BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

INHERENT AND PLENARY JURISDICTION

REVIEW PETITION (CRM.) NO. OF 2019

IN
APPEAL (CRM.) NO. OF 2019

Under Article 137, Constitution of India read with Order XLVII Supreme Court Rules, 2013

IN THE MATTER OF:

Network Against Gender Bias.....................................................Intervenor/ Review Petitioner

v.

Amrit Singh............................................................................................................Respondent

AND

IN THE MATTER OF:

Network Against Gender Bias Intervenor/ Review Petitioner

v.

State of Punjab.........................................................................................................Respondent

For Offences charged under § 300, 302, 375, 376, 376A, 376AB of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT JUDGE(S)

Memorandum on behalf of the Respondent

1|Page
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 3-4

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 5-7

1. TABLE OF CASES
2. BOOKS
3. LEXICONS
4. WEBSITES
5. STATUTES

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 8

STATEMENT OF FACTS 9

STATEMENT OF ISSUES 10

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 11-12

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED 13-20

1. WHETHER THE REVIEW PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE?

PRAYER 21

2|Page
3|Page
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AIR All India Reporter

Anr Another

Co. Company

Cr. LJ Criminal Law Journal

CRM Criminal

CrPC Code of Criminal Procedure

Del. Delhi

Govt. Government

H.C High Court

Hon’b Honorable
le

i.e. That is

IPC Indian Penal Code

L.R Law Review

Ltd. Limited

M.P Madhya Pradesh

NCT National Capital Territory

No. Number

Ors. Others

P&H Punjab and Haryana

Pg. Page

r/w Read With

Rep. Reporter
4|Page
 S. Section

§ Sections

S.C Supreme Court

S/d Signed

SCC Supreme Court

Sh. Shri

Smt. Srimati

UP Uttar Pradesh

UT Union Territory

u/s Under Section

v. Versus

5|Page
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

TABLE OF CASES:

1. Akshay Kumar Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi, Review Petition (Crl.) D44603 of 2019

2. Amrit Singh v. State of Punjab, Appeal (Crl) 1327 of 2005

3. Allauddin Mian v. State of Bihar, 4 (1989) 3 SCC 5

4. Ajitsingh Harnam Singh v. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 4 SCC 327

5. Amit v. State of Maharashtra, (2008) 3 SCC 93

6. Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684

7. Bantu v. State of Madhya Pradesh., (2001) 9 SCC 615

8. Devendra Pal Singh v. State, (2002) 5 SCC 234

9. Gurdeep v. State, 1986 Cr. LJ 896

10. Harnam Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1976) 1 SCC 163

11. Kisan Rao Khade v. State of Maharashtra, (2003) 5 SCC 546

12. Lily Thomas & Ors. v. UOI, (2006) 6 SCC 224

13. Lehna v. State of Haryana, (2002) 3 SCC 76

14. M/S Jain Studio Ltd. v. Shin Satellite Public Co. Ltd., Review Petition (Civil) D5970 of 2006

15. Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab, (1983) 3 SCC 470

6|Page
16. Mahesh Dhanji v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 4 SCC 292

17. Northern India Caterers v. Lt. Governor of Delhi, (1980) 2 SCC 167

18. Nirmal Singh v. State of Haryana, (1999) 3 SCC 670

19. Prajeet Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar, (2008) 4 SCC 434

20. Raju v. State of Haryana, (2001) 9 SCC 50

21. Rameshwari Rathod v. State of Gujarat, (2009) 5 SCC 740

22. Raju Jagdish Paswan v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) AIR (SC) 897

23. Raghubir Singh v. State of Harayana, (1973) 3 SCC 1037

24. Rahul v. State of Haryana, (2001) 9 SCC 50

25. Santosh Kumar Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 6 SCC 498

26. Shatrughna Baban Meshram vs State of Maharashtra, Criminal Appeal Nos. 763-764 of 2016

27. Sushil Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2014) 4 SCC 317

28. Sunder v. State, (2013) 3 SCC 215

29. State of Bihar v. Hari Krishan Sada, (2018) SCC Online Pat 1988

30. Sunil Adiwasi v. State of M.P., 2013 SCC Online MP 5598

31. Surendra Pal v. State of Gujarat, (2005) 3 SCC 127

32. Triveniben v. state of Gujarat, (1989) 1 SCC 678

33. UOI v. Sandur Manganese & iron Ore Ltd. & Ors, (2013) 8 SCC 337

34. Vicky Walia & Anr. v. State of Punjab, (2017) 8 SCC 518
7|Page
 35. Vinay Sharma v. State of NCT of Delhi, Review Petition (Crl) Nos 671-673 of 2017

BOOKS:

1. Gaur, KD, Criminal Law: Cases and Materials, (6th Ed. 2009)

2. Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code, (32nd Ed., Lexis Nexis Butterworths, 2011)

3. Gaur, KD, The Indian Penal Code, (15th Ed., Law Publishers India Pvt. Ltd., 2016)

LEXICONS

1. Aiyar, P Ramanatha, The Law Lexicon, (2nd Ed. 2006)

2. Garner, Black’s Law Dictionary, (9th Ed. Thomas & West, U.S.A 1990)

WEBSITES

1. https://main.sci.gov.in

2. http://www.scconline.com

3. http://www.manupatra.co.in/AdvancedLegalSearch.aspx

4. http://www.indiankanoon.org

STATUTES

1. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act II of 1973)

2. The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act XLV of 1860)

3. The Constitution of India, 1950

8|Page
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Respondents humbly submit the reply against the review petition filed by Network Against Gender Bias
(NAGB) before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India under Art. 137 of the Constitution of India read with
Order 40 Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 which reads as:

Art 137:
Review of judgments or orders by the Supreme Court-
Subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament or any rules made under Article 145, the
Supreme Court shall have power to review any judgment pronounced or order made by it.’1

Order XLVII:
‘Review-

(1) The Court may review its judgment or order, but no application for review will be entertained in
a civil proceeding except on the ground mentioned in Order XLVII, rule I of the Code, and in a
criminal proceeding except on the ground of an error apparent on the face of the record
The application for review shall be accompanied by a certificate of the Advocate on Record
certifying that it is the first application for review and is based on the grounds admissible under
the Rules.….’2

1
Constitution of India
2
Supreme court rules 2013
9|Page
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. On the evening of 3.11.2019, Raj Preet Kaur @ Guddi, aged about eight years old and a student
of 2nd standard was returning from the home of her cousin and classmate, Amarpreet. She was
accompanied by him till the pakka water house and thereafter she went ahead alone. She was last
seen with Amrit Singh (the appellant) a 30-year-old neighbor while holding his finger.
2. Later she went missing and on research, her dead body was found in an agriculture field
belonging to the appellant, in front of his house. The dead body was in a state of rigor mortis,
with dried leaves in her hair and strands of human hair in her hands. The body had multiple signs
of abrasions on the neck, elbows, and knuckles and there was bleeding from the vulva and blood-
stained leg. Impressions of teeth were also present on her lips. The doctors mentioned that the
external injuries were not the cause of death and it was rather excessive blood loss as the body
had lost more than half a litre of blood.
3. The lower court convicted the appellant on the grounds of rape and murder and was sentenced
death penalty which was confirmed by the high court. On an appeal in the Supreme Court, the
conviction was upheld but the sentence was reduced to life imprisonment in the judgment on
10.11.2021, on the ground that though the appellant was a person of trust and she was last seen
with him but it was improper to declare that he killed her intentionally as the death was due to
blood loss and not strangulation. It was due to a consequence of an act and not because of the
direct act of the appellant. The supreme court declared it to not be a “rarest of rare case” as the
rape may be brutal but the appellant had no pre-mediation to commit the offense.
4. The decision of the supreme court received criticism for excusing the rape of a young girl as a
momentary lapse and as a consequence, fourteen national-level women’s organizations came
together and filed a petition under Network Against Gender Bias (NAGB) on 11.12.2021 and
sought a review of the judgment. They are praying for the deletion of the sentence “The manner
in which the deceased was raped may be brutal but it could have been a momentary lapse on the
part of Appellant, seeing a lonely girl at a secluded place” from the judgement and also to restore
the death penalty of the appellant as brutally raping and murdering a very young girl with a
relation of trust shall be deemed as a rarest of rare case.

10 | P a g e
 STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUE 1

WHETHER THE REVIEW PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE?

ISSUE 2

IF THE ACCUSED ACTS WERE INTENTIONAL AND PRECAUTIONED OR IMPULSIVE AND THE
RESULT OF SOME MOMENTARY LAPSE?

