Court on Criminal Law, 1950-2002, ( 6th Ed. 2002)

7. Princep’s Commentary on the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (18th ed. 2005)

8.

Mitra, B.B., Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (20th ed. 2006)

9.

K. D. Gaur, “Commentary on Indian Penal Code”, (Universal Law Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi) (2006).

10. Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, “Commentary on the Code of Criminal Procedure”, VolI & II, (Wadhwa and Company, 18th Edn., Nagpur) (2006). 11.

Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, “Law of Crimes”, Vol-I & II, Ed. Justice C. K. Thakkar, (Bharat Law House, 25th Edn., New Delhi) (Reprint 2006).

LEGAL DICTIONARIES

S.NO

NAME

1.

BLACKS LAW DICTIONARY, (WEST PUBLISHING GROUP 7TH EDN.) (1999)

2.

P. RAMANATHA AIYAR’S, “ADVANCED LAW LEXICON”, VOL-I TO IV, (WADHWA AND COMPANY, 3RD EDN., NAGPUR) (2005).

3.

STROUD’S JUDICIAL DICTIONARY OF WORDS AND PHRASES, VOL-I TO III, EDITOR DANIEL GREENBERG, (SWEET AND MAXWELL LTD., 7TH EDN., 2006, REPRINT 2008) LONDON.

4.

WHARTON’S LAW LEXICON, BY A. S. OPPE, (SWEET AND MAXWELL UNIVERSAL LAW PUBLISHING CO. PVT. LTD.,14TH EDN., 1997).


Page 10


MML -114

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

THE PROSECUTION HAS APPROACHED THIS HON’BLE SESSIONS COURT UNDER SECTION 26 R/W SECTION 28 R/W SECTION 177 R/W SCHEDULE I OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973, WHICH READS AS HEREUNDER: S. 26. Courts by which offences are triable: Subject to the other provisions of this Code,(a) Any offence under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) may be tried by(i) … (ii) The Court of Session (iii)… S. 28. Sentences which High Courts and Sessions Judges may pass: (1) … (2) A Sessions Judge or Additional Sessions Judge may pass any sentence authorised by law; but any sentence of death passed by any such Judge shall be subject to confirmation by the High court (3) … S. 177. 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.


Page 11


MML -114

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. February, 2013: Priya, aged 24, completed her education in mass communication from Dehradun. was a 24 year old girl. She moved to Delhi for better career opportunities but struggled to settle there. 2. May, 2013: Priya met Rahul who was running a production agency. They both shared common interests and became close friends. 3. July,2013: Rahul helped her to find a good job and also arranged an apartment for her. Rahul was a big support for Priya in Delhi. 4. December, 2013: They decided to live in together and lived happily for two years. 5. January, 2016: Priya suspected Rahul of having physical relations with Pooja. Rahul said Pooja was her client and tried to convince Priya that he re is nothing going on between him and Pooja. Priya was mentally upset and went to depression. 6. February, 2016: Things were not going good in between Rahul and Priya. They were spotted often fighting with each other even at public places. Once Rahul said that its better to get separated and move on life but Priya was not convinced. 7. 15th May, 2016: Pooja visited their apartment and which Priya got offended. Rahul asked Pooja to leave the apartment. Priya accused Rahul for bad character. Rahul tried to convince Priya but became frustrated as things didn’t get resolved. 8. 16 May, 2016: He left the apartment when she was asleep without informing her. When she woke up, she tried calling her but he didn’t pickup her call and instead switched off his phone. She found herself lonely and alone.When he came back, he found her body hanging from the ceiling fan. He gathered some neighbours and her body was taken to hospital where she was declared brought dead. 9. According to her mother, she was two months pregnant and proposed Rahul for marriage but he refused to marry and compelled her to abort the child. The doctors have also confirmed that Priya was pregnant and had undergone abortion not long before her demise. There was no suicide note found. 10. Rahul has been arrested on the complaint of Priya's mother. The Police registered a case against Rahul u/s 302 IPC,306 IPC, 312 IPC, 313 IPC, 323 IPC and 376 IPC.


Page 12


MML -114

ISSUES RAISED

ISSUE 1: WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS LIABLE TO BE CONVICTED FOR MURDER UNDER SECTION 302 OF IPC?

ISSUE 2: WHETHER THE ACCUSED HAS ABETTED THE SUICIDE OF THE DECEASED UNDER SECTION 306 OF IPC?

ISSUE 3: WHETHER THE ACCUSED HAS CAUSED MISCARRIAGE AND VOLUNTARY HURT?


Page 13


MML -114

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ISSUE 1: WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS LIABLE TO BE CONVICTED FOR MURDER UNDER SECTION 302 OF IPC? Murder has two ingredients, viz. actus reus and mens rea. In this case, neither the act nor the intention is present. The accused and the deceased were live in together happily for two years. It was accused who helped the deceased to settle down in Delhi. Moreover, the accused was not even present in the apartment when the deceased died. Therefore, the accused is not guilty of murder. ISSUE 2: WHETHER THE ACCUSED HAS ABETTED THE SUICIDE OF THE DECEASED UNDER SECTION 306 OF IPC? There were instances of arguments between the accused and the deceased which is normal in present day relationships. Mere difference of opinion doesn’t amount to instigation. Mostly, It was accused who used come to the deceased to sort out their relationship problems and cared for the feeling of the deceased. Therefore, the accused is not liable to be convicted under Section 306 of IPC.

