This is the memorandum prepared for class work and the fact is of

same as of Reg Vs. Govinda (1877) ILR 1 Bom. 342 case and;

Submitted to: Submitted By:

Dr. (Mrs.) Babita Baraiya Sumit Kumar
Roll No.: 20225LLB076
Section : C
Furthermore, the memorandum is prepared on behalf of the
Respondent i.e GOVINDA

PAGE| 0
 SUMIT KUMAR (20225LLB076)

BEFORE THE HON’BLE

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION NO.: / 2021

UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

Reg (Equivalent to POI) through UOI

(Appellant)
VS.

Govinda
(Respondent)

IN RESPONSE OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION UNDER

ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
CHALLENGING THE SENTENCE OF CULPABLE HOMICIDE
AND PRAY TO CONVERT IT INTO MURDER

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTS

PAGE|1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS....................................................................................................4

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES......................................................................................................5

I. BOOKS AND COMMENTARIES REFERRED...............................................................5

II. STATUTES REFERRED .................................................................................................5

III. DICTIONARY REFFERED……………………………………………………………5

IV. ONLINE SITES REFFERED…………………………………………………………..5

V. TABLE OF CASES…………………………………………………………………….6

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION…………………………………………………………..7

STATEMENT OF FACTS ........................................................................................................8

CHARGE LABELLED………………………………………………………………………9

ISSUES RAISED.....................................................................................................................10

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS.............................................................................................11

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED .................................................................................................12

1. THE APPEAL IS NOT MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THIS HON’BLE COURT 13

1.1 Irrespective of the locus standi of the Appellants, the Petition for Special Leave is not
maintainabl……………………………………………………………………12, 13

1.2 Scope of powers under article 136………………………………………………….13

1.3 Grounds on which appeal are granted not satisfied: ..................................................14

1.4 Grounds of Rejections………………………………………………………………14

2. WHETHER THE ACT WAS MURDER OR CULPABLE HOMICIDE………………15

2.1 Definitions ……………………………….……………………………………………..15,16

2.2 Analysis of evidence adduced……………….………………………………………….16,17

3. WHAT THE PUNISHMENT INFLICTED BY BOMBAY HIGH COURT IS

SUFFICIENT…………………………………………………………………………18

3.1 The injury get by respondent is irreparable…….……………………………………..18

Page | 2
-MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTS-
3.2 The act come under punishment of section 304 para
II………………………………………………………………………………18

PRAYER……………………………………………………………………………..19

Page | 3
-MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTS-
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

1. &: And

2. AIR: All India Reporter

3. Bom : Bombay

4. Cal: Calcutta

5. Co.: Company

6. Corp.: Corporation

7. CrPC: The code of criminal procedure, 1973

8. Edn.: Edition

9. IPC: The Indian penal code, 1860

10. Hon’ble: Honourable

11. HC : High Court

12. Ltd: Limited

13. No: Number

14. Ors: Others

15. POI: The president of India

16. P/pp: Page/Pages

17. Pvt.: Private

18. SC: Supreme Court

19. SCC: Supreme Court Cases

20. SCR: Supreme Court Reports

21. Sec./S.: Section

22. Ss.: Sections

23. v/Vs: Versus

24. vol.: Volume

Page | 4
-MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTS-
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

I. BOOKS AND COMMENTARIES REFERRED:

1. A Book on criminal Law By PSA Pillai 14th edition
2. Ohio state law journal and Cambridge Law journal
3. Dias jurisprudence Vth edition

II. STATUTES REFERRED:

1. The Indian Penal code, 1860
2. The code of criminal procedure, 1973

III. DICTIONARIES REFFERED:

1. Oxford dictionary
2. Law lexicon
3. Merriam webster

IV. ONLINE SITES REFFERED:

1. Indiankanoon.com
2. Casemines.com
3. Supreme court cases
4. SCC online

Page | 5
-MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTS-
V. TABLE OF CASES: Cases
S.No. P.No.
1. N. Suriyakala v. A. Mohandoss, (2007) 9 SCC 196…………………………………………………12
2. Pritam Singh v. The State, AIR 1950 SC 169………………………………………………………..12
3. A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 2007 SC 1546………………………12
4. Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2004 SC 3467………………………………….12
5. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 2004 SC 4618………………………………………………….12
6. Aero Traders Private Limited v. Ravider Kumar Suri, AIR 2005 SC 15……………………………12
7. Sanwat singh Vs State of rajstahn AIR 1961 SC 715……..……………………………….12
8. Taherkhatoon v. Sala,bin Mohammam, AIR 1999 SC 1104……………………………….13
9. Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala, (2000) 245 ITR 360 (SC)………………………………13
10. Chief Administrator cum Jt. Secretary, Government of India v. D. C. Dass, AIR 1999 SC
186……………………………………………………………………………………………14
11. Siemens Eng & Mfg Co. v. Union of India, AIR 1976 SC 1785…………………………..14
12. Clerks of Calcutta Tramways v. Calcutta Tramways Co. Ltd., AIR 1957 SC 78………….14
13. City Corner v. P.A. to the Collector, AIR 1976 SC 143……………………………………14
14. Mohan Lal v. Management, Bharat Electronics Ltd., AIR 1981 SC 1253…………………14
15. Kunhayammed and ors Vs. State of Keraka and ors. 2000 (6) SCC 359……………………14
16. Ibid…………………………………………………………………………………………14
17. Inder singh Bagga singh Vs State of Pepsu AIR 1955 SC 439………………………….16

18. Sayaji Hanmat Baukar Vs. State of Maharastra AIR 2011 SC 3172…………………….17
19. Kedar Nath Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (1991) Cr LJ 989 (SC)……………………….. 17
20. S.D. Soni Vs. State of Gujrat (1991) Cr LJ 330 (SC)…………………………………….. 17

Page | 6
-MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTS-
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

THE COUNSEL FOR THE ALLEGED CONTEMNER, VINAY

CHANDRA MISHRA, HEREBY HUMBLY SUBMIT TO THIS

HON’BLE COURT’S JURISDICTION UNDER ARTICLE 136

OF THE CONSTITUTION OF UNION OF INDIA.

THE RESPONDENT WOULD LIKE TO HUMBLY SUBMIT

THAT THIS SPECIAL LEAVE FOR APPEAL IS NOT

MAINTAINABLE.

Page | 7
-MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTS-
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

• Accused Govind who is of 18 was living with his wife- the deceased
who is of age 15.
• One day they quarreled, and at the spur moment accused kicked his
wife and to have struck her several times with his fist on the back.
• These blows caused no serious injury so that death could be the
consequence
• But the deceased fell on the ground.
• As the accused was distressed, so in that moment he put one knee on
the chest of the deceased and struck her two or three times on her face.
• After this happening, the girls died on the spot or very shortly
afterwards.
• The session court convicted the accused under section 302 of IPC but
High Court of Bombay convicted the accused under section 304 of IPC
and inflicted a sentence of seven years of imprisonment.

Page | 8
-MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTS-
 CHARGE LABELLED

• THE RESPONDENT IS CHARGED UNDER SECTION 302

OF IPC BUT CONVICTED UNDER SECTION 304 OF IPC.
.

Page | 9
-MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTS-
 ISSUE RAISED

1. WHETHER THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE

THIS HON’BLE COURT.

2. WHETHER IT WAS MURDEFR OR CULPABLE HOMICIDE?

3. WHETHER THE PUNSHIMENT INFLICTED BY THE BOMBAY

HIGH COURT IS SUFFICIENT?

Page | 10
-MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTS-
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION IS NOT MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THIS

HON’B LE COUR T.

It is humbly submitted to this Hon’ble Court that in the given factual matrix, there is
no necessity to entertain this special leave petition. It is the extra-ordinary power given to the
apex court and is exercised sparingly and cautiously and for the ends of justice. In this case
the accused is already punished, he had lost his wife and court also imprisoned him. The
extent of punishment which was inflicted by Bombay high court and nature is very high.

2. WHETHER IT WAS MURDER OR CULPABLE HOMICIDE?

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that the incident was spur of moment and not
intentional. Cause of death was concussion or extravasation of blood on the surface or in the
substance of the brain. The injury inflicted by the accused was not of such a nature that in
ordinary course of nature to cause death. Furthermore, time of death is also not clear. No any
grievous hurt was seen on the body of the deceased. Seeing all these incidents, it is clear that
there was no intention to cause death, so it comes under the purview of culpable homicide.

3. WHETHER THE PUNISHMENT INFLICTED BY THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT

IS SUFFICIENT?

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that accused tender age should be taken into
consideration. As he has lost his wife so this punishment is for his whole life . Furthermore
the High court inflicted seven years imprisonment which is more than required for the
culpable homicide. The accused has his full life ahead, and he has remorse over the incident.
He has
great tendency to reform as remorse is the medicine from which it can be judged.

Page | 11
-MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTS-
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. THE APPEAL IS NOT MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THIS HON’BLE COURT

1.1 Irrespective of the locus standi of the Appellants, the Petition for Special Leave is not
maintainable
1.1.1 Article 136 does not confer a Right of Appeal, but merely, a discretionary power to the
Supreme Court to be exercised for satisfying the demands of justice under exceptional
circumstances1. In Pritam Singh v. The State2, the Supreme Court held that the power under
Article 136 is to be exercised sparingly and in exceptional cases only. In concluding
the discussion on Article 136 in the same case, it was held the by the Supreme Court that ‘
Generally speaking, this court will not grant Special Leave, unless it is shown that exceptional
and special circumstances exist, that substantial and grave injustice has been done and that
the case in question presents features of sufficient gravity to warrant a review of the decision
appealed against.’

1.1.2 Although the power has been held to be plenary, limitless 3, adjunctive, and
unassailable4, in M. C. Mehta v. Union of India5 and Aero Traders Private Limited v.
Ravider Kumar Suri6, it was held that the powers under Article 136 should be
exercised with caution and in accordance with law and set legal principles.

1.1.3 In case of Sanwat singh Vs. State of Rajsthan 7 this Hon’ble court held that Article 136
vests discretionary power which cannot be exhaustively defined but does not
permit interference unless substantial and grave injustice has been done and the conscience of
the court is shocked. This case was related to related to riot in which two farmers were death
and several injured. On acquittal of accused by session court, high court convicted them but
when they go in appeal under Article 136, the court didn’t entertain the appeal and rejected the
same.

1.1.4 In this case the accused is punished for seven years of imprisonment and lost his wife
which is a punishment that he will be punished throughout of his remaining life.

1
N. Suriyakala v. A. Mohandoss, (2007) 9 SCC 196
2
Pritam Singh v. The State, AIR 1950 SC 169
3
A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 2007 SC 1546
4
Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2004 SC 3467
5
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 2004 SC 4618
6
Aero Traders Private Limited v. Ravider Kumar Suri, AIR 2005 SC 15
7. AIR 1961 SC 715 page| 12
MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTS-
With this in mind, it is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that this petition should
not
be accepted. As the accused is already punished for throughout for his life.

1.2 Scope of Powers under Article 136:

1.2.1 It is humbly submitted that if Special Leave is granted, the matter is registered as an
appeal and the Court does not take into cognizance all the points that may arise on appeal and
decide them on Merits8. The Supreme Court has also held that “it is not bound to go into
merits and even if we do so and declare the law or point out the error – still we may not
interfere if the justice of the case on facts does not require interference or if we feel that the
relief could be moulded in a different fashion.”9

1.2.2 The Supreme Court in Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala10 held that Article 136
consists of two distinct stages, the first stage where the matter is merely being decided if it is
to be accepted as an appeal or not; if the Supreme Court decides to adjudicate the matter, it
becomes an appeal, if otherwise, the matter was never an appeal.

1.2.3 Hence, it is humbly submitted to this Hon’ble Court that by reason of lack of any
specific matter that requires the intervention of this Hon’ble Court, the Court need not
entertain the matter; however, if this Hon’ble Court does decide to accept the Petition for
Special Leave, it is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that the accused is punished
for remaining of his life, this court should lessen the quantum of punishment. Also, accused is
of tender age, so he has his full life and that should not be destroyed.

1.2.4 Hence, it is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court to dismiss the Special Leave
and Grant the bail to the accused so that he will try to live with the society and will become
the valuable member of the society.

8
Taherkhatoon v. Sala,bin Mohammam, AIR 1999 SC 1104
9
Taherkhatoon v. Sala,bin Mohammam, AIR 1999 SC 1104
10
Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala, (2000) 245 ITR 360 (SC)

MEMORIAL OF THE RESPONDENT PAGE| 13

 1.3 Grounds on which appeal are granted not satisfied:
1.3.1 The Supreme Court has exercised its Jurisdiction under Article 136 under the following
circumstances-

(i) When the Tribunal ostensibly fails to exercise its patent jurisdiction.11

(ii) When there is an apparent error on the face of the decision12.

(iii) The tribunal has erroneously applied well-accepted principles of jurisprudence13

(iv) The tribunal acts against the principles of Natural Justice 14, or has approached the question in a
manner likely to cause injustice15

1.3.2 In the instant case the matter is not heard before the Hon’ble court that there is no error in the high c ourt
decision, he was not acquitted by the high court, there is no grave injustice done on the face of law and
no serious matter of law arise. Thus, this SLP should not be accepted by this Hon’ble Court.

1.4 Grounds of Rejection

1.4.1 In Kunhayammed and Others v. State of Kerala and Another16, it was held that a petition seeking grant of
special leave to appeal may be rejected for several reasons The question raised by the petitioner for considerati on
by this Court being not fit for consideration or deserving being dealt with by the Apex Court; it is humbly
submitted that there is no ground for invoking this Hon’ble Court’s jurisdiction under Article 136.

10 Chief Administrator cum Jt. Secretary, Government of India v. D. C. Dass, AIR 1999 SC 186
11
Siemens Eng & Mfg Co. v. Union of India, AIR 1976 SC 1785
12
Clerks of Calcutta Tramways v. Calcutta Tramways Co. Ltd., AIR 1957 SC 78
13 City Corner v. P.A. to the Collector, AIR 1976 SC 143
14
Mohan Lal v. Management, Bharat Electronics Ltd., AIR 1981 SC 1253
15
Kunhayammed and ors Vs. State of Keraka and ors. 2000 (6) SCC 359
16 Ibid.

MEMORIAL OF THE RESPONDENT PAGE| 14

 2. WHETHER THE ACT COMMITTED WAS MURDER OR CULPABLE HOMICIDE?

2.1 Definition of Murder and culpable homicide

2.1.1 Definition of culpable homicide under section 299 of IPC

Culpable homicide—Whoever causes death by 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.
2.1.2 definition of Murder under section 300 of IPC
Murder. —Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the
death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or—

(Secondly) —If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to
cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or—

(Thirdly) —If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended
to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or—

(Fourthly) —If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all
probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any
excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.

Exception 1.—When culpable homicide is not murder.—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
rson who gave the provocation or causes the death of any other person by mistake or accident. The above
pe
exception is subject to the following provisos:—
( o (First)—That the provocation is not sought or voluntarily provoked by the offender as an excuse for killing
r ( doing harm to any person.
se (Secondly)—That the provocation is not given by anything done in obedience to the law, or by a public
( drvant in the lawful exercise of the powers of such public servant.
e (Thirdly)—That the provocation is not given by anything done in the lawful exercise of the right of private
fence.
to Explanation—Whether the provocation was grave and sudden enough to prevent the offence from amounting
murder is a question of fact.
of Exception 2.—Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, in the exercise in good faith of the right
pe private defense of person or property, exceeds the power given to him by law and causes the death of the
doing
rson against whom he is exercising such right of defense without premeditation, and without any intention of
more harm than is necessary for the purpose of such defense
se Exception 3.—Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, being a public servant or aiding a public
byrvant acting for the advancement of public justice, exceeds the powers given to him by law, and causes death
sucdoing an act which he, in good faith, believes to be lawful and necessary for the due discharge of his duty as
h public servant and without ill-will towards the person whose death is caused.
fight Exception 4.—Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden
a in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue advantage or
cted in a cruel or unusual manner.
Explanation.—It is immaterial in such cases which party offers the provocation or commits the first assault.
a Exception 5.—Culpable homicide is not murder when the person whose death is caused, being above the
ge of eighteen years, suffers death or takes the risk of death with his own consent.

MEMORIAL OF THE RESPONDENT PAGE| 15

 2.1.3 Analysis of these two sections:
Killing of a man by another man is called homicide. Homicide is divided into two parts:
(i) Culpable homicide amounting to murder
(ii) Culpable homicide not amounting to murder
Murder definition in common parlances: Murder means when one person is killed by another person or a group of
persons who have a pre-determined intention to end life of the former.
So the term intention is crucial for this case.
2.1.4 Definition of Intention:
Intention could be defined as when a person has desire of the act and foresight of the consequence then it
am ounts to strong intention. Desire of the act is also called the direct intent or purpose intent whereas foresight of
equence is also called the indirect intent or oblique intent. Desire of the intent is subjective in nature whereas foresig ht
cons
of the consequence is objective. The core of “intention” is surely aim, objective, or purpose; whatever else “intention”
may mean, a person surely acts with intention to kill if killing is the aim, objective, or purpose of the
conduct that causes death.’ and all these can be inferred by the evidence tendered in the court of law and facts and
circumstances of the case.
2.1.5 Definition of Knowledge
Knowledge, requires the actor’s “awareness” that the circumstance exists; awareness of a “high probability” that
the circumstance exists is sufficient. Mental states are usually required regarding offense elements other than
circumstances—the nature of the actor’s conduct or the results of the actor’s conduct- OHIO STATE JOURNAL OF
CRIMINAL LAW
2.2 ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE ADDUCED IN THIS CASE BEFORE THE COURT OF LAW:

2.2.1 Intention was lacking from the act of the accused

As it is evident from the evidence on record before this Hon’ble court that when respondent started beating, then hi
l blows were on the back side of the deceased which is not so prone part that the death could be consequence in commons
al par
lances. Furthermore, when she fallen on ground then the respondent blows two or three fist near the left eye of the
dec
eased, but medical report on record shows that with these blows there was no any skull fracture, nor any bone fracture
happe
ned. So these blows were also not the cause of the death of the deceased.
2.2.2 Knowledge of the committed act to cause death in all probabilities was lacking?
As defined above, knowledge requires the actor’s awareness that the circumstances exist. With the act of the espondent
r and evidence adduced before this court it is evident that the respondent want to give only hurt, even he has no
intention nor knowledge to give grievous hurt. It is an unfortunate incident that happened which should not be happened.

2.2.3 on close analysis of section 300(4), it is clear that person have knowledge of his act that act is so imminently
dange rous that in all probabilities death will be the consequence. It is clear from the medical record that there were no
grievous hurt, only blowing fist on back and on face, which is not prone or sensitive part of the body, did not amount to
cause in common parlances. So evidence on record shows that section 300(4) is lacking in the manner that there was no
any probability to cause death by the respondent’s blows.
2.2.4 Happening of the incident
As it should be seen that the deceased was the respondent’s wife. They were living together under a roof.
Respondent started to beat, but why? There might be a strong possibility that there will be some provocation, or the
incident took place at spur of moment under some provocation. With this in mind, it will also fall in the category of
pr
oviso of section 300 and it will not be a murder.
2.2.5 In case of Inder Singh Bagga Singh Vs. State of Pepsu17, appellant had given six blows with lathi stick on
the head of the deceased, one of which fractured his skull. The deceased died three weeks after the incident. The injury
which broke the skull had caused the depression in the brain and death was due to brain Hemorrhage. This court held that
the appellant was convicted under section 304 i.e. for culpable homicide. This court gave three reasons for that:
(i) Lathi was not a iron rod and deceases being a young man could bear the blows.
(ii) Intention was lacking
(iii) The injury was not sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.

17. AIR 1955 SC 439

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT PAGE| 16

2.2.6 In case of Sayaji Hanmat Baukar Vs. State of Maharastra 18 this court held that if the
act is done without premeditation in a sudden fight or in the heat of passion upon a sudden
quarrel and if the offender does not take any undue advantage or act in a cruel or unusual
manner, then it will come under the ambit of culpable homicide. In the present case the
respondent didn’t take any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner. Furthermore, the cause
if death is uncertain. Thus it shall be culpable homicide.
2.2.7 in case of Kedar Nath Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 19 this court held that when there is
no evidence as to how death came about, evidence relating to charge of murder was held to be
insufficient and unacceptable. In this present case, the cause of death is extravasation of blood
which is not related to any of the act that was committed by the respondent. Death caused due to
deceased was lying on the floor and due to cold it causes death.
2.2.8 In case of S.D. Soni Vs. State of Gujrat20 this Hon’ble court held that in case of murder
in which the conclusion of guilt is drawn by the prosecution it must be fully established beyond
all reasonable doubt and consistent with the guilt of the accused. In the present case, and in the
high court decision it is clear that the cause of death is not certain. A probability is drawn that
this could be the reason.
This is clear from the judgement in which it is stated that a violent blow in the eye from a man's
fist, while the person struck is lying with his or her head on the ground, is certainly likely to
cause death, either by producing concussion or extravasation of blood on the surface or in the
substance of the brain. A reference to Taylor's Medical Jurisprudence (Fourth Edition, page
294) will show how easily life may be destroyed by a blow on the head producing extravasation
of blood. Because the blow should be violent but in this present case blows were not violent as
there was no any fracture shown through the evidence. So the cause of extravasation of
blood is uncertain.

18.AIR 2011 SC 3172

19 (1991) Cr LJ 989 (SC)
20 (1991) Cr LJ 330 (SC)

MEMORIAL OF THE RESPONDENT PAGE |17

 ISSUE3: WHETHER THE PUNISHMENT INFLICTED BY THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IS
SUFFICIENT?

3.1 The injury which the respondent get is irreparable

3.1.1 As we know that husband and wife are the two wheels of a cart of life. In the unfortunate incident, the
respondent lost his one wheel for the remaining of his life. He has a long life to go as he is just 18 years old. The
incident was unfortunate but the high court punished him for seven years of imprisonment.
The criminal jurisprudence focus mainly on the reformative theory, with this in mind, this court
should to do justice with him so that he try to live in society. As he was convicted for culpable homicide, it will
be very difficult for him to live in a society where the people have no sympathy for him for the act which he
never intended to do.

3.2 The act come under the punishment under section 304 para II.
3.2.2 In the present case, neither the act was desired nor the foresight of the consequences are there. In
terms
a of criminal jurisprudence, this comes under a very weak mens rea called the Negligence. So, certainly the
ct come under the purview of culpable homicide and punishable under section 304 para II, under which the
maximum
the punishment is 10 years. So the punishment given by the Bombay high court is justified but because
soc respondent get an irreparable damage, this court should decrease his quantum of punishment and it is the
iety who can act in a manner so that he could live a dignified life.

MEMORIAL OF THE RESPONDENT PAGE|18

 PRAYER
Wherefore, in light of the facts of the case, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities
cited, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:

Find that:

1. There is no expediency to invoke the jurisdiction of this court in the instant case;

2. As it is evident that the respondent is only of age 18 years, so for the sake of justice
under reformative theory, this court if satisfied then please grant the bail to the
accused.

3. And if start the proceeding, then this court should lessen the punishment inflicted to the accused
by the Bombay high court.

And pass any other order that it may deem fit in the ends of justice, equity, and good
conscience. All of which is respectfully submitted.

PLACE ………………………………….
COUNSEL OF THE RESPONDENT
DATE ………………………………….

********************************************************

MEMORIAL OF THE RESPONDENT PAGE| 19

 Page | 19
-MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTS-
 Page | 20
-MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTS-
 Page | 20
-MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTS-