IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF AMPHISSA

UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF AMPHISSA

Appeal No. ____/2023

THE STATE OF PALLAKA .......................................................... APPELLANT

VS.

MICHAEL ............................................................................... RESPONDENT

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT
R R R R R E RESPONDENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES........................................................................................................... ii

STATEMENT OF FACTS ............................................................................................................. vi

ISSUES RAISED .......................................................................................................................... viii
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS .................................................................................................. viii

WRITTEN SUBMISSION .............................................................................................................. 1

ISSUE I: WHETHER SUFFICIENT GROUND OF LEGAL INSANITY EXISTS SO AS TO
EXONERATE THE ACCUSED FROM LIABILITY OF MURDER ...................................... 1

ISSUE II: WHETHER THE BURDEN OF PROOF OF LEGAL INSANITY ON THE PART OF
DEFENCE IS AT PAR WITH BURDEN OF PROOF ON THE PART OF PROSECUTION.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF ................................................................................................................ ix

i
 MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT
R R R R R E RESPONDENT
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Statutes

 The Indian Penal Code,1860.

 The Criminal Procedure Code,1973.
 The Indian Evidence Act,1872.

Foreign Legislations

 Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, 2000 (Canada).

 Directive on the Protection of Individuals with Regard to the Processing of Personal
Data and on the Free Movement of Such Data, 1995 (European Parliament).

Cases

a. Re Balagopal
b. R v. Clarke 1972 1 All ER 219
c. Phulabai v. state of Maharastra 1976Cr Lj 1519
d. S.K Nair v. State of Punjab
e. State of Rajasthan v. Shera Ram Vishnu Dutt

ii
 MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT
R R R R R E RESPONDENT

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. On dated 25th feb. 2008, Michael, aged 29, s/o- late John, R/O- 54/3-New Ext. Apartment, Flemingo,
and jenny, aged 24 yrs, D/O- Defrado, R/O- Greater Ango colony, Flemingo, were married according
to their religious rituals. Their marital life was going smoothly. On some occasions they used to have
few verbal quarrels with each other but they reconciled soon after the verbal fight.

2. two years after the marriage Jenny gave birth to a baby girl on 4 th September, 2010. The girl was
named Jennifer. After few months of the birth of Jennifer, Jenny observed certain changes in the
behavior of Michael. Michael started behaving in a rude way and he usually becomes violent on every
petty issue without any reason. Initially Jenny did not took the matter in a serious way but when the
violent character of Michael continued Jenny took her husband Michael to the doctor Alfered (DW1),
who was a psychiatrist. The doctor diagnosed him to be suffering from first stage of Bipolar Mood
Disorder (Bipolar disorder, also known as maniac-depressive illness, is a brain disorder that causes
unusual shifts in mood, energy, activity levels, and the ability to carry out day-to-day tasks. There are
four basic types of Bipolar disorder; all of them involve clear changes in mood, energy and activity
levels).

3. In spite of the medical treatment the violent behavior of Michael continued to exist. On slight issues
Michael becomes violent and he also started to fight with Jenny and he also use to beat her without any
reason.

4. On dated 5th December 2010 at 11 am, loud noises of fighting, crying and shouting was coming from
the house of Michael. On hearing the cry, Daniel(PW3) who was neighbor of Michael went in the
house of Michael and found jenny lying unconscious on the floor pooled in blood with various
injuries on her body. At that time Daniel saw Michael hiding a 7 inch iron Axe in the garden.
Thereafter Daniel called the police and Jenny was taken to government hospital whereby she was
treated by Dr. Andrew(PW2).

5. Michael was arrested by police on the same day and was kept in police custody. On 6 th December,
2010 jenny regained her consciousness and her statement was recorded by Jaison(PW1) SHO of
Flemingo Police Station. In her statement she told to the police that on 5 th December at 10 am, Michael
came home and started fighting with her in a violent way and when she resisted Michael attacked him
with Axe kept in the garden.
iii
 MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT
R R R R R E RESPONDENT
6. on 8th December jenny died because of the injury in her lower abdomen which proved fatal. Jennifer
the daughter of Michael was sent to Government Child Care Centre.

7. on the basis of the statement of Daniel and the dying declaration of jenny FIR was lodged against
Michael vide. 733/2010 in flamingo police station. Michael was prosecuted under section 302 of IPC
for the murder of Jenny. During interrogation Michael stated that he was unconscious at the time when
Jenny was attacked. He told to police that when he regained his consciousness he found Jenny lying on
the floor and the Axe in his hand. He told to the police that he did not know from where the axe came
and he also stated that he did not know how jenny died.

8. Final report was submitted on 3rd feb. 2011 in which Michael was charged for murder of Jenny under
section 302 of IPC. The case (state of Pallaka vs. Michael) was tried by the session court vide session
trial No. 57/2011.

9. The prosecution examined the material witnesses in the court as under:-

Prosecution witness 1(PW1)- Jaison, SHO, Flemingo police station and investigating Officer of the
case deposed before the court that the deceased Jenny in her dying declaration blamed accused
Michael for the attack over her. PW1 also deposed before the court that the axe used for attack was
recovered from the garden of Michael on which there was finger print of Michael as per forensic
report.

Prosecution witness 2 (PW2)- Dr. Andrew who treated the deceased deposed before the court that the
cause of death was due to attack of the axe and the injury on abdomen proved to be fatal. He also
deposed that jenny was in a mentally fit condition at the time of making dying declaration.

Prosecution witness 3 (PW3)- Daniel who was neighbor of Michael and informant of the case in FIR
deposed that he saw the unconscious body of Jenny on the floor and Michael trying to hide the axe in
the garden.

10. the accused Michael took the plea that he was suffering from bipolar mood disorder and for which he
was being treated. He also stated that at the time when the deceased Jenny was attacked he was
suffering from the disorder and he was out of his conscience and he did not knew the nature of the act
and therefore, he couldn’t be made liable by virtue of section 84 of IPC on ground of insanity.

11. the defence examined the material witnesses in the court as under:-

Defence witness 1 (DW1)- Dr. Alfered who was treating accused Michael for bipolar mood disorder
stated before the court that accused Michael was suffering from bipolar mood disorder and the disorder
was sufficient to enable a person to do any violent act under its influence.

Defence witness2 (DW2)- mathew, brother of Michael eho stated before the court that on various
iv
 MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT
R R R R R E RESPONDENT
occasions Michael was very much aggressive and violent even for slight reasons.

12. On 3rd September 2014 michael was found guilty of intentional murder of jenny and convicted under
section 302 IPC and sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment.

The accused feeling aggrieved by the said judgement preferred an appeal before the High Court of
Pallaka on dated 9th October 2014 vide criminal appeal no. 875/2014. The High Court relying on the
version of the doctor treating the accused of bipolar mood disorder found that the accused at the time
of committing the crime was suffering from both legal and medical insanity and accordingly the Court
acquitted the accused from the charge of murder on dated 5 th September 2016.

13. State of Pallaka preferred an appeal before the supreme court of Amphissa against the order of
acquittal by the High Court of Pallaka on 17th of November 2016.

14. the case of state of Pallaka vs. Michael is listed before the Divisional Bench of Supreme Court of
Amphissa for final hearing on 10th January 2017.

v
 MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT
R R R R R E RESPONDENT
ISSUES RAISED

ISSUE I: WHETHER SUFFICIENT GROUND OF LEGAL INSANITY EXISTS SO AS TO

EXONERATE THE ACCUSED FROM LIABILITY OF MURDER?

ISSUE II: WHETHER THE BURDEN OF PROOF OF LEGAL INSANITY ON THE PART
OF DEFENCE IS AT PAR WITH BURDEN OF PROOF OF PROSECUTION?

vi
 MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT
R R R R R E RESPONDENT

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE I: WHETHER SUFFICIENT GROUND OF LEGAL INSANITY EXISTS SO AS TO

EXONERATE THE ACCUSED FROM LIABILITY OF MURDER?

