1st National Moot Court Competition Appellant TC 34 PDF

1
1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019
1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019 TC 34
SCHOOL OF LAW AND CONSTITUTIONAL STUDIES
SHOBIT DEEMES UNIVERSITY, MEERUT
IN THE HON’BLE
SUPREME COURT OF WINDIA
IN THE MATTER OF APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SLP NO. ___ OF 2019
STEPHANIE APPELLANT
V.
STATE OF SHIPLA RESPONDENT
PETITIONS U/ART. 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF WINDIA, 1950
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT
COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT
MEMEORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CONTENT
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
I. CASE LAW
II. LEGISLATIONS
III. JOURNALS
IV. COMMENTARIES
V. LEXICONS
VI. WEBSITES
VII. INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS
VIII. REPORTS
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
STATEMENT OF FACTS
ISSUES RAISED
SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS
WRITTEN PLEADINGS
[I] WHETHER THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE .
[II]WHETHER THE APPELLANT ENTITLED TO THE EXCEPTION SUDDEN AND GRAVE PROVOCATION .
[III]WHETHER THE HIGH COURT WAS CORRECT IN CONVICTING THE APPELLANT UNDER MURDER
PRAYER

3
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ABBREVIATION EXPANSION
§. Section
§§. Sections
¶ Paragraph Number
¶¶ Paragraphs Numbers
& And
AIR All India Reporter
All Allahabad High Court
Anr. Another
AP Andhra Pradesh High Court
Art. Article
Arts. Articles
The Constitution The Constitution of Windia, 1950
Cr.P.C., 1973 The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
ed. Edition
e.g. exemplis gratia (Latin)
etc. Etcetera
HC High Court
Hon’ble Honourable
i.e. id est(Latin)
No. Number
Ors. Others
p. Page Number
WPC Windian Penal Code,1860
WEA Windian Evidence Act, 1872

4
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
CASE LAWS
CASE TITLE
Aiyyasamy v. State of Tamil Nadu [2005- 1-L.W. (Cri.) 299]
Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab (2011) 9 SCC 462
Akalu Ahir and others v. Ramdeo Ram (AIR 1973 SC 2145)
Akhtar, AIR 1964 All 262
Amirta Lal Hazara v. Emperor (1915) 42 Cal 957
Antony v K.G.Ragahavan Nair (2003) 1 SCC 1
Babu Lodhi v. State of U.P. , AIR 1987 SC 1268 : 1987 Cr LJ 1119
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab 2011 (3) SCC (Cri) 255
Basanti v. State of UP AIR 1987 SC 1572
Bharwad Mepa Dana & Another vs State of Bombay 1960 AIR 289, 1960 SCR (2) 172
Binati Mahakud v. State of Orissa 1988 Cr LJ 763 (Ori)
Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar (2002) 6 SCC 650
Boya Munigadu v. The Queen 1 (ILR 3 MAD 33)
Budhi Singh v. State of H.P, 2013 Cr LJ 962 (SC); AIR 2013 (SCW) 547
Budhi Singh v. State of H.P, AIR 2013 (SCW) 547
Chandran, Re [1988 Mad LW (CRL) 113]
Dale & Carrington Invt. Ltd. v. P.K. Prathapan, (2005) 1 SCC 212
Darbara Singh v. State of Haryana AIR 1992 SC 1429

5
Dhandayuthan y. State of T.N., 1994 Cr LJ 1587 (Mad)
Gnanagunaseeli v. State of T.N, 1996 Cr LJ 2849 (Mad),
Gurcharan Singh, AIR 1956 SC 460
Habeeb Mohammed v. State of Hyderabad AIR 1954 SC 51
Hadu v. State, ( 1950 ) Cut 309.
Haryana State Industrial Corp. v. Cork Mfg. Co., (2007) 8 SCC 359
James v. State of Kerala (1995) 1 Cr LJ 55 (Ker)
K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra., AIR 1962 SC 605: 1962 Cr LJ 521 (SC)
K.P.Shaji vs State Of Kerala Crl.Appeal No.1810 of 2005
Karam Singh v State of Punjab 1993 AIR SCW 2870
Kathi Ranning Rawat v. The State of Saurashtra, AIR 1952 SC 123,
Khali Khan v. State of M.P. AIR 2003 SC 4670
Kundarapu, (1962) 1 Cr LJ 261
Laikhan, (1955) Cut 625
Manju Lakra v. State of Assam 2013 SCC Gau 207: (2013) 4 GLT 333.
Mohibur Rahman v. State of Assam, 2000 Cr LJ 4725 ( Gau )
Muniandi v. State of T.N 1 1992 CR LJ 2954 (Mad)
Narayanan v. State of M.P 1992 Cr LJ 1157 (MP)
Pandurang, Tukia And Bhillia vs The State Of Hyderabad 1955 AIR 216, 1955 SCR (1)1083
Phundi v. State of M.P. 1993 Cr LJ 1881 (MP)
Poovammal v. State ( CRL) (MD) 30 of 2011
Prabhu v State of Madhya Pradesh ( 1991) Cr LJ 1373 SC
Pritam Singh v. The State, AIR 1950 SC 169

6
Queen Emperor v. Sami (1890) 13 Mad 426
R v Humphreys, (1995) 4 All ER 1008 (CA)
R v Johnson (1982) 2 All ER 839 ( CA)

R v M’ Naughten (1843) 8 E.R. 718; (1843) 10 Cl. & F. 200
R v Thornton, (1992) 1 All ER 306 (CA)
R v. Ahluwalia ( 1992) 4 All ER 889 ( CA)

Raj Kumar v. State of Maharashtra (2009) 15 SCC 292
Rajendran & Another v. State of Tamil Nadu [1997 - 2 - L.W. (Crl.) 520]
Ram Piari v. Bhagwant, AIR 1990 SC 1742
Ramdulare Ramadhin Sunar vs State AIR 1959 MP 259, 1959 Cri LJ 844
Ravindran v. State of Kerala 1999 Cr LJ 2364 (Ker)
Reg v. Mallory (1884) 15 Cox 456
S.C.Bahri v. State of Bihar, AIR 1994 SC 2020 : 1994 Cr LJ 327.
Sakharam v . State of M.P. , AIR 1992 SC 758 : ( 1992 ) 2 SCC 153 : 1992 Cr LJ 861.
Sankaral alias Sankarayee v. State [1989 L.W. (Crl.) 468]

Shashi Sharms v State of U.P (CRL REV ) No 188 of 2005
Sir Chunilal Mehta and Sons, Ltd. v. Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd., AIR 1962
SC 1314.
State NCT of Delhi v. Manoj CRL LP 264/2013
State of Karnataka v. Harijan Dharma, 1992 Cr LJ 2840 (Kant)
State of Karnataka v. R. Varadraju 1995 Cr LJ 1429 (Kant)
State of Maharashtra v. Goraksha Ambaji Adsul [1980 SCC (Cri) 580]
State of U.P. v. Shyam Veer 1 2006 Cr LJ 2006 SC
Subodh Tiwari v. State of Assam 1988 Cr LJ 223 (Gau)

7
Sumati Dayal v. CIT, (1995) 214 ITR 801.
V. Raja v. State of TN. 1999 Cr LJ 3918 (Mad)
LEGISLATIONS
TITLE OF LEGISLATION
The Constitution of India, 1950
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
The IndianEvidence act,1872
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,2005
JOURNALS
TITLE OF JOURNAL
All India Reporter (AIR)
Supreme Court Cases (SCC)
COMMENTARIES
AUTHOR TITLE EDITION
K.N.Chandraseka General principles of criminal law 2rd ed.2007

ran
K.D.Gaur Criminal law cases and materials 8nd ed. 2015
P.S.A. Pillai Criminal Law 12th ed.2016

Ratanlal&Dhilrajl The Indian Penal Code 34thed.2013
al
Ratanlal&Dhilrajl The law of Evidence 25th ed.2013
al
Dr.J.N.Pandey Constitutional Law of India 54th ed.2017

8
LEXICONS
AUTHOR TITLE EDITION
Henry Campbell Black Black’s Law Dictionary 4th ed. revised 1968
P. RamanathaAiyar Concise Law Dictionary 3rd ed. reprint 2007
WEBSITES
WEBSITE LINK
www.scconline.in
www.manupatra.com
www.judis.nic.in
www.indiankanoon.org
www.legalserviceindia.com
www.thelawdictionary.org
www.oxforddictionaries.com
REPORTS
REPORTS
Focus on Women, World Health Organization, 1997
Hormonal Basis of Mood Disorders on Women, on American Psychiatric Press, 2000
psychological condition caused due to series of violence caused
Sexual Coercion and Abuse among Women with a Severe Mental illness in India, 2003
United Nations Report on Indian Women Victims of Domestic Violence 2005
United Nations. Declaration on the elimination of violence against women. New York : UN,
1993
World Health Assembly, 2016

9
Women's Mental Health: (World Health Organization Report, 2001)
INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS
INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS
International Conventions On All Forms of Racial Discrimination Against Women, 1979

Universal Declaration Of Human Rights,1948
International Convention On Civil And Political Rights,1966
International Convention On Social, Economic and Cultural Rights,1966
Optional Protocol to the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, 1999
International Convention Against Torture, 1987

10
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Appellants herein have approached theSupreme Court of Windia through:
A Special Leave Petition U/Art. 136 of The Constitution of Windia, 1950.
This Memorandum sets forth the facts, laws and the corresponding arguments on which
the claims are based in the instant case. The Appellants affirm that they shall accept any
Judgment of this Hon’ble Court as final and binding upon itself and shall execute it in its entirety
and in good faith.

11
STATEMENT OF FACTS
For the sake of brevity, the material facts are placed herewith in the chronological order:
The Republic of Windia is a peaceful country, there is a City of Shipla, where a matrimonial
knot was tied between Jones & Stephanie who got married on 23.10.2000. Within two years of
marriage, Stephanie conceived a baby boy with special needs which increased expenses
primarily because of the treatment of the child led to mismanagement of financial expenditure.
Jones was not able to cope up with the stress an started an addiction of alcohol which led to
constant heavy quarrels and aggressive arguments between the couple and the problems
increased. Every day from the office Jones would return drunk and heavy quarrels would follow.
For almost six months after the boy's birth this situation continued. For that period Stephanie hid
the problems from her in laws and her parents hoping things will get better. Stephanie tried to
talk sense with Jones and ask him to concentrate on his responsibilities, but in vain.
On January 2nd, 2003 Jones came home after heavy consumption of liquor and after a very
aggressive argument with Stephanie, he started beating her and left her with bruises on the leg
and swollen left cheek which forced Stephanie to confess everything to her in-laws & to her
parents. Due to efforts and promise of both the families, Jones vowed to quit drinking and
concentrate on his family. In late May 2005 Jones changed his job with a promotion which
improved his financial condition. And so financial aid from the parents of the couple stopped.
Later in that year Jones again started the habit of drinking and by December 2005 the
relationship between the couple started to get effected because of constant quarrels and
aggressive arguments due to Jones alcohol addiction. Then the history repeated . There was a
series of fights which turned into physical quarrels where Jones was beating Stephanie.
On January 5th, 2006, Stephanie felt that she has had enough and decided to tell everything to
her in- laws & to her parents. However, she was not able to do as she was stopped by Jones who

12
physically assaulted and threatened her that he will kill the child and solve all the problems if she
tries to tell anything. After that day, beating became a usual practice and on several occasions,
Jones also had sexual intercourse with Stephanie without her consent. Under threat and for
protection of her child Stephanie decided not to share the problem and endured the beating,
harassment and rape by her husband which became a usual practice.
On night of 21 March 2006 again Jones came drunk at home and started beating Stephanie due to
which she sustained certain injuries on her body. The beating continued till 11:00 pm after which
Jones went to his room & slept. However, Stephanie was not able to sleep the entire night, she
was thinking & weeping on her situation, in her drawing room there were series of thoughts in
her mind like about her life, her child & about promises of good life made to her by her husband.
In the early morning of 22 March 2006 around 4 am, she took Iron rod in her hand & went to her
bed room and inflicted injuries on Jones’s head & vital body parts which resulted into death of
Jones on the spot. Stephanie then at 6:30 am went to the room and inflicted a hit on the head of
her child which resulted in the death of the child on the spot. After all this she sat in her drawing
room holding Iron rod in her hand. Later, when around 8:00 am when her maid came & saw
everything, she immediately called the police & Stephanie was arrested. Husband Jones and the
child was taken to hospital, where they were declared brought dead in the hospital. Police started
inquires & case was filed against Stephanie.
During the trial in the session Stephanie was held not liable for murder on the ground that she
acted under the grave and sudden provocation and is thus liable for culpable homicide. However,
the Shipla High Court convicted Stephanie for Murder.
Now, Stephanie has filed an appeal before Hon’ble Supreme Court of Windia.

13
ISSUES RAISED
ISSUE [I]
WHETHER THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE.
ISSUE [II]
WHETHER THE APPELLANT ENTITLED TO THE EXCEPTION SUDDEN AND GRAVE PROVOCATION .
ISSUE [III]
WHETHER THE HIGH COURT WAS CORRECT IN CONVICTING THE APPELLANT UNDER MURDER .

14
SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS
______________________________________________________________________________
[I] WHETHER THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE.
______________________________________________________________________________
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the appellant have the locus standi to
approach this court though the exception regarding grave and sudden provocation is based
entirely on facts of the case, but the error committed in the judgment with respects to facts arises
question of law and so Art. 136 can be entertained
______________________________________________________________________________
[II] WHETHER THE APPELLANT IS ENTITLED TO THE EXCEPTION UNDER GRAVE AND SUDDEN
PROVOCATION
______________________________________________________________________________
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the act perpetrated by the Appellant can be
entertained only as Culpable Homicide which has been defined u/s 299 of WPC, 1860 and that
cannot be extended to the scope of Murder which has been stated u/s 300 of WPC, 1860. Since ,
the act has been done under grave and sudden provocation, one of the Exception provided under
the Murder.
______________________________________________________________________________
[III] WHETHER THE HIGH COURT IS CORRECT IN CONVICTING THE APPELLANT U/S. 302 OF
WINDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860
______________________________________________________________________________
It is most humbly submitted before this Honourable Court that the act of the appellant, that is, the
homicide of her deceased husband and child would not fall under the ambit of section 300 of the
WPC,1860. Since the appellant have committed the crime without any intention which could be
evident from the subsequent and previous conduct of the appellant and her usage of murder
weapon.

