appellant moot court

14TH PRO BONO ENVIRO NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION- 2021
GOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE, TIRUCHY

STATE LEVEL (ENGLISH) MOOT COURT COMPETITION- 2023
TEAM CODE: THINAIMOZHI
BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, VARUSA NADU
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. ______ OF 2023
THE APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL

PROCEDURE, 1973.
IN THE MATTER OF
1. VIRUTHAN (A1) ……………………………....APPELLANT 1

2. THURITHAN (A2) ………………………………APPELLANT 2
3. ARUVAN (A3) ………………………………APPELLANT 3
v.
STATE OF VARUSA NADU & Anr ……………………….RESPONDENT
UPON SUBMISSSION TO THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE,

VARUSA NADU
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATION……………………………………………….………………..ii
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES………………………………………………………………..iii
1. CASES REFERRED……………………………………………………………….iii
2. BOOKS REFERRED………………………………………………………………v
3. STATUTES………………………………………………………….......................vi
4. ONLINESOURCES…………………………………………………......................vi
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION……………………………………………………….1
STATEMENT OF FACTS……………………………….……………................................2
STATEMENT OF ISSUES………………………….…………...........................................3
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS………………………………………................................4
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED………………………………………….................................6
1. WHETHER THE DEATH OF THE DECEASED IS A CULPABLE HOMICIDE

AMOUNTING TO MURDER OR NOT?....................................................................6
2. WHETHER THE MEDICAL EVIDENCE AND OTHER EVIDENCES PROVE THE
MURDER BY THE ACCUSED? ……………………………………………………13
3. WHETHER THE PROSECUTION HAS ESTABLISHED THE GUILT OF THE
ACCUSED HEREIN BEYOND ALL THE REASONABLE DOUBTS?..................19
4. WHETHER THE PUNISHMENT IMPOSED BY THE TRIAL COURT IS
APPROPRIATE, LEGAL AND VALID?...................................................................24
PRAYER……………………………………………………………...……………………..29
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT Page i

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ABBREVIATION EXPANSION
& And
AIR All India Report
Anr Another
A.P Andhra Pradesh
CS Civil Suit
Cr.P.C Criminal Procedure Code
Cri.L.J./ Cr.L.J. Criminal Law Journal
Ed. Edition
Govt Government
H. C High Court
Hon’ble Honorable
Ibid Ibidem
IPC Indian Penal Code
Ors Others
PW Prosecution Witness
r/w read with
Rev Review
HC High Court
Sec Section
v. Versus
Vol. Volume
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT Page ii

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
1. CASE REFERED
INDIAN CASES
1. Alla Baksh v. The Crown 1952 Cri LJ 79

2. Allauddin Mian Vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1989 SC 1456 (Para 10)
3. Anil vs. State of Maharashtra, (2014) 4 SCC 69.
4. Appukkuttan v. State, 1989 CRL. L.J. 2362
5. Ballet singh and others v. State of bihar, 1972 CrLJ 264 : 1972 AIR 464
6. Bawa Singh v. State of Punjab, 1993 CrLJ 49: 1993 AIR (SC) 292 : 1993 Supp (2) SCC 754
7. Bhajan Singh alias Harbhajan Singh and Ors. v. State of Haryana, (2011) 7 SCC 421
8. Bharvad bhikha valu and others v. The state of Gujarat, 1971 CrLJ 927: 1971 AIR(SC) 1064
9. Chhannu Lal Verma Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, AIR 2019 SC 243
10. Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1964 SC 1563
11. Dayal V. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1994 CrLJ 10: 1994 AIR (SC) 30
12. Deo Narain Mandal Vs. State of UP (2004) 7 SCC 257
13. Dharam Pal and others vs The state of U.P.,1995 CrLJ 3642 : 1995 AIR(SC)1998
14. Goutam Kundu v. Territory of West Bengal, 1993 AIR 2295, 1993 SCR (3) 917
15. Gurdeep Singh v Jaswan Singh and others, 1992 CrLJ 1283: 1992 AIR
16. Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab, 2014 (3) SCC 92
17. In State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Mohd. Iqram and another, [(2011) 8 SCC 80]
18. Juwar singh V. The state of madhya pradesh, 1971 CrLJ 1545
19. K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra, 1962 AIR 605, 1962 SCR Supl. (1) 567
20. Kalyan Kumar Gogoi v. Ashutosh Agnihotri, AIR 2011 SC 760
21. Kishore Singh and another v. The state of Madhya Pradesh, 1977 CrLJ 1937:1977 AIR
22. Magan Bihari Lal vs State of Punjab,1977 AIR 1091, 1977 SCR (2)1007
23. Mahmood vs The state of Uttar Pradesh ,1976 CrLJ 10 : 1976 AIR(SC)69
24. Mallanna S/o Narasappa Erat and ors. v. State and Ors, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.3562/2012
25. Md. Mannan Vs. State of Bihar, AIR 2019 SC 2934 (Three-Judge Bench) (Para 83)
26. Naib singh v. State of Punjab, 1986 CrLJ 2061
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT Page iii

27. Nathan v. State of Madras AIR 1973 SC 665, 1973 CriLJ 608, (1973) 3 SCC 803
28. People v. Hernandez, 61 Cal. 2d 529, 39 Cal. Rptr. 361, 393 P.2d 673 (1964)
29. Piara singh and others v. State of Punjab, 1977 CrLJ 1941
30. Pularu v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1993 CrLJ 1809: 1993 AIR
31. Pulicherla Nagaraju v. State of Andhra Pradeshon 18 August, 2006
32. Punjab singh v. State of haryana, 1984 CrLJ 921
33. Purushottam Dashrath Borate v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1978 S 1548.
34. R v. Pembleton (1874) LR 2CCR 119
35. R.I. Smt Ankeri v. State of Rajasthan, 1994 CILJ 947 1994 AIR
36. Ram Charan & Ors vs State Of U.P
37. Ram Deo Vs State of Bihar, 1988 Cri. L.J. 1431
38. Ram Narain Singh v. State of Punjab, 1975 AIR 1727, 1976 SCR (1) 27
39. Rampal Singh vs State Of U.P on 24 July, 2012
40. Randhir Singh v. State of Punjab, 1982 CrLJ 195 1982 AIR
41. Rang Bahadur Singh V. State of U.P, AIR 2000 SC 1209
42. Reg. v. Govinda, (1877) ILR 1 Bom 342
43. Rohit Shekhar v. Narayan Dutt Tiwari and Anr.on 27 April, 2012
44. Sahdev vs. Jaibar, 2009 (67) ACC 483 (SC)
45. Santosh Kumar v. State of Biharon 14 February, 2020
46. Sattatiya v. State of Maharashtra (2008) 3 SCC 210
47. Selvaraj V/s The State of Tamil Nadu, (1976) 4 SCC 343
48. Sethu Madhavan Nair and others vs The state of Kerala,1974 CrLJ 1279 : 1974 AIR(SC)1857
49. Shahaja @ Shahajan Ismail Mohd. Shaikh vs State Of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 596
50. Shantabai and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, (2008) 16 SCC 354 A.I.R. 1968 SC 1270 : 1968
Cr.L.J. 1473
51. Slam Narain v. Province of Punjab. AIR 1975 SC 1727
52. Solanki Chimanbhai Ukabhai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1983 SC 484, 1983 CriLJ 822, 1983 (1)
Crimes 625 SC, (1983) 2 GLR 870, 1983 (1) SCALE 198, (1983) 2 SCC 174
53. Sri Murli alias Denny v. State of Rajasthan, 1994 CILJ 1114. 1994 AIR (SC) 610
54. State of A.P. v. R. Punnayya,1977 AIR 45, 1977 SCR (1) 601
55. State of Haryana v Prabhu and others,1 1979 CrLJ 892
56. State of Haryana v. Prabhu and by others, 1979 CrLJ 892: 1979 AIR
57. State of M.P. vs. Bablu Natt, 2009 (1) Supreme 131
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT Page iv

58. State of MP vs. Kashiram, AIR 2009 SC 1642
59. State of U.P. V. Ram Veer Singh and Another, 2007 (6) Supreme 164
60. State v. Canola,73 N.J. 206, 374 A.2d 20 (1977)
61. State v/s. Kartar, A.I.R. 1970 SC 1305 :1970 Cr.L.J. 1144
62. Sujit Biswas vs State of Assam; 2013 Cri.LJ 3140 SC
63. Surjit Singh Vs. Nahar Ram, (2004) 6 SCC 513
64. Sushil Murmu Vs. State of Jharkhand, (2004) 2 SCC 338;
65. Tholan v State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1984 SC 759: 1984 Cri LJ 478
66. Yogendra Morarji v. The State of Gujarat, 1980 CrLJ 459: 1980 AIR
FOREIGN CASES
1. People v. Hernandez, 61 Cal. 2d 529, 39 Cal. Rptr. 361, 393 P.2d 673 (1964)
2. R v. Pembleton (1874) LR 2CCR 119
3. State v. Canola,73 N.J. 206, 374 A.2d 20 (1977)
2. BOOKS REFERED
S.NO NAME
1. Batuk Lal, the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Central Law Agency, 2017).
2. Dr.Avtar Singh, Principles of The Law of Evidence, (24th Ed 2020)
3. Gurkirat Kaur, Criminal Justice System, (2017 Ed 2)
4. Hans Gross, Criminal Psychology, (2019 Ed 3)
5. K. D. Gaur, Textbook on Indian Penal Code (Universal Law Publications, 6th

