BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

In the matter of

Dr. SNEHLATA C .GUPTA

(PETITIONER)

V.

UNION OF INDIA & ORS

(RESPONDENT)

MEMORANDUM FOR THE APPELLANT

Submitted by:

Neelam Thakur

Section- C

Roll No. 88, Semester- VI

Date of submission: 06/07/2017

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Abbreviations…………………………………………………………………..iii

Index of authorities…………………………………………………………………….iv

I. Statement of facts…………………………………………………………………….v

II. Issue raised………………………………………………………………………….vi

III. Summary of arguments……………..……………………………………….…….vii

IV. Written submission………….………………………………………………………1

V. Prayer………………………………………………………………………………...

2
 ABBREVIATIONS

 & And
 AIR All India Report
 HC HighCourt
 V. Versus
 Sec. Section
 Gov. Government
 I.P.C Indian Penal code
 IC Indian cases
 N. foot note no.
 M.P M.P High Court
 CPC Criminal Procedure Code

3
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

LIST OF CASES:

 Alister Anthony Pareira vs State Of Maharashtra on 12 January, 2012

 Jagrup Singh vs State Of Haryana on 7 May, 198
 Tate Tr.P.S.Lodhi Colony,New ... vs Sanjeev Nanda on 3 August, 2012

WEBSITES:

 https://indiankanoon.org

 https;//manupatra.org

STATUTES:

 Indian Penal code 1860

4
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The appellant has reached the honorable Supreme Court of India under Section 374 of Code of
Criminal Procedure.

374. Appeals from convictions.

(1) Any person convicted on a trial held by a High Court in its extraordinary original criminal
jurisdiction may appeal to the Supreme Court.

(2) Any person convicted on a trial held by a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge or
on a trial held by any other Court in which a sentence of imprisonment for more than seven years
2 has been passed against him or against any other person convicted at the same trial], may
appeal to the High Court.

5
 STATEMENT OF FACT

 On 14-3-1960 at about 9 a. m. there was a Puja known as "Badawat" in the house of one Lal
singh P.W. 1, where many persons assembled including the two appellants, as well as Gulab
singh P.W. 2, Jayram P. W. 3, Dal singh P.W. 4, Kadu P.W. 5 and Bhilu P.W. 12. They all
belonged to the same village.
 The deceased Ratan-singh also came there and sat in the assembly. His presence was
however objected to by appellant No. 2 Kutar on the ground that lie had an illicit connection
with the wife of his son Juwan-singh. Ratansingh's denial of the fact resulted in some quarrel
at which Kutar asked his son Nanboo, appellant No. 1 to beat him.
 Nanboo accordingly took up a log of wood lying nearby and gave on the head of Ratan a
heavy blow. Ratan fell down and. the two appellants ran away.
 On receipt of this information the police arrived at the village at about 12 in the noon and
inquired about the incident. On the next day Ratan was sent to the hospital of Jobat.
 On 19-3-1960 at 1 p.m. Ratan succumbed to the injuries.

6
 ISSUED RAISED

 Whether The appellant No. 2 Kutar has been convicted under Section 304(2) and section 114, of I. P.
C is applicable to him or not ?

7
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

Issue 1
 Whether The appellant No. 2 Kutar has been convicted under Section 304(2) read with
Section 114, I. P. C.,. will not be applicable to him ?
 No, The appellant No. 2 Kutar has been convicted under Section 304(2) read with Section
114, I. P. C.,. will not be applicable to him. It is humbly submitted to Hon’ble court that The
appellant No. 2 Kutar has been convicted under Section 304(2) with Section 114, I. P. C.,. will not be
applicable to him because however he is present at the time of offence but his intension is not to
gave grivious hurt to deceased so as result to death.
 He asked his son to beat ratan so that he may left the assembly.. People who examined the fact that
quarrel taken place between kudar and ratan and kudar instigate nanboo to beat ratan but here
kudar asked nanboo to to beat ratan , his intension was not to kill ratan . This does not indicate
that the deceased should be done to death. Nor did Kutar help him in giving any lathi or any other
weapon to assault the deceased.

8
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

Whether The appellant No. 2 Kutar has been convicted under Section 304(2) read with
Section 114, I. P. C.,. will not be applicable to him ?

It is humbly submitted to Hon’ble court that The appellant No. 2 Kutar has been convicted under
Section 304(2) read with Section 114, I. P. C.,. will not be applicable to him.However he is
present at the time of offence but his intension was not to kill deceased ,he asked his son to beat
ratan so that he leave the assembly , This does not indicate that the deceased should be done to
death. Nor did Kutar help him in giving any lathi or any other weapon to assault the deceased.

Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code

304. Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.—

Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder shall be punished with
1[imprisonment for life], or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to
ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the
intention of causing death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, or with fine, or
with both, if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any
intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.
Here its clear from the fact that kutar intension is to not causing death, or causing such bodily
injury which may result to death.section 304(2) will not applicable to kutar.

9
Section 114 in The Indian Penal Code
114. Abettor present when offence is committed.—Whenever any person, who is absent
would be liable to be punished as an abettor, is present when the act or offence for which he
would be punishable in consequence of the abetment is committed, he shall be deemed to
have committed such act or offence.

 The words "if absent would be liable to be punished as an abettor" are important. To bring a
person within Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, the abetment must be complete apart
from the mere presence of the abettor.

 It is necessary first to make out the circumstances which constitute abetment, so that, "if
absent", he would have been "liable to be punished as an abettor", and then to show that he
was present when the offence was committed.

 The previous concert is an essential factor in the constitution of the offence of abetment
under Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code.

 Thus, Section 114 will not apply unless the following facts are prima facie established from
the record of the case :

(1) Abetment prior to commission of the offence; and

(2) Abettor's presence at such commission

.The words "his presence when the act or offence..... is committed" are also important.

I) The mere presence as an abettor of any person will not render him liable for the offence
committed. He must be sufficiently near to give assistance, and there must be a participation
in the act.

10
 II) If an abettor of an offence is on his account of his presence at its commission, to be charged
under Section 114 as a principal, his abetment must continue down to the time of the
commission.

It is humbly contended that facts are prima facie established from the
record of case
 Firstly, As It is clearly mentioned that quarrel have been taken place between the deceased and the
kutar and because of that, kutar asked his son nanboo to beat deceased Ratan so there however there
is abetment prior to the offence.
 secondly he is present at the time of offence but he does not participated in the act . This does not
indicate that the deceased should be done to death. Nor did Kutar help him in giving any lathi
or any other weapon to assault the deceased.

  In Jagrup Singh v. State of Haryana (1981)

The accused had inflicted a single blow in the heat of moment in a sudden fight with blunt
side of Gandhala on the head of the deceased causing his death. According to the opinion of
the doctor this particular injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause
death. But, according to this Court, the intention to cause such an injury was likely to cause
death had not been made out.

 Tate Tr.P.S.Lodhi Colony,New ... vs Sanjeev Nanda on 3 August, 2012

The High Court has held that though the act of accused amounted to rashness and negligence
endangering the lives of others, since there was no intention or knowledge of causing death,
no case for conviction of accused under section 304 Part II was made out.

11
 PRAYER

Therefore, in the light of issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, the Hon’ble
court may be pleased to declare and adjudge that:

A. The suit filed by the appellant shall be heard and adjudged.

B. The accusations filed by the appellant shall be accepted.

Or to pass any other order, which this court may deem fit in the interest of Justice, Equity and
Good Conscience.

All of which is most humbly prayed.

Place: India

Neelam Thakur

Counsel for the Appellant

12