TEAM CODE-

IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

JEETU AND ANR …...….APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF ODISHA ……...RESPONDENT

FOR THE OFFENCES CHARGED UNDER SECTION 302 READ WITH SECTION
34 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT Pg.-3

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

JEETU AND ANR , the appellant have submitted the Petition before this Hon’ble High Court

of Orissa in the matter of JEETU AND ANR in pursuance of under section 374 (2) of Code

of Criminal Procedure. The Respondent humbly submits to this jurisdiction which has been

invoked by the Appellant. However, the Respondent reserves the rights to respectfully

challenge the same.

The present Memorial sets forth the facts, contentions and arguments and prayer on behalf of

respondent.
SECTION 374 of 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 1[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

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT Pg.-5

 STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUE 1

WHETHER THE APPEAL IS MAINTAINABLE IN THIS HON’BLE COURT?

ISSUE 2

WHETHER THE ACCUSED CONVICTED U/S 302 IS PROPER.

ISSUE 1:

THE APPEAL ISN’T MAINTAINABLE IN THIS HON’BLE COURT.

Before we enter into the submissions raised in this memorandum, it is useful to recapitulate

the scope and the grounds of appeal.

An appeal is not a retrial of the case. Rather, the appellate court reviews the record of the

lower court’s proceedings to determine whether there are adequate grounds to grant the

appeal.

Basic Grounds for a Criminal Appeal that is held in various cases of Supreme Court

are-

Firstly when the lower court made a serious error of law (plain error); or

Secondly when the weight of the evidence does not support the verdict; or

Thirdly when the lower court abused its discretion in making an errant ruling; or

Fourthly the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel .

The respondent submits that the present case doesn’t fall in any of the said grounds.

It is humbly submitted by the Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents that there is

not an error of law apparent on the face of the records. As the Trial Court has viewed all

evidence and all relevant circumstances relating to the fact to arrive to its own conclusion

about the guilt. The respondent also further submits that the Trial Court has done proper and

independent analysis and assessment of evidence after which the court have reach on decision

of conviction. (State of Gujarat Vs Bhalchandra Laxmishankar Dave)

THE ACCUSED CONVICTED U/S 302 IS PROPER.
It is humbly before this Hon’ble court that the learned session court decision of conviction of
accused under sec 302 of is proper. The learned session Court has weight the offence of the
accused as per the the act committed by accused .The accused had pre planned and
committed the offence with the aid of Jaggi while deceased was coming back after closing of
his shop with Narsingha.As the accused has previously planned which defines that there was
crystal clear intention and motive to commit the act. According to the fact the accused Jeetu
suddenly attacked from the back on Dilip the deceased with the sword and khurki and when
Narsingh tried to intervene in it he was hit by the sword in his palm by the accused 1.Seeing
that the accused 1 and 2 have weapons and brandishing it inorder to hit the deceased
Narsingha ran towards deceased house for help and called his sons.While all the three came
the deceased right legs was severed and there was infliction of 11 injuries in the limbs from
which it can be inferred knowing they have committed it heinously so that they can come in
the provision having loophole in law.
It is submitted that this infliction resulted into deceased dead which the accused have
knowledge that in ordinary cause is likely to cause death of deceased. The infliction also was
sufficiently in ordinary course of nature to cause death.The contention which is raised by the
appellant that the post mortem report made by the doctor doesn’t suggest injury which was
likely to cause death and the deceased died due to shock and cardiac hemorrhage .But the
respondent want to submit that the appellant shouldn’t forget that the injuries were the gift of
the appellant themselves for which such incident happened and which was preplanned to
inflict on those places of the body. The respondent further argues that there is a thin line of
difference between grievous hurt which endangers life and culpable homicide.The difference
is based on the intention of the assailant as to whether it was there objective to cause the
death or not which was held in the case of Jiba Bai vs Emperor.Also the medical expert
opinion do have slight evidentiary value ,which also had some concoction. Therefore this
Hon’ble court need to upheld conviction of the accused otherwise if this case is changed to
grievous hurt then in future one can take such plea after committing such grave offence
having knowledge and intention and also it will disturb the law and order in the society.