Edition, 2016).
6. K. N. Chandrasekharan Pillai, R.V. Kelkar's Lectures on Criminal Procedure, (6th
Ed 2017)
7. P.S.A Pillai, Dr. K. I. Vibhute, Criminal Law (Lexis Nexis, 12th Edition, Re. 2016).
8. Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, Indian Penal Code (Lexis Nexis, Nagpur, 30th Ed., 2008).
9. Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, the Code of Criminal Procedure (Lexis Nexis, 22nd Ed., 2017).
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT Page v

10. S. N. Mishra, the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Central Law Publications, 20th
Edition, 2016).
11. S. V. Joga Rao, Evidence: Cases and Materials, (1st Ed 2003)
12. Surya Narayan Mishra, Shriniwas Gupta (ed.), Indian Penal Code (Central Law
Agency, Allahabad, 20th Edi, 2016).
3. STATUTES
S.NO NAME
1. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act 2 of 1973)
2. The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860)
3. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Act 18 of 1872)
4. The Indian Medical Council Act, 1956
4. ONLINE SOURCES
S.NO LINK
1. Indian Kanoon, https://indiankanoon.org/
2. Manupatra Online Resources, http://www.manupatra.com
3. SCC Online, http://www.scconline.co.in
4. EBC Reader, https://www.ebcreader.com/
5. Oxford Dictionary, https://www.oxford learnersdictionaries.com/
6. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org
7. LexisNexis, http://www.lexisnexis.co.in/
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT Page vi

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Appellant has approached the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature, Varusa Nadu under
Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction and thereby invoked Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973.
Section 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 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.
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT Page 1

STATEMENT OF FACTS
For the sake of brevity and convenience of this Hon’ble Court the facts of the present case are
summarised as follows:
1. The appellant herein are the three accused namely Viruthan (A1), Thurithan (A2),
Aruvan (A3) are convicted for causing murder of deceased Uthiyanand under Section
120 (B) r/w. Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 in the Additional District and
Session Court. All three accused plead not guilty.
2. After full trial, the Session Court convicted and sentenced all the three accused under
Section 120(B) r/w 302 of I.P.C and impose life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5,000/-
and in default he shall suffer a further imprisonment of 6 months and sentenced for
further charge u/s 302 r/w 109 I.P.C and shall suffer a Life Imprisonment with a fine of
Rs.5,000/- and in default he shall suffer further imprisonment for Six months.
3. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, all the three convicted accused preferred
a criminal appeal before the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature, Varusa Nadu.
4. The appellant challenges before the Hon’ble High Court stating that the Trial Court has
failed to consider the evidence submitted from their respective; the Trial Court has
failed that the investigation has not been done properly; the Trial Court has failed to
consider that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubts; the
Trial Court has erroneously convicted the appellant on the basis of unbelievable
evidence and the related documents; the sentence imposed by the Trial Court on the
appellant is highly irrational which is not sustainable by law; the judgment of the Court
below is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probability of the case. Thus, the
appellant prays for acquittal of the appellant from all the charges convicted against him.
5. Therefore, the appeal has been taken on filed by the Hon’ble High Court and now the
matter has been taken here for the final disposal.

STATEMENT OF ISSUES
ISSUE: 1
WHETHER THE DEATH OF THE DECEASED IS A CULPABLE HOMICIDE

AMOUNTING TO MURDER OR NOT?
ISSUE: 2
WHETHER THE MEDICAL EVIDENCE AND OTHER EVIDENCES PROVE

THE MURDER BY THE ACCUSED?
ISSUE: 3
WHETHER THE PROSECUTION HAS ESTABLISHED THE GUILT OF THE

ACCUSED HEREIN BEYOND ALL THE REASONABLE DOUBTS?
ISSUE: 4
WHETHER THE PUNISHMENT IMPOSED BY THE TRIAL COURT IS

APPROPRIATE, LEGAL AND VALID?

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

It is humbly submitted that the death of the deceased is a culpable homicide not amounting to
murder. There is a thin line between Murder and Culpable Homicide. . The entire case of the
prosecution can be based on a single point i.e., "intention" and in the same way the entire case
of the prosecution can be proved by "no intention". The homicides that are penalised under the
Code clearly fall within the category of unlawful homicides. Lawful homicides can be divided
into two categories based on the nature of the ‘general exceptions’ that surround the homicide:
excusable homicides, and justifiable homicides. The word likely is used in Section 299 which
states one of the probabilities which amount to culpable homicide but the word sufficient is
used in Section 300 which denotes most probably. Homicide is unlawful when the death is
caused by an intentional act. But whereas in this case the, intention is not properly proved or
corroborated.
2. WHETHER THE MEDICAL EVIDENCE AND OTHER EVIDENCES PROVE

It is humbly submitted that the medical report improperly corroborated, Starting with the
conductance of a crime or not, when a respondent files a case before the court of law for getting
the accused punished or an accused files a case for granting of relief, what plays the most
important role in deciding such matters is called Evidence. Such evidence has to be produced
by the state before the court to prove the guilt or innocence of the accused. One such type of
evidence is Medical evidence which being an amalgamation of medicine and law plays an
important role in matters of criminal jurisdiction.


It is humbly submitted that in a criminal case, the cardinal principle of law is that the accused
it innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. In the instant case 1)The alleged
witnesses to the occurrence, namely, P.Ws.2 to 3 are interested witnesses and their presence at
the SOC, even according to their testimony, is highly improbable. That both the eye witnesses
are unreliable witnesses.2) The Trial Court has convicted the appellant for the offense under
Section 302 I.P.C. based on the hearsay evidence. 3) Blood group of Blood stains found on
the sample(aruval) was not identified. Thus, The prosecution has miserably failed to prove the
guilt of the accused beyond doubt the appellants therefore must be given benefit of doubt.

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble High Court that the punishment imposed by the trial
Court is inappropriate, illegal and void because the trial court impose sentence in which the
when the prosecution does not prove the beyond reasonable doubt for the murder which was
committed by the appellant. Although the Trial Court has violated natural justice by without
considering the evidence submitted from their respective. Thus, the Trial Court has erroneously
convicted the appellant on the basis of unbelievable evidence and the related documents.
Therefore, the trial court imposed punishment is void.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

It is humbly submitted that the death of the deceased is a culpable homicide not amounting to
murder. There is a thin line between Murder and Culpable Homicide. The entire case of the
prosecution can be based on a single point i.e., "intention" and in the same way the entire case
of the prosecution can be destroyed by the defence by proving "no intention". As a result, there
are two sorts of homicides: (1) lawful homicides and (2) unlawful homicides. Lawful
homicides are ones that fall under the IPC’s Chapter on General Exceptions and are hence not
penalised. The homicides that are penalised under the Code clearly fall within the category of
unlawful homicides. Lawful homicides can be divided into two categories based on the nature
of the ‘general exceptions’ that surround the homicide: excusable homicides, and justifiable
homicides.
1.1.NOT A MURDER UNDER SEC.300 OF IPC:
Murder is defined under the Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code, In recent case Rampal
Singh vs State Of U.P1 on 24 July, 2012: it was held that section 299 of IPC is the genus and
Section 300 of IPC is the species. Therefore, it can be summed up that all 'murders' are 'culpable
homicides' but all 'culpable homicides' are not murders. S.300: Culpable Homicide amounting
to Murder
Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder:
1. if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or
2. If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to
be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or
3. If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily
injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause
death, or
1
Rampal Singh vs State Of U.P1 on 24 July, 2012

4. If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must,
in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and
commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such
injury as aforesaid.
Distinctions Between Sections 299 And 300 Of IPC, 1860. The degree of intention of the
offenders is to be considered. There are certain ways to differentiate between these two
concepts and it is latent with the term seriousness of intention. The word likely is used in
Section 299 which states one of the probabilities which amount to culpable homicide but the
word sufficient is used in Section 300 which denotes most probably. Subsequently, another
difference can be that of the chance of death wherein it is high in case of murder and less under
culpable homicide. Another difference is of mens rea where it is involved with a difference of
degree in both the offences. It may further be classified into: Excusable homicide & Justifiable
homicide.
Homicide is unlawful when the death is caused by an intentional act. Whoever causes death by
doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily
injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause
death, commits the offence of culpable homicide.
The important elements of culpable homicide are: (i) Causing death: With the intention of
causing death, (ii) By doing an act: With the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely
to cause death, or (iii) The act of death must be done: With the knowledge, that such act is
likely to cause death.
Murder Or Culpable Homicide Not Amounting To Murder, The difference between these two
offences is a difference of degree not of form. The degree of intention or knowledge determines
the nature of the offence, whether it is murder or culpable homicide. Where the degree of such
intention or knowledge stands at zero, the act causing such death shall be deemed to be
negligence and it shall amount to neither murder nor culpable homicide not amounting to
murder. Every act causing death is not murder, indeed it may be an offence even lesser than
culpable homicide, such as, hurt or any injury through negligence. All acts, causing death are
not necessarily murder or culpable homicide, though all acts, amounting to murder or culpable
homicide cause death.

1.2.CULPABLE HOMICIDE NOT AMOUNTING TO MURDER
A person commits culpable homicide, if the act by which the death caused is done. Subject to
certain exceptions, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death caused is done.
(i) the intention of causing death; (ii) With the intention of causing such bodily injury as is
likely to cause death An offence will not amount to 'Murder' unless it includes an offence which
falls under the definition of culpable homicide as per the definition of 'Murder' under IPC. All
murders are culpable homicide but all homicides are not murders. Section 299 and Section 300
of Indian Penal Code deal with murder. Whoever causes death by doing an act with the
intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to
cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the
offence of culpable homicide.
In the case of Reg. v. Govinda,2 the accused had knocked down his wife, kept a knee on her
chest and gave two to three violent blows with the closed fist on her face. This act produced
extraversion of blood on her brain and afterwards, the wife died due to this. The act was not
committed with the intention of causing death and the bodily injury was not sufficient to cause
death in the ordinary course of nature. The accused was liable to culpable homicide not
amounting to murder. The difference between murder and culpable homicide is intention. If
the intention is present the crime is said to be committed under Section 300 of IPC. If the
intention is absent, then the crime is dealt under section 304 of IPC. The most confusing aspect
is 'intention' as in both the provisions the intention is to cause death. Hence, you have to
consider the degree of intention of offenders. If the person is killed in cold-blood or with
planning then it is murder because the intention to kill is in high degree and not out of sudden
rage or provocation. On other hand, if the victim is killed without pre-planning, in sudden fight
or in sudden anger because of somebody's provocation or instigation, then such a death is called
culpable homicide. Hence, whether the act done is culpable homicide or murder is a question
of fact.
1.3.EXCEPTIONS TO SECTION 300 OF IPC WHERE CULPABLE HOMICIDE IS NOT

CONSIDERED AS MURDER
Clauses 1-4 of Section 300 provide the essential ingredients, wherein culpable homicide
amounts to murder. Section 300 after laying down the cases in which culpable homicide
2
Reg. v. Govinda, (1877) ILR 1 Bom 342

becomes murder, states certain exceptional situations under which, if murder is committed, it
is reduced to culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under section 304, IPC
and not under section 302, IPC. The exceptions are: (1) Grave and sudden provocation; (2)
Private defence; (3) Exercise of legal power; (4) Without premeditation in sudden fight and (5)
Consent in case of passive euthanasia.
Tholan v State of Tamil Nadu,3, it appeal appropriate to convict him under Section 304, Part
II. Gurdeep Singh v Jaswan Singh and others,4 Homicide-Intention to cause death- Absence
of intention-Knowledge about nature of injury-Several accused persons-Intention to cause
death not proved against accused No. 1-Accused convicted under Section 304 Part II of IPC-
None of the other accused persons caused any injury on the vital parts- Their intention was to
chastise: deceased-Convicted under Section: 326/34 IPC.
1.4.SUDDEN AND GRAVE PROVOCATION:
If the offender is deprived of the power of self-control due to sudden and grave provocation,
and his act causes the death of the person who provoked or death of any other person by
accident or mistake. In this K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra5 case, the Supreme Court
had extensively explained the law relating to provocation in India. It was observed by the Court:
The test of sudden and grave provocation is whether a reasonable man, who belongs to the
same society as the accused, is placed in the situation in which the accused was placed would
have been so provoked as to lose his self-control.
The fatal blow clearly should trace the influence of passion that arises from the sudden and
grave provocation. It should not be after the provocation has been cooled down due to lapse of
time, otherwise, it will give room and scope to the accused for altering the evidence. If the
offender is deprived of the power of self-control due to sudden and grave provocation, and his
act causes the death of the person who provoked or death of any other person by accident or
mistake.
This exception is subject to a certain proviso: (i) That the provocation is not sought or is
voluntarily provoked by the offender to be used as an excuse for killing or causing any harm
to the person; (ii) That the provocation is not given by anything that is done in obedience to the
3
Tholan v State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1984 SC 759: 1984 Cri LJ 478
4
Gurdeep Singh v Jaswan Singh and others, 1992 CrLJ 1283: 1992 AIR
5
K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra, 1962 AIR 605, 1962 SCR Supl. (1) 567

law, or by a public servant while exercising the powers lawfully of a public servant. (iii) That
the provocation is not done while doing any lawful exercise of the right of private defence.
Dayal V. State of Madhya Pradesh,6 Homicide-Grave and sudden provocation- Defence more
probable than prosecution-Accused is entitled of the benefit of exception 1 to Section 300, IPC-
Conviction modified to Section 304 Part I, IPC.
1.5.EXPRESSION "BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT"
For a doubt to stand in the way of conviction of guilt it must be a real doubt and a reasonable
doubt. If the data leaves the mind of the trial judge in doubt, the decision must be against the
party having the burden of persuasion. If the mind of the adjudication tribunal is evenly
balanced as to whether or not the accused is guilty, it is its duty to acquit the accused.
Yogendra Morarji v. The State of Gujarat,7 Homicide Mens rea-Failure of accused to prove
exercise of right of private defence-Yet the circumstances may give rise to a reasonable doubt
about intention to cause death so as to be entitled to benefit of doubt. Pularu v. State of Madhya
Pradesh,8 Homicide-Murder-Eye-witnesses consistently deposed that accused first came
forward and attacked the deceased-Accused dealt only one blow on the head resulting in death
of deceased-Offence committed by him amounting to culpable homicide punishable under
Section 304 Part ll IPC-Conviction under Section 302 IPC set aside.
1.6.THE RIGHT OF PRIVATE DEFENCE
Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, in the exercise in good faith of the right of
private defence of person or property, exceeds the power given to him by law and causes the
death of the person against whom he is exercising such right of defence without premeditation,
and without any intention of doing more harm than is necessary for the purpose of such defence.
Under some circumstances, the right of private defence even extends to the infliction of death.
This Section applies when a person’s right to private defence has been violated. It should be
noted that the fact that a person has exercised his right to private defence beyond its limits does
not completely exonerate him or her under this exemption. It is only used as a mitigating
element to lessen the crime from murder to culpable homicide that does not constitute murder.
6
Dayal V. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1994 CrLJ 10: 1994 AIR (SC) 30
7
Yogendra Morarji v. The State of Gujarat, 1980 CrLJ 459: 1980 AIR
8
Pularu v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1993 CrLJ 1809: 1993 AIR

Nathan v. State of Madras9- The accused and his wife were in possession of some land that
they had been farming for some years in Nathan v. State of Madras (1972). They had fallen
behind on their lease payments to the landlady. The accused was forcibly evicted, and the
landlord attempted to harvest the crop. As a result, the accused killed the dead in the exercise
of his right to private property defence. The Supreme Court agreed with the claim that the
incident occurred when the accused was exercising his legal right to private defence against
the property. The right to private property defence was restricted to the degree of causing any
harm other than death under Section 104, IPC because the deceased person was not armed with
any lethal weapons and there could not have been any fear of death or severe harm on the part
of the accused and his party. As a result, the accused’s right to private defence was violated,
and the case was classified as culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Exception 2
to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code because the act was done in good faith and without
the intent to cause death. The accused’s death sentence was commuted to a term of life in
prison.
1.7.KNOWLEDGE OF THE ACCUSED
Sections 299(c) and 300(4) deal with situations in which the accused has information that the
act is likely to result in death. The need for knowledge under Section 300(4) is a very high
degree of risk of death, similar to the preceding Sections. This high probability of death is
indicated in the clause’s final Section, which states that the act must be so immediately
dangerous that it will almost certainly result in death or bodily injury that is likely to result in
death, and that the act must be performed without any justification for taking the risk. Both
clause (c) of Section 299 and clause (4) of 300 apply to circumstances in which the accused
has no intention of causing death or bodily damage but is aware that the act is basically
dangerous. The degree of risk to human life determines whether the conduct is murder or
culpable homicide. It is culpable homicide if death is a potential outcome; it is murder if death
is the most likely outcome.
In the landmark judgment of State of A.P. v. R. Punnayya,10 the Apex Court created a
comparison table to grasp the key differences between them. In Pulicherla Nagaraju v. State
of Andhra Pradesh,11 the Court outlined the facets that courts should consider when deciding
whether an act is punishable as murder, culpable homicide, or culpable homicide not amounting
9
Nathan v. State of Madras AIR 1973 SC 665, 1973 CriLJ 608, (1973) 3 SCC 803
10
State of A.P. v. R. Punnayya,1977 AIR 45, 1977 SCR (1) 601
11
Pulicherla Nagaraju v. State of Andhra Pradeshon 18 August, 2006

to murder, and stated that the Court should proceed with caution when deciding whether the
case falls under Section 302 or 304 Part I or 304 Part II. As a result, it is the responsibility of
the courts to ensure that instances of murder punished under Section 302 are not changed into
offences punishable under Section 304 Part I/II, or that cases of culpable homicide that do not
amount to murder are considered as murder punishable under Section 302. A combination of a
few or many of the following, among other things, can be used to determine the intent to cause
death: i) The weapon’s properties; ii) Whether the accused carried the weapon or it was picked
up on the spot; iii) Whether the strike is directed at a critical bodily part; iv) The amount of
force used to injure someone; v) Whether the action occurred during a sudden dispute, a sudden
fight, or a free-for-all brawl; vi) If the incident happened by coincidence or was it planned in
advance; vii) Whether there had been any previous animosity or if the deceased was a stranger;
viii) Whether there was any grave and immediate provocation, and if so, what caused it; ix)
Whether it was committed in the heat of emotion; x) Whether the person who inflicted the harm
acted in a cruel and unusual manner; xi) Whether the accused gave a single blow or multiple
strokes. Of course, the preceding list of conditions is not complete, and there may be other
particular circumstances in individual situations that provide light on the question of purpose.
1.8.DOCTRINE OF TRANSFERRED MALICE
The ‘Doctrine of Transferred Malice’ is expressly not defined in the Indian Penal Code. Rather
it is inferred from Section 301 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 301 states that if a person
does any act which he knows or intends that is likely to cause death, commits culpable homicide
and by causing the death of any person, whose death he neither intends to nor knows by himself
that by his act will cause the death of that person. The culpable homicide here is of that sort
where he wanted to kill another person. He also had an intention and also the knowledge that
such an act is likely to cause death but killed another person. The person committing culpable
homicide had a piece of knowledge or intention to cause the death of someone and in result
kills someone else who he never intended to cause death or even knew that an act will cause
his death.
In R v. Pembleton case,12 the issue was raised that whether the defendant was guilty of the
criminal damage and whether the ‘Doctrine of Transfer Malice’ can be used in these cases
where the intention is different and the result is different.
12
R v. Pembleton (1874) LR 2CCR 119

1.9.LIABILITY WHEN SOMEONE OTHER THAN THE ACCUSED KILLS THE
VICTIM
It is generally presumed under this rule that the defendants are usually guilty of the murder in
the murder take place during the commission of the inherently dangerous felony. But in the
case where the death of another person is not caused by the felons, but rather caused by
someone else during the commission of the felony, then it was held in the case of People v.
Hernandez,13 that both the defendants were held liable for a murder that they did not commit.
In this case, they reason which was given was that the mens rea which was intended for the
felony was imputed into the killing of the person even if the final fatal act was not done by the
felons. This case held that the felony murder can be used for any death which took place in the
place where the felony took place. Another angle from which the liability of the felon can be
viewed from is when the co- felon is killed by anyone in the furtherance of a felony, the other
felon(s) will also be held liable for the murder of the co- felon as it was mentioned in the case
of State v. Canola.14 Section 34 which defines intention of several person in furtherance of a
crime and the liability of one person shall extend to others who were involved, In an Indian
Case of Mallanna S/o Narasappa Erat and ors. v. State and Ors,15 the Sessions Court had
held that the appellants/accused have shared common intention so far as consequence of their
act of murder and convicted all of the appellants under section 304 I of IPC for the Act of one
person.
2. WHETHER THE MEDICAL EVIDENCE AND OTHER EVIDENCES PROVE

It is humbly submitted that the medical report improperly corroborated, Starting with the
conductance of a crime or not, when a respondent files a case before the court of law for getting
the accused punished or an accused files a case for granting of relief, what plays the most
important role in deciding such matters is called Evidence.2 Such evidence has to be produced
by the state before the court to prove the guilt or innocence of the accused. There are many
different types of evidences and the person who prepares an evidence report by gathering the
13
People v. Hernandez, 61 Cal. 2d 529, 39 Cal. Rptr. 361, 393 P.2d 673 (1964)
14
State v. Canola,73 N.J. 206, 374 A.2d 20 (1977)
15
Mallanna S/o Narasappa Erat and ors. v. State and Ors, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.3562/2012

required information from the statements, facts and other basic knowledge of the field of the
said evidence is called an Expert. But this evidence provided by an expert is kind of considered
as an opinion whose evidentiary value has to be decided upon the court's discretion. One such
type of evidence is Medical evidence which being an amalgamation of medicine and law plays
an important role in matters of criminal jurisdiction. When a crime is conducted, starting from
the crime spot, till the post-mortem report, all of these are examined by a Medical expert in
order to submit the final report of medical evidence before the court. However, the medical
evidence produced by an expert before the court holds a significant value when it comes to
deciding the matter wherein a person has died. Such medical evidence is produced by an expert
in the said field who gathers the required information from the post-mortem report. In matters
like these, the prosecution bears the burden of proof while establishing the guilt of the accused.
In India, the Apex Court has time and again ruled in affirmation with the admissibility of the
medical evidence and has further declared that there is no rule which goes against its
admissibility.
2.1.MEDICAL AUTOPSY DOES NOT PRODUCE PROPER EVIDENCE
The crime can be proved by a medical test or autopsy, the role of medical evidence is tacit.
Such cases demand for cross-checking the opinion of the eye-witnesses6 and other ocular sort
of evidences with that of the medical reports and evidences. The body found at the crime scene
is the most important witness in itself. Thus, examining it properly is very significant to the
decision of the courts. Referring Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, medical evidence
is no doubt considered to be an expert opinion whose acceptability largely depends upon the
discretion of the Court, the admissibility and relevance of Medical evidence in general is ever-
growing which has been developing over the years through various judgements. Medical
evidence leads judges to draw rational judgments from the evidence's certainty. Medical
experts' evidence is based on their assumptions, which are deduced from their specialized
talents earned via research and expertise.
Santosh Kumar v. State of Bihar16 held that the accused cannot be held guilty in an offence of
rape solely based on the statement of the prosecutrix unless her testimony is sterling. In the
landmark judgement, the apex court went forward to examine the statement or evidence
provided by the prosecutrix which eventually was not in terms with the medical evidence
provided by the medical practitioner. Therefore, the Court considered the overall matter and
16
Santosh Kumar v. State of Biharon 14 February, 2020

dealt with the issue of whether the accused can be held guilty based on the deposition of the
prosecutrix alone even when the medical evidence do not support it and nor do the other
witnesses.
2.2.BLOOD STAIN NOT PROPERLY EXAMINED LEADING TO FALSIFICATION OF

ACCUSED
Scientific techniques like blood test, DNA test, autopsy report, blood stains etc., hold a great
evidentiary value when it comes to deciding criminal cases. Also, most of these scientific
techniques used by the experts while preparing the medical evidence are almost inevitable in
rape cases and other crimes relating to women. In rape cases, medical evidence may come from
the following sources: features of assault on the complainant or traits of harm near the genital
regions or other private parts. Blood or basic stains on the materials of the prosecutrix of the
accused, spermatozoa near the vaginal emission, denunciation examination, and loss of
virginity indicators are all examples of signs of the offence of rape.
The Supreme Court in Goutam Kundu v. Territory of West Bengal17 set down rules governing
the energy of courts to arrange blood tests. The court commanded that: (i) courts in India can't
organise blood tests as expected result; (ii) where applications are made for such supplications
keeping in mind the end goal to have roving request, the petition for blood test can't be engaged.
International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics Special Issue (iii) There must be a solid
at initial sight case in that the spouse must set up nonaccess to disperse the presumption
emerging under Section 112 of the Evidence Act. (iv) The court should precisely inspect
regarding what might be the result of requesting the blood test; regardless of whether it will
have the impact of marking a tyke as a charlatan and the mother as an unchaste lady. (v)
Nobody can be constrained to give sample of blood for analysis." But the Supreme Court had
advised against lead of logical tests of the idea of giving blood samples with the end goal of
DNA testing in a standard way however did not by and large boycott their direct upon outsider.
2.3.EVIDENCE IMPROPERLY CORROBORATED
A doctor plays a key role in a case’s development by entering the crime scene with the intention
of forming an opinion or providing an expert report. However, the testimony of a lone witness
cannot be overruled by the report of a medical expert who was not there at the crime site when
the crime was committed. However, in cases of controversy, the court has eventually favoured
17
Goutam Kundu v. Territory of West Bengal, 1993 AIR 2295, 1993 SCR (3) 917

medical evidence over ocular evidence, which we are going to analyse in this research. The
injuries that caused the death, the likely weapon, the time of death, and other similar medico
elements have all influenced the decision in cases when there is a discrepancy between the
medical evidence and the visual evidence. However, given that the medical evidence is
probative and corroborative in character, the ocular evidence cannot simply be ignored in this
case. To be proven accurate, it needs to be backed up with concrete evidence.
Solanki Chimanbhai Ukabhai v. State of Gujarat18 the Court held that over time the value of
medical evidence has increased, it indeed is corroborative and not conclusive and where there
is a glaring inconsistency between the direct evidence and the medical evidence in respect of
the entire prosecution case, it becomes a defect in the prosecution case. If the evidence of the
witness for the prosecution is inconsistent with the medical evidence, this is a most fundamental
defect in the prosecution case and unless reasonably explained, it is sufficient to discredit the
entire case.
In case of Rohit Shekhar v. Narayan Dutt Tiwari and Anr.19 it was observed that i) Presently,
if in the event of any contention between eye evidence and the medical evidence, the court
should pass by the evidence which motivates more certainty. In the event of logical
inconsistency between medical evidence and visual evidence, medical evidence isn't to be
given supremacy; ii)The evidence of an eye-witness not to be disposed of on quality of a
medical opinion. Slam Narain v. Province of Punjab,20 the court observed that in the event
that the evidence of the observer for the prosecution is absolutely conflicting with the medical
evidence, this is a most major imperfection in the prosecution case and unless sensibly clarified,
it is adequate to dishonour the whole case.
The word distinctly, means indubitably, strictly and unmistakably. The Apex Court has
decided that information under section 27 would be every statement made by the accused to
the police officer and the Police is precluded from proving that information or any part of that
unless it fits in the section 27.If the information had already been given by the main accused in
his discloser statement the statement of the other accused persons were not admissible in
evidence because at the best they were leading to the rediscovery of a fact already disclosed
and capable of discovery. The homicide cases where death happens due to the poisoning of the
18
Solanki Chimanbhai Ukabhai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1983 SC 484, 1983 CriLJ 822, 1983 (1) Crimes 625 SC,
(1983) 2 GLR 870, 1983 (1) SCALE 198, (1983) 2 SCC 174
19
Rohit Shekhar v. Narayan Dutt Tiwari and Anr.on 27 April, 2012
20
Slam Narain v. Province of Punjab. AIR 1975 SC 1727

deceased person, in such cases often the medical experts' opinion has to be used so as to gather
information about the Mens Rea of the convict since the report will clearly mention the amount
of poison given and the amount of poison which was necessary to kill a person.
2.4.EXPERT OPINION
Section 20 A of the the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 provides for professional conduct
consisting of standards for the same, etiquette, and a code of ethics for medical practitioners,
to be prescribed by the medical council. Magan Bihari Lal vs State of Punjab,21 the Supreme
Court of India held that “It is now well settled that expert opinion must always be received with
great caution and perhaps none so with more caution than the opinion of a handwriting expert.
There is a profusion of presidential authority which holds that it is unsafe to base a conviction
solely on expert opinion without substantial corroboration. This rule has been universally acted
upon and it has almost become a rule of law.”
In Ram Narain Singh v. State of Punjab,22 this Court held that where the evidence of the
witnesses for the prosecution is inconsistent with the medical evidence or the evidence of the
ballistics expert, it amounts to a fundamental defect in the prosecution’s case and unless
reasonably explained it is sufficient to discredit the entire case. State of Haryana v Prabhu
and others,23 Homicide-Fatal injury-Identification of-Failure of Doctor to opine the exact
injury which caused laceration of lungs resulting in death-Conviction of accused for murder is
not proper.
Bawa Singh v. State of Punjab,24 Homicide-Fatal injury-Lack of determination- Death of

deceased was caused due to sock and haemorrhage resulting from both the injuries No. 1 & 2
collectively-Only injury No. 1 at tributed to accused and No. 2 to other accused since acquitted-
Offence of accused scaled down from one under Section 302 IPC to one under Section 304
Part II IPC-Sentence reduced to period already undergone. Sri Murli alias Denny v. State of
Rajasthan,25 Homicide-Grave and sudden provocation medical evidence shows that most of
the injuries found on the hips Possibility of having received injuries by deceased during
grappling cannot be ruled out-Conviction under Section 302 IPC altered to conviction under
Section 304 Part I I.P.C
21
Magan Bihari Lal vs State of Punjab,1977 AIR 1091, 1977 SCR (2)1007
22
Ram Narain Singh v. State of Punjab, 1975 AIR 1727, 1976 SCR (1) 27
23
State of Haryana v Prabhu and others,23 1979 CrLJ 892
24
Bawa Singh v. State of Punjab, 1993 CrLJ 49: 1993 AIR (SC) 292 : 1993 Supp (2) SCC 754
25
Sri Murli alias Denny v. State of Rajasthan, 1994 CILJ 1114. 1994 AIR (SC) 610: 1995 SCC (Cr) 57

R.I. Smt Ankeri v. State of Rajasthan,26 Homicide-Intention to cause death- Nature of injuries-
Injuries caused by accused were simple and superficial- They did not cause any damage to
Internal organs-Intention to cause death absent-Accused convicted under Section 304 Part II
IPC. Kishore Singh and another v. The State of Madhya Pradesh,27 Homicide-Nature of
injury-Prosecution failing to establish that the injuries were sufficient to cause death or any
other ingredient, the accused cannot be convicted for murder.
2.5.PROOF OF DOCUMENTS
In State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Mohd. Iqram and another,28 the Apex Court has made the
following observations in paragraph 26, therein: Once the prosecution has brought home the
evidence of the presence of the accused at the scene of the crime, then the onus stood shifted
on the defence to have brought-forth suggestions as to what could have brought them to the
spot in the dead of night. The accused were apprehended and, therefore, they were under an
obligation to rebut this burden discharged by the prosecution and having failed to do so, the
trial-court was justified in recording its findings on this issue. The High Court committed an
error by concluding that the prosecution had failed to discharge its burden. Thus, the judgment
proceeds on a surmise that renders it unsustainable.
Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab,29A document is required to be produced and proved
according to law to be called evidence. Whether such evidence is relevant, irrelevant,
admissible or inadmissible, is a matter of trial. State of Haryana v. Prabhu and by others,30
Homicide-Fatal injury-Identification of-Failure of Doctor to opine the exact injury which
caused laceration of lungs resulting in death-Conviction of accused for murder is not proper.
Randhir Singh v. State of Punjab,31 Homicide-Intention to cause injury- Prosecution must
prove that the accused had actually intended the injury proved to be fatal-No premeditated
intention to cause the particular injury Conviction modified to Section 304 Part II of IPC. Sethu
Madhavan Nair and others vs The state of Kerala,32 Murder weapons-- Injuries--Deep incised
injuries resulting in fracture of bones-- Such injuries could be caused by a sharp-edged heavy
weapon like chopper. Mahmood vs The state of Uttar Pradesh,33 Murder weapons--Possibility
26
R.I. Smt Ankeri v. State of Rajasthan, 1994 CILJ 947 1994 AIR
27
Kishore Singh and another v. The state of Madhya Pradesh, 1977 CrLJ 1937:1977 AIR
28
In State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Mohd. Iqram and another, [(2011) 8 SCC 80]
29
Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab, 2014 (3) SCC 92
30
State of Haryana v. Prabhu and by others, 1979 CrLJ 892: 1979 AIR
31
Randhir Singh v. State of Punjab, 1982 CrLJ 195 1982 AIR
32
Sethu Madhavan Nair and others vs The state of Kerala,1974 CrLJ 1279 : 1974 AIR(SC)1857
33
Mahmood vs The state of Uttar Pradesh ,1976 CrLJ 10 : 1976 AIR(SC)69

of tempering --Non-examination by Serologist --Effect of. Dharam Pal and others vs The state
of U.P.,34 Murder weapons--Recovery of --Necessity of --Effect of recovery of weapon not
proved to be used in crime --Eye witnesses categorically stated that the accused persons had
fired 3-4 times but only one gunshot injury was found on the person of the deceased -- The
weapon recovered from the accused not found to have been used in the crime-- Possibility of
use of some other weapon cannot be ruled out -- common intention of the accused duly
established from the fact that both of the accused fired at the deceased -- Conviction affirmed.
Bharvad bhikha valu and others v. The state of Gujarat,35 medical opinion -cause of injury-
opinion of doctor not challenged by cross examination- the opinion about the manner in which
the injuries were caused, accepted. Ballet singh and others v. State of bihar,36 medical opinion
- cause of injury- probability of injury having being caused by fall not eliminated by clarifying
by doctor - order of acquittal affirmed. Piara singh and others v. State of Punjab,37: medical
opinion - conflict with direct evidence - glaring inconsistency may cast doubt about the whole
prosecution case. Naib singh v. State of Punjab,38: medical opinion - fracture - injury on head
- A fracture of skull may consist of merely a crack. Punjab singh v. State of haryana,39:
medical opinion - inconsistency with oral evidence- murder weapon - identification of
discrepancy in medical and ocular evidence- if direct evidence is satisfactory and reliable, it
cannot be rejected on hypo- the ticle medical evidence. Juwar singh V. The state of madhya
pradesh,40: medical opinion - nature of injury - medical opinion of injury having been caused
by blunt weapon- possibility of injury of sharp weapon is ruled out. Therefore, it is humbly
submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the medical evidence and the other evidence does not
prove the murder is caused by the appellant.

It is humbly submitted before the High Court that in a criminal case, the cardinal principle of
law is that the accused is innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. In Dahyabhai
34
Dharam Pal and others vs The state of U.P.,1995 CrLJ 3642 : 1995 AIR(SC)1998
35
Bharvad bhikha valu and others v. The state of Gujarat, 1971 CrLJ 927: 1971 AIR(SC) 1064
36
Ballet singh and others v. State of bihar, 1972 CrLJ 264 : 1972 AIR 464
37
Piara singh and others v. State of Punjab, 1977 CrLJ 1941
38
Naib singh v. State of Punjab, 1986 CrLJ 2061
39
Punjab singh v. State of haryana, 1984 CrLJ 921
40
Juwar singh V. The state of madhya pradesh, 1971 CrLJ 1545

Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat41, it is observed: “It is a fundamental principle of
criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent and therefore, the burden
lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.” The
prosecution, therefore, in a case of homicide shall prove beyond reasonable doubt that the
accused caused death with the requisite intention described in Section 299 of the Indian Penal
Code. The general burden never shifts and it always rests on the prosecution
3.1. DELAY IN FORWARDING AN FIR TO MAGISTRATE
It is humbly submitted that there was inordinate delay in sending the first information report to
the court and the same has not been explained by the prosecution. The division bench of the
Supreme Court in the case of Appukkuttan v. State42 held that “The object of recording the
earliest version and reaching the Magistrate forthwith is to avoid embellishments and keep the
Magistrate informed of the investigation.” This is a safeguard meant to prevent police excess,
embellishments, false prosecutions and non-investigation at a crucial stage. The Supreme Court
in Bhajan Singh alias Harbhajan Singh and Ors. v. State of Haryana 43 held that CrPC
provides both internal and external checks, one of them is to send a copy of the FIR by the
Magistrate concerned. It serves the purpose that the FIR be not ante-timed or antedated. Delay
in sending a report often gives reason for suspicion of FIR, as delay provides enough time to
the prosecution to alter the FIR.
3.2. P.WS.2 & 3'S PRESENCE AT THE SOC, EVEN ACCORDING TO THEIR
TESTIMONY, IS HIGHLY IMPROBABLE.
The learned counsel appearing for the appellant humbly submitted that the trial court has
committed a serious error in recording the finding that the appellant is guilty of the offense of
murder. It is humbly submitted that both the eye witnesses i.e., the PW-2 and PW-3 are
unreliable witnesses. It is submitted that having regard to the genesis of the occurrence, the
place of occurrence and the time of the occurrence the incident could not have been witnessed
by the two eyewitnesses.
Principles for appreciation of ocular evidence in a criminal case - In assessing the value of the
evidence of the eyewitnesses, two principal considerations are whether, in the circumstances
of the case, it is possible to believe their presence at the scene of occurrence or in such situations
41
Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1964 SC 1563
42
Appukkuttan v. State, 1989 CRL. L.J. 2362
43
Bhajan Singh alias Harbhajan Singh and Ors. v. State of Haryana, (2011) 7 SCC 421

as would make it possible for them to witness the facts deposed by them and secondly, whether
there is anything inherently improbable or unreliable in their evidence. In respect of both these
considerations, the circumstances either elicited from those witnesses themselves or
established by other evidence tending to improbable their presence or to discredit the veracity
of their statements, will have a bearing upon the value which a Court would attach to their
evidence.44
PW.2 in her deposition mentioned that “It is right if there is another way to go from Sarakanur
to Pulianthat without going through the Gothai river bank. That way is Maatarkulam Urur”. 45
[சரக ரில் இ ந் ளியந்தட்ைடக் ெசல் வதற் ேகாைந
ஆற் றங் கைர வ யாக ெசல் லாமல் ெசல் ல மற் ெறா வ உள் ள
என் றால் சரிதான் . அந்த வ மாட்டர் ளம் உ ர் என் றால் சரிதான் ).
Bicycles and two-wheelers can pass through via Maatarkulam (மாட்டர் ளம் வ யாக
இ சக்கர வாகனங் கள் , வண் கள் ெசல் ம் அன் தய் ய ர்
மதவன் என் ைன ெகாண் வதற் காக தான் வந்தார்).46 If you travel via
the Gothai river bank it will take +10 kilometers than Maatarkulam way (ேகாைத
அற் றங் கைர வ யாக ெசன் றால் 10 . டவ ம் என் றால் சரிதான் ].
They both were traveling in the bicycle which needs manpower to run the vehicle. Being an
ordinary prudent in this situation will choose the shortest way because PW.3 whose main
purpose is to drop PW.2.
In the instant case PW.3 in his deposition47 stated that “At around 1.00 in the afternoon, I was
standing on my bicycle in Sarakanur market street.” [நான் என 164 . . .ச.
வாக் லத் ல் “ம யம் மார் 1.00 மணிக் சரக ர்
கைடத்ெத ல் ைசக் ளில் நின் ெகாண் ந்ேதன் " என்
ெசால் ள் ளனா என் றாள் ெசால் உள் ேளன் ]. According to his statement it
makes it impossible for him to present at the time occurrence of crime.
In the case of Selvaraj V/s The State of Tamil Nadu48 Wherein on an appreciation of evidence
the prosecution story was found highly improbable and inconsistent of ordinary course of
44
Shahaja @ Shahajan Ismail Mohd. Shaikh vs State Of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 596
45
Moot Proposition, Annexure 4, p. 2
46
Ibid
47
Moot Proposition, Annexure 5, p.2
48
Selvaraj V/s The State of Tamil Nadu, (1976) 4 SCC 343

human nature concurrent findings of guilt recorded by the two Courts below was set aside. The
court must ensure, that miscarriage of justice is avoided, and if the facts and circumstances of
a case so demand, then the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused, keeping in mind that
a reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely probable doubt, but a fair doubt that
is based upon reason and common sense.49
It is humbly submitted that the alleged witnesses to the occurrence, namely, P.Ws.2 to 3 are
interested witnesses and their presence at the SOC, even according to their testimony, is highly
improbable. Thus, it is humbly submitted that the Trial Court has erroneously convicted the
appellant on the basis of unbelievable evidence.
3.3. THE TRIAL COURT HAS CONVICTED THE APPELLANT FOR THE OFFENSE
UNDER SECTION 302 I.P.C. BASED ON THE HEARSAY EVIDENCE.
In the case Ram Deo Vs State of Bihar'50 the Patna High Court observed: “S.60 lays down
that oral evidence must, in all cases whatsoever, be direct. It specifically provides that if the
evidence refers to a fact which could be seen, it must be the evidence of the witness who says
that he saw it.”In the case of Kalyan Kumar Gogoi v. Ashutosh Agnihotri51, the Supreme
Court observed that Hearsay evidence is excluded on the ground that it is always desirable, in
the interest of justice, to get the person, whose statement is relied upon, into court for his
examination in a regular way, in order that many possible sources of inaccuracy and
untrustworthiness can be brought to light and exposed, if they exist, by the test of cross-
examination. The phrase “hearsay evidence” is not used in the Evidence Act because it is
inaccurate and vague. It is a fundamental rule of evidence under Indian Law that hearsay
evidence is inadmissible. Thus, the statement of witnesses based on information received from
others is inadmissible. In the instant case PW.3 in his deposition mentioned that “It is correct
if I have said that I heard about the incident in the Sec.164 statement” [நான் என 164
. . .ச. வாக் லத் ல் சம் பவம் த் ேகள் ப்பட்டதாக தான்
ள் ேளன் என் றால் சரிதான் ].52
It is common sense that the information given Immediately after the date of the occurrence and
as soon after the Incident as possible would be far more truthful and trustworthy than later
49
Sujit Biswas vs State of Assam; 2013 Cri.LJ 3140 SC
50
Ram Deo Vs State of Bihar, 1988 Cri. L.J. 1431
51
Kalyan Kumar Gogoi v. Ashutosh Agnihotri, AIR 2011 SC 760
52
Moot Proposition, Annexure 5, p. 2

denials or embellishments:53 That is why Courts have not shown any distrust of the statements
recorded under Section 164, Cr.P.C. In the case of State v/s. Kartar54 held that Statements
under Section 164 of the Code are not substantive evidence. But it can be used to corroborate
or contradict the maker under section 145 and 157 of the Act. The object of recording a
statement under Section 164 Cr. P. C. are: (1) to use them as confession in case the person
making them is ultimately charged with an offense, and (2) to deter a witness from changing
his version later by succumbing to temptations, influences, or blandishments. Unless witnesses
resile from their statements recorded under section 164, those statements cannot be deemed
doubtful.55 Thus it is humbly submitted that the Trial Court ought not to have convicted the
appellant for the offense under Section 302 I.P.C. based on the hearsay evidence.
3.4. BLOOD GROUP OF BLOOD STAINS FOUND ON THE SAMPLE(ARUVAL) WAS

NOT IDENTIFIED
It is humbly submitted that the blood group of blood stains found on the sample (aruval) was
not identified. In Sattatiya v. State of Maharashtra case,56 one of the crucial factors that had
led this Court to reverse the conviction was that the bloodstains on the items seized in the
recovery could not be linked with the blood of the deceased. This factor was treated as a serious
lacuna in the case of the prosecution. Similarly, in Shantabai and Ors. v. State of
Maharashtra57, the bloodstains on some of the clothes seized from the accused in recovery
belonged to a different blood group from that of the blood group of bloodstains found on the
clothes of the deceased and on the sample of soil, axe, stones etc. which were taken from the
spot by the investigating officer. As a result of this mismatch, it was held that this circumstance
was not proved against the accused. It is humbly submitted that the Trial Court has failed to
consider that the investigation has not been done properly to bring the truth into limelight.
3.5. THE PARAMOUNT CONSIDERATION OF THE COURT IS TO ENSURE THAT

MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE IS PREVENTED.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in Rang Bahadur Singh V. State of U.P.58 reported in has held as
follows: "The time-tested rule is that acquittal of a guilty person should be preferred to
53
Alla Baksh v. The Crown 1952 Cri LJ 79
54
State v/s. Kartar, A.I.R. 1970 SC 1305 :1970 Cr.L.J. 1144
55
Ram Charan & Ors vs State Of U.P
56
Sattatiya v. State of Maharashtra (2008) 3 SCC 210
57
Shantabai and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, (2008) 16 SCC 354 A.I.R. 1968 SC 1270 : 1968 Cr.L.J. 1473
58
Rang Bahadur Singh V. State of U.P, AIR 2000 SC 1209

conviction of an innocent person. Unless the prosecution establishes the guilt of the accused
beyond reasonable doubt a conviction cannot be passed on the accused. A criminal court cannot
afford to deprive liberty of the appellants, lifelong liberty, without having at least a reasonable
level of certainty that the appellants were the real culprits.” In yet another decision in the State
of U.P. V. Ram Veer Singh and Another59 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows: "The
golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that
if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the
accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favorable to the accused should be
adopted. The paramount consideration of the Court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is
prevented. A miscarriage of justice which may arise from acquittal of the guilty is no less than
from the conviction of an innocent. In a case where admissible evidence is ignored, a duty is
cast upon the appellate Court to re-appreciate the evidence where the accused has been
acquitted, for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether any of the accused really committed
any offense or not."
It is humbly submitted that the complaint made by P.W.1 to the police and the statements of
P.Ws.1 to 3 is unreliable, the conviction of the appellants is not sustainable. There were lot of
omissions and contradictions and the improvements in his subsequent statements render the
evidence wholly untrustworthy. The two witnesses, P.Ws.9 and 10, the residents of the locality
and examined as eyewitnesses, did not support the version of the prosecution and they were
treated hostile. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond
doubt the appellants therefore must be given benefit of doubt.

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature, Varusa Nadu that the
punishment imposed by the trial Court is inappropriate, illegal and void which are as [3.1] The
punishment imposed by the trial court is not sustainable by law; [3.2] Beyond reasonable doubt
has not been proven by the prosecution; [3.3] The Trial Court has failed to consider the
evidence submitted from their respective; [3.4] The Trial Court has erroneously convicted the
appellant on the basis of unbelievable evidence and the related documents; [3.5] The judgment
of the Court below is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probability of the case. In the
present case, the Trial Court held all the three accused guilty of murder of Uthiyanand under
59
State of U.P. V. Ram Veer Singh and Another, 2007 (6) Supreme 164

Section 302 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. Section 302 read with Section 34 of
IPC envisages commission of murder by two or more in furtherance of the common intention.
4.1.THE PUNISHMENT IMPOSED BY THE TRIAL COURT IS NOT SUSTAINABLE BY

LAW
It is humbly submitted that the sentencing policy has to be implemented so that the person who
has committed the crime does not go unpunished and the victim of the crime as well as the
society has satisfaction that justice has been done to it.60 Court imposes punishment based upon
the following theories such as: i) Deterrent: capital punishment or such other exemplary/ severe
punishments which deter others to commit offence; ii) Preventive: disabling the offender from
committing crimes again by detaining or imprisoning him for life or for other terms; iii)
Retributive: returning evil for evil, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, limb for limb, life for life; iv)
Reformative: probation, TR, admonition etc; v) Expiratory: repentance, penance etc.
The Court award punishment to the offenders as per Sec 53 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. To
determine the quantum of sentence, the Court have to look into the following consideration 61
such as: (i) nature and gravity of offence; (ii) penalty provided for the offence; (iii) manner of
commission of offence; (iv) proportionality between crime & punishment; (v) age and sex of
the offender; (vi) character of the offender; (vii) antecedents (criminal history etc.); (viii)
possibility of reforms; (ix) impact of offence on social order and public interest; (x)The
personality of the offender as revealed by his age, character, antecedents and other
circumstances and the traceability of the offender to reform must necessarily play the most
prominent role in determining the sentence. A judge has to balance the personality of the
offender with the circumstances, situations and the reactions and choose the appropriate
sentence to be imposed.
While determining the quantum of sentence, the court should bear in mind the principle of
proportionality. Sentence should be based on facts of a given case. Gravity of offence, manner
of commission of crime, age and sex of accused should be taken into account. Discretion of
Court in awarding sentence cannot be exercised arbitrarily or whimsically.62
60
Purushottam Dashrath Borate v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1978 S 1548.
61
Sushil Murmu Vs. State of Jharkhand, (2004) 2 SCC 338; Surjit Singh Vs. Nahar Ram, (2004) 6 SCC 513
62
Deo Narain Mandal Vs. State of UP (2004) 7 SCC 257

4.2. BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN BY THE
PROSECUTION
Every crime must be effectively investigated. The investigating agency and courts are duty
bound to collect additional evidence regarding past criminal history etc. of the convicted
accused before imposing sentence on him. The courts are further duty bound to collect
additional evidence relating to possibility of reformation, rehabilitation and criminal past of the
convict to impose appropriate sentence u/s 354(3) CrPC. The state is obliged to furnish such
materials to court.63 In a criminal case, the judge has to prevent a person from conviction,
referring to the insufficient evidence which arises a reasonable doubt in convicting them. The
prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt, by providing evidence and proof which the
accused has been found guilty of the offence which he has been committed. If the judge cannot
say with certainty based on the evidence presented that the defendant is guilty, then there is
reasonable doubt and they are obligated to return a non-guilty verdict. The Criminal justice
system seeks to unearth the truth, convict the guilty, and let the innocent walk free. It has to be
presumed that the accused is innocent until it is proven guilty. “It is better that 100 guilty
persons should escape than one innocent person should suffer.” -Benjamin Franklin
In the present case, the prosecution does not prove adequate evidence to show that the murder
has been committed by the appellant. There is various reasonable doubt which has not been
addressed by the prosecution and also some of the witness submitted by the prosecution
become hostile and eye witness testimony produced by the prosecution is highly irrational
which cannot be accepted. Thus, the trial court awarded the sentence to the appellant without
proving beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution which is unjustifiable.
4.3. THE TRIAL COURT HAS FAILED TO CONSIDER THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
FROM THE APPELLANT
Providing opportunity of hearing to the accused u/s 235 (2) CrPC after conviction and before
awarding sentence is mandatory. Merely because the accused or his counsel remained silent on
question of sentence and did not make submissions before the trial court or the appellate court,
it does not debar the accused from agitating the existence of mitigating circumstances before
the Supreme Court. Principles of constructive res judicata do not apply to the matters relating
to life and death.64 While adjourning the case and providing opportunity to both prosecution &
63
Anil vs. State of Maharashtra, (2014) 4 SCC 69.
64
Md. Mannan Vs. State of Bihar, AIR 2019 SC 2934 (Three-Judge Bench) (Para 83)

defence to place material before the court and providing opportunity of hearing u/s 235(2)
CrPC65 on the point of sentence is mandatory. In accordance with the provisions of the Indian
Penal Code provides that the punishments have been carefully graded corresponding with the
gravity of offences; in grave wrongs the punishments prescribed are strict. Whereas there is
considerable room for maneuver because the choice of the punishment is left to the discretion
of the Judge with only the outer limits stated.
The Judges have to impose punishment based upon natural justice which is prescribed under
Sec 235 (2) of CrPC. It is a fundamental requirement of fair play that the accused who was
hitherto concentrating on the prosecution evidence on the question of guilt should, on being
found guilty, be asked if he has anything to say or any evidence to tender on the question of
sentence. The said provision therefore satisfies a dual purpose; it satisfies the rule of natural
justice by according to the accused an opportunity of being heard on the question of sentence
and at same time helps the Court to choose the sentence to be awarded. In a case of life or death
as in the case of punishment for murder, the presiding officer must show a high degree of
concern for the statutory right of the accused and should not treat it as a mere formality to be
crossed before making the choice of sentence. If the choice is made without giving the accused
an effective and real opportunity to place his antecedents, social and economic background,
mitigating and extenuating circumstances, etc., before the Court, the Court's decision on the
sentence would be vulnerable. It need hardly be mentioned that in many cases a sentencing
decision has far more serious consequences on the offender and his family members than in
the case of a purely administrative decision; a fortiori, therefore, the principle of fair play must
apply with greater vigour in the case. The trail court has failed to consider the evidence
submitted from the appellant which is inappropriate.
4.4.THE TRIAL COURT HAS ERRONEOUSLY CONVICTED THE APPELLANT ON

THE BASIS OF UNBELIEVABLE EVIDENCE AND THE RELATED DOCUMENTS
Mere existence of a discretion by itself does not justify its exercise. Discretion in awarding
sentence should be exercised in a justified manner.66 The sentencing Court must approach the
question seriously and must endeavour to see that all the relevant facts and circumstances
bearing on the question of sentence are brought on record. Only after giving due weight to the
mitigating as well as the aggravating circumstances placed before it, it must pronounce the
65
Chhannu Lal Verma Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, AIR 2019 SC 243 (Three-Judge Bench); Allauddin Mian Vs.
State of Bihar, AIR 1989 SC 1456 (Para 10)
66
State of M.P. vs. Bablu Natt, 2009 (1) Supreme 131

sentence. But in the present case, the trial court impose punishment based upon unbelievable
evidence which is illegal.
4.5.THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BELOW IS CONTRARY TO LAW, WEIGHT

OF EVIDENCE AND PROBABILITY OF THE CASE
The Court have to impose sentence based upon law which is authorised to them. Although, the
court have to look into the matter, corresponding to the law established to it. Recording of
reasons for awarding sentence mandatory: (Section 354 CrPC): Sub-sections (3) and (4) of the
CrPC provide as under: (3) When conviction is for an offence punishable with death or, in the
alternative, with imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of years, the judgment shall
state the reasons for the sentence awarded, and, in the case of sentence of death, the special
reasons for such sentence. (4) When the conviction is for an offence punishable with
imprisonment for a term of one year or more, but the Court imposes a sentence of imprisonment
for a term of less than three months, it shall record its reasons for awarding such sentence,
unless the sentence is one of imprisonment till the rising of the Court (TRC) or unless the case
was tried summarily under the provisions of this code.
Punishment awarded by courts for crimes must not be irrelevant. It should conform to and be
consistent with the atrocity and brutality with which crime was committed. 67 The Court
sentenced based upon law, weight of the evidence and the probability of the case. It should be
a matter of real and grave concern that the road which a person accused of an offence is required
by law, the court should impose a punishment which should be proper punishment for the crime
committed. But, in the present case, the Court award the sentence without considering the
evidence and proof submitted by the appellant which is appropriate as well as the court failed
to consider that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt to sentence the
accused which is irrational. The Court is arbitrary to the appellant. Therefore, the punishment
imposed by the trial court for the appellant is void.
67
State of MP vs. Kashiram, AIR 2009 SC 1642

PRAYER
In the lights of the facts stated, the cases cited, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities
cited, it is more humbly prayed and implored before the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature, Varusa
Nadu that it may graciously pleased to adjudge and declare that:
1. That the offence committed by Accused 1,2 & 3 of the deceased is a culpable homicide not
amounting to murder.
2. As the evidence which held and imprisoned Accused 1,2 & 3 were not properly corroborated
and didn't prove the accused liable for the deceased.
3. The prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt to convict the appellant.
4. The punishment imposed by the trial court is not appropriate.
5. To acquit all the three accused from the case.
Also, pass any other order that the court may deem fit in the interest of
equity, justice, and good conscience.
For this Act of kindness, the Appellant shall duty bound forever pray.
Respectfully submitted,
The Appellant
Place:
Date:

appellant moot court

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

appellant moot court

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

14TH PRO BONO ENVIRO NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION- 2021

GOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE, TIRUCHY

TEAM CODE: THINAIMOZHI

BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, VARUSA NADU

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. ______ OF 2023

THE APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL

1. VIRUTHAN (A1) ……………………………....APPELLANT 1

STATE OF VARUSA NADU & Anr ……………………….RESPONDENT

UPON SUBMISSSION TO THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE,

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

1. WHETHER THE DEATH OF THE DECEASED IS A CULPABLE HOMICIDE

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT Page i

AIR All India Report

A.P Andhra Pradesh

Cr.P.C Criminal Procedure Code

Cri.L.J./ Cr.L.J. Criminal Law Journal

IPC Indian Penal Code

r/w read with

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT Page ii

1. Alla Baksh v. The Crown 1952 Cri LJ 79

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT Page iii

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT Page iv

2. Dr.Avtar Singh, Principles of The Law of Evidence, (24th Ed 2020)

3. Gurkirat Kaur, Criminal Justice System, (2017 Ed 2)

4. Hans Gross, Criminal Psychology, (2019 Ed 3)

5. K. D. Gaur, Textbook on Indian Penal Code (Universal Law Publications, 6th

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT Page v

1. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act 2 of 1973)

2. The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860)

3. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Act 18 of 1872)

4. The Indian Medical Council Act, 1956

1. Indian Kanoon, https://indiankanoon.org/

2. Manupatra Online Resources, http://www.manupatra.com

3. SCC Online, http://www.scconline.co.in

4. EBC Reader, https://www.ebcreader.com/

5. Oxford Dictionary, https://www.oxford learnersdictionaries.com/

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT Page vi

Section 374: Appeals from convictions.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT Page 1

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT Page 2

WHETHER THE DEATH OF THE DECEASED IS A CULPABLE HOMICIDE

WHETHER THE MEDICAL EVIDENCE AND OTHER EVIDENCES PROVE

WHETHER THE PROSECUTION HAS ESTABLISHED THE GUILT OF THE

WHETHER THE PUNISHMENT IMPOSED BY THE TRIAL COURT IS

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT Page 3

1. WHETHER THE DEATH OF THE DECEASED IS A CULPABLE HOMICIDE

2. WHETHER THE MEDICAL EVIDENCE AND OTHER EVIDENCES PROVE

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT Page 4

3. WHETHER THE PROSECUTION HAS ESTABLISHED THE GUILT OF THE

4. WHETHER THE PUNISHMENT IMPOSED BY THE TRIAL COURT IS

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT Page 5

1. WHETHER THE DEATH OF THE DECEASED IS A CULPABLE HOMICIDE

1.1.NOT A MURDER UNDER SEC.300 OF IPC:

Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder:

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT Page 6

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT Page 7

1.3.EXCEPTIONS TO SECTION 300 OF IPC WHERE CULPABLE HOMICIDE IS NOT

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT Page 8

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT Page 9

1.5.EXPRESSION "BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT"

1.6.THE RIGHT OF PRIVATE DEFENCE

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT Page 10