Respondent Memorial Final

-Arguments8TH LOKMANYA TILAK APPELLATE NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION ,
-Respondent-
IN THE HONBLE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure
IN THE MATTER OF
SOMNATH RAJIV SATPUTE..APPELLANT

V.
STATE OF BADARASHTRARESPONDENT
Submitted By
Saloni Agrawal
Shubham Kumar Sharma
Karan Parihar
Institute of Law, Nirma University
Ahmedabad, Gujarat
2016
-Arguments-
8TH LOKMANYA TILAK APPELLATE NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,
2016
-Respondent-
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATION......iii
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES.......v
SYNOPSIS OF FACTS..............x
STATEMENT OF ISSUES..xii
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS..........1-2
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED..3-
[1] THE ACCUSED WAS RIGHTLY CONVICTED FOR THE OFFENCE

PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 302 OF IPC.
[II] THE ACCUSED WAS UNJUSTLY ACQUITTED FOR THE OFFENCE

PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 498A OF IPC.
PRAYER....44
MEMORANDUM on behalf of RESPONDENT

2
-Arguments-
2016
-Respondent-
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
S. No.
1.
2.
3.
Abbreviation
&
ABR
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
ACR
Add.
AIR
ALT
All.
Anr.
BomCR
BomLR
Cr.P.C.
CriLJ
DW
ed.
Exh.
Guj.
Honble
i.e.
IPC
KarLJ
Mohd.
MPLJ
NOC
Ors.
PW
SC
SCC
SCR
Sec.
ShimLC
Sr.
U.P.
u/s
v.
Vol.
Full Form
Paragraph
And
All India Reports-Bombay High Court
Reports
Allahabad Criminal Rulings
Additional
All India Reporter
Andhra Law Times
Allahabad
Another
Bombay Cases Reporter
Bombay Law Reporter
Code of Criminal Procedure
Criminal Law Journal
Defense Witness
Edition
Exhibit
Gujarat
Honourable
That is
Indian Penal Code
Karnataka Law Journal
Mohammed
M.P. Law Journal
Notes on Cases
Others
Prosecution Witness
Supreme Court
Supreme Court Cases
Supreme Court Reporter
Section
Shimla Law Cases
Senior
Uttar Pradesh
Under Section
Versus
Volume

3
-Arguments-
2016
-Respondent-
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
JUDICIAL DECISIONS
1. A.P. Kuttan Panicker and Ors. v. State of Kerala, (1963)CriLJ669.

2. Adi Bhumiani v. State, 1957CriLJ1152.
3. Aijaz Ahmad v. State of U.P., 10, 2004(2)ACR1596.

4
-Arguments-
2016
-Respondent-
4. Ameer Jan v. State of Karnataka, 2004(3)KarLJ149.

5. Bai Radha v. The State of Gujarat, AIR1970SC1396.
6. Balbir Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab, 2006(3)ACR3053(SC).
7. Bhanubhai Shanabhai Zala v. State of Gujarat, 2008CriLJ3828.
8. Chinnapattu Nagan v. State of A.P,. 1999(2)ALT(CrI.)460(AP),
9. Emperor v. Mt. Dhirajia, AIR1940All486.
10. Fedders Lloyd Corporation (P.) Ltd. v. B.A.Lakshminarayana Swami, AIR1969Del26.
11. Gananath Pattnaik v. State of Orissa, (2002) 2 SCC 619, See also, G.V. Siddaramesh
v. State of Karnataka, (2010) 3 SCC 152 (158).IPC P3043.
12. Gopal Anjayya Falmari and Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra, (1995)1BomCR116.
13. Habib Usman v. State of Gujarat, 1979CriLJ708.
14. Hari Chunnilal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1977MPLJ321.
15. Kaliya v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2013(3)ACR2871.
16. Kumbhar Narsi Bechar v. The State, AIR1962Guj77.
17. Mukanda and Ors. v. State, 1957CriLJ1187.
18. Musheer Khan @ Badshah Khan and Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh,
(2010)2SCC748.
19. Nallam Veera Stayanandam and Ors. v. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P.,
2004(2)ACR1282(SC).
20. Narpal Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR1977SC1066
21. Nemichand Jain v. Supt. of Central Excise and Customs, (1963) 2 CriLJ
22. Rajendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 1996CriLJ1560.
23. Ram Lal v. State of H.P., 2005(3)ShimLC67.
24. Ramawati Devi v. State of Bihar, 1983CriLJ221.
25. Ravindra Pyarelal Bidlan and other v. State of Maharashtra, 1993 CriLJ3019(Bom).
26. Santosh Dadu Sapkale v. State of Maharashtra, 2009(111)BomLR4435.
27. Smt. Shanti and Anr. v. State of Haryana, AIR 1991SC 1226.

5
-Arguments-
2016
-Respondent-
28. State of Assam v. Mafizuddin Ahmed, AIR 1983 SC 274.

29. State of H.P.v. Sukh Ram, 2003CriLJ 219.
30. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Dal Singh and Ors., AIR2013SC2059.
31. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ram Prasad, AIR1968SC881.
32. State of Maharashtra v. Rajendra Garbad Patil, AIR1994SC475.
33. State of Rajasthan v. Dhool Singh, AIR2004SC1264.
34. State v. Madhusudan Rao M (2008) 15 SCC 604.
35. Sunil Singha v. State of West Bengal, 2007CriLJ516(Cal).
36. Sunkappa Nagappa v. State of Maharashtra, 1995(2)BomCR665.
37. Tarachand Damu Sutar v. The State of Maharashtra, [1962]2SCR775.
38. Undavali Narayana Rao v. State of A.P., (2009) 14 SCC 588.
39. Urgen Sherpa v. State of Sikkim, 1985CriLJ1988.
40. Wazir Chand and Anr. v. State of Haryana, AIR 1989SC378. P 3047 IPC
41. Willie (William) Slaney v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR1956SC116.
DIGESTS, LEXICONS
1. C.D. FIELD, COMMENTARY ON LAW OF EVIDENCE ACT, 1872, DELHI

LAW HOUSE, VOL. 1 (13th ed. 2013).
2. D.N. SEN, THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973. PREMIER
PUBLISHING CO., VOL. 2 (2nd ed. 2008).
3. DR. B.R. SHARMA, FORENSIC SCIENCE IN CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION
AND TRIALS, UNIVERSAL LAW PUBLISHING CO. PVT. LTD. (4th ed. 2008).
4. DR. K. N. CHANDRASEKHARAN PILLAI, GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF
CRIMINAL LAW, EASTERN BOOK COMPANY (1st ed. 2007).
5. DR. K. N. CHANDRASEKHARAN PILLAI, R.V. KELKARS CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE, EASTERN BOOK COMPANY (5th ed. 2011).
6. DR. K. N. CHANDRASEKHARAN PILLAI, R.V. KELKARS CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE, EASTERN BOOK COMPANY (6th ed. 2014).
7. DURGA DAS BASU, CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973, LEXIS NEXIS,
VOL. 1 (5th ed. 2014).
8. DURGA DAS BASU, CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973, LEXIS NEXIS,

6
-Arguments-
2016
-Respondent-
VOL. 2 (5th ed. 2014).

9. HALSBURYS LAWS OF ENGLAND, CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE AND
PROCEDURE, LEXIS NEXIS BUTTERWORTHS, VOL. 11(4) (4th ed. 2006).
10. HALSBURYS LAWS OF INDIA, CRIMINAL LAW-II, LEXIS NEXIS
BUTTERWORTHS, VOL. 5(2) (2006).
11. HALSBURYS LAWS OF INDIA, CRIMINAL PROCEDURE-II, LEXIS NEXIS
BUTTERWORTHS, VOL. 33 (2007).
12. JUSTICE C.K. THAKKER & MRS. M.C. THAKKER, LAW OF EVIDENCE,
WHYTES & CO., VOL. 1 (2013).
13. JUSTICE M.L. SINGHAL & SABIHA, AN ANALYTICAL AND EXHAUSTIVE
COMMENTARY ON INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860, PREMIER PUBLISHING
CO., VOL. 1 (2nd ed. 2007).
14. JUSTICE Y V CHANDRACHUD & V R MANOHAR, RATANLAL &
DHIRAJLAL THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, WADHWA NAGPUR (31 st ed.
2007).
15. M.R. MALLICK, A.N. SAHAS CRIMINAL REFERENCE, EASTERN LAW
HOUSE (6th ed. 2009).
16. R.C. GOEL & RAJIV RAHEJA, HINTS AND TRICKS ON CRIMINAL LAW,
CAPITAL (INDIA) (1st ed. 2010).
17. R.P. KATHURIA, LAW OF CRIMES AND CRIMINOLOGY, VINOD
PUBLISHING (P) LTD. (3rd ed. 2014).
18. RAM JETHMALANI & D.S. CHOPRA, THE INDIAN PENAL CODE,
THOMSON REUTERS, VOL. 1 (1st ed. 2014).
19. RATANLAL & DHIRAJLAL, LAW OF CRIMES, A COMMENTARY ON
INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860, BHARAT LAW HOUSE, VOL. 2 (27th ed. 2013).
20. S.C. SARKAR, COMMENTARY ON EVIDENCE, DWIVEDI LAW AGENCY,
VOL. 1 (2nd ed. 2008).
21. S.C. SARKAR, COMMENTARY ON EVIDENCE, DWIVEDI LAW AGENCY,
VOL. 2 (2nd ed. 2008).
22. S.C. SARKAR, COMMENTARY ON THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860,
DWIVEDI LAW AGENCY, VOL. 2, (3rd ed. 2012).
23. S.C. SARKAR, THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, LEXIS NEXIS, OL.
2 (10th ed. 2014).
24. S.C. SARKAR, THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, LEXIS NEXIS,
VOL. 1 (11th ed. 2015).
25. S.K. MUKHERJEE, LAW
OF
CRIMINAL
APPEALS,
REVISIONS,
REFERENCES, DWIVEDI LAW AGENCY (2nd ed. 2010).

26. S.K. SARVARIA, R.A. NELSONS INDIAN PENAL CODE, LEXIS NEXIS
BUTTERWORTHS, VOL. 4 (9th ed. 2003).
27. SURENDRA MALIK & SUDEEP MALIK, SUPREME COURT ON CRIMINAL

7
-Arguments-
2016
-Respondent-
PROCEDURE CODE & CRIMINAL TRIAL, EASTERN BOOK COMPANY,

VOL. 1 (2011).
28. SURYA NARAYAN MISRA, THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, CENTRAL LAW
PUBLICATION (15th ed. 2007).
29. THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, BARE ACT, PROFESSIONAL
BOOK PUBLISHERS.
30. THE INDIAN EVIDENCES
ACT,
1872,
PROFESSIONAL
BOOK
PUBLISHERS.
31. THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, EASTERN BOOK COMPANY (34th ed. 2013).
32. VINAY SHARMA, DOWRY DEATHS, LEGAL PROVISIONS AND JUDICIAL
INTERPRETATION, DEEP & DEEP PUBLICATIONS PVT. LTD. (2007).
33. VISHWAS SHRIDHAR SOHONI, THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, PREMIER
PUBLISHING COMPANY, VOL. 1 (1st ed. 2011).
WEBSITES
1. www.bombayhighcourt.nic.in
2. www.delhihighcourt.nic.in
3. www.indiankanoon.org
4. www.manupatrafast.in
5. www.scconline.com
6. www.westlawindia.com
OTHER AUTHORITIES
1. APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE OF HOSTILE WITNESSES, MAHARASHTRA

JUDICIAL
ACADEMY,
http://mja.gov.in/Site/Upload/GR/summary%20of
%20second%20work%20shop%20criminal%20dated%2010-01-15.pdf, (last updated

on Feb. 11, 2016).
2. JUSTICE C.K. THAKKER & M.C. THAKKER, ENCYCLOPAEDIC LAW
LEXICON, ASHOKA LAW HOUSE, VOL. 1 (1st ed. 2010).

8
-Arguments-
2016
-Respondent-
SYNOPSIS OF FACTS
For the sake of brevity and convenience of the Honble Court the facts of the present case are
summarized as follows:
1. On 24.09.2010 at around 7a.m., the deceased Manju Somnath Satpute asked her
husband Somnath Rajiv Satpute to take her to hospital since she wasnt feeling well
from past 5-6 days.
2. But he told her that why she was troubling her, hell not take her to the hospital and
she should die. Annoyed by this, she poured kerosene on herself and he ignited the
match stick and set her on fire. She raised shouts on account of burns and came
running out of the house, where the neighbors also came on hearing her and then
extinguished the fire.
3. Kashinath Nemade, one of the neighbors, went to her maternal house and brought her
mother there. After her arrival, Manju was shifted to Ambikapur hospital and admitted
in burn ward no. 25 at around 1.1pm. She sustained 63% superficial to deep burn
injuries. Thereafter, the police was informed about this by the hospital authority.
4. PHC Sharad Walunj, posted at Ambikapur Chowky rushed to the hospital where he
inquired with the doctor about Manjus health condition. He then recorded the injured
womans statement (Exh.22) after the doctor examined Manju and told him that she
was in a position to give statement wherein she stated that she poured kerosene on
herself and her husband set her on fire by igniting match stick.
5. At around 3pm, PHC Subhash was informed about the incident by Sr.Police Inspector
of Mhadur Police Station and was instructed to record Manjus statement. He acted as
per the instructions and recorded her statement, i.e., dying declaration (Exh.34) after
inquiring from the doctor about her condition. She disclosed the same statements to
him, as she did to the previous PHC.

9
-Arguments-
2016
-Respondent-
6. Thereafter, on the basis of her statements, the crime was registered under Section498A and 3071 of IPC. (CR No. 309/2010) by PSO, Mhadur police station, followed
by the investigation procedure. The initial investigation was conducted by the police
inspector, Mehere.
7. Charges were framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed
to be tried. His statement was recorded under Section 313 2 of Cr.P.C. which was of
total denial and false implication. In support of his defence, Ketan Nemade, one of the
neighbors, was examined as defense witness (Exh. 61).
8. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution (now the respondents)
examined nine witnesses in all viz. Vijay Nemade (PW1), PHC Sharad Walunj (PW2),
Rohan Pravin Chandra (PW3), PHC Subhash (PW4), Dr.Abhijeet Shelke (PW5),
Dr.Pandit Swami(PW6), J.M. Gunjal (PW7), Atmaram Nemade (PW8), and Sr. P.I.
Mehere (PW9).
1Section 307-Attempt to murder: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 imprisonment for life, or to such
punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned.
2 Section 313- Power to examine the accused: (1) In every inquiry or trial, for the purpose of enabling the
accused personally to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him, the Court-(a) may at
any stage, without previously warning the accused, put such questions to him as the Court considers necessary;
(b) shall, after the witnesses for the prosecution have been examined and before he is called on for his defense,
question him generally on the case. (2) No oath shall be administered to the accused when he is examined under
sub- section (1).(3) The accused shall not render himself liable to punishment by refusing to answer such
questions, or by giving false answers to them.(4) The answers given by the accused may be taken into
consideration in such inquiry or trial, and put in evidence for or against him in any other inquiry into, or trial for,
any other offence which such answers may tend to show he has committed.

10
-Arguments-
2016
-Respondent-
9. Besides these, the prosecution relied upon documentary evidences like C.A.Report,
Dying Declaration, Inquest panchama), Arrest and seizure of accuseds clothes,
Postmortem report, Indoor case papers of deceased, Spot panchanama.
10. The entire evidence on record was examined to decide the homicidal death of the
deceased caused by her husband.
11. The trial court held that the prosecution had successfully established by adducing
cogent evidence that the accused had committed the murder of his wife punishable
under Section 302 of IPC and was convicted as per Section 235(2) 3 of Cr.P.C.
However, the prosecution failed to prove the charge under Section 498A of IPC.
Hence was acquitted for that offence. The period of detention undergone in jail by
him was given as set off according to Section 4284 of Cr.P.C.
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
3 Section 235- Judgment of acquittal or conviction:(1) After hearing arguments and points of law (if any), the
Judge shall give a judgment in the case.(2) If the accused is convicted, the Judge shall, unless he proceeds in
accordance with the provisions of section 360, hear the accused on the question of sentence, and then pass
sentence on him according to law
4 Section 428- Period of detention undergone by the accused to be set off against the sentence or
imprisonment: Where an accused person has, on conviction, been sentenced to imprisonment for a term 1 , not
being imprisonment in default of payment of fine], the period of detention, if any, undergone by him during the
investigation, inquiry or trial of the same case and before the date of such conviction, shall be set off against the
term of imprisonment imposed on him on such conviction, and the liability of such person to undergo
imprisonment on such conviction shall be restricted to the remainder, any, of the term of imprisonment imposed
on him.

11
-Arguments-
2016
-Respondent-
The following issues have arisen for determination before the Honble Court in
the instant matter:
1. WHETHER THE ACCUSED WAS RIGHTLY CONVICTED FOR THE OFFENCE

PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 302 OF IPC?
2. WHETHER THE ACCUSED WAS RIGHTLY ACQUITTED FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 498A OF IPC?

12
-Arguments-
-Respondent-
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
1. THE ACCUSED WAS RIGHTLY CONVICTED FOR THE OFFENCE

The counsels on behalf of the respondents humbly submit that the judgment passed by
the Sessions Court is appropriate and the conviction of the accused under section 302 5
of IPC is correct and as per the demands of justice.
To convict any accused under the aforementioned section, the requirements of section
3006 of IPC needs to be fulfilled. The instant case comes under the purview of clause
4th of this section since the accused has committed the act which he knew to be
imminently dangerous that it would, in all probability, cause death or such bodily
injury as is likely to cause death and committed it without any excuse for incurring
5 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.
6Section 300 of IPC-Murder:Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act
by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or-Secondly.--If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to
cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or-Thirdly.--If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to
be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or
Fourthly.--If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all
probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any
excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.

1
-Arguments-
-Respondent-
the risk of causing such death or injury as aforesaid. The accused committed the
murder of his wife by setting her ablaze on fire. 7 He had the knowledge that this act is
imminently dangerous to the extent that in all human probabilities it would lead to her
death or at least cause her such bodily injuries which might lead to death. Moreover,
he did not have any excuse for undertaking such a risk in the sense that it was
necessary for him to do such an act at that very particular moment. This is an
undisputed fact that his wife poured kerosene over herself on being annoyed by his
behavior from the past 5-6 years.8 In such a situation, it is within all human
probabilities that a prudent man would take this into consideration that if he lights
matchstick on her, it would lead to her death or at least cause her such bodily injuries
which might lead to her death. Moreover, all the evidences (both documentary and
oral) presented by the respondents during the trial have sufficiently proved the guilt of
the accused. Therefore, the act committed by the accused was so grave and heinous in
nature that his conviction under section 302 for the sentence of life imprisonment is
appropriate and required in order to deliver justice to the deceased.
2. THE ACCUSED WAS NOT RIGHTLY ACQUITTED FOR THE OFFENCE

PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 498A OF IPC.
It is humbly submitted before the Honble Bench of this High Court that the judgment
of acquittal of the accused under section 498A9 of IPC passed by the Sessions Court is
7 Paperbook on Criminal Appeal, 8th Lokmanya Tilak Appellate National Moot Court
Competition, 2016
8 Supra Note 8, pp-12, 23

2
-Arguments-
-Respondent-
not correct and the same issue is requested to be taken up again for its reconsideration.
The deceased during the recording of her dying declaration explicitly mentioned that
her husband, i.e. the accused, since the solemnization of their marriage, has been illtreating her by posing her to conditions of threat, abuse and harassment 10. The reason
for such ill-treatment was the demand of money to be brought from her maternal
house for which she never consented. Further, on the day of the incident, they had an
argument with each other, wherein he abused and assaulted her when she asked him to
take her to the hospital because she was sick.11
The concerned Sessions Court eliminated this charge of cruelty framed upon him, on
the grounds that the respondents were not able to adduce any evidence in order to
prove the accused guilty of such an offence. In this context, the counsels on behalf of
the respondents would like to contend that the court was absolutely right in convicting
9 Section 498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty:Whoever, being the
husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.For the
purpose of this section, cruelty means
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause
grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her
to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any
person related to her to meet such demand
10 Supra Note 9
11 Ibid

3
-Arguments-
-Respondent-
the accused for the offence punishable under section 302 of IPC mainly on the basis
of the dying declaration of the deceased and now the same should also be considered
as the basis for his conviction under section 498A as well. The admissibility and
credibility of the dying declaration given by the deceased has been very well
established by the respondents during the trial procedure by way of examining all the
documentary evidences and oral witnesses presented therein. 12 Therefore, it is again
humbly contended by the counsels that the reliability of the statement of the deceased
should be considered to the extent of making the accused guilty for the offence
punishable under section 498A as well.
12 Supra Note 8, p-68

4
-Arguments-
-Respondent-
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
[I] THE ACCUSED WAS RIGHTLY CONVICTED FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 302 OF IPC?
1. The counsels on behalf of the respondents humbly submits that the order passed by the
Sessions Court of sentencing the accused for imprisonment for life for his offence committed
under section 300 and punishable under section 302 of IPC is appropriate.
The conditions of section 300 of IPC have been satisfied
2. The accused has committed the offence of murder because act done by him falls under the
definition of Murder as defined in Section 30013 of IPC. The present case comes under the 4th
clause of the said section. Clause 4 of the Section talks about a person committing any act
and knowing that the act thus committed is so imminently dangerous that it will in all
probability cause death or bodily injury as is likely to cause death and that person commits
the act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury aforesaid.14
3. The essential ingredients of this clause are15
(a) The act must be imminently dangerous,
13 Supra Note 7

5
-Arguments-
-Respondent-
(b) The person committing the act must have knowledge that it is so imminently
dangerous, As per the Oxford Dictionary, the word knowledge means: Acquaintance with
a fact, perception, or certain information of a fact matter; state of being award or informed;
consciousness (of anything).16
For practical and legal purposes, knowledge means the state of mind entertained by a
person with regard to existing facts which he has himself observed, or the existence of
which has been communicated to him by persons whose veracity he has no reason to
doubt.17
(c) That in all probability it will cause either Death or Bodily injury as is likely to cause
death and;
(d) Such imminently dangerous act should be done without any reason or justification
for running the risk of causing death or such injury.
14 Ibid, clause 4.
15 K I VIBHUTE, PSA PILLAIS CRIMINAL LAW, LEXIS NEXIS PUBLICATION, P-582
16 Justice C.K.Thakker, Encyclopaedic Law Lexicon, Volume II, Edn.2010, ASHOKA

LAW HOUSE, p-2568
17 Ibid

6
-Arguments-
-Respondent-
4. This present act of the accused of lighting the matchstick on her body drenched in kerosene
shows that the person had the knowledge that the act is so imminently dangerous that in all
probability it will cause death.18 Her wife poured kerosene on her person and he was also
aware of the same and had the knowledge about the act of lighting the matchstick that in
all probability would cause the death of the accused and still doing the act fulfills the
condition of the Clause 4 of Section 300 of IPC and brings the act of the accused under the
definition of Murder.
5. Held since no special knowledge is needed to know that one may cause death by burning if
he sets fire to the clothes of a person it is obvious that the accused must have known that
he was running the risk of causing the death of the victim or such bodily injury as was
likely to cause her death. As he had no excuse for incurring that risk, the offence must be
taken to fall within 4th clause of section 300, Penal Code. In in other words, his offence
was culpable homicide amounting to murder even if he did not intend causing the death.
He committed an act so imminently dangerous that it was in all probability likely to cause
death or to result in an injury that was likely to cause death.19
6. In the case of State of M.P. v. Ram Prasad the Honble Supreme Court held that this was
the case where it was difficult to find the intention of the accused. But then the Supreme
Court observed that in respect of the clause 1-3 of Section 300 of IPC, the question would
rise as what was the intention of the accused, the nature of injuries he intended to cause
etc. Then the Supreme Court opined that it would be simpler to place reliance on Clause 4
because it contemplates only knowledge and no intention. In this case, when the accused
poured kerosene and set fire to his wife, he must have known that the act would result in
18 Supra Note 9
19 State of M.P. v. Ram Prasad AIR 1968 SC 881

7
-Arguments-
-Respondent-
her death.20 This knowledge is sufficient to bring the act of the accused under the Clause 4,
Section 300.
7. In the case of Hari v. State of M.P. accused poured the kerosene and set the deceased on
fire and the deceased sustained second and third degrees burn injuries. The burn injuries
were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death though the deceased died
after 25 days of injuries. But the Honble court convicted the accused under section
300(4) of the IPC.21 As the accused had the knowledge that doing this act is imminently
dangerous and it will lead to either the death or such bodily injuries which may lead to
death of the victim then it sufficiently fits in the scene and provides a ground to convict the
accused.
8. Another authority which can be used in this case is Ram Lal v. State of H.P. In this case the
deceased poured kerosene on her person and the accused lighted a matchstick and set her
on fire. The Supreme Court held that his act was so imminently dangerous that in all
probability it was bound to cause death or such bodily injury as it was likely to cause death
and he can legitimately be presumed to have been in the knowledge of this fact because the
deceased had poured kerosene on her person within his view. Thus the Court was of the
view that this was a case covered by Clause Fourth.22
20 AIR 1968 SC 881
21 Hari Chunnilal v. State of Madhya Pradesh 1977MPLJ321
22 2005(3)ShimLC67

8
-Arguments-
-Respondent-
9. In the case of Urgen Sherpa v. State of Sikkim, court held that if the act of burning done
with the intention to cause death or the accused knew that the act was so imminently
dangerous that it must cause death or such bodily injurious as were likely to cause death.
Then the case would be covered under the fourth clause of section 300.23
10. If the case where there is no probability or the possibility of the deceased to commit
suicide or accidental death and the same is also not coming forth from the evidences. The
accused is also silent on the same contention in his statement given under Section 31324 of
CrPC, then the burden of proof shifts on the accused to establish the cause of death and to
prove he is not guilty of the act.25
11. The numbers of injuries only doesnt matter; it is also the nature of the injuries and part of
body where it is caused.26 If the injuries are sufficient enough to cause death then they
could be anything irrespective of the number of injuries. In the present case the deceased
had sustained 63% burn injuries and they were sufficient to cause the death. In one of the
23 Urgen Sherpa v. State of Sikkim 1985CriLJ1988
24 Supra Note 3
25Ameer Jan v. State of Karnataka, 2004(3)KarLJ149
26State of Rajasthan v. Dhool Singh, AIR2004SC1264.

9
-Arguments-
-Respondent-
case Court held that having the knowledge of the act wouldnt prima facie make it murder
but another essential ingredient for an act to be murder is that there shouldnt be any
excuse and it is to be wholly inexcusable when even a risk of gravest possibly character,
which must normally result in death, is incurred.27
12. If there was no intention to kill, then it can be murder only if
a) The accused knew that the injury inflicted would be likely to cause death or
b) That it would be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death or
c) That the accused knew that the act must in all probability cause death.28
13. In this case the accused had intention to kill as well as accused knew that the act must
in all probability cause death, so he doesnt have any chance to run from his liability.
Both knowledge and intention can be seen here in the mind of accused by the act he
has done.
14. In order to hold a person responsible for having caused the death, it is not necessary
that his act should be the immediate cause of death, in the medical sense. If accused
has caused injuries then he is liable for murder.29 And in the present case the accused
had caused sufficient injuries to hold him responsible for the act.
Intention of Accused
15. In the present analysis of the mental element in crime, the word intention is used to
denote the mental attitude of a man who has resolved to bring about certain result if
27 Emperor v. Mt. Dhirajia, AIR1940All486.
28Willie (William) Slaney v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR1956SC116.
29 Kumbhar Narsi Bechar v. The State, AIR1962Guj77.

10
-Arguments-
-Respondent-
he can possibly do so. He shapes his line of conduct so as to achieve a particular end
at which he aims. 30
16. On 24/10/2010, there were only 3 people present in the house, Somanth, Manju and
their daughter Pratiksha. At around 7 am she said to her husband that she had been ill
from last 5 to 6 days and on that account asked Somnath to take her to hospital and to
this he refused to take her to hospital and said she should die. 31 The admitted facts
here are that the appellant and the deceased were not having good relations and they
often quarreled with each other. This clearly shows that as the husband was not happy
with the relations and his demand of getting money from her maternal home was not
being fulfilled so can do anything in that order.
17. From the circumstances of the case we can infer that the accused was the only person
who could kill Manju because at the time of the commission of offence only husband
and her daughter were present in the house.32 Also there was no probability of
someone else being there. When she got burnt there were only three people present
Manju, Somnath and 14 months old girl pratiksha. So the present circumstances
clearly show that the act of killing her has been commissioned by the accused.
30 Russell on Crime (12th Edition at page 41) mentioned in Justice C.K.Thakkers,

Encyclopaedic Law Lexicon, Volume II, Edn.2010, p-2381
31 Supra Note 9
32 Supra Note 8

11
-Arguments-
-Respondent-
18. The deceased was burnt inside the four walls of her house by her own husband and as
such, there could not be any eye witness to the incident so Court can rely on the dying
declaration given by her.
Actus Reus of Accused
19. Actus Reus means a wrongful act and is a legal maxim.33
The term may be so defined as to include accts of omission as well as acts of
commission, and a person may incur criminal liability for failing to do that which the
law enjoins as much as by doing that which the law proscribes.34
The admitted facts in this case are that the appellant and the deceased were not having
good relations and they often quarreled with each other. On the fateful day also they
had a quarrel. On that particular day she asked Somnath to take her to hospital since
she wasnt feeling well from past 5-6 days. But he told her that why she was troubling
her, hell not take her to the hospital and she should die. The deceased, already fed up
with the regular tense atmosphere at home and more annoyed by this poured kerosene
on her and the accused ignited the matchstick and set her on fire. She started shouting
on account of burns and came running out of the house. When the neighbors heard the
shouts they also came and extinguished the fire.35
20. In the instant case, when Manju poured kerosene on herself, Somnath had the
knowledge that if he lights the matchstick and sets her on fire theres a high
probability that it would lead to Manjus death as a consequence of his imminently
dangerous act and he still committed the act.
33 Justice C.K.Thakkers, Encyclopaedic Law Lexicon, Volume II, Edn.2010, p-141
34 Justice C.K.Thakkers, Encyclopaedic Law Lexicon, Volume II, Edn.2010, p-141. See
Halsburys Laws of England, 4th Ed., Vol.11, p-13.

12
-Arguments-
-Respondent-
21. The accused would be liable for the offence of murder though there was not premeditation of the act. So the act of murder would be punishable under the section of
302 36of IPC.
22. The Seizure Report37 and Chemical Analyzer Report38 along with the statement of
Rohan Pravin Chandra proves that the kerosene was found on the clothes of the
accused this proves that he was present inside the house at the time of pouring of the
kerosene and he himself lighted the matchstick on her.39 This proves he has committed
the offence of the Murder. The burn injury on his hand also supports the fact that he
himself lighted the matchstick and killed the wife.40
23. For the act done by the accused he must be punished. The act committed by the
accused comes under the Section 30241 of Indian Penal Code. The said section
prescribes the punishment for murder. In the present case, Somnath has committed the
murder of his wife Manju (as proved above) and for this he is liable under Section
36Supra note 17.
37 These are the methods used to detect and punish crime that includes searching and taking
property and data that can be used by the prosecution of the criminal.
38 Ibid

13
-Arguments-
-Respondent-
302. In the Section 302 the punishment prescribed is either death sentence or life
imprisonment. Here, as the case doesnt fall under the purview of rarest of the rare
case, so death penalty cannot be imposed, hence the option left is life imprisonment. 42
Life imprisonment to the accused is completely justified if we go as per the grounds
mentioned above.
Documentary evidences24. All the documentary evidences are sufficient enough to prove the guilt of the accused.
These works as circumstantial evidences to support the story of the dying declaration.
Dying Declaration43 25. On dying declaration, the Honble Supreme Court has said that the dying declaration
can be the conclusive evidence for the conviction of the accused without
corroboration.44
39 Supra Note 8, pp-18, 4, 16
41 Supra Note 6

14
-Arguments-
-Respondent-
One dying declaration which is on record is said to have been recorded by the police
officer. According to his version as soon as he received information regarding the
offence in question, he rushed to the hospital and recorded the statement of the
deceased under Section 161, CrPC which is admissible in evidence under Section 32
of the Evidence Act45. In the statement made to police she said that accused poured
kerosene on her and the husband set her fire. These are all the evidences led by the
prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused. 46 And this evidence is fully
supporting the conviction.
26. In the present case there are two dying declaration taken by two different police
constables. Both dying declaration are consistent to each other and saying the same
thing and pointing out the guilt of the accused. 47 In both the dying declarations she
43 Statements made by a person who is lying at the point of
death, and is conscious of his approaching dissolution, in reference to the manner in
which he received the injuries of which he is dying, or other immediate cause of his
death, and in reference to the person who inflicted such injuries or the connection with
such injuries of a person who is charged or suspected of having committed them; which
statements are admissible in evidence in a trial for homicide where the killing of the
declarant is the crime charged to the defendant.
44
Aijaz Ahmad v. State of U.P. Para 10 2004(2)ACR1596

45
Supra Note, pp-7, 12

46
Chinnapattu Nagan v. State of A.P. 2000, mentioned in S.C.Sarkar, A commentary on The

Law of Indian Evidence Act, p-844
47

15
-Arguments-
-Respondent-
told that on 24/9/2010 around 7-8 am, she told to her husband that as she is feeling ill
from last 5-6 days so she asked him to took her hospital but he replied why are you
shrieking, I will not take you to hospital and instead of taking her to hospital he
assaulted her and also said that you should die. Therefore she got annoyed with this
and also from the continuous cruelty and harassment that she was subjected to from
the day by her husband and he is forcing her to take money from her mother house
and poured kerosene on her and then accused said that I will kill you and then lighted
the matchstick.48 After she shouted neighbor and brother in law came and
extinguished the fire and admitted her in the Ambikapur hospital.
27. In this case, both dying declaration are consistent, she has mentioned the same thing
and she was aware about the situation and she was in the fit state of mind to give the
statement thats why both statement are not contradictory in nature and are true and
voluntary.49
28. In the case of the multiple dying declarations, each dying declaration will have to be
considered independently on its own merit as to its evidentiary value and one cannot
be rejected because of the contents of the other. In cases where there are more than
one dying declaration, it is the duty of the Court to consider each of them in its correct
perspective and satisfy itself which one of them reflects the true state of affairs.50
Supra Note 9
48
Ibid
49
Ibid
16
-Arguments-
-Respondent-
29. A dying declaration can be accepted though not recorded by the Magistrate, if other
facts and circumstances of the case reflected its truthfulness and authenticity and in
such circumstances there is no legal impediment to make it the basis of conviction.51
30. In the case of wife burning, accused has to prove the factum of death. The appellant
and his family member were under a legal obligation to explain the nature and manner
of the injuries received on her body. If accused failed to prove the cause of death, it
will go against the accused because it is statutory duty of accused.52
31. It is settled law by series of judgments of this Court that the dying declaration, if
after careful scrutiny the court is satisfied that it is true and free from any effort to
induce the deceased to make a false statement and if it is coherent and consistent, is
no legal impediment to form such dying declaration the basis of conviction, even if
there is no corroboration vide.53
50
Nallam Veera Stayanandam and Ors. v. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. 2004(2)ACR1282(SC)
51
Santosh Dadu Sapkale v. State of Maharashtra 2009(111)BOMLR4435
52
Sunkappa Nagappa v. State of Maharashtra, 1995 (1) B Cr C 468 at 764: 1995 (2) Bom CR
665 (Bom), mentioned in Sarkars Commentary on The Law of Evidence, Volume 1, p-1050
53
Tarachand Damu Sutar v. The State of Maharashtra, [1962]2SCR775.

17
-Arguments-
-Respondent-
32. In the case of State of Maharashtra v. Rajendra Garbad Patil, the dying declaration
recorded within an hour of the occurrence and made by the injured without being
influenced by others was held reliable and conviction could be ordered on that basis
alone.54
33. In the case of Ameer Jan v. State of Karnataka, the statement of the deceased initially
recorded as a Statement before the death but after the death, the statement changed its
characteristics to the Dying Declaration under the section 32(1) of the Indian
Evidence Act. In these types of cases or circumstances, the fitness certificate of doctor
is not required. The dying declaration can be relied upon in the absence of the fitness
certificate also. Dying declaration is the statement where deceased explain his/her
cause of the event which led her/his to this condition and there should be the nexus
between the statement of victim and cause of his/her death.55
34. It is not necessary to record the dying declaration by the Magistrate and it is not the
ground to discard the entire prosecution case. We cannot doubt on the reliability of
such declaration unless the statements are inconsistent and contradictory. 56
35. The law related to dying declaration is, it does not require any prescribed form,
format, procedure etc. and no where it is mention that who will take the declaration.
The only thing as person who take such declaration is satisfied that maker of the
54
State of Maharashtra v. Rajendra Garbad Patil, AIR1994SC475.

55
Supra note 18.

56
Balbir Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab, 2006(3)ACR3053(SC).

18
-Arguments-
-Respondent-
declaration is in the fit state of mind and is capable of making such a statement. It is
not necessary to take fitness certificate in every case.57
36. "Mere marginal variations in statements of witness cannot be dubbed as
improvements, as same may be elaborations of statement made by witness at earlier
stage." 58
37. It was held in Jaswant Singh v. State (Delhi Administration) that though a dying
declaration which is not recorded by a Magistrate has to be scrutinized closely, yet if
the Court is satisfied that on a close scrutiny of the dying declaration that it is truthful,
it is open to the Court to convict the accused on its basis without any independent
corroboration. In that case, the dying declaration recorded by a Sub- Inspector in the
presence of the duty doctor, who also verified its genuineness, was held to be truthful
and convincing.59
38. Similarly, it was held in Ramawati Devi v. State of Bihar that there is no requirement
of law that dying declaration must be made to a Magistrate and its evidentiary value
has to be attached to such statement, must depend on the facts and circumstances of
each case. In this case, it was recorded by an A.S.I. and was held to be reliable for the
purpose of convicting the accused.60
39. Under Section 32(1) dying declaration can be taken as sole basis for conviction. It not
necessarily required to be supported by evidences and its validity depends upon case
57
Kaliya v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2013(3)ACR2871.
58
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Dal Singh and Ors AIR2013SC2059

59
1978CriLJ1869
19
-Arguments-
-Respondent-
to case. If it is completely reliable then there is no requirement for the corroboration. 61

Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act is the exception of the general rule that
Hearsay statement is not admissible. Statement made under section 32(1) of Indian
Evidence Act explains that the maker of such statement must explain the cause of
death or the circumstances which led to such condition of the maker and it is
admissible evidence according to the Indian Evidence Act. The hearsay evidence are
not admissible unless is tested by cross examination.62
40. In State of Assam v. Mafijuddin Ahmed, the Honble Supreme Court has reiterated the
law on dying declarations as under:- "Thus, the law is now well settled that there can
be conviction on the basis of dying declaration and it is not at all necessary to have a
corroboration, provided the Court is satisfied that the dying declaration is a truthful
dying declaration and not vitiated in any other manner."63
60
1983CriLJ221
61
Habib Usman v. State of Gujarat 1979CriLJ708 ,

62
Rajendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan 1996CriLJ1560

63
AIR 1983 SC 274

20
-Arguments-
-Respondent-
41. Habib Usman v. State of Gujarat, in this case it was observed that merely because
some friends or relatives happened to be present with the deceased before his
statement was recorded, the statement cannot be thrown out as tutored.64
42. Exhibit no. 23 is the Inquest Panchnama65 and it is taken by Sharad Walunj and taken
in the hospital in the presence of
2 independent witness and they checked the
complete body and found the burn injuries on the different parts of deceased body.
Entire skin of deceased was burnt and turned into reddish, black and whitish. 66 They
also found the ink mark on the left thumb. The thumb impression shows that she made
the impression on the First dying declaration. This proves the authenticity of the first
dying declaration.
After examination the body they send the body to forensic department for the post
mortem along with the police report.67
64
Supra note 41.

65
The judicial inquiry made by a jury summoned for the purpose is called an "inquest." The
finding of such men, upon an investigation is also called an "inquest."
66
Supra Note 8, p-13

67
Supra Note 8, pp-14,15

21
-Arguments-
-Respondent-
43. The object of the section 17468 of CrPC is to find whether the person is died under the
mysterious circumstances or died due to the unnatural circumstances and if it is so
then try to find the apparent cause of the death. 69 The aim of the report made by the
officer is to support the prosecution case and it is statutory function of the police. It is
very important report which needs to be prepared spontaneously at the site and give it
to the doctor along with the dead body, when body has to send for the post mortem
examination.70
44. The inquest report cannot be substantive evidence, 71 but it may be used for
corroboration of the evidence given by the police officer making the report.72
The inquest report is made just to indicate the injuries found on the body of the
decease, and it is not necessary to record the statements of the witness or to get the
68
Section 174. Police to enquire and report on suicide, etc.:(1) When the officer in charge of a police station
or some other police officer specially empowered by the State Government in that behalf receives information
that a person has committed suicide, or has been killed by another or by an animal or by machinery or by an
accident, or has died under circumstances raising a reasonable suspicion that some other person has committed
an offence, he shall immediately give intimation thereof to the nearest Executive Magistrate empowered to hold
inquests, and, unless otherwise directed by any rule prescribed by the State Government, or by any general or
special order of the District or Sub- divisional Magistrate, shall proceed to the place where the body of such
deceased person is, and there, in the presence of two' or more respectable inhabitants of the neighborhood, shall
make an investigation, and draw up a report of the apparent cause of death, describing such wounds, fractures,
bruises, and other marks of injury as may be found on the body, and stating in what manner, or by what weapon
or instrument (if any); such marks appear to have been inflicted.
69
DR. K. N. CHANDRASEKHARAN PILLAI, R.V. KELKARS CRIMINAL PROCEDURE,

EASTERN BOOK COMPANY, Edn.6th, 2014, p-198
70
DR. K. N. CHANDRASEKHARAN PILLAI, R.V. KELKARS CRIMINAL PROCEDURE,

22
-Arguments-
-Respondent-
statement signed and incorporated
73
inquest report is primarily to find out nature and
apparent cause of death, whereas post mortem contain details of injuries through
scientific examination.74
In this case by the inquest report made by the police shows that deceased has dies due
to the burn injuries. The burning marks on Manju body show that the injuries are
serious in nature.
If a document is admitted and corroborated by other evidence, it has to be given an
exhibit number then court can rely on this.75
45. Exhibit no.29 is the police report which is send to the district surgeon for post
mortem.76 In the report it is already mentioned the cause of the death is the burn
injuries. Post mortem also explains the seriousness of the burn injuries. in post
mortem report, doctor found the blue ink mark on thumb as well as great toe. This
71
Adi Bhumiani v. State, 1957CriLJ1152.

72
Mukanda and Ors. v. State, 1957CriLJ1187.

73
Narpal Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR1977SC1066.

74
Sunil Singha v. State of West Bengal, 2007CriLJ516(Cal).

23
-Arguments-
-Respondent-
again proves the veracity of the dying declarations which were taken by the 2
different constables.
46. Exhibit no. 32 Arrest and cloth seizure it was taken by the Asst.Police Inspector
J.M. Gunjal77. He arrested accused on 28/09/2010 at around 5 pm. Police also called
two independent witnesses to prepare seizure panchnama. Police seized one white
shirt and one blue cotton pant and packed, sealed and labeled the cloth and send it to
the Chemical Analyzer. The accused himself told that he wore that cloth on the day of
the incidence. Independent witnesses were also present and smelled the cloth and
found the cloth smelling of the kerosene. Moreover he didnt refuse to wear the same
cloth in the statement taken under the Section 31378 of CrPC.
75
S.C.Sarkar, The Code of Criminal Procedure (2012 edtion), Volume 1, Lexis Nexis
Butterworths Wadhwa Nagpur.
76
Supra Note 8, p-15

77
Supra Note 8, p-18

78
Supra Note 6
24
-Arguments-
-Respondent-
The wide power given to a police officer to seize property under this section should
be availed only in those cases where he has power to investigate into offences
conferred by the code or by other law.79
47. Exhibit no. 15 that is C.A. report proves that the accused cloth was having the traces
of kerosene.
Both report and statement of Rohan pravin Chandra proves that the kerosene was
there on the cloth of the accused that proves that he was present inside the house at
the time of pouring of the kerosene and he himself lighted the matchstick on her80.
48. Exhibit No. 38 Post mortem report81 and Exhibit No. 45 Indoor Case Papers82 both Exhibit clearly shows that this is the case of burn injuries and deceased got 63%
burn injuries83. From these burn injuries she died.
79
Nemichand Jain v. Supt. of Central Excise and Customs, (1963) 2 CriLJ

80
Supra Note 8, pp-4, 16

81
After death. A term generally applied to an autopsy or examination of a dead body, to ascertain the cause of
death, or to the inquisition for that purpose by the coroner.
82
The complete treatment record during your stay at the hospital; internal records of the
hospital
83

25
-Arguments-
-Respondent-
The post mortem report said that there was ink mark on the left thumb and right toe
of the deceased that shows police constable came and took the statement of the
deceased and the she also made the thumb impression on the dying declarations.
That makes the dying declaration more reliable.
49. Exhibit No. 51, medical officer of the rural hospital Mhadur found the burnt injuries
on the hand of the accused84. This shows that the accused burned her wife and in this
process he got this burnt injuries.
50. Spot panchnama this was done by the API Gunjal in the presence of the Atmaram
and Avinash (2 independent witness)85.
Section 10086- Persons in charge of closed place to allow search. (4)Before making a
search under this chapter, the officer or other person about to make it call upon two
or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to
be searched is sitauate or of any other locality if no such inhabitant of the said
localitities is available or is willing to be a witness to the search, to attend and

84

85
Supr Note 8, p-45

86
The Code of Criminal Procedure, Bare Act, Professional Book Publisher

26
-Arguments-
-Respondent-
witness the search, to attend and witness the search and many issue an writing to
them or any of them so to do.
In this case 5 things are seized by the Mhadur police station87, they are
a. Bluish liquid in a plastic can
b. Match stick containing match sticks
c. Partly burnt saree and blouse
d. T-shirt wrapped in paper.
e. Full pant wrapped in paper
51. Supreme Court said that if the discovery of a fact is otherwise reliable its evidentiary
value is not diminished by reason of non-compliance of section 100(4) and (5).88
Mere non-compliance of the provisions in the code would not by itself vitiate the
prosecution.89 It has been observed that non-compliance with the provision of section
and 165 of the code will not vitiate the trial or make evidence of the search officer
87
Supra Note 8, p-4

88
Musheer Khan @ Badshah Khan and Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2010)2SCC748.
89
DR. K. N. CHANDRASEKHARAN PILLAI, R.V. KELKARS, CRIMINAL PROCEDURE,

27
-Arguments-
-Respondent-
inadmissible in evidence.90 The Provisions are sometimes considered to be directory

only.91
52. Though there is nothing in law that prohibits searches being carried out during night,
it has been held that, when not inconvenient, they should be conducted during
daytime so as avoid any compliant on the part of the accused that there was room for
unfair practice like planting articles.92 Thats why in this case the spot panchanama
is prepared on 25th October Morning.
53. With a view to ensuring that the witnesses for the search are disinterested persons, the
word independent has been inserted in sub-section (4).93
The non-compliance of the condition in clause of section 100 of crpc does not affect
the validity of the search on conviction.94
At the highest regularity in the search and recovery in so far as the terms of section
100(4), Crpc, 1973 have not been fully complied with, does not affect the legality of
90
A.P. Kuttan Panicker and Ors. v. State of Kerala, (1963)CriLJ669.

91
Fedders Lloyd Corporation (P.) Ltd. v. B.A.Lakshminarayana Swami, AIR1969Del26

92
Supra note 55.

93
K.N. Chandrasekharan pilliai, R.V. Criminal Procedure, Edn.6th, 2014, p-114

28
-Arguments-
-Respondent-
the proceedings. It only affects the weight of evidence which is matter for the court
to decide.95
Oral Evidences (Witness Testimonies)54. All the witnesses presented by the respondents at the time of the trial are true to their
submission and support the allegations posed on the appellants and thereby convict
him for the said offences. The court defined interested witnesses as relative, friend or
person having relations called interested witness.96
PW1, Vijay Nemade
55. He is the neighbor of the accused and deceased. On the date of the incident at around
8am he was unloading sand from the trolley of tractor near his house when he heard
the shouts of the deceased and saw her coming out of house engulfed in fire 97.
Immediately, he along with four others rushed towards her to extinguish fire. After
extinguishing fire they took her to Ambikapur hospital where she was admitted.
After his chief examination the APP requested the court to cross examine the witness
since he had completely resiled from the contents of his statement. Permission was
94
Bai Radha v. The State of Gujarat, AIR1970SC1396.

95
State of H.P.v. Sukh Ram, 2003CriLJ 219.

96
Gopal Anjayya Falmari and Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra, (1995)1BomCR116.

29
-Arguments-
-Respondent-
granted for the same98. In his statements before the court he said that the deceased had
not stated anything to him about the incident, but when his statement was taken by the
police two years prior to the trial, there he mentioned the deceased had told him about
the entire incident, and then later before the court he says that he cannot assign any
reason as to why it was there in his statement and that it is not correct99. This act of the
witness shows that he had turned hostile and now it is upon the court to not give
reliance to his statement and discard his testimony altogether. Although the trial court
accepted that the witness has turned hostile but it did not discard his testimony
thereby committing an error in this matter. His testimony should be discarded in the
sense that it contradicts his statements and there are no corroborative evidences to
support the same.
56. Meaning of Hostile Witness in English Law- A witness id said to be hostile, if he
exited manifest antipathy, by his demeanor, answers & attitude, to cause party calling
him by making contradictory statement inconsistent with his previous statement.100
97
Supra Note 8, p-5

98
Supra Note 98
99

100

30
-Arguments-
-Respondent-
According to Oxford dictionary 'contradiction' means to offer the contrary. If a

witness deposes in the court that a certain fact existed but he has not stated
accordingly in his statement before the police, it is a case of conflict between the
deposition in court and statement before the police. Therefore statement before the
police can be used to contradict his deposition before the court.101
If a witness has deposed in the examination in chief a certain thing which he has
omitted to state before the police in his statement it is called omission. If the said
omission is on minor points, it is not contradiction and court will not take cognizance
of those omissions. Court will take cognizance of those omissions which are on
material point and which are called contradictions by way of omissions.102
57. In the Indian context, the principles dealing with the treatment of hostile witnesses are
encompassed in Section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 , defined hostile
witness as one who is not desirous of telling the truth at the instance of one party
calling him. 103
Justice C.K.Thakker, Law of Evidence, Volume 1, 2013 Edition, Whytes & Co., p-76.
101
Maharashtra Judicial Academy http://mja.gov.in/Site/Upload/GR/summary%20of%20second%20work%20shop

%20criminal%20dated%2010-01-15.pdf, last accessed on 2/16/2016, 23:15
102
Ibid
103
Gura Singh v. State of Rajasthan 2001 Cri.L.J. 487: AIR 2001 SC 330 10
31
-Arguments-
-Respondent-
Hostile witness is a witness who, from the manner in which he gives his evidence,
shows that he is not desirous of telling the truth, to the court.104
Hostile witness means the statement who makes statements adverse to the party
calling and examining him, and who may, with the permission of the court, be cross
examined by that party.105
Before giving permission it is usual for a judge to look into the police to see whether
the witnesses the witness was actually resiling from the taken during the
investigation.106
58. In Sat Paul v. Delhi Administration, the Honble Supreme Court held that, It is for the
Judge of fact to consider in each case whether as a result of such cross-examination
and contradiction, the witness stands thoroughly discredited or can still be believed in
regard to a part of is testimony. If the Judge finds that in the process, the credit of the
witness has not been completely shaken, he may, after reading and considering the
evidence of the witness, as a whole, with due caution and care, accept, in the light of
the other evidence on the record, that part of testimony which he finds to be
creditworthy and act upon it. If in a given case, the whole of the testimony of the
witness is impugned, and in the process, the witness stands squarely and totally
104
Justice C.K. Thakker, Encyclopaedic Law Lexicon, Volume 2, p-2172.

105
Praphulla Kumar Sarkar v. Emperor AIR1931Cal401

106
Lalu and Ors. v. State AIR1960Cal776

32
-Arguments-
-Respondent-
discredited, the Judge should, as a matter of prudence, discard his evidence in

totality.107
59. In the instant case, Vijay Nemade resiled from the police statement, which he gave
during the investigation. He is not telling the truth to the court and he is also not
desirous of telling the truth. So court cannot rely on the statement of Vijay Nemade
because he already changed his statement once. Moreover his present statement to the
court is not corroborating with any of the evidences produced. So we have to discard
the testimony of Vijay Nemade.
DW1, Ketan Nemade
60. After cross examining this witness it was apparent that he was merely an interested
witness whose testimony cannot be relied upon. He had visiting terms to the house of
the accused and also had close relations with him. Most importantly, in his statement
he mentioned that he does not know what actually happened in the house of the
accused, and that he only saw pieces of burnt saree lying outside the house of the
accused108. All these facts make him an interested witness and not an independent one.
PW2, Sharad Walunj
61. He is the head police constable who recorded the first dying declaration and was
posted to Ambikapur Chowky109. His testimony is reliable and trustworthy, firstly
107
1976CriLJ295
108
Supra Note 8, p-61

109

33
-Arguments-
-Respondent-
because he had no personal interest of his own in order to convict the accused and
secondly, he performed his duty according to the due procedure and correctly
recorded the dying declaration of the deceased. As soon as he got the information
about the incident from the police station, he rushed to the hospital to take the
necessary steps. He confirmed about the physical and mental condition of the
deceased with the medical officer on duty and then started to record her statement
wherein she stated the whole incident to him that as to what happened on the date of
the incident and how the accused had caused her burn injuries by setting her ablaze
and since their marriage he was harassing and ill-treating her by abusing, threatening
and assaulting her in order to get amount from her mother, and therefore, she has a
legal complaint against him110.
Moreover, minute inconsistencies in the procedure do not tend to discard the
testimony altogether and cannot supersede the most important aspect of delivering
justice by convicting the accused for the offence he committed.
PW3, Rohan Pravin Chandra
62. He is a panch witness who was called by the police in Mhadur police station for
panchanama111. His testimony is reliable in the sense that firstly, he had no personal
connections with the Mhadur police prior to this incident and except this case he had
not worked as a panch witness for them. Secondly, the police had seized the clothes of
the accused in his presence, which smelled of kerosene, and their smell was verified
Supra Note 8, p-7

110

111

34
-Arguments-
-Respondent-
by the chemical analyzer report wherein the tests of the results were found to be
positive112. He also smelled the clothes and confirmed the smell of kerosene on the
clothes113.
Hence this is corroborative evidence sufficient enough to prove the guilt of the
accused.
PW4, Subhash Shivaji Awhad
63. He is the Police Head Constable who recorded the second dying declaration of the
deceased and was posted at Mhadur police station. He got information from Senior
Police Inspector, Mr.Mehere about the said incident and was instructed to record the
patients statement114. He rushed to the hospital as per the instructions and after the
confirmation given by the doctor with respect to the physical and mental state of the
deceased, he went to record her statement. She disclosed to him the entire incident as
to what argument they had in the morning, how he set her ablaze and that since
marriage he was harassing, threatening, and assaulting her over demand for money to
be brought from her maternal house115. His testimony is admissible and reliable to the
extent that he abided by the legal formalities and carried out the procedure with
utmost responsibility by taking the statement, handing over the statement in the police
112

113
Supra Note 112

114
Supra Note 8, p-20

35
-Arguments-
-Respondent-
station on the basis of which the crime was registered, station diary entry was made
and finally the investigation handed over to the Police Inspector116.
PW5, Dr. Abhijeet Bala Shelke
64. He is the autopsy surgeon who received the corpse of the deceased along with the
inquest for autopsy examination117. He conducted the post mortem of the body of the
deceased and after that he was of the opinion that the reason for her death was the
injuries caused to her which gave her tremendous shock, ultimately leading to her
death. His opinion is verified by the documentary evidence of the post mortem report
which bears his signature as well118.
Hence, this corroborates with the other evidences as well I order to prove the guilt of
the accused thereby convicting him for the said offence.
PW6, Dr. Pandit Swami
115

116
Supra Note 8, p-21

117
Supra Note 8, p-24

118
Supra Note 8, pp-24,16,32

36
-Arguments-
-Respondent-
65. He is the doctor who treated the deceased till her death 119. His testimony is admissible
and reliable in the sense that there isnt any kind of inconsistency between the ocular
evidence and the medical evidence. He examined her when she was admitted in the
hospital and found that she sustained 63% superficial to deep burn injuries. He
prepared Indoor case papers (Medico Legal Certificate) for the same by making day
to day entry of regarding her condition and signed them at the end 120. He performed
his duty reasonably by first examining the patients condition before the recording of
her statement could be done by the police and took note of the same by making
endorsement at the end, thereby stating it to be true and correct. Both the ocular and
the medical evidence are of the same view that the death was homicidal in nature121.
PW8, Atmaram Devidas Nemade
66. He is the panch witness who was there in the house of the accused for spot
panchanama122. In his presence, the police seized the articles, ie., burnt pieces of saree,
plastic can and matchbox found in the house of the accused and prepared the
panchanama on which he signed at the end after the contents were read over to him
and he ascertained them to be correct123. Hence, his testimony corroborates with other
evidences in order to bring home the guilt of the accused.
119
Supra Note 8, p-33

120
Ibid
121

37
-Arguments-
-Respondent-
PW9, Vasudeo Shridhar Pote

67. He is the Police Inspector, attached to the Mhadur police station, in the instant case
who conducted the initial investigation and prepared the spot panchanama in the
presence of two panchas124. His testimony is admissible since he completed his duties
as a matter of procedural requirement and did not leave any scope for discrepancies.
He mentioned in his statement that he himself seized the plastic can containing
kerosene, match box and half burnt pieces of saree, drew the panchanama, put his
signature on the same after he was satisfied that the contents read over to him were
correct125. Thereafter, he handed over the investigation to the Assistant Police
Inspector.
PW7, Jayesh Manohar Gunjal
122
Supra Note 8, p-51

123
Ibid
124

125
Ibid
38
-Arguments-
-Respondent-
68. He is the Assistant Police Inspector who was handed the latter part of the investigation
process to be completed126. After the spot panchanama was prepared, he recorded
statements of few witnesses. Later he arrested the accused and seized his clothes
under the arrest and seizure panchanama which bears his signature as well as of the
panchas. As a matter of procedural requirement, after completion of the investigation
process, he filed the charge-sheet against the accused before JMFC of Mhadur and
then presented the accused before the court 127. His testimony is of chief importance
since it appropriately backs the entire investigation process which is a crucial part of
the case, and thus holds credibility and reliability which cannot be denied.
[II] THE ACCUSED WAS UNJUSTLY ACQUITTED FOR THE OFFENCE

69. The counsels on behalf of the respondents humbly submit before this Honble Court
that the accused Somnath Rajiv Satpute is also guilty for the offence punishable under
Section 498A128 of IPC. The Sessions Court had wrongly acquitted the accused of the
126

127
Ibid
128
Supra Note 10
39
-Arguments-
-Respondent-
charges under Section 498A of IPC. The act by accused satisfies the conditions
mentioned in Section 498A of IPC. The Explanation (b) of the said section talks about
cruelty/harassment done on a woman so as to coerce her or any person related to her
to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security and may also
harass her or any person related to her on failure of meeting such demand.
70. The accused had harassed his wife and this can be easily deduced from the facts of the
case. The facts of the case say that the deceased Manju Somnath Satpute was being
harassed by the accused from a long time as he wanted her to ask her parents to give
some money129. As she was not bringing any money in that respect so he subjected her
to cruelty by harassing and ill-treating her both physically and mentally. He made
illegal demand for money by abusing her130. These facts clearly shows us that she was
abused, threatened and harassed by the accused and which accounts to cruelty and
comes under Explanation (b) of Section 498A of IPC.
71. The same can also be seen in the dying declarations by the deceased. The deceased
made two dying declaration and both of them are consistent on the same matter. In the
first dying declaration she told the officer that her husband asked her to get money
from her mother and on that account used to abuse, threaten and beat her 131. In the
second dying declaration (which also has been treated as complaint statement in the
129
Supra Note 9
130
Ibid
131
Ibid
40
-Arguments-
-Respondent-
present case) she said that from the time of her marriage her husband has been
treating her very badly, he troubles her and asks her to get money from her parents.
She even said that she told the same to her parents also 132. By the statements made by
the deceased in both the dying declarations we can easily make the inference that the
accused was treating his wife with cruelty and this also satisfies the ground for
liability of the accused for section 498A of IPC.
72. It is always contended that the word cruelty occurring in the said provision and its
interpretation is very vague. But it is not so, we just have to interpret what is written
in the Explanation (b) of the contested section. It says that if there is harassment for
obtaining some property or valuable security from the wife or any of her relative, then
it also amounts to cruelty.133
Then coming to the ingredients of this section we can divide the ingredients in three:
(i)
The woman must be married.
(ii)
She must be subject to cruelty or harassment,

For purpose of the section, harassment is not simply cruelty and it is
harassment only when it is committed for the purpose of coercing any woman
or any person related to her to fulfill any unlawful demand for property, etc.
then it amounts to cruelty under sec 498A.134
132
Ibid
133
Ratanlal & Dhirajlals, Law of Crimes: A Commentary on Indian Penal Code,1860, p-3040
134
Smt. Shanti and Anr. v. State of Haryana, AIR 1991SC 1226, mentioned at p-3041 in
41
-Arguments-
-Respondent-
(iii)
Such cruelty or harassment must have been shown either by husband of the
woman or by any relative of the husband.
These above ingredients have been correctly fulfilled by the accused and this again
shows that he is liable for the act of harassment and cruelty that he has done.
73. The basic ingredients of section 498A are cruelty and harassment, further in
Explanation (b) of the said section which talks about harassment, the physical injury
is absent but it talks about coercive harassment for any unlawful demand and deals
with patent or latent acts of husband or family members.135 Section 498A also doesnt
talk about as to under how many time period the harassment was done as no such
period is mentioned in section 498A and the husband or his relative would be liable
for subjecting the women to cruelty any time after the marriage.136
74. Cruelty need not to be physical, it can be mental also. 137 To find out cruelty we will
have to infer it by the act of the men, the seriousness in his act. It is also to be
Ratanlal & Dhirajlals, Law of Crimes: A Commentary on Indian Penal Code,1860.

135
Undavali Narayana Rao v. State of A.P., (2009) 14 SCC 588, mentioned at p-3041 in
Ratanlal & Dhirajlals, Law of Crimes: A Commentary on Indian Penal Code,1860.
136
Supra Note 63
137
Gananath Pattnaik v. State of Orissa, (2002) 2 SCC 619, See also, G.V.
Siddaramesh v. State of Karnataka, (2010) 3 SCC 152 (158).
42
-Arguments-
-Respondent-
established that the woman was constantly subjected to harassment/cruelty.138 To

decide about cruelty what needs to be checked are the relevant factors of the marital
relationship between the husband and the wife, their interaction with each other, their
culture, societal status and various other factors.139
75. It was also established in the case of Bhanubhai Shanabhai Zala v. State of Gujarat,
that in case of death of wife by burns, the conduct of accused of not visiting her to
hospital during her entire period of hospitalization amounted to cruelty.140
76. Section 498A says that the harassment of the woman where such harassment with a
view to coerce her or any person related to her to meet any kind of unlawful demand
for any property etc. and on account of failure to provide the same by her or by her
relative will amount to cruelty for the purpose of 498A.141 Clause (b) does not make
each and every harassment cruelty. It is harassment only where it is shown to have
been committed for the purpose of coercing a woman to meet the demands that is
cruelty and this is made punishable under the section.142
138
Ratanlal & Dhirajlals, Law of Crimes: A Commentary on Indian Penal Code,1860, p-3043
139
Ibid
140
2008CriLJ3828, mentioned in Ratanlal & Dhirajlals, Law of Crimes: A Commentary on

Indian Penal Code,1860, p-3044
43
-Arguments-
-Respondent-
IS RECOURSE TO SECTION 304B VALID IF THE CONDITIONS THEREIN ARE

SATISFIED?
77. It can be very well inferred from the facts of the instant case that this is roundabout a case
of dowry death. Dowry death is covered under Section 304B 143 of the IPC. According to
Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, dowry means any property or valuable
security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly(a) By one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage, or
(b) By the parent of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to either party to the
marriage or to any other person, at or before [or any time after the marriage] [in
141
Wazir Chand and Anr. v. State of Haryana, AIR 1989SC378, mentioned in Ratanlal &
Dhirajlals, Law of Crimes: A Commentary on Indian Penal Code,1860, p-3047
142
Ravindra Pyarelal Bidlan and other v. State of Maharashtra, 1993 CriLJ 3019(Bom), mentioned in Ratanlal &
Dhirajlals, Law of Crimes: A Commentary on Indian Penal Code,1860, p-3047

44
-Arguments-
-Respondent-
connection with the marriage of the said parties, but does not include] dower or mahr in
the case of persons to whom the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) applies.144
78. In the instant case, if the appellant is not able to prove their case with respect to pleading
for clean acquittal which in turn compels them to contend that their conviction under
section 302145 of IPC is incorrect and improper rather they should be sentenced under
section 304B which has a lesser punishment in comparison to section 302, then it is
humbly submitted before the Honble Court on behalf of the respondents that though the
case being of dowry death, the offence cannot be charged under section 304B.
79. In Rajbir @ Raju and Anr. v. State of Haryana, the Honble Supreme Court directed all
the trial courts to include section 302 to the charge of section 304B, because according to
their understanding of utmost reasonability, dowry death falls within the purview of the
most heinous and barbaric crimes against women, and therefore, the accused ought to be
awarded with the highest punishment prescribed under these sections which is death
143
Section 304B. Dowry death:(1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs
otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before
her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in
connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called dowry death, and such husband or relative
shall be deemed to have caused her death. Explanation.For the purpose of this sub-section, dowry shall
have the same meaning as in section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961).
(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than
seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life.
144
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961

145
Supra Note 6
45
-Arguments-
-Respondent-
punishment (or imprisonment for life if the case doesnt fall under the rarest of the rare
cases. 146
80. Furthermore, if the court is ascertained about the prima facie availability of direct or
circumstantial evidences which satisfy all the conditions of murder under 300 of IPC then
the charges may be brought against the accused for the offence of murder under the said
section. Otherwise, if not proved, then the court has to look into the offence under section
304B of IPC. Both the offences are different and have varied ingredients and that is the
reason that they require different appreciation or prospective of the evident to the
ingredient147.
ALTERATION OF CHARGE
81. In the instant case, the accused has been tried by the session court for the charges framed
under section 498A of IPC and section 302 of IPC 148. As already discussed above, the
case in indirectly related to dowry death but the charge under section 304B of IPC has
not brought for the same. In this context, the issue of alteration of charge can also come
into picture which can probably be brought up by the appellant.
146
AIR2011SC568
147
Ibid
148
Supra Note 8, p-1

46
-Arguments-
-Respondent-
82. As per the Section 216149 of CrPC- Court may alter charge:
(1) Any Court may alter or add to any charge at any time before judgment is
pronounced.
(2) Every such alteration or addition shall be read and explained to the accused.
(3) If the alteration or addition to a charge is such that proceeding immediately with
the trial is not likely, in the opinion of the Court to prejudice the accused in his defence
or the prosecutor in the conduct of the case the Court may, in its discretion, after such
alteration or addition has been made, proceed with the trial as if the altered or added
charge had been the original charge.
(4) If the alteration or addition is such that proceeding immediately with the trial is
likely, in the opinion of the Court to prejudice the accused or the prosecutor as
aforesaid, the Court may either direct a new trial or adjourn the trial for such period as
may be necessary.
(5) If the offence stated in the altered or added charge is one for the prosecution of
which previous sanction is necessary, the case shall not be proceeded with until such
sanction is obtained, unless sanction had been already obtained for a prosecution on
the same facts as those on which the altered or added charge is founded.
Section 216 of CrPC talks about alteration or addition of the charge. But it should be
done before the judgment pronounced.150
83. The charge can be altered at the stage of the trial depending upon the evidences adduced
in the case. Framing of charges depends upon the trial judges after considering the
relevant materials on record. Trial court is the appropriate court to frame the charges
149
The Code of Criminal Procedure, Bare Act, Professional Publisher

150
Jasvinder Saini and Ors. v. State (Govt.of NCT of Delhi) AIR 2014 SC 841
47
-Arguments-
-Respondent-
and moreover trail court can find the truthfulness, sufficiency and acceptability of the
material produced.151
84. As a matter of pleading clean acquittal or lesser punishment or re-trial, if the appellant
contend that there was an error in framing charges at the time of the trial by omitting the
charge of section 304B, instead of putting the charge of section 302 therein, the
respondents in their say, would humbly contend before this Honble court by virtue of
Section 464 of CrPC.
As per Section 464152 CrPC- Effect of omission to frame, or absence of, or error in,
charge(1) No finding sentence or order by a Court of competent jurisdiction shall be deemed
invalid merely on the ground that no charge was framed or on the ground of any
error, omission or irregularity in the charge including any misjoinder of charge,
unless, in the opinion of the Court of appeal, confirmation or revision, a failure of
justice has in fact been occasioned thereby.
(2) If the Court of appeal, confirmation or revision is of opinion that a failure of
justice has in fact been occasioned, it may(a) in the case of an omission to frame a
charge, order that a charge be framed and that the trial be recommenced from the
point immediately after the framing of the charge; (b) in the case of an error,
omission or irregularity in the charge, direct a new trial to be had upon a charge
framed in whatever manner it thinks fit: Provided that if the Court is of opinion that
the facts of the case are such that no valid charge could be preferred against the
accused in respect of the facts proved, it shall quash the conviction.
85. The mere omission to frame a charge or mere defect in the charge is no ground for
setting aside a conviction. Procedural laws are made with the aim to facilitate the
151
Salman Khan v. State of Maharashtra AIR2004SC1189

152
Supra Note 150

48
-Arguments-
-Respondent-
justice. Technicalities should not come in the way of administration of justice. The aim
of the charge is to convey the accused that what he has been charged with. If the
necessary information is conveyed to accused and there is no prejudice caused to him
due to the charges, then the accused cannot take the defense that the framed charges
were defective.153
86. In judging a question of prejudice related with the guilt of accused. Court must act with a
broad vision and look to the substance and not to technicalities, and their main concern
should be to see whether the accused had a fair trial, whether he knew what he was
being tried for, whether the main facts sought to be establishment against him were
explained to him fairly and clearly and whether he was given a full and fair chance to
defend himself.154
87. Where there is error or omission in the charge, the court is also bound to have regard to
the fact whether the objection could be raised at an earlier stage in the proceedings. 155 If
the appellant didnt raise the point related with the alleged irregularity or illegality in
the charge before lower court then it cannot be argued that omission led to injustice or
it.156
153
Gurbachan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1957 SC 623

154
Willie (William) v. State of M.P., AIR 1956SC116

155
Shyam Sunder Rout v. State of Haryana (1971)3SCC226

49
-Arguments-
-Respondent-
156
Bimbadhar pradhan v. State of Orissa 1956 SC 469

50
-Arguments-
8TH LOKMANYA TILAK APPELLATE NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION
-Respondent-
PRAYER
In light of the facts stated, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is
submitted that the honorable Sessions Court be pleased In light of the facts presented, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited the
Counsel for the Appellants humbly pray before this Honble Court that it may be pleased:
1. To declare that the Respondent has been rightly convicted for the offence punishable
under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code;
2. To declare that the Judgment given by the Sessions Court is appropriate;
3. To convict the accused for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of Indian
Penal Code along with Section 302 of Indian Penal Code;
Or pass any other order or make directions as the Honble Court may deem fit to meet the
interest of justice, equity and good conscience in the instant case.
And for this act of kindness, the Respondent shall duty bound forever pray.
Respectfully Submitted on Behalf of the Respondent;
COUNSELS FOR
RESPONDENT

51

Respondent Memorial Final

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Respondent Memorial Final

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

-Arguments8TH LOKMANYA TILAK APPELLATE NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION ,

Under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure

SOMNATH RAJIV SATPUTE..APPELLANT

8TH LOKMANYA TILAK APPELLATE NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,

[1] THE ACCUSED WAS RIGHTLY CONVICTED FOR THE OFFENCE

[II] THE ACCUSED WAS UNJUSTLY ACQUITTED FOR THE OFFENCE

MEMORANDUM on behalf of RESPONDENT

8TH LOKMANYA TILAK APPELLATE NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,

MEMORANDUM on behalf of RESPONDENT

8TH LOKMANYA TILAK APPELLATE NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,

1. A.P. Kuttan Panicker and Ors. v. State of Kerala, (1963)CriLJ669.

MEMORANDUM on behalf of RESPONDENT

8TH LOKMANYA TILAK APPELLATE NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,

4. Ameer Jan v. State of Karnataka, 2004(3)KarLJ149.

MEMORANDUM on behalf of RESPONDENT

8TH LOKMANYA TILAK APPELLATE NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,

28. State of Assam v. Mafizuddin Ahmed, AIR 1983 SC 274.

1. C.D. FIELD, COMMENTARY ON LAW OF EVIDENCE ACT, 1872, DELHI

MEMORANDUM on behalf of RESPONDENT

8TH LOKMANYA TILAK APPELLATE NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,

VOL. 2 (5th ed. 2014).

REFERENCES, DWIVEDI LAW AGENCY (2nd ed. 2010).

MEMORANDUM on behalf of RESPONDENT

8TH LOKMANYA TILAK APPELLATE NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,

PROCEDURE CODE & CRIMINAL TRIAL, EASTERN BOOK COMPANY,

1. APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE OF HOSTILE WITNESSES, MAHARASHTRA

%20second%20work%20shop%20criminal%20dated%2010-01-15.pdf, (last updated

MEMORANDUM on behalf of RESPONDENT

8TH LOKMANYA TILAK APPELLATE NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,

MEMORANDUM on behalf of RESPONDENT

8TH LOKMANYA TILAK APPELLATE NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,

MEMORANDUM on behalf of RESPONDENT

8TH LOKMANYA TILAK APPELLATE NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,

MEMORANDUM on behalf of RESPONDENT

8TH LOKMANYA TILAK APPELLATE NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,

1. WHETHER THE ACCUSED WAS RIGHTLY CONVICTED FOR THE OFFENCE

MEMORANDUM on behalf of RESPONDENT

1. THE ACCUSED WAS RIGHTLY CONVICTED FOR THE OFFENCE

MEMORANDUM on behalf of RESPONDENT

2. THE ACCUSED WAS NOT RIGHTLY ACQUITTED FOR THE OFFENCE

8 Supra Note 8, pp-12, 23

MEMORANDUM on behalf of RESPONDENT

MEMORANDUM on behalf of RESPONDENT

12 Supra Note 8, p-68

MEMORANDUM on behalf of RESPONDENT

MEMORANDUM on behalf of RESPONDENT

15 K I VIBHUTE, PSA PILLAIS CRIMINAL LAW, LEXIS NEXIS PUBLICATION, P-582

16 Justice C.K.Thakker, Encyclopaedic Law Lexicon, Volume II, Edn.2010, ASHOKA

MEMORANDUM on behalf of RESPONDENT

19 State of M.P. v. Ram Prasad AIR 1968 SC 881

MEMORANDUM on behalf of RESPONDENT

20 AIR 1968 SC 881

21 Hari Chunnilal v. State of Madhya Pradesh 1977MPLJ321

MEMORANDUM on behalf of RESPONDENT

25Ameer Jan v. State of Karnataka, 2004(3)KarLJ149

26State of Rajasthan v. Dhool Singh, AIR2004SC1264.

MEMORANDUM on behalf of RESPONDENT

27 Emperor v. Mt. Dhirajia, AIR1940All486.

28Willie (William) Slaney v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR1956SC116.

29 Kumbhar Narsi Bechar v. The State, AIR1962Guj77.

MEMORANDUM on behalf of RESPONDENT

30 Russell on Crime (12th Edition at page 41) mentioned in Justice C.K.Thakkers,

MEMORANDUM on behalf of RESPONDENT

MEMORANDUM on behalf of RESPONDENT