Team code

BEFORE THE HON’BLE COURT OF DISTRICT AND

SESSION, AT KRISHNANAGAR OF NADIA

STATE………………………...

Plaintiff ……………………….

V/S

Ravi Kumar...............................

Accused...................................

COUNSEL APPEARING ON THE BEHALF OF ACCUSED

MOHAMMAD ABDUL BARI INSTITUTE OF JURIDICAL SCIENCE

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

NO CONTENTS PAGE NO
1. TABLE OF CONTENTS 2
2. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 3
3. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 4
4. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 5
5. STATEMENT OF FACTS 6
6. STATEMENT OF ISSUES 7
7. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 8
8. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED 9
9. PRAYER 10

Page - 2
 LIST OF ABBREVIATION

1. Edn. EDITION

2. Eg EXEMPLUM GRATIA

3. S.C. SUPREME COURT

4. SCC SUPREME COURT CASES

5. ANR. ANOTHER

6. ORS. OTHERS

7. SEC SECTION

8. ART ARTICLE

9. & AND

10. IPC INDIANA PENAL CODE 1860

11. Cr.PC CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE 1973

12. AIR ALL INDIA REPORTER

13. CRL.. CRIMINAL

14. U/S UNDER SECTION

Page - 3
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATUTES

1. Indian Penal Code 1860.

2. Code of Criminal Procedure 1973.
BOOKS

1. Textbook on Indian Penal Code – K.D. Gaur- Universal’s(7th Edition 2020).

2. Indian Penal Code – Prof. S.N. Misra- Central Law Publication(22nd Edition 2020).

3. The Code of Criminal Procedure- Prof. S.N. Misra- Central Law Publication(22nd
Edition 2020).

4. Criminal Procedure – M.C. Thakker & C.K. Thakker- LexisNexis(5th Edition 2021).

WEBSITES

1. www.indiankanoon.org
2. indiacode.nic.in
3. www.legalblog.in
4. www.casemine.com
5. www.livelaw.in
6. main.sci.gov.in
7. blog.ipleaders.in
8. unaids.org
9. durbar.org

Page - 4
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

THE PRESENT CASE STATE VS RAVI KUMAR IS FIXED FOR ARGUMENT BEFORE
THE HON’BLE DISTRICT AND SESSION COURT OF NADIA. THIS HON’BLE
COURT HAS JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 26 AND 1ST SCHEDULE OF THE
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 1973, TO HERE THE PRESENT CASE.

Section 26 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 provides as:-

Courts by which offences are Triable.—Subject to the other provisions of this

Code,— 

(a) any offence under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) may be tried by

(i) the High Court, or

(ii) the Court of Session, or

(iii) any other Court by which such offence is shown in the First Schedule to
be triable:

1 [Provided that any 2 [offence under section 376, section 376A, section 376B,
section 376C, section 376D or section 376E of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)]
shall be tried as far as practicable by a Court presided over by a woman.]

(b) any offence under any other law shall, when any Court is mentioned in this behalf
in such law, be tried by such Court and when no Court is so mentioned, may be tried by—

(i) the High Court, or

(ii) any other Court by which such offence is shown in the First Schedule to be
triable:

Page - 5
 STATEMENT OF FACT

The defendant Ravi Kumar stands accused of culpable homicide not amounting to
murder U/S 304, Indian Penal Code 1860.

The prosecution alleges that on the night of July 15, 2023 Ravi Kumar in a state of
intoxication engaged in a heated argument with the victim Suresh Patel over a property
dispute, during the altercation (Arguments), Ravi Kumar picked up a nereby wooden plank
and struck Suresh Patel on the head, causing in his death.

The defence argues that Ravi Kumar act in the heat of the moment and din not
intended to cause Suresh Patel’s death. They assert that the incident occured in a head of
sudden provocation and Ravi Kumar did not have the requisite mens rea for Murder.
Accordingly they claimed that Ravi Kumar’s Intoxication impaired his judgement and
dismissed his capability.

Page - 6
 STATEMENT OF ISSUE

1. Weather the action of defendant Ravi Kumar constitute Culpable homicide not
amounting to murder U/S 304 of IPC 1860, or if they qualify as accidental death
due to sudden provocation considering the circumstance of intoxication and the
heated argument over the property dispute leading to the death of victim Suresh
Kumar.

Page - 7
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. Weather the action of defendant Ravi Kumar constitute Culpable homicide not
amounting to murder U/S 304 of IPC 1860, or if they qualify as accidental death
due to sudden provocation considering the circumstance of intoxication and the
heated argument over the property dispute leading to the death of victim Suresh
Kumar.
The accused person was in the state of intoxication, and also was engaged in heated
argument with the victim over a property dispute. And the action was done due to sudden
provocation. Thus it can be said that the accused has no mens rea to commit murder of
the Victim, and the act was done in sudden provocation and in the circumstance of
intoxication.

Page - 8
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. Weather the action of defendant Ravi Kumar constitute Culpable homicide not
amounting to murder U/S 304 of IPC 1860, or if they qualify as accidental death
due to sudden provocation considering the circumstance of intoxication and the
heated argument over the property dispute leading to the death of victim Suresh
Kumar.
It is humbly submitted by the councel on the behalf of the accused, that the accused
Ravi Kumar did not constituted Culpable Homicide not amount to Murder U/S 304 of IPC
1860, as the accused ware engaged in a heated argument with the victim, related to a property
dispute, along with he was intoxication state of mind.

The situation of that night is quite clear that there was heated conversion between the
accused and the victim over a property dispute. And the intoxication state of mind the
accused was created by the victim itself with the heated conversion, along with in that stage
the accused had no knowledge of consequence of his action. Thus whatever he had done dose
not creates an offence as said under section 85 of Indian Penal Code 1860.

Section 85 of Indian Penal Code can be read as:

Act of a person incapable of judgment by reason of intoxication caused against his will.
— Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, is, by reason
of intoxication, incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either
wrong, or contrary to law; provided that the thing which intoxicated him was administered to
him without his knowledge or against his will.

Therefore it can be said that what the accused had done was not in the knowledge due
to his intoxication state of mind and sudden provocation of the victim, so the accused has no
guilty intention or Mens rea to commit the said offence and the accused person is innocent.

Page - 9
 PRAYER

In the last light of the fact of the case issues raised and, Argument advanced , Reason
given and, Authorities cited this HON’BLE Court may pleased-

 To held the accused person innocent and give him Acquittal from this case.
 To grant any other relief /s that this HON’BLE Court may pleased in the
interest of Justice, Equity and Good conscience.

Councel for the Accused

Page - 10