IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND

LADAKH AT JAMMU
Crl A(D) No. /1980
Lakshmi Singh
V/s
State of Jammu & Kashmir

IN THE MATTER OF;

written objections to the above titled
criminal appeal.

The answering respondent most respectfully submits as under;

 Preliminary Objections:

I. That the answering respondent objects to the jurisdiction of the

Hon'ble High Court to entertain the appeal. The appeal does not fulfill
the requirements of Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
which stipulates the grounds for filing a criminal appeal.

II. That the answering respondent objects to the delay in filing the appeal
by the appellant. The appeal has been filed beyond the prescribed
time limit, and no valid explanation has been provided for the delay.
Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed on the grounds of
limitation.

 Paragraph-wise Objections:

1) That the contents of para number 1 are admitted.

2) That the contents of para number 2 are matter of record hence needs
no reply from the answering respondent.

3) That the contents of para no 3 are not admitted however the

answering respondent objects to the characterization of the judgment
passed by the Learned Principal Session Judge as erroneous on facts and
legal principles. The judgment was based on the evidence presented
during the trial, and the trial court's findings were arrived at after careful
consideration of the facts and relevant legal principles.
4) That the contents of para no 3 (a) are not admitted however the
answering respondent objects to the appellant's claim that the Court
below did not appreciate the evidence of the accused in the right
perspective. The trial court meticulously examined the evidence
presented by both the prosecution and the defense, and its conclusions
were based on a fair and objective assessment of the evidence.

5) That the contents of para no 3(b) are not admitted however the
answering respondent objects to the appellant's contention that the
defense plea for unsoundness of mind was wrongly rejected. The trial
court considered the evidence, including the testimony of Dr. Sagar
Sharma, and concluded that the appellant was mentally fit to stand trial.
The appellant has failed to provide any substantial evidence to support
the claim of unsoundness of mind.

6) That the contents of para no 3(C) are not admitted however the
answering respondent objects to the appellant's reliance on the case of
Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakker Vs. State of Gujarat. The
circumstances and legal principles in the cited case are distinguishable
from the present case, and the appellant has not demonstrated how it is
applicable to the facts at hand.

7) That the contents of para no 3(d) and 3(e) are not admitted however
the answering respondent objects to the appellant's claim that the
evidence regarding the appellant's mental illness was wrongly rejected.
The defense witnesses' testimonies were duly considered by the trial
court, but they were found insufficient to establish the appellant's
unsoundness of mind. The appellant's financial constraints do not absolve
him of the burden to produce compelling evidence to support his defense.

8) That the contents of para no 3(f) are not admitted however the
answering respondent objects to the appellant's contention that relevant
evidence regarding the appellant's mental illness was deliberately
withheld by the prosecution. There is no basis for such an allegation, as
the prosecution has provided all relevant evidence available to them. The
appellant's failure to produce medical records and prescriptions cannot be
attributed to the prosecution.

9) That the contents of para no 3(g) are not admitted however the
answering respondent objects to the appellant's claim that the trial court
committed illegality in convicting and sentencing the appellant. The trial
court followed due process and carefully evaluated the evidence
presented, leading to a fair and just conviction. The records of medical
visits and the doctor's report do not undermine the validity of the
conviction.

10) That the contents of para no 3(h) are not admitted however the
answering respondent objects to the appellant's assertion that there was a
plausible defense for unsoundness of mind. The trial court thoroughly
examined the evidence and found that the defense failed to establish the
appellant's unsoundness of mind on a preponderance of probability. The
conviction was thus justified and in line with established legal principles.

 Grounds for Dismissing the Appeal:

The appeal of the appellant is assailed on the following grounds;

A. That the present appeal is liable to be dismissed because it does not

meet the jurisdictional requirements for filing a criminal appeal under
Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Thus, the appeal
should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

B. That the present appeal is barred by the laws of limitation because the
appellant failed to file the appeal within the prescribed time limit and
has not provided a valid explanation for the delay. Therefore, the
appeal should be dismissed on the grounds of limitation.

C. That the present appeal is also liable to be rejected because the

appellant has failed to demonstrate any legal or factual errors in the
trial court's judgment. The evidence presented during the trial was
properly evaluated, and the trial court's findings are well-founded.
Therefore, the appeal lacks merit and should be dismissed.

D. That the appellant has failed to identify specific errors of law or fact
committed by the trial court that would warrant the appeal. Merely
disagreeing with the trial court's findings or seeking a different
interpretation of the evidence does not constitute valid grounds for
appeal.

E. That the present appeal is liable to be rejected because it does not

present any substantial questions of law that require the intervention
of the appellate court. The issues raised by the appellant are
predominantly factual in nature and do not involve significant legal
principles that need clarification or interpretation.
F. That the present appeal is liable to be rejected because it appears to be
a mere expression of the appellant's dissatisfaction with the trial
court's verdict. It fails to provide any compelling legal arguments or
evidence to demonstrate that the verdict is manifestly unjust or
erroneous.

G. That the present appeal is liable to be rejected because the trial court
proceedings were conducted in accordance with established legal
principles and procedural norms. The appellant has not established
any violation of legal principles or procedural irregularities that
would invalidate the trial court's judgment.

H. That the present appeal is liable to be rejected because the trial court
correctly applied the relevant legal precedents and correctly
distinguished them from the cited cases by the appellant. The
appellant's claim that the trial court misinterpreted or ignored binding
precedents lacks merit.

I. That the present appeal is liable to be rejected because the appellant's

challenge to the trial court's exercise of discretion is unfounded. The
trial court acted within its lawful authority and exercised its discretion
judiciously based on the evidence and legal principles presented
during the trial.

J. That the present appeal is liable to be rejected because the appellant

has failed to demonstrate how any alleged errors or omissions by the
trial court have caused prejudice or resulted in a miscarriage of
justice. The trial court's judgment was fair and impartial, and the
appellant has not provided any compelling reasons to suggest
otherwise.

PRAYER:

The answering respondent most respectfully submits the following prayer

in relation to the present appeal:

i. That this Honorable Court may be pleased to dismiss the appeal filed
by the appellant, Lakshmi Singh, challenging the judgment dated
05/11/1980 passed by the Learned Principal Session Judge, Jammu,
which convicted the appellant for the commission of offenses under
Section 302 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)
ii. That this Honorable Court may be pleased to uphold the conviction
and sentence of the appellant, as pronounced by the trial court, for the
commission of the said offenses under Section 302 and 324 of IPC.

iii. That this Honorable Court may be pleased to affirm the findings of
the trial court, which were based on a thorough evaluation of the
evidence presented during the trial and in accordance with the
established legal principles.

In light of the foregoing, the respondent humbly prays that this Hon'ble
Court may be pleased to dismiss the appeal filed by the appellant and
uphold the conviction and sentence pronounced by the trial court, thereby
affirming the principles of justice, fairness, and the rule of law.

Any other relief which the Hon’ble Court in the facts and circumstances
of the case deems fit and proper may also be passed in favour of the
appellants.

Answering respondent

Place: Jammu

Date:__/__/1980

Through Counsel