Page | 1

Before
The Honourable Supreme Court
Farallon
Criminal Petition: _____/2015

In the matter of:

State
(Appellant)

v/s

Neeraj
(Respondent)

Memorial For The Appellant

Submitted By-

Ashish Panwar
(Counsel No. 157293)
&
Mansi Gupta
(Counsel No. 157297)

Memorial For Appellant

Page | 2

STATEMENT OF FACTS
The facts of case which necessitates a consideration of this Honble court
are reiterated as
follows:
1. Stuti, 18, was a student of class 12th and Neeraj (Accused-1) was her
maths school
teacher who secretly developed feelings for her.
2. On her 18th BDay, Neeraj organized a party for her at his home and
gifted her an
expensive watch which was accepted by Stuti unaware of reality and
admired him as
her teacher only.
3. On 14th February, 2013, Neeraj proposed to Stuti for marriage who was
his admirer as
a teacher and felt perplexed and not able to say a no outright told him
to speak to
her parents for same. He did approached her parents with the proposal
which was
ultimately rejected by her parents with a warning to him not to contact
her again in
future. They were worried about their daughter as her exams were
approaching so
strongly admonished Stuti for same and threatened her that they will
discontinue her
studies.
4. Hence, she started avoiding Neeraj and on one occasion she told him
that she wont
go against wishes of her parents and asked him not to follow her anymore.
But despite
a clear denial and warnings, Neeraj again and again tried to contact her,
continued to
follow Stuti to her tuition classes and contacted her personally, on phone
and through
internet, which was reported by Stuti to her parents who rebuked him for
his
unwarranted acts and beaten him when he tried to convince them again
and again.
5. Beaten and Enraged with feeling of rejection, Neeraj went to Dheeraj,
45, in whom he
always confided and narrated whole incident. Dheeraj suggested to Neeraj
that he should find Stuti alone and take her to temple for marriage without
informing her parents. In case of resistance by Stuti due to pressure of her
parents, Dheeraj will threaten her with a
Memorial For Appellant

Page | 3

bottle of acid.
6. Neeraj, who was initially reluctant, agreed to the plan on the condition that no harm
will be caused to Stuti and bottle of acid will only be used as a tool to threaten her for
compliance to their wishes.
7. On 23rd March, 2015 as per the plan, finding Stuti passing on a lonely road, Neeraj and
Dheeraj, who were waiting for Stuti, got out of the car. Neeraj approached Stuti and
asked her to accompany him to the temple so that they can get married.
8. But Stuti refused and Dheeraj carrying bottle of acid threatened her. Neeraj started
dragging her to car. Now Stuti started shouting loudly and to teach Stuti a lesson,
Dheeraj opened the bottle and threw acid on her face.
9. Both Neeraj and Dheeraj fled away in car driven by Dheeraj leaving the victim in
immense pain who was later helped by a passerby and taken to hospital. The doctor
immediately conducted the surgeries and opined that the injuries were grievous.
10. FIR was lodged and statement of Stuti was recorded. A case was
registered against both
the accused under Sec 326A r/w Sec 34 IPC, 1860 and Neeraj was also
charged under
Sec 354D, IPC, 1860. Dheeraj absconded and was declared a proclaimed
offender while
Neeraj was arrested by police from his home and the bottle of acid and
car, used in the
crime, were seized from his possession.
11. Sessions Court convicted Neeraj under Sec. 326A r/w Sec. 34 IPC, 1860 and sentenced
him to 10 yrs of rigorous imprisonment. He was also asked to pay compensation to Stuti
to the tune of Rs 2,00,000/-(two lakh only), to be paid immediately. He was also
awarded rigorous imprisonment for 2 years under Section 354D, IPC. Both the
sentences were to run concurrently.
12. Accused, aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, appealed before the High Court seeking
acquittal. Whereas, State filed appeal for demanding life imprisonment and also the
enhancement of the amount of compensation taking into account the following facts:
(i) Rs 6.5 lakh have already been spent on 6 major surgeries done till date;
(ii) 10-15 surgeries still need to be done;
(iii) Despite various surgeries Stuti has permanently lost vision of her left eye;
(iv) Permanent scars not only on the skin of her face and hands will remain but
also deep inside her memory which together with loss of vision of her left eye
will adversely affect her future prospects;
(v)Her father was a clerk in a private firm which dismissed him after he went
on a leave for her treatment. Now he is jobless. There are two younger sisters
of Stuti who also need to be supported.
13. The High court adjudicated in favor of the accused by acquitting him from the charges
under Sec.326A r/w Sec. 34, IPC, and Sec 354D IPC, 1860 and dismissed the appeal
of the State, being bereft of any substance. It held that under the circumstances of the
case the Sessions Court had wrongly held the accused liable under Sec. 326A, IPC, by
Memorial For Appellant

Page | 4

invoking Section 34 IPC, 1860 as no common intention to commit the offence of acid
attack under Sec. 326A could be proved. The High Court also held that the offence of
stalking under Sec.354D was not made out against the accused. The High Court,
however, recommended the State Legal Services Authority to decide upon the quantum
of compensation to be awarded by the State Government to the victim as per Sec. 357A,
CrPC within one month.
It is humbly appealed before honorable Supreme Court on the basis of grounds that High
Court has failed to take notice of the fact that common intention was present as Neeraj and
Dheeraj agreed to the use of bottle of acid in their plan of abduction.

HENCE, THE PRESENT MATTER BEFORE THE DIVISION BENCH

OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT.

ISSUES RAISED
1.Whether common intention under section 34, IPC, 1860 was present
between the two accused, Dheeraj and Neeraj in act of throwing acid on
the face of victim?
2.Whether the compensation paid to the victim by the defendant be
enhanced?
3.Whether Accused-1 is guilty of offence of stalking under Section 354D,
IPC, 1860?
4.Whether additional charge of Section 366, IPC, 1860 be brought up
against accused?

Memorial For Appellant

Page | 5

1.Whether common intention under section 34, IPC, 1860 was

present between the two accused, Dheeraj and Neeraj in act of
throwing acid on the face of victim?
1. S.34 of the Indian Penal Code recognizes the principle of vicarious liability in criminal
jurisprudence. A bare reading shows that the section could be dissected as follows:
1.1 Criminal act is done by several persons;
1.2 Such act is done in furtherance of the common intention of all; and
1.3 Each of such persons is liable for that act in same manner as it if it were done by him
alone.1
2. Accused Neeraj was reluctant to use the acid bottle which implies that he had
knowledge of the consequences and the worst case scenario. But still he agreed to use
of bottle of acid. He might have used a non-corrosive substance even if intentions were
just to threaten.
3. I would like to present before the honourable Supreme Court another celebrated case
Mehbub Shah vs King Emperor2 which lays stress upon pre-arranged plan. Here this
case also implies a pre-arranged plan which signifies birth of common intention and
whose furtherance led to the offence of acid attack. Hence common intention could be
implied as ultimate act was done in furtherance of common intention and knowledge of
consequences.
4. The degree of participation is very crucial factor in this case.3 Here participation of
Neeraj was the core of the issue. Where both the offenders went together to the place
of occurance and assaulted the deceased, both of them became liable of causing death
together though only one of them had a knife and other only a pipe rod. The court did
not agree with the view that a pipe rod is not capable of causing a fatal injury.4 The
court restated the two ingredients for application of section which are:
Memorial For Appellant

Page | 6

(i) Common intention to commit crime, and

(ii) Participation by all the accused in the act or acts in furtherance of the common
intention. These two things establish their joint liability.5
5. In Hari Om vs State of U.P.6 it was held that common intention can be formed in the
course of occurrence without prior conspiracy. Thats what happened in the case
presented in front of this honourable court.
6. The moment Neeraj drove away with Dheeraj is itself very strong signal to the fact that
there was common intention till the end else he must have stopped there to help the
victim but instead he left her in immense pain. From starting to the end there has always
been a common intention, pre-planned and on the spot, both.
Hence it is humbly submitted before honourable Supreme Court that common intention
was present as Neeraj and Dheeraj agreed to the use of bottle of acid in their plan of
abduction. Acid was thrown in furtherance of that common intention.
Hence Section 34,IPC is applicable to the accused and hence he could be charged under
Section 326A, IPC and he is liable to pay compensation the the victim immediately.
___________________________________________________________________________
Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code, 34th Edition, 2014
AIR 1945 PC 148
3 Jarnail Singh vs State of Punjab, (1996) 1 SCC 527: AIR 1996SC755
4 Shaik China Brahman vs State of Andhra Pradesh, (2007) 14 SCC 457: AIR 2008 SCC
610
5 Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. Vs Datar Switchgerar Ltd. (2010) 10
SCC 479
6 Hari Om vs State of U.P., AIR 1993 SCW 666
1
2

2.Whether the compensation paid to the victim by the defendant

be enhanced?
1. 7Whoever 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 causes grievous hurt
by throwing acid on or by administering acid to that person, or by using any other means
with the intention of causing or with knowledge that he is likely to cause such injury or
hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which
shall not be less than 10 years but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and
with fine:
Provided that such a fine shall be just and reasonable to meet the medical expenses
of the treatment of the victim:
Provided further that any fine imposed under this section shall be paid to the victim.
2. Grounds for enhancement of the amount of compensation:
(i) Rs 6.5 lakh have already been spent on 6 major surgeries done till date;
(ii) 10-15 surgeries still need to be done;
(iii) Despite various surgeries Stuti has permanently lost vision of her left eye;
(iv) Permanent scars not only on the skin of her face and hands will remain but also
deep inside her memory which together with loss of vision of her left eye will
adversely affect her future prospects;
(v) Her father was a clerk in a private firm which dismissed him after he went on a
leave for her treatment. Now he is jobless. There are two younger sisters of Stuti
who also need to be supported.
In the light of above grounds, grievousness of injuries and on account of Section 326A,
Memorial For Appellant

Page | 7

IPC, it is humbly submitted that the compensation to the victim be enhanced to

Rs. 3,50,000 in addition to the compensation to be paid by the State Government under Sec
357A CrPC.

___________________________________________________________________________
7

Inserted by the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013

3.Whether Accused-1 is guilty of offence of stalking under Section

354D, IPC, 1860?
1. The definition of this offence has the following ingredients:
(I) If a man
(i) Follows a woman and contacts or attempts to contact such woman,
(ii)Monitors the use by a woman of the internet, e-mail or any other form
of electronic communication,
(iii)Or watches or spies on a person
(II) To foster personal interaction repeatedly
(III) Despite a clear indication of disinterest by such woman.8
2. It is humbly submitted before honourable court in light of facts that despite the
disinterest shown by Stuti and warning by her parents, Neeraj again and again tried to
contact her, continued to follow Stuti to her tuition classes and contacted
her
personally, on phone and through internet.
3. Fact that Stuti reported his acts of stalking by Neeraj to her parents is
itself evident
that the acts of Neeraj were unwarranted.
4. In the end he did resorted to unfair and malicious ways hence it wont
be right to
ignore the charges of stalking against him. It was actually the seed of
stalking that
Memorial For Appellant

Page | 8

ripened into the fruit and his acts are well under the horizon of definition
of stalking
under Section 354D of IPC.
Hence it is humbly submitted before the honourable Supreme Court that the accused can
be held guilty under Section 354D, IPC.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_8

Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code, 34th Edition, 2014

4.Whether additional charge of Section 366, IPC, 1860 be brought

up against accused?
1. Where a woman has no intention of marriage or lawful inter-course when kidnapped,
this section applies.
The section requires(a) Kidnapping or abducting of any woman.
(b) Such kidnapping or abducting must be(i) 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
(ii) 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; or
(iii) By means of criminal intimidation or otherewise by inducing any woman to
go from any place with intent that she may be, or knowing that she will be,
forced or seduced to illicit intercourse.9
2. Section 362 defines abduction. This section requires two things:(i) Forceful compulsion or inducement by deceitful means.10
(ii) The object of such compulsion or inducement must be the going of a person
from any place.
Memorial For Appellant

Page | 9

3. Indeed in present case the accused induced and forced the victim to go to the temple.
And the object of marrying her against her will brings into horizon Section 366 of IPC.
She clearly declined the offer of going with the accused and hence accused used the
acid bottle to compel her.
4. The offence of abduction is a continuing offence, and a girl is being abducted not only
when she is first taken from any public place but also when she is removed from one
place to another.11 In this case the accused dragged the girl towards his car and hence
abduction being continuing offence, the accused has committed the offence.
Hence it is humbly submitted before the honourable court in light of above mentioned
sections and facts related to case that the accused is guilty under Section 366 of IPC.

___________________________________________________________________________
Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code, 34th Edition, 2014
Suresh babu vs State of Kerala, 2001
11 Ganga Devi, (1914) 12 ALJR 91; Nanhua Dhimar, (1930) 53 All 140
9

10

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

HEREFORE, in light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited it is most
humbly and respectfully requested that this Honble Court to adjudge and declare that :
1. Mr. Neeraj is guilty of the crimes of causing grievous hurt by use of acid, stalking and
abduction.
2. The High Courts conviction order of Mr. Neeraj should be reversed along with increase
in compensation to be paid to victim.
The court may also be pleased to pass any other order, which this Honble Court may deem
fit in light of justice, equity and good conscience.
_____________________
Counsels for Appellant

Memorial For Appellant

Page | 10

Memorial For Appellant