ADVANCE ARGUMENT

Issue 1: Is it compulsory for the police to conduct the medical examination

when requested by the accused?
It is humbly Submitted before the honourable court that the accused want to fritter away the time
of the police and deviate them from the present investigation of the murder case. This shows that
he wants to delay the judicial procedure. This puts all the fingers pointed toward the accused for
the murder of Mr Sandeep Kumar.
1.1 Medical examination in murder cases
According to the facts stated by witnesses and the motive given by Mr Anand was made prime
suspect and was arrested on 28/4/2022 at 11:20 pm from village Saranpur at a distance of 350
km. If he didn’t commit any crime so, why did he run away from the crime spot? This
establishes the motive of the accused.
Sections 4 and 5 of the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920, make provision for certain matters
like taking of measurements, etc., of non-convicted persons, photographing, finger impressions,
etc.; but they do not extend to a medical examination. The provision of the Prisoners Act is
intended for the purpose of check-up of a prisoner for contagious diseases, etc., and not for
investigation. So in this case the accused is fine with his health condition. Therefore, there is no
need to conduct a medical examination of the accused.
In the case of State of Karnataka VS S. Raju, the Karnataka High court upheld that even in the
case of absence of medical examination the accused in the cases of murder can be convicted.
Therefore, corroboration with medical reports and medical examination is not necessary in every
case.
The power of the court must be exercised wherever the court finds that any evidence is essential
for the just decision of the case. But in this case, the accused is trying to manipulate the police.
1.2 Purpose of medical examination
It is humbly Submitted before the honourable court That no Statutes of India deal with medical
examination of the accused. As per the facts Witness, 2 named Ms Rekha saw the accused
running from the crime scene while she was drying clothes on her terrace. When she heard the
sound of a gunshot.
In the State of Madhya Pradesh VS Dayal Sahu, the Supreme Court rule that an appellate
court shall not reserve the findings of guilt on the basis of irrelevant circumstances. Where the
evidence of the victim and other Witnesses was found reliable accused shall not get the benefit of
the doubt for examination. So, reliable witnesses and evidence should be given some importance
in the verdict of the accused.
1.3 liability of Accused
It is humbly Submitted before the honourable court that it is assumed that the accused is guilty of
murder because the deceased is killed in cold blood or with a plan of accused to do murder
because the intention to kill is a high degree and not out of sudden anger or provocation.
Therefore, as per the statement of a witness, he would be liable for murder under Section 300 of
IPC
Murder. —Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by
which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or—
1. If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be
likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or—
2.  If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury
intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or—
3.  If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all
probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such
act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.
1.4 Elements by which accused guilty of murder
Intention: Mens rea includes both the intention to do an act as well as abstaining from doing an
act which is required to be done. Mere intention to do a wrongful act is itself prohibited by law.
An accused will be held guilty if it’s proved that he had an intention to commit the crime.
According to the facts, it is clearly stated that the accused found out about his father’s
extramarital affair due to which there was unrest at home. It was also stated by the victim’s
neighbours that the victim used to do physical violence with his wife which angered the accused
more and during one such quarrel in the spirit of rage, he threatened his father that he will have
to face the consequences for the same. So, it establishes the proper intention of the accused to
kill his father(deceased). In Hari Mohan Mandal vs. the State of Jharkhand, Hon’ble
Supreme Court held that it is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should
have been inflicted. Intention to kill or knowledge that death will be caused is a question of fact
which will be the subject matter of the trial. State of Maharashtra vs M.H. George, the
Supreme Court held that criminal intent is a psychological fact which needs to be proved even
with regards to offences under special acts unless it’s specifically ruled out by necessary
implication.
Cause of Death: The act has to be done with the knowledge that the act may cause the death of
another. It is clearly stated in the facts that the gun found on the crime scene contains the
fingerprints of the accused (Anand Kumar). So, it establishes that the accused had the knowledge
that his act can cause the death of his father.
Bodily injury: There must be intent to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. It is
clearly stated that the dead body along with five empty cartages and the blood was spread all
around the dead body. So, it establishes that there was an intention of the accused to cause bodily
injury to the deceased, which resulted in the death of the deceased.