ISSUE 3

WHETHER THE PRESENT CASE PASSES THE CRIMINALITY TEST AND DOCTRINE OF
“RAREST OF RARE”?

11 | P a g e
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE 1

WHETHER THE REVIEW PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE?

Humbly, it is claimed that the provisions conferring the Honourable Supreme Court of India review
authority are exclusive and limited. According to Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the 2013 Supreme Court Rules,
only a limited basis for error that is evident on the face of the evidence may be utilised to ask for a review of
criminal proceedings. It is common knowledge that the power of review cannot be used to conceal an
appeal. It's also crucial to keep in mind that the ineligibility of a third party to challenge is a well-established
legal principle.

ISSUE 2
IF THE ACCUSED ACTS WERE INTENTIONAL AND PRECAUTIONED OR IMPULSIVE AND
THE RESULT OF SOME MOMENTARY LAPSE?

We humbly submit that the conduct might have been the result of a momentary error, as the Honorable
Supreme Court correctly determined in the Accused's appeal. The necessary elements for committing a
culpable homicide amounting to murder under Section 300 are the intent to cause death, bodily harm likely
to cause death, bodily harm likely to cause death in the normal course of nature, or knowledge that the act's
nature is immediately dangerous enough to cause death. Any crime, no matter how horrific, becomes
culpable homicide rather than murder if none of the aforementioned components are present.

ISSUE 3
WHETHER THE PRESENT CASE PASSES THE CRIMINALITY TEST AND DOCTRINE OF
“RAREST OF RARE”?

12 | P a g e
Before the Hon. Supreme Court, it is respectfully argued that the current case does not count as one of the
rarest of the rare cases. Cases that fall under this category include those where the murder victim is an
innocent, helpless person who the murderer has an advantage over, when the murder is carried out in a
particularly grotesque manner, when the murder is carried out for a motive that demonstrates meanness,
when the murder of a member of a Scheduled Caste or other minority community is carried out in
circumstances that arouse social wrath, etc. Since the current example does not satisfy these criteria, it is not
covered by the doctrine of the rarest of the rare.

13 | P a g e
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. WHETHER THE REVIEW PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE?

(¶1.) It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that the petition filed by the Review
Petitioner is not maintainable in accordance with Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013:

(1) The Court may review its judgment or order, but no application for review will be

entertained in a civil proceeding except on the ground mentioned in Order XLVII, rule I of

the Code, and in a criminal proceeding except on the ground of an error apparent on the

face of the record

The application for review shall be accompanied by a certificate of the Advocate on

Record certifying that it is the first application for review and is based on the grounds

admissible under the Rules.….’

(¶2.) The Hon’ble Court's authority to conduct judicial reviews in criminal cases has not been granted with
the intention of undermining the doctrine of res judicata, but rather with the goal of preventing a serious
injustice that might be blamed on a clerical error on the part of the learned judges and would be obvious
without close examination of the judgement.

(¶3.) As long as the ratio decidendi is in accordance with the laws as they are currently written, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the principle that review cannot be treated as an appeal in disguise and
emphasised that the power of review cannot be abused in cases where the courts have adopted a position that
is contrary to that of the parties.

LIMITATIONS AS PER ORDER XLVII OF SC RULES

(¶4.) It had been upheld by the Hon’ble Court in Sow Chandra Kante & Anr. v. Sheikh Habib4, where
J. VR Krishna Iyer eloquently stated:

“A review of a judgment is a serious step and reluctant resort to it is proper only where a glaring
omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility. A mere
repetition, through different counsel, of old and overruled arguments, a second trip over
ineffectually covered ground or minor mistakes of inconsequential import are obviously insufficient.”

14 | P a g e
 (¶5.) Let us take a look at the judgement of this Hon’ble Court in Union of India vs. Sandur
Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. and Ors.6where the Hon’ble Supreme Court held:

“When the review will not be maintainable:

(i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications.

(ii) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order,
undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice.

(iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case.

(iv) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import.

(v) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case.
(vi) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision
is reheard and corrected but lies only for patent error.
(vii) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review.

(viii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error that has to be fished
out and searched.
(ix) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court, it
cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review petition.

(¶6.) A few other judgements that are similar in nature are Lily Thomas and Ors vs Union of India3,
Northern India Caterers (India) vs Lt. Governor of Delhi4, Vinay Sharma vs The State of NCT of
Delhi5, Akshay Kumar Singh vs The State of NCT of Delhi6. It is humbly submitted that in the
present case, the Intervenor/ Review Petitioner has failed to bring forth any such grave and
material error manifest on the face of record as to warrant consideration of this Hon’ble Court.

Thus, considering the following arguments form a basis for this Hon’ble Court for a fair adjudication
of the matter in the interest of justice:
 Review is not maintainable if the relief sought has already been negated by the Hon’ble
Court

3
(2000) 6 SCC 224

4
(1980) 2 SCC 167

5
REVIEW PETITION (CRL.) NOS.671-673 OF 2017

6
REVIEW PETITION (CRIMINAL) D NO.44603 OF 2019

15 | P a g e
  Error Apparent on the face of the record

The respondents would also like to highlight that:

(¶7.) The petition filed in the Supreme Court is not maintainable because:

 Firstly, ARTICLE 137 of the Indian Constitution, subject to the rules made under ARTICLE 145 or
any law passed by the parliament, grants power to the Apex Court to review any of its passed
judgements or orders. Under SUPREME COURT RULES, 2013 a review petition must be filed
within 30 days from when the judgement or order is passed for which review is sought in front of the
same bench. Even if the appellant does not stick to the given time period, one can still file a review
petition in the Supreme Court but along with an application for delay stating the reasonable reasons
which lead to the delay in filing the petition.
In the present case, the judgement was delivered by the Supreme Court on 10.11.2021. The petition
was filed on 11.12.2021. by fourteen national-level women’s organisations that sought a review of
the aforementioned judgement. Hence, it can be seen that they have exceeded the timeline of 30 days
and no justification or application has been provided regarding the same.
 Secondly, the supreme court has the power to review its own decision but it can only be exercised in
a limited manner as it is a protective measure to cancel out any errors done on the part of the jury to
ensure the delivery of justice. In NORTHERN INDIA CATERERS (INDIA) V LT. GOVERNOR OF
DELHI (1979)7 the court held that a party can not seek a review merely for the purpose of rehearing
and a fresh decision. The judgement of the court is final and will only be reviewed if the court has
skipped some material facts or if some wrong has been done and it is necessary to pass an order for
full justice.

(¶8.) It is humbly argued that the current petition is subject to dismissal since it does not meet the
requirements and grounds for filing such a petition. As a result, the Court can decide to dismiss the petition.

7
(1980) 2 SCC 167

16 | P a g e
 2. IF THE ACCUSED ACTS WERE INTENTIONAL AND
PRECAUTIONED OR IMPULSIVE AND THE RESULT OF
SOME MOMENTARY LAPSE?

(¶9.) It is crucial to highlight that when determining the punishment to be given to the accused, the
Honourable Courts must take into account the elements of intention and premeditation. The punishment
given to the Accused in the Criminal Appeal should have been commuted, it is argued, and the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India did so correctly.

(¶10.) It must be kept in mind that Section 300, IPC which defines murder. The key factor in determining if
an offense is a murder is the presence of “intention to cause death” or “knowledge of the imminent danger of
death”.

(¶11.) The factual matrix of this case points out that the death was not caused as a result of any other action
butt due to loss of blood.

2.1 NO INTENTION AND PLANNING

(¶13.) In the case of Amrit Singh vs State of Punjab8, it was held that:
“Offence of rape took place on an agricultural field. She might have suffered a lot of pain. She might have
resisted also. She might have been gagged. Possibilities of some assault on her person cannot be ruled
out. It would, however, be improper to hold that he killed her intentionally.

The death occurred not as a result of strangulation but because of excessive bleeding. The deceased had
bled half a litre of blood. Dr. Reshamchand Singh, PW-1 did not state that injury on the neck could have
contributed to her death. The death occurred, therefore, as a consequence of and not because of any
specific overt act on the part of the Appellant.

The imposition of death penalty in a case of this nature, in our opinion, was, thus, improper. Even
otherwise, it cannot be said to be a rarest of rare cases. The manner in which the deceased was raped may
be brutal but it could have been a momentary lapse on the part of Appellant, seeing a lonely girl at a
secluded place. He had no pre-meditation for commission of the offence. The offence may look
heinous, but under no circumstances, it can be said to be a rarest of rare cases.”

8
Appeal (crl.) 1327 of 2005

17 | P a g e
(¶14.) Further, attention is drawn to the decision of this Hon’ble Court in Akhtar vs State of UP9 where it
was held that:
“But in the case in hand on examining the evidence of the three witnesses, it appears to us that the
accused/appellant has committed the murder of the deceased girl not intentionally and with any
premeditation. On the other hand, the accused/appellant found a young girl alone in a lonely place
and picked her up for committing rape; while committing rape and in the process by way of gagging the
girl died. The medical evidence also indicates that the death is on account of asphyxia. In the
circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the case in hand cannot be held to be one of the
rarest of rare cases justifying the punishment of death. We, therefore, uphold the conviction of the
appellant under Section 302, IPC, but looking to other mitigating circumstances, we commute the
sentence of death to imprisonment of life. Subject to the aforesaid modification of sentence, this appeal is
dismissed.”

(¶15.) It is crucial to make reference to the medical assessment, which revealed that the death was
brought on by bleeding rather than strangulation or force. The Accused was driven by an impulsive,
carnal desire for sexual fulfillment and committed rape in the heat of the moment and during a brief loss
in judgement. It is further argued that it is important to look at the circumstances that led to the formation
of the chain of events. The Accused was last observed in the Accused's fields, where she was wearing
dried blood from her vulva and on her legs. Furthermore, it should be noted that the Accused made no
attempt to destroy any evidence, conceal or dispose of the body, or take any other action that may have
absolved them of responsibility.

(¶16.) The Accused requests permission from the Hon’ble Court to take the following criteria into
account when making a decision in this case:

 The accused has been found guilty only on the basis of circumstantial evidence; there is no
indication of premeditation or intention. It can be concluded that there was no element of
premeditation or intention to cause death in light of the lack of conclusive evidence, facts, and in
light of the medical examiner's findings
 There was a clear indication of a momentary lapse when the accused found himself alone with a
young girl and took her to the nearest isolated location, his fields. Since the body was found in the
state of rigor mortis, it can be inferred that no attempt was made to move the body and the medical
examination would have confirmed livor mortis. The state of rigor mortis further indicates that
the body was found within a few hours from the time of death.
 As per the medical reports, it is sufficiently clear that the death was not caused due to the

9
(1999) 6 SCC 60
18 | P a g e
 actions of the Accused and merely as a consequence thereof.
(¶17.) Hence, it is humbly submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court was correct in its conclusions
and the present review petition does not merit consideration of this Hon’ble Court.

3. WHETHER THE PRESENT CASE PASSES THE CRIMINALITY TEST

(¶18.) It is a principle of Criminal law that conviction for serious crime should depend upon proof that
‘Actus Reus’ was accompanied by ‘Mens Rea’.
(¶19.) The Hon’ble court in Bacchan Singh vs State of Punjab 10 and in Mahchi Singh vs State of
Punjab11, has laid down and expanded the Doctrine of “Rarest of Rare” in order to reduce the number
of death sentences and ensure that death sentences are only awarded in cases where any other punishment
would be wholly inadequate and unjust.

(¶20.) The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the death penalty, and a rule was established
stating that it should only be used in the most extreme circumstances. Bacchan Singh's case relies on the
Ratio Decidendi that the death penalty is inviolable, provided it is permitted as a punishment for homicide
and detention without parole is the standard sentence. This indicates that the death penalty must be
imposed in the rarest of circumstances when a voluntary decision is made.

(¶21.) The court in Machhi Singh v State of Punjab held that:

(1) When the murder is committed in an extremely brutal, grotesque, diabolical, revolting, or
dastardly manner so as to arouse intense and extreme indignation of the community.
(2) When the murder is committed for a motive that evinces total depravity and meanness;
e.g., murder by a hired assassin for money or reward; or cold-blooded murder for gains of a
person whom the murderer is in a dominating position or in a position of trust; or murder is
committed in the course for the betrayal of the motherland.
(3) When the murder of a member of a Scheduled Caste or minority community, etc. is
committed not for personal reasons but in circumstances which arouse social wrath; or in

10
(1980) 2 SCC 684
11
(1983) 3 SCC 470

19 | P a g e
 cases of 'bride burning' or 'dowry deaths' or when murder is committed in order to remarry for
the sake of extracting dowry once again or to marry another woman on account of infatuation.

(4) When the crime is enormous in proportion. For instance, when multiple murders, say
of all or almost all the members of a family or a large number of persons of a particular caste,
community, or locality, are committed.
(5) When the victim of murder is an innocent child, a helpless woman or old or infirm
person, or a person vis-a-vis whom the murderer is in a dominating position, or a public
figure generally loved and respected by the community.

(¶22.) A similar view was taken by this Hon’ble Court in Rameshbhai Rathod v. State of Gujarat12 [para
108], where one of the judges stated that the courts cannot afford to prioritize sentiments of outrage
about the nature of the crimes committed over the requirement to carefully consider whether the person
committing the crime is threat to the society.

(¶23.) Further, in Allauddin Mian v. State of Bihar13 it was laid down that unless the nature of the crime
and the circumstances of the offender reveal that the criminal was a menace to the society and the sentence
of life imprisonment would be altogether inadequate, the court should ordinarily impose a lesser
punishment and not the extreme punishment of death which should be reserved for exceptional cases only.

(¶24.) In Rameshbhai Rathod v. State of Gujarat14 where it was stated that the courts cannot afford to
prioritize sentiments of outrage about the nature of the crimes committed over the requirement to carefully
consider whether the person committing the crime is a threat to the society.

(¶25.) In Shankar Kisanrao Khade vs State of Maharashtra15, the Hon’ble Supreme Court analysed
various precedents wherein the Court was pleased to commute or uphold the award of death sentence
and concluded that the various decisions taken into consideration clearly suggest that this Court has been
seriously reconsidering, though not in a systemic manner, awarding life sentence as an alternative to
death penalty by applying the “unquestionably foreclosed” formula laid down in Bacchan Singh vs State
of Punjab.

12
(2009) 5 SCC 740
13
4 (1989) 3 SCC 5
14
(2009) 5 SCC 740; Lehna v. State of Haryana (2002) 3 SCC 76; Gudda v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2013) 16 SCC
596, Sushil Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2014) 4 SCC 317

15
(2013) 5 SCC 546

20 | P a g e
(¶26.) In order to establish that the present case does not attract the rarest of rare doctrine, the following
points are humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court for its kind consideration:

 Socio-economic status of the accused: In the present case, the offender is a man of rural
background whose occupation is agriculture. Thus, his limited means need to be considered
while awarding a death penalty to him.The same was held in Allaudin Man v. State of Bihar .

 Lack of criminal antecedents: The prosecution made no effort to rule out lack of criminal
antecedents, especially to adduce material in this regard. This court has considered lack of criminal
antecedents as a relevant factor mitigating factor.
 Lack of criminal antecedents: The prosecution made no effort to rule out lack of criminal
antecedents, especially to adduce material in this regard. This court has considered lack of criminal
antecedents as a relevant factor mitigating factor.
 The crime was not preplanned: There is no evidence on record to demonstrate that the rape and
murder of the victim was planned and pre-meditated. The accused never knew that she would be
present at the relevant spot on the fateful day.

(¶27.) It is humbly submitted that the accused is a young man of 30 years of age, and has no prior
criminal records. The appellants have failed to establish the fact that the accused is a criminal of so
serious a nature that his existence will cause threat to the safety of the society. Besides, given his age,
the possibility of reform and rehabilitation cannot be ruled out. In the light of the abovementioned
authorities, it is most humbly submitted that the case does not fall within the ambit of rarest of rare
cases, and thus, the sentence of life imprisonment awarded by this court vide order dated 10-11-2019
be maintained, and not changed to that of death penalty.

21 | P a g e
 PRAYER

Wherefore, in light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, may this Hon‘ble
Court be pleased to kindly adjudge and declare that:

1. The Present Review Petition filed by the Intervenor/ Review Petitioner is Not
Maintainable and liable to be dismissed.

2. Costs may be awarded in favour of the Accused.

3. Death penalty not be restored to the Accused.

AND/OR

Pass any other Order, Direction, or Relief that it may deem fit in the Best Interests of Justice,
Fairness, Equity & Good Conscience.

For This Act of Kindness, the Prosecution as in Duty Bound, Shall Forever Pray.

Place: New Delhi S/d…………...

Date: 08th September, 2022 Counsel for the Respondent

22 | P a g e