Table of Contents

Sl no. Content
1 Cover page
2 Table of contents
3 Abbreviations
4 Index of authorities
5 Statement of jurisdiction
6 Statement of facts
7 Statement of issues
8 Summary of arguments
9 Arguments advanced
10 Prayer
.ABBREVIATIONS
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

U3,Ch1_Culpable homicide and murder Law of crimes ,IPC 1860,Dr. Sr. Myneni

Manik Chand Bhapa vs State of Punjab,1008scc

U3,Ch3_Culpable homicide and murder Law of crimes ,IPC 1860,Dr. Sr. Myneni

Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab [AIR 1958 SC 465] ,

INTERNAL ASSIGNMENT MOOT MEMORIAL,2023

Memorandum on behalf of the respondent

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Hon'ble High Court………has the jurisdiction to hear the matter under Section

374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The provision under which the appellants have approached the Hon'ble Court is read

herein

under as:-

Sec. 374. Appeals from convictions: -

(1) Any person convicted on a trial held by a High Court in its extraordinary original

criminal jurisdiction may appeal to the Supreme Court.

(2) Any person convicted on a trial held by a Sessions Judge or an Additional

Sessions Judge

or on a trial held by any other court in whicha sentence of imprisonment for more

than

seven years has been passed against him or against any other person convicted at the

same

trial, may appeal to the High Court.

(3) Save as otherwise provided in sub- section (2), any person,

(a) convicted on a trial held by a Metropolitan Magistrate or Assistant Sessions

Judge or Magistrate of the first class, or of the second class, or

(b) sentenced under section 325, or

(C) in respect of whom an order has been made or a sentence has been passed under

section 360 by any Magistrate, may appeal to the Court of Session

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. A family of 4 namely,Natu,Tina,Tapu and Tanu was residing in a township,the parents being

Natu and his wife Tanu .
2. Lal a friend of Tapu had lent him 10,000 INR and was also allegedly side-eyed his sister.
3. Lal would often talk to Tina in the pretext of collecting debt .
4. After taking cognizance of the allegation Lal was denied access to the house by Natu (in his
absence).
5. On a given day Lal was called by Tapu to his residence to collect his debt amount.
6. On the very day the family saw Tina and Lal conversiating.
7. Natu,father of Tina started hurling abuses and a confrontation arose.
8. On the visible misbehaviour of Tapu in a bid to support his father, lal started abusing
Tapu ,saying he was still in debt to him.
9. This enraged the whole scenario which resulted into a fight involving a Lathi ,wherein blows
were sustained from Natu and Tapu by Lal on his head and shoulder respectively which
resulted in making Lal bleed profusely.
10. After being admitted to the hospital Lal succumbed to the injuries sustained after 10 days.
11. Post-mortem report confirms non of the injury sustained to be fatal independently or in full
measure and death to have occurred independent of the injuries.
12. The sessions court delivered the verdict, convicting the father-son duo of S34 r/w S302 of
IPC.
13. The duo again field a petition in the vrespective High Court.
ISSUES RAISED
1. Death of the respondent (Lal) is in direct propensity to the grievous hurt caused by Natu
and Tapu or not ?
2. Whether or not the ingredients of 34 r/w 302 are present in the commission of the
crime or not?
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. As the facts in case mention, it was Tapu’s father Natu at the instance of the
former’s abetment by bringing in the lathi and hitting the deceased on his
shoulder ,who had injured Lal on his head using the same lathi causing him to bleed
profusely leading him to death. Herein it is established that intending death of
Lal,did Natu hit him on his death, where even without a dangerous object could the
pre-mediated intention be accomplished. Thus establishing that Natu had sufficient
reason and knowledge to believe that hitting someone on the head could be fatal.
The section 326 shall apply where a dangerous weapon has been used to cause a
grievous hurt defined under S.320. Under this section it is not the actual nature of
the injury caused namely whether simple hurt or grievous hurt ,but the manner in
which it is caused is relevant.

2. According to clause (3) of Section 300, it is sufficient that there is intention to cause
the bodily injury that was actually caused. The subjective factor ends with that.
There need be no further enquiry whether the offender has the intention or the
knowledge that such should be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause
death For the application of clause (3) of Section 300, two things need to be prove
one that the injury was intentionally inflicted and secondly, that the injury inflicted
was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death of any person. That is,
under this clause the emphasis on the sufficiency of the injury was sufficient in the
ordinary course of nature to cause death or not depends upon the nature of the
weapon used or part of body on which the injury is caused.
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1.Death of the respondent (Lal) is in direct propensity to the grievous hurt caused by
Natu and Tapu or not ?
In the matter pertaining to the case it is prima-facie evident that death of Lal was a
direct result of bleeding profusely which was caused due to the injury sustained by him
on his head and shoulder independently, caused to him by the appellant wherein the
duo had 1) acted with the knowledge that they can likely by such act cause death 2)
voluntarily caused hurt by dangerous weapons or means .
1. Knowledge is a strong word and imports certainty and not merely probability.
Knowledge refers to the personal knowledge of the person who does the act .The
offender should reasonably expect that the consequence of his act would probably
result in the death of a person , even if he did not intend to cause the death 1.
As the facts in case mention, it was Tapu’s father Natu at the instance of the former’s
abetment by bringing in the lathi and hitting the deceased on his shoulder ,who had
injured Lal on his head using the same lathi causing him to bleed profusely leading
him to death. Herein it is established that intending death of Lal,did Natu hit him on
his death, where even without a dangerous object could the pre-mediated intention
be accomplished. Thus establishing that Natu had sufficient reason and knowledge
to believe that hitting someone on the head could be fatal. Basing on such
circumstantial evidence and post-mortem report the counsel for the respondent is
of firm belief that it was the grievous hurt sustained by the deceased which is
directly responsible for causing his death and the gap between the incident of
quarrel and death is insignificant and redundant to the case.
2. Section 326. Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means.—
Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 335, voluntarily causes grievous
hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument
which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or
any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by
means of any explosive substance, or by means of any substance which it is
deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or
by means of any animal, shall be punished with 1 [imprisonment for life], or with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and
shall also be liable to fine. The section aforementioned shall apply where a
dangerous weapon has been used to cause a grievous hurt defined under S.320.
Under this section it is not the actual nature of the injury caused namely whether
simple hurt or grievous hurt ,but the manner in which it is caused is relevant 2.The
description of dangerous weapons within S326 include an axe, broken bottle of soda,
1
U3,Ch1_Culpable homicide and murder Law of crimes ,IPC 1860,Dr. Sr. Myneni
2
Manik Chand Bhapa vs State of Punjab,1008scc
 thick lathi with many others.3 The clear indication of usage of dangerous weapon by
Natu makes his deed invite another penalty which may be realised through fine by
the wise court of law in the lawful course of justice delivery.

2.Whether or not the ingredients of 34 r/w 302 are present in the commission of the crime?

When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each
of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone. The
essential ingredients to be proved in order to fix joint liability are :

a. That a criminal act was done i.e (causing grievous injury to Lal without any premise of
provocation )
b. The said act was done by several persons(father-son duo committed this act)
c. Several persons did it in furtherance of common intention of all ie. There was a pre-arranged
plan in pursuance of which the criminal act was done and the act of each accused helped to
further the common intention. (Lal was in a very unlikely situation CALLED by Tapu to collect
his due debt amount from their residence; Injury inflicted on shoulder by Tapu preceded the
injury inflicted on head by Natu)
d. Common intention in the sense of a pre-arranged plan between such persons.( Tapu
bringing in lathi and consequently Natu using it)
:. The joining links of the facts evidently suggest Sec 34 of the code to have been complied
with completely, thus making any denial of applicability of S.34 baseless.

According to clause (3) of Section 300, it is sufficient that there is intention to cause the bodily injury
that was actually caused. The subjective factor ends with that. There need be no further enquiry
whether the offender has the intention or the knowledge that such should be sufficient in the
ordinary course of nature to cause death For the application of clause (3) of Section 300, two things
need to be prove one that the injury was intentionally inflicted and secondly, that the injury inflicted
was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death of any person. That is, under this
clause the emphasis on the sufficiency of the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to
cause death or not depends upon the nature of the weapon used or part of body on which the injury
is caused

The accused, who intentionally caused the injury, may not be aware that injury was sufficient to
cause death or was likely to cause death. But his intention to cause the injury is established and the
injury caused is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, then the accused is guilty
of culpable homicide amounting to murder.

In Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab [AIR 1958 SC 465] 4, it was held that, in the absence of any
circumstances to show that the injury was caused accidentally or unintentionally, the presumption
would be that the accused had intended to cause the inflicted injury and the conviction was upheld.
The Supreme Court, further laid down in order to bring a case within clause (3) of Section 300, the
prosecution must prove the following:

3
U3,Ch3_Culpable homicide and murder Law of crimes ,IPC 1860,Dr. Sr. Myneni
4
i) First, it must establish, quite objectively, that a bodily injury is present:

ii) Secondly, the nature of the injury must be proved; it is purely objective investigation:

iii) Thirdly, it must be proved that there was an intention to inflict that particular bodily injury, that is
to say, that it was not accidental or unintentional or that some other kind of injury was intended;
Once these three elements are proved to be present, the enquiry proceeds further, and

iv) Fourthly, it must be proved that the injury of the type just described made up of the three
elements set out above, is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. This part of the
enquiry is purely objective and inferential and has nothing to do with the intention of the offender.

Citing the case above it can be construed sufficiently that hitting a person on his head, with an
object howsoever blunt or incapable of causing death and yet letting him bleed profusely is sufficient
to cause death in ordinary course of nature and hence qualifies the litmus test of committing a
murder as defined under S300.

:. The duo is liable to be held punishable under 302 r/w 34,107.

PRAYER

In the light of the facts presented, arguments cited ,the counsel for respondent humbly submits that
the High court be pleased to validate and declare that:

1.Death of lal was a direct consequence of injuries sustained by him from the persons accused.

2.Previous verdict of the sessions court on the persons accused stands valid with application of s.107
on Tapu.