Memorial-Prosecution-Surana Trial Advocacy

TEAM CODE:
SURANA & SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2018 – NORTH
ROUNDS
IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS

INDRA NAGAR, SARDAM, BARAT
C.C. No. 100 of 2018
IN THE MATTER OF
STATE OF SARDAM (PROSECUTION)
VERSUS
DEVEN & JEYANT (DEFENCE)
FOR THE OFFENCES CHARGED UNDER
SECTIONS 308, 354, 509, 326 & 504 OF BARAT PENAL CODE
SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE SESSIONS JUDGE
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

SURANA & SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2018 – NORTH ROUNDS
[TABLE OF CONTENTS]
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents .......................................................................................................................... 2
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ......................................................................................................... i
Acts and Legislation: .................................................................................................................... i

List of Cases: ................................................................................................................................ i
Books Refereed .......................................................................................................................... iv
Law Dictionaries/Lexicons: ....................................................................................................... vi
LIST OF ABBREIEVIATIONS ................................................................................................ vii
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION .......................................................................................... ix
STATEMENT OF FACTS .......................................................................................................... xi
STATEMENT OF CHARGES .................................................................................................. xii
Deven ........................................................................................................................................ xii

Jeyant ......................................................................................................................................... xii
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ............................................................................................... xiii
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ....................................................................................................... 1
ISSUE I. WHETHER DEVEN IS LIABLE FOR THE COMMISSION CRIMINAL

OFFENCES AGAINST POOJA UNDER THE BARAT PENAL CODE ................................ 1
I.A. THAT CRIMINAL LIABILITY CAN BE ATTRIBUTED AGAINST DEVEN FOR

COMMISSION OF ATTEMPT TO COMMIT CULPABLE HOMICIDE U/s. 308 OF BPC.
................................................................................................................................................. 1
I.A.2. The offence committed by Deven fulfils the essential requirements of S. 308 BPC... 2
I.A.3 Deven had the ‘Knowledge’ that his ‘act’ would cause Pooja’s death ...................... 2

[TABLE OF CONTENTS]
I.A.4 Deven had the intention to commit Culpable Homicide not amounting to murder
under Section 300 of BPC .................................................................................................... 3
I.A.5. Deven’s act falls under Exception 2 of Section 300 BPC. ......................................... 4
I.A.6 Deven exceeded his ‘Right to private Defence’. ......................................................... 4
I.B. THAT DEVEN IS LIABLETO HAVE USED CRIMINAL FORCE AND OUTRAGED
MODESTY OF POOJA SECTION 354 OF THE BARAT PENAL CODE. ......................... 5
I.B.1. Deven assaulted and used Criminal force against Pooja. .......................................... 5
I.B.2. Deven had knowledge and intention the action would outrage Pooja’s modesty. ...... 6
I.C.DEVEN IS LIABLE TO HAVE USED WORDS, GESTURES OR ACTS TO INSULT

THE MODESTY OF POOJA UNDER SECTION 509 BPC ................................................. 8
I.C.1 Deven insulted the modesty of Pooja. ......................................................................... 8
I.C.2. Deven had intention to insult the modesty of Pooja ................................................... 8
I.C.3. Insulting words were heard by Pooja: ....................................................................... 9
I.C.4. Test of determining the outrage of modesty: .............................................................. 9
ISSUE II. THAT CRIMINAL LIABILITY CAN BE ATTRIBUTED AGAINST JEYANT. .. 9
II.A. THAT JEYANT IS LIABLE FOR VOLUNTARILY CAUSING GREVIOUS HURT

BY DANGEROUS WEAPONS OR MEANS UNDER S. 326 OF BARAT PENAL CODE.
............................................................................................................................................... 10
II.A.1 Jeyant voluntarily caused grievous hurt on Deven .................................................. 10
II.A.2 Grievous hurt was caused by dangerous weapons or means. ................................. 12
II.B. THAT JEYANT IS CRIMINALLY LIABLE FOR INTENTIONALLY INSULTING

DEVEN WITH THE INTENT TO PROVOKE BREACH OF PEACE UNDER SECTION
504 OF THE BARAT PENAL CODE, ................................................................................. 13

[TABLE OF CONTENTS]
II.B.1. Jeyant had intentionally insulted Deven. ................................................................ 13
II.B.2. Insult caused to Deven by Jeyant provoked Deven. ................................................ 14
II.B.3. Jeyant had previous knowledge or intention that his act could provoke Deven. .... 15
PRAYER .................................................................................................................................... xvii
ANNEXURES................................................................................................................................ a
LIST OF EXHIBITS................................................................................................................ cccc

PAGE|I
SURANA &SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCAY MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2018 – NORTH ROUNDS
[INDEX OF AUTHORITIES]
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
ACTS AND LEGISLATION:
1. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
2. Indian Penal Code, 1860
3. Indian Evidence Act, 1872
4. Identification of Offenders Act, 1920
5. The Police Act, 1861
LIST OF CASES:
Supreme Court Judgements
Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 8 S.C.C 450, (India) ............................ 15
Aman Kumar and Ors. v. State of Haryana, A.I.R 2004 (S.C) 1497 (India) ................................ 19
Aniyan Kunju and Others vs. State of Kerala, 2004 A.I.R (S.C) 2688 (India)............................. 25
Ankush Shivaji Gaekwad v. State of Maharashtra, A.I.R 2013 SC 2454 (India) ......................... 26
Arun Nivalji More v. State of Maharashtra, (2006) 12 S.C.C 613( India) ................................... 15
Bhanwar Singh & Ors. vs. State of M.P, (2008) 16 S.C.C 657 (India) ........................................ 16
Bishan Singh v. State, (2007) 13 S.C.C 65, (India) ...................................................................... 14
Dharam and ors. vs. State of Haryana, (2007) 15 S.C.C 241 (India)............................................ 16
Fiona Shrikhande v. State of Maharashtra and Ors, A.I.R 2014 (S.C) 957 (India) ................ 26, 28
IndraSarma v. V.K.V Sarma,A.I.R. 2014 (S.C) 309 (India) ......................................................... 18
Jai Prakash v. State, (1991) 2 S.C.C 32 (India) ............................................................................ 14
Jameel v. State of U.P, A.C.R 2009 (S.C) 3455 (India) ............................................................... 23

P A G E | II
Khushboo v. Kanniammal, (2010) 5 SCC 600 (India) ................................................................. 20
Major Singh v. State of Punjab, A.I.R 1967 (S.C) 63 (India) ....................................................... 21
Mathai v. State of Kerala, A.I.R 2005 (S.C) 710 (India) ........................................................ 24, 25
Niranjan Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, A.I.R 2007 (SC.) 2434 (India) ............................... 22
Om Prakash v. State of Punjab, (1962) 2 S.C.R 254 (India) ........................................................ 15
Premiya v. State of Rajasthan, (2008)10 S.C.C 81 (India) ........................................................... 19
Rajesh Talwar v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Ors., A.C.R 2012 (S.C) 2173 (India) ........ 24
Raju Pandurang Mahale v. State of Maharashtra and Anr, A.I.R 2004 (S.C) 1677 (India).......... 20
Rajwant Singh v. State of Kerela, A.I.R 1966 (S.C) 1874 (India) ................................................ 15
Ramkripal v State of Madhya Pradesh, A.C.R 2007 (2) (S.C) 622(India) ................................... 19
Richhpal Singh Meena v. Ghasi, A.I.R 2014 (S.C) 3595 (India) ................................................. 22
RupayanDeol Bajaj and Ors. v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill and Ors., A.I.R 1996 (S.C) 309 (India) 19
Sakshi and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., A.I.R2004 (S.C) 3566 (India) ........................... 20, 21
Satish Narayan Sawant v State Of Goa, 2010 (1) A.L.D (Cri) 626 (India) .................................. 27
Shekara v. State of Karnataka, (2009) 14 S.C.C 76 (India) .......................................................... 17
Shivjee Singh and Ors. v. State of Bihar, (2008) 11 S.C.C 631 (India) ....................................... 26
State of Karnataka v. Jinappa Payappa Kudachi& Ors., Cr Lj 3915 (S.C) (India). ...................... 16
State of Orissa v. Ghana Padhan, (1979)SCC Ori 24 (India) ....................................................... 15
State of Punjab v Major Singh, A.I.R 1967 (S.C) 63 (India) ........................................................ 19
State of Punjab v. Sucha Singh, (2003) 3 S.C.C 153 (India) ........................................................ 26
State of Rajasthan v. Shera Ram, A.I.R 2012 (S.C) 1 (India)....................................................... 24
State of U.P v. Indrajeet, A.I.R 2000 (S.C) 3158 (India) .............................................................. 24

P A G E | III
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Munni Ram, (2010) 14 S.C.C 364 (India) ............................................ 15
SuchandBouri v. State of West Bengal, (2009) 17 S.C.C 63 (India) ............................................ 18
Sunil Kumar v. N.C.T of Delhi, (1998) 8 S.C.C (India) ............................................................... 14
Surain Singh v. State of Punjab, A.I.R 2017 SC 1904 (India) ...................................................... 27
Swapna Barman v. Subir Das,(2004)1G.L.R168 (India) .............................................................. 20
Tarakeshwar Sahu v. State of Bihar, (2006) 8 S.C.C 560 (India)............................................ 19,20
The Deputy Inspector General of Police and Ors. v. S. Samuthiram. A.I.R2013 (S.C) 14 (India)
................................................................................................................................................... 19
University of Kerala v. Council, Principals, Colleges, Kerala and Ors.,A.I.R 2010 (S.C) 2532
(India) ........................................................................................................................................ 18
Yunis alias Kariya v. State of Madhya Pradesh, A.I.R 2003 (S.C) 539 (India)............................ 27
Zameer Ahmed LatifurRehman Sheikh vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors,A.I.R 2010 (S.C) 2633
(India) ........................................................................................................................................ 27
High Court Judgements
Abdul Sajid Abdul Sadiq v. State Of Maharashtra, 2003 (4) MhLj 306 (India)........................... 23
Aloshia Joseph v. Rev. Dr. Joseph Kollamparambil and Anr., 2009CriLJ2190 (India)............... 21
Atma Singh v. State of Punjab, (1980) Cr. LJ 1226 (India) ........................................................ 22
Baljinder Singh v. State of Punjab (India) Cri LJ (2016) 1989 (India) ........................................ 22
Divakar Bhairavnath Yadav v. The State of Maharashtra,(2017) A.L.L.M.R Cri 941 (India). .... 21
Joy v. State of Kerala,(2014) CriLJ 1297 (India) ......................................................................... 25
Keshab v. Padhan, 1976 Cutt LR, (Cri) 236 (India) ..................................................................... 19

P A G E | IV
Prasad Shirodkar v. State, 2013(5)A.B.R1167 (India) ................................................................. 21
S.K. Bhalla v. State and Ors.,180(2011)DLT219 (India) ............................................................. 21
Sanwar Mal v. State of Rajasthan, 2010 (3) ILR (Raj) 95 (India) ................................................ 24
Sohanlal Nayak v. State of Orissa, 1973 Cut LT 1037 (India) ..................................................... 21
State of Gujarat v. Koli Babubhai Govindbhai & Ors. Criminal Appeal No. 1518 of 2017 (India)
................................................................................................................................................... 23
State of Gujarat v. Samaj, A.I.R 1969 (Guj) 337 (India) .............................................................. 23
SubhkaranLuharuka S/o Late K.P. Luharuka and Shree Ram Mills Ltd. v. State and Utility
Premises Pvt. Ltd., (2010)I.L.R 6 Delhi495 (India) .................................................................. 21
BOOKS REFEREED:
1. I, II, SINGHAL & SABIHA, THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, : AN ANALYTICAL &
EXHAUSTIVE COMMENTARY ( 3rd Ed., Premier Publishing Company, 2007)
2. I, II, JETHMALANI & CHOPRA, THE INDIAN PENAL CODE ( 1st Ed., Thomson
Reuters, 2014)
3. K.D GAUR, COMMENTARY ON THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, ( 2nd Ed., Universal
Law Publishing Company, 2013)
4. I, II, M. MONIR, LAW OF EVIDENCE: AN EXHAUSTIVE COMMENTARY ON
INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT ( 15th Ed.,Universal Law Publishing Company, 2011)
5. P.L MALIK, CRIMINAL COURT HANDBOOK ( 20th Ed., Eastern Book Company,
2011)

PAGE|V
6. I,II, SOHONI, THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 ( 2nd Ed., Premier
Publishing Company, 2014)
7. I, MOOKERJI, PRINCEP’S COMMENTARY ON THE CODE OF CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE, 1973 ( 19th Ed., Delhi Law House, 2013)
8. RATANLAL & DHIRAJLAL, THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ( 33rd Ed.,
Lexis NexisButterworthsWadhwa, 2011)
9. MALLICK, P RAMANATHA AIYER CROSS EXAMINATION ( 4th Ed., Lexis
NexisButterworthsWadhwa, 2011)
10. III, IV, DR. HARI SINGH GOUR, PENAL LAW OF INDIAN: ANALYTICAL
COMMENTARY ( 11th Law Publishers India Private Limited, 2011)
11. I,II,III, SURENDRA MALIK & SUDEEP MALIK, SUPREME COURT ON CODE OF
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, (11th Ed., Eastern Book Company,2012)
12. I,II,III, SK SARVARIA, RA NELSON’S INDIAN PENAL CODE (Lexis
NexisButterworthsWadhwa, 2008)
13. PILLAI, R.V KELKAR’S CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ( 6th Ed., Eastern Book Company,
2014)
14. S.K. SINHA RAY, CRIMINAL TRIAL ( 2nd Ed., Premier Publishing Company, 2014)
15. II, A.K. NANDI, CRIMINAL READY REFERENCER (2nd Ed., Kolkata Kamal Law
House, 2007)
16. II, B.B. MITRA, CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 (20th Ed., Lexis Nexis,
2006)

P A G E | VI
17. I, II, BATUK LAL, COMMENTARY ON CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (3rd Ed., Orient
Publications, India, 2005).
LAW DICTIONARIES/LEXICONS:
1. A. BRYAN GARNER, BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY, (9thEd. Thomas Reuters 2009).
2. VENKATRAMAIYA, LAW LEXICON, (2nd Ed., Law Publishers (India) Pvt. Ltd., 2005).
3. I- IV, P. RAMANATHA AIYAR, ADVANCED LAW LEXICON, (3rd Ed., Lexis Nexis
Butter worths Wadhwa, Nagpur, 2009).
4. R.P SETHI, SUPREME COURT ON WORDS AND PHRASES (Ashok Law House, New
Delhi, 2004).

P A G E | VII
[LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS]
LIST OF ABBREIEVIATIONS
¶¶ PARAGRAPHS
¶ PARAGRAPH
& AND
§,S. SECTION
U.s SECTION
A.P. ANDHRA PRADESH
AIR ALL INDIA REPORTER
Anr. ANOTHER
Bom. BOMBAY
Cal. CALCUTTA
Cr.P.C. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE
Cri CRIMINAL
B.P.C. BARAT PENAL CODE
Del. DELHI
Govt. GOVERNMENT
Hon’ble HONOURABLE
Kar. KARNATAKA
M.P. MADHYA PRADESH
Mad. MADRAS
P A G E | VIII
[LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS]
Ori ORISSA
p. PAGE
S/d SIGNED
S.C SUPREME COURT
S.C.C SUPREME COURT CASES
S.C.R SUPREME COURT RECORD
U.P. UTTAR PRADESH
v. VERSUS
Vol. VOLUME

P A G E | IX
[STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION]
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Hon’ble Court has the jurisdiction to try the instant matter pursuant to S. 177 read with S.
209 read with S. 223(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
1177. 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.
2209 Commitment of case to Court of Session when offence is triable exclusively by it
When in a case instituted on a police report or otherwise, the accused appears or is brought
before the Magistrate and it appears to the Magistrate that the offence is triable exclusively by
the Court of Session, he shall-
(a) Commit, after Complying with the provisions of section 207 or section 208, as the case may
be, the case to the Court of Session, and subject to the provisions of this code relating to bail,
remand the accused the custody until Such commitment has been made;
(b) Subject to the provisions of this Code relating to bail, remand the accused to custody during,
and until the conclusion of, the trial;
1
§ 177 Code of Crim. Proc.
2
§ 209 Code of Crim. Proc.
PAGE|X
[STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION]
(c) Send to that Court the record of the case and the documents and articles, if any, which are to
be produced in evidence;
(d) Notify the Public Prosecutor of the commitment of the case to the Court of Session.
3223(d) What persons may be charged jointly, the following persons may be charged and tried
together, namely:-
(d) Persons accused of different offences committed in the course of the same transaction.
3
§ 223 (d) Code of Crim. Proc.

P A G E | XI
[STATEMENT OF FACTS]
STATEMENT OF FACTS
BACKGROUND:
1. Backward classed Deven and affluent Pooja, graduates of Trinity Engineering College of
Vanjiyur acquired modest and high paying jobs in Punnai, Gradually, Pooja’s outlook
towards life became modern. She started ignoring Deven. Kavita, a colleague of Pooja,
supported her decision. Jeyant was related to Pooja and liked her.
2. Pooja decided to meet Deven for one last time, on 9th June in a restaurant, and informed
her plans to join air hostess training, Deven got angry after listening this and their quarrel
ended up in Pooja slapping Deven.
3. On the 12th of June 2017, 9.30 am, Pooja met Deven at the metro station with Jeyant and
Kavita and saw Deven. Deven asked Kavita to leave him alone with Pooja’s. Jeyant and
Kavita monitored developments from close.
CAUSE OF ACTION:
4. They sat on a bench. She refused some apples offered to her by Deven, dejected, he
brought his knife held hand close to Pooja to wipe his tears. Jeyant, apprehending danger,
hit Deven with a stone and panicked. He started bleeding. In response to mob
mobilization, Deven, caught hold of Pooja and held it against her neck.
5. Jeyant threw another stone, with the crowd approaching closer. Deven tried to escape,
pulled her, she resisted and the knife slashed her neck, wounding her. The public
overpowered Deven and after a blow from Jeyant, he fell unconscious. The police were
alerted by the security and victim and the accused even were admitted to the hospital.
P A G E | XII
[STATEMENT OF CHARGES]
STATEMENT OF CHARGES
DEVEN
Mr. Deven has been charged under Sections 308 (Attempt to commit culpable homicide), 354
(Assault or criminal force to a woman with intent to outrage her modesty) and 509 (Word,
gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman) of the BPC.
JEYANT
Mr. Jeyant has been charged under Sections 326 (Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous
weapons or means), 504 (Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace) of BPC, .
P A G E | XIII
[SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS]
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
ISSUEI.WHETHER DEVEN IS LIABLE FOR CRIMINAL OFFENCES AGAINST
POOJA UNDER THE BARAT PENAL CODE.
The prosecution humbly submits that Deven is liable to commit offences against Pooja with
respect to the following three offences under the Barat Penal Code-
Firstly, U/s 308 of BPC, this section holds criminal liability against a person whocommits
‘Attempt to Commit Culpable Homicide’. In order to hold a person criminally liable U/s 308 of
BPC, two essentials are required to be proven. Firstly, that the act was done by the offender with
such intention or knowledge that his act could have led to the victim’s death or such bodily
injury that would have caused the victim’s death. Deven’s act of holding the knife against
Pooja’s neck and subsequently pulling her along with him with the knife on her neck constituted
requisite knowledge U/s 308 of BPC.
The part of the victim’s body in which the injury is caused also suggests that he had the requisite
knowledge of the outcome of his act. Secondly, the offender must have the intention to commit
culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The act of Deven falls under exception 2 of S. 300
of BPC4. Since Deven exceeded his right of private defence, it is proved that he intended to
commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
4
Exception 2 of Section 300 of BPC- Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, in the exercise in good faith
of the right of private defence of person or property, exceeds the power given to him by law and causes the death of
the person against whom he is exercising such right of defence without premeditation, and without any intention of
doing more harm than is necessary for the purpose of such defence
P A G E | XIV
Secondly, U/s 354 of BPC, this section undertakes assault or criminal force against a woman
with the intention to outrage her modesty. Deven’s act of using Pooja as a shield for his own
protection byholding the knife against Pooja’s neckusedcriminal forceagainst her person, his
gesture of bringing the knife close to Pooja’s face was likely to act caused reasonable
apprehension in the mind of Pooja and Deven knew that his act will lead to outrage her modesty.
Thirdly, Deven is liable U/s S.509 as he intentionally tried to insult Pooja’s modesty by abusing
her and calling her a woman of poor character and he too passed scandalous comments on her
choice of profession. Deven by his statement insulted her modesty in front of right-minded
people in the hotel and subsequently intruded upon her privacy.
ISSUE2.WHETHER JEYANT IS CRIMINALLY LIABLE FOR COMMISSION OF
OFFENCES UNDER THE BARAT PENAL CODE.
The prosecution humbly submits that Jeyant is liable to commit criminal offences against Deven
with respect to the following two offences under the Barat Penal Code-
Firstly, U/s 326 of BPC, the offender is liable if he causes grievous hurt voluntarily using
dangerous weapons or means. Jeyant hurled a stone at Jeyant’s head which caused bleeding from
the back of Deven’s head and then he further gave multiple blows which caused Deven to
collapse. Deven was rushed to the ICU and according to the Medical Experts the injuries caused
to Deven were of a grave nature and was likely to cause his death5. The act of injuring Jeyant and
further causing injuries on his body amounts to endangering his life which subsequently limited
his daily pursuits and caused severe pain to Deven, these acts of Jeyant amounts to Grievous
5
Annexure XVI.

P A G E | XV
hurt under Section 320 (Eighthly)6. Injury on the head caused using a stone and also by severely
brutalising him comes within the ambit of dangerous meansU/s 326of BPC.
Secondly, U/s 504 of the BPC, there should be an intentional insult which causes provocation to
the person insulted. The offender should have the intention or knowledge that his would break
public peace. Jeyant had pre-mediated the entire incident due to the existing animosity between
Deven and him. The act of jeyant of throwing of stone towards Deven and shouting murder,
murder...was without any reasonable apprehension or cause and his act was also likely to breach
public order. Jeyant even after knowing the possible outcome of his acts, acted upon it, that
subsequently broke public peace and order and therefore Jeyant is liable U/s 504 of BPC.
6
§ 320 (Eighthly) Barat Pen. Code - Any hurt which endangers life or which causes the sufferer to be during the
space of twenty days in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits.

PAGE|1
[ARGUMENTS ADVANCED]
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
ISSUE I. WHETHER DEVEN IS LIABLE FOR THE COMMISSION CRIMINAL OFFENCES

AGAINST POOJA UNDER THE BARAT PENAL CODE.
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that Deven is criminally liable with respect to
three offences. To prove this, it is contended that, Firstly, Deven had the intention to commit
Culpable Homicide not amounting to Murder. Secondly, Deven used criminal force to outrage
modesty of Pooja. Thirdly, by usingscandalous words and gestures he outraged Pooja’s modesty.
I.A. THAT CRIMINAL LIABILITY CAN BE ATTRIBUTED AGAINST DEVEN FOR
COMMISSION OF ATTEMPT TO COMMIT CULPABLE HOMICIDE U/S. 308 OF BPC.
I.A.1 Deven made the attempt with the knowledge that his act would have caused Pooja’s death.
(¶1.)It is humbly contended that S. 308 BPC, states, whoever commits an act with the prior
knowledge and intention of possible death is guilty to commit culpable homicide not amounting
to murder. Attempt might not culminate in hurt. It is the ‘attempt’ to commit culpable homicide
which is punishable under S. 308 BPC and not the type of injury.7
(¶2.)Deven’s act of holding knife against Pooja’s neck was voluntary and sufficient to endanger
her and bring her safety into compromise. Victim’s death due to injury is not paramount, the
attempt is to be considered.8 Knowledge of accused is enough to attract the provision of S. 308
7
Sunil Kumar v. N.C.T of Delhi, (1998) 8 S.C.C (India) (¶3).
8
Id.
PAGE|2
BPC. The offence of simple and grievous injuries inflicted, is although, punishable under section
324 BPC9
I.A.2. The offence committed by Deven fulfils the essential requirements of S. 308 BPC
(¶3.) It is humbly contended that, the essential ingredients of this section need to be
established10. In order to ascertain the knowledge, it is to be proven that the knowledge of the
act can be imputed to the offender unless there are any other circumstances to indicate that he
could have had no such knowledge11. Deven’s act of holding knife against Pooja’s neck12 could
have been fatal.
I.A.3 Deven had the ‘Knowledge’ that his ‘act’ would cause Pooja’s death
(¶4.)Knowledge and intention are two independent aspects. Criminal culpability is determined
by referring what a person with reasonable prudence would have done.13Offender knowledge
that his act is likely to cause death14 is an evidence to show his prior knowledge or intention15.
The act however might not be immediate16. Holding the knife against Pooja’s neck could have
9
Supra note2.
10
Bishan Singh v. State, (2007) 13 S.C.C 65, (India) (¶1).
11
Jai Prakash v. State, (1991) 2 S.C.C 32 (¶ 16).
12
Supra note 2.
13
Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 8 S.C.C 450, (India) (¶18).
14
Also refer Barat Pen. Code § 300.
15
ArunNivalji More v. State of Maharashtra, (2006) 12 S.C.C 613(India) (¶¶16,17,18,19).
16
Om Prakash v. State of Punjab, (1962) 2 S.C.R 254 (India) (¶9).

PAGE|3
caused grievous hurt. The kind of injury, weapon and the body part injured is to be considered 17.
The injured part chosen could be indicative of intention for infliction of injuries likely to cause
death of the victim18. Ordinary course of nature means ‘in the usual course if left alone’19. Injury
inflicted by the assailant is sufficient in the ordinary circumstances to cause death, if the bodily
injury is fatal.20The medical report (Annexure XVII) shows the lacerated wounds of 8 x 1 cm of
Pooja and the doctor in his report termed the injury to be sufficient in the ordinary course to
cause Pooja’s death, by this it can be construed that the injuries met requirements of code21
I.A.4 Deven had the intention to commit Culpable Homicide not amounting to murder under
Section 300 of BPC.
(¶5.)There was intention to commit Culpable Homicide not amounting to murder22. Section 308
BPC encompasses S. 300 of BPC, to prove that the offender had attempted to commit Culpable
Homicide not amounting to murder, it is important to prove that the offender had the intention
tocommit Culpable Homicide not amounting to murder. The act falls under exception 2 of
17
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Munni Ram, (2010) 14 S.C.C 364 (India) (¶3).
18
Supra note 2.
19
State of Orissa v. Ghana Padhan (1979) SCC Ori.24 (India) (¶1).
20
Rajwant Singh v. State of Kerela, A.I.R 1966 (S.C) 1874(India) (¶10).
21
DamiSettiSubhanna v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1976) Cr Lj 1242 (India) (¶ 11).
22
Supra note 10.

PAGE|4
section 300 of BPC, which talks about Private Defence23.However, the force used should be
proportionate to the danger apprehended by the offender.24
I.A.5. Deven’s act falls under Exception 2 of Section 300 BPC.
(¶6.)Elements that arepertinent to be proven are that there existed a right to private defence in
favour of the offender and the right did not extend to cause death.25 Private defence is claimed
when the right extends to causing death or depends upon the threat apprehended. To judge
whether the accused exceeded his right, gravity of the offence by the accused and nature of
attack is to be considered26.
I.A.6 Deven exceeded his ‘Right to private Defence’.
(¶7.) It is humbly submitted that Deven exercised his right disproportionately by exceeding his
right by holding the knife against Pooja’s neck. It can be ascertained by injuries (Annexure
XVII) that he suffered. Satisfying private defence, the accused has to prove that his right to
exercise defence exceeded to causing death27. Deven’s private defence did not exceed to attempt
to kill Pooja or to cause bodily injury sufficient to cause herdeath. He is liable with the intention
to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder, since his acts were disproportionate
when he took her hostage.
23
§ 96 Barat Pen. Code.
24
Dharam and Ors.v. State of Haryana, (2007) 15 S.C.C 241 (India).
25
Bhanwar Singh &Ors.v. State of M.P, (2008) 16 S.C.C 657 (India)(¶54).
26
State of Karnataka v. JinappaPayappaKudachi&Ors., Cr Lj 3915 (S.C).(¶30).
27
Ibid.

PAGE|5
I.B. THAT DEVEN IS LIABLETO HAVE USED CRIMINAL FORCE AND OUTRAGED
MODESTY OF POOJA SECTION 354 OF THE BARAT PENAL CODE.
(¶8.)It is humbly contended before this Hon’ble court that per S. 354 of the BPC, any person
who assaults or uses force criminal in nature to any woman, with an intention or knowledge to
outrage her modesty would be punished U/s 354 of BPC. There should have been cause of
assault or use of criminal force28 and the act committed should be against a woman.There should
be knowledge or intention on part of the accused that such an act would cause outrage of her
modesty.
I.B.1. Deven assaulted and used Criminal force against Pooja.
(¶9.)Force is said to be used by a person if he changes motion.29In order to constitute offence
under this section assault or criminal force is necessary. Commission of any act which is contrary
to the character, within his knowledge, the burden of proving is on accused.30 The act was
against of the general character of the accused.
(¶10.)Assault is committed by a person whenever he makes any preparation with the intention or
knowledge that such gesture or preparation would cause anyone to apprehend that he would
attend criminal force, is said to commit assault31. Criminal force is constituted with intentional
use of force, without the presence of consent and will of the accused, to commit the offence,with
28
Shekara v. State of Karnataka, (2009) 14 S.C.C 76 (India) (¶10).
29
30
§ 106 Barat Evid. Act.
31

PAGE|6
the intention and knowledge that such a force applied will cause injury, fear and annoyance to
the person the force is used, will be said to have applied criminal force against another person.32
(¶11.)Deven used criminal force and assaulted Pooja, bringing the knife close to Pooja’s face
was sufficient to show intention through use of such gesture that criminal force could be
apprehended and reasonable harm could have been caused with knowledge and intent. It caused
injury and abuse to Pooja. The subjective knowledge and knowledge of victim is not necessary.33
(¶12.)Assault and criminal force constitutes to Physical abuse.34It is the absence of legal,
reasonable use of force to injure a person.35 Pooja had been instantly unconscious and she had
been shifted to the ICU. The intention is further sufficed. Intimidation, wrongful restrain,
wrongful confinement or injury, is Criminal force. 36 Action committed by Deven is under such
ambit. The force was criminal. There was criminal force and assault as necessary ingredient.
I.B.2. Deven had knowledge and intention the action would outrage Pooja’s modesty.
(¶13.)It is humbly contended before this Hon’ble court that Deven had full knowledge that his
actions would outrage the modesty of Pooja, He intentionally committed the act. Bringing knife
close to Pooja caused reasonable apprehension of injury and consequent injury by Jeyant. Under
fear, in an attempt to run away, he brought the knife near Pooja’s neck. He intended to outrage
32
33
SuchandBouri v. State of West Bengal, (2009) 17 S.C.C 63 (India) (¶13).
34
IndraSarma v. V.K.V Sarma,A.I.R. 2014 (S.C) 309 (India) (¶19).
35
Physical abuse, Black’s Law Dictionary (7th ed. 1999).
36
University of Kerala v. Council, Principals, Colleges, Kerala and Ors.,A.I.R 2010 (S.C) 2532 (India) (¶21).

PAGE|7
her modesty Resistance on the part of Pooja was the opposing action, which led to slashing of
her neck.
(¶14.)Outrage of modesty is not defined in the BPC. Consulting the dictionary meaning of the
term ‘modesty’37“Freedom from coarseness, indelicacy or indecency; a regard for propriety in
dress, speech or conduct"38.
(¶15.) The action to pull a woman would be enough to outrage, an offence irrespective of the
intention.39It can be tested whether, a reasonable man would judge act of the one committing the
offence had intended to or known to be in all likelihood to outrage the modesty of the
woman.40Ascertaining whether or a woman has been outraged was such that it had the capacity
of shocking the decency of the woman41Essence of the modesty of a woman is her sex. The
culpable intention is essential. Reaction of the woman in this case is relevant; however, the
absence of a reaction is not decisive.42Therefore, the modesty of Pooja has been compromised.
37
Rupayan Deol Bajaj and Ors.v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill and Ors. A.I.R 1996 (S.C) 309 (India) ¶14 & 15; reaffirmed
in The Deputy Inspector General of Police and Ors.v. S. Samuthiram.A.I.R2013 (S.C) 14 (India).
38
Modesty, Webster's International Dictionary of the English language (3 rd Ed.)
39
Aman Kumar and Ors. v. State of Haryana, A.I.R 2004 (S.C) 1497 (India) (¶13); reaffirmed inPremiya v. State of
Rajasthan, (2008)10 S.C.C 81 (India) (¶10)
40
Keshab v. Padhan, 1976 Cutt LR, (Cri) 236 (India)(¶54);reaffirmed in TarakeshwarSahu v. State of Bihar (2006) 8
S.C.C 560 (India).
41
State of Punjab v Major Singh, A.I.R 1967 (S.C) 63 (India)(¶3);reaffirmed in Ramkripal v State of Madhya
Pradesh, A.C.R 2007 (S.C) 1622 (India).
42
TarakeshwarSahu v. State of Bihar, (2006) 8 S.C.C 560 (India)(¶40).

PAGE|8
I.C.DEVEN IS LIABLE TO HAVE USED WORDS, GESTURES OR ACTS TO INSULT
THE MODESTY OF POOJA UNDER SECTION 509 BPC.
I.C.1 Deven insulted the modesty of Pooja.
(¶17.)‘Modesty’43 deals with ‘outraging’ the privacy or decency of a woman. Description is not
required to insult to female modesty and it protects against indecency. The object of provisions
of S.509 of BPC is to protect women against indecent behaviour.44Womanly propriety of
behaviour and conduct is modesty45. Modesty includes all other acts falling short of
indecency.46Physical contact is not a pre-requisite to insult. Any act construed as an attempt to
insult modesty under.47
I.C.2. Deven had intention to insult the modesty of Pooja
(¶18.)Intention to insult the modesty of the woman is essential48 by which an offender can be
held guilty if proved.49 Pooja’s declaration of pursuing as air hostess infuriated Deven.50 The act
of Deven abusing and passing immoral and scandalous remarks to Pooja in front of public at
large amounted to her insult. Intention attributable to an act of using abusive words to awoman is
43
44
Sakshi and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., A.I.R2004 (S.C) 3566 (India)(¶10).
45
RajuPandurangMahale v. State of Maharashtra and Anr, A.I.R 2004 (S.C) 1677 (India) (¶13).
46
Swapna Barman v. SubirDas,(2004)1G.L.R168 (India) (¶8).
47
Khushboo v. Kanniammal, (2010) 5 SCC 600.(¶3).
48
S.K. Bhalla v. State and Ors.,180 (2011) DLT219 (India) (¶4).
49
SohanlalNayak v. State of Orissa, 1973 Cut LT 1037 (India) (¶3).
50
Case Data, ¶ 9.

PAGE|9
insult the modesty of a woman51. Abusing a woman after losing temper amounts to outrage her
modesty.52 The very act of Deven of shouting at Pooja after knowing about her choice of leaving
him was an outcome of his anger under which he used insulting words against Pooja.
I.C.3. Insulting words were heard by Pooja:
(¶19.)Words are not necessary to be heard by the woman to whom it was addressed53. However
in this case, Deven’s statements were intended and directed towards Pooja and were made to her
in her presence. Pooja had heard the statements made by Deven.
I.C.4. Test of determining the outrage of modesty:
(¶20.)Any act capable of shocking decency of woman can be called as an outraging of her
modesty54. Deven’s abuse remark on her character, calling her a woman of poor character and
behaviour attacks modesty of Pooja. A reasonable man’s perspective is taken into
consideration.55Argument between Deven and Pooja took place in a public. She was humiliated
about her character and dress. This is reasonable ground for seeking relief owing to insult.
ISSUE II. THAT CRIMINAL LIABILITY CAN BE ATTRIBUTED AGAINST JEYANT.
51
Prasad Shirodkar v. State, 2013(5) A.I.R1167 (India) ¶ 7
52
Id.
53
Divakar BhairavnathYadav v. The State of Maharashtra,(2017) A.L.L.M.R Cri 941 (India).¶ 15
54
Major Singh v. State of Punjab, A.I.R 1967 (S.C) 63(India) ¶20; reaffirmed by Supreme Court in Sakshi v. Union
of India, 2004 Supp(2) S.C.R 723 (India) ¶ 15

55
Id.; reaffirmed in Aloshia Joseph v. Rev. Dr. Joseph Kollamparambil and Anr., 2009CriLJ2190(India) ¶4;
reaffirmed in SubhkaranLuharuka S/o Late K.P. Luharuka and Shree Ram Mills Ltd. v. State and Utility Premises
Pvt. Ltd., (2010)I.L.R 6Delhi495(India).

P A G E | 10
Jeyant is liable under section 326 of BPC as he knowingly caused grievous hurt on Deven.
Essential ingredients: Voluntarily causing a hurt;Grievous hurt caused; Use of dangerous
weapons. Hurt by Jeyant on Deven, had been voluntary and caused by dangerous weapons. He
would be held liable.
II.A. THAT JEYANT IS LIABLE FOR VOLUNTARILY CAUSING GREVIOUS HURT
BY DANGEROUS WEAPONS OR MEANS UNDER S. 326 OF BARAT PENAL CODE.
II.A.1 Jeyant voluntarily caused grievous hurt on Deven
(¶1.)An injury which endangers life should be of the nature to put the life into danger. However,
an injury ‘dangerous to life’ is synonymous with an injury ‘which endangers life’ 56.
Endangerment of life is graver than danger to life and any hurt which endangers life is a grievous
hurt57.The ‘offences affecting life’ are quite distinct from offences of hurt and if such hurt results
in death, intended or unintended, the offence would then fall U/s 326 of BPC58.
(¶2.)Hurt caused to the victim has to be of a grievous nature in order for bringing charges under
S. 32059. Before a conviction can be made for the sentence of grievous hurt due to the injuries
56
Atma Singh v. State of Punjab, (1980) Cr. LJ 1226 (¶11); reaffirmed in Baljinder Singh v. State of Punjab
Cri LJ (2016) 1989 (India).

57
Niranjan Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, A.I.R 2007 (SC.) 2434 (India)(¶9).
58
Richhpal Singh Meena v. Ghasi, A.I.R 2014 (S.C) 3595 (India) (¶44).
59
§ 320 (Eighthly) Barat Pen. Code.

P A G E | 11
defined in S. 320. Of Barat Penal Code, the injuries have to be strictly proved and 320 (Eighthly)
is no exception to that rule60.
(¶3.)Jeyant’s act of throwing a stone at Deven caused him a head injury61, the consequent blows
on Deven’s body by Jeyant further led him to collapse62. These injuries have caused Deven to
land up in the ICU63. The MLC Report in the instant matter proves that the injuries sustained on
Deven’s body endangered his life64, the injury sustained were of such a nature that during the
space of twenty days, it would have un-abled Deven to follow his ordinary pursuits.65 Just
because the victim was in the hospital for 20 days would not mean that there is an application of
S.320 (Eighthly) in the matter66. In the instant matter, the injury sustained by Deven is of such
nature that he was taken to the ICU67 and thus there is a square application of S. 320 (Eighthly).
If the victim is taken into Intensive Care, the injury sustained by him are of a grievous nature and
60
Jameel v. State of U.P A.C.R 2009 (S.C) 3455 (¶9).
61
Case Data, (¶ 18).
62
Case Data, (¶20).
63
Case Data, (¶20).
64
Annexure XVII.
65
State of Gujarat v. Samaj A.I.R 1969 (Guj) 337(¶5); reaffirmed in State of Gujarat v. Koli Babubhai Govindbhai&
Ors., Criminal Appeal No. 1518 of 2017 decided on 13/11/2017 (India).
66
Id; reaffirmed in Abdul Sajid Abdul Sadiq v. State of Maharashtra 2003 (4) MhLj 306 (India).
67
Case Data, (¶20).

P A G E | 12
thus he is taken into Intensive Care to ensure that he can undergo medical procedures to save his
life68.
II.A.2 Grievous hurt was caused by dangerous weapons or means.
(¶4.)S. 326 of BPC, talks about a grievous hurt caused by the means of a dangerous weapon with
injury to constitute death. Serious or grievous hurt cannot be only caused by a certain class of
weapons and thus it will be derived factually how and if the weapon can cause grievous hurt or
injury.69. The facts involved in a particular case, depends upon various factors like size,
sharpness which throws light on the question whether the weapon was dangerous or a deadly
weapon and upon such disclosure the S. 325 or S.326 would be constituted against the accused70.
An assault by a stone to the head can cause a hemorrhage which further can lead to the death of
the person71. Various complexities can be caused when a person is injured on the head and such
injuries can lead to the death of the person72. Jeyant had the knowledge that assaulting Deven
with the stone on his head would cause his death and consequently the essential of ‘likely to
cause death’ of S. 326 is met with.
68
Rajesh Talwar v. Central Bureau of Investigation &Ors., A.C.R. 2012 (S.C) 2173 (¶6).
69
State of U.P v. Indrajeet, A.I.R 2000 (S.C) 3158 (India)(¶7).
70
Mathai v. State of Kerala, A.I.R 2005 (S.C) 710 (India)(¶17).
71
State of Rajasthan v. Shera Ram, A.I.R 2012 (S.C) 1 (India) (¶44).
72
Sanwar Mal v. State of Rajasthan, 2010 (3) I.L.R (Raj) 95 (India) (¶28).

P A G E | 13
(¶5.)The dangerousness of the weapon is factually derived from its physical properties73 and
there cannot be a standard rule as to ascertain if the weapon could cause simple or grievous hurt.
The stone used to cause injury on Deven is of such physical properties that it has caused serious
injuries and the bleeding and lacerated scalp on the back on the head.74. Medical Evidence
isweighed along with all other material factors to see whether the prosecution version is reliable,
in the instant matter, the bleeding caused at the back of the head of Deven was caused due to the
stone hurled at him by Jeyant. The Medical officer in his report(Annexure XVI) has stated that
such an injury if not treated properly could have caused complexities leading to the death of the
victim75. The word of the medical officer shows whether prosecution version is reliable, cogent
and trustworthy76.
II.B. THAT JEYANT IS CRIMINALLY LIABLE FOR INTENTIONALLY INSULTING
DEVEN WITH THE INTENT TO PROVOKE BREACH OF PEACE UNDER
SECTION 504 OF THE BARAT PENAL CODE,
II.B.1. Jeyant had intentionally insulted Deven.
(¶6.)Jeyant intentionally disturbed the peace of a public place. He panicked for crowd attention.
This can be seen in light of previous enmity between Deven and Jeyant. Animosity is a double-
edged sword which could be used both ways. This could be a valid ground for assault as well as
73
Joy v. State of Kerala, (2014)CriLJ 1297; relied on Mathai v. State of Kerala, A.I.R 2005 (S.C) 710 (India).
74
Annexure XVI.
75
Id.
76
Aniyan Kunju and Ors vs. State of Kerala, 2004 A.I.R (S.C) 2688(India) (¶13).

P A G E | 14
false implication.77 The accused had used weapons against Deven without apprehension in a fix
which had led to his injury and hospitalization.
(¶7.)Jeyant had not been in fair terms with Deven. His act in isolation can be referred to as insult
which had been intentionally caused. The allegation he made was not reasonable Deven, Jeyant
acted out of his purview of action. Jeyant affected Deven’s reputation, also hurting him. Jeyant
affected Deven’s reputation, also hurting him.
(¶8.)The assembly of the accused and throwing of stones towards the victim is an
unlawfulactivity78. Jeyant formed an unlawful assembly which lynched Deven. Insult and
grievous hurt was committed. All these actions could have been reasonably apprehended by
Jeyant. Therefore, the insult was intentional in nature.
II.B.2. Insult caused to Deven by Jeyant provoked Deven.
(¶9.)Provocation79 is defined as a cause. It could be an inciting or motivating factor for such an
action which would require control, elimination, mitigation, modulation or any other related
measure. Provocation in proactive sense can be formed which would imply the goal to be
achieved by the act. The accused must have intention that provocation caused would in
consequent cause to break public peace or lead to commission of any other offence.80
It is humbly contended before this court that Jeyant threw the stone to instigate and insult Deven.
He did not carry a harmful weapon and reasonably could not have harmed Pooja. The deceased
77
State of Punjab v. Sucha Singh, (2003) 3 S.C.C 153 (India)(¶10).
78
Shivjee Singh and Ors.v. State of Bihar, (2008) 11 S.C.C 631 (India)(¶36).
79
AnkushShivajiGaekwad v. State of Maharashtra, A.I.R 2013 SC 2454 (India).
80
Fiona Srikhande v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) S.C.C 757 (India) (¶48).

P A G E | 15
was harmed by the accused as a result of the provocation of insult by stabbing.81. Jeyant’s had
shouted murder on account of the conceived enmity between them. He wanted to ensure Deven’s
punishment.
(¶10.)Wherever there is direct evidence that the assault has been committed, the question of
motive does not come into existence82. The motive can both be clear and shrouded. If witness is
relied upon, the implicit reliance of the case is on such evidence and does not bank on the
motive. The motive can only be justified that Deven had some other motive than the one
construed by the defence. In the light, a discrepant relation with the Deven, the action can only
be justified as pre-mediated. Such provocation, bringing forward the mob, could cause
disturbance to the public and break public. He still pursued the same. Therefore, the charge of
Section 504 is justified.
II.B.3. Jeyant had previous knowledge or intention that his act could provoke Deven.
(¶11.)It is humbly contended before this court that the Jeyant had previous knowledge such an
act of leading to adverse consequences. Throwing the stone was to insult the Deven, which hit
his head causing grievous hurt. It deprived Deven of self-control and the provocation was
sudden. It was held83 that sudden fight could be grounds for provocation and when blows are
received by the person.
81
Satish Narayan Sawant v State of Goa, 2010 (1) A.L.D (Cri) 626 (India) ¶28.
82
Yunis alias Kariya v. State of Madhya Pradesh, A.I.R 2003 (S.C) 539 (India) (¶4).
83
Surain Singh v. State of Punjab, A.I.R 2017 (S.C) 1904 (India) (¶¶12, 13).

P A G E | 16
(¶12.)Public peace84 refers to the surrounding tranquillity and harmoniousness of the region.
Disruption affects public order, adversely affecting the law and order situation of place. Due to
sudden pre-mediated acts of panic, the crowd gathered and involved Deven in a fight. Jeyant also
administered a blow on the Deven which lead to his being unconscious. This pre-apprehended
act on part of Jeyant accompanied with his conduct, intention and the manner in which he
committed the offence against Deven85 makes him criminally liableunder section 504 of BPC.
84
Zameer Ahmed LatifurRehman Sheikh v. State of Maharashtra &Ors,A.I.R 2010 (S.C) 2633 (India) (¶11).
85
Fiona Shrikhande v. State of Maharashtra and Ors, A.I.R 2014 (S.C) 957 (India) (¶14).

P A G E | XVII
[PRAYER]
PRAYER
Wherefore, in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, may this
Hon’ble Court be pleased to:-
1. Convict Deven U/s 308 of BPC for the offence of attempting to commit culpable
homicide, U/s 354 of BPC for assaulting, applying criminal force in order to outrage the
modesty of a woman and U/s 509 of BPC usage of words to insult the modesty of a
woman.
2. Convict Jeyant U/s 326 of BPC for the offence of voluntarily causing grievous hurt by
use of dangerous weapons or means, U/s 504 of BPC for causing insult to Deven in order
to provoke breach of peace.
AND/OR
Pass any other order it may deem fit, in the interest of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience.
All of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted.
Place: Punnai
Sd/-Date: October, 2018 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

PAGE|A
[ANNEXURES]
ANNEXURES
(ANNEXURE I)
CHARGESHEET
UNDER SECTION 173 Cr.P.C.
IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, INDRA NAGAR, PUNNAI
1 Name of the Court District Court Indra Nagar, Punnai
FIR No, year and date 110/2017, 12.06.2017
2 Final Report/Charge Sheet No 16
3 Date 20.02.2018
4 Section of Law Section 308 BPC, 354 BPC, 509 BPC,

326 BPC, 503 BPC.
5 Type of Final Report Charge-sheet
6 If Final Report Un - occurred/

false/mistake of fact/ Mistake of law
Not applicable
/Non - cognizable / Civil nature
7 If charge-sheeted original / Original Charge-sheet

Supplementary
8 Name of investigating officer Prakash, Inspector
9 Name of complainant / informant & Kannan, R/o, Plot No.40, near Indira
Address Nagar Metro Station, Punnai.

PAGE|B
[ANNEXURES]
10 Details of Properties / Articles / 1. Two stones recovered from the

Documents recovered / seized during crime scene (Hereinafter
the investigation and relied upon referred as S1 and S2). S1
having blood stains on it.
2. Blood sample collected from
the ground where Pooja was
lying (Hereinafter refereed as
B1)
3. Blood samples collected from
the bench, where Pooja and
Deven were sitting (Hereinafter
referred as B2).
4. Fingerprints collected from the
stone S1 (Hereinafter referred
as B3)
5. Blood stains found on the blade
of the knife marked as K
(Hereinafter referred to as B4)
6. Jeyant’s white shirt having
blood stains on it (Hereinafter
referred to as B5).
7. Pooja’s blue top having blood
stains on it (Hereinafter referred
to as B6).
8. Fingerprints found on the stone
marked as S1 (Hereinafter
referred to as F1).
9. Fingerprints found on the stone
marked as S2 (Hereinafter
referred to as F2).
10. Fingerprints found on the
handle of the knife marked as K
(Hereinafter referred to as F3).

PAGE|C
[ANNEXURES]
11. Fingerprint sample of the

accused no. 1 Deven on the
glass marked as G1.
12. Fingerprint sample of the
accused no. 2 Jeyant on the
glass marked as G2.
11. Particulars of persons charge sheeted:
First Accused (A1)
Name Deven
Whether verified Yes
Father’s Name Perumal
Sex Male
Nationality Barat
Passport No N/A
Date of issue N/A

PAGE|D
[ANNEXURES]
Religion Hindu
Occupation Engineer
Address (Permanent) 1, Canal Street, Chirapalli 10 Sardam:1
Provisional Criminal No N/A
Regular Criminal No. (if known) N/A
Date of Arrest 12.06.2017
Date of release on bail N/A
Under Acts & Sections (of charge sheet) Section 308, 354 and 509 of Barat Penal Code
Name (s) of bailer/sureties and address N/A
Previous convictions with case reference N/A
Status of the accused Arrested and presently in Judicial custody
Second Accused(A2)
Name Jeyant
Father’s Name Gajanan
Sex Male
Nationality Barat
Passport No N/A

PAGE|E
[ANNEXURES]
Date of issue N/A
Religion Hindu
Occupation Unemployed
Address (Permanent) 3, Subedar Street, Chirapalli, Vanjiyur, Sardam:

3.
Provisional Criminal No N/A
Regular Criminal No. (if known) N/A
Date of Arrest 13.06.2017
Date of release on bail N/A
Under Acts & Sections (of charge sheet) Section 326, 504 of Barat Penal Code
Name (s) of bailer/sureties and address N/A
Previous convictions with case referenc N/A
Status of the accused Arrested and presently in Judicial custody.
12. Particulars of accused persons not charge sheeted: Nil
 Particulars of Witnesses examined by the Investigating Officer:
First Witness
Name Kannan
Age 30
Sex Male
Father’s Name Manann

PAGE|F
[ANNEXURES]
Residential Plot No.40, near Indira Nagar Metro Station, Punnai.

Address
Occupation Chemical Engineer
Second Witness
Name Kavita
Age 25
Sex Female
Father’s Name Kavi
Residential Address 4 Temple street, Mannai, Mital Nadu-4
Occupation Software Engineer
Third Witness
Name Solomon
Age 45
Sex Male
Husband’s Name Dushyant
Residential Plot No.58, near Indira Nagar Metro Station, Punnai.

Address
Occupation Security Guard.
Fourth Wintess
Name Pooja
Age 25
Sex Female

PAGE|G
[ANNEXURES]
Father’s Name Vishal
Residential Address 2, Mittu Street, Chirapalli, Vanjiyur Sardam-

1
Occupation Software Engineer
i. List of Documents in support of the charge sheet.
S No. Type of Document
1 General Diary entry U/s 44 of the Police Act
2 Fard Bayan and Tehrir of the informant Kannan
3 First Information Report U/s 154 of the Cr.P.C.
4 Seizure Memo U/s 100 of the Cr.P.C.
5 Report to the Magistrate U/s 157 Cr.P.C.
6 Arrest Memo of two accused U/s 41B(b) of the Cr.P.C.
7 Application to the Magistrate U/s 167 (1) Cr.P.C. demanding police custody
of the accused no.2 Jeyant
8 Medical Examination of the accused persons under section 54 Cr. P.C.
9 Arrest Report of the two accused persons to the District Magistrate U/s 58
Cr.P.C.
10 Medical Report of the victim Pooja.
11 CFSL(Central Forensic Science Laboratory) Report
12 Report of the CCTV camera along with the certificate U/s 65-B of the Barat
Evidence Act.

PAGE|H
[ANNEXURES]
13 Notices to all the witnesses for recording of the statement U/s 160 Cr.P.C.
14 Statement of all the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
15 Documents of the Custodial chain of the accused no. 2 Jeyant
16 List of Exhibits-
 Medical report of Pooja.
 Medical report of Deven.
 Stones that hit Deven marked as S1 and S2.
 Knife and the Cotton bag with fruits.
 Print of the picture with Deven holding knife against Pooja’s
neck.
 Forensic report – Blood samples matching that of victim.
 Print out and audio of the lyrics of song.
 Photograph of the Blood found on the crime scene.
 Photograph of the blood found on the bench.
 Fingerprints of Deven and Jeyant.
13. If F.I.R. is false, action taken: Not false, allegations in the FIR are true
14. Result of laboratory Analysis: Will be mentioned in point No. 16
15. Brief facts of the case:
 The F.I.R. in this case was initially registered on the complaint made by Mr. Kannan
to the Station House Officer of the Indira Nagar Police Station situated in Indra
Nagar, Punnai. The police registered the case against two individual on the basis of
the information provided by the informant. The two accused in this case mentioned in
the F.I.R. are Deven and Jeyant. Deven is charged under sections 308, 354 and 509 of
the Barat Penal Code and Jeyant is charged under sections 326 and 504 of Barat penal
Code.

PAGE|I
[ANNEXURES]
 As per the statement of the informant, at around 9:45 a.m. the accused Deven and
victim Pooja were sitting on the same bench in which he was sitting at the Indira
Nagar Metro Station. Accused Deven offered Pooja some apples to which she refused
because of which Deven got very emotional and then after a moment Deven took out
a small knife from his bag, and brought knife close to Pooja’s face while he was
trying to wipe his tears and only then a stone hit Deven at the back of his head and a
boy who later turn out to be the second accused shouted murder murder.., due to
which the crowd got mobilised and approached towards Deven.
 Deven on seeing the danger perhaps got frightened and caught hold of Pooja and held
the knife against her neck in an attempt to save himself from the mob, but Jeyant, the
second accused did not stop and threw another stone at him, due to which Deven tried
to run away pulling Pooja with him to which she resisted and tried to push him and in
that altercation and resistance, Pooja’s throat got slashed and she fell unconscious.
After which the mob overpowered him and brutally assaulted him and the second
accused too gave him severe blows, due to which the first accused Deven too fell
unconscious and in a while the Police came along with the ambulance and both the
victim Pooja and the first accused Deven were taken to the hospital.
 The investigating team reached the crime spot at around 10:50 a.m. along with the
ambulance and started the investigation after both, the accused Deven and the victim
Pooja were sent to the hospital. Soon after the forensics team also arrived at thee spot
and collected the specimens from the crime spot, site map was also prepared by the
draughtsman in presence of the I.O, the investigation also comprised of examining the
eye witnesses, search of the crime scene and seizure of the material evidences from
the crime scene.
16. Facts disclosed during Investigation:
 When the police team reached the crime spot, the accused Deven and victim Pooja
were lying unconscious, the ambulance immediately took both of them to the hospital,
Pooja’s friend Kavita and the Jeyant, the second accused too accompanied both of
them to the hospital, the security guard who informed the police about the happening
of the incident was interrogated by the police and one of the eye-witness to the

PAGE|J
[ANNEXURES]
incident Kannan was asked by the police to reach the police station to register an
F.I.R. the forensic team reached the spot and seized some material evidences such as
the stones that the second accused Jeyant threw at Deven, one cotton bag, one ladies
purse and the identity cards of Pooja and Jeyant. The forensic team collected blood
samples and fingerprint samples from the crime spot. The seizure memo was prepared
and all the seized specimens were sent to the Central Forensic Laboratory for analysis
 Deven was taken in police custody in the hospital itself and the arrest memo was
prepared in the hospital. After recording the statement of all the eye witnesses, the
second accused Jeyant was also arrested since his involvement was under suspicion
and his name was also mentioned in the F.I.R., his arrest was made when he was
called for giving his statement under section 161 Cr.P.C.
 Further in the investigation, statements of victim Pooja was recorded under section
161 Cr.P.C. on 12.06.2017 and 20.06.2017, various material facts of her relationship
with the accused Deven were revealed, it came to our knowledge that Pooja and
Deven were in a relationship since last 4 years, but the differences among them arose
when Pooja got a good job while Deven was still struggling to find one and was
earning quite less, the difference of opinions among them worsened the situation
between them and one day on 9th June, 2017, Pooja decided to meet Deven for one
last time and also to reveal her future plans of becoming Air hostess, Deven after
listening to her got depressed and in order to persuade her uttered some scandalous
words against her to which she got infuriated and slapped her.
 The next meeting between them took place on 12th June, 2017, this meeting was
requested by Deven as he wanted to apologise to Pooja for his bad conduct at the last
meeting and also wanted to meet her for one last time. Kavita and the second accused
Jeyant too accompanied her to the Indira Nagar metro station to meet Deven on Pooja.
 As per the statement of the informant Kannan and the CCTV footage, it is concluded
that the accused Deven caught hold of Pooja and held the knife against her neck the
moment he apprehended the danger but the crowd did not and Jeyant threw another

PAGE|K
[ANNEXURES]
stone at Deven and in between this altercation and resistance Pooja’s throat got
slashed by the knife and she fell unconscious and later the mob thrashed and he too
fell unconscious.
 The CFSL reports regarding the blood stains recovered from the crime scene and from
the clothes of the victim Pooja and the accused Deven were forwarded to us on
20.06.2017 and the in the report the blood stains recovered from the crime scene and
elsewhere matched with that of Deven and Pooja.
 The fingerprint samples collected from the stones marked as S1 and S2 matched with
Jeyant’s fingerprints and the blood collected from one of the stone marked as S1
matched with Deven’s blood sample that was collected in the hospital.
 During the investigation, wife of the deceased was also interrogated and in her
statement she informed us that her husband’s brother was involved in the murder of
one of the members of their group and this was the main reason as to why the accused
persons were after their lives and wanted them to leave the locality or else they will
have to face serious consequences. However the wife of the deceased in her statement
stated that they had already disowned Ahmed Owaisi, brother of her late husband
Umar Owaisi and that they were no more connected to him neither they know his
whereabouts.
17. Conclusion: The accused no.1 Deven shall be charged under section 308 BPC, 354 BPC
and 509 of BPC, initial charges of attempt to murder against Deven has been changed to
section 308 BPC that talks about attempt to commit culpable Homicide not amounting to
murder. The second accused Jeyant shall be charged under section 326 of BPC and section
504 of BPC.

PAGE|L
[ANNEXURES]
18. Charges:
Serial No. Accused Charges
1. Deven Section 308, 354, 509 of Barat

Penal Code.
2. Jeyant Section 326, 504 of Barat Penal

Code.
 The sanction for prosecuting Deven under section 308, 354 and 509 of the Barat Penal
Code, as amended has been obtained from the competent authority and enclosed.
 The sanction for prosecuting Jeyant under section 326, 354 of Barat Penal Code, as
amended has been obtained from the competent authority and enclosed.
 All the aforesaid offences have been committed within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble
Court. Hence, this Hon’ble Court has got jurisdiction to try the above offences.
 It is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble court may be pleased to take cognizance of the
offence as mentioned above against each of the aforesaid accused persons and issue
process to them to stand trial in accordance with law.
19. Dispatched on: 20.02.2018
Aman Sharma
Sd/-
Station House Officer
P.S.: Indira Nagar
Prakash, Inspector
Sd/-
Police Station: Indira Nagar

PAGE|M
[ANNEXURES]
(ANNEXURE II)
GENERAL DIARY(GD) ENTRY
(u/s 44 of The Police Act, 1861)
REGISTER NO. I- THE STATION DAILY DIARY
POLICE STATION: Indira Nagar
DATE: 12.06.2017
DISTRICT: Indra Nagar
GD NO. INFORMATION F.I.R. NO.

206 The security guard of Indira Nagar Metro 110/2017
Station informed the police by telephone on
June 12th, 2017 at around 10:45 that a public
commotion has been witnessed at the station
and two person, one boy and one girl was lying
unconscious and were severely injured.
Duty Officer Signature:
Jammy Sheikh
Sd/-

PAGE|N
[ANNEXURES]
(ANNEXURE III)
Fard Bayan of Kannan, S/o Mannan, Age 30 years, R/o Plot No.32, near Indira Nagar
Metro Station, Recorded by Inspector Prakash, Police Station: Indira Nagar, Indira
Nagar, Punnai on 12.06.2017 at around 11:00 a.m.
My name is Kannan, S/o Mannan, Age 30 years, R/o Plot No.32, near Indira Nagar Metro
Station, I am here to inform about the incident that took place at the Indira Nagar Metro
Station between around 9:50 a.m. to 10:30 a.m.
While I was sitting there waiting for one of my friend, I saw the boy sitting next to me
offering some apple to the girl sitting next to her, but the girl refused to take it, after which I
saw the boy whimpering slowly and after a moment he took a small knife from his pocket
and brought it close to Pooja’s face, it appeared as if he was going to assault her, the very
next moment a stone hit the boy’s head and he started bleeding and then I saw the crowd
heading towards him, after seeing the crowd heading towards him, the boy caught hold of the
girl and took her hostage by holding the knife against her neck and warned the crowd to
abstain from him.
But the crowd did not gave a heed to his warning and one of the boy among the crowd threw
another stone towards the man after which he tried to pull the girl along with her and the girl
resisted him. While this altercation was going on I saw the girl’s throat, slit by the knife and
the blood started gushing and immediately the girl fell down after which the crowd brutally
assaulted the boy and the boy too fell unconscious.
Sd/-
Kannan
Sd/-
Prakash
Inspector, Indira Nagar P.S.

