S. S.

MANIYAR LAW COLLEGE JALGAON

Moot Court

IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF

INDIA

In the matter of:

State……………………………………………………….…APPELLANT

Verses

Mr.Shinde………………………………………………………RESPONDENT

BEFORE SUBMISSION TO
HON’BLE JUSTICE OF

THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT

OF INDIA

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

=============================================================

A. TABLE OF CONTENTS
=============================================================

A. Table of Contents Page: 1

B. List of Abbreviation Page: 2

C. Index of Authorities Page: 3

D. Statement of Jurisdiction Page: 4

E. Statement of Facts Page: 5

F. Statement of Issues Page: 7

G. Summary of Pleadings Page: 8

H. Arguments Advanced Page: 10

I. The Prayer Page: 19

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

=============================================================

B. LIST OF ABBRVIATIONS
=============================================================

ABBREVIATION EXPANSION

AIR All India Reporter

All MR All Maharashtra Reporter

Cri. Criminal

Cr.L.J Criminal Law Journal

Ed. Edition

Hon’ble Honorable

i.e. That Is

No. Number

P. Page

Para Paragraph

PW Prosecution Witness

SC SUPREME COURT

SCC Supreme Court Cases

SCR Supreme Court Reporter

Sec. Section
Sub
SS
Section
Under
u/s
Section
Vs. Verses

& and

@ Alias

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

=============================================================

C. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
=============================================================

Books Referred:
1. The Constitution of India
2. The Indian Penal Code
3. The evidence Act
4. The Code of Criminal Procedure.

Online Database
1. https://www.legalserviceindia.com/
2. https://www.aironline.in/
3. https://www.manupatrafast.com/?t=desktop
4. https://indiankanoon.org/

Cases Referred
1. Rizan v. State of chhattisgarh, air 2003 sc 976.
2. Amuthram alias samudra rajan v. State of tamil nadu
3. State of madhya pradesh vs ahmadullah
4. State of tripura vs. Arjun biswas
5. T.n. Lakshmaiah vs. State of karnataka (16.10.2001 - sc)
6. Dayabhai chaganbhai thakkar vs.state of gujarat

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

=============================================================

D. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
=============================================================
The present case has been filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court with
reference to Article 132, of the Constitution. Art. 132 of the Constitution
reads as follows,

132. Appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court in appeals from High Courts in certain
cases.—(1) An appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgment, decree or
final order of a High Court in the territory of India, whether in a civil, criminal or
other proceeding, 3[if the High Court certifies under article 134A] that the case
involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of this Constitution.
1. Subs. by the Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act, 1956, s. 5, for the proviso
(w.e.f. 1-11-1956).
2. Ins. by the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976.
3. Subs. by the Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1978, s. 17, for "if the
High Court certifies"
(3) Where such a certificate is given, any party in the case may appeal to the Supreme
Court on the ground that any such question as aforesaid has been wrongly decided.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

=============================================================

E. STATEMENT OF FACTS
=============================================================
Timeline of the Case:

25.02.2008 Mr. Shinde,32 and Ms. Meera, 27 marry in Hyderabad.

4.09.2010 A girl child (Shrisha) is born out of their wedlock.
The neighbour noticed loud noise of fighting,
crying and shouting was coming from Mr. Shinde’s
5.12.2010
house. The neighbour found Meera lying unconscious and
Mr. Shinde hiding an axe.
Admitted Meera regains consciousness and produces a
06.12.2010
statement against her husband.
08.12.2010 Meera died due to her severe abdominal injuries.
Final Report was submitted charging accused of
03.02.2011
intentional murder.
Judgement given by Session court held husband, Mr.
03.09.2014 Shinde liable u/s 302 of IPC and punished for 10yrs of
rigorous imprisonment.
Accused Mr. Shinde, re-appealed for the charges against
09.10.2014
him.
The Court acquitted Mr. Shinde from charges of murder
05.09.2016 taking into consideration that at the time of homicide, he
was in state of insanity.
The State preferred to appeal to the Supreme Court
17.11.2016
against the acquittal given by High Court.