15

16
WRITTEN PLEADINGS
______________________________________________________________________________
[I] WHETHER THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE.
______________________________________________________________________________
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that, the Special Leave Petition filed by the
appellant, Mrs. Stephanie is maintainable, as the matter involves a substantial question of
law of general public importance. If the SC does not intervene, it will result in gross injustice
and that, miscarriage of justice has already occurred, by the erring judgment of the HC
of Shipla, which declared the act constituted by appellant amounts to murder, Therefore, the
special leave petition of the petitioner must be accepted, so that the Hon’ble Court can use its
wide jurisdiction conferred under Art.136, to correct the wrong done by the decision given by the
HC1.
[1.1] THE MATTER INVOLVES QUESTION OF LAW OF TRANSPORTATION OF LIFE:
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the jurisdiction conferred under Art. 136
on the SC are corrective one and not a restrictive one 2 and can be invoked when a question of
law of transportation of life 3, by filing Special Leave Petition. It is well-settled that illegality
must not be allowed to be perpetrated and failure by the SC to interfere with the same would
amount to allowing the illegality to be perpetuated4, therefore a duty is enjoined upon the
SC to exercise its power by setting right the illegality in the judgments.
1
Art. 136, The Constitution of India, 1950
2
Haryana State Industrial Corp. v. Cork Mfg. Co., (2007) 8 SCC 359
3
Pandurang, Tukia And Bhillia vs The State Of Hyderabad 1955 AIR 216, 1955 SCR (1)1083
4
Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2003)11 SCC 241

17
Art.136 provides residuary power to the SC to do justice where the court is satisfied that injustice
has been done5. Illegality should not be allowed to be perpetrated merely for the sake of
upholding technicalities 6.
In the instant matter, the Stephanie’s conviction despite her past is related to the transportation of
her life and therefore, calls for intervention by the SC.
[1.2] THE MATTER INVOLVES SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW AND GROSS JUSTICE
INJUSTICE HAS BEEN DONE:
It is humbly submitted by the petitioner before this Hon’ble Court that, the matter involves
substantial question of law as it concerns the transportation of life and gross injustice has already
been meted out by the decision of HC of Shipla, which has convicted the appellant under murder
for an act which she has not done with the guilty mind.
[1.2.1] SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW IS INVOLVED:
It is humbly submitted that where findings are entered without considering relevant
materials and without following proper legal procedure, interference of SC is called for 7. In the
instant case, the Hon’ble HC has erred in deciding a very substantial question of law,
related to transportation of life of Stephanie.
Whether a matter involves substantial question of law, depends on whether it is of transportation

of life, which directly or substantially affects the rights of the party, or it has already been
decided by the highest Court 8. It will, therefore, depend on the facts and circumstance of each
case whether a substantial question of law is involved in the case9. Grave miscarriage of justice
5
C.C.E v. Standard Motor Products, AIR 1989 SC 1298
6
Janshed Hormusji Wadia v. Board of Trustees, Port of Mumbai, (2004) 3 SCC 214
7
Dale & Carrington Invt. Ltd. v. P.K. Prathapan, (2005) 1 SCC 212
8
Sir Chunilal Mehta and Sons, Ltd. v. Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd., AIR 1962 SC 1314.
9
Sumati Dayal v. CIT, (1995) 214 ITR 801.

18
has occurred because of this serious and flagrant violation of law has been committed by the
HC10
[1.2.3] THE FINDINGS OF FACTS MAY GIVE RISE TO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW
APPELLANT IS ENTITLED TO THE EXCEPTION GRAVE AND SUDDEN PROVOCATION:
The SC is not precluded from going into the question of facts under Art. 136, if it
considers it necessary to do so11. Art. 136 use the words ‘in any cause or matter’. This gives
widest power to this court to deal with any cause or matter 12. It is plain that when the SC reaches
the conclusion that a person has been dealt with arbitrarily or that a court or tribunal has not
given a fair deal to a litigant, then no technical hurdles of any kind like the finality of finding of
facts, or otherwise can stand in the way of the exercise of this power 13. Thus, on the above
grounds, it is humbly submitted that the petition is maintainable before the Hon’ble SC of
Windia.
The Appellant has Maintainability to approach this Court
10
Ram Piari v. Bhagwant, AIR 1990 SC 1742
11
Kathi Ranning Rawat v. The State of Saurashtra, AIR 1952 SC 123,
12
Pritam Singh v. The State, AIR 1950 SC 169.
13 Sripur Paper Mills v. Comm. of Wealth Tax, AIR 1970 SC 1520

19
______________________________________________________________________________
[II] WHETHER THE APPELLANT IS ENTITLED TO THE EXCEPTION GRAVE AND SUDDEN
PROVOCATION
___________________________________________________________________________
It is humbly submitted before this honorable Court the act constituted by the appellant amounts
to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. S. 300 of WPC, 1860 defines Murder along with
its five exceptions. In that Exception 1 states that culpable homicide is not murder if the offender,
whilst deprived of the power of self control by grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of
the person who gave the provocation. The appellant is entitled to the grave and sudden
provocation as the facts of the case fulfills the requirement of the exception and no intention,
motive and preparation is found on the part of the appellant.
[2.1] THE TEST OF GRAVE AND SUDDEN PROVOCATION HAS BEEN FULFILLED:
It is humbly submitted before this Honorable Court that the appellant is entitled to the grave and
sudden provocation exception under the exceptions of the Murder of S. 300 0f WPC. Since, the
appellant have lost the self control and the act was done under sustained sudden grave
provocation without voluntary provocation and the existence of cooling period has been
analyzed.
The grave and sudden provocation is one of the exceptions of the Murder U/S. 300 of WPC. The
onus of burden of proof lies on the accused when he wants to utilize the exceptions provided
under certain statues in accordance with the S. 105 of WEA, 187214.
[2.1.1] THE APPELLANT HAS LOST THE SELF CONTROL:
An offence resulting from grave and sudden provocation would normally mean that a person
placed in such circumstances could lose self - control but only temporarily and that too, in
14
Subodh Tiwari v. State of Assam 1988 Cr LJ 223 (Gau)

20
proximity to the time of provocation. The provocation could be an act or series of acts done by
the deceased to the accused resulting in inflicting of injury 15. In Binati Mahakud v. State of
Orissa16, a wife, being provoked by the indecencies offered by her husband, lost self 17 and
caused her husband's death in painful circumstances, she was convicted under S. 304 of WPC.
In order to find out whether the last act of provocation on which the offender caused the death
was sufficiently grave to deprive the accused of the power of self-control, the previous acts of
provocation caused by the person can always be taken into consideration 18. And so the series of
conduct by the husband which made her to provoke will be taken as an exception.
A history of violence suffered by the killer at the hands of the victim is relevant to show loss of
self control and it may also show why the accused lost self control in face of what was not
objectively particularly strong provocation 19. Comparatively, even in the present case Stephanie
has undergone beating, threatening, and non consensual sex by the deceased hence the appellant
has lost control and so exception should be attracted 20.
[2.1.2] THE TIME PERIOD IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO COOL DOWN:
It is important to consider whether a sufficient interval has elapsed since provocation to allow a
reasonable person time to cool, and account must be taken of the instrument with which the
homicide had been effected 21. Though in this case, there was sufficient time gap between the
quarrel and the provocation of the appellant but, she did not recover from the incident which
could be inferred from the facts that she was not sleeping and was thinking about her life, child
15
Budhi Singh v. State of H.P, 2013 Cr LJ 962 (SC); AIR 2013 (SCW) 547
16
1988 Cr LJ 763 (Ori)
17
Gnanagunaseeli v. State of T.N, 1996 Cr LJ 2849 (Mad),
18
Dhandayuthan y. State of T.N., 1994 Cr LJ 1587 (Mad)
19
R v Humphreys, (1995) 4 All ER 1008 (CA)
20
V. Raja v. State of TN. 1999 Cr LJ 3918 (Mad)
21
Laikhan, (1955) Cut 625

21
and promises made by her husband and so the mode of resentment bear a reasonable relationship
to the provocation22.
In State of Karnataka v. R. Varadraju 23, there was an altercation between them before the
previous night and also before regarding illicit relationship. It was held to be sufficient to cause
provocation entitling the accused to the benefit of the first exception. In State of U.P. v. Shyam
Veer 24, that the time gap of 15 min not be said to be sufficient to enable family members to gain
control. Similarly, in the present case the time period is not sufficient to cool down due to the
mental background created by the previous act of the victim 25. The fatal blow clearly traced to
the influence of passion arising from that provocation and not after the passion had cooled down
by lapse of time26.
[2.1.3] THE PROVOCATION IS NOT VOLUNTARY IN NATURE:
Anything said or done which provoked a person to lose his self control could amount to
provocation which was entitled to rely on self- induced provocation, i.e. a reaction by another
caused by the defendant's conduct which in turn led accused to lose his self-control27.
In Raj Kumar v. State of Maharashtra28, the appellant inflicted polpat-blow on the head of his
wife resulting in her death, the appellant himself sought for an excuse under so called
provocation and so the appellant was not entitled to the benefit of the provisions. In this case,
appellant does not volunteered herself under this exception which shows the innocence of
Stephanie
22
Kundarapu, (1962) 1 Cr LJ 261
23
1995 Cr LJ 1429 (Kant)
24
2006 Cr LJ 2006 SC
25
26
Akhtar, AIR 1964 All 262
27
R v Johnson (1982) 2 All ER 839 ( CA)
28
(2009) 15 SCC 292

22
Though the murderous act need not follow immediately from the provocation, the longer the gap
between the incidents, the less likely the defense of provocation is to succeed. An Asian woman
suffered over a period of years abuses from her husband. She killed him by setting fire to a
bedroom in which he was asleep and convicted of murder. The court said that the loss of self-
control need not be immediate. The mental state of the accused was taken into consideration
whether the response was the result of the self control29. And so the act committed by the
appellant is not voluntary provocation.
[2.1.4] THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN ENTITLED TO THE EXCEPTION:
The doctrine of sudden and grave provocation is incapable of rigid construction leading to or
stating any principle of universal application. This will always depend on the facts of a given
case. While applying this principle, the primary obligation of the Court is to examine from the
point of view of a person of reasonable prudence if there was such grave and sudden provocation
so as to reasonably conclude that it was possible to commit the offence and culpable homicide
and as per the facts was not a culpable homicide amounting to murder 30.
Under sudden provocation the concept of sustained provocation has been evolved which is
concerned with the duration of the provocation 31 and there would not have been a real sudden
provocation immediately preceding the murder. Provocation is the route cause for the
commission of the offence need not arise at the spur of the moment. In such cases, the Courts
have given the benefit of Exception 1 to Section 300, I.P.C 32. These principles were reiterated in
Rajendran & Another v. State of Tamil Nadu 33 and in Aiyyasamy v. State of Tamil Nadu 34
29
R v. Ahluwalia ( 1992) 4 All ER 889 ( CA)
30
Budhi Singh v. State of H.P, AIR 2013 (SCW) 547
31
32
Sankaral alias Sankarayee v. State [1989 L.W. (Crl.) 468],
33
[1997 - 2 - L.W. (Crl.) 520]
34
[2005- 1-L.W. (Cri.) 299].

23
In Chandran, Re35, sustained provocation caused by the deceased has been nurturing for a long
period because of the conduct of the deceased in having illicit intimacy with his wife and the
exception was entitled. In the present instances, there are many be incidents like violence caused
by the deceased, threatening and non consensual sex by the deceased which made Stephanie to
outburst. However, it may be lingering in her mind for quite some time, torment continuously
and at one point of time erupt, make him to lose his self control, make his mind to go astray, the
mind may not be under his control/ command and results in the offender committing the offence.
The sustained provocation/frustration nurtured in the mind of the accused reached the end of
breaking point, under that accused causes the murder of the deceased 36. Comparing this with our
case the acts done by her husband has been nurturing in her mind and so the appellant have lost
her self control on that particular night and provoked.
The test of Grave and Sudden Provocation has been Fulfilled
[2.2.] MOTIVE, PREPARATION AND INTENTION COULD NOT BE FURNISHED FROM THE
APPELLANT'S SIDE:
In order to prove that Culpable Homicide does not amounts to Murder, it is necessary to establish
that there is no motive, preparation and intention on the conduct of the accused and burden lies
on that particular person who approaches the court by S. 102 and also burden of proving
particular fact also lies on that same person by S. 103 of WEA, 1872.
[2.2.1] ABSENCE OF MOTIVE COULD BE INFERRED FROM THE FACTS:
Motive which moves a man to do a particular act. There can be no action without a motive,
which must exist for every voluntary act. Generally seeking the voluntary acts of sane persons
35
[1988 Mad LW (CRL) 113]
36
Poovammal v. State ( CRL) (MD) 30 of 2011

24
have an impelling emotion or motive. But in our case, the appellant is not in a stable mind to
produce a voluntary act due to her motive.
Moreover the mere existence of motive is by itself not an incriminating circumstances 37. Even
though, appellant is not happy with the behavior of the deceased she had belief that his husband
would change into a better person. In fact, that was actually happened in the year 2005. But, later
due to drinking habit of the deceased again the appellant have undergone a lot of problems and
violence from him. This time in a worse manner and that is the reason why provoked and
committed homicide. This act of the appellant has not derived from the motive.
In a case where there is a clear proof of motive for the commission of the crime, it affords added
support to the finding of the Court that the accused was guilty of the offence he was charged
with.38 But the absence of proof of motive does not render the evidence bearing on the guilt of
the accused nonetheless untrustworthy or unreliable because most often it is only the perpetrator
of the crime alone who knows as to what circumstances prompted him to a certain course of
action leading to the commission of the crime. 39
In such cases, if there is absence of motive, it is a plus point for the accused 40or other evidence
bearing on the guilt of the accused has to be very closely examined; 41 but where the positive
evidence against the accused is clear, cogent and reliable, the question of motive is of no
importance42
[2.3.2] THERE IS NO PREPARATION FOR THE CRIME:
Preparations on the part of the accused to accomplish the crime charged, or to prevent its
discovery, or to prevent its discovery, or to aid his escape, or to avert suspicion from himself are
relevant on the question of his guilt. Preparation consists in devising or arranging the means or
measures necessary for the commission of a crime. On the other hand evidence of preparation of
37
Hadu v. State, ( 1950 ) Cut 309.
38
Mohibur Rahman v. State of Assam, 2000 Cr LJ 4725 ( Gau )
39
S.C.Bahri v. State of Bihar, AIR 1994 SC 2020 : 1994 Cr LJ 327.
40
Sakharam v . State of M.P. , AIR 1992 SC 758 : ( 1992 ) 2 SCC 153 : 1992 Cr LJ 861.
41
Babu Lodhi v. State of U.P. , AIR 1987 SC 1268 : 1987 Cr LJ 1119
42
Gurcharan Singh, AIR 1956 SC 460

25
before the killing, e.g., sharpening a kitchen knife lead to the conclusion that there was, in fact,
no loss of self control43.
From the facts of the case it is inferred that there is no preparation on part of the appellant even
though there was five hours time gap between the fight and the commission of homicide there is
no intention of preparing for the homicide. The appellant have been in thought process for that
whole period and at a point when she provoked she took the available iron rod and hit the
deceased which caused death.
In R v Ahulwalia44, the accused stated that she does not want to kill her; she mentioned that she
only wanted to burn the legs of her husband. These kinds of provocation were made due to the
violence constituted by her husband. Similarly, in our case the appellant have undergone
violence as well as threatening from the deceased due to which her mental element was
shattered. Hence the usage of iron rod for the act cannot be considered as preparation.
[2.2.3] INTENTION COULD NOT BE FURNISHED FROM THE APPELLANT'S ACT:
One of the essential ingredient of murder is the intention 45 By S. 14 of WEA The existence of a
mental or bodily state or bodily feeling is in issue are relevant, then the facts from which the
existence of such mental or bodily state or bodily feeling may be inferred are relevant.
Where the accused after killing his two daughters because he had no money for their marriage,
jumped from the terrace to end his life and thereafter to smash his head with a brick, it was held
that the conduct of the accused showed his dull mind that he was so much over-come by remorse
and repentance for the deed done by him that he wanted to end his life 46. Similarly in our case,
the appellant did not have any intention to kill her husband and her child it was all happened due
to the provocation made by her husband.
43
R v Thornton, (1992) 1 All ER 306 (CA)
44
[1992] 4 All ER 889
45
Prabhu v State of Madhya Pradesh ( 1991) Cr LJ 1373 SC
46
Phundi v. State of M.P. 1993 Cr LJ 1881 (MP)

26
Evidence tending to show that the accused has been guilty of criminal acts other than those
covered by the indictment is not admissible unless upon the issue whether the acts charged
against the accused were designed or accidental by the virtue of S.15 of WEA47
In Bharwad Mepa Dana & Another vs State of Bombay48 the aggrieved person have been
acquitted as there was no intention. And also in the dead body has been placed in open place
furnishes the absence of intention of the accused. Comparatively, even in this case, the appellant
did not try to elope instead she stayed in the house with the iron rod due to mental imbalance and
in accordance with the legal maxim Actus non facitreum nisi mens sit rea which says a crime
can be done only when the intention is combined with action which furnishes the innocence of
the appellant and the absence of intention.
There is no Motive, Preparation and Intention on the part of the appellant
[3.2] THE APPELLANT'S MENTAL DISORDER HAS CAUSED THE DEATH OF THE VICTIMS:
According to World Health Organization, 2001, Lifetime prevalence rate of violence against
women ranges from 16% to 50% and At least one in five women suffer rape or attempted rape in
their lifetime49. The appellant in the present case have undergone all these struggles in her life
which falls under the ambit of the definition of the domestic violence defines u/s.3 of protection
of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and it is reported at least two-third of married
women in India were victims of domestic violence50 which made them to be the victims of
CMD (Common Mental disorder) 51
[2.3.1] THE DEATH OF THE JONES CAUSED DUE TO THE MENTAL DISORDER OF THE
APPELLANT:
47
Amirta Lal Hazara v. Emperor (1915) 42 Cal 957
48
1960 AIR 289, 1960 SCR (2) 172
49
WOMEN'S MENTAL HEALTH: (WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION REPORT, 2001)
50
United Nations Report on Indian Women Victims of Domestic Violence 2005
51
Hormonal Basis of Mood Disorders on Women, on American Psychiatric Press, 2000

27
The high prevalence of sexual violence to which women are exposed to Post Traumatic Stress
Disorder (PTSD) 52 and also in the present instance the appellant undergoes Battered Wife
Syndrome (BWS) 53, The acts of homicidal insanity are generally, preceded by some striking
peculiarities in the conduct or character of the individual, strongly contrasting with his natural
manifestations while those of the criminal are in correspondence with the tenor of his past
history or character. In homicidal insanity, a woman murders his husband, children, or others to
whom he is tenderly attached is definitely result of her mental unstableness.
In Manju Lakra v. State of Assam54, the Guwahati High Court set aside the murder conviction
and instead convicted Manju Lakra for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. In this case,
Manju Lakra was subjected to persistent acts of domestic violence. On one such occasion, failing
to bear the violence any longer, she snatched the piece of wood with which her husband was
beating her and hit him. He succumbed to his injuries. This is a landmark judgment because it is
the first reported case in India, where provocation has been used as a defense for a battered
woman who killed her partner.
Homicidal act is perpetrated furnish strong ground for believing that they depend on mental
alienation in some form or other
The most commonly reported experience for disorders was sexual intercourse involving
threatening55 and a 2013 analysis conduct by WHO shows of women's physical and sexual
violence by an intimate partner is violation of women's human rights and 37.7 % women in
South Asian region undergoes this and have fatal outcomes like homicide or suicide 56.
This could be co related with our case, the appellant in this case is a poor soul undergone so
much hardships in her marital life, which resulted in serious mental disorders in her and so the
test of cooling down period is applicable or not is not relevant in this case and the appellant have
constituted the act only under grave and sustained, sudden provocation.
[2.3.1] THE DEATH OF THE CHILD CAUSED DUE TO THE MENTAL DISORDER OF THE
APPELLANT:
52
Focus on Women, World Health Organization, 1997
53
psychological condition caused due to series of violence caused
54
2013 SCC Gau 207: (2013) 4 GLT 333.
55
Sexual Coercion and Abuse among Women with a Severe Mental illness in India, 2003
56
World Health Assembly, 2016

28
In this case, the act committed by appellant with respect to her child also result of her mental
disorder , there is a syndrome evolved in case as Nallathangal’s syndrome57 which means the
mother itself kills her child due to her mental disorder and this syndrome also relatable with
Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy under Filicide 58
In India, The reproductive roles of women, such as their expected role of bearing children, the
consequences of infertility, and the failure to produce a male child have been linked to wife-
battering 20,21. In our case the appellant have been pushed into this traumatic situation due to
the special disability of the child due to which her husband behavior have been so much cruel.
But, this does not furnish that the women wants to kill her child. If she is a women of such nature
she would have not suffered in silence for the violence caused by the husband by threatening that
he would kill the child. It is reported that the women undergoing intimate partner violence, lacks
participation in regular activities and limited ability to care for themselves and their children 59
and so the appellant has undergone so many bitterness in her life which made her to that act
without any intention of killing the child she loved.
In R v M’ Naughten60, A man who, after killing his child, goes forthwith to the police-station to
surrender himself, and gives a lucid account of what he has done, would certainly seem to know
the nature and quality of the act committed, and to know that to doing it he did wrong. Yet if he
had previously shown some symptoms of the madness, and has killed this child with no
discoverable motive and no attempt at concealment, a judge would probably encourage a jury to
regard these facts as evidence of his laboring under such insanity as would render him
irresponsible.61
57
women who are coerced to commit suicide and kill their kids to escape the misery of the violence they are
subjected to
58
Act of killing the child as this world is unsafe to them.
59
United Nations. Declaration on the elimination of violence against women. New York : UN, 1993
60
(1843) 8 E.R. 718; (1843) 10 Cl. & F. 200
61
Outlines of Criminal Law, Kenny,16thEdition, P. 70

29
Even in Poovammal vs State62, considering into the facts of the case, which established the love
the mother had it for her son and the sudden provocation she had gone through and so the court
had acquitted her.
Hence, being a “woman” and being “mentally ill” is a dual curse 29]. This has been evident in
our case and also the behavior of a human being has continuity, there is marked day-to-day
consistency of action and attitude in the individual. There are changes and modifications, but
these are usually gradual. 63 The appellant who seeks the plea of 'unsoundness of mind' specified
the type of disorder she is going through and that is evident from the facts 64.
The death is caused due to the mental disorder of the appellant
Hence the Appellant is entitled to the Exception Grave and Sudden Provocation
62
Criminal Appeal (MD) No.30 of 2011
63
'Murder, Madness and The Law' , Cohen , P. 152
64
Ramdulare Ramadhin Sunar vs State AIR 1959 MP 259, 1959 Cri LJ 844

30
______________________________________________________________________________
[III] WHETHER THE HIGH COURT IS CORRECT IN CONVICTING THE APPELLANT U/S. 302 OF
WINDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860
___________________________________________________________________________
It is most humbly submitted before this Honourable Court that the act of the appellant, that is, the
homicide of her deceased husband and child would not fall under the ambit of S.300 of the WPC,
1860. Rather, the appellants argue that the act was committed only with the knowledge of the
crime not with intention and so the appellant should be punished only under Part II of S.304 of
WPC, 1860 and that could be furnished from the subsequent and previous conduct of the
appellant and her usage of murder weapon.
[3.1] THE NATURE OF CRIME AND THE APPELLANT ESTABLISHES HER INNOCENCE:
S.8 of the WEA, 1872 emphasis on the importance of the previous and subsequent conduct of the
appellant and also while analysing the nature of the crime has been took place, the type of
murder weapon used crystal clearly jotted down that the appellant is an innocent soul who never
had the intention of killing her husband and her child.
[3.1.1] THE SUBSEQUENT CONDUCT OF THE APPELLANT OUTFITS THE INNOCENCE OF THE
APPELLANT:
The conduct must be such as has close nexus with a fact in issue or a relevant fact. The conduct
of the accused in hiding the weapon or dead body65 are relevant U/S. 8 of WEA, 1872 whether it
was contemporaneous with the event. If a man accused of a crime is silent, or flees, or is guilty
of false or evasive answers, his conduct, taken as nature of an admission, and evidence against
him66.
65
Ravindran v. State of Kerala 1999 Cr LJ 2364 (Ker)
66
Reg v. Mallory (1884) 15 Cox 456

31
But, in the present case the appellant have not fled from that place. Instead she sat in the drawing
room which states that Stephanie did not have the idea of escaping which establishes the
innocence nature of the appellant because the wicked flee, but the righteous are bold as lion. It is
today universally conceded that the fact of an accused escaped from custody or resistance to
arrest are admissible as evidence of consciousness of guilt 67.
In Basanti v. State of UP68 the conduct of the accused as she left the village when the dead body
was found has taken relevant at her trial for murder. The fact that the accused involved in a
serious crime like murder would still be wearing the blood stained clothes even after the incident
was hold to be opposed to normal human conduct. Hence it is extremely difficult to believe in
the guilt of such person69. Similarly, in this case Stephanie had sat down with iron rod which
cannot be determined as normal human conduct of a person who reacts after the commission of
murder.
[3.1.2] THE PREVIOUS CONDUCT AND CHARACTER OF THE APPELLANT OUTFITS THE
INNOCENCE OF THE APPELLANT:
In Boya Munigadu v. The Queen70 the Court held that the State of the mind of the accused,
having regard to the earlier conduct of the deceased, may be taken into consideration in
considering whether the subsequent act would be sufficient provocation and also by S.53 of WEA
in criminal proceedings, the fact that the accused person's good character is relevant. The
appellant was of tolerant and docile character who in spite of the constant abuse at the hands of
her cruel husband tolerated her pain and lived with her husband. She was a tolerant wife and a
loving mother, who despite of her tribulations tried her best to wait for her husband to change. In
Habeeb Mohammed v. State of Hyderabad71, it was held that, in criminal proceedings a man’s
character is often a matter of importance in explaining his conduct and in judging his innocence
and criminality.” In the same case, it was further suggested that the evidence of good character
would be of importance in cases where the act amounts to an offence only by reason of it being
67
Queen Emperor v. Sami (1890) 13 Mad 426
68
AIR 1987 SC 1572
69
Khali Khan v. State of M.P. AIR 2003 SC 4670
70
(ILR 3 MAD 33)
71
AIR 1954 SC 51