PAGE|O
[ANNEXURES]
(ANNEXURE IV)
Tehrir by ASI Jammy Sheikh , P.S: Indira Nagar Police Station on behalf of SHO Aman
Sharma, Duty Officer, P.S: Indira Nagar Police Station.
To,
Duty officer,
Indira Nagar Police Station
Indira Nagar, Punnai
Mr.Kannan, S/o Mr. Kannan, R/o Plot No.32, near Indira Nagar Metro Station, Indira Nagar
is the informant in this case, who in his fardbayan informed about happening of the incident
at the Indira Nagar Metro Station on 12.06.2017 between around 9:50 a.m. to 10:30 a.m.
The police team headed by Inspector Prakash reached the crime spot after they were
informed about the incident by one of the security guard at the Indira Nagar Metro Station,
after the police team reached there, the informant Kannan recorded his fardbayan and was
asked by Inspector Prakash to report at the police station to register an F.I.R.
Sd/-
Aman Sharma
SHO, P.S.: Indira Nagar

PAGE|P
[ANNEXURES]
ANNEXURE V
FIRST INFORMATION REPORT
(U/s 154(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973)
Serial No. : 22 Book No. : 7
1. District: Indra Nagar P.S. Indira Nagar Year 2017 FIR No. 110/2017
Date: 12/06/17
2. (i) Act -Indian Penal Code Section- 307 BPC

(ii) Act- Indian Penal CodeSection- 335 BPC, 325B, 504 BPC
3. (a) Occurrence of Offence: Day- Monday; Date from 12/06/17; Date to

12/06/17; Time Period: A.M; Time from 10:00a.m.;Time to 10:40 a.m.
(b) Information received at P.S.: Date 12/06/17 Time 10:45 a.m.
(c) General Diary reference: Entry No. 12/2017 Time 10:50 a.m.
4. Type of Information : Written
5. Place of Occurrence :
(a) Direction and Distance from PS: North-East, 2 K.m.. Beat No. 123321
(b) Address :Indira Nagar Metro Station, Indra Nagar, Punnai.
(c) In case outside the limit of Police Station, then
Name of PS - District -
6. Complainant/Informant
(a) Name: kannan
(b) Father’s/Husband’s Name: Mannan
(c) Date/Year of Birth -28/4/11983 (d) Nationality- Baratian
(e) Passport No. - Date of Issue - Place of Issue
-
(f) Occupation: Chemical Engineer
(g) Address: Plot No.32, near Indira Nagar Metro Station, Punnai.
(h) Tel No.:

PAGE|Q
[ANNEXURES]
7. Details of known/suspected/unknown accused with full particulars(Attach

separate sheet if necessary)-
S.No. Name Description

1 Deven Black hair, Round face, height 5’6” (approx)
2 Jeyant Black hair, crescent shape face, height 6’ (approx)
The other unknown accused persons are not traceable.

8. Reasons for delay in reporting by the complainant/informant- Informant made
some delay in reaching the police station.
9. Particulars of properties stolen (Attach separate sheet, if necessary) - _ -
10. Total value of property stolen – -
11. Inquest Report/ U. D. case No., if any
Serial No. : 22 Book No. : 7
12. FIR Contents (Attach separate sheet, if necessary):-
Mr. Kannan, R/o Plot No.32, near Indira Nagar Metro Station, Punnai, who is an eye
witness to the incident, hereby report that today i.e. on 12th of June, 2017 at about
9.45 a.m. he was there at the Indira Nagar Metro Station sitting in a bench beside two
strangers, one was a boy who appeared to be in his mid twenties and the other was a
girl who also appeared to be on her mid twenties.
While he was sitting there waiting for one of his friend, he saw the boy sitting next to
him offering some apple to the girl sitting next to her, but the girl refused to take it,
after which he saw the boy whimpering slowly and after a moment that boy took a
small knife from his pocket and brought it close to the girl’s face, it appeared to the
informant that the boy sitting on the bench with him was going to assault the girl with
whom he was sitting, the informant told us that the very next moment a stone hit the
boy’s head and he started bleeding and then he saw the crowd heading towards the
boy, after seeing the crowd heading towards him, the boy caught hold of the girl and
took her hostage by holding the knife against her neck and warned the crowd to

PAGE|R
[ANNEXURES]
abstain from him. But the crowd did not gave a heed to his warning and one of the
boy among the crowd threw another stone towards the man after which he tried to pull
the girl along with her and the girl resisted him, while this altercation was going on,
the informant saw the girl’s throat got slit by the knife and the blood started gushing
and immediately the girl fell down after which the crowd brutally assaulted the boy
and the boy too fell unconscious.
13. Action taken: Since the above report reveals commission of offence(s) U/s 307
BPC, 335 BPC, 325 BPC and 504 BPCas mentioned at Item No. 2:
(1) Directed/Entrusted (Name of I.O.: Prakash Rank Sub- Inspector No.
657405678; PIS No- 89012 To take up the investigation or
FIR read over to the complainant/informant, admitted to be correctly recorded and a

copy given to the complainant/informant, free of cost.
Sd.-
Aman Sharma
Rank – Station House Officer
14. Date and Time of dispatch to the Court: 12.06.2017 at 3:00 P.m.
-
15. Signature/thumb impression-
Of the complainant/informant
Sd/- Kannan

PAGE|S
[ANNEXURES]
(ANNEXURE VI(1))
ARREST MEMO
(Under Section 41B(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973)
FIR No.110/2017 Date:12th June 2017 Under Section: 307 BPC
P.S.: Indira Nagar District: Indra Nagar
1. Name with alias and parentage of the Deven S/o Viren

arrestee
2. Permanent address of the arrestee 1, Canal Street, Chirapalli 10 Sardam:1
3. Present address of the arrestee House No. 36, Dinakaran men’s hostel,
Punnai.
4. FIR No. and section of Law FIR No. 110/2017
u/s 307 BPC, 354D BPC, 508 BPC
5. Place of arrest Government General Hospital, Punnai
6. Date and Time of arrest Date- 12/6/2017 Time 5:00 p.m.
7. Grounds of arrest The person is accused in case of attempted

murder of Miss Pooja’s murder and one of
the witness has identified him as the accused.
8. Name, Address & Tel. No. Kishore, friend of Deven

whomsoever to convey the arrest
House No. 36, Dinakaran men’s hostel,
information
Punnai Mob: 9999646592
9. Name, Rank & No. of the officer who Prakash, Inspector, No. 657405678
made the arrest

PAGE|T
[ANNEXURES]
Witnesses
1. AkarshakMahajan S/O AnakarshakMahajan
Sd/-
2. AmanAditya S/O Ajit Singh
Sd/-
Signature/thumb impression of arrestee
Deven
Sd/-
Signature of the I.O.

Prakash
Sd/-
P.S.: Indira Nagar

District: Indra Nagar

PAGE|U
[ANNEXURES]
(ANNEXURE VI(2))
ARREST MEMO
(Under Section 41B(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973)
FIR No.110/2017Date:13th June 2017 Under Section: 326 BPC, 504 BPC
P.S .: Indira Nagar District: Indra Nagar
1. Name with alias and parentage of the Jeyant S/o Ramesh

arrestee
2. Permanent address of the arrestee 3, Subedar Street, Chirapalli, Vanjiyur,

Sardam: 3. .
3. Present address of the arrestee Plot No.123, Ashok Nagar, Punnai.
4. FIR No. and section of Law FIR No. 110/2017
u/s 325 BPC, 355 PC, 504 BPC
5. Place of arrest Plot No.123, Ashok Nagar, Punnai
6. Date and Time of arrest Date- 13/6/2017 Time 12:00 p.m.
7. Grounds of arrest The person is accused of causing grievous

hurt to another accused named Deven in the
case and is identified by the informant
8. Name, Address & Tel. No. Ramesh, father of Jeyant

whomsoever to convey the arrest
Plot No.123, Ashok Nagar, Punnai
information
Mob: 9999646592
9. Name, Rank & No. of the officer who Prakash, Inspector, No. 657405678
made the arrest

PAGE|V
[ANNEXURES]
Witnesses
1. RohanShukla S/o RajanShukla

Sd/-
2. Rahul Mishra S/o Santosh Mishra
Sd/-
Signature/thumb impression of arrestee
Jeyant
Sd/-
Signature of the I.O.
Prakash
Sd/
P.S.: Indira Nagar
District:Indra Nagar

PAGE|W
[ANNEXURES]
(ANNEXURE VII(1))
REPORT OF ARREST TO THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
(Under Section 58 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973)
To, Dated:13.06.2017
The District Magistrate,
Sub: Regarding arrest of a person
Respected Sir,
It is to inform you that an arrest of a person named Deven has been made on 12.06.2017 at
around 5:00 p.m. in a case bearing F.I.R. no. 110/2017. The arrest is made in the hospital
since the accused was severely injured and had to be hospitalised immediately in the
Government General Hospital. The accused has been charged under section 307 BPC, the
accused is currently in the hospital under police custody.
Thank you
Prakash (Inspector)
Sd/-

PAGE|X
[ANNEXURES]
(ANNEXURE VII(2))
REPORT OF ARREST TO THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
(Under Section 58 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973)
To, Dated:13.06.2017
The District Magistrate,
Sub: Regarding arrest of a person
Respected Sir,
It is to inform you that an arrest of a person named Jeyant has been made on 13.06.2017 at
around 3:00 p.m. in a case bearing F.I.R. no. 110/2017, the arrest has been made in the
police station itself when the accused came to give his statement under 161 of Cr.P.C.
Through his statement and with the statement of other eye witnesses in this case, his
involvement in the case was suspected and therefore it was pertinent to arrest him at the spot,
so that he could not escape afterwards, the arrest is made by following all the procedure laid
down in the Cr.P.C. The accused has been charged under section 326/504 of Barat Penal
Code, .
Thank you
Inspector
Prakash
Sd/-

PAGE|Y
[ANNEXURES]
(ANNEXURE VIII)
SEIZURE MEMO
AS PER COMPLIANCE UNDER SECTION 100, CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE,

1973
 Date: 12.06.2017
 Place: At Indira Nagar Metro station,
Punnai
 Search duration: From: 11:10 A.M. to 12:15 P.M.

 PARTICULARS OF INVESTIGATING AUTHORITY & PANCHAS
1. Name and Place of Police Station: Indira Nagar
2. Name of Police Officer: Prakash
3. Rank of Police Officer: Inspector
4. Details of Panchas:
Name Sex Age Residence
Mr. Ram lal Male 35 House No. 151,

Friends colony,
Green park, Punnai
Mr.Shyamlal Male 32 House No. 213,

elantra apartments,
Malviyanagar,
Punnai

PAGE|Z
[ANNEXURES]
 PARTICULARS OF ARTICLES SEIZED
1. Two stones marked as S1 and S2 of uneven shape and slightly sharp on the edges, one
of the stone S1 had blood stains on it.
2. Blood specimens collected from the crime spot, marked as B1
3. Blood stains collected from the bench where Pooja and Deven were sitting, marked as
B2
4. A small Pen knife having blood marks on it, marked as K
5. A red cotton shoulder bag, marked as R
6. A small ladies purse, marked as P
7. Two identity cards, one belonged to Deven who is one of the accused and the other
one belonged to Pooja who is the victim, marked as A1 and A2 respectively.
Declaration: The search conducted and articles seized as per this memo have been conducted
in accordance with the procedure laid down under section 100 of the Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973 in the presence of two Panchas, the details of whom have been mentioned above.
It is further declared that the Panchas in presence of whom such seizure was conducted are
respectable are reliable persons and conducts their business in the locality where the search
and seizure have taken place.
Date: 12.08.2017 Signature of Panchas:
Time: 12:40 p.m. 1. Ram lalSd/-
Signature of Police Officer: 2. ShyamlalSd/-
Name: Prakash
Sd/-

P A G E | AA
[ANNEXURES]
(ANNEXURE IX)
(UNDER SECTION 157(1) Cr.P.C.)
BEFORE THE METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
SH. RAMDEV MODI
DISTRICT COURTS PUNNAI, SARDAM.
Date: 13.06.2017F.I.R. No.- 110/2017
Under Section- 307,

326, 354, 509, 504 of Barat Penal Code
INFORMATION REPORT FOR COMMISSION AND INVESTIGATION OF

CONGNIZABLE OFFENCES COMMITTED WITHIN THE LOCAL
JURISDICTION
Most Respectfully submitted-
 That a complaint has been lodged in form of a F.I.R. at Police station on June 12th,
2017, at around 12:35 a.m. by one of the eye witness to the incident, of commission
of attempt to murder on one lady and further mob violence at Indira Nagar Metro
station.
 This case involves the offence of attempted murder of one Ms.Pooja by one Mr.
Deven and of causing grievous hurt to Deven by one Mr. Jeyant, who is the friend of
the victim Pooja, the injured victim is personally known to the accused as told by one
of the victim’s friend who was present at the crime spot when we reached there, Ms.
Pooja and the accused both are admitted to the hospital for their treatment. The
accused was reportedly been lynched by the public present there when he allegedly
tried to kill Ms. Pooja.

P A G E | BB
[ANNEXURES]
 After lodging the First Information Report, some investigation was conducted by the
officer-in-charge, all the interested witnesses are summoned for recording of their
statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. the investigation of the crime scene was also
conducted and certain materials were seized, the seizure memo of all the articles was
prepared.
 The blood samples, fingerprints and other articles were seized after following due
procedure under Cr.P.C. and the same are sent to the FSL expert the report of which is
still awaited.
 That after conducting all the above inquiries as is prescribed under law, the facts and
other circumstances suggests the commission of a cognizable offence and there
appeared various other aspects involved in the case which will be come to light once
the investigation proceeds.
 I, Prakash, who is appointed as the I.O. in the case is entitled by law to investigate the
commission of the cognizable offence under section 156 of the Cr.P.C. and
subsequently a report under section 157 of the Cr.P.C. is sent to apprise the
Magistrate about the investigation and commission of the cognizable offences so that
a proper and an appropriate direction is given the Hon’ble Magistrate under section
159 of the Cr.P.C.
 Copy of the F.I.R. and Seizure Memo is attached for your kind perusal.
Prakash
Sd/-
Inspector
P.S.: Indira Nagar

P A G E | CC
[ANNEXURES]
(ANNEXURE X)
NOTICE TO THE WITNESS FOR APPEARANCE BEFORE THE POLICE TO
GIVE THEIR STATEMENTS
(Under section 160 of the Criminal Procedure Code,1973)
District: Indra Nagar Police Station- Indra Nagar

FIR NO: 110/2017 Date: 12.06.2017
To,
NAME: Kavita
D/O: Subhash
AGE: 25 years
OCCUPATION: Software Engineer
ADDRESS: 4 Temple street, Mannai, MitalLadu: 4.
NOTICE: The Inspector of the Indira Nagar Police Station at District Indira Nagar, hereby
gives notice that an FIR has been registered before me that you were found at the crime spot
and it is in my knowledge that you are a friend to the victim in the case Pooja, hence it
appears to me that you are likely to give material evidence or to produce any document or
other thing for framing of the final report.
You are hereby notified to appear before this Police Station on the 13th day of June 2017 to
produce such evidence of to testify what you know concerning such matter.
Signature of Investigating
Officer
Sd/-
Name:Prakash
Rank: Inspector
No.657405678

P A G E | DD
[ANNEXURES]
STATEMENT OF WITNESSES UNDER SECTION 161 OF Cr.PC
DISTRICT:Indra Nagar POLICE STATION: Indra Nagar

FIR No-: 110/2017 DATE: 13/06/2017
NAME: Kavita
D/O: Subhash
AGE: 25
ADDRESS: 4 Temple street, Mannai, MitalLadu: 4.
Statement as recorded:
On 12th June 2017, at 9.45 am, I had accompanied my friend Pooja along with Jeyant to
Indira Nagar metro station to meet Deven. Deven wanted to meet Pooja privately for one last
time since she had decided to end all relations with him. On seeing me along with Pooja,
Deven cursed me for manipulating Pooja and asked me to leave so that he could talk to Pooja
alone. They both sat on a bench while I and Jeyant were standing there and watching them
from close distance. After few moments Deven offered Pooja an apple to which she refused
and immediately the next moment we both saw Deven dangerously brought a knife close to
Pooja’s face and upon seeing this we both panicked and Jeyant in order to save Pooja threw
stone towards Deven which hit him on his head and he started bleeding and as Jeyant and few
other men and women from public approached towards Deven, he caught hold of Pooja and
kept that knife around his neck and warned all of us not to come close to him or else the
consequence could be grave, but Jeyant hurled another stone at Deven and the public too ran
towards Deven.
Pooja looked very frightened and in order to save herself pushed him away but Deven tried to
pull pooja and in between all this Deven slit her throat and the blood gushed forth. Pooja’s
shoulder was injured too and she fell instantly unconscious. I tried speaking to her after she
fell, but she did not respond. The public caught hold of Deven and rained blows on him, due
to which he fell unconscious too. Meanwhile the public overpowered Deven and Deven was

P A G E | EE
[ANNEXURES]
brutally beaten up by the public and Jeyant too gave him hard blows and one of Jeyant’s
punch hit Deven near his abdomen and within few seconds Deven fell unconscious.
Within 15-20 minutes of this commotion, the police and the ambulance came and both Deven
and Jeyant were sent to the hospital.
Prakash
Sd/-
(Investigating Officer)
Rank: Inspector

P A G E | FF
[ANNEXURES]
(ANNEXURE XI)
GIVE THEIR STATEMENT
DISCTRICT: Indra Nagar POLICE STATION: Indira Nagar

FIR NO: 110/2017 DATE: 12/06/2017
To,
NAME: Solomon
S/O: Dushyant
AGE: 45 years
OCCUPATION: Security Guard
ADDRESS: Plot No.58, near Indira Nagar Metro Station, Punnai
NOTICE: The Inspector of the Indira Nagar Police Station at District Indira Nagar, hereby
gives notice that an FIR has been filed before me that a person named Pooja has been
assaulted by Mr. Deven at the Indira Nagar Metro Station. You were on duty during that time
and informed the same to the police. Hence it appears to me that you are likely to give
material evidence or to produce any document or other thing for framing of the final report.
Officer
Sd/-
Police Station:
Name: Prakash
Rank: Inspector
No. 657405678

P A G E | GG
[ANNEXURES]
STATEMENT OF FIRST WITNESSES UNDER SECTION 161 OF Cr.PC
DISTRICT: Indra NagarPOLICE STATION: Indira Nagar

FIR No-: 110/2017 DATE: 13/06/2017
NAME: Solomon
S/O: Dushyant
AGE: 45
ADDRESS: Plot No 58, Near Indira Nagar Metro Station, Punnai
On 12th June 2017, at about 10.00 am, I heard loud, violent screams of the crowd near the
metro station. I rushed towards the direction from where the sound was coming and upon
arriving on the spot, I saw people angrily crowded around the body of an unconscious person
who carried a cloth bag and was bleeding profusely from his head. At a distance, there was a
body of another girl, who was also unconscious. Her neck had been slashed and her shoulders
were also wounded.
On behalf of the Metro Security Staff, I immediately informed the police about the incident.
The police arrived within 15-20 minutes with the ambulance and both of them were taken to
the hospital.
Prakash
Sd/-
Rank: Inspector

P A G E | HH
[ANNEXURES]
(ANNEXURE XII)
DISCTRICT: Indra Nagar POLICE STATION- Indira Nagar

FIR NO: 110/2017 Date: 12.06.2017
To,
NAME: Kannan
S/O:Mannan
AGE: 30 years
OCCUPATION: Chemical Engineer
ADDRESS: Plot No.32, near Indira Nagar Metro Station, Punnai.
NOTICE: The Inspector of the Police Station Indira Nagar of District Indira Nagar, hereby
gives notice that an FIR has been registered before me by you wherein a Person named Pooja
has been assaulted in front of you by Mr. Deven at Indira Nagar Metro Station, hence it
appears to me that you are likely to give material evidence or to produce any document or
other thing for framing of the final report.
Signature of Investigating Officer
Police Station:
Name:Prakash
Rank: Inspector

P A G E | II
[ANNEXURES]
STATEMENT OF SECOND WITNESS UNDER SECTION 161 of Cr.P.C.
DISTRICT: Indra Nagar POLICE STATION: Indira Nagar

FIR NO: 110/2017 Date: 13/06/2017
NAME: Kannan
S/O: Mannan
AGE: 30 years
OCCUPATION: Chemical Engineer
ADDRESS:Plot No.40, near Indira Nagar Metro Station, Punnai.
Statement as Recorded:
On 12th of June 2017, at about 9:50 a.m. I was there at the Indira Nagar Metro Station sitting
in a bench beside two strangers, one was a boy who appeared to be in his mid twenties and
other was a girl who also appeared to be on her mid twenties.
While I was sitting there waiting for one of my friend, I saw the boy sitting next to me
offering some apple to the girl sitting next to her, but the girl refused to take it, after which I
saw the boy whimpering slowly and after a moment he took a small knife from his pocket
and brought it close to Pooja’s face, it appeared as if he was going to assault her, the very
next moment a stone hit the boy’s head and he started bleeding and then I saw the crowd
heading towards him, after seeing the crowd heading towards him, the boy caught hold of the
girl and took her hostage by holding the knife against her neck and warned the crowd to
abstain from him. But the crowd did not gave a heed to his warning and one of the boy
among the crowd threw another stone towards the man after which he tried to pull the girl
along with her and the girl resisted him.
While this altercation was going on I saw the girl’s throat, slit by the knife and the blood
started gushing and immediately the girl fell down after which the crowd brutally assaulted
the boy and the boy too fell unconscious.
Prakash
Sd/-
Inspector

P A G E | JJ
[ANNEXURES]
(ANNEXURE XIII)
STATEMENT OF THIRD WITNESSES UNDER SECTION 161 OF Cr.PC
DISTRICT: Indra Nagar POLICE STATION: Indira Nagar

FIR No-: 110/2017 DATE: 13/06/2018
NAME: Deven
S/O: Perumal
AGE: 45
ADDRESS: 1, Canal Street, Chirapalli 10 Sardam:1
I, Deven, S/o Perumal, R/o 1, Canal Street, Chirapalli 10 Sardam:1, do hereby report that, I
did not intend to injure Pooja , but since I had to save myself from the mob, I only defended
myself by keeping knife on Pooja’s neck.
Prakash
Sd/-
Inspector
P.S.: Indira Nagar

P A G E | KK
[ANNEXURES]
(ANNEXURE XIV)
STATEMENT OF FOURTH WITNESS UNDER SECTION 161 of Cr.P.C.

FIR NO:110/2017 Date: 13/06/2017
NAME: Pooja
S/O: Vishal
AGE: 25 years
ADDRESS:2, Mittu Street, Chirapalli, Vanjiyur Sardam-1.
I Pooja, S/o Vishal, R/o 2, Mittu Street, Chirapalli, Vanjiyur Sardam-1, do hereby state that
Deven tried kept the knife on my neck and tried to run because of which my throat got
slashed.
Prakash
Sd/-
P.S: Indira Nagar

P A G E | LL
[ANNEXURES]
SECOND STATEMENT OF FOURTH WITNESS UNDER SECTION 161 of Cr.P.C.

FIR NO:110/2017 Date: 20/06/2017
NAME: Pooja
S/O: Vishal
AGE: 25 years
ADDRESS:2, Mittu Street, Chirapalli, Vanjiyur Sardam-1.
I Pooja D/o Dooja, hereby states that I and Deven were in a relationship with each other since
past 4 years, we both studied at the same college and had developed good relations from there
on. I got placed in a Software firm in Punnai and Deven too got a job but of a lower scale.
After getting job it became difficult for me to regularly meet and talk to Devan because of
which Deven often got angry and we often ended up fighting with each other.
After living in Punnai for a while my life style got changed a bit which Deven did not like
and he often used to comment upon my choices of dresses and even had started hating my
friends. One day on June 9th, 2017, I decided to meet Deven and inform him about my future
plans of becoming an air hostess and that I have decided to break all my relations with him as
things were not going good between us, hearing this Deven got upset and tried to convince
me not leave my present job by saying that girls from respected family do not choose to
become air hostess, this statement of him agitated me and subsequently I slammed him over
his backward thinking remarks and yelled at him, after which he got infuriated and started
abusing me in front of the whole public and passed scandalous remarks upon my character. I
got very angry over his remarks and slapped him and told him that I am done with him and
told him to stay away from him and to never text or call me again.
However on the same night at around 11:45 Deven again called me on my mobile phone
number of times after which I picked up the phone, he sounded drunk and was seeking my
apology for his behaviour, but I asked him not to call me again and told him that now

P A G E | MM
[ANNEXURES]
everything is over between us. But the very next morning I saw his text messages wherein he
requested me to meet at Indira Nagar Metro Station for one last time and I acceded to his
request but for my safety I asked Jeyant and Kavita to accompany me there.
On 12th June, 2017 at around 9:45 a.m., I along with Jeyant and my friend Pooja were there
at the Indira Nagar Metro Station. I saw Deven and went to meet him and asked both Jeyant
and Kavita to be around till the time I was with Deven.
Deven and I sat on a bench with one more stranger sitting on the same bench. Deven offered
me some apples but I refused to accept on which he started crying since it made him
remember something about our past memories, but I decided not to console him since I had
decided to act strong in front of him.
Then he took out a knife from his bag and it appeared to me as if he was trying to bring the
knife close to my face in order to assault me and only then I saw that Deven threw a stone at
him which hit him on his head and he started bleeding, I got panicked and could not move,
later I saw Deven and few other men approaching towards me and yelling at Deven, seeing
that, Deven caught hold of me and held the knife against my neck and warned the public to
stay back or else he will do something very bad, but the mob that was led by Jeyant did not
stop and rushed towards him and Jeyant threw another stone at him after which Deven got
infuriated and tried to pull me along with him to which I resisted and after realising that he
was trapped, he slit my throat in an attempt to kill me after which I got unconscious and as
my friend Kavita told me, then I was taken to hospital in the ambulance.
Prakash
Sd/-
(Investigating
Officer)
Rank: Inspector

P A G E | NN
[ANNEXURES]
(ANNEXURE XV)

FIR NO: 110/2017 Date: 19.06.2017
To,
NAME: Ramdevmodi
S/O: Shankar Modi
AGE: 45
OCCUPATION: Metropolitan Magistrate, Indira Nagar court.
ADDRESS: 102/23, MG Road, Indira Nagar, Punnai
NOTICE: I am the inspector at Indira Nagar police station, Indira Nagar and I have been
appointed as the Investigating Officer of the case bearing F.I.R. no. 110/2017. Since the
accused no. 1 Deven and the victim in this case has given their statement under 161 Cr.P.C.
in front of you and have been visited by you in the hospital, therefore, your statement will be
proven necessary to corroborate the essential facts of the case through your statement under
161 Cr.P.C.
Officer
Police Station:
Name:Prakash
Rank:Inspector
No.657405678

P A G E | OO
[ANNEXURES]
STATEMENT OF FIFTH WITNESS UNDER SECTION 161 of Cr.P.C.

FIR NO: 110/2017 Date: 20.06.2017
To,
NAME: Ramdevmodi
S/O: Shankar Modi
AGE: 45
OCCUPATION: Metropolitan Magistrate, Indira Nagar court.
ADDRESS: 102/23, MG Road, Indira Nagar, Punna
I, RamdevModi, Metropolitan Magistrate, Indira Nagar court was available at the
Government General Hospital along with the Investigating officer of the case, the accused
no.1 Deven and the victim Pooja has given their statement to the police in front of me on
13.06.2017, wherein the accused Pooja informed that Deven kept knife on her neck and
because of which she got injured and the accused no.1 Deven informed the police that he
acted in his self defence and that he never intended to injure Pooja.
Since the accused Deven and victim Pooja was not in a good condition, the doctor instructed
us not to disturb the patient and therefore the police could not gather much information.
Prakash
Sd/-
(Investigating
Officer)
Rank: Inspector

P A G E | PP
[ANNEXURES]
(ANNEXURE XVI)
INDIRA NAGAR POLICE BUREAU
To, Dated: 13.06.2017
Chief District Medical Officer
District: Indira Nagar
Punnai
Sub: Regarding Request for the Medical Examination of the accused Jeyant.
Dear Sir/Ma’am,
This is to inform you that the accused Jeyant is charged under section 326/504 of BPC, with
reference to FIR No. 110/2017. Particulars of the accused are presented below.
PARTICULARS OF ACCUSED PERSON
Sl. Full Name Occupation Age Sex Date&

No. Time of
Arrest
1. Jeyant Accountant 30 Male 13/06/2017, at 3:00

P.M.
Please conduct the medical examination of the accused.
Thank you,
Sd/-
Inspector Prakash

P A G E | QQ
[ANNEXURES]
MEDICAL EXAMINATION OF ACCUSED
(UNDER SECTION 54 of Cr.P.C, 1973)
DISTRICT: Indra Nagar Police Station: Indira Nagar
FIR No.: 110/2017 Date: 14.06.2017
MLC No.-4578
Details of the Accused:
Name: Jeyant
Age: 25; Sex: Male; Marital status: Un-married
Date of Examination: 14.06.2017 Time: 12:15 A.M.
Name of the Medical Practitioner: Mr.Mr.Gogo
GENERAL PHYSICAL EXAMINATION
Clinical History: None
Blood Pressure: Normal Recorded 90/120 mm of Hg.
Injuries:
a. Any Mental Injury: None

b. Any Physical Injury: few scratch marks on right hand.
Overall Condition: Normal
Status: Fit
Sd/-
Mr.Gogo
MBBS

P A G E | RR
[ANNEXURES]
(ANNEXURE XVII)
To, Dated: 12.06.2017
Chief District Medical Officer
Punnai
Sub: Regarding Request for the Medical Examination of the accused Deven
Dear Sir/Ma’am,
This is to inform you that the accused Jeyant is charged under section 308/34/509 of BPC,
with reference to FIR No. 110/2017. Particulars of the accused are presented below.
PARTICULARS OF ACCUSED PERSON
Sl. Full Name Occupation Age Sex Date&

No. Time of
Arrest
1. Deven Engineer 25 Male 12/06/2017, at 5:00

P.M.
Please conduct the medical examination of the accused.
Thank you,
Sd/-
Inspector, Prakash

P A G E | SS
[ANNEXURES]
GOVERNEMNT GENERAL HOSPITAL
MEDICO-LEGAL CASE
DISTRICT: Indra Nagar Police Station: Indira Nagar
FIR No.: 110/ 2017 Date: 12.06.2017.
MLC No.-4578
Name: Deven; Age: 25; Sex: Male; Marital Status: Un-married
Date of Examination: 12.06.2017 Time: 6:00 p.m.
Name of the Medical Practitioner: Mr.Javed
Blood Pressure: Low Blood Pressure 90/60
Injuries:
a. Any Mental Injury: Accused was in an unconscious state.

b. Any Physical Injury:
 Lacerated scalp at the back of head that was profusely bleeding.
 Bruise marks on hands, neck, stomach and chest region.
 Abrasion marks near left eye.
 Bleeding from nose.
 Fractured Ribs
Overall Condition: Multiple injuries and the body was in an unconscious state.
Status: Unconscious

P A G E | TT
[ANNEXURES]
Remarks: The injuries inflicted at the back of head was sufficient in the ordinary course to
cause vicitm’s death.
Sd/-
Mr.Javed, MBBS

P A G E | UU
[ANNEXURES]
(ANNEXURE XVIII)
MEDICAL REPORT
(Government General Hospital, Punnai)
Name of the Patient- Ms. Pooja
Father’s name- Dooja
Age- 30 years
Address- Plot No.32, near Indira Nagar Metro Station, Punnai.
Date and time at which the victim was brought to the hospital- 12.06.2017 at 11:20 a.m.\
Name of the doctor – Ms.ReenaMehra
Type of injuries on the victim’s body-
 Long incised and deep neck injury was found on the front side of the neck. The injury
mark was drawn across the neck, from left to right by. Parallel, superficial cuts were
found above and below the deep fatal cut that suggests that the victim attempted to get
away from the accused.
 The laceration marks in the neck were around 8 cm x 1 cm.
 Minor laceration marks were also present on the right shoulder.
Remarks:
The size of injury and the heavy blood loss was sufficient in the ordinary course to cause
victim’s death could had she not been admitted to the hospital on time.
Dated: 12.06.2017
Signature of the doctor
Sd/-
ReenaMehra
MBBS

P A G E | VV
[ANNEXURES]
(ANNEXURE XIX)
APPLICATION TO AUTHORISE POLICE CUSTODY
(Under Section 167 Cr.P.C.)
Application No.- 123/2017
IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
DISTRICT COURT INDIRA NAGAR, PUNNAI.
This is to bring it to your notice that the accused namely Jeyant has been arrested for the
offences committed under section 325 BPC, 355 BPC AND 504 BPC, in the case bearing
F.I.R. no. 110/2017, details of the same has been incorporated in the case diary which has
been forwarded to you along with the application.
The accused is named in the F.I.R. on the basis of the statement of an eye witness, the
accused has been charged under the above sections, the accused was arrested on 13.06.2017
in the police station itself after taking his statement under 161 Cr.P.C. However, still a lot is
to be investigated in the case and since the case has taken a different course after the arrest of
Jeyant, without his interrogation the investigation cannot be completed, kindly provide us the
police custody of all the arrestee for fourteen more days so that we could reach the end result
of our investigation.
Date- 14.06.2017
Signature of the Investigating Officer
Prakash
Sd/-
Police Station- Indira Nagar
District- Indra Nagar

P A G E | WW
[ANNEXURES]
ORDER U/S 167(1) OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973
Application Number- 123/2017
Order Number- 345/2017
F.I.R. Number- 110/2017
Under Section- 325 BPC, 355 BPC and 504 BPC
P.S.-Indira Nagar
Date- 14.06.2017
Present: Prakash, the I/O of the case
Jeyant, along with his counsel
The detention of the accused Jeyant under police custody is allowed for the period of fourteen
days i.e. till 27.06.2017, on the ground that further investigation is to be conducted in the
case.
RamdevModi
Sd/-
Metropolitan Magistrate
District court Indria Nagar, Punnai

P A G E | XX
[ANNEXURES]
(ANNEXURE XX)
(Under Section 167 Cr.P.C.)
This is to bring to your notice that almost all the interrogation is completed with Jeyant,
however it is requested to grant police custody of the accused for seven more days to wholly
complete the investigation.
Date- 28.06.2017
Signature of the Investigating Officer
Prakash
Sd/-

P A G E | YY
[ANNEXURES]
F.I.R. Number- 110/2017
P.S.-Indira Nagar
Date-28.06.2017
Jeyant, along with his counsel
The prayer of police custody for the accused jeyant is denied and the accused is sent to
Judicial Custody.
RamdevModi
Sd/-
District court Indira Nagar, Punnai

P A G E | ZZ
[ANNEXURES]
(ANNEXURE XXI)
To,
The Security head,
Indira Nagar Metro Station
Date: 14.06.2017
Subject: Disclosure of the CCTV footage dated 12/06/2017 in furtherance of Police

Investigation
Respected Sir/Ma’am
This letter is to seek your cooperation and assistance in providing the CCTV recordings and
relevant details to the investigation authority in a case where an incident took place near gate
no.1 of the Metro Station on 12/06/2017. The investigating authorities would appreciate the
production of CCTV recording of gate no. 1 of Indira Nagar Metro Station, dated 12th June,
2017 from 9:00a.m. to 10:50 a.m. as we have sufficient ground to believe that the said
recording would be of great assistance in the present case.
Regards,
Prakash, I.O.,

P A G E | AAA
[ANNEXURES]
INDIRA NAGAR METRO STATION
To,
The Inspector
Indira Nagar P.S.
Date: 15.06.2017
Re: Subject: Disclosure of the CCTV recording of Metro gate no. 1 dated 12/06/2017
in furtherance of Police Investigation
Respected Sir,
This letter is to assist in furtherance of the case. Please find attached the CCTV
recording dated 12th June, 2017 for the mentioned time slot.
Regards
Security head
Suresh
Sd/-
Indira Nagar Metro Station
Punnai
CCTV recording dated 12th June 2017, Gate no. 1 of Indira Nagar Metro Station.(Marked as
Exhibit I)

P A G E | BBB
[ANNEXURES]
(ANNEXURE XXII)
APPLICATION REQUESTING CONDUCT OF CCTV ANALYSIS
To,
Dated:16.06.2107
The Digital FSL Expert, Indra Nagar, Punnai
Sub: Application requesting conduct of CCTV analysis of the provided data and
furnishing the report to the applicant
Sir,
The applicant submits as under:-
 That the applicant requires the CCTV analysis of the given data of Indira Nagar Metro
Station Gate 1 on the following date.
DATE TIME VENUE
12.6.2017 9:00 am to 10:50 a.m. Indira Nagar Metro Station
It is, therefore, prayed that the CCTV analysis may kindly be released to the applicant
Dated: 16.06.2017
Sd/-
Prakash
Inspector
P.S.: Indira Nagar

P A G E | CCC
[ANNEXURES]
CCTV ANALYSIS REPORT
Prepared by- Ankur JainDate- 18.06.2017
TRANSCRIPT
Location- Indira Nagar Metro Station
Time- 9:00 a.m. TO 10:50 a.m.
Dated- 18.06.17
Camera 1- Metro Station Entry
It is seen that around 9:45 a.m. a man and a woman sat on the bench in front of the entrance
gate who were accompanied by another man and woman who stood behind them at a distance
of some 15 ms next to a pillar. At around 9:50 a.m. another man came along and sat on the
bench with the man and the woman next sitting next to him. The man and woman were
talking while the man offered some apples to the lady but the lady did not accept.
After a while, the man took a knife from his pocket and his hands went close to the lady’s
face and the next second, the man who was standing behind the pillar threw a stone towards
the man having knife in his hands and it hit him at the back of his head and he started
bleeding and immediately it was seen that the man who threw the stone, along with few other
people came running towards the man who was hit by the stone and then the man caught
hold of the lady who was sitting with him and held the knife against her neck and was seen
yelling at the crowd, but the crowd did not stop and the same man who had thrown stone,
threw another stone towards the man after which the man was seen agitated and tried to pull
the lady along with him to which the lady resisted by pushing him away and only then the
knife injured her neck and the lady started bleeding and fell unconscious and then the mob
brutally assaulted the man and he too fell unconscious.
At 10:50 a.m. the ambulance was seen at the spot along with a police van and the ambulance
immediately took both the injured persons from the spot.
Sd/-
Ankur Jain
FSL, Delhi

P A G E | DDD
[ANNEXURES]
(ANNEXURE XXIII)
CERTIFICATE UNDER SECTION 65-B OF THE BARAT EVIDENCE ACT
Addressed to: Mr.Prakash, Inspector, Indira Nagar, Indra Nagar, Punnai.
This is in relation to your application dated 16.6.2017 requesting analysis of CCTV data for
authenticity and admissibility as evidence before the court.
We conducted analysis on the copies of CCTV data that you sent. The following are the
conclusions we could draw from them:
1. These copies of CCTV data are authentic in the sense that they have not been tampered with in
any sense.
We verify that the copies of CCTV data sent by you are authentic and fit to be relied upon as
evidence. These copies are being returned with the present certificate.
Any remark or grievances are welcome.
Ankur Jain
Sd/-
Digital FSL Expert
Punnai

P A G E | EEE
[ANNEXURES]
(ANNEXURE XXIV)
APPLICATION TO COLLECT BLOOD SAMPLES OF THE ACCUSED
(U/s 5 of the Identification of Offenders Act)
F.I.R. No.-110/2017
P.S.: Indra Nagar
I, Prakash, Inspector at the Indira Nagar police station, have been appointed as an I.O. in the
case bearing F.I.R. no. 110/2017. Two accused have been arrested in the case, one of them
named Deven is getting medical treatment in the Government General Hospital and the other
one named Jeyant is under Police custody as has been authorised by this court.
For the purpose of identification and involvement of the first accused in this case, it is
necessary to take his blood sample so that it can be matched with other samples that we have
obtained from the crime spot.
Therefore, kindly grant us the authority to take blood sample of Deven for the purpose of the
investigation.
Dated: 13.06.2017
Prakash, Inspector

P A G E | FFF
[ANNEXURES]
Sd/-
Application Number-125/2017
F.I.R. Number- 110/2017
P.S.-Indira Nagar
Date- 28.06.2017
The plea of taking blood sample of the accused is the hospital is granted for the purpose of
the investigation, the blood sample to be taken by the doctor-in- charge of the accused and to
be handed over to the I.O. of the case.
RamdevModi
Sd/-
District court Indra Nagar, Punnai

P A G E | GGG
[ANNEXURES]
(ANNEXURE XXV)
CFSL PROFORMAFORWARDING NOTE
(In all cases where examination of any material is required at the laboratory, a copy of the
form duly filled in should accompany the exhibit)
Letter No. 4 of 9/2017

Dated 13.06.2017
FIR No.: 110/2017,
Date: 12.06.2017
Branch/PS: Indra Nagar
State/U.T.: Sardam
I. NATURE OF CRIME
There are two accused involved in the matter, one Mr. Deven is charged under section 307
BPC of attempt to murder of one Ms. Pooja and the second accused is Mr. Jeyant is charged
under section 326 BPC for assaulting the first accused Mr. Deven.
II LIST OF EXHIBITS SENT FOR EXAMINATION
Sl. Description of How, when and Source of Remarks

The Exhibits by whom found Exhibits
No.
1. Sample of Blood Found at the N/A

found on the crime spot
Seized during
ground during

P A G E | HHH
[ANNEXURES]
investigation by investigation
Investigating
Officer Prakash
and was
collected by
their Forensics
department
2. Blood sample Found at the Seized during N/A

found on the crime spot investigation
bench where during
Pooja and investigation by
Deven were Investigating
sitting Officer Prakash
and was
collected by the
Forensics
department
3. Fingerprints on Found at the Seized during N/A

two stones crime spot by investigation
the Investigating
Officer Prakash
and collected by
the forensics
team of the
police
department
4. Blood stains Found at crime N/A

found on the scene during
Seized during
stone. investigation by

P A G E | III
[ANNEXURES]
Investigating investigation
Officer Prakash
and collected by
forensics team
of the police
department
5. Blood stains Found at crime Seized during N/A

found on the scene during investigation
knife investigation by
Investigating
Officer Prakash
and collected by
forensics team
of the police
department
6. Fingerprints Found at crime Seized during N/A

found on the scene during investigation
knife investigation by
Investigating
Officer Prakash
and collected by
forensics team
of the police
department
7. White shirt of Collected by the Seized at the N/A

the accused investigating hospital
Deven having officer Prakash
blood stains on in the hospital
it.

P A G E | JJJ
[ANNEXURES]
8. Blue top of Collected by the Seized at the N/A

Pooja having investigating hospital
blood stains on officer Prakash
it. in the hospital
9. Glass having Taken by the Taken at the N/A

fingerprint of Investigating hospital with
the accused no. Officer Prakash prior court’s
1 Deven during custody permission
at the hospital
10 Glass having Taken by the Taken during N/A

fingerprint Investigating the police
sample of the Officer Prakash custody with
second accused during police prior court’s
Jeyant custody permission
11. Blood sample of Taken by the Collected by N/A

the accused doctor-in-charge I.O. after the
Deven of the accused at court’s
the hospital permission
12 Blood sample of Taken by the Seized at the N/A

the victim Pooja doctor-in-charge hospital
of the accused at
the hospital

P A G E | KKK
[ANNEXURES]
III NATURE OF EXAMINATION REQUIRED
1. Serology department to examine whether blood sample found matches that of injured
victim.
2. Serology department to examine whether the blood stains on the stones found matches
with the blood sample of the injured victim
3. Forensic and Biology department to examine whet
4. her the fingerprints found in the stones matched with the fingerprint of the second
accused Jeyant and the fingerprints found on the handle of the knife matches with the
fingerprint of the accused Deven.
IV. PARTICULARS OF PERSONS IN CUSTODY
Sl. Full Occupation Age Sex Date& Whether Court

Name on
No. Time of
Bail or
Arrest
in
Custody
1 Deven Engineer 34 Male 12.06.2017 Police In the court

at around Custody of
5:00 p.m. Metropolitan
Magistrate
2 Jeyant Accountant 30 Male 13.06.2017 Police In the court

at around Custody of
3:00 p.m. Metropolitan
Magistrate
Forwarded to:

P A G E | LLL
[ANNEXURES]
The Director,
Central Forensic Science Laboratory,
Block No.4, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road,
Punnai - 110003
Signature & Designation
of the forwarding Officer
Sd/-
Prakash
(Inspector)

P A G E | MMM
[ANNEXURES]
(ANNEXURE XXVI)
ROAD TRANSFER CERTIFICATE
District: Indra NagarPolice Station: Indira Nagar
Form No.: 10.17Serial No.: 91/17
Name of the Investigating Officer: PrakashRank of the I.O.: Inspector
To,
The Director,
CFSL, Lodhi Road, Punnai
Particulars of the persons charge sheeted:
 DEVEN
Name with alias and parentage of the Deven S/o Viren

arrestee
Permanent address of the arrestee 1, Canal Street, Chirapalli 10 Sardam:1
Present address of the arrestee House No. 36, Dinakaran men’s hostel,
Punnai.
FIR No. and section of Law FIR No. 110//2017
u/s 307 BPC, 354D BPC, 508 BPC
 JEYANT
Name with alias and parentage of the Jeyant S/o Ramesh

arrestee
Permanent address of the arrestee 3, Subedar Street, Chirapalli, Vanjiyur,

Sardam: 3. .
Present address of the arrestee Plot No.123, Ashok Nagar, Punnai.

P A G E | NNN
[ANNEXURES]
FIR No. and section of Law FIR No. 110/2017
u/s 325 BPC, 355 PC, 504 BPC
 Date and time of dispatch of the specimens- 12.06.2017 at 4:00 p.m.

 Date and time of arrival at destination- 12.06.2017 at 5:00 p.m.
DESCRIPTION OF PARCELS:
 Sealed packet (P1) containing blood specimen exhibited as B1.

 Sealed packet (P5) containing shirt of the accused Deven having blood stains on it
marked as B5
 Sealed packet (P6) containing top of the victim Pooja having blood stains on i marked
as B6.
 Sealed packet (P7) containing fingerprint specimen exhibited as F1.
 Sealed packet (P10) containing glass bearing fingerprint of the accused Deven marked
as F4
 Sealed Packet (P12) containing blood sample of the accused Deven, marked as B7.
 Sealed Packet (P13) containing blood sample of the victim Pooja, marked as B8.
Dated: 12.06.2017
Signature of the official remitting the property
SwayamtoshRath
Sd/-
FSL expert

P A G E | OOO
[ANNEXURES]
(ANNEXURE XXVII)
CENTRAL FORENSIC SCIENCE LABORATORY
LODHI ROAD, PUNNAI
Accredited by the National Accreditation Board for Testing
REORT NO.- 2017/A-1414 DATED: 15.06.2017
1. Please quote the Report (Opinion) No. & Date in future correspondence & Summons.
2. This report is per se admissible u/s 293 CrPC.
To, ‘
The Inspector
PS:
Your letter no. 4 of 9/2017 dated 13.06.2017 regarding 11sealed packets in connection with
the case FIR No. 110/2017 dated 12.06.2017 U/s 307/326 BPC P.S: Indira Nagar duly
received in this office on 13.06.2017.
DESCRIPTION OF PARCELS & CONDITION OF SEALS:

 Sealed packet (P5) containing shirt of the accused Deven having blood stains on it
marked as B5
 Sealed packet (P6) containing top of the victim Pooja having blood stains on i marked
as B6.
 Sealed packet (P10) containing glass bearing fingerprint of the accused Deven marked
as F4
 Sealed packet (P11) containing glass bearing fingerprint of the accused Jeyant marked
as F5.
 Sealed Packet (P12) containing blood sample of the accused Deven, marked as B7.
 Sealed Packet (P13) containing blood sample of the victim Pooja, marked as B8.

