MM’S SHANKARRAO CHAVAN LAW COLLEGE

PRACTICAL TRAINING PAPER IV: MOOT COURT EXERCISE

(MOOT 1)

__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________

Shravani Sanjay Gujar

Roll No: 69

IN THE HONOROUBLE SUPREME COURT OF UTOPIA

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION

NO……… OF 2023

(UNDER ARTICLE OF 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF UTOPIA)

__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________

IN THE MATTER OF,

THE STATE OF MAHADESHPURAM ………APPELLANT

VERSUS
SHARDUL …… RESPONDENT

BEFORE THE HONORABLE DIVISON BENCH OF THE SUPREME

COURT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

TABLE OF CONTENTS
________________________________________________________________

TABLE OF ABRIVATIONS ……………………………………………………………………

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES …………………………………………………………………….

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION …………………………………………………………….

STATEMENT OF FACTS ……………………………………………………………………

ISSUES ………………………………………………………………………………………….

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT …………………………………………………………………

ARGUMENT ADVANCED ……………………………………………………………………

__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________

ISSUE:
1. WHETHER THE CURRENT PLEA IS MAINTAINABLE ?

2. WHETHER ACCUSED NO. 1 (Shardul) COMMITTED OFFENCE

U/S. 326 A U/S. 34 OF UPC? WHETHER HE IS ACTUALLY LIABLE FOR PUNISHMENT
U/S. 354 OF UPC?

3. WHETHER THE COMMON INTENSION WAS PRESENT BETWEEN ACCUSED NO. 1

AND ACCUSED NO. 2 IN THE PRESENT CASE ?

__________________________________________________________________________________
PRAYER …………………………………………………………………………………………….
__________________________________________________________________________________

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
_________________________________________________________________________________

A.I.R ALL INDIA REPORTERS

& AND

ANR. ANOTHER
SCJ CHIEF JUSTICE

EDB DIVISION BENCH

I.e THAT

ORS OTHERS

SCC SUPREME COURT CASES

PARA PARAGRAPH

FB FULL BENCH

SEC SECTION

ART ARTICLE

U/S UNDER SECTION

IPC INDIAN PENAL CODE

VS VERSUS

HC HIGH COURT

VOL VOLUME
CrPC CRIMINAL PROCEDURAL CODE

R/W

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
_________________________________________________________________________________

LIST OF STATUTE

● THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973

 ● THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860

● THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872

● CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

JOURNAL REFERRED (INTERNET SOURCES)

● LAW SUIT SUPREME COURT www.manupatra.com

● SUPREME COURT CASES www.legalserviceindia.com

● LAW & JUSTICE https://lawmin.gov.in

● ALL INDIA REPORTER www.aironline.in

TEXT/ARTICLE/BOOKS REFERED

● THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE BY RATANLAL AND DHIRAJLAL

● CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE BY DURGADAS BASU

 ● K D GAUR’S TEXTBOOK ON INDIAN PENAL CODE

● B M GANDHI’S INDIAN PENAL CODE

● CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

CASES REFERRED
1. Vishaka & Ors V/s State of Rajasthan, SCC 1997
2. Laxmi V/s Union of India LAWS (SC) 2013-12-66
3. N. Suriyakala V/s Mohan doss and Ors (2007) SCC 196
4. Tirupati Balaji developers Pvt. Ltd. V/s State of Bihar AIR 2004 SC 2351
5. Hari Om V/s State of U.P
6. State (through CBI) V/s Santosh Kumar Singh
7. Chandreshwar Singh V/s State of Bihar, 1999 CrLJ 4444
8. Kripal Singh V/s State of U.P. 1954
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
__________________________________________________________________________________

The Petitioner has approached the Hon,ble Supreme Court of Utopia under Article 136 of the
Constitution of Utopia which reads as follows:

136. Special leave to appeal by Supreme Court

(1) Notwithstanding anything in this chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion,
grant special leave to appeal from any judgement, decree, determination, sentence or
order in any cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of
Utopia.

(2) Nothing in clause (1) shall apply to any judgement, determination, sentence or order
passed or made by any court or any tribunal constituted by or under any law relating
to the Armed Forces.
 STATEMENT OF FACTS
________________________________________________________________

1. Alisha is an eighteen year old girl is a student of 12th Standard living in State of
Mahadeshpuram in Utopia where parliamentary form of democracy exists. Father of
Alisha works as a clerk in private firm. From the very beginning Alisha has been a
very bright Student. Shardul (Accused Number 1) is the maths teacher of Alisha in
her school, He secretly develops feelings and emotions for her.

2. On, Alisha’s 18 th Birthday Shardul organized a party for her at her house he gifted
her an expensive watch. Furthermore on 14th February 2023, Shardul Proposed
Alisha for marriage, in return Alisha Asked him talk to her parents regarding the
marriage proposal. Shardul approached the parents of Alisha on 20th February 2023,
However the parents rejected the proposal and warned Shardul to not to contact with
Alisha as the parents didn’t want any kind of distraction to their daughter as she was
having her 12th Board exams in her near future.

3. At one instance Alisha also made it clear that she will not go against the will of her
parents and asked Shardul to not to follow her anymore. Despite a clear Disinterest
shown by Alisha, Shardul continued to follow her at her tuition classes and contacted
her personally, on phone. Alisha reported the same to her parents. The parents
rebuked him for his unwarranted acts.

4. He went to Aniruddha (Accused No. 2) in whom he always confided and narrated the
whole thing. Aniruddha (aged 55) has always supported Shardul. He resided with
Shardul ever since shardul’s parents died due to electric shock in the year 1996,
Aniruddha who has always treated Shardul as his son could not bear his pain. Shardul
was suggested by Aniruddha to abduct Alisha and marry her forcefully & Aniruddha
will threaten her with a bottle of acid to pressurise her to come with them to temple.
 5. Shardul was initially reluctant but agreed to the plan on the condition that harm will
be caused to Alisha and the bottle of acid will only be used as a tool to threaten her
for compliance to their wishes.

6. On 18 March 2023, as per the plan they found Alisha on a lonely road, Both got out of
the car, Shardul approached the girl and asked her to accompany him to the temple to
marry him to which Alisha refused. Shardul started her dragging her into the car.
Alisha started shouting loudly and abusing. Meanwhile, Aniruddha in a state of
confusion opened the bottle and then threw the acid on her face.

7. After these both fled away in the car belonging to and driven by Aniruddha leaving
Alisha in immense pain. The girl was taken to the hospital by some passerby. The
doctor immediately conducted the surgeries and opined that the injuries were very
grievous. A FIR was lodged so also the statement of girl was recorded and a case was
registered against both the Accused U/s. 354D of UPC. Aniruddha absconded and was
declared a proclaimed offender while Shardul was arrested by the police from his
home and the bottle of acid and the car used in the crime was seized by the police
authorities from his possession.

SESSION COURT

Before the session’s court, where he pleaded not guilty and claimed a trial. After the trial the
Shardul was convicted U/s.326 R/w Sec.34 UPC of and was sentenced to 10 years of rigorous
imprisonment. He was compelled to pay a compensation of Rs.100000/- immediately to
Alisha. He was also awarded rigorous imprisonment for two years U/s. 354D of UPC. Both
the sentences were to run concurrently.

HIGH COURT
Before the High court Accused appealed seeking acquittal. Whereas, State filed appeal for
demanding life imprisonment and also enhancement of the amount of compensation taking
into account the following facts:-
1). Rs 6.5 lakhs have already been spent on 6 major surgeries done till date;

2.) Despite various surgeries, Tina has permanently lost vision of her left eye;

3). Permanent scars not only on the skin of her face and hands will remain but also deep
inside her memory which together with the loss of vision of her left eye will adversely affect
her future prospects;

But, High Court adjudicated in favour of the accused by acquitting him from the charges
under Sec.326A r/w Sec. 34, UPC, and Sec 354D UPC by saying the reason of Lack of
evidence, The High Court, however, recommended the State Legal Services Authority to
decide upon the quantum of compensation to be awarded by the State Government to the
victim as per Sec. 357A, CrPC within one month. Aggrieved by the said judgment of the
High Court acquitting the accused.

State filed an appeal before the Supreme Court on the ground that High Court has failed to
take notice of the evidences of the case.
 ISSUES RAISED
_______________________________________________________________

ISSUE NO. 1.

WHETHER THE CURRENT PLEA IS MAINTAINABLE ?

ISSUE NO. 2.

WHETHER ACCUSED NO. 1 (Shardul) COMMITTED OFFENCE

U/S. 326 A U/S. 34 OF UPC? WHETHER HE IS ACTUALLY LIABLE FOR PUNISHMENT
U/S. 354 OF UPC?

ISSUE NO. 3.

WHETHER THE COMMON INTENSION WAS PRESENT BETWEEN ACCUSED NO. 1

AND ACCUSED NO. 2 IN THE PRESENT CASE ?
 SUMMARY ARGUMENT

ISSUE NO. 1

WHETHER THE CURRENT PLEA IS MAINTAINABLE?

In the present case, Accused No. 1 (Shardul) was convicted u/s. 326 R/w sec. 34 of UPC and
sec. 354 D of UPC and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of 10 years and was
compelled to pay 1,00,000/- (One Lakh Rupees only). Afterwards, Accused ppellan in High
Court seeking acquittal and High Court granted acquittal to the accused no. 1 on the ground
of lack of evidence.

It is Humbly submitted that, High Court has failed to take notice of the evidences of case. As
per the Art. 136 of Constitution of India Supreme court may, in its discretion, grant special
leave to appeal from any judgement, decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause or
matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India. Hon’ble court have
power to re-consider the evidence. Therefore, it is pleaded that supreme court has to re-
appreciate the evidences otherwise it will be injustice to the victim. Hence, Hon’ble Supreme
Court have jurisdiction under Art. 136.

ISSUE NO. 2

WHETHER ACCUSED NO. 1 (Shardul) COMMITTED OFFENCE

U/S. 326 A, U/S. 34 OF UPC? WHETHER HE IS ACTUALLY LIABLE
FOR PUNISHMENT U/S. 354 OF UPC?
The council for appellant respectfully submits that, Hon’ble court shall consider
circumstances of cases. According to the facts accused No. 1 had prior knowledge that
Aniruddha (accused no. 2) was carrying bottle of acid and had knowledge that actual attack
may happen.

Furthermore, the actions of accused no. 1 align with the essential elements of sec. 354 A as
he attempted to engage in inappropriate physical contact with the victim which unwelcomes
advances.

Additionally, accused no. 1 has also fulfilled the criteria under sec. 354 D of UPC as he
followed the victim and attempted to contact her repeatedly despite clear indication of
disinterest from the victim. Hence, it is imperative that respondent be held accountable under
Section 354 A and section 354 D of UPC.

Therefore it is pleaded that the decision of High court to acquit the accused no. 1 under
section 326 A R/w. 34 of UPC is flawed and resulted in the miscarriage of justice. Therefore,
it is imperative for court to rectify this in interest of justice.

ISSUE NO. 3

WHETHER THE COMMON INTENTION WAS PRESENT BETWEEN

ACCUSED NO. 1 AND ACCUSED NO. 2 IN THE GIVEN CASE?

In the present case, examination of circumstances reveals that the accused possessed explicit
knowledge of intention of Aniruddha to use a bottle of acid to harm the victim. Accused no. 1
was actively involved by holding the victim while accused no. 2 was throwing acid and
carrying assault. Furthermore, the actions of accused no. 1 following acid attack is highly
incriminating, as accused did not take victim to the hospital instead left her there to die, but
he left the place with doer Aniruddha in car carrying acid bottle which was seized by police
from the house of accused no. 1. This chain of event is sufficient to fix guilt of accused
beyond reasonable doubt. The sequence of event itself spelled out common intention to cause
grievous hurt to the victim.

Moreover, when doer Aniruddha was opening the bottle accused no. 2 did not make any
attempt to stop Aniruddha but he was holding victim and was dragging her into the car.
Accused no. 1 did not make any attempt to save victim from attack. Therefore injuries caused
to the victim was result of common intention of accused.

Further, if accused no. 1 had no common intension with the doer Aniruddha the why did he
left the spot left the victim there in immense pain. This chain of event clearly indicates that
accused no. 1 and 2 had common intention to cause grievous hurt to the victim and there must
be a prior conspiracy devolop at spur of the moment.

Therefore, In this case common intention has established.

 ARGUMENT ADVANCED

ISSUE NO. 1
WHETHER THE CURRENT PLEA IS MAINTAINABLE ?

1.1 Respectfully, On the behalf of appellant it is submitted before this Hon’ble court
that in the present case, Shardul was convicted under Section 326 R/w. Section
34 of UPC and sentenced to 10 year of rigorous imprisonment by the session
court. Additionally, he was convicted with 2 year of imprisonment under Sec.
354 D of the UPC. However, the high court, on grounds of insufficient evidence
acquitted the accused on the grounds o lack of evidence. Acquitted the accused
of charges under Section 326A read with Section 34 of UPC and Section 354D
of UPC.

1.2 Article 136, Clause 1 Article 136, Clause (1) of the Constitution of India
empowers the Supreme Court to grant special leave to appeal in its discretion
against any judgment, decree, determination, sentence, or order issued by any
court or tribunal within the territory of India. In the case of Tirupati Balaji
Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar AIR 2004 SC 2351, This Court observed
that Article 136 is an “extraordinary jurisdiction” vested by the Constitution in
the Supreme Court with implicit trust and faith, and extraordinary care and
caution has to be observed in the exercise of this jurisdiction. The court further
observed that Article 136 does not confer a right of appeal on a party but vests a
vast discretion in the Supreme Court meant to be exercised on the considerations
of justice, call of duty and eradicating injustice.

1.3 It is respectfully contended that the High Court erred in its assessment of the
evidence in this case. Therefore, it is imperative for this Honorable Court to re-
evaluate the evidence, as a failure to do so would amount to a violation of the
principles of natural justice. In the case of N. Suriyakala Vs. A. Mohan doss and
 Others (2007) 9 SCC 196 The Supreme Court observed with regard to scope of
Article 136 that Article 136 of the Constitution is not a regular forum of appeal
at all. It is a “residual” provision which enables the Supreme Court to interfere
with the judgment or order of any court or tribunal in India in its discretion.

1.4 Hence, it is prayed that this present plea be granted by this Hon’ble Court.

ISSUE NO. 2
WHETHER ACCUSED NO. 1 COMMITTED OFFENCE U/S. 326 A, S. 34
OF UPC? WHETHER HE IS ACTUALLY LIABLE FOR PUNISHMENT
U/S. 354 OF UPC ?

1. Respectfully submitted by the Appellant's Counsel before this Honorable Court, it is

contended that the High Court's decision to acquit the respondent under the charges of
Section 326A read with Section 34 of UPC is marked by substantial deficiencies that
have resulted in a miscarriage of justice. These deficiencies are evident when
considering the case's facts, the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, and relevant
legal precedents. Consequently, the High Court's decision should be overturned by
this Court.
a) Respondent did not participate in the act, cannot be a ground for acquittal;
b) The common intention was formed at the spur of the moment and which can be
inferred from the conduct of the respondent.

2. Section-34 of the IPC recognizes the principle of vicarious liability in criminal

jurisprudence. A bare reading of this section shows that the section could be inferred
as follow:
a) Criminal act done by several persons;
b) such act is done in furtherance of common intention of all;
c) Each of such person is liable in same manners as if it were done by him alone.
3. These three ingredients are sufficient grounds for the court in determining whether an
accused is liable to be convicted with the aid of Sec. 34. While the first two are the
acts which are attributable and have to be proved as actions of the accused, third is the
consequence. Respondent did not participate in the act, cannot be a ground for
acquittal. With respect to the first submission, the counsel humbly submits before this
Hon’ble Court that the there are all the reasons for accused no. 1 is guilty under
Section 34 is that the presence of accomplices gives encouragement, support and
protection to the person actually committing an act. This section really means that if
two or more persons intentionally do a thing jointly, it is just the same as if each of
them had done it individually. It is a well-recognized thing of criminal jurisprudence
that the Court neither distinguish between co-conspirators, nor can they inquire, even
if it were possible, as to the part taken by each in the crime.

4. Before holding an individual liable for acts committed by co-conspirators under this
section, it is essential to establish both (i) the existence of a common intention,
signifying a pre-arranged plan between the individuals, and (ii) the participation of the
person in some manner in the act constituting the offense. In this case, both of these
prerequisites are met, as there was a common intention between the two individuals,
and the accused no. 2 actively participated in the act. Establishing which accused
committed the act is not necessary to invoke Section 34. This section is applicable if it
is proven that the criminal act was committed by all or any one of the accused persons
in furtherance of the common intention. In the present case, there is no room for doubt
that the 'common intention' of both accused was to inflict grievous harm upon the
victim. In the case of Kripal Singh V/s State of U.P it was held that common
intention may develop on the spot after the offenders have gathered. A previous plan
is not necessary. Common intention may be inferred from conduct of accused and
circumstances of case.

5. The determination of a common intention among the accused individuals can be

derived from several factors, such as their arrival at the scene of the incident and how
they carried out the attack, the degree of coordination in inflicting harm, the injuries
inflicted by some or all of them, actions taken by others to support those causing
harm, and their collective behavior after the offense, including leaving the scene
 together. Additionally, any actions taken by any of the accused that contribute to
establishing their shared intention can be considered.

6. It's important to consider the entirety of the circumstances when determining whether
the accused had a common intention to commit an offense, and this intention doesn't
have to be limited to the exact crime that was ultimately committed.

The final decision in such cases relies on the inferences drawn from the specific
circumstances of each case. It's established in legal doctrine that the common intention or the
intentions of individuals acting in furtherance of that common intention can be proven either
through direct evidence or by drawing inferences from the actions and circumstances
surrounding the case and the conduct of the parties involved. In cases where there is a lack of
direct evidence, the court should rely on these inferences based on the surrounding
circumstances.

WHETHER THE RESPONDENT GUILTY UNDER SEC. 354 OF UPC ?

Council on the behalf of appellant respectfully submits before Hon’ble court that acts of the
accused fulfilled every essential ingredients of Section 354 A and 354 D of UPC. Which is
primary evidence from the facts of the case.

1. Bare Reading of the Section 354A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 says: A man
committing any of the following acts: Physical Contact or any advances involving
unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures; or a demand or request for sexual favors; or
Showing pornography against the will of a woman; or Making sexually colored
remarks.

2. In leading Case of Vishaka & Ors V/s State of Rajasthan the Supreme Court of India
has stated that Sexual harassment includes “such unwelcome sexually determined
behaviour as physical contacts and advance, sexually colored remarks, showing
pornography and sexual demands, whether by words or actions. Such conduct can be
humiliating and may constitute health and safety problem; it is discriminatory when
 the woman has reasonable grounds to believe that her objection would disadvantage
her in connection with her employment, including recruiting or promotion, or when it
creates a hostile working environment. Effective complaints procedures and
remedies, including compensation, should be provided.

3. Bare Reading of the Section 354D of Indian Penal Code, 1860 says: A Man who-
Follows a woman and contacts such woman to foster personal interaction repeatedly
despite a clear indication of disinterest by such woman; or Monitors the use by
woman of the internet, email or any other form of electronic Communication;
Commits the offence of Stalking.

4. In the Instant Case, both these essentials are fulfilled. Respondent followed her and
tried to contact victim repeatedly in spite of sheer disinterest shown by her. Victim
gave a clear indication to him not to follow her anymore; despite this indication he
continued to follower repeatedly. The fact that she refused and warned the prime
accused then and there when he tried to make physical contact with her is evident in
itself that she was not interested in him. Therefore, it is clear that even after being
consistently ignored, he continued following her and tried contacting her, against her
disinterest, and so the conduct of the respondent will fall under the purview of Sec
354-D (1)(i) of IPC.

5. In State (through CBI) v. Santosh Kumar Singh, the accused was charged under Sec.
354 of IPC for the offence of Stalking. It was held that continuous Stalking of victim
by accused should alter disregard for the rule of law and he had a strong motive of
commission of alleged crime.

ISSUE 3: WHETHER THE COMMON INTENTION WAS PRESENT

BETWEEN ACCUSED NO. 1 AND ACCUSED NO. 2 IN THE GIVE
CASE?
 1. In the instant case the totality of circumstances are the respondent had the actual
knowledge that doer Aniruddha is carrying a bottle of acid and was aware that actual
act was likely to happen. He was holding the victim when doer Aniruddha threw the
acid on victim. Moreover, he did not take victim to hospital, but he left the place
along with doer Aniruddha in a car, carrying acid bottle with them the acid bottle and
the car used in the crime were seized from his possession by the police. This chain of
events is sufficient to fix the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. This
sequence of the events itself spelled out a common intense to attack and cause
grievous hurt to the victim.

2. Moreover, when doer Aniruddha was opening bottle of acid, the respondent had not
make any attempt to stop doer by predicating his further act but was holding the
victim and was dragging the victim into the car. Respondent did not make single
attempt to rescue victim from the attack made on her by doer Aniruddha. Therefore,
the injuries were caused to victim in furtherance of common intention suddenly form

3. Further, if the Respondent had no common intention with doer Aniruddha, then why
he left the spot with him left the victim in immense pain. This chain of sequence
clearly indicates from the conduct of the respondent that there must be a prior
conspiracy or else common intention was developed at the spur of the moment.

4. Therefore, this is a case in which the common intention has been clearly established.
The circumstances as indicated above, there remain no room for doubt that both the
accused aforementioned has the pre mediation of mind developed at the spur of the
moment. In the face of these facts, which are clearly proven on record, there can be
no reason to doubt both the accused had acted in furtherance of their 'common
intention', the 'common intention' so in the instant case, the fact that the respondent
didn’t throw the acid will not matter to attract Sec. 34. To convict the accused by
taking the aid of Sec. 34 in as much as the facts, as proved on record, leave no room
for doubt that the 'common intention' of both the accused was to put the grievous hurt
to victim. Hence, respondent is liable for conviction underSection-326-A with aid of
Section 34 of UPC.

WHETHER COMPENSATION CAN BE ENHANCED FOR VICTIM ?

This is most respectfully submitted by Counsel for the Appellant before this Hon’ble Court
that the compensation can be enhanced for victim,
Guideline for various heads for compensation by the Apex Court to be taken into
consideration for the victims of sexual assault & acid attack

● Expenses actually and reasonably incurred or to be incurred as a result of the victims

injury or death;

● Pecuniary loss or damages incurred by the victim as a result of total or partial

disability affecting the victim`s capacity for work;

● Pecuniary loss or damages incurred by the dependents as a result of the victim`s death

Pain & Suffering ;

● Maintenance of a child born as a result of sexual assault ;

● Other Pecuniary loss or damage resulting from the victim`s injury and any expense

that in the opinion of the board it is reasonable to incur.

In the landmark case of Hasina Hussain , compensation of 2,00,000 rupees in addition to the
trial court fees which are 3,00,000 was paid by the accused Hasina’s parents. The Counsel
humbly submits to the Hon`ble Court that the amount of compensation awarded by the
Session Court is insufficient to meet the medical expenses of the victim till this date 6.5 lakhs
were already paid for the surgeries and she already has lost vision of her left eye hence she
has become disabled, hence there are less chances of employment.
Henceforth, looking to the facts/circumstances in the instant matter and on considering
theabove heads, landmark judgments and rulings given by the Apex Court in various cases, it
is humbly submitted and prayed before this Hon’ble Court that the compensation should be
enhanced from 1,00,000/- (one lakh rupees) to 10,00,000/- (ten lakh rupees).
 PRAYER

Therefore it may be please this Hon’ble Court in the lights of facts presented, issues raised,
Arguments Advanced, and authorities citied, the counsel for appellant humbly pray before
this Hon’ble Court, to kindly adjudge and declare.

1) THAT THE ORDER OF HON`BLE HIGH COURT TO BE SET ASIDE.

2) THAT LIFE IMPRISONMENT SHOULD BE SENTENCED TO

RESPONDENT.

3) THAT THE COMPENSATION TO THE VICTIM SHALL BE

ENHANCED TO R S.10, 00,000/-

And pass any other appropriate order as Court may deem fit and for this act of Kindness, the
Appellant as in duty bound, shall forever pray.
 Respectfully Submitted
Sd/-
Counsel for the Appellant
 ARGUMENT ADVANCED
__________________________________________________________________________________
 PRAYER
__________________________________________________________________________________