1. Mr. Shinde and Ms. Meera married and a baby girl was born out of their wedlock.
2. Mrs. Meera noticed changes in the behaviour of Mr. Shinde soon after their
daughter was born.
3. Meera took Mr. Shinde to a psychiatrist, who diagnosed first stage Bipolar
Disorder. He also warned Mr. Shinde to control his anger.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

4. Despite regular medications, Mr. Shinde grew more violent over petty issues. On
5th Dec. 2010, he attacked Mrs. Meera brutally with an iron axe.
5. upon hearing cries of Meera, neighbour, Mr. Daniel reached their house. Only to
find Mrs. Meera unconscious in pool of blood and Mr. Shinde finding an axe.
6. Mr. Daniel called for an Ambulance and reported to the police regarding the
incident.
7. Mrs. Meera regained consciousness and produced a statement about the incident.
However, she died soon after gaining consciousness, because of perilous injury in
abdomen.
8. Shrisha is sent to Child Care Centre.
9. The Session court found accused guilty for culpable homicide amounting murder,
thereby punishing him 10yrs Rigorous Imprisonment.
10. However, the accused appealed to the High court, which acquitted him from the
charges. Taking into consideration that the accused was in state of insanity during the
incident.
11. The State preferred to appeal it to the Supreme Court to overpower the judgement
of High Court of acquittal.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

=============================================================

F. STATEMENT OF ISSUES
=============================================================

ISSUE 1:
Whether sufficient ground of legal insanity exists so as to exonerate the accused from
liability of murder.

ISSUE 2:
Whether the burden of proof of legal insanity on the part of defence is at par with
burden of proof on part of prosecution.

ISSUE 3:
Is the statement given by wife valid or void?

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

=============================================================

G. SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS
=============================================================
ISSUE 1:
Whether sufficient ground of legal insanity exists so as to exonerate the accused
from liability of murder.
The counsel humbly submits before the Hon’ble court that the ground of legal
insanity cannot sufficient ground to acquit the murderer. The accused shall thereby
prove that he wasn’t sane during the commission of crime. Reports of insanity before
or after the commission of crime cannot be considered to believe that the accused was
insane during the crucial point of committing an offence. However, the prosecution
has beyond reasonable doubt proved that the accused was only medically insane and
not legally. Counsel has also proved that at the very point of the offence the accused
was of sane state of mind. Secondly the counsel has also stated the mens rea of his act.
The accused should therefore be liable for punishment and cannot be acquitted.

ISSUE 2:
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 most humbly contended that the the burden of proof solely lies on the defence. It
is the sole duty of the defence to prove that the offence committed by under special
exception of insanity. It not proved, the Court shall assume him of being sane while
the course of offence. The prosecution also has proved that the accused possessed
sane state of being when he committed the offence. The prosecution has also
submitted the reason for his so called frustration. It is also proved that the offence was
a pre- planned murder.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

ISSUE 3:
Is the statement given by the deceased wife valid or void?
It is contended before the Hon’ble Court that the statement given by Mrs. Meera is
valid and true. The dying statement produced by Meera can be considered in the
Hon’ble court because the statement fulfills of admission in court. The statement is
void of any misinterpretations or under unconscious state of mind. The prosecution
has provided with testimonies of doctor in- charge and investigating officers. This
clearly states that the statement can be valid and considered in the proceedings.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

============================================================

H. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
=============================================================
ISSUE 1:
Whether sufficient ground of legal insanity exists so as to exonerate the accused
from liability of murder?

It is humbly contented before the Hon’ble Court that in this particular case, the
accused mental health does not fall under the section of legal insanity. The following
arguments and justifications would prove the claims.

Section 84 of the IPC Act states:

Act of a person of unsound mind.—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.
Referring to the above section it can be held that at the commission of the crime the
accused should be in state of unsound mind or insanity. However, this can be proved
from the incidents and behaviour prior to and after the commission of the crime.
Mr. Shinde was diagnosed with bipolar disorder-1st Stage soon after a daughter was
born to them. He grew impatient and intolerant and fought for petty matters. This is
also proved and witnessed by Mr. Daniel (PW3) and his own brother, Anil (DW2).
which thereby proves that he got aggressive over such small issues and even beat Mrs.
Meera.
To reasonably fit into the frame of insanity an accused is unaware of the crime he
does is wrong or contrary to law. He possess significant sense to determine that he
had been hitting his wife. He wasn’t delusional, because a delusioned man believes
that what he does is right or out of fun.
A repetitive abuser and assaulter cannot be insane. Secondly it was recorded by the
statement of Mr. Daniel that he saw Mr. Shinde hiding the 7 inch long axe in the
garden. An insane person does not have sense to hide the evidences which would
prove against him. Similarly, a person who regains conscious after a fit of

10

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

unsoundness, calls for help (esp. After seeing wife on death stage) and not hide the
evidences.

In the case of Dayabhai Chaganbhai Thakkar vs.State of Gujarat. The court

rejected the plea on account of insanity that they were designed to help him acquit.
The case was disposed in favour of the deceased.

In case of : T.N. Lakshmaiah vs. State of Karnataka (16.10.2001 - SC)

Murder-Plea of insanity-When available under Section 84, I.P.C.?-Appellant taking
his wife and son to extreme end of waterfalls-Son pushed down who fell on rock 150
ft. below-Then tying her saree around neck of his wife and killing her by tightening
knot.
Whether plea of insanity available to him?-Held, "no"
In a case where the exception under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code is claimed,
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 is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law. Entire conduct of
the accused, from the time of the commission of the offence up to the time, the
sessions proceedings commenced, is relevant for the purpose of ascertaining as to
whether plea raised was genuine, bona fide or after-thought.

The consideration of statement given by Mr.Daniel proves that the accused tried to
hide the axe (the murder weapon). This proves the sanity of his act after committing it.
The victim suffered several injuries and one proved fatal. Every man is presumed to
be sane and to possess a sufficient degree of reason to be responsible for acts unless
the contrary is proved. Mere ipse dixit of the accused is not enough for availing of the
benefit of the exceptions under chapter IV of IPC.
The accused also wasn’t firm on his statements. Upon interrogating him for the first
time, he said he was unconscious at the time all this happened and upon regaining
conscious he found his wife unconscious in the pool of blood.
Later when the case proved against him he took the alibi of being insane and in state
of unsoundness.

11

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

State of Tripura vs. Arjun Biswas
Present appeal filed against order whereby Appellant was convicted for offence of
murder punishable under Section 302 of Code - Whether order of conviction passed
against Appellant liable to be set aside - Held, material on record showed that
Appellant as matter of routine used to treat his wife/deceased with all cruelty and also
used to assault her - Weapon with bloodstain of Appellant were found and seized by
Police Officer - Incriminating evidence of neighbourhood witness remained unshaken
in cross-examination - Nothing brought on record to show that Appellant was not man
of riotous nature - Indisputably, child of Appellant was present in scene of occurrence
- Evidence of child witness also corroborated with other evidence on record -
Presence of Appellant in night of occurrence in his house had been established in
evidence of neighbouring witnesses - No evidence proved that Appellant suffered
from any sort of insanity/unsoundness of mind at time of commission of alleged crime
- Hence, order of conviction passed against Appellant was not liable to be set aside.
The same case can be cited in the present case. The accused was seen incriminating
the weapon The brother, the neighbour and the psychiatrist treating him also show
that he was of aggressive nature but not insane.

State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Ahmadullah

The High Court affirmed an order of acquittal of the respondent on a
charge of murder under s. 302 of the Indian Penal Code passed by the Sessions
judge on the ground that the accused was of unsound mind. The prosecution
case was that the accused committed the murder of his mother-in-law against
whom he had borne ill will, by severing her head from her body while she
was asleep at dead of night. He made a confession of the crime but a plea of
insanity was taken at the trial. On appeal with special leave by the
State : Held, that the crucial point of time at which unsoundness of mind should
be established is the time when the crime is actually committed, the burden of
proving which lies on the accused in order to entitle him to the exemption
provided u/s 84 of the Indian Penal Code. It is not sufficient only to prove that the
accused suffered from an "epileptic type of insanity" before or after the
commission of the crime. There was nothing on the record of the instant case to show
that at the moment when the crime was committed the accused was capable of
knowing that what he was doing was wrong or contrary to law and as such he
12

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

was not entitled to an acquittal under s. 84 of the Indian Penal Code. Refusal
by the High Court to interfere with an acquittal in the proved circumstances of the
case could not be justified under any rule as to " impelling reasons ".
Corresponding the above case in light of present one: The accused is diagnosed with
Bipolar Disorder, but it cannot be established that during the crucial point of this
incident he was under the spell of insanity. The accused had himself brought the axe
from the garden. Started fighting over an issue. He turned it so violent as to take his
wife’s life. Wittily he tried to even hide the murder weapon. This absolutely proves
his motive of a pre- planned murder and not out of unsoundness.

In the light of above produced arguments, the counsel would therefore ask the
Hon’ble Court to correspond the same judgement as given by the Session Court for
this case. The accused is liable for punishment under Section 302 of IPC.

13

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

ISSUE 2:
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 henceforth submitted to the court that the burden to prove legal insanity is only at
par to the defence.
Indian Penal Code, 1860--Section 84--Plea of unsound mind-- Benefit under--Held--
Every person who is mentally diseased is not ipso facto exempted from criminal
responsibility--A court is concerned with legal insanity and not with medical insanity-
-The burden of proof rests on an accused to prove his insanity which arises by virtue
of section 105 of Evidence Act. [Para--7, 8, 9 and 11]
Ratio Decidendi: Benefit under Section 84 - The benefit under Section 84 is available
only after it is proved that at the time of committing the act, the 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 that even if he did not know it, it was
either wrong or contrary to law then this section must be applied.
In the present case, the accused has only proved medical insanity. The Bipolar
disorder, medical disorder cannot be assumed as legal insanity. The accused has
committed a pre- planned offence which cannot be covered under legal insanity.
For a person to be covered under legal insanity, the person has no idea that the
consequence is contrary to the law applicable within the territory. The accused
however, possessed sanity to know what offence he has committed. The 7inch axe,
murder weapon, was brought by him in the house intentionally. He fought with his
wife and the fight shifted from verbal to physical. The accused blew several wounds
with the axe on the wife.
The accused failed to prove that the offence was committed without mens rea or he
was under fit of insanity. The accused did not produce any statement that shows he
had some delusions regarding his wife. People with mental disorder often get hysteric
and hallucinate that people are going to kill him/her. In this case, the accused has no
such illusions regarding his wife, which clearly means that he had already planned to
kill her. He wasn’t delusional which means he possessed basic sense of what is right
and wrong.
It can also be cited from: Section 105 of Indian Evidence Act-
Burden of proving that case of accused comes within exceptions.—When a person is
accused of any offence, the burden of proving the existence of circumstances bringing
14

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

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.
(c) Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code, (45 of 1860), provides that whoever, except
in the case provided for by section 335, voluntarily causes grievous hurt, shall be
subject to certain punishments.
Plea of self-defence When the prosecution has established its case, it is incumbent
upon the accused, under section 105 to establish the case of his private defence by
showing probability; Samuthram alias Samudra Rajan v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1997)
2 Crimes 185 (Mad). The burden of establishing the plea of self-defence is on the
accused and the burden stands discharged by showing preponderance of probabilities
in favour of that plea on the basis of material on record; Rizan v. State of
Chhattisgarh, AIR 2003 SC 976.
In various cases it is held by court that: In case where accused takes plea of insanity in
his defence, burden of proof lies on him and he is required to produce medical record
to show that he was being treated for insanity. He is also supposed to prove that he
was in state of insanity during the crucial point of offence.

"The doctrine of burden of proof in the context of the plea of insanity may be stated in
the following propositions : (1) The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt
that the accused had committed the offence with the requisite mens rea ; and the
burden of proving that always rests on the prosecution.
The prosecution will therefore prove that this culpable homicide amounts to murder.
The accused is charged under section 302 of IPC.
The accused as per the history produced can be found that-
Soon after the child, Shrisha was born, the accused started behaving abnormally. He
was frustrated with the birth of a girl child. The frustration turned into anger and he
started loosing his control over anger on petty issues. The accused got himself
certified with such disorder which can be an easy alibi for his crime. The main aim of
the accused is to get rid of the mother and daughter.
Secondly, the accused used his disorder to get acquitted from the crime. However, the
stats also show that the Stage 1 Bipolar disorder is not fatal for members especially
when under proper medication. As per the findings and interrogations submitted, Mrs.
15

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

Meera had herself got Mr. Shinde tested and took proper care of him. Therefore, the
criteria of any negligence cannot be considered.
Making statements which are false: Mr. Shinde stated that he was unconscious at the
time when Mrs. Meera was attacked. He told to police that when he regained his
consciousness he found Mrs. Meera lying on the floor and axe in his hand. He told to the
police that he did not know from where the axe came and he also stated that he did not
know how Mrs. Meera died. But as per the dying statement given by Meera, he himself
hit her with the axe which is why she lost her conscious. This statement clearly dismisses
the false statement given by Mr.Shinde of being unconscious.
After the trial and once he was charged for murder, he appealed for acquittal on the
basis of insanity.An unsound person does not know the nature of the act, but does
know what is done!
Supposedly if he commits offence in fit of insanity, once he realizes that he has done
wrong, the first thing he should have done was to call ambulance. But what he did
was to hide the evidence- murder weapon.

The Prosecution has beyond reasonable doubt proved that at the time of offence the
accused was sane and knew the consequences of his act. Also the prosecution has
proved the mens rea of the accused.
Thereby the counsel requests court to appreciate and consider the verdict of Session
Court and punish the accused.

16

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

ISSUE: 3
Is the statement given by wife valid or void?
It is humbly submitted to the Hon’ble Court that the statement given by a dying
person has great importance in proceedings. The statement is valid and in this case
true. The counsel would justify it through the arguments.
Section 32 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Cases in which statement of relevant fact by person who is dead or cannot be found,
etc ., is relevant. —Statements, written or verbal, of relevant facts made by a person
who is dead, or who cannot be found, or who has become incapable of giving
evidence, or whose attendance cannot be procured without an amount of delay or
expense which, under the circumstances of the case, appears to the Court
unreasonable, are themselves relevant facts in the following cases:—
1 when it relates to cause of death. —When the statement is made by a person as to
the cause of his death, or as to any of the circumstances of the transaction which
resulted in his death, in cases in which the cause of that person's death comes into
question. Such statements are relevant whether the person who made them was or
was not, at the time when they were made, under expectation of death, and whatever
may be the nature of the proceeding in which the cause of his death comes into
question.

Mrs. Meera has been victim of a regular assault that comes under the purview of
domestic violence. She had been mentally and physically tortured by Mr. Shinde. She
has proved to be a caring person and had a bona fida. She treated her husband
Mr.Shinde very nicely. Mr.Shinde’s abnormal behaviour was not overlooked by her.
She was worried and therefore paid visit to a psychiatrist. Also there has been no
reason so as to why Mr.Shinde would be diagnosed with Bipolar Disorder. There is
no mental history or tensions in his life. Though so, Mrs. Meera did not loose hope.
She took care of his treatments and medications. However, the consequence of taking
care of her own husband has taken her life. It can be seen that Mr. Shinde was
diagnosed with Bipolar, but he did not get delusions. He did not hallucinate or create
scenes in his head. Which means he has no reason to be acquitted on the basis of
insanity.He did neither had hallucinated that Mrs. Meera was a threat to him nor
committed the crime under spell of insanity. His act has separated a mother from
daughter forever, and no amount of compensation can fill that loss. He has
17

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

intentionally killed an innocent person. Mrs. Meera’s dying statement is valid. This is
because her statement and conditions meet the grounds which consider dying
statement. The doctor’s testimony proves that while giving the statement she was of
sound state of mind. She was capable to clearly state the truth. Her death is caused
due to the act committed by the accused. Therefore, the dying statement is valid and
true.
The counsel thereby requests court to consider Mrs. Meera’s dying statement and
punish the accused for his crime.

18

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

=============================================================

I. THE PRAYER
=============================================================
Therefore, in the light of the facts of the case, Argument Advanced & Cases Cited, it
is humbly submitted that the defence has failed to prove the facts produced by them.
Hence it is prayed that,

i. The Judgement of the Session Court be upheld and the accused be punished.
ii. The accused should be held liable for life imprisonment.

AND/OR

Pass any other order that it deems fit in the interest of Justice, Equity, and Good
Conscience.
For this act of kindness, the Prosecutor shall as in duty bound, forever remain grateful.

_________________
Counsel for the
Prosecution

19

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT