CRIMINAL APPEAL

Name:
Semester:
Roll No.:
Class Roll No.:
Group:
Subject:
Party to the case:
Sections involved in the case:
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND
LADAKH AT JAMMU
Crl A(D) No. /1980
Lakshmi Singh
V/s
State of Jammu & Kashmir
IN THE MATTER OF: INDEX
S. No. PARTICULARS PAGE NOS.
1 Memo of Urgency
2 Memo of Parties
3 List of Dates and Events
3 Appeal
4 Application for adducing additional evidence alongwith
affidavit
5 ANNEXURE-I:
(Copy of the Judgement and order dated 05/11/1980)
6 ANNEXURE-II:
(Copy of the trial court records of medical visits)
7 ANNEXURE-III:
(Copy of the Doctor’s report)
8 Power of Attorney/Vakalatnama
9 Court fees

FILED BY:
PLACE: JAMMU
DATE: ___/___/1980
APPELLANT
Through Counsel
 BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
AT JAMMU.

Lakshmi Singh
V/s
State of Jammu and Kashmir

IN THE MATTER OF: MEMO OF URGENCY.

MAY IT PLEASE YOUR HONOUR,
The appellant above named respectfully submits as under:
1. That the appellant has filed the above titled criminal appeal in this Hon’ble
Court which is sure to succeed on merits.
2. That the matter involved in the criminal appeal is of emergent nature and in
case the criminal appeal is not taken up for consideration at an earliest, the
very purpose of filing the criminal appeal shall become infructuous and the
appellant shall suffer an irreparable loss and injury.
In view of the submissions made hereinabove, it is, therefore, prayed
that the criminal appeal may kindly be taken up for consideration at an
earliest in the interest of the justice.

DATED: ___/___/1980

APPEALLANT
THROUGH COUNSEL

Advocate
 BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND
LADAKH AT JAMMU.
Crl A(D) No. /1980

IN THE MATTER OF: MEMO OF PARTIES

Lakshmi Singh, Age 30 years

S/o Gopal Singh
R/o Janipur, Jammu.

….Appeallant

VERSUS

State of Jammu and Kashmir

Through Station House Officer
Police Station Janipur.
….Respondent
Place: Jammu
Date:
Appellants
Through Counsel

Advocate
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND
LADAKH AT JAMMU
Crl A(D) No. /1980

Lakshmi Singh
V/s
State of Jammu & Kashmir

IN THE MATTER OF: List of Dates and Events.

DATES EVENTS
03/04/1980 Oral information of the crime before the Sub-Inspector, Janipur,
Jammu was provided, the FIR came to be registered against the
accused under Section 302 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code and
the appellant was caught by the police.
05/04/1980 The appellant was taken into custody.
10/06/1980 The respondents in the present appeal filed a charge sheet on
10/06/1980 for the commission of offences under Section 302
and 324 of IPC against the appellant.
22/06/1980 The appellant was charged on 22/06/1980 for the commission of
offences under Section 302 and 324 of IPC for which he pleaded
not guilty.
05/11/1980 The appellant in the present appeal is aggrieved of the judgement
dated 05/11/1980 passed by the Court of Learned Principal
Session Judge, Jammu, wherein the appellant has been convicted
for the commission of the offenses u/s 302 and 324 of IPC
arising out of FIR No. 182/1980 registered with Police Station
Janipur. The appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for life for the commission of offense under
Section 302, and rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and
additionally a fine of Rs 10,000/- imposed for commission of
offense under Section 324 of IPC. In case of default in payment
 of the fine, the accused shall undergo further imprisonment for 2
years as prescribed by law.
Hence the present Appeal.
Appeallant
Through Counsel

Advocate

Place: Jammu
Date:__/__/1980
 BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND
LADAKH AT JAMMU.
Crl A(D) No. /1980

Provision of Law: Criminal Appeal under Section 374 CrPc.

Matter Pertains to District Jammu.

Lakshmi Singh, Age 30 years

S/o Gopal Singh
R/o Janipur, Jammu.

….Appeallant

VERSUS

State of Jammu and Kashmir

Through Station House Officer
Police Station Janipur.
….Respondent
IN THE MATTER OF: Criminal Appeal against the conviction and sentence
dated 05/11/1980 passed by the Court of Learned
Principal Session Judge, Jammu in File No. 55/Challan
under Section 302 and 324 of IPC arising out of FIR No.
182/1980 registered with Police Station Janipur, Jammu.
Prayer for setting aside the same.
MAY IT PLEASE YOUR LORDSHIP:
The appellant most respectfully submits as under:

1. That the appellant in the present appeal is aggrieved of the judgement dated
05/11/1980 passed by the Learned Principal Session Judge, Jammu, wherein the
appellants have been convicted for the commission of the offences u/s 302 and
324 of the IPC arising out of FIR No. 182/1980 registered with Police Station
Janipur. The appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
 life for the commission of offense under Section 302 and rigorous imprisonment
for 3 years and additionally a fine of Rs 10,000/- imposed for commission of
offense under Section 324 of IPC. In case of default in payment of the fine, the
accused shall undergo further imprisonment for 2 years as prescribed by law.
The appellant in pursuance of the said judgement has been shifted from District
Jail Jammu to Central Jail Jammu. The copy of the order dated 05/11/1980 has
been annexed herewith as ANNEXURE-I.

2. That the respondent in the present appeal filed a charge sheet on 10/06/1980
arising out of FIR No. 182/198 against the appellant. The appellant was arrested
on 03/04/1980 whereafter, after the completion of investigation the charge sheet
came to be filed under section 302 and 324 of IPC before the Court of Learned
Principal Session Judge, Jammu. The appellant was charged on 22/06/1980 for
the commission of said offences for which he pleaded not guilty. According to
the charge sheet that on 03/04/1980, informant Nisha Devi w/o Late Chhedilal in
company with her mother Sushma Devi and other eye witnesses provided oral
information to Sub-Inspector, Police Station Janipur, Jammu, for registering FIR
against the accused namely Lakshmi Singh, S/o Gopal Singh, R/o Janipur,
Jammu with the averments that the informant was at her house and at about 8:00
am, she heard an alarm and she ran towards the entrance of the house where her
husband was sitting to get some fresh air (“chabutra” in local language) only to
find out that Lakshmi Singh, a former friend of Chhedilal, was brutally
assaulting Chhedilal with a pharsa, the alarm was raised by Chhedilal to get
help, upon hearing the same alarm three of the neighbors of Chhedilal also ran
towards the house of Chhedilal, they tried to stop Lakshmi Singh who then fled
away from the crime scene taking the pharsa with him, Chhedilal had sustained
injuries on his neck and head and was rushed to the hospital where he
succumbed to injuries. It is on this report that the FIR No. 182/1980 for the
commission of offences under Section 302 and 324 of IPC was registered, the
police then arrested Lakshmi Singh from his house and offences under Section
302 and 324 of IPC were established against the accused, the appellant though
was taken into custody by police on 05/04/1980 as he was not keeping well and
had been admitted to the hospital. Investigation commenced and the same was
assigned to Sh. Nath Ram ASI who went to spot, prepared the spot sketch, went
to the house of the accused also, to seal the murder weapon and other necessary
 evidences. Charge sheet was presented in the court on 10/06/1980 and
committed to this court on 22/06/1980 for judicial determination.

3. That the Hon’ble Court of Principal Session Judge tried the appellant to which
the prosecution and the appellant lead evidence in defense. The Court after
concluding the trial convicted the appellant u/s 302 and 324 of the IPC. The
appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the
commission of offense under Section 302, and rigorous imprisonment for 3
years and additionally a fine of Rs 10,000/- imposed for commission of offense
under Section 324 of IPC. In case of default in payment of the fine, the accused
shall undergo further imprisonment for 2 years as prescribed by law. The
appellant is aggrieved of the aforesaid judgement and challenges the same
amongst other on the following grounds:

a) That the impugned judgement is erroneous on facts as well as legal

principles enunciated by the Apex Court from time to time and as such is
liable to be set aside.

b) That the Court below has not appreciated the evidence of the accused in the
right perspective, rejecting the defense plea for unsoundness of mind but has
based the judgement on the insufficient evidence of Dr. Sagar Sharma who
treated the appellant after the arrest was made on 03/04/1980 and till the
accused/appellant was taken into custody by the Police and was of the
opinion that the appellant was not mentally sick and was fit to face trial.

c) That in absence of any mens rea, conviction under Section 302 IPC was
unsustainable, relying upon Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakker Vs. State
of Gujrat, 1964 SCR 361.

d) That the evidence of Rimpi Singh w/o Lakshmi Singh and Ritu Singh m/o
Lakshmi Singh, with regard to the unsoundness of mind of the appellant has
not been properly appreciated and wrongly rejected as insufficient. The
appellant belongs to a very poor family and they could not be expected to
keep his medical records and prescriptions meticulously.
 e) That the defense witnesses had deposed convincing evidence that the
appellant went through the treatment of the psychotic conditions such as
schizophrenia and bipolar disorder.

f) That the appellant had been undergoing treatment at Government Medical

College by Dr. Diwakar Raina and due to scarcity of money, the appellant
was unable to continue his treatment, the records of the same could not be
gathered by the appellant and should have been presented before the Court
by the investigating officer which persuades in believing the fact that the
prosecution has deliberately withheld relevant evidence with regard to the
nature of the appellant’s mental illness.

g) That the accused was taken into custody on 05/04/1980. Charge sheet was
submitted on 10/06/1980 and conviction done on 05/11/1980. The records of
the trial court reflect several medical visits in the prison, administering of
antipsychotic drugs such as tablet Diazepam and Olanzapine to the appellant
with the impression recorded by the Doctor that the patient needs
continuation of treatment. The records of the trial court of the medical visits
in the prison and the Doctor’s report are annexed herewith as ANNEXURE-
II and ANNEXURE-III respectively.

h) That there existed sufficient evidence for a plausible defense for

unsoundness of mind of the appellant on a preponderance of the probability.
The conviction of the appellant was, therefore, unjustified and the appellant
was entitled to acquittal and the Trial Court has committed grave illegality
while convicting and awarding sentence to the appellant, which is against
the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

Rest of the grounds shall be urged at the time of hearing.

PRAYER:

It is therefore most respectfully prayed that due to the aforesaid submissions

and those to be urged at the time of hearing, the Hon’ble Court be pleased to allow
the present appeal and set aside the judgement and order of conviction dated
05/11/1980 passed by the Learned Principal Session Judge, Jammu arising out of
FIR No. 182/1980 dated 03/04/1980 registered with Police Station Janipur, Jammu
in the interest of justice, equity and fair play and the appellant may kindly be
acquitted of the offences.

It is further prayed that pending final disposal of present appeal, this Hon’ble
Court please the appellant on bail and suspend the sentence passed against the
appellant.

Any other relief which the Hon’ble Court in the facts and circumstances of
the case deems fit and proper may also be passed in favour of the appellants.

APPELLANT

Lakshmi Singh

Place: Jammu

Date:__/__/1980

Through Counsel

Advocate
 BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND
LADAKH AT JAMMU.
Appl. No. /1980
Crl A(D) No. /1980

Lakshmi Singh, Age 30 years

S/o Gopal Singh
R/o Janipur, Jammu.

….Appeallant

VERSUS

State of Jammu and Kashmir

Through Station House Officer
Police Station Janipur.
….Respondent

IN THE MATTER OF: Application U/s 391 CrPC Seeking to Adduce

Additional Evidence.

RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the above noted case is pending in this Hon’ble court.

2. That applicant could not produce the annexed evidence before the Trial court at
the time of proceedings as the applicant couldn’t get hold of the same.

3. That the ANNEXURE-II and ANNEXURE-III of this criminal appeal are

necessary documents for the proper adjudication of the above noted appeal.

4. That now the applicant/appellant wants to adduce this evidence before this
Hon’ble Appellate court.
PRAYER:

It is, therefore, prayed that the applicant/appellant may kindly be allowed to

adduce their additional evidence before this Hon’ble Appellate Court in the
interest of justice.

APPLICANT

Lakshmi Singh

Place: Jammu

Date:__/__/1980

Through Counsel

Advocate
 BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND
LADAKH AT JAMMU.
Appl. No. /1980
Crl A(D) No. /1980

IN THE MATTER OF:

Lakshmi Singh, Age 30 years

S/o Gopal Singh
R/o Janipur, Jammu.

….Appeallant

VERSUS

State of Jammu and Kashmir

Through Station House Officer
Police Station Janipur.
….Respondent

AFFIDAVIT
I Lakshmi Singh, aged 30 years, S/o Gopal Singh, R/o Janipur, Jammu, do hereby
solemnly affirm and declare as under:
1. That the deponent is the appellant in the Application and Appeal referred to
above. Being well conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case, the
deponent is fully competent to swear to this affidavit.

2. This appeal was filed by the applicant against the Judgement and decree of the
Principal Session Judge, Jammu dated 05/11/1980.

3. It is submitted that prior to, notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence by the
applicant, the accompanying documents could not have been procured by the
applicant.
4. It is submitted that the aforesaid documents are of vital significance and will
prove to be highly instrumental in establishing the case of the applicant and
facilitate the easy and just disposal of the appeal by this Hon’ble Court.

5. In case the said documents are not received on file and in evidence by this
Hon’ble Court, it will cause irreparable injury and hardship to the applicant.

6. It is, therefore, in the interest of justice that the documents listed in the
accompanying application may be received by this Hon’ble Court on file and in
evidence.

DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
I, Lakshmi Singh, the Deponent above named do hereby verify that the contents of
the above Affidavit are true and correct to my personal knowledge and nothing
material has been concealed or falsely stated.

Place: Jammu
Date: __/__/1980
DEPONENT
 IN THE COURT OF THE SESSIONS JUDGE, JAMMU

Criminal Case No. [Case Number] of [Year]

Date of Judgment: 5th November 1980

State of Jammu and Kashmir

Complainant
Versus

Lakshmi Singh
Respondent/Accused
IN THE MATTER OF:

CONVICTION ORDER AND ORDER OF

QUANTUM OF PUNISHMENT

1. This criminal case arises out of FIR No. 182/1980 registered with Police
Station Janipur, Jammu. The accused, Lakshmi Singh, stands charged with
offenses under Section 302 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

2. The accused, Lakshmi Singh, has been accused of brutally assaulting

Chhedilal, resulting in his untimely death. The incident occurred on 3rd
April 1980 at Janipur, Jammu. The complainant, State of Jammu and
Kashmir, relies on the testimony of the informant, Nisha Devi, wife of Late
Chhedilal, and other eyewitnesses who witnessed the assault and
subsequently apprehended the accused.
3. The accused has been charged under Section 302 IPC for the offense of
murder and under Section 324 IPC for causing hurt with a dangerous
weapon. On 22nd June 1980, the accused pleaded not guilty to the charges
leveled against him.

4. The trial proceeded with the presentation of evidence by both the

complainant and the defense. The complainant sought to establish the guilt
of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, while the defense attempted to
refute the charges and present an alternative narrative.

5. The complainant produced testimonies of the eyewitnesses who observed the

accused assaulting Chhedilal with a pharsa, medical evidence confirming the
cause of death as a result of the injuries inflicted by the accused,
identification of the accused as the assailant by the informant and other
eyewitnesses, and oral and documentary evidence linking the accused to the
crime scene.

6. The defense raised contentions of unsoundness of mind and insufficient

evidence. However, the court found no compelling evidence to suggest that
the accused was mentally incapacitated at the time of the offense. The court
also found no reason to doubt the credibility of the eyewitnesses, whose
testimonies were consistent and positively identified the accused as the
assailant.

7. Based on the evaluation of evidence and the applicable laws, the court holds
the following findings with regard to the charges:

8. The court finds the accused guilty of the offense of murder under Section
302 IPC. The prosecution has successfully established the accused's
intention to commit the crime, resulting in the death of Chhedilal. The court
also finds the accused guilty of causing hurt with a dangerous weapon under
Section 324 IPC. The evidence presented establishes that the accused
 intentionally used a pharsa as a dangerous weapon, causing injuries to
Chhedilal.

9. In light of the evidence presented and the findings of the court, the accused,
Lakshmi Singh, is hereby convicted of the following offenses:

10.For the offense under Section 302 IPC, the accused is sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for life. For the offense under Section 324 IPC, the
accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3
years and to pay a fine of Rs 10,000/-

11.In case of default in payment of the fine, the accused shall undergo further
imprisonment for 2 Years as prescribed by law.

12.The accused shall be lodged in the appropriate correctional facility as

determined by the prison authorities.

13.The court, having considered the nature and gravity of the offenses
committed, the impact on the victim's family, and the need for deterrence,
hereby determines the quantum of punishment as follows:

14.For the offense under Section 302 IPC, the court imposes rigorous
imprisonment for life. This sentence serves as a deterrent and ensures that
the accused remains incarcerated for the remainder of his natural life.

15.For the offense under Section 324 IPC, the court sentences the accused to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years. Additionally, a fine
of Rs 10,000/- is imposed, which shall serve as compensation for the victim
and his family.
 16.The accused is further informed that he has the right to appeal against this
conviction and sentence before the appropriate higher court within the
prescribed time frame.

Given under my hand and the seal of the court.

Sd-/
Principal Session Judge
Jammu
ANNOUNCED:
05.11.1980
 MEDICAL VISITING REGISTER

DATE VISITOR PATIENT/PRISONER

20/04/1980 Dr. Diwakar Raina Lakshmi Singh

15/05/1980 Dr. Diwakar Raina Lakshmi Singh

23/05/1980 Dr. Diwakar Raina Lakshmi Singh

15/06/1980 Dr. Diwakar Raina Lakshmi Singh

10/07/1980 Dr. Diwakar Raina Lakshmi Singh

28/08/1980 Dr. Diwakar Raina Lakshmi Singh

01/10/1980 Dr. Diwakar Raina Lakshmi Singh

22/10/1980 Dr. Diwakar Raina Lakshmi Singh

01/11/1980 Dr. Diwakar Raina Lakshmi Singh

 Doctor’s Report on Lakshmi Singh

1. Above named prisoner is suffering from mental illness since unknown

duration. He is being treated and examined by several psychiatrists attached
to Govt. Medical College, Jammu since April 1980 during specialists visit to
prison.

2. This prisoner showed suicidal tendency, aggressive behavior, disturbed

sleep, poor communication and occasional erratic behavior.

3. He was treated with various antipsychotic drugs since April 1980 till today.

4. At present he is under control with antipsychotic drugs and is still

maintained on drugs. He may be needed to be referred to Mental Hospital,
Jammu for further investigations and expert opinion, for further proceedings.

Sd-/
Dr. Diwakar Raina
 CONTENTS OF MEMORIAL

Title Page Nos.

1. Index of Authorities

2. Case laws

3. Sections

4. Statement of facts

5. Arguments

Shahnoor Ali
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Table of Cases:

1. Elavarsan V. State represented by Inspector of Police, (2011) 7 SCC 110.

2. Bapu V. State of Rajasathan, (2007) 8 SCC 66.

3. Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakhar V. State of Gujrat, (1964) 7 SCR 361.

4. State of Rajasathan V. Shera Ram, (2012) 1 SCC 602.

5. Vijayee Singh V. State of UP, (1990) 3 SCC 190.

6. Devidas Loka Rathod V. State of Maharashtra, (2018) 7 SCC 718.

Statutes:

1. The Indian Penal Code, 1860

2. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1974

3. Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Books:

1. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by S.N. Mishra

2. The Code of Criminal Procedure by Ratanlal & Dhirjlal

3. The Indian Penal Code by S.N. Mishra

4. Indian Evidence Act by Batuk Lal

Online Sources:

1. www.scconline.com

2. www.casemine.com

3. www.indiankanoon.com

4. www.indianlegalservices.com

5. www.igpleaders.com
 Case laws

1. ELAVARASAN V. STATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF

POLICE: 2011 (7) SCC 110

…. The appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt and consequent acquittal

when the prosecution cannot establish its case beyond all reasonable doubts.

…. The appellant has to create sufficient doubt in mind that he is entitled to

the benefit of the exception under Section 84 of IPC.

2. BAPU V. STATE OF RAJASTHAN: (2007) 8 SCC 66

…. In view of the previous history of insanity of the appellant as revealed, it

is the duty of an honest investigator to subject the accused to a medical
examination immediately and place the evidence before the court and if this is
not done, it creates a serious infirmity in the prosecution case and the benefit of
the doubt has to be given to the accused.

3. DAYABHAI CHHAGABHAI THAKKAR V. STATE OF GUJRAT:

(1964) 3 SCC 602

…. The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused
had committed the offense with the requisite mens rea, and the burden of
proving that always rests on the prosecution from the beginning to the end of
the trial.

…. Even if the accused was not able to establish conclusively that he was
insane at the time he committed the offense, the evidence placed before the
court by the accused or by the prosecution may raise a reasonable doubt in the
mind of the court as regards one or more of the ingredients of the offense,
including mens rea of the accused and in that case that court would be entitled
to acquit the accused on the ground that the general burden of proof resting on
the prosecution was not discharged.

4. STATE OF RAJASTHAN V. SHERA RAM:

…. Once, a person is found to be suffering from mental disorder or mental

deficiency, which takes within its ambit hallucinations, dementia, loss of
memory and self-control, at all relevant times by way of appropriate
documentary and oral evidence, the person concerned would be entitles to
seek resort to the general exceptions from criminal liability.

5. VIJAYEE SINGH V. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH:

…. If from the materials placed on record, a reasonable doubt is created in

the mind of the Court with regards to the mental condition of the accused at
the time of occurrence, he shall be entitled to the benefit of the reasonable
doubt and consequent acquittal.

6. DEVIDAS LOKA RATHOD V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA:

…. The accused has only to establish his defense on a preponderance of

probability, after which the onus shall shift on the prosecution to establish
the inapplicability of the exception.
 SECTIONS INVOLVED

1. Section 302 IPC:

“Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death or [imprisonment for

life], and shall also be liable to fine.

The Indian Penal Code, 1860, states that a person committing murder should be
given severe punishment. Murder is an evil act. No one has the right to take
another person’s life. For this serious crime, the murderer should be punished
with life imprisonment or the death penalty. Killing someone is a terrible thing
that a person does. Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code deals with the
punishments that are awarded to the offenders for specific crimes that they
commit. The main point of consideration for the Court is the intention and
motive of the accused in murder cases.

 Essential Ingredients of murder:

1. Intention:
The intention of causing death should be there.

2. Cause of death:
The act must be done with the knowledge that the act may or is likely to
cause the death of another.

3. Bodily injury:
The intention must be to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause
death.

 Scope of Section 302:

The Indian Penal Code provides punishment for murder under Section
302. Section 302 states that whoever commits murder is punished with:

1. Death, or
2. Life imprisonment, and
 3. The offender will be liable to pay a fine.

The offence is non-bailable, cognizable, and triable by the Court of Sessions.

2. Section 324 IPC:

“Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means.--- Whoever, except

in the case provided for by Section 334, voluntarily causes hurt by means of any
instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as
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 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 imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.”

Section 324 of the IPC states that when a person is voluntarily hurt by the use
of a dangerous weapon or means, the act comes under the purview of
voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means.

 Essentials of an offence under Section 324 IPC:

1. Voluntarily causing hurt,

2. By use of dangerous weapons or means, and
3. The act must cause bodily pain, disease or infirmity.

 Punishment under Section 324 IPC:

For an offence committed under Section 324 of the IPC, the accused is
punished with imprisonment, which may extend to 3 years, a fine, or both.

The offence is non-bailable, cognizable, and triable by the Court of Magistrate.

3. Section 84 IPC:

“Act of a person of unsound mind.--- Nothing is an offence which 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.”
For the defense of insanity under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, the
following elements are to be established:

1. The accused was in state of unsoundness of mind at the time of the act.

2. He was unable to know the nature of the act or was whether wrong or
contrary to the law.

 Section 84 incorporates the value of some of the foundational maxims of

criminal jurisprudence:

1. “Actus nonfacit reum nisi mens sit rea”-

An act of crime does not constitute guilt unless done with guilty
intention.

2. “Furiosi nulla voluntas est”-

A person suffering from mental instability is not of free will and

cannot commit a crime unless done with guilty intent.
 STATEMENT OF FACTS
Background:
Lakshmi Singh was a former friend of the deceased, Chhedilal. Lakshmi
Singh in the past was treated for insanity several times but due to the poor
condition of his family, he could not afford to get properly treated for his disease.
Due to this insanity and due to all that had been going through his life, Lakshmi
got indulged into the world of drugs like ghanja and wine.
Lakshmi Singh lived with his widowed mother and her wife. In the garb of
his unsound mind, Lakshmi Singh often used to beat his mother and wife, on one
such occasion Chhedilal along with other individuals intervened in the matter and
stopped Lakshmi Singh from beating his mother and wife. Thereafter, Lakshmi
Singh has stopped talking to Chhedilal.
Incident:
Around 8:00 pm of 03 April, 1980 Chhedilal was sitting on the door at the
chabutra of his house, Lakshmi Singh came to his house and started assaulting
Chhedilal with a pharsa to which Chhedilal raised an alarm. Chhedilal and other
individuals came running upon hearing the alarm and strange noises. On the arrival
of all these people, Lakshmi Singh fled away taking the pharsa along with him.
Chhedilal scummed to the injuries that he had sustained within an hour or so.

Ensuing Events:

FIR was registered against Lakshmi Singh under Section 302 and 324 of the
IPC and Lakshmi Singh was caught by the police on the same day (03/04/1980)
from his house. Lakshmi Singh was only taken custody after two days
(05/04/1980) of making arrest as he had to be hospitalized for his severe condition.

On 10/06/1980 charge sheet was filed against Lakshmi Singh for the
commission of offenses under Section 302 and 324 of IPC for which he had
pleaded guilty.

The Session Court on 05/11/1980 convicted the accused under Section 302
and 324 of IPC.
 OTHER RELEVANT SECTIONS

1. Section 374 CrPC:

“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 which a sentence of
imprisonment for more than seven years 2 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.”

2. Section 391 CrPC:

“(1) In dealing with any appeal under this Chapter, the Appellate Court, if it
thinks additional evidence to be necessary, shall record its reasons and may either
take such evidence itself, or direct it to be taken by a Magistrate, or when the
Appellate Court is a High Court, by a Court of Session or a Magistrate.

(2) When the additional evidence is taken by the Court of Session or the
Magistrate, it or he shall certify such evidence to the Appellate Court, and such
Court shall thereupon proceed to dispose of the appeal.

(3) The accused or his pleader shall have the right to be present when the
additional evidence is taken.
(4) The taking of evidence under this section shall be subject to the provisions of
Chapter XXIII, as if it were an inquiry.”
 BASIS OF ARGUMENT

1. Whether the present appeal is maintainable in the Jammu and Kashmir

High Court.

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble High Court that the present appeal
from the judgement of Principal Session Court is maintainable before the court
as, (i) the High Court has jurisdiction to hear the appeal Section 374 of CrPC;
and (ii) the judgement of the Principal Session Court was erroneous.
(i) The High Court has the jurisdiction to hear the appeal under Section 374
of CrPC:
It is humbly submitted that an appeal is indisputably a statutory right
and an accused who has been convicted by the Sessions Court is entitled to
avail this right which is provided under Section 374 of the CrPC. Section 374
(2), states that, if a trial is held by the Sessions Judge in which a sentence of
imprisonment of more than seven years has been passed, an appeal would lie to
the High Court.
In the present case, the accused has been sentenced by the Sessions
Court to life imprisonment and 3 years imprisonment and fine under Section
302 and 324 of IPC. Therefore, u/s 374 of CrPC, the accused has the right to
appeal before the High Court against the impugned order passed by the Session
Court.

(ii) The judgement of the Sessions Court was erroneous:

While appreciating the evidence, the approach of the court must be to

check whether the evidences produced as a whole inspire confidence. In the
present case, the Sessions Court in its judgement has not been able to
substantiate the repudiation of the defense put forth by the accused under
Section 84 of the IPC. Therefore, it is humbly submitted that the sentence
passed by the Sessions Court has erroneously convicted the accused.

2. The accused is not guilty of the offences u/s 302 and 324 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860.
 It is humbly submitted that the Sessions Court has greatly erred in holding
the accused liable under Section 302 and 324 of IPC as the respondent of the
present appeal has

(i) failed to adequately establish the required mens rea;

(ii) the Prosecution has failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt.

3. The act of accused was done at the time, by the reason of unsoundness of
mind of the accused.

It is humbly submitted that in order to exercise the defense u/s 84 of the IPC,
cardinal conditions must be satisfied namely, (i) The accused was in state of
unsoundness of mind at the time of the Act, (ii) He was unable to know the
nature of the Act and whether the act was wrong or contrary to the law.

(i) Thee accused was in state of unsoundness of mind at the time of the Act:

In the present case, the act of the accused was due to the insanity of
the accused. The medical psychiatric history and treatment of the accused
for two days after the arrest proves that the act of accused was by the reason
of unsoundness of mind.

(ii) He was unable to know the nature of the Act and whether the Act was
wrong or contrary to the law:

The accused being of unsound mind couldn’t differentiate whether the

Act done by him was wrong or contrary to the law and had no requisite mens
rea to commit the crime.

SHAHNOOR ALI

THANKS