TEAM NUMBER:- 3

MOOT COURT COMPETITION DOGRA LAW COLLEGE, 2022

BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND

LADAKH

IN THE MATTER OF –

1. SUKHDEV…………………………… (APPELLANT
NO. 1)

2. MILKHA…………………………….. (APPELLANT
NO.2)

3. BALDEV……………………………… (APPELLANT NO.3)

V/S

4. UT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR…………….

(RESPONDENT)
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

TABLE OF CONTENT

LIST OF ABBREVATIONS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

STATEMENT OF FACTS

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

 Whether the appellants can be prosecuted under 302 read with section 34 of
IPc,1860 is lawful or not?
A. Involvement of Sukhdev in the charges framed is questionable.
B. The charges framed was justiciable or not?
 Whether the nature of injuries and the nature of weapon, was such as to cause
death of a person.
A. There was no involvement of hazardous weapons used by the accused.
B. None of the injuries were independently sufficient to cause the death of
the deceased.
 Whether the act of the deceased amounted to grave and sudden
provocation.
A. Invitation to collect the money from the house of the appellants
doesn’t allow deceased to trespass in the private property of the
accused.
B. Confrontation of both Babita and Randhir amounted to sudden
and grave provocation by the deceased.
 Whether the session court was satisfied in sentencing the
Appellants with life imprisonment in connection with the act
committed by them
A. Section 302 of IPC,1860 deals with punishment for murder.
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

B. If the allegations on the accused are true in nature, keeping

in view the principle of natural justice, the accused should
be punished under 304 of IPC, 1860.

CHARGES FRAMED……………………………..……………………………
 The FIR was registered under section 307 of IPC, 1860 rea with section 34 of IPC,
1860.
 After the death of the Randhir, the charges was altered to Section 302 read with
Section 34 of IPC.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

PRAYER…………………………………………………………………………
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

S NO. CASES Page no.

1. Prem Sagar V Dhrambir AIR 2004 SC 21:(2004) SCC113:2001

2. State of Orissa V Arjun Das Aggarwal AIR 1999 SC 3229.

3. State of Uttar Pradesh V Sahrunnisa AIR 2009 SC 3182; 2009 Cr LJ 4151;

4. Prabhu Babaji Navle V State of Bombay AIR 1956 SC 51 1956 Cr LJ9 147

5. Zahar Singh V State of Uttar Pradesh AIR1957 SC 465:1957GLJ 581

6. Jumman V State of Punjab AIR 1957 SC 469, 1957 Cr LJ 586

7. Issar V. state of uttar pradesh AIR 2005 SC 249.

8. Mehboob Shah V. Emperor AIR 1943 PC 118.

9. Sheoram Singh V. State of Uttar pradesh AIR 1972 SC 2555.

10. V. Subramani & ors. V. State of Tamil Nadu AIR 2005 SC 1983

11. Prem Sagar V Dharambir AIR 2004 SC 21:(2004) 1 SCC 113: 2004 Cr LJ 17

12
Jaswinder Singh vs State Of Haryana And Others on 29 October, 2013

13. Velu vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 15 November, 2016

14.
Akhtar vs State on 11 November, 1963
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Appellants has approached the Hon’ble High Court of JAMMU & KASHMIR AND
LADAKH in an Appeal U/S 374 Sub-Section (2) of CrPC.

The present memorial on behalf of the Appellants sets forth the facts,
contentions and arguments in the present case.
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

STATEMENT OF FACTS

FAMILY BACKGROUND:
Sukhdev [Appellant No. 1] and Baldev [Appellant No. 3] are two brothers. Sukhdev is
married to Rajni and has a son namely, Milkha [Appellant No. 2] and a daughter Babita.
Sukhdev along with his brother & family lived in Bharatpur Village.

RELATIONSHIP WITH DECEASED :

Baldev borrowed money from Randhir [Deceased], lived in the same village that of the
appellant’s [Bharatpur], the sum of the total money borrowed was INR 50,000/-. Randhir was
in love with Sukhdev’s daughter, Babita. Babita’s closeness with Randhir was unacceptable
by Sukhdev and it was in the full conscience of the Randhir that Sukhdev didn’t like the
closeness of Babita to Randhir and on several occasions Sukhdev had publicly warned them
to stay away from each other.

UNFOLDING OF EVENTS:
 15th of Jan 2022- Randhir got an invitation from the Appellant No.3 in good faith to
collect the money which he has borrowed.

 9:15 PM- Randhir reached home of the accused to collect the money. Randhir with his
malafide intention to disrespect the family signalled Babita to come into the backyard.

 On hearing the whispers from the Backyard Appellants no 1 ,2 & 3 went unarmed to
investigate the matter. After confronting them Sukhdev lost his temper and started
abusing the deceased.

 Grave and sudden provocation by the deceased in a strident way when he replied to
the abuse of Appellant No. 1 instigated a heated argument between them.

 Milkha went into the house and brought Sukhdev’s walking stick and gave blows to
the Randhir’s leg.
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

 The same walking stick was grabbed by the appellant no. 3 and he started beating the
deceased with same on parts of the body[Chest and Head].
 Randhir was then taken to the hospital by the villagers where he died after five days.
The post-mortem report showed that none of the injuries independently were
sufficient to cause the death of the Randhir
CHARGES:
All of the appellants were booked u\s 307 read with Section 34 of IPC, 1860.
After the death of the Randhir the charges were altered to 302 read with Section 34 of
IPC, 1860.
CONVICTION:-
Learned Trial Judge in the Session Court convicted the three appellants u\s 302 read with
section 34 of IPC, 1860. Aggrieved by the decision of the Session Court, the appellant
approached the Hon’ble High Court. Hence, the present matter.
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

ISSUES RAISED

ISSUES:-

 Whether the appellants can be prosecuted under 302 read with section 34 of
IPC,1860 is lawful or not?
A. Involvement of Sukhdev in the charges framed is questionable.
O Absence of involvement of Appellant No. 1 & 2 will not attract
section 34 of IPC,1860. There is no other evidence against
Appellant No. 1 & 2. Hence it can be said that the prosecution has
not linked them with the occurrence in a manner as to attract the
applicability of section 34 of IPC for making Appellant No. 1
liable along with Appellant No. 2.
B. The charges framed was justiciable or not?
Mere presence of accused not indicative of common intentions.
There presence by itself cannot be of criminal nature in the sense
that by there mere presence a common intention can be attributed to
them.2
 Whether the nature of injuries and the nature of weapon, was such as to cause death of
a person.

A. There was no involvement of hazardous weapons used by the accused.

O The weapon used the accused was a walking stick and the
Appellant No 2 only gave blows to the legs of the deceased.
O After grabbing the stick from Appellant no 2, appellant no. 3
started beating the deceased with the same stick on his chest and
head.
B. None of the injuries were independently sufficient to cause the death of
the deceased.
o The Post- mortem report also disclosed that none of the injuries
independently were sufficient to cause Randhir’s death.
 Whether the act of the deceased amounted to grave and sudden
provocation.
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

1. K.D GAUR, Indian Penal Code, P. No.93, Universal Law Publishing 6th Edn, 2018
2. State of U.P V. Sahrunnisa[2009] AIR 2009 SC 3182: 2009 Cr LJ 4151.

A. Invitation to collect the money from the house of the appellants doesn’t

allow deceased to trespass in the private property of the accused.

B. Confrontation of both Babita and Randhir amounted to sudden and grave
provocation by the deceased.
 Whether the session court was satisfied in sentencing the
Appellants with life imprisonment in connection with the act
committed by them
A. Section 302 of IPC,1860 deals with punishment for murder.

B. If the allegations on the accused are true in nature, keeping in view the
principle of natural justice, the accused should be punished under 304
of IPC, 1860.
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

CHARGES FRAMED

[All of the appellants were booked u\s 307 read with Section 34 of IPC, 1860. After
the death of the Randhir the charges were altered to 302 read with Section 34 of IPC,
1860.]
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. PROSECTION OF THE APPELANTS UNDER 302 READ WITH SECTION 34

OF IPC, 1860 IS LAWFUL OR NOT?
Appellants no. 1, 2 &3 jointly went to the backyard unarmed to investigate they had no
intention to kill Randhir. However, the Appellant no. 1 has not taken any overt part in
the act of beating deceased and it was in a sudden provocation arising out of the
conduct of the deceased that Appellant no. 2 brought the walking stick which the
ordinary course of nature is not weapon of offense. Appellant no. 2 gave started giving
blows with the stick on the legs of the deceased which in the report of the post- mortem
shows that injuries do to the same doesn’t independently caused the death of the
deceased. So, Appellants cannot be prosecuted u\s 302 read with section 34 of the IPC.
2. THE INJURIES AND THE WEAPONS USED BY THE ACCUSED WERE THAT
OF NATURE TO CAUSE DEATH OF A PERSON.
Neither the injuries individually were not sufficient to cause the death of the deceased
but cumulatively were sufficient to cause the death whereas, ordinarily the stick. [The
weapon of offense herein was not such as to cause the death of the person.] the
appellants no 2 & 3 assaulted the deceased by a small wooden yoke which resulted in his
death The apex court held that where the death is caused due to one single stroke section
302 is generally not applicable and the conviction of the accused for murder u\s 302 is
invariably altered into culpable homicide not amounting to murder and he is sentenced
under section 304 part 1 unless the single strike was in its nature deadly and sufficient to
cause death.~V. Subramani & ors. V. State of Tamil Nadu
Accused person formed an unlawful assembly and armed with latthis assaulted the
deceased because the Appellant no. 1 had warned deceased to stay away from her
daughter
3. THE ACT OF THE DECEASED AMOUNTED TO GRAVE AND SUDDEN
PROVOCATION.
It was well settled in the conscience of the deceased that the father of Babita is against
their closeness but still on 15th of January, 2022, when Respondent went in the house of
the appellants, he in order to degrade the family signalled their daughter to come to the
backyard. Invitation to collect the money from the house of the appellants doesn’t allow
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

deceased to trespass in the private property of the accused. The invitation to the
deceased was for the sole purpose to return the money which appellant no. 3 had
borrowed. After confrontation, heated argument began between accused and the
respondent which amounted to sudden and grave provocation to incident to take place.

4. THE SENTENCING OF THE APPELLANTS WITH LIFE IMPRISONMENT

WASN’T JUSTIFIED IN CONNECTION WITH THE ACT COMMITTED BY
THE APPELLANTS.
The charges framed against the Appellants were not justiciable. Keeping in view the
principle of natural justice appeal u/s 374 Sub-Section (2) of CrPC should be submitted
and the offense of Hurt and Grievous Hurt was the mere intention of the Appellant No. 2
& 3, after the provocation of the deceased. So, it is evident from the facts that the
conviction of the appellants isn’t lawful.
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. PROSECTION OF THE APPELANTS UNDER 302 READ WITH SECTION 34

OF IPC, 1860 IS LAWFUL OR NOT?
The Appellants after aggrieved by the order of the session court has filed an appeal in
the High Court claiming that they cannot be prosecuted u/s 302 read with section 34 of
IPC,1860
 Mere Presence of accused not indicative of common intention
In State of Uttar Pradesh V. Sahrunnisa (2009), the state of U.P went in appeal before
the apex court against the acquittal of two respondents by the high court against their
conviction u\s 300, 302 read with section 34 of IPC, 1860 by Session Court. On appeal
the high court confirmed the conviction and sentence of the two accused namely A1 &
A2. However the High court acquitted A3 Sahrunnisa and 4 Siraj Khan giving them
benefit of doubt.
 Absence of involvement of co-accused will not attract Section 34 of IPC, 1860
In Prem Sagar V Dharambir co-accused “K” is supposed to have followed deceased
and to have prevented him while he was tying to run away however eyewitness who is
relative of both the parties has clearly accepted in his cross examination that it was
accused “D” who caused his fall. There is no other evidence against co- accuse “K”.
hence it can be said that the prosecution has not linked him with the occurrence in a
manner as to attract the applicability of section 34 of IPC,1860 for making “K” liable
along with accused “D”.
 “The Common Intention Of All” Nor Does It Say, “An Intention Common To
All”
The Apex Court in Girija Shankar V. State of U.P, held that common intention u\s 34
requires prior concert or pe planned designed to commit a crime by several persons.
The court observed:-
“The section doesn’t say “the common intention of all” nor does it
say, “an intention common to all”. The essence of liability u\s 34 is to be found in the
existence of common intention animating the accused leading to the doi0ng of the
criminal act in furtherance of such intention”.
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

 “Arms” means articles of any description designed or adapted as weapons for

offences, or defence, and includes firearms, sharp-edged and other deadly
weapons, and parts of, and machinery for manufacturing arms, but does not
include articles designed solely for domestic or agricultural uses such as a lathi or
an ordinary walking stick and weapons incapable of being used otherwise than as
toys or of being converted into serviceable weapons
 The appellants cannot be prosecuted u/s 302 read with sec. 34 of IPC, 1860
on the following grounds:-
1. There was no intention of killing the deceased.
2. They had invited him to collect his money.
3. They went unarmed to investigate the matter in the backyard.

 In the light of the above mentioned cases, it can be deduced:-

 That there was no involvement of the Appellant No. 1 & 2 in giving injuries to the
deceased which ultimately caused the death of the deceased because mere presence
of accused is not indicative of common intention. The post-mortem report also
disclosed that none of the injuries independently were sufficient enough to cause
the death of the deceased. The appellants cannot be prosecuted u\s 302 read with
section 34 of IPC, 1860 on the following grounds:-
o There was no intention of killing the deceased.
o They had invited him to collect his money.
o They went unarmed to investigate the matter in the backyard.
So, the conviction of the Appellants u\s 302 is unlawful. The appellants cannot be
prosecuted u/s 302 read with sec. 34 of IPC,

 That the appellants upon hearing the whispers from the backyard went unarmed to
investigate the matter which shows that the appellant cannot be tried u/s 34 of IPC
because there is no direct evidence showing the complicity of all the appellants in
the prior meetings of the minds to form any type of criminal conspiracy nor any
common intention to cause any type of harm or to commit any crime and no pre-
arrangement and pre-planning were made to put harm on the deceased & absence
of involvement of co-accused will not attract Section 34 of IPC, 1860.2
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

1. State of Uttar Pradesh V. Sahrunnisa (2009) AIR 2009 SC 3182:2009 Cr LJ 415

2. Prem Sagar V Dharambir AIR 2004 SC 21:(2004) 1 SCC 113: 2004 Cr LJ 17

 That the common intention of the appellants was only to investigate their own
private property as they heard the whispers from their backyard. After confronting
the deceased heated argument began within Appellants and the deceased, on the
sudden and grave provocation of the deceased the Appellant no.2 brought the
walking stick from the house and started giving blows on his legs, and with the
same walking stick Appellant no. 3 hit on his chest and head.

2. THE INJURIES AND THE WEAPONS USED BY THE ACCUSED WERE THAT
OF NATURE TO CAUSE DEATH OF A PERSON.
The ARMS ACT section 2(c) defines arms as
“arms” means articles of any description designed or adapted as weapons
for offence or defence, and includes firearms, sharp edged and other deadly weapons, and
parts of, and machinery for manufacturing, arms, but does not include articles designed
solely for domestic or agricultural uses such as a lathi or an ordinary walking stick and
weapons incapable of being used otherwise than as toys or of being converted into
serviceable weapons.
ARMS include weapons like firearms, sharp edged and deadly weapon but not includes
articles made for purpose of domestication and agriculture. Thus articles like walking stick
or lathi cannot be used as a weapon.
 Here it is explicitly mentioned that the WALKING STICK is not a weapon and
cannot be used to kill any human body and thus from here it can be concluded that
the nature of weapon was not such to cause the death of any human body in the
ordinary course of nature. Even the deceased was having a fit body without suffering
from any disease. Thus a mere blow of walking stick on head and chest could not
cause his death in the ordinary course of nature. Even the post mortem report said
that none of the injury were independently sufficient to cause the death of deceased
in the ordinary course of nature.
 If the intention of the appellants was to cause the death of the person they would
have used the deadly weapons or sharp edged weapons to kill him.

NATURE OF INJURIES
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

 The appellant no. 2 took the walking stick and started to hit on the legs of the
deceased. With the same stick appellant no. 3 started hitting the deceased on
head and chest.
 The post mortem report confirms that the injuries inflicted by the appellant no.
2 and 3 were not sufficient enough to cause the death of the person in an
ordinary course of nature.
 Appellant no. 1 did not even touch the walking stick.
 The deceased died after 5 days of being admitted to hospital. If the nature of
injuries would have been so grave he would have died on the spot. Thus, the
death of the deceased after 5 days depicts that the walking stick was not sharp
enough to cause the death of the deceased and nature of injuries was not grave
enough to cause his death.

3. THE ACT OF THE DECEASED AMOUNTED TO GRAVE AND SUDDEN

PROVOCATION.
In the case of Jaswinder Singh vs State Of Haryana And Others on 29 October,
20131, The appeal has been filed by Jaswinder Singh against the acquittal of Malkiat
Singh (respondent No.2) for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and
against the acquittal of Binder Pal (respondent No.3) for all the offences for which he
was charged. The High Court observed :-
“we are of the view that the learned trial Court having reached the conclusion
that Malkiat Singh did not have the intention to commit the murder of Satnam Singh, is
based on sound reasoning. Therefore, no ground is made out to interfere with the order
of the learned trial Court in acquitting respondent No.2 for the offence under Section
302 IPC. The incident indeed had occurred when Satnam Singh stepped on the cap of
Malkiat Singh and the latter lost his self control, which was provoked by the act of the
former though it may have been unintentional”.
The act of deceased amounted to grave and sudden provocation. As from the facts it can be
understood that the appellant no 1 did not liked his daughter’s closeness with the deceased
and also had publically refrained them from meeting. Upon being called by respondent no 3,
in good faith to collect his own money, the deceased seized the opportunity and signalled
their daughter to come in the backyard. And upon hearing the whispers from the backyard all

1
cites: 8065300
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

the appellants went unarmed to investigate the matter and upon seeing them together
appellant no 1 lost his temper and asked Babita to go inside.
The deceased reached the house of Appellants at 9:15 when the family had just finished the
dinner. Hence, it can be concluded that there was no intention on the part of Appellants to kill
the deceased. The deceased from the very beginning knew that the family of Babita did not
like their closeness still he did such an action that was grave enough and provocated the
appellants which resulted into the heated argument.
All the transaction of events shows that the respondents lacked an intention of causing hurt to
him or kill him. The act on the part of deceased amounted to grave and sudden provocation.

In the case of Velu vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 15 November, 20162

The Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, while passing the Judgment in S.C.No.139
of 2013 dated 31.03.2015, had, among other things, observed that on consideration of the
occurrence witnesses of the Prosecution side, it came to light that the Appellant/ Accused had
not attacked the deceased Selvam with an intention to commit murder and only due to sudden
provocation and also not able to control his emotions, the Appellant/Accused had attacked the
Selvam and caused his deceased and therefore, came to the conclusion that the
Appellant/Accused had committed an offence in respect of Section 304(ii) I.P.C. and hence,
altered the Section 302 I.P.C. to that of Section 304(ii) I.P.C. and ultimately, came to the
conclusion that based on the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.6 and P.W.7 (of the Prosecution)
and also resting on the evidence of Doctors' evidence of P.W.8, P.W.12 coupled with the
Exs.P.4, P.9 and M.O.6, MO.5, the offence against the Appellant/Accused was held proved
under Section 304 I.P.C. and imposed a punishment of 10 years Simple Imprisonment besides
a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default of payment of said fine amount, further directed the
Appellant/Accused to undergo six months Simple Imprisonment as per Section
235(2) Cr.P.C. Further, it was ordered that the number of days, the Appellant/ Accused was
inside the Prison, was ordered to be set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C.
Later on the court after reviewing the full matter this Court is of the view that the trial Court
had awarded a punishment of 10 years Simple Imprisonment in respect of an offence
under Section 304(ii) I.P.C. on the Appellant/Accused and also levied a fine of Rs.5,000/-,
which in the considered opinion of this Court, is slightly on the higher side instead of the
maximum substantial punishment of imposition of 10 years. Therefore, this Court,
considering the fact that the occurrence had took place without any premeditation and it
2
cites: 116624051
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

suddenly occurred, is of the earnest view that a punishment of 7 years Simple Imprisonment
would serve the ends of Justice. Further, the period of sentence already undergone by the
Appellant/Accused is ordered to be set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. However, this Court is
not dislodging the imposition of fine of Rs.5,000/- awarded by the trial Court upon the
Appellant/Accused because of the fact that the same is a just, fair and equitable one.
Resultantly, the Appeal is succeeds in part.
Taking the support of the above case, in this case there was no pre planning or pre
arrangement for hurting the deceased. It was the deceased who himself provocated the
appellants due to which the arguments heated between them as he was well aware of the fact
that the family of Babita did not liked each other’s closeness.
Akhtar vs State on 11 November, 19633
In this case the appellant, Akhtar has been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge of Rampur
under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life. He has appealed to this Court
from jail, and, he is unrepresented here. However, Sri P. C. Srivastava, the learned Assistant
Government Advocate, has placed the whole case before us very fairly and completely, and has
contended that the conviction of the appellant under Section 302, I.P.C. is erroneous. The learned
Assistant Government Advocate contends that this is a case in which the appellant is guilty of
culpable homicide not amounting to murder inasmuch as the appellant acted under the stress of a
grave and sudden provocation which deprived him of the power of self-control, so that he stabbed
his own brother, Sabir, with a knife twice, and thereby caused his death. 
The Allahabad High Court held
“In our view, it is enough, for the purpose of enabling an accused person to get the
advantage of a general or special exception to criminal liability if we are left in reasonable
doubt, based on substantial grounds, whether circumstances existed which could give the
accused the benefit of an exception. There are substantial grounds in this case for believing
that facts and circumstances, constituting a grave and sudden provocation for the appellant,
existed, and for holding that the appellant stabbed his brother while he was deprived of the
power of self-control. In cases where the power of self-control has been lost, the power to
form the intention required for an offence punishable under Section 304, Part I, must
necessarily be lacking.

25. In the result, we accept the submission made by the learned Assistant Government
Advocate, and we hold that the appellant Akhtar is entitled to the benefit of Exception 1

3
AIR 1964 All 262, 1964 CriLJ 617
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

to Section 300 Indian Penal Code. We, accordingly, allow this appeal to the
extent that we set aside the conviction of Akhtar appellant under Section 302 Indian
Penal Code and also the sentence of life imprisonment imposed upon him. We give him the
benefit of Exception (1) to Section 300 Indian Penal Code and convict him under Section
304, Part II Indian Penal Code and sentence him to seven years' rigorous imprisonment. The
appellant who is in jail, will serve out the remaining period of his sentence.”

4.WHETHER THE SESSION COURT WAS JUSTIFIED IN SENTENCING THE

APPELLANTS WITH THE LIFE IMPRISONMENT IN CONNECTION WITH THE
ACTS COMMITTED BY THEM.

THE SENTENCING OF THE APPELLANTS WITH LIFE IMPRISONMENT WASN’T

JUSTIFIED IN CONNECTION WITH THE ACT COMMITTED BY THE APPELLANTS.
From the all above stated facts and assertions it is clearly shown that there was no intention
of killing the deceased.
 The deceased was called upon by respondent no 3, in good faith to collect his
own money, the deceased seized the opportunity and signalled their daughter
to come in the backyard.
 And upon hearing the whispers from the backyard all the appellants went
unarmed to investigate the matter.
 The appellant no. 1 had warned Babita publically and asked them to stay away
from each other.
 Thus upon seeing them together appleant no.1 lost his temper and asked
Babita to go inside the house.
 The appellant no. 2 took the walking stick and started to hit on the legs of the
deceased. With the same stick appellant no. 3 started hitting the deceased on
head and chest.
 The post mortem report confirms that the injuries inflicted by the appellant no.
2 and 3 were not sufficient enough to cause the death of the person in an
ordinary course of nature.
 Appellant no. 1 did not even touch the walking stick.
 The deceased died after 5 days of being admitted to hospital. If the nature of
injuries would have been so grave he would have died on the spot. Thus, the
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

death of the deceased after 5 days depicts that the walking stick was not sharp
enough to cause the death of the deceased and nature of injuries was not grave
enough to cause his death.
Hence, the appellants cannot be prosecuted u/s 302 read with sec. 34 of IPC,1860.
None of the above stated point proves that the deceased died with prior intention of the
respondents or appellants had made any pre arrangement.
Thus the Session Court was not justified in sentencing the appellants with life imprisonment
in connection with the acts committed by them.
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

PRAYER
Wherefore, in the light of the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced, reasons
given and authorities cited, it is humbly prayed before this Hon’ble Court, that it may be
pleased to:

A. Declare and adjudge that Appellants no. 1 and 2 are not guilty of murdering the
deceased.
B. Appleant no 3 to be charged with sec. 304 of IPC, 1860
C. Overturn convictions of the Hon’ble Session Court.

Pass any order, as it deems fit, in the light of jusatice, equity and good conscious.
All of which is humbly and respectfully contended.