32
done with a vicious intention to show the improbability of the existence of such intent. The fact
that the appellant was a woman of good character unlike the deceased and that she had to resort
to the extreme decision due to the regular abuse and the sustained provocation given by the
accused are to be considered relevant in the present case.
[3.1.3] THE NATURE OF WEAPON USED OUTFITS THE INNOCENCE OF THE APPELLANT:
The appellant have undergone so many inhuman act from the deceased. The appellant have
caused death of the accused using iron rod without her control due to the provocation made by
her husband. This cannot furnish the guilty behavior of the appellant.
Though iron rod is deadly weapon, in K.P.Shaji vs State Of Kerala 72 the accused used blunt side
of the iron rod to the cause homicide to the deceased hence he has been permitted to acquittal. In
the present instance there is no facts establishing that the appellant have made preparations to
search the particular weapon nor it was not arranged before even with respect to weapon the
appellant have acted without pre mediation and calculation.
The Previous and subsequent conduct of the appellant furnishes her Innocence
[3.2] THE HIGH COURT HAVE ERRED IN THE CONVICTION:
The High court have erred by convicting the appellant without appreciating the facts of the case
and the application of law in it and also depreciated the order produced by the Ld. trail Court. A
very vital distinction which the Court has to keep in mind while dealing with such appeals
against the order of acquittal is that interference by the Court is justifiable only when a clear
distinction is kept between perversity in appreciation of evidence and merely the possibility of
another view. It may not be quite appropriate for the High Court to merely record that the
judgment of the trial court was perverse without specifically dealing with the facets of perversity
72
Crl.Appeal No.1810 of 2005

33
relating to the issues of law and appreciation of evidence, as otherwise such observations of the
High Court may not be sustainable in law73.
In the present case, on a cumulative reading and appreciation of the entire evidence on record,
we are of the considered view that the learned trial Court had not fallen in error
of law or appreciation of evidence in accordance with law. The High Court appears to have
interfered with the judgment of acquittal only on the basis that, there was a possibility of another
view74. The prosecution must prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt. Such is not the burden
on the accused. The High Court has acted on certain legal and factual presumptions which cannot
be sustained on the basis of the record before us and the principle of laws afore-noticed75.
In Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar 76 it was argued that High Court will not be
justifying in interfering with an order of acquittal merely, because the trial court has taken wrong
view of law or erred in appreciation of evidence. In the present instance, the evidences and facts
and the provisions of law was taken into consideration by the Ld. Trial Court while passing the
order regarding the violence undergone by the appellant and how she provoked, the mental
instability gone through by the appellant was very well entertained by the Trial Court but all
these facts were diminished in the Judgment of the High Court.
If the lower court's appreciation of evidence is proper then the scope of interference in the
judgment of acquittal by way of revision or appeal is very much limited. If the High Court relies
on the fact that findings recorded by the Lower Court may be erroneous to some extent but
unless it is shown that such finding is perverse or contrary to the recorded facts, no interference
can be made in the Criminal revision or appeal77.
The High Court have Erred in the Conviction of the appellant
[3.3] THE ACT CONSTITUTED BY THE APPELLANT FALLS UNDER THE AMOUNTS TO
CULPABLE HOMICIDE:
73
Antony v K.G.Ragahavan Nair (2003) 1 SCC 1
74
Shashi Sharms v State of U.P (CRL REV ) No 188 of 2005
75
State NCT of Delhi v. Manoj CRL LP 264/2013
76
(2002) 6 SCC 650
77
Akalu Ahir and others v. Ramdeo Ram (AIR 1973 SC 2145)

34
Culpable Homicide is defined in S.299 of WPC whereas murder is defined in S.300. Under the
framework of Indian Criminal Law, culpable homicide is different from murder although they
may seem similar. And the punishment for the same also varies depending upon the ‘mental
element’. Even though both the acts result in the death of a person, the Hon’ble judiciary from
time to time has emphasised enough on the importance of making out the cases fall under murder
or culpable homicide. Criminal jurisprudence has evolved in such a way that an accused cannot
be blindly convicted based on the crime alone but the circumstances of the accused and that of
the crime are to be borne in mind in order to meet the ends of justice. In Ajit Singh v. State of
Punjab78it was held that “In order to hold whether an offence would fall under section 302 or
304 of the Code, the Courts have to be extremely cautious in examining whether the same falls
under section 300 which states that whether a culpable homicide is murder, or would fall under
its five exceptions which lay when down culpable homicide is not murder.
[3.3.1] THE INGREDIENT OF S. 304 PART II HAS BEEN FULFILLED:
The fundamental principle of criminal liability is that there must be a wrongful act (actus reus)
coupled with wrongful intention (mens rea). This principle is embodied in the maxim actus non
facit reum nisi mens sit rea, meaning ‘an act does not make one guilty unless the mind is also
legally blameworthy. This principle plays a vital role in determining whether a homicide will fall
under culpable homicide or murder. But, in our present case, the appellant only had the
knowledge and not the intention
The present case at hand is one such of that kind where an abused wife and a loving mother was
forced by her circumstances to cause the death of her abusive husband and her special needs
toddler. Reading into the facts of the case, it is quite clear that the accused suffered cyclic and
regular emotional, physical and sexual abuse at the hands of the deceased husband. On 22 nd
March 2006, at around 4am, after being beaten mercilessly by her husband, the appellant had
taken an iron rod and inflicted injuries on the body of the deceased husband which resulted in his
death.
78
(2011) 9 SCC 462

35
Intention to cause death may revealed by the whole circumstances of the story. 79 The mere
immediate fact that the appellant had hit the deceased with an iron rod cannot be the parameter
which the judiciary can consider. The whole history of regular abuse and severe trauma borne by
the appellant is to be considered. The appellant was beaten and threatened by the deceased
husband on several occasions. The appellant, after being severely beaten up was in a depressed
state and hence she did not intentionally hit the deceased persons with the iron rod. As a severely
battered wife, her mental state at that time did not allow her to reason properly with using an iron
rod. She got hold of what she could see and used it to hit the deceased persons. The same
happened in the English case R v. Ahluwalia80where the battered wife set fire to the room in
which her abuser-husband was sleeping after beating her black and blue 81 and the Court
acquitted her due to the sustained provocation and her mental state during the crime.
The appellant, in this case going through Battered Wife Syndrome (BWS), Nallathangal
Syndrome, Common Mental Disorder, Intimate Partner Violence (IPV), Filicide and Post
Traumatic Stress Disorder and so there is no evidence that she would have killed the victims
with the intention.
[3.3.2]THE APPELLANT IS NOT PUNISHABLE U/S. 302 OF WINDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860:
In Muniandi v. State of T.N82, the accused stabbed the victim on the weak part of the body but
looking into the mitigating circumstances the court made the conviction from the S.300 to S.304
part II. Moreover in our case there was no evidence to show that appellant had aimed the vital
parts of the body83 and the usage of sharp edge is nowhere mentioned in the case 84 and that itself
evident there is no proof regarding the intention on the appellant's part.
85
In Narayanan v. State of M.P 1992 where the accused stabbed the victim in the heart, the court
held that the accused would be the given the full privilege regarding the knowledge of the act but
79
James v. State of Kerala (1995) 1 Cr LJ 55 (Ker)
80 [1992] 4 All ER 889
81
Lenore E. Walker, The Battered Woman Syndrome 45 (Harper, 1980)
82
1992 CR LJ 2954 (Mad)
83
State of Karnataka v. Harijan Dharma, 1992 Cr LJ 2840 (Kant)
84
Darbara Singh v. State of Haryana AIR 1992 SC 1429
85
Cr LJ 1157 (MP)

36
the accused did not attract the ingredients mentioned in the S.300 of WPC similarly in Karam
Singh v State of Punjab86 the injury has been noted in the liver and spleen, the court held that he
had intention to cause injury to liver and spleen definitely he had knowledge but no intention and
so the case has been converted from S.300 to S.304 Part II of the Penal Code.
There was no premeditation. She suddenly picked up the iron rod available to her and the
situation was not created by her. It was created by her husband as the act was done without prior
intention because the appellant is not master of mind instead it was done only with mere
knowledge so she become punishable under Section 304 I.P.C, Part II.
In the administration of criminal justice, it is crime and punishment. Crime and punishment are
not one and the same. They are not synonyms. But, they are one after the other. Crime part is
defined in the statute, for instance, in this case, Section 304 I.P.C, Part II. That has to be
established by the prosecution and that part is over. Then comes punishment part, long back, we
have bid farewell to HAMURABI'S CODE of 'Eye for Eye' and 'Tooth for Tooth'. That type of
penology has become a relic of the past. Now, during sentencing, sociological considerations
must also have a say.
87
In State of Maharashtra v. Goraksha Ambaji Adsul it was held that "The principles governing
the sentencing policy in our Criminal jurisprudence have more or less been consistent, right from
the pronouncement of the Constitution Bench judgment of this court in Bachan Singh v. State of
Punjab88. Awarding punishment is certainly an onerous function in the dispensation of criminal
justice. The Court is expected to keep in mind the facts and circumstances of a case, the
principles of law governing award of sentence, the legislative intent of special or general statute
raised in the case and impact of awarding punishment. These are the nuances which need to be
examined by the Court with discernment and in depth.
86
1993 AIR SCW 2870
87
2011 (3) SCC (Cri) 255
88
[1980 SCC (Cri) 580]

37
At the time of occurrence, the appellant is not in a stage to identify what she was doing and what
kind of consequences the act would bring tragic changes to her life due to mental state at that
time appellant. The High Court without analyzing all these facts has pronounced the Judgment.
The Act Constituted by the Appellant falls under the ambit of Culpable Homicide not
amounting to Murder.

38
PRAYER
Wherefore in the lights of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited it is most
humbly and respectfully prayed before this Hon’ble Court that it may be pleased to REVERSE
the order of the High Court of Shipla and HOLD that
i. The appellant is entitled to the exception grave and sudden provocation

ii. The appellant is not guilty of committing any offence U/S 302 of WPC,1860
AND/OR pass any other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the
circumstances of the case and in the interest of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience.
The counsel pleads before this Hon’ble Court to bind “Sacramentum habet in se tres comites,
veritatem, justitiam et judicium; veritas habenda est in jurato, justitia et judicium in judice89”.
For this act of kindness & justice the appellant shall be duty bound and forever pray.
All of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted.
Place: _____, Windia S/d_____________

Date: --/--/2019 COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT
89
An Oath Has In It Three Components,-Truth, Justice, And Judgment; Truth In The Party Swearing; Justice And
Judgment In The Judge Administering The Oath.

1st National Moot Court Competition Appellant TC 34 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

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

1st National Moot Court Competition Appellant TC 34 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019

1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019 TC 34

SCHOOL OF LAW AND CONSTITUTIONAL STUDIES

SHOBIT DEEMES UNIVERSITY, MEERUT

SUPREME COURT OF WINDIA

IN THE MATTER OF APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SLP NO. ___ OF 2019

STATE OF SHIPLA RESPONDENT

PETITIONS U/ART. 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF WINDIA, 1950

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT

MEMEORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

[I] WHETHER THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE .

MEMEORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

MEMEORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

Aiyyasamy v. State of Tamil Nadu [2005- 1-L.W. (Cri.) 299]

Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab (2011) 9 SCC 462

Akalu Ahir and others v. Ramdeo Ram (AIR 1973 SC 2145)

Akhtar, AIR 1964 All 262

Amirta Lal Hazara v. Emperor (1915) 42 Cal 957

Antony v K.G.Ragahavan Nair (2003) 1 SCC 1

Babu Lodhi v. State of U.P. , AIR 1987 SC 1268 : 1987 Cr LJ 1119

Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab 2011 (3) SCC (Cri) 255

Basanti v. State of UP AIR 1987 SC 1572

Binati Mahakud v. State of Orissa 1988 Cr LJ 763 (Ori)

Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar (2002) 6 SCC 650

Boya Munigadu v. The Queen 1 (ILR 3 MAD 33)

Budhi Singh v. State of H.P, AIR 2013 (SCW) 547

Chandran, Re [1988 Mad LW (CRL) 113]

Darbara Singh v. State of Haryana AIR 1992 SC 1429

MEMEORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

Dhandayuthan y. State of T.N., 1994 Cr LJ 1587 (Mad)

Gnanagunaseeli v. State of T.N, 1996 Cr LJ 2849 (Mad),

Gurcharan Singh, AIR 1956 SC 460

Habeeb Mohammed v. State of Hyderabad AIR 1954 SC 51

Hadu v. State, ( 1950 ) Cut 309.

James v. State of Kerala (1995) 1 Cr LJ 55 (Ker)

Karam Singh v State of Punjab 1993 AIR SCW 2870

Kathi Ranning Rawat v. The State of Saurashtra, AIR 1952 SC 123,

Khali Khan v. State of M.P. AIR 2003 SC 4670

Kundarapu, (1962) 1 Cr LJ 261

Laikhan, (1955) Cut 625

Mohibur Rahman v. State of Assam, 2000 Cr LJ 4725 ( Gau )

Muniandi v. State of T.N 1 1992 CR LJ 2954 (Mad)

Narayanan v. State of M.P 1992 Cr LJ 1157 (MP)

Poovammal v. State ( CRL) (MD) 30 of 2011

Prabhu v State of Madhya Pradesh ( 1991) Cr LJ 1373 SC

Pritam Singh v. The State, AIR 1950 SC 169

MEMEORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

Queen Emperor v. Sami (1890) 13 Mad 426

R v Humphreys, (1995) 4 All ER 1008 (CA)

R v Johnson (1982) 2 All ER 839 ( CA)

R v Thornton, (1992) 1 All ER 306 (CA)

R v. Ahluwalia ( 1992) 4 All ER 889 ( CA)

Ram Piari v. Bhagwant, AIR 1990 SC 1742

Ravindran v. State of Kerala 1999 Cr LJ 2364 (Ker)

Reg v. Mallory (1884) 15 Cox 456

S.C.Bahri v. State of Bihar, AIR 1994 SC 2020 : 1994 Cr LJ 327.

Sankaral alias Sankarayee v. State [1989 L.W. (Crl.) 468]

State NCT of Delhi v. Manoj CRL LP 264/2013

State of Karnataka v. Harijan Dharma, 1992 Cr LJ 2840 (Kant)