TC-15

SURANA AND SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT

COMPETITION, 2016

BEFORE THE COURT OF SESSIONS

AT MAVADA

S.C. NO.101 OF 2016

STATE OF JAGUTAR
(PROSECUTION)
V.
ABHISHEK, ANGAD & DUSHYANT
(DEFENCE)

FOR OFFENCES CHARGED UNDER:

SECTION 186, 107 & 304 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE,
1860

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON‟BLE SESSIONS JUDGE

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

 SURANA AND SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS...................................................................................................................................................................... b
TABLE OF CASES.................................................................................................................................................................... e

BOOKS................................................................................................................................................................................... h

STATUTES................................................................................................................................................................................ i

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION......................................................................................................................................................... j
STATEMENT OF FACTS.................................................................................................................................................................... k
STATEMENT OF CHARGES................................................................................................................................................................ l
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS.......................................................................................................................................................... m
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED................................................................................................................................................................ 1
A. THAT THE ACCUSED AND CO-ACCUSED SHOULD BE HELD LIABLE UNDER 304 OF INDIAN
PENAL CODE...................................................................................................................................................................... 1
1. WHEN INTENTION AND KNOWLEDGE GO HAND IN HAND....................................................................................... 3

2. WHEN SUDDEN FIGHTS LEAD TO DEATH OF A PERSON........................................................................................... 4

B. WHETHER THE CO-ACCUSED AIDED THE COMMISSION OF THE ACT OF THE ACCUSED.....4
1. THE CONCEPT OF „PRINCIPAL AND ACCESSORY‟ ....................................................................................6

2. THE CO-ACCUSED INSTIGATED THE ACCUSED TO DO THE ACT AND HENCE ARE PART OF THE
CRIME..................................................................................................................................................................................... 6

3. ACTIVE STIMULATION IS ESSENTIAL FOR CAUSING ABETMENT................................................................................. 7

4. WHEN DOES ACTUALLY INSTIGATION AMOUNT TO ABETMENT............................................................................... 9

5. THE ACCUSED AND THE CO-ACCUSED HAD COMMON INTENTION TO CAUSE DEATH OF THE
DECEASED............................................................................................................................................................................ 10

C. WHETHER THE ACCUSED AND CO-ACCUSED OBSTRUCTED THE PUBLIC SERVANT WHILE
HE WAS DISCHARGING HIS LAWFUL DUTIES...................................................................................................... 13
1. PUBLIC SERVANT ACTING IN GOOD FAITH AND UNDER COLOR OF HIS OFFICE.................................................... 14

PRAYER............................................................................................................................................................................................ o

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

SURANA AND SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AIR All India Reporter

All Allahabad High Court

Cal Calcutta High Court

Cri LJ / Cr LJ Criminal Law Journal

Cr.P.C. Code of Criminal Procedure

Del Delhi High Court

DW Defence Witness

Ed. Edition

Guj Gujarat High Court

IPC Indian Penal Code

IC Indian Cases

Mad Madras High Court

n. Foot Note no.

Ori Orissa High Court

p. Page No.

P&H Punjab and Haryana High Court

Pat Patna High Court

PW Prosecution Witness

Raj Rajasthan High Court

SC Supreme Court

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

SURANA AND SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

SCC Supreme Court Cases

SCJ Supreme Court Journal

SCR Supreme Court Reporter

Sec. Section

v. Versus

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

 SURANA AND SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

TABLE OF CASES:
1. Afrahim Sheikh V State Of West Bengal (1964) 2 Cr LJ 350...............................................4
2. Amiruddin, (1922) 24 Bom LR 534, 542.............................................................................8
3. Anda V. State Of Rajasthan AIR 1966 SC 148..............................................................1, 13
4. Ankeri V State Of Rajasthan AIR 1994 SC 842................................................................13
5. Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug V. Union Of India, (2011) 4 SCC 454...............................2
6. Babu Ram V State Of Uttar Pradesh (2002) 6 SCC..........................................................11
7. Babulal, 1956 Bom LR 1021.............................................................................................14
8. Baby John V. State, 1953 Crlj 1273....................................................................................8
9. Baleshwar Rai V State Of Bihar [1963] 2 SCR 433..........................................................12
10. Banwari Lal V. State Of Haryana 1979 Cl R (P&H) 233 (235).........................................7
11. Baxanto V. State Of U.P. AIR 1965 All 120 : (1965) J Crlj 267.........................................7
12. Bhaga Mana, (1927) 30 Bom LR 1124.............................................................................14
13. Bhur Singh V. State Of M.P., 1985 C Cr J (MP) 184..........................................................3
14. Birdhi Chand Jaipuria V Darbari Jayaswal AIR 1932 Pat 276........................................15
15. BN Rishideo Pande V State Of Uttar Pradesh(1955) Cr LJ 873.......................................12
16. BN Srikantaiah V State Of Mysore AIR 1958 SC 672.......................................................12
17. Chahat Khan V. State Of Haryana AIR 1972 SC 2574 : 1972 SCC (Cri) 558 : 1972 UJ
(SC) 273 : (1972) 3 SCC 408..............................................................................................3
18. Cooverji, (1906) 9 Bom LR 159,.......................................................................................10
19. D. Yohannan V. State Of Kerala, AIR 1958 Ker 207 :1958 Crlj 1021...............................2
20. Daya Nand V. State Of Haryana, 2008 Crlj 2975 (SC)…..................................................2
21. Dharma Pal V. State Of U.P., 2008 Crlj 1016 (SC) : AIR 2008 SC 920............................5
22. Dukhan Sahu V Emperor AIR 1937 Pat 633.....................................................................15
23. Dukhmochan Pandey V State Of Bihar AIR 1998 SC 40.................................................12
24. Faguna Kanta Nath V. State Of Assam, AIR 1959 SC 673...............................................11
25. Ganraj V. State, 2008 Crlj 253 (Raj)................................................................................10
26. Hardev Singh V State Of Punjab AIR 1975 SC 179..........................................................11
27. Hari Om V State Of Uttar Pradesh (1993) Supp 2 SCC 1................................................11
28. Hari Ram V State Of Uttar Pradesh (2004) 8 SCC 146....................................................12
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION
 SURANA AND SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

29. Harjit Singh V State Of Punjab (2002) 6 SCC 739............................................................9

30. Inder Singh V. State Of Pepsu, AIR 1955 SC 439 : 1955 Crlj 1014...................................3
31. Jagrup Singh V. State Of Haryana, AIR 1981 SC 1552......................................................4
32. Jamnadas Tharoomal V Emperor AIR 1940 Sind 42........................................................15
33. Jaspal Singh V. State Of Punjab, AIR 1986 SC 683...........................................................3
34. Jatto V Emperor AIR 1915 Lah 456.................................................................................15
35. Jayaraj V. State Of T.N. AIR 1976 SC 1519.......................................................................1
36. Joginder Singh V State Of Haryana AIR 1994 SC 461.....................................................12
37. Katar Singh V. State Of Punjab (1994) 3 SCC 569.............................................................5
38. Keshub Mahindra V. State Of M.P., 1996 (3) Crimes 288 (SC)….....................................3
39. Khadim Sheikh (1869) 4 Beng LR (Acr J) 7......................................................................10
40. Kishori Lal V. State Of M.P., AIR 2007 SC 2457...............................................................7
41. Krishna Govind Patil V State Of Maharashtra (1963) 2 Cr LJ 351...................................8
42. Lakhan V. State, 2008 Crlj 1194 (MP)................................................................................2
43. Mahbub Shah V Emperor AIR 1945 PC 118.....................................................................12
44. Malan V. State Of Maharashtra ,AIR 1960 Bom...............................................................6
45. Matiullah Sheikh V State Of West Bengal AIR 1965 SC 132............................................11
46. Maxwell V. D.P.P For Northern India, (1987) 1 WLR 1350..............................................6
47. Mohammad Salam V. State Of M.P., (1992) 1 Crimes 36 (MP).........................................5
48. Mohan Singh V State Of Punjab AIR 1963 SC 174.........................................................12
49. Mohan V. R, (1967) 2 Ac 187 PC : (1967) 2 ALL ER 58 PC.............................................6
50. Mohd Isub Ali V. State, 2008 Crlj 100 (Gau) : 2007 (3) GLT 962...................................14
51. Mubbi V State Of Madhya Pradesh (1999) SCC (Cr) 1314.............................................15
52. Munna V State Of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1993 SC 278..........................................................8
53. Nandu Rastogi V State Of Bihar (2002) 8 SCC 9..............................................................11
54. Nashri Naik V. State, 1998 Crlj 3984 (Ori).......................................................................13
55. Nazir Ahmad V. Emperor, AIR 1927 All 730 : 28 Crlj 313................................................8
56. Nirbhai Singh, 1972 Crlj 1474 (MP)...................................................................................2
57. Odwil Devaki Amma V. State Of Kerala, 1982 Cr LJ 11 Ker (NOC)................................14
58. Om Prakash V. State Of Haryana 2015 Crlj 586 : (2015) 2 SCC 84..................................9

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

 SURANA AND SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

59. Pandurang V State Of Hyderabad AIR 1955 SC

216......................................................................................................................................12
60. Parimal Chaterjee,(1932) 60 Cal 327.................................................................................8
61. Phudki V. Stae Of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1955 All 104.......................................................14
62. Poomalai Udayan, (1898) 21 Mad 296; Pukot Kotu, (1896) 19 Mad 349.......................14
63. Prabhati Lal V. State, 2008 Crlj 859 (Raj)..........................................................................2
64. Q.E. V. Sommanna, 1827 ILR 15 Mdr. 221.......................................................................13
65. Queen V. Rasookoollah, (1869) 12 WR (Cr) 51..................................................................9
66. R.V.Cogen And Leak ,(1976) 1 QB 217 : (1957) 2 ALL ER 1059 CA..............................6
67. Radhey V. State Of Chhattisgarh, 2008 Crlj 3520 (SC) : AIR 2008 SC 2878...................2
68. Raghunath Dass, (1920) 5 PLJ 129.....................................................................................8
69. Rajib Neog V. State Of Assam, 2011 Crlj 399 (Gau)...........................................................8
70. Ramabatar Agarwalla V. State, 1983 Crlj 122 (Ori) : (1982) 54 Cut LT 345...................9
71. Ramashish Yadav V State Of Bihar(1999) 8 SCC 555......................................................12
72. Re Smith, (1858) 3 H&N 277 : Ferguson V. Weaving, (1951) 1 KB 814 : (1951) 1 ALL
ER 421................................................................................................................................6
73. S. Ram Lah In Re AIR 1951 Mad
773...........................................................................................................................................15
74. Salabhai V. Emperor, AIR 1949 Nag 19.8........................................................................14
75. Santosh Kumar Jain V. State, AIR 1951 SC 201...............................................................13
76. Shangara V State Of Punjab (1995) SCC (Cr) 163...........................................................13
77. Shankarlal Kacharabhai V State Of Gujarat (1965) 2 Cr LJ 226.....................................10
78. Shri Ram V. State Of U.P., AIR 1975 SC............................................................................9
79. Sital V. Emperor, AIR 1935 Oudh 468 ; 36 Crlj 1151......................................................10
80. Sonti Rama Krishna V. Sonti Shanti Sree, AIR 2009 SC 923….........................................7
81. State Of Karnataka V Jinappa Payappa Kudachi (1994) Supp 1 SCC 178, (1994) SCC
(Cr) 330..............................................................................................................................15
82. State Of M.P. V.Mukesh (2006) 13 SCC 197 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cn)680..............................9
83. State Of Punjab V. Iqbal Singh, AIR 1991 SC 1532 : 1991 Crlj 1897...............................7
84. State Of Uttar Pradesh V Iftikhar Khan AIR 1973 SC 863................................................7
85. State V. B G Misar AIR 1957 Bom 10..............................................................................15
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION
 SURANA AND SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

86. Subran V. State Of Kerala, 1993 Crlj 1387 (SC) : 1993 AIR SCW (1014) : (1993) 3 SCC
32..........................................................................................................................................3
87. Sukha Singh V. State Of Karnataka, 2015 Crlj 3133 (P&H)...............................................4
88. Sukhbir Singh V Kirtan Singh(2005) 10 SCC 567...............................................................8
89. Sundaramurthy V State Of Tamil Nadu AIR 1990 SC 2007..............................................5
90. Surender V. State Of Haryana (2006) 12 SCC 375............................................................7
91. Suresh V State Of Uttar Pradesh AIR 2001 SC 1344.......................................................12
92. The Queen V. Ameer Khan , (1871) 17 WR (Cr) 15...........................................................9
93. Trilok Chand V. State Of Delhi, AIR 1977 SC 666.............................................................9
94. Tuck V. Robson, (1970) 1 All ER 1171...............................................................................7
95. Yallappa V State Of Karnataka (1994) 1 SCC 730...........................................................12
96. Yogendramorarji V State Of Gujarat AIR 1980 SC 660...................................................11

BOOKS:
1. Field, C.D., Expert Evidence: Medical And Non-Medical, (4th Ed 2007)
2. Gaur, KD Firearms ,Forensic Ballistics, Forensic Chemistry And
Criminal Jurisprudence, (2nd Ed 1989)
3. Gaur, KD, Criminal Law: Cases And Materials, (6th Ed. 2009)
4. Gupte And Dighe, Criminal Manual, (7th Ed. 2007)
5. Harris, Criminal Law, (22nd Ed. 2000)
6. Hill, Mcgraw, Criminal Investigation, (4th Ed. 2004)
7. I, III, IV Nelson R. A. Indian Penal Code, 10th Ed. (2008)
8. I, Kathuria, R.P. Supreme Court On Criminal Law, 1950-2002, ( 6th Ed. 2002)
9. II, Mitra, B.B., Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (20th Ed. 2006)
10. II, Nandi, Criminal Ready Referencer, ( 2nd Ed. 2007)
11. II, Princep‟s Commentary On The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (18th Ed. 2005)
12. III, Sarvaria, SK, Indian Penal Code, (10th Ed. 2008)
13. James, Jason, Forensic Medicine: Clinical And Pathological Aspects, (1st Ed. 2003)
14. Kelkar, R.V. Criminal Procedure, (5th Ed. 2011)
15. Lal, Batuk, The Law Of Evidence, (18th Ed. 2010)
16. Lyons, Medical Jurisprudence & Toxicology, (11th Ed. 2005)

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

17. Modi‟s Medical Jurisprudence And Toxicology, (23rd Ed. 2010)

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

 SURANA AND SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

18. Parikh, C. K, Textbook Of Medical Jurisprudence, Forensic Medicine & Toxicology, (6th
Ed. 2002)
19. Ratanlal And Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code, 33rd Ed. (2011)
20. Ratanlal And Dhirajlal, The Law Of Evidence, 22nd Ed. (2006)
21. Sarkar, Law Of Evidence, (13th Ed,1990)
22. Saxena & Gaur, Arms And Explosives, (10th Ed. 2012)
23. Sharma, B.R., Forensic Science In Criminal Investigation & Trials, (4th Ed. 2003)
24. Tyagi, Surendra Prakash, Criminal Trial (2nd Ed. 1996)
25. Varshi, H.P. Criminal Trial And Judgment, (3rd Ed. 1981)

STATUTES:
1. The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act 2 Of 1973)
2. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Act 18 Of 1872)
3. The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 Of 1860)

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

 SURANA AND SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Prosecution submits that the Hon‟ble Court of Sessions, Mavada has Jurisdiction to try the
instant matter under Section 209 read with Section 177 of The Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

 SURANA AND SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

STATEMENT OF FACTS
 Abhishek and Angad are doing a master‟s degree in political science & administration from the
presidency college (“college”) in Mavada, capital city of Jagutar, Union of Rabat. Both belong
to the Lepat community (“community”)Abhishek contested the college union (“union”)
election and was elected as its president in 2015.
 Tanya and Natasha are students of Final Year of B.A. Political Science & Administration.
They are also Members of the Union. They complained to Abhishek that two boys in particular
were teasing them regularly. One evening when they were standing at the bus stop; the two
boys came in a motorcycle and started teasing them. Abhishek threatened them with dire
action. When a few people among the public started abusing them they left.
 The incident repeated on March 30, 2016. Abhishek and Angad were furious and they started
pelting stones at them and they hurriedly drove away by showing sign of pistol by their hands.
In the evening after college hours, a police officer accosts Abhishek and Angad and threatens
them saying “keep your trap shut and mind your own business otherwise i will have to show
you my stuff”. He also said “I know your kind of people who support anti-nationals, I have
dealt with them”. Abhishek discussed with his friend Dushyant who is a local leader of the
political party, to which the union is affiliated, who said “iski yeh himmat, salley ko
mar dalo, kam se kam hamare neta toh khush honge”
 After a week on April 7, 2016 the boys came again to tease the girls near the bus stop.
Abhishek and Angad started pelting stones at the bikers. The people standing at the bus stop
started running in panic. Suddenly the inspector comes from behind and slaps Abhishek and
violently threatens him saying “i will teach you a lesson you will never forget. I have taught
this lesson to many”. During the fracas, the inspector puts his hand on his belt showing the gun
holster.
 Angad shouted “he is going to shoot you, quickly escape”. Abhishek in a fit of rage runs and
takes a rod that was lying down in the auto garage next to the bus stop and throws it at the
inspector. The inspector not expecting this gets hit on the head and falls awkwardly on the
pavement and gets hit on the head again by the stump of a tree. Inspector was declared dead.
Abhishek was arrested along with his friend Angad and charged with manslaughter of a police
officer on duty.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

 SURANA AND SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

STATEMENT OF CHARGES

CHARGE 1

Abhishek Lepat – has been charged under section 186, 304 read with section 34 the Indian
Penal code, 1860 for the manslaughter of a police officer on duty.

CHARGE 2

Angad Lepat - has been charged under section 186,107, 304 read with section 34 the Indian
Penal code, 1860 for the manslaughter of a police officer on duty.

CHARGE 3

Dushyant - has been charged under section 107, 304 read with section 34 the Indian
Penal code, 1860 for the manslaughter of a police officer on duty.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

 SURANA AND SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
A. THAT THE ACCUSED AND CO-ACCUSED ARE SHOULD BE CHARGED UNDER 304 OF
IPC.

It is humbly submitted before the Hon‟ble court that the accused Abhishek and co-accused Angad
and Dushyant had the common intention of killing the deceased, Amit Chaudhary who was a
public servant. When the accused got the opportunity he killed Amit Chaudhary with the
intention and knowledge of causing such bodily injury which would result in his death. He used
a metal rod to cause that injury which resulted in a brain hemorrhage to the deceased. They all
should be punishable for culpable homicide not amounting to murder under s.304 of the Indian
penal code.

