Docsity Memorial On Criminal Case

Memorial on criminal case
Law
Panjab University
27 pag.
Document shared on https://www.docsity.com/en/memorial-on-criminal-case/5437541/

Downloaded by: shejal-sharma (shejalplanetspark@gmail.com)
Page |0
BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT
OF INDIA
(CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION)
S.L.P. (Crl.) NO. ……………… OF 2020
PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
INDIA
Rtd. Lieut. COLONEL .....…… [APPELLANT]
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB …...… [RESPONDENT]
MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED TO THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND
HIS COMPANIONS AND HIS LORDSHIP’S COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE
HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

Page |1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ……………………………………………………2
 LIST OF AUTHORITIES………………………………………………………...3
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION……………………………………………...5
 STATEMENT OF FACTS………………………………………………………..6
 STATEMENTS OF ISSUES RAISED…………………………………………....8
 SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS…………………………………………………....9
 PLEADINGS SUBMITTED……………………………………………………...12
i. WHETHER SLP IS MAINTAINABLE…………………………………..12
ii. WHETHER OFFENCE IS COMMITTED IN GRAVE AND SUDDEN
PROVOCATION. …………………………………………………….…..15
iii. WHETHER SHORT TEMPER PERSONALITY OF OFFENDER IS PROOF
OF LOWER DEGREE OF CRIMINALITY. ……………………………..17
iv. WHETHER DECISION OF SESSION COURT AS WELL AS HIGH
COURT IS ERRONEOUS. ………………………………………..………19
v. WHETHER ACCUSED DESERVE SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE AND
REDUCTION OF SENTENCE UPTO ALREADY UNDER GONE AND
SET TO BE FREE. ………………………………………………………..22
 PRAYER…………………………………………………………………………...24

Page |2
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ABBREVIATION MEANING
@ Alias
&
And
AIR ALL INDIA REPORTER
Cr.P.C CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
I.P.C INDIAN PENAL CODE
Art. ARTICLE
HC High Court
SC Supreme Court
u/s Under Section
SLP Special Leave Petition
SCC Supreme Court Cases
i.e That Is
NCT National Capital Territory
R.I Rigorous Imprisonment
v. Versus

Page |3
LIST OF AUTHORITIES
A. CASES REFERED-
1. Pritam Singh v. The State, AIR 1950 SC 169
2. Jamshed Hormusji Wadia v. Board of Truste
3. es, Port of Mumbai, AIR 2004 SC 1815
4. J.P. Builders v. A. Ramadas Rao, (2011) 1 SCC 429.
5. Tirupati Balaji Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Bihar AIR 2004 SC 2351
6. Surendra v. State, 1977 Cr.L.J. 35
7. State ofMaharashtra v. Mayer Hans George ,AIR 1965 SC 722
8. Narpat Singh v. Jaipur Development Authority, (2002) 3 SCR 365.
9. George G. Feller v. The King ,AIR 1943 PC 211
10. Riel v. The Queen (1885)10 AC 675
11. Municipal Board, Pratapgarh v. Mahendra Singh Chawla (1982)3 SCC 331
12. Chandra Singh v. State of Rajasthan,AIR 2003 SC 2889
13. Mahmood v. State, AIR 1960 ALL 538
14. Bengal Chemicals Ltd. v. Their Workmen, AIR 1959 SC 633
15. Gyanendra Kumar v. The state of U.P ,AIR 1972 SC 502
16. Rafik yakubbhai sheikh v. State of Gujarat, 2008 CRLJ 1851 GUJ
17. Arun Raj v. Union of India, (2010)6 SCC 459
18. Ram Sanjiwn Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1996 SC 3265
19. Dinanath Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1980 SC 1199.
20. U.J.S. Chopra v. State of Bombay, AIR 1955 SC 633
21. Vinay Kumar v. Narendra and Ors (2002)9 SCC 364
22. Ramji Prasad v.Rattan Kumar Jaiswal and Anr. (2002)9 SCC 366
23. Dashrath v. The State Of M.P ,AIR 2017 MP 615

Page |4
24. Bhola v. State, 1974 Cri.L.J. 1318 (All.)
25. Kashmira singh v. State of Punjab, (1997)4 SCC 291
B. STATUTES/BARE ACTS REFERRED-
 The Constitution of India,1950
 The Indian Penal Code,1860
 The Code of Criminal Procedure,1973
 The Indian Evidence Act,1872
 The Arms Act, 1959
C. JOURNALS REFERRED-
 All India Reporter
 Criminal Law Journal
 Supreme Court Cases
 Supreme Court Reporter
D. BOOKS REFERRED-
 Constitutional Law of India ,Dr. Narender Kumar-9th Edition ,2016
 Ratanlal and Dhiraj lal’s The Code of Criminal Procedure-22nd Edition 2017
 The Code of Criminal Procedure,1973, S.N. Mishra-20th Edition, 2016
 Indian Penal Code ,Prof. S.N. . Mishra-20th Edition, 2016
E. INTERNET SOURCES REFERRED-
 www.scconline.com
 www.livelaw.in
 www.indiankanoon.org
 www.manupatra.com
 www.leaglindia.com

Page |5
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Appellant has approached the Honourable SC of India through SLP under Article
136 of the Constitution of India. The matter has been listed for hearing.
Article 136 of the Constitution of India read here as under:
Special leave to appeal by the SC:
(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the SC may, in its discretion, grant special
leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any
cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India.
(2) Nothing in clause (1) shall apply to any judgment, determination, & sentence or order
passed or made by any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the
Armed Forces.
The Memorandum for Respondent in the matters of State of Punjab V. Rtd.
Lieut. Colonel set forth the Facts, Contentions and Arguments present in the case.

Page |6
STATEMENT OF FACTS
For the sake of brevity and convenience of this Hon’ble Court the facts of the present
case are summarized as follows:
1. The appellant herein was a retired Lieutenant Colonel in the Indian Army. After his
retirement in April 2011, he was permitted to live in the staff quarters in the defence
compound for a period of three months.
2. Who live in hutments across the road, particularly boys aged about 10-15 years, who
cross the compound wall to pick almonds and mangoes.
3. At about 1.30 p.m. on 03.07.2011, the deceased, Dilshan, and three of his friends,
Sanjay (PW-2), Praveen (PW-3) and Vignesh (PW-7), ventured into the army men's
enclave to pluck almonds and mangoes.
4. While they were flinging stones at their targets, they suddenly heard a massive sound,
following which Dilshan, the deceased, fell down on the ground. PW-2, PW-3 and
PW-7 ran away from the scene.
5. It is further the case of the prosecution that it was the appellant herein who had shot
the deceased with a pistol, consequent to which the deceased sustained bullet injuries
on his person and died. The distance between the appellant and the deceased was
about 100 meters.
6. It is clear from the evidence that it was usual for the boys residing in the adjoining
colony to enter the prohibited defense area to pluck fruits. It is also not in dispute that
the appellant was residing in accommodation provided by the Army for a period of
three months after his retirement.
7. It is also clear that the appellant shot the deceased while he was attempting to pluck
fruit from the defense enclave.

Page |7
8. The only question is whether the appellant intended to murder the deceased. As
brought out in the evidence of PW-5 Jaya, a domestic help working at the appellant
house, the appellant was a short-tempered person, and used to chase the boys who
used to jump into the defence compound to pick almonds. On one occasion, the boys
had even damaged the windshield of the appellant’s car.
9. Against the judgment dated 12.12.2013 passed by the High Court of Punjab in
Criminal Appeal confirming the judgment dated 20.04.2012 passed in Sessions Case
of 2011 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court Punjab this appeal has
been filed by the convicted accused/appellant.
10. The Trial Court as well as the High Court convicted the appellant for the offences
punishable under Sections 302, 201 r/w 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘the
IPC’) and Sections 3 r/w 25(1B)(a), 27, and 25(1B)(h) of the Arms Act, and
sentenced him to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs 50,000/-.

Page |8
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
1. WHETHER THE SLP IS MAINTAINABLE.
2. WHETHER OFFENCE IS COMMITTED IN SUDDEN AND GRAVE
PROVOCATION.
3. WHETHER SHORT TEMPER PERSONALITY OF OFFENDER IS PROOF OF
LOWER DEGREES OF CRIMINALITY.
4. WHETHER DECISION OF SESSION COURT AS WELL AS OF HIGH COURT IS
ERRONEOUS.
5. WHETHER ACCUSSED DESERVE SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE AND
REDUCTION OF SENTENCE UPTO ALREADY UNDERGONE AND SET TO BE
FREE.

Page |9
SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS
I. WHETHER THE SLP IS MAINTAINABLE.

The SC will not grant special leave, unless it is shown that exceptional and special
circumstances exist, that substantial and grave injustice has been done and that the case in
question presents features of sufficient gravity to warrant a review of the decision appealed
against. It is pertinent to note that the power is permitted to be invoked not in routine fashion
but in very exceptional circumstances as when a question of law of general importance arises
or a decision sought to be impugned before the Supreme Court shocks the conscience. On the
question of sentence there is a reluctance to interfere with the quantum of punishment
awarded as the imposition of punishment is always a matter of discretion. Interference can be
sought only if the discretion has been exercised capriciously or without taking relevant
factors into account. It is the settled rule of the Supreme Court that it would not interfere with
the sentence passed by the Courts below unless there is an illegality in it or the same involves
any question of principle.
II. WHETHER OFFENCE IS COMMITTED IN SUDDEN AND GRAVE
PROVOCATION.
Appellant didn’t commit the offence in sudden and grave provocation.
The word 'sudden' involves; the provocation must be unexpected. In the present case, it is
clear from the evidence that it was usual for the boys residing in the adjoining colony to enter
the prohibited defense area to pluck fruits .Thus provocation was not sudden and unexpected.
The Court has to apply an objective test for deciding whether the provocation was grave or
not. A good test for deciding whether a certain provocation was grave or not is this: "Is a
reasonable man likely to lose self-control as a result of such provocation?'.

P a g e | 10
In the present case we can gather from the circumstances that both ill will and premeditation
was present.
III. WHETHER SHORT TEMPER PERSONALITY OF OFFENDER IS PROOF OF
LOWER DEGREES OF CRIMINALITY.
The settled position of law is that the exception takes into consideration situations wherein a
person with normal behaviour reacting to the given incidents of provocation. Further, an
unusually excitable or pugnacious individual is not entitled to rely on provocation which
would not led ordinary person to act as he did.
If the benefit of short temperament is given to the accused then such would result in misuse
of the exception. The other reason for not taking into consideration the bad temperament of
accused would defeat the Reasonable Test set out in the exception of the Provocation.
IV. WHETHER THE HIGH COURT HAD MADE AN ERRONEOUS DECISION.
The Trial Court had considered all the relevant and important facts of the case and the factors
which enter into scene while determining a just and adequate sentence. HC having note of
this, did not commit any error while affirming the judgment of conviction and sentence as all
the facts were well proved and it found no need to interfere in the orders of the Trial Court.
Further, this Court observed that it is now well-settled that imposition of sentence is in realm
of discretion of the court and unless the sentence is found to be grossly inadequate, the
appellate court would not be justified in interfering with the discretionary order of sentence.
The HC visited the matter before it from every aspect and applied its properly to full
capacity, the decision of the HC cannot be said to be erroneous.

P a g e | 11
V. WHETHER ACCUSSED DESERVE SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE AND
REDUCTION OF SENTENCE UPTO ALREADY UNDERGONE AND SET TO BE
FREE.
It is clear from the various decisions of this Court as stated above that, cases where a serious
offence had been committed and the accused had been held guilty for the said offence, then
his application should not be decided leniently during the pendency of the appeal. The
seriousness and gravity of the offence must be looked into.
In cases involving conviction under serious offences such as u/s302 IPC, normal practice is
not to suspend the sentence, and it is only in exceptional cases that the benefit of suspension
of sentence can be granted. It is to be noted that since the offence of the appellant-accused
has been proved in the Trial Court and he is thereby convicted for the same and was awarded
the sentence of imprisonment of life, and the HC also have confirmed the order of conviction
and sentencing, there remains no solid reasons to set aside the orders of the below courts and
as such appellant-accused is not entitled for suspension of sentence and shall undergo the
sentence awarded by the Trial Court and subsequently affirmed by the HC in appeal.

P a g e | 12
PLEADINGS SUBMITTED
I. WHETHER THE SLP IS MAINTAINABLE.
It is humbly submitted as follows:
1.1 That, the Special Leave Petition (hereinafter referred to as SLP), filed by the appellant is
not maintainable by virtue of broad interpretation of Article 136 of the Constitution of India
done by the Supreme Court whereby certain qualifying points/conditions have been laid
down for invoking jurisdiction of this Court under the said provision. Art. 136 of the COI
read as follows:
"136. Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court-

(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion grant
special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any
cause or matter passed or made by any Court or tribunal in the territory of India.
(2) Nothing in clause (1) shall apply to any judgment, determination, sentence or order passed
or made by any Court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed
Forces. "1
1.2 It is important to note that SC will not grant special leave, unless it is shown that
exceptional and special circumstances exist, that substantial and grave injustice has been
done and that the case in question presents features of sufficient gravity to warrant a review
of the decision appealed against2.
1
The Indian Constitution, 1950.
2
Pritam Singh v. The State, AIR 1950 SC 169.

P a g e | 13
1.3 It is pertinent to note that the power is permitted to be invoked not in a routine fashion but
in very exceptional circumstances as when a question of law of general importance arises or a
decision sought to be impugned before the Supreme Court shocks the conscience. This
overriding and exceptional power has been vested in the Supreme Court to be exercised
sparingly and only in furtherance of the cause of justice in the Supreme Court in exceptional
cases only when special circumstances are shown to exist."3
1.4 The current position of the court merely suggests that the SLP provision should be used
sparingly and in exceptional cases, when a substantial question of law remains ambiguous
and unresolved or where it appears to the Court that interference by this Court is necessary to
remedy serious injustice4.
1.5 In Tirupati Balaji Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Bihar5, this Court observed that
Art.136 is an extraordinary jurisdiction vested by the Constitution in the Supreme Court with
implicit trust and faith, and extraordinary care and caution has to be observed in the exercise
of this jurisdiction.
1.6 On the question of sentence there is a reluctance to interfere with the quantum of
punishment awarded as the imposition of punishment is always a matter of discretion.
Interference can be sought only if the discretion has been exercised capriciously or without
taking relevant factors into account6.
1.7 It is also pertinent to note that under the constitutional framework it was the High Courts
which were meant to carry out the functions as the highest appellate body, and the Supreme
3
Jamshed Hormusji Wadia v. Board of Trustees, Port of Mumbai, AIR 2004 SC 1815.
4
J.P. Builders v. A. Ramadas Rao, (2011) 1 SCC 429.
5
AIR 2004 SC 2351.
6
Surendra v. State, 1977 Cr.L.J. 35

P a g e | 14
Court was there ideally as a supervisor. The intervention of the Supreme Courtwas deemed to
be only that as to correct the High Courts in exceptional matters7.
1.8An authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the case of State of
Maharashtra v. Mayer Hans George8 is that "It is the settled rule of the Supreme Court that
it would not interfere with the sentence passed by the Courts below unless there is an
illegality in it or the same involves any question of principle." In the present case, the
appellant has filed SLP challenging the sentence awarded to him but Trial Court having given
due and deep consideration to all the facts of the case, especially the nature of the offence, its
gravity and possible consequences which could have arisen thereof, and also having followed
due procedure established by law, while making well principled and justified exercise of its
Judicial discretion, have awarded the most appropriate and adequate sentence. Such a
cautious, justified and reasonable of judicial discretion cannot be said to be illegal only for
the reason that the accused feels the sentence awarded to him as excessive and is unhappy
with it.
1.9 In George G. Feller v. The King9, Sir George Rankin pointed out that for them to
interfere with a criminal sentence there must be something so irregular or so outrageous as to
shock the very basis of justice and that misdirection as such, even irregularity as such will not
suffice and that there must be something which in the particular case deprives the accused of
the substance of fair trial and the protection of the law.
1.10 In Riel v. The Queen10, Lord Halsbury, while delivering the judgment of their
Lordships of the Privy Council, pointed out that leave to appeal in criminal cases could only
7
Narpat Singh v. Jaipur Development Authority, (2002) 3 SCR 365.
8
AIR 1965 SC 722; 1965 1 SCR 123
9
AIR 1943 PC 211
10
(1885)10 AC 675.