ISSUE 3: WHETHER THE ACCUSED HAS CAUSED MISCARRIAGE AND VOLUNTARY HURT TO THE DECEASED? There was no role of the accused in the miscarriage of the accused. The accused didn’t used force against the accused, therefore there is no case of causing voluntary hurt.


Page 14


MML -114

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE 1: WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS LIABLE TO BE CONVICTED FOR MURDER UNDER SECTION 302 OF IPC? 1.1 THAT THE ACCUSED IS NOT GUILTY OF COMMITTING MURDER It is submitted that the accused is not liable for committing murder u/s.302. Murder as defined under Sec.300 of the Indian Penal Code, is specie of culpable homicide, which is given in Sec.299 of the IPC.1 Therefore, it is humbly contended that the death of the deceased was not due to the act of the accused. The mere fact that the appellant and the deceased were together in the field does not lead to the irresistible inference that the appellant must have murdered the deceased.2 It is humbly presented before the court, that under Sec. 300(2), a person is guilty of committing murder if he acts with the intention of causing such bodily injury which he knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom such harm is caused. It is the felonious killing of another human being with malice aforethought.3 A person is guilty of murder if he intentionally causes the death of a person or causes such bodily injury as he knows, is likely to cause death of that person or causes such bodily injury, which in the ordinary course of nature results into death or commits an act so dangerous that it must, in all probability cause death of that person4. Whether the offence falls under S. 302, I.P.C. or S. 304, I.P.C, the nature of the injuries sustained by the deceased and the circumstances under which the incident took place are relevant factors. From the nature of the injuries and the origin and genesis of the incident, it could be spelt out that all the ingredients of the offence of murder defined under S. 300, I.P.C are made out and it is not possible to bring the offence within any of the five exceptions of S. 300, I.P.C.5 Under clause third of S. 300, IPC, culpable homicide is murder, if both the following conditions are satisfied; i.e. (a) that the act which causes death is done with the intention of

1

Nara Singh Challan v. Sate of Orrisa, 1997 CriLJ 2204 Lakhanpal vs State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1979 SC 1620 3 Sanwat Khan vs State of Rajasthan AIR 1956 SC 54 4 Sec 300, IPC 5 Ramashraya vs State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 2001 SC 1129 2


Page 15


MML -114

causing death or is done with the intention of causing a bodily injury; and (b) that the injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. It must be proved that there was an intention to inflict that particular bodily injury, which in the ordinary course of nature, was sufficient to cause death, viz., that the injury found to be present the injury that was intended to be inflicted. Even if the intention of accused was limited to the infliction of a bodily injury sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, and did not extend to the intention of causing death, the offence would be murder. Illustration (c) appended to S. 300 clearly brings out this point6. In the case at hand the accused and the deceased were living happily for two years and there was no reason for the accused to murder The deceased. Moreover, it was the accused who was proved to be a big support for the deceased in Delhi. The Defence contends that both, the actus reus and the mens rea of the crime are not established in the instant matter.

1.2 MENS REA TO COMMIT MURDER WAS NOT PRESENT Mens rea is considered as guilty intention7, which is proved or inferred from the acts of the accused8. It is presumed that every sane person intends the result that his action normally produces and if a person hits another on a vulnerable part of the body, and death occurs as a result, the intention of the accused can be no other than to take the life of the victim and the offence committed amounts to murder9. In the case at hand, it is evident to note that both were living together as live in partners happily. There were instances of arguments in between the accused and deceased and it was the accused who always tried to pacify the deceased. Even when Pooja came to their apartment, the accused asked her to leave as he cared for the feelings of the deceased. From the above mentioned facts, mens rea is clearly ruled out.

6

Settu vs State of Tamil Nadu 2006 Cri LJ 3889 (3893) Commissioner of Income Tax v Patranu Dass Raja Ram Beri, AIR 1982 PH 1, 4 8 State of Maharashtra v Meyer Hans George, AIR 1965 SC 722 9 (1951) 3 Pepsu LR 635 7


Page 16


MML -114

1.3 ACTUS REUS TO COMMIT MURDER WAS NOT PRESENT Actus reus is any wrongful act10. It is the conduct that constitutes a particular crime.11 Every criminal act is based on actus reus and mens rea. The word "actus reus" connotes an overt act. This is a physical result of human conduct, and therefore, an event which is distinguished from the conduct which produced the result. In a murder case, it is the victim's death which is an event and, therefore, is an actus reus.12

Doctrine of causa causans is frustrated. It is humbly submitted before the court that situations where the concurrent contributory causes exist which make it impossible to say that the act in question was a substantial cause13, and where the connection between the act and the death is obscure14, belie the principle of causa causans15. This doctrine states that for an act to be considered the cause of the death of a victim it must be the effective cause of the death16, and this is necessary to prove the guilt of an accused for the offence of culpable homicide17.

Post Mortem Report The post-mortem report is an extremely relevant and important document, in cases brought under Sec.302, of the Indian Penal Code.18 The post mortem report becomes important in cases where the cause of death is to be established and is a matter of controversy19. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that evidence of the suicide has to be drawn from the post-mortem report of the victim and the mental condition of the victim. It is humbly submitted that as per Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, Evidence includes all

10

Aiyar, P Ramanatha, The Law Lexicon, p. 49 (2nd ed 2006) Gul Mohummed vs King Emperor AIR 1947 Nag 121; Chander Bahadur Suha vs State 1978 Cr LJ 942 (Sikkim). 12 Haughton vs Smith (1973) 3 All ER 1109 13 Karen-Jutzi Johnson v. United States of America, 263 F.3d 753. 14 Vijaybaiv. State of Maharashtra, 1995 Supp (2) SCC 734. 15 BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 248 (7th ed., 2004). 16 Sushil Ansal v. State, 2014 (6) SCC 173. 17 Anil Kumar v. State, 2014 (1) JCC 256. 18 Sheo Govind Bin v. State of Bihar, 1985 BBCJ 632. 19 Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1988 SC 1883 11


Page 17


MML -114

documents produced for the inspection of the Court20. These documents are admissible in court as expert opinion under Section 45 of the I.E.A. The Apex Court has admitted as evidence and relied on post mortem reports in a catena of cases21. Post mortem report or hurt certificate is not substantive evidence unless the doctor who issued the same is examined in support thereof. The Bombay High Court has held that the post-mortem report or the medical certificate is not substantive evidence.22 As the post-mortem report is not substantive evidence, the court can come to an independent conclusion, from other evidence, without medical evidence.23 The post-mortem report is a document which by itself is not substantive evidence. It is the doctor's statement in Court, which has the credibility of a substantive evidence and not the report, which in normal circumstances ought to be used only for refreshing the memory of the doctor witness or to contradict whatever he might say from the witness box24,

and the significance of the

evidence of the doctor lies vis--vis the injuries appearing on the body of the deceased person and likely use of the weapon therefore and it would then be prosecutor's duly and obligation to have the corroborative evidence available on the record from the other prosecution witnesses.25 The very fact that the body with ligature mark around the neck was found on the cot-and not hanging-completely demolishes the theory of suicide and proves that she was murdered.26

In the post mortem report, the cause of death was stated as strangulation. There is nothing given as to signify homicidal death. There is no oral or documentary evidence present to prove the actus reus. In various cases, courts have given the different meanings of

20

" Evidence" means and includes-- (1) all statements which the Court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses, in relation to matters of fact under inquiry; such statements are called oral evidence; (2) all documents produced for the inspection of the Court; such documents are called documentary evidence. 21 State of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal AIR 1994 SC 1418, Kunduru Dharua v. State 2002 CrLJ 1757 (Ori). 22 Vaman Jaidev Raval v. State of Goa, 2007 CrLJ 431(NOC) (Bom) 23 Hadi Kisani v. State of Orissa, AIR 1966 Ori 21 24 Munshi Prasad v. State of Bihar, (2002) 1 SCC 351 (para 6) approving Ramaswami, Re, AIR 1938 Mad 336 : 1938 MWN 36. 25 State of Haryana v. Ram Singh, (2002) 2 SCC 426 (para 1) 26 Ram Kumar Madhusudan Pathak vs State of Gujarat AIR 1998 SC 2732


Page 18


MML -114

strangulation27 but usage of such a general term in the post mortem does not lead to any conclusive proof28. When two views are possible, the benefit of doubt was to go to the appellant and hence was acquitted29. Hence the same view must be taken in this instance as well. 1.4 CIRCUMSTANTIAL

EVIDENCE

IS

UNRELIABLE

GIVING

RISE

TO

REASONABLE DOUBT The circumstantial evidence in a case where there is a link of causation, if established, proves that the act was committed by the person so accused.30

It is a well settled principle that where the case is mainly based on circumstantial evidence, the court must satisfy itself that various circumstanced in the chain of evidence should be established clearly and that the completed chain must be such as to rule out a reasonable likelihood of the innocence of the accused.31 Essential ingredients to prove guilt by circumstantial evidence are: (1) Circumstances from which conclusion is drawn should be fully proved. (2) Circumstances should be conclusive. (3) All facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt and inconsistent with innocence of the accused. (4) Circumstances should exclude the possibility of guilt of a person other than the accused.32 The Supreme Court, in Bodh Raj v. State of J&K,33 added one more point to the above four, viz., there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for

27

Nemichand v. State of Rajasthan 2015 SCC Online Raj 9391; Ravinder Singh v. Govt of NCT Delhi 2008 (101) DRJ 61 (DB) 28 Ravinder Singh v. Govt of NCT Delhi 2008 (101) DRJ 61 (DB) 29 Ravinder Singh v. Govt of NCT Delhi 2008 (101) DRJ 61 (DB) para 28 30 Naseem Ahmed v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1974 SC 691; Sharad Birdhich and Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622. 31 Mohan Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1974 SC 1144 32 State of U.P. v. Dr. R.P. Mittal, AIR 1992 SC 2045, applied in Vithal Tukaram More v. State of Maharashtra, (2002) 7 SCC 20, (para 11). Also see Kartik Sahu v. State, 1994 CrLJ 102 (para 6) (Ori); State of Maharashtra v. Vilas Pandurang Patil, 1999 CrLJ 1062, 1065 (Bom); Thangaraj v. State by Inspector of Police, 1994 CrLJ NOC 16(Mad) ; Prithviraj v. State of Rajasthan, 2004 CrLJ 2190, 2196 (paras 25 & 26) (Raj) : 2004 CrLR 598(Raj) : 2004 (2) Raj CrC 552. 33 AIR 2002 SC 3164, para 17 : (2002) 8 SCC 45. See also Dhananjoy Chatterjee v. State of W.B., (1994) 2 SCC 220, 229, para 7 :(2002) 8 SCC 45; Sukhram v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 7 SCC 502, 511 (para 20); Peria Rajendran v. State, 2007 CrLJ 1242, 1245 (para 9) (Mad).


Page 19


MML -114

the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. Justice Hidayatullah observed "Circumstantial evidence in this context means a combination of facts creating a net-work through which there is no escape for the accused, because the facts taken as a whole do not admit of any inference but of his guilt."34 The sequence of events does not lead to any inference that something happened during the night which made her commit suicide immediately. 35 When even a link breaks away, the chain of circumstances gets snapped and other circumstances cannot in any manner establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts.36 When attempting to convict on circumstantial evidence alone the Court must be firmly satisfied of the following three things37: i. The circumstances from which the inference of guilt is to be drawn, must have fully been established by unimpeachable evidence beyond a shadow of doubt ii. The circumstances are of determinative tendency, unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused iii. The circumstances taken collectively, are incapable of explanation on any reasonable hypothesis except that of the guilt sought to be proved against him

The standard of proof required to convict a person on circumstantial evidence is wellestablished by a series of decisions of the Supreme Court. According to that standard the circumstances relied upon in support of the conviction must be fully established38 and the chain of evidence furnished by those circumstances must be so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused39 and further it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused40 and, if two views are possible on such evidence, the view pointing 34

Anant v. State of Bombay, AIR 1960 SC 500 at page 523. See also Laxman Naik v. State of Orissa, 1995 CrLJ 2692 (para 11) 35 State of Tamil Nadu vs P. Muniappan AIR 1998 SC 504 36 Janar Lal Das v. State of Orissa, 1991 (3) SCC 27; A. Jayaram and An r. v. State of AP, AIR 1995 SC 2128. 37 Mahmood v. State of UP AIR 1976 SC 69 38 Govinda Reddy v. State of Mysore, AIR 1960 SC 29 39 Deonandan Mishra v. State of Bihar, (1955) 2 SCR 570. Chain of circumstancial evidence complete, conviction for murder proper, Rajan Johnsonbhai Christy v. State of Gujarat, 1997 CrLJ 3702(Guj) ; Alamgir v. State (NCT, Delhi), AIR 2003 SC 282, (paras 10-13); Reddy Sampath Kumar v. State of A.P., (2005) 7 SCC 603, 604 (para 7). 40 Bakshish Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1971 SC 2016. See also Reddy Sampath Kumar v. State of A.P., (2005) 7 SCC 603, 604 (para 7) : AIR 2005 SC 3478; Kumaravel v. State, 2009 CrLJ 262, 266-67 (para 12.4).


Page 20


MML -114

towards the innocence of the accused is to be adopted.41 However, this does not mean that before the prosecution can succeed in a case resting upon circumstantial evidence alone, it must meet any and every hypothesis suggested by the accused, however extravagant and fanciful it might be. Further, it is not necessary that every one of the proved facts must in itself be decisive of the complicity of the accused or point conclusively to this guilt. Therefore, when deciding the question of sufficiency, what the Court has to consider is the total cumulative effect of all the proved facts each one of which re-enforces the conclusion of guilt.42It is the cumulative result of all the circumstances which must unerringly point to the guilt of the accused and not one circumstance by itself.43In such cases, the Court must guard against the danger of allowing conjecture or suspicion to take the place of legal proof.44Insufficient circumstantial evidence, benefit of doubt45, explains the requirements as to circumstantial evidence.46 If any rational explanation is possible, then there is an element of doubt of which the accused must be given the benefit.47 It is submitted that there is no chain of link as the deceased committed suicide. The accused was not present at the time of death of the deceased. 1.4.1 Plea of Alibi Section 103 of IEA, 1872 talks about plea of alibi and provides that it is for the accused who pleads alibi to prove it.48 Burden to prove plea of alibi is on accused pleading it.49 Burden is 41

State of H.P. v. Diwana, 1995 CrLJ 3002 (paras 10 and 11) (HP). See also Omanakuttan v. State of Kerala, 2000 CrLJ 4893 (paras 5 and 6) (Ker), relying on Earabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka, 1983 CrLJ 846 : AIR 1983 SC 446; Sharad Birdichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, 1984 CrLJ 1738 : AIR 1984 SC 1622 and Ashok Kumar Chatterjee v. State of M.P., 1989 CrLJ 2124 : AIR 1989 SC 1890. 42 State of A.P. v. I.B.S.P. Rao, AIR 1970 SC 648. 43 Gade Lakshmi Mangraju v. State of A.P., 2001 CrLJ 3317 (para 23) (SC) : AIR 2001 SC 2677 44 Charan Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1967 SC 520; State of U.P. v. Sukhbasi, AIR 1985 SC 1224; Hukam Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1977 SC 1063; Mohmood v. U.P., AIR 1976 SC 69. 45 State of U.P. v. Sukhbasi, AIR 1985 SC 1224; Hukam Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1977 SC 1063; Mohmood v. U.P., AIR 1976 SC 69. 46 Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v. State of M.P., AIR 1952 SC 343 : 1953 CrLJ 129; Kedarnath Bajoria v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1954 SC 660; Kutubal Yadev v. State of Bihar, AIR 1954 SC 720; Manak Lal v. Dr. Premchand, AIR 1957 SC 425; Ramdas v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1977 SC 1164; Pandu Dhondu v. State of Maharashtra, (1968) 2 SC WR 363; Krishnan Nair v. State of Kerala, 1968 LAR 166 : ILR (1959) Ker 1094; C.P. Fernandes v. Union Territory of Goa, AIR 1977 SC 135; Piyaio v. State, 1958 CrLJ 762 : AIR 1958 MP 144. 47 Raghav Prapanna v. State of U.P., AIR 1963 SC 74; M.G. Agarwal v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1963 SC 200. 48 Yusuf S.K. v. State, AIR 1954 Cal 258; State v. Sashibhushan, (1963) 1 CrLJ 550(Ori) 49 State of Haryana v. Sher Singh, AIR 1981 SC 1021; Dalel Singh v. Jag Mohan Singh, 1981 CrLJ 667(Del) ; State of U.P. v. Sughar Singh, AIR 1978 SC 191; Chandrika Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1972 SC 109; D.B. Deshmukh v. State, AIR 1970 Bom 438; Yaduram v. State, 1972 CrLJ 1464(J&K) ; relying on Sarat Chandra v. Emperor, AIR 1934 Cal 719; Parbhoo v. Emperor, AIR 1941 All 402. Also see Amir Hossain v. State of Tripura, 1998 CrLJ 4315, at page 4323 (Gau); Chandrika Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1972 SC


Page 21


MML -114

on the accused who is setting up defence of alibi to prove it but even so, the burden of proving the case against the accused is on the prosecution irrespective of whether or not the accused have made out plausible defence.50 Onus is on accused to substantiate plea of alibi and make it reasonably probable.51

Where the accused pleads that he was somewhere else at the time of incident, the burden to prove the same lies on him. Though burden is not as heavy as on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the defence of alibi can be probabilised also. The false plea of alibi cannot destroy the prosecution case which is supported by direct and unshaken evidence of the eye-witnesses. 52 Assuming arguendo that there was a chain of link, it was broken the moment the accused left the apartment on the morning of 16 May, 2016. Phone calls by the deceased to the accused shows clearly that the accused was not present at home during the morning. The accused returned only by 2 pm. The accused cannot be convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence if there is missing link in the chain of events to prove the circumstances conclusively against the accused.53 It is the function of the court to separate the grain from the chaff and accept what appears to be true and reject the rest.54 1.4.2 Last seen theory The last seen theory comes into play where the time-gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were seen last alive and when the deceased is found dead is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of the crime becomes impossible. It would be difficult in some cases to positively establish that the deceased was last seen with the accused when there is a long gap and possibility of the other persons coming in between exists.55

109; State v. Murugan, 2002 CrLJ 670, 673 (para 19) (Mad) : 2001 (2) Mad LW (Cri) 815; Rajendra Singh v. State of U.P., (2007) 7 SCC 378, 385-86 (para 8) : AIR 2007 SC 2786. 50 Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1956 SC 460; Narendra Singh v. State of M.P., (2004) 10 SCC 699, 708 (para 31) : 51 State of U.P. v. Snghar Singh, AIR 1978 SC 191; Chandrika v. State, AIR 1972 SC 109; Satyovir v. State, AIR 1958 All 746; Bindeshwari Singh v. State, AIR 1958 Pat 12. 52 State of Gujarat v. Miyame Abraham Mamed, 2004 CrLJ 3471, 3485 (para 19) (Guj). 53 State of Manipur v. Okram Jitan Singh, 2005 CrLJ 1646, 1650, para 22 (Gau). 54 Naunidh v. State of U.P., AIR 1982 SC 1299 55 Uda alias Suda v. The State of Rajasthan, 2001 CrLJ NOC 28(Raj)


Page 22


MML -114

In absence of any other positive evidence to conclude that accused and the deceased were last seen together, it would be hazardous to come to a conclusion of guilt in those cases. The instant case is that of the positive evidence.56 Where there was a considerable time-gap between the deceased boarding the vehicle of the accused and the time the dead body was found, it was held that in absence of any other links in the chain of circumstantial evidence, it was not possible to convict the accused solely on the basis of the "last seen" evidence.57 However, where the accused husband and the deceased wife were alone in the house on the date of occurrence causing burn injuries to the deceased, the Madras High Court held that mere presence of them could not be taken as a sole incriminating circumstance to involve a person in the offence and set aside the conviction.58 It is humbly submitted that the accused left the apartment in the morning and he came back at 2.00 p.m. in the afternoon which cannot sustain the last seen theory as there is a considerable time gap. 1.4.3 Reasonable Doubt arises In light of all the aforementioned arguments, the accused humbly submits that there exists reasonable doubt and hence he should be acquitted of the alleged crime. A reasonable doubt must not be imaginary, trivial or merely possible doubt; but a fair doubt based upon reason and common sense arising out of the evidence of the case. 59 In state of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal60, this Court has observed that the courts should be extremely careful in assessing the facts.and circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had 56

Bodhraj v. State of J&K, (2002) 8 SCC 45, para 31 : AIR 2002 SC 3164; See also State of U.P. v. Satish, AIR 2005 SC 1000, para 23 : (2005) 3 SCC 114; State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran, (2007) 3 SCC 755; Ramreddy Rajeshkhanna Reddy v. State of A.P., (2006) 10 SCC 172 : AIR 2006 SC 1656; Jaswant Gir v. State of Punjab, (2005) 12 SCC 438 : (2006) 1 SCC 579(Cr) ; Subhajoy Tripura v. State of Tripura, 2007 CrLJ 70(NOC) (Gau) ; Gopal Singh v. State of Uttaranchal, 2007 CrLJ 1972, 1976 (para 12) (Utr); Kusuma Ankama Rao v. State of A.P., AIR 2008 SC 2819, 2823 (para 14); State of Orissa v. Purna Chandra Kusal, 2008 CrLJ 4597, 4603-04 (para 12) (Ori); Chattar Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 2009 SC 378, 383 (para 14) : (2008) 14 SCC 667 : 2009 CrLJ 319; Latika Koteswara Rao v. State of A.P., 2009 CrLJ 257, 261 (para 22) ; State of Goa v. Pandurang Mohite, AIR 2009 SC 1066, 1071 (para 16); Mohd. Azad v. State of W.B., AIR 2009 SC 1307, 1312 (para 18); Raju v. State, by Inspector of Police, AIR 2009 SC 2171, 2175 (para 16); Vithal Eknath Adinge v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2009 SC 2067, 2070 (para 15). 57 Jaswant Gir v. State of Punjab, (2005) 12 SCC 438, 441 (para 5) : (2006) 1 SCC 579(Cr) . Dead body found after 5 days and crime detected after 12 days, involvement of accused in crime not established, Poshakadantha v. The State of Karnataka, 2008 CrLJ 72(NOC) (Kar) : 2007 (6) AIR Kar R 320(DB) ; See also Ramesh Bhai v. State of Rajasthan, 2009 CrLJ 2991, 2994 (para 15). 58 Kaliyamurhty v. State, 2008 CrLJ 195(NOC) (Mad) 59 Ramakant Rai v. Madan Rai Cr LJ 2004 SC 36 60 AIR (1994) SC 1418


Page 23


MML -114

in fact induced her to end the life by committing suicide. 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. No prima facie case was made out and the accused was given the benefit of doubt.61 The prosecution’s arguments are leaning towards the fact that the crime ‘may have been committed by the accused’, however they have failed to make the link between ‘may have committed the crime’ and ‘must have committed the crime’ and that gap must be filled by the prosecution by legal, reliable and unimpeachable evidence before a conviction can be sustained.62 Therefore, it is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the charge under section 302 of the IPC has not been made out due and he should be acquitted of the same.

61

Bura Manohar v. State of A.P., 2002 Cr LJ 3322(AP) . Central Bureau of Investigation v. V.C. Shukla, 1998 Cr LJ 1905 : AIR 1998 SC 1406, Bapurao v. State of Maharashtra, 2003 Cr LJ 2181(Bom) 62 IV. Nelson R. A. , Indian Penal Code, p. 2905 , (10th Ed. 2008)


Page 24


MML -114

ISSUE 2: WHETHER THE ACCUSED HAS ABETTED THE SUICIDE OF THE DECEASED UNDER SECTION 306 OF IPC? 2.1 THAT THE ACCUSED IS NOT GUILTY OF ABETTING THE DECEASED’S SUICIDE "Sui" means self and "cide" means killing, implying self-killing. Person committing 63 In Encyclopaedia of Crime and Justice (Vol. 4) by Sanford H. Kadish, the author mentions, thus: "Other psychologically oriented theories have viewed suicide as a means of handling aggressive impulses engendered by frustration."64 That in cases of woman of a sensitive and sentimental nature, it has usually been observed that if they are tired of their life due to the action of their kith and kin, they become so desperate that they develop a spirit of revenge and try to destroy those who had made their lives worthless and under this strong spell of revenge, sometimes they can go to the extreme limit of committing suicide with a feeling that the subject who is the root cause of their malady is also destroyed. We might extract what Robert J. Kastenbaum in his book "Death, Society and Human Experience" has to say: "Revenge fantasies and their association with suicide are well known to people who give ear to those in emotional distress."65

S. 306, I.P.C penalises abetment of suicide. It is a unique legal phenomenon in the Indian Penal Code that the only act, the attempt of which alone will become an offence. The person who attempts to commit suicide is guilty of the offence under S. 309, I.P.C. whereas the person who committed suicide cannot be reached at all. S. 306 renders the person who abets the commission of suicide punishable for which the condition precedent is that suicide should necessarily have been committed. It is possible to abet the commission of suicide. But nobody would abet a mere attempt to commit suicide. It would be preposterous if law could afford to penalise an abetment to the offence of mere attempt to commit suicide. Learned Sessions Judge went wrong in convicting the appellants under under S. 116 linked with S. 306, I.P.C. The former is "abetment of offence punishable with imprisonment--if offence be 63

M. Mohan v. State, (2011) 3 SCC 626 Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs State of Maharashtra AIR 1984 SC 1622 65 Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs State of Maharashtra AIR 1984 SC 1622 64


Page 25


MML -114

not committed". But the crux of the offence under S. 306 itself is abetment. In other words, if there is no abetment, there is no question of the offence under S. 306 coming into play. It is inconceivable to have abetment of an abetment. Hence, there cannot be an offence under S. 116 read with S. 306, I.P.C.66 It is submitted that the accused didn’t play any role in the suicide of the deceased.

2.2 THAT THERE IS ENOUGH EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO PROVE THAT THE DECEASED COMMITTED SUICIDE It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that evidence of the suicide has to be drawn from the post-mortem report of the victim and the mental condition of the victim. It is humbly submitted that as per Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, Evidence includes all documents produced for the inspection of the Court67. These documents are admissible in court as expert opinion under Section 45 of the I.E.A. It is respectfully submitted that the post mortem report submitted by the doctor conducting autopsy of the dead body is admissible in evidence even without examining the doctor in court68. The Apex Court has admitted as evidence and relied on post mortem reports in a catena of cases69. Ordinarily suicide would be committed at a secluded place and not in open place. It would not be committed before anybody and certainly not when everybody in the house was present.70 Hence, the deceased committed suicide.

2.3 THERE WAS NO ABETMENT BY THE ACCUSED Abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code71, two essential ingredients must be established: 66

Satvir Singh vs State of Punjab AIR 2001 SC 2828 " Evidence" means and includes-- (1) all statements which the Court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses, in relation to matters of fact under inquiry; such statements are called oral evidence; (2) all documents produced for the inspection of the Court; such documents are called documentary evidence. 68 Basu Harijan v. State of Orissa 2003 CrLJ 2270; Pratap Tigga v. State of Bihar 2004 CrLJ NOC 86(Jhar). 69 State of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal AIR 1994 SC 1418, Kunduru Dharua v. State 2002 CrLJ 1757 (Ori). 70 Ananda Mohan Sen vs State of West Bengal 2007 Cri LJ 2770 (2776) 71 306. Abetment of suicide - 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. 67


Page 26


MML -114

1. The deceased committed suicide 2. The accused abetted her in committing suicide. 3. Direct involvement by the accused in such abetment or instigation is necessary

Abetment contemplated in section 306 must conform to the definition given in section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, according to which abetment can be brought about in three ways: by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid to the deceased. Be that as it may, in a case of this nature, where a plea of suicide has been put forward, the Courts below should examine whether such a plea is altogether untenable and whether suicide is ruled out.72 It is humbly submitted that the law regarding offence of abetment to commit suicide is clear. A person can be said to instigate another when he incites or otherwise encourages another, directly or indirectly, to commit suicide73. The word ‘instigate’ means to goad or urge forward or provoke, incite, urge or encourage to do an act.74 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, "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. Thus, to constitute 'instigation', a person who instigates another has to provoke, incite, urge or encourage the 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 act ion; provoke to action or reaction.....to keep irritating or annoying somebody until he reacts.75 The word "instigate" literally means to provoke, incite, urge on or bring about by persuasion to do anything. The abetment may be by inaligation, conspiracy or intentional aid

72

Ramesh Kumar vs State of Punjab AIR 1994 SC 945 Asha Shukla v. State of U.P. 2002 CriLJ 2233 74 Parimal Chatterji v. Emperor 140 Ind. Cas.787. 75 Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), AIR 2010 SC 1446; Kishangiri Mangalgiri Goswami v. State of Gujarat, (2009) 4 SCC 52 : (2009) 1 SCR 672 : AIR 2009 SC 1808 : 2009 0 Cri.L.J 73

1720.


Page 27


MML -114

as provided in the three clauses of the section.76 Instigate means the active role played by a person with a view to stimulate another person to do the thing. In order to hold a person guilty of abetting it must be established that he had intentionally done something which amounted to instigating another to do a thing.77 The Supreme Court has observed in the case of Gangula Mohan Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh78, that: "20. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. It is submitted that there is no instigation by the accused. There are problems in every relationship but that cannot be concluded as instigation under abetment. As to what would constitute instigation for the commission of an offence would depend upon the facts of each case. Therefore, in order to decide whether a person has abetted by instigation the commission of an offence or not, the act of abetment has to be judged in the conspectus of the entire evidence in the case. The act of abetment attributed to an accused is not to be viewed or tested in isolation.79 The Supreme Court has reiterated that before anybody can be punished for abetment of suicide, it must be proved that the death in question was a suicidal death.80 The offence of abetment by instigation depends upon the intention of the person who abets and not upon the act which is done by the person who has abetted. The abetment may be by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid as provided under Section 107 IPC . However, the words uttered in a fit of anger or omission without any intention cannot be termed as instigation.81 The Supreme Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State held that “Each person's suicidability pattern is different from the other. Each person has his own idea of self-esteem and self-

76

Goura Venkata Reddy v. State of A.P., (2003) 12 SCC 469. Rajib Neog v. State of Assam, 2011 CrLJ 399(Gau) . 78 2010 Cr.L.J. 2110 (Supreme Court) 79 Brij Lal vs Prem Chand AIR 1989 SC 1661 80 Wazir Chand v. State of Haryana, AIR 1989 SC 378 : 1989 Cr LJ 809 : (1989) 1 SCC 244. Where the charge was under s. 148/304 but was discharged and the accused persons were convicted under s. 304/107, this was held to be wrong. Section 221(2) of CrPC can be invoked only in cases of cognate offences and not distinct ones. Ramesh Chandra Mondal v. State of W.B., 1991 Cr LJ 2520Cal . 81 State of Punjab v. Iqbal Singh, AIR 1991 SC 1532; Surender v. State of Hayana, (2006) 12 SCC 375; Kishori Lal v. State of M.P., AIR 2007 SC 2457; and Sonti Rama Krishna v. Sonti Shanti Sree, AIR 2009 SC 923. 77


Page 28


MML -114

respect. Therefore, it is impossible to lay down any strait-jacket formula in dealing with such cases. Each case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances.”82 Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained.83 In a noted case, deceased committed suicide by hanging himself because of alleged illicit relationship between his wife and the accused. Accused took the wife of deceased away from house of her brother and kept her with him for 4 days. There is definitely a proximity and nexus between the conduct and behaviour of accused and wife of deceased with that of suicide committed by the deceased.84 Mere harassment of wife by husband due to differences per se does not attract Section 306 read with Section 107, IPC.85 It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide.86 In the case of M. Mohan v. State87, the Apex Court held that there should be some live link, or a proximate link between the act of the accused and the act of committing of suicide. If the live link is missing, it cannot be said that the accused has instigated, or intentionally aided the commission of suicide. It is the say of the deceased that she was 'madly in love' with the accused. If deceased was really in love, she would not have committed suicide – her faith in her love would have restrained her from taking refusal of accused to marry, in literal sense. Further, the person in love would not express oneself by urging that the action as strong as possible should be taken against his or her beloved. Love never demands, it only gives. It is certainly doubtful that language of nature used in the suicide note would ever be used by one for the person with whom one claimed to be in love. The learned trial court has rightly raised the doubt about genuineness of the suicide note.88 82

Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (2009) 16 SCC 605. M. Mohan v. State, Represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police (2011) 3 SCC 626 : 2011(3) SCALE 78 : AIR 2011 SC 1238 : 2011 0 Cri.L.J 1900; Amalendu Pal v. State of West Bengal, (2010) 1 SCC 707; Rakesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618, Gangula Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2010) 1 SCC 750; Thanu Ram v. State of M.P., 2010 (10) SCALE 557 : (2010) 10 SCC 353 : (2010) 3 SCC 1502(Cri) ; S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan & Anr., (2010) 12 SCC 190 : (2010 0 AIR SCW 4938); 84 Dammu Sreenu v. State of A.P., AIR 2009 SC 3728; (2009) 14 SCC 249. 85 Sohan Raj Sharma v. State of Haryana, AIR 2008 SC 2108 : (2008) 11 SCC 215. 86 S. S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and Another, 2010 (12) SCC 190 : 2010 AIR SCW 4938 87 2011 (3) SCC 626 : AIR 2011 SC 1238. 88 Charan Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1967 SC 520. 83


Page 29


MML -114

In the case of Mamta Rai v. State of Madhya Pradesh89, the deceased had illicit relationship with the accused. The accused was prosecuted for abetment to suicide on the ground of instigation. The High Court allowed the criminal revision and discharged the accused from the offence under S. 306. It is submitted that there is no direct or indirect evidence which proves that there was an instigation by the accused. Therefore, there is no case of abetmet to suicide against the accused. Mere suspicion of abetment of suicide doesn’t mean that the accuse is guilty. It is a well-known principle in criminal jurisprudence that the accused is innocent unless proven guilty.90

89 90

CRR-1688-2015 Coffin v. United States, 156 U.S. 432 (1895)


Page 30


MML -114

ISSUE 3: WHETHER THE ACCUSED HAS CAUSED MISCARRIAGE AND VOLUNTARY HURT? 3.1 THAT THE ACCUSED HAS NOT CAUSED MISCARRIAGE Whoever voluntarily causes a woman with child1to miscarry shall, if such miscarriage2be not caused in good faith for the purpose of saving the life of the woman, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both; and, if the woman be quick with child,3shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. The term "miscarriage" is synonymous with "abortion". This section deals with the causing of miscarriage with the consent of the woman. A woman who causes herself to miscarry, is within the meaning of this section. The unborn child in the womb must not be destroyed unless the destruction of that child is for purpose of preserving the yet more precious life of the mother.91 In the present case, it was the accused who decided to go for abortion and not the accused who pestered her to abort the child. There is no evidence on record to show that the accused compelled her to abort the child. The accused should be given benefit of doubt and set free from the charge of S.312. 3.2 THAT THE ACCUSED HAS NOT CAUSED VOLUNTARY HURT Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt states that “Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.” It is submitted that there was no prima facie evidence to show injuries on the deceased body. Assuming arguendo that there are some injuries on the deceased body, the prosecution failed to prove that the hurt is done by the accused. Therefore, there exists a reasonable doubt which paves a way for acquittal of the accused.

91

R vs Bourne (1938) 3 All ER 615: (1939) 1 KB 687


Page 31


MML -114

PRAYER Wherefore in light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is humbly and respectfully submitted that this Honourable Court may be pleased to: 1. Acquit the accused for muder under Section 306 of IPC 2. Acquit the accused for abetment of suicide under Section 306 of IPC 3. Acquit the accused for causing miscarriage and voluntarily causing hurt under Sections 312 and 323 respectively.

And pass any other order that this Honourable Court may deem fit in the interests of justice, equity and good conscience.

All of which is humbly prayed, MML-114, Counsels for the Defense


Page 32

Defence Mml 114 ( lawoctopus task )

Recommend Documents