BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF AMPHISSA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

UNDER ARTICLE 132 AND 134 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF AMPHISSA

Criminal Appeal No. _____/ 2017

IN THE MATTER OF

STATE OF PALLAKA………………......…..……………….………… Appellant

v.

MICHAEL …………………………..………...........……………..…... Respondent

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS……………………………………………..3

2. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES………………………………………………4

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

4. STATEMENT OF FACTS………………………………………………...8

5. ISSUES RAISED…………………………………………………………..10

I. WHETHER THIS APPEAL PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE

HON’BLE SUPREME COURT?

II. WHETHER SUFFICIENT GROUNDS OF LEGAL INSANITY EXISTS SO

AS TO EXONERATE THE ACCUSED FROM LIABILITY OF MURDER?

III. WHETHER THE BURDEN OF PROOF OF LEGAL INSANITY ON THE

PART OF DEFENCE IS AT PAR WITH BURDEN OF PROOF ON PART OF
PROSECUTION?

6. SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS………………………………………………11

7. PLEADINGS ADVANCED…………………………………………………12

8. PRAYER FOR RELIEF……………………………………………………...25

-2-
 [A]. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

S.No ABBREVIATION EXPANSION

1. ¶/¶¶ Paragraph/Paragraphs

2. A.C Law Reports : Appeal Cases

3. AIR All India Reporter

4. All ER All England Law Reports

5. ANR Another

6. BC British Columbia
7. Bom Bombay
8. CA Civil Appeal
9. Cal Calcutta
10. Cri Criminal

11. CriLJ Criminal Law Journal

12. CrPC Criminal Procedure Code
13. E.R. England Reports
14. Fed Federal
15. Guj Gujarat
16. Hon‟ble Honorable

15. ILR Indian Law Reports

16. IPC Indian Penal Code
17. Ltd. Limited
18. M.P.L.J Madhya Pradesh Law Journal
19. MANU Manupatra
20 ORS Others

21. Pat. Patna

22. QBD Queen‟s Bench Division

-3-
 23. SC Supreme Court

24. SCR Supreme Court Reports

[B]. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

I. CONSTITUTION OF AMPHISSA

II. LIST OF STATUTES

• The Code of Criminal Procedure,1973

• The Indian Evidence Act,1872

• The Indian Penal Code,1860

II. LIST OF CASES

INDIAN CASES

S.NO Case Title Citation

1. Bhagwan Singh v. State of Haryana 1976 Cr LJ 203 (SC)

2. Guru Singh v. State of Rajasthan 2001 Cr LJ 487 (SC)

3. Jai Lal v. Delhi Administration AIR 1969 SC

4. K.Anbazaghan v. Superintendent of police

AIR 2004 SC 524

5. Kamla Singh v. State AIR 1955 Pat. 209

-4-
 6. Narain v. State 1953 Cr LJ 1610

7. Paramjeet Singh v. State MANU/DE/0244/2013

8. Queen Empress v. Kader Nasyer Shah (1896) ILR 23 Cal 604

9. Rambharose v. State of Madhya Pradesh 1974 M.P.L.J. 406

10. Sat Paul v. Delhi Administration AIR 1976 SC 294

11. State of U.P. v. Ramesh Prasad Misra and anr AIR 1996 SC 2766

12. Sukhram v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1989 SC 772

13. T. N. Lakshmaiah v. State of Karnataka (2002) 1 SCC 219

14. Yusuf v. State of U.P. 1973 Cr. LJ 1220

FOREIGN CASES

S.No. Case Title Citation

1. Queen v. McNaughten 8 Eng. Rep. 718

[1843]
2. State v. Andrea Yates 171 S.w.3d 215

3. The State v. Andrea Sneiderman 862 F. ed 1541 (Fe d.

Cir. 2012

-5-
LIST OF BOOKS

S.NO. TITLE

1. K. I. VIBHUTE, PSA PILLAI'S ED., LEXIS

CRIMINAL LAW (10TH BUTTERWORTHS,2008). NEXIS

2. MODI‟S, MEDICAL JURISPRUDENCE AND ED., LEXIS

TOXICOLOGY (23RD NEXIS

BUTTERWORTHS, 2006)
3. RATANLAL AND DHIRAJLAL, THE INDIAN PENAL CODE (30 TH EDITION,
WADHWA AND

COMPANY, 1896)

III. LIST OF JOURNAL

1. Insanity defense work group, American Psychiatric Association Statement on Insanity

Defense

IV. LIST OF INTERNET SOURCES

1. Hallucinations and Delusions – How to respond Canadian Mental Health Association,

http://www.cmha.ca/hallucinationsand delusions-howtorespond.pdf.

2. Malcom Mckenzie Park, The strange case of Andrea Yates and Dr Park Dietz, Dec 2008,
available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papaers.cfm?abstract_id=365241.

-6-
 [C]. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Appellant has approached the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of Amphissa under the Article
132 and 134 of the Constitution of Amphissa. The Appellant most humbly and respectfully
submits to the jurisdiction of the Honorable Supreme Court of Amphissa.

-7-
 [D]. STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. That on dated 25/02/2008, victim namely Late Jenny d/o Defrado , aged about 24 years
resident of Greater Ango Colony, Flemingo and respondent namely Michael s/o late John
aged about 29 years r/o 54/3 New Ext. Apartment, Flemingo were married according to
their religious rituals.

2. Their marital life was going smoothly but on some occasions Michael used to have few
verbal quarrels with victim but reconciled soon after the verbal fight.

3. That after the two years of wedlock victim gave birth to a baby girl on 4th September
2010 and the girl was named as Jennifer. After few months of the birth of Jennifer, victim
observed certain changes in the behaviour of respondent.

4. That after the birth of baby child Respondent started behaving in a rude way and he
usually becomes violent on every petty issue without any reason. Initially, victim did not
took the matter in serious way.

5. Victim took her husband Michael to the doctor Alfered (DW1), who was a psychiatrist.
The doctor advised Michael to have control over anger and to take certain medicines. The
doctor diagnosed him to be suffering from first stage of Bipolar Mood Disorder

6. That on dated 5th December 2010 at 11am, loud noise of fighting, crying and shouting
was coming from the house of Respondent. On hearing the cry Daniel (PW3) who was
neighbour of Michael went in the house of Michael and found Jenny lying unconscious on
the floor pooled in blood with various injuries on her body. At that time Daniel saw Michael
hiding a 7 inch Iron Axe in the garden.

7. That Thereafter PW.3 called the police and Jenny was taken to government hospital
whereby she was treated by Dr. Andrew (PW2). Respondent was arrested by police on the
same day and was kept in police custody.

8. That on 6th December, 2010 Jenny’s statement was recorded by Jaison (PW1) SHO of
Flemingo Police Station. In her statement victim told to the police that on 5th December at
10 am Michael came home and started fighting with her in a violent way and when she
resisted Michael attacked him with axe kept in the garden.

9. On 8th December Jenny died because of the injury in her lower abdomen which proved
fatal.
-8-
10. On the basis of the statement of Daniel and the dying declaration of Jenny FIR was
lodged against Michael vide. 733/2010 in Flemingo police station. Respondent was
prosecuted under Section 302 of IPC for the murder of victim. Final Report submitted on 3
Feb 2011 on which respondent was charged for murder of victim. The case (State of Pallaka
vs. Michael) was tried by the Session Court vide Session Trial No-57/2011.

9. That the Sessions Court found the respondent guilty for the Intentional murder of the
victim and convicted under section 302 of IPC and sentenced to 10 years Rigorous
Imprisonment.

10. The Respondent feeling aggrieved by the said judgment preferred an appeal before the
High Court of Pallaka on dated 9th October 2014 vide Criminal Appeal No. 875/2014. The
High Court relying on the version of the doctor treating the accused for Bipolar Mood
Disorder found that the accused at the time of committing crime was suffering from both
legal and medical insanity and accordingly the Court acquitted the accused from the charge
of murder on dated 5th September 2016.

State of Pallaka preferred an appeal before the Supreme Court of Amphissa against the
order of acquittal by the High Court of Pallaka on 17th of November 2016.

The case of State of Pallaka vs. Michael is listed before the Divisional Bench of Supreme
Court of Amphissa for final hearing on 10th Jan.2017.

HENCE THE PRESENT MATTER RESTS BEFORE THIS HONORABLE

COURT

-9-
 [E] ISSUES RAISED

I. Whether this appeal petition is maintainable before the Hon’ble Supreme Court?

II. Whether sufficient ground of legal insanity exists so as to exonerate the accused from
liability of murder.

III. Whether the burden of proof of legal insanity on the part of Defence is at par with
burden of proof on part of Prosecution.

- 10 -
 [F] SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

I. WHETHER THIS APPEAL IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE HON’BLE

SUPREME COURT?

It is humbly submitted before The Hon’ble Supreme Court of Amphissa that this
appeal petition is maintainable in this Court under Article 132 and 134 of Constitution
of Amphissa. Also the fact that the accused is liable for injuries (because both the
Mens Rea and as well as the Actus Reus were present) was neglected when the
accused was acquitted of the charge of murder.

II. WHETHER SUFFICIENT GROUND OF LEGAL INSANITY EXISTS SO AS

TO EXONERATE THE ACCUSED FROM LIABILITY OF MURDER?

It is humbly submitted Before The Hon’ble Supreme Court of Amphissa that the
respondent has prima facie failed to rebut the statutory presumption of absence of
circumstances, bringing his case u/s 84 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. So also, he
has failed to establish the fact that, at the time of commission, he was labouring under
the influence of unsoundness of mind, which has impaired his cognitive faculties to
such an extent, that he was unable to know the nature of his act.

III. WHETHER THE BURDEN OF PROOF OF LEGAL INSANITY ON THE

PART OF DEFENCE IS AT PAR WITH BURDEN OF PROOF ON PART OF
PROSECUTION?

It is humbly submitted Before The Hon’ble Supreme Court of Amphissa ,with

reference to the facts of the instant case, it is submitted that the prosecution has
proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the plea of the accused
taken in his defense does not even stands probabilised from the materials on record.

- 11 -
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

I. WHETHER THIS APPEAL IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE HON’BLE

SUPREME COURT?

It is most humbly submitted before The Hon’ble Supreme Court of Amphissa that this
appeal petition under section 132 and 134 of the Constitution of Amphissa is
maintainable.
Article 132 of The Constitution of Amphissa reads as follows:
An Appeal to the Supreme Court from any judgment, decree or final order of The
High Court, whether in civil, criminal, or other proceedings, if the High Court
certifies that the case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of
the Constitution.
Article 134 of The Constitution of Amphissa reads as follows:
An appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgment, final order or sentence in
a criminal proceeding of a High Court in the territory of India if the High Court has on
appeal reversed an order of acquittal of an accused person and sentenced him to death;
or has withdrawn for trial before itself any case from any court subordinate to its
authority and has in such trial convicted the accused person and sentenced him to
death; or

(c) certifies under Article 134A that the case is a fit one for appeal to the Supreme
Court: Provided that an appeal under sub clause (c) shall lie subject to such provisions
as may be made in that behalf under clause

( 1 ) of Article 145 and to such conditions as the High Court may establish or require

(2) Parliament may by law confer on the Supreme Court any further powers to
entertain and hear appeals from any judgment, final order or sentence in a criminal
proceeding of a High Court in the territory subject to such conditions and limitations as
may be specified in such law.

- 12 -
The power of the court to hear appeals in this article is much wider and general. It vests
in the SC plenary jurisdiction in the matter of entertaining and hearing appeals against:

(i) Any judgment, decree, determination, or order,

(ii) In any cause or matter,
(iii) Passed or made by any court or tribunal

The appellant in the present case has filed the appeal under article 132 and 134 as the
High Court has acquitted the accused (respondent) for the offence of murder and
hence is maintainable.
In Delhi Judicial Service Association Vs. State of Gujarat 1
It was held by The Supreme Court that :- Under Article 132 there is no room for any
doubt that this Court has wide power to interfere and correct the judgment and orders
passed by any court or tribunal in the country. In addition to the Appellate power, the
court has special residuary power to entertain appeal against any order of any court in
the country. The plenary jurisdiction of this Court is to grant leave and hear appeals
against any order of the court or tribunal, confers power of special superintendence
over all courts and tribunals including subordinate courts of Magistrate and District
Judge. This court has, therefore, supervisory jurisdiction over all courts in India.

In an another case of Arunachalam vs. P.S.R. Sadhanantham 2, it was again held by

the SC that:- Article 132 of the constitution of India invests the Supreme Court with a
plentitude of plenary, appellate power, over all courts and Tribunals in India. The
power is plenary in the sense that there are no words in Article 136 itself qualifying
that power. But, the very nature of the power has led the court to set limits to itself
within which to exercise such power.

1. 1991 AIR 2176, 1991 SCR (3) 936

2. 1979 AIR 1284

- 13 -
Under Article 136, the very exceptional circumstances, as when a question of law of general
public importance arises or a decision shocks the conscience of the Court. But, with findings
of fact, making no distinction between judgments of acquittal and conviction, if the High
Court, in arriving at those findings, has acted “perversely or otherwise improperly”

Here there has been the respondent murdered the victim and then also the respondent has
been acquitted from the offence of murder under section 302 of IPC committed by him. This
reckless behavior of High Court clearly proves that the decision was given perversely or
improperly, and thererfore, this petition is maintainable before the Supreme Court of
Amphissa.

In this case there has been miscarriage of justice as the accused was acquitted by the High
Court despite of the Commission of Murder. This petition cannot be dismissed and hence is
maintainable in this Hon’ble Court.

In case of Indira Kaur and ors Vs. Sheo Lal Kapoor 3 , it was held the following, If and
when the Court is satisfied that great injustice has been done it is not only the right but also
the duty of this court to reverse the error and the injustice and to upset the finding
notwithstanding that fact it has been affirmed thrice.

In this case also this Hon’ble Court has not only but it is also the duty of the SC to reverse the
error and injustice and pass an appropriate, just and equitable order.
In the present case there has been injustice with the victim and the appellant being the
aggrieved party seeks justice. Therefore, the appellant has approached the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in order to obtain justice.

3. (1998) 2 SCC 488, 499 AIR 1988 SC 1074

- 14 -
II. WHETHER SUFFICIENT GROUND OF LEGAL INSANITY EXISTS SO AS
TO EXONERATE THE ACCUSED FROM LIABILITY OF MURDER?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that crux of the instant matter rest
solely on the determination of one prime issue by this appellate Court, i.e., whether
Bipolar Mood Disorder can be taken as a plea of insanity or unsoundness of mind as
defined U/S 84 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, to neutralize the criminal liability.
Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 states as herein below cited—
“Nothing is an offence which is done by a person, who at the time of doing it by
reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that
he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law.”
It is submitted that, since the accused committed an act which is both wrong as well as
contrary to law, and moreover he has failed to supply reliable evidence to establish the
fact that he was not capable of understanding the nature of the act at the time of its
commission, therefore it cannot be concluded that the accused would be exempted of
criminal liability availing the defense of Bipolar Mood Disorder in lieu of
unsoundness of mind.

Deficiency Of Will Due To Weak Intellect Of The Accused Has Not Been Fully
Established.

It is most humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that every man is presumed to
be sane and to possess a sufficient degree of reason to be responsible for his crimes,
until the contrary be proved, and to establish a defense on ground of unsoundness of
mind, it must be clearly proved that, at the time of committing the act, the party
accused was laboring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to
know the nature and the quality of the act he was doing, or, if he did know it, that he
did not know he was doing what was wrong. In the matter in hand, the defence has
prima facie failed to rebut the presumption of absence of circumstances that will bring
the act of the accused under the ambit of general exception.

- 15 -
 The deposition of defence witness though establish the fact that the accused is
suffering from the Bipolar Mood Disorder, but ipso facto has failed to raise even a
reasonable doubt that the accused at the time of offence was labouring under such a
disorder.

It is furthermore submitted that, every person, who is mentally diseased is not ipso
facto exempted from the criminal liability, and to get the benefit of Section 84, I.P.C.,
the accused must establish that at the time of committing the act, the party accused
was laboring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know
the nature and the quality of the act he was doing, or, if he did know it, that he did not
know he was doing what was wrong.1

PLEA OF UNSOUNDNESS OF MIND AS A STATUTORY DEFENSE.

Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with the acts of a person of unsound
mind and mandates interalia—

“Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by
reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that
he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law.”23

It is humbly submitted that as to insanity, it has been observed in Halsbury’sLawsof

England,39that “where it can be shown that a person at the time of his committing or
omitting an act, the commission or omission of which would otherwise be criminal,
was labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know
the nature and quality of the act or omission or as not to know that what he was doing
was wrong then such a person is not in law responsible for his act.”4

1 Ashiruddin Ahmed v. Emperor, A.I.R. 1949 Cal. 182 at p. 183 : 5 C.W.N. 237 : 50 Cr. L.J. 255;
Baswantrao Bajirao v. Emperor, A.I.R. 1949 Nag. 66 : I.L.R. (1948) Nag. 711 : 50 Cr.L.J. 181.
2 Bhikari v. State of U.P., A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 1.
3 rd Ed. (Simonds), Vol. 10 at p. 287
4 Dahyabhai v. State of Gujarat, A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 1563
- 16 -
 It is also submitted that accused’s duty under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code,
18060 is twofold i.e., initially he must establish that at the time of committing the act,
he was non composo mentis— not of sound mind.

In the second place, he must prove that the said unsoundness of mind was of a degree
and nature to fulfil one of the tests as laid down in the aforesaid provision, namely,
that by reason of such unsoundness of mind he was incapable of knowing the nature of
the act or that he was doing what is either wrong or contrary to law.5

In the light of the facts in record of the instant matter, it is submitted that the
deposition of PW 6, merely establishes the fact that the alternate personality of the
accused is violent and volatile, and which in no sense have an effect of causing, such
mental disorder as will debar the accused from knowing the consequences of his act.

Furthermore, Section 84, I.P.C., has received strict interpretation and is considered
governing in only those cases where the cognitive faculties of the accused are
completely impaired.6

Accused’s mental faculty at the time of occurrence was that of a reasonable and
prudent man.

It is humbly submitted that, in case where the accused takes the plea of unsoundness of
mind, it must be clearly proved that at the time of the committing of the act, the party
accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not
to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, or, if he did know it, that he did
not know he was doing what was wrong.7

In Sheralli Wali Mohammed v. State of Maharashtra8, it was held that it must be

proved clearly that, at the time of the commission of the acts, the appellant, by reason
of unsoundness of mind, was incapable of either knowing the nature of the act or the
acts were either morally wrong or contrary to law.

5 Digendra v. State, 74 C.W.N. 231 at p. 241

6 Kalicharan v. Emperor, A.I.R. 1948 Nag. 20 (2) at p. 23.
7 M’ Naughten’s case, [1843] 4 St Tr [NS] 847,
8 (1973) 4 SCC 79
- 17 -
With reference to the dictum of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Debyabhai Chhaganbhai
Thakkar v. State of Gujarat,9 it is most humbly submitted that when a plea of legal
insanity is set up, the Court has to consider whether at the time of commission of the
offence, the accused, by reason of unsoundness of mind, was incapable of knowing the
nature of the act or that he was doing that was either wrong or contrary to law. The
crucial point of time for ascertaining the state of mind of accused is the time when the
offense was committed. Whether the accused was in such a state of mind as to be
entitled to the benefit of Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 can only be
established from the circumstances which preceded, attended and followed the crime.10

So also, in, Amrit Bhushan Gupta v. Union of India and Ors47, it has been held that
unless the Court comes to the conclusion that the accused was insane, at the point of
time he committed the offence, he cannot be absolved of the responsibility of the
offence, even if it is found by the Court that he was insane either earlier or in the later
point of time of the commission of offence.

Since in the instant case the accused has prima facie failed to rebut the statutory
presumption that at the time of the commission of the act he was suffering from such a
mental disorder, due to which he was incapable of knowing the nature or
consequences of his act or that he was doing what was either wrong or contrary to the
law hence, the benefit of Section 84 must not accrue to the accused.

It is submitted that, mere abnormality of mind, partial delusion, irresistible impulse or

compulsive psychopathic behaviour, affords not protection U/S 84 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860. So also, mere eccentricity or strange behaviour or a mental set-up not
amounting to insanity as known to the law, could not absolve a person of
consequences of his act.

Evidently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case, State of M.P. v. Ahmadulla,11 held
that, to earn exemption U/S 84, I.P.C., the defence has to prove insanity of the accused
at the time of the offending act.

9 AIR 1955 SC 1563

10 Sarju Merandy v. State of Bihar, (1978) 26 B.L.J.R. 267 at
pp. 272-73 47 1981 SCC(Crl) 516
11 supra note 26
- 18 -
Pursuant to the facts in record, it is submitted that, in the instant case there is not a
single positive evidence, as to the deferred mental condition of the accused at the time
of commission of the offence.

The fact that, on former occasions he had been subject to insane delusions or had
suffered from derangement of mind and subsequently he had behaved like a mentally
deficient person, is not per se sufficient to bring his case within the exemption. So far
as section 84, I.P.C. is concerned, the court is only concerned with the state of mind of
the accused at the time of the commission of the offence.

In a very similar case of, Lonimohan Das v. Union Territory of Manipur,12 wherein
the evidence established by reference only showed that the appellant at times was of
unsound mind, but he had lucid intervals. There was nothing to show that at the time
of the commission of the homicide in question, the appellant was of unsound mind,
and that by reason of that unsoundness of mind, he was incapable of knowing the
nature of his act, it was held that─

“…..the appellant was capable of knowing the nature of his act. That being so he
failed to discharge the burden of bringing his case within the exception as enumerated
under Section 84 of the Indian Penal; Code, 1860.”

In the instant case even though, the nature of the alternate personality of the accused,
was violent and erratic, the defence of legal insanity cannot be relied on his previous
character or behaviour.

Statutory presumption as to nonexistence of circumstances, bringing the case

within an exception.

It is humbly submitted that, Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, elucidate an
exception to the general rule whereby in a criminal trial, the burden of proving
everything necessary to establish the charge against the accused beyond all reasonable
doubt, rests on the prosecution.

According to the provision, the burden of proving existence of circumstances bringing

the accused within any of the General Exceptions, enumerated in the Indian Penal

12 (1974) 2 Cr.L.J. 1186 at p. 1187.

- 19 -
Code, 1860 shall be on the accused, and the Court shall prima facie presume the
absence of such circumstances.13

Section 105, of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, states as herein below cited—

“When a person is accused of any offence, the burden of proving the existence of
circumstances bringing the case within any of the General Exceptions in the Indian
Penal Code, (45 of 1860), or within any special exception or proviso contained in any
other part of the same Code, or in any law defining the offence, is upon him, and the
Court shall presume the absence of such circumstances.”

With reference to the facts of the instant case, it is submitted that the prosecution has
proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the plea of the accused
taken in his defense does not even stands probabilised from the materials on record.

Neither, the deposition of PW 1 or that of PW 4 conceives a rebuttal of the aforesaid

presumption, nor that of PW 6 establishes the fact, that at the time of commission of
the offence, the accused was labouring under the influence of unsoundness of mind.

Hence, it shall be construed from the facts in record that the accused has ipso facto
failed to rebut the statutory presumption of absence of circumstances bringing his case
U/S 84 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and hence, the criminal liability charged upon
him must not be under any circumstances, whatsoever, be exempted.

Medical Insanity vis-à-vis Legal Insanity.

It is humbly submitted that it is only the unsoundness of mind which naturally impairs
the cognitive faculties of the mind that can form a ground for exemption from criminal
responsibility.

Furthermore, the law recognizes nothing but incapacity to realize the nature of the act
and presumes that where a man’s mind or his faculties or ratiocination are sufficiently

13 T. Chettiar v. Ponnammal, 1966 Cri. L.J. 1149 : AIR 1966 Mad 363.
- 20 -
 clear to apprehend what he is doing, he must always be presume to intend the
consequences of the action he takes.

So also, mere absences of motive for crime, howsoever, atrocious it may be, cannot, in
the absence of plea and proof of legal insanity, bring the case within Section 84 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860.

It is furthermore submitted that, there can be no legal insanity unless the cognitive
faculty of mind is destroyed as a result of unsoundness of mind to such an extent as to
render the accused incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that what he is doing
is wrong or contrary to law.14

Moreover in the instant case, the medical examination of the accused, might have
established that, he is suffering from Dissociative Identity Disorder, but the same
cannot be construed to be a legal insanity. According to the medical science, inanity is
another name for mental abnormality due to various causes and existing in various
degrees. Even an uncontrollable impulse driving a man to kill or wound comes within
its scope. But a man, whom the medical science would pronounce as an insane, might
not be legally insane, unless and until it must be clearly proved that, by reason of that
unsoundness, he was incapable of knowing the nature of his act.

It is therefore submitted that, the conviction and sentence to the accused has been
unerringly passed by the Learned Court below and that the same shall not be set aside.

III. WHETHER THE BURDEN OF PROOF OF LEGAL INSANITY ON THE

PART OF DEFENCE IS AT PAR WITH BURDEN OF PROOF OF
PROSECUTION?

It is most humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that the order of Acquittal U/S
302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, passed by the Learned High Court in the instant
matter, is not tenable in the eye of law, as the Learned Court below has not very well
appreciated the facts and evidences of the instant case and has not passed a proper
order taking into consideration the fact, that the prosecution has proved the case

14 Sarka Gundusa v. State, 35 Cut. L.T 79 at p. 81 : A.I.R. 1969 Orissa 102; Surya Prasad v. State of
Orissa, 1982 C.L.T. 232.
- 21 -
 beyond all reasonable doubt, thereby ruling out every possible hypothesis, which
stands against the innocence of the accused and hence, acquittal of accused must be
questioned when same is proved by prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.15

That the Prosecution Has Proved the Case beyond All Reasonable Doubt.

It is most humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that in all criminal cases the
prosecution is required to give satisfactory proof of the corpus delicti , i.e., it must
prove that the deceased was murdered. The prosecution has then to prove that the
accused is the person who murdered the deceased and no one else.16

In Miller v. Minister of Pensions,17 while examining the degree of proof required in

criminal cases, it has been held that:
“That degree is well stated. It need not reach certainty but it must reach high degree
of probability. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond shadow
of a doubt. The law would fail to protect the community if it admitted fanciful
possibilities to deflect the course of justice. If the evidence is so strong against a man
as to leave only a remote possibility in his favour which can be dismissed with a
sentence “of course, it is possible but not in the least probable,” the case is proved
beyond reasonable doubt.”

In the light of the facts in record of the instant matter, it is humbly submitted that the
chain of circumstances when knitted together, give rise to merely only conclusion that
it is the accused who has committed the murder of the deceased and the Learned Court
below has not committed any error in convicting the accused.

It is also submitted that, when it is held that a certain fact is proved, the question arises
whether the fact leads to the inference of guilt of the accused or not, and in dealing
with this aspect of the problem, the doctrine of benefit of doubt would apply and an

15 Vijay Pal v. State Govt., 2015 Indlaw SC 160

16 Rajnikant Kesha Bhandari v. State, AIR 1967 Goa 21 at p. 56
17 (1947)2 All ER 372 at p. 373, quoted Vijayee Singh v. State of U.P, 1990 Cri. LJ 1519 at
p.1528 (SC) 5 M.G. Agarwal v. State of Maharastra, (1963) 2 S.C.R. 405.
- 22 -
inference of guilt can be drawn only if the proved fact is wholly inconsistent with the
innocence of the accused and is consistent only with the hypothesis of his guilt.18

Prof. Wigmore in his ‘Classic Treatise on Evidence’,19 highlights the difficulties in

ascertaining how convinced one must be to become convinced beyond a reasonable
doubt.

He says that “the truth is that no one has invented or discovered a mode of
measurement for the intensity of human belief. Hence, there can be as yet no
successful method of communicating intelligibly, a sound method of self-analysis for
one’s belief. And yet the choice of the standard of proof makes the difference.”

The standard that must be met by the prosecution's evidence in a criminal prosecution
must be of such a nature that no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts
except that the accused has committed the crime, thereby overcoming the presumption
that a person is innocent until proven guilty.

It is humbly submitted that, if after distinguishing the chaff from the grain, the
essential thread of the prosecution case is proved, conviction would definitely follow.

It is humbly submitted that Justice Krishna Iyer was critical of the postulate that
public accountability is one of the most important responsibilities of the judiciary and
if the accused person is acquitted on the basic of every suspicion or doubt then the
judicial system will lose its credibility before the community.20

Therefore, with specific reference to the facts in record, it is most humbly submitted
that the prosecution has duly discharged its duty of proving his case beyond all
reasonable doubt and there resides no room of doubt or suspicion on the duty of
18 Abdul Ghami v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1972) 2 S.C.W.R. 838 at p. 843
19 Wigmore, John Henry, “A treatise on the system of evidence in trials at common law” [electronic
resource] : including the statutes and judicial decisions of all jurisdictions of the United, Imprint
Boston : Little, Brown, and
Co., 1904
20 Shivaji v. The State of Maharashtra, AIR 2009 SC 56
- 23 -
prosecution, which infer that the crime has been committed by none else than the
accused.

PRAYER

Wherefore, in the lights of facts stated, issues raised, arguments advanced and
authorities cited, it is most humbly prayed and implored before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of Amphissa, that it may graciously be pleased:

1. To allow the appeal, and

- 24 -
 2. To overrule the order of acquittal and sentence u/s 302 , passed by the Learned
Court below and pass an order in favour of the appellant, and

3. Pass any other order it deems fit in the interests of justice, equity and good
conscience.

All of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted.

Place: s/d -

Date: __ / __ / 2017 Moot Counsels For Appellants

- 25 -