IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Laxman Sahu v. State of O!""a
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT APOOR#A RAMAS$AM% SECTION B& SEMESTER # ROLL NO' ((
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS TABLE OF CASES BOOKS WEBLIOGRAPHY
• •
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION SYNOPSIS OF FACTS ISSUES R AISED SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS WRITTEN PLEADINGS PRAYER
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
AIR
All India Reporter
Ed.
Edition
Ltd.
Limited
SCC
Supreme Court Cases
v.
Versus
www.
World Wide Web
TABLE OF CASES
1.) Sadhu Singh v. State of Punjab, (2009) 13 SCC 766 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 2.) Dilip Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1994) 2 Cr LJ 2439 (R!)
3.) Deo Narain v. State of UP 1973 CrLJ 677(SC) 4.) Ranveer Singh v. State of M.P( 2009) 3SCC 3"4 #.) Kanhaaiyalal v. State of Rajasthan 19"9 CrLJ 14"2
BOOKS Ratanlal and Dhirajlal ,Indian enal Code, !usti"e #$ $homas and %A Rashid, &' th Edition, Le(is )e(is ubli"ations.
WEBLIOGRAPHY MANUPATRA INDIAN KANOON DSK LEGAL
SYNOPSIS OF FACTS
•
A person b* the name o+ Sridhar who is the de"eased in this "ase-, suspe"ted illi"it
•
relations between his *ouner brother/s wi+e and the a""used that is the Appellant-. Sridhar "auht hold o+ the Appellant when the latter visited their house to meet her. A heated arument ensued between the two over this matter wherein Sridhar in a +it o+
•
aner pushed the Appellant out o+ the house as a result o+ whi"h the Appellant +ell •
• •
down. $he Appellant a+ter ettin up, pi"0ed up a lathi whi"h was l*in nearb* and hit Sridhar e(tremel* hard on the +orehead with it. It resulted in his death almost immediatel* a+ter he re"eived the blow. $his +a"t was upheld b* the report o+ Dr. Jagadananda Negi who "ondu"ted the post1 mortem o+ the de"eased. 2e stated that there was e++usion o+ "lotted blood between the s0ull and the brain. In his opinion death was due to "oma as a result o+ injur* to
the brain due to injur* "aused b* the lathi and death was within hal+ an hour o+ the •
re"eipt o+ the injur*. $he 2ih Court on a "are+ul "onsideration o+ the eviden"e addu"ed in the "ase had "ome to a de+inite "on"lusion that the appellant was uilt* +or "ulpable homi"ide not amountin to murder punishable under Se"tion &3'1I o+ the Indian enal Code, 456
QUESTIONS RAISED
4.- Whether or not, the Appellant has e("eeded his riht o+ private de+ense available to him under Se"tion 78 o+ the Indian enal "ode, 45639 :.- Whether or not, the Appellant is uilt* o+ "ulpable homi"ide not amountin to murder punishable under Se"tion &3'1I o+ the Indian enal Code, 45639
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 1.) Whethe ! "!t# the A$$e%%&"t h&' e(ee*e* h+' +,ht !- $+&te *e-e"'e &&+%&/%e t! h+0 "*e Set+!" 23 !- the I"*+&" Pe"&% !*e# 14567 ;es, the Appellant has indeed e("eeded his riht o+ private de+ense available to him
under Se"tion 78 o+ the Indian enal "ode, 4563. 8.) Whethe ! "!t# the A$$e%%&"t +' ,+%t9 !- %$&/%e h!0++*e "!t &0!"t+", t! 0*e $"+'h&/%e "*e Set+!" :6;
under Se"tion &3'1I o+ the Indian enal Code, 4563.
WRITTEN PLEADINGS
Section 97 of the Indian Penal Code of 1860 states that : Every person has a right, s!"ect to the restrictions stated in Section 99, to defend his !ody or the !ody of any other person against any offence affecting the h#an !ody . 2owever it was held b* this honourable
"ourt in the "ase o+ Sadhu Singh v. State of Punjab that in those "ases where +rom the e(amination o+ the +a"tual s"enario it be"omes "lear that the a""used had e("eeded their riht to private de+ense, then the plea reardin the e(er"ise o+ riht o+ private de+ense "annot be sustained. Whether the riht to private de+ense has been e("eeded depends on the +a"ts and 1 (2009) 13 SCC 766 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri)
"ir"umstan"es o+ ea"h "ase.
$hat i+ there is su++i"ient time +or re"ourse to publi" authorities, the riht is not
ii. iii.
available. $hat more harm than that is ne"essar* should not be "aused. $hat there must be reasonable apprehension o+ death or rievous hurt or hurt to the person or damae to the propert* "on"erned.
In the above "ase, the Appellant has "learl* e("eeded the riht o+ private de+ense whi"h is available to him. $his "an be dedu"ed +rom the +a"ts o+ the "ase. 2ere, the de"eased merel* pushed the Appellant as a result o+ whi"h he +ell on the round. $here was no reasonable apprehension o+ death or rievous hurt to person or damae to propert*. $he "ounsel on behal+ o+ the Respondent pleads that there is nothin to show that the Appellant "aused the lathi blow on the head o+ the de"eased in order to de+end himsel+ aainst an apprehended assault on a vital part o+ his bod*. $he riht o+ private de+en"e is available onl* to one who is suddenl* "on+ronted with immediate ne"essit* o+ avertin an impendin daner not o+ his "reation. $he ne"essit* must be present, real or apparent. In the "ase o+ Dilip Singh v. State of Rajasthan !, the +a"ts were as stated below. $he +ather o+ the a""used was atta"0ed b* the de"eased with a lathi resultin in a simple injur* on his head, whereb* the a""used in order to prote"t his +ather administered a +atal blow on the "hest o+ the de"eased with a ballam. It was held b* the Court that even thouh the a""used had the riht o+ private de+ense, he had obviousl* e("eeded it and was there+ore liable under Se"tion &3' o+ the Indian enal Code. Similarl* in the "ase o+ Deo Narain v. State of UP ", the Court held that the part o+ the bod* aainst whi"h the atta"0 is dire"ted is more important than the weapon used. $hus even thouh onl* a lathi is bein used in this parti"ular instan"e, it is e(tremel* danerous as it was aimed at the head whi"h is the most vulnerable part o+ the bod*. $hus it "an be said that in the above "ir"umstan"es there was no justi+i"ation +or su"h a vital blow in+li"ted on the head o+ Sridhar whi"h "aused his death. $he 2ih Court had rihtl* held that the Appellant e("eeded his riht o+ private de+en"e. 2 (1994) 2 Cr LJ 2439 (R!) 3 1973 CrLJ 677(SC)
Se"tion &33 e("eption : states that = C%$&/%e h!0++*e +' "!t 0*e +- the !--e"*e +" the e(e+'e !- the +,ht !- $+&te *e-e"'e !- $e'!" ! $!$et9# e(ee*' the $!=e ,+e" t! h+0 /9 %&= &"* &'e' the *e&th !- the $e'!" &,&+"'t =h!0 he +' e(e+'+", 'h +,ht !- *e-e"'e =+th!t $e0e*+t&t+!"# &"* =+th!t &"9 +"te"t+!" !- *!+", 0!e h&0 th&" +' "ee''&9 -! the $$!'e !- 'h *e-e"'e. When the riht o+ private de+ense
has been e("eeded, the appropriate "onvi"tion would be under Se"tion &3' o+ the IC as was held b* this 2onourable Court in the "ase o+ Ranveer Singh v. State of M.P #. $hus in the "ase o+ Kanhaaiyalal v. State of Rajasthan $ the a""used was held uilt* o+ "ulpable homi"ide not amountin to murder as he had e("eeded the riht to private de+ense b* "ausin more serious injuries to the de"eased in "omparison to the minor harm "aused to him. $he Appellant in this "ase is uilt* o+ "ulpable homi"ide not amountin to murder under Se"tion &33 e("eption : and hen"e should be "onvi"ted under Se"tion &3'14 o+ the Indian enal Code.
PRA%ER F FOR R RELIEF
Where+ore, in liht o+ the +a"ts stated, aruments advan"ed and authorities "ited, the Respondent, humbl* pra*s be+ore the 2on/ble Supreme Court o+ India, that= 4. $o hold the Appellant uilt* o+ e("eedin the riht to e(er"ise the riht o+ private de+ense. :. $o uphold the order o+ the 2ih Court whi"h +ound the Appellant uilt* o+ "ulpable homi"ide not amountin to murder punishable under Se"tion &3'1I o+ the Indian enal Code, 4563. And to pass an* other order whi"h the Court ma* deem +it in the liht o+ justi"e, e>uit* and ood "ons"ien"e.
A%% !- =h+h +' 0!'t h0/%9 $&9e*.
4 (2009) 3SCC 3"4 # 19"9 CrLJ 14"2
2th Ot!/e # 861; DELHI
COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT APOORVA RAMASWAMY
