Step 1:

Ragini: The counsel seeks permission to approach the Dias

Court: Yes

Ragini: Much Obliged

Step 2:

Ragini: If it may please, the counsel seeks permission to address the bench as your Ladyship.

“Much Obliged your Ladyship.”

Good Morning to the Hon’ble Ladyship

Step 3:

"May it please the ladyship, my name is Ragini Sinha, counsel for the [appellant], in the case of
State of Chittarpur vs Roman" under Supreme Court of Dravida

With the court’s permission, I would like to reserve 1 minutes for rebuttal. Thank You.
The Appellant humbly submits this memorandum to file the appeal before this Honourable Court. The
petition invokes its appellate jurisdiction under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,
which gives power to “Appeal in case of acquittal”.
As it’s a matter of right, as per the rules for the Special Leave Petition under Article 132, 134 and 136 of
Indian Constitution it is possible to present an appeal to the Supreme Court against the order of acquittal
passed by the High Court.
Step 4:

Ragini: Your Ladyship, there are two main issues involved in the present case.
 Ragini: The counsel seeks permission to begin with the Statements of Facts?
Court: Yes
Ragini: Much Obliged your Ladyship
Statement of facts are that,
1. Accused Roman took Asylum in Dravida and got married to Silky on 25th Feb
2014
2. Accused Roman’s behavioral changes were observed against her wife Silky after
few months of birth of girl child Rosy and so Silky was forced to send Rosy to
stay with her parents for her safety
3. Silky was a supportive wife and helped him with medical support
4. On 5th Dec 2016 at 11 AM, Mr. Daniel, who was the neighbor heard fight and saw
that victim was lying on ground with pool of blood and accused was hiding the 7

Public
 inch axe, which was used to kill the victim as stated by victim in her dying
declaration to SHO and then FIR lodged on 8th Dec 2016
5. Silky died because of the injury caused by Roman in her lower abdomen which
proved fatal and so her statement considered as dying declaration and also is
considered murder.
6. The case was tried in session court and had accused was found guilty of
intentional murder of Silky and was convicted under Section 302 of IPC .
7. The high court relied on insanity of accused as legal insanity and acquitted the
accused from charges on 5th Dec 2021.

If Court: No,
Ragini: Much Obliged your ladyship
OR
The counsel seeks permission to proceed with the pleadings.
Court : Yes
Ragini:
Your Ladyship, there are two main issues involved in the present case.
Your ladyship, the first issue is “Whether sufficient ground of legal insanity exists so
as to exonerate the accused from liability of murder”
And second issue is “Whether the burden of proof of legal insanity on the part of
Defence is at par with burden of proof on part of Prosecution”
Proceeding with the first issue
The humble submission before the Hon’ble Supreme court is that the sufficient ground of
legal insanity as per Section 84 of IPC, which sets out the legal responsibility test as
distinguished from the medical test.
To be exempted under this section, It is not sufficient to prove merely the presence of
mental derangement or psychotic illness. The accused must prove that his cognitive
faculties were so impaired that he was deprived of understanding the nature of the act or
distinguish right from wrong; wrong here means moral and not legal wrong.
First ingredient of Section 84 i.e accused is unsound in mind is supported by the
statement from Expert Opinion Dr. Alfred and is sufficient to prove that he is going
through Medical insanity and not the legal insanity.

Public
There is a perfect match between the dying declaration by victim and prosecution
witness, Daniel who was neighbour of Roman and informant of the case in FIR deposed
that “he saw the unconscious body of Silky with pool of blood on the floor and Roman
was hiding 7 inch iron axe in their garden, which was the object used for murder.
This shows consciousness of guilt and also accused was well aware of its actions and
capable enough to understand the nature of his act and so was hiding the axe in efforts to
avoid detection. This actions determines that the murder was intentional and this is
proved.
So in this case It has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused Roman is guilty
of murder of his wife Silky
Case Law: My ladyship, The counsel seeks permission to support or backup with case
laws.
Much Obliged Ladyship
Relying on the case law of Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar vs State of Gujrat (AIR
1964, SC 1563), it was stated that "Section 84 lays down the legal test of responsibility in
cases of alleged unsoundness of mind. There is no definition of "unsoundness of mind" in
IPC. The courts have, however, mainly treated this expression as equivalent to insanity.
But the term "insanity" itself has no precise definition. It is a term used to describe
varying degrees of mental disorder. So, every person, who is mentally diseased, is not
ipso facto exempted from criminal responsibility.
A distinction is to be made between legal insanity and medical insanity. 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 the Evidence
Act, 1872.
In all cases, where previous insanity is proved or admitted, certain considerations have to
be borne in mind. Mayne summarizes them as follows:
1. Where there was deliberation and preparation for the act;
2. it was done in a manner which showed a desire to concealment; whether after the
crime,
3. offender showed consciousness of guilt and made efforts to avoid detections,
whether after his arrest, he offered false excuses and made false statements.
4. facts of this sort are material as bearing on the test, which was submitted to a jury
in such a case;
5. 'Would the prisoner have committed the act if there had been a policeman at his
elbow ?'

Public
In this case As per Dr Alfred statement, stated "Accused Roman has previous insanity so
these test must be performed as per established guidelines from Supreme court
So looking onto the legal insanity test summarized, there was clear desire to conceal the
facts as he was trying to hide the axe just after he murdered, he tried to avoid detections
of murder equipment as he was conscious of his act , which was clear sign of his
soundness of mind at the time and after the murder. Then he started using false excuses
of his medical insanity to get rescued after his arrest.
So in this case It has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that defense witnesses are
quite insufficient to draw an inference that accused was of unsound mind at the time of
commission of the offence.
prosecution witnesses are sufficient enough to prove he is guilty of offence under Section
302 of IPC

Step 7: Ragini: if your ladyship is satisfied with the pleading submitted in the 1 st issue,
the counsel seeks permission to begin with the pleadings for the 2nd issue.

The humble submission before the Hon’ble Supreme court is that the burden of proving
the offence is always on the prosecution, the prosecution has to prove the offence beyond
reasonable doubt . But onus of proving the elements mentioned in section 84 of the IPC
are on the accused according to the section 105 of the Evidence act.
Under section 45 of Indian Evidence Act, Opinion of Experts, the question need to be
answered or ingredient need to be met that, whether Roman, at the time of murder of his
wife, was, by reason of unsoundness of mind, incapable of knowing the nature of the act,
or that he was doing what was either wrong or contrary to law.

Expert opinion is only stating and meeting the ingredient that his mental insanity can
cause him to get aggressive and do violent act, but his expert opinion does not state that if
he was incapable to know the nature of his act.

As per witness, Mr. Daniel, when he reached their , “he saw the unconscious body of
Silky on the floor and Roman trying to hide the axe in the garden”.

If accused’s cognitive faculties were so impaired that he was deprived of understanding

the nature of the act or distinguish right from wrong then why he was hiding the Axe
which is a murder equipment.

Public
It has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that, he was conscious of what he was doing
and he was able to understand each and every thing well and what is right and what is
wrong.

It clearly prove beyond reasonable doubt that, accused was aware of its action and
capable enough to understand the nature of his act and so was hiding the axe, which is the
equipment/object used for murdering his wife.

Last point is Silky who is Victim and wife of accused had to sent her girl child to her
parents due to the behavioral changes of him towards her and their daughter which is
only observed after her birth. This behavioral changes observation after birth of girl child
signifies that he was not happy with the birth of girl child and so here is the mens rea
behind the violent behaviour of him towards his wife and he ended this by murdering her.

So, here burden of proof of legal insanity on the part of Defence is not at par with burden
of proof on part of Prosecution.

Case Law: My ladyship, The counsel seeks permission to support or backup with case
laws

The Supreme Court in Shrikant Anandrao Bhosale v. State of Maharashtra ( 2002 SCC
748) held that when a plea of legal insanity is set up, the crucial point of time for
ascertaining the state of mind of the accused is the time when the offence was committed.
Whether the accused was in such a state of mind as to be entitled to the benefit of section
84 of the IPC can only be established from the circumstances which preceded, attended
and followed the crime. Undoubtedly, the state of mind of the accused at the time of
commission of the offence is to be proved so as to get the benefit of the exception.

As observed by the apex court in in Sudhakaran v. State of Kerala (2010) 10 SCC 5822,
Insanity in medical term is distinguishable from legal insanity. Where the offender is
suffering from the disease of schizophrenia, The medical profession would undoubtedly
treat the appellant herein as a mentally sick person (mentally insane). However, for the
purposes of claiming the benefit of the defence of insanity in law, the appellant would
have to prove that his cognitive faculties were so impaired, at the time when the crime
was committed, as not to know the nature of the act (legally insane).

Step 8:

Ragini: The counsel seeks permission to being with the prayer on behalf of appellant

Public
In light of the issues raised, arguments advanced, and authorities cited, the counsel of
Appellant humbly prays that the Hon’ble Supreme Court be pleased to adjudge, hold and
declare:

1. That the revision file is maintainable in the court of law as per Section 378 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973

2. That this appeal is admissible to the Supreme Court against the order of acquittal
passed by the High Court under Indian Constitution Article 132, 134 and 136

3. That the judgement reinstated in favour of deceased where accused was found guilty of
intentional murder of Silky and convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to 10
years Rigorous Imprisonment by District court.

4. That to set aside the judgement passed by High Court under Section 84 of IPC and 105
of Evidence Act

And pass any order that this Hon’ble court may deem fit in the interest of equity, justice
and good conscience.

And for this act of kindness, the counsel for the Appellant shall duty bound forever pray.

Ragini: It was pleasure arguing before the court.

If judge is grilling, and if don’t know answer,

Ragini: The counsel seeks permission to take a minute to answer.

If not able to understand the question:

Ragini: I would be obliged if the Court would clarify the question.

Public
Public