Was the unlawful killing of Sugna a direct result of the attack orchestrated

by Bhairon Singh and Ram Singh?

It is humbly submitted before this honourable Trial Court that we are confronted
with the heinous crime of acid attack resulting in the unlawful killing of Sugna
Chauhan. The counsel, on behalf of the State, contends that the perpetrators,
Bhairon Singh and Ram Singh, bear strict liability for Sugna's death due to their
orchestrated attack. The counsels arguments rest on the foundation of the strict
liability doctrine under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), supported by compelling
evidence and legal precedents.

Firstly, the counsel seeks to establish the culpability of the accused by invoking
the doctrine of strict liability."

Doctrine of Strict Liability under IPC:

The principle of strict liability, enshrined in Section 300 of the IPC, asserts that
an act causing death constitutes murder if perpetrated with the intention of
causing bodily injury likely to result in death. As the esteemed judiciary has
illuminated in the landmark case of Sachin Jana Vs. State of West Bengal,
culpability hinges not solely upon the outcome but upon the knowledge or
intention of the parties involved. In the present case, the intentional use of acid
as a weapon, coupled with the direct involvement of the accused, establishes
their culpability beyond reasonable doubt.
The death of Sugna is a direct result of the accused, it can also be observed
through their-

Direct Involvement and Intent to Cause Harm:

The acid that coursed through Sugna's veins was not a random occurrence but a
deliberate assault orchestrated by Ram Singh and Bhairon Singh. Their active
participation establishes a clear intent to cause harm. The law is clear: if you do
something bad on purpose, you're responsible. Just like in the case of State of
Maharashtra Vs. Balram, where the court said that the mere act of perpetration,
coupled with intent, suffices to invoke the full force of the law.
So, there's no doubt here: as Ram Singh and Bhairon Singh did a heinous crime
with full knowledge of what they were doing, so they must face the
consequences."
It can also be proved by their

Use of Lethal Weapon and Separation and Targeting:

The use of acid as a weapon signifies the severity of the attack, indicating the
perpetrators' awareness of its lethal consequences. Moreover, the deliberate
separation of Sugna from her friend Sumati and the subsequent attack on Sugna
suggest targeted violence, emphasizing that Sugna was a specific target of the
attackers.
The counsel humbly pleads this Hon’ble Court to consider the weight of
the evidence and the direct involvement of the accused in the heinous crime
committed against Sugna. The charges brought against Bhairon Singh and Ram
Singh are reflective of the severity of their actions and the irreparable harm
caused to an innocent life.
It is pleaded that Justice necessitates that Bhairon Singh and Ram Singh face the
full consequences of their heinous actions.
 Whether the Petitioner has any cause of action and locus standi to file
and maintain the present petition?
It is humbly submitted before this honourable High Court that the central
inquiry revolves around the petitioner’s locus standi and grounds for a Section
13 petition under the HMA, 1955. The crux of the counsels argument is based
on the petitioner's failure to substantiate claims of cruelty and adultery, thereby
casting doubt upon the legitimacy of her plea for marital dissolution.

1. Locus Standi and Cause of Action: The petitioner's standing to file and
maintain this petition must be examined in light of Section 13(1) of the
Hindu Marriage Act, which delineates nine grounds for divorce, including
adultery and cruelty. However, it is evident that the petitioner's
allegations lack specificity and supporting evidence. Her failure to
provide a comprehensive account of the purported cruelty and adultery
undermines the foundation of her petition.
a. Cruelty Allegations: The petitioner's accusations of cruelty against the
respondent lack credibility as they are based on vague assertions and
unsubstantiated claims. For instance, the petitioner's insistence on the
respondent's financial status and refusal to relocate without providing evidence
of actual mistreatment portrays a skewed narrative. As established in the case of
Sri Lakhyajyoti Sarmah v. Smti. Mayuri Sarmah T.S., baseless allegations of
cruelty have been deemed detrimental to the integrity of matrimonial disputes.
Moreover, the fabrication of cruelty allegations without supporting
evidence, as observed in Smt. Nirmala Manohar Jagesha vs. Manohar Shivram
Jagesha, constitutes a form of mental cruelty in itself. The petitioner's actions
have caused undue stress and mental anguish to the respondent, thus warranting
dismissal of her claims.
b. Adultery Allegations: Adultery, as defined by the Marriage Laws
Amendment Act of 1976, requires evidence of consensual and voluntary sexual
relations outside of marriage. However, the petitioner fails to provide any
substantiated evidence to support her allegations of adultery against the
respondent. The absence of sufficient circumstantial evidence further weakens
her case.
2. Successful Section 9 Petition: The respondent's successful filing under
Section 9, which was granted by the court, underscores his willingness to
reconcile and fulfill conjugal obligations. Despite the court's validation of
the respondent's claims and the opportunity for reconciliation, the
 petitioner's continued refusal to return and non-contestation raise doubts
about the sincerity of her intentions.
Hence the petitioner's petition lacks the substantive foundation required
under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, due to the absence of credible evidence
and the respondent's successful Section 9 petition. Therefore, it is fervently
urged upon this Hon'ble Court to dismiss the petitioner's plea for dissolution of
marriage. Just as in the case of Balram Prajapati vs. Susheela Bait, where false
accusations and aggressive behavior led to the grant of divorce, we seek justice
and uphold the integrity of matrimonial disputes by dismissing baseless
allegations.