B. THAT THE CO-ACCUSED AIDED THE ACCUSED WITH HIS ACT AND THUS CAUSED
ABETMENT.

It is humbly submitted that both the co-accused instigated the accused to do the act by saying
various words to him and also intentionally aided him in doing so and thus committed the
offence of abetment. Abetting includes aiding, counseling, procuring or encouraging someone to
do the act under s.107 of IPC. The three accused concerted together and conspired to kill Amit
Chaudhary, instigated Abhishek to do the act and also had the common intention of killing him.
Thus all the elements of abetment being satisfied all the accused are to be held liable for the
offence of abetment.

C. THAT THE ACCUSED AND CO-ACCUSED OBSTRUCTED A PUBLIC SERVANT WHILE HE

WAS DISCHARGING HIS LAWFUL DUTIES.

It is humbly submitted that Abhishek and Angad obstructed Amit Chaudhary, a public servant
while he came to stop them from creating public nuisance and were pelting stones over the
complainant. Abhishek even killed him while he was obstructing him. Angad and Abhishek used
physical violence and fought with Amit Chaudhary. He was discharging his lawful duty which
was justifiable by law by stopping the nuisance they were doing. Abhishek and Angad stopped
Amit Chaudhary from discharging his duty and obstructed him. They knew he was a public
servant, that fact was not concealed by them then too they obstructed him and thus they should
be held liable under s.186 of IPC.
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION
 SURANA AND SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016
1

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

A. THAT THE ACCUSED AND CO-ACCUSED SHOULD BE HELD LIABLE UNDER 304 OF INDIAN
PENAL CODE.
It is humbly submitted before the Hon‟ble court that in the present case the accused is charged
with culpable homicide not amounting to murder under section 304 of IPC. Section 299 of IPC
defines culpable homicide as “whoever causes death while doing an act with the intention of
causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or
with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable
homicide.1 Under section 299 of the Indian penal code, homicide becomes culpable when a
human being terminates the life of another in blameworthy manner. 2 The present matter lies
under unlawful homicide as it is a causing of death by doing an act with the intention and
knowledge of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. This is one of the elements
through which culpability is set to be established, without these elements, an act though it may
be by its nature criminal and may occasion death will not amount to offence of culpable
homicide.3

„Intention and knowledge as the ingredient of section 299 postulate, the existence of a positive
mental attitude and the mental condition is the special mens rea necessary for the offence. 4 Every
act is followed by consequences, thus the consequence necessary to constitute the offence of
culpable homicide is death. By „intention‟ it is meant that the expectation of the consequences in
question and intention doesn‟t therefore necessarily involve premeditation, or thing out killing
beforehand. A man accepts the natural consequences of his acts and therefore in law is

1
HALSBURY‟S Laws of England, 4th Ed., Vol. II, para 1151, p. 613

2
KENNY on Outlines of Criminal Law, 19th Ed., para 79, pp.131-132

3
Rahee,(1866) Unrep Cr C 6.

4
Jayaraj v. State of T.N. AIR 1976 SC 1519: (1976) 2 SCC 788: 1976 CrLJ 1186 following Anda v. State of
Rajasthan AIR 1966 SC 148: 1966 CrLJ 171

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

presumed to intend them.5 An act is set to cause death when death results either from the act
directly or results from some consequences necessarily or naturally flowing from such act and
reasonably contemplated as its result.6 In the present case there were two injuries inflicted upon
the head of the victim which resulted in brain hemorrhage and hence in his death, one injury
being inflicted by the accused with the metal rod and the other by the victim falling at the stump
of the tree. The accused must be held liable because he intended and knew that his act of
throwing the metal rod on the head of the victim would amount to such bodily injury which
would result in his death. Death occurs when brain dies completely.7

Words used in section 299 “that bodily injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause
death” indicate that death is most probable result of the injury. 8 In a case accused stabbed
deceased with a gupti without any intention to cause death was held that it could be inferred that
the accused was having knowledge that by causing injury by a gupti life of a person may come to
an end, hence it was considered as a case of culpable homicide . 9 Where bodily injury sufficient
to cause death is actually caused it is immaterial to go into the question as to whether the accused
had intention to cause death or knowledge that the act will cause death and thus it is regulated by
the first part of section 304 of IPC.10 In the present case the accused is charged under the s.304 of
I.P.C because the act of the accused falls under second proviso of Exception1 to S.300 of I.P.C.
In Harendra Nath Mandal v. State of Bihar11, it was held that an accused is guilty and punished
under S.304 when a death is caused by the assailant under any of the circumstances mentioned in
any of the five exceptions to S.300.

5
Nirbhai Singh, 1972 CrLJ 1474 (MP)
6
D. Yohannan v. State of Kerala, AIR 1958 Ker 207 :1958 CrLJ 1021.

7
Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug v. Union of India, (2011) 4 SCC 454 : AIR 2011 SC 1290.

8
Daya Nand v. State of Haryana, 2008 CrLJ 2975 (SC) : AIR 2008 SC 1823 and Radhey v. State of Chhattisgarh,
2008 CrLJ 3520 (SC) : AIR 2008 SC 2878.

9
Lakhan v. State, 2008 CrLJ 1194 (MP).; Ganraj v. State, 2008 CrLJ 253 (Raj).

10
Prabhati Lal v. State, 2008 CrLJ 859 (Raj).

11
1993 1 Crimes 984 (SC)
 1. WHEN INTENTION AND KNOWLEDGE GO HAND IN HAND
Intention is purpose or design with which an act is done it is the fair knowledge of the act
coupled with the desire of it. An act is intentional so far as it exists in idea before it exists in the
fact; knowledge is awareness of the consequences of act12. Intention and knowledge commonly
go together. Question of knowledge and intention are essentially question of fact. 13 accused
when inflict incised wounds with a spear on the head of the deceased, it was held that knowledge
that the injury he was inflicting was likely to cause death must be imputed to the accused and it
is culpable homicide, the offence committed falling under part 1 of section 304 of IPC.14

In a case the accused inflicted injuries on vital part of the deceased which were found to be
sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, it was proved that he inflicted the
injuries with the knowledge that with these injuries the victim was likely to die, it was held that
this case would fall under section 299 and will be punished under section 304 part 1.15 It was held
in the case of Jaspal Singh v. State of Punjab16 the location of injury coupled with the velocity of
blow shown by the depth of injury shows that the intention was to cause death. According to
medical evidence it was this injury which proved fatal. When a person is causing an injury on
such a vital part the intention to kill can certainly be attributed to him.17

The law books18, regards intention to the natural result of a man‟s act and not to the condition of
his mind, so when a normal man does an act, he should be credited with the intention of doing
that which is inevitable consequences of his acts. Adverting to the contention that there is only a
single blow, it was further held that the question is not whether the prisoner intended to inflict a
serious injury or trivial one. But whether he intended to inflict the injury that is proved to be

12
Keshub Mahindra v. State of M.P., 1996 (3) Crimes 288 (SC) : (1996) 6 SCC 129 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 1124.

13
Bhur Singh v. State of M.P., 1985 C Cr J (MP) 184.

14
Inder Singh v. State of Pepsu, AIR 1955 SC 439 : 1955 CrLJ 1014.

15
Subran v. State of Kerala, 1993 CrLJ 1387 (SC) : 1993 AIR SCW (1014) : (1993) 3 SCC 32 : (1993) 2 Crimes 15.

16
Jaspal Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1986 SC 683 : 1986 CrLJ 488 : (1986) I Crimes 435 : (1986) 2 SCC 100.

17
Chahat Khan v. State of Haryana AIR 1972 SC 2574 : 1972 SCC (Cri) 558 : 1972 UJ (SC) 273.

18
R.Ratanlal and K.T.Dhirajlal, (32nd edn,2010)
present, referring to these observation of the case Virsa Singh, a divisional bench of Supreme
Court19, laid down that the prosecution must prove (1.) That the body injury is present (2.) The
injury is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death (3.)That there was knowledge
that the injury was as such which could cause death.

2. WHEN SUDDEN FIGHTS LEAD TO DEATH OF A PERSON.

In the present case the accused intended to inflict the injury which caused death of Amit
Chaudhary after a sudden fight. On careful consideration of the entire facts on record it is to be
found that the inspector had not even taken out his gun from the holster and the accused with
proper intention threw the metal rod towards the inspector and hit him on his head to cause such
injury which could cause death of the deceased and thus the accused should be found guilty
under S. 304 Part I. In another case the accused in a sudden fight wielded sharp edged weapons
and caused fatal injuries, prosecution story was revealed promptly by the injured witness and it
was stated that fight was taken place at a spur of the moment, without any intention to kill, it was
held that the offence is punishable under section 304 part 1. 20 In the case of Nashari Naik v.
State21 the accused caused lathi blows and one accused used cycle chain to cause death of the
deceased, it was held that the accused using lathis were guilty under section 304 and other under
section 323.

B. WHETHER THE CO-ACCUSED AIDED THE COMMISSION OF THE ACT OF THE ACCUSED.
It is humbly submitted before the Hon‟ble court that the co-accused Angad and Dushyant have
facilitated the commission of the death of Amit Chaudhary and thereby charged with the offence
of abetment under section 107 of Indian penal code as they have instigated, intentionally aided
and conspired for the commission of the act. The framers of Indian penal code observe that „ the
reasonable course, in our opinion is to consider speaking as an act and to treat accused as guilty

19
Jagrup Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 1981 SC 1552 : 1981 CrLJ 1136 : 1981 CrLR (SC) 462 : (1981) 3 SCC
616.

20
Sukha Singh v. State of Karnataka, 2015 CrLJ 3133 (P&H).

21
Nashri Naik v. State, 1998 CrLJ 3984 (Ori).
of voluntary culpable homicide if his speaking has caused death of the deceased whether, his
words operated circuitously or directly.

In the present case Angad and Dushyant voluntarily contributed to the culpable homicide of
Amit Chaudhary by speaking the word which instigated Abhishek to do the act which resulted in
the death of the deceased. All the accused in this matter should be punished under section 304,
107 r/w 34 of IPC for causing the death of Amit Chaudhary, a public servant who was
discharging his lawful duty when the crime took place. In Corpus Juris Secundum 22, the
meaning of the word abet has been defined as meaning to aid; to assist or to give aid; to
command, or to counsel; to encourage, to induce, or to assist another onto commit. In order to
bring a person abetting the doing of a thing, under any of the clauses enumerated under section
107, it is not only necessary to prove that the person who has abetted has taken part in the steps
of the transaction but also in some way or the other, he has been connected with those step of the
transaction which are criminal.23

Section 107 of the IPC, which contains the definition of abetment, has three clauses, and if an
act of a person falls within the purview of any of them, it would amount to abetment. A person
abets the doing of a word thing who intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing
of that thing. For the purposes of the first two clauses of this section, it is immaterial whether the
person instigated commits the offence or not, or the persons conspiring together actually carry
out the object of the conspiracy.24 Abetment is constituted by: (1) instigating a person to commit
an offence; or (2) engaging in a conspiracy to commit it; (3) intentionally aiding a person to
commit it. If an accused is alleged to have been an accomplice to the principal offence, the
charge may alleged he aided, he abetted, or counseled, and he will be convicted if he is proved to
have participated in one or more of these four ways.25

22
See Corpus Juris Secundum , Vol. 1,p. 306.
23
Katar Singh v. State of Punjab (1994) 3 SCC 569 : 1994 CrLJ 3139 : (1994) 1 SCC (Cri) 899.

24
Faguna Kanta v. The State of Assam, 1959 CrLJ 917 (SC) : AIR 1959 SC673

25
Re Smith, (1858) 3 H&N 277 : Ferguson v. Weaving, (1951) 1 KB 814 : (1951) 1 ALL ER 421.
 1. THE CONCEPT OF ‘PRINCIPAL AND ACCESSORY’.
The word „aid‟ „abet‟ may be used together to charge a person who is alleged to have
participated in a crime otherwise than as principal or as accessory after the fact. Such person may
also be charged as a principal. 26 If two persons are present in scene of the crime and it is not
clear who committed the act and who did no more harm than help, it is not necessary to show
who the actual perpetrator was in order to convict the both.27 Likewise a person charged as
accessory may be convicted as a principal. 28 Halsbury, describing an abettor as a secondary party
lays down that, any person who aids, abets, counsel, or procures the commission of the offence,
whether an offence at common law or by statue, and whether indictable or summary, is liable to
be tried and punished as a principal offender.29

2. THE CO-ACCUSED INSTIGATED THE ACCUSED TO DO THE ACT AND HENCE ARE PART
OF THE CRIME.
It is well known that the act of abetment may take place in one of these three ways; (1)
instigation, (2) conspiracy, (3) intentional aid.30 Instigation must have reference to the thing that
was done. Abetment implies a certain degree of activity in the abettor. An accused can be
charged with abetment not only if he instigates any person to do a criminal act or intentionally
aids by any act or illegal omission for the doing of the thing or engages somebody with a purpose
to do illegal act.31These things are essential ingredients of section 107 and are all found in the
present case. Abetment may consist of passive assistance. 32 In a case the presence of accused
either with bhala or with spear on the scene of occurrence of marpit and then participation in the
marpit was proved even if they did not actually apply their weapons, they were held to be

26
Maxwell v. D.P.P for Northern India, (1987) 1 WLR 1350 HL : (1978) 3 ALL ER 1140
27
Mohan v. R, (1967) 2 Ac 187 PC : (1967) 2 ALL ER 58 PC .

28
R.V.Cogen and Leak ,(1976) 1 QB 217 : (1957) 2 ALL ER 1059 CA.

29
HALSBURY‟S Laws of England, 4th Edn., Vol. 11, para 42, p.34.

30
Malan v. State of Maharashtra ,AIR 1960 Bom 393 : 1960 CrLJ 1189 : ILR 1958 Bom 700.

31
Banwari Lal v. State of Haryana 1979 Cl R (P&H) 233 (235).

32
Tuck v. Robson, (1970) 1 All ER 1171.
vicariously responsible for the injuries caused to the complaint party.33 Analyzing the law, Cross
and Jones puts in that normally, an act of assistance or encouragement is required. Thus, mere
abstention from preventing an offence generally is not enough but if A has a right control over B
and deliberately fails to prevent B from committing an offence, his omission will constitute
aiding or abetting, if it amounts to a positive encouragement to be to commit the offence 34. In the
present Angad being present on the crime scene did not prevent Abhishek from hitting the police
inspector with the metal rod and thus has constituted abetment.

The aforesaid exposition of law postulates the existence of one who did perpetrate the offence as
laid down by Cross and Jones normally it is clear who is the perpetrator; he is the one with
relevant mens rea, for example the one who fires the fatal shot in murder. Two or more people
may also be joint perpetrators where each with the relevant mens rea does distinct acts which
constitute a sufficient act for the actus reas offence. The offence of abetment by instigation
depends upon the intention of the person who abets and not upon the act which is done by the
person who has abetted.35

3. ACTIVE STIMULATION IS ESSENTIAL FOR CAUSING ABETMENT.

A person is said to „instigate‟ another to an act, when he actively suggests of stimulates him to
the act by any means of language, direct or indirect, whether it takes the form of express,
solicitation, or of hints, insinuation or encouragement. 36 it is not necessary that express and direct
words should be used to indicate what exactly should be done by the persons to whom directions
are given.37 Instigation is to „goad‟, urge forward, provoke, incite, or encourage doing an „act‟.
To satisfy the requirements of instigation, though it is not necessary that actual words must be
used to that effect or what constitutes „instigation‟ must necessarily and specifically be

33
Baxanto v. State of U.P. AIR 1965 All 120 : (1965) J CrLJ 267.
34
CROSS & JONES, Introduction to Criminal Law, 9th Edn., p.389., para19.8.

35
State of Punjab v. Iqbal Singh, AIR 1991 SC 1532 Surender v. State of Haryana (2006) 12 SCC 375 Kishori Lal
v. State of M.P., AIR 2007 SC 2457 and Sonti Rama Krishna v. Sonti Shanti Sree, AIR 2009 SC 923

36
Amiruddin, (1922) 24 Bom LR 534, 542.

37
Baby John v. State, 1953 CrLJ 1273 ; AIR 1953 Trav-co 251 : 1952 Ker LT 737
suggestive of the consequences. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequences must be
capable of being spelt out.38

Instigate means the active role played by a person with a view to stimulate another person to do
the thing in order to hold a person guilty of abetting, it must be established that he had
intentionally done something which amounted to instigating another to do a thing. 39 Instigation
necessarily connotes come active suggestion or support of stimulation to the commission of the
act itself. Advice amounts to the instigation only if it was meant actively to suggest or stimulate
the commission of an offence.40 In a case while one person was beaten by another, the accused,
who was standing by, expressed his approval to the conduct of the assailant and the victim would
be given sound beating. It was found that blows were inflicted after the accuser‟s remarks. It was
held that the accused stimulated the commission of the offence and, therefore, was guilty for
abetment. Instigation necessarily connotes some active suggestion or support or stimulation to
the commission of the act itself.41

A person is said to instigate another to an act, when he actively suggests or stimulates him to the
act by any means or language, direct or indirect. The offence is complete as soon as the abettor
has incited another to commit a crime, whether the latter consents or not or whether, having
consented, he commits the crime or not. It depends upon the intention of the person who abets
and not upon the act which is actually done by the person whom he abets. 42 Where, of several
persons constituting an unlawful assembly, some only were armed with sticks and a, one of them
was not so armed but picked up a stick and used it, b who gave a general order to beat, was held
guilty of abetting the assault made my them.43 It is not necessary that the abettor should concert
the offence with the person who commits it. It is sufficient if he engages in the conspiracy in the

38
Parimal Chaterjee,(1932) 60 Cal 327.
39
Rajib Neog v. State of Assam, 2011 CrLJ 399 (Gau).

40
Raghunath Dass, (1920) 5 PLJ 129

41
Nazir Ahmad v. Emperor, AIR 1927 All 730 : 28 CrLJ 313

42
Ramabatar Agarwalla v. State, 1983 CrLJ 122 (ori) : (1982) 54 Cut LT 345.

43
Queen v. Rasookoollah, (1869) 12 WR (Cr) 51.
pursuance of which the offence is committed. 44 Where parties concert together and have a
common object, the act of fun of the parties, done in furtherance of the common object and in
pursuance of the concerted plan, is the act of all.45

Doing something with knowledge so as to facilitate in to commit the crime of otherwise would
constitute abetment.46 A person abets while aiding, when by act done either prior to, or at the
time the commission of the act, he intends to facilities, and does in fact facilitate the commission
therefore. Intentional aiding of the offence in covered by the third clause mentioned in section
107 Indian penal code.47 Intention to aid the commission of offence is the gist of offence of
abetment by aid.48 A person abets by aiding, when by the commission of an act, he intends to
49
facilitate and thus facilitate the commission thereof. The intention to aid the commission of
crime is gist of offence by of abetment by aid. In order to constitute abetment, the abettor must
be shown to have „intentionally‟ aided to commission of the crime. Every abetment must,
of course, precede the commission of the offence committed. There is, however a difference
between an abetment which is done at the time of principal offence is committed or, so to say, on
the spur of the moment and one, that is done prior to, and independently of, the commission of
offence.

4. WHEN DOES ACTUALLY INSTIGATION AMOUNT TO ABETMENT.

If abetment is divided these two kinds, it follows that while abetment by instigation and
abetment by intentionally aiding the offence can, both be done wither immediately before the
commission of the offence or prior to it, abetment by conspiracy can hardly be committed at the
time of the commission of the offence. In other words, one can commit an offence by instigation,
either at the time of the commission of the offence or an hour, a day, a week, or a month
before the

44
Expln. 5 to Section 108 ; Kali Munda (1901) 28 Cal 797.
45
The Queen v. Ameer Khan , (1871) 17 WR (Cr) 15.

46
State of M.P. v.Mukesh (2006) 13 SCC 197 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cn)680.

47
Om Prakash v. State of Haryana 2015 CrLJ 586 : (2015) 2 SCC 84.

48
Trilok Chand v. State of Delhi, AIR 1977 SC 666: 1977 CrLJ 254 : (1975) 4 SCC 761.

49
Faguna Kanta Nath v. State of Assam, AIR 1959 SC 673 : 1959 CrLJ 917.
commission. Similarly, abetment by aiding can precede the commission of the offence
immediately, or by an hour, a day, a week and so on. Abetment by conspiracy, however,
presupposes a deliberate and previous act on the part of the abettor.50 To prove abetment by
„illegal omission‟, it is necessary to show that the accused intentionally aided the commission of
the offence by his noninterference, and the omissions involved a breach of legal obligation. 51 The
word illegal omission in connection with the definition of abetment has reference to an intention
of „aiding the doing of a thing‟. To constitute abetment, a person must instruct any person to do
a particular thing or he must engage himself with one or more persons in a conspiracy of doing
that thing, he must intentionally aid by an act or illegally omit the doing of that thing.

5. THE ACCUSED AND THE CO-ACCUSED HAD COMMON INTENTION TO CAUSE DEATH
OF THE DECEASED.
The criminal act mentioned in Indian penal code 186052is the result of the concerted action of
more than one person. Where the said result was reached in furtherance of the common intention,
each person is liable for the result as if he has done it himself.53

It is enough if it is shown that they shared a common intention to commit the offence and in
furtherance thereof, each one played his assigned role by doing separate acts, similar or
diverse.54 for applying the said provision, it is not necessary to show some overt act on the part of
the accused for the provision is intended to meet a case in which it may be difficult to distinguish
between acts of individual members of a part who act in furtherance of the common intention of
all or to prove exactly what part was taken by each of them. 55 where it is established that the
criminal act has been done by one of the accused persons in furtherance of the common
intention, a liability may be imposed on anyone of the persons in the same manner as if the act

50
Sital v. Emperor, AIR 1935 Oudh 468 ; 36 CrLJ 1151.
51
Cooverji, (1906) 9 Bom LR 159, Khadim Sheikh (1869) 4 Beng LR (ACr J) 7.

52
Indian Penal Code 1860 S.34

53
Shankarlal Kacharabhai v State of Gujarat AIR 1965 SC 1260

54
Nandu Rastogi v State of Bihar (2002) 8 SCC 9.

55
Hari Ram v State of Uttar Pradesh (2004) 8 SCC 146.
were done by him alone56 and each person will be alleged to have had committed the entire act 57.
It is not necessary that the act done in furtherance of the common intention must be the very act
intended by the accused. The common intention must be to commit the particular crime although
the actual crime may be committed by any one of those sharing the common intention and acting
in furtherance of the same.58

Common intention is a state of mind of an accused which may be inferred objectively from his
conduct displayed in the course of the commission of the crime as also prior and subsequent
attendant circumstances. The subjective element in common intention, therefore, must be proved
by an objective test. It is only then that one accused may be made vicariously liable for the acts
and deeds of the other co-accused.59 Direct proof for common intention will generally be
difficult to obtain.60 therefore, common intention may only be inferred from the proven facts of
the case and the proven circumstances for which the prosecution has to establish by evidence,
whether direct or circumstantial, that there was a plan or meeting of minds of all the accused to
commit the offence for which they are charged with the aid of the provision of the Indian penal
code 1860, be it prearranged or on the spur of the moment, but it must necessarily be before the
commission of the crime.61

The question of a common intention is a matter of fact in each case and has to be proved as a
necessary inference62from the facts63and circumstances of the case, acts and conduct of

56
State of Uttar Pradesh v Iftikhar Khan AIR 1973 SC 863
57
Matiullah Sheikh v State of West Bengal AIR 1965 SC 132, Babu Ram v State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 2002 SC
2815,

58
Hardev Singh v State of Punjab AIR 1975 SC 179

59
Rishideo Pande v State of Uttar Pradesh (1955) Cr LJ 873.

60
State of Uttar Pradesh v Iftikhar Khan AIR 1973 SC 863.

61
Hari Ram v State of Uttar Pradesh (2004) 8 SCC 146.

62
Mohan Singh v State of Punjab AIR 1963 SC 174, ; see also Mahbub Shah v Emperor AIR 1945 PC 118

63
Baleshwar Rai v State of Bihar [1963] 2 SCR 433.
parties64including conduct subsequent to the incident65, other evidence given by prosecution
witnesses, court witness, defence witness disclosing the existence of named or unnamed persons
other than those charged or deposed to by prosecution witnesses 66, nature of the weapons used67,
manner of injuries inflicted68 or any other incriminating facts.69 The inference may be gathered
from the manner in which the accused arrived at the scene and mounted the attack, the
determination and concert with which the attack was made.