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that there exists sufficient grounds to attract
legal insanity, as the accused is suffering from Bipolar mood disorder and at the time of
committing the act was incapable of knowing the nature of the act and what he is doing was
wrong and is contrary to law, under section 84 of the IPC. His cognitive faculties were such
that he did not know what he has done or what will follow his act.

ISSUE II: WHETHER THE BURDEN OF PROOF OF LEGAL INSANITY ON THE PART
OF DEFENCE IS AT PAR WITH BURDEN OF PROOF OF PROSECUTION?

It is humbly submitted before the Honourable Court that the prosecution has failed to prove the case
beyond reasonable doubt which is enough to set aside the appeal.

vii
 MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

WRITTEN SUBMISSION

ISSUE I: WHETHER SUFFICIENT GROUND OF LEGAL INSANITY EXISTS SO AS TO

EXONERATE THE ACCUSED FROM LIABILITY OF MURDER.

1. According to Webster dictionary, ‘insanity’ means unsoundness of mind or lack of the ability
to understand that prevents someone from having the mental capacity required by law to enter
into a particular relationship, status or transaction or that releases someone from criminal or
civil responsibility.

2. According to section 84 of the IPC, Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at
the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of
the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law.

The following are the ingredients of sec. 84 –

a) Act must be done by a person of unsound mind.

b) Such person must be incapable of knowing:

i) the nature of the act

ii) that the act was contrary to law
iii) that the act was wrong.

c) Such incapacity must be by reason of unsoundness of mind of the offender.

d) The incapacity of the nature stated above in point 2 must exist at the time of doing the act
constituting the offence.

3. Stephen in his Digest of Criminal law states – No act is crime if the person who does it, is at

1. re Balagopal
 MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT
the same time when it is done prevented either by defective mental power or by any disease
affecting his mind

a) From knowing the nature and quality of the act

b) From knowing that the act is wrong.

4. Generally, a criminal intent is necessary and therefore capacity of the wrong doer to form a
criminal intent is a relevant consideration in determining the criminal liability. Therefore those
who are under a natural disability of distinguishing between good and evil as idiots and lunatics
are not punishable by any criminal prosecution whatsoever.

5. Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea means that the act itself does not make a man guilty
unless his intentions were so. Another proposition from this maxim Actus me invite factus non
est mens actus means an act done by me against my will is not my act at all.

An act in order to be punishable at law must be willed act or a voluntary act and at the same
time must have been done with a criminal intent, wherein this case the respondents act was
neither willed act nor voluntary.

6. Modern criminal law is based on the belief that humans are morally responsible and not agents
of harm. To be held criminally responsible, two essential elements have to be proved beyond
reasonable doubt: (a) the person committed the act(actus reus) and (b) in doing so, the person
acted with his own free will, intentionally and for rational reasons(mens rea), wherein this case,
the mens rea was absent.

BIPOLAR MOOD DISORDER

7. Bipolar disorder is a chronic, relapsing illness characterized by recurrent episodes of maniac or

depressive symptoms. Respondent is in first stage which is also known as “Mania” that is more
severe than Hypomania and causes noticeable problems at work, school, social activities and
relationship difficulties. Mania also triggers a break from reality (psychosis) and requires
hospitalization. The symptom profile of mania, such as impulsivity, grandiosity, poor
judgments and psychosis can contribute to or predispose patients to assaultive and threatening
behavior and thereby increase the risk of criminal offending.

8. Insanity defence is a legal construct, and under some circumstances excuses defendants with
mental- illness from legal responsibility for criminal behavior. Question arises whether was

1. re Balagopal
 MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT
aware at the time of murder or was he under the influence on the basis of which the acquittal
should be given.

9. A man who by reason of mental disease is prevented from controlling his own conduct and a
man who is deprived, by disease affecting the mind, of the power of passing a rational
judgment on the moral character of the act he meant to do, is entitled to the benefit of section
84. Dr. Alfered(DW1), who is a psychiatrist, has diagnosed the respondent to be suffering from
first stage of Bipolar Mood Disorder and in spite of medical treatment the violent behavior of
the respondent continued to exist. The medical opinion was also definite about the respondent
not being in position to understand the nature of the act. The doctor was of the definite opinion
that the accused would not have been in a position to understand whether he has committed any
particular act which was wrong or contrary to law1.

10. M’Naghten rule : According to this rule, every individual is assumed to be sane and reasonable
to be held liable for their actions unless the contrary is proved by the accused. In the case of
(R v. Clarke 1972 1 All ER 219) it was observed that the accused had a defect of reason caused
by the disease and the accused had no knowledge of the nature and quality of the act that she
committed. Section 84 of the IPC is similar to the M’Naghten rule.

11. Even in the case that the evidence so placed may not be sufficient to discharge the burden
under section 105 of the evidence act, it is natural to raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of the
judge as regards one or other of the necessary ingredients of the offence itself. It may for
instance, raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of the judge whether the accused had the
requisite intention laid down under section 299 of the IPC.

1. re Balagopal
 MEMORIAL FOR THE APPELLANT

ISSUE II: WHETHER THE BURDEN OF PROOF OF LEGAL INSANITY ON

THE PART OF DEFENCE IS AT PAR WITH BURDEN OF PROOF OF THE
PROSECUTION.

12. Whoever claims a legal right before a court depending upon the existence of certain
facts that he asserts and prays to the court to give a judgment in his favour, must prove
those facts and hence, owns the burden of proof. Onus probandi means the person who
suggests a fact to be proved must adduce some evidence to prove it. The burden of proof
lies on the person whose claim would fail if no evidence is given on either side. 136 After
the plaintiff discharges his onus in a proceeding, it is on the respondent on whom the
burden is cast upon to deny the charges filed against him. 137 Until the respondent
provides evidence to support his claim, the decision shall be decreed in the favour of
plaintiff. In view of both the above provisions the burden of proof obviously lies on
Michael, who committed the offence being seized of sudden impulsive fits of passion
which blinded him from understanding the consequences of the act. (S.K Nair v. state of
Punjab).

13. the scope of insanity under section 84 where the person is suffering from mental disorder
or mental deficiency, which takes him within its ambit hallucination, dementia, loss of
memory and self control at all relevant times by way of appropriate documentary and oral
evidence, the person concerned should be entitled to seek resort to general exception
from the criminal liability under sec. 84 of IPC. (state of Rajasthan v. shera ram Vishnu
dutt).

14. In the absence of any evidence clearly indicating as to exactly how and why the
respondent acted. It would be wrong to play on imagination and hold the respondent
guilty under section 309 and section 302 of IPC and exclude the operation of section 84.

15. The absence of medical evidence does not justify exclusion of common sense. Therefore,
the benefit of section 84 or at least the benefit of doubt must be given to the respondent.
(Phulabai v. state of Maharastra 1976Cr Lj 1519).

ix
 MEMORIAL FOR THE APPELLANT

PRAYER

WHEREFORE IN THE LIGHT OF ISSUES RAISED, ARGUMENTS ADVANCED. IT IS

HUMBLY PRAYED THAT THIS HONORABLE SUPREME COURT OF AMPHISSA,
MAY BE PLEASED TO DECLARE THAT:
a. To dismiss the appeal

b. To upheld the order of acquittal u/s 302 & 325, passed by the learned High Court below and
pass an order of acquittal in favour of the Respondent.

AND PASS ANY OTHER ORDER, DIRECTION, OR RELIEF THAT IT MAY DEEM
FIT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, FAIRNESS, EQUITY AND GOOD
CONSCIENCE

FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE APPELLANT AS IN DUTY BOUND SHALL

FOREVER PRAY.

Counsels for the Respondent

ix