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.