IN THE

HON’BLE

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

IN THE MATTER OF

Bhanwar Singh and ors.

v.

State of M.P

MEMORANDUM FOR THE APPELLANT

Ishu Deshmukh

ROLL NO. 81

COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

1
 Bhanwar singh v. state of M.P

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS..................................................................................3

 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES...................................................................................4

o TABLE OF CASES........................................................................................4

o ACTS, LEGISLATIONS AND STATUTES........................................................4

o BOOKS.....................................................................................................4

 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION…………………………………………………..5

 SYNOPSIS OF FACTS…………………………………………………………......6

 QUESTIONS PRESENTED.......................................................................................7

 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS.................................................................................8

 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED…………………………………………………...........9

 PRAYER FOR RELIEF...................................................................................13

2
 Bhanwar singh v. state of M.P

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Sec. Section

A.I.R. All India Reporter

Etc. etcetra

H.C. High Court

S.C. Supreme Court

v. versus

Vol. Volume

u/s. under section

Ext. Extension

SCC Supreme Court Cases

SCR Supreme Court Reports

3
 Bhanwar singh v. state of M.P

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
ACTS / STATUTES / LEGISLATIONS:

 India Penal code, 1860

 The Constitution of India .

CASES:

Sarbir Singh v. State of Punjab

Nashik v. State of Maharashtra

State of Maharashtra v. Joseph Mingel Koli

State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bhagwan Singh

BOOKS

1. INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, M.P. JAIN, 6THedn., Lexis Nexis,

ButterworthsWadhwa, 2010.
2. Indian Penal code, Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, 34th edition, Lexis Nexis

4
 Bhanwar singh v. state of M.P

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The aggrieved party has approached the hon’ble Supreme Court under Article 134 of Indian
Constitution.

5
 Bhanwar singh v. state of M.P

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The Appellant Bhanwar Singh is the tractor driver. The incident occurred at about 02.30
p.m. on 25.10.1984 in a village known as Kantharia. It was alleged that when Shivnath Singh
along with Ram Pratap Singh Prem Singh (deceased) and Bhom Singh , accused persons
Mohan Singh, Manohar Singh,, Kripal Singh, Laxman Singh and Karan Singh were 3 also
sitting nearby, abuses were exchanged between both the parties.

2. Kripal Singh Bhupendra Singh and Bhopal Singh and Kuber Singh armed with 12 bore
guns at that time came from the old village of Kanthariya on a tractor.

3. The said tractor was driven by Appellant. Laxman Singh is said to have been armed with
dhariya, Manohar Singh was having spear and stone and other accused were said to have
been armed with lathis. When Jaswant Singh asked the accused persons not to quarrel,
Manohar Singh pelted stone causing injury on his head, whereupon he fell down on the
ground. Thereafter, Shyam Singh and Kripal Singh (A-12) caused injuries to him by a
dhariya. Other accused persons are also said to have assaulted by lathis. Bhupendra Singh (A-
17) is said to have fired a gun shot to the chest of Prem Singh and Kripal Singh (A-16) as
well as Kuber Singh are also said to have fired shots at Bhom Singh, Meharban Singh (PW-
22) and Babu Lal (PW-23).

4. Laxman Singh is said to have been armed with dhariya, Manohar Singh was having spear
and stone and other accused were said to have been armed with lathis. When Jaswant Singh
asked the accused persons not to quarrel, Manohar Singh pelted stone causing injury on his
head, whereupon he fell down on the ground. Thereafter, Shyam Singh and Kripal Singh (A-
12) caused injuries to him by a dhariya. Other accused persons are also said to have assaulted
by lathis. Bhupendra Singh (A-17) is said to have fired a gun shot to the chest of Prem Singh
and Kripal Singh (A-16) as well as Kuber Singh are also said to have fired shots at Bhom
Singh, Meharban Singh (PW-22) and Babu Lal (PW-23). During the incident Hakam Singh
(PW-17), Ram Pratap Singh, Rajendra Singh (PW-20), Bhupendra Singh (PW-21), Meharban
Singh and Bharat Singh (PW-24) are said to have suffered injuries.

6
 Bhanwar singh v. state of M.P

QUESTION PRESENTED

1. Whether the appellant is liable for murder under Section 302 read with Section 149 of
IPC?

2. Whether Appellant is liable under Section 147 and 148 of IPC?

3. Whether the appellant is liable under Section 307/149 of IPC?

7
 Bhanwar singh v. state of M.P

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

CONTENTION: The Appellant is not liable for murder under Section 302
read with Section 149 of IPC

The Appellant Bhanwar Singh is the tractor driver, only working as a agent for his employer
on that day on 25.10.1984 in a village known as Kantharia within the jurisdiction of Jharda
Police Station, he was only responsible to drop Kripal Singh, Bhupendra Singh and Bhopal
Singh and Kuber Singh armed with 12 bore guns. To be booked under 302 he must satisfy
the condition of murder that given under section 300 of IPC i.e. murder.

CONTENTION II: The Appellant is not liable under Section 147 and 148
of IPC

Since to be booked under section 147 and 148 of IPC , he must involved in the acts define
Section 146. Rioting :-Whenever force or violence is used by an unlawful assembly, or by
any member thereof, in prosecution of the common object of such assembly, every member
of such assembly is guilty of the offence of rioting, and here was just a driver and not
involved in the quarrel of the both parties.

CONTENTION III: The Appellant is not liable under Section 307/149 of

IPC

Section 307/149 deals with the rioting, armed with deadly weapon and attempt to murder and
here he is not liable because he was not fulfilling the requirements of section 307 and 149 of
IPC .

8
 Bhanwar singh v. state of M.P

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

Contention1: The Appellant is not liable for murder under Section 302 read with
Section 149 of IPC.

The Appellant Bhanwar Singh is the tractor driver, only working as a agent for his employer
on that day on 25.10.1984 in a village known as Kantharia within the jurisdiction of Jharda
Police Station, he was only responsible to drop Kripal Singh, Bhupendra Singh and Bhopal
Singh and Kuber Singh armed with 12 bore guns. To be booked under 302 he must satisfy
the condition of murder that given under section 300 of IPC i.e. murder.

Section 302 Punishment for murder

Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or 1[imprisonment for life] and shall
also be liable to fine. Once an offender is found by the court to be guilty of the offence of the
murder under section 302, then it has to sentence the offender to either death or for
imprisonment of life. Court has no power to impose any lesser sentence.

Circumstantial evidence:-

Sarbir Singh v. State of Punjab :-

In cases depending on circumstantial evidence it is true that the chain of events proved by the
prosecution must show that within all human probability the offence has been committed by
the accused, but the court is expected to consider the total cumulative effect of all the proved
facts along with the motive suggested by the prosecution which induced the accused to follow
a particular path1

Intention of causing death

Nashik v. State of Maharashtra

When the appellant dealt a severe knife blow on the stomach of deceased without provocation
and when deceased was unarmed and had already been injured by co-accused the appellant
cannot be held that he had no intention to cause a murderous assault by mere fact that only
one blow was inflicted;, 2

1
AIR 1993(1) sc 616 .
2
AIR 1993 (1)sc 1197 .

9
 Bhanwar singh v. state of M.P

In the above mentioned both the cases the appellant was far away to satisfy such conditions.

Section 149:- Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in

prosecution of common object If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful
assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such as the members or
that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person
who, at the time of the committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is
guilty of that offence.

Joint liability of members of unlawful assembly

State of Maharashtra v. Joseph Mingel Koli

It is well settled that once a membership of an unlawful assembly is established, it is not

incumbent on the prosecution to establish whether any specific overt act has been assigned to
any accused. Mere membership of the unlawful assembly is sufficient.3

In this situation the matter of joint liability did not arose because bhanwar singh was not
liable for the acts of the other accused persons.

3
(1997) 2 Crimes 228 (Bom).

10
 Bhanwar singh v. state of M.P

Contention 2: Appellant is not liable under Section 147 and 148 of IPC.

Since to be booked under section 147 and 148 of IPC, he must involved in the acts define
Section 146. Rioting:-Whenever force or violence is used by an unlawful assembly, or by any
member thereof, in prosecution of the common object of such assembly, every member of
such assembly is guilty of the offence of rioting, and here was just a driver and not involved
in the quarrel of the both parties.

Section 147. Punishment for rioting

Whoever is guilty of rioting, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

Section 148. Rioting, armed with deadly weapon

Whoever is guilty of rioting, being armed with a deadly weapon or with anything which, used
as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

Unlawful Assembly to cause death

State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bhagwan Singh

Where the presence of injured eye witnesses at the place of occurrence was undoubtful and
their evidence corroborated by medical evidence supported by prompt FIR against all 16
accused, merely non-explanation of injuries sustained by accused persons by these witnesses
is not fatal for prosecution and as such common object of unlawful assembly to cause death is
established4.

Contrary to the above mention case Bhanwar Singh whether a part of an unlawful assembly
but he was not have a intention to cause harm to other person.

4
2000 Cr LJ 123 (MP).
11
 Bhanwar singh v. state of M.P

Contention 3: Appellant is not liable under Section 307/149 of IPC.

Section 307/149 deals with the rioting, armed with deadly weapon and attempt to murder and
here he is not liable because he was not fulfilling the requirements of section 307 and 149 of
IPC. 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.

Ansarudin v. State of Madhya Pradesh:-

It is not necessary that injury, capable of causing death, should have been inflicted. What is
material to attract, the provisions of section 307 is the guilty intention or knowledge with
which the all was done, irrespective of its result. The intention and knowledge are the matters
of inference from totality of circumstances and cannot be measured merely from the results.

Since there is no part of guilty intention by Bhanwar Singh so be freed.

Section 149. Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution
of common object If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in
prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such as the members or that assembly
knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who, at the time
of the committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence.

State of Maharashtra v. Joseph Mingel Koli

It is well settled that once a membership of an unlawful assembly is established, it is not

incumbent on the prosecution to establish whether any specific overt act has been assigned to
any accused. Mere membership of the unlawful assembly is sufficient. Every member of an
unlawful assembly is vicariously liable for the acts done by others either in the prosecution of
the common object of the unlawful assembly or such which the members of the unlawful
assembly knew were likely to be committed.5

Since the above conditions were also not satisfied by the Bhanwar Singh so he was not held
liable.

5
(1997) 2 Crimes 228 (Bom).

12
 Bhanwar singh v. state of M.P

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Wherefore, in the light of the facts stated, arguments advanced and authorities cited, the
appellant , humbly prays before the honorable Supreme Court of India to adjudge and declare
that:

The appellant Bhanwar Singh was not liable for the act done by his master or employer. He
was just a tractor driver.

Or pass any other order, which the court may deem fit in the light of justice, equity and good
conscience.

All of which is most humbly prayed.

Place: New Delhi Ishu Deshmukh

(COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT)

13