PETITIONER

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 22

M.G.

M LAW COLLEGE
MOOT COURT PRESENTATION -2021

NAME:-VIGNESH ASHOKAN
YEAR:- 5TH BLS/LLB
ROLL NO:- 20/838
1
IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Appeal Filed Under


Article 132 & 134 of
The Constitution of India, 1950

[ Under Section 326A and Under Section 354D of Indian Penal


Code,1860]

In Matter Of :
State
( Appellant)
V.
Mr. Anil
&
Mr. Shankar
(Respondent)

Written Submissions On Behalf Of The Petition

2
Table of contents

Title... 2pg
Table of Contents..... 3pg
Index of Authorities… 4pg
Bibliography…… 5pg
Webliography……. 5pg
List of Abbreviations... 6pg
Statement of Jurisdiction...... 7pg
Statement of Facts……… 8pg
Statement of Charges... 10pg
Statement of Issues..... 11pg
Summary of Arguments.. 12pg
Advanced Arguments…. 13pg
ARGUMENT I........ 13pg
ARGUMENT II..... 17pg
ARGUMENT III..... 19pg
Prayer….. 22pg

3
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

1. R. v Mohan
2. Rajesh Govind Jagesha v. State of Maharashtra
3. Bengal Mandal v. State of Bihar
4. Ram Chander Mandal V.State
5. Laxmi Vs. Union Of India & others
6. Karnataka v. Joseph Rodrigues
7. Mahesh v. State of M.P
8. Jashubha Bharatsinha v. state of Gujarat
9. Ravji v. state of Rajästhan

4
BIBLOGRAPHY AND WEBLIOGRAPHY

Books
1. Halsbury’s Laws of England
2. Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code, (33rd Edition)
3. Rantanlal and Dhirajlal, The Law of Evidence, (26th Edition)
4. Text Book on Indian Penal Code by Krishna Deo Gaur, (4th Edition)

Statues
1. The Indian Penal Code,1860
2. The Indian Constition
Internet Sources
1. http://www.manupatrafast.com
2. http://www.scconline.com
3. http://www.judis.nic.in
4. http://www.indiankanoon.org
5. http://www.findlaw.com
6. http://www.lawsoffindia.org

5
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Bom LR Bombay Law Reporter


Cr. LJ Criminal Law Journal of India
CrPC Criminal Procedure Code
DPs Directive Policy
Edn. Edition
FRs Fundamental Rights
Guj Gujarat
IPC Indian Penal Code
Ors. Others
OBD Queen’s Bench Division (Eng)
pat Indian Law Reports Patna series
r/w Read with Section
SC Supreme Court
SCR Supreme Court Reporters
TLR Times Law Reports (Eng)
u/s Under section
V. Versus
Sec. Section
Hon’ble Honorable

6
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

Article 132 of the Constitution of India, 1950 provides for an appeal to the Supreme
Court from any judgment, decree or final order of a High Court, whether in civil,
criminal or other proceedings, if the High Court certifies that the case involves a
substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution .
Article 134 of the Constitution of India, 1950 provides for an appeal to the Supreme
Court from any judgment, final order or sentence in a criminal proceeding of a High
Court if:
(a) it has on appeal reversed an order of acquittal of an accused person and
sentenced him to death or;
(b) has withdrawn for trial before itself, any case from any Court subordinate to it
and has in such trial convicted the accused and sentenced him to death or;
(c) it certifies that the case is a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court.

7
STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. That Anil and Sonali were working in the same office, The age of the Anil was
25 and age of the Sonali was 23. Both of them shared common ideas and
developed mutual feeling for each other. Anil proposed sonali for marriage
as she also admired him she asked him to speak to her parents.

2. On 20th Feb 2015 Anil approached her parents with the marriage proposal
however her parents rejected his offer and strongly admonishes sonali and
threatened that they would die if she continues the relationship.

3. Hence sonali quite the job and joined another. Therefore she started
avoiding Anil and asked him not to follow her any more.

4. Out of love and affection Anil tried contacting sonali believing that all her
actions were under influence of her parents. And as a responsible man she
again tried to convince her parents for there marriage but her parents
strongly revoked his proposal.

5. This enraged the feeling of dejection, when Anil went to Shankarfor seeking
advice, Shankar insisted Anil that he should find sonali alone and take her to
the temple for marrying her, Shankaralso told Anil that in case Sonali
registered the offer due to patently pressure Shankar would threatened her
with a bottle of acid.

8
6. Anil initial was reluctant to agree to the plan agreed on the condition no
harm will be caused to Sonali and bottle of acid will only use as tool to
convince her.

7. On 25th October 2015 as per the plan Anil and shankarwere waiting for Sonali
near a bus stop. Finding sonali in opposite lane the approached her to
accompany them to the temple so that they can get married.

8. On Sonali’s refusal shankar carrying the bottle of acid threatened her and
when the chaos was created, shankar accidentally spiled acid on Sonali.

9. Charges were framed against the accused and the Session Court convicted
Anil and Shankar under Section 326A and sentenced him to 10 years of
rigorous imprisonment. He was also asked to pay compensation to Sonali to
the sum of Rs. 200000/- to be paid immediately. He was also awarded
rigorous imprisonment for 2 years under section 354D, IPC, 1860. Both the
sentences were to run concurrently.

10. That since Anil and Shankar were aggrieved by the decision of the District
Court, they filed an appeal to the High Court.

11. That the High Court acquitted Anil and Shankar and since the state was
aggrieved by the Decision of the High Court, it filed an appeal to the Supreme
Court

9
Statement of Charges

• Mr. Anil ( Accused No. 1)


- voluntarily causing grievous hurt by use of acid,etc. Under sec. 326A of Indian
Penal Code,1860 and Stalking under sec. 354A of India Penal Code.
• Mr. Shanker (Accused No.2).
- voluntarily causing grievous hurt by use of acid,etc. Under sec. 326A of Indian
Penal Code,1860 and Stalking under sec. 354A of India Penal Code.

10
STATEMENT OF ISSUES

Whether the accused is guilty under the charge of sec 326 A ?

Whether the state is justified for seeking permission for addition of charge u/s
354D?

Whether their exists common intention between the accused anil and Shankar?

11
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENTS

Whether their exists common intention between the accused anil and Shankar?
It is humble submitted before the Hon’ble supreme court there existed no common
intention between Anil and Shankar as per sec. 34 of IPC. Anil had no intention of
committing such an act he did not agreed to that, the act was not done in
furtherance of the common intention u/s. 34 which Is important factor the attract
the section.

Whether the accused is guilty under the charge of sec 326 A ?


It is humble submitted before the Hon’ble supreme court that the respondent had
not committed any offence u/s.326A of IPC. There was absence of requisites of
committing a criminal offence u/s. 326A . There was absence of actusretus and
mens rea. Sec.326A can attracted only when the act is done voluntarily, but there
is no voluntary control over the act.

Whether the state is justified for seeking permission for addition of charge u/s
354D?
It’s humble submitted before the Hon’ble supreme court that the respondent has
not committed any offence u/s.354D of IPC, as sonali didn’t show any disinterest
towards the respondent and the conduct of respondent of trying to talk with Sonali
was reasonable and justify

12
ADVANCED ARGUMENTS
I. Whether the High court has failed to take notice of the fact that the
common intention was present as Anil & Shanker agreed to use the
bottle of acids in their plan of abduction and acid was thrown in
furtherance of that common intention.?
It is humbly submitted to this court that common intention was present between
Anil and Shanker from the moment Anil agreed to Shanker's plan of using acid to
force Sonali to marry him. As per Sec 34 IPC - any act done by several persons in
furtherance of common intention makes cach person liable for that act in the same
manner as if it were done by him alone. The hon'ble HC fails to take notice of this
common intention and the actions by Anil which were clearly in furtherance of this
common intention.
Intention is defined in R. v Mohan 1as "the decision to bring about a prohibited
consequence.". Intention A ränge of words represents shades of intention in
criminal laws around the world. The mental element, or mensrea, of murder, for
example, is traditionally expressed as malice aforethought, and the interpretations
of malice, "maliciously" and "willfully" vary between pure intention and
recklessness depending on the jurisdietion in which the crime was committed and
the seriousness of the offense.
The 4 Essential elements of an offense are:
a. Mens Rea ( lntention Mens rea) refers to the crime's mental elements of the
defendant's intent. This is a necessary element-that is, the criminal act must be
voluntary or purposeful. Mensrea is the mental intention (mental fault), or the
defendant's state of mind at the time of the offense, sometimes called the guilty
mind. It stems from the ancient maxim obscure origin, "actusreus non facitreum
nisi mens sit reas" that is translated as "the act is not guilty Unless the mind is
guilty."
b. Actus Rea (Conduct) The actions or the conduct or the execution of malafide
intentions is Actus Rea. Posession.

1 R v. Mohan [1994] S.C.R. 9

13
c. Concurrence: In general,mensreaandactusreusmust occur at the sametime that
is, the criminal intent must precede or coexist with the criminal act, or in some way
activate the act.
d.Couse: Causation is the "causal relationship between conduct and result".That is
to say tha causation provides a means of connecting conduct with a resulting effect,
typically an injury.
In the case inhand, all four elements of crime äre present withoutdoubt, in
furtherance of that attention must be drawn to the Common Intention aspectof
this case - the test of intention for those who administer the criminal justiee system
is that, when planning their actions, peoplemay be aware of måny probable and
possible consequences. Obviously, all of these consequenées could be prevented
through the simple expedient either of ceasing the given activity or of taking action
rather than refraining from action. So the decision to continue with the current plan
means that all the foreseen consequences are to some extent intentional, i.e.
within and not against the scope of each person's intention. In the given case, when
Shanker suggested to Rämesh the use of Acid in order to intimate, threaten and
forcefully marry Sonali- Anil was fully aware of all the possible and probably
consequences of using acid – of which one happened to be causing grievous hurt
or even death of Sonali. Knowing the possible and probably consequences Anil
agreed to Shanker's plan – this satisfied the test of intention, which was clearly
mala fide and criminal in this case.
The fact that Anil did not resist Shanker's plan as well as stood as a mute witness
to Shanker's action of throwing acid on Sonali clearly show the intention was
common and equally mala fide. It can be said with certainty that Anil had the
intention to inflict bodily harm on the victim otherwise Anil would have disagreed
of use to bottle of acid and would have not accompanied Shanker to abduct Sonali
with the use of bottle containing acid. Since the conduct of the accused Anil whose
presence at the scene of the occurrence stands proven beyond doubt, at the time
when Shanker was throwing acid gives sufficient proof that both shared common
intention and fürther Rämesh simply watched to the accused Shanker throwing
acid on Sonali neither tried to intervene or save nor prevented the accused Shanker
from doing it so it is clearly established that the accused Anil

14
had intended to cause injury. disfigurements and disabilities of the victim.
However keeping in mind the facts that Sonali had turned down Anil's marriage
proposal and further Anil had accompanied Shanker who was carrying the bottle of
acid to the seene of incident, it can be said with certainty that the accused Anil had
the intention to inflict bodily harm on the victim otherwise accused Anil would have
disagreed of use to bottle of acid and would have not accompanied the accused
Shanker to abduet Sonali with the use of acid. Since the conduct of the accused Anil
whose presence at the scene of the incident stands proved beyond doubt, at the
time when Shanker was throwing acid gives sufficient indication that both shared
common intention and further Anil simply watched Shanker using acid to cause
hurt to Sonali - he neither tried to intervene or save Sonali, neither did he stop
Shanker from doing it so it is clearly established that the accused
Anil had the intention to cause injury, disfigurements and disabilities of the victim.
The silence on the part of Anil and failure to intervene goes to show that Anil
developed common intention with the accused Shanker of throwing the bottle
containing acid.2
Perpetrators of the crime act cruelly and deliberately. Acid violence is a
premeditated act of violence as the perpetrator of the crime carries out the attack
by first obtaining the acid, carrying it on him and then stalking the victim before
executing the act supporting this act done to be premeditated the Hon'ble SC in
Rajesh Govind Jagesha v. State of Maharashtra3 has held:-
"No pre mediation or previous meeting of mind is necessary for the applicability of
Section 34 of the I.P.C. The existence of common intention can be inferred from
the attending circumstances of the case and the conduct of the parties. No direct
evidence of common intention is necessary. For the purposes of common intention
even the participation in the commission of the offence neel mot be proved in all
cases. The common intention can develop even during the course of an
occurrence."
These facts clearly establish that common intention on the part of both the accused
and section 34. IPC is rightly pressed into service. The togetherness of the two

2 BengaiMnadal v. State of Bihar [para. 18]


3 2000 CriLJ 380 : (AIR 2000 SC 160)

15
accused at the time at the time of the incident and soon after the incident clearly
establishes their common intention to commit the crime. A question arises that if
there was no common intention why did not Anil tried to prevent or intervene and
why did he run away along with Shanker leaving Sonali in immense pain? The only
answer to this question is that there was a common intention (which happens to
be essential element I of a crime as stated in paragraph 3) and their actions on
March 24 were infurtherance of that common intention -
Completing the essential element 2, 3, 4 for a crime as stated in paragraph 3 of
both the accused in the crime. Thus the appellant finds no merit in the argument
that section 34, IPC cannot be invoked in the facts of the present case so as to
convict the appellant as per this case Ram Chander Mandal V.State4
From the above circumstances it is crystal clear that they had common intention
to commit such heinous crime. Yes, the act of throwing the acid was clearly a
manifestation of the plan and carrying the acid was an essential and important
action plan.

4 1997 IAD DelhiI 1, 1996 (39) DRJ 363

16
II. Whether the accused is guilty under the charge of sec 326 A ?
It is humbly submitted to this court that Anil's actions in conivance with Shanker
caused permanent damage, deformity, burns, disability and dis-figuration amounts
to grievous hurt by throwing Acid and as per Sec 326A these actions of Anil and
Shanker are punishable by life imprisonment.
Acid throwing is an extremely violent crime by which the perpetrator of the crime
seeks to inflict severe physical and mental suffering on his victim. This kind of
violence is often motivated by deep-seated jealousy or feelings of revenge against
an innocent woman.
Perpetrators of the crime and cruelly and deliberately. The act of using bottle of
acid was a premeditated act of violence as the perpetrator of the crime carries out
the attack by first obtaining the acid, then carrying it on him and then stalking the
victim before executing the act.
Anil did not do anything to prevent Shanker from throwing the acid, he stood there
watching it while Sonali suffered. Further so - he was the one who drove Shanker
to Sonali, abducted Sonali, dragged her and also fled along with Shanker. The fact
that Anil had no sense of remorse or resentment - clearly shows his malafide
intentions and equal participation in throwing of acid on Sonali.
As per section 34 IPC " each of such persons is liable for that act in same manner as
if it were by him alone", this section clearly holds Anil liable for the act of throwing
acid on Sonali as argued in argument 1 paragraph 1-7 there was clear common
intention between Shanker and Anil, which makes Anil equally liable.
Sec 326A 1PC deals with offenses in which grievous hurt is caused voluntarily by
dangerous Weapons or means, in the given cases stub section A will apply as that
specifies Acid as the means for causing damage, dis-figuration or disability. Sec
320A states that:
“ Whoever causes permanent or partial damage or deformity to, or burns or maims
or disfigures or disables, any part or parts of the body of a person or canses grievous
hurt by throwing acid on or by administering acid to that person, or by using any
other means with the intention of cauesing or with the knowledge that he is likely
tea cause such injury at hurt, shall be punrished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend
to imprisonment for life, and with fine:

17
Provided that such fine shall be just and reasonable to meet the medical expenses
of the treatment of the Victim.
The damage caused to Sonali has been proven beyond doubt to be of grievous
nature which has ruined her life, career and future for her and her family.
In the given case, Anil clearly caused the most severe deegre of damage possible
änd deserves the maximum punishment in order to set precedent which will deter
others from abusing and ruing lives of women.
As stated in the judgment by this hon’ble court by hon'ble Justice RM Lodha in the
case, Laxmi Vs. Union Of India & others5. That the current compensation package
of all states and I-JTs —ranging between Rs 5,000 and Rs lakh — is inadequate to
meet costs of treatment and rehabilitation. The judgment also reiterated that Rs. I
lac of the compensation must be paid by the authorities within 15 days of the attack
being reported. The judgment says:
"It cannot be overlooked that acid attack victims need to undergo a series of plastic
surgeries and other corrective treatment, With regard to this, the solicitor general
suggested that the compensation amount to be paid by states to acid attack victims
must be enhanced to at least Rs 3 lakhs , "The balance Q/ Rs 2 lakh shall be paid
by the stale or Union Territory concerned as expeditiously as possible and
positive/y within two months of the incident. "
Keeping this judgment as reference — apparent submits that the court may order
the state government 'to pay compensation to Sonali immediately in addition to
the compensation to be paid by Anil under sec 326A IPC.

5 WRIT PETITION (C)NO.129 OF 2006

18
III. Whether the state is justified for seeking permission for addition of
charge u/s 354D?
It is also submitted that Anil may be convicted under Sec 354D as it is a known fact
that Anil had been following her, contacting her on phone and internet despite her
resistance, disinterest and warning by her parents - these actions of Anil amount to
stalking.
Further, Anil's action prior to the attack on Sonali on March 24 amount to
conviction under sec 354D IPC, which states that-
Whoever follows a person and contacts, or attempts to contact such person to
foster personal interaction repeatedly, despite a clear indication of disinterest by
such person, or whoever monitors the use by a person of the internet, email or any
other form of electronic communication, or watches or spies on a person in a
manner that results in a fear of violence or serious alarm oar distress in the mind
of such person, or interferes with the mental peace of such person, commits the
offence of stalking:
Provided that the course of conduct will not amount to stalking if the person who
pursued it shows-
(i) that it was pursted for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime and the
person accused of stalking had been entrusted with the responsibility of prevention
and detection of crime by the state; or
(i) That it was pursued under any law or to comply with any condition or
requirement imposed by any person under any law; or
(1) That in the particular circumstances the puFsuit of the course of condet was
Reasonable.
Whoever commits the offense of stalking shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which shall not he less than one year but which may
extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine."
Here in this case Anil proposed to Sonali for marriage and Sonali however wld him
to speak to her parents. When Anil approached Sonali's parents with the proposal
of marriage, they rejected his offer and warned him not to contact her anymore.
Thereafter, Sonali started avoiding Anil and made Anil clear that she won't go

19
against her parents' wishes. Despite such disinterest shown by Sonali and warning
by her parents Anil started following Sonali to her tuition classes and even
contacted her personally on the phone and through internet. Here Ramesh tried to
foster personal interaction with Sonali against her will. Anil's actions clearly fulfils
the conditions of offence Stalking under Section 354D IPC. The appellant submits
this court to convict Anil under S354D IPC and give maximum punishment of three
years to Anil.
In similar cases where a person threw acid on someone causing great amount of
damage and despair, the courts have confirmed as well as awarded life in prison to
the accused-one such case is of State of Karnataka v. Joseph Rodrigues,6 where the
Karnataka HC confirmed that such ghastly altacks are punishable by life in prison.
In Mahesh v. State of M.P 7 Reported in the Hon'ble Supreme Court while
considering death sentence observed thus: It will be a mockery of Justice ko permit
the accused the escape the extreme penalty of law when faced with such evidence
and such cruel acts. To give the lesser punishment for the accused would be to
render the justice system of this country suspect. The common man will lose faith
in Courts. In such cases, he understands and appreciates the language of
deterrence more than the reformative jargon. Therefore, undue sympathy to
impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system to
undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law, and society could not long
endure such serious threats. The duty of every Court to award proper sentence
having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it urns executed
or committed ete. (see Sevak Perumal v. State of T.N.) The criminal law adheres in
general to the principle of proportionality in prescribing liability according to the
culpability of each kind of criminal conduct.
In Jashubha Bharatsinha v. state of Gujarat8 the Honble Supreme Court observed:
The Courts are required to answer new challenges and mold the sentencing system
to meet these challenges. The object should be to protect the society and to deter
the criminal in achieving the avowed defect of law by imposing appropriate

6 State of Karnataka by Jalahalli Police Station vs. Respondent : Joseph Rodrigues S/o V.Z. . Roodrigues , Criminal
Appeal Nos. 1065 , 1066 and 1239/2004
7 MANU/SC/0246/1987 : (1987) 3 SCC 80
8 MANU/SC/1561/1994: (1994) 4 SCC 353

20
sentence. It is expected that the Courts would operate the sentencing system so as
to impose such sentence which reflects the conscience of the society.
In the case of Ravji v. state of Rajästhan9 it is held that it is the nature and gravity
of the crime and not the criminal, which art germäne for consideration of
appropriate punishment in a criminal trial. The Court will be failing in if duty if
appropriate punishment is not awarded for a crime which has been committed not
only against the individual but also against the society to which the criminal and
the Victim belong.

9 MANU/SC/0215/1996 : (1996) 2 SCC 175

21
Prayer
In the interest of justice and in light of the issues raised arguments advanced
authorities cited may this Hon’ble Court be pleased to:
1. The order of to held them guilty under the charges framed passed by
Hon’ble High Court u/s 326A and 354D of IPC
2. Convict the above mentioned Accuse.

AND
Pass any other order, as it deems, in the light of justice, equity and good
conscience.

All of which is most humbly and respectfully summated

22

You might also like