MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT TC-6

MOOT COURT
PROBLEM NO- 1

VASANTDADA PATIL PRATISHTHAN’S LAW COLLEGE

NEHA PAWAR
ID- VPLC2223052
DATE- 16-08-2024

IN

THE JUDICATURE OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

IN THE MATTER OF:

THE STATE APPELLANT

Versus

RAMESH RESPONDENT

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT

1
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Sr. No. Contents Pg. Nos.

1. Index of Authorities 3

2. Constitution And Statutes 4

3. List of Books 5

4. Statement of Jurisdiction 6

5. Statement of facts 7-8

6. Statement of Charge 9

7. Statements Of Issue 10

8. Summary of Arguments 11-13

9. Arguments Advanced 14-31

I Issue 1: Whether the appeal is maintainable? 14-16

Issue 2: Whether the High Court was justified in acquitting

II 17-22
the Accused?
Issue 3: Whether the Appellants can be permitted to add a
III 23-27
new charge u/s 366 and 307 of IPC?
Issue 4: Whether there is a common intention to commit
IV 28-30
offence u/s 326 A of IPC, 1860?

8. Prayer 31
 1. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

1. State of Kerala Vs. M. Padmanabhan Nair 1985 AIR 356

2. Karnel Singh Vs. State of M.P 1995 AIR 2472

3. State of Bihar Vs. Ramesh Singh 1977 AIR 2018

4. Ravada Sasikala Vs. Andra Pradesh Sant AIR 2017 SC 166

5. Mukesh Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2017) 6 SCC 1

6. Rajesh v/s State of Haryana AIR 2019 SC 2168

7. Sangram Singh Vs. Election Tribunal 1955 AIR 425

8. State of Maharashtra Vs. Abdul Hamid Haji Mohammed 1994 SCC (2) 664

9. Pandurang Vs. State of Hyderabad 1955 AIR 216

10. Chhotu v/s State of Maharashtra AIR 1997 SC 3501

11. State of Punjab v. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar Pal AIR 2012 SC 364

12. State of Rajasthan V. Kashi Ram AIR 2007 SC 144

13. State of Maharashtra vs Praful Desai. 2003 4 SCC

14. Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1965 SC79.

15. Bhola Singh vs state of Punjab 2011 AIR SCW 1954

16. Ranjit Kumar v/s State of Bihar Criminal Mise no 28348 of 2000

17. Rajesh vs State of Haryana AIR 2168 of 2019

 2. CONSTITUTION AND STATUTES

➢ Books :

1) Bare Act: The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Updated 2023

2) Bare Act: The Indian Penal Code, 1860 Updated 2023
3) Criminal Major Acts, Subzwari, 2015 edition
4) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 23rd edition - Ratanlal & Dhirajlal.
5) The Indian Penal Code, 36th Edition, Ratanlal & Dhirajlal

➢ Websites:

1) www.bombayhighcourt.nic.in
2) https://ipleaders.in
3) https://lawtimesjournal.in/
4) https://www.livelaw.in/

➢ Statutes:

1) The Indian Penal Code, 1860

2) The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973
3) The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
4) The Constitution Of India, 1949 art 20 cl.3,
 3. LIST OF BOOKS

➢ BOOKS:

i. Bare Act: The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Updated 2023

ii. Bare Act: The Indian Penal Code, 1860 Updated 2023
iii. Criminal Major Acts, Subzwari, 2015 edition
iv. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 23rd edition - Ratanlal & Dhirajlal.
v. The Indian Penal Code, 36th Edition, Ratanlal & Dhirajlal
 4. STATEMENTS OF JURISDICTION

• The Appellant herein have approached the Supreme Court of India through:
Special Leave Petition filed under Article 136 of The Constitution of India,
1949
• The counsels hereby submits this memorandum before the Hon'ble SupremeCourt
of India invoking the Jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Supreme Court under Article 136
of The Constitution of India.
• As the appellants have approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court, under the extra
ordinary jurisdiction, the counsel on behalf of the Respondent, opposes to the
jurisdiction. The State has not raised any substantial question of law that warrants
the Supreme Court's intervention. The appeal is primarily based on re-evaluating
the evidence and facts, which is beyond the scope of the Supreme Court's
jurisdiction in an appeal.
• The counsel will be dealing with the issue pertaining to jurisdiction in the later
stage of arguments.
• The respondent affirms that they shall accept any judgment of this Hon'ble Supreme
Court as final and binding upon itself and shall execute it in its entirety and in good
faith.
 5. STATEMENTS OF FACTS

• Ramesh, a teacher, developed feelings for his student, Neeta, and proposed
marriage to her.
• Neeta asked Ramesh to speak to her parents, who rejected his proposal due to
her upcoming exams.
• Despite Neeta's disinterest, Ramesh persisted, believing her actions were
influenced by her parents.
• Ramesh , influenced by his Father figure Mahesh, planned to marry Neeta
without her parents' consent.
• Mahesh, at Ramesh persuasion, threatened Neeta with a bottle of acid to
coerce her compliance.
• During an attempt to persuade Neeta, Mahesh accidentally threw acid on
her face, causing severe injuries.
• Mahesh was absconded and was declared as a proclaimed offender.
• Ramesh was arrested and sentenced to 10 years in prison for causing grievous
hurt and 2 years for stalking.
• The High Court later acquitted Ramesh, stating that common intention was
not proven.
• The State has appealed to the Supreme Court, seeking life imprisonment for
Ramesh and an increase in compensation for Neeta's medical expenses.

Date Event
- Ramesh, a Math's teacher, developed feelings for his
student, Neeta.

Before the - Neeta, an ambitious 18-year-old student, admired Ramesh as

Incident her teacher.

- Neeta, from a lower middle-class family, supported her family

by giving tuitions.

14th February - Ramesh proposed marriage to Neeta, who asked him to speak
2015 to her parents.
20th February - Ramesh 's proposal to Neeta was rejected by her parents, who
2015 cited her ongoing exams.
 - Neeta's parents warned Ramesh not to contact her, fearing
distraction from her studies.
- Neeta started avoiding Ramesh as per her parents' wishes.
Events Leading - Ramesh believed that Neeta’s actions were under parental
to pressure.
the Incident - Ramesh confided in his friend Mahesh about his feelings for
Neeta.
- Mahesh suggested elope with Neeta to marry her.

- Ramesh, along with Mahesh, attempted to persuade Neeta

23rd March for marriage.
2015
(Incident Day) - Mahesh, in a state of confusion, accidentally threw acid on Neeta
during the attempt.
- Ramesh and Mahesh both were charged under IPC
sections 326A and 34 of IPC and Ramesh was also charged
under section 354D.
Legal - Ramesh was arrested, while Mahesh absconded and was declared
Proceedings as a proclaimed offender.
- Ramesh was convicted by the Sessions Court and sentenced to
10 years of imprisonment.
- Ramesh appealed, and the High Court acquitted him of the
charges but recommended compensation for Neeta.

- The State, on behalf of Neeta, appealed to the Supreme Court for

reconsideration.
Current Status
- The Supreme Court is set to hear the appeal and arguments
regarding the case.

8
 6. STATEMENT OF CHARGE

The FIR was filed against both the accused Ramesh and Mahesh under section 326A r/w Sec 34
IPC and Ramesh was also charged with 354D.

After investigation, he was put to trial before the he was put to trial before the Session court, where he
was put to trial. Sessions Court, where he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Sessions Court
convicted Ramesh under Section 326r/w Sec 34 IPC and sentenced him 10 years of rigorous
imprisonment. He is also asked to pay compensation of Rs. 200000/- immediately to Neeta . He was
also awarded rigorous imprisonment for 2 years under Section 354D, IPC. Both the sentences were to
run concurrently.

9
 7. STATEMENTS OF ISSUES

Issue 1: Whether the appeal is maintainable?

Issue 2: Whether the High Court was justified in acquitting the Accused?

Issue 3: Whether there was a common intention under section 326A of IPC ?

Issue 4: Whether the Appellants can be permitted to add a new charge u/s 366 and 307
of IPC?

10
 8. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

Issue 1: Whether the appeal is maintainable?

➢ The answer is in NEGATIVE.

➢ The counsel said that the appeal filed by the State is not maintainable before the
Supreme Court. The counsel contended that the High Court's decision to acquit
Ramesh was based on a thorough assessment of the evidence and application
of the law, and that there is no legal basis for the State's appeal.
➢ Case law: In case of State of Kerala v. M. Padmanabhan Nair 1, where the
Supreme Court held that an appeal against an acquittal should not be entertained
lightly and should only be allowed if there are substantial and compelling reasons
to do so.

Issue 2: Whether the High Court was justified in acquitting the Accused?
➢ The answer is in AFFIRMATIVE.
➢ Yes, the High Court was justified in acquitting him. The counsel contends that the
evidence presented by the State was insufficient to establish Ramesh’s guilt
beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the High Court's decision to acquit Ramesh
was correct application of the law.
➢ In the mentioned case law Karnel Singh v. State of M.P2., the Supreme Court
emphasized that the benefit of doubt should be given to the accused in criminal
cases, and that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a
reasonable doubt.

10
Issue 3: Whether the Appellants can be permitted to add a new charge u/s 366 &
307?

➢ The answer is in NEGATIVE.

➢ The counsel opposes the State's request to add a new charge under Section 366
& 307 of the IPC. The counsel submits that there is no evidence to support this
charge and that adding it at this stage would be prejudicial to Ramesh’s defense.

➢ Case law: State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh3, where the Supreme Court heldthat
the addition of a new charge should be based on the evidence on record and should
not be done merely to fill gaps in the prosecution case.

1 1985 AIR 356

2 1995 AIR 247

10
 Issue 4: Whether there is a common intention to commit offence u/s 326 A of IPC,
1860?

➢ The answer is in NEGATIVE.

➢ The counsel refutes that there is no common intention amongst the accused to
commit the offence under Section 326A of the IPC. The counsel contends that
Ramesh did not agree to use acid as a tool to harm Neeta and that he was not even
involved in the act of throwing acid.
➢ In, Ravada Sasikala v/s of Andra Pradesh & anr4-
▪ The victim after completion of her intermediate course had accompanied
her brother to Amalapuram of East Godavari district where he was
working as an assistant professor in BVC engineering College and stayed
with him about a week prior to occurrence.
▪ Thereafter, she along with her brother went to his native place Sompuram.
▪ At that time, the elder brother of the accused proposed a marriage alliance
between the accused and appellant, for which her family expressed
unwillingness.
▪ To revenge, the accused trespassed in to her house and poured a bottle
over her head.
▪ The Court held him guilty under Section 326 and 448 IPC and sentenced
him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and directed to pay a
fine of 5,000 with a default clause under Section 326 IPC and sentenced
him to pay a fine of Rs 1,000 for the offence under 488 IPC with default
clause.

➢ In this mentioned case, Mukesh v. State (NCT of Delhi) 5, where the Supreme
Court emphasized that for the application of Section 34, there must be clear
evidence of a meeting of minds to commit a criminal act.

3 1977 AIR 2018

4 AIR 2017 SC 1166

1
 4. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE-1: Whether the appeal is maintainable?

SUBMISSION

▪ The answer is in NEGATIVE.

▪ The counsel submits that the appeal filed by the State is not maintainable before
the Supreme Court.
▪ The Counsel for appellant have not produce any new evidences, so High Court
has duly appreciated the evidence in the present case as well as provided fair trial
and outcome of such reason decision is place before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
▪ My humble submission in this context would be appeal is frivolous while in turn
will waste the time of Hon’ble Supreme Court.

CONTENTION
1.1 Introduction:

▪ The issue at hand is whether the appeal filed by the State against the High
Court's judgment is maintainable.
▪ As the respondent, representing the accused Ramesh, it is contended that
the appeal is not maintainable and should be dismissed.

1.2 Argument:

1. Lack of Jurisdiction:
▪ The State's appeal is based on challenging the findings of fact and legal
interpretation by the High Court. However, the Supreme Court does not
have jurisdiction to re-examine findings of fact unless there is a substantial
question of law involved.
2. No Substantial Question of Law:
▪ The State appeal does not contain any substantial question of law
therefore getting certificate from the High Court under 134A is very
difficult so appeal is filed under article 136 according to article 136 of
the Indian constitution –
2
▪ i) 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 territory of India.

ii) Nothing in clause (1) shall apply to any judgement, determination,

sentence or order passed or made by any court or tribunal constituted by
or under any law relating to the Armed Forces.

Special leave petition can be accepted only on two grounds

i) Firstly when substantial question of law is involved

ii) Secondly when there gross injustice to either party.

It is humble submitted that, Both the grounds in the present case

are absent hence appeal is not maintainable.

3
 3. Upholding the Principle of Finality:
▪ The High Court's judgment should be respected as it is based on a
thorough examination of the evidence and legal principles. Allowing the
appeal would undermine the principle of finality of judgments.

1.3 Case Law:

1. Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal7:

▪ In this case, the Supreme Court held that an appeal can only be entertained
if it involves a substantial question of law. Mere re- appreciation of
evidence is not sufficient grounds for an appeal.
2. State of Maharashtra v. Abdul Hamid Haji Mohammed8:
▪ The Supreme Court reiterated that the appellate court should not interfere
with the findings of fact unless there is a manifest error or a substantial
question of law involved.

1.4 Conclusion:

▪ In conclusion, the State's appeal is not maintainable as it primarily seeks to re-

examine the findings of fact and legal interpretation by the High Court, which
is beyond the scope of the Supreme Court's jurisdiction in an appeal.
▪ There is no substantial question of law involved that warrants the Supreme
Court's intervention.
▪ Therefore, it is requested that the appeal be dismissed.

7 1955 AIR 425

8 1994 SCC (2) 664

4
ISSUE-2: Whether the High Court was justified in acquitting the Accused?

SUBMISSION

➢ The answer is in AFFIRMATIVE

➢ The counsel submits that the High Court was justified in acquitting the accused.
The counsel submits that the evidence presented by the State was insufficient to
establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the High Court's decision
to acquit him was a correct application of the law.

CONTENTIONS
2.1 Introduction:

▪ The issue under consideration is whether the High Court was justified in acquitting
the accused, Ramesh, in the case of Neeta's acid attack.
▪ As the respondent, representing Ramesh, it is submitted that the High Court's
decision to acquit the accused was justified based on the evidence and legal and
facts of the case.

2.2 Arguments:

1. Lack of Common Intention:

▪ The High Court correctly recognized that there was no common intention
among the accused to commit the offense under Section 34 of the IPC.
▪ The Respondent did not agree to Mahesh’ original plan he was reluctant
to at the same time agreed on the condition that no harm should be caused
to victim so there was no shared intent to cause grievous hurt to Neeta.
2. Section 34 –
▪ Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common
intention- When a criminal act is done by several persons in
furtherance of common intention all of such person is liable for
that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone

• Essential Ingredients of section 34-

i) A criminal act committed by multiple people

ii) Existence of common among the accused: There

must be evidence to establish that the individuals
5
 shared a common intention to commit a crime.

iii) Active participation of each accused :

Each accused must have actively participated in
the commission of the criminal act. Mere presence
at the scene of the crime is not sufficient.

2.3 Case law –

State of Rajasthan v. Bhera Ram-
The Supreme Court addressed the application of section 34. The court
emphasized that for invoking the provisions of Article 34, there must be a
clear intention to commit a crime shared by all the accused. It is not sufficient
to establish that the individuals were present at the scene of the crime, there
must be evidence to establish their active participation and shared intention.

▪ Prosecution has not presented any evidence which shows that prior to
That prior to the incident there was the shared intention by both the
accused. Ramesh did not have any knowledge of any such intention of
Mahesh , firstly he was reluctant, but under Mahesh agreed only on the
On the condition that no harm will be caused to Neeta. Said intention
did not develop at the spot. Also active participation which is
the one of essential ingredient of section 34 is absent in the
present case. So accused is not liable to punished under the said
section.