P a g e | 15
be given where some clear departure from the requirements of justice is alleged to have taken
place.
1.11 It is further very significant to note that Art. 136 like Art. 226 is a discretionary remedy
and the Court is not bound to interfere even if there is error of law or error of fact in the
impugned order11.
1.12 In another observation this Court restricted the scope of SLPs to cases where there was a
violation of the principles of Natural Justice, causing substantial and grave injustice to
parties12.
1.13 Moreover, In Municipal Board, Pratapgarh v. Mahendra Singh Chawla13And in
Chandra Singh v. State of Rajasthan14, it was observed that the SC was not bound to set
aside an order even if it was not in conformity with law, since the power under Article136
was discretionary.
1.14 Finally, it is submitted that there arise no exceptional and rare circumstances in thecae
and for there has been, as such, no case of miscarriage of justice, the impugned order does not
call for any interference. Hence, SLP by appellant is liable to be dismissed.
II. WHETHER OFFENCE IS COMMITTED IN SUDDEN AND
GRAVE PROVOCATION.
It is humbly submitted as follows –
2.1 That, Appellant didn’t commit the offence in sudden and grave provocation.
11
Mathai Joby George, (2004) 4 SCC 358
12
Bengal Chemicals Ltd. v. Their Workmen, AIR 1959 SC 633
13
(1982) 3 SCC 331
14
AIR 2003 SC 2889

P a g e | 16
In Mahmood v. State 15Allahabad High Court observed:
“In order to bring case under Exception 1 to Section 300 I. P. C., an accused has to establish the
following ingredients :
(i) The provocation was sudden;
(ii) the provocation was grave; and
(iii) loss of self-control
These three ingredients may be considered one by one.
(i): Whether the provocation was sudden or not does not present much difficulty. The word
'sudden' involves; the provocation must be unexpected.
In the present case, it is clear from the evidence that it was usual for the boys residing in the
adjoining colony to enter the prohibited defense area to pluck fruits .thus provocation was not
sudden and unexpected as the appellant was already aware of the usual visits .Further as
brought out in the evidence of PW5 Jaya, a domestic help working at the appellant house that
he used to chase the boys who used to jump into the defense compound to pick almonds
(ii) The main difficulty lies in deciding whether a certain provocation was grave or not. A
bare statement by the accused that he regarded the provocation as grave will not be accepted
by the Court. The Court has to apply an objective test for deciding whether the provocation
was grave or not. A good test for deciding whether a certain provocation was grave or not is
this: "Is a reasonable man likely to lose self-control as a result of such provocation?' If the
answer is in the affirmative, the provocation will be classed as grave. If the answer is in the
negative, the provocation is not grave.

15
AIR 1960 ALL 538

P a g e | 17
Applying the Test in the present case we can conclude that any reasonable man if he is
trained and disciplined army personal he will not be provoked by plucking of almonds by
young boys and will not lose his self-control by their trivial act.
2.2 Ill will and Premeditation should be both present in the case of murder
In the present case we can gather from the circumstances that both ill will and premeditation
was present:
i. He was upset with the boys coming to pluck the almond from compound. As
brought out in the evidence of PW5 Jaya, a domestic help working at the appellant
house that he used to chase the boys who used to jump into the defense compound
to pick almonds.
ii. He wanted to teach the boys lesson as the have damaged the windshield of his
car.
Thus, he had motive and intention to kill the boys as when they tried to pluck the almonds
he came prepared with his Pistol and without warning them, fired shots at the deceased
who was on the tree. He was fed up chasing boys over and over again and wanted to end
this in one go.
III. WHETHER SHORT TEMPER PERSONALITY OF OFFENDER IS
PROOF OF LOWER DEGREES OF CRIMINALITY.

P a g e | 18
3.1 The settled position of law is that the exception takes into consideration situations
wherein a person with normal behaviour reacting to the given incidents of provocation.
Further, an unusually excitable or pugnacious individual is not entitled to rely on provocation
which would not led ordinary person to act as he did.
IN Gyanendra Kumar v. The state of U.P.16 the contention was that the accused was of an
irritable temperament and that he must have fired the shots under grave and sudden
provocation. Rejecting this, the apex court observed that it may be that appellant had irritable
temper but there was no question of any grave provocation much less a sudden provocation.
Thus it is clear from this judgement that temperament of accused does not relax the
standards of sudden and grave provocation.
3.2 If the benefit of short temperament is given to the accused then such would result in
misuse of the exception. IN Rafik yakubbhai sheikh v. State of Gujarat 17; has been
accepted principles and the courts have while expressing the word of caution, observed that
law cannot permit ill temper and other abnormalities to becomes assets for the purpose of
committing murder, for it did , bad temperament man would be entitled to a lighter verdict of
man slaughter where a good tempered one would be convicted for murder.
3.3 The other reason for not taking into consideration the bad temperament of accused would
defeat the Reasonable Test set out in the exception of the Provocation .This was observed by
the supreme court in Arun Raj v. Union of India 18 that the provocation must be such as will
upset not merely a hasty, hot tempered And hypersensitive person but also a person of calm
nature and ordinary sense.’ Furthermore, the reasoning which backed such observation was
that the exception so created was by taking into consideration situations wherein a person
16
AIR 1972 SC 502
17
2008 CLIJ 1851 GUJ
18
(2010) 6 SCC 457

P a g e | 19
with normal behaviour reacting to the given incidence of provocation and therefore, the
protection of the said exception is extended to a normal person acting normally in a given
situation.
3.4 No reliance can be placed on the evidence of PW5, because bad character of accused is
irrelevant under section 54 of The Indian Evidence Act.
IV. WHETHER THE HIGH COURT HAD MADE AN ERRONEOUS

DECISION.
4.1 That, the HC had not made an erroneous decision by affirming the orders of the Trial
Court since it has been attempted above to prove that Trial Court had delivered a very
appropriate and just judgment while awarding desired and adequate sentence. However, it is
further elaborately submitted as follows.
4.2 The most important facts of the case which needs another mention are:
i. The appellant-accused shot the victim-Dilshan in his head which is the most vital part
of human body.
ii. .A shot in a vital part of body-injuries could have been fatal.
iii. Injuries were serious as the victim was in critical state owing to which he died.
iv. The appellant-accused is guilty of attempting to murder the victim-Dilshan by his own
act.
v. The appellant-accused is also guilty of offence u/s 302, 201 r/w 302,IPC and u/s 3 r/
w sec25(1B)(a), 27, 25(1-B)(h) of Arms Act .
vi. The offence committed on his part was sufficient in ordinary course for causing death
of the above named injured person.

P a g e | 20
What is to be noted here is that all the above relevant and important facts which make the
primary determinants and considerations to decide a just and adequate sentence, having been
considered by the Trial Court, the appellant-accused was very adequately and in a
just manner, sentenced to Life Imprisonment and fine of 50,000, as has been attempted to
prove above. As these factors were considered while imposing the sentence, there remains
little scope to interfere in quantum of punishment and such is the case here. HC having note
of this, was justified in not interfering in the judgment of the Trial Court and as such, all
justified in affirming the order of the Trial Court.
4.3 To further support this submission an important observation of this Court in “Ram
Sanjiwn Singh v. State of Bihar"i19 needs mention whereby the Court observed that it is now
well-settled that imposition of sentence is in realm of discretion of the court and unless the
sentence is found to be grossly inadequate, the appellate court would not be justified in
interfering with the discretionary order of sentence.
The effect of this observation in light of the above submission makes it clear that HC had not
made an erroneous decision since it found the sentence awarded by Trial Court as adequate
and just.
4.4 Further it is pertinent to note that HC would be in error in disturbing the judgment of the
Trial Court when the view taken by the trial court is reasonably possible 20 but in the instant
case, HC having agreed with the view taken by Trial Court, ultimately declaring Trial Court's
decision as reasonably possible, thereby affirming it without any interference, HC cannot be
said to be in error.
4.5 Moreover, even if, for once, it is accepted that initially Trial Court was however in error
for awarding imprisonment for life to the appellant-accused, HC even then cannot be said to
be in error for HC is very much qualified and aware about its duties to do complete justice in
19
AIR 1996 SC 3265
20
Dinanath Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1980 SC 1199.

P a g e | 21
appeals, since it is meant to be the highest appellate authority, and is also well aware about its
procedure for an important judgment of this Court has observed that when the High Court
hears the appeal on its merits it does not apply its mind only to the question whether the
conviction should be confirmed but also applies its mind to the adequacy of the sentence
passed upon the accused by the lower Court. In thus applying its mind to the question of
sentence it also considers whether the sentence passed upon the accused by the lower Court is
adequate in the sense that it is either such as should be reduced or is such as should be
enhanced,"21
Thus, where in lieu of this observation, in relation to the present case, an indisputable and
undoubtedly strong assumption arises as to that the HC visited the matter before it from every
aspect and applied its properly to full capacity, the decision of the HC cannot be said to be
erroneous.
4.6 It is once again pertinent to note that the legislature has made provision for life
imprisonment as maximum punishment for the offence of attempt to murder u/s 307 IPC
which indicates that there must be some very extraordinary and rare reasons for awarding
punishment of imprisonment for life u/s 307 IPC. Since, HC was satisfied with the findings
of the Trial Court in the light of facts found proved, HC had made a valid decision and as
such did not commit any error.
21
U.J.S. Chopra v. State of Bombay, AIR 1955 SC 633

P a g e | 22
V. WHETHER ACCUSED DESERVES SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE
AND REDUCTIPON OF SENTENCE UPTO ALREADY UNDERGONE
AND SET TO BE FREE.
5.1 That, this Court has in Vinay Kumar v. Narendra and Ors.222 and Ramji Prasad v.
Rattan Kumar Jaiswal and Anr."23, held that in cases involving conviction under serious
offences such as u/s 302 IPC, normal practice is not to suspend the sentence, and it is only in
exceptional cases that the benefit of suspension of sentence can be granted.
It was further held in the same case that the principle is well-settled that in considering the
prayer of appellant in case involving serious offence like murder, punishable u/s 302 IPC, the
Court should consider the relevant factors like the nature of the accusation made against the
accused, the manner in which the crime is alleged to have been committed, the gravity of the
offence, and the desirability of releasing the accused after they have been convicted for
committing the serious offence of murder.
5.2 A principle laid down by Allahabad HC is that the extent and period of sentence arid the
Quantum of punishment cannot be a relevant reason for the suspension of sentence, though it
can be a relevant factor only if prima facie it is shown that it was illegal, improper or
excessive and not otherwise. 24
5.3 Dashrath v. The State Of M.P. 25The sentence of life imprisonment or imprisonment of
any lesser term of the convict cannot be suspended u/s 389 (1) of the code solely on the
22
2002 (9)SCC 364
23
2002(9)SCC 366
24
Bhola v. State, 1974 Cri.L.J. 1318 (All.)
25
AIR 2017 MP 615

P a g e | 23
ground of his having served sentence of any particular period or one half of the maximum
sentence ,inclusive or exclusive of remission .
26
5.4 This Court in the case Kashmira Singh v. State of Punjab it has been observed that
once a person has been convicted, normally, an appellant court will proceed on the basis that
such person is guilty.
5.5 Here, it is pertinent to note the following points:
i. The appellant accused has been convicted by the trial court for offences 302,201 r/w 302,
IPC and u/s 3 r/w section 25 (1-B)(a),27, 25(1-B)(h) of Arms Act, where conviction under
several offences makes the collective nature of the act heinous.
ii. The HC has also affirmed the order of conviction, in the event of facts having been proved,
therefore, removing any doubts as to inadequacy of sentence.
In light of the above stated observations of this Court, the above mentioned factors and
the appellant-accused rather not having even bleak chances to succeed in appeal, the
appellant-accused is not entitled to get suspension of sentence and as such not entitled for
the reduction of sentence of imprisonment of life to already undergone.
PRAYER
Wherefore in the light of facts stated issues raised arguments advanced and authorities cited,
it is most humbly prayed before this Hon'ble Court that:
a) The Leave to Appeal by the appellant be dismissed;
b) The Power exercised by the Trial Court to grant the given quantum of punishment be
declared to be well within the Statutory limits and in accordance with other general judicial
26
(1977)4 SCC 291

P a g e | 24
guidelines and principles and the quantum of punishment granted thereby to be just and
adequate;
c) The order of the Hon'ble High Court affirming the order of the Trial Court be also upheld
as completely valid;
d) The prayer of the appellant for Bail be dismissed; and
e) The appellant's sentence of Imprisonment for Life be upheld to be valid as adequate by
upholding his conviction.
And any other relief that the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to grant in the interests of Justice,
Equity and Good conscience.
For this act of kindness, the appellant shall be duty bound forever pray.
Sd/-
(Counsels for the Respondent)

P a g e | 25

i


Docsity Memorial On Criminal Case

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Docsity Memorial On Criminal Case

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Memorial on criminal case

Document shared on https://www.docsity.com/en/memorial-on-criminal-case/5437541/

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT

(CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

S.L.P. (Crl.) NO. ……………… OF 2020

PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF

Rtd. Lieut. COLONEL .....…… [APPELLANT]

STATE OF PUNJAB …...… [RESPONDENT]

MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED TO THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND

HIS COMPANIONS AND HIS LORDSHIP’S COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE

HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

Document shared on https://www.docsity.com/en/memorial-on-criminal-case/5437541/

 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ……………………………………………………2

 STATEMENTS OF ISSUES RAISED…………………………………………....8

i. WHETHER SLP IS MAINTAINABLE…………………………………..12

ii. WHETHER OFFENCE IS COMMITTED IN GRAVE AND SUDDEN

iii. WHETHER SHORT TEMPER PERSONALITY OF OFFENDER IS PROOF

OF LOWER DEGREE OF CRIMINALITY. ……………………………..17

iv. WHETHER DECISION OF SESSION COURT AS WELL AS HIGH

COURT IS ERRONEOUS. ………………………………………..………19

v. WHETHER ACCUSED DESERVE SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE AND

REDUCTION OF SENTENCE UPTO ALREADY UNDER GONE AND

SET TO BE FREE. ………………………………………………………..22

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

Document shared on https://www.docsity.com/en/memorial-on-criminal-case/5437541/

Cr.P.C CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

I.P.C INDIAN PENAL CODE

u/s Under Section

SLP Special Leave Petition

SCC Supreme Court Cases

NCT National Capital Territory

R.I Rigorous Imprisonment

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

Document shared on https://www.docsity.com/en/memorial-on-criminal-case/5437541/

1. Pritam Singh v. The State, AIR 1950 SC 169

2. Jamshed Hormusji Wadia v. Board of Truste

3. es, Port of Mumbai, AIR 2004 SC 1815

4. J.P. Builders v. A. Ramadas Rao, (2011) 1 SCC 429.

6. Surendra v. State, 1977 Cr.L.J. 35

7. State ofMaharashtra v. Mayer Hans George ,AIR 1965 SC 722

8. Narpat Singh v. Jaipur Development Authority, (2002) 3 SCR 365.

9. George G. Feller v. The King ,AIR 1943 PC 211

10. Riel v. The Queen (1885)10 AC 675

12. Chandra Singh v. State of Rajasthan,AIR 2003 SC 2889

13. Mahmood v. State, AIR 1960 ALL 538

14. Bengal Chemicals Ltd. v. Their Workmen, AIR 1959 SC 633

15. Gyanendra Kumar v. The state of U.P ,AIR 1972 SC 502

17. Arun Raj v. Union of India, (2010)6 SCC 459

18. Ram Sanjiwn Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1996 SC 3265

19. Dinanath Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1980 SC 1199.

20. U.J.S. Chopra v. State of Bombay, AIR 1955 SC 633

21. Vinay Kumar v. Narendra and Ors (2002)9 SCC 364

23. Dashrath v. The State Of M.P ,AIR 2017 MP 615

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

Document shared on https://www.docsity.com/en/memorial-on-criminal-case/5437541/

24. Bhola v. State, 1974 Cri.L.J. 1318 (All.)

25. Kashmira singh v. State of Punjab, (1997)4 SCC 291

B. STATUTES/BARE ACTS REFERRED-

 The Constitution of India,1950

 The Indian Penal Code,1860