P A G E | PPP
[ANNEXURES]
“This report is per se permissible u/s 293 Crpc. However, this scientific expert (witness) shall
be available for cross examination, if required”
DESCRIPTION OF ARTICLES CONTAINED IN PARCEL

 PACKET 1:
 B1- Blood stains found on the ground near the crime spot where the injured
victim Pooja was lying.
 PACKET 2:
 B2- Blood stains found on the bench where Pooja and Deven were sitting.
 PACKET 3:
 B3- Blood stains found on the stone marked as S1.
 PACKET 4:
 B4- Blood stains found on the blade of the knife marked as K
 PACKET 5:
 B5- Jeyant’s white shirt having blood stains on it
 PACKET 6:
 B6- Pooja’s blue top having blood stains on it.
 PACKET 7:
 F1- Fingerprints found on the stone marked as S1
 PACKET 8:
 F2- Fingerprints found on the stone marked as S2
 PACKET 9:
 F3- Fingerprints found on the handle of the knife marked as K.
 PACKET 10:
 F4- Fingerprint sample of the accused no. 1 Deven on the glass marked as G1.
 PACKET 11:
 F5- Fingerprint sample of the accused no. 2 Jeyant on the glass marked as G2.
 PACKET 12
 B7- Blood sample of the accused Deven taken at the hospital by the doctor-in-
charge after the prior permission o the court.
 PACKET 13
 B8- Blood sample of the victim Pooja, taken at the hospital by the doctor-in-
charge.
(Dr.Parth Sharma)
Sd/-
The Director
CFSL,Punnai

P A G E | QQQ
[ANNEXURES]
LODHI ROAD, PUNNAI
REPORT NO. FSL-2017/A-1414 DATED: 20.06.2017
SEROLOGY DEPARTMENT RESULTS FOR EXHIBIT B1
EXHIBIT NO. BLOOD ORIGN OF BLOOD TYPE

DETECTON BLOOD
B1 Positive Human B+ve
Remarks:Blood specification obtained from exhibit B1 of A7/C47/2017 matched with blood

sample of the injured victim Pooja, marked as B8
Sd/-
(Dr.Parth Sharma)
The Director
Central Forensic Science Laboratory
Block No.4 CGO Complex, Lodhi Road
Punnai- 110003

P A G E | RRR
[ANNEXURES]
LODHI ROAD, PUNNAI
EXHIBIT BLOOD ORIGN OF BLOOD TYPE

NO. DETECTON BLOOD
B2 Positive Human O+ve

sample of the accused Deven, marked as B7
Sd/-
(Dr.Parth Sharma)
The Director
Punnai- 110003

P A G E | SSS
[ANNEXURES]
LODHI ROAD, PUNNAI

DETECTON BLOOD

sample of the injured accused Deven.
Sd/-
(Dr.Parth Sharma)
The Director
Punnai- 110003

P A G E | TTT
[ANNEXURES]
LODHI ROAD, PUNNAI

DETECTON BLOOD

sample of the injured victim Pooja.
Sd/-
(Dr.Parth Sharma)
The Director
Punnai- 110003

P A G E | UUU
[ANNEXURES]
LODHI ROAD, PUNNAI

DETECTON BLOOD

sample of the injured accused Deven, marked as B7.
Sd/-
(Dr.Parth Sharma)
The Director
Punnai- 110003

P A G E | VVV
[ANNEXURES]
LODHI ROAD, PUNNAI

DETECTON BLOOD

sample of the injured victim Pooja, marked as B8.
Sd/-
(Dr.Parth Sharma)
The Director
Punnai- 110003

P A G E | WWW
[ANNEXURES]
LODHI ROAD, PUNNAI
BILOGY/ FINGERPRINT DEPARTMENT RESULTS FOR EXHIBIT F1
EXHIBIT NO. FINGER PRINT HANDS FINGER PRINT

DETECTION EXAMINED MATCH
(Right/Left/Both)
F1 Positive Both Positive
Remarks:
Finger Prints obtained from exhibit F1 of A7/C48/2017 matched with both the hands of
accused no. 2 Jeyant as per exhibit ‘F5’ (received on 13.06.2017 at 2:00 p.m.).
(Dr.Parth Sharma)
Sd/-
The Director
Punnai- 110003

P A G E | XXX
[ANNEXURES]
LODHI ROAD, PUNNAI
BILOGY/ FINGERPRINT DEPARTMENT RESULTS FOR EXHIBIT F1
EXHIBIT NO. FINGER PRINT HANDS FINGER

DETECTION EXAMINED PRINT
(Right/Left/Both) MATCH
Remarks:
accused no. 2 Jeyant as per exhibit ‘F5’.
(Dr.Parth Sharma)
Sd/-
The Director
Punnai- 110003

P A G E | YYY
[ANNEXURES]
LODHI ROAD, PUNNAI
BIOLOGY/ FINGERPRINT DEPARTMENT RESULTS FOR EXHIBIT F1
EXHIBIT NO. FINGER PRINT HANDS FINGER

DETECTION EXAMINED PRINT
(Right/Left/Both) MATCH
Remarks:
accused no. 1 Deven as per exhibit ‘F4’.
(Dr.Parth Sharma)
Sd/-
The Director
Punnai- 110003

P A G E | ZZZ
[ANNEXURES]
(ANNEXURE XXVIII)
MEDICAL REPORT OF DEVEN
Name of the Patient- Mr. Deven
Father’s name- Mr. Perumal
Age- 25 years
Address- 1, Canal Street, Chirapalli 10 Sardam:1
Date and time of the examination- 20.07.2017 at 2:00 p.m.\
Name of the doctor – Dr. Vishal
Condition of the injuries:
 Wound at the back of head healed up to 90%

 Fractured Ribs completely healed up
 Injuries in nose completely healed up
 Other minor injuries completely healed up.
Overall Condition: Fit to be discharged, the injury at the back of head to be taken care of for
completely healing up.
 Prescriptions:
 Vasolex, for dressing up of wounds.
 Aspririn, for controlling mild to moderate pain.
Dated: 20.07.2017
Dr. Vishal
Sd/-
MBBS

P A G E | AAAA
[ANNEXURES]
(ANNEXURE XXX)
(Under section 167 Cr.P.C.)
DISTRICT COURT INIRA NAGAR, PUNNAI
F.I.R no.-110/2017
P.S.: Indira Nagar
U/s: 308 BPC, 354 BPC, 509 BPC
It is to inform you that the first accused Deven in the present case was under medical
treatment at Government General Hospital since 12.06.2017. Per the latest medical report of
the hospital, Deven has been declared fit to be released with certain cautions and
prescriptions. Since the investigation of the case has not been completed, it is pertinent to
keep the accused under police custody. Therefore, the police custody of the accused is
demanded for a period of 14 days.
Dated: 20.07.2017
Prakash
Sd/-
Inspector,
P.S.: Indira Nagar

P A G E | BBBB
[ANNEXURES]
ORDER U/S 167(1) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973
F.I.R. Number- 110/2017
Under Section- 308 BPC, 354 BPC, 509 BPC
P.S.-Indra Nagar
Date- 20.07.2017
The plea of police custody of the accused Deven is denied and the accused is sent to Judicial
Custody.
RamdevModi
Sd/-
Indira Nagar District Court

P A G E | CCCC
[LIST OF EXHIBITS]
LIST OF EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT (A)
 CD COMPRISING CCTV FOOTAGE OF THE INCIDENT

P A G E | DDDD
[LIST OF EXHIBITS]
EXHIBIT (B)
 PHOTOGRAPH OF THE BLOOD FOUND NEAR POOJA’S BODY

P A G E | EEEE
[LIST OF EXHIBITS]
EXHIBIT (C)
 PHOTOGRAPH OF THE KNIFE FOUND ON CRIME SPOT

P A G E | FFFF
[LIST OF EXHIBITS]
(EXHIBIT D)
 STONE(S1) HAVING BLOOD STAIN THAT HIT DEVEN

P A G E | GGGG
[LIST OF EXHIBITS]
(EXHIBIT E)
 SECOND STONE (S2) THAT HIT DEVEN

P A G E | HHHH
[LIST OF EXHIBITS]
(EXHIBIT F)
 PRINT OF THE PICTURE WITH DEVEN HOLDING KNIFE AGAINST

POOJA’S NECK

P A G E | IIII
[LIST OF EXHIBITS]
(EXHIBIT G)
 FINGERPRINT OF THE FIRST ACCUSED DEVEN

P A G E | JJJJ
[LIST OF EXHIBITS]
(EXHIBIT H)
 FINGERPRINT OF THE SECOND ACCUSED JEYANT

P A G E | KKKK
[LIST OF EXHIBITS]
(EXHIBIT I)
 MEDICAL REPORT OF POOJA
MEDICAL REPORT
Name of the Patient- Ms. Pooja
Father’s name- Dooja
Age- 30 years
Address- Plot No.32, near Indira Nagar Metro Station, Punnai.
Date and time at which the victim was brought to the hospital- 12.06.2017 at 11:20 a.m.\
Name of the doctor – Ms.ReenaMehra
Type of injuries on the victim’s body-
 Long incised and deep neck injury was found on the front side of the neck. The injury
mark was drawn across the neck, from left to right by. Parallel, superficial cuts were
found above and below the deep fatal cut that suggests that the victim attempted to get
away from the accused.
 The laceration marks in the neck were around 8 cm x 1 cm.
 Minor laceration marks were also present on the right shoulder.
Remarks:
The size of injury and the heavy blood loss could have lead to the patient’s death had she not
been admitted to the hospital on time.
Dated: 12.06.2017
Signature of the doctor
Sd/-
ReenaMehra
MBBS

P A G E | LLLL
[LIST OF EXHIBITS]
(EXHIBIT J)
 MEDICAL REPORT OF DEVEN
MEDICAL EXAMINATION OF ACCUSED
DISTRICT: Indira Nagar Police Station: Indira Nagar
FIR No.: 110/ 2017 Date: 12.06.2017.
Name: Deven
Age: 25 Sex: Male Date of Examination: 12.06.2017 Time: 6:00 p.m.
Name of the Medical Practitioner: Mr.Javed
Blood Pressure: Low Blood Pressure 90/60
Injuries:
 Any Mental Injury: Accused was in an unconscious state.

 Any Physical Injury:
 Lacerated scalp at the back of head that was profusely bleeding.
 Bruise marks on hands, neck, stomach and chest region.
 Abrasion marks near left eye.
 Bleeding from nose.
 Fractured Ribs
Overall Condition: Multiple injuries and the body was in an unconscious state.
Status: Unconscious

P A G E | MMMM
[LIST OF EXHIBITS]
Remarks: The injuries inflicted at the back of head could have led to Deven’s death on
account of hemmorhage
Sd/-
Mr.Javed
MBBS

P A G E | NNNN
[LIST OF EXHIBITS]
(EXHIBIT K)
 FORENSIC REPORT- Blood samples matching that of Pooja
LODHI ROAD, PUNNAI

DETECTON BLOOD

Sd/-
(Dr.Parth Sharma)
The Director

P A G E | OOOO
[LIST OF EXHIBITS]

Punnai- 110003
LODHI ROAD, PUNNAI

DETECTON BLOOD

Sd/-
(Dr.Parth Sharma)
The Director
Punnai- 110003

P A G E | PPPP
[LIST OF EXHIBITS]
LODHI ROAD, PUNNAI
EXHIBIT BLOOD ORIGN OF BLOOD TYPE

NO. DETECTON BLOOD

sample of the injured victim Pooja, marked as B8.
Sd/-
(Dr.Parth Sharma)
The Director
Punnai- 110003

P A G E | QQQQ
[LIST OF EXHIBITS]
(EXHIBIT L)
 FORENSIC REPORT- Blood samples matching that of Deven.
LODHI ROAD, PUNNAI

DETECTON BLOOD

sample of the accused Deven, marked as B7
Sd/-
(Dr.Parth Sharma)
The Director
Punnai- 110003

P A G E | RRRR
[LIST OF EXHIBITS]
LODHI ROAD, PUNNAI

DETECTON BLOOD

sample of the injured accused Deven, marked as B7
Sd/-
(Dr.Parth Sharma)
The Director
Punnai- 110003

P A G E | SSSS
[LIST OF EXHIBITS]
LODHI ROAD, PUNNAI

DETECTON BLOOD

sample of the injured accused Deven, marked as B7.
Sd/-
(Dr.Parth Sharma)
The Director
Punnai- 110003

P A G E | TTTT
[LIST OF EXHIBITS]
(EXHIBIT M)
 LYRICS OF THE SONG
“Adra Avalai, Udhaida Avalai” which means, Beat her, Kick her and so on…

P A G E | UUUU
[LIST OF EXHIBITS]
(EXHIBIT N)
 DEVEN’S COTTON BAG WITH FRUITS

P A G E | VVVV
[LIST OF EXHIBITS]
(EXHIBIT O)
 SITE MAP- PREPARED BY DRAUGHTSMAN

P A G E | WWWW
[LIST OF EXHIBITS]
Dated- 12.06.2017
Pankaj
Sd/-
Draughtsman
Inspector, Prakash
Sd/-
Signature of two independent witnesses
1) Hari Ram
Sd/-
2) Shyam
Sd/-

Memorial-Prosecution-Surana Trial Advocacy

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Memorial-Prosecution-Surana Trial Advocacy

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TEAM CODE:

IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS

C.C. No. 100 of 2018

STATE OF SARDAM (PROSECUTION)

DEVEN & JEYANT (DEFENCE)

FOR THE OFFENCES CHARGED UNDER

SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE SESSIONS JUDGE

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

Table of Contents .......................................................................................................................... 2

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ......................................................................................................... i

Acts and Legislation: .................................................................................................................... i

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION .......................................................................................... ix

STATEMENT OF FACTS .......................................................................................................... xi

STATEMENT OF CHARGES .................................................................................................. xii

Deven ........................................................................................................................................ xii

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ....................................................................................................... 1

ISSUE I. WHETHER DEVEN IS LIABLE FOR THE COMMISSION CRIMINAL

I.A. THAT CRIMINAL LIABILITY CAN BE ATTRIBUTED AGAINST DEVEN FOR

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

under Section 300 of BPC .................................................................................................... 3

I.A.6 Deven exceeded his ‘Right to private Defence’. ......................................................... 4

I.C.DEVEN IS LIABLE TO HAVE USED WORDS, GESTURES OR ACTS TO INSULT

I.C.2. Deven had intention to insult the modesty of Pooja ................................................... 8

I.C.3. Insulting words were heard by Pooja: ....................................................................... 9

I.C.4. Test of determining the outrage of modesty: .............................................................. 9

ISSUE II. THAT CRIMINAL LIABILITY CAN BE ATTRIBUTED AGAINST JEYANT. .. 9

II.A. THAT JEYANT IS LIABLE FOR VOLUNTARILY CAUSING GREVIOUS HURT

II.A.2 Grievous hurt was caused by dangerous weapons or means. ................................. 12

II.B. THAT JEYANT IS CRIMINALLY LIABLE FOR INTENTIONALLY INSULTING

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

II.B.1. Jeyant had intentionally insulted Deven. ................................................................ 13

II.B.2. Insult caused to Deven by Jeyant provoked Deven. ................................................ 14

PRAYER .................................................................................................................................... xvii

LIST OF EXHIBITS................................................................................................................ cccc

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

ACTS AND LEGISLATION:

1. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

2. Indian Penal Code, 1860

3. Indian Evidence Act, 1872

4. Identification of Offenders Act, 1920

5. The Police Act, 1861

Supreme Court Judgements

Bishan Singh v. State, (2007) 13 S.C.C 65, (India) ...................................................................... 14

IndraSarma v. V.K.V Sarma,A.I.R. 2014 (S.C) 309 (India) ......................................................... 18

Jai Prakash v. State, (1991) 2 S.C.C 32 (India) ............................................................................ 14

Jameel v. State of U.P, A.C.R 2009 (S.C) 3455 (India) ............................................................... 23

Khushboo v. Kanniammal, (2010) 5 SCC 600 (India) ................................................................. 20

Major Singh v. State of Punjab, A.I.R 1967 (S.C) 63 (India) ....................................................... 21

Om Prakash v. State of Punjab, (1962) 2 S.C.R 254 (India) ........................................................ 15

Premiya v. State of Rajasthan, (2008)10 S.C.C 81 (India) ........................................................... 19

Shekara v. State of Karnataka, (2009) 14 S.C.C 76 (India) .......................................................... 17

State of Orissa v. Ghana Padhan, (1979)SCC Ori 24 (India) ....................................................... 15

State of Punjab v Major Singh, A.I.R 1967 (S.C) 63 (India) ........................................................ 19

State of Punjab v. Sucha Singh, (2003) 3 S.C.C 153 (India) ........................................................ 26

State of Rajasthan v. Shera Ram, A.I.R 2012 (S.C) 1 (India)....................................................... 24

State of U.P v. Indrajeet, A.I.R 2000 (S.C) 3158 (India) .............................................................. 24

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

SuchandBouri v. State of West Bengal, (2009) 17 S.C.C 63 (India) ............................................ 18

Sunil Kumar v. N.C.T of Delhi, (1998) 8 S.C.C (India) ............................................................... 14

Surain Singh v. State of Punjab, A.I.R 2017 SC 1904 (India) ...................................................... 27

Swapna Barman v. Subir Das,(2004)1G.L.R168 (India) .............................................................. 20

Tarakeshwar Sahu v. State of Bihar, (2006) 8 S.C.C 560 (India)............................................ 19,20

High Court Judgements

Atma Singh v. State of Punjab, (1980) Cr. LJ 1226 (India) ........................................................ 22