S.

AMARJIT SINGH MEMORIAL COLLEGE OF LAW

(AFFILIATED TO PUNJABI UNIVERSITY, PATIALA)

BEFORE
THE HON’BLE COURT OF SESSIONS OF “ABC”

IN THE MATTER OF

FIR NO..../2023

STATE………………………………………………………….……...PROSECUTION

V.

‘X’.……………………………….............…………ACCUSED

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY:

DR. POONAM ATTRI AMANPREET SINGH

ROLL NO. 522568

REGISTRATION NO.:
172-MC (P) 99

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION Page 1

TABLE OF CONTENT

SR. NO. TITLE PAGE NO.

1. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 3

2. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 4

3. TABLE OF CASES 5

4. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 6

5. STATEMENT OF FACTS 7

6. ISSUES RAISED 8

7. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 9

8. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED 10

9. PRAYER 17

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION Page 2

 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

S.NO. ABBREVIATIONS FULL FORM

1. UOI Union of India

2. Ors. Others

3. Anr. Another

4. Hon’ble Honourable

5. SC Supreme Court

6. SCC Supreme Court Cases

7. Art. Article

8. Sec. Section

9. u/a Under Article

10. u/s Under Section

11. IPC Indian Penal Code

12. CrPC Code of Criminal Procedure

13. IEA Indian Evidence Act

14. AIR All India Reporter

15. Govt. Government

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION Page 3

 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

BOOKS

1. Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, Indian Penal Code, LexisNexis (2014).

2. K.I. Vibhute, Criminal Law, LexisNexis (2019).
3. K.D. Gaur, The Indian Penal Code, Universal Law Publishing (2013).
4. R.V. Kelkar, Criminal Procedure, Eastern Book Company (2019).
5. Avtar Singh, Principles of the Law of Evidence, Central Law Publications (2010).

STATUTES
1. Indian Penal Code, 1860
2. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
3. Indian Evidence Act, 1872

WEBSITES
1. www.meity.gov.in
2. www.scconline.com
3. www.manupatra.com
4. www.shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in
5. www.cis-india.org
6. www.lawfinderlive.com

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION Page 4

 TABLE OF CASES

Anda v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1966 SC 148........................................................................15

Bakhshish Singh v State of Punjab, AIR 1971 SC 2016..........................................................13
Chacko @ Aniyan Kunju v. State of Kerala, (2004) 12 SCC 269...........................................15
Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1993 SC 72....................................................................16
Mohan Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1974 SC 1144........................................................12
Nankaunaoo v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2016) 3 SCC 317......................................................15
Raj Pal v. State of Haryana, (2006) 9 SCC 678.......................................................................16
Rajwant Singh v. State of Kerala AIR 1966 SC 1874.............................................................16
Ratten v. Reginaam (1971) 3 All E.R. 801..............................................................................10
Reg v. Parbhudas (1874) 11 BHC 90.......................................................................................11
Sharad Bircichand Sarda v State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622....................................13
State of Karnataka v. Khaja Hussain (1982) 3 SCC 456.........................................................12
State of Uttar Pradesh v Satish, (2005) 3 SCC 11....................................................................14
State of Uttar Pradesh v Satish, (2005) 3 SCC 114..................................................................14
Sukhram v. State of Maharashtra (2007) 7 SCC 502...............................................................11
Suresh Chandra Bahri v. State of Bihar AIR 1994 SC 2420...................................................10
Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1958 SC 465...................................................................15

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION Page 5

 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Prosecution has approached the Hon’ble Court of Sessions under Section 177 read with
First Schedule of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION Page 6

 STATEMENT OF FACTS

The relation between the accused husband and the deceased wife were estranged. Their Joint
petition for divorce was pending in the court and the husband was to pay Rs 3,00,000 to his
wife suddenly, in a fire in the house the wife was burnt to death. The photographs brought on
record showed that the body of the deceased was totally burnt in a sitting posture on the sofa.
The investigating officer found no sign of struggle or movement of the deceased at the place
of occurrence. At the time of the incident the accessed was present in the house. Photographs
produced showed the devastation of fire, obviously a definite attempt to see that one does not
survive in any event.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION Page 7

 ISSUES RAISED

ISSUE: WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS LIABLE FOR MURDER?

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION Page 8

 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE: WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS LIABLE FOR MURDER?

It is submitted that the accused husband is liable for the murder of his wife by burning her
down. It is submitted that the husband had the motive to commit the heinous offence.
Further, there is no explanation on the part of the accused as to how didn’t hear her wife
burning when he was present in the house at the time of her death. In addition to it, the
burden of proof in the instant matter is upon the accused which he has failed to fulfill. The
chain of circumstances point to the only conclusion which is the guilt of the accused. This
act committed by the accused falls under the third clause of Section 300 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860. Therefore, he must be given punishment under Section 302 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION Page 9

 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE: WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS LIABLE FOR MURDER?

1) It is submitted that the accused husband is liable for the murder of his wife by burning her
down. It is submitted that the husband had the motive to commit the heinous offence.
Further, there is no explanation on the part of the accused as to how didn’t hear her wife
burning when he was present in the house at the time of her death. In addition to it, the
burden of proof in the instant matter is upon the accused which he has failed to fulfill. The
chain of circumstances point to the only conclusion which is the guilt of the accused. This
act committed by the accused falls under the third clause of Section 300 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860. Therefore, he must be given punishment under Section 302 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860.
A. ACCUSED HAD MOTIVE
2) As per Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, “Any fact is relevant which shows or
constitutes a motive or preparation for any fact in issue or relevant fact”1.
3) Section 8 says that facts which show a motive for any facts in issue or relevant facts, are
relevant. It has been held in the case of Suresh Chandra Bahri v. State of Bihar 2 that
motive is the moving power which impels one to do an act. It is the inducement for doing
the act.
4) It is submitted that motive by itself is no crime, however heinous it may be. But once a crime
has been committed, the evidence of motive becomes important. Therefore, evidence of the
existence of a motive for the crime charged is admissible.
5) Further, evidence of motive is always relevant, for men do not wholly act without motive.
Evidence of motive helps the court to connect the accused with the deed. The act in question
must have been done by the man who had the motive to do it.
6) It has been held in the case of Ratten v. Reginaam3 that “Evidence of motive is of itself, of
course, in the nature of circumstantial evidence as to the main question in issue. In
considering the conduct of a man, regard is had by judges and juries to the ordinary
conduct of human affairs. When a man does an extraordinary or a wicked thing, there is
probably some cause inducing or impelling him to do so and the more heinous the act is the
more important becomes the question of motive. When, therefore, the question for

1
Section 8, Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
2
Suresh Chandra Bahri v. State of Bihar AIR 1994 SC 2420
3
Ratten v. Reginaam (1971) 3 All E.R. 801

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION Page 10

 consideration is whether such an act is intentional or not, it is of the higher importance to
consider whether the person in question had any inducement to form such an intention. The
existence of a motive may tend to show either that the person concerned did the act
simpliciter or that he did it intentionally”.
7) The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in the case of Sukhram v. State of Maharashtra4 that
in a case based solely upon circumstantial evidence, motive assumes great significance, it is
an enlightening factor in the process of presumptive reasoning.
8) It is submitted before the Hon’ble Court that in the present case the relation between the
accused and the victim were estranged. Their joint petition for divorce was pending in the
court and the husband was to pay Rs. 3,00,000 to his wife. Therefore, in order to devolve
himself of the liability of paying maintenance to his wife, he committed this serious and
grave offence.
B. PRESENCE OF THE ACCUSED IN THE HOUSE
9) As per Section 11 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, “When facts not otherwise relevant
become relevant.—Facts not otherwise relevant are relevant—
a) if they are inconsistent with any fact in issue or relevant fact;
b) if by themselves or in connection with other facts they make
the existence or non-existence of any fact in issue or relevant
fact highly probable or improbable”5.
10) It is submitted that evidence can be given of every fact which by itself or in connection with
other facts makes the existence or non-existence of any fact in issue or relevant fact highly
probable or improbable. In many cases, particularly in reference to some of the facts which
are not directly provable, the court has to go by the probabilities of the situation. If, for
example, there are five persons in a room and one of them is murdered in circumstances
which show that it is the handiwork of any one or more of them. Evidence will be allowed
of every fact which makes it probable which one of them caused the death or which one of
them was probably not connected with it. Where a person is charged with cheating,
evidence can be given of the fact that he belonged to an organisatior. of habitual cheats as
this would make it probable that he committed the crime.
11) In the case of Reg v. Parbhudas6, the Bombay High Court has observed that “Section 11 of
the Evidence Act is, no doubt, expressed in terms so extensive that any fact which, by a

4
Sukhram v. State of Maharashtra (2007) 7 SCC 502
5
Section 11, Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
6
Reg v. Parbhudas (1874) 11 BHC 90

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION Page 11

 chain of ratiocination, be brought into connction with another, so as to have a bearing upon
a point in issue, may possibly be held to be relevant within the meaning”.
12) It is submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the fact that the accused was present in the
house at the time the alleged offence was committed is relevant under Section 11 due to the
simple reason that it makes the contention of the accused that he did not commit the offence
highly improbable. The alleged fact that the accused did not see or hear her wife struggling
from fire is evident that he is telling nothing but lies and has framed a concocted story to
absolve himself from the liability.
C. BURDEN OF PROOF ON THE ACCUSED
13) As per Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 18727, “When any fact is especially within
the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him”.
14) It is submitted that where a person has done an act and the nature of the act itself shows the
intention behind it; if he claims that he did not commit the act or that he did the act with an
intention different from what appears, he must prove that fact.
15) It has been held in the case of State of Karnataka v. Khaja Hussain8, that when the
prosecution makes a prima facie case against the accused by showing his connection with
the crime, as for example, the fact that he was last seen with the deceased, the burden would
be shifted to the accused to account for his presence.
16) It is mostly humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that in the present case, since the
accused was present in the house at the time of the death of the victim, he has special
knowledge as to how the death took place. Therefore, as per the provisions of Section 106
the burden of proving as to what happened inside the house is upon the accused and he has
miserably failed to release that burden from upon his shoulders.
D. CHAIN OF CIRCUMSTANCES POINT TO THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED
17) It has been held in the case of Mohan Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh9 that it is a well settled
principle that where the case is mainly based on circumstantial evidence, the court must
satisfy itself that various circumstances in the chain of evidence should be established
clearly and that the completed chain must be such as to rule out a reasonable likelihood of
the innocence of the accused.

7
Section 106, Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
8
State of Karnataka v. Khaja Hussain (1982) 3 SCC 456
9
Mohan Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1974 SC 1144

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION Page 12

18) When attempting to convict on circumstantial evidence alone the Court must be firmly
satisfied of the following five things laid down in the case of Sharad Bircichand Sarda v
State of Maharashtra10:
1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be
drawn should be fully established. The circumstances must be
or should and not may be established;
2. The facts so established should be consistent only with the
hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should
not be explained on any other hypothesis except that the
accused is guilty;
3. The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and
tendency;
4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one
to be proved;
5. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave
any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the
innocence of the accused and must show that in all human
probability the act must have been done by the accused.
These five golden principles constitute the “Panch Sheel” of the proof of a case based
on circumstantial evidence.
19) In drawing the inference the true rule of law, which is to be applied, is the rule, which
requires that guilt be not to be inferred unless that is the only inference, which follows from
the circumstances of the case, and no other innocuous inference can be drawn.
20) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bakhshish Singh v State of Punjab 11, observed that “in a
case resting on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances put forward must be
satisfactorily proved and those circumstances should be consistent only with the hypothesis
of the guilt of the accused. Again those circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and
tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be
proved.”
21) There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the
conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human
probability the act must have been done by the accused, the evidence produced by the

10
Sharad Bircichand Sarda v State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622
11
Bakhshish Singh v State of Punjab, AIR 1971 SC 2016

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION Page 13

 respondent-prosecution should be of such nature that it makes the conviction of the accused
sustainable as per the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Satish 12.
22) The facts established by the prosecution are conclusive and are well in coherence with the
hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. If the accused alleges some other hypothesis, then the
burden to prove that is upon the accused13.
23) It is submitted before the Hon’ble Court that in the instant matter the chain of circumstances
which is presented by the prosecution is so incomplete and impentrable that it points out to
no other hypothesis but the guilt of the accused.
E. ESSENTIALS OF SECTION 300 (3) FULFILLED
24) As per Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, “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—
2ndly.—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—
3rdly.—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—
4thly.—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”14.
25) It is humbly submitted that as per the Third Clause of Section 300 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860, culpable homicide is murder if the act by which the death is caused is done
with the intention of causing 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.
26) The third clause views the matter from an objective standpoint. It consists of two parts.
Under the first part, it has to be shown that there was an intention to inflict the particular
injury. The second part requires that the injury intended to be inflicted was sufficient in the
ordinary course of nature to cause death.

12
State of Uttar Pradesh v Satish, (2005) 3 SCC 114
13
Section 106, Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
14
Section 300, Indian Penal Code, 1860.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION Page 14

27) In the case of Anda v. State of Rajasthan15, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the
essence of the third clause is the sufficiency of the injury in the ordinary course of nature to
cause death.
28) When the word “sufficiency” is used, it means where there is a high probability of the injury
resulting in death16.
29) In the locus classicus of Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab 17 the Apex Court granted a four-
point test, which the prosecution must do to look into and prove the case so that the case can
be brought under Sec. They are:
 First, it should establish, fairly objectively, that a physical injury exists.
 Second, the nature of the injury has to be proved. These are purely objective
investigations.
 Third, it must be proved that that particular bodily injury was intended to inflame,
that is to say, it was not accidental or unintentional, or that any other type of injury
was intended. Once these three elements are proven to exist, the investigation
proceeds.
 Fourth, it must be proved that the type of inquiry made by the above three elements
stated above is enough to cause death in the normal course of nature. This part of the
investigation is purely objective and impractical and has nothing to do with the
intent of the criminal.
30) In the aforementioned case, the Apex Court also stressed that: (i) the existence and nature of
bodily injury must be a matter of pure objective investigation and (ii) the sufficiency of
injury to cause death in ordinary course of nature is a matter of pure objective and
inferential and it has nothing to do with the intention of the offender.
31) It does not matter that there was no intention to cause death. It does not matter that there
was no intention even to cause injury of a kind that is sufficient to cause death in the
ordinary course of nature. It does not even matter that there is no knowledge that an act of
that kind will be likely to cause death18.
32) It is submitted that once the intention to cause the bodily injury actually found to be present
is proved, the rest of the enquiry is purely objective and the only question is whether, as a

15
Anda v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1966 SC 148.
16
Nankaunaoo v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2016) 3 SCC 317.
17
Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1958 SC 465.
18
Chacko @ Aniyan Kunju v. State of Kerala, (2004) 12 SCC 269.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION Page 15

 matter of purely objective inference, the injury is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature
to cause death19.
33) In the case of Rajwant Singh v. State of Kerala 20, the Supreme Court reiterated that for the
cases to fall within Clause (3), it is not necessary that the offender intended to cause death,
so long as the death ensues from the intentional bodily injury or injuries sufficient to cause
death in the ordinary course of nature.
34) Furthermore, it submitted the site and the nature of the injuries are pointers for drawing the
inference that the accused had the requisite intention of causing the death. To buttress his
contention21.
35) It is submitted that in the present case that in the present case the photographs produced
from the crime scene showed that devestation of fire was so much that it was a definite
attempt to see that one does not survive in any event, thereby fulfilling the essential
requirements of Section 300.

Therefore, the accused is liable for punishment for murder under

Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

19
Raj Pal v. State of Haryana, (2006) 9 SCC 678.
20
Rajwant Singh v. State of Kerala AIR 1966 SC 1874
21
Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1993 SC 72

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION Page 16

 PRAYER
In the light of issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, the Counsel for the
Prosecution most humbly prays that the Hon’ble Court be pleased to adjudge, hold and
declare:
The Accused is liable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

AND/OR

pass any order that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the interest of equity, justice and good
conscience.
And for this act of kindness, the counsel for the Prosecution shall duty bound forever pray.

ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

-Sd-
(Counsel on behalf of the Prosecution)

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION Page 17