WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS GUILY UNDER ATTEMPT TO MURDER BEYOND

ALL RESONABLE DOUBTS?

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court of Session that Varshini (accused) has
not committed an offence u/s 307 BPC and shouldn’t be charged with attempt to murder
of Sangeetha.

For the purpose of constituting an attempt under this section there are two ingredients required,

1. An evil intent or knowledge

2. An act done.

It is sufficient to justify a conviction under section 307 if there is present an intent coupled with some
overt act in execution thereof.1 To convict the accused under this, the burden of proof is on the
prosecution to prove both

 The act (actus reus)

 The intention (mens rea)2

Absence of the intention of the offender to cause death ( mens rea)
The essential ingredient to constitute an offence under this section is having the intention or
knowledge. The intention or knowledge can be understood as explained under Section 300 of the
Code3. An act, though sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, it would not
constitute an offence under this Section if necessary intention or knowledge is lacking. 4 It is humbly
submitted that Varshini didn’t have intention or knowledge to commit murder of Sangeetha. It is
evident that such an intention or mens rea was never there. In order to prove the absence of
intention, the counsel for the appellant would request the bench to refer to the statement given by the
Varshini during trail at the Sessions Court. Varshini stated that she never had an intention to harm
Sangeetha as she is pregnant. Her only intention was to separate Rajesh and Sangeetha not to kill
Sangeetha. Hence there is no 'mens rea' is present in this case.

The act must be capable of causing death:

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the act alleged against Varshini
was incapable of causing death. To justify a conviction under Sec 307 BPC, it is necessary that
bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted.5 In the case of Jodha v. State
of Rajasthan6, the court ruled that in order for an offence to fall under the ambit of Sec 307, the
injury has to be caused on a vital part of the body. But in the present case, Sangeetha was
drowned in the pool and became unconscious. She gained conscious within a week. No vital
organ of Sangeetha is affected. Hence the allegation against Varshini is not capable of causing
1
Prakash Chandra yadav 2008 Cri 438 (440) (SC).
2
Om prakash AIR 1961 SC 1782.
3
Sarju Prasad v. State of Bihar, AIR (1965) SC 843
4
Abhiram mukhi v. State of Orissa, 1996 Cri LJ 2341.
5
Hari Mohan Mandal v. State of Jharhand (2004) 12 SCC 220
6
Jodha v. State of Rajasthan 1994 SCC Online 161.
death and so it cannot be fall under the ambit of sec 307.

Absence of Actus Reus:

The second ingredient to constitute an offence under this section is causing an injury which
may cause death or Actus Reus. In the present case, Varshini does not do any act. Varshini is arrested
only on basis of the statement made by Sangeetha that "Varshini called her into the Pool and pushed
her into pool". According to section 101 of Indian Evidence Act 1872, the burden of proof lies on the
person who alleges another. Here in the present case, Sangeetha alleging varshini that varshini made
an attempt to kill her. Now, the burden of proof lies on Sangeetha.
In the case of State v. Satish Sathyanarayana 7 it was held that where the evidence of victim in proof
of Assault and attempt made on her life was inconsistent and self contradictory, conviction of the
accused based only on the statement of victim under the section 307 of the Indian Penal Code would
be improper.
Also in the case of Reena Devi v. State of Haryana8 , a case in the Punjab and Haryana HC, Justice
G.S. Sandhawalia and Jagmohanbansal,JJ, said that if the statement of the victim is held to be gospel
truth and Courts are bound to hold someone guilty just because there is allegation by the victim , it
would be travesty of justice and there would be no need to conduct trail. Hence from the above
findings, mere statement of Sangeetha cant considered as conclusive evidence to convict varshini.
Other than this, no evidence has been submitted against Varshini by the prosecution side. In the
absence material evidence, the prosecution failed to prove that the accused is guilty beyond all
reasonable doubts. If the prosecution lacks sufficient evidence to convict a defendant, the court will
find the defendent not guilty. Then the Benefit of Doubt is given to the accused.
Therefore the counsel for the appellant humbly Submit that the accused varshini is not guilty under
attempt to murder of Sangeetha.

7
State v. Satish Sathyanarayana 2012 Cri LJ 379 (384)
8
Reena Devi v. State of Haryana, 2022 SCC Online P&H 2591