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 workmen. statements - Sagnik’s - Testimonies of
under Section 301 Culpable homicide such an act is likely to cause caused with the intention - There was no intention of - Sagnik’s testimony the accident
r/w Section 299 of with the intention of his death. The death of the of causing death under causing the death of the train testimony/ - Metadata on investigators.
IPC either causing death; train passengers was a direct first part Section 300 nor passengers, not could it have statements after Sagnik’s - Report on
bodily injury that is consequence of pushing was the act so imminently been anticipatable that such the incident selfies to maintenance of
likely to cause death; Sagnik onto the tracks. It was dangerous to the train an act would cause the death - Investigation prove the railway tracks
bodily injury inflicted a deliberate, intentional act passengers that it would of the passenger. report on the duration of - Witness accounts
that is sufficient in the that could cause the death of cause their deaths. - There were only 2 minutes train accidents time from the
ordinary course of the train passengers. For Culpable Homicide to find a solution in the said - Report on between workmen
nature to cause death; - There is no causal situation. maintenance of identifying
or intentionally relationship with the act - The cause of death of the railway tracks workmen
commit an act that is and the result as pushing passengers was the and time of
imminently so Sagnik onto the tracks is derailment of the train due to accident.
dangerous that it is in not proximate to the breaking of the sleepers
all probability likely breaking of sleepers which in-turn deformed the
to cause death. which in-turn deformed rails.
For Culpable Homicide the tracks and derailed the
- If any person train. This event is
intentionally commits statistically improbable
an act that is likely to and could not have been
cause death that results anticipated in the given
in the death of a person situation.
whose death was not - The act of pushing Sagnik
intended, it shall onto the tracks was done
amount to culpable in good faith, i.e. without
homicide as if the malice.
death of such a person
was intended.