Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
114 -
IST MMU NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2016
IN THE MATTER OF
STATE ...PROSECUTION
V.
RAHUL ...DEFENSE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS 2
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 4
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 5
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 11
STATEMENT OF FACTS 12
ISSUES RAISED 13
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 14
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
PRAYER 36
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
& And
Paragraph
AIR All India Reporter
All Allahabad
ALR Allahabad Law Reports
Anr. Another
Art. Article
Edn. Edition
Honble Honourable
i.e. That is
ILR Indian Law Reports
LW Law Weekly
Ltd. Limited
Mad Madras
M.P. Madhya Pradesh
MLJ Madras Law Journal
No Number
Pvt. Private
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
SCR Supreme Court Reports
U/S Under section
U.P. Uttar Pradesh
v. Versus
Viz. Namely
Vol. Volume
www World Wide Web
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED
JOURNALS REFEERED
S.NO NAME
3. Manupatra
BOOKS REFERRED:
1. Batuk Lal, Commentary on the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ed. R. P. Kataria
and S. K. A. Naqvi, Vol-I, (Section 1 to 300), (Orient Publishing Company, 1st
Edn. New Delhi) (2006-07).
2. Dr. Hari Singh Gour, The Penal Law of India, Vol-I, (Section 1 to 120), (Law
Publishers (India) Pvt. Ltd., 11th Edn.) (2006).
3. Fields Commentary on Law of Evidence, Ed Gopal S. Chaturvedi, Vol-I & II,
(Delhi Law House, 12th Edn.) (2006).
4. Halsburys Laws of India, Vol-32, Criminal Procedure I & II, (Lexis Nexis
Butterworths, New Delhi) (2007).
5.
Nelson R. A. Indian Penal Code, 10th Ed. (2008)
6. Kathuria, R.P. Supreme Court on Criminal Law, 1950-2002, ( 6th Ed. 2002)
7. Princeps Commentary on the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (18th ed. 2005)
11. Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, Law of Crimes, Vol-I & II, Ed. Justice C. K. Thakkar,
(Bharat Law House, 25th Edn., New Delhi) (Reprint 2006).
LEGAL DICTIONARIES
S.NO NAME
1. BLACKS LAW DICTIONARY, (WEST PUBLISHING GROUP 7TH EDN.) (1999)
3. STROUDS JUDICIAL DICTIONARY OF WORDS AND PHRASES, VOL-I TO III, EDITOR DANIEL
GREENBERG, (SWEET AND MAXWELL LTD., 7TH EDN., 2006, REPRINT 2008) LONDON.
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local
jurisdiction it was committed.
1. February, 2013: Priya, aged 24, completed her education in mass communication
from Dehradun. was a 24 year old girl. She moved to Delhi for better career
opportunities but struggled to settle there.
2. May, 2013: Priya met Rahul who was running a production agency. They both shared
common interests and became close friends.
3. July,2013: Rahul helped her to find a good job and also arranged an apartment for
her. Rahul was a big support for Priya in Delhi.
4. December, 2013: They decided to live in together and lived happily for two years.
5. January, 2016: Priya suspected Rahul of having physical relations with Pooja. Rahul
said Pooja was her client and tried to convince Priya that he re is nothing going on
between him and Pooja. Priya was mentally upset and went to depression.
6. February, 2016: Things were not going good in between Rahul and Priya. They were
spotted often fighting with each other even at public places. Once Rahul said that its
better to get separated and move on life but Priya was not convinced.
7. 15th May, 2016: Pooja visited their apartment and which Priya got offended. Rahul
asked Pooja to leave the apartment. Priya accused Rahul for bad character. Rahul tried
to convince Priya but became frustrated as things didnt get resolved.
8. 16 May, 2016: He left the apartment when she was asleep without informing her.
When she woke up, she tried calling her but he didnt pickup her call and instead
switched off his phone. She found herself lonely and alone.When he came back, he
found her body hanging from the ceiling fan. He gathered some neighbours and her
body was taken to hospital where she was declared brought dead.
9. According to her mother, she was two months pregnant and proposed Rahul for
marriage but he refused to marry and compelled her to abort the child. The doctors
have also confirmed that Priya was pregnant and had undergone abortion not long
before her demise. There was no suicide note found.
10. Rahul has been arrested on the complaint of Priya's mother. The Police registered a case
against Rahul u/s 302 IPC,306 IPC, 312 IPC, 313 IPC, 323 IPC and 376 IPC.
ISSUES RAISED
Yes, Rahul is liable to be convicted for the murder of Priya. The two ingredients of murder
i.e. mens rea and actus reus are fulfilled in the current case. Circumstantial evidence points
out to the fact that it could not have been a case of suicide but murder itself.
