UID: 19BCL1038

IN THE HON’BLE SESSION COURT OF LEEBAY ……………

IN THE MATTER OF

STATE …….PROSECUTION

VERSUS

AKSHAY ………ACCUSED
HARISH

SUBJECT(SUBJECT CODE)
SEMESTER
PROGRAMME

CHANDIGARH UNIVERSITY, GHARAUN, MOHALI, PUNJAB

2024
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Sr. No. CONTENTS PAGE NO.

1 List of Abbreviations

2 List of Authorities

3 Statement of Jurisdictions

4 Statement of Facts
5 Issues Raised

6 Summary of Arguments

7 Argument Advanced

8 Prayer
 List of Abbreviations

A.I.R All India Reporters

All Indian Law Reports Allahabad series
Hon’ble Honarable
I.P.C Indian Penal Code
Ors. Others
S Section
SC Supreme Court
SCR Supreme Court Reporters
U/s Under Section
V. versus
FRs Fundamental Rights
CrPC Criminal Procedure Code
Cr. Lj Criminal Law Journal of India
 LIST OF AUTHORITIES

LEGISLATION

1.THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION ACT, 1950.2.

2.INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860.3.

3.CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973.

CASES REFERRED

 Basdev v. State of Pepsu, AIR 1956 SC 488

 Bherusingh v. State, 1956 Madh. BLJ 905
  Brend v. Wood, (1946) 62 TLR 462;
 C. Magesh v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2010 SC 2768, 49;
  Dharam Pal v. State of Haryana, AIR 1978 SC 1492.
 Garib Singh v. State of Punjab, 1972 Cr LJ 1286.
  Ghurey Lal v. State of UP Criminal Appeal No. 155 of 2006
 Hanuman Prasad vs State of Rajasthan, (2009) 1 SCC 507.
 Harbans Nonia vs State of Bihar, AIR 1992 SC125: 1992 Cr LJ 105.
 Lata singh v.State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 2006 SC 2522

 Mehbub Shah vs King Emperor, AIR 1945 PC 148.

 Mepa Dana, (1959) Bom LR 269
 Nandu & Dhaneshwar Naik v. The State, 1976 CrLJ 250.
 Nathulal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1966 SC 43.
 Oswal Danji v. State, (1960) 1 Guj LR 145
 Pandurang v. State of Hyderabad, AIR 1955 SC 216
 Queen vs. Gora Chand Gope & Ors (1866) 5 South WR (Cri) 45.
 R v Parks, (1992) 2 S.C.R. 871
 R v. Prince, L.R. 2 C.C.R. 154 (1875);
 R v. Tolson, (1889) 23 QBD 168
 Ramchander & Ors. v. The State of Rajasthan, 1970 CrLJ 653.
 Shaik China Brahmam v. State of A.P., AIR 2008 SC 610.
 Sohan Lal v. State of Rajasthan, 1990 Cr LJ 2302: AIR 1990 SC 2158.

 State of Bihar v. Lala Mahto A.I.R 1955 pat. 161.

 Suraj Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2008 (11) SCR 286.
 T.J.Edward v. C.A. Victor Immanuel, 2002 Cr LJ 1670 (ker).
 Uma Dutta v. State of Rajasthan, 1990 Cr LJ 2302: AIR 1990 SC 2158.
 Veer Singh v. State of U.P., 2010 (1) A.C.R. 294 (All.)
 William Slaney v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1956 SC 116.
 Woolmington v. D.P.P., 1935 AC 462;

BOOKS REFERRED
 V.N. SHUKLA, CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (12TH ED., 2013).
 DR. D.D. BASU, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA, (8TH ED., 2009).
 P.M. BAKSHI, THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA, (14TH ED., 2017).
 DR. J.N. PANDEY, THE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA, (51ST ED.,
2014).
 H.M. SEERVAI, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA, (4TH ED., 2010).
 R.S. BEDI, THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA, (10TH ED., 2013).
 DR. S.C. KASHYAP, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA, (1ST ED., 2008).
 DR. J. N. PANDEY, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA,54TH EDITION, 2017.
 C.K TAKWANI, LECTURES ON ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, FOURTH EDITION,
2007.
 K D GAUR, TEXTBOOK ON INDIAN PENAL CODE, SIXTH EDITION, 2018.
 UNIVERAL’S CRIMINAL MANUAL, 2017 EDITION.
 SHAILENDER MALIK, THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, TWENTY
FIFTH EDITION, 2011.
 RATANLAL AND DHIRAJLAL, THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, THIRTHY FOU
RTH EDITION, 2012

LEGAL DATABASES
 WWW.YOURARTICLELIBRARY.COM
 WWW.LEGALSERVICEINDIA.COM
 WWW.INDIANKANOON.ORG
 WWW.LAWRATO.COM
 WWW.MANUPATRA.COM
 WWW.INDIANCASELAWS.ORG
 WWW.INDLAW.COM
 WWW.JUDIC.NIC.IN
 WWW.LEXISNEXIS.COM
 WWW.SCCONLINE.CO.IN
 WWW.WESTLAW.COM
 WWW.NCBI.NLM.NIH.GOV

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Hon’ble Court has jurisdiction to try the instant matter under Section 26 read with
section 28 read with Section 177 read with Section 209 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973.

S. 26. Courts by which offences are triable:

Subject to the other provisions of this Code,- 1. Any offence under the Indian Penal
Code (45 of 1860) may be tried byThe Court of Session S. 28. Sentences which High
Courts and Sessions Judges may pass: 2. A Sessions Judge or Additional Sessions
Judge may pass any sentence authorised by law; but any sentence of death passed by
any such Judge shall be subject to confirmation by the High court

S.177. Ordinary place of inquiry and trial

Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose
local jurisdiction it was committed. Read with Section 209: S.209.

Commitment of case to Court of Session when offence is triable exclusively by it

When in a case instituted on a police report or otherwise, the accused appears or is

brought before the Magistrate and it appears to the Magistrate that the offence is
triable exclusively by the Court of Session, he shall- (a) commit the case to the Court
of Session; (b) subject to the provisions of this Code relating to bail, remand the
accused to custody during, and until the conclusion of, the trial; (c) send to that Court
the record of the case and the documents VI

STATEMENT OF FACTS
For the sake of brevity and convenience of the Hon’ble Court the facts of the case are
summarized as follows:
A .BACKGROUND OF THE CASE.
1) That Aarohi a 20 year old girl was pursuing her studies in chartered Accuntancy
in the City of Leebay.
2) That Akshay, Accounts teacher of Aarohi secretly developed emotions for her and
also Aarohi respected him as a teacher.
3) That on Aarohi’s birthday Akshay organized a birthday party for her and gifted
her an expensive watch, Aarohi completely unaware of his feelings accepted it.

4) On 11th January, 2020 Akshay approached Aarohi’s parents and asked for her
hand in marriage. However, they rejected the offer and warned him not to contact her.
Thereafter, she started avoiding Akshay. On one occasion Aarohi also made it clear to
Akshay that she will not go against her parents’ wishes and asked him not to follow
her anymore.
5) Despite the warning, Akshay continued to follow her and tried to contact her
personally, through the phone and the internet.
6) Aarohi reported the same to her parents. Her parents gave an ultimatum to Akshay
that if he continued to repeat the unwarranted acts committed by him then they would
be forced to take stern action against him. But, despite the warnings, Akshay
continued to harass her and her parents by continuously asking their daughter’s hand
in marriage.

B. ACTION ABETTED BY HARISH

7) Enraged with the feeling of constant rejection, Akshay went to Harish and
confided in him the entire situation that transpired between him and Aarohi’s parents.
Harish, aged 52, had always treated Akshay as his son, ever since Akshay’s parents
died in a car accident in 2010.
8) Harish suggested that he should find Aarohi alone and take her to the
temple and marry her without informing Aarohi’s parents. If Aarohi resisted from
getting married to Akshay, Harish would threaten her with a bottle of acid to
pressurize her to get married to Akshay.
9) On 3rd April, 2020 Akshay approached her and asked her to accompany him to the
temple so that they could get married. On Aarohi’s resistance, Harish decided to
threaten her with the bottle of acid. Akshay started dragging her towards their car.
When Aarohi started screaming for help, Akshay opened the bottle and threw the acid
on her face. Harish and Akshay ran away from the scene in their car and left Aarohi
writhing in immense pain.
10) She was taken to the hospital by some passerby. The doctors immediately
conducted the surgeries on her as the injuries were severe in nature. A First
Information Report was lodged and the statement of Aarohi was recorded.

CHARGES FRAMED
1 Whether the accused has committed an offence under section 326A R/W
Section 34 of Indian Penal Code,1860?

2. Whether Akshay has committed an offence under Section 354D of IPC?

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
1 Whether the accused has committed an offence under section 326A R/W
Section 34 of Indian Penal Code,1860?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the appellant must be
convicted of offence under Section 326A r/w Section 34 of IPC as accused 1 threw
the acid on victim with assistance and guidance of accused 2 which lead to the victim
having severe injuries as
(1.1)There was presence of both actus rea and mens rea .
.(1.2) The act is voluntarily done by the accused with the intention of causing
grievous hurt to the victim by throwing acid on her and there existed a common
intention as Akshay and Harish had intention of committing such an act as they
bought the bottle of acid with the intention of using it in case the victim does not
agree with them which amounts to prepration and the act was done in furtherance of
the common intention under Section 34 which is important to attract the Section.

2. Whether Akshay has committed an offence under Section 354D of IPC?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the accused has
committed any offence under Section 354 D of Indian Penal Code,1860, as despite
constant warnings and disapproval from Aarohi as well as her parents, Akshay tried to
foster personal interaction repeatedly with Aarohi despite a clear indication
of disinterest by her an continued to follow Aarohi and tried to contact her
personally, through the phone and the internet and also continued to harrass her and
her parents by asking her hand in marriage.
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1 Whether the accused has committed an offence under section 326A R/W
Section 34 of Indian Penal Code,1860?

This is most respectfully submitted by the Council for petitioner before this
Hon’ble Court that the accused has committed an offence under section 326A R/W
Section 34 of Indian Penal Code,1860 which is ex-facie evident from the facts of the
case, the provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the various judgments available on
the subject matter.

The bare reading of Section 326A is:

326A. Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by use of acid, etc.-- Whoever causes
permanent or partial damage or deformity to, or burns or maims or disfigures or
disables, any part or parts of the body of a person or causes grievous hurt by
throwing acid on or by administering acid to that person, or by using any other means
with the intention of causing or with the knowledge that he is likely to cause such
injury or hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to imprisonment for life,
and with fine:

Provided that such fine shall be just and reasonable to meet the medical expenses of
the treatment of the victim:

Provided further that any fine imposed under this section shall be paid to the victim.

Act done Voluntarily

And according to section 39 of IPC 1860, a person is said to cause an effect

voluntarily, when he causes it (I) intentionally, or (ii) he knew or had reasons to
believe, to be likely to cause it.1

In the present case the accused has full knowledge of the consequences when they
made the plan to threaten the victim by carrying the bottle of acid as well as when
they were purchasing the same. They knew how dangerous acid can be
in the case of State of U.P. v. Ram Sagar Yadav (1985)2, the
Supreme Court held that the term “voluntarily” implies the
presence of a conscious and deliberate act on the part of the
accused person. The court observed that a person can be said
to have acted voluntarily only when he had control over his
actions and could have chosen to act differently. The court
further held that a person cannot be said to have acted
voluntarily if he had no control over his actions, or if his
actions were caused by some external force or compulsion.
1. Section 39, Indian Penal Code
2. 2. 1985 AIR 416 1985 SCR (2) 621 1985 SCC (1) 552 1985 SCALE (1)108
In the present case Akshay had full control over his actions, it
was a deliberate act on part of accused. He could have acted
differently but still choose to throw acid on the victim and
leave her there in excruciating pain.

Presence of Mens Rea and Actus Rea

Actus Rea
The Latin term ‘actus reus’ implies ‘guilty act.’ The physical component of a
crime is known as actus reus. In most cases, the accused must have done or failed
to do something that caused injury to the plaintiff or victim. There can be no
offense and no lawsuit for damages without a criminal act.
According to the facts :- Akshay went to Harish and confided in him the entire
situation that transpired between him and Aarohi’s parents. Harish, aged 52, had
always treated Akshay as his sonHarish suggested that he should find Aarohi alone
and take her to the
temple and marry her without informing Aarohi’s parents. If Aarohi resisted from
getting married to Akshay, Harish would threaten her with a bottle of acid to
pressurize her to get married to Akshay.
On 3rd April, 2020 Akshay approached her and asked her to accompany him to the
temple so that they could get married. On Aarohi’s resistance, Harish decided to
threaten her with the bottle of acid. Akshay started dragging her towards their car.
When Aarohi started screaming for help, Akshay opened the bottle and threw the acid
on her face. Harish and Akshay ran away from the scene in their car and left Aarohi
writhing in immense pain.
She was taken to the hospital by some passerby. The doctors immediately conducted
the surgeries on her as the injuries were severe in nature. A First Information Report
was lodged and the statement of Aarohi was recorded.
The act of the Accused clearly indicates his guilt under section 326A of IPC.

Mens Rea
Mens rea is a Latin word that translates to “guilty mind.” Mens rea is the essential
distinguishing feature, emphasizing the importance of the accused person’s state of
mind at the time of the offense.

It’s worth remembering that no conduct is unlawful unless a mens rea accompanies it.
The common law maxim “actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea,” which translates to
“the act is not guilty until the mind is guilty,” defines mens rea the best. The accused
cannot be held accountable under the criminal law unless he can be proved to have
acted with intent to commit a crime.

The act of buying the bottle of Acid clearly indicates the mens rea of the accused as
they had full knowledge of the consequences of their actions when they took the acid
bottle to Aarohi with the intent to threaten her to marry against her wishes.

Section-34 of the IPC recognizes the principle of vicarious liability in criminal

jurisprudence.A bare reading of this section shows that the section could be dissected
as follow:
a) Criminal act done by several persons;
b) Such act is done in furtherance of common intention of all;
c)Each of such person is liable in same manners as if it were done by him alone.1.2

These three ingredients would guide the court in determining whether an accused is
liable to be convicted with the aid of sec 34. While the first two are the acts which are
attributable and have to be proved as actions of the accused, third is the consequence

With respect to the first submission, the counsel humbly submits before this Hon’ble
Court that the reason all are deemed guilty under Section 34 is that the presence of
accomplices gives encouragement,support and protection to the person actually
committing an act.

1 This section really means that if two or more persons intentionally do a thing
jointly, it is just the same as if each of them had done it individually.

2 It is a well recognized canon of criminal jurisprudence that the Court neither

distinguish between co-conspirators, nor can they inquire, even if it were possible, as
to the part taken by each in the crime.

Before a man can be held liable for acts done by co-conspirator, under the provisions
of this section, it must be established that (i) there was a common intention in the
sense of a pre-arranged plan between the two, and (ii) the person sought to be so held
liable had participated in some manner in the act constituting the offence.
3 And both the essentials are being fulfilled as there was a common intention between
the two and the Respondent had participated in the act. It is not necessary
for bringing a case within the scope of Sec. 34 of IPC to find as to whom in fact
committed the act.
4 The acts of all the accused need not be the same or identically similar. It is not
necessary to show that any overt act must have been done by a particular accused.
This Section will be attracted if it is established that the criminal act has been done by
all or any one of the accused persons in furtherance of the common intention.
5And in the instant case, the fact that the accused 2 didn’t throw the acid
will not matter to attract Sec. 34. To convict the accused by taking the aid of Sec. 34
Is as much as the facts, as proved on record, leave no room for doubt that the
'common intention' of both the accused was to put the grievous hurt to victim.
That the common intention to bring about a particular result may well develop on the
spotas between a number of persons, and can be inferred from the facts of the case
and circumstances of the situation.
One of the instances in which a court condemned another person for the conduct of
another person in furtherance of a common intention was Barendra Kumar Ghosh v.
King Emperor, 1925 3 in which two people demanded money from a postman as he
was counting the money, and when they shot from a handgun at the postmaster, he
died on the spot. All of the suspects fled without taking any money. In this instance,
Barendra Kumar claimed that he did not shoot the gun and was only standing by, but
the courts rejected his appeal and found him guilty of murder under Sections 302 and
3.AIR1924CAL545, AIR 1924 CALCUTTA 545
34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court further held that it is not required that all
participants participate equally. It is possible to accomplish more or less. However,
this does not mean that the individual who did less should be exempt from blame. His
legal responsibility is the same.
The Division Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court comprising of Justice Abhay S.
Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal in the matter of Ram Naresh v. State of UP 4 has
clarified that to attract Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC”), there must be a
common intention amongst all the co-accused persons, indicating that they have a
shared purpose.The Court further clarified that there is no mandate of an explicit
discussions or agreements amongst the co-accused. Common intention amongst the
accused persons may arise just prior to commission of the offence.The Division
Bench stressed that “For applying Section 34 IPC there should be a common intention
of all the co-accused persons which means community of purpose and common
design.”It further highlighted that “Common intention does not mean that the co-
accused persons should have engaged in any discussion or agreement so as to prepare
a plan or hatch a conspiracy for committing the offence. Common intention is a
psychological fact and it can be formed a minute before the actual happening of the
incidence or as stated earlier even during the occurrence of the incidence.

In the case of Hari Om v. State of U.P. 5 the conduct of the

parties was taken into consideration to reach to the conclusion that common
intention was there or not.
Similarly in the case of Rajesh Govind Jagesha v. State of Maharashtra 6 , the two
accused spotted their victim in the bus, reached up to him. One sat on his side and
other prevented him from going away. Then the one who sat by his side stabbed him,
because of which he died. The court said that common intention can develop even in
the course of transaction.The Court in this case followed this Hon’ble Court’s
decision citing from it the following passage: “In order followed to bring a case under
Sec. 34 it is not necessary that there must
be a prior conspiracy or premeditation. The common intention can be framed in the co
urse of occurrence.
The law is well settled in this regard.” Our contention is based on the same reasoning
which can be derived from both these cases that in the instant case also the common
intention was developed at the spur of the moment. In the case of Pulla Reddy v.State
of A.P., 7the two accused armed with knives went near the head of the cot on which
the man was lying. One of them stabbed him twice on his chest and then both left
together. It was held that both the accused shared common intention to kill the man
and the other accused, which only stood with knife and did not stab, was also liable to
be convicted under sections 300/34.

4.Criminal appeal no.- 1313 of 1996 & criminal appeal no. 1315 of 1996
5. 1993CRILJ1383, 1993(1)CRIMES294(SC), JT1993(2)SC657, 1993(1)SCALE32, 1993SUPP(2)SCC1
6.AIR 2000 SUPREME COURT 160, 1999 AIR SCW 4246
7 AIR1993SC1899, 1993CRILJ2246, 1993
2. Whether Akshay has committed an offence under Section 354D of IPC?

This is most respectfully submitted by Counsel for the prosecution before this
Hon’ble Court that the acts of the accused fulfill every ingredient of 354D of Indian
Penal Code,1860, which is ex-facie evident from the facts of the case, the provisions
of the Indian Penal Code and various judgments available on the subject-matter.

Bare Reading of the Section 354D of Indian Penal Code, 1860 says:

A Man who-
(i) Follows a woman and contacts such woman to foster personal interaction
repeatedly despite a clear indication of disinterest by such woman; or

(ii) Monitors the use by woman of the internet, email or any other form of electronic
Communication; Commits the offence of Stalking.

Provided that such conduct shall not amount to stalking if the man who
pursued it proves that--

(i) it was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime and the
man accused of stalking had been entrusted with the responsibility of
prevention and detection of crime by the State; or

(ii) it was pursued under any law or to comply with any condition or
requirement imposed by any person under any law; or

(iii) in the particular circumstances such conduct was reasonable and justified.

(2) Whoever commits the offence of stalking shall be punished on first

conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine; and be punished on a
second or subsequent conviction, with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Accroding to sec 354d 1(i) it means There should be a clear indication of disinterest
on the part of the woman. This element is crucial to ensure that the woman’s lack of
consent or interest is evident and that the man is persisting despite her objections.
The act of stalking must exhibit a certain degree of repeatedness. It’s not a one-time
occurrence but rather involves a pattern of persistent and unwanted attention or
contact. This pattern is essential to distinguish stalking from isolated or accidental
interactions.
In the Instant Case, both these essentials are fulfilled. Accused followed her and tried
to contact victim repeatedly in spite of sheer disinterest shown by her. Victim gave a
clear indication to him not to follow her anymore; despite this indication he continued
to follow her repeatedly. The fact that she refused and warned Akshay not to contact
her and he repeatedly tried to harass her by asking her hand in marriage.He also tried
to reach to her through phone and the internet. Stalking her to an extent where even
after Aarohi’s parents gave an ultimatum to Akshay that if he continued to repeat the
unwarranted acts committed then they would be forced to take stern action against
him, Akshay continued to harass her and her parents by continuously asking their
daughter’s hand in marriage. It is humbly submitted before hon’ble court that the
Aarohi never showed any interest towards Aakshay even when she accepted a gift she
was completely unaware about his feelings. she clearly stated that she will not go
against her parents decision.

She feel threatened by him and repeated actions of Akshay was mentally disturbing
for her which is affecting her study as well.

Therefore, it is clear that the conduct of the accused will fall under the purview of Sec
354-D (1)(i) of IPC
In the case Arvind Kumar Gupta v. State 2018.8It was decided by the court that the
man was guilty of stalking the woman as per Section 354D(1)(i), he was without
reasonable doubt wanting to interact with her even after she expressed her dissent.
The court awarded him with simple imprisonment and a fine. a man followed her to
her office and stood next to where she stayed, by the time she returned from work.
This continued for a year until the woman’s brother confronted the man who said that
the girl reminded him of someone and was intending to marry her.

The Bombay High Court held it imperative to record Section 354D along with
abatement to suicide to punish the accused. In the case of Shri Deu Baju Bodake v.
The State of Maharashtra (2016) 9 Bombay High Court dealt with suicide by a
woman who ascertained the reason for her suicide was consistent harassment and
stalking by the perpetrator. Not only did the accused harass and stalk her while she
was at work he also demanded to get married to her despite her disinterest and dissent.
Stalking almost never ends at it and leads to various other crimes like sexual
harassment, identity theft, physical abuse, rape, acid attacks and murder.

The fact that the accused constantly tried to reach to the victim and harass her as
well as her parents despite of constant showcase of disapproval and fear from their
side and trying to reach to the victim through messages and internet shows that the
accused had the intent and fulfills all the essentials of stalking.
Henceforth, it is visible from the above said arguments and cases cited that the acts of
respondents attract penal provision as laid down in Section 354-A and Section 354-
D of IPC, 1860 and they should be made liable/penalized according to law.

8.NR No. DLCT01-000284-2018

Criminal Appeal No. 13/2018
9. .CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 161 OF 2020

Prayer
In the interest of Justice and in the light of the issue raised argument advanced
authorities sited may this Hon’ble court be pleased to :
1. The order of to held them guilty under the charges framed passed buy hon’ble
court u/s326a r/ w u/s 34 of IPC and u.s 354d IPC
2. Convict the above mentioned accused
And
passed any order , as it deems , in the light of Justice , equality an good conscience.

All of which is mostly humbly and respectfully summated