The crucial test is that such plan must precede the act constituting the offence. 70 In the present
case there was proper premeditation done for the purpose of constituting the death of the police
inspector; all the accused met and shared the intention to kill the deceased, they searched for him
on the internet as well as for the provisions regarding self defence so that they would know how
to get away with the crime. Common intention must be anterior to the commission of the
offence71 and necessarily implies a prearranged plan.72 To constitute common intention, it is
necessary that the intention of each of the accused is known to the rest and shared by them all.73

In cases involving murder, one must look for a common intention, that is to say, some prior
concert and what that common intention is. It must next be seen whether the accused possessed
the knowledge that the injuries they were intending to cause were sufficient in the ordinary
course of nature to cause death, and if the circumstances are established and death is caused by

64
BN Srikantaiah v State of Mysore AIR 1958 SC 672
65
Hari Om v State of Uttar Pradesh (1993) Supp 2 SCC 1

66
Krishna Govind Patil v State of Maharashtra AIR 1963 SC 1413

67
Dukhmochan Pandey v State of Bihar AIR 1998 SC 40.

68
Yallappa v State of Karnataka (1994) 1 SCC 730

69
Ramashish Yadav v State of Bihar AIR 1999 SC 3830

70
Suresh v State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 2001 SC 1344

71
Joginder Singh v State of Haryana AIR 1994 SC 461

72
Pandurang v State of Hyderabad AIR 1955 SC 216.

73
Ankeri v State of Rajasthan AIR 1994 SC 842, Shangara v State of Punjab (1994) Cr LJ 1098 (SC).
the intended injuries which are also sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to result in death,
each of the accused is guilty of committing murder.74

C. WHETHER THE ACCUSED AND CO-ACCUSED OBSTRUCTED THE PUBLIC SERVANT WHILE
HE WAS DISCHARGING HIS LAWFUL DUTIES.
It is humbly submitted before the Hon‟ble court that the accused and the co – accused in the
present matter obstructed the public servant from discharging his duties and thus are punishable
under s.186 of IPC. This is a general section and provides for punishment for the offence of
„voluntarily‟ obstructing a public servant in the discharge of his public functions. 75 Ingredients of
the offence under this section are: (a) the obstruction to the public servant was done by the
accused voluntarily, and (b) The obstruction was done in the discharge of the public functions.

The use of the word „voluntarily‟ indicates that the legislature contemplated the commission of
some overt act of obstruction and did not intend to render penal more passive conduct, 76 In other
words „obstruction‟ denotes some overt act in the nature of violence or show of violence. 77 It
suffices if there is either a show of force or a threat of force, or preventing the execution of any
act by a public servant.78

It must be shown that the obstruction or resistance was offered to a public servant in the
discharge of his duties or public functions as authorized by law. 79The accused in Santosh kumar
Jain v. State, voluntarily obstructed a public servant at a time when he was acting in the course
of his official duty, but it was contended that the officers had exceeded his official duty and that
the act which was obstructed was not among his authorized functions and. However, on evidence

74
Anda v State of Rajasthan AIR 1966 SC 148, Anda v State of Rajasthan (1966) Cr LJ 171.
75
Santosh Kumar Jain v. State, AIR 1951 SC 201

76
Q.E. v. Sommanna, 1827 ILR 15 Mdr. 221

77
Phudki v. Stae of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1955 All 104.

78
Babulal, 1956 Bom LR 1021.

79
Odwil Devaki Amma v. State of Kerala, 1982 Cr LJ 11 Ker (NOC)
in the case it was held that the accused had in fact obstructed the officer in carrying out the legal
functions attached to his office and was accordingly convicted under this section.

1. PUBLIC SERVANT ACTING IN GOOD FAITH AND UNDER COLOR OF HIS OFFICE.
If the public servant is acting in good faith under color of his office there is no right of private
defense against such act.80. Section 186 contemplates obstruction of a public servant in the
discharge of his public duty.81 Section 186 contemplates obstruction of a public servant in the
discharge of his public duty. Every police-officer shall, for all purposes in this act contained, be
considered to be always on duty, and may at any time be employed as a police-officer in any part
of the general police-district.82

It shall be the duty of every police-officer promptly to obey and execute all orders and to
communicate intelligence affecting the public peace; to prevent the commission of offences and
public nuisances; to detect and bring offenders to justice and to apprehend all persons whom he
is legally authorized to apprehend; and it shall be lawful for every police officer, for any of the
purposes mentioned in this section, to stop a person by creating public nuisance83 which was
exactly what police inspector Amit Chaudhary was doing at the time when the accused hit him
and caused his death.

2. VOLUNTARY OBSTRUCTION TO PUBLIC SERVANT

Whoever voluntarily obstructs any public servant in the discharge of his public functions shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months,
or with fine which may extend to rs. 500,or with both. 84 A person seriously obstructing, insulting
and jostling a process-server in the execution of his duty is guilty of the offence under the above

80
Poomalai Udayan, (1898) 21 Mad 296; Pukot Kotu, (1896) 19 Mad 349.
81
Bhaga Mana, (1927) 30 Bom LR 1124.

82
The Police Act, 1861

83
State of Karnataka v Jinappa Payappa Kudachi (1994) Supp 1 SCC 178, (1994) SCC (Cr) 330; Mubbi v State of
Madhya Pradesh (1999) SCC (Cr) 1314.

84
Indian Penal Code, 1860 S.186.
stated provision.85 Where public officer acts properly in carrying out orders which are not
obviously or patently illegal or upon the face of them not open to objection, any resistance to the
same is an offence under this provision. 86 The prosecution must show that a public servant was
discharging public duties imposed upon him by law while prosecuting a person for the
obstruction of a public servant in the discharge of his public functions.87

To constitute „obstruction‟, it is not necessary that there must be actual criminal force. Show or
threat of force or any act preventing execution of the process of civil court is sufficient. 88 It is not
open to a party to obstruct a public servant in the discharge of his duties even if the public
servant has been told by the party that he must not act as such.89

85
Jatto v Emperor AIR 1915 Lah 456.
86
. Birdhi Chand Jaipuria v Darbari Jayaswal AIR 1932 Pat 276

87
Jamnadas Tharoomal v Emperor AIR 1940 Sind 42.

88
State v B G Misar AIR 1957 Bom 10.

89
S.Ram lah In Re AIR 1951 Mad 773.
 SURANA AND SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016
o

PRAYER
Wherefore, In Light Of The Issues Raised, Arguments Advanced And Authorities Cited, May
This Hon„Ble Court Be Pleased To:

1. A) Convict, Abhishek Lepat For The Manslaughter Of A Police Officer On Duty

Charged Under Section 186, 304 Read With Section 34 Of The Indian Penal Code, 1860.

B) Convict, Angad Lepat For The Manslaughter Of A Police Officer On Duty Charged
Under Section 186,107, 304 Read With Section 34 Of The Indian Penal Code, 1860.

C) Convict, Dushyant For The Manslaughter Of A Police Officer On Duty Charged

Under Section 107, 304 Read With Section 34 Of The Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2. Declare A Sentence Of Rigorous Imprisonment For All Three For A Term Which May
Extend To Ten Years, And Also Be Liable To Fine, Under Section 304 Of The Indian
Penal Code, 1860.

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: S/D

Date: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION