Your Name: Arvind Sankar

Class Roll No.: 17BBA013

Party you are representing: Arvind Sankar (Defence against charge for Murder and Culpable Homicide)
Client Goals, Objectives, or Concerns (immediate/long term):
Defence for charge against murder.

Brief Facts, i.e. Client’s Story:

I (Arvind) and my generously proportioned friend Sagnik went on a vacation to (say) Darjeeling. We
came across a bridge, under which passed railway tracks on the eve of our third day of vacation (i.e.
17:34 of 17th August 2021). Both of us stood there looking at the scenic beauty of the location and
contemplated the answer to life, universe and everything (at least I did). However, an approaching train
interrupted our thought. While Sagnik started taking selfies with the train approaching from a distance, I
decided to have a peek down the track at the other side of the bridge (about 3 minutes after our arrival).
To my horror, I realized there were 5 workmen on the tracks who were so consumed with their work that
they could neither notice the approaching train nor hear me alerting them of the approaching train. I
looked around for a way to save these workmen, but I was only able to find one, i.e. push Sagnik onto the
track and hope he stops the train. I had some ethical reservations on doing this but he was pouting for
selfies anyway.
I pushed him and he fell on the tracks as intended. The train hit him and derailed before it reached the
workmen, saving all 5 of the workmen. Fortunately, Sagnik too got off with just a scratch. However,
since the train had come to a sudden halt that led to its derailment (17:39 was recorded as the time of
derailment), all 42 train passengers died. I have now been charged for murder and culpable homicide of
the train passengers.
Additional information received during client interview:
1. Sagnik’s fall broke the railway sleepers (the components that are responsible for maintaining
equal distance between the rails), which in-turn deformed the rails.
Possible Case Theories:
1. Both Arvind and Sagnik arrived at the bridge at 17:34. Both saw the train approaching at around
17:37, which is when Arvind found the workmen on the other side of the Bridge. Given that the
train derailed at 17:39, Arvind had two whole minutes to decide whether to push Sagnik off the
bridge. Arvind deliberately pushed Sagnik with the intention of causing his death, with full
knowledge that it would risk the lives of the passengers. Hence, this amounts to murder.
2. Arvind intentionally committed an act that was likely to cause Sagnik’s death, although the
commission of the act lead to the death of persons whom he had no intention of causing death to.
Hence, this amounts to Culpable Homicide under Section 301 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Arvind pushed Sagnik in good faith in order to protect the 5 workmen on the tracks; albeit the
push resulted in an anticipatable consequence. Arvind did not push Sagnik with an intention of
causing the death of the train passengers nor did he have the knowledge that it would result in the
deaths of the passengers. Hence, this does not satisfy the requirements of both murder or culpable
homicide.
Which among them is the most persuasive story in your opinion? Give reasons:
In my opinion, theory three sounds to be most persuasive.
The act of pushing Sagnik off the bridge was a deliberate and intentional act that was likely to cause his
death. However, Arvind did not commit this act with the intention of causing the death of the train
passengers. Rather the act was done in goodfaith in order to protect the lives of the workmen.
With respect to Section 300, no act was committed with the intention of either causing death; bodily
injury that is likely to cause death; bodily injury inflicted that is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature
to cause death; or intentionally commit an act that is imminently so dangerous that it is in all probability
likely to cause death. The lack of ‘intention’ to cause death of the train passengers makes this provision
inapplicable in this situation.
With respect to Section 301 (read with 299), which states that if any person intentionally commits an act
that is likely to cause death that results in the death of a person whose death was not intended shall
amount to culpable homicide as if the death of such a person was intended, here the death of the train
passengers could not have been anticipated. There could not have been intention or knowledge that
pushing Sagnik onto the tracks is likely to cause death of the train passengers. The only act committed in
these set of facts indicates intention to cause Sagnik’s death, and no act was committed with the intention
or knowledge of risking/causing death to the train passengers. Additionally, the death of the passengers
was caused by the derailment of the train due to the sleepers breaking and deforming the rails on Sagnik’s
fall. It is difficult to show proximity between the push and the statistically improbable event of the
sleepers breaking which in-turn deformed the tracks and derailed the train. Furthermore, the doctrine of
‘transfer of malice’ is inapplicable as the act was performed in goodfaith.
Good Facts: (Which facts go in your favour?)
1. There was no intention nor motive to cause death to the train passengers.
2. There was only 2 minutes to make a decision.
3. Sufficient efforts were made to alert the workmen, although to no avail. Pushing Sagnik was the
last resort.
4. The derailment of the train was caused by deformation of the rails due to the damage caused to
the sleepers.
Bad Facts: (Which facts go against you?)
1. Sagnik was pushed with the intention that he may be able to stop the train, i.e. a bad fact with
respect to undertaking the risk of causing his death.
2. Pushing Sagnik onto the track to stop the train also risked causing bodily injury or death to the
train passengers, despite its statistical improbability.
What are you going to say to counter your bad facts?
1. The acts were committed in goodfaith.
2. The act was committed with reliance on the utilitarian philosophy.
 Case Analyses Chart

Opponent’s Legal Claim Elements of Opponent’s Facts to support My Defence(s) Facts to Support my defence Source of Proof Informal Discovery Formal Discovery
Claim Opponent’s claim
- Murder under For Murder Sagnik was intentionally For Murder - The act was committed in - Arvind’s - Arvind’s - Post-accident
Secion 300 of IPC - Death is caused by the pushed while fully - The death of the train good faith, i.e. in order to testimony/ testimony reports.
- Culpable Homicide commission of acknowledging the risk that passengers was neither save the lives of 5 statements - Sagnik’s - Testimonies of
under Section 301 Culpable homicide such an act is likely to cause caused with the intention workmen. - Sagnik’s testimony the accident
r/w Section 299 of with the intention of his death. The death of the of causing death under - There was no intention of testimony/ - Metadata on investigators.
IPC either causing death; train passengers was a direct first part Section 300 nor causing the death of the statements after Sagnik’s - Report on
bodily injury that is consequence of pushing was the act so train passengers, not could the incident selfies to maintenance of
likely to cause death; Sagnik onto the tracks. It was imminently dangerous to it have been anticipatable - Investigation prove the railway tracks
bodily injury inflicted a deliberate, intentional act the train passengers that that such an act would report on the duration of - Witness accounts
that is sufficient in the that could cause the death of it would cause their cause the death of the train accidents time from the
ordinary course of the train passengers. deaths. passenger. - Report on between workmen
nature to cause death; For Culpable Homicide - There were only 2 minutes maintenance of identifying
or intentionally - There is no causal to find a solution in the said railway tracks workmen
commit an act that is relationship with the act situation. and time of
imminently so and the result as pushing - The cause of death of the accident.
dangerous that it is in Sagnik onto the tracks is passengers was the
all probability likely not proximate to the derailment of the train due
to cause death. breaking of sleepers to breaking of the sleepers
For Culpable Homicide which in-turn deformed which in-turn deformed the
- If any person the tracks and derailed rails.
intentionally commits the train. This event is
an act that is likely to statistically improbable
cause death that results and could not have been
in the death of a anticipated in the given
person whose death situation.
was not intended, it - The act of pushing
shall amount to Sagnik onto the tracks
culpable homicide as was done in good faith,
if the death of such a i.e. without malice.
person was intended.