Du Moot-Appellant - Updated - Final - F

IN THE HONORABLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA AT NEW DELHI, INDIA --Appeal Filed Under Article 132 & 134 of The Constitution of India, 1950 --CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. /2013

THE STATE

...........………………………………………………………Appellant

Vs. RAMESH

.....................................................……………………………Respondent

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT Most Respectfully Submitted to the Honorable Chief Justice of India & Other Companion Judges of The Honorable Supreme Court of India

-Written Submission on Behalf of The Appellant-

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Index of Authorities I. Acts/Statutes II. Books III. Internet Sources IV. List of Cases List of Abbreviations Statement of Jurisdiction Statement of Facts Statement of Issues Summary of Arguments Arguments Advanced Prayer

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

I. Acts/Statutes Indian Penal Code The Constitution of India Code of Criminal Procedure Evidence Act II. Books Ratanlal & Dhirajlal’s The Indian Penal Code 33rd Edition Reprint 2012 Ratanlal & Dhirajlal’s Law of Crimes, A commentary on The Indian Penal Code, 1860 26th edition. Criminal Procedure- R.V. Kelkar’s Criminal Procedure by Dr. C.N. Chandrasekharan Pilai. Text book on Indian Penal Code By Krishna Deo Gaur, Fourth Edition. Internet Sources http://www.findlaw.com http://www.indiankanoon.co m http://www.indlawinfo.org/ http://www.jstor.org. http://www.judis.nic.in http://www.lawsofindia.org http://www.manupatra.com http://www.scconline.com

Written Submission on Behalf of The Appellant-

IV. List of Cases R. v. Mohan [1994] 2 S.C.R. 9 Bengai Mandal vs. State of Bihar,[ para. 18] Rajesh Govind Jagesha v. State of Maharashtra, 2000 Cri LJ 380: (AIR 2000 SC 160) Ram Chander Mandal Vs.State, 1997IAD(Delhi)1, 1996(39)DRJ363 State of Karnataka v Joseph Rodrigues, , Criminal Appeal Nos. 1065, 1066 and 1239/2004 Mahesh v. State of M.P, MANU/SC/0246/1987 : (1987) 3 SCC 80 Jashubha Bharatsinha v state of Gujarat, 7MANU/SC/1561/1994 : (1994) SCC 353 Ravji v. state of Rajasthan, MANU/SC/0215/1996 : (1996) 2 SCC 175 Laxmi Vs. Union Of India & others 2013 (9) Khalil-Ur-Rahman, (1933) 11Rang. 213, Moniram Hazarika v State of Assam, (2004) 5 SCC 120; 2004 Cr LJ 2553. Rajinder v state of Maharashtra (2002) 7 SCC 721. (1953-54) 6 SauLR 329(333)(DB).

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

A.I.R. : All India Reporter Art. : Article CrPC. : The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Edn. : Edition e.g. : Example Gration (For Example) HC : High Court Hon'ble : Honourable IPC : Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sec : Section SC : Supreme Court SCC : Supreme Court Cases Vol. : Volume


STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION The appellant has approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India under Article 132 and Article 134 of The Constitution of India, 1950. The case is listed for arguments before the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Article 132 of The Constitution of India, 1950 reads as hereunder:

“Article 132: Appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court in appeals from High Courts in certain cases ( 1 ) An appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgment, decree or final order of a High Court in the territory of India, whether in a civil, criminal or other proceeding, if the High Court certifies under Article 134A that the case involves a substantial question of law as t the interpretation of this Constitution Omitted Where such a certificate is given, any party in the case may appeal to the Supreme Court on the ground that any such question as aforesaid has been wrongly decided Explanation For the purposes of this article, the expression final order includes an order declaring an issue which, if decided in favor of the appellant, would be sufficient for the final disposal of the case”

Article 134 of The Constitution of India, 1950 reads as hereunder:

“ Article 134: Appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court in regard to criminal matters An appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgment, final order or sentence in a criminal proceeding of a High Court in the territory of India if the High Court has on appeal reversed an order of acquittal of an accused person and sentenced him to death; or has withdrawn for trial before itself any case from any court subordinate to its authority and has in such trial convicted the accused person and sentenced him to death; or certifies under Article 134A that the case is a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court: Provided that

an appeal under sub clause (c) shall lie subject to such provisions as may be made in that behalf under clause ( 1 ) of Article 145 and to such conditions as the High Court may establish or required. Parliament may by law confer on the Supreme Court any further powers to entertain and hear appeals from any judgment, final order or sentence in a criminal proceeding of a High Court in the territory of India subject to such conditions and limitations as may be specified in such law”


SYNOPSIS OF FACTS

Reema, 18, a bright and ambitious student of 12th standard belonging to a lower middle class family used to give tuitions to support her family. Ramesh, accused number 1 (respondent) is a maths teacher at Reema's school. On Reema's 18th birthday Ramesh organized a birthday party for her at his house and gifted her an expensive watch. On 14th February 2013, Ramesh proposed marriage to Reema, Reema asked him to speak to her parents about the proposal, Ramesh approached Reema's parents with the proposal – which was rejected by them. Ramesh was warned by Reema's parents to stay away from their daughter. Reema's parents also warned Reema and threatened to discontinue her studies. Thereafter Reema maintained her distance from Ramesh and made her intentions to adhere to her parents' orders strictly. Despite resistance, Ramesh continued to contact Reema

personally, through phone and internet, as well as follow her to her tuition class. Reema reported Ramesh's behavior to her parents, they rebuked Ramesh for his acts despite their warning and disinterest. Reema's parents beat Ramesh and ordered him to leave.

Ramesh enraged with Reema's parents decision and actions went to Mahesh, 45, and narrated the entire sequence of events. Mahesh was Ramesh's confidante and a fatherly figure. Mahesh suggested that Ramesh should force Reema to marry him without informing her parents, he further suggested that Ramesh should carry a bottle of acid to threaten Reema with in case she resists the marriage. After initial hesitation, Ramesh agrees to do as Mahesh suggested. On 23rd March 2013 as planned Ramesh and Mahesh found Reema on a lonely road and ordered her to accompany them to the temple so that Ramesh can marry her. Reema refused, on her refusal, Mahesh threatened her with the bottle of acid while Ramesh started dragging her into the car. Reema shouted in resistance – on her shouting, Mahesh

opened the bottle of acid and threw it on her face. Ramesh and Mahesh both fled the scene of crime. Reema was taken to the hospital by a passerby, where she underwent surgeries and treatment

for grievous injuries and burns. Reema's statement was recorded and a FIR was lodged against both the accused under Sec 326A r/w Sec 34 IPC, 1860 and Ramesh was also charged under Sec 354D, IPC, 1860.

Mahesh absconded and was declared a proclaimed offender while Ramesh was arrested by police from his home and the bottle of acid and car, used in the crime, were seized from his possession. Ramesh was put to trial before the sessions court where he pleaded not guilty, Sessions Court convicted Ramesh under Sec. 326A r/w Sec. 34 IPC, 1860 and sentenced him to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment. He was also asked to pay compensation of Rupees two lacs to Reema. He was also awarded rigorous imprisonment for 2 years under Section 354D, IPC. Both the sentences were to run concurrently.

Ramesh filed an appeal in the High Court seeking acquittal, state filed an appeal seeking life imprisonment and enhanced compensation. The High Court adjudicated in Ramesh's favor, the court acquitted him from the charges under Sec.326A r/w Sec. 34,IPC, and Sec 354D IPC, 1860 and dismissed the appeal of the State, being bereft of any substance. It held that under the circumstances of the case the Sessions Court had wrongly held the accused liable under Sec. 326A, IPC, by invoking Section 34 IPC,1860 as no common intention to commit the offense of acid attack under Sec.326A could be proved. The High Court also held that the offense of stalking under Sec. 354D was not made out against the accused. The High Court, however, recommended the State Legal Services Authority to decide upon the quantum of compensation to be awarded by the State Government to the victim as per Sec. 357A, CrPC within one month. Aggrieved by the said judgment of the High Court, the State filed an appeal before the Supreme Court on the ground that High Court has failed to take notice of the fact that common intention was present as Ramesh and Mahesh agreed to the use of bottle of acid in their plan of abduction. Acid was thrown in furtherance of that common intention.