6
 ▪ Pandurang v. State of Hyderabad9 –
The Court held that person cannot be held vicariously accountable for
the actions of another if their purpose to commit a crime was not common.
It is not a common intention if their conduct is independent of the act of
the another.
▪ Chhotu v/s State of Maharashtra10 1997-
The complainant party was attacked by the accused resulting in one
person’s death. According to the witness, three people were abusing the

9 1955 AIR 216

10 AIR1997SC3501

7
 dead, while the fourth was merely standing there with a knife in his hand.
It was held that only three of the four accused were responsible under
section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and the fourth did not have
the same purpose.
3. Absence of Stalking:
▪ The High Court also rightly dismissed the stalking charges against
Ramesh.
▪ His actions, including the proposal of marriage and continued pursuit of
Neeta, according to above facts did not amount to stalking under
Section 354D of the IPC.
▪ Any man who-
i) Follows a woman and contacts, or attempts to contact such
woman to foster personal interaction repeatedly despite a clear
indication of disinterest by such woman; or
ii) Monitors the use by a women of the internet , email or any other
form of electronic communication, commits the offence of
stalking;
Provided that such conduct shall not amount to stalking if the
man who pursued it proves that-
i) It was pursued for the purpose of the preventing or
detecting crime and the man accused of stalking had
been entrusted with the responsibility of prevention and
detection of crime by the State; or
ii) It was pursued under any law or to comply with any
condition or requirement imposed by any person under
any law ; or
iii) In the particular circumstances such conduct was
reasonable and justified.
▪ In present case according to third exception of section 354D
Appellate never refused his offer of marrying her she asked her
to speak to her parents instead of denying the proposal which
clearly indicates she was not against marriage proposal. So here
conduct of accused is reasonable and justified. The Accused
was always under the belief that all actions were under
8
 influence of her parents.
▪ Case law-

▪ Lata Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh

The Supreme Court viewed the Right to marry as a part of
Article 21 of Indian Right to life and personal liberty.

▪ According to above facts appellant is 18 years old she is an

adult and quite matured to take decision for her own and also
have right to marry a person of her own choice. So desire to
accept or reject proposal should be her own decision not of
her parents.

▪ There was no evidence to suggest that Ramesh's actions were intended

to cause fear or intimidation to Neeta.

4. Compliance with Legal Standards:

▪ The High Court's decision was based on a thorough examination of the
evidence and legal principles.
▪ It upheld the principles of justice and fairness in acquitting the accused
based on the lack of evidence to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

2.3 Case Law:

1. State of Punjab v. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar11:

▪ In this case, the Supreme Court emphasized that acquittal should be based
on a careful consideration of the evidence and legal principles. The High
Court's decision in this case is in line with the principles laid down by the
Supreme Court.
2. State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram12:
▪ The Rajasthan High Court, in this case, acquitted the accused based on the
lack of evidence to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, highlighting
the importance of adherence to legal standards in acquittal.

9
 ▪ Considering the above case, the High Court’s decision to acquit Mahesh
is justified considering the lack of evidence proving his directinvolvement
in the acid attack.

2.4 Conclusion:

▪ In conclusion, the High Court's decision to acquit the accused was justified
based on the evidence and legal principles.
▪ There was no common intention among the accused to commit the offense, and
the stalking charges against Ramesh were rightly dismissed.
The High Court's decision upheld the principles of justice and fairness, and1therefore,
it is requested that the acquittal be uphel

11 AIR 2012 SC 364

12 AIR 2007 SC 144

10
ISSUE-3: Whether the Appellants can be permitted to add a new charge u/s 366 & 307?

SUBMISSION

▪ The answer is in NEGATIVE

▪ The counsel opposed the State's request to add a new charge under Section 366
& 307 of the IPC.
▪ The counsel puts forth that there is no evidence to support this new charge and
that adding it at this stage would be prejudicial to his defense.

CONTENTION

3.1 Introduction:

▪ The issue at hand is whether the Appellants, representing the State, should be
permitted to add a new charge under Section 366 & 307 of the Indian Penal
Code (IPC), which deals with the offense of attempt to murder.
▪ As the respondent, representing the accused Ramesh, it is contended that the
Appellants should not be permitted to add a new charge at this stage of the
proceedings.

3.2 Argument:

1. Procedural Impropriety:
▪ Permitting the addition of a new charge under Section 366 & 307 of the
IPC at this stage would amount to procedural impropriety.
▪ As per reading of section 216 of Crpc i.e
▪ Court may alter charge –
i) Any Court may alter or add to any charge at any time before
judgement is pronounced.
ii) Every such alteration or addition shall be read and explained to
the accused.
iii) If the alteration or addition to a charge is such that proceeding
immediately with the trial is not likely, in the opinion of the
Court to prejudice the accused in his defense or the prosecutor in
the conduct of the case the Court may , in its discretion, after
such alteration or addition has been made proceed with the trial
as if the altered or added charge had been the original charge.
11
 iv) If the alteration or addition is such that proceeding immediately
with the trial is likely, in the opinion of the Court to prejudice
the accused or the prosecutor as aforesaid, the court may either
direct a new trial or adjourn the trial for such period as may be
necessary.

v) If the offence stated in the stated in the altered or added charge

is one for the prosecution of which previous sanction is
necessary the case shall not be proceeded with until such
sanction is obtained, unless sanction has been already obtained
for a prosecution on the same facts as those on which the altered
or added charge is founded.

▪ It is respectfully submitted that adding section 366 and

section 307 a new charge at this stage would prejudice
the accused's defense also waste Hon’ble court precious
time.

2. Lack of Evidence:
▪ There is no new evidence or material presented by the Appellants to
justify the addition of a new charge under Section 366 & 307 of the IPC.
▪ The charges should be based on the evidence available at the time of
filing the chargesheet.
▪ The plain reading of Section 366 of IPC is as under:

Section 366: Kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to

compel her marriage, etc.
▪ Whoever kidnaps or abducts any woman with intent that
she may be compelled, or
▪ knowing it to be likely that she will be compelled, to
marry any person against her will, or
▪ in order that she may be forced or seduced to illicit
intercourse, or
▪ knowing it to be likely that she will be forced or
▪ seduced to illicit intercourse,
▪ shall be punished with imprisonment of either

12
 shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description of term which may extend to 10 years and
shall be also liable to fine.

➢ Section 307: Attempt to murder

▪ Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge,
and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused
death, he would be guilty of murder,
▪ shall be punished with imprisonment of either description
for a term which may extend to ten years, and
▪ shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any
person by such act,
▪ the offender shall be liable either to 1 [imprisonment for
life], or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned.
➢ Section 366: Kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to
compel her marriage, etc.
▪ Whoever kidnaps or abducts any woman with intent that
she may be compelled, or
▪ knowing it to be likely that she will be compelled, to
marry any person against her will, or
▪ in order that she may be forced or seduced to illicit
intercourse, or
▪ knowing it to be likely that she will be forced or
▪ seduced to illicit intercourse,
▪ shall be punished with imprisonment of either description
for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be
liable to fine.

13
➢ It is most respectfully submitted in the view of the above definitions it is clear that
though Ramesh had the intention to marry, it is no where seen or recorded that
Ramesh had kidnapped her, abducted her as per the facts of the case accused
dragged her which itself doesn’t prove that accused was trying to kidnap her so
according section 366 his action doesn’t amount to kidnapping and there no action
as to attempt to kidnapping in IPC or tried to murder her or had any intentions to
kill her. It is pertinent to note that none of the ingredients from the above
definitions are satisfied to the extent that the Hon’ble Supreme Court may accept
both the charges.

3. Violation of Fair Trial:

▪ Allowing the addition of a new charge would violate the principles of a
fair trial as enshrined in the Constitution. The accused has the right to
the charges against him and to prepare his defense accordingly,
which would be compromised by adding a new charge at this stage.

14
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

Case Law:

1. State of Maharashtra v. Praful Desai13:

▪ In this case, the Supreme Court held that the prosecution cannot be
permitted to add new charges at a belated stage of the trial, as it would
violate the accused's right to a fair trial.
2. Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab14:
▪ The Punjab and Haryana High Court, in this case, emphasized that the
charges against the accused should be based on the evidence available
at the time of filing the chargesheet, and no new charges should be added
at a later stage without sufficient cause.

3.3 Conclusion:

▪ In conclusion, the Appellants should not be permitted to add a new charge

under Section 366 & 307 of the IPC at this stage of the proceedings.
▪ Such an action would amount to procedural irregularities, violate the accused's
right to a fair trial, and lack justification based on the available evidence.
▪ Therefore, it is requested that the Court reject the Appellants' plea to add a new
charge.

13 2003 4 SCC
14 AIR 1965SC79

20
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

ISSUE-4: Whether there is a common intention to commit offence u/s 326 A of IPC, 1860?

SUBMISSION

▪ The answer is in NEGATIVE

▪ The counsel submits that there is no common intention among the accused to
commit the offence under Section 326A of the IPC.
▪ The counsel contents that Ramesh did not agree to use acid as a tool to
threaten Neeta and that he was not involved in the act of throwing acid.

CONTENTION
4.1 Introduction:

▪ The issue at hand is whether there was a common intention among the accused
to commit the offense under Section 326A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC),
which deals with causing grievous hurt by use of acid.
▪ As the respondent, representing the accused Ramesh, it is contended that there
was no common intention among the accused to commit this offense against the
victim, Neeta.

4.2 Argument:

1. Lack of Preplanned Action:

▪ The accused did not preplan or conspire nor had any intention ( enmity)
to commit the offense under Section 326A of the IPC.
▪ The incident was a result of a spontaneous act and not a premeditated
plan.

2. Absence of Mens rea-

▪ Mens rea is a culpable state of mind characterized by intention or purpose,
as well as knowledge of consequences. So according to common law maxim
“actus non facit reum mens sit rea” the act is not guilty until the mind is
guilty.
▪ In the instant case accused Ramesh had no intention to harm Neeta he
just wanted to reconsider the proposal rejected under the parental pressure.
So according to above said maxim accused cannot be held accountable
unless he can be proved to have acted with intent to commit a crime.

21
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

3. Absence of Actus reus -

▪ The Latin term ‘actus reus’ implies guilty act , which physical
component of the crime. According to section 39 of the IPC , actus
reus must be voluntary. This is based on “actus me invito factus non est
mens actus”, which according to common law, signifies “an act done
against my will is not my act at all. ”
• It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the unlawful act
of acid was not committed by Accused it is committed by Mahesh who
is still not arrested . So according facts of the case the act done by
Mahesh was against the will of the Accused, so it not his act at all.

4. Burden of proof-
▪ Section 103 of the Indian Evidence Act i.e Burden of proof as
to particular fact States that – The burden of proof as to any
particular fact lies on that person who wishes the Court to
believe in it existence unless it is provided by any law that the
proof of that fact shall lie on any particular person.
▪ So according to above section as Burden of proof is a legal
requirement or duty of the parties to assist to establish the
facts that will assist the court in reaching a decision in their
favour. In the instant case burden proving the presence of
Mens rea , Actus Reus and existence common intention of
accused falls on the Prosecution has failed to prove the same
so request Hon’ble Court upheld the acquittal the accused.

5. Case law-
Kamini v. Puran Chandra 1987
▪ A married woman was driven out of the matrimonial home by
ill treatment. She filed a case to recover her jewellery and
other articles. Her in-laws contended that she had taken them
away.
The court said there would be no presumption that she had
done so. The burden was upon the in-law to prove the fact.

22
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

4.3 Case Law:

1. Bhola Singh v. State of Punjab15:

▪ In this case, the Supreme Court held that for common intention to exist,
there must be a prior meeting of minds and a shared intent to commit the
offense. The actions of the accused must be planned and coordinated.
2. Ranjit Kumar v. State of Bihar16:
▪ The Patna High Court, in this case, emphasized that common intention
cannot be inferred merely from the presence of the accused at the scene of
the crime.

4.4 Conclusion:

▪ Based on the lack of preplanned action, absence of coordinated effort, and

Mahesh's spontaneous act, it is evident that there was no common intention among
the accused to commit the offense under Section 326A of the IPC.
▪ Each accused acted independently, and therefore, they cannot be held liable for
common intention.
▪ As such, it is requested that the accused be acquitted of the charges under Section
326A of the IPC.

15 2011 AIR SCW 1954

16 Criminal Misc. No. 28348 of 2000

23
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

8. PRAYER

Wherefore, it is prayed, in the light of the facts stated, issues raised, argument advanced
and authorities cited, that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to:

a. The Appeal may be dismissed on the grounds of non-maintainability.

b. The decision of the Hon’ble High Court to acquit the accused may beupheld.
And / Or

c. Pass any other order that it may deem fit in the interest of justice, equity and
good conscience.

For which act of kindness, the Respondent shall as in duty bound, ever pray

Sd/-

Counsel for the Respondent

24