Yes, Rahul has abetted the suicide of Priya. The deceased committed suicide to the acts of the
accused and clearly both the conditions of abetment under Section 306 of IPC are satisfied.
Direct involvement by the accused in such abetment or instigation is clear from the
circumstantial evidence.
The accused, compelled the deceased to abort her child and also inflicted voluntary hurt upon
her. This is evident from the post mortem report of the deceased. So the accused should be
held guilty for the said offences.
It is humbly submitted that the accused is guilty of murder. Under S.300(2), a person is
guilty of committing murder if he acts with the intention of causing such bodily injury which
he knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom such harm is caused. It is he
felonious killing of another human being with malice aforethought.1
A person is guilty of murder if he intentionally causes the death of a person or causes such
bodily injury as he knows, is likely to cause death of that person or causes such bodily injury,
which in the ordinary course of nature results into death or commits an act so dangerous that
it must, in all probability cause death of that person2.
Whether the offence falls under S. 302, I.P.C. or S. 304, I.P.C., the nature of the injuries
sustained by the deceased and the circumstances under which the incident took place are
relevant factors. From the nature of the injuries and the origin and genesis of the incident, it
could be spelt out that all the ingredients of the offence of murder defined under S. 300, I.P.C
are made out and it is not possible to bring the offence within any of the five exceptions of S.
300, I.P.C.3
Under clause third of S. 300, IPC, culpable homicide is murder, if both the following
conditions are satisfied; i.e. (a) that the act which causes death is done with the intention of
causing death or is done with the intention of causing a bodily injury; and (b) that the injury
intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. It must be
proved that there was an intention to inflict that particular bodily injury, which in the ordinary
curse of nature, was sufficient to cause death, viz., that the injury found to be present the
injury that was intended to be inflicted. Even if the intention of accused was limited to the
infliction of a bodily injury sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, and did
1
Sanwat Khan vs State of Rajasthan AIR 1956 SC 54
2
Sec 300, IPC
3
Ramashraya vs State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 2001 SC 1129
In the present case, the accused compelled the deceased for aborting their child and refused to
marry. The accused wanted to get rid away of the deceased while the deceased loved the
accused truly and she tried to make their relationship better. Therefore, the accused planned
everything and murdered the deceased.
In the absence of any circumstances to show that injury was caused accidentally or
unintentionally, it is presumed that there was intention to cause the inflicted injury. 5 Mens rea
is considered as guilty intention6, which is proved or inferred from the acts of the accused7.
In the present case, there is no doubt that the death of deceased is non-natural death. It cannot
be accidental or intentional also. This indicates that the accused has some active part in the
death of the deceased which makes a strong case against the accused for murder.
It is presumed that every sane person intends the result that his action normally produces and
if a person hits another on a vulnerable part of the body, and death occurs as a result, the
intention of the accused can be no other than to take the life of the victim and the offence
committed amounts to murder8. Moreover, the intention to kill is not required in every case,
mere knowledge that natural and probable consequences of an act would be death will suffice
for a conviction under s. 302 of IPC9.
Sec 8, Evidence Act stipulates that any fact is relevant which shows or constitutes motive or
preparation for any fact in issue or relevant fact. Thus, previous threats or altercations
between parties are admitted to show motive10. It is further pertinent to note that if there is
motive in doing an act, then the adequacy of that motive is not in all cases necessary. Heinous
offences have been committed for very slight motive.11
For the commission of the offence of murder, it is not necessary that the accused should have
the intention to cause death. It is now well settled that if it is proved that the accused had the
4
Settu vs State of Tamil Nadu 2006 Cri LJ 3889 (3893)
5
Dayanand v. State of Haryana, AIR 2008 SC 1823.
6
Commissioner of Income Tax v Patranu Dass Raja Ram Beri, AIR 1982 PH 1, 4
7
State of Maharashtra v Meyer Hans George, AIR 1965 SC 722
8
(1951) 3 Pepsu LR 635
9
Santosh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1975 Cri LJ 602 (SC)
10
Son Lal v State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 1142, Chhotka v State of WB, AIR 1958 Cal 482
11
State v Dinakar Bandu (1969) 72 Bom LR 905
Actus reus is any wrongful act17. It is the conduct that constitutes a particular crime.18 Every
criminal act is based on actus reus and mens rea. The word "actus reus" connotes an overt act.
This is a physical result of human conduct, and therefore, an event which is distinguished
from the conduct which produced the result. In a murder case, it is the victim's death which is
an event and, therefore, is an actus reus.19 The circumstantial evidence in a case where there
is a link of causation, if established, proves that the act was committed by the person so
accused.20
12
Bakhtawar vs State of Haryana AIR 1979 SC 1006
13
Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code, 33rd Ed. (2011)
14
State of Punjab v Sucha Singh, AIR 2003 SC 1471
15
Mulakh Raj v. Satish Kumar, AIR 1992 SC 1175 74
16
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Digvijay Singh, 1981 Cri. LJ 1278 (SC)
17
Aiyar, P Ramanatha, The Law Lexicon, p. 49 (2nd ed 2006)
18
Gul Mohummed vs King Emperor AIR 1947 Nag 121; Chander Bahadur Suha vs State 1978 Cr LJ 942
(Sikkim).
19
Haughton vs Smith (1973) 3 All ER 1109
20
Naseem Ahmed v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1974 SC 691; Sharad Birdhich and Sarda v. State of
Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622.
In a similar case, the Doctor, PW-5, who conducted the post-mortem examination, found two
injuries and there was no evidence of any ligature mark around the neck. He gave the opinion
that the deceased died of asphyxia due to manual strangulation (throttling) and death must
have been almost instantaneous. After receipt of the post-mortem report, Ex P-4 and on
completion of investigation, the investigating agency altered the case to one under Ss. 498-A
and 302, I.P.C.24
It is submitted that the post mortem report suggests strangulation marks on the neck & other
mild injuries, scratches and scars on the body. The phrase other mild injuries, scratches and
scars on the body signifies that there was some physical spat between the accused and the
deceased. It means that the deceased resisted the accused while he was using force.
Therefore, it is established that there was actus reus. In the post mortem report, the cause of
death was stated as strangulation. There is nothing given as to signify homicidal death. There
is no oral or documentary evidence present to prove the actus reus. In various cases, courts
have given the different meanings of strangulation25 but usage of such a general term in the
post mortem does not lead to any conclusive proof26. So hence there is no clarity as to
whether the death was suicidal or homicidal.
21
State of UP v Ashok Kumar Srivastava, AIR 1992 SC 840
22
Bakshish Singh v State of Punjab, AIR 1971 SC 2016
23
V. Vijaykumar vs State of Kerala AIR 2000 SC 586
24
Asokan vs State AIR 2000 SC 3444: 2000 SCC (Cr) 749
25
Nemichand v. State of Rajasthan 2015 SCC Online Raj 9391; Ravinder Singh v. Govt of NCT Delhi 2008
(101) DRJ 61 (DB)
26
Ravinder Singh v. Govt of NCT Delhi 2008 (101) DRJ 61 (DB)
27
State of U.P. v. Dr. R.P. Mittal, AIR 1992 SC 2045, applied in Vithal Tukaram More v. State of Maharashtra,
(2002) 7 SCC 20, (para 11). Also see Kartik Sahu v. State, 1994 CrLJ 102 (para 6) (Ori); State of Maharashtra
v. Vilas Pandurang Patil, 1999 CrLJ 1062, 1065 (Bom); Thangaraj v. State by Inspector of Police, 1994 CrLJ
NOC 16(Mad) ; Prithviraj v. State of Rajasthan, 2004 CrLJ 2190, 2196 (paras 25 & 26) (Raj) : 2004 CrLR
598(Raj) : 2004 (2) Raj CrC 552.
28
AIR 2002 SC 3164, para 17 : (2002) 8 SCC 45. See also Dhananjoy Chatterjee v. State of W.B., (1994) 2 SCC
220, 229, para 7 : (2002) 8 SCC 45; Sukhram v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 7 SCC 502, 511 (para 20); Peria
Rajendran v. State, 2007 CrLJ 1242, 1245 (para 9) (Mad).
29
Anant v. State of Bombay, AIR 1960 SC 500 at page 523. See also Laxman Naik v. State of Orissa, 1995 CrLJ
2692 (para 11) : AIR 1995 SC 1387.
30
Mahmood v. State of UP AIR 1976 SC 69
31
"Evidence" means and includes-- (1) all statements which the Court permits or requires to be made before it
by witnesses, in relation to matters of fact under inquiry; such statements are called oral evidence; (2) all
documents produced for the inspection of the Court; such documents are called documentary evidence.
32
Basu Harijan v. State of Orissa 2003 CrLJ 2270; Pratap Tigga v. State of Bihar 2004 CrLJ NOC 86(Jhar).
33
State of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal AIR 1994 SC 1418, Kunduru Dharua v. State 2002 CrLJ 1757 (Ori).
34
Govinda Reddy v. State of Mysore, AIR 1960 SC 29
35
Deonandan Mishra v. State of Bihar, (1955) 2 SCR 570. Chain of circumstancial evidence complete,
conviction for murder proper, Rajan Johnsonbhai Christy v. State of Gujarat, 1997 CrLJ 3702(Guj) ; Alamgir v.
State (NCT, Delhi), AIR 2003 SC 282, (paras 10-13); Reddy Sampath Kumar v. State of A.P., (2005) 7 SCC 603,
604 (para 7).
36
Bakshish Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1971 SC 2016. See also Reddy Sampath Kumar v. State of A.P., (2005)
7 SCC 603, 604 (para 7) : AIR 2005 SC 3478; Kumaravel v. State, 2009 CrLJ 262, 266-67 (para 12.4).
37
State of H.P. v. Diwana, 1995 CrLJ 3002 (paras 10 and 11) (HP). See also Omanakuttan v. State of Kerala,
2000 CrLJ 4893 (paras 5 and 6) (Ker), relying on Earabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka, 1983 CrLJ 846 : AIR
1983 SC 446; Sharad Birdichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, 1984 CrLJ 1738 : AIR 1984 SC 1622 and
Ashok Kumar Chatterjee v. State of M.P., 1989 CrLJ 2124 : AIR 1989 SC 1890.
38
State of A.P. v. I.B.S.P. Rao, AIR 1970 SC 648.
39
Gade Lakshmi Mangraju v. State of A.P., 2001 CrLJ 3317 (para 23) (SC) : AIR 2001 SC 2677
40
Naunidh v. State of U.P., AIR 1982 SC 1299
41
Basu Harijan v. State of Orissa, 2003 CrLJ 2270, 2272 (para 12) (Ori) : 2003 (95) Cut LT 477, Contra ;
Pratap Tigga v. State of Bihar, 2004 CrLJ NOC 86(Jhar) : 2004 AIR Jhar HCR 563.
42
Vaman Jaidev Raval v. State of Goa, 2007 CrLJ 431(NOC) (Bom)
43
Munshi Prasad v. State of Bihar, (2002) 1 SCC 351 (para 6) : AIR 2001 SC 3031 : 2001 CrLJ 4708,
approving Ramaswami, Re AIR 1938 Mad 336
44
State of Haryana v. Ram Singh, (2002) 2 SCC 426 (para 1)
45
Subhash Chand v. State of H.P., 1995 CrLJ 3460 (para 21) (HP).
46
Radha Kant Yadav v. State of Jharkhand, 2003 CrLJ NOC 13(Jhar) : 2003 AIR Jhar HCR 5 : 2003 (1) DMC
7
47
Sheo Govind Bin v. State of Bihar, 1985 BBCJ 632.
48
Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1988 SC 1883
49
Yusuf S.K. v. State, AIR 1954 Cal 258; State v. Sashibhushan, (1963) 1 CrLJ 550(Ori)
50
State of Haryana v. Sher Singh, AIR 1981 SC 1021; Dalel Singh v. Jag Mohan Singh, 1981 CrLJ 667(Del) ;
State of U.P. v. Sughar Singh, AIR 1978 SC 191; Chandrika Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1972 SC 109;
D.B. Deshmukh v. State, AIR 1970 Bom 438; Yaduram v. State, 1972 CrLJ 1464(J&K) ; relying on Sarat
Chandra v. Emperor, AIR 1934 Cal 719; Parbhoo v. Emperor, AIR 1941 All 402. Also see Amir Hossain v.
State of Tripura, 1998 CrLJ 4315, at page 4323 (Gau); Chandrika Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1972 SC
109; State v. Murugan, 2002 CrLJ 670, 673 (para 19) (Mad) : 2001 (2) Mad LW (Cri) 815; Rajendra Singh v.
State of U.P., (2007) 7 SCC 378, 385-86 (para 8) : AIR 2007 SC 2786.
Page 1447
51
Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1956 SC 460; Narendra Singh v. State of M.P., (2004) 10 SCC 699,
708 (para 31)
52
State of U.P. v. Snghar Singh, AIR 1978 SC 191; Chandrika v. State, AIR 1972 SC 109; Satyovir v. State, AIR
1958 All 746; Bindeshwari Singh v. State, AIR 1958 Pat 12.
53
State of Haryana v. Sher Singh, AIR 1981 SC 1021; Dalel Singh v. Jag Mohan Singh, 1981 CrLJ 667(Del) ;
State of U.P. v. Sughar Singh, AIR 1978 SC 191; Chandrika Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1972 SC 109;
D.B. Deshmukh v. State, AIR 1970 Bom 438; Yaduram v. State, 1972 CrLJ 1464(J&K) ; relying on Sarat
Chandra v. Emperor, AIR 1934 Cal 719; Parbhoo v. Emperor, AIR 1941 All 402. Also see Amir Hossain v.
State of Tripura, 1998 CrLJ 4315, at page 4323 (Gau); Chandrika Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1972 SC
109; State v. Murugan, 2002 CrLJ 670, 673 (para 19) (Mad) : 2001 (2) Mad LW (Cri) 815; Rajendra Singh v.
State of U.P., (2007) 7 SCC 378, 385-86 (para 8)
54
Uda alias Suda v. The State of Rajasthan, 2001 CrLJ NOC 28(Raj)
55
Vikas v. State of Rajasthan, (2002) 6 SCC 728, para 13 : AIR 2002 SC 2830
The post-mortem report is an extremely relevant and important document, in cases brought
under Sec.302, of the Indian Penal Code.56 The post mortem report becomes important in
cases where the cause of death is to be established and is a matter of controversy57. Moreover,
it is not possible for the Prosecution in to explain each and every injury suffered by the
deceased.58
There was no suicide note found and the injuries found on the deceased body indicates its not
a suicide but murder.
In Bhayani Luhana Radhabai vs State of Gujarat59, it was stated, Mukta was at the time of
her death carrying a foetus four and a half months old. This was first conception. It is difficult
to believe that in this condition Mukta would ever think of committing suicide.60
Since there is no evidence that there was any proximate cause for her to attempt to end her
life on that morning so the theory of suicide is not sustainable.61 The post-mortem report
giving the description of injuries found on the body of the deceased would also defy all
doubts about the theory of suicide. She had contusion on the front of right leg. Abrasion on
the front of the left leg just below the knee joint. Linear abrasion on the back of the right
hand. Linear abrasion on the anterolateral aspect of left fore-arm in its middle. And contusion
on the back of right elbow joint. These injuries, as the Courts below have observed, could
have been caused while Gian Kaur resisted the poison being administered to her. Appeal was
dismissed.62
It is extremely unlikely that an educated woman of this academic distinction who was
prepared to face her problems and was optimistically looking forward to the future beyond
her marital home would be inclined to commit suicide by burning herself. It was held that
there was no question of her being broken-hearted and frustrated so as to resolve to commit
suicide. The State appeal was accepted. The accused was convicted for murder.63
56
Sheo Govind Bin v. State of Bihar, 1985 BBCJ 632.
57
Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1988 SC 1883
58
Ravindra Shantaram Sawant v. State of Maharashtra , AIR 2000 SC 2461
59
1977 SCC (Cr) 181
60
Bhayani Luhana Radhabai vs State of Gujarat 1977 SCC (Cr) 181
61
Surinder Kumar vs State (Delhi Administration) AIR 1987 SC 692
62
Bhupinder Singh vs State of Punjab AIR 1988 SC 1011
63
Subedar Tewari vs State of U.P. and State of U.P. vs Narendra Nath Tewari AIR 1989 SC 733
64
Prabhudayal vs State of Maharashtra AIR 1993 SC 2164
65
Surender vs State of Haryana 2007 Cri LJ 779 (782)
66
State of Tamil Nadu vs P. Muniappan AIR 1998 SC 504
67
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs State of Maharashtra AIR 1984 SC 1622
68
State of West Bengal vs Sampat Lal AIR 1985 SC 195
69
R. Puthunainar Alhithan v. P.H. Pandari, AIR 1996 SC 1599 (paras 7 and 8).
70
Charan Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1967 SC 520.
A two judge bench of the Supreme Court has held in Lakhjit Singh v. State of Punjab 73 that
if a prosecution has failed to establish the offence under Section 302 IPC, which alone was
included in the charge, but if the offence under Section 306 IPC was made out in the evidence
it is permissible for the court to convict the accused of the latter offence.
In Bimla Devi v. State of Jammu & Kashmir74, the accused charged under Section 302 but
convicted under Section 306. In the case of Bindyan Pramanik v. The State75, the appellant
faced trial in respect of both counts of charges, i.e., under Sections 306/498 IPC as well as
under Sections 302/34 IP4 IPC to Section 306 IPC and was finally convicted on Sec306 IPC.
But even if the position was otherwise and the appellants were not charged under Section 306
IPC and tried only under Sections 302/34 IPC there would not have been any legal bar in
altering the conviction from Setion 302.76
71
Virendra Kumar vs State of U.P 2007 Cri LJ 1435 (1438) (SC); Dalbir Singh vs State of U.P AIR 2004 SC
1990
72
K Prema Rao v. Yadla Srinivasa Rao AIR 2003 SC 11; Hira Lal v. State (Govt of NCT), Delhi AIR 2003 SC
2865; Kaliyaperumal v. State of Tamil Nadu AIR 2003 SC 3828; Lakhjit Singh v. State of Punjab (1994) Supp 1
SCC 173
73
1994 Supp (1) SCC 173
74
AIR 2009 SC 2387
75
2010 4 Cal LT 156
76
Birendra Kumar v. State of U.P. 2007 Cr LJ 1435 SC
It is most deferentially submitted before this Honble Court that for a person to be convicted
of abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code77, two essential
ingredients must be established:
1. The deceased committed suicide
2. The accused abetted her in committing suicide.
3. Direct involvement by the accused in such abetment or instigation is necessary
The first has already been established above.
Abetment contemplated in section 306 must conform to the definition given in section 107 of
the Indian Penal Code, according to which abetment can be brought about in three ways: by
instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid to the deceased. Be that as it may, in a case of this
nature, where a plea of suicide has been put forward, the Courts below should examine
whether such a plea is altogether untenable and whether suicide is ruled out.78 The offence of
abetment by instigation depends upon the intention of the person who abets and not upon the
act which is done by the person who has abetted. The abetment may be by instigation,
conspiracy or intentional aid as provided under Section 107 IPC.79
S. 306, I.P.C. penalises abetment of suicide. It is a unique legal phenomenon in the Indian
Penal Code that the only act, the attempt of which alone will become an offence. The person
who attempts to commit suicide is guilty of the offence under S. 309, I.P.Code whereas the
person who committed suicide cannot be reached at all. S. 306 renders the person who abets
the commission of suicide punishable for which the condition precedent is that suicide should
necessarily have been committed. It is possible to abet the commission of suicide. But
nobody would abet a mere attempt to commit suicide. It would be preposterous if law could
afford to penalise an abetment to the offence of mere attempt to commit suicide. Learned
Sessions Judge went wrong in convicting the appellants under under S. 116 linked with S.
306, I.P.C. The former is "abetment of offence punishable with imprisonment--if offence be
not committed". But the crux of the offence under S. 306 itself is abetment. In other words, if
there is no abetment, there is no question of the offence under S. 306 coming into play. It is
77
306. Abetment of suicide - If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide,
shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall
also be liable to fine.
78
Ramesh Kumar vs State of Punjab AIR 1994 SC 945
79
State of Punjab v. Iqbal Singh, AIR 1991 SC 1532; Surender v. State of Hayana, (2006) 12 SCC 375; Kishori
Lal v. State of M.P., AIR 2007 SC 2457; and Sonti Rama Krishna v. Sonti Shanti Sree, AIR 2009 SC 923.
It is humbly submitted before this Honble Court that evidence of the suicide has to be drawn
from the post-mortem report of the victim and the mental condition of the victim. It is
humbly submitted that as per Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, Evidence includes all
documents produced for the inspection of the Court84. These documents are admissible in
court as expert opinion under Section 45 of the I.E.A.
It is respectfully submitted that the post mortem report submitted by the doctor conducting
autopsy of the dead body is admissible in evidence even without examining the doctor in
80
Satvir Singh vs State of Punjab AIR 2001 SC 2828
81
Wazir Chand v. State of Haryana, AIR 1989 SC 378 : 1989 Cr LJ 809 : (1989) 1 SCC 244. Where the charge
was under s. 148/304 but was discharged and the accused persons were convicted under s. 304/107, this was
held to be wrong. Section 221(2) of CrPC can be invoked only in cases of cognate offences and not distinct
ones. Ramesh Chandra Mondal v. State of W.B., 1991 Cr LJ 2520Cal .
82
M. Mohan v. State, Represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police (2011) 3 SCC 626 : 2011(3) SCALE
78 : AIR 2011 SC 1238 : 2011 0 Cri.L.J 1900; Amalendu Pal v. State of West Bengal, (2010) 1 SCC 707;
Rakesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618, Gangula Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh,
(2010) 1 SCC 750; Thanu Ram v. State of M.P., 2010 (10)
SCALE 557 : (2010) 10 SCC 353 : (2010) 3 SCC 1502(Cri) ; S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan & Anr.,
(2010) 12 SCC 190 : (2010 0 AIR SCW 4938); Sohan Raj Sharma v. State of Haryana, AIR 2008 SC 2108 :
(2008) 11 SCC 215.
83
Dammu Sreenu v. State of A.P., AIR 2009 SC 3728; (2009) 14 SCC 249.
84
" Evidence" means and includes-- (1) all statements which the Court permits or requires to be made before it
by witnesses, in relation to matters of fact under inquiry; such statements are called oral evidence; (2) all
documents produced for the inspection of the Court; such documents are called documentary evidence.
It is submitted before the Honble Court that the accused abetted the suicide of the deceased
by instigating her to commit suicide. As per Section 14 of the I.E.A 87, facts showing the
existence of a state of mind such as intention are relevant when the existence of such a state
of mind is in issue or relevant. Therefore certain acts of the accused, which clearly indicate
his intention to instigate the victim to commit suicide, are relevant in the present case.
Abetment contemplated in section 306 must conform to the definition given in section 107 of
the Indian Penal Code, according to which abetment can be brought about in three ways: by
instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid to the deceased. Be that as it may, in a case of this
nature, where a plea of suicide has been put forward, the Courts below should examine
whether such a plea is altogether untenable and whether suicide is ruled out.88
It is humbly submitted that the law regarding offence of abetment to commit suicide is clear.
A person can be said to instigate another when he incites or otherwise encourages another,
directly or indirectly, to commit suicide89. The word instigate means to goad or urge
forward or provoke, incite, urge or encourage to do an act.90
Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do "an act". To satisfy
the requirement of "instigation", though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to
that effect or what constitutes "instigation" must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of
the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of
being spelt out. Where the accused had, by his acts or omission or by a continued course of
conduct, created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to
commit suicide, in which case, "instigation" may have to be inferred. A word uttered in a fit
85
Basu Harijan v. State of Orissa 2003 CrLJ 2270; Pratap Tigga v. State of Bihar 2004 CrLJ NOC 86(Jhar).
86
State of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal AIR 1994 SC 1418, Kunduru Dharua v. State 2002 CrLJ 1757 (Ori).
87
14. Facts showing existence of state of mind, or of body, of bodily feeling - Facts showing the existence of
any state of mind, such as intention, knowledge, good faith, negligence, rashness, ill- will or good- will towards
any particular person, or showing the existence of any state of body or bodily feeling, are relevant, when the
existence of any such state of mind or body or bodily feeling, is in issue or relevant.
88
Ramesh Kumar vs State of Punjab AIR 1994 SC 945
89
Asha Shukla v. State of U.P. 2002 CriLJ 2233
90
Parimal Chatterji v. Emperor 140 Ind. Cas.787.
91
Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), AIR 2010 SC 1446; Kishangiri Mangalgiri
Goswami v. State of Gujarat, (2009) 4 SCC 52 : (2009) 1 SCR 672 : AIR 2009 SC 1808 : 2009 0 Cri.L.J 1720.
92
Goura Venkata Reddy v. State of A.P., (2003) 12 SCC 469.
93
Rajib Neog v. State of Assam, 2011 CrLJ 399(Gau) .
94
2010 Cr.L.J. 2110 (Supreme Court)
95
Brij Lal vs Prem Chand AIR 1989 SC 1661
96
Wazir Chand v. State of Haryana, AIR 1989 SC 378 : 1989 Cr LJ 809 : (1989) 1 SCC 244. Where the charge
was under s. 148/304 but was discharged and the accused persons were convicted under s. 304/107, this was
held to be wrong. Section 221(2) of CrPC can be invoked only in cases of cognate offences and not distinct
ones. Ramesh Chandra Mondal v. State of W.B., 1991 Cr LJ 2520Cal .
It is humbly submitted that the law regarding offence of abetment to commit suicide is clear.
A person can be said to instigate another when he incites or otherwise encourages another,
directly or indirectly, to commit suicide98. The word instigate means to goad or urge
forward or provoke, incite, urge or encourage to do an act.99
It is respectfully submitted that the Supreme Court upheld conviction under section 306 of
Indian Penal Code when the accused by his acts produced an atmosphere which forced the
deceased to commit suicide.100
The Supreme Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State held that Each person's suicidability
pattern is different from the other. Each person has his own idea of self-esteem and self-
respect. Therefore, it is impossible to lay down any strait-jacket formula in dealing with such
cases. Each case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances.101
97
Brij Lal vs Prem Chand AIR 1989 SC 1661
98
Asha Shukla v. State of U.P. 2002 CriLJ 2233
99
Parimal Chatterji v. Emperor 140 Ind. Cas.787.
100
State of Punjab v. Iqbal Singh AIR 1991 SC 1532.
101
Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (2009) 16 SCC 605.
102
M. Mohan v. State, Represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police (2011) 3 SCC 626 : 2011(3) SCALE
78 : AIR 2011 SC 1238 : 2011 0 Cri.L.J 1900; Amalendu Pal v. State of West Bengal, (2010) 1 SCC 707;
Rakesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618, Gangula Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh,
(2010) 1 SCC 750; Thanu Ram v. State of M.P., 2010 (10) SCALE 557 : (2010) 10 SCC 353 : (2010) 3 SCC
1502(Cri) ; S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan & Anr., (2010) 12 SCC 190 : (2010 0 AIR SCW 4938);
103
Dammu Sreenu v. State of A.P., AIR 2009 SC 3728; (2009) 14 SCC 249.
104
Sohan Raj Sharma v. State of Haryana, AIR 2008 SC 2108 : (2008) 11 SCC 215.
In Didigam Bikshapathi v. State of A.P.106 mental harassment and pressure put on the
deceased were held to be amounting to instigation to commit suicide.
In Brij Lal v. Prem Chand107, where the deceased stated in despair that she had enough of
torment and that she preferred death to living, the acts of the accused later on were held to be
instigation.
In Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)108, Supreme Court re-iterated the
legal position laid down in its earlier three judge bench judgment in the case of Ramesh
Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, 35 and held that where the accused by his acts or continued
course of conduct creates such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option
except to commit suicide, an instigation may be inferred. In order to prove that the accused
abetted commission of suicide by a person, it has to be established that:-
(i) the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words, deeds or wilful omission
or conduct which may even be a wilful silence until the deceased reacted or pushed or forced
the deceased by his deeds, words or wilful omission or conduct to make the deceased move
forward more quickly in a forward direction; and
(ii) that the accused had the intention to provoke urge or encourage the deceased to commit
suicide while acting in the manner noted above. Undoubtedly, presence of mens rea is the
necessary concomitant of instigation.109
Reflecting all of the above, it is clear that the accused instigated the deceased to commit
suicide. The constant acts by the accused led the deceased into a state of frustration and
depression. They kept quarrelling and one day the accused finally declared that if things are
not sorted out, then, it is better for both of them to get separated and to move on in life. The
105
S. S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and Another, 2010 (12) SCC 190 : 2010 AIR SCW 4938
106
Didigam Bikshapathi v. State of A.P. AIR 2008 SC 527; Prema Rao v. Yadla Rao AIR 2003 SC 11.
107
Brij Lal v. Prem Chand AIR 1989 SC 1661.
108
2009 (16) SCC 605 : AIR 2010 SC 1446
109
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Shrideen Chhatri Prasad Suryawanshi, 2012 CrLJ 2106(MP) ; Jetha Ram v.
State of Rajasthan, 2012 CrLJ 2459(Raj) ; Kailash Baburao Pandit v. State of Maharashtra, 2011 CrLJ
4044(Bom).
Whoever voluntarily causes a woman with child to miscarry shall, if such miscarriage be not
caused in good faith for the purpose of saving the life of the woman, be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine,
or with both; and, if the woman be quick with child,3shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to
fine.110 The term "miscarriage" is synonymous with "abortion".
The unborn child in the womb must not be destroyed unless the destruction of that child is for
purpose of preserving the yet more precious life of the mother.111
Good faith by itself is not enough. It has to be good faith for the purpose of saving the life of
the mother or the child and not otherwise.
A woman had pregnancy of 24 weeks out of illicit relations and a doctor administered an
injection for determination of the pregnancy but the woman died the next day without
miscarriage. It was held that the act of the doctor amounted to 'voluntarily causing
miscarriage' within the meaning of section 312 read with section 511, as the doctor was
presumed to know the possible effects of the medicine.59 Deceased, an unmarried girl was
pregnant from accused, she died while causing mis-carriage due to perforation of uterus
following abortion. It is a clear case that accused was an instrumental in causing the woman
to miscarry and obviously it was not done in good faith for purpose of saving life of
deceased. Miscarriage was with a view to wipe out evidence of deceased being pregnant.
Accused liable to be convicted under Sections 312, 315, 316 and 201 of I.P.C. 60
It is submitted that the accused compelled the deceased for abortion. The doctors have
confirmed that the deceased had gone for abortion before her demise. Therefore, the accused
is guilty under S.312 of IPC.
110
S 312 IPC
111
R vs Bourne (1938) 3 All ER 615
Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or
with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
Where accused caused simple injuries to victim and not grievous injuries still accused are
guilty for offence under section 323.113 Therefore in the current case, accused must be held
guilty for causing hurt.
112
People vs Gallardo 41 Cal 2d 54; 52 Cal 2d 95: 48 Wash 2d 616.
113
Mandira Nandi v. Dilip Kumar Baruah, 2012 CrLJ 2567(Gau) ; Bandela Daveedu v. State of A.P., 2011
CrLJ 4257(AP)
PRAYER
Wherefore in light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is humbly
and respectfully submitted that this Honourable Court may be pleased to:
2. Convict the accused for abetment of suicide under Section 306 of IPC
3. Convict the accused for causing miscarriage and voluntarily causing hurt under
And pass any other order that this Honourable Court may deem fit in the interests of
MML-114,