The State appealed for considering the offense as heinous and to award life imprisonment under Sec 326Ar/w Sec.34 IPC and Section 354D IPC and also to enhance the compensation awarded by the Sessions Court, to Rupees three lac fifty thousand, to be paid by the accused to the victim under Sec. 326A, IPC, 1860, in addition to the compensation to be paid by the State Government under Sec 357A CrPC. The State also sought permission for addition of charge under Sec 366 IPC. -Written Submission on Behalf of The Appellant-

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

The Appellant respectfully asks the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the following questions: Whether common intention was present when Ramesh and Mahesh agreed to use acid. Whether acid thrown on Reema was in furtherance of the common intention.

Whether the actions of Ramesh were fit for awarding of life imprisonment under Sec 326Ar/w Sec.34 IPC and Sec 354D IPC. Whether the compensation awarded by the Sessions Court to the victim under Sec 326A IPC in addition to compensation to be paid by the State Government under Sec 357A CrPC should be enhanced. Whether permission should be given to add the charge under Sec 366 IPC.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

Common intention was present when Ramesh and Mahesh agreed to use acid and acid thrown on Reema was in furtherance of the common intention. It is humbly submitted to this court that common intention was present between Ramesh and Mahesh from the moment Ramesh agreed to Mahesh’s plan of using acid to force Reema to marry him. As per Sec 34 IPC – any act done by several persons in furtherance of common intention makes each person liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone. The hon’ble HC fails to take notice of this common intention and the actions by Ramesh which were clearly in furtherance of this common intention.

Ramesh’s actions were fit for awarding of life imprisonment under Sec 326A r/w Sec 34 IPC and Sec 354D IPC. It is humbly submitted to this court that Ramesh’s actions in connivance with Mahesh caused permanent damage, deformity, burns, disability and dis-figuration amounts to grievous hurt by throwing Acid and as per Sec 326A these actions of Ramesh and Mahesh are punishable by life imprisonment. It is also submitted that Ramesh may be convicted under Sec 354D as it is a known fact that Ramesh had been following her, contacting her on phone and internet despite her resistance, disinterest and warning by her parents – these actions of Ramesh amount to stalking.

Compensation awarded by the

Sessions Court to the victim under Sec 326A IPC in addition to compensation to be paid by the State Government under Sec 357A CrPC should be enhanced. It is humbly submitted to this court that the compensation awarded to Reema by the Sessions Court should be enhanced as per Sec 326A – the compensation should be sufficient to support the medical treatment of the victim, however the given compensation of two lacs (2,00,000/-) is not sufficient as the expenditure occurred is -Written Submission on Behalf of The Appellant-

over six and a half lacs (6,50,000/-) and further treatment needs to be done which includes fifteen more surgeries. The court is requested to enhance the compensation to three lacs and fifty thousand (3,50,000/-) along with the compensation which the state needs to pay as per Sec 357A CrPC. Permission should be given to add the charge under Sec 366 IPC. It is humbly submitted to this court that permission may be granted to add the charge under Sec 366 IPC against Ramesh. Sec 366 IPC deals with kidnapping, abducting or inducing women to compel her marriage. As per Sec 366 IPC Ramesh’s plan and actions clearly had the intention to forcefully marry Reema against her will with coercion.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

(1) Whether the High court has failed to take notice of the fact that the common intention was present as Ramesh & Mahesh agreed to use the bottle of acids in their plan of abduction and acid was thrown in furtherance of that common intention. It is humbly submitted to this court that common intention was present between Ramesh and Mahesh from the moment Ramesh agreed to Mahesh’s plan of using acid to force Reema to marry him. As per Sec 34 IPC – any act done by several persons in furtherance of common intention makes each person liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone. The hon’ble HC fails to take notice of this common intention and the actions by Ramesh which were clearly in furtherance of this common intention.

Intention is defined in R. v Mohan 1 as "the decision to bring about a prohibited consequence.”. Intention A range of words represents shades of intention in criminal laws around the world. The mental element, or mens rea, of murder, for example, is traditionally expressed as malice aforethought, and the interpretations of malice, "maliciously" and "willfully" vary between pure intention and recklessness depending on the jurisdiction in which the crime was committed and the seriousness of the offense.

The 4 essential elements of an offense are: Mens Rea (Intention): Mens rea refers to the crime's mental elements of the defendant's intent. This is a necessary element—that is, the criminal act must be voluntary or purposeful. Mens rea is the mental intention (mental fault), or the defendant's state of mind at the time of the offense, sometimes called the guilty mind. It stems from the ancient maxim of obscure origin, "actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit reas" that is translated as "the act is not guilty unless the mind is guilty."

(ii) Actus Rea (Conduct): The actions or the conduct or the execution of malafide intentions is Actus Rea. Posession 1

R. v. Mohan [1994] 2 S.C.R. 9 -Written Submission on Behalf of The Appellant-

Concurrence: In general, mens rea and actus reus must occur at the same time—that is, the criminal intent must precede or coexist with the criminal act, or in some way activate the act. Cause: Causation is the "causal relationship between conduct and result". That is to say that causation provides a means of connecting conduct with a resulting effect, typically an injury. IV. In the case in hand, all four elements of crime are present without doubt, in furtherance of that , attention must be drawn to the Common Intention aspect of this case – the test of intention for those who administer the criminal justice system is that, when planning their actions, people may be aware of many probable and possible consequences. Obviously, all of these consequences could be prevented through the simple expedient either of ceasing the given activity or of taking action rather than refraining from action. So the decision to continue with the current plan means that all the foreseen consequences are to some extent intentional, i.e. within and not against the scope of each person's intention. In the given case, when Mahesh suggested to Ramesh the use of Acid in order to intidate, threaten and forcefully marry Reema – Ramesh was fully aware of all the possible and probably consequences of using acid – of which one happened to be causing grevious hurt or even death of Reema. Knowing the possible and probably consequences Ramesh agreed to Mahesh's plan – this satisfied the test of intention, which was clearly malifide and criminal in this case. V. The fact that Ramesh did not resist Mahesh's plan as well as stood as a mute witness to Mahesh's action of throwing acid on Reema clearly show the intention was common and equally malafide. It can be said with certainty that Ramesh had the intention to inflict bodily harm on the victim otherwise Ramesh would have disagreed of use to bottle of acid and would have not accompanied Mahesh to abduct Reema with the use of bottle containing acid. Since the conduct of the accused Ramesh whose presence at the scene of the occurrence stands proven beyond doubt, at the time when Mahesh was throwing acid gives sufficient proof that both shared common intention and further Ramesh simply watched to the accused Mahesh throwing acid on Reema neither tried to

intervene or save nor prevented the accused Mahesh from doing it so it is clearly established that the accused Ramesh had intended to cause injury, disfigurements and disabilities of the victim. VI. However keeping in mind the facts that Reema had turned down Ramesh’s marriage proposal and further Ramesh had accompanied Mahesh who was carrying the bottle of acid to the scene of incident, it can be said with certainty that the accused Ramesh had the intention to inflict bodily harm on the victim otherwise accused Ramesh would have disagreed of use to bottle of acid and would have not accompanied the accused Mahesh to abduct Reema with the use of acid. Since the conduct of the accused Ramesh whose presence at the scene of the incident stands proved beyond doubt, at the time when Mahesh was throwing acid gives sufficient indication that both shared common intention and further Ramesh simply watched Mahesh using acid to cause hurt to Reema - he neither tried to intervene or save Reema, neither did he stop Mahesh from doing it so it is clearly established that the accused Ramesh had the intention to cause injury, disfigurements and disabilities of the victim. The silence on the part of Ramesh and failure to intervene goes to show that Ramesh developed common intention with the accused Mahesh of throwing the bottle containing acid. 2

VII. Perpetrators of the crime act cruelly and deliberately. Acid violence is a premeditated act of violence as the perpetrator of the crime carries out the attack by first obtaining the acid, carrying it on him and then stalking the victim before executing the act supporting this act done to be premeditated the Hon'ble SC in Rajesh Govind Jagesha v. State of Maharashtra, 3 has held:-"No pre mediation or previous meeting of mind is necessary for the applicability of Section 34 of the I.P.C. 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 purposes of common intention even the participation in the commission of the offence need not be proved in all cases. The Bengai Mandal vs. State of Bihar,[ para. 18] 2

3

2000 Cri LJ 380: (AIR 2000 SC 160)


common intention can develop even during the course of an occurrence.” VIII. These facts clearly establish that common intention on the part of both the accused and section 34. IPC is rightly pressed into service. The togetherness of the two accused at the time at the time of the incident and soon after the incident clearly establishes their common intention to commit the crime. A question arises that if there was no common intention why did not Ramesh tried to prevent or intervene and why did he run away along with Mahesh leaving Reema in immense pain? The only answer to this question is that there was a common intention (which happens to be essential element 1 of a crime as stated in paragraph III) and their actions on March 24th were in furtherance of that common intention – completing the essential element 2, 3, 4 for a crime as stated in paragraph III. of both the accused in the crime. Thus the appellant finds no merit in the argument that section 34, IPC cannot be invoked in the facts of the present case so as to convict the appellant as per this case Ram Chander Mandal Vs.State, 4

IX. From the above circumstances it is crystal clear that they had common intention to commit such heinous crime. Yes, the act of throwing the acid was clearly a manifestation of the plan and carrying the acid was an essential and important action plan.

(2) Ramesh’s actions were fit for awarding of life imprisonment under Sec 326A r/w Sec 34 IPC and Sec 354D IPC. It is humbly submitted to this court that Ramesh’s actions in connivance with Mahesh caused permanent damage, deformity, burns, disability and dis-figuration amounts to grievous hurt by throwing Acid and as per Sec 326A these actions of Ramesh and Mahesh are punishable by life imprisonment. It is also submitted that Ramesh may be convicted under Sec 354D as it is a known fact that Ramesh had been following her, contacting her on phone and internet despite her resistance, disinterest and warning by her parents – these actions of Ramesh amount to stalking.

1997IAD(Delhi)1, 1996(39)DRJ363

Acid throwing is an extremely violent crime by which the perpetrator of the crime seeks to inflict severe physical and mental suffering on his victim. This kind of violence is often motivated by deep-seated jealousy or feelings of revenge against an innocent woman. Perpetrators of the crime act cruelly and deliberately. The act of using bottle of acid was a premeditated act of violence as the perpetrator of the crime carries out the attack by first obtaining the acid, then carrying it on him and then stalking the victim before executing the act.

As elaborated upon in Argument I, paragraph V – Ramesh did not do anything to prevent Mahesh from throwing the acid, he stood there watching it while Reema suffered. Further so – he was the won who drove Mahesh to Reema, abducted Reema, dragged her and also fled along with Mahesh. The fact that Ramesh had no sense of remorse or resentment – clearly shows his malafide intentions and equal participation in throwing of acid on Reema.. IV. As per section 34 IPC “ each of such persons is liable for that act in same manner as if it were by him alone”, this section clearly holds Ramesh liable for the act of throwing acid on Reema as argued in argument I paragraph I-VII there was clear common intention between Mahesh and Ramesh, which makes Ramesh equally liable. Sec 326 IPC deals with offenses in which grievous hurt is caused voluntarily by dangerous weapons or means, in the given cases sub section A will apply as that specifies Acid as the means for causing damage, dis-figuration or disability. Sec 326A states that : '326A. Whoever causes permanent or partial damage or deformity to, or burns or maims or disfigures or disables, any part or parts of the body of a person or causes grievous hurt by throwing acid on or by administering acid to that person, or by using any other means with the intention of causing or with the knowledge that he is likely to cause such injury or hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to -Written Submission on Behalf of The Appellant-

imprisonment for life, and with fine: Provided that such fine shall be just and reasonable to meet the medical expenses of the treatment of the victim: Provided further that any fine imposed under this section shall be paid to the victim.'

VI. The damage caused to Reema has been proven beyond doubt to be of grievous nature which has ruined her life, career and future for her and her family. Reema has had to undergo 6 surgeries and 10-15 more surgeries will need to be conducted, Reema has lost vision in one eye, Reema has permanent scars on the skin of her hands and face. Reema has suffered physically, emotionally and mentally beyond repair and the suffering can is beyond measure.

VII. In the given case, Ramesh clearly caused the most severe degree of damage possible and deserves the maximum punishment in order to set precedent which will deter others from abusing and ruing lives of women. VIII. Further, Ramesh's action prior to the attack on Reema on March 24th amount to conviction under sec 354D IPC, which states that '354D. (1) Whoever follows a person and contacts, or attempts to contact such person to foster personal interaction repeatedly, despite a clear indication of disinterest by such person, or whoever monitors the use by a person of the internet, email or any other form of electronic communication, or watches or spies on a person in a manner that results in a fear of violence or serious alarm or distress in the mind of such person, or interferes with the mental peace of such person, commits the offence of stalking: Provided that the course of conduct will not amount to stalking if the person who pursued it shows–– that it was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime and the person accused of stalking had been entrusted with the responsibility of prevention and detection of crime by the state; or that it was pursued under any law or to comply with any condition or

requirement imposed by any person under any law; or (iii) that in the particular circumstances the pursuit of the course of conduct was reasonable. Whoever commits the offense of stalking shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.’ IX. Here in this case Ramesh proposed to Reema for marriage and Reema however told him to speak to her parents. When Ramesh approached Reema’s parents with the proposal of marriage, they rejected his offer and warned him not to contact her anymore. Thereafter, Reema started avoiding Ramesh and made Ramesh clear that she won’t go against her parents wishes. Despite such disinterest shown by Reema and warning by her parents Ramesh started following Reema to her tuition classes and even contacted her personally on the phone and through internet. Here Ramesh tried to foster personal interaction with Reema against her will. Ramesh's actions clearly fulfils the conditions of offence Stalking under Section 354D IPC. The appellant submits this court to convict Ramesh under S354D IPC and give maximum punishment of three years to Ramesh.

In similar cases where a person threw acid on someone causing great amount of damage and dispair, the courts have confirmed as well as awarded life in prison to the accused – one such case is of State of Karnataka vs Joseph Rodrigues 5, where the Karnataka HC confirmed that such ghastly attacks are punishable by life in prison.

XI. In Mahesh v. State of M.P 6. reported in the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering death sentence observed thus: It will be a mockery of Justice to permit the accused the escape the extreme penalty of law when faced with such evidence and such cruel acts. To give the lesser punishment for the accused would be to render the justice system of this country suspect. The common man will lose faith in Courts. In such State of Karnataka by Jalahalli Police Station Vs.Respondent: Joseph Rodrigues S/o V.Z. Rodrigues, Criminal Appeal Nos. 1065, 1066 and 1239/2004 MANU/SC/0246/1987 : (1987) 3 SCC 80


cases, he understands and appreciates the language of deterrence more than the reformative jargon. Therefore, undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law, and society could not long endure such serious threats. The duty of every Court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it urns executed or committed etc. (see Sevak Perumal v. State of T.N.). The criminal law adheres in general to the principle of proportionality in prescribing liability according to the culpability of each kind of criminal conduct.

XII. In Jashubha Bharatsinha v. state of Gujarat 7 the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed: The Courts are required to answer new challenges and mould the sentencing system to meet these challenges. The object should be to protect the society and to deter the criminal in achieving the avowed defect of law by imposing appropriate sentence. It is expected that the Courts would operate the sentencing system so as to impose such sentence which reflects the conscience of the society.

XIII. In the case of Ravji v. state of Rajasthan 8 it is held that It is the nature and gravity of the crime and not the criminal, which art germane for consideration of appropriate punishment in a criminal trial. The Court will be failing in if duty if appropriate punishment is not awarded for a crime which has been committed not only against the individual but also against the society to which the criminal and the victim belong .

(3) Compensation awarded by the Sessions Court to the victim under Sec 326A IPC in addition to compensation to be paid by the State Government under Sec 357A CrPC should be enhanced. It is humbly submitted to this court that the compensation awarded to Reema by the Sessions Court should be enhanced as per Sec 326A – the compensation should be 8 7

MANU/SC/1561/1994 : (1994) 4 SCC 353 MANU/SC/0215/1996 : (1996) 2 SCC 175

sufficient to support the medical treatment of the victim, however the given compensation of two lacs (2,00,000/-) is not sufficient as the expenditure occurred is over six lacs (6,50,000/-) and further treatment needs to be done which includes fifteen more surgeries. The court is requested to enhance the compensation to three lacs and fifty thousand (3,50,000/-) along with the compensation which the state needs to pay as per Sec 357A CrPC. As argued in argument 2 – it is clear that Ramesh was guilty of causing grievous hurt by throwing acid on Reema – the damage is grave and beyond full repair. Physical, emotional and mental damage aside – there is a lot of monetary damage which Reema and her family have suffered because of this attack. Reema has already undergone 6 surgeries which have cost the family over six and a half lac Rupees (6,50,000/-), the doctors have stated that there will be need for 10-15 more surgeries and further ongoing treatment. Reema has also lost her left eye and has permanent scars on her hands and face. Reema's father has lost his job because of extended leave for Reema's treatment. Reema's father also has 2 younger daughters to support. The damage and distress caused to Reema and her family is beyond measure and repair. Although no amount of compensation will bring Reema's life back to as it was before the attack, however it is her right under Sec 326A to get compensation from Ramesh to meet her medical expenditure. The appellant submits to this hon'ble court to order the respondent to three and a half lacs Rupees (3,50,000/-) as compensation to Reema, immediately for her medical treatment.

IV. The appellant also submits to this hon'ble court to order the state authorities to pay the compensation to Reema which she is entitled to under S357A (2) CrPC – same was ordered by the HC. Sec 357A (2) CrPC states that '(2) Whenever a recommendation is made by the Court for compensation, the District Legal Service Authority or the State Legal Service Authority, as the case may be, shall decide the quantum of compensation to be awarded under the scheme referred -Written Submission on Behalf of The Appellant-

to in sub-section (1).' As stated in the judgment by this hon'ble court by hon'ble Justice RM Lodha in the

case, Laxmi Vs. Union Of India & others 9- That the current compensation package of all states and UTs — ranging between Rs 5,000 and Rs 1.5 lakh — is inadequate to meet costs of treatment and rehabilitation. The judgment also reiterated that Rs. 1 lac of the compensation must be paid by the authorities within 15 days of the attack being reported. The judgment says “It cannot be overlooked that acid attack victims need to undergo a series of plastic surgeries and other corrective treatment. With regard to this, the solicitor general suggested that the compensation amount to be paid by states to acid attack victims must be enhanced to at least Rs 3 lakh,” “The balance of Rs 2 lakh shall be paid by the state or Union Territory concerned as expeditiously as possible and positively within two months of the incident.” VI. Keeping this hon'ble court's judgment as reference – apparent submits that the court may order the state government to pay compensation to Reema immediately in addition to the compensation to be paid by Ramesh under sec 326A IPC.

Permission should be given to add the charge under Sec 366 IPC. It is humbly submitted to this court that permission may be granted to add the charge under Sec 366 IPC against Ramesh. Sec 366 IPC deals with kidnapping, abducting or inducing women to compel her marriage. As per Sec 366 IPC Ramesh’s plan and actions clearly had the intention to forcefully marry Reema against her will with coercion. This hon’ble Court has the power to add or alter any charge at any time before judgement is pronounced under sec 216 CrPC.

Laxmi Vs. Union Of India & others

Section 366 IPC states that: ‘ Kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel her marriage, etc.-- Whoever kidnaps or abducts any woman with intent that she may be compelled, or knowing it to be likely that she will be compelled, to marry any person against her will, or in order that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, or knowing it to be likely that she will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and whoever, by means of criminal intimidation as defined in this Code or of abuse of authority or any other method of compulsion, induces any woman to go from any place with intent that she may be, or knowing that it is likely that she will be, forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with another person shall also be punishable as aforesaid.’ In the given case, it is proven beyond doubt that Ramesh wanted to abduct Reema

and marry her forcefully. On 24th March Ramesh along with Mahesh executed this plan and found Reema alone and attempted an abduction. This clearly proves that the intention to abduct was very much present. This incident will come under the ambit of Sec 366 as a case of abduction as Reema happened to be eighteen years, whereas kidnapping applies to only minors.

IV. This hon’ble court held in the case of Khalil-Ur-Rahman and Hazarika v State of Assam that once the necessary intention of the accused is established the offence is complete, whether or not the accused succeeded in effecting his purpose, and whether or not in the event the woman consented to the marriage or the illicit intercourse. 10 The given situation is strinkingly similar to cases cited - though accused did not successfully abducted Reema and compel her to marry against her wishes but accused must be charged under Sec 366 IPC as the intention was clear. The intention of the accused is the basis and the graveness of an offence under this section. The 10

Khalil-Ur-Rahman, (1933) 11Rang. 213, Moniram Hazarika v State of Assam, (2004) 5 SCC 120; 2004 Cr LJ 2553.


violation, the intention and the conduct of the accused determine the offence. The only bear upon the intent which the accused kidnapped or abducted the woman, and the intent of the accused is the vital question for determining the case. Intention is a matter of inference from the circumstances of the case and the subsequent conduct of the accused after abduction has taken place. VI. In order to constitute offence of ‘abduction’ a person must be carried off illegally by force or deception that is to compel a person by force or deceitful means to induce to go from one place to another as judged in the case of Rajinder v state of Maharashtra 11. VII. To constitute the offence under section 366, it is necessary for the prosecution to prove that the accused induced the complainant woman or compelled by force to go from any place, that such inducement was by deceitful means, that such abduction took place with the intent that complainant will be compelled to marry. 12

VIII. Knowledge on the part of the accused at the time of abduction or kidnapping that the woman would be compelled to marry against her will is sufficient to constitue an offence under this section 13

IX. It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble Supreme Court of India to add a new charge under Sec 366 IPC in the trial of this case. As Ramesh had a intention and knowledge along with Mahesh to abduct Reema and forcefully take her to the temple for marrying her without the information to her parents. This clearly shows that Ramesh used force to compel her to accompany him to the temple where he wanted to marry her. This proves beyond doubt that Ramesh has committed the offence under Sec 366 IPC, the same has been overlooked by the Rajinder v state of Maharashtra Ratanlal & Dhirajlal’s Law of Crimes, A commentary on The Indian Penal Code, 1860 26 th edition, Pg 2020. (1953-54) 6 SauLR 329(333)(DB).

competent authority which framed the initial charges as well as the hon’ble Sessions Court and hon’ble HC.


PRAYER

Wherefore in the light of the issues raised, argument advanced, reasons given and Authorities cited, this hon’ble court may be pleased to: Pronounce Ramesh as guilty under Sec 326 r/w Sec 34 and Sec 354D IPC and sentence him to life imprisonment. Enhance the compensation to be paid by the accused under Sec 326A IPC to the victim to Rupees three lac fifty thousand along with the compensation to be paid by the State Government under Sec 357A CrPC. To grant permission to add charge under Sec 366 IPC. To pass any other order which the Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the light of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience. For this Act of kindness, the respondent shall forever humbly pray. All of which is respectfully submitted.

COUNSELS FOR APPELLANT

Du Moot-Appellant - Updated - Final - F

Recommend Documents