TEAM CODE: 204

BEFORE
THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

FOR OFFENCES CHARGED UNDER:

SECTIONS 302r/w 34, 307r/w 34
OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860

APPELANT………………………………………………………………………………………STATE

VERSUS

RESPONDENT…………………………………………………………………..MR SHYAM AND MR SHAH AND OTHERS

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

• List of Abbreviations
• Index of Authorities
• Table of Cases
• Books
• Websites
• Statutes
• Statement of Jurisdiction
• Statement of Facts 8 Statement of Charges
• Summary of Arguments
• Arguments Advanced
1. Issue-I: Whether the family involved in Sirisha's
murder and the attempt to murder of Mr. Kiran?
2. Issue-II: Whether Mr. Shyam be held liable
under Section 153 of IPC or not?
3. Issue-III: Whether Mr. Sohail be held liable
under Sections 339 and 340 of IPC or not?
4. Issue-IV: Whether Mr. Shah be held liable for
provoking Mr. Shyam under section 153 of IPC
or not?
• Prayer
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
• & And
• A.P. Andhra Pradesh
• AIR All India Report
• Anr. Another
• HPC Hindania Penal Code
• CrPC Code of Criminal Procedure
• E.g. Example
• Hon’ble Honorable
• IPC Indian Penal Code
• M.P. Madhya Pradesh
• No. Number
• Ors. Others
• r/w Read with
• Retd. Retired
• S./Sec. Section
• SC Supreme Court
• SCC Supreme Court Cases
• St. State
• U.P. Uttar Pradesh
• u/s Under Section
• v. Versus
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

TABLE OF CASES:

1. State of Rajasthan v, Gurubachhan sing AIR SC 2022

2. Pritam Singh v. The State, AIR 1950 SC 169
3. Gurdatta Mal AIR 1965 SC 257
4. A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 2007 SC 1546
5. Siemens Eng & Mfg Co. v. Union of India, AIR 1976 SC 1785
6. Clerks of Calcutta Tramways v. Calcutta Tramways Co. Ltd., AIR 1957 SC 78
7. City Corner v. P.A. to the Collector, AIR 1976 SC 1432022
8. Hem Raj v. State of Ajmer, 1954 SCR 1133
9. Vinod Katara vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 2022 SCC OnLine SC 120

BOOKS:

1. RatanLal and DhiraLal‟sTHE LAW OF EVIDENCE

2. LAW OF EVIDENCE by Justice M. Monir, revised by Deoki Nanda
3. Prof. T Bhattacharya‟s THE INDIAN PENAL CODE
4. Glanville Williams‟s TEXTBOOK OF CRIMINAL LAW
5. K.D Gaur‟s INDIAN PENAL CODE
6. RatanLal and DhirajLal’s THE INDIAN PENAL CODE
7. S.N Misra‟sTHE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
8. Tandon‟s CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
9. James R. Acker and JoAnne M. Malatesha’s LAW AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE
10. Janak Raj Jai’s BAIL LAW AND PROCEDURES
11. K Kamal’s MEDICAL LAWS

WEBSITES:

1. http://www.findlaw.com
2. http://www.juris.nic.in
3. http://www.manupatra.co.in/Advancedlegalsearch.aspx
4. http://www.scconline.com
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Mr. Shah, a farmer, is living with his wife (Mrs. Rama), Son (Mr.Sohail) and Daughter
(Ms. Sirisha) in a remote village of Andhra Pradesh. Mr. Shah with his major source of
income was managing his family needs respectfully, while his wife (Rama) and his Son
(Sohail) help him in his day to day work. His son, Mr. Sohail could not go to school because
of his father’s poor financial position.
2. However, his daughter, Ms. Sirisha joined a reputed engineering college, in the
nearby town, with the financial support from the local business men. Ms. Sirisha’s college is
about 12 km away from her house. She used to go by public transport, like shared auto or by
bus.
3. Mr. Kiran, a boy living in the same village, is working as a data entry operator in a
private company in the town, where Ms. Sirisha’s College is located. Incidentally, both Mr.
Kiran and Ms. Sirisha go to the town in the same public transport. While going to town and
coming back home, both got access to speak to each other, and eventually, both have
become good friends and started liking each other.
4. On 10th Aug, 2014, Mr. Shah, after coming to know the intimate relationship that
has developed between Mr. Kiran and his daughter, discussed the matter with his brother Mr.
Shyam. Upon his advice, Mr. Shah warned Mr. Kiran with severe consequences and severely
admonished him. Mr. Shah also scolded his daughter to refrain from meeting Mr. Kiran.
5. Before this, Mr. Sohail on an occasion took Rs.50, 000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousands
Only) from Mr. Kiran for some personal reasons. On August 17, 2014, Mr. Sohail called Mr.
Kiran to his house to repay the loan amount of Rs. 50,000/- as full and final settlement. At
about 8:30pm, on the same day, when Mr. Kiran came to Mr. Sohail’s house, everybody
finished their dinner and waiting for Mr. Kiran. Mr. Sohail gave Rs.50, 000/- to Mr. Kiran
and asked him to leave immediately.
6. While Mr. Kiran was about to leave the place, Ms. Sirisha suddenly came running
out of the house and hugged him from behind. She was crying loud, requesting Mr. Kiran to
take her with him away from her father’s house. Before Mr. Kiran could gain his senses from
such a sudden incident, Mr. Shah rushed to his daughter and dragged her inside the house
and bolted the doors from outside.
7. Mr. Shyam, (brother of Mr. Shah), in a fit of anger, brought a lathi, usually available
in every house, and started beating Mr. Kiran with lathi on his head and chest. Mr. Shah,
shouted ‘kill him’. Mr. Sohail caught hold of Mr. Kiran to prevent his escape.
8. In the meantime, Ms. Sirisha managed to escape from an open window and rushed to
protect her lover. Unfortunately, she also received three serious blows on her head and
collapsed unconscious. With the intervention of neighbors, both were taken to the hospital
where Mr. Kiran survived but Ms. Sirisha died after 10 days of her admission in the hospital.
9. The Post-Mortem Report confirmed that she suffered injuries on head and fracture of
3 ribs. According to the Post-Mortem Report ‘none of these injuries independently was
sufficient to cause her death while they cumulatively were sufficient to cause death in the
ordinary course of nature.
10. First Information Report (FIR) was registered under section 154 of Cr P C in Police
Station against Mr. Shyam (Accused 1), Mr. Shah (Accused 2), Mr. Sohail (Accused 3) for
death of Ms. Sirisha and for attempt to murder Mr. Kiran.
11. The charges were framed against all the three accused under S. 302 r/w section 34 of
Indian Penal Code, 1860 in relation to the death of Ms. Sirisha. And they were also charged
under Sec.307 r/w Sec. 34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 for attempt to commit murder of Mr.
Kiran.
12. The Sessions Court convicted them and imposed sentence of death for causing death
of Ms. Sirisha. They were also convicted for attempt to murder Mr. Kiran and were
sentenced to 7 years imprisonment.
13. On appeal, the High Court confirmed the conviction of all the accused for ‘attempt to
murder’ Mr. Kiran and reduced the term of imprisonment to 5 years.
14. However, the High Court changed the conviction of all the accused for ‘murder’ into
offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder’ for causing death of Ms. Sirisha as
they were under grave and sudden provocation, when Mr. Kiran and the girl hugged each
other in their presence.
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that the petitioner has approached this apex
court under Article 136 of the Indian Constitution.
Article 136 of the Indian Constitution enshrines that: -
Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court -
(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion, grant
special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any
cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India.
(2) Nothing in clause ( 1 ) shall apply to any judgment, determination, sentence or order passed
or made by any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces.
The Respondent humbly submits before this Hon’ble Court that the present petition of the
appellant is not maintainable
Statement of ISSUES
Problem 1: Was the family involved in Sirisha's murder and Mr. Kiran's attempted murder?
Problem 2: Is Mr. Shyam subject to liability under Section 153 of the Indian Penal Code?
Problem 3: Is Mr. Sohail subject to liability under Sections 339 and 340 of the IPC?
Problem 4: Whether section 153 of the Criminal Code holds Mr. Shah accountable for inciting
Mr. Shyam Is it an IPC?
Problem 5: Whether section 498 will hold the family members accountable for mental cruelty
and the IPC 506 or not?
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

Section 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) prescribes
punishment for the offence of criminal intimidation. “Criminal intimidation” as defined in
Section 503 IPC is that. Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or
property, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which
he is not legally bound to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits
criminal intimidation. The Supreme Court in Manik Taneja and Another v. State of Karnataka
and Another. Therefore it is argued and submitted before this Hon’ble apex court that the
accused has merely shown threat and had no intention of executing his threat so given and
therefore according to the precedents so cited, the accused is not guilty of criminal intimidation.
The constructive liability under this section would arise only if two conditions are fulfilled:
a) There must be common intention to commit the crime and
b) There must be participation by all the persons in doing such act in furtherance of that
intention. If these two ingredients are established all the accused would be liable for the said
offence*(1)
*1 Gurdatta Mal AIR 1965 SC 257
Intention
It is presumed that every sane person intends the result that his action normally produces and if
a person hits another on a vulnerable part of the body, and death occurs as a result, the intention
of the accused can be no other than to take the life of the victim and the offence committed
amounts to murder
*2 The sudden incident of Ms. Sirisha hugging Mr. Kiran, which led to an outburst of emotions
from the accused, was an unexpected event that triggered their actions.
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE I: Whether the family involved in Sirisha's murder and the attempt to murder of Mr.
Kiran?
It is humbly contended that the Hon’ble high Court correctly held the Appellants as guilty of murder of
Sirisha's under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC. Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC envisages
commission of murder by two or more people in furtherance of a common intention. Section 300 of Indian
Penal Code contemplates that a person is guilty of murder if he intentionally causes the death of a person
or causes such bodily injury as he knows, is likely to cause death of that person or causes such bodily injury,
which in the ordinary course of nature results into death or commits an act so dangerous that it must, in
all probability cause death of that person. Section 34 of Indian Penal Code contemplates the doing of an
act by several persons in furtherance of common intention. The constructive liability under this section
would arise only if two conditions are fulfilled: a) There must be common intention to commit the crime
and b) There must be participation by all the persons in doing such act in furtherance of that intention. If
these two ingredients are established all the accused would be liable for the said offence*(1) *1 Gurdatta
Mal AIR 1965 SC 257 Intention It is presumed that every sane person intends the result that his action
normally produces and if a person hits another on a vulnerable part of the body, and death occurs as a
result, the intention of the accused can be no other than to take the life of the victim and the offence
committed amounts to murder*2 *(9) 1951, 3 Pepsu LR 635 Grave and Sudden Provocation: The High
Court correctly recognized that the Appellants acted under grave and sudden provocation. The actions of
Mr. Kiran and Ms. Sirisha, who suddenly embraced in front of the Appellants, were provocative and led to
a loss of self-control. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2201 OF 2011; December 07, 2022 THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN
versus GURBACHAN SINGH & OTHERS Therefore, in most cases, whether or not there exists a common
intention, has to be determined by drawing inference from the facts proved. Constructive intention, can
be arrived at only when the court can hold that the accused must have preconceived the result that ensued
in furtherance of the common intention.

ISSUE II: Whether Mr. Shyam be held liable under Section 153 of IPC or not?
Deliberately giving provocation to something with the very intent to cause riot Anyone who
deliberately by doing anything which is illegal, gives provocation to another person with clear
knowledge for it to be likely that the provocation will eventually cause the offence of rioting and
1. If the offence of rioting be committed in consequence of such provocation, be punished with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both;
2. If the offence of rioting is not committed, be punished with imprisonment for a term which
may extend to six months, or with a fine, or with both.
Lack of Intention to Kill: The Appellants never had an intention to kill Mr. Kiran or Ms. Sirisha.
Their actions were impulsive reactions to an emotionally charged situation
ISSUE III: Whether Mr. Sohail be held liable under Sections 339 and 340 of IPC or not?

IPC Section 339. Wrongful restraint Whoever voluntarily obstructs any person so as to prevent
that person from proceeding in any direction in which that person has right to proceed, is said
wrongfully to restrain that person. Section 340. Wrongful confinement Whoever wrongfully
restrains any person in such a manner as to prevent that person from proceedings beyond certain
circumscribing limits, is said “wrongfully to confine” that person. Mr.Sohail not be held liable
under sections 339 and 340 of IPC .
ISSUE IV: Whether Mr. Shah be held liable for provoking Mr. Shyam under section 153 of
IPC or not?
Whoever malignantly, or wantonly by doing anything which is illegal, gives provocation to any person
intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause the offence of rioting to be
committed, shall, if the offence of rioting be committed in consequence of such provocation. The sudden
incident of Ms. Sirisha hugging Mr. Kiran, which led to an outburst of emotions from the accused, was an
unexpected event that triggered their actions So Mr. Shah not be held liable for provoking Mr. Shyam
under section 153 of IPC.

PRAYER

Wherefore, in light of the facts of the case, issues raised, arguments advanced and

authorities cited, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:

1. The petition for Special Leave to Appeal under Article 136 of the Indian Constitution, is not

maintainable.

2. light of the above arguments, the Appellants respectfully pray that the Supreme

Court upholds the High Court's judgment, affirming the convictions for 'attempt to

murder' and 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder,' while considering the

circumstances of grave and sudden provocation

AND/OR

Pass any other order it may deem fit, in the interest of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience.

All of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted

Place: Delhi S/d

Date:

COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENCE