1

Team Code – G

Assam University , Silchar

Department of law
Roll – 082218 No – 1142700038
Registration No- 20180016671 of 2018-2019

Before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India

S.L.P (criminal) No. 123/2013

(Filed under Section – 326 A , 34 and 354 D of IPC )

In the matter of :

State …………………………………………………………Appellant
Verses
Ramesh and Others …………………..………………Respondent

Memorial on behalf of Respondent

 2

Index

Contents
Page no.

1. List of
abbreviations………………………………………………………..
2. Index of
authorities…………………………………………………………
a) Cases referred
b) Books referred
c) Statutes

3. Statement of
jurisdiction………………………………………………….
4. Issues
presented……………………………………………………………
….
5. Summary of
Arguments…………………………………………………….
6. Arguments
advanced………………………………………………………...
7. Prayer...................................................................................
 3

List of abbreviations

Hon’ble Honourable
Ors. Others
SC Supreme
Court
HC High Court
SCC Supreme
Court Cases
v./vs. Versus
SLP Special
leave petition
FIR First
information report
IPC Indian
Penal Code
r/w. Read with
Crpc Code of
Criminal Procedure
Sec Section
Yrs Years
Feb February
Mar March
 4

Index of authorities

Cases referred:

Books referred:

Statutes:
1. Indian Penal Code, 1860
2. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
3. The Medical Council Act, 1956
4. Delhi Medical Council Act, 1997
 5

Legal Dictionary

1. Aiyer P.R., Advanced Law Lexicon, (3rd ed., 2005)

2. Garner B.A., Black’s Law Dictionary, (9th ed., 2009)
3. Greenberg Daniel, Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary of Words and
Phrases, (4th ed.),Sweet and Maxwell, Vol. 4
4. Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary, (7th ed., 2008)

Journals Referred

1. All India Reporter

2. Supreme Court Cases
3. Indian Law Reporter
4. Company Law Journal

Internet sites:
 www.encyclopedia.com

 6

Statement of Jurisdiction

The Honourable Supreme Court doesn’t have the jurisdiction to entertain

the SPL filed by the petitioner under Sec 326 A, 34 and 354D of IPC.
 7

Statement of facts

Reema, an eighteen year old girl was a student of 12th class. She
belonged to a lower middle class family. Her father used to work as a
clerk in a private firm. She had always been an ambitious and a very
bright student. To support her father she used to give tuitions. Ramesh,
Accused No.1, math’s teacher of Reema in her school secretly
developed emotions for her. Reema had always admired him as her
teacher. On Reema’s 18th birthday Ramesh organised a birthday party
for her at his house and gifted her an expensive watch. Unaware of
Ramesh’s feelings Reema accepted the same.
On 14th Feb 2013, Ramesh proposed to Reema for marriage. Reema ,
however, told him to speak to her parents regarding the same. On 20th
Feb Ramesh approached her parents with the proposal. However, they
rejected his offer and warned him not to contact her anymore as they did
not want that there should be any kind of distraction to their daughter as
her XII boards were approaching. They strongly admonished Reema and
threatened that they will discontinue her studies. Thereafter she started
avoiding Ramesh. On one occasion Reema also made it clear to him that
she will not go against the wishes of her parents and asked him not to
follow her anymore. Despite the disinterest shown by Reema, Ramesh
continued to follow Reema to her tuition classes and contacted her
personally, on phone and through internet, believing that all her actions
were under pressure from her parents.
Reema reported the same to her parents. The parents rebuked him for his
unwarranted acts. He, however, tried to convince them about his feelings
for her and further stated that he wanted to marry her. They beat him and
asked him to leave. Enraged with the feeling of dejection, Ramesh went
to Mahesh in whom he always confided and narrated the whole thing.
 8

Mahesh, aged 45, has always supported Ramesh, who was residing with
him, ever since his parents died in a road accident in 2000. Mahesh, who
had always treated Ramesh as his son, could not bear the pain of
Ramesh. Mahesh suggested to Ramesh that he should find Reema alone
and take her to the temple for marrying her without information to her
parents. In case Reema would offer any resistance due to parental
pressure, Mahesh will threaten her with a bottle of acid to pressurise her
to come with them to the temple. Ramesh, who was initially reluctant,
agreed to the plan on the condition that no harm will be caused to Reema
and bottle of acid will only be used as a tool to threaten her for
compliance to their wishes.
On 23rd March, 2013 as per the plan, finding Reema passing on a lonely
road, Ramesh and Mahesh, who were waiting for Reema, got out of the
car. Ramesh approached Reema and asked her to accompany him to the
temple so that they can get married. On Reema’s refusal, Mahesh
carrying the bottle of acid, threatened Reema. Ramesh started dragging
her into the car. Reema started shouting loudly. To teach a lesson to
Reema, Mahesh opened the bottle and threw the acid on her face and
then both Mahesh and Ramesh fled away in the car belonging to and
driven by Mahesh leaving the girl in immense pain. The girl was taken
to the hospital by some passerby. The doctor immediately conducted the
surgeries and opined that the injuries were grievous. FIR was lodged.
Statement of Reema was recorded. A case was registered against both
the accused under Sec 326A r/w Sec 34 IPC, 1860 and Ramesh was also
charged under Sec 354D, IPC, 1860. Mahesh absconded and was
declared a proclaimed offender while Ramesh was arrested by police
from his home and the bottle of acid and car, used in the crime, were
seized from his possession. After investigation, he was put to trial before
the Sessions Court, where he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Sessions Court convicted Ramesh under section 326A r/w section 34 of
IPC, 1860 and sentenced him to 10 yrs of rigorous imprisonment. He
 9

was also asked to pay compensation to Reema to the tune of Rs

2,00,000/- to be paid immediately. He was also awarded rigorous
imprisonment for 2 years under Section 354D, IPC, 1860. Both the
sentences were to run concurrently.
Accused, aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, appealed before the High
Court seeking acquittal. Whereas, State filed appeal for demanding life
imprisonment and also the enhancement of the amount of compensation
taking into account the following facts:
 Rs 6.5 lakh have already been spent on the 6 major surgeries done
till date;
 10-15 surgeries still need to be done;
 Despite various surgeries Reema has permanently lose her left eye
vision;
 Permanent scars not only on the skin of her face and hands will
remain but also deep inside her memory which will adversely
affect her future prospects;
 Her father was a clerk in a private firm which dismissed him after
he went on a leave for her treatment. Now he is jobless. There are
two other sisters of Reema who also need to be supported.
High court adjudicated in favour of the accused by acquitting him from
the charges under Section 326A r/w Section 34 and Sec 354D IPC, 1860
and dismissed the appeal of the state, being bereft of any substance by
holding that under the circumstances of the case the trial court had
wrongly held the accused liable under Section 326A, IPC 1860, by
invoking Section 34 IPC, 1860 as no common intention to commit
offence of Acid Attack under Section 326A could be proved. The High
Court held that the offence of stalking under Section 354D was also not
made out against the accused. The High Court, however, recommended
the District Legal Services Authority to decide upon the quantum of
compensation to be awarded by the State Government to the victim as
per Section 357A, Cr PC within one month.
 10

Aggrieved by the said judgment of the High Court acquitting the

accused, the State filed an appeal before the Supreme Court on the
ground that High Court has failed to take notice of the fact that common
intention was present as Ramesh and Mahesh have agreed to the use of
bottle of acid in their plan of abduction. Acid was thrown in furtherance
of that common intention. The state appealed for considering the offence
as heinous and to award life imprisonment under Sec 326A r/w
Section34 and Section 354D and also to enhance the compensation
awarded by the Sessions Court to be paid by the accused to the victim
under Section 326A, IPC, 1860 in addition to the compensation to be
paid by the State Government under Sec 357A Cr PC. The State also
sought permission for addition of charge under Sec 366 IPC.
 11

Issues

1. Whether this court has jurisdiction to trial this case?

2. Whether the case is appeable or not?
3. Whether they are were any acid attack on 23rd March 2013?
4. Is there any common intention between Ramesh and Mahesh?
5. Whether there was any attempt to kidnap?
6. Whether Ramesh stock Reema or not?
7. Whether the FIR was lost on time or not?
 12

1.Whether the court has jurisdiction to trial this case?

It is humbly submitted that the court does not has jurisdiction as the case
is a heap of lies and doubts. There is lack of material evidence this case
is filed only to defame the reputation of the accused. Therefore the
accused should be acquitted on this grounds.

2.Whether the case is appeable or not?

It is humbly submitted that the case is not appeable because there is no

meritorious grounds for an appeal. Moreover the appeal is based on lack
of substantial evidence. Therefore, the court must quashed the appeal
and accquit the accused.

3.Whether there were any acid attack on 23rd march

2013?

It is humbly submitted that there were no acid attack on 23rd March

2013 as both the accused where out of station that day. Moreover there
were no passer-by who had seen them on the spot of offence. Thus it is
prayed that the accused person must be given relief on this basis and was
not be punished.
 13

4. Whether the charge of criminal conspiracy and

common intention are proved in respect of each of the
accused?

It is most respectfully submitted that the accused person had no common

intention to commit the heinous act which have been established by
circumstantial evidence and direct evidence too. The accused persons
does not conspired to commit the offence of acid attack, abduction and
stalking. Does they must not be punished as per the relevant discussed
sections.

5. Whether there were any delay in registering the

FIR?

It is humbly submitted that as per as series of judgements given by the

apex court of India and as per the chain of circumstances there was delay
in lodging the FIR by victim. Thus it is prayed that the accused person
must be given relief on this basis and must not be punished.

6.Whether this medical evidence are admissible in the

court or not?
It has been argued that the medical evidences revealed in the investigation
including the DNA test, finger prints etc. when corroborated with other
evidences and attract culpability .
 14

7.Whether the accused person are liable for the offence of

abduction defined under the Indian penal code 1860?

It is humbly submitted that the accused person does not used any
decitful means to induce the prosecutrix. As the accused were out of
station then. Therefore the accused person must not be punished under
the relevant section.

8.Whether Ramesh stalked Reema or not?

It is humbly submitted that Ramesh was the Math teacher of Reema so

they met everyday in school, so there is no requirement for stalking.
Reema also accepted the watch that Ramesh gift her on her birthday, so
this implies that there is no such sign of the disinterest from Reema's
side. Therefore there exists no grounds of stalking. Therefore, the
accused person should not be punished on this ground.

9. whether this case falls under the category of rarest

of rare cases ?
It is humbly submitted that the case involved such monstrous and
disgraceful act committed by the accused person that it must fall in the
category of the rarest of rare cases it has also been established by a
series of precedents delivered by the Supreme Court of India.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25