Before The Hon'Ble Supereme Court of India

BEFORE THE HONBLE SUPEREME COURT OF INDIA
STATE OF XYZ (PETIOTIONER)

V.
RAMESH & MAHESH (RESPONDENT)
ON SUBMISSION TO THE REGISTERY OF THE COURT

OF THE HONBLE SUPEREME COURT OF INDIA
MEMORIAL FOR THE PETIOTIONER UNION OF INDIA
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES.......................
INDIAN
CASES
JOURNAL
ARTICLE
..
BOOKS
.
OTHER
AUTHORITIES
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION..
STATEMENT OF FACTS..
STATEMENT OF ISSUES.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS.
ARGUMENT ADVANCED
i|Page
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Petitioner humbly submits this memorandum in response to the petition filed before
this Honorable Court. The petition invokes its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. It sets forth the facts and the laws on which the claims are based.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Nimisha, an eighteen year old girl was a student of 12 th class. Her father used to work as a
clerk in a private firm. She had always been a very bright student. To support her father,
she used to give tuition.
Ramesh, math teacher of Nimisha in her school had emotions for her. Nimisha had always
admired him as a teacher.
On Nimishas 18th birthday, Ramesh gifted her expensive watch. Unaware of Rameshs
feelings, she accepted the same.
On 14th Feb. Ramesh proposed Nimisha. She told him to speak to her parents. The same
proposal was rejected by her parents.
Nimishas parents strongly admonished her and threatened that theyll discontinue her
studies.
Despite the disinterest shown by Nimisha, Ramesh continued to follow her, contacted her
personally, on phone & through internet, believing that all her action are under parental
control.
Mahesh, who always treated Ramesh as his son, suggested that, he should find Nimisha
alone & take her to the temple for marrying her without informing her parents. If Nimisha
resists Ramesh, due to parental pressure, Mahesh will threaten her with a bottle of acid to
pressurize her to come with them to the temple.
Ramesh, who was initially reluctant, agreed the plan on condition that no harm will be
caused to Nimisha and bottle of acid will only be used as a tool to threaten her for
compliance to their wishes.
On 23rd March, finding Nimisha alone, Ramesh approached her and asked her to
accompany him to the temple so that they can get married. On Nimishas refusal, Mahesh
who was carrying the bottle of acid, threatened Nimisha. Ramesh started dragging her into
the car. She started shouting loudly and abusing. Meanwhile, Mahesh in a state of
confusion opened the bottle, kept it holding for a fraction of seconds and then threw the
acid on her face.
After this, they both fled away in the car belonging to and driven by Mahesh, leaving the
girl in immense pain.
A case was registered against both the accused under Sec 326A r/w Sec 34 IPC, 1860 and
Ramesh was also charged under Sec 354D, IPC, 1860. Mahesh absconded and was declared
a proclaimed offender while Ramesh was arrested by police from his home and the bottle of
acid and car, used in the crime, was seized from his possession.
Session court convicted Ramesh under Sec 326A r/w Sec 34 IPC, 1860 and was sentenced
10 years of imprisonment. He was also asked to pay compensation of Rs. 200000. He was
also awarded 2 years of imprisonment for the offence of stalking under sec 354D IPC, 1860.
The high court adjudicated in favor of the accused by acquitting him from all the charges
and dismissed the appeal of the state, being bereft of any substance. The high court
however, recommended the state legal services authority to decide upon the quantum of
compensation to be awarded by the state govt. to the victim as per Sec 357A, CrPC.
The state govt. filed an appeal before the Supreme Court on the ground that High court has
failed to take notice of the fact that common intention was present as Ramesh and Mahesh
agreed to the use of acid in their plan of abduction. Acid was thrown in the furtherance of
that common intention. The state also asked to raise the amount of compensation to 350000
to be paid by state govt. The state also asked to charge Ramesh under Sec 366 IPC, 1860.
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Whether the instant petition is maintainable?

Is accused liable under Sec 354D, IPC?
Is accused liable under Sec 326A r/w Sec 34, IPC?
Is accused liable under Sec 366, IPC?
Should the amount of compensations be raised to Rs. 3,50000?
SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS

Before The Hon'Ble Supereme Court of India

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Before The Hon'Ble Supereme Court of India

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

Before The Hon'Ble Supereme Court of India

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BEFORE THE HONBLE SUPEREME COURT OF INDIA

STATE OF XYZ (PETIOTIONER)

ON SUBMISSION TO THE REGISTERY OF THE COURT

MEMORIAL FOR THE PETIOTIONER UNION OF INDIA

Whether the instant petition is maintainable?

You might also like